GrapeApe Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 I wish once and for all these appologists would stop aking us to pick up the tab for what the ruling class in this country did way back in the past in the time when Joe Public could face transportation for stealing an apple. The Uk doesn't need or want anymore coming in, end of. Wrong. We need more younger workers to look after our ageing population for a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Furthermore to the ridiculous claim that the indigenous Brits are not white. To claim to be indigenous, in my opinion, you will have to have some connection with the country going back 100s of years. Recent immigrants can't do this so are not indigenous. Here's a list of the 100 most famous Brits. 10 house points for anyone who can spot what they have in common... http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/famous_people.htm can the descendents of these people call themselves 'indeginous'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archer_(British_politician) there are far too many other exapmle of non white people in this country as far back as the 12th century. their descendants are still here. are they still not 'indeginous'. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/early_times/moors.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Nobody is blaming the immigrants, the thread is entitled "Can't Britain just close and say we are full up?" Nothing to do with blaming immigrants. i was making a general statement about how i see it. no different to your many varied ones about 'apologists' etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel666 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Hunh? They are two different but related stats. The main reason the net figure went up is because fewer people emigrated. Immigration rose by 1%, not 20. Quite a difference wouldn't you say? I see how the maths works. However, the amount of population growth due to immigration increased by 20%. That is something we need to be debating not how a newspaper headline reported it........that's really a separate issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 can the descendents of these people call themselves 'indeginous'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archer_(British_politician) there are far too many other exapmle of non white people in this country as far back as the 12th century. their descendants are still here. are they still not 'indeginous'. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/early_times/moors.htm No unfortunately they can't. It takes a lot longer than a generation to become indigenous. Black races are not indigenous to England. They're indigenous to Africa. I'm not indigenous to Africa, because I'm white and the effects of climate are the best clue to where someone is indigenous to. The people who date back to the 12th century are still not indigenous I'm afraid. Black people are not indigenous to these isles. That doesn't distract from their in put into the country and their right to be here. Can I ask you if you think white South Africans are indigenous to South Africa and if they are why have they been dislodged from power. If its their country after all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples A discription of what indigenous means.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Black races are not indigenous to England. They're indigenous to Africa. I'm not indigenous to Africa, because I'm white and the effects of climate are the best clue to where someone is indigenous to. Does being indigenous give someone a stronger claim to nationality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Does being indigenous give someone a stronger claim to nationality? No I wouldn't say so. My opinion is based on biology rather than being disrespectful or racist. I hope.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 No I wouldn't say so. My opinion is based on biology rather than being disrespectful or racist. I hope.... What's your point then? If being indigenous is a claim to nationality, then USA and Australia have no moral claim to make a country. They are an invading force still. On the other side, if non-indigenous people can join in with nationality then why should they be rejected because they aren't from the white bloodline? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 What's your point then? If being indigenous is a claim to nationality, then USA and Australia have no moral claim to make a country. They are an invading force still. On the other side, if non-indigenous people can join in with nationality then why should they be rejected because they aren't from the white bloodline? The white USA and Australian citizens aren't in my opinion indigenous to those lands. The native indigenous Indians are. Why would an African, for example, want to claim to be indigenous anyway, what's up with claiming to be indigenous to Africa? Basically the debate is about white people claiming to have something unique and some can't handle this inequality. Do you think white South Africans are indigenous to South Africa. And do you think they have the right to govern if they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.