This page is in the process of development
and will continue to be added to.
An interesting phenomenon, when the subject of the 'Cornish people' becomes the topic of debate, is the negative - and external - view that seems to prevail over our very existence. This page will attempt to see what the debates resolve and how the existence of, so-called, 'democratic principles' are being used to justify both the fragmentation of our territory and the decimation of our people.
To avoid clutter, there will be obvious links throughout the text [as the page develops] which will take you to various pages of statistical, or other, information. It is important to use the existing 'back/previous' navigation facility appropriate to your particular Browser in order to return direct to this original text.
In order to establish some form of context to this debate, it is necessary to have a basic look here at population trends during the recent past. For this graph, I have chosen to rely on easily available source data made available through Whitaker's Almanac, rather than delve into piles of official statistical data. Whilst this approach is certainly, and rightly, open to criticism, I feel that this simple comparative approach uses data which is openly available to the public and is not burdened with such qualifications as "corrected figures" for what ever reason. It is, I feel, the provision, and assessment, of rough and ready information which is always a first step to further enlightenment. It is my considered opinion that any critique of this approach will fail to show that "corrected figures" provide a significantly different resultant argument.
In 1979, whilst on my way to take part in the annual St. Piran's Day procession through Truro, I walked past a Cornish compatriot explaining what was happening to an elderly gentleman - I would guess about 70 years of age - and I heard him reply, "I am proud of being Cornish!", but, in good deferential manner, added,"but I am also proud of being 'English'!" [did he, I wonder, mean British?]. I could not resist the temptation and, as I passed, rudely interjected with the comment, "You can't be both!" His immediate response to that, when he looked at me, was "You are not old enough to be Cornish!"
Having just passed my half-century, I found the observation rather bizarre and baffling and I walked on suitably confused as to how a person's age can determine nationality. In retrospect, and with some knowledge of the views of others, it was his way of expressing his perception of the uncontrolled, and rapid, rate of English immigration into the Duchy and which is, as he illustrates, complemented by a chronic fatalism about the future of the Cornish people. I can only presume that his only way of measuring 'Cornishness', is in by the way that people speak and also the obvious decline in those speaking with a distinctly Cornish accent or dialect?
The population trends graph gives a clear indication of the old man's perception insofar as that graph clearly shows that the population of Cornwall has increased by about 46 per cent since the 1940s but significantly, 40 per cent, within the past 30 years. It must be remembered that these are net figures but there is a gross effect. It is too dangerous to let the Cornish have any comparative statistics but I would hazard a guess that 99.5 per cent of the immigrants are from... England!
Our puppet 'English' Administration , at Truro, recorded in 1987:
"It is not a legitimate planning consideration however to seek to preserve any particular ethnic group as a proportion of the population"
[source: Cornwall Council Planning Committee - 5/11/1987]
What was it that the Council of Europe, "Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities" said about population in Article 16? [see The Cornish Nation : Home Office-2]
"The Parties shall refrain from measures which alter the proportions of the population in areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities and are aimed at restricting the rights and freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the present framework Convention."
Another volume of essential reading material on the Duchy, and an invaluable study of the externally contrived threat to the Cornish Identity, was provided in 1988 by the Cornish Social and Economic Research Group (CoSERG) and titled, appropriately, as "Cornwall at the Crossroads" [ISBN 0 9513918 0 1]. The message on immigration (referred to as 'in-migration') is that if we have any concern, at all, for our Cornish Identity then the immigration must stop! The book draws attention to the fact that it is now difficult to assimilate second generation immigrants and in a section on 'Ethnicide by default', it is stated:
"In 1951 over 70% of the people of Cornwall had been born in Cornwall and in 1961, with continuing population decline, no doubt nearer 80% would have regarded themselves as Cornish. By 1981, after two decades of rapid growth, the percentage of native Cornish among the population was probably around 55%. By 2001, at the present rate, that proportion will be more like 45%...
...The Cornish can trace their heritage back 2,000 years or more, and yet the links between them and that heritage are now in danger of being snapped - and that in the space of just 50 years."
Tyr-Gwyr-Gweryn would like to see all the 'English' power-puppets - and their media aides - who have held court over this decimation of the Cornish people, to be held to account for their wilful acts against the rights of the Cornish people.
*
Given the vulnerability of people to the external pressures of mnemonics and political mind-games, we should be aware that perceptions are no replacement for knowledge. What is generally considered to be knowledge is, in fact, perceptions built up over a period of time from many sources and, in the main, of dubious nature. With regard to Cornwall and Cornish history this dubiousness may be defined as wilfull lies and deceit by the Imperial English State Machine.
Many years ago I had an occasion to ring a phone-in programme on our imposed English media Radio Station and made the point to the presenter of the programme that Cornwall was "NOT an English county" and that we should remove the term from our vocabulary. A subsequent follow-up phone call from a caller [obviously a Cornishman!] made the comment "Cornwall is a 'county', isn't it Mr Salmon, because you said so in your book?" Such innocence and faith in a person is endearing but objectivity and truth has suffered a further blow.
Earlier in the life of that Radio Station the predictable subject of Cornwall versus England came up and the Station hosted a live radio debate on the subject. In the course of discussion an advocat for Cornwall made a reference to the alliance of Cornish & Danes in a battle against the invading English at Hingston Down in AD 938. No sooner were the words out than the - impartial? - person chairing the debate [one of the Radio Station's female presenters] interjected triumphantly and with almost uncontrollable excitement, "But we lost!" It was reminiscent of a media "Gotcha! moment.
On another occasion, following a meeting with the Station Manager to discuss Cornwall's Duchy Constitution, a further debate was programmed to discuss Cornwall! One of the panel members was introduced as a 'Cornish ratepayer' but who was, in truth, much more than that - on a Cornish scale of important Cornish people, I would place him virtually at the top and whose credentials would be perceived as impeccable. When he had the opportunity to enter the discussion it was a completely unrelated item, an aside, to what had hitherto been discussed, the context of which was obviously a prepared statement that "Let us clear the matter of the Duchy out of the way. The Duchy of Cornwall is no more than a landed estate which includes the land [St Clements] we are on at the moment...." This is not a precise quote but only a reflection of my memory of the occasion. The context is correct and, in time, I shall extract the accurate statement from a tape recording of the programme.
It was obvious that he was specifically imported into the discussion, as a ratepayer to protect his academic status, simply to state the de facto propaganda knowledge of the Cornish Duchy as part of the ongoing English media 'put-down' of Cornish de jure Rights. How can we measure a persons true credibility and how does this affect the disemmination of knowledge? The Debating Forum poses many questions on the fallible facets of debate, viz. Knowledge [objective or subjective], Integrity [loyal or disloyal] and Ideology [sympathetic or unsympathetic]. Where in the Debating Forum does one sit and where do we naively place others? What moves someone out of the apathetic mass - which on any question, or topic, probably amounts to 99% plus of the population! - into meaningful debate?
*
