Multiculturalism
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
David
Ok. Message read and (mostly) understood.
Re: Sam/lizard
David Johnson wrote:
> Flat Eric "Yes please, Lizard and a hobnob if you can run to
> that"
Chocolate Digestives. Not Hobnobs.
- Eric
> Flat Eric "Yes please, Lizard and a hobnob if you can run to
> that"
Chocolate Digestives. Not Hobnobs.
- Eric
Re: Max
David Johnson wrote:
> "I DIDN'T KNOW WE HAD, OR CAME NEAR TO HAVING, A CIVIL WAR 60
> YEARS AGO."
>
> Err, the point I am making is that largescale immigration from
> different cultures started with the post Second World War
> period, fifty or 60 years ago.
No it didn't. There was a steady influx from the Windrush onwards and then in the 1970s when many Ugandan Asians arrived having been kicked out by Idi Amin but nothing like anywhere near the influx since Tony Blair became Prime Minister.
> "NO SHARIA LAW HERE - BUT SEXISM, LIMITS ON FREE SPEECH, AND
> ANTI GAY EQUALITY IS SOMETHING MUSLIMS WOULD LIKE TO IMPOSE
> HERE, AND THE FIRST ONE ALREADY DO ON MANY OF THEIR WOMEN. AS
> THEIR NUMBERS INCREASE THE CALL FOR THESE THINGS WILL ONLY
> BECOME GREATER. I AM AMAZED YOU CAN STILL BUY ALCOHOL IN
> CERTAIN AREAS OF LONDON.
>
> You have completely misunderstood my question. To repeat the
> question was Who has exactly imposed what on you Max?
>
> And your answer is clearly nothing. Has a Muslim been sexist
> towards you?
Aren't socialists supposed to subscribe to the view that where one hurts, all hurt? So it apparently doesn't matter to you if a Muslim is suppressed...
>
> "I SUPPOSE YOU THINK A WOMAN WEARS ONE OF THOSE THINGS AS A
> FASHION ACCESSORY. THEY ARE PUT ON SO OTHER MEN CAN'T EYE THE
> WOMAN UP. A MUSLIM COUPLE WALKING DOWN THE STREET, SHE NOT
> WEARING HER HEAD COVERING, MAY MEAN PASSING MEN MIGHT GIVE HER
> A GLANCE. HER MAN WOULD NOT LIKE THIS, SO SHE GOES AROUND WITH
> THIS THING OVER HER HEAD. IT IS NOT DONE BECAUSE SHE WANTS IT,
> IT IS DONE TO APPEASE HER HUSBAND".
>
> Dont be silly. It is worn as part of their religious beliefs.
Again, no it's not. It is a cultural thing not a religious one. There is nothing in the Koran that say women have to cover their faces when they leave the house or are in the presence of men to whom they are not related.
>
> "OBVIOUSLY. RELIGIOUS KILLINGS ARE SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE
> HIGHLIGHTEd"
>
> You havent answered the question. And it is highlighted. You
> are wrong.
>
> If people want to celebrate Xmas they will do. If they dont,
> they wont. If people want to celebrate Eid they will do, If
> they dont they wont. If people want to celebrate Diwali, they
> will do. If they dont they wont.
I think the point trying to be made is that while no one would stop someone from celebrating Christmas, there have been attempts to downplay the event - see Birmingham Council trying to rename it as Winterval.
>
> "MUSLIMS ARE FINE, AT LEAST THEY WOULD BE IF THEY ADAPTED TO
> WESTERN WAYS"
>
> Yes if everyone was like you Max, wouldnt it be wonderful? But
> they aren't. Get over it. No-one has been sexist to you.
> No-one has chopped your hand off. No-one has stopped you
> putting your Xmas tree up etc etc.
>
See my point above that if one is hurt, all suffer. Not much of a socialist really, are you David?
> "I DIDN'T KNOW WE HAD, OR CAME NEAR TO HAVING, A CIVIL WAR 60
> YEARS AGO."
>
> Err, the point I am making is that largescale immigration from
> different cultures started with the post Second World War
> period, fifty or 60 years ago.
No it didn't. There was a steady influx from the Windrush onwards and then in the 1970s when many Ugandan Asians arrived having been kicked out by Idi Amin but nothing like anywhere near the influx since Tony Blair became Prime Minister.
> "NO SHARIA LAW HERE - BUT SEXISM, LIMITS ON FREE SPEECH, AND
> ANTI GAY EQUALITY IS SOMETHING MUSLIMS WOULD LIKE TO IMPOSE
> HERE, AND THE FIRST ONE ALREADY DO ON MANY OF THEIR WOMEN. AS
> THEIR NUMBERS INCREASE THE CALL FOR THESE THINGS WILL ONLY
> BECOME GREATER. I AM AMAZED YOU CAN STILL BUY ALCOHOL IN
> CERTAIN AREAS OF LONDON.
>
> You have completely misunderstood my question. To repeat the
> question was Who has exactly imposed what on you Max?
>
> And your answer is clearly nothing. Has a Muslim been sexist
> towards you?
Aren't socialists supposed to subscribe to the view that where one hurts, all hurt? So it apparently doesn't matter to you if a Muslim is suppressed...
>
> "I SUPPOSE YOU THINK A WOMAN WEARS ONE OF THOSE THINGS AS A
> FASHION ACCESSORY. THEY ARE PUT ON SO OTHER MEN CAN'T EYE THE
> WOMAN UP. A MUSLIM COUPLE WALKING DOWN THE STREET, SHE NOT
> WEARING HER HEAD COVERING, MAY MEAN PASSING MEN MIGHT GIVE HER
> A GLANCE. HER MAN WOULD NOT LIKE THIS, SO SHE GOES AROUND WITH
> THIS THING OVER HER HEAD. IT IS NOT DONE BECAUSE SHE WANTS IT,
> IT IS DONE TO APPEASE HER HUSBAND".
>
> Dont be silly. It is worn as part of their religious beliefs.
Again, no it's not. It is a cultural thing not a religious one. There is nothing in the Koran that say women have to cover their faces when they leave the house or are in the presence of men to whom they are not related.
>
> "OBVIOUSLY. RELIGIOUS KILLINGS ARE SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE
> HIGHLIGHTEd"
>
> You havent answered the question. And it is highlighted. You
> are wrong.
>
> If people want to celebrate Xmas they will do. If they dont,
> they wont. If people want to celebrate Eid they will do, If
> they dont they wont. If people want to celebrate Diwali, they
> will do. If they dont they wont.
I think the point trying to be made is that while no one would stop someone from celebrating Christmas, there have been attempts to downplay the event - see Birmingham Council trying to rename it as Winterval.
>
> "MUSLIMS ARE FINE, AT LEAST THEY WOULD BE IF THEY ADAPTED TO
> WESTERN WAYS"
>
> Yes if everyone was like you Max, wouldnt it be wonderful? But
> they aren't. Get over it. No-one has been sexist to you.
> No-one has chopped your hand off. No-one has stopped you
> putting your Xmas tree up etc etc.
>
See my point above that if one is hurt, all suffer. Not much of a socialist really, are you David?
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Max
"No it didn't. There was a steady influx from the Windrush onwards and then in the 1970s when many Ugandan Asians arrived having been kicked out by Idi Amin but nothing like anywhere near the influx since Tony Blair became Prime Minister."
Where did I say that the immigration in the 1950's was at a similar level as the last 10 years? Nowhere.
"Aren't socialists supposed to subscribe to the view that where one hurts, all hurt?"
No, they don't.
"So it apparently doesn't matter to you if a Muslim is suppressed..."
Point out where I have stated this.
"Again, no it's not. It is a cultural thing not a religious one. There is nothing in the Koran that say women have to cover their faces when they leave the house or are in the presence of men to whom they are not related".
What you clearly do not understand is that religious beliefs vary within a faith. Just as with Christianity, so with Islam some believers may be more "literal" in their beliefs.
Use this link and then google the niqab to understand how opinion is divided amongst Islamic scholars as to whether or not to wear the niqab.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... ab_1.shtml
THen you will understand as the article suggests
"Although the majority of scholars agree that hijab is obligatory, only a minority of them say that the niqab is"..
so often the families in which the niqab is worn do it as part of their religious belief, though clearly it is not a definition of Islamic faith in the sense that many more do not wear the niqab.
Where did I say that the immigration in the 1950's was at a similar level as the last 10 years? Nowhere.
"Aren't socialists supposed to subscribe to the view that where one hurts, all hurt?"
No, they don't.
"So it apparently doesn't matter to you if a Muslim is suppressed..."
Point out where I have stated this.
"Again, no it's not. It is a cultural thing not a religious one. There is nothing in the Koran that say women have to cover their faces when they leave the house or are in the presence of men to whom they are not related".
What you clearly do not understand is that religious beliefs vary within a faith. Just as with Christianity, so with Islam some believers may be more "literal" in their beliefs.
Use this link and then google the niqab to understand how opinion is divided amongst Islamic scholars as to whether or not to wear the niqab.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... ab_1.shtml
THen you will understand as the article suggests
"Although the majority of scholars agree that hijab is obligatory, only a minority of them say that the niqab is"..
so often the families in which the niqab is worn do it as part of their religious belief, though clearly it is not a definition of Islamic faith in the sense that many more do not wear the niqab.
Re: Max
David Johnson wrote:
> "No it didn't. There was a steady influx from the Windrush
> onwards and then in the 1970s when many Ugandan Asians arrived
> having been kicked out by Idi Amin but nothing like anywhere
> near the influx since Tony Blair became Prime Minister."
>
> Where did I say that the immigration in the 1950's was at a
> similar level as the last 10 years? Nowhere.
Er... here "largescale immigration from different cultures started with the post Second World War period, fifty or 60 years ago."
And no apostrophe needed for 1950s...
>
> "Aren't socialists supposed to subscribe to the view that where
> one hurts, all hurt?"
>
> No, they don't.
Really? You should perhaps tell that to the trade unionists at my union meetings and many of my left-wing colleagues cos they certainly believe that...
>
> "So it apparently doesn't matter to you if a Muslim is
> suppressed..."
>
> Point out where I have stated this.
It follows if you believe (which you don't ? I'm all right Jack, anyone?) the point about socialists caring about the majority...
>
> "Again, no it's not. It is a cultural thing not a religious
> one. There is nothing in the Koran that say women have to cover
> their faces when they leave the house or are in the presence of
> men to whom they are not related".
>
> What you clearly do not understand is that religious beliefs
> vary within a faith. Just as with Christianity, so with Islam
> some believers may be more "literal" in their beliefs.
>
> Use this link and then google the niqab to understand how
> opinion is divided amongst Islamic scholars as to whether or
> not to wear the niqab.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... ab_1.shtml
>
> THen you will understand as the article suggests
>
> "Although the majority of scholars agree that hijab is
> obligatory, only a minority of them say that the niqab is"..
>
> so often the families in which the niqab is worn do it as part
> of their religious belief, though clearly it is not a
> definition of Islamic faith in the sense that many more do not
> wear the niqab.
There are, indeed, many who take the Bible literally - Jehovah's Witnesses, for example. However, they do not practise anything that is not there. There is nothing in the Koran that says women have to cover their faces... despite what "scholars" may say. I wonder how many of the "scholars" are women...
> "No it didn't. There was a steady influx from the Windrush
> onwards and then in the 1970s when many Ugandan Asians arrived
> having been kicked out by Idi Amin but nothing like anywhere
> near the influx since Tony Blair became Prime Minister."
>
> Where did I say that the immigration in the 1950's was at a
> similar level as the last 10 years? Nowhere.
Er... here "largescale immigration from different cultures started with the post Second World War period, fifty or 60 years ago."
And no apostrophe needed for 1950s...
>
> "Aren't socialists supposed to subscribe to the view that where
> one hurts, all hurt?"
>
> No, they don't.
Really? You should perhaps tell that to the trade unionists at my union meetings and many of my left-wing colleagues cos they certainly believe that...
>
> "So it apparently doesn't matter to you if a Muslim is
> suppressed..."
>
> Point out where I have stated this.
It follows if you believe (which you don't ? I'm all right Jack, anyone?) the point about socialists caring about the majority...
>
> "Again, no it's not. It is a cultural thing not a religious
> one. There is nothing in the Koran that say women have to cover
> their faces when they leave the house or are in the presence of
> men to whom they are not related".
>
> What you clearly do not understand is that religious beliefs
> vary within a faith. Just as with Christianity, so with Islam
> some believers may be more "literal" in their beliefs.
>
> Use this link and then google the niqab to understand how
> opinion is divided amongst Islamic scholars as to whether or
> not to wear the niqab.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... ab_1.shtml
>
> THen you will understand as the article suggests
>
> "Although the majority of scholars agree that hijab is
> obligatory, only a minority of them say that the niqab is"..
>
> so often the families in which the niqab is worn do it as part
> of their religious belief, though clearly it is not a
> definition of Islamic faith in the sense that many more do not
> wear the niqab.
There are, indeed, many who take the Bible literally - Jehovah's Witnesses, for example. However, they do not practise anything that is not there. There is nothing in the Koran that says women have to cover their faces... despite what "scholars" may say. I wonder how many of the "scholars" are women...
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Essex Lad
Nothing in your reply requires an answer because your points strike me completely irrelevant.
For example "Where did I say that the immigration in the 1950's was at a
> similar level as the last 10 years? Nowhere.
Er... here "largescale immigration from different cultures started with the post Second World War period, fifty or 60 years ago."
Am I suggesting that largescale immigration is say, 740, 321 net immigrants per year? So any year which does not produce this exact figure is not largescale immigration.
Don't be daft. Clearly there were a lot more immigrants in the last 10 years but that isn't to say what happened in the 50s wasn't viewed as largescale immigration and cannot be viewed as largescale immigration in comparison with what went before.
For example,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/stati ... n.stm#1950
which contains the following
"On 22 June 1948, the Empire Windrush docked at Tilbury in London, delivering hundreds of men from the West Indies. Many had returned to rejoin the RAF. Others had been encouraged by adverts for work. The day marked what would become a massive change to British society - the start of mass immigration to the UK and the arrival of different cultures. As mass immigration continued in the 1950s, so did the rise of racial violence and prejudice. Many areas including Birmingham, Nottingham and west London experienced rioting as white people feared the arrival of a black community".
I will leave you to twitter on by yourself about how your knowledge of the Islamic religion exceeds the views of some Islamic scholars. Possibly gained through the bottom of a pint glass. Clearly this is not the point. Some scholars take the view, rightly or wrongly, that not to wear the niqab is a sin. Some people believe them and act accordingly. When asked why they do that, the answer comes back that it is down to their religious beliefs. Whether you think that they are correct or not is irrelevant.
For example "Where did I say that the immigration in the 1950's was at a
> similar level as the last 10 years? Nowhere.
Er... here "largescale immigration from different cultures started with the post Second World War period, fifty or 60 years ago."
Am I suggesting that largescale immigration is say, 740, 321 net immigrants per year? So any year which does not produce this exact figure is not largescale immigration.
Don't be daft. Clearly there were a lot more immigrants in the last 10 years but that isn't to say what happened in the 50s wasn't viewed as largescale immigration and cannot be viewed as largescale immigration in comparison with what went before.
For example,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/stati ... n.stm#1950
which contains the following
"On 22 June 1948, the Empire Windrush docked at Tilbury in London, delivering hundreds of men from the West Indies. Many had returned to rejoin the RAF. Others had been encouraged by adverts for work. The day marked what would become a massive change to British society - the start of mass immigration to the UK and the arrival of different cultures. As mass immigration continued in the 1950s, so did the rise of racial violence and prejudice. Many areas including Birmingham, Nottingham and west London experienced rioting as white people feared the arrival of a black community".
I will leave you to twitter on by yourself about how your knowledge of the Islamic religion exceeds the views of some Islamic scholars. Possibly gained through the bottom of a pint glass. Clearly this is not the point. Some scholars take the view, rightly or wrongly, that not to wear the niqab is a sin. Some people believe them and act accordingly. When asked why they do that, the answer comes back that it is down to their religious beliefs. Whether you think that they are correct or not is irrelevant.
Re: Essex Lad
Isn't it more to do with the strain of Islam that Saudi Arabia have helpfully been helping to export to the world and the extermination of Any other form?
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Gentleman
Fair comment.
From Wikipedia
The niqab is more commonly worn in the Arab countries of the Arabian Peninsula such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and the UAE. Various forms of niqab are also worn in countries such as Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, India, some parts of Israel, southern provinces of Iran, and other areas with sizeable Muslim populations.
However......
The main evidence from scholars who believe that the niqab is obligatory comes from these verses of the Qur'an.
O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Qur'an 33:59
Scholars, such as Imam Abul A'la Mawdudi from the Indian subcontinent, suggest that these verses refer to covering the entire body, including the face and hands. The order 'cast their outer garments' in Arabic is similar to phrase 'draw together'. Scholars say that as a result of this verse, the women at the time of the Prophet drew together their garments over their entire body, including the face.
From Wikipedia
The niqab is more commonly worn in the Arab countries of the Arabian Peninsula such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and the UAE. Various forms of niqab are also worn in countries such as Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, India, some parts of Israel, southern provinces of Iran, and other areas with sizeable Muslim populations.
However......
The main evidence from scholars who believe that the niqab is obligatory comes from these verses of the Qur'an.
O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Qur'an 33:59
Scholars, such as Imam Abul A'la Mawdudi from the Indian subcontinent, suggest that these verses refer to covering the entire body, including the face and hands. The order 'cast their outer garments' in Arabic is similar to phrase 'draw together'. Scholars say that as a result of this verse, the women at the time of the Prophet drew together their garments over their entire body, including the face.
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Max
Max, your views how an expat relates (or should relate) to his/her country of origin are a bit naive. I say that being an expat myself, a German who's been living & working in the UK for over 20 years.
As an expat one has a peculiar relationship to one's home country, as well as to one's host country. I care more about Britain's economic success than Germany's, and regarding the governance of amenities such as railways, water supply etc. I do very much care that that is dealt with properly here, and whether it's dealt with properly in Germany I care very little.
But culturally I retain a strong affiliation with Germany, or rather: with the Germany I knew when I left the country. I buy heaps of old German mags and old German movies, I still buy German food items from the supermarkets that stock them (thank you Lidl!), and - yes - I still support the German football team.
I certainly had to adapt my ways to some extent (apart from improving my English), as there are some subtle differences in the way German and British society tends to work. [In a nutshell: German society is more democratic and confrontational, British society more autocratic and consensual.] So I am trying to fit in, but that does not change who I am and what I believe, like or dislike.
I don't think I am in these respects untypical for expats, here or elsewhere. One advantage I have over expats from an ethnic minority is that as a white person I can keep under the radar if it suits me. If I was not I would probably get a certain level of racist abuse...
The latter actually makes a real difference in subsequent generations. I don't have children, but I know a Dutch expat near me whose children have fully assimilated, becoming English. But if you belong to an ethnic minority and are subjected to racist abuse every now and then, then your children can develop a sense of homelessness.
...and regarding the poppy, that is a peculiar British thing. As is believing (like David Cameron does) that it is universally acknowledged. In most countries they don't make a fuss about the dead soldiers of previous generations, rightly or wrongly. So, a Brit wearing a poppy is just one of those weird cultural phenomena in this country, like Morris Dancing, Yorkshire pudding, or Cricket.
As an expat one has a peculiar relationship to one's home country, as well as to one's host country. I care more about Britain's economic success than Germany's, and regarding the governance of amenities such as railways, water supply etc. I do very much care that that is dealt with properly here, and whether it's dealt with properly in Germany I care very little.
But culturally I retain a strong affiliation with Germany, or rather: with the Germany I knew when I left the country. I buy heaps of old German mags and old German movies, I still buy German food items from the supermarkets that stock them (thank you Lidl!), and - yes - I still support the German football team.
I certainly had to adapt my ways to some extent (apart from improving my English), as there are some subtle differences in the way German and British society tends to work. [In a nutshell: German society is more democratic and confrontational, British society more autocratic and consensual.] So I am trying to fit in, but that does not change who I am and what I believe, like or dislike.
I don't think I am in these respects untypical for expats, here or elsewhere. One advantage I have over expats from an ethnic minority is that as a white person I can keep under the radar if it suits me. If I was not I would probably get a certain level of racist abuse...
The latter actually makes a real difference in subsequent generations. I don't have children, but I know a Dutch expat near me whose children have fully assimilated, becoming English. But if you belong to an ethnic minority and are subjected to racist abuse every now and then, then your children can develop a sense of homelessness.
...and regarding the poppy, that is a peculiar British thing. As is believing (like David Cameron does) that it is universally acknowledged. In most countries they don't make a fuss about the dead soldiers of previous generations, rightly or wrongly. So, a Brit wearing a poppy is just one of those weird cultural phenomena in this country, like Morris Dancing, Yorkshire pudding, or Cricket.
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
beutelwolf
I guess people who move to another country for work, against what they would ideally like to do (they move because of extreme poverty) then I can understand someone having an allegiance to the place they are from. If someone demands to be viewed as a Brit, and cries "racist" if not regarded so, and has a much better education (all for free) here, free healthcare too, subsidised housing, social security, and everything else, then I think they should view themselves as British - because they demand to be viewed as British, and will complain endlessly and vilify anyone not viewing them as such. I remember Norman Tebbit, the politician, saying some years ago how he thinks it's wrong people who are second and third generation Indian or Pakistani cheer for the country of their forebares when England are playing against that country in cricket - and I agree with him. I have a bit of Irish in my background but cheer for England in any sport, and that includes when playing against Ireland. I have no more interest in Ireland when they are playing a sports match than I have in the French team or the Spanish team. The people who created the plural society we live in, in the years following World War 2, hoped this would happen and in many cases it does not. I am fine about people being or other religions but that should always be a minority thing and Christianity should always be the dominant thing - the alternative is that Christianity becomes the minority thing and that would not be right. It would be a case of our traditions, heritage, and so on, having been marginalised. Would it be acceptable for Islam to become the minority thing in Saudi Arabia? I don't think it would be.
You make a distinction between ex-pats and the naturalised people, I did too in my last comment. Those here forever, and demand to be viewed as Brits (as I just said) expect all the things that come with being a Brit so out of courtesy, gratitude and respect, I feel they should act like Brits - to be as loyal to the same degree as they demand loyalty from the country. I agree with what you say about how if someone is white, but they or their parents are from somewhere else originally, then they can fit in as it is not obvious the family originated elsewhere (because they don't have a different look) and if someone does have a different look then they will visibly stand out and can be subjected to racism on account of that different look. For those people it can be harder to live in a country different from the country your family is originally from. Anyone not liking people who fit into that category is a pure racist and I totally condemn that kind of activity. I condemn it very strongly. All I've known since I was born is a mixed-race environment and I welcome it. I don't think it should dominate though because that would mean the original lot have been displaced. I said in an earlier comment how it would not be seen as a positive if Lagos in Nigeria became minority black, so is it right that white British people should be a minority in London - something which is now the case?
An introduction of other ways of doing things, different to the traditions here, and those ways being ones that are at odds with how we do things here I view as unacceptable - many of the things that Islam has about itself for example (I covered this in previous comments). As Islam grows and grows here there will be a greater call for those things to be implemented, and I find that concerning. I disagree with what you say that the Poppy and a great remembrance of the sacrifices made by our war dead is a peculiarly British thing. I lived in Australia for a year and they have ANZAC's day - the same as our Remembrance Day - and by the way I really got into that and thought a lot about their war dead on that day, just like the locals do, even though I was a foreigner living there for a year. I am sure you don't mean to be offensive with your comment about the Poppy in Britain being "one of those weird cultural phenomena". I am not offended but you could perhaps have worded that better. I didn't feel I was required to think a lot about the Australian war dead on ANZAC's day, during my one year stay in Australia (I had a visa and I lived and worked there) but I did do anyway - out of respect to the place I was in. Had I got Australian passport, settled there indefinitely, taken money from the country with free education for any kids I had, got healthcare, etc, expected the army of Australia to go into battle on my behalf as I'm now an Australian citizen, then I would have particularly got into the ANZAC's memorial and, yes, I would then be cheering for all Australian teams in sport and hoping England would lose when playing against Australia. I would now be an Aussie. Any permanently settled person here, who is now a Brit (as distinct from someone here for a limited time) should do the same. There are many who do not.
You make a distinction between ex-pats and the naturalised people, I did too in my last comment. Those here forever, and demand to be viewed as Brits (as I just said) expect all the things that come with being a Brit so out of courtesy, gratitude and respect, I feel they should act like Brits - to be as loyal to the same degree as they demand loyalty from the country. I agree with what you say about how if someone is white, but they or their parents are from somewhere else originally, then they can fit in as it is not obvious the family originated elsewhere (because they don't have a different look) and if someone does have a different look then they will visibly stand out and can be subjected to racism on account of that different look. For those people it can be harder to live in a country different from the country your family is originally from. Anyone not liking people who fit into that category is a pure racist and I totally condemn that kind of activity. I condemn it very strongly. All I've known since I was born is a mixed-race environment and I welcome it. I don't think it should dominate though because that would mean the original lot have been displaced. I said in an earlier comment how it would not be seen as a positive if Lagos in Nigeria became minority black, so is it right that white British people should be a minority in London - something which is now the case?
An introduction of other ways of doing things, different to the traditions here, and those ways being ones that are at odds with how we do things here I view as unacceptable - many of the things that Islam has about itself for example (I covered this in previous comments). As Islam grows and grows here there will be a greater call for those things to be implemented, and I find that concerning. I disagree with what you say that the Poppy and a great remembrance of the sacrifices made by our war dead is a peculiarly British thing. I lived in Australia for a year and they have ANZAC's day - the same as our Remembrance Day - and by the way I really got into that and thought a lot about their war dead on that day, just like the locals do, even though I was a foreigner living there for a year. I am sure you don't mean to be offensive with your comment about the Poppy in Britain being "one of those weird cultural phenomena". I am not offended but you could perhaps have worded that better. I didn't feel I was required to think a lot about the Australian war dead on ANZAC's day, during my one year stay in Australia (I had a visa and I lived and worked there) but I did do anyway - out of respect to the place I was in. Had I got Australian passport, settled there indefinitely, taken money from the country with free education for any kids I had, got healthcare, etc, expected the army of Australia to go into battle on my behalf as I'm now an Australian citizen, then I would have particularly got into the ANZAC's memorial and, yes, I would then be cheering for all Australian teams in sport and hoping England would lose when playing against Australia. I would now be an Aussie. Any permanently settled person here, who is now a Brit (as distinct from someone here for a limited time) should do the same. There are many who do not.