The Student Room Group

Do I count as "British"?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by peacock444
Countries like Japan and Turkey have a history of colonisation - but no one is saying that they are obliged to accept millions of immigrants. White countries are obliged to accept millions of immigrants for one reason only - because they are full of White people that need to be blended out of existence.

Diversity is White Genocide.

That would be funny, if it wasn't for the actual, real genocide of native populations in New Zealand, Australia and North and South America by Europeans. You capitalise 'White people' as if they actual exist as a group. If I start at Calais and drive east, where do 'White' people end and 'other' people begin? Is Greece a 'White' country? What about Spain? Is the USA a 'White' country if its original population were clearly not 'White'?

That's the problem with racism. It defies any sense or logic.
Original post by peacock444
Ancient Greece was a White country.


Kinda wrong there. Ancient Greece was an Indo-European population but they were closer to olive skin tones than naturally pale like the Irish and British. Same can be said for a lot of western Asian population.
Original post by peacock444
It is not a question of why the immigrants want to come to White countries, it is a question of why EVERY White country and ONLY White countries cannot close their borders without being called a Naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.


There are several issues.

1. We invited them. Why? Because we had a labour shortage after the war, and to an extent ever since. We have definitely profited from that influx of labour.
2. We can control external EU migration. We choose not to because it is in our interests not to. I note that despite there now being a threshold of people coming into this country having to earn £35k.
3. Our booming economy does attract people. My question to you, is what do you do with someone who turns up without any papers? Where do you send them when you don't know where to send them?
4. Much of the migration over recent years has been from war zones (many of which we started). Are you really saying we should throw families back into the sea?


And you still haven't explained what a white country is? It sounds like you might be a bit racist, unless you are talking about the recent snowfall.
Original post by peacock444
It is not a question of why the immigrants want to come to White countries, it is a question of why EVERY White country and ONLY White countries cannot close their borders without being called a Naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.


Well it was kinda the fault of the British the French and the Spanish to begin with. We went around to other countries and put a flag down and said it was ours, cut up Africa into squares and had total disregard of the indigenous population. It's no wonder that some people from different countries think that way.
Original post by peacock444
Japan has a history of colonization, yet it is not called a Nazi regime for closing its borders. Why is this? Because it is not full of White people.


Japan's economy has also turned to **** and it's population is could be said to be on the verge of extinction. Nothing good has happened out of closing down its borders and I don't know if you remember but Americans nuked Japan. There's not many worse atrocities. Why would they suddenly start trusting the western countries with nuclear capabilities when they're still suffering from the after affects of the radiation.
Reply 85
Original post by AmazingArry
Well you can't just say that without saying why you don't think that it is?


I think ethnic homogeneity (as near to it as you can get, nowhere is ever going to be 100% homogenous) is more conducive to long term stability and cohesion within a society, than diversity or pluralism.

Having very different groups of people, with their own distinct ethnic, cultural and religious traits occupying the same territory is a recipe for division, tension and all too often civil war and even genocide. Ethnic diversity certainly hasn't ended well for places like Yugoslavia, Burma, Rwanda, the Congo, heck I could probably just list almost every Sub-Saharan African country at this point.
Original post by Wōden
I think ethnic homogeneity (as near to it as you can get, nowhere is ever going to be 100% homogenous) is more conducive to long term stability and cohesion within a society, than diversity or pluralism.

Having very different groups of people, with their own distinct ethnic, cultural and religious traits occupying the same territory is a recipe for division, tension and all too often civil war and even genocide. Ethnic diversity certainly hasn't ended well for places like Yugoslavia, Burma, Rwanda, the Congo, heck I could probably just list almost every Sub-Saharan African country at this point.


You're talking about societies here that still believe in witchdoctors, where the digital divide is great and education is poor, not to mention that democracy and tolerance aren't at the same levels as a highly developed society. It rarely happens in established diverse environments, until the recent terror attacks that is. There's always external stimuli that forces people into a distressed state that promotes decoherence between ethnically diverse and culturally diverse environments.
Original post by SWCoffee
The evidence that only white countries are obliged to accept immigrants is demonstrated by the fact that white countries accept immigrants.

Got it.


Anyone who is not a Naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews says that EVERY White country and ONLY White countries have a moral obligation to flood themselves with immigrants.
[QUOTE=Wōden;75014036]I think ethnic homogeneity (as near to it as you can get, nowhere is ever going to be 100% homogenous) is more conducive to long term stability and cohesion within a society, than diversity or pluralism.

Having very different groups of people, with their own distinct ethnic, cultural and religious traits occupying the same territory is a recipe for division, tension and all too often civil war and even genocide. Ethnic diversity certainly hasn't ended well for places like Yugoslavia, Burma, Rwanda, the Congo, heck I could probably just list almost every Sub-Saharan African country at this point.

This is what those on the far-right and white nationalists say... you can try and sound nice using polite language but at the end of the day it's the same toxic "Britain for the British, foreigners don't belong here, browns get out" nonsense.
You're British, yes. Don't let people tell you that you aren't.
Reply 90
Original post by Harold98
This is what those on the far-right and white nationalists say... you can try and sound nice using polite language but at the end of the day it's the same toxic "Britain for the British, foreigners don't belong here, browns get out" nonsense.


Multi-culturalism/ethnicism will be highly destructive and toxic in the long term. How can you expect me to support such an ideology?
Original post by Wōden
Multi-culturalism/ethnicism will be highly destructive and toxic to my ethnic group in the long term. How can you expect me to support such an ideology?


'Multi-ethnicity will be highly destructive' lmao, are you being serious? Britain is a multi-ethnic society and we are doing well. We have people of all ethnicities serving in Parliament, in the military, in the olympics, in the civil service, in our hospitals and schools. If you think they shouldn't be here then that's ridiculous. And most people do support it because, guess what, it's not destructive. You do genuinely sound like a BNP/National Front member.
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 92
Original post by croquet888
Anyone who is not a Naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews says that EVERY White country and ONLY White countries have a moral obligation to flood themselves with immigrants.


Plenty of non-white countries flood themselves with immigrants. South Africa, Lebanon, Turkey, Singapore, Malaysia, Brazil, UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia among others.
Reply 93
Original post by Wōden
Lawfully you are a British citizen. But you are not of indigenous British descent, you are not even of European descent, your ancestral history is not embeded within these lands, so you cannot be "British" in the genetic/ethnic sense, it's as simple as that. You Indian and Sri Lankan.

I'm not trying to play the cruel nationalist here, I'm not actually bothered if you call yourself "British", especially if you truly do feel at home here. But think of it this way, if the roles were reversed, and I, a white skinned, blue eyed, Northern European, were in your position in India or Sri Lanka, would the natives there ever in a million years accept me as "Indian" or "Sri Lankan"? I doubt it very much, and no sane person would expect them to. Why does it seem that only white countries are not allowed to excercise ethnic exclusivity? Why are we are all expected to be melting pots?

Spoiler




It's not just white countries that don't exercise ethnic exclusivity. Singapore is made up of multiple ethnic groups, all of which are considered Singaporean. Malaysia too. South Africa is made up of multiple ethnic groups including whites, who are generally considered South Africans. It's not just white countries that are expected to be melting pots. Plenty of rich countries are. And plenty of white countries like Poland and Romania aren't

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending