A: 9 August: Happy Indigenous Peoples Day everyone. I am proud to be
English - a defined ethnic group. We are the indigenous people of our
homeland, England, one of the countries which make up Great Britain 🎉 #PatrioticAltern
National Indigenous Peoples Day - Wikipedia
Indigenous Peoples Day 2020 - Patriotic Alternative
The children of today will be the Britain of tomorrow.
#IndigenousPeopl
https://
B: "The future society is made by those who show up"
Mark Steyn.
Me: So are you celtic, Anglo saxon, Norman or something else?
B: I'm a civic nationalist.The problem with these indigenous days is. You grant it for one, you grant it for all. But as soon as you deny any "group" then they have a right to feel resentment.
That's why I think the whole idea is bollocks and I prefer civic nationalism because it is based on shared ideas and values within a coherent political unit - the nation state. Something you can shape with a vote.
A: Do you have a problem with the indigenous British becoming a minority in our own homeland within just several decades?
http://
B: Yeah.. Mine was just a general comment. Not aimed at anyone in particular.
It's why celebration of a nation state e.g. In Australia they have
Australia Day. It likely to be more socially cohesive than having days
based on "ethnicity".
A - Kind of but not really because of skin colour. I'm anti-mass immigration
and pro nationalism (civic). So under the civic nationalist anti-mass
migration system the phenomena would simply not occur.
But if
such a change is driven because of "diversity is good NPC woke garbage"
and all that crap then yes. I'm firmly against that.
I guess the outcome would be the same as the ethnonationalist (which I'm not) but for civic nationalist reasons. I hope that makes sense???
A: 1/ Why do you refer to ‘skin colour’ in respect to my question?
2/ You talk of mass migration; do you realise that the indigenous
British will become an ethnic minority within just several decades even
if all immigration were to cease immediately?
B: Fair questions.
1. It was implied in the article you linked to.
So I wasn't clear whether you were referring to "white" or
"Anglo-Saxon" or "Celtic" or whatever...
2. Kind of. Yes. Is
British an ethnicity or a nationality though. There is a difference or
at least I'm using them in a different context. Assuming the current
demographic trends then yes. I've read The Strange Death of Europe. But
I'm not clear on your definitions.
I guess do you think British is an ethnicity? Or a nation?
If ethnicity then by definition any citizen will always be British so
we can not be an ethnic minority if citizenship is granted based on
British values.
If you mean British as a single ethnicity it
isn't. It is made up of various ethnic groups so I guess which ethnic
groups would you consider to be British and which are not. E.g. Cornish,
Celtic, Anglo-Saxon etc etc etc.
These discussions are hard unless we agree on terms as nationality and ethnicity are sometimes used interchangeably. But I think they are distinct.
Me: it's peculiar how when it comes to Europe a lot of people insist on only using the terms to refer to ethnicity
BTW I think you meant
"if nationality then by definition any citizen will always be British"
I find it interesting how in Canada some people put their ethnicity as "Canadian". No they're not aboriginal
A: You appear unaware that British is an umbrella/collective for the various ethnic groups of Britain, which includes the English, the Scottish, the Welsh, the Northern Irish, the Cornish - the countries that make up Great Britain.
It would be helpful to this discussion if you could watch this short explanation
https://
B: I'm
not unaware of it. It can be used synonymously in some cases. That's
why I asked for clarification. My point was regards to citizenship. So I
could become a Chinese citizen but I wouldn't fit into any of the
variety of their indigenous ethnic groups. So I would not be any ethnic "
variety" of Chinese, obviously. I think it was Lauren Southern who did a
viral video about this with regards to passports....
A: The British (the tribes English,Scottish,Welsh,Cornish) are a defined collective ethnic group - no iffs/buts.
Of course someone who does not belong to one of the tribes can have
British citizenship - but that is an entirely different matter. An
example being Priti Patel - daughter of Ugandan Indian parents - she is
not ‘British’.
So my question once again is: do you have a
problem with the British becoming a minority in their own ancestral
homeland within just a few decades?
You can make the same ethnic argument for Cornish separatism, Scottish separatism. Etc.
It's at what level the political unit is to be accepted.
For example do you support Scottish Independence?
Welsh separatism - based on the ethnicity graph earlier they have less in common with England which is majority Anglo-Saxon. Whereas Wales is almost zero Anglo-Saxon.
Or maybe that each nation should only be one ethnic group?
On a political level since devolution there is a strong case for an English Parliament.
What level the national state should be and the ethnics groups it contains will always be a source of debate. The ethnicity map above is based on current UK borders but of course it was different in the past. That's partly the argument the IRA use for reunification.
These arguments have always been and always will be.
A: I believe the tribes are stronger under a single union. But I don’t know why you bring this into the discussion.
The existing problem, and which is leading to the British becoming a
minority, is because of its civic nationalism policy - that anyone can
become British. Don’t you see that?
I’ve also said that if
immigration was halted tomorrow, that would not make any difference;
unless something is done to reverse the present situation; the British
will still become a minority in their homeland within just several
decades. Do you accept this and understand the reason why?
Sure I understand the main conflicts between ethnonationalism and civic nationalism. But I'm not an open borders mass immigration one. So it would not follow to the outcome you say. We don't have civic nationalism in the UK. We have mass immigration cultural relativism crap.
Of course I understand why. Because of the demographics. The various fertility rates amongst different groups. As outlined in The Strange Death of Europe. I also had to study demography. I'm a geography teacher.
"The tribes are strong as one Union" argument can be used by the IRA. Or if you want to translate it to a higher political level the European (a United States of Europe). The tribes of Europe are stronger as one.
But as Jordan Peterson points out once the hierarchy gets too distant from the electorate then they start losing faith in the democratic system as the power of voting gets more and more diluted.
Me: the cornish also have a separatist streak *Braveheart freedom GIF*
what do you think of allowing 3 million Hong Kongers into the UK?
A: Tribes/Stronger: You questioned me on Scottish Independence. I said it wasn’t relevant to the discussion.
The present system recognises anyone with a British passport/citizenship as ‘British’ - that is civic nationalism.
It’s not until Britain recognises that the British (the actual British) have a right of self-determination,
that the present course of the British becoming a minority in their own
homeland within just several decades can be addressed/reversed. That is ethno-nationalism.
I actually support Scottish independence in principle but the SNP are fake nationalists.
Gabriel - It's a harsh one. In terms of assimilation 3 million is too many. Even
though the cultural divide is nothing like letting 3 million from Sudan
in (which would be beyond stupid). Then there are all the housing,
infrastructure, public service and pressures on the green belt.
There are at least probably 2 million in the UK illegally that need
booting out first. So I guess allow a reasonably sustainable number?
Also any criminals with dual citizenship, boot them out too. That will
kick out a load of Islamists for a start.
A: On the one hand you do not dispute the findings of leading demographers,
backed up with government data (ONS, census etc), if nothing is done to
halt the matter, the British (the actual British) will become a
minority in their own homeland within several decades for the reason of
fecundity. You appear to object to such a concept.
Yet you say that you are a civic nationalist - the very system under which ‘anybody can be British’.
Do you not see the problem?
Not sure how else I can explain what I think. Sure is see the problem and I understand why. Like i said, I've studied demographics and know the patterns pretty well.
Low migration civic nationalism does not mean "anyone can be British". An Islamist, even just one will never be British. You could have a self-loathing Anglo-Saxon communist born to an expat family in France who moves to Britain and they will never be British either.
I guess the question is, at least in terms of immigration policy - what does it mean to be British? I support strict vetting. Trumps extreme vetting was too weak even by my standards...lol
Give me a well assimilated West Indian who loves Britain over a self-loathing ex-pat back to England Anglo-Saxon "intellectual" communist day and night.
A: 1/ Do you accept that under the present system, anyone with a British passport/citizenship is categorised as ‘British’?
2/ Do you dispute the findings of leading demographers whose research
is based upon government data (ONS, census etc), that if nothing is done
to halt the matter, the British (the actual British - not immigrants or
people of immigrant descent) will become a minority in their own
homeland within several decades?
2) No. I've said that from the very start. I've even said 2 million need booting out and a load with dual nationality who have criminal records.
The big but though is in demographic extrapolation. Because fertility rates, political policies etc change over time. So under the assumptions made by the ONS, then yes. But only if those assumptions remain as they are.
A: 1/ Do you accept, therefore, that being British is not a legal or social
construct, rather it is based on a belonging to one of the tribes of
Britain - eg being English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish - each of which are
defined ethnic groups, those countries (England, Scotland, Wales) which
make up Great Britain?
2/ You appear to suggest that only
non-British (those as defined in 1 above) ought to be ‘booted out’ for
various reasons. Is this right?
2. I think within the parameters of the law and what is practical, ethical and could be sold as a policy then yes. Practically you can't actually deport anyone who is a "pseudo-Brit" anyway because no country would just accept them. That's half the problem with letting illegal immigrants set foot on British soil after they have burnt their paper work. Almost none are deported.
A: 1/ One cannot alter the meaning of British; that being English,
Scottish, Welsh, Cornish - defined ethnic groups. Whether you
personally ‘care’ about ethnicity or DNA is irrelevant; it is real.
Whether a British person is badly behaved, or has good or bad values,
does not make that person any more/less British.
2/ You agree that non-British people ought to be deported for the various reasons which you outlined (criminals etc).
Once again, do you not recognise there is a problem with you position?
I have one for you.
Can anyone from Britain ever become an Australian?
A: I’ll await your answer to mine firstly, then be pleased to address yours
B: Eh? I have answered loads of your questions. I ask one and get nothing. Lol.A: I would prefer to finish one area of discussion before moving on to a new one.
Your position is flawed; it needs to be resolved. Or is that why you wish to change the subject?
You can actually have different meanings for words they evolve over time, it's called semantics.
A: OK then....let’s go with your question as it will expose the folly of your rationale!
Please answer yes or no to the following:
1. Could David Lammy be English?
2. Could David Lammy be Australian?
Sorry fella. This is a disingenuous conversation. Maybe others wish to chip in.
A: Gotcha!
B: By not answering a single question yet I have invested time and thought into multiple ones.Fair enough. Others can read and judge for themselves.
Me: maybe you can get someone of Norman descent into this thread to denounce
the bloody Germans who have only been in the UK since the 18th century
Next find someone of Anglo-Saxon descent to denounce the damn Normans who are immigrants and only came over from 1066
After that find someone of Gaellic stock to condemn the Anglo-Saxons as foreign invaders who need to be thrown out of the UK
B: I tried having a discussion but it was just a fire loads of questions at me, never answer a single one back gotcha game. Oh well....lol. Ironically Cathy Newman Mark 2 in an inverted way.
Ssshhhh that would involve understanding history.
A: The ‘gotcha’ is that, as you know full well, anyone can be Australian - even David Lammy.
Whereas David Lammy could never become English,Scottish,Welsh,Cornish - the indigenous peoples and defined ethnic groups of England,Scotland,Wales,Cornwall
respectively. One cannot magically ‘become’ an ethnicity, in the same
way that a man cannot magically become a woman and vice versa!
In summary, it is impossible to be black and English, or Scottish, or
Welsh, or Cornish because those are distinct ethnic groups - defined as
‘White European’. Whereas one can be black...or any ethnicity for that
matter...and be Australian.
