GB News

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
Why is that racist?

the whole tone is "forriner bashing" - In a country riven with labour shortages why does the ethnicity of a childs parents be seen as a negative? Its author also has a "colourful past" in matters relating to race.
 
‘Overrun’ - the piece is bog standard white replacement theory. Too many brown mothers and too many brown babies and oh, look we may be accepting more from Afghanistan.

I mean, do you hate brown babies? Do you hate babies that have a ‘foreign’ (ie bad) parent? If you do you will love this article. It even talks about ‘white Britons’ whose lineage goes back 100’s of year's shouldn’t be complacent or welcome this. Apparently it's ‘biologically unnatural’. This is saying it is okay to hate brown babies, because ‘biology’.

Next: Why it is okay to rape women because ‘biology’.
I’m not sure what rape has to do with anything.

I don’t think it unreasonable to be welcoming to immigrants but to hold a view that the native population of this country remain the majority number.

Is that a racist position? I don’t think it is.
 
the whole tone is "forriner bashing" - In a country riven with labour shortages why does the ethnicity of a childs parents be seen as a negative? Its author also has a "colourful past" in matters relating to race.
I don’t see it as that. It’s purely a numbers thing.

Immigration can be really good for us but I wouldn’t want my area to become a place where the English are the minority.

I reckon if you polled the whole world, most wouldn’t want to be a minority in their own country/neighbourhood.
 
I’m not sure what rape has to do with anything.

I don’t think it unreasonable to be welcoming to immigrants but to hold a view that the native population of this country remain the majority number.

Is that a racist position? I don’t think it is.

Please define the term "native population"
 
I’m not sure what rape has to do with anything.

I don’t think it unreasonable to be welcoming to immigrants but to hold a view that the native population of this country remain the majority number.

Is that a racist position? I don’t think it is.


Define native population. White? How far do you have to go back to be classed as ‘native’? The babies born today are native born. Their children will be native born. The native population is the population born in this country. The article fears that this ‘native population’ will be the ‘wrong colour’. The great replacement theory, where the only true worth of a person is the colour of their skin.

And this is published in a mainstream magazine.
 
The example I’ll use is native Americans. They have a lineage and ancestry that goes back thousands of years to that specific place.

Do you realise how few of those that you would define as our native population would not pass that test?
 
Define native population. White? How far do you have to go back to be classed as ‘native’? The babies born today are native born. Their children will be native born. The native population is the population born in this country. The article fears that this ‘native population’ will be the ‘wrong colour’. The great replacement theory, where the only true worth of a person is the colour of their skin.

And this is published in a mainstream magazine.

I’ve described how I’d define native population above. A lineage that stretches back centuries to that part of the world is native in my eyes.

That’s not to say non natives should be treated any differently I’m just saying retaining a majority for the people who have been there for ages, for any country, is reasonable and just.

You achieve this by not allowing mass immigration to the levels we’ve seen, in particular areas.
 
I’ve described how I’d define native population above. A lineage that stretches back centuries to that part of the world is native in my eyes.

That’s not to say non natives should be treated any differently I’m just saying retaining a majority for the people who have been there for ages
, for any country, is reasonable and just.

You achieve this by not allowing mass immigration to the levels we’ve seen, in particular areas.

You mean white.
 
You mean white.
Nope.

My niece is black and has ancestry on her mother’s side reaching back to Norman conquest of England at least.

David Lammy had a row about genetics with a woman on LBC I saw, he said he had heritage in Scotland stretching back centuries.

Cheddar man wasn’t white.

I could go on…
 
Nope.

My niece is black and has ancestry on her mother’s side reaching back to Norman conquest of England at least.

David Lammy had a row about genetics with a woman on LBC I saw, he said he had heritage in Scotland stretching back centuries.

Cheddar man wasn’t white.

I could go on…

So, unless you have ancestry stretching back centuries you are not native?

This is an arbitrary measure, it precludes people who are born in this country to foreign born parents or parent (from the article) from having an affinity to this country, or considering themselves as English or Scottish or Welsh.

Would your niece consider herself any less English or British if she couldn't trace an ancestor back to the Normans- who were French of Scandavian descent?

It puts up a barrier to assimilation, it states that unless you can trace your lineage back to the Normans or some other arbitrary date you cannot class yourself as native or ‘properly English or British’. I'm not even sure I would pass as ‘native’. How many centuries do I need?

The England team is going to need a major rethink.
 
Nope.

My niece is black and has ancestry on her mother’s side reaching back to Norman conquest of England at least.

David Lammy had a row about genetics with a woman on LBC I saw, he said he had heritage in Scotland stretching back centuries.

Cheddar man wasn’t white.

I could go on…

...do you make prospective neighbours take a DNA test to see if they are native? Can't have too many ‘non-natives’ moving in. Think of the neighbourhood.
 
So, unless you have ancestry stretching back centuries you are not native?

This is an arbitrary measure, it precludes people who are born in this country to foreign born parents or parent (from the article) from having an affinity to this country, or considering themselves as English or Scottish or Welsh.

Would your niece consider herself any less English or British if she couldn't trace an ancestor back to the Normans- who were French of Scandavian descent?

It puts up a barrier to assimilation, it states that unless you can trace your lineage back to the Normans or some other arbitrary date you cannot class yourself as native or ‘properly English or British’. I'm not even sure I would pass as ‘native’. How many centuries do I need?

The England team is going to need a major rethink.
There’s a big difference between being a British National and having a native lineage to England, Scotland, Wales and NI.

I was careful in saying that this isn’t a difference in how we treat people already in this country, a British Citizen is a British Citizen and should be treated the same as everyone else.

But then the question is raised that is Amir Khan, the boxer, as an example, as English as I am or as native as I am?

I would say obviously not.
 
...do you make prospective neighbours take a DNA test to see if they are native? Can't have too many ‘non-natives’ moving in. Think of the neighbourhood.
No of course not.

The way to tackle it is to limit immigration, have an actual policy of integration and encourage immigrants to move to other areas of the UK that A) need them more and B) have low immigration levels currently.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top