Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    What a nice sentiment. However it is completely implausible to allow anyone to travel into any country of their choosing as certain countries would be instantly over run while some became desolately empty.

    Be realistic.
    But surely that is the same sentiment as the free market, the poplualtion flow will regulate its self. If one place became overcrowded people would move away from there ( if they have enough money but governments could subsidised this ) and over time the poupulation density would even out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    I think it's pride meaning the opposite or absence of shame, not pride meaning a sense of achievement. Same as gay pride and various other forms of pride, it's about embracing an identity.
    So why can't whites or straights have pride days?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ilyas)
    I reckon people confuse racial pride with racial happiness.
    What in the hell is that? :lolwut:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    So why can't whites or straights have pride days?
    Why don't white people have pride days? Nobody is stopping you - it is only many white people that hold a false sense of persecution due to being indoctrinated by the media that they are not allowed to.

    Have a white pride month - nobody is stopping you; it's not illegal. In fact, I'll celebrate it with you, even though I'm non-white!
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by SorryInAdvance)
    But surely that is the same sentiment as the free market, the poplualtion flow will regulate its self. If one place became overcrowded people would move away from there ( if they have enough money but governments could subsidised this ) and over time the poupulation density would even out.
    So if people would end up evened out anyway, what's the point in letting people in who have no right to be here?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    May I begin, firstly, OP, by saying that "British" is not a race. "Briton", on the other hand, is an ethnicity/race. One can be a "Briton" racially, like one can be an "African" racially. One cannot have a black Briton, in that the black Briton is not descended from a Germanic lineage (although there can be mixed Britons). However, one can be Black British, in terms of culture and citizenship and birth.

    The terms "English" and whatnot have become blurred. A non-white person could call themselves English in the cultural and whatnot sense, however, they'll not be racially English. This of course becomes further misty when you get to groups like the Royal Family who, in fact, are multiracial - stemming as far as being Russian and Turkish and whatnot. Her Majesty is of particular German and Russian ancestry, not to mention Her Majesty's husband being Danish and Greek.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Why don't white people have pride days? Nobody is stopping you - it is only many white people that hold a false sense of persecution due to being indoctrinated by the media that they are not allowed to.

    Have a white pride month - nobody is stopping you; it's not illegal. In fact, I'll celebrate it with you, even though I'm non-white!
    No it's not, the black students union would be up in arms if something like that was organised on campus. I don't see the point of pride rallies which celebrate one fabric of their identity, it only serves to create segregations within society and perpetuate the notion that we are all different. There's being different and equal, but the lack of a pride days being allowed to majority groups like whites or straights is not equal. Hence, it only serves to make people different.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    No it's not, the black students union would be up in arms if something like that was organised on campus. I don't see the point of pride rallies which celebrate one fabric of their identity, it only serves to create segregations within society and perpetuate the notion that we are all different. There's being different and equal, but the lack of a pride days being allowed to majority groups like whites or straights is not equal. Hence, it only serves to make people different.
    I am "black", but I'm not part of the "black student union" (and I think you'll find that no such thing exists - rather, in the UK, they're African or Afro-Caribbean society - in the States, it's a different ballgame altogether however).

    But yes, I do indeed agree with you. I think we have come to the point where a minority such as those of African/Afro-Caribbean ancestry have no need for such segregatory "celebrations". Personally, I celebrate human history as a collective contribution from all peoples - not just looking at one person and saying "Oh he's white, therefore I don't identify with him" - if I had taken that approach, I wouldn't have made it past kindergarten.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    So why can't whites or straights have pride days?
    Is anybody stopping them? No, although people would be understandably wary that "white pride" might turn out to be "white supremacist pride" in disguise, for example.

    However, is there a need for such things? Are white people or straight people widely viewed with derision or shame? Is white heterosexual English culture expected to keep below the radar for much of the time?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Your nationality isn't your race. Race does not exist, it is a nineteenth-century myth. We're all human beings.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    I am "black", but I'm not part of the "black student union" (and I think you'll find that no such thing exists - rather, in the UK, they're African or Afro-Caribbean society - in the States, it's a different ballgame altogether however).
    They are essentially the same thing, it is an exclusive focus upon black heritage with an introspective focus on black interest.

    [QUOE]But yes, I do indeed agree with you. I think we have come to the point where a minority such as those of African/Afro-Caribbean ancestry have no need for such segregatory "celebrations". Personally, I celebrate human history as a collective contribution from all peoples - not just looking at one person and saying "Oh he's white, therefore I don't identify with him" - if I had taken that approach, I wouldn't have made it past kindergarten.[/QUOTE]

    I would rather just celebrate being human. It's sad that we have to make a big deal about everything we have different rather than the things which unify as in common with our fellow man.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    On the contrary, Ancient Rome was very much a multiethnic society.

    Nationalism's actually a pretty new concept, only dating back a couple of hundred years or so. It is, in many ways, a result of the decline of monarchy; if republics and constitutional monarchies don't hold authority over their populations on the basis of divine right (as absolute monarchs claim), then what is the basis for their authority? The idea of 'the nation' has usually been the replacement.
    THIS.

    What made a person ethnically Roman was their attitude and behaviour, especially towards the time of the late empire. Not merely descent.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    May I begin, firstly, OP, by saying that "British" is not a race. "Briton", on the other hand, is an ethnicity/race. One can be a "Briton" racially, like one can be an "African" racially. One cannot have a black Briton, in that the black Briton is not descended from a Germanic lineage (although there can be mixed Britons). However, one can be Black British, in terms of culture and citizenship and birth.

    The terms "English" and whatnot have become blurred. A non-white person could call themselves English in the cultural and whatnot sense, however, they'll not be racially English. This of course becomes further misty when you get to groups like the Royal Family who, in fact, are multiracial - stemming as far as being Russian and Turkish and whatnot. Her Majesty is of particular German and Russian ancestry, not to mention Her Majesty's husband being Danish and Greek.
    And what, then, makes a person racially English?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    They are essentially the same thing, it is an exclusive focus upon black heritage with an introspective focus on black interest.
    Well, you may think so - but at the same time, societies like the Russian society and the Finnish society and the Scandinavian society exist. I myself have been to a few events of the Scandinavian society at my uni simply due to personal interest and whatnot.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by halbeth)
    And what, then, makes a person racially English?
    Well, one would say that it stems back to racial lineage - in other words, the descent from those past Germanic tribes that settled in Britain and/or mixed with the natives already there. Sure, there would seem to be imperceptible difference between a White Scot and a White English person, but there is a racial aspect to be - but, indeed, they are rather ambiguous in terms of racial aspects.

    Additionally, "race" is not so clear cut. There is no such thing as a "pure" race. So much mixing has occurred over the long history of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Well, one would say that it stems back to racial lineage - in other words, the descent from those past Germanic tribes that settled in Britain and/or mixed with the natives already there. Sure, there would seem to be imperceptible difference between a White Scot and a White English person, but there is a racial aspect to be - but, indeed, they are rather ambiguous in terms of racial aspects.

    Additionally, "race" is not so clear cut. There is no such thing as a "pure" race. So much mixing has occurred over the long history of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
    The Anglo-Saxon migrations are far from historical fact, whatever may have been taught in school. It's been a raging area of debate and argument in late antique history over the past ten years. The pan-germanicist 'Germanic' tribes notion is pretty much a 19th-century nationalist myth too.

    The issue with this notion of people having an inherent race is that it's essentialist and determinist. I applaud you for recognising there is no 'pure' race, but isn't that pretty much saying race is a myth? If there is no pure race, then what is race? What makes one a Scot? Why does sharing a similar DNA sequence to someone else make one inherently 'Scottish'? It doesn't. It means they have a similar DNA sequence. That's all, there's nothing inherently 'Scot' or 'English' or anything about DNA, short of the labels that some nutters apply to it. What exists is CULTURE, and that's shaped by society, not blood.

    Edit: hell not even merely ten years, more like fifty...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by halbeth)
    The Anglo-Saxon migrations are far from historical fact, whatever may have been taught in school. It's been a raging area of debate and argument in late antique history over the past ten years. The pan-germanicist 'Germanic' tribes notion is pretty much a 19th-century nationalist myth too.

    The issue with this notion of people having an inherent race is that it's essentialist and determinist. I applaud you for recognising there is no 'pure' race, but isn't that pretty much saying race is a myth? If there is no pure race, then what is race? What makes one a Scot? Why does sharing a similar DNA sequence to someone else make one inherently 'Scottish'? It doesn't. It means they have a similar DNA sequence. That's all, there's nothing inherently 'Scot' or 'English' or anything about DNA, short of the labels that some nutters apply to it. What exists is CULTURE, and that's shaped by society, not blood.

    Edit: hell not even merely ten years, more like fifty...
    Sure, but there are subtleties within individuals' DNA that make one look different. For example, a White Briton looks largely different from a Black African, just as a Chinese person looks largely different from a White Norwegian. Sure, I do agree that there isn't an inherent base or whatnot, but there are subtleties that make certain groups of people have different features for example. But the 19th century pseudo-science went all too much further and made it into a matter of racial superiority and whatnot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    So if people would end up evened out anyway, what's the point in letting people in who have no right to be here?
    Who says they don't have a right to be here? In my view an illegal immiangrent ( sorry about spelling) who comes into to Britain with a makeshift raft and paddle has more right to call to call themselves brittish than we done because they would of earned that right.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Sure, but there are subtleties within individuals' DNA that make one look different. For example, a White Briton looks largely different from a Black African, just as a Chinese person looks largely different from a White Norwegian. Sure, I do agree that there isn't an inherent base or whatnot, but there are subtleties that make certain groups of people have different features for example. But the 19th century pseudo-science went all too much further and made it into a matter of racial superiority and whatnot.
    So you're recognising, at least, that the labels are abitrary and have no inherent connection to one's nationality or anything? Cool, our views possibly don't clash as much as I thought. I'd still argue that doesn't make it possible to classify 'races', in any absolute manner though. Genetic makeup is like a spectrum.

    The issue with when we start to classify something is that it gives people something to start wanting to preserve, when that thing is actually far more fluid a concept than is recognised.

    An example: a widely-held view now in early British history (not necessarily decisively proven - very little in early medieval history is known for certain and much is debated) is that the Anglo-Saxon migrations, if they even occurred, occurred as a migration of small elite groups, who then simply established new power structures over Roman Britain and its inhabitants (whatever they might be classified as - I'd personally opt for 'Romans' rather than 'Britons', however much that would upset some Celtic nationalists).

    If this is the case, then most descendents of these natives who survive today in England (if we're assuming that the huge amount of immigration across Britain's history hasn't completely altered the genetic pattern) would arguably be descendents of people of a 'Celtic', rather than 'English', race - based upon your current classification of race (where people have these subtle distinctions across races).

    My point is that 'race' is simply a matter of the labels we apply to something, and we can't reliably use history to trace it, because very little in history is as certain as some people attempting to push certain ideological viewpoints would have us think.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    What in the hell is that? :lolwut:
    content with being your own race.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.