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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Listen, race might not mean anything to you, Jews are notoriously mixed race from thousands of years living in 'da ghetto' as a gypsy group, but to the rest of the world ethnicity is what they are, their identity, their history, their heritage, their being. It is what fuels the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Northern Ireland conflict, the kosovo conflict, the Chechnyan conflict, the Chinese-Tibetan conflict, and every other conflict in history when you scratch the surface. Go to any of those people and say their ethnicity is nothing. Plainly, it isn't is it, the truth is, it's what we are and governs all our actions.
    race is not what fuels those conflicts it merely draws the lines between different societies which then compete for resources, space etc. thoughts about ethnicity are merely one way of thinking about society, which at some level is simply thinking about your own identity. Multiculturalism is one aspect of the belief that within a society the relatively powerless should be raised up - in our case that means the identity of people from powerless cultures is affirmed. By and large it is a good belief and a good policy, but I think it is fair to say that Muslims and a few other groups struggle innordinately in Britain which is perhaps exaccerbated by British insecurity and weakness. silly demi-racism really isn't what Britain needs right now anyway and it's sad to see a political organisation devoted to it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kickflip)
    On the whole the Protestants/Loyalists are Germanic English immigrants, the Catholics/Republicans are Indigenous Celtic nationalists who hate England, the English and any notion of the United Kingdom.

    Protestantism is a branch of Christianity associated with Germanic Northern Europe, Catholicism with Southern Latin Europe. The indigenous Irish came to Britain from Iberia, they have Latin ancestry. The English came from Denmark/Germany/Holland, they have Germanic ancestry. It's an ethnic conflict. The establishment (for reasons known only to them!) doesn't like to talk about ethnicity in world affairs and casts it as a religious conflict, which is a half truth.
    The Protestants are mainly descended from Lowland Scots.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Apparently you don't care, but I don't wish to become a minority in my own country.
    its just your perception that you are a minority.

    others dont see you as that.

    stop being so afraid.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This wicked, vicious faith has expanded from a handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago, to it's now sweeping country after country before it, all over the world. And if you read that book (the Koran), you'll find that that's what they want.
    Nick Griffin
    Very few people in Britain are aware of the huge influence over the mass media exercised by a certain ethnic minority, namely the Jews.
    - Nick Griffin

    Without the White race nothing matters [other right-wing parties] believe that the answer to the race question is integration and a futile attempt to create "Black Britons", while we affirm that NON-WHITES HAVE NO PLACE HERE AT ALL AND WILL NOT REST UNTIL EVERY LAST ONE HAS LEFT OUR LAND.
    - Nick Griffin
    The TV footage of dozens of ‘gay’ demonstrators flaunting their perversions in front of the world’s journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these CREATURES so repulsive.
    - Nick Griffin
    A FRIENDLY DISEASE because blacks, drug users and gays have it.
    - Mark Collett on AIDS

    The BNP? Racist? Homophobic? Anti Semitic? Anti Islam? Surely not! Whatever gave you that idea?
    I do not make my judgement based on "left wing lies", I make my judgements from what I hear coming straight from their mouths.
    The BNP are racist.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kickflip)
    No one chooses to be intelligent or talented either, why base an economy on those things?
    Yes, but those things are based on effort and drive, something which you choose yourself?

    Listen, race might not mean anything to you, Jews are notoriously mixed race from thousands of years living in 'da ghetto' as a gypsy group, but to the rest of the world ethnicity is what they are, their identity, their history, their heritage, their being. It is what fuels the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Northern Ireland conflict, the kosovo conflict, the Chechnyan conflict, the Chinese-Tibetan conflict, and every other conflict in history when you scratch the surface. Go to any of those people and say their ethnicity is nothing. Plainly, it isn't is it, the truth is, it's what we are and governs all our actions.
    So basically you're picking the trait of humanity that divides us, causes conflict and halts progress, and basing your political ideas on backwards, war-torn nations simply because thats what everyone else happens to be doing?

    At least you're honest.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not racist, I've got a colour TV.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    I'm not racist, I've got a colour TV.
    then what the hell does griffin have...cos he certainly doesnt have a black and white tv either... :confused:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps a sense of sarcasm?

    And how do you know he doesn't?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gizmo!)
    its just your perception that you are a minority.

    others dont see you as that.

    stop being so afraid.
    Sorry for the late reply.

    Current demographic trends indicate that the native people will become a minority at some point in the future, there is debate as to whether it is 50,100,150 years away, but it is an inevitability on current trends.
    Offline

    13
    My ethnicity does not lead me by the nose, it's just a term used to describe my (recent) ancestral or societal origins along with the cultural and social life associated with that, it is a descriptive term, not a prescriptive one. No, 'our ancestors' do not care whether or not we have kids with people of different ethnicity, because our ancestors are dead, and even if they could, somehow, care, that would be their irrational problem. Ethnicities are in any event fluid things, 'Anglo-Saxon' ethnicity (for what the term is worth) only has meaning because Angles and Saxons, and some other tribal groups, came together. All ethnicities have origins and they all, sooner or later, either fade or merge and, that's right, create new ethnicities, but there's no good reason to reify them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Sorry for the late reply.

    Current demographic trends indicate that the native people will become a minority at some point in the future, there is debate as to whether it is 50,100,150 years away, but it is an inevitability on current trends.

    I think you better read this. Demographic trends are highly unpredictable, and are not a valid source for scaremongering about the future.
    Here are the main points. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cf...ssay_id=519403


    (Original post by Thw Wilson Quarterly)
    The World's New Numbers
    by Martin Walker

    “Here lies Europe, overwhelmed by Muslim immigrants and emptied of native-born Europeans.” That is the obituary some pundits have been writing in recent years. But neither the immigrants nor the Europeans are playing their assigned roles.

    Listen as Martin Walker discusses demographic change on dialogue.

    Something dramatic has happened to the world’s birthrates. Defying predictions of demographic decline, northern Europeans have started having more babies. Britain and France are now projecting steady population growth through the middle of the century. In North America, the trends are similar. In 2050, according to United Nations projections, it is possible that nearly as many babies will be born in the United States as in China. Indeed, the population of the world’s current demographic colossus will be shrinking. And China is but one particularly sharp example of a widespread fall in birthrates that is occurring across most of the developing world, including much of Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. The one glaring exception to this trend is sub-Saharan Africa, which by the end of this century may be home to *one-*third of the human *race.

    The human habit is simply to project current trends into the future. Demographic realities are seldom kind to the predictions that result. The decision to have a child depends on innumerable personal considerations and larger, unaccountable societal factors that are in constant flux. Yet even knowing this, demographers themselves are often flummoxed. Projections of birthrates and population totals are often embarrassingly at odds with eventual reality.

    In 1998, the UN’s “best guess” for 2050 was that there would be 8.9 billion humans on the planet. Two years later, the figure was revised to 9.3 *billion—*in effect, adding two Brazils to the world. The number subsequently fell and rose again. Modest changes in birthrates can have bigger consequences over a couple of generations: The recent rise in U.S. and European birthrates is among the developments factored into the UN’s latest “middle” projection that world population in 2050 will be just over 9.1 billion.

    In a society in which an average woman bears 2.1 children in her lifetime—what’s called “replacement-level” *fertility—*the population remains stable. When demographers make tiny adjustments to estimates of future fertility rates, population projections can fluctuate wildly. Plausible scenarios for the next 40 years show world population shrinking to eight billion or growing to 10.5 billion. A recent UN projection rather daringly assumes a decline of the global fertility rate to 2.02 by 2050, and eventually to 1.85, with total world population starting to decrease by the end of this *century.

    Despite their many uncertainties, demographic projections have become an essential tool. Governments, international agencies, and private corporations depend on them in planning strategy and making *long-*term investments. They seek to estimate such things as the number of pensioners, the cost of health care, and the size of the labor force many years into the future. But the detailed statistical work of demographers tends to seep out to the general public in crude form, and sensationalist headlines soon become common *wisdom.

    Because of this *******ization of knowledge, three deeply misleading assumptions about demographic trends have become lodged in the public mind. The first is that mass migration into Europe, legal and illegal, combined with an eroding native population base, is transforming the ethnic, cultural, and religious identity of the continent. The second assumption, which is related to the first, is that Europe’s native population is in steady and serious decline from a falling birthrate, and that the aging population will place intolerable demands on governments to maintain public pension and health systems. The third is that population growth in the developing world will continue at a high rate. Allowing for the uncertainty of all population projections, the most recent data indicate that all of these assumptions are highly questionable and that they are not a reliable basis for serious policy *decisions.

    In 2007, The Times of London reported that in the previous year Muhammad had edged out Thomas as the second most popular name for newborn boys in Britain, trailing only Jack. This development had been masked in the official statistics because the name’s many *variants—*such as Mohammed, Mahmoud, and *Muhamed—*had all been counted separately. The Times compiled all the variants and established that 5,991 Muhammads of one spelling or another were born in 2006, trailing 6,928 Jacks, but ahead of 5,921 Thomases, 5,808 Joshuas, and 5,208 Olivers. The Times went on to predict that Muhammad would soon take the top *spot.

    On the face of it, this seemed to bear out the *thesis—*something of a rallying cry among anti-immigration *activists—*that high birthrates among immigrant Muslims presage a fundamental shift in British demography. Similar developments in other European countries, where birthrates among *native-*born women have long fallen below replacement level, have provoked considerable anxiety about the future of Europe’s traditionally Christian culture. Princeton professor emeritus Bernard Lewis, a leading authority on Islamic history, suggested in 2004 that the combination of low European birthrates and increasing Muslim immigration means that by this century’s end, Europe will be “part of the Arabic west, of the Maghreb.” If *non-*Muslims then flee Europe, as Middle East specialist Daniel Pipes predicted in The New York Sun, “grand cathedrals will appear as vestiges of a prior *civilization—*at least until a *Saudi-*style regime transforms them into mosques or a *Taliban-*like regime blows them up.”


    The reality, however, looks rather different from such dire scenarios. Upon closer inspection, it turns out that while Muhammad topped Thomas in 2006, it was something of a Pyrrhic victory: Fewer than two percent of Britain’s male babies bore the prophet’s name. One fact that gets lost among distractions such as the Times story is that the birthrates of Muslim women in Europe—and around the world—have been falling significantly for some time. Data on birthrates among different religious groups in Europe are scarce, but they point in a clear direction. Between 1990 and 2005, for example, the fertility rate in the Netherlands for Moroccan-born women fell from 4.9 to 2.9, and for *Turkish-*born women from 3.2 to 1.9. In 1970, *Turkish-*born women in Germany had on average two children more than *German-*born women. By 1996, the difference had fallen to one child, and it has now dropped to half that number.

    These sharp reductions in fertility among Muslim immigrants reflect important cultural shifts, which include universal female education, rising living standards, the inculcation of local mores, and widespread availability of contraception. Broadly speaking, birthrates among immigrants tend to rise or fall to the local statistical norm within two *generations.

    The decline of Muslim birthrates is a global phenomenon. Most analysts have focused on the remarkably high proportion of people under age 25 in the Arab countries, which has inspired some crude forecasts about what this implies for the future. Yet recent UN data suggest that Arab birthrates are falling fast, and that the number of births among women under the age of 20 is dropping even more sharply. Only two Arab countries still have high fertility rates: Yemen and the Palestinian *territories.

    In some Muslim *countries—*Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Lebanon—fertility rates have already fallen to *near-*European levels. Algeria and Morocco, each with a fertility rate of 2.4, are both dropping fast toward such levels. Turkey is experiencing a similar trend.

    Revisions made in the 2008 version of the UN’s World Population Prospects Report make it clear that this decline is not simply a Middle Eastern phenomenon. The report suggests that in Indonesia, the country with the world’s largest Muslim population, the fertility rate for the years 2010–15 will drop to 2.02, a shade below replacement level. The same UN assessment sees declines in Bangladesh (to 2.2) and Malaysia (2.35) in the same period. By 2050, even Pakistan is expected to reach a replacement-level *fertility rate.

    Iran is experiencing what may be one of the most dramatic demographic shifts in human history. Thirty years ago, after the shah had been driven into exile and the Islamic Republic was being established, the fertility rate was 6.5. By the turn of the century, it had dropped to 2.2. Today, at 1.7, it has collapsed to European levels. The implications are profound for the politics and power games of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, putting into doubt Iran’s dreams of being the regional superpower and altering the tense dynamics between the Sunni and Shiite wings of Islam. Equally important are the implications for the economic future of Iran, which by *mid*century may have consumed all of its oil and will confront the challenge of organizing a society with few people of working age and many *pensioners.

    The falling fertility rates in large segments of the Islamic world have been matched by another significant shift: Across northern and western Europe, women have suddenly started having more babies. Germany’s minister for the family, Ursula von der Leyen, announced in February that the country had recorded its second straight year of increased births. Sweden’s fertility rate jumped eight percent in 2004 and stayed put. Both Britain and France now project that their populations will rise from the current 60 million each to more than 75 million by *mid*century. Germany, despite its recent uptick in births, still seems likely to drop to 70 million or less by 2050 and lose its status as Europe’s most populous country.

    In Britain, the number of births rose in 2007 for the sixth year in a row. Britain’s fertility rate has increased from 1.6 to 1.9 in just six years, with a striking contribution from women in their thirties and *forties—*just the kind of hard-to-predict behavioral change that drives demographers wild. The fertility rate is at its highest level since 1980. The National Health Service has started an emergency recruitment drive to hire more midwives, tempting early retirees from the profession back to work with a bonus of up to $6,000. In Scotland, where births have been increasing by five percent a year, Glasgow’s Herald has reported “a mini baby boom.”
    Population growth on a scale comparable to that which frightened pundits and demographers a generation ago still exists in 30 of the world’s least developed countries. Each has a fertility rate of more than five. With a few *exceptions—notably, *Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories—*those countries are located in *sub-*Saharan Africa. Depending on the future course of birthrates, *sub-*Saharan Africa’s current 800 million people are likely to become 1.7 billion by 2050 and three billion by the end of the *century.
    One striking implication of this growth is that there will be a great religious revolution, as Africa becomes the home of monotheism. By *midcen*tury, sub-Saharan Africa is likely to be the demographic center of Islam, home to as many Muslims as Asia and to far more than inhabit the Middle East. The *non-*Arab Muslim countries of *Africa—*Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Senegal—constitute the one region of the Islamic world where birthrates remain high. In several of these countries, the average woman will have upward of five children in her lifetime.
    Christianity will also feel the effects of Africa’s growth. By 2025, there will be as many Christians in *sub-*Saharan *Africa—*some 640 *million—*as in South America. By 2050, it is almost certain that most of the world’s Christians will live in Africa. As Kenyan scholar John Mbiti writes, “The centers of the church’s universality [are] no longer in Geneva, Rome, Athens, Paris, London, New York, but Kinshasa, Buenos Aires, Addis Ababa, and Manila.”
    The lower the birthrate, the greater the likelihood that a given society is developing—investing in education, accumulating disposable income and savings, and starting to consume at levels comparable to those of the middle classes in developed societies. Absent a shock factor such as war or famine, a society with a falling birthrate tends to be aspirational: Its members seek decent housing, education for their children, provision for health care and retirement and vacations, running water and flush toilets, electricity and appliances such as refrigerators and televisions and computers. As societies clamber up the prosperity chain, they also climb the mobility ladder, seeking bicycles, motor scooters, and eventually cars; they also climb the protein ladder, seeking better, more varied foods and more *meat.
    This pattern is apparent in China, India, and the Middle East. China’s new middle class, defined as those in households with incomes above about $10,000 a year, is now estimated to number between 100 million and 150 million people. Some put the figure in India as high as 200 million. But it is apparent from the urban landscape across the developing *world—*whether in Mumbai or Shanghai, São Paulo or Moscow, Dubai or *Istanbul—*that a growing proportion of consumers seek to emulate a *Western-*international lifestyle, which includes an air-conditioned house with a car in the garage, a private garden, satellite TV, and Internet access, along with the chance to raise a limited number of children, all of whom will have the opportunity to go to college. Whether the biosphere can adapt to such increases in consumption remains a critical *question.
    Perhaps the most striking fact about the demographic transformation now unfolding is that it is going to make the world look a lot more like Europe. The world is aging in an unprecedented way. A milepost in this process came in 1998, when for the first time the number of people in the developed world over the age of 60 outnumbered those below the age of 15. By 2047, the world as a whole will reach the same *point.
    The world’s median age is 28 today, and it is expected to reach 38 by the middle of the century. In the United States, the median age at that point will be a *young*ish 41, while it will be over 50 in Japan and 47 in Europe. The United States will be the only Western country to have been in the top 10 largest countries in terms of population size in both 1950 and 2050. Russia, Japan, Germany, Britain, and Italy were all demographic titans in the middle of the 20th century. Today, only Russia and Japan still (barely) make the top 10. They will not stay there long. The world has changed. There is more and faster change to *come.
    Martin Walker, a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Sorry for the late reply.

    Current demographic trends indicate that the native people will become a minority at some point in the future, there is debate as to whether it is 50,100,150 years away, but it is an inevitability on current trends.
    Firstly, yes, the "natives" will probably become the "minority" at some point, because that is the way the world works. Shock. Horror. It'll be far beyond the years that you quote though.

    Also, what is wrong with "non-natives". They are, i dare say...humans too, just like everyone else. I'm sure that you can grow up and learn to get along with these people. Whilst I don't believe they should force their beliefs on us, and the vast vast majority don't try to, your view point is beyond thick. Mr thickety thick.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bleech)
    Firstly, yes, the "natives" will probably become the "minority" at some point, because that is the way the world works. Shock. Horror. It'll be far beyond the years that you quote though.

    Also, what is wrong with "non-natives". They are, i dare say...humans too, just like everyone else. I'm sure that you can grow up and learn to get along with these people. Whilst I don't believe they should force their beliefs on us, and the vast vast majority don't try to, your view point is beyond thick. Mr thickety thick.
    Being in a minority really isn't a nice position to be in, in fact a lot of liberals would admit that they wouldn't want minority status in a country, especially one where you are the native people.

    Using insurance policies like political correctness is not good at all, and neither is fighting for a chunk and representation of a society which used to belong solely to you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Sorry for the late reply.

    Current demographic trends indicate that the native people will become a minority at some point in the future, there is debate as to whether it is 50,100,150 years away, but it is an inevitability on current trends.
    thats the same as it has been for every second in this country, so why do you make this point s beyond anyone.

    dinosaurs like you will die out if you dont adopt to what nationality is. change is the only constant, get used to it, mate, or get old early and die before everyone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gizmo!)
    thats the same as it has been for every second in this country, so why do you make this point s beyond anyone.

    dinosaurs like you will die out if you dont adopt to what nationality is. change is the only constant, get used to it, mate, or get old early and die before everyone else.
    At least you don't dismiss the statistics.

    Everyone can make their own mind up as to whether they want themselves or their children/grandchildren to become a minority in their own country.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    at least?

    wat does at least mean? it means you are still up on your 'igh 'orse. it means nuffing about me.

    the fact that YOU choose to see yourself as a minority and not part of the human race that embraces the opportunities to select identity on many different levels is all that everyone can read from your posts.

    you'll all be gone in fifty years time, replaced by english who choose to be english wiffout needing to spell it out wif a machine gun so they cant appreciate any other culture.


    then we'll ave a cracking fine england. jerusalem, yey, forward, England 2050.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gizmo!)
    you'll all be gone in fifty years time, replaced by english who choose to be english wiffout needing to spell it out wif a machine gun so they cant appreciate any other culture.
    I'll respond to the bit I understood.

    It isn't about appreciating other culture, it is about losing your own culture and identity within a certain amount of time- not even by force or invasion, but by mass immigration alongside demographic trends.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    you understood perfectly well but couldnt answer, as with every other previous arguments that you lost to others.


    why are you losing your culture? just becos you get some new neighbours it doesnt mean you need to stop eating fish n chips. but it does mean that you need to appreciate that some things do change, and the chips dont come from local fields no more.

    english culture, english language,english technology, english is evolving every day every minute, which is a fact that you dont get. Else we'd still be in the middle ages living in feudal england, and you'd be a peasant. yes, you'd love that.

    and that - imagine if we'd had a BNP in power since the Middle ages !
    then we never would 'ave become english in the first place, you complete twonk.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gizmo!)
    you understood perfectly well but couldnt answer, as with every other previous arguments that you lost to others.
    No, you are just difficult to understand.

    (Original post by Gizmo!)
    why are you losing your culture? just becos you get some new neighbours it doesnt mean you need to stop eating fish n chips. but it does mean that you need to appreciate that some things do change, and the chips dont come from local fields no more.
    [/b]
    Mocking native culture to make way for the new, not uncommon. I can tell you now, Englishness is about a lot more than fish and chips.

    (Original post by Gizmo!)
    english culture, english language,english technology, english is evolving every day every minute, which is a fact that you dont get. Else we'd still be in the middle ages living in feudal england, and you'd be a peasant. yes, you'd love that.
    Is what we are witnessing cultural change or cultural destruction? It seems to me multiculturalism is inherently flawed; when it comes to the crunch as a result of rising conflict and suspicion between various ethnic groups alongside demographic trends regarding birthrates, the strongest culture will come and dominate the society.

    (Original post by Gizmo!)
    and that - imagine if we'd had a BNP in power since the Middle ages !
    then we never would 'ave become english in the first place, you complete twonk.
    Most governments were nationalistic in everything they did until very recently.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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

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