I thought that's what I was saying. Isn't the final question basically asking "How on earth could you think that a Paddy was the equal of a Sikh?"
Printable View
Not at all. I said that for 400 years Canada was almost entirely white and that that has changed in the past 40-50 years. However, I specifically said that that did not make me feel alienated in any way and I have never said and would never say that the immigrants to Canada, regardless of colour, are not Canadian.
I don't. I think everyone should do their best to integrate whilst also adding the best of their own culture to the melting pot that is London.
I want us to have, as a base, the continually evolving British identity, whilst also taking on board the best aspects of all the world's cultures. This gives us stuff like Ska/Two Tone, for example.
And "proper sports" isn't an arbitrary or irrational term. Ours are pwoppa, yank ones aren't.
The doorman at Raffles in Singapore is a huge Sikh chap called, bizarrely, Singh. One day I noticed that he was shivering and paler than me. "Singh," I said, "You're clearly not well, you must go home an rest!" He chuckled at my naivety. "It's nothing at all, just an attack of the malaria."
Tough as old boots.
Point taken.
I have a Sikh mate from Huddersfield who now lives in Stokey but has a broad Yorkshire accent. As I said to him, he now lives in a City where no-one cares about his race or religion by everyone will think he speaks funny until the day he dies.
I just object to the idea that his London-accented kids, born of his white, London missus, would be considered less English by some, simply on the basis of their mixed-race skin colour, than some white northerner.
I found it very confusing that the three charming young lads who sat in front of me at th'Emirates back when I used to go looked Asian but spoke Jamaican. For a while I wondered whether they were ethnic Indians who had moved to UK from Kingston or Montego Bay. Turned out they were just young Londoners. :shrug:
We are talking about London, not Britain. We are also not talking about the scale of migration to London but what defines being an indigenous Londoner. I'd also take a note out of your comments regarding Hindus and integration. All ethnic groups have groups within that understand what migrating to a new location brings with it and those that do not or do not care. You can't be 100% that one group understand something better than another
Every minority that moves to a culturally different location, will naturally seek out people that they identify with, regardless of which particular religion or racial group they belong to.
Integration is another term I find almost meaningless in this context.
No, as the Cockney accent was actually an import from Essex. The original, 'London accent' was something closer to today's RP.
And today's Bow Bells equivalent is probably extends to within earshot of the M25. I actually went in St Mary le Bow for the first time the other week. Surprisingly small inside.
London is the capital city of England and the principal city of the United Kingdom. For it not to reflect the wider country in ethnic, cultural or linguistic terms is an anomalous situation to say the least. And, given the degree to which it now fails to reflect the wider country, it is fair comment to argue that it has ceased in those terms at least to be an English city.
I can. I can look at the measure of their group's success or failure as represented by their respective per capita income/crime rates/etc, etc.
I can't really get my head around it as I've always been treated as an outsider by the indigenous population because I'm 100% bogwog, and I'm as white as they come :shrug:
Come to think of it, I still don't understand bread sauce so I'm not properly English really. :-(
more worryingly.
it appears that 1% of London town's population is Jockish :yikes:
https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/l...pare=E12000007
Over the centuries, yes. Over the space of a few years is a quite different matter. This, in fact, is the great divide in our country now - between the big cities and everywhere else, basically. The real England exists outside the cities - a fact reflected constantly in voting patterns.
I would recommend 'The Road To Somewhere' by David Goodhart on this subject.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Road-Somewh.../dp/1849047995
Attachment 1096
..............................
[QUOTE=Burney;4240725]London is the capital city of England and the principal city of the United Kingdom. For it not to reflect the wider country in ethnic, cultural or linguistic terms is an anomalous situation to say the least. And, given the degree to which it now fails to reflect the wider country, it is fair comment to argue that it has ceased in those terms at least to be an English city.[QUOTE]
The point here is that John Cleese said London is no longer an English city. You are saying that it is a fact that there are more non-indigenous people in London than indigenous. You have not provided any basis for this other than what can only amount to a "feeling"
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just challenging your method of determination. Your use of the word integration is almost unquantifiable.
[QUOTE=Alberto Balsam Rodriguez;4240989][QUOTE=Burney;4240725]London is the capital city of England and the principal city of the United Kingdom. For it not to reflect the wider country in ethnic, cultural or linguistic terms is an anomalous situation to say the least. And, given the degree to which it now fails to reflect the wider country, it is fair comment to argue that it has ceased in those terms at least to be an English city.The 2011 Census is the basis for that assertion. Look it up if you don't believe me. :shrug:Quote:
The point here is that John Cleese said London is no longer an English city. You are saying that it is a fact that there are more non-indigenous people in London than indigenous. You have not provided any basis for this other than what can only amount to a "feeling"
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just challenging your method of determination. Your use of the word integration is almost unquantifiable.
The union of the kingdoms of Britain and Ireland. Two countries United under the crown. Just as the current United Kingdom is of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the UK (a nation state). It is not geographically a part of Britain (by definition) nor is it politically a part of Britain because Britain does not exist as a political entity. Its a region of a nation state.
I did say technically.... :)
But - and this is actually the point - the people were Britons. They were British. Unlike Indians or Africans who were colonised, they were British. So therefore their movement from one part of the Kingdom to another cannot be termed immigration any more than it could if people from Yorkshire moved to London.
That again is a technicality. They were not indigenous, they were a different religion, many were not primarily English-speaking. None of that is true of people from Yorkshire (apart from the English speaking part perhaps). Their presence here didn't go down well and they faced a great deal of prejudice. They changed the character of parts of London and other cities and gravitated heavily towards manual work and the construction industry. Sounds familiar doesn't it...?
Fück off, you racist Paddy.
Are you saying that a Maharaja who chose to sign a Subsidiary Alliance with GB, thus making him ruler of an independent state within the British Empire he had willing joined, and who went to Harrow and Oxford and who became and officer and flew planes shooting down the Hun in WW1 is LESS British than some pox-ridden Bogtrotter who got a load of arms off the Germans and tried to stage some Paddy-Prussian revolution that Easter with the express aim of destroying the British empire and handing all the good bits (London, India) to scum like the Hun?
Fück off.
:yawn: That would be the 'bogtrotters' who formed the backbone of the British Army for the 19th Century, would it? Or maybe you mean the ones who built the infrastructure of this country? Or maybe the 210,000 Irishmen who fought for Britain in the First World War? Were they were more British than some pampered wog princeling who happened to know which knife and fork to use? Yes. Yes, they were.
Now píss off back to school you thick ****.
WW2. 2.5m Heroic Indians volunteered to defeat fascism in whichever continent we found it.
How many bogtrotters volunteered? No, they were signing the condolence book when Adolf died.
First British units to stage a conuter-attack in WW1 and hold the ground taken? Oirish Guards? No. The Indian Corps.
What happened when the Oirish and Brittish went into Nepal 200 years ago? Arses handed to them by the Gurkhas.
Indian Mutiny? Oirish and British shîtting themselves (literally - look how Havelock died) before the noble Sikhs and heroic Gurkhas rode to their rescue.
Yet were the Paddies grateful? No. When my boys were heroically fighting in the Middle East they blew up a Dublin post office or something and tried to hand Delhi to the Germans.
Nah, I like ruling them.
The EU and QMV is basically the way we kept up our occupation since the Berlin Wall fell.
We've got our way in these votes far more than Germany has. (Or France, or pretty much anyone else. Like 95% of the time.)
We pool sovereignty in this modern world. I mean, if I have to pool it with Sperzers, Norverners, Taffies and Jocks, why not with Frogs, Hun and Oirish?
As long as we have nukes and they don't, they can never get uppity again.