Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

"British culture": destroyed by immigrants? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SolInvincitus)
    You make me laugh.

    England? What 'English Culture"? Do you mean a Southern or Northern Culture? An upper class culture, or a lower class culture? And England has been continuously invaded or ruled by foreigners whose culture became dominant. So do you speak of a pre-Indo-European Culture? or a Celtic Culture? or an Anglo-Saxon culture? or a Norman Culture? or a Franco-Aristocratic Culture? or a Germano-Victorian culture? What dominant culture do you choose.

    Japan? 65-55 years ago the Japanese were so assured of their Homogenous ethinicity/race that they were commiting atrocities against half the world.

    China? China was been multi-ethnic for the past 800 years. Two of the last three Imperial dynasties were non-Chinese. Under the Manchus China reached its greates borders. Under the Manchus China's culture was a Hybrid of Manchu-Mongolian and Chinese elements. Then when the Manchus were expelled, the new republic collapsed and China was plagued by civil war and defeat in wars against Japan. Then let us not forget Communist rule, and the greatest part of that was the cultural revolution, in which the Chinese systematically destroyed their own culture.

    AO, you better stop backing up your unfounded ideas with a less than GCSE History examples.
    You make me laugh Sol! When we're done here go back to the WNist against Greeks argument and offer something...anything.

    A local variety in culture does not a nation ruin. And I stay away from stupid arguments about "defining English culture." I consider them ploys to attack an ethnic group. The same people who consider an ill-defined "culture" a pass for mass immigration to White countries read National Geographic and marvel at the wonders of African face-painting and Murri spit-painting, and think those "cultures" ought to be cherished. Your other redundant question I already explained why I don't think they matter.

    I like Japan, I don't think there's anything in the racial or national character that supports a first-position disapproval of their nation, that's what some would call bigotry.

    China has been multi-ethnic, but always had a dominant national-classm, almost always Han. When it was Manchu the Chinese bided their time, and retained their ethnic-national consciousness, and took back power. Today the Han imprison and murder tens of thousands of the Turkic and Islamic minority groups who would oppose Chinese rule over Chinese land. The Chinese are dominant and long-lived. They retain their homeland.

    You've had a few throws at the wheel now Sol - Rome, Great Britain, Germany, the USA, now China and Japan, but I'm afraid you've missed every time. It's not that you are failing Sol, it's that you are attempting the impossible. Nature doesn't have opposing groups share a living space peacefully and equably, especially humans with all their social, political, and religious diversity sitting atop those "genes as machines for continuity".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    When you think of it, Britain really is a very poor example to use when trying to answer the BNP's claim that immigration is destroying out culture.

    After all, did the Romans not impose their own culture on the locals? (it didn't survive for long after they left). Did the Celts not get marginalised by the Angle and saxons? Did the Norman invasion not all but wipe out the ruling class of the country, permanently altering its orientation?

    (yes, i know this is too simplistic a view, and that the culture of the poor saps at the bottom largely unchanged by forieginers since the Angles and Saxons turned up, but still it is quite funny when you only consider the culture of the ruling class)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SolInvincitus)
    You make me laugh.

    England? What 'English Culture"? Do you mean a Southern or Northern Culture? An upper class culture, or a lower class culture? And England has been continuously invaded or ruled by foreigners whose culture became dominant. So do you speak of a pre-Indo-European Culture? or a Celtic Culture? or an Anglo-Saxon culture? or a Norman Culture? or a Franco-Aristocratic Culture? or a Germano-Victorian culture? What dominant culture do you choose.

    Japan? 65-55 years ago the Japanese were so assured of their Homogenous ethinicity/race that they were commiting atrocities against half the world.

    China? China was been multi-ethnic for the past 800 years. Two of the last three Imperial dynasties were non-Chinese. Under the Manchus China reached its greates borders. Under the Manchus China's culture was a Hybrid of Manchu-Mongolian and Chinese elements. Then when the Manchus were expelled, the new republic collapsed and China was plagued by civil war and defeat in wars against Japan. Then let us not forget Communist rule, and the greatest part of that was the cultural revolution, in which the Chinese systematically destroyed their own culture.

    AO, you better stop backing up your unfounded ideas with a less than GCSE History examples.
    Silly Sol, you missed what he actually meant! He meant all the dominant cultural figures in China had slitty eyes, the dominant cultural figures in Britain had white skin...... don't go too deep with anything he says!



    Must say, this has been the most enjoyable debate i have ever ever read on D+D, as it shows there is only so far the likes of AO can go with an argument. And it as always, puts me to shame, as it refrains greatly from illiterate ad hom, something which i am forever guilty of on here. Glad i stayed out of it, and let you guys do the job.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Silly Sol, you missed what he actually meant! He meant all the dominant cultural figures in China had slitty eyes, the dominant cultural figures in Britain had white skin...... don't go too deep with anything he says!



    Must say, this has been the most enjoyable debate i have ever ever read on D+D, as it shows there is only so far the likes of AO can go with an argument. And it as always, puts me to shame, as it refrains greatly from illiterate ad hom, something which i am forever guilty of on here. Glad i stayed out of it, and let you guys do the job.
    I think you are right. Stupid me, I didn't see what he meant. Thank you for enlightening me.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    You make me laugh Sol! When we're done here go back to the WNist against Greeks argument and offer something...anything.
    I read what I read. Unless Stormfront articles that were linked to several WN websites happen to be a minority opinion. But since I don't hang around with a bunch of race obsessed bigots, segregationist and apartheidists, I really shouldn't have commented on what 'raci(ali)sts' *chokes* believe. But looking at your signature, especially in the past, you should have an excellent knowledge of such things.
    A local variety in culture does not a nation ruin. And I stay away from stupid arguments about "defining English culture." I consider them ploys to attack an ethnic group. The same people who consider an ill-defined "culture" a pass for mass immigration to White countries read National Geographic and marvel at the wonders of African face-painting and Murri spit-painting, and think those "cultures" ought to be cherished. Your other redundant question I already explained why I don't think they matter.
    Local variation eh? I look at England and I see a variety of 'native' cultures, whose elements sometimes run in complete contradiction. It is only recently that these cultures are dissapearing because of standardization.

    And lets get a few things straight. I never said I wanted mass immigration. I don't think anyone here has sadi that. What we don't want are nonsense 'racial'/'ethnic' arguements. Most of us all agree that immigration should be within reasonable limits, and that assimilation and contribution to the British mainstream are expected. Don't shove words in our mouths.


    I like Japan, I don't think there's anything in the racial or national character that supports a first-position disapproval of their nation, that's what some would call bigotry.
    No one has a problem with Japan. Its just your idea of a single 'race' was once quite dear to them, and led to the massacre, torture and mutilation of millions of 'lesser races'

    China has been multi-ethnic, but always had a dominant national-classm, almost always Han. When it was Manchu the Chinese bided their time, and retained their ethnic-national consciousness, and took back power.
    The Manchus were already highly siniticized before their invasion. After only 150 years of their reign, the Manchu language had almost died out in China, and they were already a minority in their homeland. And don't give me that separateness rubbish. Chinese dress for women is still the Qipao, or Manchu Gown. The Grand Empress Dowager Cixi herself was ethnically Chinese. Maybe you should try reading proper literature and history, not that KuKluxKlanoid rubbish at the bottom of you signature.

    Today the Han imprison and murder tens of thousands of the Turkic and Islamic minority groups who would oppose Chinese rule over Chinese land. The Chinese are dominant and long-lived. They retain their homeland.
    Wow!!! Now we know what you want to see!

    You've had a few throws at the wheel now Sol - Rome, Great Britain, Germany, the USA, now China and Japan, but I'm afraid you've missed every time. It's not that you are failing Sol, it's that you are attempting the impossible. Nature doesn't have opposing groups share a living space peacefully and equably, especially humans with all their social, political, and religious diversity sitting atop those "genes as machines for continuity".
    I think you completely missunderstand what multiculturalism is. It is not the segregation and seperation of several different cultures in a society. It is several different cultures contributing to each other, and fusing to form a culture that encompasses all people in a society.

    Now lets look at what I have highlighted. You sound as bad as the Ku Klux Klan when you say that. That seems to be a very close quotation to a Klansmen who they interviewed on the news. If nature doesn't want us to live toghether what are you goin to do? Segregate us all? Look to the Southern US and South Africa in the 1950's for inspiration? Kill all the 'half-castes'? You may not realize it but what you are saying, and seem to suggest are the same filthy ideas that madmen such as Hitler have churned out.

    Some people may have given up hope on you, but I cannot give up hope on changing predjudice and bigotry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    When the white British people become a minority in their own country and the muslims become a majority, it will be wonderfull, everyone will all hold hands under a rainbow. After all, multi-cultural societies in history have never ever failed, just look at how they all get on in the middle east, those muslims and jews getting on without any problems, I simply CANT WAIT!!!!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happybob)
    When the white British people become a minority in their own country and the muslims become a majority, it will be wonderfull, everyone will all hold hands under a rainbow. After all, multi-cultural societies in history have never ever failed, just look at how they all get on in the middle east, those muslims and jews getting on without any problems, I simply CANT WAIT!!!!
    That isn't a multi-cultural society, that is two different nations consisting of two different societies. Britain isn't going to become a muslim majority. I have yet to have seen any convincing and corroberated statistics to prove that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SolInvincitus)
    I think you completely missunderstand what multiculturalism is. It is not the segregation and seperation of several different cultures in a society. It is several different cultures contributing to each other, and fusing to form a culture that encompasses all people in a society.
    No, that's what multiculturalism is supposed to be - not what it is. If multiculturalism actually served to break down barriers, very few people would have problem with it. The problem is that it simply doesn't work like that - how many times do you hear the term the '(x)' community on the news? If different cultures were fusing together, why do we still have a 'muslim community' or an 'afro-caribean community' or a 'Bangladeshi commununity'? Surely, if multiculturalism worked, these communities wouldn't exist. We'd simply have lots of people of different cultures all living together.

    I'm not saying these people are evil, or that they're part of a big conspiracy to destory he coountry or any *******s like that, i'm just saying that multiculturalism isn't working very well. When your town hall has to have its signs in 6 different languages in order to be intelligible to everyone who needs to use it, something is going wrong. After all, is culture not a social institution that is supposed to be shared by everyone?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    No, that's what multiculturalism is supposed to be - not what it is. If multiculturalism actually served to break down barriers, very few people would have problem with it. The problem is that it simply doesn't work like that - how many times do you hear the term the '(x)' community on the news? If different cultures were fusing together, why do we still have a 'muslim community' or an 'afro-caribean community' or a 'Bangladeshi commununity'? Surely, if multiculturalism worked, these communities wouldn't exist. We'd simply have lots of people of different cultures all living together.

    I'm not saying these people are evil, or that they're part of a big conspiracy to destory he coountry or any *******s like that, i'm just saying that multiculturalism isn't working very well. When your town hall has to have its signs in 6 different languages in order to be intelligible to everyone who needs to use it, something is going wrong. After all, is culture not a social institution that is supposed to be shared by everyone?
    What you are describing is multi-communalism. Cultures and communities are often related, but never completely bound to each other.

    Look for example at Chicken Tikka Masala or Balti. Both have their origins in South Asian Culture, but neither is prevalent in the South Asian community. In fact they are only present in British Culture, and are no longer a part of South Asian culture or society.

    Multi-culturulism should not be confused with multi-communalism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SolInvincitus)
    Multi-culturulism should not be confused with multi-communalism.
    My point exactly.

    Multi-communalism is essentially what we have in Britain today. Multi-culturalism is what we do not have.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I read a book on 'what Englsih culture is', it was tickling. Read 'Watching the English' by Kate Fox, she's an anthropologist with a sense of humour and streaks of seriousness.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Enormous amounts of British culture have come about through newcomers to this country bringing parts of their culture with them - this is how culture moves on, and what makes it interesting. Culture is not something we want to keep pristine and unchanged like a museum piece, it's something that by it's nature must be changeable.

    What most nationalists mean when they say "preserving British culture" is nothing like as noble; it means preventing our culture from developing in a natural way. If, as they suggest, we were to try and prevent our current culture being "polluted" by the traditions of foreigners, our culture would stagnate, and thus become worse. What they fail to see is that cultural change and preservation of our current traditions are not mutually exclusive. Immigrants do not come to the UK to destroy what culture we already have - they may add things of their own to it, but they do not take away, so surely our culture can only benefit from immigration?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happybob)
    When the white British people become a minority in their own country and the muslims become a majority, it will be wonderfull, everyone will all hold hands under a rainbow. After all, multi-cultural societies in history have never ever failed, just look at how they all get on in the middle east, those muslims and jews getting on without any problems, I simply CANT WAIT!!!!
    That's phenomenally immature. I'm sure all societies in which only one culture is tolerated do wonderfully, don't they?

    Oh, and by the way, I think you've got a problem in one of your definitions - British people cannot become a minority in Britain. I assume by "British" you mean "White" in this case, since second and third generation immigrants are just as much British as you or I (assuming, from your views, that you are a white "native").

    At some point, the ancestors of every person in Britain arrived here from elsewhere. How many generations does a person's family need to have been in Britain for in order for them to be considered "British" by you - 2? 5? 10? 50? Whatever it is, it's just an arbitrary number. I'm sure that the real reason you don't consider some of these people who have lived in Britain all their lives - been born, raised and educated here - is because of the colour of their skin.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    All native cultures are spoiled by mass immigrants coming in. They generally do not follow the culture (or Kultur as we have in Germany) of the people there already but try to change it with theres. in Germany now we have lots of Turkish immigrants coming in and they bring turkish culture but don't bother with German - some don't even bother to learn German.

    In England this exists to - the new immigrants don't bother with English culture but instead want to have there's (like the 7/7 terrorists).
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amon.)
    All native cultures are spoiled by mass immigrants coming in. They generally do not follow the culture (or Kultur as we have in Germany) of the people there already but try to change it with theres. in Germany now we have lots of Turkish immigrants coming in and they bring turkish culture but don't bother with German - some don't even bother to learn German.

    In England this exists to - the new immigrants don't bother with English culture but instead want to have there's (like the 7/7 terrorists).
    Yes this is true in some cases. But most immigrants who have come to Britain have managed to assimilate quite well. What must be distinguished is harmful or unlimited immigration, and a logical policy that allows hard-working and open communities to settle and assimilate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnny)
    Which native peoples? There's quite a range you see:

    Celts
    Romans
    Anglo-Saxons
    Vikings
    Normans
    The German House of Hannover and its influence.

    Which one is it to be since they were all different races?
    Do you know what native means?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by law:portal)
    Do you know what native means?
    Well that's the point; duh!

    Which one should we consider to be the indigenous peoples? Should we really go as far as the original celts?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnny)
    Well that's the point; duh!

    Which one should we consider to be the indigenous peoples? Should we really go as far as the original celts?
    Actually the Celts were invaders themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    Food for thought:

    Can anyone think of a successful society which did not have a dominant culture? Can anyone think of an example where different groups have managed to live together, on equal footing, whilst retaining their different religions, languages, and cultural traditions?
    Depends what you mean by "dominant". If you define that in terms of the number of people involved in that tradition, it seems unlikely that two or more cultural heritages will apply to exactly the same number of people. It's a pretty meaningless question, really.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SolInvincitus)
    Actually the Celts were invaders themselves.
    Were they really? Well you learn something new every day.

    So who are the original Britons? Please tell us so that AO can begin to check his bloodline... :rolleyes:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 25, 2006
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

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.