Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    "the fact is, it does provide evidence that there have been settlers to Britain who were in no way Western or Northern European.
    Yes, I know that. Why are you telling me this? I never said there wasn't.
    The only point I ever made was that the majority of the white population in the UK can be traced back to settlers/inavadors/immigrants (call them what you will) from western/central europe 1000 or more years ago.
    Now, a learned student of history, can you tell me, if what I have said is right? And do you think you can do so WITHOUT telling me all about the small non-european influence we have had at various points in our history? (because I know that already and it's not the point I'm making or disputing)
    Umm, that isn't the only point you ever made. I took issue with some of the others that you did in fact, hence the discussion.
    I can't actually be certain that your definition would fit the majority of the white population in Britain. Neither can you really. I don't know of any ethnic census kind of thing which would tell us this. I would also imagine that there would be many people who are descended from both recent and earlier waves of immigrants (like me) and so where would you put them? It seems entirely possible that a majority of the British population which would consider itself ethnically British (as opposed to the white population- there's a difference) might actually be of many different lines of immigrant stock. Most of us are mixed.There is no reason why someone who self identifies as ethnically British might not be of Anglo Saxon descent, Middle Eastern from a Roman soldier ancestor and of Irish ancestry from one of the immigrants post potato-famine. Which would they be, pre or post 1066 descent? This doesn't strike me as an unlikely or even unusual combination, seeing as how there's been so much immigration to British shores from the first inhabitants to the present day. So a majority of the population may be descended from those who came here a thousand years ago, but also a majority may also be descended from those who came here only hundreds of years ago. Because we're so mixed up.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Umm, that isn't the only point you ever made. I took issue with some of the others that you did in fact, hence the discussion.
    I can't actually be certain that your definition would fit the majority of the white population in Britain. Neither can you really. I don't know of any ethnic census kind of thing which would tell us this. I would also imagine that there would be many people who are descended from both recent and earlier waves of immigrants (like me) and so where would you put them? It seems entirely possible that a majority of the British population which would consider itself ethnically British (as opposed to the white population- there's a difference) might actually be of many different lines of immigrant stock. Most of us are mixed.There is no reason why someone who self identifies as ethnically British might not be of Anglo Saxon descent, Middle Eastern from a Roman soldier ancestor and of Irish ancestry from one of the immigrants post potato-famine. Which would they be, pre or post 1066 descent? This doesn't strike me as an unlikely or even unusual combination, seeing as how there's been so much immigration to British shores from the first inhabitants to the present day. So a majority of the population may be descended from those who came here a thousand years ago, but also a majority may also be descended from those who came here only hundreds of years ago. Because we're so mixed up.
    Sure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danithestudent)
    And Nazi...what does that stand for...National SOCIALIST
    Yes, shall we ban all the socialists on the forum while we're at it? Be nice to lose some of the bleeding-heart liberalist views we have rammed down our throats
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danithestudent)
    Muslims are allowed to have mosques, the Jewish synagogues, football fans the trellaces (i can't spell that word) and yet as soon as a BNP person says something everybody is like "ban them!".

    Tut tut we're becoming censored. That's so bad
    Sorry to join so late.

    Last time I looked, Muslims and Jews weren't part of illegals groups bent on terrorism. I wouldn't object to someone using the name "Islam" or "Judaism." However, "Combat 18" is a purely neo-nazi group. It's not a username for someone with leanings to the right, sympathies for the BNP or anything else; it's support for a bunch of Nazi terrorists.

    I've got generally rather heavily right-oriented political views, but I have no time at all for racists and terrorists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danithestudent)
    Erm hello can I say 9/11, 3/11....the Iraq war....

    People have killed people. It's a damned dog eat dog world.
    Absolutely. However, support for the groups who were responsible for the WTC attack and the Madrid bombs shouldn't be condoned. Neither should support for illegal neo-Nazi groups.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarjazz)
    Yes, shall we ban all the socialists on the forum while we're at it? Be nice to lose some of the bleeding-heart liberalist views we have rammed down our throats
    If you banned all socialists this forum would be a very very very lonely place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I get that impression. But at least the server wouldn't be busy all the time....!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaarrrggh)
    Some stereotypes can serve a positive purpose. This is one such example.

    This is a completely weak argument. Do you know what a Nazi argument is? Unfortunately Danithe, people like me and you may be able to dissect a Nazi argument for ourselves, but many others are simply not capable. The Nazis, and the BNP especially, now use carefully constructed language and twists of logic all over the place to put forward their argument.

    They will appeal to people by raising other issues that are bound to be popular for example. They want to take a hardline with paedophiles. Vote winner. They want to have increased discipline in schools. Vote winner. They want to improve public transport. Vote winner. They claim to be the only party with truly british interests at heart. Vote winner.

    Unfortunately, they are also a radical right wing party with members that deny the holocaust, argue Martin Luther King was a villain, hate jews, and want religious minorities kicked out of our country for ever.

    They do not deserve a voice. The stereotypes are deserved and useful, and they should be banned from having a voice in places like this. End of argument.

    Even though I can see where you are coming from, I have to say you speak utter crap. Listen, whether the majority race of this country has been here 500 years or 10 000 years makes no difference. The majority claimed this country and have defended it through many wars, lives and economic struggles throughout its time. This is the home of the existing majority. Home. And it was well earned. My late Great Grandad fought in WW2 for this country and survived it, people like him made what this country is today. He was a good man. Do you know how my Great Grandad spent the end of his days? On a *****y old council estate in more or less poverty where burglary was rife and criminals roamed around doing what they liked. My Great Grandfather and Grandmother were victims of this filth, these criminal *******s (and yes I believe they were white! But that is not my point). We owe a debt to people that have served this country in some way, before we serve immigrants (whether they are seeking asylum or not). I am not racist. I do not hate people of other nations or race. What I DO hate is people from other countries coming here and sucking resources out that they do not deserve. What is the problem with 'third world' countries? Can't they make their own country work like we did hundreds of bloody years ago? Don't come here and sap off our country, why not stay behind and make your own country work? Yeah? How about that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collegestudent)
    What is the problem with 'third world' countries? Can't they make their own country work like we did hundreds of bloody years ago? Don't come here and sap off our country, why not stay behind and make your own country work? Yeah? How about that?
    This last point is absurd.

    The western world has no intention of letting the third world develop to the same standard as itself, and frequently unleashes havoc on third world countries where it serves western interests. If every country had our level of industrialisation then the planet wouldn't last two seconds.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    This last point is absurd.

    The western world has no intention of letting the third world develop to the same standard as itself, and frequently unleashes havoc on third world countries where it serves western interests.

    Another conspiracy theory buff.


    (Original post by llama boy)
    If every country had our level of industrialisation then the planet wouldn't last two seconds.
    Yes you are probably right. But that isn't my point. Why haven't these countries developed? Because they are inferior. That may sound politically incorrect, but it is the truth. And if they did have our level of industrialisation, then yes the world would be blown apart instantly, because they do not have the capabilty of intellect and political reasoning. They would launch nukes at the blink of an eye.

    For want of a better word - Savages
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collegestudent)
    Another conspiracy theory buff.
    lol, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a theory of international relations.

    Yes you are probably right. But that isn't my point. Why haven't these countries developed? Because they are inferior. That may sound politically incorrect, but it is the truth.
    Then you're missing the relationship between the points. A significant reason for poverty in the third world is the model of development pursued by the IMF and World Bank, that ensures that any industrialisation is almost entirely to meet the manufacturing needs of the west, as oppose to the needs of the domestic population.

    That, together with the unfortunate number of wars influenced directly or indirectly by the West, goes a fair way to explain the asylum "problem". Ever wondered why so many are from Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc?

    And if they did have our level of industrialisation, then yes the world would be blown apart instantly, because they do not have the capability of intellect and political reasoning. They would launch nukes at the blink of an eye.

    For want of a better word - Savages
    lol, try not to let the blind hatred get in the way of actually substantiating any of your points.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Having just read this whole thread I have a few responses.

    1) people associate the BNP with the Nazis because the nazis are the most recent extreme right wing party that people now a days can remeber. They also feel this because the BNP stands for some similar points ie they want a pure british race ie only white people who have lived in this country for many generations. I back this up with a quote from their website
    "we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin"
    Here they are basically saying they want to keep only briton is britain which would lead to the downfall of the country because there wouldn't be enough workers the population would crash due to our low birth rate and the elderly wouldn't have pensions because the working population would be too low. Also this is racist despite how it is wrapped up they seem to refuse to admit that immigrants have done anything good for this country which they have. Like I have said in another thread in the long run immigrants contribute £7 billion to the economy more than they take out. So people associate the BNP with the Nazis because all though they are not the same there are some scary similarities.

    2) there was an argument about the immigration to this country and someone wrongely said that most white people in briton have been here since the 1066 invasion. I went to google and found this site which says there have been several other large waves of immigration since which which clearly show that many white people in Briton really haven't been here that long.

    JEWS 1066-1290, from 1656, and particularly 1881-1914 and 1933-39
    LOMBARDS and HANSA 1250-1598 ( Italians)
    WEAVERS FROM THE LOW COUNTIES 1337-1550 ( Holland, germany)
    GYPSIES from 1500 (northern Africa)
    HUGUENOTS 1560-1720 (France)
    PALATINES 1693-1709 (Germany)
    AFRICANS 1555-1833 and onwards, and WEST INDIANS
    During the slave trade there was a black population in England and Wales of 9 Million
    INDIANS AND CHINESE 1700 and onwards
    EUROPEANS including GERMANS AND ITALIANS (18th+19th century)
    BELGIANS 1914-1918
    After WW2, work-permit schemes recruited Germans, Italians, Ukrainians, Austrians and Poles,

    I think this shows that there has been much immigration over the last 1000 years and many British peope will have been decended from these people so where do the BNP draw the line they cirtainly don't say on their web site.

    3)"Why haven't these countries developed? Because they are inferior. That may sound politically incorrect, but it is the truth."

    Actually that isn't the truth it is nothing but a racist lie. The fact of the matter is that these countries haven't developed due to something called initial advantage we learnt about it in geography. Briton and other "developed" countries had large surplies of coal which allowed them to industialise and once they had they exploited the countries which hadn't by taking away their natural resources and turning them into colonies. By the time these countries even tried to industrialise they found themselve with few natural resources left and a lot of debt which they have from inapropriate loans given by these "developed" countries. Now they are being forced to clear rainforest and grow cash crops (cheap paying and unsustainable) just to get enough money to pay back the interest on the loan. Add to that the fact that the climatic conditions in these poorest countries are less than favourable for developing a stable economy and you why they are stuggling. It is not because they are inferior it is because they were screwed around for centuries by countries like briton and then left to rot when there resource ran out. This is why we should be helping the third world because it is us that put them there.

    CANCEL WORLD DEBT!!!!!!!.
    :mad:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collegestudent)
    Yes you are probably right. But that isn't my point. Why haven't these countries developed? Because they are inferior. That may sound politically incorrect, but it is the truth. And if they did have our level of industrialisation, then yes the world would be blown apart instantly, because they do not have the capabilty of intellect and political reasoning. They would launch nukes at the blink of an eye.

    For want of a better word - Savages
    The most imbecilic undertone of this post is - you could've quite easily been born a "savage" (as you condescendingly call it).
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kimochi Warui)
    i think what angers danithestudent most is that the illegal immigrant, who shouldn't have been in britain in the first place got a leniant sentence and had his asylum granted. True, the sentence is a result of leniant law, but granting him asylum was simply ludicrous.
    That's my point. The reason he ran away, he told the court, was that he raped someone and the police were after him, he didn't want to go to prison for 10 years so he jumped the country.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    lol, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a theory of international relations.

    Then you're missing the relationship between the points. A significant reason for poverty in the third world is the model of development pursued by the IMF and World Bank, that ensures that any industrialisation is almost entirely to meet the manufacturing needs of the west, as oppose to the needs of the domestic population.

    That, together with the unfortunate number of wars influenced directly or indirectly by the West, goes a fair way to explain the asylum "problem". Ever wondered why so many are from Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc?

    lol, try not to let the blind hatred get in the way of actually substantiating any of your points.

    There is no need for Kosovans or Afgani#s to be in the country anymore. They can go home. The problem is in my area we put up lots of Kosovans, this was with the understanding they would go home when it was stable to do so. No surprises very few have left, thats the problem with being PC and nice, people take advantage of you. We should have told them to sling their hook to a near by country instead of coming to the other side of Europe.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    There is no need for Kosovans or Afgani#s to be in the country anymore. They can go home. The problem is in my area we put up lots of Kosovans, this was with the understanding they would go home when it was stable to do so. No surprises very few have left, thats the problem with being PC and nice, people take advantage of you. We should have told them to sling their hook to a near by country instead of coming to the other side of Europe.
    Have you not see the news this week it still isn't stable in Kosovo. Plus if you had almost been killed I really don't think you would want to go back unless it was deffinately safe.

    And just to tell people watch IF on wednesday channel 2 at 9 and you will see the pensions crisis and why we need more immigration into the country let peope come in let them work and let them pay taxes it is is what we need. Plus there is a skills shortage in cirtain areas any way.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Have you not see the news this week it still isn't stable in Kosovo. Plus if you had almost been killed I really don't think you would want to go back unless it was deffinately safe.

    And just to tell people watch IF on wednesday channel 2 at 9 and you will see the pensions crisis and why we need more immigration into the country let peope come in let them work and let them pay taxes it is is what we need. Plus there is a skills shortage in cirtain areas any way.
    Yes, there is a skills shortage in certain areas. But, what leads you to presume that asylum seekers from Kosovo etc have the skills we are short of? What skills do these people have that existing UK citizens don't have (or can't learn)?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Yes, there is a skills shortage in certain areas. But, what leads you to presume that asylum seekers from Kosovo etc have the skills we are short of? What skills do these people have that existing UK citizens don't have (or can't learn)?
    Exactly. The point is, why do they come to Britain? Because Britain is too PC and lets people take it for a ride. My personal opinion is refugees should good to the nearest peaceful adjacent country that can support them. Firstly they have a better chance of knowing that countries language and have a better grasp of their culture. Would Serbia take refugees from England if their was a nuclear bomb droppde on London? I doubt it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    Exactly. The point is, why do they come to Britain? Because Britain is too PC and lets people take it for a ride. My personal opinion is refugees should good to the nearest peaceful adjacent country that can support them. Firstly they have a better chance of knowing that countries language and have a better grasp of their culture. Would Serbia take refugees from England if their was a nuclear bomb droppde on London? I doubt it.
    Actually, I'm pretty sure that international (maybe European?) law says that a refugee has a right to be "taken care of" by the first country he/she enters and that country has the obligation "to take care of" that refugee.

    This being so then the UK, being an island, should likely receive very few asylum seekers.

    The problem is that, by comparison to other EU nations, Britain's immigration policy is a sham. You may have recently read about the immigration directorate's decision to turn a blind eye to investigating several thousand applications and issue residency regardless. Not my idea of a responsible immigration policy.

    This, coupled with the perception (true or false I couldn't say) that the range of benefits available to the refugee are greater in the UK than elsewhere leads folks from Kosovo to press on to Dover, rather than stop in Germany, France, Holland etc.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I could swear that if some of you had your way we wouldn't have people coming into the country at all. The skills that are needed obviously aren't being filled for whatever reason so like I said why not allow asylem seekers to train to do these jobs and contribute to taxes.People in Britain don't seem to want these jobs if they did then they would take them.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.