Are ethnic minorities insecure about their British identity

this is simply not true I am afraid, the US used the threat of communism to justify an extraordinary amount of coups and wars that left millions dead. the USSR were tyrannically domestically - but they only really intervened in Afghanistan. take as a case in point Iran (where I was born). Iran in the early 1950s was actually a secular democracy with a constitutional monarch which was the culmination of something called the iranian constitutional revolution and modernization by the second to last shah reza shah (a great man who I consider one of the best of Iranina leaders unlike his son). this government was led by PM Dr. Mossadeq - his only crime was wanting to nationalize the oil fields - something that the UK was hugely against because they creamed off all the profits. Mossadeq himself was actually very anti-Communist and a member of the Qajar royal family - so it was access to Iranian resources and a denial of our self-determination not the USSR that led to the US/UK/Mullah/Monarchist coup. Iran was never going to ally with Russia - in fact at the time Russia was very unpopular for stealing Iranian territory and their efforts to colonize us. the long term consequence of this was a catastrophic disruption to our natural development politically and the descendants of one of the world's oldest and greatest civilizations being held hostage by theocrats.

Again, I don't deny that the US or UK have done wrong (I agree with everything you're saying here, although the true enemy of Iran is its clerical nut-cases who run it, not the CIA or MI5), what I am saying is that looking at the bigger picture, throughout human history I cannot think of anybody who I would prefer to run the world.

Also, apologies if I gave the impression that Iran was a Soviet-sympathising country; I knew this was not true and never wished to imply it.

I think the US-UK have the best domestic freedoms compared to the rest of the world (although there are serious problems - and this is getting much worse with the NSA, GCHQ, Patriot Act etcetera). But in terms of overseas interventionism the USA and the UK have caused a lot of problems - you are narrowing it down to post-WW2. Regards the US they have caused chaos in the Middle East with their Israeli-Saudi patronage and invasions/coups, the same can be said for US involvement in Latin America as well. The US killed more people in the non-Western world than the USSR post WW2.

this is simply not true I am afraid, the US used the threat of communism to justify an extraordinary amount of coups and wars that left millions dead. the USSR were tyrannically domestically - but they only really intervened in Afghanistan. .

I would say that the much bigger threats to peace and stability in the middle east in particular has been Islamist fascism, and in Latin America there has been communism and other dictatorships. I'm not disagreeing with you though, the USA has done some really stupid things in the past. But that doesn't mean it hasn't also done a whole lot of good too. I just try to imagine what the world would look like without them, and all I see is misery and totalitarianism.

Regarding your other point about the Anglosphere's perceived aggression vs. countries like Sweden, Germany etc. Well this is all well and good to say while Sweden and Germany are democracies. Neither country has done a thing to defend democracy from its totalitarian enemies. The Anglosphere's aggression and "failure to live up to its ideals" is why democracy exists at all. In order to run the world you're going to have to face some tough choices, and while neither the US nor the UK are free from evil, mistakes and blindness, their willingness to defend democracy is the crucial reason why I prefer them to other free countries like Sweden and Germany.

Actually, the Soviet's did intervene quite extensively in Africa as well.

You may be correct, I am not very clued up about Africa.

What did they do? Angolan War?

You may be correct, I am not very clued up about Africa.

What did they do? Angolan War?

Angola, South Africa, Congo.

In the case of South Africa, the insane fear of a communist ANC delayed the fall of apartheid for a number of years.

To be honest, they tried to have an effect in a lot of places but ended up failing. That is why their efforts are not really acknowledged.

I'm fairly sure they made a mess in Ethiopia.

I agree with you that Islamic governments are the worst thing for the Middle East and result in suffering and messed up countries, however you are very wrong to detach the US-Saudi alliance from political Islam. US-Saudi are the main propagators of Islamist governments and Islamic terrorism in the Middle East both historically and in the current day. US-Saudi ME policy has been to oppose secular nationalism at almost every occurrence as it really provides the biggest threat to their hegemony in the region.

Did they not intervene on the more righteous side in those conflicts then?

The Angolan one was against Portugal's colonialism, SA against racist rule and I assumer Congo was in support of P Lubumba?

We're British based on land, not on culture.

Not all of us drink alcohol every night, gamble, go clubbing every other night, smoke cannabis, prostitute ourselves (and others) or support a tyrannical and unjust war etc.

"Why do they need constant re-assurance that they are British ?" Where have you got this information from?..
I'm 'Black British' and when I go to the country where my parents are from it feels like a massive culture shock. I know that I'm British and need no reassurance about it.

The problem here is that Saudi Arabia is a major source of oil, so you can see the dilemma that the US (and others dependent on oil) are in. The US-Saudi alliance is disgusting though of course. I'm not sure how you can say that the US is to blame for the Islamism though; obviously they are funding the Saudis, but I'm not sure that what goes through their minds when they buy the oil is "nice, this will go towards terrorist atrocities and apartheid oppression". It's obviously a consequence, but what is the alternative? Scrap Saudi oil? Take over the country? It's a tough dilemma. The main point is that the real crooks here are Saudi Islamists, not the Americans, whose worst crime in this regard - unless I'm ill-informed - is sacrifice of principles for material gain.

I was simply pointing out extensive foreign policy involvement. I wasn't attempting to say that they were wrong in what they did.

Dont know what you are talking about tbh . Most ethnics whether they are born here or not don't see themselves as british . I was born here but identify with my parents country and culture ,even when it comes to women,getting married and having kids and **** . Its like that with most ethnics

I never said the West can do no wrong, and I never said the West was the only heroic civilisation (and agree with neither statement, just to make things clear).

Listen, you do owe your freedom to the West, whether you like it or not. Everybody does. If it weren't for Britain and America, you would be living under the swastika or under the hammer and sickle, or under Japanese tyranny, or some other totalitarian or authoritarian system. It may be a little difficult to grasp, but freedom was handed down to you - by the West - before you were even born (as it was to me). Freedom is not a default condition of humanity, it is something for which many human lives were sacrificed; it is an idea which is extremely precious because we did not evolve with it, it was thought of and implemented over centuries. Please at least show a little humility and recognise this truth.

This is probably the main reason why ethnics dont identify as being british . Because quite frankly you are bought up on western version of history which 9 times out of 10 is a lie . Lies that make your ancestors look good and ours look bad

I dunno how you can claim that without doing research or something lol. I was born in tehran, iran but grew up in England (living in Scotland atm which is quite a bit different actually to england imo). I consider myself Iranian/Persian and that is a large part of who I am (I was born there after all) but I think it is basically impossible to not identify with a country you are brought up in, I was brought up in English/Uk culture and Persian culture so I am Iranian-British. i have cultural traits and interests which are british and persian - you can't just write one off - it's impossible to not see yourself at least as partly british - especially when some of the "ethnics" are 3rd, 4th, 5th gen and they can't even speak the language of their homes country - I mean speak Persian and was actually born abroad and I still feel different to people who are fully brought up in Iran..I can see some people identifying more with one culture but to say you are not in anyway british is just weird - it's impossible to not pick up british traits if you live here.