|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 3, 2023 16:48:40 GMT
The fact that you didn’t care about being in the clique doesn’t refute the fact that you were excluded from the clique . If a an ethnic Pole and an ethnic white English person produced a child then that child would one step away from the ethnicity of its parents . I have no problem at all with my Jamaican friend not being ethnic English . I doubt that he has a problem either . I do have a problem with him being denied being English . Because he embraces being English more than Jamaican. The point is I could easily come up with my own classification of English that excludes Dan and co. That wouldn't make them any less English. As far as I'm concerned they may as well be stamping their feet and insisting I'm a giraffe. The point is that you can’t come up with your own version of ethnicity because that is based on blood line not opinion. My Grandfather was a Scot from a clan with its own tartan. That doesn’t make me an ethnic Scot no matter how much I insist it did . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 3, 2023 16:51:58 GMT
I'm not excluding anyone, I'm not denying anyone else their national identity. Your national identity (nationality) is British (UK) (I assume). Nobody has contended that Until Thomas and the snats get involve .😁 |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 3, 2023 16:53:48 GMT
None of that is the point. I am not saying you are Irish but you state quite clearly you have Irish heritage. Which is inclusive and exclusive at the same time. A man in Ireland with English ancestry is not ethnically Irish even if he speaks with an Irish accent and dances like Michael Flatley most especially if he says he is of English heritage. Ask any Irishman of Irish heritage in Ireland. I've never claimed to be ethnically English, not entirely at any rate. But I am English. At some point you have to let common sense into the conversation. To go back to my hypothetical kid of ethnic English parentage born and raised in France, how would his English ethnic heritage be visible? Me on the other hand, put me in a room with 50 people of 100% ethnically English people and you wouldn't be able to pick me out, I'd bet my life on it. Which again was not the point as ethnicity depends on many things, and this was considered in depth by the law Lords many years ago, but two of the most important are a self acceptance of being a specific ethnicity by the individual and by others of the ethnic group. One cannot be both a member of the English ethnic group and an ethnic minority all at the same time. If you say you are of direct Irish heritage, and you do, that precludes you from being ethnic English as you accept that you are something else. As I say my mixed Scottish English heritage probably excludes me from being ethnically Scots if a distinction was wished to be made and I would never argue after all Ms Alibhai-Brown, her of the lets not have the unvaccinated near us, says the British are all mongrels anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 3, 2023 16:59:32 GMT
One of my Lithuanian colleagues told me that there were ethnic Lithuanians, ethnic Russians and ethnic Poles .
All,are considered Lithuanians but the ethnic Lithuanians tend to speak Lithuanian and the ethnic Russians and Poles speak Russian .
The ethnic Lithuanians dont like the ethnic Poles and like the ethnic Russians even less .
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 3, 2023 17:05:49 GMT
One of my Lithuanian colleagues told me that there were ethnic Lithuanians, ethnic Russians and ethnic Poles . All,are considered Lithuanians but the ethnic Lithuanians tend to speak Lithuanian and the ethnic Russians and Poles speak Russian . The ethnic Lithuanians dont like the ethnic Poles and like the ethnic Russians even less . Which just goes to show that ethnicity is accepted as a right to almost anyone in the world except the English and having an English ethnicity is frowned on as something immoral and bigoted. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 3, 2023 17:15:37 GMT
One of my Lithuanian colleagues told me that there were ethnic Lithuanians, ethnic Russians and ethnic Poles . All,are considered Lithuanians but the ethnic Lithuanians tend to speak Lithuanian and the ethnic Russians and Poles speak Russian . The ethnic Lithuanians dont like the ethnic Poles and like the ethnic Russians even less . Which just goes to show that ethnicity is accepted as a right to almost anyone in the world except the English and having an English ethnicity is frowned on as something immoral and bigoted. Indeed. East Europeans don’t buy into the woke bullshit that we seem to embrace . |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 3, 2023 17:20:46 GMT
One of my Lithuanian colleagues told me that there were ethnic Lithuanians, ethnic Russians and ethnic Poles . All,are considered Lithuanians but the ethnic Lithuanians tend to speak Lithuanian and the ethnic Russians and Poles speak Russian . The ethnic Lithuanians dont like the ethnic Poles and like the ethnic Russians even less . Which just goes to show that ethnicity is accepted as a right to almost anyone in the world except the English and having an English ethnicity is frowned on as something immoral and bigoted. Who has said that? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 3, 2023 17:24:12 GMT
The point is I could easily come up with my own classification of English that excludes Dan and co. That wouldn't make them any less English. As far as I'm concerned they may as well be stamping their feet and insisting I'm a giraffe. The point is that you can’t come up with your own version of ethnicity because that is based on blood line not opinion. My Grandfather was a Scot from a clan with its own tartan. That doesn’t make me an ethnic Scot no matter how much I insist it did . I never said that you could come up with your own version of ethnicity. I said I could come up with my own classification of English which excludes Dan and co. But what would be the point other than to start a row? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 3, 2023 17:27:53 GMT
I've never claimed to be ethnically English, not entirely at any rate. But I am English. At some point you have to let common sense into the conversation. To go back to my hypothetical kid of ethnic English parentage born and raised in France, how would his English ethnic heritage be visible? Me on the other hand, put me in a room with 50 people of 100% ethnically English people and you wouldn't be able to pick me out, I'd bet my life on it. Which again was not the point as ethnicity depends on many things, and this was considered in depth by the law Lords many years ago, but two of the most important are a self acceptance of being a specific ethnicity by the individual and by others of the ethnic group. One cannot be both a member of the English ethnic group and an ethnic minority all at the same time. If you say you are of direct Irish heritage, and you do, that precludes you from being ethnic English as you accept that you are something else. As I say my mixed Scottish English heritage probably excludes me from being ethnically Scots if a distinction was wished to be made and I would never argue after all Ms Alibhai-Brown, her of the lets not have the unvaccinated near us, says the British are all mongrels anyway. Once again, ethnicity and nationality are two different things. Me not being 100% ethnically English doesn't mean I'm not English. Are you honestly saying that there is nothing more to nationality than ethnicity? Are you denying the existence of English culture? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 3, 2023 17:33:18 GMT
The point is that you can’t come up with your own version of ethnicity because that is based on blood line not opinion. My Grandfather was a Scot from a clan with its own tartan. That doesn’t make me an ethnic Scot no matter how much I insist it did . I never said that you could come up with your own version of ethnicity. I said I could come up with my own classification of English which excludes Dan and co. But what would be the point other than to start a row? Tbh you seem to be constructing premises to argue against claiming that they are at Dan and Sandys premises. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 3, 2023 19:20:50 GMT
Which just goes to show that ethnicity is accepted as a right to almost anyone in the world except the English and having an English ethnicity is frowned on as something immoral and bigoted. Who has said that? By implication many people in the political sphere. Put English in front of anything and it is written off as being RW. English Defence League, English Democrats, English Nationalists. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 3, 2023 19:37:58 GMT
Which again was not the point as ethnicity depends on many things, and this was considered in depth by the law Lords many years ago, but two of the most important are a self acceptance of being a specific ethnicity by the individual and by others of the ethnic group. One cannot be both a member of the English ethnic group and an ethnic minority all at the same time. If you say you are of direct Irish heritage, and you do, that precludes you from being ethnic English as you accept that you are something else. As I say my mixed Scottish English heritage probably excludes me from being ethnically Scots if a distinction was wished to be made and I would never argue after all Ms Alibhai-Brown, her of the lets not have the unvaccinated near us, says the British are all mongrels anyway. Once again, ethnicity and nationality are two different things. Me not being 100% ethnically English doesn't mean I'm not English. Are you honestly saying that there is nothing more to nationality than ethnicity? Are you denying the existence of English culture? I have said, repeatedly, that Ethnicity and Nationality are not the same. It is best not to confuse the two although it often is. British is the legal Nationality. If we are referring to ethnicity, and we are, that is complicated by many factors. One poster on here a few months past insisted that the Rotherham groomers were all English which indeed with your definition they were but they were also ethnic minorities which complicates the issue further, so if they were ethnic minorities there has to be an ethnic majority. If one regards oneself as incapable of being discriminated against by the ethnic majority (the English) then there would be little argument that you were English. If some one as an example Bill Smith said well I do not like you Micks and you are not getting the job then if that makes you feel discriminated against then you are an ethnic minority even if it is just on your name which I assume is Irish based. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 4, 2023 6:50:19 GMT
Once again, ethnicity and nationality are two different things. Me not being 100% ethnically English doesn't mean I'm not English. Are you honestly saying that there is nothing more to nationality than ethnicity? Are you denying the existence of English culture? I have said, repeatedly, that Ethnicity and Nationality are not the same. It is best not to confuse the two although it often is. British is the legal Nationality. If we are referring to ethnicity, and we are, that is complicated by many factors. One poster on here a few months past insisted that the Rotherham groomers were all English which indeed with your definition they were but they were also ethnic minorities which complicates the issue further, so if they were ethnic minorities there has to be an ethnic majority. If one regards oneself as incapable of being discriminated against by the ethnic majority (the English) then there would be little argument that you were English. If some one as an example Bill Smith said well I do not like you Micks and you are not getting the job then if that makes you feel discriminated against then you are an ethnic minority even if it is just on your name which I assume is Irish based. You said yourself ethnicity and nationality are not the same thing. You can be ethnically English but culturally French as in the hypothetical example I gave earlier and vice versa. Let's say I was in the pub with a group of Scottish people and someone said "go and ask the English bloke" who do you think people would approach? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 4, 2023 7:24:01 GMT
I have said, repeatedly, that Ethnicity and Nationality are not the same. It is best not to confuse the two although it often is. British is the legal Nationality. If we are referring to ethnicity, and we are, that is complicated by many factors. One poster on here a few months past insisted that the Rotherham groomers were all English which indeed with your definition they were but they were also ethnic minorities which complicates the issue further, so if they were ethnic minorities there has to be an ethnic majority. If one regards oneself as incapable of being discriminated against by the ethnic majority (the English) then there would be little argument that you were English. If some one as an example Bill Smith said well I do not like you Micks and you are not getting the job then if that makes you feel discriminated against then you are an ethnic minority even if it is just on your name which I assume is Irish based. You said yourself ethnicity and nationality are not the same thing. You can be ethnically English but culturally French as in the hypothetical example I gave earlier and vice versa. Let's say I was in the pub with a group of Scottish people and someone said "go and ask the English bloke" who do you think people would approach? The one at the bar buying the round.. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 4, 2023 8:36:30 GMT
Well no takers so far on a definition for ethnicity and ethnic group, although Sandy alludes to one a few posts earlier by reference to a decision by the Law Lords 'a long time ago'. I believe he refers to the 1983 case of Mandla vs Dowell-Lee, more popularly known as The Case of the Sikh Schoolboy's Turban. While defined primarily in legalistic terms rather than scientific this decision and the resulting definition has had profound influence on how matters of race and ethnicity are treated in British law. Mandla vs Dowell-Lee sets out two mandatory requirements for recognition as an ethnic group, as well as several ‘optional’ characteristics which may be taken into consideration by the courts when assessing whether a particular population group qualifies for ethnic group status. Subsequent case law has bestowed that status on several minority groups including Jews, Sikhs and Roma. So far the English have not been tested against the legal criteria but if they were how would they match up against those criteria? Taking first the two mandatory requirements. (1) a long shared history; an embarassment of riches here, but just to select a few at random: The Danelaw, the Conquest, Magna Carta, Chaucer, Agincourt, the Armada, the Bill of Rights, the long lineage of kings and queens, the World Cup 1966 etc etc and so on; (2) a cultural tradition of its own; again, far too much to list. Even the highlights would require several pages. I recommend chapter 9 of Roger Scruton’s England, an Elegy for a tour de horizon of English culture and its salient high-points in literature, philosophy, art and science. It would seem then that, for the English, qualifying for ethnic group status according to their Lordships’ criteria is something of a slam dunk. But what about the other, ‘optional’ characteristics? (3) either a common geographical origin, or descent from a small number of common ancestors; the English are a people of Indo-European origins and a great majority of the population today stem from three migrations from the continent, all of common genetic ‘stock’ but differentiated by language and to a lesser extent, culture. The first stream arrived in the Neolithic and are often referred to (erroneously) as Celts. The second stream, the Anglo-Saxons, began to arrive in the fourth century AD. A third group, Danish ‘Vikings’ began to arrive in the early ninth century followed by Norse Vikings a few decades later. By the end of the 9th century then, the genetic profile of England had become fixed. None of the later wavelets of immigration, whether Normans, Flemish weavers or Huguenots added anything new to the genetic mix. I might note also that neither has the post-famine Irish diaspora.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reported that in AD 886, King Alfred had occupied London and that 'all the English people ( Angelcynn) who were not under subjection to the Danes had through their own kings, submitted to him’. His son and grandson, Edward and Aethelstan subdued the Danelaw and drove the Vikings out of Northumbria, the latter establishing the Kingdom of England and proclaiming himself as king of all the English in AD 927. The original populations had thus coalesced into a nation by the early tenth century and the story of England and the English really began. (4) a common language, not necessarily peculiar to the group; Hardly needs saying, but ‘English’ (5) a common literature peculiar to the group; It would be redundant to introduce another laundry list here, so I’ll just include a quote from Scruton: “It is possible that no people on earth, apart from the ancient Greeks and Hebrews, has built such a monument to itself in literature [as the English have done]” (6) a common religion different from that of neighbouring groups or from the general community surrounding it; This is perhaps the weakest point since England has always been a part of Western Christendom. Around 500 years ago it left the ‘mainstream’ during the Protestant Reformation and the Church of England was born. If religion is seen as a principal characteristic of the Sikhs as an ethnic group then it should be remembered that Sikhism (the religion) is scarcely older than the C of E and Anglicanism. (7) being a minority or being an oppressed or a dominant group within a larger community. Even during the Imperial interlude the English have always been the dominant group within the larger community of England and then the United Kingdom. Nowadays, however, the ongoing process of devolution makes it likely that England will once again become a stand-alone entity, but whether or not the English remain the dominant group depends, in large part, upon how the demographic transformation which is now underway plays out. It that ends badly, then the English may well become an oppressed minority just as they were an oppressed majority after the Conquest. Either way, their status as an ethnic group seems assured on this criterion. Having said all that, are there any dissenters to either the definition or the conclusion that the English conform to it and are correctly described as an ethnic group? |
|
