Brother Brutha
Newbie
The "Romans" weren't. They came from all over - even Africa.
And I think you'll find that the Celts, Picts and Anglo-Saxons were all different, ethnically. They certainly were culturally.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
By kinsmen. The Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans (= North-men), Celts, Picts, etc were all of the same related Nordic ethnic stock. So they remained homogenous, unmixed...
BNP are the only party with common sense policies. They are also the only party trying to preserve Britain's Christian heritage from Islamification.
Here is a comparison of BNP policies to Lib-Lab-Con:
The "Romans" weren't. They came from all over - even Africa.
Only 20,000 Roman troops took part in the conquest of Britain in 43 AD.
Most Roman troops were called back to Rome, leaving only a few thousand troops post-80 AD. The population of Britain at that time was 1. 5 million, therefore even if the Romans intermarried with the indigenous British, it would be less than 0.1% of the population. Also there is the fact that most Roman troops were of Celtic, or Germanic extraction anyway - as the Romans employed soldiers across their empire. In other words, the historical evidence has confirmed that the white indigenous British are homogenous, and not mixed.
The only people who reject the historical and scientific evidence are liberals or multicultralists, who want to justify modern multiculturalism - so they attempt to prove that the white indigenous British are somehow 'mongrels' or 'impure'...oddly though these same liberals and multiculturalists have no problem with accepting that the australian aborigines and bushmen of sub-sahara africa are indigenous, just when it comes to white people suddenly we are not entitled to a heritage...
Culture is not race.
And if people want to marry outside of their race, who are you to say they can't? You want to preserve British racial purity, go and find a nice Cheddar Girl. Always provided you don't have any non-British ancestors yourself. Which is statistically pretty much impossible.
Actually most indigenous British can trace their heritage as far back as 1086, by using historical records, most notably the Doomsday Book (which covered most of England and Wales).
Prior to 1086, there were no non-ethnic British in Britain which means most ethnic-British who can trace their heritage to the Doomsday, are of a pure linage.
Immigrants from the 3rd world (Africa, Asia etc) have only flooded UK within the last 50 years, they were not here a thousand years ago, and really have no history in the British Isles.
So what?
They are not ethnically British.
Liberals in this thread deny that the indigenous British exist (when they do), and as an ethnic group, the indigenous British are entitled to an identity, just as every other group is.
The idea that someone can immigrate to UK and suddenly be 'British' is nonsense. The British are only the ethnic Nordic-Celtic related kindred who founded this country. If a British person moves to America does that make him or her a native american? If a Swede migrates to China, does that make him a Chinaman? Liberals never apply their same logic to these other places. I wonder why?
The idea that someone can immigrate to UK and suddenly be 'British' is nonsense. The British are only the ethnic Nordic-Celtic related kindred who founded this country. If a British person moves to America does that make him or her a native american? If a Swede migrates to China, does that make him a Chinaman? Liberals never apply their same logic to these other places. I wonder why?
Agreed. How many generations before somebody is "indigenous"? I am an ex-pat in New Zealand married to a 6th generation "pakeha". What does that make my children?If you become a citizen of a country, you are now part of that country. Whether you are British or not has nothing to do with your genes. My uncle was born in Cumbria, now he lives in America and has American Citizenship. He is a citizen of the USA. His genes don't effect anything, nor does whether he is "native" or not.
Humanity came from Africa. Everyone outside of there is a descendant of immigrants.
Besides, it doesn't even matter, considering the fact that most people are descended from various "kinds" of people and so are not indigenous anything.
No, we say that, although the population of Britain is genetically slightly different, it is by no means "pure", and that the differences are in no way as fundamental as you are claiming.They are not ethnically British.
Liberals in this thread deny that the indigenous British exist (when they do), and as an ethnic group, the indigenous British are entitled to an identity, just as every other group is.
The idea that someone can immigrate to UK and suddenly be 'British' is nonsense. The British are only the ethnic Nordic-Celtic related kindred who founded this country. If a British person moves to America does that make him or her a native american? If a Swede migrates to China, does that make him a Chinaman? Liberals never apply their same logic to these other places. I wonder why?
If you become a citizen of a country, you are now part of that country. Whether you are British or not has nothing to do with your genes. My uncle was born in Cumbria, now he lives in America and has American Citizenship. He is a citizen of the USA. His genes don't effect anything, nor does whether he is "native" or not.
Humanity came from Africa.
Besides, it doesn't even matter, considering the fact that most people are descended from various "kinds" of people and so are not indigenous anything.
And you and your mates are entitled to any identity you want. Nobody is trying to take that away from you, despite your paranoia.
I have said this I think four times to your various alter-egos, but I'll do so again. Ethnicity and culture are completely different things. A Swede who moved to China could be culturally Chinese. A British person who moved to a Reservation could become culturally Native American, and so on. And culture is infinitely more important in determining the worth of a person than ethnicity. For example, I guarantee you you'd have more in common with a black fundamentalist, conservative christian from Nigeria than you would with me, even though I am of "pure Celtic stock".
Why are you so obsessed with race, when it is one of the least important characteristics of a person?
How does anyone else's opinion take away from your right to identify as whatever you want? You and your mates can organise meetings, breed only with each other, and sing songs about how great it is to be "native British", and the skin-colour of the man who owns the local shop will have absolutely zero bearing on any of it.Actually you and several other Liberals have claimed in this thread that indigenous British don't exist (when they do), which is a racist stance - as it is denying the white native British an identity.
So what if those people who adopt the culture have kids and grandkids? Do the grandkids now have an ancestral link (especially if the second parent is from the original culture)? If so, then what's the problem? And what's so important about having an ancestral link anyway? Can you only believe in democracy if your ancestors came from Greece? Can you only eat Indian food if you're from the subcontinent?People can adopt cultures but they have no ancestral link to them.
There you go stereotyping again. We're not the ones who "only want to live with our own (racial) kind". We're all for judging people on their merits, not their skin colour, unlike you.Its only you liberals who are obsessed with race, particularly you are obsessed with denying white people (mostly the white British) a heritage, but when it comes down to any other race suddenly you are all for them.
Why for example do liberals allow and promote organisations like the Black Police Association (listed on the Liberal Democrats website), which only allow black members (whites cannot join), but when whites set up their own orgsanisations for only whites it is suddenly racist?
How does anyone else's opinion take away from your right to identify as whatever you want? You and your mates can organise meetings, breed only with each other, and sing songs about how great it is to be "native British", and the skin-colour of the man who owns the local shop will have absolutely zero bearing on any of it.
And no, nobody has claimed that there's not a genetic group that could be identified as "British". They've just pointed out that it's almost identical to other Northern European ethnicities, and that it doesn't determine your culture.
So what if those people who adopt the culture have kids and grandkids? Do the grandkids now have an ancestral link (especially if the second parent is from the original culture)? If so, then what's the problem?
And what's so important about having an ancestral link anyway?
Can you only believe in democracy if your ancestors came from Greece?
Can you only eat Indian food if you're from the subcontinent?
There you go stereotyping again. We're not the ones who "only want to live with our own (racial) kind". We're all for judging people on their merits, not their skin colour, unlike you.
You can only become civically apart of that country, not ethnically. If an immigrant moves to Britain they do not become an indigenous Briton, just how if a European moves to America, they don't become a Native American.
I understand you liberals oppose common sense, but one day you should embrace reality...
Culturally British. There is a difference between culture and ethnicity. I must have told you this 20 times before, and you have continuously failed to address it. Are you suggesting we ban black people from playing cricket and drinking tea in the afternoon, so these can be part of an exclusively "British" cultural identity?Some posters in this thread have claimed anyone can become British - as long as they move to Britain.
This is wrong for many reasons.
Firstly and most importantly its wrong because it denies the indigenous British a heritage. If anyone can be British then the ethnic-British are no longer entitled to an identity.
Ethnicity is not culture. How is a black person who was born in Britain, speaks colloqial English with an East London accent, plays football with his mates, goes for a pint of ale in the local pub afterwards, any less culturally British than his white mate who does exactly the same thing?If the people adopting the culture, are of a related ethnic root then they can become 'British', in the ethnic sense and be as British as an indigenous Briton. An example would be the minority of native Britons who have partial-Huguenot heritage, but the Huguenots assimilated and fit the ethnic mold of Britain.
That's good for him. Now tell me why a black person can't become melded into the majority British population. And don't repeat your tired lines which amount to "because they're black, and black people aren't British. Graagh, liberals!". Give me an actual, solid, tangible reason why black people cannot adapt to British culture.To quote Nick Griffin on who an indigenous Brit is:
''...it's anyone who is effectively so melded into the majority english, british population so nobody knows, so nobody cares''
Good for them. And how are a few black and Asian people living in the same country as them going to somehow break their magical "spiritual connection" to their ancestors.Some people are patriotic and have a spirtual connection to their country and ancestors.
Don't you claim to be liberal and democratic? Everyone's different remember...
So is that a yes, or a no? Do you think that black people are incapable of embracing democracy, as a result of their ethnicity.Democracy is a product of the western world only.
Ever eat a potato, or anything made from a potato? That's south American. I'm guessing you wouldn't consider that sad and annoying.People can eat what food they want. However its pretty sad and annoying when you see a British person eating foreign food when we have our own.
The liberal elite who run UK are ethnically cleansing Britain. This is widely known and will be further confirmed when the 2011 census statistics prove white native British are a minority in many more areas.
Will UK census 2011 reveal white-minority towns?
Culturally British. There is a difference between culture and ethnicity. I must have told you this 20 times before, and you have continuously failed to address it. Are you suggesting we ban black people from playing cricket and drinking tea in the afternoon, so these can be part of an exclusively "British" cultural identity?
And again I ask, how does the skin colour of the Pakistani who owns the shop round the corner in any way affect your right to identify with whatever label you choose? Nobody's forcing you to adopt their culture, and absolutely nobody is forcing you to have non-white kids with them.
Ethnicity is not culture. How is a black person who was born in Britain, speaks colloqial English with an East London accent, plays football with his mates, goes for a pint of ale in the local pub afterwards, any less culturally British than his white mate who does exactly the same thing?
That's good for him. Now tell me why a black person can't become melded into the majority British population. And don't repeat your tired lines which amount to "because they're black, and black people aren't British. Graagh, liberals!". Give me an actual, solid, tangible reason why black people cannot adapt to British culture.
IT has everything to do with what was being raised. You're saying that the "liberal elite" are denying you your right to an identity, by allowing immigration, but have not provided one iota of evidence to back this up, and when challenged you have ignored the question, or tried to change the subject.I don't know what this has to do with what was raised.
See 1 above.
Yes, we know your opinions about what constitutes an ethnic Briton. Now explain to us why people who aren't ethnically British can't become culturally British, and why these people shouldn't be allowed to live in Britain.There are two definitions of British - civic and ethnic.
The ethnic-British are only the indigenous peoples of Britain i.e the Picts, Scots, Celts, Anglo-Saxon etc related kindred peoples who have been here for thousand(s) of years and created Britain.
They don't share the indigenous phenotype, and that pretty much answers the rest of your posts. Physical appearance is a factor of ethnicity, not the sole factor, but nontheless a factor which proves common ancestry or descent.
IT has everything to do with what was being raised. You're saying that the "liberal elite" are denying you your right to an identity, by allowing immigration, but have not provided one iota of evidence to back this up, and when challenged you have ignored the question, or tried to change the subject.
Yes, we know your opinions about what constitutes an ethnic Briton. Now explain to us why people who aren't ethnically British can't become culturally British, and why these people shouldn't be allowed to live in Britain.
And again, I'll say "so what"? They're not ethnically the same as the Britons 2000 years ago. We've established that.
Now why should people of different races not be allowed into the UK?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?