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.
What is 'British ancestry'? How far back does your family need to go to count as British?
I would answer that in Europe it would be of blood. A British person would be one that had one, two, or a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, Briton, Norman, and Celtic blood and heritage and had lived in Britain before its official founding as a modern nation. Your question is like asking what is Navajo ancestry? Answer: blood relation to a Navajo. Same thing here. The US was founded on the premise not of descent or blood, but of consent of the govern. Two very different philosophies. Certainly, many European nations may have changed ther philosophies, but it wasn't historically so.
I think the problem is Britain suffers from immigrant overload. Maybe if there were lower levels of immigration there would be less uneasiness among white British.
I would answer that in Europe it would be of blood. A British person would be one that had one, two, or a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, Briton, Norman, and Celtic blood and heritage and had lived in Britain before its official founding as a modern nation. Your question is like asking what is Navajo ancestry? Answer: blood relation to a Navajo. Same thing here. The US was founded on the premise not of descent or blood, but of consent of the govern. Two very different philosophies. Certainly, many European nations may have changed ther philosophies, but it wasn't historically so.
This is utter nonsense.
The issue is one of assimilation into British culture not of blood. The Huguenots came and were assimilated. The jews came and were assimilated. Same for all the others.
And there has been plenty of anti-immigrant tension in the past. Mosely's blackshirts went after the jews, the Irish still complain of discrimination. Generally, as one group assimilates the target moves onto the more recent immigrants.
Most British jews arrived in the late 19th century from eastern Europe. The vast majority anglicized their names and blended in. Today, hardly anyone in Britain would consider them to be non-British. The same will happen with more recent immigrants. Nobody cares about their blood.
Actually this is incorrect. Britain is a nation of immigrants and has been for hundreds of years. Whether it be the Normans who came in with William 1st, the Vikings, the Huguenots, eastern European jews in the 19th century, massive Irish immigration, Italians in the 1930s, Poles during the war who mostly stayed or Commonwealth immigrants since the war.
Main problem with this kind of thread is that many Americans have a poor grasp of British social history.
I would also add that Britain was the center of a global empire. Many if not most of the nonwhite population of Britain has antecedents from one of Britain's former colonial possessions.
The british people have the right to determine who and how many people are allowed into their..
Countries.Except they have a government like ours that simply doesnt work for the people.
Tell that to the Navajos a or any other Natve American group. You can't just move onto their reservations and call yourself Navajo or Paiute, even if you do "assimilate" into thier culture. And so f I was to move to an African nation and assimilate into its culture and then moved back to the US I could then call myself an African-American? Somehow I think I would be laughed at.
The issue is one of assimilation into British culture not of blood. The Huguenots came and were assimilated. The jews came and were assimilated. Same for all the others.
And there has been plenty of anti-immigrant tension in the past. Mosely's blackshirts went after the jews, the Irish still complain of discrimination. Generally, as one group assimilates the target moves onto the more recent immigrants.
Quote:
If an immigrant group doesn't like "anti-immigrant hysteria" then they don't have to immigrate there. The citizens of a nation have the right to say who immigrates to it, no matter the reason.
Most British jews arrived in the late 19th century from eastern Europe. The vast majority anglicized their names and blended in. Today, hardly anyone in Britain would consider them to be non-British. The same will happen with more recent immigrants.
Quote:
Not always true. Look at the US. Look at all the Mexicans refusing to assimilate..heck, even demanding that we adopt their culture.
Nobody cares about their blood.
You still did not address my main point: don't the citizens of a nation have the right to decide on who immigrates to thier country and even if they want immigration at all? And don't the citizens of a nation have the right to decide on what culture they want in their nation and on if they want to protect that culture?
By the way, the title of this thread is, "Why is the British media obsessed with keeping Britain white" and all those people in the past were white caucasians.
The british people have the right to determine who and how many people are allowed into their..
Countries.Except they have a government like ours that simply doesnt work for the people.
What is 'British ancestry'? How far back does your family need to go to count as British?
I don't know. What is "British" is up to interpretation. I am an American with several ancestors from England, and my last name is very Anglo. Does that make me more British than say, a naturalized immigrant to the UK from Pakistan? Some might say yes, some might say no.
I have step relatives from England. They have VERY conservative definitions of what is British.
Before these immigrants arrived in the UK, there was a more clear definition of what "to be British" meant. In the modern day, that definition has be been blurred and distorted because recent immigrants want to hold on to their home cultures. As long as they hold on to that, they won't be British.
I would also add that Britain was the center of a global empire. Many if not most of the nonwhite population of Britain has antecedents from one of Britain's former colonial possessions.
So? Even if an immigrant is from a former colony, that doesn't mean Britain has to let them immigrate to their nation.
I don't know. What is "British" is up to interpretation. I am an American with several ancestors from England, and my last name is very Anglo. Does that make me more British than say, a naturalized immigrant to the UK from Pakistan? Some might say yes, some might say no.
I have step relatives from England. They have VERY conservative definitions of what is British.
Before these immigrants arrived in the UK, there was a very defined definition of what "to be British" meant. In the modern day, that definition has be been blurred and distorted because recent immigrants want to hold on to their home cultures. As long as they hold on to that, they won't be British.
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.
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.
