|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 5, 2023 11:48:58 GMT
Only dipping in and out of this thread, but quite a remarkable statement that the members of the German National football team are not German !! All this thread is is to exploit the unusual constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom to create some identity that is only available to white people and then to suggest that that identity has some form of rights. Its amusing to watch if as it has been done many times before getting a little repetitive. Indeed, like I said before it seems to be a long winded attempt to intellectually justify bullying, like the self appointed cool kids in 6th form excluding people from their clique. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Dec 5, 2023 12:22:36 GMT
If they are born and raised in England, speak with an English accent, are culturally English then they are English AFAIC. How can you be English and also an ethnic minority, it seems a strange concept as Lammy suggested he had every right to call himself English but that removes from the English any identity as it is usurped by others. If we did not have the race laws w would not have this problem but we do have the race laws so everyone has to be identifiable in some way, even if they do not want to be. Not really. The race laws are constructed to deal with what's in the mind of the discriminator. As such, Lammy could be discriminated against because of his English national origin, his race or, if the discriminator were mistaken, his membership of the Jewish ethnic group; as could you.
Incidentally, if you are concerned only because of the race laws, you can rest easy in relation to the English ethnic group. As far as the race laws are concerned, there is no English ethnic group.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 5, 2023 12:52:39 GMT
I don't think the last is strictly true, it's just that protection under the 'race laws' has never been sought by a person claiming his race, national origin or ethnicity was English. So the legal status of the English as an ethnic group is still yet to be tested in court.
Actually I don't think even that is completely correct. I believe there was a case some years ago in Scotland in which an Englishman employed by the BBC claimed he been discriminated against and the claim was upheld. That now forms part of the applicable case law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Dec 5, 2023 13:19:03 GMT
I don't think the last is strictly true, it's just that protection under the 'race laws' has never been sought by a person claiming his race, national origin or ethnicity was English. So the legal status of the English as an ethnic group is still yet to be tested in court. Actually I don't think even that is completely correct. I believe there was a case some years ago in Scotland in which an Englishman employed by the BBC claimed he been discriminated against and the claim was upheld. That now forms part of the applicable case law. Yes, that's right. The Court of Session confirmed that there was an English national origin despite English not being a 'formal' nationality. It also considered whether there was an English or Scottish ethnic group and it was decided that the English and Scots fell outside the definition in Mandla which you quoted in part earlier - BBC Scotland v Souster. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 5, 2023 13:40:32 GMT
I would tend to agree that an Englishmen should not be discriminated against because of his Englishness in seeking to get a job in say Scotland. Or the other way around. I am not aware of whether this ever happens.
Apart from that Dan and Sandy, what exactly are you asking for. Lets say you define Englishness as someone who has had five successive generations of ancestors all of whom lived in England. What practical rights or responsibilties or such like should that "English" person accrue that are denied to say British nationals who live in England
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Dec 5, 2023 13:49:59 GMT
I would tend to agree that an Englishmen should not be discriminated against because of his Englishness in seeking to get a job in say Scotland. Or the other way around. I am not aware of whether this ever happens. Apart from that Dan and Sandy, what exactly are you asking for. Lets say you define Englishness as someone who has had five successive generations of ancestors all of whom lived in England. What practical rights or responsibilties or such like should that "English" person accrue that are denied to say British nationals who live in England No. We've moved on from Mischling; there needs to be full DNA screening.
As to the benefit - maybe a George Cross stitched on overcoats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Dec 5, 2023 13:54:01 GMT
The problem with heritage and ancestry is a mathematical one. Going back through one's genealogy, our forbears increase exponentially. I have English parents (2) and English grandparents (4), but when I get to great-grandparents (8) I have English (4), Scots (2), Irish (1) and Welsh (1). If I push further back (I went as far as the 16th Century) you can pick and choose your path, unless you stick to a strictly patrilineal approach. I have Dutch ancestors, Viking ancestors, German ancestors and so on. It was very interesting when they looked at the ancient DNA of Otzi … the alpine prehistoric man/hunter found on the Italian border … they determined locals still living in that region shared common genetic relations with him. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 5, 2023 16:13:43 GMT
Of course they are but there is also a German national team full of different races that are not German and you would not call them German. An African does not look like Faf de Clerk he looks like Nelson Mandela. Confusing the issue seems to be a ploy, an Indian does not look like Spike Milligan he looks like Virat Kohli. It seems differences are accentuated when it suits and dispensed with when it does not which is why one ethnicity should not be confused with nationality. To be clear I did not make the race laws but one cannot dodge their existence. You seem to be repeatedly and I suspect deliberately missing the point that race and nationality are two different things. Faf de Clerk and Nelson Mandela are different races but the same nationality. I really don't know why you're having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept. Correction ethnicity and Nationality are two different things. Is Faf de Clerk an African? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 5, 2023 16:15:14 GMT
I would tend to agree that an Englishmen should not be discriminated against because of his Englishness in seeking to get a job in say Scotland. Or the other way around. I am not aware of whether this ever happens. Apart from that Dan and Sandy, what exactly are you asking for. Lets say you define Englishness as someone who has had five successive generations of ancestors all of whom lived in England. What practical rights or responsibilties or such like should that "English" person accrue that are denied to say British nationals who live in England No. We've moved on from Mischling; there needs to be full DNA screening.
As to the benefit - maybe a George Cross stitched on overcoats.
Not necessarily, dappy's proposal of a genealogical approach has some merit. After all, even officer candidates for the SS only had to show an uninterrupted Aryan lineage over five generations so it seems excessive to demand more than that from candidates for Englishness. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 5, 2023 16:20:31 GMT
Only dipping in and out of this thread, but quite a remarkable statement that the members of the German National football team are not German !! All this thread is is to exploit the unusual constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom to create some identity that is only available to white people and then to suggest that that identity has some form of rights. Its amusing to watch if as it has been done many times before getting a little repetitive. Well take an example from Rugby Union, is Billy Vilapola English or is he Australian. National teams as I have said have rules way beyond any ethnic arguments. Identities exist and are available to everyone except of course the English. Identity has no rights, it exists because people want it to or do not want it to. Either way it cannot belong to some with one definition and yet be denied to others using the same definition parameters. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 5, 2023 16:20:44 GMT
No. We've moved on from Mischling; there needs to be full DNA screening.
As to the benefit - maybe a George Cross stitched on overcoats.
Not necessarily, dappy's proposal of a genealogical approach has some merit. After all, even officer candidates for the SS only had to show an uninterrupted Aryan lineage over five generations so it seems excessive to demand more than that from candidates for Englishness. But what if great grandmother cheated on great grandad with a foreigner? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 5, 2023 16:26:02 GMT
The results from such a liaison would show up in a test for deep patrilineal ancestry. We'd obviously be wanting to see that plus a corresponding one for the matrilineal side in addition to the five-generation family tree especially in dubious boundary cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 5, 2023 16:26:34 GMT
Only dipping in and out of this thread, but quite a remarkable statement that the members of the German National football team are not German !! All this thread is is to exploit the unusual constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom to create some identity that is only available to white people and then to suggest that that identity has some form of rights. Its amusing to watch if as it has been done many times before getting a little repetitive. Well take an example from Rugby Union, is Billy Vilapola English or is he Australian. National teams as I have said have rules way beyond any ethnic arguments. Identities exist and are available to everyone except of course the English. Identity has no rights, it exists because people want it to or do not want it to. Either way it cannot belong to some with one definition and yet be denied to others using the same definition parameters. Well with regards to rugby I'd say firstly every tier 1 nation has players who were born abroad but it only seems to be England that get stick for it. If they moved to England as a young child, grew up here and, crucially were developed as a player through our system(s) then for me they are English and can play for England. I realise the rules are a lot more lax than that but that's a global issue in the game. I am not denying anyone their identity,you are attempting to deny me mine. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 5, 2023 16:27:26 GMT
The results from such a liaison would show up in a test for deep patrilineal ancestry. We'd obviously be wanting to see that plus a corresponding one for the matrilineal side in addition to the five-generation family tree especially in dubious boundary cases. And any foreign DNA in your test results and you would renounce your Englishness? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 5, 2023 16:27:52 GMT
I don't think the last is strictly true, it's just that protection under the 'race laws' has never been sought by a person claiming his race, national origin or ethnicity was English. So the legal status of the English as an ethnic group is still yet to be tested in court. Actually I don't think even that is completely correct. I believe there was a case some years ago in Scotland in which an Englishman employed by the BBC claimed he been discriminated against and the claim was upheld. That now forms part of the applicable case law. Yes, that's right. The Court of Session confirmed that there was an English national origin despite English not being a 'formal' nationality. It also considered whether there was an English or Scottish ethnic group and it was decided that the English and Scots fell outside the definition in Mandla which you quoted in part earlier - BBC Scotland v Souster. I do not see how Scots and English fall outside teh scope of Mandla when they based much of their decision on the following definition of ethnic group “The conditions which appear to me to be essential are these: (1) a long shared history, of which the group is conscious as distinguishing it from other groups, and the memory of which it keeps alive; (2) a cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance. In addition to those two essential characteristics the following characteristics are, in my opinion, relevant: (3) either a common geographical origin, or descent from a small number of common ancestors; (4) a common language, not necessarily peculiar to the group; (5) a common literature peculiar to the group; (6) a common religion different from that of neighbouring groups or from the general community surrounding it; (7) being a minority or being an oppressed or a dominant group within a larger community, for example a conquered people (say, the inhabitants of England shortly after the Norman conquest) and their conquerors might both be ethnic groups.” |
|
