But they distinguished themselves as a different peoples, no? In fact, I seem to recall quite a few of the histories of the time wherein the individuals repeatedly stated that the Norman or Saxon (s) was (were) responsible for whatever they were discussing at the time, so I am left with the impression one could distinguish between Norman and Saxon merely by appearance, n’est ce pas?
Not certain what the distinction was, but it seemed to be obvious at the time.
Perhaps it was the same distinction that peoples of the Central and Southern Americas can tell between Mexican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Chliean, and Peruvian.
Is Argentinian separate from them, I wonder?
I still remember reading through the large tomes I was forced to study, that when Cromwell waged his campaign through Ireland back then, the vast majority of the populace were in fact English, and the only true “Irish” were scattered tiny clans who could not get past what their local “kings” wished for and presented no worries to the crown.
With very few exceptions, the peoples that Cromwell rousted were in fact of british descent but felt no adherence to the demands of british royalty that were laid upon them.
So, those who call themselves “Irish” are really in fact British, much like the Scots became the Irish through time and the Irish became Scots due to the shifting of populaces over time.
Ducking now... *grin*
Is Argentinian separate from them, I wonder?
Argentina is close to pure European. So is Uruguay. They wiped out all the tribes of that region.
Chile is a European (Spanish, German, English) two tribes and Chinese.
Peru is some European (mostly Spanish), one major and a bunch of minor tribes and Japanese.
Paraguay is mostly one tribe with a dash of European, mostly from Spain.
So yeah, you can sort of tell but the best way is to listen to how they speak.
Accent tells.