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

364 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
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.
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index