egafd.com

I have answered your question in broad terms already. Did you not get my answer?

The problem with a specific answer to your question is that it is unanswerable in those terms. It is a totally open question with a million potential answers.

You do not appear to have thought through what you actually mean.

Take your question again
"if it ever got to the point where immigrants outnumbered the indigenous population many years from now would it be acceptable then for them to impose their laws over ours and displacing us?"

"Immigrants" what immigrants - Italians, Khazakstanis, fuzzy wuzzies, SOuth Africans. How long does someone have to be here before they cease to be an immigrant - 1 week, 1 year, 1 lifetime, 3 generations, 1,000 years?

"Indigenous population" What is your definition of "indigenous" - those that were here in Britain yesterday, those that were here in 1948, those that were here at the time of the Battle of Hastings, those that were here shortly after the Ice Age etc etc?

"Impose their laws! Who's they. What laws are we talking about. A law to behead Justincyder when he asks an ill-defined question? A law to kill all the Jews?? Do "they" whoever they are, actually have a common body of laws and if so, how do they fit to the 21st century.

We wouldnt want any of that Old Testament stuff here, right now, would we? I suggest you think more about what you are on about. COnsider a specific series of questions which are answerable. Then answer them yourself.

Ya dig?

Cheers
D

The internet is a very difficult place to be ironic.

'.....if it ever got to the point where immigrants outnumbered the indigenous population'

So you are suggesting that at a point in the future more than half of the population of the UK may have been born abroad? I find that hard to believe. It would mean that if the population was say 65 million, 33 million would not have been born here. Perhaps you mean that over half will be descended from people born abroad? In which case we are already at that point. I refer to the arrival on our shores of such immigrants as the Romans, the Vikings, the Saxons, the Jutes, the Normans, the Huguenots, the Jews, Africans, 19th century eastern Europeans, post war Commonwealth arrivals, etc. We all become indigenous after a while.

There is no such thing as the 'indigenous population' on account of everyone being a mixture. Here's something to consider though, if people accept that the term 'ethnic minority' is valid, then there surely are those who do not fall into that catagory, and those are the ones people are meaning when they say 'indigenous population'.

I regard anyone as being totally English and British if the regard themselves as being such and have total loyalty to this country - in other words they view themselves the same as they demand to be viewed. Ex-foreigners who do, and descendants of foreigners that do, are as much a part of the English/British population as anyone else. It is only when folk regard themselves as foreign that I will see them as such.

Dis-loyalty to this country, from someone who demands total loyalty from the country, I view as unacceptable. If people are loyal, and are also grateful, then they are as much members of the 'indigeonous population' as anyone else. Having another culture is ok in my view, but there should always be respect for the traditions of the land and acknowledgment that this is first and foremost a Christian country with Christian traditions. I am saying this yet I am not remotely religious, I dont even believe in god, but I live my life within the framework of a Christian society.

Davey wrote:

how do you feel about the subjsct of black racism against whites?

I'd say they are both symptomatic of each other. Take your pick, black man or white man hates the opposite for his colour crosses the line of violence and it is met with the same violence.

The hate is perpetuated on the basis of their colour and way of life. Its all bollocks.

The best story I heard was from a white guy who "beat up pakis for fun" because it was the thing to do in the 80's growing.

He and a friend chased down an asian chap one day , cornered the terrified youth in the alley and were prepared to beat the shit out of him for no reason. he had pissed himself. This white guy (cant tell you who as he is a bit of a celeb) refused at his mates goading because he felt sorry for the guy and a bit shit for doing it without reason than perverse fun.

His mate provoked him so much he turned and beat the shit out ofhim allowing the asian to get away.

The irony of it was, that same asian guy remembered him and thanked him on FaceBook for it.

This guy is a big man but a gentle soul. I find the most dangerous of his kind are and could only imagine the terror of being chased down by this guy who was then a boxer in his teen years.

I dont advocate this mans behaviour and thought it was brave him even sharing it with me but the truth is, he didnt stop doing what he did because of racism, he knows plenty of ethnic people.

He stopped it because it was a shit thing to do to anyone.

"Dis-loyalty to this country, from someone who demands total loyalty from the country, I view as unacceptable."

Loyalty, disloyalty, honour, dishonour, love, hate, violence, peace are not racial/ethnic characteristics.

Cheers
D

No they're not, but someone whose background is from another place who has no loyalty to this country and has total loyalty and identity to the place of their forebares is confirming by their attitude that they are not British and are instead from that other place. Total loyalty and identity with Britain makes them an ex-foreigner and someone who is as British as anyone else in my view.

Total loyalty and identity with Britain makes them an ex-foreigner and someone who is as British as anyone else in my view.


Well its all Ive ever known since I was born here. Can I get the keys to the executive white mans club now please?

Quite so andy quite so