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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by johnny)
    It's funny you should say that because you will have members of all of them in your ancestry without any doubt; we all do.
    You also have members of your family in your ancestry related to monkeys.

    So just what is British then? A melange of all these races? Because forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious but that doesn't sound very racially pure now does it?
    Well, I doubt that "the French", or "the Americans" appeared out of thin air, either.

    (Original post by sol)
    Britain is a multi-cultural society, whether one would admit it or not.
    Forced upon us.

    (Original post by j)
    No. You're positively emotional about faux-glory history (which I love your rose-tinted verison of, by the way). I'm emotionally positive about the future and building a strong Britain, something you are dead set against because you're stuck in a time-warp.
    Who gave you the right to assume he is in a time warp? Isn't it a bit ignorant to assume anything "old" is "wrong"? A strong Britain? Whats wrong with the one we have? Crime? Who are the most common forms of crime today in the UK? are they "traditional British crimes" ones commited say, 100 years ago? - maybe they were 'imported'?. Still no? then you refuse to open your mind - and I believe you are fixating on prior-arguments. Not, you own.

    This is the 21st century. Walling people out of our country because Britons such as yourself suffer from insecurity about the loss of "British culture" from "old Britain" will not produce a stronger and more dynamic society in the long-run
    Won't it? Don't people unite when 'nationalism' prevails? Wasn;t the UK 'strong' in 1952?

    It is people like you, clinging to your "old Britain" that cause problems for a multicultural society
    If your from an LEDC which has treated you, your family like ***t and you feel no affection to, and you were 'offered' the opportunity to migrate to a much better, wealthier, stable country, such as the UK, you'd jump at the chance, not giving 2 flicks about the UK's 'culture', say, therefore, you have no desire to maintain it - ...

    ... if you moved into your friends house because your's burnt down - would you change the wallpaper, insist your toilet is shanks and ask for italian food because it makes YOU comfortable? despite the fact that the owners like it like that? This is the problem with multiculti - native Britain's feel their culture has changed for our guests - not the guests changing, for, us.

    lose your outdated racialist views and accept
    Who said they're outdated?

    You feel that Britain has declined in the same period as immigration has increased, and assume that the two must be connected. So with a few links at the bottom of your signature in an internet chat-room you feel that you have found the answer to all of societies problems and that everyone else is just too stupid to see it.
    You fear the 'reaction' - you are unable to hold debate. -


    What makes you think that white-British people should have to adapt and change their homeland for guests of all seas? Are you just trying to use the UK as a mass science-lab and use as a base for multiracislism? Is Britain just a random country that is slowly being used as an experiment to 'prove' a few liberls right because we are generally tolerant?

    Why not insist multiracisalism should start in say, Pakistan? Canada? or Australia?.... Is it because the British are an easy target? do you cleverly know that we will not argue or show as much resistance to slow multiracialism, therefore abuse our 'goodnature' by forcing us, with time, to amalgamate the human race?

    Just a question, or two.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnny)
    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:
    It appears that the original Britains were a paleolithic hunter-gatherer culture that arrived form France early in the Ice Age. These were the first people to settle in a previously uninhabited Britain. The next group to arrive were Neolithic peoples who may have practiced rudimentary agriculture. They too arrived from France, and with their warlike cultue appear to have driven off the Paleolithic peoples. Their culture was based on the erection of massive stone monuments. They were the builders of Stonghenge, as well as hundred of other stone monuments across the British Isles and France. They were further displaced by the Celts, who actually came from what is now Turkey. AO better be able to prove his ancestry at least 50000 years to qualify as an indigenous Briton. Well actually, the Britons were a Celtic culture, so he would have to be pre-Briton to qualify as a true Native.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Astor)
    You also have members of your family in your ancestry related to monkeys.
    Not unless you are a creationist.

    Forced upon us.
    When your ancestors invaded Britain from the continent.

    Why not insist multiracisalism should start in say, Pakistan? Canada? or Australia?.... Is it because the British are an easy target? do you cleverly know that we will not argue or show as much resistance to slow multiracialism, therefore abuse our 'goodnature' by forcing us, with time, to amalgamate the human race?
    No. I simply object to people continuing to define and categorize people by their skin colour or physical characteristics. And no one is forcing you to 'amalgate' the human race. If you find that to be a problem I am sure that the Ku Klux Klan or Nazi party would be more than happy to help you stop this from happening.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Surely race is a bit of a red herring though, when talking about culture? As is the argument about the Bloodline of the average Briton?

    If there's one thing you can take away from the history of immigration into Britain, it has caused some quite hefty changes. Was the subjugation of the Britons under Rome a good thing? Was the margilisation of the celtic Britons by the Anglo-Saxons a good thing? Was the complete change in orientation experianced by Norman Britain automatically a good thing?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SolInvincitus)
    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.
    You were wrong.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.[/QUOTE]That's fine. I don't know what you have in mind but it has no relevance to anything I've posted here.
    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.
    It's nothing to do with you Sol, govts, media, business elites, other prominent powers are pushing this. You aren't even in Britain as far as I know. Don't put words...
    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'
    Which idea of a single race is that Sol? The Japanese have Ainu in their lands, and made no attempt to wipe them out. They went abroad not to wipe out all other races, but to subjugate them. Like the Romans, the British Empire and others that you posted earlier as positive examples!
    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.
    Sol, you are redrawing the rules as you go. The Manchus and thye Han were two different peoples. That's why you raised them in the first place!Common cultural traits in common are irrelevant. You can say that same for practically all peoples today. They wear T-Shirts, so....(so what?)
    Wow!!! Now we know what you want to see!
    Yea, nice one. The separatist wants to subjugate. Makes sense.
    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.
    I say multicult. I know what the multicultural ideal is. I know too that it's impossible. That's why you couldn't find any examples.
    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.
    Yea, look at what I've highlighted. It's correct. Klan, apartheid, and Hitler, nice work Sol!
    Some people may have given up hope on you, but I cannot give up hope on changing predjudice and bigotry.
    I may be incorrect in some of my positions, but I'm open-minded and willing to debate and explore. But all you've offered Sol is prejudice and bigotry and a lot of confused history and conflicting evidence.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    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?
    I don't think anyone wants to make a museum piece of Britannia or ban certain dishes or whatever other fantasies some anti-nationalists have.

    If nationalists talk about preserving British culture, they presumably mean to say preserving the British people as being the indigenous English, Welsh, Scots and N.Irish, and allowing those people to develop their culture organically, rather than have it rewritten by Whitehall diktat and mass immigration from new peoples.

    Immigration is not first about culture, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean politically. From the point of view of immigrants it's primarily about economic gain, while for the indigenes it's primary effect has been to change this country from a conscious homeland for a few closely related ethnic groups from Europe with a shared language, religion, political outlook, and sense of primary loyalty to these islands and their people, into a state struggling and striving to recreate itself as something new -- a multi-religious/racial/ethnic empire in which no-one group dominates. Infact the majority group alone is not permitted to maintain a sense of group identity and group political interest.

    It's an experiment, and it's only happening in the White majority states because only Whites hit the modern era on the back of a couple of centuries where Liberalism has ruled, and we find now that late liberalism means the usurpation of tradition, group-loyalty, sense of history, sense of place, and replaces all conservative and community consideration with an extreme individualism, easily exploited by big-business, big-media, and big-politics, which work together to do the jobs and fill the hours that were once done by communities.

    Family and Society has been replaced by cradle to grave reliance on the Govt, the TV, and the Supermarket, (and others of like, obviously) and these incredibly powerful interconnected networks have no regard whatsoever for the communities they destroy. As I said before, we are relatively able to retain some natural order and society in Britain, but the globalist aspect of this network and it's effects are far more deletirous to less environmentally and politically secure comminities.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SolInvincitus)
    History. Key word. Look at the US now. It has far fewer problems that most nations. And Indians are no longer forced to sit on reservations. Many still live their because of families and communitied.
    I really wouldn't take the US as an example for what a nation should be. In many areas, it's not a model. Yes it's an effective example of having a powerful economy but whenever we have a debate about the UK, it always veers to "let's do what the US do, after all they're the richest country in the world so they're bound to do everything right".

    In establishing national values that can be admired by and are accessible to everyone, they are indeed a model. As a model of integration, equality and as a model for establishing national identity... that's very questionnable.

    Their "ideals" that looked so great on paper, i.e. no need to speak a certain language, practice a certain religion, be born in a certain territory... to be American are being put to the test. The fact the US still has no official language is posing a problem and will probably become an even bigger problem in the future.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SolInvincitus)
    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.
    That's fine wherever the native peoples would wish for such immigration. I don't believe that's often the case, it's usually imposed on them by a grasping political and business class.

    None of the recent non-White immigrant groups has "assimilated," they are separate and consciously desire to remain so. If you mean to say, some are not especially problematic that's true, Indians are notable, but it's quite irrelevant.

    The Poles who arrived in WW2 have assimilated. Race and religion allowed it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    Their "ideals" that looked so great on paper, i.e. no need to speak a certain language, practice a certain religion, be born in a certain territory... to be American are being put to the test. The fact the US still has no official language is posing a problem and will probably become an even bigger problem in the future.
    Those comments illustrate how American history has been rewritten to further the agenda of the multicult. The leaders of the founding colonies and several early presidents were very explicit that America was founded as a new nation for White people, of common language and British/ Northern European stock.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnny)
    The Spanish Netherlands was just its official name genius.

    At a later date it was called the 'United Provinces' after they overthrew spanish rule in 1581. The same points still apply.
    Spain and the Netherlands were ruled by the same royal family (the Habsburgs I believe), in exactly the same way that Hanover and Great Britain (and then the United Kingdom) were linked for decades after George I, a German monarch came to the throne.

    They were not the same country per se. All this shows is that back in the day, national cohension was maintained through a powerful political leadership. At that time, people didn't ask for a monarch to represent the nation but they just wanted someone of royal blood to be able to keep things in order. We were swapping monarchs between countries all the time. I lived near Angers in France, a town which sent monarchs to all kinds of strange places like Poland and Hungary, despite not speaking the language of the country they were ruling, only because those nations asked for a monarch..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Those comments illustrate how American history has been rewritten to further the agenda of the multicult. The leaders of the founding colonies and several early presidents were very explicit that America was founded as a new nation for White people, of common language and British/ Northern European stock.
    I think saying they made those claims implicitly would be more exact. If they were so sure of the culture America was to have, they would have had an official language a long time ago. Yet we're in 2006 and there's no chance of an official language ever appearing.
    Offline

    9
    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?
    Your selections weren't indigenous to Britain -- Vikings, Normans, Saxons...they were peoples from elsewhere who came here.

    Indigenous peoples are peoples that developed here. At least three are still here, the Scots, Welsh and English.

    edit:You're using words you don't understand, and as I said before, what's true of the British peoples is true of ALL peoples. It changes nothing, every nation desires it's ethnic-genetic continuity into the future. Go persuade other races and nations to blend out! It won't happen.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    I think saying they made those claims implicitly would be more exact. If they were so sure of the culture America was to have, they would have had an official language a long time ago. Yet we're in 2006 and there's no chance of an official language ever appearing.
    I think you're probably right that the earliest colonisers had that sense of ethnic affiliation common to most peoples even today, and never suspected they ought to formalise their sense of racial solidarity. But nevertheless lots of early Americans and Presidents were very explicit, even into the twentieth century Presidents were clear about how unworkable is a multi-racial state if freedoms are to be paramount:
    Thomas Jefferson thought it had been a terrible mistake to bring blacks to America, and wrote that they should be freed from slavery and then "removed from beyond the reach of mixture." He looked forward to the day when whites would populate not just North but South America, adding "nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface."

    The American Colonization Society was founded to free black slaves and persuade them to return to Africa. As Henry Clay put it at the society's inaugural meeting in 1816, its purpose was to "rid our country of a useless and pernicious, if not dangerous portion of the population." The following prominent Americans were not just members but served as officers of the society: Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, Gen. Winfield Scott, and two Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, John Marshall and Roger Taney. As for James Monroe, the capital of Liberia is named Monrovia in gratitude for his help in sending blacks to Africa.

    Abraham Lincoln also favored colonization. He was the first President ever to invite a delegation of blacks officially to visit the White House; he held the meeting to ask them to persuade their people to leave. Even in the midst of a desperate war with the Confederacy, Lincoln found time to study the problem of black colonization, and to appoint Rev. James Mitchell as Commissioner of Emigration.

    His successor Andrew Johnson felt the same way: "This is a country for white men," he wrote, "and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men . . . ." James Garfield certainly agreed. Before he became President he wrote, "[I have] a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the negro being made our political equal and I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way . . . ."

    What of 20th century Presidents? Theodore Roosevelt thought blacks were "a perfectly stupid race," and blamed Southerners for bringing them to America. In 1901 he wrote: "I have not been able to think out any solution to the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent . . . he is here and can neither be killed nor driven away . . . ." As for Indians, he once said, "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't inquire too closely into the health of the tenth."

    Woodrow Wilson was a confirmed segregationist, and as president of Princeton prevented blacks from enrolling. He enforced segregation in government offices and was supported in this by Charles Eliot, president of Harvard, who argued that "civilized white men" could not be expected to work with "barbarous black men." During the Presidential campaign of 1912, Wilson campaigned to keep Asians out of the country: "I stand for the national policy of exclusion. . . . We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race. . . . Oriental coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson."

    Henry Cabot Lodge took the view that "there is a limit to the capacity of any race for assimilating and elevating an inferior race, and when you begin to pour in unlimited numbers of people of alien or lower races of less social efficiency and less moral force, you are running the most frightful risk that any people can run."

    Harry Truman is remembered for integrating the armed services by executive order, but in his private correspondence was as much a separatist as Jefferson: "I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America."

    http://www.amren.com/inthenews/horowitz_reply.htm
    John Jay, who helped write the Federalist Papers, precursor to the Constitution said it best, without the evident dislike:
    “With equal pleasure I have often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people - a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
    What John Jay spots, is still very much important. You cannot unum out of the pluribus, Mohammad Sidique Khan, THE 7/7 London bomber tells us who he is and who he isn't:
    Your democratically elected governments continually perpetrate atrocities against my people all over the world. Your support makes you directly responsible. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.
    And after 9/11 when Americans-unhyphened were more patriotic than at any time for decades, a Pew Hispanic Center (a friendly source) survey of Mexican-Americans found that most of them had a primary loyalty to Mexico, then to La Raza (the race), then to the U.S.

    That's just the way it is!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SolInvincitus)
    It appears that the original Britains were a paleolithic hunter-gatherer culture that arrived form France early in the Ice Age. These were the first people to settle in a previously uninhabited Britain. The next group to arrive were Neolithic peoples who may have practiced rudimentary agriculture. They too arrived from France, and with their warlike cultue appear to have driven off the Paleolithic peoples. Their culture was based on the erection of massive stone monuments. They were the builders of Stonghenge, as well as hundred of other stone monuments across the British Isles and France. They were further displaced by the Celts, who actually came from what is now Turkey. AO better be able to prove his ancestry at least 50000 years to qualify as an indigenous Briton. Well actually, the Britons were a Celtic culture, so he would have to be pre-Briton to qualify as a true Native.
    I admire your knowledge, I don't know much about all that stuff. But it's not relevant to my politics, so you can leave me out of it and perhaps debate the real AO rather than your easier-option straw man stereotypes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    And after 9/11 when Americans-unhyphened were more patriotic than at any time for decades, a Pew Hispanic Center (a friendly source) survey of Mexican-Americans found that most of them had a primary loyalty to Mexico, then to La Raza (the race), then to the U.S.

    That's just the way it is!
    Thanks for the quotes. Didn't have time to read the whole Jefferson speech but it looks rather pertinent to the discussion.

    It's quite interesting that you point out the loyalty of Mexican-Americans after all these demonstrations of illegal immigrants claiming they're American. It's funny how someone can claim loyalty to a country when money is an issue.

    In those demonstrations, these guys are claiming "somos americanos" and everyone finds it quite ironic, yet no American can say that they're not American simply because there's no official culture and no official language. Anglo-saxon culture has no official or unofficial prevalence over any other culture in the US. You can claim to be American yet not speak a word of English (or Spanish for that matter) Very problematic indeed...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    AO, still don't know why you care even if all you say is true, and a British identity is lost. You won't lose yours, your family won't lose theirs, etc. How the hell do you think that a whole nations identity will be lost, considering the percentage of white people in Britain, the concentration of minorities into smaller areas, and the amount of people who like the "British culture" and will pass it on to their own children? You are way to hyped up over mothing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    I don't think anyone wants to make a museum piece of Britannia or ban certain dishes or whatever other fantasies some anti-nationalists have.

    If nationalists talk about preserving British culture, they presumably mean to say preserving the British people as being the indigenous English, Welsh, Scots and N.Irish, and allowing those people to develop their culture organically, rather than have it rewritten by Whitehall diktat and mass immigration from new peoples.

    Immigration is not first about culture, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean politically. From the point of view of immigrants it's primarily about economic gain, while for the indigenes it's primary effect has been to change this country from a conscious homeland for a few closely related ethnic groups from Europe with a shared language, religion, political outlook, and sense of primary loyalty to these islands and their people, into a state struggling and striving to recreate itself as something new -- a multi-religious/racial/ethnic empire in which no-one group dominates. Infact the majority group alone is not permitted to maintain a sense of group identity and group political interest.

    It's an experiment, and it's only happening in the White majority states because only Whites hit the modern era on the back of a couple of centuries where Liberalism has ruled, and we find now that late liberalism means the usurpation of tradition, group-loyalty, sense of history, sense of place, and replaces all conservative and community consideration with an extreme individualism, easily exploited by big-business, big-media, and big-politics, which work together to do the jobs and fill the hours that were once done by communities.

    Family and Society has been replaced by cradle to grave reliance on the Govt, the TV, and the Supermarket, (and others of like, obviously) and these incredibly powerful interconnected networks have no regard whatsoever for the communities they destroy. As I said before, we are relatively able to retain some natural order and society in Britain, but the globalist aspect of this network and it's effects are far more deletirous to less environmentally and politically secure comminities.
    To me, it sounds as if your real quarrel is more with the way the government deals with immigration than with the immigrants themselves. Aside from a very small number of (usually muslim) extremists, no immigrants come to this country and expect that they can override the existing culture. All they expect is the right to maintain their own culture once they arrive, and this does no harm to the British people.

    It's the government, and to a certain extent the media, which are the biggest cause of culture based conflict. Because of the way the government is handling immigration, the public are encouraged to think about immigrants as something alien rather than just normal people - political correctness creates a massive rift between racial/cultural/relgious groups because each group fears that the others will take offence at anything they say, so people tend to stay in the same ethnic groups rather than integrating.

    It must also be remarked that British culture is being "destroyed" by a large number of young people of long standing British ancestry - crime and drug taking are accepted parts of a lot of youth culture now, and this cannot be blamed on immigration. This provides a much more plausible reason for the degrading of British culture than immigration does, as it does genuine damage to society while immigration is simply used as a pathetic excuse by many for the "destruction of culture" that is far more to do with factors within our country than without.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Astor)
    You also have members of your family in your ancestry related to monkeys.
    But monkeys don't have any concept of culture. The races that I mentioned did.

    Well, I doubt that "the French", or "the Americans" appeared out of thin air, either.
    Well thats my point. As AO said earlier on (quite rightly), "every people around today developed from a mixing and an assimilation of countless other peoples". So given that there has always been a mixing of cultures and races, why should we seek to stop this now?

    Who gave you the right to assume he is in a time warp? Isn't it a bit ignorant to assume anything "old" is "wrong"? A strong Britain? Whats wrong with the one we have? Crime? Who are the most common forms of crime today in the UK? are they "traditional British crimes" ones commited say, 100 years ago? - maybe they were 'imported'?. Still no? then you refuse to open your mind - and I believe you are fixating on prior-arguments. Not, you own.
    You know nothing of history. Crime has been lower in the 20th century than ever before in our nation's past, although why you feel that a rise in crime rates would be down to immigration beats me. Are you really that racist? Only other ethnicities, than your own, are capable of committing crimes?

    Won't it? Don't people unite when 'nationalism' prevails? Wasn;t the UK 'strong' in 1952?
    Well I suppose the definition of 'strong' itself is arguable, but lets go with the most tangible aspect: the economy, measured by GDP in international dollars.

    In 1950 the GDP of Britain was $347 850 million.

    In 2005 the GDP of Britain was $1,832,252 million.

    Plus, British life expectancy is now at 78 years, higher than it has ever been.

    However I fear that you were referring to a more rose-tinted view of the 50s where everyone knew each other and Britain was great. Prove it (as you weren't there).

    If your from an LEDC which has treated you, your family like ***t and you feel no affection to, and you were 'offered' the opportunity to migrate to a much better, wealthier, stable country, such as the UK, you'd jump at the chance, not giving 2 flicks about the UK's 'culture', say, therefore, you have no desire to maintain it - ...

    ... if you moved into your friends house because your's burnt down - would you change the wallpaper, insist your toilet is shanks and ask for italian food because it makes YOU comfortable? despite the fact that the owners like it like that? This is the problem with multiculti - native Britain's feel their culture has changed for our guests - not the guests changing, for, us.
    What brilliant analogies that are without fault when applied to all immigrants. You win the argument on this score. In fact, lets go the whole hog: people immigrate to the UK, not to better thamselves as I stupidly thought (and the whole of British society in the progress), but just, in fact, to wreck our country. Good job we've got you to set us straight there Astor.

    Who said they're outdated?
    Oh sorry, of course they're not. They're bang up to date within the scientific community, because every other article in academic publications supports "The Bell Curve" right?

    What makes you think that white-British people should have to adapt and change their homeland for guests of all seas? Are you just trying to use the UK as a mass science-lab and use as a base for multiracislism? Is Britain just a random country that is slowly being used as an experiment to 'prove' a few liberls right because we are generally tolerant?
    Yep that's my aim all right. You've got me nailed. I really want to screw the UK over with the help of all my "liberl" mates.

    Why not insist multiracisalism should start in say, Pakistan? Canada? or Australia?.... Is it because the British are an easy target? do you cleverly know that we will not argue or show as much resistance to slow multiracialism, therefore abuse our 'goodnature' by forcing us, with time, to amalgamate the human race?
    I think that multiculturalism is a benefit to the UK. I couldn't care less how accepting other countries are of immigrants; I don't live there.

    Just a question, or two.
    ...besides a mass of inaccuracies and contradictions.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Like the sarcasm Johnny - a pity the racist bigots won't appreciate it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    Like the sarcasm Johnny - a pity the racist bigots won't appreciate it.
    Yes, it's a shame. Particularly as they're so sharp when it comes to spotting the one thing that's ruining our society: immigration.
 
 
 
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 I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
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.