Is multiculturalism wanted??

wendell borton

Einhard wrote: »

So a white person, born and bred in Manchester, but whose parents originated from Ireland in the 1870s, would not be considered a native Briton? That's a pretty narrow definition you've got there!!

Ireland was part of GB back then, so they are native Britons.

Nodin

SirTallaghtban wrote: »

Very, very few non white Britons ancestors were in the UK prior to the 1950s. A miniscule number, perhaps.

I dont see them as being native to Briton.

If an Irish couple moved to outer Mongolia in the morning, settled down, had a kid - would you consider their offspring to be a native Mongolian?

David Norris, the past presendential candidate, was born and grew up for a time, in Africa. Is he a native African?

This may come as a shock, but nations are not, and indeed rarely are, based on a single ethnicity. This is particularily true over the last 100 years. By conflating nationality "British" with some vague notions of race, you're leaving yourself open to accusations of racism and bigotry.

The King of Moo

SirTallaghtban wrote: »

Very, very few non white Britons ancestors were in the UK prior to the 1950s. A miniscule number, perhaps.

I dont see them as being native to Briton.

If an Irish couple moved to outer Mongolia in the morning, settled down, had a kid - would you consider their offspring to be a native Mongolian?

David Norris, the past presendential candidate, was born and grew up for a time, in Africa. Is he a native African?

What about all the invaders and huge numbers of Europeans who went to Britain: Angles, Saxons, Normans, Vikings? Do their descendants count as "native Britons?"
If not, then there's really no such thing as a native Briton.
If so, what if another country successfully invaded Britain tomorrow? Would you consider them and their descendants to be native Britons?

Or do native Britons just have to be white?

Einhard

SirTallaghtban wrote: »

Very, very few non white Britons ancestors were in the UK prior to the 1950s. A miniscule number, perhaps.

I dont see them as being native to Briton. They are second/third genertion immigrants whom are now British. But native they are not.

If an Irish couple moved to outer Mongolia in the morning, settled down, had a kid - would you consider their offspring to be a native Mongolian?

David Norris, the past presendential candidate, was born and grew up for a time, in Africa. Is he a native African?

My aunt moved to Britain in the 70s. Her children were born there. So were her grandkids. Assuming that you're being logically consistent, and not merely racist, you wouldn't consider them British so?

Einhard

wendell borton wrote: »

Ireland was part of GB back then, so they are native Britons.

It was part of the UK, not Great Britain. Sorry.

SirTallaghtban

DublinWriter wrote: »

You'll all be singing the praises of multi-culturalism when Omoni Maduike from Balbriggan hoists the Sam aloft for Dublin in his big sweaty black hands after hospitalising most of the Kerry team in the 2021 All-Ireland.

Considering the revelations about the Magdalene laundries, we don't even do mono-culturalism well in this country.

I think the reason multi-culturalism doesn't work in the UK, Germany and France is because they are all culturally-insular nations with very fixed notions of national identify based on hundreds of years of very bloody internecine European warfare.

We Irish, on the other hand, are a relatively young nation and are always up for a bit of "what ever you're having yourself".

So, we dont do mono-culturalism well, but you expect us to do multiculturalism well, even though its failed in every European country.

Hmmmm.

We have yet to integrate the 17th century planters up north. I wish I had your optimism.

Terrontress

Oh no, I feel sick.

Nodin, the IRA lovin', murder celebratin' Sinn Fein cheerin', Garda killing rationalisin', bastard has thanked my last post.

I admit it. I'm not as open and tolerant as I thought.

Africans, Eastern Europeans, Indian Sub-Continent: lovely to see you.

A section of our own society? I'm not so sure.

wendell borton

Einhard wrote: »

It was part of the UK, not Great Britain. Sorry.

The united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland to be exact.

squod

Vividly illustrating the resentment, Singaporeans sometimes call the wealthy immigrants “rich Chinese locusts,” according to an article in the Economic Observer’s Worldcrunch.

The ''battle'' of Singapore is being fought on the streets with many protests about immigration. Policy decisions that effect the natives and anger some, possibly most of the residents.

Could we use terms like these to describe economic migrants? No.

Mr. Lee said in Parliament, adding that 6.9 million was not a target but a number to be used to help plan for infrastructure.

“Do we really need to increase our population by that much?” wrote a person called Chang Wei Meng in a letter to The Straits Times, according to Reuters. “What happened to achieving the Swiss standard of living?”

Interesting to see what happens there. Certainly no-one in the western media is calling people bigots, racist or xenophobic for objecting to mass immigration.

http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/in-singapores-immigration-debate-sign-of-asias-slipping-middle-class/

philologos

SirTallaghtban wrote: »

Yeah, its called white flight.

Already happening in north west Dublin since 2006.

Rtes primetime did a piece on it - then never mentioned it again!

In terms of the proportion between white (including other whites) it's 60% 40%. White British is 45%.

Either way, I couldn't care less. Ones skin colour doesn't make a difference to how valuable they are as friends. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Many good friends of mine are of other ethnicities and I think my life is better for having them in my life than not having them.

It is rather saddening to hear you speak like that.

Nodin

Terrontress wrote: »

Oh no, I feel sick.

Nodin, the IRA lovin', murder celebratin' Sinn Fein cheerin', Garda killing rationalisin', bastard has thanked my last post.

.....

I see the form that won "Ms Grudgbearer 2008" has not deserted you.

Lou.m

SirTallaghtban wrote: »

How many Irish people moved to asia, africa or the middle east?

Very few.

Such a logical fallacy. Irish people moved to new world countries, so that means we have to welcome anyone who rocks up here?

Ps- a relatively homogenous society can also be a multicultural society.

No you are very very wrong.
Also many of the population emigrated to latin america and Africa...Brazil, Argentina.
And erm lots of us moved to britain....and America has not really been a new world since the 1800's ..it was pretty populated i the 50's 60's 70's and 80's.

There are Irish ommunities found in Bermuda , the Carribean South Africa (cape town Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Kimberley, and Johannesburg, with smaller communities in Pretoria, Barberton, Durban and East London. ) A THIRD OF THE CAPES GOVERNORS WERE IRISH FOR CRIPES SAKE!!

Also there are large numbers of Irish descendants in Mexico chile puerto rico et...
Same with Oz and Canada...in Oz in particular they resent Irish building labor in the media.

Lots of Irish in Dubai and such ...

so yes we do have to welcome them.

Also it is a myth that they were unpopulated....there was a population.....a native one in America and Canada...and particularly in Canada the Irish helped kill them. It is a myth that they were empty land

Ps- a relatively homogenous society can also be a multicultural society.

How..

SirTallaghtban

Einhard wrote: »

My aunt moved to Britain in the 70s. Her children were born there. So were her grandkids. Assuming that you're being logically consistent, and not merely racist, you wouldn't consider them British so?

Your aunt was an immigrant. Her offspring, second generation immigrants who were also Brits(but not native Britons).

And so on...

Einhard

Terrontress wrote: »

Africans, Eastern Europeans, Indian Sub-Continent: lovely to see you.

A section of our own society? I'm not so sure.

Cos they're different eh? Funny, you speak about "our own society" as if we're all one big homogenous group. Yet many people would happily identify more with a liberal African than someone wth the views you aparently hold.

wendell borton wrote: »

The united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland to be exact.

Eh, yes. The important word being "and". We were never a part of Great Britain.

MaxSteele

woodoo wrote: »

You know what he means einhard when he uses the term native Briton, don't be dragging the thread off on one of those pedantic tangents.

Think of what the average person would have looked like in britain 300 or 400 hundred years ago. That is basically what people mean when they talk of native. White british, you know it i know it he knows it.

This. This is what it boils down to. No point in sugar coating it for the sake of being polite. White skin.

Doesn't matter if a British citizen of second or third generation Jamaican, Indian, Pakistani, Ghanan descent (fell free to correct me on the last one) etc wear nothing but a union jack three piece suit with a matching top hat, sipping tea or downing a pint of Carling or London porter.

Because of their skin color, many "native" white britons will still feel alienated due to multiculturalism being a relatively new ideal as opposed to the centuries of homogeneous white population being the status quo.

With mass immigration, usually involves some form of poverty and segregation to an extent. London being an example. This only further reinforces "natives" views, that multiculturalism is weeding out the traditional values and society that has existed for generations.

I think it's more a knee jerk reaction, instead of incitement of hatred

Nodin

Lads, multiculturalism does not mean 'black people living amongst us'........

Einhard

SirTallaghtban wrote: »

Your aunt was an immigrant. Her offspring, second generation immigrants who were also Brits(but not native Britons).


And so on...

Ah, ok. Finally we're getting somewhere. So a fourth generation white British person with Irish ancestry has, in your opinion, the exact same status, relative to the the native British, as a fourth generation black person of Kenyan descent?

Terrontress

Nodin wrote: »

I see the form that won "Ms Grudgbearer 2008" has not deserted you.

Maybe I shouldn't have attempted humour, giving you carte blanche to respond likewise.

I'll make myself clear.

Your opinions make me weep and, from what I have read from your other posts, I'd sooner have anyone from any other nation on earth than you live next door to me.

Attack the post and not the poster, yeah I know, but I've never had such a cancerous blight thank one of my posts before.

So I'll take the ban, deletion or other sanction on the chin. But he'll know what I think now, after having stayed silent for so long.

SirTallaghtban

Einhard wrote: »

Cos they're different eh? Funny, you speak about "our own society" as if we're all one big homogenous group. Yet many people would happily identify more with a liberal African than someone wth the views you aparently hold.

Nearly ever opinion poll conducted in nearly every EU state has shown us that most EU citizens want immigration drastically cut down.

Not many support multiculturalism and mass immigration.

I cant link as on the phone, but put these keywords into google - www.euractiv.com europeans overwhelmingly against immigration

southsiderosie

woodoo wrote: »

You know what he means einhard when he uses the term native Briton, don't be dragging the thread off on one of those pedantic tangents.

Think of what the average person would have looked like in britain 300 or 400 hundred years ago. That is basically what people mean when they talk of native. White british, you know it i know it he knows it.

But you can't think about it that way because Britain isn't just a land mass, it is a multi-national political entity (and was such before post-war immigration). The idea of who is 'British' isn't bound by geography, but rather by both domestic and international politics. So let's not pretend that 'Britishness' is something that was magically bestowed by God or by virtue of history: it is a social and political construct.

catallus

Isn't this guy a native Bitton?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-21519917

Nodin

Terrontress wrote: »

Maybe I shouldn't have attempted humour, giving you carte blanche to respond likewise.

I'll make myself clear.

Your opinions make me weep and, from what I have read from your other posts, I'd sooner have anyone from any other nation on earth than you live next door to me.

Attack the post and not the poster, yeah I know, but I've never had such a cancerous blight thank one of my posts before.

So I'll take the ban, deletion or other sanction on the chin. But he'll know what I think now, after having stayed silent for so long.

Class.

I'd just like it noted that I did not kill or molest this persons puppy.

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

Isn't this guy a native Bitton?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-21519917

As the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg are northern european, I suppose he'll make an exception.

Einhard

SirTallaghtban wrote: »

Nearly ever opinion poll conducted in nearly every EU state has shown us that most EU citizens want immigration drastically cut down.

Not many support multiculturalism and mass immigration.

I cant link as on the phone, but put these keywords into google - www.euractiv.com europeans overwhelmingly against immigration

I don't agree with the concept of multiculturalism, as I stated in my initial post. Problem is, many people seem to think that multiculturalism is simpy another term for immigration, when it's a lot more complex than that.I'm also against mass immigration. However, I do see the positive affects of immigration, and being against unregulated immigration has never lead me to impugn the nationality of a person purely on the basis of their skin colour, as others are wont to do, and as you seemed to be flirting with earlier.Could you answer my question though- are my white, second generation cousins in the UK as British as their black, second generation peers?
All other things being equal of course.

Terrontress

There is definitely societal inequality based on racial lines in London, or at least those parts of it I'm familiar with. Black kids are legally entitled to do all that white kids do but end up less likely to go to university, own their own home, find a job.

There also seems to be a general desire to move out to the commuter belt. Berkshire, Essex, Surrey, Kent.

Maybe black people hold the same ambitions to move away from the bustle but are less economically able, giving the illusion of "white flight".

MadYaker

Can of worms: Open. Worms everywhere.

Einhard

Nodin wrote: »

I'd just like it noted that I did not kill or molest this persons puppy.

Must have been a black.

Sonics2k

British and Irish complaining about people moving to their countries and "taking over" never stops amusing me.

wendell borton

Einhard wrote: »

Cos they're different eh? Funny, you speak about "our own society" as if we're all one big homogenous group. Yet many people would happily identify more with a liberal African than someone wth the views you aparently hold.


Eh, yes. The important word being "and". We were never a part of Great Britain.

Quite a few flag fetishist's up north would disagree with you on that.

squod

Terrontress wrote: »

Maybe black people hold the same ambitions to move away from the bustle but are less economically able, giving the illusion of "white flight".

Shure, that's it. People who move away from areas they can't afford to live in anymore are occupied by people who can't afford to move? Makes sense, not.