A continually evolving identity is not an identity at all. It is, in fact, the denial of identity.
Printable View
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