Would having a mixed race majority be one of the greatest days in British history??

I completely agree!

If my parents had gone to Nigeria and I'd been born there, who the hell in their right mind would consider me Nigerian? Or if they'd gone to Japan and had me there, would I be Japanese? Of course not, I'd be British, and if I suggested anything to the contrary I'd be ridiculed by the native peoples of those lands.

Ethnic minorities can claim to be 'civically' British, in the sense that the can vote, be taxed, expect protection from the law, be treated by the NHS, but they can logically never be as English, Welsh or as Scottish as somebody who's parent's were born in Britain, and their parents etc. even if they embrace our culture and language. To say that they can is to deny the rest of us of any racial identity. It's not a competition or anything as to see who's the 'most' British, but just fact; neither is it any reason to hold these people in contempt.

So it would be very sad indeed if the native ethnicity of Britian should disappear into a homogeneous hodge-podge of every other race on the planet. We'd have lost something - namley our culture, and I know plenty of liberals coun't care less about that, but plenty of us do.

I'm not lecturing, but if you take it that way then so be it. Also, my post was more general to be honest, rather than a focus on the UK. All I'm saying is that a 'mixed race majority' shouldn't be looked upon as something great, and be emphasized; and equally, people shouldn't treat skin colour as if it needs to be preserved. This goes for any and all ethnicities, I'm not just talking about white people.

For the record, I'm mixed race, and half-Scottish; so no I'm not fully white, but I have just as much of a right as anyone else to talk about race in general, and about the question the OP has brought up.

Why because you say so ? I respect other people who have different opinions, and I would never tell someone that it is wrong to want a mixed race majority. However, who are you to TELL people that they SHOULD not care about preserving skin colour.

I want to preserve white ethnic groups and i am not WRONG for doing so.

It wouldn't really mean anything in the long-run.. White skinned people would always evolve again from the beige-coloured masses, if natural selection was allowed to take place:



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,840985,00.html

Well, no. I don't think it should matter. It's just pathetic if the only solution to racism had to be everyone being the same (and that wouldn't end bigotry, either). I think people like you are a bit creepy. Just forget about race. Also, I'm sure there are more significant occurrences in British history, like maybe universal suffrage, the end of WWII, for example...?

Britain should keep its white majority to maintain it's cultural identity imo. Whilst I actively embrace multicultralism, I could only see white flight occuring, and I don't want to be the only white in the village.........so to speak.

Unlikely, the use of technology in assisting with survival and preventing death pretty much elimimantes natural selection. The fact that the average age of death has leapt from 25 to 75 in the past thousand years proves this

No, do you understand how natural selection works? Let's say everyone in the population was a beige colour, the lighter skinned would slightly tend to be more healthy etc, and would therefore be slightly more likely to mate etc. And the more primal the society gets, the more extreme this would become.

That's absolute crap. I feel slightly inebriated just reading it.

Forgive me if I misread you but I can't infer anything else from your post, so here goes...

If people suddenly became as likely to go for someone of a different race or different country (e.g. there will be genetic differences between poles and italians, english and german, even english and scottish to a lesser extent), as they would be to go for anyone else, everyone would not suddenly become beige.

There are not that many genes controlling skin colour. I believe it's somewhere in the teens, or something like that, according to current scientific knowledge. What that means is, it can change very quickly even between close relatives, due to small genetic differences. Arriving at a uniform skin tone in families is unlikely, not to mention in the country's ENTIRE POPULATION.

The human mind and human societies, for whatever reason, is/are obsessed with skin colour. However it's not genetically that important and isn't really very interesting when looked at phenotypically. Presumably the difference in skin tones evolved to deal with the sunburn/rickets dichotomy. Ho-hum.

You can't really have this debate if you are pig-ignorant of basic genetics. People assume you can, but you can't. I'm not a genetecist or even a biologist, but I'm not completely ignorant.

I think the ignorance, the real pig-ignorance, kind of lies in seeing everyone as having their identity defined by a fraction between 0 and 1, where 0 is pale white and 1 is dark black. Then the beige thing comes from thinking that if everyone mingled, you would get everyone 0.5 (beige). It's so much more complicated than that. Skin colour is not that important, and you shouldn't see things in those terms.

This applies to the OP, as well. The original question of this thread is sufficiently stupid that it's impossible to write a sensible answer.

I believe in strength in diversity, and having people isolated in separate races actually results in *lower* diversity, not greater. So yes I am all for mixed-race relationships (and people!). Ideally, people would just marry and have kids with whoever they fancy the most, irrespective of race or prejudice, or geographical barriers.

Things that would not result from this (and you are stupid if you think so):
- everyone being beige
- a reduction in diversity
- the eradication of your genetic identity
- the eradication of your culture

Also, the term mixed-race is *very* limiting. Diversity is not just a black person marrying a white person. It's not just a chinese person marrying an indian person. If you have belgian, russian, italian, and spanish grandparents, say, that's just as diverse as being mixed race, even though it's pretty european, and you are fairly likely to be white.

No its not they share similar genetics and they come from the same race. Mixed race = black and white, chinese and aboriginee.

Scottish people are not racially different from English, swedes or dutch etc.

My point was that talking about "race" and "mixed race" is *limiting*.

Saying you are not diverse if you are 1/4 each of belgian, russian, italian, and spanish is stupid. It's the kind of stupidity that results from seeing everything in terms of skin colour or race.

There will be genetic difference between scottish and english, even more between english and italian, or spanish and russian. Given that you are drawing from 4 sources instead of 2, you could easily argue that's more diverse, because there's 6 differences at play instead of 1.