User talk:88.110.127.48

October 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Scottish people. From your previous bans and blocks, you are fully aware you are indeffed; the article edits are particularly blatantly bad faith. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I don't know what 'indeffed' means, Mutt.


 * Short for blocked indefinitely. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert the last edit. Romance-speaking Normans and French were incorporated into the 'Scottish' nation. As were Germanic-speaking Frisians and Flemish. And in fairly significant numbers to boot.

Do you at least see the ridiculousness of such a vapid identity, Mutt? Do you see the ridiculousness of what you're actively attempting to censor and whitewash on these pages. I hope you manage to grow up at some point, and embrace reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.127.48 (talk • contribs)
 * You, under whatever guise, are blocked from editing, indefinitely. It's not a difficult concept. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I'm sure that's really why you're deleting it, Mutt. Why don't you insert it back in yourself then. You little rat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.127.48 (talk • contribs)

Are we denying Strathclyde was a British kingdom now, Mutt? British is a fairly common historical term for the Celtic Britons. You could have easily changed it to Brittonic, it was linked to the Celtic Britons article which made it significantly less confusing an edit than you claimed. But you removed it completely, didn't you. Pitiful stuff. I'm saying was, according to your logic they still are all Brittonic there today, right? Because they descend from Celtic Britons and you don't stop being [insert ethnic group] when you stop speaking the languages associated with them and get absorbed into other groups. They can never really become "Scottish" or "English" can they, because ethnicity is some genetically imbued, unchangeable thing according to you and your previous comments regarding it. That logic is really coming back to bite you, isn't it Mutt. Are you now perhaps willing to admit people in Scotland are merely regional types of English people today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.127.48 (talk • contribs)


 * Just can't help yourself from blatant false attribution of views to others. As you know, the issue is your block. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Mutt, sweety, you literally tried to equate calling people in Scotland/England today Germanic (since they speak English, overwhelmingly have Germanic compound patronymic names, descend from all the same historical groups as Germanic peoples, are genetically and phenotypically indistinguishable from other Germanic peoples etc. etc.) to calling sub-Saharan Africans and Indians etc. etc. Germanic because some of them speak English (although very few of them speak it as a mothertongue, believe me). Selective memory kicking into gear again, is it? I believe your exact words were very close to "Are sub-Saharan Africans Germanic? Are Native Americans Germanic?". It was on the English people talk page, I'm pretty sure you could still find archives of the discussion. Would you like me to present them to you?

So, Mutt, you once accused me of doing the same thing I'm accusing you of doing here with the Picts. Which was to deny the Picts ever 'became Irish/Gaelic/Scottish' or whatever just because they went from speaking Pictish to speaking Scottish (or Gaelic). And to be honest you were totally right, that's exactly what I was doing. It was a pure cope and attempt at historical revisionism. Because to the world, that's exactly what happened. Even if the Picts were just largely assimilated by incoming Gaelic peoples to their language and culture, even if the 'Scottish' of the 1500s were largely of Pictish descent, it didn't matter to contemporaries (or even to the people unknowingly largely of Pictish descent) did it? As far they, and everyone else of the time, were concerned they were descended from Irish invaders and conquerors, right? For how else would they have come to speak a language clearly descended from Irish. It didn't stop the Picts being mythologized as some fantastical race that were wiped out by the Gaels in their glorious conquest and foundation of 'Alba', as you well know if you have any background in history. Assimilation is a real thing, it happens. It's common all throughout Europe. There's an entire and pervasive history of it, especially in Central Europe with French people becoming German then later being made French again and Polonization and Germanization and Romanization and Slavicization. It's not uncommon, it's not unique to the British Isles. You can address it in these articles by saying assimilation was a factor in the conquest and disappearance of (for example Cumbrians, who made a timely exit from history books shortly after their language is believed to have died out), as it is in most conquests/colonizations. But language shift is a fundamental change in identity. Whether you like it or not. It's a fundamental shift in how others will perceive you, how the future historians will perceive and indeed categorize you. We don't look back in history and question whether those who spoke Irish considered themselves the one ethnic group of shared descent, do we? In fact we know they didn't and very old Irish sources speak of ethnic divides (Eirann, Milesians, Laiginn, Cruithin etc. etc.), but being all now united under an Irish tongue. And yet today we speak of those who spoke Irish and had Irish names as if they were the one monolithic identity. Future historians will, very likely, do the exact same thing with the English-speaking peoples of today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.127.48 (talk • contribs)


 * That'll be a yes then?! Not the foggiest. Anyway, it's the block. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for block evasion. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ~ mazca  talk 17:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.