# Revealed: Victorian England's views of Welsh



## cathal marcs (Jan 6, 2006)

*Revealed: Victorian era England's rulling classes views of Welsh*

A NOTORIOUS report into the morals of Victorian Wales has been made available online for the first time. 

The infamous "Blue Books were compiled by English-speaking inspectors on government orders back in 1847, and dismissed the then largely-Welsh speaking residents as "dirty, indolent, bigoted and contented". Their publication sparked a storm of protest and have been a touchstone for nationalist opinion ever since. 

Now the National Library has published the entire manuscript  on its website as part of its innovative "Digital Mirror" programme. 

The scheme puts priceless historical documents online to make them more accessible to the general public. 

Full Text

[


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2006)

Cheers for the link. I'll read it later because I don't want to get all worked up on a Friday night!


----------



## Dai Sheep (Jan 6, 2006)

I also saw that article in the Western Mail the other day - sadly,Just one example of many, of the contempt this nation has been shown over the years from the 'British' establishment.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 7, 2006)

> The report's three authors evidently agreed, stating at the end of their investigation that the answer was simple - "Teach English and bigotry will be banished".



raaaaaaaaaaaaaa grrrrrrrrrrr and
bastards!   

good thread, ta

link to the site here


----------



## lewislewis (Jan 7, 2006)

Dai Sheep said:
			
		

> I also saw that article in the Western Mail the other day - sadly,Just one example of many, of the contempt this nation has been shown over the years from the 'British' establishment.



Unfortunately it won't appear in any paper other than the Western Mail...we are forced to put up with Anglo-Centric media all the time. Its time to break with the British establishment.


----------



## JTG (Jan 7, 2006)

Yes, this report was an accurate representation of everyone in England's views at the time


----------



## Dai Sheep (Jan 8, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> Yes, this report was an accurate representation of everyone in England's views at the time




 It was certainly the view of the commission who made the report, who were appointed by the ruling 'British' ruling elite and indeed reportred back their reccomendations, to be implemented. By the end of the 19th century the government had put much effort into destroying the welsh language, as it had tried to doto other aspects of welsh culture in the centuries preceeding. Dont confuse todays race attitudes with those of the nineteenth century, for they were very different then. Learn something about Welsh/British history and then leave a comment.


----------



## JTG (Jan 8, 2006)

Dai Sheep said:
			
		

> It was certainly the view of the commission who made the report,



Is exactly the point I was making. The thread title implys everyone in Victorian England agreed with it.

Learn to interpret my posts using the content or title of previous posts before patronising me.


----------



## cathal marcs (Jan 8, 2006)

so its only the rulling class that had biggoted views of Celts?


----------



## editor (Jan 8, 2006)

cathal marcs said:
			
		

> so its only the rulling class that had biggoted views of Celts?


Perhaps some of the findings of the Blue Books may have eventually filtered through to the popular public consciousness in England?


----------



## lewislewis (Jan 8, 2006)

I'd imagine the general public in those days were more respectful and trusting towards the ruling classes than they are in this day and age, so they'd be likely to agree with their views, or perhaps accept them blindly as fact.

I may well be wrong, but it seems like a decent idea.


----------



## diond (Jan 8, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Perhaps some of the findings of the Blue Books may have eventually filtered through to the popular public consciousness in England?


Perhaps it didn't and the majority of the English people had no opinion on Welsh people either way? I hate using this   smilie, but it pretty much sums up your pathetic post.


----------



## fanta (Jan 9, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> Yes, this report was an accurate representation of everyone in England's views at the time



Er, precisely.

I imagine the sort of people who compiled this sort of government 'report' had equally disgusting views about what they regarded as all provincial peoples at the time? 

But come on, this is the Welsh forum and cathal marcs should be allowed to trumpet his indignant prejudice!  

Because those English - sorry, _Sais_ - are all the same you know?! 

Carry on cathal...


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2006)

diond said:
			
		

> Perhaps it didn't and the majority of the English people had no opinion on Welsh people either way? I hate using this   smilie, but it pretty much sums up your pathetic post.


My "pathetic post" _posed a question_, you ignorant oaf.

Perhaps you might explain what was so pathetic about asking an informed question?


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> I imagine the sort of people who compiled this sort of government 'report' had equally disgusting views about what they regarded as all provincial peoples at the time?


Err, seeing as the supposed  'problems' of the Welsh language formed a _significant_ part of the report's findings, I very much doubt that.



> But the report caused a furore and a great deal of agitation in Wales because of the arrogant remarks of the three non-Welsh speaking Anglican commissioners regarding the Welsh language, Nonconformity and the morals of the Welsh people in general.....
> 
> It was Samuel Smiles' philosophy that held sway education and the knowledge of English would allow the lowliest among the Welsh to improve their lot and make something of their lives. As a result of the 'Treachery of the Blue Books' the Welsh people began to harbour a complex about their image in the face of the world, and the influence of the Report has not completely waned even to this day.


----------



## fanta (Jan 9, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Err, seeing as the supposed  'problems' of the Welsh language formed a _significant_ part of the report's findings, I very much doubt that.



And I very much doubt that you're right. 

I reckon they were just as prejudiced towards anybody who spoke a provincial dialect/language throughout the whole of the UK. 

Anybody beyond the 'Home Counties', probably. It is because Wales was a whole country that it (in their view) merited such a prejudiced 'report'

But as JTG asks: do _you_ think this report was an accurate representation of everyone in England's views at the time?

Yes/No?


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> And I very much doubt that you're right.
> 
> I reckon they were just as prejudiced towards anybody who spoke a provincial dialect/language throughout the whole of the UK.


Really? Perhaps you might produce a document as damning as the Blue Books from a similar period on British history, please?

Can you do that, please?






			
				fanta said:
			
		

> But as JTG asks: do you think this report was an accurate representation of everyone in England's views at the time?
> 
> Yes/No?


What a silly question. Why would "everyone" think the same at any point in British history?


----------



## diond (Jan 9, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> My "pathetic post" _posed a question_, you ignorant oaf.
> 
> Perhaps you might explain what was so pathetic about asking an informed question?



You know damn well what you did there. You replied to the post that posed the question asking whether it was only being ruling classes that had bigoted views of celts, to which you _"inferred"_ an opinion that, "perhaps some of it may have filtered down to the popular public consciousness in England." So for what reason and on what grounds did you have to "ask" this question about it filtering down the English public consciousness then?


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2006)

diond said:
			
		

> You know damn well what you did there. You replied to the post that posed the question asking whether it was only being ruling classes that had bigoted views of celts, to which you _"inferred"_ an opinion that, "perhaps some of it may have filtered down to the popular public consciousness in England." So for what reason and on what grounds did you have to "ask" this question about it filtering down the English public consciousness then?


No. I asked a perfectly reasonable question. 

If you're incapable of answering it, just say so.


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> And I very much doubt that you're right.
> 
> I reckon they were just as prejudiced towards anybody who spoke a provincial dialect/language throughout the whole of the UK.


To help you, here's the entry from wikipedia:


> Treachery of the Blue Books
> 
> This feeling of difference was exacerbated by the results of the publication of the "Reports of the commissioners of enquiry into the state of education in Wales" in 1847.
> 
> ...


 I'll look forward to you providing similarly damnikng reports on other regions of the UK.


----------



## fanta (Jan 9, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Really? Perhaps you might produce a document as damning as the Blue Books from a similar period on British history, please?
> 
> Can you do that, please?



Re-read what I said, you might notice the word 'reckon'. 

The phrase 'I reckon' is similar to 'I think', ie it is a statement of opinion rather than fact.

Understand?

(At least you don't have the gall to ask for _evidence_, and just as well as you have a reputation for being evidence-free yourself in the past!  )





			
				editor said:
			
		

> What a silly question. Why would "everyone" think the same at any point in British history?



Is that a *no* or not?

No idea why anyone would think that, though cathal marcs seems to think so! Or did you not notice that?

You certainly appeared to be implying the same thing when you said: _Perhaps some of the findings of the Blue Books may have eventually filtered through to the popular public consciousness in England?_ 

Or was that another of your hilarious jests, perhaps?

And will ever give a simple yes or no answer?


----------



## fanta (Jan 9, 2006)

diond said:
			
		

> You know damn well what you did there. You replied to the post that posed the question asking whether it was only being ruling classes that had bigoted views of celts, to which you _"inferred"_ an opinion that, "perhaps some of it may have filtered down to the popular public consciousness in England." So for what reason and on what grounds did you have to "ask" this question about it filtering down the English public consciousness then?



Indeed.


----------



## fanta (Jan 9, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> To help you, here's the entry from wikipedia:
> I'll look forward to you providing similarly damnikng reports on other regions of the UK.




You've got me there!

I've no idea what _damnikng_ even means!

Perhaps it is a Welsh word?!


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> You've got me there!
> 
> I've no idea what _damnikng_ even means!
> 
> Perhaps it is a Welsh word?!


Very funny. I clearly meant 'damning'. Now address the point, please.


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> Re-read what I said, you might notice the word 'reckon'.
> 
> The phrase 'I reckon' is similar to 'I think', ie it is a statement of opinion rather than fact.
> 
> Understand?


Yes, indeed. You mean that your posts here are based on nothing more than your ill-informed opinion (i.e. one completely unsupported by facts, research or evidence)?

Glad we've cleared that one up!






			
				fanta said:
			
		

> You certainly appeared to be implying the same thing when you said: _Perhaps some of the findings of the Blue Books may have eventually filtered through to the popular public consciousness in England?_
> 
> Or was that another of your hilarious jests, perhaps?


It was a simple question. I've no idea why you should such think it was a 'jape' of any sort.


----------



## fanta (Jan 9, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Very funny. I clearly meant 'damning'. Now address the point, please.



I'll address any point you might happen to have once you have supplied a simple yes/no answer to my earlier question: do *you* think this report was an accurate representation of everyone in England's views at the time?

Yes/No?

Clue = the answer need only be either 'yes', or 'no'!

There is no need to behave like Michael Howard on Jeremy Paxman's...

...let us see if you're up to it?!


----------



## Brockway (Jan 9, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> Yes, this report was an accurate representation of everyone in England's views at the time



Really? I was prepared to give some English people the benefit of the doubt but you've convinced me they're all colonizing bar stewards. Ta.


----------



## lewislewis (Jan 9, 2006)

I'm sceptical about Fanta's intentions, he only ever shows up on this forum to slag off the Welsh or mock us.


----------



## Brockway (Jan 9, 2006)

"Do *you* think this report was an accurate representation of everyone in England's views at the time?

Yes/No?"

Tell me something, using your logic - who was to blame for the Jewish holocaust: Hitler? The Nazi hierarchy? or the German people?


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> I'll address any point you might happen to have once you have supplied a simple yes/no answer to my earlier question: do *you* think this report was an accurate representation of everyone in England's views at the time?
> 
> Yes/No?
> 
> Clue = the answer need only be either 'yes', or 'no'!


For the second time: there is no means of knowing what "everyone" in England thought at any given time, neither is it remotely likely that every single person in the country would all share the opinion, so your question is a complete non starter.

Or, to give it to you in your favoured YES/NO format, YES, it is a stupid fucking question and NO, I don't think you're capable of backing up your opinions, despite being repeatedly asked to do so.

Perhaps you'd be better off just admitting that you have absolutely no evidence that the outrageous linguistic/religious prejudice shown in the Blue Books was on a par with "anyone who spoke a provincial dialect/language throughout the whole of the UK", and then maybe you might reflect while you're making such ill-informed, unresearched claims.


----------



## fanta (Jan 9, 2006)

Brockway said:
			
		

> "Do *you* think this report was an accurate representation of everyone in England's views at the time?
> 
> Yes/No?"
> 
> Tell me something, using your logic - who was to blame for the Jewish holocaust: Hitler? The Nazi hierarchy? or the German people?



The Jewish Holocauset can hardly be blamed on one single reason, enitity, person or people.

Factors such as the Treaty of Versaille, the economic condition of Weimar and an ingrained European tradition of anti-semitism surely played important parts.

But to suggest that every single German or European was anti-semitic is absurd - as is you apparent analogy of a 20th century genocide and a 19th century prejudiced 'report' on Wales/the Welsh language by the English Ruling elite.

Oh, and lewislewis: I'll mock anybody who deserves it regardless - and especially because - of their sacred precious nationalism. Ok?!


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> Oh, and lewislewis: I'll mock anybody who deserves it regardless - and especially because - of their sacred precious nationalism.


Seeing as you seem particularly active in this forum and I rarely see you banging on about other forms of nationalism, exactly why do the Welsh particularly 'deserve' it?


----------



## fanta (Jan 9, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> For the second time: there is no means of knowing what "everyone" in England thought at any given time, neither is it remotely likely that every single person in the country would all share the opinion, so your question is a complete non starter.
> 
> Or, to give it to you in your favoured YES/NO format, YES, it is a stupid fucking question and NO, I don't think you're capable of backing up your opinions, despite being repeatedly asked to do so.
> 
> Perhaps you'd be better off just admitting that you have absolutely no evidence that the outrageous linguistic/religious prejudice shown in the Blue Books was on a par with "anyone who spoke a provincial dialect/language throughout the whole of the UK", and then maybe you might reflect while you're making such ill-informed, unresearched claims.



I think that is a 'yes'! If so, well done.

Hopefully, this is the last time I need to repeat this to you: I was making a statement of opinon, definitely NOT historical fact. 

There is of course no way of proving my supposition one way or the other - well duh!

And anyway, why have you suddenly become so fucking *obssessed* on _evidence_? You've constantly ignored countless requests to back unfounded and thoroughly stupid accusations of bigotry and you have spectacularly failed to provide any _evidence_!


----------



## fanta (Jan 9, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Seeing as you seem particularly active in this forum and I rarely see you banging on about other forms of nationalism, exactly why do the Welsh particularly 'deserve' it?



Check my posts slating Irish Republicans and their equally dumb knuckle-dragging loyalist and British nationalist counterparts.

They're all bonkers...


----------



## editor (Jan 9, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> Hopefully, this is the last time I need to repeat this to you: I was making a statement of opinon, definitely NOT historical fact.


So you start debating on a thread discussing a specific historical document with a viewpoint that is entirely made up in your head and untroubled by any research, study or evidence?

Why?

Perhaps you'd be better off keeping your ignorant comments to yourself and letting those who are prepared to enage in an informed debate get on with it, no?

You might even learn something, you know.

Oh, and what's inherently 'nationalist' about discussing a historical document that dismissed my countrymen and women as "dirty, ignorant, lazy, drunk, superstitious, lying, and cheating" - just  because they were Nonconformists and spoke Welsh?


----------



## Brockway (Jan 9, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> But to suggest that every single German or European was anti-semitic is absurd - as is you apparent analogy of a 20th century genocide and a 19th century prejudiced 'report' on Wales/the Welsh language by the English Ruling elite.



Just interested in how you opportion blame. On the one hand you seem to blame a few individuals in a 'nothing to do with us guv' manner; on the other just about everybody appears to be culpable.

Who do you blame for England's colonization of Wales; India; Jamaica; Barbados; East Africa; Ireland; Afghanistan and all the others?


----------



## Hollis (Jan 10, 2006)

lewislewis said:
			
		

> Unfortunately it won't appear in any paper other than the Western Mail...we are forced to put up with Anglo-Centric media all the time. Its time to break with the British establishment.



Well its hardly earth shattering news is it?  A 150+ year old report is now available publicly..  I can't remember too many articles in the "Anglo-Centric" media  telling us that we can now access the Poor Law commission reports online.. (for example).


----------



## Hollis (Jan 10, 2006)

Dai Sheep said:
			
		

> It was certainly the view of the commission who made the report, who were appointed by the ruling 'British' ruling elite and indeed reportred back their reccomendations, to be implemented.



Actually wasn't a Welshman involved in setting up the commission?


----------



## editor (Jan 10, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Well its hardly earth shattering news is it?


I certainly can see why it shouldn't be of much interest to someone like you, but for Welsh people interested in their history, the document is a fascinating insight into the attitudes that helped shape their nation.

As a result of the document, the oldest language spoken in Britain was nearly destroyed, and the Welsh maligned as ignorant, lazy and immoral.

And yes, the commission was set up by a Welsh MP (living in Coventry) but the research was done by three English commissioners, whose inability to understand a single word of Welsh (which the majority of Welsh people spoke at the time) and their dislike of noncomformity arrived at their damning conclusion.

With no understanding of Welsh, the commissioners had to rely on information from witnesses, many of them Anglican clergymen.

Culturally, the report  had a major impact on the Welsh who were outraged at the findings, and some say that its effects can still be perceived today.

So that's what it's important to us, English boy.


----------



## fanta (Jan 10, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> So you start debating on a thread discussing a specific historical document with a viewpoint that is entirely made up in your head and untroubled by any research, study or evidence?
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...



You might not have noticed, but the very thread title implied (deliberately I suspect) that _all of victorian England_ held the same prejudiced views towards the Welsh and their language that is expressed in the 'report'!

You  reinforced (again, deliberately I suspect) this absurd notion by suggesting that the ideas might have somehow filtered down to ordinary English people, and somehow, by extension the whole of England.

You then compound the sheer absurdity of your fatuous argument by asserting my suggestion that maybe all of Victorian England didn't think like that is _ignorant_!

Finally, you go for the dishonest hat trick of questioning what I think is 'nationalist' about discussing the historical document in question! 

Which is not the case, as you know. I'm taking issue with the illogical nationalist argument whose logical conclusion is to believe and argue that 100% of another nation thought the same, are all to blame, and are all equally bad. 

That, it is just too silly and argument to make...


----------



## fanta (Jan 10, 2006)

Brockway said:
			
		

> Just interested in how you opportion blame. On the one hand you seem to blame a few individuals in a 'nothing to do with us guv' manner; on the other just about everybody appears to be culpable.
> 
> Who do you blame for England's colonization of Wales; India; Jamaica; Barbados; East Africa; Ireland; Afghanistan and all the others?



I think historians have been grappling for years working out who was to blame for the Holocaust, and I'm sure they will continue in that task for years to come...

The question is, as are the ones in your second paragraph very complex that would take whole volumes to answer.

Some people, entities and ideas - ranging from capitalism/market forces, religious zealotry, the propertied classes, industrial leaders, their workers and customers and their greed - were perhaps more to blame than others.

They're huge questions you're asking...

...what do you think?


----------



## Hollis (Jan 10, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I certainly can see why it shouldn't be of much interest to someone like you, but for Welsh people interested in their history, the document is a fascinating insight into the attitudes that helped shape their nation.
> 
> So that's what it's important to us, English boy.



But that wasn't really my point was it  lewislewis started going on about "Anglo Centric" media not reporting that this document is now available online.

Perhaps you could tell me of the news stories of other 150 year old reports now being available online.  Its really not big news.


----------



## editor (Jan 10, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Perhaps you could tell me of the news stories of other 150 year old reports now being available online.  Its really not big news.


Since when are all your threads 'big news'?

 

Being English, with what seems something of an inherrent dislike of the Welsh, I can see why it may not be of interest to you. 

But please don't try and speak on the behalf of Welsh people.
That document changed my nation and its availability online is big news to me.


----------



## fanta (Jan 10, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I certainly can see why it shouldn't be of much interest to someone like you, but for Welsh people interested in their history, the document is a fascinating insight into the attitudes that helped shape their nation.
> 
> As a result of the document, the oldest language spoken in Britain was nearly destroyed, and the Welsh maligned as ignorant, lazy and immoral.
> 
> ...



Well , I think it is historically fascinating, though I doubt the report was directly responsible for the near destruction of the Welsh language. 

The decline of Welsh as a spoken language was, sadly, I think inevitably. Certainly the report didn't help and even compounded that decline, but it was not solely to blame.

The tragedy of course is that bigotry begets bigotry and perpetuates itself.

_English boy_ - there is no need for this by the way...


----------



## editor (Jan 10, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> You might not have noticed, but the very thread title implied (deliberately I suspect) that _all of victorian England_ held the same prejudiced views towards the Welsh and their language that is expressed in the 'report'!
> 
> You  reinforced (again, deliberately I suspect) this absurd notion by suggesting that the ideas might have somehow filtered down to ordinary English people, and somehow, by extension the whole of England.


Actually, the title is simply offering a timeframe, rather like a TV show may talk of 'Victorian England's fashions.'

Seems blazingly obvious to me.


----------



## Hollis (Jan 10, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Since when are all your threads 'big news'?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not really anything of any substance here.  Can you provide any examples of the "Anglo-Centric" media proudly announcing that 19th century Govt reports are now available online?

Probably not.


----------



## editor (Jan 10, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> Well , I think it is historically fascinating, though I doubt the report was directly responsible for the near destruction of the Welsh language.


Actually, the use of the language fell drastically after the report - have you never heard of the 'Welsh not'?



> One drastic remedy -- the imposition of English-only Board Schools did much to further hasten the decline of Welsh over a great part of the country. In these schools, as in Flintshire a half century earlier, the "Welsh Not" rule was imposed with severe penalties for speaking Welsh, including the wearing of a wooden board, the old "Welsh lump" around one's neck.
> http://www.britannia.com/wales/whist17b.html





> The report lamented what the commissioners considered to be the sad state of education in Wales, the too-few schools, their deplorable condition, the unqualified teachers, the lack of supplies and suitable English texts, and the irregular attendance of the children. All these were attributed, along with dirtiness, laziness, ignorance, superstition, promiscuity and immorality to Nonconformity in religion, but in particular to the Welsh language. As the report stated:
> 
> The Welsh language is a vast drawback to Wales and a manifold barrier to the moral progress and commercial prosperity of the people. It is not easy to over-estimate its evil effects.


----------



## editor (Jan 10, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Not really anything of any substance here.  Can you provide any examples of the "Anglo-Centric" media proudly announcing that 19th century Govt reports are now available online?
> 
> Probably not.


I give up. Just because the report is of no interest to you, you have the arrogance to announce that they can't be of interest to anyone else.


----------



## fanta (Jan 10, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Actually, the use of the language fell drastically after the report - have you never heard of the 'Welsh not'?



I think we're in agreement here.

I just don't think the report is the only reason and I suspect that the decline of Welsh - like Irish for that matter - was inevitable during and after the Industrial Revolution/the British Empire...


----------



## Hollis (Jan 10, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I give up. Just because the report is of no interest to you, you have the arrogance to announce that they can't be of interest to anyone else.



Not at all.. You're either misreading my posts, or deliberately choosing not to understand.


----------



## editor (Jan 10, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> I think we're in agreement here.
> 
> I just don't think the report is the only reason and I suspect that the decline of Welsh - like Irish for that matter - was inevitable during and after the Industrial Revolution/the British Empire...


Not disagreeing, but the report vastly accelerated the decline, and it's right that the brutality shown in trying to get rid of the language should be publicised.

I'd never heard of the 'Welsh not' until long after school and it's recent history!


----------



## Brockway (Jan 10, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> I think historians have been grappling for years working out who was to blame for the Holocaust, and I'm sure they will continue in that task for years to come...
> 
> The question is, as are the ones in your second paragraph very complex that would take whole volumes to answer.
> 
> ...



I blame the English.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 10, 2006)

Brockway said:
			
		

> I blame the English.



who else!   

oh and fanta naturally


----------



## niclas (Jan 10, 2006)

There was nothing inevitable about the decline of the Welsh language - it was largely due to cultural imperialism,often with a complicit Welsh-speaking middle class that thought the way to "get on" was via English.

The impact of the Welsh Not and the Blue Books is part of that cultural imperialism. The use of a device like the Welsh Not was common in Brittany too (and I would guess the Scottish Highlands and Ireland) but I can't imagine a broad Yorkshire accent was treated with the same violence (remember the school child wearing the Not at the end of the week was caned).

This was not disdain for a "provincial" accent, as Fanta has claimed. It was violent hostility to a national language that was perceived to undermine the British/English identity. 

And far from economic expansion being the death knell for the language, it was the boom in the Welsh coalfields that saved the Welsh language from going the way of Scots Gaelic - rather than emigrate and be absorbed culturally into the far greater US, Canadian, Australian or English populations, rural Welsh workers generally made their way to the Black Klondyke of the Valleys and N E Wales. They took their language with them.


----------



## fanta (Jan 10, 2006)

Brockway said:
			
		

> I blame the English.



Define English then.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 10, 2006)

> And far from economic expansion being the death knell for the language, it was the boom in the Welsh coalfields that saved the Welsh language from going the way of Scots Gaelic - rather than emigrate and be absorbed culturally into the far greater US, Canadian, Australian or English populations, rural Welsh workers generally made their way to the Black Klondyke of the Valleys and N E Wales. They took their language with them.



Aye, and in some areas taught their English workmates welsh.

Another reason that welsh was abandoned by many welsh speakers was its association with the cloying world of the chapel, many young people in the first decades of the twentieth century (when welsh became a minority lanuage) abandoned welsh along with chapel going etc as they escaped the narrow traditional world of rural wales.


----------



## fanta (Jan 10, 2006)

niclas said:
			
		

> This was not disdain for a "provincial" accent, as Fanta has claimed. It was violent hostility to a national language that was perceived to undermine the British/English identity.



But cultural imperialism, given the circumstances that enabled it's rise, *was inevitable*! 

Therefore, the decline of languages like Welsh, Cornish and Irish were likewise *inevitable*! I mean, one could even argue the process has carried on with native speakers of Dutch, Flemish and Danish often being as fluent in English as well as their native tongues, and English becoming one of the main requirements for international business.

Historical circumstances mean that languages will change, evolve, decline and/or come to prominence.

I wonder if you think the decline of Latin, Ancient Arabic, Aramaic or even Olde/Middle English were inevitable or some dastardly imperialist plot?!


----------



## Gavin Bl (Jan 10, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> Therefore, the decline of languages like Welsh, Cornish and Irish were likewise *inevitable*! I mean, one could even argue the process has carried on with native speakers of Dutch, Flemish and Danish often being as fluent in English as well as their native tongues, and English becoming one of the main requirements for international business.



This is fair enough as it goes, there is certainly a strong historical trend to the extinguishing of regional languages, but maybe not inevitable - otherwise, the language would have not recovered. And it recovered primarily because of the efforts of those loathesome welsh nationalists. Nationalism is always a dangerous game in the long run, but it can have a progressive role to play in more marginalised countries.


----------



## lewislewis (Jan 10, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Well its hardly earth shattering news is it?  A 150+ year old report is now available publicly..  I can't remember too many articles in the "Anglo-Centric" media  telling us that we can now access the Poor Law commission reports online.. (for example).



You can read the Poor Law commission reports in an A-Level history textbook as I did two or three years ago.


----------



## lewislewis (Jan 10, 2006)

Gavin Bl said:
			
		

> This is fair enough as it goes, there is certainly a strong historical trend to the extinguishing of regional languages, but maybe not inevitable - otherwise, the language would have not recovered. And it recovered primarily because of the efforts of those loathesome welsh nationalists. Nationalism is always a dangerous game in the long run, but it can have a progressive role to play in more marginalised countries.



Welsh Nationalism has nothing to do with any other kind of nationalism. For example, compare the Welsh Nationalism of Plaid Cymru to the British Nationalism of the London establishment- one is concerned with progressive politics and an international Wales, the other is concerned with holding on to a multi-national empire.


----------



## niclas (Jan 10, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> But cultural imperialism, given the circumstances that enabled it's rise, *was inevitable*!
> 
> Therefore, the decline of languages like Welsh, Cornish and Irish were likewise *inevitable*! I mean, one could even argue the process has carried on with native speakers of Dutch, Flemish and Danish often being as fluent in English as well as their native tongues, and English becoming one of the main requirements for international business.



Yes, that's another kind of cultural imperialism.

But I think even Fanta would agree there's a difference between a Dutch person who is fluent in her/his own language (which is officially recognised and respected) but also speaks English/German/French fluently to communicate on the internet or whatever and a minority language that (until 1967) had no official recognition and was literally beaten out of a generation of kids. 

Of course things have changed now and the British state has adopted a view that the Welsh language can be thrown some crumbs. The fundamentals that threaten its existence as a living community language aren't altered (i.e. free-market capitalism, unaffordable housing and lack of decent jobs) but as long as we can watch Pobol y Cwm on $4C and get a pitiful grant for the National Eisteddfod we shouldn't complain too much, should we?



> Historical circumstances mean that languages will change, evolve, decline and/or come to prominence.



What was your subject on Mastermind - the bleedin' obvious?



> I wonder if you think the decline of Latin, Ancient Arabic, Aramaic or even Olde/Middle English were inevitable or some dastardly imperialist plot?!



Latin evolved into Italian, Spanish, French, etc, etc. Ancient Arabic presumably became modern Arabic. Old English became Modern English with a lot of Norman and other words thrown in. Your point?


----------



## fanta (Jan 10, 2006)

niclas said:
			
		

> Your point?



That all languages change and evolve with some declining and others coming to prominence.

Welsh is a language and is therefore subject to the above.

For somebody who seems fond of the phrase the ''bleedin' obvious'' you don't appear to be determined not to grasp it's meaning.


----------



## Brockway (Jan 10, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> Define English then.



German squatters.  

Fanta you're an apologist for English imperialism and you know you are.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Jan 10, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> Define English then.



Can i try?

How about 'that pertaining to the land of England'

Usages of this term are as below

e.g. the *English* football team - the football team that represents England

or

irritating *English* cunt


----------



## Gavin Bl (Jan 10, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> That all languages change and evolve with some declining and others coming to prominence.
> 
> Welsh is a language and is therefore subject to the above.
> 
> For somebody who seems fond of the phrase the ''bleedin' obvious'' you don't appear to be determined not to grasp it's meaning.



Natural evolution of a language is different to attempts to eradicate a language.


----------



## Gavin Bl (Jan 10, 2006)

lewislewis said:
			
		

> Welsh Nationalism has nothing to do with any other kind of nationalism. For example, compare the Welsh Nationalism of Plaid Cymru to the British Nationalism of the London establishment- one is concerned with progressive politics and an international Wales, the other is concerned with holding on to a multi-national empire.



Agreed, but its not hard to look into a future where it could (repeat could) be used to different ends - where legitimate critcism of 'England/Englishness' and its impact on Wales, becomes transformed into simply attacking English people, using crude nationalist language as a distraction from other divisions or injustices. 

Currently though I agree, equating welsh nationalism and british nationalism is pretty crass.


----------



## cathal marcs (Jan 10, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> But come on, this is the Welsh forum and cathal marcs should be allowed to trumpet his indignant prejudice!
> 
> Because those English - sorry, Sais - are all the same you know?!
> 
> Carry on cathal...



In what ways am I trumpeting my _'indignat prejudice'_? Ive only posted an article thatI thought would be of interest to some Welsh posters here and judging by the number of replies its stimulated some debate.

What makes you think I dislike people from England i wouldn't live in England if I dislike them. Where have I ever made derogatory remarks about English folk to lead you to this assertion?





			
				fanta said:
			
		

> You might not have noticed, but the very thread title implied (deliberately I suspect) that all of victorian England held the same prejudiced views towards the Welsh and their language that is expressed in the 'report'!



No sinister intentions just a direct copy and paste of the title of the article bud. Ive changed the title of this thread for you didn't think it would cause offence I just viewed it as a timeline to be honest.


----------



## niclas (Jan 11, 2006)

*What have the English ever done for us?*




			
				fanta said:
			
		

> That all languages change and evolve with some declining and others coming to prominence.
> 
> Welsh is a language and is therefore subject to the above.
> 
> For somebody who seems fond of the phrase the ''bleedin' obvious'' you don't appear to be determined not to grasp it's meaning.



The examples you gave were not relevant to Welsh - unless Aramaic speakers had an Aramaic Not, the Aramaic Language Board and such like foisted on them (we're straying into Life of Brian territory here...)

You were trying to show that Welsh declined *inevitably*. I reject that claim and have tried to show otherwise. I don't think you've explained the inevitability of the decline at all.


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

Brockway said:
			
		

> German squatters.
> 
> Fanta you're an apologist for English imperialism and you know you are.



Simplistic excrement. What about the input of the Norse, Romans, Europeans, Africans, Asians & Celts into the make up of the English?

The English are the world's most illigitimate 'race', we've got everybodys' blood running through our veins. 

How much better is that than the hopeless veneration of being a 'pure' celt or 'pure' aryan or 'pure' whatever...

You're just showing your desperation in accusing me of being an English imperialist and you know it. 

You know you will not be able to find a single post of mine that supports any sort of imperialism - you've probably already had a quick search already, right?  - but go on have another pointless look... 

...then I'll accept your apology later, you _mug_!


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> Can i try?



After some more practice, I think.

Dickhead.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2006)

> Simplistic excrement. What about the input of the Norse, Romans, Europeans, Africans, Asians & Celts into the make up of the English?



What about it?  This obsession with 'racial purity' is all in your own head and simply reflects your own racist views.


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

niclas said:
			
		

> You were trying to show that Welsh declined *inevitably*. I reject that claim and have tried to show otherwise. I don't think you've explained the inevitability of the decline at all.



That is fair enough.

I think it was inevitable because England - for better or for worse - was destined to become, because of historical factors like Industrial Revolution, geography, trade and nascent empire, one of the most powerful; nations on the planet.

Not supporting or venerating that, just stating it as opinon...


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

cathal marcs said:
			
		

> No sinister intentions just a direct copy and paste of the title of the article bud. Ive changed the title of this thread for you didn't think it would cause offence I just viewed it as a timeline to be honest.



Ok, fair enough. I believe you and apologies...


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> What about it?  This obsession with 'racial purity' is all in your own head and simply reflects your own racist views.



You can scuttle off now and help that mug Brockway find some evidence for that, pal!


----------



## editor (Jan 11, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> This obsession with 'racial purity' is all in your own head and simply reflects your own racist views.


Noted for the next time he starts following me around the boards trying to drag this topic up again.


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Noted for the next time he starts following me around the boards trying to drag this topic up again.



 

Following _you_ around?

Don't fucking flatter yourself!


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Jan 11, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> You can scuttle off now and help that mug Brockway find some evidence for that, pal!



What next?

Jog on?


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> What next?
> 
> Jog on?



Poor old Orange Cunt, he's got nothing better to do in life than desperately try and troll the welsh forum


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Poor old Orange Cunt, he's got nothing better to do in life than desperately try and troll the welsh forum



Is this a witty way of disguising the fact that you haven't found any examples yet? 

Awww...


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> Is this a witty way of disguising the fact that you haven't found any examples yet?
> 
> Awww...



Your foul bigotry is plain to see every time you attempt to troll the wales forum. 

Your a bigotted cunt with a chip on your shoulder about the welsh, you were well and truly rumbled a long time ago, bleating on about 'evidence' just makes you look even more of a self pitying twat.


----------



## Hollis (Jan 11, 2006)

lewislewis said:
			
		

> You can read the Poor Law commission reports in an A-Level history textbook as I did two or three years ago.



Yes.. not quite the point I was making though.. its not as if these Blue books have suddenly become declassified information.


----------



## RubberBuccaneer (Jan 11, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> Is this a witty way of disguising the fact that you haven't found any examples yet?
> 
> Awww...



What examples are you looking for?

I've become disorientated because of your foul mouth tirades.


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Your foul bigotry is plain to see every time you attempt to troll the wales forum.
> 
> Your a bigotted cunt with a chip on your shoulder about the welsh, you were well and truly rumbled a long time ago, bleating on about 'evidence' just makes you look even more of a self pitying twat.



Curiously though, only plain to see for those who spectacularly fail, like *you*, to provide *any* examples of it though...t'is a very strange thing!

Rather they just froth at the mouth like you  - go on, demonstrate your superior debating skills by calling me a cunt again, this time with _real_ feeling!


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> What examples are you looking for?



Of being a bigot! You lovable slow-learner.   




			
				RubberBuccaneer said:
			
		

> I've become disorientated because of your foul mouth tirades.



Foul mouthed tirades?

Can this be the same daft Rubbery one who once opined: *irritating English cunt*?

Surely not!!!


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> Curiously though, only plain to see for those who spectacularly fail, like *you*, to provide *any* examples of it though...t'is a very strange thing!
> 
> Rather they just froth at the mouth like you  - go on, demonstrate your superior debating skills by calling me a cunt again, this time with _real_ feeling!



The 'evidence' of your cuntishness is in every lying, bigotted post you make fanta, as well you know. I dont think anyone is fooled anymore by the desperate whining about 'evidence' every time you get caught trolling.


----------



## editor (Jan 11, 2006)

Well, this thread's turning into a right charmer!


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Well, this thread's turning into a right charmer!



Its the same old bigots who attempt to derail no end of threads in the wales forum.


----------



## Hollis (Jan 11, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Its the same old bigots who attempt to derail no end of threads in the wales forum.



Oh really Belushi.. and assuming you include me, perhaps you'd like to explain how i'm "derailing" this thead.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Oh really Belushi.. and assuming you include me, perhaps you'd like to explain how i'm "derailing" this thead.



Why are you assuming I'm including you?

You've been behaving yourself as far as I'm aware since your last banning for your anti-welsh bigotry.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2006)

Still dont let the facts try and get in the way of trying to start a fight eh?


----------



## Hollis (Jan 11, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> You've been behaving yourself as far as I'm aware since your last banning for your anti-welsh bigotry.



Ho!Ho!  Wishes for two further accounts of paedophilia and one of non-specific rascism to be taken into account..   

So who are the 'bigots' you refer to?


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Ho!Ho!  Wishes for two further accounts of paedophilia and one of non-specific rascism to be taken into account..
> 
> So who are the 'bigots' you refer to?



Whats it to you? Given your previous banning I think you'd be wise to try and control your anti-welsh feelings and try not to get into any rucks in this forum.


----------



## Gavin Bl (Jan 11, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Yes.. not quite the point I was making though.. its not as if these Blue books have suddenly become declassified information.



True, but they are not widely known about, even in Wales.


----------



## Hollis (Jan 11, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Whats it to you? Given your previous banning I think you'd be wise to try and control your anti-welsh feelings and try not to get into any rucks in this forum.




Why- the amount of abuse flying around here from some Welsh posters, suggests maybe they should calm down abit.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Why- the amount of abuse flying around here from some Welsh posters, suggests maybe they should calm down abit.



If you see anyone breaking the FAQ your best bet is to report it.


----------



## Hollis (Jan 11, 2006)

Gavin Bl said:
			
		

> True, but they are not widely known about, even in Wales.




Fair enough.. then again I doubt the Poor Laws are in England, particularly. The point is that I think their publicity (or lack of) has very little to do with an Anglo-Centric media.


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> If you see anyone breaking the FAQ your best bet is to report it.







			
				Belushi said:
			
		

> Your a bigotted cunt






			
				Belushi said:
			
		

> Poor old Orange Cunt



From the FAQ: 7. Racism/*personal abuse*/defamatory postings/gratuitous swearing etc is not allowed.

If you're that concerned about reporting FAG-busting posts here are a couple for you to start with...


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> From the FAQ: 7. Racism/*personal abuse*/defamatory postings/gratuitous swearing etc is not allowed.
> 
> If you're that concerned about reporting FAG-busting posts here are a couple for you to start with...



I'm not, I was advising Hollis. Feel free to report me if you think I've got you wrong Fanta.


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

I'm not a snitch - but I might well report you if I think you actually got something _right_!


----------



## editor (Jan 11, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> FAG-busting


Isn't that against the law?


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> I'm not a snitch - but I might well report you if I think you actually got something _right_!



I've got your sp pal


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Isn't that against the law?




Not if it is consenting...


----------



## Gavin Bl (Jan 11, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Fair enough.. then again I doubt the Poor Laws are in England, particularly. The point is that I think their publicity (or lack of) has very little to do with an Anglo-Centric media.



I agree broadly with that, Hollis, though I think the Poor Laws are more widely known. 

However, Britain does have a very successful history of quietly dropping or ignoring its various colonial crimes and horrors, and while this is considerably less shocking (and more ancient) than say, British actions in Kenya during the Mau Mau rising, its disappearance from popular history is comparable at some level. Its weird, there seems to be this general agreement not to talk about such things.


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

Gavin Bl said:
			
		

> However, Britain does have a very successful history of quietly dropping or ignoring its various colonial crimes and horrors,



You're right, but doesn't every post-empire country tend to do this sort of thing?


----------



## Gavin Bl (Jan 11, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> You're right, but doesn't every post-empire country tend to do this sort of thing?



oh totally agree, there's nothing particularly unique about the shabby treatment dished out to Wales from time to time - doesn't mean it wasn't shabby, and that people should know about it though.


----------



## Brockway (Jan 11, 2006)

"You know you will not be able to find a single post of mine that supports any sort of imperialism - you've probably already had a quick search already, right?  - but go on have another pointless look... "

Er, no I haven't. Do you really think I'd go looking through _anybody's_ old posts let alone yours? Sounds like you're suffering from rampant egomania mate.. and you appear to have misplaced your sense of humour.


----------



## Hollis (Jan 11, 2006)

Gavin Bl said:
			
		

> Its weird, there seems to be this general agreement not to talk about such things.



That's pretty much the same with all popular histories though..

There's also a question of what you do with history..its there to be used and abused.


----------



## Brockway (Jan 11, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> You're right, but doesn't every post-empire country tend to do this sort of thing?



What, and that makes it OK? England is in permanent denial about its imperialist past. If anything I detect a sense of loss at its passing. We've even still got people dishing out the Order of the British Empire for God's sake. Arcane or a lament for the passing of empire?


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

Brockway said:
			
		

> What, and that makes it OK? England is in permanent denial about its imperialist past. If anything I detect a sense of loss at its passing. We've even still got people dishing out the Order of the British Empire for God's sake. Arcane or a lament for the passing of empire?



No tending to ignore past crimes is not ok, but, human nature being what it is, that they are ignored is hardly surprising is it?


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

Brockway said:
			
		

> you appear to have misplaced your sense of humour.



Fuck off.

(that was a joke)


----------



## Brockway (Jan 11, 2006)

"The English are the world's most illigitimate 'race', we've got everybodys' blood running through our veins."

Utter drivel. The majority of English people are of anglo-saxon descent.

Don't confuse London or other urban centres with England. Having lived in England for about 13 years I would say that the English are far more racist than the Welsh. There is a simple reason for this: the power ratio in England between white and black is that of (resentful) colonizer and colonized; whereas in Wales it that of colonized and colonized.

Talking of race - a recent disturbing trend is the amount of English racists moving to Wales as part of the "white flight" from the Midlands. So not only are we getting loads of people who don't give a fig about Welsh culture moving here but they all think Nick Griffin is great too - charming.


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

Is there a bad tempered echoe in here?


----------



## Brockway (Jan 11, 2006)

er, oops - don't know how that happened. Apologies all round for the triplicate post.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2006)

> Utter drivel. The majority of English people are of anglo-saxon descent



Maybe we should have another thread about that subject!


----------



## editor (Jan 11, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> Is there a bad tempered echoe in here?


It's not 'bad tempered', neither was it Brockway's fault - it was because the database was temp overloaded. Posts now deleted.


----------



## Hollis (Jan 11, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Maybe we should have another thread about that subject!



Didn't we do that several years ago?


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Didn't we do that several years ago?



I think I vaguely remember something about it, probably turned into a bunfight


----------



## Brockway (Jan 11, 2006)

I don't remember the details but I think I was right and you lot were all wrong....


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> It's not 'bad tempered', neither was it Brockway's fault - it was because the database was temp overloaded. Posts now deleted.



Sincerest apologies, the idea of our friend Brockwell being bad tempered is of course too silly to contemplate.


----------



## editor (Jan 11, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> Sincerest apologies, the idea of our friend Brockwell being bad tempered is of course too silly to contemplate.


Any chance you might stop trying to stir things up any further?


----------



## fanta (Jan 11, 2006)

Aw, come on, we're all friends despite all this, right?   

I reckon you're all okay really...   

(I luv you guys, honest...    )


----------



## Gavin Bl (Jan 11, 2006)

fanta said:
			
		

> Aw, come on, we're all friends despite all this, right?
> 
> I reckon you're all okay really...
> 
> (I luv you guys, honest...    )



Ooo - their a cunning lot, those English . . .


----------

