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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

:rolleyes:

Non-indigenous does not mean foreign-born.

And, by the way, 36.7% of your capital's population being foreign-born is an absolutely fúcking massive number. And, given our immigration rates over the last 8 years, plus white flight, plus the fact that the vast majority of migrants will gravitate to London because that's where the jobs are, a rate of 50% is by no means out of the question by the time of the next census in 2021.

---

What does it mean in this context then? Non-white? Non-white and non Anglo Saxon?

I'm afraid I can only take it seriously if it was intended to mean foreign born. Otherwise it's just a silly, antiquated thought process imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

:rolleyes:

Non-indigenous does not mean foreign-born.

And, by the way, 36.7% of your capital's population being foreign-born is an absolutely fúcking massive number. And, given our immigration rates over the last 8 years, plus white flight, plus the fact that the vast majority of migrants will gravitate to London because that's where the jobs are, a rate of 50% is by no means out of the question by the time of the next census in 2021.

---

What do we define as non-indigenous?

London has been home to foreign settlers for centuries. Where do we draw the line as saying that non-indigenous becomes indigenous?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

:rolleyes:

Non-indigenous does not mean foreign-born.

And, by the way, 36.7% of your capital's population being foreign-born is an absolutely fúcking massive number. And, given our immigration rates over the last 8 years, plus white flight, plus the fact that the vast majority of migrants will gravitate to London because that's where the jobs are, a rate of 50% is by no means out of the question by the time of the next census in 2021.

---

BTW, Toronto has been pretty close to 50% immigrants for years and is still one of best cities I have ever been to in terms of standard of living so I fail to see how the stat is relevant to anything. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

What does it mean in this context then? Non-white? Non-white and non Anglo Saxon?

I'm afraid I can only take it seriously if it was intended to mean foreign born. Otherwise it's just a silly, antiquated thought process imo.

---

It's not a tough concept to grasp. The indigenous peoples of this nation are white and speak English as a first language. Such people make up 87% of the country's population. That they should now be in a significant minority in their nation's capital is an extraordinary thing. That such change has occurred in just 60 or 70 years is mind-blowing. The tendency to try and dismiss people who express concern or disquiet at such staggering demographic change as racist or antiquated is dishonest. Cleese is correct. London is no longer predominantly inhabited by indigenous (ie white and speaking English as a first language) people. Thus, London is no longer an English city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alberto Balsam Rodriguez

What do we define as non-indigenous?

London has been home to foreign settlers for centuries. Where do we draw the line as saying that non-indigenous becomes indigenous?

---

Which is where it stops being a fact and becomes completely reliant on subjective parameters. For instance, how do you factor in northerners? They shouldn't be here....

That said, 36% foreign born is quite high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alberto Balsam Rodriguez

What do we define as non-indigenous?

London has been home to foreign settlers for centuries. Where do we draw the line as saying that non-indigenous becomes indigenous?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

It's not a tough concept to grasp. The indigenous peoples of this nation are white and speak English as a first language. Such people make up 87% of the country's population. That they should now be in a significant minority in their nation's capital is an extraordinary thing. That such change has occurred in just 60 or 70 years is mind-blowing. The tendency to try and dismiss people who express concern or disquiet at such staggering demographic change as racist or antiquated is dishonest. Cleese is correct. London is no longer predominantly inhabited by indigenous (ie white and speaking English as a first language) people. Thus, London is no longer an English city.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

BTW, Toronto has been pretty close to 50% immigrants for years and is still one of best cities I have ever been to in terms of standard of living so I fail to see how the stat is relevant to anything. :shrug:

---

This rather ignores the fact that Canada is a country founded by immigration. The UK is not. Not comparable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

It's not a tough concept to grasp. The indigenous peoples of this nation are white and speak English as a first language. Such people make up 87% of the country's population. That they should now be in a significant minority in their nation's capital is an extraordinary thing. That such change has occurred in just 60 or 70 years is mind-blowing. The tendency to try and dismiss people who express concern or disquiet at such staggering demographic change as racist or antiquated is dishonest. Cleese is correct. London is no longer predominantly inhabited by indigenous (ie white and speaking English as a first language) people. Thus, London is no longer an English city.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

It's not a tough concept to grasp. The indigenous peoples of this nation are white and speak English as a first language. Such people make up 87% of the country's population. That they should now be in a significant minority in their nation's capital is an extraordinary thing. That such change has occurred in just 60 or 70 years is mind-blowing. The tendency to try and dismiss people who express concern or disquiet at such staggering demographic change as racist or antiquated is dishonest. Cleese is correct. London is no longer predominantly inhabited by indigenous (ie white and speaking English as a first language) people. Thus, London is no longer an English city.

---

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.