Even today the Scots and Irish call the English Sassenachs and the Welsh have a similar word for the English. To open the discussion about whether Anglo-Saxon is a racist term is unbelievable.
It is so insulting to hear university students and professors suggest the term Anglo Saxon is “problematic” or has no ethnic component. Moreover, it’s completely unnecessary for the podcast host to preface this benign discussion with “it’s not an excuse to abuse our colleagues of color”. Like, really??
@@cosmicwakes6443 The Germanic settlers in England (exceot the Danes and Norwegians) called themselves Aengli, Seaxe or Angul-Seaxan. King Alfred the Great called himself "Anglorum Saxorum rex". King Aethelstan called himself in 924 "Angelsaxonum Denorumque gloriosissimus rex" and "rex Angulsexna and Norþhymbra imperator paganorum gubernator Brittanorumque propugnator". We should use the term "Anglo-Saxon" for those groups of people who called themselves "Angul-Seaxan" (or in Latin: Angli and Saxones) before 1066 AD.
England was settled by the Angles and Saxons. They called themselves Anglo-Saxons from the 8th century onwards. It would be ahistorical to drop this term.
Hwaet? but neider of dem were wed, anly had samely weys. Angelfolc and Sacsens were split early on and anly grew clus in the 800s and efen den would hat demselfes Aenglisc. Lay on the Denes for dat. On Afterdought lay not on the Gardenes, dey be beadumoody.
Sorry had to turn off after the first few minutes. Ridiculous comments about Anglo-Saxon being about supremacy. Here for history not modern day political BS
Marc morris awesome, didn’t think much of ultra woke host obsessed with hurty words - “our colleagues of colour” what the fook has that got to do with the Anglo Saxons for the love of
This would get more views if you used the correct term of Anglo Saxons in the title, But you would risk offending woke academia or a "colleague of colour" heaven forbid
BEAUTIFULLY said, Dr. Morris, concerning the fact that we ALL would love to know about the queens and the children. And, of course, more women of the times. It was the way it was; we have almost no information.
I’ve recently discovered the existence of Æthelflæd and how little her contemporaries covered her life. Those biographers being male, monks, and we know women, apart from BVM are essentially bad as they caused man to sin, so how can you have an effective ruler who is a woman despite her father being Alfred. Now if she had been a boy it would have been obvious she was a brilliant ruler inheriting all her father’s abilities. OK, a broad brush swipe at the monastic chroniclers, but how many nuns wrote about women?! It seems like Æthelflæd put Gloucester, my home town, back on the map after its Roman period. It’s fun reading about her and discovering what is fact and what is conjecture. Certainly Henry of Huntingdon had the historical hots for her. O Elfleda potens, ô terror virgo virorum, O Elfleda potens, nomine digna viri. Te quóque splendidior fecit natura puellam, Te probitas fecit nomen habere viri. Te mutare decet sed solum nomina sexus, Tu regina potens rexque trophea parans. Iam nec Cæsareos tantum mirere triumphos, Cæsare splendidior virgo virago, vale.
@@Gwailo54 Oh THANK YOU!!!! I don't understand what you said about BVM ? being "essentially bad as they caused man to sin"?? You are very kind to take the time to write this to me. And the poem here! I will check some of the Latin. I don't know Henry of Huntington!! I will check him out!!! Thanks you, again! Joseph
Hey great vids... Could you make one of Spain, I think the story of this country is AMAZING Can you imagine the three major religions lived together in middle ages, wow... Or how, at least, 6 kindoms meltdown in one... double wow... Well Thanks Ciao
I disagree. I think they see the real potential that historical research has to offer. Intersectionalism is what makes science "klick". You can't put the world in neatly separated fields that don't intersect with one another. Why should your research be that way? And btw I think usurped is a very unfitting word here. This Channel has beent that way a long time and, I believe, very much by design.
@@babubidadubi7514 if its been like this from the beginning then they duped us, cos the early stuff i watched wasnt like this. And spoken like a true intersectionalist. Lol
@@babubidadubi7514 «Intersectionalism is what makes science "klick"» A post-modernist theory of overlapping grievances makes science "klick"? LUL. You must be high. History is not very scientific to begin with btw. It's a science only colloquially. The medievalists are scared shitless of being accused of white supremacy by their new political commissars because they are studying "white" (the most evil on earth) people's history. That's all the explanation one needs. Further down the line we will hear more ritualized self-flagellation and more unnecessary revisionist reinterpretations through the modern soc jus lens, because the people want to keep their jobs, sources of income, and don't feel or be perceived as evil.
I like these talks, but I agree it’s annoying to have to ignore whole chunks talking about whiteness and CoLonIaLiSm and how we ‘ruined the world’...... but I just have to ignore this side of things as the rest of the information is quite interesting
@@sirgonzoofrotherham236 If they want to talk about "diverse" topics, then why can't they talk about Africa in the Middle Ages? Ghana, Mali, Kanem-Bornu, Ethiopia, the Fatimid Caliphate, the Ayyubid and Mamluk Sultanates, the Almoravids and Almohads were all powerful kingdoms in the Middle Ages that were quite comparable to the Feudal states of Europe.
Marc Morris is my least favorite authors. I bought some of his books, including audiobooks for my kindle oasis. I thorough regret the waste of money. Marc Morris did a lot of damage to history. I dislike him being cuddled and elevated into history’s sainthood in this interview with zero attempts to challenge his revisionism and make him face justice.
Even today the Scots and Irish call the English Sassenachs and the Welsh have a similar word for the English. To open the discussion about whether Anglo-Saxon is a racist term is unbelievable.
It is so insulting to hear university students and professors suggest the term Anglo Saxon is “problematic” or has no ethnic component. Moreover, it’s completely unnecessary for the podcast host to preface this benign discussion with “it’s not an excuse to abuse our colleagues of color”. Like, really??
Thanks for this comment. I have no idea why the host felt obligated to ramble on about sensitivity to race. Completely unnecessary to the interview.
2:11 She seems to have trouble with the fact that Anglo-Saxons are white, which makes her an antiwhite.
You look pretty oppressed
I will continue to use the name Anglo-Saxon. I don't care whose feelings I might hurt. It's not a racist thing, but a fact of history.
Also it doesn’t have racial relevance at all, because the vast majority of “Caucasian/ whites” are not Anglo Saxon.
Steven
Using the term Anglo Saxon is nonsensical seeing as it describes various groups of people, and not some well defined people.
@@cosmicwakes6443 The Germanic settlers in England (exceot the Danes and Norwegians) called themselves Aengli, Seaxe or Angul-Seaxan. King Alfred the Great called himself "Anglorum Saxorum rex". King Aethelstan called himself in 924 "Angelsaxonum Denorumque gloriosissimus rex" and "rex Angulsexna and Norþhymbra imperator paganorum gubernator Brittanorumque propugnator". We should use the term "Anglo-Saxon" for those groups of people who called themselves "Angul-Seaxan" (or in Latin: Angli and Saxones) before 1066 AD.
It doesn’t hurt anyone’s feelings.
England was settled by the Angles and Saxons. They called themselves Anglo-Saxons from the 8th century onwards. It would be ahistorical to drop this term.
Hwaet? but neider of dem were wed, anly had samely weys. Angelfolc and Sacsens were split early on and anly grew clus in the 800s and efen den would hat demselfes Aenglisc. Lay on the Denes for dat. On Afterdought lay not on the Gardenes, dey be beadumoody.
Of course it’s ahistorical. Destroying history is the whole point.
What great content again. Marc Morris is one of my favourite author's and I thoroughly enjoyed this.
I couldn’t proceed past the apology for using historical terms… AngloSaxon?
Sorry had to turn off after the first few minutes. Ridiculous comments about Anglo-Saxon being about supremacy. Here for history not modern day political BS
Marc morris awesome, didn’t think much of ultra woke host obsessed with hurty words - “our colleagues of colour” what the fook has that got to do with the Anglo Saxons for the love of
This interview makes me want to trust you. Looking forward to reading, and thanks for the interview "Medievalists"!
This would get more views if you used the correct term of Anglo Saxons in the title, But you would risk offending woke academia or a "colleague of colour" heaven forbid
So interesting to think about WHY we don't know certain people are more important. Fascinating.
BEAUTIFULLY said, Dr. Morris, concerning the fact that we ALL would love to know about the queens and the children. And, of course, more women of the times. It was the way it was; we have almost no information.
I’ve recently discovered the existence of Æthelflæd and how little her contemporaries covered her life. Those biographers being male, monks, and we know women, apart from BVM are essentially bad as they caused man to sin, so how can you have an effective ruler who is a woman despite her father being Alfred. Now if she had been a boy it would have been obvious she was a brilliant ruler inheriting all her father’s abilities. OK, a broad brush swipe at the monastic chroniclers, but how many nuns wrote about women?! It seems like Æthelflæd put Gloucester, my home town, back on the map after its Roman period. It’s fun reading about her and discovering what is fact and what is conjecture. Certainly Henry of Huntingdon had the historical hots for her.
O Elfleda potens, ô terror virgo virorum,
O Elfleda potens, nomine digna viri.
Te quóque splendidior fecit natura puellam,
Te probitas fecit nomen habere viri.
Te mutare decet sed solum nomina sexus,
Tu regina potens rexque trophea parans.
Iam nec Cæsareos tantum mirere triumphos,
Cæsare splendidior virgo virago, vale.
@@Gwailo54 Oh THANK YOU!!!! I don't understand what you said about BVM ? being "essentially bad as they caused man to sin"?? You are very kind to take the time to write this to me. And the poem here! I will check some of the Latin. I don't know Henry of Huntington!! I will check him out!!! Thanks you, again! Joseph
I want this stupid woke era to be passed into history. The term Anglo Saxon is settled description.
Shame about the host. Was about to subscribe.
Meaningful content starts at 6:45 lol.
Hey great vids...
Could you make one of Spain, I think the story of this country is AMAZING
Can you imagine the three major religions lived together in middle ages, wow...
Or how, at least, 6 kindoms meltdown in one... double wow...
Well Thanks
Ciao
You lost me at it’s not ancient aliens 😢
what a ridiculous introduction by this woke woman
2mins and 56 secs in and were already talking about whiteness. This channel has been usurped by Intersectionalists and its pretty sad tbh.
I disagree. I think they see the real potential that historical research has to offer. Intersectionalism is what makes science "klick". You can't put the world in neatly separated fields that don't intersect with one another. Why should your research be that way? And btw I think usurped is a very unfitting word here. This Channel has beent that way a long time and, I believe, very much by design.
@@babubidadubi7514 if its been like this from the beginning then they duped us, cos the early stuff i watched wasnt like this.
And spoken like a true intersectionalist. Lol
@@babubidadubi7514 «Intersectionalism is what makes science "klick"» A post-modernist theory of overlapping grievances makes science "klick"? LUL. You must be high. History is not very scientific to begin with btw. It's a science only colloquially. The medievalists are scared shitless of being accused of white supremacy by their new political commissars because they are studying "white" (the most evil on earth) people's history. That's all the explanation one needs. Further down the line we will hear more ritualized self-flagellation and more unnecessary revisionist reinterpretations through the modern soc jus lens, because the people want to keep their jobs, sources of income, and don't feel or be perceived as evil.
I like these talks, but I agree it’s annoying to have to ignore whole chunks talking about whiteness and CoLonIaLiSm and how we ‘ruined the world’......
but I just have to ignore this side of things as the rest of the information is quite interesting
@@sirgonzoofrotherham236 If they want to talk about "diverse" topics, then why can't they talk about Africa in the Middle Ages?
Ghana, Mali, Kanem-Bornu, Ethiopia, the Fatimid Caliphate, the Ayyubid and Mamluk Sultanates, the Almoravids and Almohads were all powerful kingdoms in the Middle Ages that were quite comparable to the Feudal states of Europe.
Silly woke nonsense
Marc Morris is my least favorite authors. I bought some of his books, including audiobooks for my kindle oasis.
I thorough regret the waste of money.
Marc Morris did a lot of damage to history.
I dislike him being cuddled and elevated into history’s sainthood in this interview with zero attempts to challenge his revisionism and make him face justice.
Could you explain exactly what you dont like about his work?
Its been awhile I know however & with respect what do you mean?