GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-09 > 1127181272


From: "Greg W. Moore" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] William Wallace
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <003501c5bd83$0e16fc40$0c139a8e@PeterAKincaid>


Exactly!! I am not talking about the original or the current status of Britain (one could call it a "macro" definition for a large scale, low resolution, thin geographical "mesh") but about the time when we do know, roughly, about the Wallace's origin - one of such stories says his ancetors came from Wales. So - I encourage you to switch from this highly inaccurate and funny "scale" - Britain and start talking about the finer geographical "mesh" plus switch from jumping in an unccordinated manner on the time scale to the time which we know, as we think/suspect, as the beginning of the Wallace's family.

Greg
P.S. I am from Washington DC. I am a former scientist and university professor as well as managing editor of an international scientific journal. And - we, in our community here, use an appropriate language in our discussions ...




"Peter A. Kincaid" <> wrote:
The land was originally called Britain. They were British. Then the Belgae came; the Romans came; the Scots came; the Angles, the Saxons, the Jutes, the Frisians, the Franks, then the Norse and Danish Viking, the Normans, etc. (some of the latter being descendants of the former). Those British in the south who were driven west
became the Welsh and the Cornish but they are still British. You and Cliff did not know this. You thought I was using a modern term. We are talking the past and ethnic roots here so I am using the ethnic root term here. We do not call the American natives/Indians/etc. Chinese or Russians do we. Until one can prove where exactly the native British came from they should be called British to distinguish them from the Saxons, Frisians, etc.

Peter

P.S. I am just curious but are you from Texas?


This thread: