Immigration and Multiculturalism

[Janny]

Recently it has become wrong to say Britain is a multicultural society. This, I found, was quite amusing. It seems that words must become replaced when their connotations become undesirable, but that the words which replace them always take on the same meanings and connotations.

The real fear I have though is relating to the recent speeches outside mosques in London. People stood and said they had no allegiance to the Queen, no respect for the police, no belief that they should follow government. At the risk of sounding too right wing: What a bloody nerve. It is incidentally ‘high treason’, the last crime in Britain for which execution by hanging can be employed. Of course, I do not suggest for a moment that that is a good idea to form martyrs (and oppose capital punishment anyway).

I just question how people such as these should be dealt with. In this case it was actually British nationals who were making this stand, but should it be necessary for patriotic British people to accept this? Is deporting undesirables morally acceptable, even if only from the viewpoint that in prisons the state is subsidising their existence?

It is disturbing that in what it professed as a multicultural society, there was still a proportion of mosques in Britain which refused to accept the Muslim Council’s suggestion that violent extremism should be prevented by the Muslims in mosques.
I appreciate the contribution of many different cultures to British society, but should it be right that action against the extremists be seen as an action against the whole?

[The Gaffer]

Who says it's wrong to describe Britain as a multicultural society?

People should be free to say what they want. I don't feel any particular loyalty to the Queen. Should I be deported? Where to?

Why should we have to "deal with them" at all? What are you afraid of?

I don't think it's particularly helpful to dwell upon the rantings of a few extremists. If we do, we just provide them with better arguments, then things start to get really out of hand.

[brownjenkins]

i agree... i'm a free speech fan... if it moves to actions which are against common law, take action, otherwise let them say what they want

it's also to important to remember that people are individuals... things like deportation due to beliefs or ancestry will only serve to increase animosity

[The Gaffer]

Too right.

Another thing is the blurring of debates. "Immigration = terrorist towelheads" is the reactionary agenda behind these kinds of headlines (not suggesting you share these views, Janny, but I reckon the Daily Mail does).

Also, let's not forget that the Queen is descended from a German family. Before that, the Royals were Dutch, Scots, French, Danish, take your pck.

See me? I'm of Pictish descent. My ancestors were here before the Romans. So all you immigrant scum of Roman/Anglo Saxon/Norse/Norman descent can feck off back to euroland or wherever.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
See me? I'm of Pictish descent. My ancestors were here before the Romans. So all you immigrant scum of Roman/Anglo Saxon/Norse/Norman descent can feck off back to euroland or wherever.

Does that just demonstrate what sort of 'push-overs' you Picts were?

[The Gaffer]

LOL! I think the word you're looking for is "hospitable"

* looks for a smiley for that scene out of braveheart where they lifted their kilts to flash their arses at the English *

* doesn't find one *



Actually, the Picts were the only British tribe the Romans didn't conquer. Nothing at all to do with the absence of anything useful north of Falkirk and completely to do with our heroic and indomitable nature, I'm sure. ahem.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
LOL! I think the word you're looking for is "hospitable"

* looks for a smiley for that scene out of braveheart where they lifted their kilts to flash their arses at the English *

* doesn't find one *



Actually, the Picts were the only British tribe the Romans didn't conquer. Nothing at all to do with the absence of anything useful north of Falkirk and completely to do with our heroic and indomitable nature, I'm sure. ahem.

Hah! All true, all true! I think Ruinel has the smiley you want! And yes, 'Picts' are what the Romans called all the Celtic Briton tribes north of the line where they made Hadrian's Wall. So it was the various southern tribes who were conquered by Rome. *sigh* Can't say I think badly of them for it though, since I'm a big King Arthur fan (the more historically realistic, the better).

Are you actually of Pictish descent though or Scottish? I expect after 1500 years, nobody really knows (or we're all a bit of everything). The 'Scots' were actually Irish pirates who finally came to stay, right?

On my father's side, I'm mostly Welsh/English/Scottish/whoknowswhatelse... with a smidgeon of American Indian thrown in.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, well you're right about the Scots, who came from Ireland, and about genealogy in general, because we're all probably descended from each other at some point.

However, my family name comes from right in the heart of "Pictish" territory, so at least the Y chromosome is probably Pictish! There's a fair bit of red hair going about my person and other people have told me I have Pictish features, so after skewering them on my claymore I assume they must be right.

Congratulations on your florid heritage! Shame about the English part, but hey, nobody's perfect.

After all, "we're a' Jock Tamson's bairns" (meaning that we're all the same under the skin) in the end.

[The Gaffer]

Oh, and speaking of bairns.. I miss your old avatar. Bring back the terrible triplets!!

[Valandil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Yes, well you're right about the Scots, who came from Ireland, and about genealogy in general, because we're all probably descended from each other at some point.

However, my family name comes from right in the heart of "Pictish" territory, so at least the Y chromosome is probably Pictish! There's a fair bit of red hair going about my person and other people have told me I have Pictish features, so after skewering them on my claymore I assume they must be right.

Congratulations on your florid heritage! Shame about the English part, but hey, nobody's perfect.

After all, "we're a' Jock Tamson's bairns" (meaning that we're all the same under the skin) in the end.

I heard once that the red hair actually comes mostly from Norse 'adventurers' of the late first millenium AD...? Although I suspect there had been much mixing among northern European groups for thousands of years before the Romans even set foot on the ole Island... so don't know if characteristics like that were limited to just some few groups.

For the 'being the same under the skin' - I did the following number thing once: Again, probably stemming from my interest in Arthur - and targeting him about 1500 years before myself... I thought, OK, I have 2 parents, had 4 grandparents and 8 great-grandparents. My gr-grands lived very nearly 100 years before me. That means that about 100 years ago, I had 8 ancestors about my current age. 100 years before that, each of THEM had 8 ancestors - so 200 years ago, I had 64 ancestors! We can continue multiplying by 8 for each 100 years:

300 years ago - 512 ancestors
400 years ago - 4,096 ancestors
500 years ago - 32,768 ancestors

etc... until 1500 years ago, about the time of any historical King Arthur, I have about 33 trillion 'ancestors' - most of whom were likely in Europe. Now, of course the population was nowhere NEAR that, so there's a lot of duplication and with generational slippage (my term... some of my ancestors in the 45th degree (EDIT: oops - initially put 24th) would have lived 1500 years ago - but some maybe 1200 or 2000 years ago) and I'm sure the full web would get quite tangled. But anyway, if all Europe's population was maybe one millionth that (33 mill or so) - I expect there's a VERY GOOD chance I'm descended from King Arthur... if he had any surviving and propogating children at all!

I imagine YOU are too!

(EDIT: This also speaks to HOW RELATED we all are!)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Too right.

Another thing is the blurring of debates. "Immigration = terrorist towelheads" is the reactionary agenda behind these kinds of headlines (not suggesting you share these views, Janny, but I reckon the Daily Mail does).

Also, let's not forget that the Queen is descended from a German family. Before that, the Royals were Dutch, Scots, French, Danish, take your pck.

See me? I'm of Pictish descent. My ancestors were here before the Romans. So all you immigrant scum of Roman/Anglo Saxon/Norse/Norman descent can feck off back to euroland or wherever.

aaah, a fellow countryman, i see
i am of celtic descent also, though mainly through welsh and irish lines, i also have a wee birra scots blood coursing through my veins.

i say we take britain back, i'll be king, u can be prime minister

[Lalaith_Elf]

I am also proud of my Scottish/Welsh bloodline, with a few bits of Irish flowing through me as well.

And who says you can be king! I might want to.

[The Gaffer]

Ach, just put me in charge of the confiscated contraband.

Valandil - that's a good one. Wasn't there a thing about how we're all descended from one female common ancestor? Here you go:

Through our maternal line we all share the same common ancestor who lived around 150,000 years ago.

Source Some genetics nonsense from the BBC web site

And speaking of Scotland, I'm off up there for a week, starting now, so have a barry Easter a'body.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Valandil - that's a good one. Wasn't there a thing about how we're all descended from one female common ancestor? Here you go:
Source Some genetics nonsense from the BBC web site

Yes - I believe that had to do with some DNA associated with female hormones or something... apparently she had something in particular that every single woman in the world seems to have. And I assume that other anthropological finds from that time - or before, don't necessarily have it - or something like that? Anyway, I'm not a scientist - but I recall that story from a few years ago. (EDIT: Oops... posted before I read the article... it sounds like his conclusion was NOT based on an archeological find, but on a numbers game like my own! I wonder what assumptions he had to make...??)

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Valandil
I wonder what assumptions he had to make...??)

Dodgy ones, I'll be bound.

[Janny]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
LOL! I think the word you're looking for is "hospitable"

Absolutely 'hospitable' is the word. The immigrants you gave me to take my pick from became who the English are. They alligned themselves with the culture of the time and were accepted as British because they wanted to be British. They loved the landscape etc etc, and changed their culture, not insisting on maintaining their culture on pain of being oppressed.

I realise how close to the Daily Mail this must sound, but I generally disapprove of taking political views from toilet paper...

I am also a fan of free speech, but I think that inciting violence etc is wrong. If I stood up in London and said all Muslims should be I would, rightly, be arrested. However the same cannot be done because the inciter is at risk of becoming focal point for the cause.

[Spock]

A word from across the pond. Studies have shown that native Britons will be in the minority before 2025. In the US, whites will be in the minority by 2019 (I believe) and similar dates are predicted for all European countries. This is due to declining birthrate of one group and the prolific birthrate of the "immigrant population". In most countries those immigrants have not adopted the culture or the language of their chosen country save for signing up for government assistance.
So, the UK and the US are multi-cultural by definition only because the influx has not assimilated or chosen not to. The fractionalization of ethnic, religious and social groups is destroying western civilization as we have come to know it.
...most distressing.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Spock
A word from across the pond. Studies have shown that native Britons will be in the minority before 2025. In the US, whites will be in the minority by 2019 (I believe) and similar dates are predicted for all European countries. This is due to declining birthrate of one group and the prolific birthrate of the "immigrant population". In most countries those immigrants have not adopted the culture or the language of their chosen country save for signing up for government assistance.
So, the UK and the US are multi-cultural by definition only because the influx has not assimilated or chosen not to. The fractionalization of ethnic, religious and social groups is destroying western civilization as we have come to know it.
...most distressing.

The numbers of black and Asian people living in England have risen by more than 40% in 10 years while the white population has remained static, the 2001 census reveals.

The white population would have fallen sharply because of the low birth rate if not for a large influx from the EU, eastern Europe, Australia and north America.

The white share fell from 95.4% in 1981 to 91.4% in 2001 while other ethnic groups rose from 4.6% to 8.6%. Scotland and Wales are analysed separately.
.................
The census also revealed an influx of white immigrants, with 235,900 from the old eastern bloc countries, and 660,000 from the 15 EU states. Some 200,000 came from North America and 155,000 from Australia and New Zealand.

Using census data from 1981 to 2001, Phil Rees from Leeds University, said ethnic minorities were growing at an average of 40% a decade, whereas the whole British-born white population has fallen.

So if they rise 40% a decade from an 8.6%- and allowing for a sharper increase from 2001- the non-white population of England will be about 20% by 2025- less if you count all of Britain, as Scotland and Wales attract proportionately fewer immigrants

And many of them will have been there for a few generations.

Including the white immigrants (at the very most another 10%) and that gives a native British population of at least 70%, even if you don't count 'returnees' like my sister, who is Canadian of British stock- and of course we usually acknowledge nice white Europeans as being part of Western civilisation, no?

In the US, the projected date of non-Latino whites becoming a minority is 2050.

(I guess you wouldn't consider Cervantes, Goya, Picasso, Llosa or Marquez to be part of Western Civilisation )

As for assimilation, currently one-third of all Hispanics in the US marry non-Hispanics, the number is higher for Asians.

(Asians will be 8% of the population, but they use government services less than whites and get better education for their kids)

If that part of "Western Civilisation" that is destroyed is the part that identifies itself with the Confederate States of America, I for one won't be distressed in the least- the quicker the better.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Spock

So, the UK and the US are multi-cultural by definition only because the influx has not assimilated or chosen not to. The fractionalization of ethnic, religious and social groups is destroying western civilization as we have come to know it.
...most distressing.

western civilzation... please... tell it to the cherokee.

our vaunted western civilization is just the latest manifistation of cultural identity in our long and winding history as a species. Its been constantly changing since the beginning of humanity. Its NORMAL. How do you think the Romans felt when the Visigoths were sacking and burning a thousand years of empire and "high civilization". It was the end of the WORLD to them! But now... the visigoths and the romans ARE the Italians. Interesting huh...

And your implication here is that anything but standard white "western" way of thinking and living is a negative. I disagree with your premise at its very base. The "stay in your damn country or assimilate" way of thinking is a dead end my friend. And can never work according to the very mathematics of human migration and propogation. Embrace diversity or die on the side of the road I say. Thats my advice to you.

[BeardofPants]

^Agrees with IR. The sooner the stupid white bastards are assimilated the better.