The English and the Celts - no genocide?

[Aryaman2]

Hi Aryaman,


Sure, I agree with you. And Coates also outlines that argument, himself
(even if he doesn't make a point of suggesting that as another
possible explanation). But ultimately, of course (as I mention to Robert)
it doesn't really matter whether we're using 'emigration, annihilation or
enslavement' or 'lack of prestige' to explain the lack of linguistic
borrowing from Brittonic to English. Either way, it is equally clear that
Britons were not exactly held in the highest esteem by Anglo-Saxons.
This, then, mitigates against the idea of a peaceful assimilation between the two cultural groups (which idea is one of my pet hates).

Ambrosius / Mike

To me, it is clear that genetic evidence doesn´t support any idea of genocide, so other explanations should be looked after. I used "social prestige" because it is a notion well established in sociology. It derives from enjoying status and superior position in hierarchical organizations, so Briton language, linked to no social prestige, made little impact (as Robert says probably larger than the surviving examples in modern Engilsh though) on early English. You say you are against the idea of peaceful assimilation because all that proves (and here I agree with you) Britons were not held in high esteem by Anglo-Saxons, but that doesn´t mean war to death, it means simply that conquered Britons had good reasons to forget Britonic and become Anglo-Saxons.