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

[Burney]

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.

Isn't that interesting? When you speak about Toronto, you speak of it being 50% immigrants and then contrast it with Canada's white history.
The obvious conclusion being that you instinctively equate the word 'immigrant' with the condition of not being white.

[WES]

Isn't that interesting? When you speak about Toronto, you speak of it being 50% immigrants and then contrast it with Canada's white history.
The obvious conclusion being that you instinctively equate the word 'immigrant' with the condition of not being white.

Yes, my experience in Toronto is that immigrants are almost entirely non-white. Other than the odd Brit I don't think I ever met any immigrants in Toronto that were not white. Not sure what your point is, actually.

[Burney]

Yes, my experience in Toronto is that immigrants are almost entirely non-white. Other than the odd Brit I don't think I ever met any immigrants in Toronto that were not white. Not sure what your point is, actually.

You are conceding that there is such a thing as a 'white country' - even after just a couple of hundred years - and are instinctively 'othering' those who don't fit that template. You may not be doing it negatively, but you are doing it. That instinct (in a larger form) is precisely what makes people feel alienated when the ethnicity of their city or country changes significantly.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

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?

Bøllocks. It's all about accent to me.

If someone speaks London, then are more London that someone who doesn't, irrespective of skin colour.

If you've got a black man with a cockney accent, a Sikh with a cockney accent and a white man with a Manc accent, which one should be sent to the camps? Not rocket science.

Some of us are bright enough to know that most of us have some non-native blood in us somewhere, and it's no different if that blood comes from Europe or a non-white place, as long as they speak and sound like the norm.

We are living in an increasingly globalised world and in 1,000 years most people will be coffee coloured.

Mum mum has some German blood. My beloved has some Italian. Why would a black Londoner be less English than us if he speaks with London accent?

And yes, the Anglo-Indian caste is considered Indian, by the public and by the constitution. But you can't really use India as an example for two reasons.

Firstly, they don't have as multicultural country as we do. And secondly, they are really racist against black people. I tried to go into a cheap bar with a Nigerian mate 20 years ago in Delhi. I was dressed like a crusty, he was dressed in shirt sleeves and suit trousers, looking smart. I could get in, he couldn't.

But who really thinks everyone here who's white is fully British? Aren't you a Paddy? Why is that better than a black man or a Sikh?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

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.

Blacks and Indians play proper sports. Yanks don't. So I know which one I wouldn't be able to integrate with.

I watched the 2011 CWC final in Guresh and Karla Patel's corner shop off Brixton Hill, with their family, another Indian and a West Indian. Any Septics there? No. So they don't make the effort to integrate and should fück off back where they came from.

[Burney]

Bøllocks. It's all about accent to me.

If someone speaks London, then are more London that someone who doesn't, irrespective of skin colour.

If you've got a black man with a cockney accent, a Sikh with a cockney accent and a white man with a Manc accent, which one should be sent to the camps? Not rocket science.

Some of us are bright enough to know that most of us have some non-native blood in us somewhere, and it's no different if that blood comes from Europe or a non-white place, as long as they speak and sound like the norm.

We are living in an increasingly globalised world and in 1,000 years most people will be coffee coloured.

Mum mum has some German blood. My beloved has some Italian. Why would a black Londoner be less English than us if he speaks with London accent?

And yes, the Anglo-Indian caste is considered Indian, by the public and by the constitution. But you can't really use India as an example for two reasons.

Firstly, they don't have as multicultural country as we do. And secondly, they are really racist against black people. I tried to go into a cheap bar with a Nigerian mate 20 years ago in Delhi. I was dressed like a crusty, he was dressed in shirt sleeves and suit trousers, looking smart. I could get in, he couldn't.

But who really thinks everyone here who's white is fully British? Aren't you a Paddy? Why is that better than a black man or a Sikh?

But we didn't ask for a multicultural country. We had one imposed on us.

And nobody said anything about 'better'.

By the way, I do love it when white people claim not to care about ethnicity. It's such a fúcking lie.

[Sir C]

Bøllocks. It's all about accent to me.


But who really thinks everyone here who's white is fully British? Aren't you a Paddy? Why is that better than a black man or a Sikh?

Woooah, slow down there big boy. You can't compare Paddies to Sikhs. Sikhs are proud, dignified, natural warriors. Paddies are spud-munching alcoholic wife abusers.

[Burney]

Blacks and Indians play proper sports. Yanks don't. So I know which one I wouldn't be able to integrate with.

I watched the 2011 CWC final in Guresh and Karla Patel's corner shop off Brixton Hill, with their family, another Indian and a West Indian. Any Septics there? No. So they don't make the effort to integrate and should fück off back where they came from.

I'm sure you'd accept that these terms are utterly arbitrary and irrational. Given which, why would you decry reasons for refusing to integrate based on race that are equally (or possibly less) arbitrary and irrational?

[bbrian]

Woooah, slow down there big boy. You can't compare Paddies to Sikhs. Sikhs are proud, dignified, natural warriors. Paddies are spud-munching alcoholic wife abusers.

Nice one Sir C...maybe that'll drag Mr Williams back onboard!

[Burney]

Woooah, slow down there big boy. You can't compare Paddies to Sikhs. Sikhs are proud, dignified, natural warriors. Paddies are spud-munching alcoholic wife abusers.

Sikhs are pretty mental, tbh. And I've seen them make short work of a bottle of Scotch.