But they have their own indigenous languages. There is Irish, Scottish, Welsh and Cornish dialects of Gaelic. Just because the majority speak the language of colonisers doesn’t mean they’re the same ethnicity. Surely you can understand that much
Half of Europe spoke these languages, including the area now known as England. What do you mean by colonisers? The Normans?
Have to agree to disagree. There are definitely ethnic groups existing today descended from Celtic tribes as much as today’s Scandinavians are recognised as a a distinct ethnic group. And race includes different ethnicities
I agree but you seem to be under the impression that the English are not descended from Celtic tribes as well. They are and this is my whole point
Yes the name Celt is a modern term to describe the tribes that lived in Western Europe when the Romans invaded. This is because they went by tribal names and all that was recorded name wise are what the Romans called them (the Pictii), not what they called themselves. The Celts had no written tradition, only oral through their druids and barfs
I think you meant to say bards? It's just auto corrected it as barfs for me too 
Yes the Roman's recorded Celtic tribes when they came to Britain
Which the conquering Romans massacred methodically. Separating these tribes from their own history and identity.
The Roman's did not specifically set out to massacre them. They established garrison towns and gave some tribal leaders local governance. Some more cooperative than others
But the fact that recent historians call these peoples Celts doesn’t mean they never existed and never had shared culture or ethnicity.
I'm not saying they never existed, I'm saying it is not an ethnicity. It is a time period and language branch. It isn't clear whether it was a spread of people or a spread of culture. The Roman's spread their culture but not all Europeans under Roman culture and rule were actual Roman's. Far from it
It certainly doesn’t mean that the Britons in Britain from 500 BC to 500 AD were the same people as the invading Anglo Saxons.
The Anglo Saxons did not replace the Britains. They invaded, just as the Roman's had invaded and the Vikings and Normans would after them. But the people remained the same. This was one of the findings of the DNA study I linked but had already been suspected. That all these invading forces, conquerors bringing language and culture if you like, left so little DNA trace in the people. Maybe in some places, East Anglia for example, they left more but as a whole not so much
And how could they be? Different language, different cultures, different ancestors, different religion.
Well yes but, apart from ancestors, these are nothing to do with the common man's ethnicity. Rome ruled Britain for 400 years, everything changed, culture, language, religion etc, but the people just plodded along in the fields the same. They were not massacred, but subdued
I said: “Culture and ethnicity go hand in hand. It’s ridiculous for you to suggest otherwise.”
Not necessarily and especially not if the new culture is better for people. Architecture, roads, military, laws, weaponary and metal work, pots, farming. This is how Celtic culture is thought to have spread from central Europe. Possibly near Austria area? It was not a race, it was a new way of doing things
You’ve lost me here because an Anglo Saxon style burial is not Christian style at all. Look up Sutton Hoo. That’s an Anglo Saxon burial. And the archaeologists do know the difference between a burial that is Anglo Saxon or Briton or Roman or medieval and would not be led astray by the presence of goods gotten through trade from other cultures.
Yes but that was not my point and they were already becoming Christanised anyway. But there is no evidence of replacement of the people by Anglo Saxons, in burials, even before DNA. My point is, just because a burial is of the style of a time, it does not follow that we can know the ethnic origin of the person buried. DNA studies of Anglo Saxon style/ era burials show that many of those buried were not AS but rather people whose ancestors were pre AS arrival
It isn't clear if Sutton Hoo actually was a burial mound. There are no remains
Sorry but I disagree that there is no difference in culture between Irish and English. I am sure some Irish and English posters would be happy to explain that they are not identical carbon copies. It ridiculous for you to say that given the fact the English attempted to genocide the Irish not once but twice in the past 400yrs.
I didn't say they are carbon copies. I said the culture is the same. What is the difference?
Which genocides are those?
Not exactly. Religious intolerance did exist. So Irish catholics were treated worse than the Irish Protestants, but similarly all Irish were treated worse than all English regardless of religion.
I'm not sure how true this is and people changed religious denominations all the time, across the British Isles. There are still many English Catholics. Some Irish became Methodists ot other Nonconformists. Protestant was Nonconformist. The Church of England is a reformed Catholic church. Its complicated
It’s just not true that ethnicity played no part in how the Irish were treated by the English.
Who do you mean when you say "the English"? Do you mean the government and what example?
Sorry if the quotes are in the wrong order. I'm on a phone . Thankyou for your replies. Interesting