Somewhat inspired by Libertarian’s tendency to refer to non-native Americans as “conquerers” (I guess I’m guilty by skin-color on that one), I started thinking about my own lineage’s past.
Half English, half French, & half “other” (I’m a big guy) I know that each land of my forefathers had once been conquered by somebody else. England by the Normans, the French by the Romans come immediately to mind.
The question, therefore: Is there group of people, nation or otherwise, that has, historically, not been conquered by somebody else at some point in time?
There’s a corollary question illustrated by the query that given Saxon England became Norman England that later became modern England, when did my forefathers stop being “Norman” or “Saxon” and become simply “English”.
Stone Age tribes in the Amazon weren’t conquered per se.
Eskimo people like: Yupik, Inupiat and Siberian Yupik certainly lived in lands claimed by others, & were recognized by the world as citizens of X land. But the true impact of that on the more remote villages … I would hesitate to use the word “conquered” … Tho I guess the collectivization in Siberia 1920’s was … but Greenland and Canada and even partially in AK I am not sure this is the correct term & I would say the bottomline IMHO: “No they were not conquered really”.
Were the Highlanders of New Guinea “conquered” after they were “discovered” by Australian gold Prospectors in the 1930’s? I don’t think so, tho Governments and Missionaries rushed to their aid and certainly upset the society …
For a minute I thought Iceland would fit, but then Norway and Denmark took over and England invaded to keep the Nazis out. Perhaps Greenland, but even that is a stretch since they have always been subjects of Denmark.
As to your other question:
This is when the Anglo-Saxons entered England and drove the Celts back to Wales, Scotland and Ireland. So England was conquered by Rome and the Germans (Anglo-Saxons) and then 600 years later William crossed the channel.
That word comes from before the Normans and was Anglo-Saxon, so I would imagine that the term English simply evolved.
As to Lib’s referring to “conquerors”, I would note that he might object to them, but he certainly shows no objection to the missionaries that accompanied them.