:rofl:

 

Who are the settlers in the UK who are "rightfully" indigenious?

 

Is it the Celts or the Gallics who invaded pre Roman Empire?

 

Is it the Romans who invaded Britain in the first century AD?

 

Is it the Saxons, Angles and Jutes who invaded Britain from Northern Germany, Denmark, and Holland between 450 to 650 AD?

 

Is it the Vikings who came from Norway, Denmark, and Scandinavia from 793AD until the 11th century?

 

Is it the Normans who came from Northern France in the 11th century onwards?

 

etc.

 

What a load of $h!t regarding indigenious population.

 

The UK was not some unpopulated territory of the new world like Australia or the Americas. Therefore the UK has not had an indigenious population since the late bronze age (c. 1200 BC).

 

True but the one thing they all have in common is they are all white, I don't think blacks and asians can be considered indigenous whereas the whites can, I believe in equal rights for black/asian/muslim but the true indigenous people are white with several generations of whit ancestry regardless of who invaded who, anyone who can trace back to 1000 years white ancestry all born in Britain are indigenous to me

 

But does being indigenous really have anything to do with power and right of settlement, I think is the question here?

anyone who can trace back to 1000 years white ancestry all born in Britain are indigenous to me

I would be shocked if this number actually got to four figures :lol:

Well on my dad's side of the family in the 1850s I'm descended from Germans. So according to the BNP that makes me a non indigenious person because my descendents have not been part of this island for the past 200 years.

 

It is racism, pure and simple irrespective of my skin colour. However Dail Mail Islanders want to dress it up with fancy words in a vain attempt to put a veneer of respectability on something very nasty and offensive.

Well on my dad's side of the family in the 1850s I'm descended from Germans. So according to the BNP that makes me a non indigenious person because my descendents have not been part of this island for the past 200 years.

 

It is racism, pure and simple irrespective of my skin colour. However Dail Mail Islanders want to dress it up with fancy words in a vain attempt to put a veneer of respectability on something very nasty and offensive.

 

I would not pass the BNP test either and I am white and was born here, my ancestry can be traced to Russia, Belarus, Estonia, Poland even South Africa with the British bloodline starting in the 1940's so under their rules I would be offered resettlement which if it meant living in Griffin's England I would take in a heartbeat

...but we are the smallestcountry, i suspect that if the percentage of migrants was timesed by the square mileage , the uk would be the most densely populated.

You what? There are 27 countries in the EU. The following are smaller

 

Ireland

Cyprus

Malta

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Romania

Luxembourg

Belgium

Netherlands

Bulgaria

Portugal

Slovenia

Czech Republic

Slovakia

Denmark

Hungary

Greece

 

How does that make us the smallest country? Maybe if we just use UK we can claim to have the smallest name.

I would not pass the BNP test either and I am white and was born here, my ancestry can be traced to Russia, Belarus, Estonia, Poland even South Africa with the British bloodline starting in the 1940's so under their rules I would be offered resettlement which if it meant living in Griffin's England I would take in a heartbeat

Which makes your claims that "non-indigenous" should go out of their way to prove their "Britishness" (by ONLY supporting England in sport, by making sure they mix with the "indigenous" white Brits) even more moronic.

Which makes your claims that "non-indigenous" should go out of their way to prove their "Britishness" (by ONLY supporting England in sport, by making sure they mix with the "indigenous" white Brits) even more moronic.

 

I am a 2nd generation immigrant, I fully support England at sports and I mix with the "indigenous" whites, maybe its the wine but I really don't get your point

I am a 2nd generation immigrant, I fully support England at sports and I mix with the "indigenous" whites, maybe its the wine but I really don't get your point

I guess it was the "wine" that was to blame when you misunderstood what a person of foreign descent meant too then? :P

:mellow:

 

OK I know as a youngster especially I'm not really allowed to disagree with you in this forum but seriously WTF? You are basically taking the word's out of Griffin's mouth without any considering of the following factors:

 

1- The Scientific evidence that human life started in AFRICA.

2 - How the fuck are black-born britons any less important than white born britons? I may not have conducted a survey but I would hazard a guess that ALOT of black families have been here for longer generations that some white families, I couldnt possibly tell you if my heritage dates back in Britain to 1000 years, infact I'm pretty sure it doesnt.

3 - You're basically spouting racial hatred by calling whites better than blacks, and this alongside your claim that the BNP's policies are 'sensible' are reasons why I HAVE CALLED YOU A FUCKING BNP SUPPORTER IN THIS TOPIC. And I know there are plenty of people who agree with me, but dont want to post because it seems nobody can express a viewpoint. And while we're at it, dont preach at me just because I'm YOUNG, just because im less than half your age it doesn't make my opinion any less valid. I may not have lived in a society for very long with a strong ethnic minority vibe, but I still stand for the fact that everyone should be EQUAL, especially those BORN HERE, which brings me back to my original question, HOW ARE BRITISH BORN BLACKS/MUSLIMS/WHATEVER ANY LESS BRITISH THAN YOU OR I JUST BECAUSE THEY ARENT WHITE? Through saying whites are indignous youre basically agreeing with Griffin wanting to give Britain back to it's 'ancestral' whites, which is quite frankly bullsh!t.

 

dont ruin a decent post with stupid remarks <_<

 

yep human life started in africa.... so?

 

the vast majority of migrants have been here since ww2.... very very few were herew before that.

if you are white, and arnt jewish, your ancestry probably does date back to anglo saxon times, the vast majority of us have surnames that derive from saxon/norman times, c 6th-11th centuary... if you pm me your surname i could possibly tell you.

 

where have i said that whites are better then blacks?.... NOWHERE! please dont yet again credit me with things i did NOT say :angry:

 

nope yet again you are deliberately mis interpret what i ACTUALLY said... that SOME of the bnp's policies are sensible and THATS why they are picking up votes from 'ordinary' people..

 

and where have i said that british born ethnic peoples are less important?.... m8, PLEASE stop telling LIES in order to try to discredit my argument. debates are based on FACTS and not what you or anyone else wants the believe.

 

As you know full well, the point of contention isn't whether the term "indigenous" can technically be applied to white Britons. The point is that you and Mushymanrob have, by using the term indigenous, been implying that white people have a higher priority in the direction of this country, just because of their skin colour or "ancestry". That is extremely racist, of course it is. This isn't a debate you can win on technicalities. The point is that, regardless of whether white Britons are technically "indigenous", it is completely and utterly irrelevant.

 

no m8, it isnt racist, its a fact. the 'indiginous' white population is the vast majority, so of course 'we' have a greater say...

 

Incorrect ;) The third most densely populated - Bangladesh with 153 million people in an area half the size of the UK is first, South Korea is second IIRC...

 

you misunderstood..... i was on about the ratio between the countries land mass (size) and the proportion of migrants in the population...

 

:rofl:

 

Who are the settlers in the UK who are "rightfully" indigenious?

 

Is it the Celts or the Gallics who invaded pre Roman Empire?

 

Is it the Romans who invaded Britain in the first century AD?

 

Is it the Saxons, Angles and Jutes who invaded Britain from Northern Germany, Denmark, and Holland between 450 to 650 AD?

 

Is it the Vikings who came from Norway, Denmark, and Scandinavia from 793AD until the 11th century?

 

Is it the Normans who came from Northern France in the 11th century onwards?

 

etc.

 

What a load of $h!t regarding indigenious population.

 

The UK was not some unpopulated territory of the new world like Australia or the Americas. Therefore the UK has not had an indigenious population since the late bronze age (c. 1200 BC).

 

ill address this in full later......

 

 

You what? There are 27 countries in the EU. The following are smaller

 

Ireland

Cyprus

Malta

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Romania

Luxembourg

Belgium

Netherlands

Bulgaria

Portugal

Slovenia

Czech Republic

Slovakia

Denmark

Hungary

Greece

 

How does that make us the smallest country? Maybe if we just use UK we can claim to have the smallest name.

 

i refer you to the answer i gave to 'LaTyrouxn' , as you too missed the point.

Says someone who was educated at a private boarding school ;)

 

Like he had a choice in that mate.... :rolleyes:

oh and just what are we then?..... i think that after a thousand years plus most of us can refer to ourselves as 'indiginous'...

 

Guess that lets me out then, I'm, only fourth generation Scots/Irish..... :lol:

 

The overall point is Rob, that somewhere, at some stage in history, we're ALL actually descended from Immigrants... If our ancestors had just stayed where they were, we'd be living in France, Germany, Italy or Ireland..

 

In fact isn't it a case that at our core we actually all originated in Africa tens of thousands of years ago....? Or, if you are to believe the Bible, the Middle East....

 

Well on my dad's side of the family in the 1850s I'm descended from Germans. So according to the BNP that makes me a non indigenious person because my descendents have not been part of this island for the past 200 years.

It is racism, pure and simple irrespective of my skin colour. However Dail Mail Islanders want to dress it up with fancy words in a vain attempt to put a veneer of respectability on something very nasty and offensive.

 

Totally agree.... Discrimination really has little to do with Skin colour... And what we have in this country is ANTI-DISCRIMINATION laws.... TBH, I kind of think the term "race" is a constructed term... We should really be looking at this argument in terms of "Ethnocentrism"..... Because this really is considerably more than just a "black or white" issue, which is, I feel a very, very simplistic way of looking at things. There is clearly every bit as much prejudice and discrimination shown towards Polish or Russian as there is towards Asian or Black, as well as all the Anti-French, and Anti-German rhetoric that continually gets spouted in the Tabloid media, particularly when there's a football match on.... For decades the Irish were very clearly discriminated against just because a FEW wanted to blow stuff up, this prejudice and Ethnocentrism culminated in several high profile and disgusting miscarriages of justice.. The WORST miscarriages of Justice that this country, and I would argue Europe as a whole, witnessed in the 20th Century...

 

I vividly remember being called a "Fenian b/astard" on my way to school.. I was eight years old.... Nice, eh....? <_< So, you tell me is there a difference between being a white person calling someone a "Fenian b'astard" and a white person calling someone a "P@ki b'astard".... I really, really dont think so.. BOTH are derogatory, hateful remarks based upon prejudice and Ethnocentrism....

 

The BNP are scum, simple as... Anyone who supports them is scum... Their "immigration policies" are not even theirs anyway... They cobbled them together from the Tories and UKIP, so we can discount those because they basically PLAGIARISED them from other sources, so whatever "good" ideas they may have are not even theirs to begin with...

 

So, basically this leaves the really nasty underbelly, which IS the BNP at its core - ie, The National Front..... Of course, that aint gonna get any votes is it... So, they put away the Swastikas and the bovver boots, and put on nice suits and wrapped themselves in the fukkin' Union Jack......

 

Guess that lets me out then, I'm, only fourth generation Scots/Irish..... :lol:

 

The overall point is Rob, that somewhere, at some stage in history, we're ALL actually descended from Immigrants... If our ancestors had just stayed where they were, we'd be living in France, Germany, Italy or Ireland..

 

In fact isn't it a case that at our core we actually all originated in Africa tens of thousands of years ago....? Or, if you are to believe the Bible, the Middle East....

 

...i know that, but at some stage our ancestors claimed ownership of land and settled there, my question is.... how long does a tribe have to inhabit a given tract of land before they can be called 'indiginous'? im suggesting that 'we' brits could possibly claim that because our nation has had a pretty fixed ethnic mix for a thousand years, consisting of western european origins.

Like he had a choice in that mate.... :rolleyes:

Well, I did, but I've already mentioned it is hardly typical of your average private boarding school, especially considering that 40% (including myself in my time there) go completely free and only 3% pay full fees...

no m8, it isnt racist, its a fact. the 'indiginous' white population is the vast majority, so of course 'we' have a greater say...

The point here is though, at what point do you start to refer to someone as being indigenous? And once blacks/people of Indian descent/etc. become 'indigenous', do you (not necessarily YOU, but the terms of the debate in general) believe that they have the equivalent say? Or, more to the point, can they even become indigenous?

:rofl:

 

Who are the settlers in the UK who are "rightfully" indigenious?

 

Is it the Celts or the Gallics who invaded pre Roman Empire?

 

Is it the Romans who invaded Britain in the first century AD?

 

Is it the Saxons, Angles and Jutes who invaded Britain from Northern Germany, Denmark, and Holland between 450 to 650 AD?

 

Is it the Vikings who came from Norway, Denmark, and Scandinavia from 793AD until the 11th century?

 

Is it the Normans who came from Northern France in the 11th century onwards?

 

etc.

 

What a load of $h!t regarding indigenious population.

 

The UK was not some unpopulated territory of the new world like Australia or the Americas. Therefore the UK has not had an indigenious population since the late bronze age (c. 1200 BC).

 

i refer you to the reply ive just posted to scott...

 

what you say is factually correct, however its not quite as black and white as that. we KNOW that the celtic tribes traded with their kinsmen in europe, indeed many celtic tribes here derived from europe following the 'belgic migration'. so even our celts were not a 'pure' ethnic race. indeed even as far back as the bronze age they were trading and interbreeding with europe, before the north sea made us an island. the romans werent a pure race, they too were a mixture of southern european countries... the saxons, jutes, danes and normans were all ethnically strongly related.

 

what im saying is that the whole of western europe are pretty much derived from the same scource, so imho that puts a different slant on the various european 'invasions' that we have had here in the uk.

 

the uk WAS reletively unpopulated, there werent millions of celts, there were more in the south and east, very few in the north and west. after the roman empire collapsed the saxons came here because of the plentiful supply of fertile land in a reletively unpopulated land.

 

so as i see it, the 'invasions' that did take place in the first milennia were by reletives of eachother (i use the word 'invasion' spareingly as the thinking is now that the romans and saxons arrived here largely by mutual consent, the danes/vikings only imposed themselves northeast of watling street (a5) and the normans (original danes...'north men') were not a large population, being the new 'ones in charge' only, there wasnt a large civilian influx).

 

the point is that since the late 11th centuary right upto the 1950's the ethnic population in the uk was pretty much 'fixed'... id suggest that this makes 'us' proto - indigenous at least.

 

in that thousand years 'our' nation was forged, through battle and politics, this is when our very largely based anglo saxon based culture (place names, shires, parish boundaries, language, personal names, roads, footpaths are c80% 'old english' ie saxon), was created. the uk has plenty to be proud of, being world leaders in science, inovation, industry, creativity, society, politics, law, etc. britain has been a world leader in creating civilisation as were know it.

 

many of us do have an ancestry that could pre date the conquest, many of us have old english derived surnames, many are place names that our ancestors adopted because they LIVED there.. others are trade names (smith, baker etc).

 

i think this thousand years of creating the uk must be taken into consideration, it was done by a mixed race of western europeans which we know as british.. are we 'indigenous'? well yes, to western europe. this of course is totally different to migrants from different continents, afro - carribeans have been largely anglocised thanks to 'empire', whereas peoples from the middle east/asia have a far stronger national identity.

 

the question is .... how much of their national identity should be integrated into 'our' customs? is it right that a country built on a thousand years of ethnic stability change because of a large influx of people from a different cultural background in a reletivly short time (50 odd years).

 

DONT get me wrong here, i think multiculturalism is a good thing with huge benefits to be had all round.

The point here is though, at what point do you start to refer to someone as being indigenous? And once blacks/people of Indian descent/etc. become 'indigenous', do you (not necessarily YOU, but the terms of the debate in general) believe that they have the equivalent say? Or, more to the point, can they even become indigenous?

 

lol..i was busy posting my lengthy post (above) which kinda asks the same question..

 

i came to the conclusion that maybe we are indigenously western european. how soon can an asian or african become 'indigenous'?... perhaps in another thousand years like us! lol. i dunno, theres alot of grey areas here, not only when do we become 'owners' of our lands (indigenous?) but just how much ethnic migration the uk can take plus how much of our national identity should we lose to 'foreign' (non european) cultures.... its all a very grey area.

i refer you to the reply ive just posted to scott...

 

what you say is factually correct, however its not quite as black and white as that. we KNOW that the celtic tribes traded with their kinsmen in europe, indeed many celtic tribes here derived from europe following the 'belgic migration'. so even our celts were not a 'pure' ethnic race. indeed even as far back as the bronze age they were trading and interbreeding with europe, before the north sea made us an island. the romans werent a pure race, they too were a mixture of southern european countries... the saxons, jutes, danes and normans were all ethnically strongly related.

 

what im saying is that the whole of western europe are pretty much derived from the same scource, so imho that puts a different slant on the various european 'invasions' that we have had here in the uk.

 

the uk WAS reletively unpopulated, there werent millions of celts, there were more in the south and east, very few in the north and west. after the roman empire collapsed the saxons came here because of the plentiful supply of fertile land in a reletively unpopulated land.

 

so as i see it, the 'invasions' that did take place in the first milennia were by reletives of eachother (i use the word 'invasion' spareingly as the thinking is now that the romans and saxons arrived here largely by mutual consent, the danes/vikings only imposed themselves northeast of watling street (a5) and the normans (original danes...'north men') were not a large population, being the new 'ones in charge' only, there wasnt a large civilian influx).

 

the point is that since the late 11th centuary right upto the 1950's the ethnic population in the uk was pretty much 'fixed'... id suggest that this makes 'us' proto - indigenous at least.

 

in that thousand years 'our' nation was forged, through battle and politics, this is when our very largely based anglo saxon based culture (place names, shires, parish boundaries, language, personal names, roads, footpaths are c80% 'old english' ie saxon), was created. the uk has plenty to be proud of, being world leaders in science, inovation, industry, creativity, society, politics, law, etc. britain has been a world leader in creating civilisation as were know it.

 

many of us do have an ancestry that could pre date the conquest, many of us have old english derived surnames, many are place names that our ancestors adopted because they LIVED there.. others are trade names (smith, baker etc).

 

i think this thousand years of creating the uk must be taken into consideration, it was done by a mixed race of western europeans which we know as british.. are we 'indigenous'? well yes, to western europe. this of course is totally different to migrants from different continents, afro - carribeans have been largely anglocised thanks to 'empire', whereas peoples from the middle east/asia have a far stronger national identity.

 

the question is .... how much of their national identity should be integrated into 'our' customs? is it right that a country built on a thousand years of ethnic stability change because of a large influx of people from a different cultural background in a reletivly short time (50 odd years).

 

DONT get me wrong here, i think multiculturalism is a good thing with huge benefits to be had all round.

 

 

Well, when the Normans invaded, they pretty much destroyed Anglo Saxon culture in a relatively short period of time didn't they....? And I certainly dont see the influx of immigrants as the sort of "invasion" that you seem to, I dont exactly see Gordon Brown being deposed by the "Mad Mullah Abu Jihadi Taliban Council" anytime soon. Africans and Asians are coming here to settle not to conquer and pillage like we did during the "Glorious Empire" days, and that's the BIG difference... And, at the end of the day, ultimately we cant really complain in the end, we went out there and messed around, conquered them and said to them, "now you are under British authority", you know, "white man's burden" and all that....

 

I see nothing wrong with having places like Chinatown, the Whitechapel Market or Brick Lane... I'd rather have those ANY DAY than the ugly, American-style "Shopping Malls" such as Bluewater or Brent Cross; because the likes of Chinatown, etc, have a bit of FLAVOUR and individuality to them as opposed to being these awful, sterile, homogenised sh!tholes where you just wander around in a daze like one of Romero's zombies from "Dawn of the Dead", no seriously, that IS pretty much how you feel in one of these places, which is why I tend to avoid them like the plague.... Frankly, I think you should be objecting far more to the Americanisation of our culture than influences from Chinese, Asian or Afro-Caribbean, because, the latter provide a bit of flavour and character, whereas the former offers nothing but homogeneity... Do you really want every High Street in the country to have the same "look" about it...? I'm fed up of seeing fukkin' "Fried Chicken", "Burger" and "Pizza" places spreading like a bloody rash on society... I want to see about 80% of these sh"tholes close down, and a lot more Chinese, Caribbean, Moroccan, Latin American (Hispanic), Thai, Vietnamese, Japanese, good "Indian", Greek and Western/Eastern European eateries....

 

And Chinatown in particular has been around for ages, writers such as Dickens and Conan Doyle wrote about Chinatown, so I would say that this is certainly part of our culture and heritage... Mind you, not that fukkin' Westminster C/unt-cil had any respect for it when they tried their damndest to destroy the Pagodas.... <_<

Well, when the Normans invaded, they pretty much destroyed Anglo Saxon culture in a relatively short period of time didn't they....? And I certainly dont see the influx of immigrants as the sort of "invasion" that you seem to, I dont exactly see Gordon Brown being deposed by the "Mad Mullah Abu Jihadi Taliban Council" anytime soon. Africans and Asians are coming here to settle not to conquer and pillage like we did during the "Glorious Empire" days, and that's the BIG difference... And, at the end of the day, ultimately we cant really complain in the end, we went out there and messed around, conquered them and said to them, "now you are under British authority", you know, "white man's burden" and all that....

 

I see nothing wrong with having places like Chinatown, the Whitechapel Market or Brick Lane... I'd rather have those ANY DAY than the ugly, American-style "Shopping Malls" such as Bluewater or Brent Cross; because the likes of Chinatown, etc, have a bit of FLAVOUR and individuality to them as opposed to being these awful, sterile, homogenised sh!tholes where you just wander around in a daze like one of Romero's zombies from "Dawn of the Dead", no seriously, that IS pretty much how you feel in one of these places, which is why I tend to avoid them like the plague.... Frankly, I think you should be objecting far more to the Americanisation of our culture than influences from Chinese, Asian or Afro-Caribbean, because, the latter provide a bit of flavour and character, whereas the former offers nothing but homogeneity... Do you really want every High Street in the country to have the same "look" about it...? I'm fed up of seeing fukkin' "Fried Chicken", "Burger" and "Pizza" places spreading like a bloody rash on society... I want to see about 80% of these sh"tholes close down, and a lot more Chinese, Caribbean, Moroccan, Latin American (Hispanic), Thai, Vietnamese, Japanese, good "Indian", Greek and Western/Eastern European eateries....

 

And Chinatown in particular has been around for ages, writers such as Dickens and Conan Doyle wrote about Chinatown, so I would say that this is certainly part of our culture and heritage... Mind you, not that fukkin' Westminster C/unt-cil had any respect for it when they tried their damndest to destroy the Pagodas.... <_<

 

NO. they did not destroy the related anglo saxon culture, post invasion the normans were in the minority, the anglo saxon lands were handed over to their norman conquerers as overlords thus creating the class system that we still have today. the vast majority of castles were built post conquest because they knew their lives were in danger and they had to stamp their authority on the people of saxon/celtish ancestry. in fact for saying the norman conquest had profound effects upon the monarchy and ruling classes in britain, they have left hardly any cultural legacy, boundaries, roads, from small parishes to shires complete with their place names stayed in tact. and what happend after the conquest? a hundered years of civil unrest which culminated in the civil war between stephen and matilda... the conquest did us no favours at all..

 

yet again im being credited with saying something i clearly did not.... ive NEVER discribed current immigration as an 'invasion'... thats a stupid thing to suggest . the point of my post was to try to clarify the historic reality of past migrations so you can compare it to whats happening now. the big difference is that current migrants are largely NOT from the same ethnic background, with huge cultural and religious differences, so when you pc heros go on about 'we are a country build on immigration' that is an over simplistic view which in the scheme of things doesnt actually mean anything.

 

im not against immigration per - se, and actually i agree with you about china town vs american shopping malls, but its the old topic of just how much can we currently , sensibly, allow ? and just what IS the real potential impact going to be on our country? this is the basis of what the bnp shrewdly have picked up on coming out of middle britain and why they have been able to pick up votes from the 'ordinary' bloke.

 

it IS a hot topic, just how much say in the running and direction of our society can 'non western european whites' (traditional british) give up to people from outside this gene pool? a THOUSAND years of reletively stable cultural evolution which has created this great country we live in is something to be proud of, amongst the world leaders in creating civilisation as we know it. i think its only natural that many of us question the true effect of mass migration and i think its only natural that it will arouse concerns.

 

please...go with the message im trying to get across and not getting bogged down in the detail..

 

as for 'empire'.... you have a very narrow one sided view on that.. whilst yes there were many things wrong with 'conquest', it also brought great benefits and many places welcomed the more advanced peoples from westerneurope.... that would be from france, spain, portugal... as well as us (which includes scotland ! :P ).