GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 2006-01 > 1137581284


From: Andrew Sellon <>
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:48:04 +0000
References: <ck6rs1t55jao8360lt3s4d537bcjqji665@4ax.com> <20060118100945.B518C8BCE42@smtp2.freeola.net>
In-Reply-To: <20060118100945.B518C8BCE42@smtp2.freeola.net>


Roy Stockdill wrote:

>Yes, but do any of them have British ancestors, otherwise what's the
>point of this debate stuttering on? Doesn't it belong on an
>anthropological list somewhere?
>
>Eskimo...Inuit...how many here care what the politically correct
>description is, provided they're allowed to get on with their lives
>in peace and freedom as they see fit? I expect there are plenty of
>folks from the north-east who object to being called Geordies, while
>others relish it, but I doubt it's being discussed on an Alaskan
>genealogy mailing list! <v.b.g.>
>
>
Roy -

I for one have found it of great interest, even though it has covered
some of the same ground that was gone over a few months ago.

It is of equal importance, in all probability, for an Eskimo, Inuit and
others to be correctly described as it is for many Welsh, Scottish,
Irish and, dare I say it? many from Yorkshire and Cornwall.

Whether any indigenous North American wishes to discuss Geodies or
Scousers (which I very much doubt) is entirely up to them. As for any of
them having British ancestors, it ill behoves either you or I to
complain too vehemently about off topic discussion! (Equally b.g.).

Yours Aye Andrew Sellon


This thread: