Kiwi Sumo Fan

[Mark Buckton 1]

Wow, is this the longest intro thread ever? Can we keep it going? Being of Scots heritage, I have to say I have a problem with the Union Jack, so it has to go!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

always surprises me howm many of the 'newer world' nationals (hope that phrase is ok but by it mean Aus / US / NZ mainly) 'claim' heritage or background in the British Isles / Ireland / mainland Europe etc.

Are you not proud enough to be simply the nationality of your birth? I know my Aus / Canadian family are. They know their grandparents / other family came from Europe but don't call themselves 'Irish Australian' / Scottish Canadian etc. :-P They are proud to be Australian and Canadian and don't seek more justification (I think this is oft the case) in a longer history. The Italian and Irish Americans but a prime example - if they are so proud - go back!

Also, a couple of usual mistaken arguments above exist - the 'Union Jack' is properly called the 'Union Flag' - the Scottish having suggested the union of flags as peace discussion took place about 400 years ago. Why would the then English (winning on all fronts) have needed to bar to participate in peace.

On the Irish argument - from the beginnings of recorded Irish history (real people) as opposed to the mythical Celtic stories - a pair of brothers argued over their inheritance of the land and split it 'north / south'. It isn't a modern thing nor is it truly related to Prince William of Orange - although he clouds the previous history.

Furthermore, throughout Celtic history the land of the 'dead' (without geting too deep or theological about it) was Spain. Other Celts existed in England but they were unrelated for much of history until St. Patrick - himself probably Welsh, arrived. This (Spain) is therefore the land of their ancestors, in real terms - and culturally speaking, the Irish of old, via all their myths, for all intents and purposes INVADED Ireland on 4 (IIRC) - or perhaps 5 occasions as this number of invasions are recorded in Celtic history-cum-mythology.

The Irish Gaelic (Celtic linked) language is still today, closer related to Egyptian and languages of north Africa / Berber as it was produced via a journey through Spain than it is to the Indo European vein of languages used by the mainland British Celts after their approach through Brittany and northern France.

This is often twisted nowadays only to remember relatively recent English actions and is played out nowadays in almost the same fashion as the standard Japanese claims to be the victims of war 60 years back while doing nothing themselves.

They forget their own invasions and oppression of those who had gone before and all the associated attrocities that brings with it - of years / centuries gone by and while none of this in no way justifies the British actions (many invading regiments were Scottish and Welsh BTW and not English - conveniently forgotten oftentimes) of the past 150 od years - they (British) were simply going along with what was then the norm in the global land grab.

To that end I have far more sympathy with the so recently, and genuinely inocent Maoris and Aborigines of Oz - neither of which I believe to have taken the land from others before having the same done to them.

So, as an English person who knows what a mix of backgrounds my land has - Viking / Saxon / Celtic / Pict / French / Germanic and Romance I'd be embarrassed to say I am Danish English (although years of research show this to probably have been true centuries ago) as I AM NOT - I was born and raised in England and that makes me English.

That the British flag is deemed unwelcome as is mentioned above may indeed be the case but is often based on ignorance - after all, none of the nations that use it are forced to are they? And a look at the dates many of these countries introduced their flags doing so will see it was THEIR choice and wasn't forced upon them. If it were indeed - why no large numbers of Union Flag adorned African flags?

After all, if nations like NZ / AUS are so unhappy, they could change it tomorrow or could have done so anytime during the last century but have not. Why would that be? Perhaps the benefit of Commonwealth membership (for all the abhorent ways it was first introduced) means that they choose to remain under such a flag rather than not.

For myself - give me the English flag, the English Olympic teams, an English passport and the use of 'Eikoku' jin anyday of the week - minus all the baggage. :-)

Edited March 6, 2005 by Adachinoryu

[Fujisan 532]

Wow, is this the longest intro thread ever? Can we keep it going? Being of Scots heritage, I have to say I have a problem with the Union Jack, so it has to go!

Looking forward to next Sunday ... I have told my wife, no evenings together for the next two weeks!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I have a problem with Scotland so it can go. :-) :-) :-P

[Kasugaran 0]

Yup, I admit... I am a new world national... I am happy to have Scottish heritage, but you know what? I am just as happy I don't live there! You would find very few people in any of the new world countries, ie NZ, Oz, Canada, South Africa, South America, USA, who do not know where their ancestors came from... nothing wrong with remembering where you came from I reckon! While it may seem simple to just change our flag, the fact is there is a vocal minority who do not want it changed and so we continue to fight. Union flag, Union Jack, whatever, don't you think it is a little strange that we have someone else's flag on our flag?

Keep up the chat... the record continues!

[Sasanishiki 57]

I would say the group that wants to change it is far more vocal, and probably in the minority when everyone realises how much it will cost!

[Kasugaran 0]

I would say the group that wants to change it is far more vocal, and probably in the minority when everyone realises how much it will cost!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point.... but still keen on a new flag ;)

The Sumo is almost here. Any Kiwis here have NHK International on Sky?

[sekihiryu 51]

to give some balance i guess this is a matter for the people of NZ to decide, so i don't see how collecting signiatures in japan could help.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah... the signatures are from kiwis living in Japan, I dont expect to get many, but every little bit helps.

[Kasugaran 0]

to give some balance i guess this is a matter for the people of NZ to decide, so i don't see how collecting signiatures in japan could help.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah... the signatures are from kiwis living in Japan, I dont expect to get many, but every little bit helps.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good luck!

[Mark Buckton 1]

won't quote because it will make it too long but the Celtic history I and Nishi referred to above - (and apologies for this delay - some far more important things ongoing just now)

Anyway, half from memory - the other half finally looked up in a schoolbook.

The various invasions that populated Ireland over the centuries were predominantly Celtic peoples.

Names that came back are the Firbolds (or Firbolgs), the Nemedians (a chief of this tribe fled during a subsequesnt invasion and gave his name to the island in the east on which he settled - Britan), the Partholans (who significantly were determined to have come to the west according to their oral records and the written records of the Romans - west meaning Spain here) but most importantly - the Danaans.

The Danaans are essentially at the border of verifiable and mythical history in Ireland but before I explain their link to my case - I must explain they were Megalithic people. ie: they left bloody big rock 'buildings' called Dolmens in their wake that shows their route. These memorials (as they were mainly for the worship of the dead) can be found from Greece in the east, through the southern European landmass, across the north African landmass and they appear in southern Spain and up through France - some in England, few in Wales but loads in Ireland. (notably - the stones in England are dated YOUNGER than those in Ireland) They are also covered in a form of written text whose name I have now forgotten.

Most importantly is this - on one stone found in moden Hungary - the text (Ogham) referred to a God (Miled). The story tells of a chap by this name (of the Milesians) who lived in a land identified as Spain - Miled was the son of Bile - the Celtic god of death and also the name for Spain in the ancient world. Anyhow, one day Miled left Spain with 90 other blokes and chappeses and sailed north (which would have him approaching Ireland from the west on the currents of the north Atlantic). There, he hoofed out a people called the Danaans headed by Dana. The Danaans are recorded in Irish (by Tierna of Clonmacnoic - Abbot of an 11th century Irish Monastery), Roman (time of Caesar) and British history Three kings came along in the 90 with their wives - one of which was named Eriu or Erin (can't read my own old writing) who, over time gave her name to EIRE. Wife of MacGrere

Back to the Milesians. When they reached Ireland they kicked out the Danaans - the very people tied to the Celticized Hungarians of the day (not therefore 'original Celts but the subjugated people of the then eastern Celts of Europe - the Celts of the plains.) by the story on the stone in Hungary. The very existence of the Danaans is also supposedly confirmed in British history as it was a possession of theirs (the stone of Scone IIRC) that is now under QE IIs throne in Westminster - no other group entering Ireland ever claimed such a stone as their own and the Scots from who it was taken in 1297 record it as coming from a line that originated in Ireland.

Also, were the Danaans not real people then the Milesians would not record this stone incident as belonging to those they kicked out either - but they do.

The brothers that shared Ireland were Eber and Eremon (the elder) and those settled an inheritence claim peacefully by Eremon taking the north and Eber the south as Eber ignored their Druid's advice that the elder inherits a father's will - bar for deformity playing an issue.

Anyhow, what it all boiled down to is a story similar to that of Japan although I didn't know that till I'd been here a few years. Basically, both were populated by a people with a culture (the Danaans etc are unmistakebly Celts - evidenced in things left behind) Both were kicked out or oppressed by those who came later- the Polynesian / mainlanders in the case of Japan - the Hungarian 'celticised folk' in the case of Japan. In both cases, the winner set about writing history from their own point of view and ignoring the earlier inhabitants - happened with the Picts too in mainland UK.

To cut a long story short - tis messy to say the least but to say the Celts upped and moved from Hungary isn't wrong - it just ignores those that were there earlier and replaces them with a later people - a people whose stone carvings have shown they already knew of others of their kind (Celts) in a land faraway.

As for the language history - closer to African Berber - idioms, old verb forms and symbols identical to those in use in Egypt show this as does the absence of a letter 'p' in historical Celtic words. Place names use a lot of 'ster' in Ireland and this is relatively modern - and can be put down to Viking interference.

Last point - artocity wise- two thirds of children taken as tax was a norm as was two thirds of a crop yield - even as late as Patrick's day it is recorded and the term at the time used as a currency was the price of a woman - everyday commodities. Admittedly, Patrick's time saw the end of mass human burnings as offerings to the gods but the above would constitute atrocity were it to take place now so shouldn't be ranked any different then should it?

Lastly - probably scrambled but so is my head - tired but wanted to get this written.

[Otokonoyama 2,735]

Very interesting for we "New-Worlders"-very interesting indeed. Appreciated! Hope all goes well on the home-front...