Are the people of England, Anglo Saxon or Celt?
The notion that the Anglo-Saxons came and slaughtered a huge chunk of the population of the British Isles has been debunked for years. Per the following article: "The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago" "Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots." "Celts were not our main aboriginal stock" "The orthodox view of the origins of the Celts turns out to be an archaeological myth left over from the 19th century" -http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry/#.UiBZ9yDD_tQ So your probably not even Celtic, Roman, Germanic, or Scandinavian ;) Only to know 100 per cent for sure, would be to get your DNA tested or extend your family tree back hundreds of generations.
What would happen if the 140 million+ members of the Anglo-Celtic diaspora returned to their ancestral islands?
A shrinking minority of Americans are descended from the British Isles, and a big chunk of them would go to Ireland, which would probably be happy to have them as long as they brought their bank accounts with them. Ireland has had net emigration ever since the Famine, except for a brief period during the Celtic Tiger. Here are the fifteen largest ancestries of the American population as of 2000:Adding the English and Scottish together and assuming that the Irish and Scotch-Irish go off to the island of Ireland, we get 10.4% of the American population, or about 31,200,000 people returning to mainland Britain. In other words, from the USA alone, the population increases by about half.This might possibly be enough to tip the balance against the monarchy and establish a republic. It's not enough to get us driving on the other side of the road, though, especially as the incoming Aussies and Kiwis will vote to drive on the left also. We'll still keep imperial measurements.As there are already plenty of burger joints in the UK and baseball and American football are slowly making inroads, and it seems like half of what is on British cable TV is American-made anyway, that won't change much. The shift to American spelling, which is already under way, will accelerate.The biggest improvement will be that the Americans will bring in decent pizza. British pizza is a pale, pathetic imitation of the American, with nowhere near enough topping and inferior cheese and dough. American-owned pizza places will drive the British ones out of business.The Tories will cheer, as the influx of Americans, if they all became naturalized citizens, will mostly become Conservative voters. This will enable them to complete the destruction of the NHS; pull out of Europe; break up the UK into quasi-autonomous "states" each with its own idea about who is allowed to get married, be a doctor, etc.; wipe out the welfare state; arm the police and every other idiot who wants a gun; and so on.I doubt that there are enough Anglo-origin Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders to prevent this.
Is it becoming extremely hard for non-Anglo-Saxon-Celtic to find work and live in Australia?
This is just troll-bait. I happen to be Australian of predominantly Anglo-Celtic background. I am 63y old. I was never able to get a real job in Australia despite 30+y of trying. I have an academic job in SE-Asia.The truth is that we need more people in Australia like a hole in the head. There is nothing for them to do and nowhere for them to live. Except for tradesmen and technicians we do not need immigrants. And the only reason why we have a shortage of tradesmen and technicians is our lousy vocational technical education facilities.Do not pull the race card. There are no jobs for anyone.
Name all of the non-Anglo Saxon Protestant presidents in U.S. history?
Nearly half of U.S. Presidents have been non-Anglo Saxson protestants Episcopalian: G Washington, J Maddison, J Monroe, W Harrison, J Taylor, Z Taylor, F Pierce, C Author, FDR, G Ford, GWH Bush Quaker: H Hoover, R Nixson Unitarian: J Adams, JQ Adams, M Filmore, W Taft, Roman Catholic: JFK African American: B Obama Not affiliated a denomination A Lincoln US Grant A Johnston RB Hayes
Is it true that Anglo-Celtics suffer the least discrimination of all ethnic groups in Australia and are the most favoured ethnic group in Australia?
Yes, of course, especially given that they (we) are the majority. Australia is growing out of its historical racism, thank God, but it was originally founded on the White Australia Policy. Our Aboriginal citizens are still suffering today from the legacy of Aussie racism and contempt for non-whites.The White Australia Policy was discarded in the year I was born (1972) with the election of the visionary Labor government of Gough Whitlam. Australia’s done much better since then but we’ve still got some work to do to kill off racism once and for all.In the early days, even the Irish used to get a bit of discrimination but that’s long ago in the past now, and much of the core white population is a blend of English, Irish, Scottish and whatever else. An Australian of this broad Anglo-Celtic background is generally what is assumed to be an “Aussie” and the Anglo-Celtic ethnicity is simply subsumed under the general sense of being an Australian. For example. my own background is quite mixed and I’m actually Jewish, but I also have a big dose of Anglo-Celtic ancestry (as should be clear from my Scottish surname) however, although my Anglo-celtic ancestors were mainly Irish and Scottish (and probably English somewhere down the line), I would not call myself a “Celtic-Australian” or anything like that. My Celtic ancestry has not contributed anything noticeable to me other than genes; it is not really an ethnic identity. I’m just an Aussie of mixed heritage, and I think a lot of other Anglo-Celtics (or part Anglo-Celtics like myself) think in the same way.
Will immigrants eventually replace existing British people demographically since they have below replacement fertility rate?
They will not. As noted by (for instance) a glance at Sylvie Dubuc's paper "Fertility by ethnic and religious groups in the UK, trends in a multi-cultural context", high if sub-replacement fertility in white Britons is copied by most other immigrant groups. The only exceptions to this trend are Britons of Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent, but in recent years fertility in these groups has also been falling rapidly.The United Kingdom in a century's time will certainly look different. Talk of wholesale replacement of the white British population is alarmist in the extreme, and not accurate. I would be prepared to bet that a large majority of the British population in 2115 will trace its ancestry to the white British majority of 2015. There will certainly be mixture with other populations, but then there always has been. The assimilation of Catholics of Irish immigrant background comes to mind.A wholesale demographic shift would require very large and unexpected shifts in migration, to degrees that I think no one would accept. It might require something like, for instance, the return of the 140 million+ members of the Anglo-Celtic diaspora to their ancestral islands. Movements on this scale not being likely, we would have to count on surprise events. By their nature, they are not foreseeable.
Is Celtic a culture, religion, ethnicity or what?
Celtic peoples spoke similar languages, but they were dispersed by the Romans building their empire. So they mostly migrated into places where the Romans were not active, and carried on living and speaking their celtic tongue. There are two major branches of Celtic languages. There's Gaelic, which was spoken across Scotland, Ireland, the Isle of Man, and Cornwall, and the Gallic tongue, spoken in Wales and Brittany. You find that a speaker of one will understand a lot of the other, but they are not quite the same. If you understand a little of either it makes understanding French a lot easier. A lot of the linguistic rules of French derive from Gallic roots, that is why they don't have any neuter nouns.