I see John Cleese has unleashed a shítstorm by the simple expedient of stating a fact

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

Wow. You just said that non-white people can't be English. Interesting.

---

No different to Jez saying London born and bred Jews aren't really English, tbf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Being home to foreign settlers and them and their children being in the overwhelming majority are two very different things.

And this country's 'melting pot' history is largely balls, btw. Up until the mid-20th century, the ethnic make-up of this country was massively homogeneous.

---

Hang on, don't move the goalposts. We are talking about London. There were black immigrants in London in the 18th century. The 19th and early 20th century saw large scale immigration from Ireland and European Jewry, many of whom didn't speak English as a first language and were certainly not treated as homogenous arrivals.

If we are going to restrict it to skin colour then it is starting to feel a little 'race-based'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

Wow. You just said that non-white people can't be English. Interesting.

---

No... he said they weren't indigenous. Which is true.

However, he did say a lack of indigenous people means London isn't an English city. Of course, it is and it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

So if it was full of yanks and aussies it would be ok? But not black people who have lived here for four generations? That makes it a non English city?

---

In terms of integration, yes, it would be preferable. Failing that, it would be better if it were white, Christian Europeans. The reason being that such groups for cultural and religious reasons tend to integrate more successfully into a white, Christian, European culture. In fact, such groups integrate so successfully that they are largely indistinguishable from the indigenous population within a generation.

Let's not pretend race is not a factor in emphasising difference. It is - indeed is encouraged as such by much of the woke left. So you can't really blame white British people if they feel alienated in the city in which their forebears have lived for hundreds of years because the ethnic and racial make-up of that city have changed so precipitously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

No... he said they weren't indigenous. Which is true.

However, he did say a lack of indigenous people means London isn't an English city. Of course, it is and it isn't.

---

He said that London is not an English city because the majority of people are not white. Hardly an enormous logical leap to non-white people not being English. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Being home to foreign settlers and them and their children being in the overwhelming majority are two very different things.

And this country's 'melting pot' history is largely balls, btw. Up until the mid-20th century, the ethnic make-up of this country was massively homogeneous.

---

:nono: Plenty of furrins, like some of my ancestors, came to London in the 19th Century because of the trade links. Then the Huge Knots (probably another ancestor there) 150+ years before that seeking life & liberty free from savage persecution. :-)

That said, 36% foreign born is quite high. Probably more than that by now, in fact, judging by how surprised I sometimes am to hear English being spoken. NTTAWWT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

Why should skin colour make a difference?

Why should the London born and bred descendant of a white European immigrant be considered more English than a London born and bred black chap? That's racism, pure and simple.

---

Let's not be naive. Because racial difference matters when it comes to integration and integration is the key to successful immigation. The child of white Euro immigrants is indistinguishable from the natives in a generation. The black guy is not. There is a clear visual clue that his forebears did not come from these islands and in a country that is still 87% white, that matters.

If you want to call it racism, fine. But switch the roles. Would a white person in Delhi be considered Indian by the rest of the population because he could trace his ancestry back a few generations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Hang on, don't move the goalposts. We are talking about London. There were black immigrants in London in the 18th century. The 19th and early 20th century saw large scale immigration from Ireland and European Jewry, many of whom didn't speak English as a first language and were certainly not treated as homogenous arrivals.

If we are going to restrict it to skin colour then it is starting to feel a little 'race-based'

---

I wouldn't restrict it to skin colour. There are very successful immigrant groups who are non-white - the Hindus being the best example. However, their success has been based on strenuous efforts to integrate with the indigenous culture.

And those 'large scale' immigrations you mention are nothing - NOTHING - on the scale of what has happened in London since 1997.

Also, it's worth noting that Irish people were actually British in the 19th and early 20th century - so not immigrants. You Brits forget that so easily. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Let's not be naive. Because racial difference matters when it comes to integration and integration is the key to successful immigation. The child of white Euro immigrants is indistinguishable from the natives in a generation. The black guy is not. There is a clear visual clue that his forebears did not come from these islands and in a country that is still 87% white, that matters.

If you want to call it racism, fine. But switch the roles. Would a white person in Delhi be considered Indian by the rest of the population because he could trace his ancestry back a few generations?

---

I don't think it's racist to make the point you're making, actually. I would reserve the use of that term for something more significant.

I don't agree with your view that people might feel alienated because they live in a different looking world than their forebears. We have no idea how are ancestors felt as we didn't grow up with them, and in their circumstances. Alienation would have to be part of your own personal experience, I think. And I grew up in an entirely white town but when I moved to Toronto I loved it and felt in no way alienated. And I'm also not buying the land of immigrants theory. Canada was first settled in the 16th century and for over 400 years was almost entirely white European and the change in Toronto is relatively recent i.e the past 30-40 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

:nono: Plenty of furrins, like some of my ancestors, came to London in the 19th Century because of the trade links. Then the Huge Knots (probably another ancestor there) 150+ years before that seeking life & liberty free from savage persecution. :-)

That said, 36% foreign born is quite high. Probably more than that by now, in fact, judging by how surprised I sometimes am to hear English being spoken. NTTAWWT!

---

Yes, but as I pointed out to p, those waves of immigration were tiny in comparison to the immigration that has taken place in the last 25 years.

And whether there is anything wrong with it is not the question. There is certainly something remarkable about it and it hardly seems unreasonable for someone to conclude that when English is customarily not being heard in a city, that that city may not be English anymore.