Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a black family moved to Poland and had a kid there. That kid would undeniably still be Polish
That's not true.
Poland is like most countries in the world, nationality is acquired by blood. The children of two foreign parents born in Poland inherit the nationality of their parents.
The countries in dark blue give nationality to anyone born within their borders, the countries in light blue has limitations, while the gray countries give nationality by blood. Poland is one of the grays.
In fact, the only countries in Europe that give citizenship to anyone born in their territory (with certain limitations) are France, Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany. That's it.
I also find it interesting that in Africa only 4 countries give nationality upon birth and in Asia is, again, only 4 countries too. The Western Hemisphere is definitely the odd ball when it comes to this.
Is John Boyega not British? Is Tony Parker not Belgian? Are white people born in Africa not African or are they European? If you are born in a country and speak that language, than your nationality belongs to that country. End of discussion.
British is not an ethnicity so anybody who becomes a citizen of the UK can be British, but they won't be English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish because those are ethnicities. And if I'm not mistaken Belgian is also not an ethnicity, so anyone can be Belgian, but not everybody can be Dutch (Flander?) or French (from an ethnic point of view). There is a distinction between ethnicity and nationality which I think you have confused, of course it doesn't help that many countries are named after the dominate ethnic group.
But yes I agree anybody can become Polish (nationality) but not Polish (ethnicity), the English language is very bad at distinguishing the two.
IDK. Personally I don't get the obsession with forced multiculturalism. But I'm all for smart immigration with hard working immigrants who want to contribute to their new country.
Why they don't want to contribute to their old country?
Wow. Nice job jumping to assumptions right there. I just love 2018, people are so kind.....Seriously what the hell would make you jump to that assumption. So what if 5% of a country is black.......So what if it's 30% non white............As long as those immigrants gradually integrate themselves and whites don't go extinct I fail to see the problem. I'm just wondering why Poland isn't diversifying compared to other European countries. That's all I'm wondering. Sheesh If this keeps happening I might have to avoid the Europe forums all together, y'all are way to passionate about this multiculturalism stuff.
Complete integration is impossible. See the USA. See the blood soaked history of Europe! Even "white" groups don't integrate well together, nevermind group from elsewhere. In fact, the nation state was the liberal solution to the borderless Empire that your politics are in sync with. Trying to go back to the principles of that Empire, after so much death to arrive at the nation state in order to keep tribes within borders, is madness.
Moreover, a home nation where you are not the majority, in a democratic society, means that you aren't in political control of your own nation.
So, yes, it matters. Moreover, the more differing groups that you have in a single nation the more political turmoil that you will have over time. See almost every multicultural nation ever. It's pointless.
Proponents of multiculturalism point to a vague benefit of "enrichment", and opponents of it point to hard numbers that usually result in increases in crime (to include deaths) and a decrease in community social trust.
If you say "what's the difference"? about 30% white, then I say "what's the difference"? about 99% white? As a matter of argument.
You are presenting an argument that seems to be implying that there can't possibly be a social or political reason for a non-multicultural society. It could go either way / what's the difference? Well, I put that line of reasoning back to you. If there is no difference, then maybe we play it safe and avoid the political and cultural fallout from cultures and peoples who reside together in a small region.
And "Pole" literally means "Polabian Slav". Its an ethno-racial designation. No black person can ever be a Pole, or Polabian Slav, any more than a Polabian Slav could be Bantu. Though, they can have Polish citizenship. Similarly, I can't walk into the adjacent black neighborhood to me, adopt their culture and language, and credibly claim to be one of them. In fact, observably no White person in this city of millions, in the history of the city, has. In short, integration is a myth and basing policy on it will lead to bad outcomes for everyone.
And "Pole" literally means "Polabian Slav". Its an ethno-racial designation. No black person can ever be a Pole, or Polabian Slav, any more than a Polabian Slav could be Bantu. Though, they can have Polish citizenship. Similarly, I can't walk into the adjacent black neighborhood to me, adopt their culture and language, and credibly claim to be one of them. In fact, observably no White person in this city of millions, in the history of the city, has. In short, integration is a myth and basing policy on it will lead to bad outcomes for everyone.
Pole does not mean polabian slav . Name Poland comes from tribe Polanie . Polanie means "people of fields " Polanie were not polabian slavs .
You can be foreigner and become a pole . Over 30 percent of surnames in Poland are of foreign origins and Poland is not multicultural country. I live in Kashubian area where most people have german surnames not polish .
Last edited by WestPreussen; 04-11-2018 at 04:14 PM..
You are attempting to remove national identity from genetics, which isn't so possible in Europe nor in most of the world. There are blacks with Polish citizenship, but there are no Polish who are Black. There are Indians with Dutch citizenship, but there are no Dutch who are Indians (the word "Dutch" specifically referring to being genetically Germanic, as it specifically refers to the genetic common ancestor of all genetically Germanic people. As it has for millenia. There are no Blacks nor Indians, for example, who descended from this ancestor).
So, yes, it is deniable that Black people can or ever are "Polish". Black people are African. To be Polish is to be at least somewhat related (certain subclades that have resulted in mixing with Poles over long periods), if not exactly of the R1a haplotype group, with he appropriate subclade, of central Europe. I'd give you Afro-Polish, Polish referring to citizenship. But that's it as a practical matter. As a mater of fact, Poland is the epicenter for the Central European Slavic haplotype. Those people are the Poles genetically, culturally, historically, and in every conceivable manner that is essential to Polish identity. A black child can no more adopt it than a Polish person can legitimately declare himself Congolese by virtue of being born on a specific patch of dirt.
You are attempting to remove national identity from genetics, which isn't so possible in Europe nor in most of the world. There are blacks with Polish citizenship, but there are no Polish who are Black. There are Indians with Dutch citizenship, but there are no Dutch who are Indians (the word "Dutch" specifically referring to being genetically Germanic, as it specifically refers to the genetic common ancestor of all genetically Germanic people. As it has for millenia. There are no Blacks nor Indians, for example, who descended from this ancestor).
So, yes, it is deniable that Black people can or ever are "Polish". Black people are African. To be Polish is to be at least somewhat related (certain subclades that have resulted in mixing with Poles over long periods), if not exactly of the R1a haplotype group, with he appropriate subclade, of central Europe. I'd give you Afro-Polish, Polish referring to citizenship. But that's it as a practical matter. As a mater of fact, Poland is the epicenter for the Central European Slavic haplotype. Those people are the Poles genetically, culturally, historically, and in every conceivable manner that is essential to Polish identity. A black child can no more adopt it than a Polish person can legitimately declare himself Congolese by virtue of being born on a specific patch of dirt.
We have this debate in Germany too, I agree with you - others would not, any person can have any citizenship, but to be really Polish (or German) you need to have Polish (German) ancestry, if a Polish woman gives birth to a child during a holiday in China, the child still would be Polish and not Asian, being born in China doesn't make you an Asian neither does being born in Poland makes you Polish unless your parents are Polish.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.