Bnp

[Bigfella]

Since I love playing the devil's advocate I'll answer that these migrants were either British or related.Huguenots were protestant.Most played a role in developing some industries or trades,but none caused a major shift in identity.Most important these migrations were limited in number and time.In this respect England/Britain are no different than any other nation on the continent.All had migrants from nearby lands,as well as influence due to interaction.These things give us a European identity.But all of us have a national identity and that comes from a heritage thousands of years old.

Milhais,

The term 'British' is a bit like the term 'Yugoslav' - it relates to a multi ethnic state, in this case dominated by the English. By your logic a migrant from Albania, Hungary, Greece, Spain or Russia would be 'Yugoslav or related' because they have ethnic or religious representation within that nation.

As someone descended heavily from the catholic Irish I can assure you that they were not & are not 'British'. Indeed, Irish catholics who came to England were a colonized people who often harboured deep resentment toward England. They also produced & supported people who would now be called 'terrorists'. Yet the Irish & other groups mentioned all made great & valuable contributions to 'britain'. Indeed, without the input of the non-English, England would not have been nearly as successful a society as it became in the C18th & C19th.

Extreme nationalist groups like the BNP rely on fear, prejudice, historical ignorance & fairly stories about what constitutes 'national identity' in order to support their claims. National identities are always MUCH broader than the popularly accepted story and have MUCH shallower roots than the story tellers want you to believe.

[Castellano]

The Syrians have something we want.

I guess you mean the Arab world has Oil.

In principle, this could explain the cowardice of the foreign office in the UK & Spain.

However, that is not the reason why the BBC, The Guardian, El País, and Ken Livingstone, are legitimizing the FASCIST regime in Damascus.

This is very important, because without western media like the BBC, The Guardian or El País, the human toothbrush gang could not have stayed in power.

The real reason these media outlets legitimize the FASCIST regime in Damascus, is their hate of the US coupled with their racism - for them, Syrians don't deserve better than a Baathist dictatorship. Contrary to their discourse, and lifting a line from Goethe, they only approach the humble to make them feel harder the weight of their arrogance.

[Skywatcher]

I guess you mean the Arab world has Oil.

In principle, this could explain the cowardice of the foreign office in the UK & Spain.

However, that is not the reason why the BBC, The Guardian, El País, and Ken Livingstone, are legitimizing the FASCIST regime in Damascus.

This is very important, because without western media like the BBC, The Guardian or El País, the human toothbrush gang could not have stayed in power.

The real reason these media outlets legitimize the FASCIST regime in Damascus, is their hate of the US coupled with their racism - for them, Syrians don't deserve better than a Baathist dictatorship. Contrary to their discourse, and lifting a line from Goethe, they only approach the humble to make them feel harder the weight of their arrogance.

The Baathists are perfectly capable of staying in power in Syria on their lonesome. It's not as if the average Syrian reads western papers.

[Mihais]

Milhais,

The term 'British' is a bit like the term 'Yugoslav' - it relates to a multi ethnic state, in this case dominated by the English. By your logic a migrant from Albania, Hungary, Greece, Spain or Russia would be 'Yugoslav or related' because they have ethnic or religious representation within that nation.

As someone descended heavily from the catholic Irish I can assure you that they were not & are not 'British'. Indeed, Irish catholics who came to England were a colonized people who often harboured deep resentment toward England. They also produced & supported people who would now be called 'terrorists'. Yet the Irish & other groups mentioned all made great & valuable contributions to 'britain'. Indeed, without the input of the non-English, England would not have been nearly as successful a society as it became in the C18th & C19th.

Extreme nationalist groups like the BNP rely on fear, prejudice, historical ignorance & fairly stories about what constitutes 'national identity' in order to support their claims. National identities are always MUCH broader than the popularly accepted story and have MUCH shallower roots than the story tellers want you to believe.

My point was that Scots,Welsh,Protestant Irish cannot be be migrants,since they're natives.To say that other Germanics are not related with the English is not fair.And it still doesn't address my point:all these previous migrations were limited in number and time.England remained the power center and the English the most numerous people by far.And I may be faulty by liking numbers,but I have the distinct feeling that most contributions belonged to the English.
No offence,but your comparison Yugoslavia/Britain goes only till the generic name(on a side note,strange events happened there,as well as in Czechoslovakia,USSR,Austro-Hungarian empire a while back).My model is a center of gravity,with a distinct identity(otherwise we'll have an amorphous mass of people,not different nationalities and cultures)interacting with others.I think that a threat to this model is a threat to real diversity.

Btw,the plight of the Irish has my sympathy,from a member of a nation that has been quite tried by history as well.

[tankie]

A three-day BNP festival is set to close after a major police operation to ensure a demonstration against the event passed off peacefully.

A total of 19 people were arrested on Saturday after about 1,500 anti-fascist demonstrators from across Britain joined a protest march near the site of the BNP's annual summer festival in Codnor, Derbyshire.

Derbyshire Police - which estimates that policing the demonstration cost about £500,000 - said it was pleased the vast majority of those involved in the march had been peaceful and co-operative.

Police did come under brief attack from a small number of protesters who threw missiles, including plastic bottles and bags of flour, as demonstrators attempted to force their way through a police cordon and past mounted officers.

At least four men were led away in handcuffs in Codnor Denby Lane after the scuffles, which lasted for about five minutes.

A police spokesman said: "Unfortunately, some people have ignored police advice and failed to abide by the agreements reached during the planning of the protest.

"These people blocked or tried to block roads near the site of the Red, White and Blue festival. Officers had to take action to open the roads and deal with the protesters."

The spokesman conceded that there had been disruption to local people and road users, whom he thanked for their patience and understanding.

The police operation involved more than 500 officers on the ground, including a number drafted in from five other force areas.

The main body of demonstrators, which was monitored by a camera mounted on a drone, gathered in Codnor's Market Place, chanting "Nazi scum, off our streets" and waving placards from campaign group Unite Against Fascism and various trade union groups.


And the council taxpayer foots the bill

I find some of the posts here spot on the mark ,what is it to be British ? well me personally i have German decendants on one side , Irish on another , and my Father was Jock , but i am 100% British , born and bred here ,as are some , brown, black , yellow , olive , all people who are also , British .As for Monarchs , i reckon the only true British one was Boudicea .

[Bigfella]

[QUOTE=Mihais;664294]

My point was that Scots,Welsh,Protestant Irish cannot be be migrants,since they're natives.To say that other Germanics are not related with the English is not fair.And it still doesn't address my point:all these previous migrations were limited in number and time.England remained the power center and the English the most numerous people by far.And I may be faulty by liking numbers,but I have the distinct feeling that most contributions belonged to the English.

Actually, the Protestant Irish (scots Irish) were migrants - they were actually scots deliberately settled in Ulster by the English crown to break the last bastion of Irish resistance.

As for the Catholic Irish, there were large waves of immigrants to England and scotland in the mid 19th century (especially during/after the famine) and again in the 20s & 30s. They formed large commuities in cities such as Liverpool, Glasgow & London. There are literaly millions of English citizens who are of Irish descent. Even now 1.5% of the population of England is Irish born. This was a large migration and it did have a significant impact.

As for the contributions of the various non-English ethnicities, the contributions of the Irish, Welsh & Scots were disproportionately high. Some of the key ideas men of the industrial revolution & the political reform movements that followed were from the Scottish Enlightenment. The majority were English, but without the other congributions theirs might have achieved less.

You might also want to look up how many leading politicians & military men of the last 100 or so years were from Wales, Scotland & Ireland. Lloyd George, MacDonald, Bevan, Kinnock, Blair & John Smith in politics & a large number of WW2 generals.

No offence,but your comparison Yugoslavia/Britain goes only till the generic name(on a side note,strange events happened there,as well as in Czechoslovakia,USSR,Austro-Hungarian empire a while back).My model is a center of gravity,with a distinct identity(otherwise we'll have an amorphous mass of people,not different nationalities and cultures)interacting with others.I think that a threat to this model is a threat to real diversity.

The comparison is not perfect, but I think it illustrates the problems with your formulation. The notion that Hugenots or Germans were somehow 'related' to the English because of religious affilitation or distant ethnic ties is simple incorrect. Even less so for E.European Jews. My point was not about government, but ethnic difference. Serbs & Croats are, if anything, even more alike than Catholic Irish, Scots of Welsh & the English. Thus my point about grouping them together as 'Britons'. It is often said that the only people in Britain who think of themselves as British (as opposed to their local identity) are some Englishmen & most Ulstermen.

Btw,the plight of the Irish has my sympathy,from a member of a nation that has been quite tried by history as well

Appreciated, though there have been no open wounds about it in my family within living memory. Like most Australians wer are a mixture. Like many 'white' Australians I am a mixture of various British ethnicities - Irish, a bit of Cornish, some Scots & perhaps some French.

Given your own nation's history, consider how you might feel about being referred to by the ethnicity of a former colonial master.

[Bigfella]

I find some of the posts here spot on the mark ,what is it to be British ? well me personally i have German decendants on one side , Irish on another , and my Father was Jock , but i am 100% British , born and bred here ,as are some , brown, black , yellow , olive , all people who are also , British .As for Monarchs , i reckon the only true British one was Boudicea .

Tankie,

You are a shining light. That is exactly the attitude that will win the day. Too many Europeans are still hung up on equating ethnicity to nationality. By fighting for the principle of 'if you are here you are one of us' you are already winning the battle. The key thing to realize is that most migrant groups take a couple of generations to get to where you are. Have a look at the poll Pari linked to in the thread on 'Eurabia' (I'll try to dig it up) - new migrants are getting there fast. People like you will make that transition from 'foreigner' to 'Briton' easier. Congrats.

As for Monarch, I used to know who the last actual English monarch were, but I have forgotten. it is at least 100 years ago. For the curious:

Saxons - Germans
Normans - French Vikings
Plantagenets - French
Tudors - Welsh
Stuarts - Scots
Orange - Dutch (though they were technically Stuarts).
Hannover - German
Saxe/Coburg/Gotha - have a guess :)
Battenburg/Mountbatten - and again (trivia: the Battenburgs changed to 'Windsor' in 1917 because it sounded too German - yep, took 3 years of WW1 to decide that).

I think Cromwell was English, but he weren't no King.

[tankie]

Awwww shucks B/F , im filling up sniff sniff ,;)

the only hang up i have is the fact that when people who claim to be British or indeed any other nationality is the fact that they dont or wont abide by that nations beliefs ideals and laws ,i know that most of the uk dont want sharia law , we prefer our own laws and Islamic cultures should abide by it live by it and respect it ,and not trundle off to wage war against the nation that they claim to be , im no racist , i have many friends around the world of all colors and creeds , but if someone pisses up my back and tries to tell me its raining , color/religeons / doesnt come into it . Anyone can go look at my friends page and check out who my friends on WAB are , theres ,Budhists ,muslims, christians , catholics, and atheists of which im one , i will meet anyone 50/50 and who knows , maybe develop to 100% hopefully .

Now if i was to be a spitefull hating person , well F/F the chainshaker (of which you share an affinity with;) ,Lukins , and that toe rag Knaur would be on the hitlist , but they arent , YET :P :))

[tankie]

I think Cromwell was English, but he weren't no King.[/QUOTE]



He was a farmer who was offered the crown .;)

[Mihais]

[QUOTE=Bigfella;664315]

Given your own nation's history, consider how you might feel about being referred to by the ethnicity of a former colonial master.

But my own ethnicity is named after the only truly successfull conquerors.Happened some 1900 years ago.Others left their mark and in quite significant ways,but not enough to fundamentally change us.

Now,I have no problems accepting your p.o.v because what you say is truth.
But I think our discussion of the way migration influences nations and cultures did not answered a fundamental question.That is if current mass movements resembles previous ones and if not what is different now.I also observe a parallel phenomenon in some E European countries-the fantastic growth in numbers of the Gypsies.In Russia as well you have the predicted growth of their native Muslims.So you have 3 relatively independent evolutions whose predicted outcome(it doesn't matter if the prediction is for the next 50 or 100 years) is the replacement of the traditional ethnic groups(or making them the new minorities).
I don't know what you people will think of me,but I think native(I'm aware of the limits of the term) ''tribes'' of Europe are at least as worth preserving as any other.
Granted,nobody knows what the future brings,but a wise course of action demands to put the worse outcome first.

[Mihais]

I also think that the term multicultural is a bit obsolete.Every nation state has also some minorities and are and always were multicultural.Multi-civilizational seems a better term for the current situation.

[Castellano]

The Baathists are perfectly capable of staying in power in Syria on their lonesome. It's not as if the average Syrian reads western papers.

The Baathist base their power internally in a reign of terror conducted by the likes of the mukhabarat, a point that gets systematically lost in western media.

But say in 2003-2004, I think they were ready to crack. Instead, they felt increasingly confident in facilitating the spread of violence in Iraq and they did so with impunity. Not the kind of story that western media is interested - not when there is so much to choose from to demonize the US.