White Britons \"will be in minority by 2066\"

[Gesiþ]

Seriously guys, we should stop comparing this to an invasion. The Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans came to Britain with the intention over taking over the place and let everybody else adhere to their rules.
That is something very different from the steady influx of slaves into ancient Chinese, Roman and classical Islamic civilisations. These slaves did not change the civilisations they entered, because they had only their hard work to offer. They or their children were eventually freed, became loyal taxpayers and kept the declining populations of these civilisation up to strenght, being only to glad to part of it.
Todays immigrants should better be compared with those slaves, only they come voluntarily, fleeing from poverty, injustice, backwardness and corruption. They do not arrive with a program to take over the place, as they only have their labour to offer. They so strongly adapt that, just like Stefan and some other aboriginals, a noisy few bemoan the loss of their culture, without really wanting to see what that culture had been.
Throwing nationality, race, culture and religion together as if they are the same thing is not a "scientific debate" and calling immigration an invasion is not "academic speech". They are ultra right-wing humbug, and you know it Stefan, so stop the offended innocence, you are not fooling anyone.

I understand your argument, but why the hostile tone at the end? Even if he were to hold and/or express those opinions, doesn't he have a right to do so, since he is not acting upon or forcing those beliefs on anyone? Like I said earlier, I really don't like the tone taken by many on this, trying to silence all opposition and launching accusations. We should have the freedom and tolerance to discuss all viewpoints on this issue.

[M. Demetrius]

eduard, can we logically compare slaves' "immigration" to voluntary immigrants, documented or undocumented? Slaves have little choice where they are to go; volunteers have many choices.

[Gaius Colletti]

Why is it wrong to discuss races/cultures without the ominous threat of racist overtones? It is one thing to not have a problem with race, but let's not act like "I'm sorry mister policeman, I didn't see if the suspect was white, black, asian..." and that we are blind to racial identity.

Identity matters, if it didn't here in America, we wouldn't have Polish, Greek, Italian, or German festivals. We wouldn't celebrate St. Patrick's Day or Cinco de Mayo or have "Black History Month". Identity matters, and it doesn't have to be in a racist manner either.

Ohh and even if the governments stop keeping track of racial demographics, advertising businesses won't they LOVE to find out all the demographics that are buying/interested/considering their products

[Diocle]

What really happened in Britain during the post Roman Age is actually a deep mystery for me.

I've read the work of Peter Heather 'Empires and Barbarians' and he offers (if I correctly understood his thesis) an explaination that is a mix between two main models: the 'Sobstitution of the Elites' and the 'Great Migration', Heather suggests that the actual dimension of the Anglo-Saxon migrant groups was big, but not so big to cause the total extintion of the local Roman-British population, while the simple 'sobstitution of the elites' isn't sufficent to justify a so deep change in the composition of the population of the island.

So he offers the model of the North Western area of Gaul: Here there was a mass migration of the Franks and also, with the Fall of the Empire, a sobstitution of the Roman Elites: so we have the two models working togheter, this is the explaination of Heater for what happened in Britain.

I still have many doubts because the total extintion of a human civilization is really very rare in human history, but we have to admit that the Romano-british Civilization simply vanished from the island, vanished the urban models, vanished the Language, vanished the social structures, only the agricultural economy continued even if with a different structure of the ownership.

IMO the mistery is still deep.....

[Robert]

Right, so best bring it back to its origins, the migration period. During that time, for different reasons, there was a large resettling. The parallel drawn is a group of people moving into an area occupied by others and settling amongst them. Not as an "invading force", carving out a place by tooth and claw, but as a steady influx.

A nice parallel today would be the great numbers of Hispanics settling in America, the promised land for countless migrant groups over the past 200 years. Many of these groups came in waves. Indeed what they have to offer is labor, but also skills and cultural traits. America itself, by the way, was settled by its present day inhabitants by tooth and claw, marginalising the indiginious people present at the time of them moving in and wiping them out, either through conquest by force or by disease. Their culture all but vanish, now only found in isolated pockets. The same happened in Australia. Back to the Hispanics, those are people looking for a beter life, a beter place for their childeren, willing to do demeaning or backbreaking work shunned by most locals, all in order to carve out a living. With them came cultural influences, which even filtered into the common language. They strive towards citizenship and they and their childeren are proud to be Americans. But they are not "white" on the outside, but a nice shade of geneticly inbuilt sunscreen. Does that make them less of an addition to society to which they very much want to belong then those who came before them, the white European migrants? Only a person who does not look beyond that inbuilt tan would think so.

The minority of white Britons will receive social benefits made possible by the taxes paid by the influx of migrants, will have their elderly washed and cared for by the influx of migrants, have their streets repaired and their mail delivered by an influx of migrants, will host the winner of a Nobel prize (oh yes HER we want) from among that influx of migrants, frankly, that minority will have a sustainable society not despite but because of an influx of migrants.

Migration is of all times, so is its influence on the populus they settle among. Best get used to the idea to them living in a country both you and they call their own :-)

[koechlyruestow]

Gesith wrote:

Even if he were to hold and/or express those opinions, doesn't he have a right to do so, since he is not acting upon or forcing those beliefs on anyone? Like I said earlier, I really don't like the tone taken by many on this, trying to silence all opposition and launching accusations. We should have the freedom and tolerance to discuss all viewpoints on this issue.

Stop whining Luke, if you put such nonsense in the public domain, expect to be critised for it. I am not in favour of removing such rants, let alone call in the thought-police or whatever, but I will react to it.

I live in a crazy country where change is believed to be something wonderful and all for the best, so at home I am the rabid conservative, but now I am suddenly turned into the rabid progressive! Our eleatic guest seems to think that immigration is only to be seen as a problem, and that it synonymous with this horrible, morally reprehensible and disastrous anomaly called change. And he seems to believe there once was a never-neverland called good old Britain, but what about bad old Britain?

And that is just the funny part, but Stefan, you also seem to think that a non-white skin color is something to be lamented. That is alright for dating, but in public speech it is rather offensive and nasty.

[Eleatic Guest]

I stumbled upon this piece about the decline of white native Britain. It puts the population replacement in the larger context of multiculturalism as dominant political ideology all over the West (but not elsewhere in the world, notably not in the Far East).

Western European nations have also seen their cultures awash in immigration and diversity. The British Nationality Act of 1948 affirmed the right of Commonwealth citizens (including those of newly independent Commonwealth countries like India) to settle in the United Kingdom. Commonwealth immigration rose from 3,000 per year in 1953 to 46,800 in 1956 and 136,400 in 1961 Some restrictions were introduced in the 60s and 70s including the British Nationality Act, which required migrants to have a “substantial connection with the United Kingdom” by birth or ancestry to a UK national. Nevertheless, in the 1970s, averages of 72,000 immigrants were settling in the UK every year from the Commonwealth; and in the 1980s and early 1990s around 54,000 per year, rising to around 97,000 by 1999. About half the population increase in Britain between the 1991 and 2001 censuses was due to foreign-born immigration.

By 2012, White British had dropped from 87.5% of the population in 2001 to 80.5%. White Britons in London, in 2012, accounted for less than half (almost 45%) of its population, and more than one in three London residents is foreign-born. As the country was flooded with immigrants, diversity was strenuously enforced through incessant media campaigns including the transformation of the entire curriculum from pre-kinder onwards away from any historic pride in the British heritage. Similar changes have been brought by liberal elites in France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, and increasingly as well in Norway, Switzerland, and Ireland.

Source: For Canada Day : Repeal of 1952 Immigration Act, Multiculturalism, and End of European Canada, by R. Duchesne (Professor of Sociology)

[Eleatic Guest]

And that is just the funny part, but Stefan, you also seem to think that a non-white skin color is something to be lamented. That is alright for dating, but in public speech it is rather offensive and nasty.

I appreciate that you are giving me your reds and greens of the discussion, but I much prefer to form an opinion of my own without any 'guidance'. Clearly, every country and indigenous people has the right to determine its own fate and keep its own culture. This is real diversity on a global scale. Reproducing Africa or Asia in Europe, by contrast, is the very opposite of diversity because these cultural zones already exist and need not be replicated at the cost of European culture.

I have read many pundits lamenting that the Tibetan population has fallen to below 50% in their own country, or other indigenous people slowly succumbing to external pressures and migration, but when the same demographic decline happens in London people are expected to pass over this in silence as if this is not a change just as dramatic. This is certainly a double standard in media and politics that needs to be addressed and increasingly is in the face of reality on the ground.

John Cleese himself recently said he moved from London to Bath because London does not feel the same as in his childhood days and that 'they want London to be multiculturalist'. And he is right, although the recent butchering of a British soldier rather indicates he understated the whole development towards Londonistan.

[Robert Vermaat]

I have read many pundits lamenting that the Tibetan population has fallen to below 50% in their own country, or other indigenous people slowly succumbing to external pressures and migration, but when the same demographic decline happens in London people are expected to pass over this in silence as if this is not a change just as dramatic.

I think you are quite mising the point when you compare Tibet and London and call this comparison 'just as dramatic'. I really wonder why you compare the demographic changes in a democratic coutntry to a region which has been occupied, met with violent uprisings and even more violent repression, as well as forced relocation out of and political migrations into that area. Are you seriously suggesting that the demographic changes in London are to be compared to the demographic chnaged in Tibet?

John Cleese himself recently said he moved from London to Bath because London does not feel the same as in his childhood days and that 'they want London to be multiculturalist'. And he is right, although the recent butchering of a British soldier rather indicates he understated the whole development towards Londonistan.

What one old famous chap says is hardly relevant to the reality between changes in society, although it's certainly part of that. I think mr Cleese forgets that black citizens were shot without any repercussion during the 1950s, although that is perhaps the period when he felt London as more to his tastes. I really do not understand why the killing of one British soldier (although to be lamented as a senseless act of violence) would be more alarming than the killing of thousands of British soldiers in the conflict with the IRA.

This is certainly a double standard in media and politics that needs to be addressed and increasingly is in the face of reality on the ground.

Perhaps, but not necessarily on this forum, and even so with balanced arguments please.

[Robert]

@ Robert Perhaps this sort of topic could best be ignored, certainly is the original poster sees fit to attemp to reraise the issue others have left by the wayside with a contribution that adds no new viewpoints to the argument. As with most demographic projections, looking back on it in 2070 could be hilarious .....