The Scots and "Britishness"...

[Pilgrim]

For Ken... http://www.historytoday.com/ian-bradley/britishness-scottish-invention

All I can say is that I'm confused.

[Highlander]

Here's the reality of then, in a few lines...
There was no English head of state post the death of Elizabeth 1st... no heir...
Her last "rival" - Mary, Queen of Scots - a partial relative, she had executed ...
James VI of Scotland, Mary's son, had bankrupted his country, he had outlawed the use of the Scottish language, and set his mind on "civilizing" 3/4's of my ancestors (the other 1/4 sort of fought for him).
Both Mary and James VI became "rulers" before the age of two, so "Regents" ruled - think of baby Obama with the Representatives ruling by decree, but it was usually one or two key Reps that ruled the roost, and everyone else followed, or else ...
Mary was raised in France and that was her mother-tongue - not unusual here - it was the mother-tongue of the Norman era (approx. 200 years post 1066).
James VI was invited to take command of the English Throne (his ancestor was Henry VIII's oldest sister) as the only apparent heir ...
His rule was so popular that someone called Guy Fawkes tried to make a difference, and like all good subjects we celebrate his immense failure every November...
His eldest child, Charles I, was so popular, some chap called Cromwell stepped up to the plate - once found, Charles had his head separated from his body...
Our present Monarchy owes more allegiance, by bloodline, to Germany, than to here ... most people do not know, or care, that Victoria, our present (only just) longest ruling Monarch, spoke with a German accent, and her husband was German; he was also her 1st cousin - keeping it close ...
"Kaiser Bill" - popular chap in German folklore - his mum was called Victoria and her mum was our Queen Victoria ...

Hmm ... a few lines ... still quite confusing ...

The Mother-tongue of my recent ancestors, the Scottish Gaelic, like many other languages, is fading, even though the Highland region is fighting a rear-guard action, but after numerous attempts to destroy it, it is still here ... some minor bits have distilled (literally) into English, with whisky being the Gaelic word for water (uisge) ...

As for British being a Scottish invention ... ?

More like a good business deal that sold the Scottish people into slavery ... Scotland, itself, is a name derived from Latin, with the old Gaelic name being Alba (sort of pronounced Ah-La-Va) - the west coast folk owe more allegiance, by blood, to Norway; the lowlanders/rulers were always more English/French (aristocratically) than those from the north ...

Does that make any more sense, Al ... thought not...

Bear this in mind ... America was "discovered" more than 200 years after my "homeland" was acceded to Scotland ... European history is vast and very intermingled ... presently, down here, the demographic has changed so rapidly, I feel like a stranger in a strange land ... do you grok ... ?

[Pilgrim]

There is only one solution occurring to me: go out this weekend and do more research into craft beer.     (THAT, I grok.)

Would make a good story line for a soap opera, wouldn't it?

[exiledarchangel]

And I thought ancient greek history was confusing.

[Highlander]

... but very demokratia ...

... and up until the modern age, all history was written by the victors ...

[Rob]

... but very demokratia ...

... and up until the modern age, all history was written by the victors ...

Or Vicars

[westen44]

... but very demokratia ...

... and up until the modern age, all history was written by the victors ...

It's true for the modern age, too.  There is almost always some kind of slant, some kind of agenda, some bias, all in the name of objectivity, too.  I've studied various kinds of history, but American history more than anything.  The Civil War, for example, is so over-simplified in many of the textbooks that it isn't always what I'd call accurate.  Often there is a "real story" behind the one that's officially presented.  However, unless you find some way to dig up the truth for yourself through painstaking research (and hopefully courses, too,) the truth may always remain elusive.  Having said that,  I believe the pendulum is swinging back in the other direction and there is more accuracy now than, for example, twenty or thirty years ago.  Of course, this is strictly my opinion, my own observations. 

[Rob]

It's true for the modern age, too.  There is almost always some kind of slant, some kind of agenda, some bias, all in the name of objectivity, too.  I've studied various kinds of history, but American history more than anything.  The Civil War, for example, is so over-simplified in many of the textbooks that it isn't always what I'd call accurate.  Often there is a "real story" behind the one that's officially presented.  However, unless you find some way to dig up the truth for yourself through painstaking research (and hopefully courses, too,) the truth may always remain elusive.  Having said that,  I believe the pendulum is swinging back in the other direction and there is more accuracy now than, for example, twenty or thirty years ago.  Of course, this is strictly my opinion, my own observations.

Of course.  I agree regarding bias but functionally "to the victor go the spoils" (and opiniona).  I believe it takes a generation or two to become more centrest on cause or effect myself.

[Rob]

WTF is opiniona?  Wish there was spell check on here 

[godofthunder]

Lots to learn! My grandfather Scott's parents came over in the 1890's, My father's last name(and mine) is Dasson which is derived from Dawson. When Dawsons' move down through England and on to the continent the spelling was changed so that makes me a full blown Scott  except my twin brother and I are adopted..............to look at us you'd not know.

[westen44]

WTF is opiniona?  Wish there was spell check on here 

It looks like something from Esperanto.  LOL. 

[Highlander]

... except my twin brother and I are adopted...

Wow... don't remember you mentioning that, but then again, I'm so scatter-brained... do you know (or care) what your birth name was ... ?

[westen44]

I've always found this particular topic to be one of the most complex historical topics, ever.  I've never even come close to fully understanding it. 

[Pilgrim]

I was lost with the first reply.  I think one would have to be a student of history to understand if one had not lived with it.

I suspect many of us Yanks feel like everyone in the domain of Great Britain are essentially "English with different funny accents."

And I also suspect it works the other way around for non-Yanks who try to differentiate between the accents of people from New York, Minnesota, Alabama, Texas and California.

[westen44]

I was lost with the first reply.  I think one would have to be a student of history to understand if one had not lived with it.

I suspect many of us Yanks feel like everyone in the domain of Great Britain are essentially "English with different funny accents."

And I also suspect it works the other way around for non-Yanks who try to differentiate between the accents of people from New York, Minnesota, Alabama, Texas and California.

You'd have to spend quite a lot of time absorbing many details to even begin to absorb it.  I tried a few times, but never had what I'd consider success.  I do like music from there, though, especially Jack Bruce. 

As for differences within the U.S., those can be puzzling to Americans, too.  For instance, Alabama has three distinct accents, all quite different from each other.  South Alabama has an accent in which the letter "R" is often dropped.  North Alabama goes to the other extreme and probably emphasizes "R" too much--the "hard R."  In central Alabama (such as Birmingham) there is an accent, a metro accent, which sounds like it has been influenced by English from the American Midwest.  The so-called Southern drawl in this case doesn't even exist with many native speakers in Birmingham.