|
Early on as the [[Ottoman Empire|Ottoman]] [[Turks]] drove out the [[Byzantines]] from [[Anatolia]] and later pursued them into [[Europe]], the pursuit was a part of the [[Jihad]] (or Holy War) against [[Christianity]], and the first Ottoman rulers called themselves ''Gazi'', or Holy Warriors. But, as the Ottomans moved further west and the assimilation of the [[Ethnic Greek|Greek]] and [[Balkan]] cultures progressed, the Turkic leaders themselves absorbed some of the culture of the conquered peoples. The alien culture was gradually added to the Turks' own, creating the characteristic Ottoman culture. It is impossible to speak of one Ottoman Culture as it is always in change and constantly in relation to other cultures.
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="font-size:smaller; width:30em; float:right; background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:0 0 1em 1em; padding:1 1em; border:1px solid #aaa;">
The Ottomans had a high tolerance of alien cultures and religions: The men of the ruling Dynasty, the house of Osman, always married women with mixed heritage, Turkish, Greek, Arab, Russian, Serbian, thus themselves were mixed.
[[Image:Uk flag large.png|60px|right|British Flag]]
'''Note to editors''': The page [[English (people)]] was created in [[British English]] (en-GB).<br>Please refer to:
*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)]],
*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling]] and
*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]] for information on editing.</div>
== The Arts ==
=== Poetry===
{{Main|Poetry of the Ottoman Empire}}
Compared to [[Arabic literature|Arabian]] and [[Persian]] literature translations, the poetical literature of the Ottoman Turks, the most illustirious family of the third great race of Islam, has been, only a few exceptions, almost entirely neglected by European counter parts. The cause of this is hard to ascertain, given the facts of the [[Ottoman Turks]], muslim neighboors, being in Europe for upward of six centuries and in close contact with various European peoples. Antipathy on Turkish race and religious bigotry on Islam are virulent and hard to kill (unhappily, they exist to this day, scarcely less unjust and cruel than in bygone times). It is difficult not to think [[clash of civilizations]] are in some measure responsible for the gross ignorance that almost universally prevails, in Europe at any rate, regarding Turkey and all things Turkish.
Poetry has been cultivated in Turkey with greater assiduity than any other branch of literature. [[Joseph Freiherr von Hammer-Purgstall]], in his great work, ''Die Geschichte der Osmanischen Dichtkunst'', gives translated extracts from two thousand two hundred Ottoman poets. Comparatively few of these Ottoman versifiers are regarded as really great poets. Perhaps [[Aşık Paşa]] is not very far behind his great prototype, the immortal [[Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi]], the author of the [[Mesnevi]]. The [[gazel]]s of [[Baki]], in elegance of diction and depth of feeling, rival those of [[Hıfzı]]; and the romances of [[Lami'i]] yield not one whit in loveliness to the works of [[Jami]] or [[Nizami]]. The reason we do not count Ottoman poetry or poets among really great poets is that most of the works are not translated to European languages.
=== Music ===
:Classic Turkish Music
:Public Music
=== Calligraphy ===
[[Image:Tugra Mahmuds II.gif|right|frame|The stylized signature of [[Sultan]] [[Abdul Hamid I]] of the [[Ottoman Empire]] was written in an expressive calligraphy. It reads ''Mahmud Khan son of Abdulhamid is forever victorious''.]]
The [[Diwani]] script is a cursive style of Arabic calligraphy developed during the reign of the early [[Ottoman Empire|Ottoman]] [[Turkey|Turks]] ([[16th century|16th]] and early [[17th century|17th centuries]]). It was invented by [[Housam Roumi]] and reached its height of popularity under [[Süleyman I the Magnificent]] ([[1520]]–[[1566|66]]). As decorative as it was communicative, Diwani was distinguished by the complexity of the line within the letter and the close juxtaposition of the letters within the word.
<center>[[Image:Diwani.png|Arabic Diwani font]]</center>
See also
* [[Arabic calligraphy]]
* [[Islamic art]]
See external links:
* [http://www.byegm.gov.tr/YAYINLARIMIZ/newspot/2002/may-jun/n14.htm calligraphy]
* [http://www.byegm.gov.tr/YAYINLARIMIZ/newspot/2001/july-aug/n7.htm manuscript illumination] from the Turkish Ministry of Culture.
=== Decorative ===
==== Miniature ====
See external links:
* [http://www.byegm.gov.tr/YAYINLARIMIZ/newspot/2003/jan-apr/n15.htm miniature painting]
* [http://www.byegm.gov.tr/yayinlarimiz/NEWSPOT/2000/May/N22.htm portrait painting]
==== Textiles ====
See external links:
* [http://www.byegm.gov.tr/yayinlarimiz/NEWSPOT/1999/JAN/N24.htm textiles]
==== Carpet ====
Among the Ottoman Turks the art of carpet weaving have environmental, sociological, economic, and religious reasons, which all of these effected the daily life and the decorative structures of the carpets. Turks used the carpets not just on the floors but also walls and doorways. This protected them from the temprature fluctuations between day and night, and through out the seasons.
Hereke Carpets have very important place among world carpets. They are the best and finest silk rugs in the world. Carpets with Hereke designes look like magnificent cloths with fine weaving. There is an authentic Hereke designs and later carpet designers have influenced with the royal tastes and compositions. The first examples were find during the Seljuk period, were established in Usak, Gordes, Cairo, Bursa and Istanbul in 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. The Hereke factory, build through Ottoman industrial policy in 19th century, started to work on textiles, but later carpet weaving took the dominance.
==195.92.168.173's comments==
Other significant designes include "Palace", "Yoruk" and "Turkmenian" carpets. They generally have the same functional characteristics, but differ from in their styles. Stylised designs dominate "Yoruk" and "Turkmenian", whereas naturalism is prevalent in Palace due to the technological possibilities which gives way to more complex designs and motifs.
I know before I begin that some will condemn talk of an English ethnicity as 'racist' or 'xenophobic' or even 'non-existant', but I maintain that such a thing exists, and that it can be positive. The definition of 'ethnic' is:
==== Jewelry ====
:''Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.''
{{sect-stub}}
=== Architecture ===
On language and culture: Englishness certainly exists, on nation and religion: there at least is something worth saying, on race: I say '''English is not a racial label'''.
{{Main| Architecture in Ottomans}}
=== Performance ===
Nothing in this article is meant to be derogatory to other ethnic groups, or to say that English people are better, but only to point out where differences exist and (with fear of sounding too 'fluffy') to celebrate them.
====Dance====
<gallery>
Image:Constantinople settings and traits (1926)- bulgarians dancing.png|Istanbul 1908 - Bulgarians
Image:Constantinople settings and traits (1926)- Epirotes.png|Istanbul 1908 - Epirotes
Image:Constantinople settings and traits (1926)- greeks dancing.png|Istanbul 1908 - Greeks
</gallery>
<br clear=all/>
Competing—successfully—with the women of the harem for the affection of the Ottoman noble were young males in various functions, chief among whom were the entertainers, known as [[köçeks]]. They traveled in troupes and were skilled in music, dancing, and erotic pleasures. The average troupe—named after its leader—would have about thirty dancers, though some had several hundred. When not on stage, köçeks would work in coffee-houses and taverns, where they would serve drinks, flirt, and be available for trysts with the clientele.
[[Image:Turkish - Dancing Kocek - Late 19th c - wiki.jpg|thumb|160px|left|Dancing Köçek with a tambourine. Photograph, late 19th c. Private collection.]] They were highly sought after by all nobles of all ranks, including the Sultan. Köçeks wore elegant and gaudy costumes, had long curly hair, and were immortalized in books discussing their qualities and ranking them by nationality, such as the ''Huban-nameh'' of [[Enderunlu Fazil]].
Reclaiming the English identity from racists and xenophobes is not easy, but to sit back and claim 'it does not exist' while all about us the Irish and Scots and Welsh and Manx and Cornish celebrate their identity will only serve to prolong the problem.
<br clear=all/>
====Median (Open Stage Show)====
[[Image:The Turkish theater 1933 - pishekar, kavuklu, three zenne, orchestra, on median (open space).png|left|thumb|100px|Central - Median]]
<br clear=all/>
====Meddah (One Person Show) ====
[[Image:Turkish Goverment information brocure (1950s) - Meddah-story teller.png|left|thumb|100px|Istanbul - Story teller]]
Meddah or story teller was a single person show that played in front of a small group of audiance like a coffee shop audience. The play is generally about a single topic which the meddah (story teller) plays different personalities within the story. Depending on the person the meddah is impersonating in the story, he used an umbrella, or an hancercife to signal the change of personality. The control of voice is the most important skill in this type of show. There is no time limitation on the shows. A good meddah has the skill to adjust the story depending on the interaction getting from the audiance.
The stories are mostly conflicts between different parts of the society. Meddah were generally travelling artists that moved from one big city to another. The main path that used was the towns on the spice road. The dynamics of the tradition is supposedly goes back to the [[Homer]]'s time. The methods of meddahs were same as the methods of that times artists who told the stories of Greek epics [[Iliad]] and [[Odyssey]] from one town to another, even though the stories were changed to Ferhat ile Şirin or Leyla ile Mecnun. Among the reportuars of the meddah also include true stories, that was modified depending the audiance, artist and political situation.
Please help to sever the link between Englishness and hate, and try not to sweep all talk under the carpet.
The Istanbul meddahs were known integrate musical instruments to their stories. That was pointed as a difference to the east anatolian [[Dengbejin]].
--195.92.168.173, 20 Dec 2004
<br clear=all/>
====Karagöz (Shadow Play)====
:Karagoz
== P.O.V. ==
== Costumes ==
I have no problems with the notion of an "English identity." However, this article had a bit too much P.O.V. with the comments about political correctness trying to water down the identity--views, by the way, which I agree with wholeheartedly, but people ought to be able to decide for themselves. I tried to edit it a bit to give it more of a "neutral" flavor.--[[User:MegaSilver|MegaSilver]] 17:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
{{Main|Costumes of the Ottoman Empire}}
The fashion during the ottoman empire was covered in these pages. The fashion was more of expression of ones feelings and cultural values during the ottoman period than what is represented through modern fashion values.
==Old talkLifestyle ==
The Ottoman court life in many aspects assembled ancient traditions of the [[Persian]] [[Shah]]s, but had many [[Ethnic Greek|Greek]] and [[European]] influences.
<gallery>
Is there a reason for this page to exist? Most of its contents are currently explained, in ''better'' detail, under [[England]] — and the only argument I can see for this page would be as a way of fleshing stuff out which there isn't room for at [[England]]. I'm sure it must be unintentional, but at present this page smacks of [[English nationalism]] bubbling under the surface. [[User:Doops|Doops]] 17:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Image:Constantinople(1878)-public typist.png|Telling a problem to a typist
Image:Constantinople(1878)-Road to pear; - in bottom the tip of the serraglio.png|A street
Image:Constantinople(1878)-The great galata bridge.png|The galata bridge
Image:Constantinople(1878)-the ghetto of the Hebrew.png|Hebrew getto
</gallery>
=== Traditions ===
:I have long wondered why such a page did not yet exist. I am a Swede, and I feel no nationalism in this text. It plainly states some encyclopedic information. I think it is distressing that articles on ethnicities are understood as ''nationalistic''.--[[User:Wiglaf|Wiglaf]] 10:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
{{sect-stub}}
::Nonsense. The article is trying to establish a racially pure concept of English. There are no 'ethnically' English. We are a mixed bag and one of the names we go by - and the one that happens to derive the given name of our home - is derived from the name one of a string of invaders. There are celtic English in Cornwall and English people descended from the Normans through the land. In Liverpool and Bristol (at least) there are black English who can trace their English heritage back 300 years or more. Strange how the article overlooks that part, eh? The 'article' is factually inaccurate so intellectually confused as to be beyond redemption. [[User:Icundell|Icundell]] 20:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The culture that evolved around the court was known as the Ottoman Way. To get a high position in the empire, one must be skilled in the Way. It included knowing both [[Persian language|Persian]], [[Arabic language|Arabic]] and [[Ottoman Turkish]] and how to behave in court, in front of the sultan, and on formal and religious occasions. The Ottoman Way also used to separate the nobles from the lower classes. Peasants and villagers were called Turks, while nobles were Ottomans. Sometimes though, people would get mad at other and this caused many disputes between the people.
: Agree that there's not much content yet, but I would keep the page - there are after all articles on the French, Spanish, Swedes etc as people. But I think we should move to [[English people]] (which currently redirects to England) - more accurate, consistent with other countries and avoids the suggestion of nationalism. --[[User:Cjnm|Cjnm]] 13:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In general, Turks take their shoes off in the house. There are slippers that are designated to home use. This custom was carried through centuries as the Turkish babies have been free to move and adults can rest on the floor. This custom aimed in keeping the carpet and kilim clean. Women and girls take up carpet and kilim weaving as a means of earning money.
:::I believe that this article contains some irrelevant information. Information which should be on the page [[England]] or [[Demographics of England]]. The purpose of this article is to describe the people of English Culture, their descent, their language (English and possibly Cornish), their history and their religion. The article as it currently is, places too much emphasis on the minorities, which make up about 3% of the population. These minorities are not of English Culture; therefore they are not English (they may be British however). They usually don’t even regard themselves as English! The Jew regards himself as Jewish; the Rom regards himself as Romany; the African regards himself as African and so on. What about the people of English Culture? This article is about them! Why should the Jewish minority be mentioned in this article? The Jews, as I have mentioned earlier, don’t regard themselves as English. They are a nation in their own right. They should not be integrated with the other cultures which make up England into one nation branded English Nation. To come to the point, I am concerned with the section that reads: ''and [[African]] elements as a consequence in part of the [[slave trade]] and in part of England's long history as a [[maritime]] [[international trade|trading nation]]. For most of its history as a recognisable entity it has also had a significant [[jew|Jewish]] population''. This is all true, but it should be on the page [[England]], not here, all this is beyond the scope of the article. How can the African, the Jew or any other immigrant become English if they don’t adopt English Culture? Also, what is wrong with writing: ''The English traditionally speak the English language''? Is it not true? If not, what is the language of the English people? [[Urdu]], or maybe [[Zulu]]? [[User:REX|REX]] 20:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is a religious holiday that families present candies to guests.
:The purpose of the changes was to correct the previous thoroughly POV, empirically inaccurate and theoretically specious attempt at delineating a specifically WASP definion of 'English'. Why do you seek to deny Englishness to those who have come to it by choice, or whose ancestors came to it by choice? There are even those who have had Englishness forced upon them. The Jews I know regard themselves as English Jews, the black people as English blacks. They have not only adopted English culture but enriched it, just like the Asian English. What about my Italian English neighbour? Should we deny those too? Just because they are a minority they are not English? Where should we put them do you think? [[User:Icundell|Icundell]] 00:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[[Image:Constantinople settings and traits (1926)- seker bayrami.png|left|thumb|100px|Seker Bayrami]]
<br clear=all/>
=== Household life at Palace ===
:::You are absolutely right. However, I think you may have misunderstood me. I was pointing out that people who do NOT adopt English Culture and way of life cannot be truly English. I am not trying to imply that only white people can be English, nor that only Christians can be English. I am stressing the importance of the English language to English nationhood. As I am half Greek and half English I can plainly see that the most important aspect of a nation is its language. Therefore anyone, regardless of race, religion or even citizenship, who speaks the English language and adjusts to the English way of life, is English. Some inhabitants of England however, i.e. Indians continue using their own language and don’t adjust to the English way of life (for example wearing Indian dress), how can these people be English in the way that the majority are. By doing so they themselves are pointing out that they are not English, but Indian. Note that even the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish regard themselves as distinct nations even though they have a very similar culture to the English. How can the different cultures (i.e. Indian) be regarded as English? [[User:REX|REX]] 09:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The [[Harem (household)|Harem]] was a small world in itself, ruled by the Sultana (Empress/Queen). It was the administrative center of Empire. The Sultana was the mother of the current sultan ([[Walida Sultana]]). She also selected the concubines for her son. The concubines could live in or around the palace for their entire life, and it supported them with whatever they needed. Women not found suitable by the Sultana for the sultan were married off to eligible bachelors from the Ottoman nobility or sent back home. Female servants did all the chores such as serving food and making the beds. Male (sometimes [[Eunuch]]) white and black servants did the hard work such as shopping, guarding the palaces and maintaining the gardens, the braziers and candelabras.
Which English are you refering to? The English that includes ''bangle'', ''bungalow'', ''chutney'', ''cummerbund'', ''dinghy'', ''dungaree'', ''kedgeree'', ''khaki'', ''punch'', ''purdah'', ''thug'' and ''verandah''. Or ''bahlti'', a style of food invented in Birmingham? The English that includes ''algebra'', ''assassin'', ''candy'', ''chemistry'', ''coffee'', ''macrame'', ''massage'', ''safari'', ''sherbet'' and ''spinach''? The English that includes ''Bagel'', ''Cinnamon''and ''messiah''? Or, indeed, the English that has hundreds of words of Greek origin?
The thing that makes English nationhood so damnably hard to pin down is that it refuses to be pinned down and stereotyped. So adjusting to the 'English way of life' is, to put it mildly, problematic. Accepting Englishness does not mean rejecting anything else and that some people are capable of being proud of their roots as of their home is not grounds to deny them Englishness. We just don't do it like that. American writer Branda Maddox put it rather well:
<blockquote>When I came to live in Britain in the Kennedy era, I pontificated freely about the superiority of the American way. "In my country..." I began one day, when a well-spoken young man interrupted me to say, "In my country, we don't say 'in my country'." <br> The polite rebuke struck me with the force of revelation. There was an alternative to mindless patriotism. In a tolerant, mature, self-confident country it was not necessary to put your hand on your heart to say you loved it, or even to refer to it with possessive adjectives. Have you ever heard anyone say "our Queen" or even "our prime minister"? (Guardian, 28-9-2001)</blockquote> [[User:Icundell|Icundell]] 14:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You can not see the face of the bride. Religious and political leaders are at the front.
:::I see your point, and I must say that I now agree with it. But now, I am quite confused on what should be included in the article. How should English ethnicity be defined in a neutral encyclopaedia article? You probably know that I first set up this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=English_nation&action=history] and modelled it on articles on other ethnicities (i.e. [[Greeks]], [[Russians]], [[Swedes]], [[Finns]]). I suspect that my first draft was not approved of. According to [[User:Doops|Doops]]: ''at present this page smacks of English nationalism bubbling under the surface''. You ([[User:Icundell|Icundell]]) claimed that: ''The article is factually inaccurate so intellectually confused as to be beyond redemption''. I believe that there should be an article on this subject, as there is for many other nations. I would like to hear all opinions on what should be done with this article, how it can be improved. Please tell me what you think. [[User:REX|REX]] 16:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[[Image:Constantinople settings and traits (1926)- Royal wedding-1.png|left|thumb|100px|1908 Royal Wedding]]
Every prince has his own place. It is a tradition to take the bride from her house and take it to where she will be building her new familiy.
Excellent. Now I think we can get to the nitty gritty. I think a useful start would be to move the article back to [[English people]], since this isn't really about nations but about identity (hence my revised opening para :"The English are people descended for a wide variety of roots, and who are associated, either by birth or by choice, with the culture of England (Latin: Anglia).") ie, I think it could form the main article associated with the English identity section of the main [[England]] page, as well being as a fork of [[Immigration to the United Kingdom]]. It could deal with how the many and varied groups of migrants have shaped - and been shaped by - being in, or of, England. The last few lines of [[Germans]] is particularly interesting, since it seems to me to be dealing with issues that the English dealt with a very long time ago, while [[Ethnic German]] a makes a good point about using 'ethnic' definitions being problematic. [[User:Icundell|Icundell]] 16:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[[Image:Constantinople settings and traits (1926)- Royal wedding-2.png|left|thumb|100px|1908 Royal Wedding]]
<br clear=all/>
== Sports ==
:::That is a good idea, to move the article to [[English (people)]]. May also suggest that the [[Oxford English Dictionary]]’s definition of an English person should be included as it is seen as the most accurate guide to the [[English language]], perhaps at the beginning. The [[OED]] defines an English person as: ''one who is English by [[Jus soli|birth]], [[Jus sanguinis|descent]] or [[naturalization]]''. [[User:REX|REX]] 14:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
{{sect-stub}}
[[Yağlı güreş|Turkish Wresling]] is very old tradition among Turks.
[[Image:Constantinople settings and traits (1926)- Turkish Wresling.png|left|thumb|100px|Turkish Wresling]]
<br clear=all/>
:Cirit
== Food And Drinks ==
I think we'll have to ask a friendly sysop, since [[English people]] redirects to [[England]]. Like the idea of the OED definition - have added it already. I'm off for xmas now. Have a good one. [[User:Icundell|Icundell]] 14:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
{{sect-stub}}
:Raki
:Turkish Caffee
:Hooka
:::You may want to see the [[English (people)]] article. Also MERRY CHRISTMAS! [[User:REX|REX]] 13:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've tweaked your inclusion of [[English (people)]]. It's a bit....um...POV and I would favour merging the good bits into this, or vice versa. Part of the problem is that the term 'ethnic' is being sprayed about with gay abandon in many other articles, when what is really meant is ''cultural and linguistic''. [[User:Icundell|Icundell]] 15:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Merge with English (people) ==
== Science and Technology ==
May I suggest that this article be merged with [[English (people)]]. Both articles describe the same thing and the name of this article (English nation) sounds like [[nationalism]] as opposed to the neutral English (people), which just describes a people. [[User:REX|REX]] 20:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Seems eminently sensible to me. [[User:Icundell|Icundell]] 21:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Timeline
I JUST DID IT! [[User:REX|REX]] 14:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
18/07/1851 -Inauguration of the Academy of Sciences
== English (Anglo-Saxons) ≠English Nationals? ==
== Education ==
'''16:22 Monday 14th March 2005:'''<br>
[[User:Can'tStandYa|Can'tStandYa]]([[User_talk:Can'tStandYa|Talk]]) changed the paragraph:<br>
''The '''English''' are an [[ethnic group]] descendent for a wide variety of roots, and who are associated, either by birth or by choice, with the [[culture]] of [[England]] ([[Latin]]: Anglia).<br>
''The [[OED]] defines an English person as: one who is English by [[Jus soli|birth]], [[Jus sanguinis|descent]] or [[naturalization]]''<br>
to:<br>
''The English are an ethnic group originating in the lowlands of Great Britain descending originally predominantly from Angles, and Saxons (known commonly as Anglo-Saxons), Danes, and Celts. The name is used for those who have descent from these tribes from over 1,600 years ago until the present.''<br>
and justified it by saying:
''this article is about the english (anglo saxons) not english nationals''<br>
Can this be explained?<br>
This seems to be limiting English ethnicity to [[White]] [[Christians]]!
Does this mean that [[African]], [[Asian]] and [[Chinese]] families who have lived in [[England]] for enough generations so that today they differ from ''Anglo-Saxon families'' only by skin colour are not English?<br>This sounds suspiciously like '''[[Racism|RACISM]]'''!<br>It may not be of course.<br>[[User:REX|REX]] 17:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
=== Timeline ===
* Why is it racism? The English are an ethnic group, and by ethnic group you generally are referring to the indigenous population of an area. Yes, black or brown people who are brought up in England can be considered English by nationality or culture, but they aren't ethnically English, just as if (hypothetically speaking) I raised my children in Japan, they could be culturally Japanese and even Japanese citizens, but no one would ever consider them ethnically Japanese. --[[User:Pearsallhelms|Pearsallhelms]] 07:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
* 01/04/1847-Institution of the Ministry of Education founded
:*See the Wikipedia definition of [[ethnic group]]. There is nothing there about "indigenous population", whatever that may mean. A group of people sharing a common language and culture form an ethnic group. Anyone adopting these joins the ethnic group. It is the attempt to exclude joiners that is racism. A person of English descent who lives in Japan and is totally immersed in Japanese culture , maybe not even speaking English, would have a claim to be ethnically Japanese.
* [[Ottoman Civil Service School|Civil Service School]] founded [[1859]]
[[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 08:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
* [[Imperial Ottoman Lycée]] at [[Galatasaray]] founded [[1868]]
== Social Issues ==
::*Er, isn't the point of multiculturalism that England is home to multiple distinct cultures and peoples?
{{sect-stub}}
==External links==
::And I'm not so sure what is 'racist' about excluding people with no ancestral ties from an ethnic group; the point of ethnicity is that it is exclusive, that it draws the lines between people. A country is not an ethnic group. America is a country with a common language and common culture, but there is no such thing as the 'American' ethnic group; instead we have a variety of different groups here. Puerto Ricans who grow up in the South Bronx don't become African Americans by osmosis.
* [http://www.osmanlimedeniyeti.com http://www.osmanlimedeniyeti.com] Many articles about the Ottoman history and culture including art, culture, literature, economics, architecutre (in Turkish)
[[Category:Ottoman Empire]]
::I guess the main question in regards to this page is, does the English ethnic group exist as a historical entity? If it does, if ancestral and cultural ties make you ethnically English, then there can be a English diaspora. If it doesn't, if the only requirement to be part of the English ethnic group is to be born in England, without even a parent of English ancestry, then there is no diaspora, and the sidebar should be removed.
::Oh yeah, and in regards to the Japanese, you are flat out wrong; they don't even consider people of Korean or Chinese descent whose families have lived in Japan for a hundred years to be truly Japanese. --[[User:Pearsallhelms|Pearsallhelms]] 18:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
== Identity sections [[POV]]? ==
Does anyone else think that the sections [[English (people)#Reclaimed Identity|Reclaimed Identity]] and [[English (people)#Lost Identity|Lost Identity]] are a little [[POV]]? I think that that could be remedied by merging both sections into one. Also I believe that sentences such as ''However, due to a large increase in immigration in the late 20th century emphasis was placed on making England an "inclusive" nation. Thus, openly displayed English symbols or describing oneself as "ethnically English" became frowned upon. Some felt they were being maligned simply for to not wanting to discard their rich ethnic heritage for enforced government "multiculturalism".'' are VERY [[POV]] and sound like something from a [[British National Party|BNP]] member's speech!<br>[[User:REX|REX]] 12:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree REX and have made some changes please feel free to make more.
[[User:Bretagne 44|Bretagne 44]]
== The Cornish ==
if you are going to include all Cornish folk as being English then you will need to explain why on the 2001 UK census and the 2004 Cornwall schools census you could describe your ethnicity as Cornish as opposed to English. Also why the Council of Europe is requesting that the Cornish be placed under the terms of the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. I have made a few short edits to make readers aware that it is not a clear cut issue and added links so they can further explore the issue. [[User:Bretagne 44|Bretagne 44]] 22/3/05
I am going to ask you one simple question. Are the Cornish people English or not? As far as I know, Cornwall is an English county just like all the others, without that meaning that all counties are the same. The culture of Cornwall differs from the culture of Northumberland, and the culture of Cumbria differs from the culture of East Anglia. Therefore there is no reasonable reason for Cornwall to be accorded any special treatment.<br>Anyway, to get to the point, you left a message on the [[Talk:English (people)|Talk page]] of the [[English (people)]] article and it began with ''if you are going to include all Cornish folk as a type of English person'', what does this mean? Are the inhabitants of Cornwall not English people, if not who is? Also, I don't think much of your edits to the [[English (people)]] page. The page is now centered on Cornwall and the nationalistic feelings of just SOME Cornish people. [[User:REX|REX]] 13:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As i have said i recorded myself quite legally as Cornish (not English) on the last UK census in 2001, and in 2004 Cornish school children had the option to record their ethnicity as Cornish instead of English. These two facts mean that Cornish people have the option to describe their ethnicity or nationality as Cornish instead of English. Cornwall may have a de jure status as an English county however a large minority of Cornish folk think of themselves as Cornish not English and Cornwall as being a de facto Duchy and extraterritorial to England (but not the UK). In fact the de facto status of Cornwall as a Duchy was proved in case law in the 19th century please see the [[Constitutional status of Cornwall]].
I think Cornwall and the Cornish merit being viewed as a constituent people and nation of the UK for the following reasons.
* Cornwall and the Cornish have had an identity distinct form the English for centuries as is evidenced by the existence of the Cornish language as a mother tongue up until the late 18th or early 19th century and the subsequent successful revival of said language in the 20thy century. The language exits also in our First, Familial and Place names.
* The Cornish had and arguably continue to have a perceived national identity other than English. I would refer you to Mark Stoyle recent book "West Britons, Cornish identities in the early modern period". Additionally on the UK census of 2001 and the recent local school census it was possible to record oneself as Cornish (as opposed to English).
*Many treaty's and documents up until the 18th century made reference to there being a distinction between ''Anglia'' and ''Cornubia''. Additionally maps of the Isles produced up until the 18th century often showed Cornwall as a distinct entity on a par with Wales, look for the maps of CORNWALL & WALES ("Cornewallia & Wallia") 1564 at this site [http://www.walkingtree.com/ Mercators Atlas by walking tree press]. I am happy to provide further examples if required?
*Constitutionally the nature of Cornwall and its description of being a county of England are disputed see the following wiki pages for information: [[Cornish nationalist]], [[Constitutional status of Cornwall]]. If correct these arguments would indicate a ''de jure'' status for Cornwall as a Duchy and a crown dependency not a county of England.
*I present the following link to support my points.[http://www.BBC.co.uk/history/state/nations/ Look for "The Cornish: A Neglected Nation?" by M Stoyle on this BBC site]
So you see REX your one simple question is just that 'simple'. Not all the people that live within what you think of as the boarders of England consider themselves English. Chechens are born in the Russian Federation but that does not make them Russians, Tibetans are born in the Peoples Republic of China but that does not make them Chinamen.
[[User:Bretagne 44|Bretagne 44]] 22/3/05
So, what does all this have to do with the [[English (people)|article]]? The article is about the people of [[England]]. If [[Cornwall]] is (de facto or de jure) an English county then it should be included in the article. I am from [[Durham]], we too have a slightly different culture, history, form of [[English language|English]] etc. from that of, say [[Kent]]. In November 2004 we were offered local autonomy (the NE Regional Assembly) and we rejected it even though [[Durham]] was a [[County Palatine]] and a [[Prince Bishop|Bishopric]] and part of the kingdom of Northumbria during the early Middle Ages (independent of Modern England, just like Cornwall), beacause most of us feel that [[England]] should not be divided up into parts, as if the people of each region or county were a distinct nation. However, this is what you are asking for. The article originally describes English people as a nation from England with various minor differences in each area. Do you think that the article should be named English (people) – Cornish and that there should be a separate [[Cornish (people)]] article? [[User:REX|REX]] 18:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes maybe there should be a separate Cornish people page, what good idea. However as i have said the article before i changed it depicted all the inhabitants of Cornwall as English.
Now as far as i am aware the only legal onus on me is to recognise that i am a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is no legal requirement for the people of the UK to call themselves Cornish, English, Irish etc etc. Bearing that in mind i have pointed out that many (not all) in Cornwall consider themselves to be Cornish and not English, i have also pointed out concrete instances of where this sense of being Cornish and not English is officially recorded and recognised. This would seem to indicate that there are people who live in Cornwall who perceive themselves to be Cornish not English and that this is officially recognised. It is your POV that they are English but it is not the POV of the office of national statistics, Cornwall LEA / county council, the Council of Europe plus others. in Durham you have a regional English identity but this is not the same as believing yourself to be other than English as is the case for many Cornish folk. So what i am after is that if you mention Cornwall in this article you should say that many Cornish do not think of themselves as English, you do not have write English (people) – Cornish just tell the truth and that is a large minority of the Cornish do not think themselves English. Please see my latest changes and tell me if they are more acceptable to you.
Below are two extract from a document produced by the human rights organisation Cornwall 2000.
1.3 The Cornish are a pre-English minority group constituting some 175,000 - 200,000 people mostly living in their historic homeland of Cornwall/Kernow. A recent survey by Plymouth University found that, if given the opportunity, over a third of pupils in Cornwall schools would identity as Cornish. Elements within the group strive to maintain their region’s constitutional position and the group’s unique social outlook, linguistic heritage and cultural identity.
1.4 UK Census 2001 carried a 'Cornish' ethnic group category. Some public authorities carry out ethnic monitoring of the Cornish. The Cornish language has been accorded international protected status. The Council of Europe has urged the Government to extend the cultural, educational and other benefits of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities to the Cornish.
[[User:Bretagne 44|Bretagne 44]] 23/3/05
If there truly is a Cornish nation, then it shouldn't even be on the [[English (people)|article]], which is about the English nation. A nation which is (linguistically, culturally and possibly genetically) related to the [[Germans]], the [[Dutch]], the [[Lowland Scots]], the [[Protestant]]s of [[Northern Ireland]], the [[Danes]], the [[Norwegians]] etc. Remember, a nationality may or may not be tied to a land. The English are a nation who now live all aver the world and consists of people who see themselves and are seen by others to be English. Therefore the [[English (people)|article]] is not necessarily linked to [[England]], so the Cornish don't have to be a part of it. As you have mentioned the census of 2001 allowed the inhabitants of Cornwall to choose their ethnicity (English or Cornish). Have the results of this census been published, if so, what percentage said YES? If it was the majority then there is no doubt about it, the Cornish are a distinct nation. [[User:REX|REX]] 12:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what the figure are for either the 2001 or 2004 census all i can provide is what is above.
You wrote:
"If it was the majority then there is no doubt about it, the Cornish are a distinct nation"
Says who? This is just your POV and it is not a formula for proving the existence of a nation or national identity. Some people in Cornwall see themselves as Cornish and not English that is a fact. This is officially recognised by numerous organisation.
OK if the Cornish don't have to be part of it then all reference to them should be removed. This for me would be unfortunate however because many Cornish people also think of themselves as English and so should be part of this article.
[[User:Bretagne 44|Bretagne 44]] 23/3/05
This really isn't getting anywhere. Let me propose something, let the [[English (people)]] page be used in reference to the inhabitants of Cornwall who do see themselves as English, such as roughly two thirds (the majority) of Cornwall's schoolchildren, like you stated above, and present them as English people with Celtic roots such as the Cumbrians. Then everybody's happy. The inhabitants of Cornwall who see themselves as English are in the article, and the ones who don't are not. [[User:REX|REX]] 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why are you not prepared just to have a brief mention of the other Cornish who are Cornish, it does not distract from the main article, adds interest and is truthful. It shows that the identity of the English may not be as clear cut and as simple as saying they are the people who live in "England".
I say we take it to wikipedia and see if they will arbitrate.
[[User:Bretagne 44|Bretagne 44]] 24/3/05
I think that mentioning the Cornish who don't see themselves as English would be unnecessary '''IF''' they are not part of the English ethnic group, which is what the [[English (people)|article]] is about. As I have already mentioned, the term English ethnic group does not refer to the inhabitants of [[England]], it refers to people of English culture, who see themselves as English. I am also confused about the Cornish people's status. Are they a separate ethnic group or not? Almost all evidence is contradictory. I mean in [[Scotland]] everything is quite clear. While the Highlanders could be seen as a separate ethnic group from the Lowlanders they are not. They are of different descent; they speak different languages and have a slightly different culture. Nevertheless, they all see themselves as Scottish. There are similar examples in America and all over the world. We all know that constitutionally, England does not exist; it (including Cornwall) is merely the part of the UK without home rule. There are no official documents which mention the name England (except for the odd legal document which might mention [[England and Wales]]). Whatever we write could be seen as POV. I would like to know what is wrong with writing that the inhabitants of Cornwall are people with Celtic ancestry, that they used to have a Celtic language and that there is a separatist movement in progress. Also, what do you mean by ''I say we take it to wikipedia and see if they will arbitrate''? [[User:REX|REX]] 13:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
REX you said "this is not getting us any where" i agree so lets see if we can ask for a third opinion hopefully that of a wikipedia administrator. However it appears what you are saying is that you will give no ground and not try and work to a consensus. The changes i have made are minor and barely change the article what is it you do not like about them, give me some good reasons. In fact there is much about this page that need attention because it at times reads like a pamflet for the BNP as you have pointed out.
"Almost all evidence is contradictory" says you, this is your POV, i have provided concrete examples of where official bodies record and therefore consider the Cornish an existent ethnic group. At the end of the day your perceived identity or ethnicity is a purely subjective phenomena. You talk about "official documents which mention the name of England" and then ask "Therefore, how can it be known if the Cornish are a separate ethnic group?". What have official documents got to do with the existence or not of a perceived ethnicity?
You said it yourself "they all see themselves as Scottish" not all the Cornish see themselves as English and what you see yourself as is the best yard stick for measuring ones ethnicity.
We still have a Celtic language which is officially recognised by the the UK government, the Council of Europe and EU. Around 3500 people speak it fluently and many more know some conversational Cornish and most know a few words. The demand to learn Cornish has at present out striped the supply of courses.
I propose the following
the traditional inhabitants of Cornwall are people with a Celtic ancestry, some speak the Cornish language and a minority claim [[Cornwall|Cornish]] ethnicity.
[[User:Bretagne 44|Bretagne 44]] 24/3/05
To sum up:
*Good idea! Let's ask for a third opinion.
*In my opinion, how a group sees itself ''is'' the minimum requirement for the existence of an [[ethnic group]] (a [[nation]]). You may want to check the respective pages to see why.
*In the [[English (people)|article]] the Cornish are only mentioned:
#''Others, notably the Cornish and the Cumbrians have Celtic roots, a minority in Cornwall going so far as to say they are not English but Cornish.''
#''The only other language traditionally spoken is Cornish, a Celtic language originating in Cornwall that almost became extinct.''
#''The English (along with the Scots, Irish, Welsh and Cornish) found their old identities undermined somewhat in favour of 'Britishness'.''
*I can't help feeling that Wikipedia is being used to promote [[nationalism]] and (possibly misleading) propaganda in favour of Cornish Separatism, not in references 1 and 2 above, but in reference 3. Cornwall has not yet separated from England like Wales did in 1955 (before that Wales did not exist as a country but as an English region See [[Acts of Union 1536-1543]]). So mentioning Cornwall above like that is like ''implying'' that Cornwall in no longer part of [[England]], which is not true. Given that Cornwall was and still is part of England, Cornish identity should have been undermined in favour of Englishness even before the Union with Scotland, so to mention it in my opinion above is not necessary. Personally, I find reference 3 above very POV as there has been [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]]. In my opinion it has to be removed or at least changed as that sounds like something from the manifesto not from the BNP, but from the [http://www.englishindependenceparty.com English Independence Party] or the [http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk English Democrats Party].
*About [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy|Arbitration]], as far as I know, they only monitor the behaviour of editors (such as offencive language on Talk Pages, edit wars etc) not the issues. But, there is no harm in asking.
[[User:REX|REX]] 09:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
When Britishness was promoted to the public it interacted and worked to undermine Cornish identity in the same way English identity had before. The Cornish identity was very distinct in the early modern period as is described in the book by Mark Stoyle " West Britons - Cornish identities in the early modern period". The advent of British nation building was just one in a line of assaults on the Cornish national identity. The same for the Welsh in fact, Welsh identity should have been undermined by union with England before the union with Scotland but Wales is still mentioned in reference to the British project following the union with Scotland so why not Cornwall?
I do see some double standards on this page. It is OK for the page to mention thousands of people in other countries such as the USA or Australia. They are described, near enough, as being English and the grounds for this is purely the way they choose to describe themselves as being of English decent. However when a group of people who live in what is commonly thought of as England say they are not English, even when there is a historical precedent for people in this region to think of themselves as Cornish (or other than English) then this causes a problem. Is this English chauvinism, as long as other groups in other countries say they are of English decent and bolster the numbers thats OK, even if they are Americans or Australians but when a small 'internal' group says "no actually we feel we are Cornish and descended from the Britons and people have been feeling that way for centuries in this area" this causes a big problem, why?
How about "The English along with other peoples of the (isles) (Archipelago) (Celtic fringe) found their identities undermined in favour of the new British identity".
Are we reaching a deal here REX? [[User:Bretagne 44|Bretagne 44]] 25/3/05
There is common sense in what you are saying, so to reach a conclusion quickly, I propose that you edit the article so that it is free from the influence of POVs and is not too pro or anti Cornish nationalism. When you are done, let me know and if there is something specific I disagree about I will tell you what it is and why so that we can reach an agreement. I think that you should do it because you know more about the issues than me. [[User:REX|REX]] 20:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, and thank you for a spirited debate, a refreshing change for what often passes over the Internet. [[User:Bretagne 44|Bretagne 44]] 26/3/05
== External Links ==
The external links have an [[English nationalism]] feel about them, i have added a few other links to english political parties and to sites with inormation on England and English history.
[[User:Bretagne 44|Bretagne 44]] 23/3/05
:It may be so, however shouldn't links with info on England and English history go on the pages [[England]] and [[History of England]]? [[User:REX|REX]] 17:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Forget it, these things overlap. I'm being too nitpicky. [[User:REX|REX]] 17:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== [[English nationalism]] ==
Should there be a different page on English nationalism? There seems to be a number of different political and cultural groups now that have an English national back bone.
[[User:Bretagne 44|Bretagne 44]] 23/3/05
:Yes, I think there should be such a page. I might be able to start one. Could you help me? Articles of this nature are better made by a team in order to maintain a neutral POV and to better defend the articles existence on the talk page, because believe me, such an article will be proposed for deletion! [[User:REX|REX]] 17:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I can make small contributions but thats about it, i would say go ahead and create the page and i will feed back on it. [[User:Bretagne 44|Bretagne 44]] 7/4/05
==English -- British==
Are all British people English and all English people British? If someone says "British" does this include any other places other than England? [[User:Jaberwocky6669|Jaberwocky6669]] 11:03, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
:All British people most certainly are NOT English, me for instance, and others may consider it highly offensive to be called English. The Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, Manx, and Channel Islanders are all British and not English, not mention many people in other parts of the world who have [[British citizenship]] of various forms. Until the late 1940s all Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, South Africans, etc., were British subjects, before all the countries started developing their own citizenship rules. All English people are British. Whether or not the Cornish people are English is still subject to debate. -- [[User:Arwel Parry|Arwel]] 12:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am [[Cornwall|Cornish]] not English, i have been brought up to think that way by my community and family and i am not alone.
The UK census of 2001 and the schools census of 2004 both recorded Cornish [[ethnicity]]. Many other organisations and institutions in Cornwall record Cornish ethnicity. The [[Council of Europe]] recognises Cornish ethnicity and the the [[UK]] and [[EU]] recognises the [[Cornish language]] as a [[minority language]].
Debate over [[User:Bretagne 44|Bretagne 44]] 7/4/05
Cornish is not an ethnicity and neither is English. One can subjectify themselves as Cornish as a person associated with that region but that doesn't make an ethnicity. The same applies to being English. If you are Cornish, and as Cornwall is a part of England, then you are English. If you are English, then you are British. If you are Welsh or Scottish, you are British too. People from all over Britain, England, Cornwall, whatever, are descended primarily from the pre-Celtic neolithic hunter gatherers, our first ancestors. How we identify ourselves doesn't detract from that fact. To be Cornish and identify as Cornish and not English is a matter of personal opinion, not of blood. Asian, African, other European people, etc., that live in England can be English but that's not an ethnic classification. Ethnically, we're all Britons; nationality-wise, we're British regardles of ethnicity and if you want to be Cornish, be Cornish - you can of course relate to your region, county, area and the local culture of that place or the culture from that place no matter in which time you have chosen to base it.
==Page move==
Is their any reason why this article is 'English(people)' and not 'English people' like the rest of the people articles in Wikipedia? [[User:Falphin|Falphin]] 22:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
*I moved it[[User:Falphin|Falphin]] 02:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
==English population of non-UK countries==
Who do these figures cover? I don't believe there are that many Americans who have parents who lived in England, and I would be hesitant to describe 3rd and 4th generation immigrants to the US as English. [[User:Morwen|Morwen]] - [[User_talk:Morwen|Talk]] 14:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:I agree . I believe only populations with a registered vote in England should be included, ie expat communities eg. in Spain , Cyprus, Ireland ,France etc. The house of commons library puts these at only 11,000 in 2003 for the whole UK , see table 2 at [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snsg-02165.pdf] pdf. [[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 13:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::The figures given are for self-identification. This page is not about citizens of England, but rather ethnic English. Voting rights and/or country of domicile are irrelevant.
== English ethnicity is defined by pre-British nationals ==
Any subject of the English King apart from Jews if present in that time, were considered English. No need to get into colonial peoples who have a separate heritage that should not be raped of them. Does everybody really want to be an Englishman? LOL, I have Anglo-French descent with minor Germanic/Celtic elements in the descent's periphery. These lines comprise Anglicans, Congregationalists, Catholics and Huguenots by religion. Doesn't this speak for the truth in volumes of identity in my genetic origins? No offence, but some genetic native of Tuvalu isn't English and could never be so. Do they even have ANGLIAN descent?! Cornish people had been English ever since their land had been county status, as Welsh had been English since they became an English principality. Still, it is much like Burgundians or Bretons as French. To be technical here, no Indian was a subject of the English Crown during colonial times...not even Pocahontas. Black slaves weren't subjects, but labouring property to be dispenced with as chattel. Why rob these people of their roots? English as an ethnicity is reserved for the past in which England was a sovereign body. What we have nowadays, are British people. Any non-European who has been a subject of the Crown that uses London as its national capital, would at the very most be considered British or American even as it seems to be. [[User:TheUnforgiven|TheUnforgiven]] 09:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
== Numbers of English people ==
This is a debate that has spilled over from the [[Cornish people]] page.
As to the numbers of [[Cornish people]] why don't we look at the page for [[English people]] to see what solution they came up with to this problem, maybe latter we could look at the pages for [[Welsh people]], [[Scottish people]] etc etc.
*'''Well oh my me''' look at what we have here for "English People":
*Total population: c. 100 million (2004)
Significant populations in: England:
49 million
United States:
24.5 million (2000) 1
Australia:
3.5 million (2001)
Canada:
1.5 million (2001) 2
Ireland:
c. 105,000
*How can that be!? For a start let’s look at the 49 million figure. Now is that the total population of England or is it the number of people who described themselves as English on a census? I have a feeling its the total population of England, but what about the Cornish, Welsh, Irish, Scottish, Jamaican, Pakistani people etc who live in England are they in this number. What about all the people in England who self designate as British are they included in this number? Now as for the other statistics what are these based on, census results or projects similar to the one that estimated the number of Cornish overseas.
*Now I am happy to see you are all keen to question the idea of Cornishness and the numbers of Cornish and of course this has nothing to do with your personal feelings on the issue, so let’s expand the issue to all the "people" pages.
*So if we are going to use total population figures as an indication of the numbers of English people even though plenty of these people are not nationally / ethnically English then surely this is what we must do with the Cornish people page i.e. use the 500000 figure, all these people are Cornish in some way even if it is just residence.
[[What is good for the goose is good for the gander]]
[[User:Bretagne 44|Bretagne 44]] 26/7/05
:The figures for the total number of ethnic English people in the world is poor because the question is not often asked. Certainly no accurate figures exist for the United Kingdom. I *believe* that if an ethnicity question was asked of all British citizens, and 'British' was not allowed as answer, then a figure of a little over 40 million for the whole country would likely be English. But this is only a guess!!
:Also, the total world population is given as 100 million but the five countries mentioned add up to only 80 million. This is not a mistake, as such, but it will come down with better figures as other countries apart from the four listed have English populations. Significant numbers of English *identifying* people do exist in New Zealand and South Africa, maybe a couple of million between them. But who knows? Anyway, the figure given compares well to an alleged [[Irish Diaspora]] of 80 million! My view is that the world total ought to be brought down to about 85 million, but with the understanding that we don't honestly know.
:Estimating such figures for all ethnic groups will always be hard for many people will identify themselves as belonging to more than one ethnicity.
==Americans of English ancestry==
I have in the notes the likelihood that 24.5 million is an underestimate of the number of Americans with English ancestry. Actually it is a certainty. 281 million Americans cited 287 ethnicities, implying that they are nearly all pure blooded descedents of one immigrant group, which is obviously not the case. I suspect that English ancestry was one of the most under-reported of all, as it seems to the only hythenated American identity which is not valued by the American establishment. [[User:Bhoeble|Bhoeble]] 15:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with you that English ancestry is not particularly valued by citizens of the United States when compared with Irish, Scottish, Welsh, German and so on. But, we can only say that 24.5 million citizens gave their ethnicity as English, we can not make any statement about whether this is true or not (too high/too low). Ethnicities are hard to define and understand, and there is no test or exam to 'pass', and that includes blood. [[User:Oswax|Oswax]] 06:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
== Why are British louts ==
Why is it that the British act in such a vulgar and Loutish manner when abroad?...They travel in same sex packs, drunk, violent and out of control. They ruin every place they visit. whatis wrong with their culture??
| 