|
I wonder whether all of the stuff in here about Cornish succession and seperatism should not be placed in a separate article. |
|
Refactored: Various commentators have made comments about the status of Cornwall. In summary, some see Cornwall as an integral part of England / United Kingdom; others don't. sjc |
|
Secondly as regards the statement that the "Cornish people have always been distinct from the English" needs some qualification. Distinct in what way? And from which English? |
|
Peninsula(r) - sorry about that, English is rapidly becoming my third language.sjc |
|
Prepare to be enlightened: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kernow_tgg/TGGhome.html Hmmm. Well I always found nationalism of any sort hard to cope with to be brutally honest, and I don't think that this site has done much to change my mind. I think my questions still remain really. Countries are legal entities, and Cornwall is not one. We can distinguish between for instance a French person and a German because they carry different passports. We can not do this of course with the Cornish. You are making a particular statement that the Cornish are distinguishable from the rest of the English, and I am asking whether you could qualify this. In what way are they distinguishable? Accent? Language usage? Skin colour? Religious beliefs? Genetic make up? And secondarily to this I am also asking if we are to separate out the Cornish from the English, does it make sense to define the English as a group? Are there not other similarly historical groupings within England? You really don't see it, do you? As late as 1543 it was written that "Britain is divided into four parts, whereof the one is inhabited by Englishmen, the other of Scots, the third of Welshmen and the fourth of Cornish people" (Polydore Vergil, cited by Payton, 1992, 57). We are still here, just, despite the best efforts of the English to suppress our culture and language. And we aren't going away. Couldn't this be argued for other places in England as well? of course, but we don't bother, remember at one point England as a country didn't exist, my home county Surrey was a Kingdom all to itself, seperate and isolated, times move on, so should the Cornish people. See for yourself [Monarchs of England and Great Britain] But unlike Surrey we are recognised as a distinct national entity by the EEC. And if that body can see the distinction, sooner or later the English will have to recognise it, albeit belatedly. Just because the English say we don't exist, doesn't mean we don't. The Spanish say the same about the Basques and the Catalans. The French say the same about the Bretons. The Dutch ditto with the Frisians. We are all threatened nationalities. Please don't wipe us from the pages of history. No one's doing any rewriting of history - but to be pushing for a return to the past is well, just a bit daft ... look at it like this: Cornwall is an old place, just as is everywhere else on our wonderful Earth. Since mankind began migrating the place now known as Cornwall was probably known by many names, its borders changed and changed time and again, not just by humankind, but by natural forces. Harking back to times past in good, but what makes Cornwall's recent history (16th century) any more worthy than say, (picks number semi randomly) 10 thousand BC? It isn't is it? Certainly the old way was before your time, your fathers time and your grand fathers time, so why make it a personal grudge? I don't hold it against the people of Brittany for invading our fair island all those years ago for the self same reason. We all have many labels, here's mine: I'm first of all an Earthling, then English, then it's Surrey, then it's Croydon finally I am a Corbettis. Of course on any given day I might change this order, depending upon the situation. Being English doesn't make me exempt from being a Surreyite (or whatever we're called :-). Your British citizenship doesn't stop you also being a Cornish person, does it? And as for the EEC recognising the Cornish, well we are all intelegent to know that the EU's long term goal is to creat a superstate. If you think you have a friend in the EU/EEC then you are sadly mistaken, first it's the money, then it's the government, then it's national identity. Yes it'll take a time, but Cornwall's (and everywhere else in Europe's) independence looks certain to be a very short lived one. If things don't change the superstate will happen and we will all be European's, like it or not. I do not agree; it's because of the bigger european entity that the smaller identities (like the Cornish, Breton, Catelan, Frisian, Tirolean, Bavarian, Cananifate, etcetera) can flourish. The 'National' identities won't matter that much anymore, so in the end this discussion about cultures being submerged by the political dominant will become quite obsolete. We will all be United States citizens ;-P The main point I would like to make here is that Cornwall is a part of Britain, not of England. You are quite correct in your assertion that the EU agenda is divide and conquer. But, to paraphrase Brecht, it takes a long spoon to sup with the devil. Most Cornish people are deeply annoyed with the English, particularly the ones that buy up property and use it as weekend or holiday cottages. (The indigenous population of Cornwall dropped from 90% in the 1960s to less than 40% by 1990 as a direct consequence). We are squeezed by the English on a number of fronts, many of which may seem trivial but which are crucial to us. The rewriting of Cornish history by English Heritage and their merry men, and a plethora of other Anglo-Saxon revisionists being a case in point. When you go to Padstow, remember that it is not Padstow, nor even St Petrockstow, but Lanwennock. We have our own language and our own names for things and places and these have and are being anglicised out of existence. We are not pushing for a return to the past, we are staking our claim to a place in the future. The issue of rural house price rises as a result of second home purchases is really not the fault of the "English", but the obscure economic distribution in Britain where most of the wealth is in the South East of the country. You will probably find that some of those people buying second homes in Cornwall, are people who have historical roots in Cornwall, but work in London. It would make more sense to blame wealth distribution. Your statistic about the "indigenous" population is an interesting one. Cornwall is not a country with either border controls, and no clear test of membership, so how can you define who is and is not "indigenous". Do you just mean "who were born in Cornwall", or "Whose parents were born in Cornwall" or what? In either of these cases the stats would probably just reflect the increasing population movements in Britain since the 60's. The nationalist movements in Scotland, and Wales have similar problems. If for instance Scotland did succeed, how would be defined to be Scottish, and who not? Residency? Parentage? I'm a localist and in favor of separatist movements everywhere, but 'an island'? And America is divided firmly into two peninsulas depending from the Canadian Mainland because the Mississippi River runs through it. --MichaelTinkler I think who ever put this was probably calculating the source of the Tamar to the coast - the Bude canal. But Cornwall is certainly a peninsula - which, translated from the Latin, paene insula means almost an island. sjc and a clever-enoughjoke, but not very useful for a public encyclopedia. And given the size of British rivers (I've never seen the Tamar), if it's almost an island it's not a particularly isolated one. --MichaelTinkler I have. I cross it on a daily basis into England. And very depressing the transition is, too... sjc |
Peninsula(r) - sorry about that, English is rapidly becoming my third language.sjc
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)