Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Our Sacred Land
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 37 – [ Previous | 13 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Gwass
193 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 12:38
blossom wrote:
Gwass wrote:

Thanks for your comments Blossom. However I feel I have to pick up on this point. When you said "I don't want to get into a debate about whether someone is being rascist or not"

I have to say that's part of the problem. If you read my comments there clearly wasn't anything there that could possibly be construed as racism. So by refusing to denounce me being called a racist is slightly adding to the problem.

People should stand up and take sides in this instance I feel as racism is vile & disgusting. So being labelled a racist therefore is also vile & disgusting as it is suggesting that I am vile & disgusting.

The majority of immigration is from within the EU which is predominantly white so being white myself and questioning the value of that can hardly be called racist. I never made a distinction on race at all.

Re benefits, you may be right, but i do know that councils are legally obliged to house people hence the huge cost monetarily and to our countryside to build the thousands of extra homes a year which are needed.


I disagree. I didn't want to get into a debate about whether you or anyone else are rascist or not because I do not know you. I don't know your political or personal views on any subject apart from a few short words on this forum and so I am not qualified to comment.

I am however qualified to comment on whether economic migrants are eligable to "join the dole queue" straight away. And so felt I should let you know that they are not.


Yes but surely because we don't know anything about each other on here we can only make a judgement based on what is written here & nothing written here was racist in the slightest. So to be called one, based on what's written is surely wrong and I thought worthy of defence.

Anyway who cares, an apology has been offered so it's all water under the bridge. All the best
Gwass
193 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 12:44
The Sea Cat wrote:
Gwass wrote:
Squid Tempest wrote:
Gwass wrote:
We need brave people to tackle the situation propperly as it needs to be rather than small minded people stifling any debate with ideological & false cries of racism.


Sorry, I've got to take you to task here. On the other part of this thread I've apologised for calling you racist, that was wrong of me, and I'd like to take that back. However, I don't agree with your stance, and I do consider it to be a dangerous point of view, albeit one held by large sectors of the population. Sensible answer coming right up.

First, you seem to be under the impression that something called "an indigenous population" is being invaded by Europeans. This is a false premise. For hundreds (or even thousands) of years our population has been made up from people from various European countries, and many from further afield. There is nothing new here, and nothing wrong here. There should be no barriers between people in my opinion. Otherwise you perpetuate an "us and them" situation, which is inherently racist. Our country has always been, and hopefully always will be, multicultural and cosmopolitan. Population on our continent is mobile, and this needs to be accepted.

Secondly, as Sea Cat so eloquently pointed out, the main problem isn't immigration, it is population explosion. If you really want to limit numbers you need to promote birth control and smaller family size. Not enforce it, that is a dangerous and repressive path. But to make it available and free for those who need it, and to also educate young people not to start families when they are too young and ill-prepared to deal with the responsibilities.

Population explosion is the real nettle that needs to be grasped, not immigration. This is the problem that faces the resource-hungry West. The "growth" promoted by our wonderful leaders is not sustainable.

I can't help but think we should be having this discussion over on U-Know - TMA isn't really the place for these political topics. I hope the Eds won't take exception. I suppose it will help if we try to keep it polite (which I should have done earlier!).


I didn't see your apology earlier & while I doubt whether saying your views are in the minority is equal to being called a racist, I accept it. So thank you.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as I feel your views are dangerous too, particularly that there should be no barriers between people as it leads to utter chaos in reality as you'd have 90% of the world all wanting to live in 10% of its space. Surely not a good idea? Also I've got to pick you up on

"Otherwise you perpetuate an "us and them" situation, which is inherently racist."

I feel this demonstartes how widely misused and misunderstood the term racist is, how can it be inherently racist if the "them & us" are both from the same race? It's a contradiction in terms. Also making logical distinctions between people living in one part of the world and another is also valid even if they are of different races aslong as it isn't derogatorily based upon race.

Also it was Sea Cat that was using the term indigenous & I actually questioned it so I don't think that one can be chalked against me.

However the statement that we've always been a multicultural country I have to disagree with there's no evidence for that. We were invaded but numbers were small and had little impact on most people, it tended to be the ruling elites that were replaced with only cultural changes on the vast majority of the population and that can be called mono cultural as the new culture was all conquering like the Roman customs being adopted by the Britons rather than a large influx of Romans & dual cultures existing.

Also re population expansion, I have to say that there is an acknowledged and accepted reason for this. It is fueled by large numbers of people arriving, how can net increases of c300,000 people every year for the last c14 years not have an impact on population expansion?

But mainly what I was referring to is the large families that settled recent arrivals themselves are having. Shall we say the birthrate of British families who've been here for 100yrs+ (to avoid indigenous), is very low indeed.

Our population explosion without considering new arrivals in that year is driven by the large families that fairly recent arrivals themselves are having. I honestly thought this was proven, accepted and understood by most people. This fact can directly be put down to immigration as well so saying it's population explosion and ignoring the ultimate cause of immigration is slightly misleading in a polite way.

:-)


Sorry to butt in here, but to clarify a rather obvious point, I used the term 'indigenous' loosely, to refer to the existing long term embedded population, of whom most would regard themselves as just that.


No worries SC. I know you did, I was just raising it as I was accused of using it & know how much of a contentious term it is.
Gwass
193 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 12:46
Squid Tempest wrote:
Gwass wrote:
Squid Tempest wrote:
Gwass wrote:
We need brave people to tackle the situation propperly as it needs to be rather than small minded people stifling any debate with ideological & false cries of racism.


Sorry, I've got to take you to task here. On the other part of this thread I've apologised for calling you racist, that was wrong of me, and I'd like to take that back. However, I don't agree with your stance, and I do consider it to be a dangerous point of view, albeit one held by large sectors of the population. Sensible answer coming right up.

First, you seem to be under the impression that something called "an indigenous population" is being invaded by Europeans. This is a false premise. For hundreds (or even thousands) of years our population has been made up from people from various European countries, and many from further afield. There is nothing new here, and nothing wrong here. There should be no barriers between people in my opinion. Otherwise you perpetuate an "us and them" situation, which is inherently racist. Our country has always been, and hopefully always will be, multicultural and cosmopolitan. Population on our continent is mobile, and this needs to be accepted.

Secondly, as Sea Cat so eloquently pointed out, the main problem isn't immigration, it is population explosion. If you really want to limit numbers you need to promote birth control and smaller family size. Not enforce it, that is a dangerous and repressive path. But to make it available and free for those who need it, and to also educate young people not to start families when they are too young and ill-prepared to deal with the responsibilities.

Population explosion is the real nettle that needs to be grasped, not immigration. This is the problem that faces the resource-hungry West. The "growth" promoted by our wonderful leaders is not sustainable.

I can't help but think we should be having this discussion over on U-Know - TMA isn't really the place for these political topics. I hope the Eds won't take exception. I suppose it will help if we try to keep it polite (which I should have done earlier!).


I didn't see your apology earlier & while I doubt whether saying your views are in the minority is equal to being called a racist, I accept it. So thank you.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as I feel your views are dangerous too, particularly that there should be no barriers between people as it leads to utter chaos in reality as you'd have 90% of the world all wanting to live in 10% of its space. Surely not a good idea? Also I've got to pick you up on

"Otherwise you perpetuate an "us and them" situation, which is inherently racist."

I feel this demonstartes how widely misused and misunderstood the term racist is, how can it be inherently racist if the "them & us" are both from the same race? It's a contradiction in terms. Also making logical distinctions between people living in one part of the world and another is also valid even if they are of different races aslong as it isn't derogatorily based upon race.

Also it was Sea Cat that was using the term indigenous & I actually questioned it so I don't think that one can be chalked against me.

However the statement that we've always been a multicultural country I have to disagree with there's no evidence for that. We were invaded but numbers were small and had little impact on most people, it tended to be the ruling elites that were replaced with only cultural changes on the vast majority of the population and that can be called mono cultural as the new culture was all conquering like the Roman customs being adopted by the Britons rather than a large influx of Romans & dual cultures existing.

Also re population expansion, I have to say that there is an acknowledged and accepted reason for this. It is fueled by large numbers of people arriving, how can net increases of c300,000 people every year for the last c14 years not have an impact on population expansion?

But mainly what I was referring to is the large families that settled recent arrivals themselves are having. Shall we say the birthrate of British families who've been here for 100yrs+ (to avoid indigenous), is very low indeed.

Our population explosion without considering new arrivals in that year is driven by the large families that fairly recent arrivals themselves are having. I honestly thought this was proven, accepted and understood by most people. This fact can directly be put down to immigration as well so saying it's population explosion and ignoring the ultimate cause of immigration is slightly misleading in a polite way.

:-)


I agree, we're going to have to agree to differ!

One small point - I know I apologised for calling you a racist, but in truth, I didn't intend to call you a racist in the first place. that was entirely intended as a jest at your initial dig at how some left-wing person would label you a racist. I was jokingly playing the "loony left" person, IYSWIM.

If it is OK with you I'll leave it here. I don't agree with you, but I don't think we're going to change each others views by arguing this further. Thanks for accepting my apology btw.


No problem at all and no hard feelings. We'll leave it there then.

All the best & lets stick to stones. :-)
Rhiannon
5293 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 12:50
I wonder who you include in your 'original settlers' Gwass. I really can't imagine 85% of us are related to the few thousands of people left here when the land bridge disappeared, I'd love to see the proof.

And if you don't like the idea that we're a nation of immigrants, does that mean you think anyone with Saxon, Viking, Norman etc ancestors isn't properly British? Because that's going to include an awful lot of people, doubtless yourself included. And what if my ancestors came here a hundred years ago from (I don't know) Portugal, would I be properly British enough for you. Where are you going to draw your line, who's rightly allowed to be here? What do you think all these Foreigners are doing in this country - do you know, some of them even have jobs, skilled jobs at that, and contribute to society, and pay taxes, and all sorts. Bloody hell I'm even friends with some of them, are you? In fact, I'm even related to some of them, heaven forbid.

Or is it that you want to stop anyone coming into this country from this moment onwards. Or do you have certain countries you'll allow them in from I wonder? Or will they be allowed in if they promise to speak English and watch the cricket and eat fry ups every morning. Don't tell me, you just don't want any shifty looking lazy ones who move straight into an 9 bedroom council house and live on benefits.

And did you know, some people even emigrate from Britain! Can you imagine. What are they thinking of.

You state that lots of people here work in the public sector and imply they're dreadful lefties. I don't know if that's true, I don't think we've ever had a poll. But if it IS true, why would you think that would be? Surely this strange interest in prehistoric sites doesn't attract that sort of person? Why would that be... Hmmm...
Gwass
193 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 13:11
Rhiannon wrote:
I wonder who you include in your 'original settlers' Gwass. I really can't imagine 85% of us are related to the few thousands of people left here when the land bridge disappeared, I'd love to see the proof.

And if you don't like the idea that we're a nation of immigrants, does that mean you think anyone with Saxon, Viking, Norman etc ancestors isn't properly British? Because that's going to include an awful lot of people, doubtless yourself included. And what if my ancestors came here a hundred years ago from (I don't know) Portugal, would I be properly British enough for you. Where are you going to draw your line, who's rightly allowed to be here? What do you think all these Foreigners are doing in this country - do you know, some of them even have jobs, skilled jobs at that, and contribute to society, and pay taxes, and all sorts. Bloody hell I'm even friends with some of them, are you? In fact, I'm even related to some of them, heaven forbid.

Or is it that you want to stop anyone coming into this country from this moment onwards. Or do you have certain countries you'll allow them in from I wonder? Or will they be allowed in if they promise to speak English and watch the cricket and eat fry ups every morning. Don't tell me, you just don't want any shifty looking lazy ones who move straight into an 9 bedroom council house and live on benefits.

And did you know, some people even emigrate from Britain! Can you imagine. What are they thinking of.

You state that lots of people here work in the public sector and imply they're dreadful lefties. I don't know if that's true, I don't think we've ever had a poll. But if it IS true, why would you think that would be? Surely this strange interest in prehistoric sites doesn't attract that sort of person? Why would that be... Hmmm...


Please calm down. I'm only quoting some research that was posted here a year or 2. So please don't assume they are 'my original settlers". Also whether you can imagine it being 85% or not is neither here nor there, as I said I saw a link on the news section here a year or two ago. In that space of time a few thousand can swell to millions easily so assuming the research is correct the hows and why fors are perfectly plausible.

I'm going to keep it brief as had agreed to leave this topic but I had to reply to your disparagingly toned response. There's a total lack of nuance or sensible debate there. It seems the new all inclusive PC, right on, left is as dogmatic and intollerant as any past diktat. Stifling any debate or dissent as good as any right wing regime. How ironic.

So I raise widely held & valid concerns about the impact of our unprecedented immigration levels & you default to ridiculous, extreme infalamtary statements like

"Or is it that you want to stop anyone coming into this country from this moment onwards. Or do you have certain countries you'll allow them in from I wonder? Or will they be allowed in if they promise to speak English and watch the cricket and eat fry ups every morning. Don't tell me, you just don't want any shifty looking lazy ones who move straight into an 9 bedroom council house and live on benefits."

I leave it there I think, you put it better than I ever could.
The Sea Cat
The Sea Cat
3608 posts

Edited Sep 06, 2011, 13:17
Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 13:16
Gwass wrote:
Squid Tempest wrote:
Gwass wrote:
We need brave people to tackle the situation propperly as it needs to be rather than small minded people stifling any debate with ideological & false cries of racism.


Sorry, I've got to take you to task here. On the other part of this thread I've apologised for calling you racist, that was wrong of me, and I'd like to take that back. However, I don't agree with your stance, and I do consider it to be a dangerous point of view, albeit one held by large sectors of the population. Sensible answer coming right up.

First, you seem to be under the impression that something called "an indigenous population" is being invaded by Europeans. This is a false premise. For hundreds (or even thousands) of years our population has been made up from people from various European countries, and many from further afield. There is nothing new here, and nothing wrong here. There should be no barriers between people in my opinion. Otherwise you perpetuate an "us and them" situation, which is inherently racist. Our country has always been, and hopefully always will be, multicultural and cosmopolitan. Population on our continent is mobile, and this needs to be accepted.

Secondly, as Sea Cat so eloquently pointed out, the main problem isn't immigration, it is population explosion. If you really want to limit numbers you need to promote birth control and smaller family size. Not enforce it, that is a dangerous and repressive path. But to make it available and free for those who need it, and to also educate young people not to start families when they are too young and ill-prepared to deal with the responsibilities.

Population explosion is the real nettle that needs to be grasped, not immigration. This is the problem that faces the resource-hungry West. The "growth" promoted by our wonderful leaders is not sustainable.

I can't help but think we should be having this discussion over on U-Know - TMA isn't really the place for these political topics. I hope the Eds won't take exception. I suppose it will help if we try to keep it polite (which I should have done earlier!).


I didn't see your apology earlier & while I doubt whether saying your views are in the minority is equal to being called a racist, I accept it. So thank you.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as I feel your views are dangerous too, particularly that there should be no barriers between people as it leads to utter chaos in reality as you'd have 90% of the world all wanting to live in 10% of its space. Surely not a good idea? Also I've got to pick you up on

"Otherwise you perpetuate an "us and them" situation, which is inherently racist."

I feel this demonstartes how widely misused and misunderstood the term racist is, how can it be inherently racist if the "them & us" are both from the same race? It's a contradiction in terms. Also making logical distinctions between people living in one part of the world and another is also valid even if they are of different races aslong as it isn't derogatorily based upon race.

Also it was Sea Cat that was using the term indigenous & I actually questioned it so I don't think that one can be chalked against me.

However the statement that we've always been a multicultural country I have to disagree with there's no evidence for that. We were invaded but numbers were small and had little impact on most people, it tended to be the ruling elites that were replaced with only cultural changes on the vast majority of the population and that can be called mono cultural as the new culture was all conquering like the Roman customs being adopted by the Britons rather than a large influx of Romans & dual cultures existing.

Also re population expansion, I have to say that there is an acknowledged and accepted reason for this. It is fueled by large numbers of people arriving, how can net increases of c300,000 people every year for the last c14 years not have an impact on population expansion?

But mainly what I was referring to is the large families that settled recent arrivals themselves are having. Shall we say the birthrate of British families who've been here for 100yrs+ (to avoid indigenous), is very low indeed.

Our population explosion without considering new arrivals in that year is driven by the large families that fairly recent arrivals themselves are having. I honestly thought this was proven, accepted and understood by most people. This fact can directly be put down to immigration as well so saying it's population explosion and ignoring the ultimate cause of immigration is slightly misleading in a polite way.

:-)


Sorry to butt in here, but to clarify a rather obvious point, I used the term 'indigenous' loosely, to refer to the existing long term embedded population, of whom most would regard themselves as just that.
Squid Tempest
Squid Tempest
8787 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 13:33
Gwass wrote:
Squid Tempest wrote:
Gwass wrote:
We need brave people to tackle the situation propperly as it needs to be rather than small minded people stifling any debate with ideological & false cries of racism.


Sorry, I've got to take you to task here. On the other part of this thread I've apologised for calling you racist, that was wrong of me, and I'd like to take that back. However, I don't agree with your stance, and I do consider it to be a dangerous point of view, albeit one held by large sectors of the population. Sensible answer coming right up.

First, you seem to be under the impression that something called "an indigenous population" is being invaded by Europeans. This is a false premise. For hundreds (or even thousands) of years our population has been made up from people from various European countries, and many from further afield. There is nothing new here, and nothing wrong here. There should be no barriers between people in my opinion. Otherwise you perpetuate an "us and them" situation, which is inherently racist. Our country has always been, and hopefully always will be, multicultural and cosmopolitan. Population on our continent is mobile, and this needs to be accepted.

Secondly, as Sea Cat so eloquently pointed out, the main problem isn't immigration, it is population explosion. If you really want to limit numbers you need to promote birth control and smaller family size. Not enforce it, that is a dangerous and repressive path. But to make it available and free for those who need it, and to also educate young people not to start families when they are too young and ill-prepared to deal with the responsibilities.

Population explosion is the real nettle that needs to be grasped, not immigration. This is the problem that faces the resource-hungry West. The "growth" promoted by our wonderful leaders is not sustainable.

I can't help but think we should be having this discussion over on U-Know - TMA isn't really the place for these political topics. I hope the Eds won't take exception. I suppose it will help if we try to keep it polite (which I should have done earlier!).


I didn't see your apology earlier & while I doubt whether saying your views are in the minority is equal to being called a racist, I accept it. So thank you.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as I feel your views are dangerous too, particularly that there should be no barriers between people as it leads to utter chaos in reality as you'd have 90% of the world all wanting to live in 10% of its space. Surely not a good idea? Also I've got to pick you up on

"Otherwise you perpetuate an "us and them" situation, which is inherently racist."

I feel this demonstartes how widely misused and misunderstood the term racist is, how can it be inherently racist if the "them & us" are both from the same race? It's a contradiction in terms. Also making logical distinctions between people living in one part of the world and another is also valid even if they are of different races aslong as it isn't derogatorily based upon race.

Also it was Sea Cat that was using the term indigenous & I actually questioned it so I don't think that one can be chalked against me.

However the statement that we've always been a multicultural country I have to disagree with there's no evidence for that. We were invaded but numbers were small and had little impact on most people, it tended to be the ruling elites that were replaced with only cultural changes on the vast majority of the population and that can be called mono cultural as the new culture was all conquering like the Roman customs being adopted by the Britons rather than a large influx of Romans & dual cultures existing.

Also re population expansion, I have to say that there is an acknowledged and accepted reason for this. It is fueled by large numbers of people arriving, how can net increases of c300,000 people every year for the last c14 years not have an impact on population expansion?

But mainly what I was referring to is the large families that settled recent arrivals themselves are having. Shall we say the birthrate of British families who've been here for 100yrs+ (to avoid indigenous), is very low indeed.

Our population explosion without considering new arrivals in that year is driven by the large families that fairly recent arrivals themselves are having. I honestly thought this was proven, accepted and understood by most people. This fact can directly be put down to immigration as well so saying it's population explosion and ignoring the ultimate cause of immigration is slightly misleading in a polite way.

:-)


I agree, we're going to have to agree to differ!

One small point - I know I apologised for calling you a racist, but in truth, I didn't intend to call you a racist in the first place. that was entirely intended as a jest at your initial dig at how some left-wing person would label you a racist. I was jokingly playing the "loony left" person, IYSWIM.

If it is OK with you I'll leave it here. I don't agree with you, but I don't think we're going to change each others views by arguing this further. Thanks for accepting my apology btw.
The Sea Cat
The Sea Cat
3608 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 13:50
Gwass wrote:
The Sea Cat wrote:
Gwass wrote:
Squid Tempest wrote:
Gwass wrote:
We need brave people to tackle the situation propperly as it needs to be rather than small minded people stifling any debate with ideological & false cries of racism.


Sorry, I've got to take you to task here. On the other part of this thread I've apologised for calling you racist, that was wrong of me, and I'd like to take that back. However, I don't agree with your stance, and I do consider it to be a dangerous point of view, albeit one held by large sectors of the population. Sensible answer coming right up.

First, you seem to be under the impression that something called "an indigenous population" is being invaded by Europeans. This is a false premise. For hundreds (or even thousands) of years our population has been made up from people from various European countries, and many from further afield. There is nothing new here, and nothing wrong here. There should be no barriers between people in my opinion. Otherwise you perpetuate an "us and them" situation, which is inherently racist. Our country has always been, and hopefully always will be, multicultural and cosmopolitan. Population on our continent is mobile, and this needs to be accepted.

Secondly, as Sea Cat so eloquently pointed out, the main problem isn't immigration, it is population explosion. If you really want to limit numbers you need to promote birth control and smaller family size. Not enforce it, that is a dangerous and repressive path. But to make it available and free for those who need it, and to also educate young people not to start families when they are too young and ill-prepared to deal with the responsibilities.

Population explosion is the real nettle that needs to be grasped, not immigration. This is the problem that faces the resource-hungry West. The "growth" promoted by our wonderful leaders is not sustainable.

I can't help but think we should be having this discussion over on U-Know - TMA isn't really the place for these political topics. I hope the Eds won't take exception. I suppose it will help if we try to keep it polite (which I should have done earlier!).


I didn't see your apology earlier & while I doubt whether saying your views are in the minority is equal to being called a racist, I accept it. So thank you.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as I feel your views are dangerous too, particularly that there should be no barriers between people as it leads to utter chaos in reality as you'd have 90% of the world all wanting to live in 10% of its space. Surely not a good idea? Also I've got to pick you up on

"Otherwise you perpetuate an "us and them" situation, which is inherently racist."

I feel this demonstartes how widely misused and misunderstood the term racist is, how can it be inherently racist if the "them & us" are both from the same race? It's a contradiction in terms. Also making logical distinctions between people living in one part of the world and another is also valid even if they are of different races aslong as it isn't derogatorily based upon race.

Also it was Sea Cat that was using the term indigenous & I actually questioned it so I don't think that one can be chalked against me.

However the statement that we've always been a multicultural country I have to disagree with there's no evidence for that. We were invaded but numbers were small and had little impact on most people, it tended to be the ruling elites that were replaced with only cultural changes on the vast majority of the population and that can be called mono cultural as the new culture was all conquering like the Roman customs being adopted by the Britons rather than a large influx of Romans & dual cultures existing.

Also re population expansion, I have to say that there is an acknowledged and accepted reason for this. It is fueled by large numbers of people arriving, how can net increases of c300,000 people every year for the last c14 years not have an impact on population expansion?

But mainly what I was referring to is the large families that settled recent arrivals themselves are having. Shall we say the birthrate of British families who've been here for 100yrs+ (to avoid indigenous), is very low indeed.

Our population explosion without considering new arrivals in that year is driven by the large families that fairly recent arrivals themselves are having. I honestly thought this was proven, accepted and understood by most people. This fact can directly be put down to immigration as well so saying it's population explosion and ignoring the ultimate cause of immigration is slightly misleading in a polite way.

:-)


Sorry to butt in here, but to clarify a rather obvious point, I used the term 'indigenous' loosely, to refer to the existing long term embedded population, of whom most would regard themselves as just that.


No worries SC. I know you did, I was just raising it as I was accused of using it & know how much of a contentious term it is.


Thanks Gwass.

:-)
The Sea Cat
The Sea Cat
3608 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 13:55
Gwass wrote:
The Sea Cat wrote:
Squid Tempest wrote:


For hundreds (or even thousands) of years our population has been made up from people from various European countries, and many from further afield. There is nothing new here, and nothing wrong here. There should be no barriers between people in my opinion. Otherwise you perpetuate an "us and them" situation, which is inherently racist. Our country has always been, and hopefully always will be, multicultural and cosmopolitan. Population on our continent is mobile, and this needs to be accepted.



Absolutely. It is an organic and symbiotic process, hence our multi faceted and splendidly diverse culture and heritage.


I have to disagree. I remember reading a link on here about a year ago that research had proven that c85% of British people were directly related to the first settlers.

Isn't that "we're all immigrants anyway" a recent invention by the left to justify our mass immigration levels? I know a lot of people work in the public sector here and hence tory bashing is rife and these views go along with that. I know that working for local govt these pro immigration views are almost force fed to staff & that PC culture runs from top to bottom in such organisations, I talk from experience by the way.

Aren't these views just an example of that kind of conditioning if you like?

My understanding was also that historians incorrectly perpetuated the invasion theory untill recently due to ignorance and an obsession with the classical world being the only way to civilize us. I really thought that it was now accepted as being wrong that the Romans, Saxons, Viking & Normans all had much impact on us as a people apart from a cultural movement of ideas.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


The broader cultural impact, not just numbers of settlers. Pre-Roman Britain from the Iron Age to the Celts was an important trader with many influences and mutual exchanges of cultures etc. This was surely compounded by the smaller number of immigrants who settled and whose influence was felt and assimilated, especially from Roman Britain, through the Middle Ages, Empire and beyond. From that viewpoint, we are most definitely a muli-culture.
Squid Tempest
Squid Tempest
8787 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 14:08
Thanks. Good on yer.

If only more of the discussions around here could be so civilised!
Pages: 37 – [ Previous | 13 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index