|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 7, 2023 11:36:13 GMT
But it isn't the ethnic English who are under attack here. I'm under attack from you and others attempting to deny me my Englishness. That's your choice, your actions, it's got nothing to do with anyone else. Me and mine have done nothing to you but you go out of your way to pick a fight with us because of an accident of birth. I'll ask for the third time, how do you think it would be received if I went into your local and started telling people in my English accent who could and couldn't call themselves Scottish? If you fail to answer again I'll take it as an indication on your part that you have conceded the point. There you go you will not accept that the English are under attack yet as a group in the main that is what they feel. Any group that feels under attack is considered and sympathised with throughout the world except the English, it does not matter if some of that group think it is bunkum a goodly proportion accept it is the case. I have not said you are not anything I have said you are different from people with English Heritage as you claim Irish heritage. That is your own claim, I did not make it. To answer directly your rather fatuous query it is really irrelevant as it depends on many things. I can answer one point as regards that though there is a fairly large swathe of Scots of Irish ancestry who still regard themselves as Irish and most certainly not British. So some might say 'I never said I was Scots'. Perhaps it takes a specific living in the west of Scotland to understand some of this and it manifests itself in the football teams and how some people will not have green on the house and some will not have blue. Now this is on personal experience as I handcraft certain items and I have to have a selection of blue or green for any one item and the discrimination is openly stated. The only English person on this thread who's identity has been under attack is me as far as I can see, from you and others. As an Englishman I'll also thank you not to speak for me. Unless you're now saying that I am English and have every right to call myself such? The reason for my "fatuous query" was to offer you an opportunity to see things from my perspective. You don't see me telling you what your national identity is do you? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 7, 2023 11:37:59 GMT
...An example, my wife is English, we live in Scotland, a few years back she had to fill in a question on a medical form to define her ethnicity. There was a multitude of choices revolving around mixes of British, Welsh, Scots, white, black, Asian. There was no English the only box she could tick was 'other British'. They had to delay the out patient procedure till her blood pressure came down. That was relegating some 60% of the British population to also rans. It is no different to calling the Australian Aborigines 'other Australians'. I believe they have changed that paper now There doesn't appear to have been much change in the official mindset regarding the status of English residents in Scotland. According to the last census they are on a par with Poles, Gypsies and Roma.
I believe the NHS in Scotland changed their form, I did the census online and I do not recall that question, maybe I refused to fill it in, I cannot remember now it might be an age thing. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 7, 2023 11:45:05 GMT
There you go you will not accept that the English are under attack yet as a group in the main that is what they feel. Any group that feels under attack is considered and sympathised with throughout the world except the English, it does not matter if some of that group think it is bunkum a goodly proportion accept it is the case. I have not said you are not anything I have said you are different from people with English Heritage as you claim Irish heritage. That is your own claim, I did not make it. To answer directly your rather fatuous query it is really irrelevant as it depends on many things. I can answer one point as regards that though there is a fairly large swathe of Scots of Irish ancestry who still regard themselves as Irish and most certainly not British. So some might say 'I never said I was Scots'. Perhaps it takes a specific living in the west of Scotland to understand some of this and it manifests itself in the football teams and how some people will not have green on the house and some will not have blue. Now this is on personal experience as I handcraft certain items and I have to have a selection of blue or green for any one item and the discrimination is openly stated. The only English person on this thread who's identity has been under attack is me as far as I can see, from you and others. Unless you're now saying that I am English and have every right to call myself such? The reason for my "fatuous query" was to offer you an opportunity to see things from my perspective. You don't see me telling you what your national identity is do you? Your identity is not under attack as you clearly state you are English with Irish heritage, what is under attack, no one says you cannot be that as that is your own chosen determiner for what you are. However what you want is to be identical to English people with English heritage if push came to shove, and all that is being pointed out, by your own definition, you are not the same. I raised the point that many Scots of Irish ancestry in Scotland do not regard themselves as Scots but regard themselves as Irish. All of these things are not a specific problem unless of course one group is stated not to exist and that is what is being done to the ethnic English that is those of English heritage. Why is that so complicated? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 7, 2023 12:08:28 GMT
The only English person on this thread who's identity has been under attack is me as far as I can see, from you and others. Unless you're now saying that I am English and have every right to call myself such? The reason for my "fatuous query" was to offer you an opportunity to see things from my perspective. You don't see me telling you what your national identity is do you? Your identity is not under attack as you clearly state you are English with Irish heritage, what is under attack, no one says you cannot be that as that is your own chosen determiner for what you are. However what you want is to be identical to English people with English heritage if push came to shove, and all that is being pointed out, by your own definition, you are not the same. I raised the point that many Scots of Irish ancestry in Scotland do not regard themselves as Scots but regard themselves as Irish. All of these things are not a specific problem unless of course one group is stated not to exist and that is what is being done to the ethnic English that is those of English heritage. Why is that so complicated? I'm an Englishman, as English as anyone else. I also happen to have Irish heritage, that doesn't stop me being English. Nobody on this thread is denying the existence of the ethnic English, you and others are still denying me my national identity. You are glaring into a mirror. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 7, 2023 12:19:01 GMT
The only English person on this thread who's identity has been under attack is me as far as I can see, from you and others. Unless you're now saying that I am English and have every right to call myself such? The reason for my "fatuous query" was to offer you an opportunity to see things from my perspective. You don't see me telling you what your national identity is do you? Your identity is not under attack as you clearly state you are English with Irish heritage, what is under attack, no one says you cannot be that as that is your own chosen determiner for what you are. However what you want is to be identical to English people with English heritage if push came to shove, and all that is being pointed out, by your own definition, you are not the same. I raised the point that many Scots of Irish ancestry in Scotland do not regard themselves as Scots but regard themselves as Irish. All of these things are not a specific problem unless of course one group is stated not to exist and that is what is being done to the ethnic English that is those of English heritage. Why is that so complicated? We have had 21 pages now of dancing around. Per haps I could ask you to be very clear You want a special class of people living in our country - for sake of clarity they should be the "ethnic english" To qualify to be "ethnic english" you need to be pureblood english over at least five generations - one say scottish great grandparent forces you out of the "ethnic english" category into presumably a "mixed ethnic" category. You think the "ethnic english" should be treated differently to non-ethnic english people "if push comes to shove". Could you give some examples of what circumstances would push be regarded as shove and in those circumstances in what way should the "ethnic english" and "mixed ethnic" people be treated differently |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 7, 2023 12:21:57 GMT
Your identity is not under attack as you clearly state you are English with Irish heritage, what is under attack, no one says you cannot be that as that is your own chosen determiner for what you are. However what you want is to be identical to English people with English heritage if push came to shove, and all that is being pointed out, by your own definition, you are not the same. I raised the point that many Scots of Irish ancestry in Scotland do not regard themselves as Scots but regard themselves as Irish. All of these things are not a specific problem unless of course one group is stated not to exist and that is what is being done to the ethnic English that is those of English heritage. Why is that so complicated? I'm an Englishman, as English as anyone else. I also happen to have Irish heritage, that doesn't stop me being English. Nobody on this thread is denying the existence of the ethnic English, you and others are still denying me my national identity. You are glaring into a mirror. To my recall I have not said you are not English, I have said your are not ethnic English which was under discussion, in fact to my recall you said the ethnic English did not exist and every person born in England and took on board English culture was as English as the next person. This definition does not apply to any other ethnic group anywhere. I did try to say that that would not apply in Australia, you would not be ethnically Jewish if you were born in Israel and took on the local customs and cultures. We are dealing with a reality as opposed to wishful thinking but you keep saying the same thing that people are denying you being English, that is only true in the sense that if English is an ethnic group and in the context of the discussion that is exactly what is being said, then you are not ethnic English. That is not a criticism that is just a straightforward fact based on your own statements as regards what you are. Why so irate at people agreeing with you as regards what you are. It seems to me that you want to be English with a special heritage claim, but deny anyone the right who is English, who does not have a special heritage claim, to be different |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 7, 2023 12:32:09 GMT
Your identity is not under attack as you clearly state you are English with Irish heritage, what is under attack, no one says you cannot be that as that is your own chosen determiner for what you are. However what you want is to be identical to English people with English heritage if push came to shove, and all that is being pointed out, by your own definition, you are not the same. I raised the point that many Scots of Irish ancestry in Scotland do not regard themselves as Scots but regard themselves as Irish. All of these things are not a specific problem unless of course one group is stated not to exist and that is what is being done to the ethnic English that is those of English heritage. Why is that so complicated? We have had 21 pages now of dancing around. Per haps I could ask you to be very clear You want a special class of people living in our country - for sake of clarity they should be the "ethnic english" To qualify to be "ethnic english" you need to be pureblood english over at least five generations - one say scottish great grandparent forces you out of the "ethnic english" category into presumably a "mixed ethnic" category. You think the "ethnic english" should be treated differently to non-ethnic english people "if push comes to shove". Could you give some examples of what circumstances would push be regarded as shove and in those circumstances in what way should the "ethnic english" and "mixed ethnic" people be treated differently I have not said that at all, what I have clearly and concisely said is that ethnic English people exist. I have not said they should have special rights or are better, or significantly different but they do exist. Just as Australian aborigines exist or Native Americans exist and no one would say they did not exist and people are demanding and giving those groups special rights all the time. I have not made any such demands and have been quite clear in how I believe an ethnic group should be defined which is largly in in line with the Mandla judgement. A person in my view can be ethnically English and have no trace of any English DNA at all, all that is required is that he believes he is English in total, does not claim to be anything else and is not believed to be anything else by the bulk of the ethnic English. It is a definition that is all, however it is important as they are being denigrated as not existing and in some quarters if they do exist not worth saving. We would never accept that outlook for any other group. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 7, 2023 12:40:00 GMT
I'm an Englishman, as English as anyone else. I also happen to have Irish heritage, that doesn't stop me being English. Nobody on this thread is denying the existence of the ethnic English, you and others are still denying me my national identity. You are glaring into a mirror. To my recall I have not said you are not English, I have said your are not ethnic English which was under discussion, in fact to my recall you said the ethnic English did not exist and every person born in England and took on board English culture was as English as the next person. This definition does not apply to any other ethnic group anywhere. I did try to say that that would not apply in Australia, you would not be ethnically Jewish if you were born in Israel and took on the local customs and cultures. We are dealing with a reality as opposed to wishful thinking but you keep saying the same thing that people are denying you being English, that is only true in the sense that if English is an ethnic group and in the context of the discussion that is exactly what is being said, then you are not ethnic English. That is not a criticism that is just a straightforward fact based on your own statements as regards what you are. Why so irate at people agreeing with you as regards what you are. It seems to me that you want to be English with a special heritage claim, but deny anyone the right who is English, who does not have a special heritage claim, to be different Do you accept I am English, yes or no? I've never denied the existence of ethnic English people, I said Englishness isn't an ethnicity. Saying apples are not oranges is not denying the existence of apples. I've never claimed to be ethnically English, ethnicity and nationality are two different things. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 7, 2023 12:44:25 GMT
As I understand it, based on the criteria advocated by some on this thread, Winston Churchill wasn't English.
Neither is Boris Johnson.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 7, 2023 12:53:08 GMT
We have had 21 pages now of dancing around. Per haps I could ask you to be very clear You want a special class of people living in our country - for sake of clarity they should be the "ethnic english" To qualify to be "ethnic english" you need to be pureblood english over at least five generations - one say scottish great grandparent forces you out of the "ethnic english" category into presumably a "mixed ethnic" category. You think the "ethnic english" should be treated differently to non-ethnic english people "if push comes to shove". Could you give some examples of what circumstances would push be regarded as shove and in those circumstances in what way should the "ethnic english" and "mixed ethnic" people be treated differently I have not said that at all, what I have clearly and concisely said is that ethnic English people exist. I have not said they should have special rights or are better, or significantly different but they do exist. Just as Australian aborigines exist or Native Americans exist and no one would say they did not exist and people are demanding and giving those groups special rights all the time. I have not made any such demands and have been quite clear in how I believe an ethnic group should be defined which is largly in in line with the Mandla judgement. A person in my view can be ethnically English and have no trace of any English DNA at all, all that is required is that he believes he is English in total, does not claim to be anything else and is not believed to be anything else by the bulk of the ethnic English. It is a definition that is all, however it is important as they are being denigrated as not existing and in some quarters if they do exist not worth saving. We would never accept that outlook for any other group. Not sure what the comment about "if push comes to shove" was about if you were not intending to stake out different rights for those you consider ethnically english and those you don't. As long as any British person living in England is entitled to consider themselves English if they want and that regardless all citizens of the UK should have exactly the same rights, obligations and ownership of their country, not sure exactly what the issue is. I presume that I who consider myself both British and English (but if anything more British than English) are not excluded from your definition |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 7, 2023 12:56:37 GMT
To my recall I have not said you are not English, I have said your are not ethnic English which was under discussion, in fact to my recall you said the ethnic English did not exist and every person born in England and took on board English culture was as English as the next person. This definition does not apply to any other ethnic group anywhere. I did try to say that that would not apply in Australia, you would not be ethnically Jewish if you were born in Israel and took on the local customs and cultures. We are dealing with a reality as opposed to wishful thinking but you keep saying the same thing that people are denying you being English, that is only true in the sense that if English is an ethnic group and in the context of the discussion that is exactly what is being said, then you are not ethnic English. That is not a criticism that is just a straightforward fact based on your own statements as regards what you are. Why so irate at people agreeing with you as regards what you are. It seems to me that you want to be English with a special heritage claim, but deny anyone the right who is English, who does not have a special heritage claim, to be different Do you accept I am English, yes or no? I've never denied the existence of ethnic English people, I said Englishness isn't an ethnicity. Saying apples are not oranges is not denying the existence of apples. I've never claimed to be ethnically English, ethnicity and nationality are two different things. Well let us just refresh ourselves with what you said that started the ball rolling. "English isn't an ethnicity, it's a culture, if you're born and raised in England and speak with an English accent you're English." I have to say this is where it all began. If English is not an ethnicity and only a culture and an accent then you are saying, and have said, that the ethnic English do not exist. It is wanting English to be only what you say it is that gives rise to the problems in the discussion.You bought into the modern attempt to denigrate the existence of the ethnic English. Your statement supports David Lammy's view that he is English which to all intents and purposes is nonsense. People being away from their homeland and living in the homeland of others is widely understood to be happening and accepted as happening worldwide it does not make anyone living in those areas of that ethnicity. To answer your question directly yes you are English but no you are not ethnically English and if the two become confused then it is reasonable for you to move over and allow the English to have their own ethnic identity as just English as I would roll over if the same was happening in Scotland whose time will come of course, they just do not realise it yet. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 7, 2023 13:03:20 GMT
Do you accept I am English, yes or no? I've never denied the existence of ethnic English people, I said Englishness isn't an ethnicity. Saying apples are not oranges is not denying the existence of apples. I've never claimed to be ethnically English, ethnicity and nationality are two different things. Well let us just refresh ourselves with what you said that started the ball rolling. "English isn't an ethnicity, it's a culture, if you're born and raised in England and speak with an English accent you're English." I have to say this is where it all began. If English is not an ethnicity and only a culture and an accent then you are saying, and have said, that the ethnic English do not exist. It is wanting English to be only what you say it is that gives rise to the problems in the discussion.You bought into the modern attempt to denigrate the existence of the ethnic English. Your statement supports David Lammy's view that he is English which to all intents and purposes is nonsense. People being away from their homeland and living in the homeland of others is widely understood to be happening and accepted as happening worldwide it does not make anyone living in those areas of that ethnicity. To answer your question directly yes you are English but no you are not ethnically English and if the two become confused then it is reasonable for you to move over and allow the English to have their own ethnic identity as just English as I would roll over if the same was happening in Scotland whose time will come of course, they just do not realise it yet. At no point did I say that English ethnicity did not exist. It does. I said English is not an ethnicity and I stand by that, it is a culture, a language, customs, traditions, a way of life. Do you deny the existence of English culture? I have no problem whatsoever with recognising ethnic English people. I do have a problem with them using their ethnic English status as an excuse to deny me my English identity. Why is David Lammy being English nonsense? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 7, 2023 13:05:11 GMT
I have not said that at all, what I have clearly and concisely said is that ethnic English people exist. I have not said they should have special rights or are better, or significantly different but they do exist. Just as Australian aborigines exist or Native Americans exist and no one would say they did not exist and people are demanding and giving those groups special rights all the time. I have not made any such demands and have been quite clear in how I believe an ethnic group should be defined which is largly in in line with the Mandla judgement. A person in my view can be ethnically English and have no trace of any English DNA at all, all that is required is that he believes he is English in total, does not claim to be anything else and is not believed to be anything else by the bulk of the ethnic English. It is a definition that is all, however it is important as they are being denigrated as not existing and in some quarters if they do exist not worth saving. We would never accept that outlook for any other group. Not sure what the comment about "if push comes to shove" was about if you were not intending to stake out different rights for those you consider ethnically english and those you don't. As long as any British person living in England is entitled to consider themselves English if they want and that regardless all citizens of the UK should have exactly the same rights, obligations and ownership of their country, not sure exactly what the issue is. I presume that I who consider myself both British and English (but if anything more British than English) are not excluded from your definition Check the definition, the point is the ethnicity of being English depends on two party acceptance. All I have said from day one is that teh ethnic English exist, and if they wish that term to be English then as a self defining group that should be as is allowed to any other ethnic group all over the world. If there is no potential for problems then having an identity is of little importance, there is always that potential for identity, as it is held as extremely important by the left in general unless it is English and then it is pooh-poohed as either of no consequence or non existent. This seems to be leftish hypocrisy at work. As evidenced here that the English do not exist other than accents and people born here which is a nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 7, 2023 13:09:49 GMT
We have had 21 pages now of dancing around. Per haps I could ask you to be very clear You want a special class of people living in our country - for sake of clarity they should be the "ethnic english" To qualify to be "ethnic english" you need to be pureblood english over at least five generations - one say scottish great grandparent forces you out of the "ethnic english" category into presumably a "mixed ethnic" category. You think the "ethnic english" should be treated differently to non-ethnic english people "if push comes to shove". Could you give some examples of what circumstances would push be regarded as shove and in those circumstances in what way should the "ethnic english" and "mixed ethnic" people be treated differently I have not said that at all, what I have clearly and concisely said is that ethnic English people exist. I have not said they should have special rights or are better, or significantly different but they do exist. Just as Australian aborigines exist or Native Americans exist and no one would say they did not exist and people are demanding and giving those groups special rights all the time. I have not made any such demands and have been quite clear in how I believe an ethnic group should be defined which is largly in in line with the Mandla judgement. A person in my view can be ethnically English and have no trace of any English DNA at all, all that is required is that he believes he is English in total, does not claim to be anything else and is not believed to be anything else by the bulk of the ethnic English. It is a definition that is all, however it is important as they are being denigrated as not existing and in some quarters if they do exist not worth saving. We would never accept that outlook for any other group. By your definition the hypothetical kid I mentioned earlier who has two ethnic English parents but was born and raised in France, never set foot in England and doesn't speak a word of English, would not be English. Agreed? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 7, 2023 13:11:28 GMT
Not sure what the comment about "if push comes to shove" was about if you were not intending to stake out different rights for those you consider ethnically english and those you don't. As long as any British person living in England is entitled to consider themselves English if they want and that regardless all citizens of the UK should have exactly the same rights, obligations and ownership of their country, not sure exactly what the issue is. I presume that I who consider myself both British and English (but if anything more British than English) are not excluded from your definition Check the definition, the point is the ethnicity of being English depends on two party acceptance. All I have said from day one is that teh ethnic English exist, and if they wish that term to be English then as a self defining group that should be as is allowed to any other ethnic group all over the world. If there is no potential for problems then having an identity is of little importance, there is always that potential for identity, as it is held as extremely important by the left in general unless it is English and then it is pooh-poohed as either of no consequence or non existent. This seems to be leftish hypocrisy at work. As evidenced here that the English do not exist other than accents and people born here which is a nonsense. It is a nonsense because in the context of the discussion and in the right of an ethnicity to self identify he isn't. Unless you are saying ethnic groups cannot self identify and must adhere to what you say which is rather dictatorial and a denial of any other group that self identifies. Kurds cannot call themselves Kurds as an ethic group because that includes everyone who lives in Kurdistan regions so they must call themselves something else. It does not work like that. |
|
