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

Pages: 37 – [ Previous | 14 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Rhiannon
5293 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 14:28
I'm not stifling any debate, I'm asking you what your opinions are and I'm asking you to justify them - that IS debate surely. Yes I have lampooned you by using stereotypical right wing views - precisely because you dragged up the old 'political correctness / brainwashed public sector lefties' chestnut.
ocifant
ocifant
1757 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 14:52
I make it a rule not to get involved too deeply in political debate (I have a short fuse), but wanted to correct you on one single point:

Gwass wrote:

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.


Whilst I'm an only child, my mother was one of 6, my father one of 7 children. A friend of ours is one of 10, and has 3 children herself (so far). A cousin's son has 4 so far. Two other cousins of mine have 3 children each, some of whom have similar sized families.

I believe the 'nuclear' family of 2 parents, and 2.4 children (or whatever the often quoted number is) is a myth. For every family that is childless, or has only a single offspring, there are several more with 3 or more children.

The problem we have is simple, and has been quoted here already - 90% of the people want to live in 10% of the space. Whether that space is the coastal region of a continent like North America, Australia or Africa, a group of islands like the British Isles or the Phillipines, or an urban conurbation, or whatever - the same holds. There's not enough (desirable) space for the people that want it, *regardless of where they originate*.
Resonox
604 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 15:02
ocifant wrote:

I believe the 'nuclear' family of 2 parents, and 2.4 children (or whatever the often quoted number is) is a myth.
So it is more UNCLEAR than NUCLEAR then? ;0P
Gwass
193 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 15:10
Rhiannon wrote:
I'm not stifling any debate, I'm asking you what your opinions are and I'm asking you to justify them - that IS debate surely. Yes I have lampooned you by using stereotypical right wing views - precisely because you dragged up the old 'political correctness / brainwashed public sector lefties' chestnut.


By leaping to the extreme points you did I wouldn't call that a sensible debate, so yes it can be percieved as closing down a propper debate as there's no sensible discussion there, instead you aksed ridiculous things like so you would stop anyone coming here from now on.

In many cases the PC brainwashed point I made is absolutely the case. It's a fact I'm afraid, I mean you've only got to look at our state schools to see the left have taken over them, the average classroom has a large no of people verging on communism.

Ok my opinions are that too much immigration from WHERE EVER is a bad thing and I feel this is obvious to anyone looking dispassionately and without immovable views based on ideology. Surely TOO MUCH of anything is a bad thing?

The problems are proven and numerous; and it doesn't mean you're racist to point that out I'm afraid.

In response to your 'questions'

"I wonder who you include in your 'original settlers' Gwass". - I think the research stated they originated from the Basque country

"And if you don't like the idea that we're a nation of immigrants" - I didn't say I didn't like the idea, I merely challenged the fact that we are and quoted the link I saw here.

"does that mean you think anyone with Saxon, Viking, Norman etc ancestors isn't properly British?" - Nope merely that they are in the minority according to the research, and most of their ancestry would be pre invasion as there's bound to have been mixing.

"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." - Yes.

"Where are you going to draw your line, who's rightly allowed to be here?" - Genuine asylum seekers, people that benefit the economy and British people of course.

"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." - Yes & too many don't.

"Bloody hell I'm even friends with some of them, are you?" - Not currently but was at my old workplace, is that relevant?

"Or is it that you want to stop anyone coming into this country from this moment onwards." - No

"Or do you have certain countries you'll allow them in from I wonder?" - No I'm not racist/xenophobic.

"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." - No, that's clearly ridiculous, I'm not a cricket fan myself & Yes.

"And did you know, some people even emigrate from Britain! Can you imagine. What are they thinking of." - Yes and to get a better life I'd imagine.

"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..." - I know the hippyish aspect of being into stones fits in with left wing and the perception that it was an egalatarian society. Which we can't prove. I will however say that the left don't have a monopoly on being into ancient history.

Basically to summarise, I'm against mass immigration as it causes problems. It doesn't mean I hate the people themselves but it's possible to see the macro social and economic issues it causes seperately and to rightly deduce that in such huge levels it is a bad thing. Please justify why you would disagree with this?

Why would being against something that damages our country and citizens be seen as somehow evil or bad. That's what I mean by this mental PC notion that's taken hold in the last few decades & would have been almost unheard of at any other time in history as it's so self destructive. The fact that people fly off the handle or cry racist demonstartes that they aren't acting rationally or dispassionately.

My views are perfectly reasonable and in the majority, I make no apology for them.

On that note I'll leave it there.

All the best Rhiannon
Gwass
193 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 15:15
ocifant wrote:
I make it a rule not to get involved too deeply in political debate (I have a short fuse), but wanted to correct you on one single point:

Gwass wrote:

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.


Whilst I'm an only child, my mother was one of 6, my father one of 7 children. A friend of ours is one of 10, and has 3 children herself (so far). A cousin's son has 4 so far. Two other cousins of mine have 3 children each, some of whom have similar sized families.

I believe the 'nuclear' family of 2 parents, and 2.4 children (or whatever the often quoted number is) is a myth. For every family that is childless, or has only a single offspring, there are several more with 3 or more children.

The problem we have is simple, and has been quoted here already - 90% of the people want to live in 10% of the space. Whether that space is the coastal region of a continent like North America, Australia or Africa, a group of islands like the British Isles or the Phillipines, or an urban conurbation, or whatever - the same holds. There's not enough (desirable) space for the people that want it, *regardless of where they originate*.


I wouldn't disagree with any of that
Gwass
193 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 15:52
Squid Tempest wrote:
Gwass wrote:
In many cases the PC brainwashed point I made is absolutely the case. It's a fact I'm afraid, I mean you've only got to look at our state schools to see the left have taken over them, the average classroom has a large no of people verging on communism.

...

My views are perfectly reasonable and in the majority


I think you've just torpedoed your own argument there Gwass.



I meant staff rooms not class rooms & it's a fair point I think
Squid Tempest
Squid Tempest
8787 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 16:36
Gwass wrote:
In many cases the PC brainwashed point I made is absolutely the case. It's a fact I'm afraid, I mean you've only got to look at our state schools to see the left have taken over them, the average classroom has a large no of people verging on communism.

...

My views are perfectly reasonable and in the majority


I think you've just torpedoed your own argument there Gwass.
GLADMAN
933 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 19:20
Rhiannon wrote:
I might have misinterpreted you :)


Thanks. I feel ten times worse now than I did last night, but guess I should have seen it coming. Mine was just a plea coming in from a night out in a pensive state of mind - OK a folorn, plaintive, pathetic, completely naive and unrealistic plea - to one day live in an England where people don't smash up my - hell, their - town, intimidate my parents, make it damn unsafe sometimes to walk down the street.

Just a cry for the inhabitants of this island to sort out the mess that has been created allowing the above to happen. To encourage those children who may well feel they have no roots here that there is another way other than nihilism. To learn to respect their home through learning about it's past. Isn't that supposed to be a prerequisite for any community to move forward? However there are some things which clearly cannot be discussed without the inevitable implications of racism. What was I thinking?
thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat
6135 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 06, 2011, 19:40
GLADMAN wrote:
The fact is that... Callanish (an awesome Indian gentleman) and Boscawen-un (a rather funky black mohican dude) excepted... I've not seen any non-white faces at the c1000 prehistoric sites I've visited in these Isles. Why not? Is it because the 'minorities' within the UK do not have a Julian Cope to speak to them?


To be fair, you haven't seen anyone at quite a lot of those thousand sites. I've seen people from many plenty of ethnic backgrounds at Avebury, and at Men an Tol. Some of them were tourists, mind. But prehistory is largely a closed book to the vast majority of people in this country, even "well-educated" people who frankly should know better, but prefer shopping and Strictly. Julian Cope doesn't, regretfully, speak to most of them.

There's a whole lot of education missing all round, not just in those people who've come here from abroad. In fact, a lot of immigrants have probably got a better level of knowledge than people whose families have been here for 500 years, because they've tried to learn something about the country they're coming to. And if their efforts at research haven't extended to prehistory, perhaps that's because it's missing from most people's education here anyway. Plenty of "English" people don't know who Winston Churchill was, or Charles Darwin, or IK Brunel, or Isaac Newton.
Resonox
604 posts

Re: Our Sacred Land
Sep 07, 2011, 05:37
thesweetcheat wrote:
GLADMAN wrote:
The fact is that... Callanish (an awesome Indian gentleman) and Boscawen-un (a rather funky black mohican dude) excepted... I've not seen any non-white faces at the c1000 prehistoric sites I've visited in these Isles. Why not? Is it because the 'minorities' within the UK do not have a Julian Cope to speak to them?


To be fair, you haven't seen anyone at quite a lot of those thousand sites. I've seen people from many plenty of ethnic backgrounds at Avebury, and at Men an Tol. Some of them were tourists, mind. But prehistory is largely a closed book to the vast majority of people in this country, even "well-educated" people who frankly should know better, but prefer shopping and Strictly. Julian Cope doesn't, regretfully, speak to most of them.

There's a whole lot of education missing all round, not just in those people who've come here from abroad. In fact, a lot of immigrants have probably got a better level of knowledge than people whose families have been here for 500 years, because they've tried to learn something about the country they're coming to. And if their efforts at research haven't extended to prehistory, perhaps that's because it's missing from most people's education here anyway. Plenty of "English" people don't know who Winston Churchill was, or Charles Darwin, or IK Brunel, or Isaac Newton.


Often visitors of all nations at Stonehenge.....and many visit Cissbury too.....whilst the "locals" there seem to view Cissbury as a free BMX track or massive dog toilet!
Pages: 37 – [ Previous | 14 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index