by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,2271,2281,2291,2301,2311,2321,233. . .1,8871,888»

Sordica wrote:A chance for the UK to exist Northern Ireland and Scotland
;)
Hopefully they give back all the sh*t they stole from us in India

Just out of curiosity who is the "us" in this sentence? France? India? Canada? Communists? Socialists? Titoists? I'm rather legitimately confused.

Harkain wrote:Just out of curiosity who is the "us" in this sentence? France? India? Canada? Communists? Socialists? Titoists? I'm rather legitimately confused.

My family is from India, and the brits stole A sh*t from India.

Sordica wrote:My family is from India, and the brits stole A sh*t from India.

I think they stole a lot from a lot people when they were a colonial era. To make matters worse said objects now have some cultural value to them as memories of their as a global superpower meaning they'll be rather reluctant to give them back.

Also in a vaguely relevant note for an English extension assessment I'm doing a post-colonial reading of hearts of darkness and apocalypse now and then looking at how apocalypse now has appropriated hearts of darkness... If anyone(well anyone who knows what I'm going on about...) could send me sources on what Post-Colonial critique is that would be much appreciated.

Harkain wrote:I think they stole a lot from a lot people when they were a colonial era.

Pretty ironic that we now complain about everyone else coming into our country, right?

The new World Census graphs on here look great with "Average income of the rich" :P

Adaia wrote:Pretty ironic that we now complain about everyone else coming into our country, right?

Colonialism does not justify the replacement of the native British people.
It is an argument against allowing it to happen, if anything.

The appropriate way to mend what happened is to give support to countries damaged by British colonialism. The Commonwealth of Nations should help nations invest in each other's infrastructure and economic development imo.

Sunthreit wrote:Colonialism does not justify the replacement of the native British people.

There's no such thing as the native British people, and even if there were there's no reason whatsoever that they'd have a greater right to live here than anyone else.

Quensatango

Adaia wrote:There's no such thing as the native British people

Tell me something.
Are the Zulus and similar tribes native South African people?

Sunthreit wrote:Tell me something.
Are the Zulus and similar tribes native South African people?

Dunno, when'd they get there?

Adaia wrote:Dunno, when'd they get there?

Early centuries AD

Sunthreit wrote:Early centuries AD

Then yeah, I guess they have a pretty good claim, though they're hardly especially comparable to the historically heterogeneous population of Britain. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you really feel that you have a better grasp of what Britain's like than I do: Modern British culture is as much "immigrant" culture as much as it is whatever you imagine to be "native". And, it has to be said, there's little comparable between colonisation and immigration within an existing society.

Oh god, everyone brace yourselves for arbitrary distinctions.
(From memory this arguement can get very subjective/arbitrary...)
From what I can tell the only ways to define it in a more concrete way are
-Generational(born their)
-Identity(Consider yourself as part of the UK populace)
-Ethnicity(one of the more arbitrary methods(thus I disagree but I'll throw it up regardless))( essentially deciding a group of people are British based off certain generalised traits)
-Ancestors always been their(essentially concludes the ancestors of modern populace came from elsewhere and thus they are not natives, probably the most exclusive definition)
-arbitrary line drawing(currently one we're leaning towards)(basically saying been there for x amount if time they're native)(dislike this one personally too flexible to ones line of arguement(oh they're not native only people their after x are native"example which breaks worldview" oh sorry I meant y years, "why that amount of years?" No real response beyond "I because said so")

Probably missed something, feel free to add to this. As always these are only the words of a 16 year old Australian teen without a Uni degree...

Aaaaaand ninja'd by Adaia... Also I missed the culture argument, although that's a bit akin to the ethnicity one... Then again they'll be some subjective ness in most definitions...

Post self-deleted by South coraline.

Adaia wrote:Then yeah, I guess they have a pretty good claim, though they're hardly especially comparable to the historically heterogeneous population of Britain.

Ok then, I guess I should've said "native British peoples". Sorry about that mistake.

Adaia wrote:Modern British culture is as much "immigrant" culture as much as it is whatever you imagine to be "native".

To quote wikipedia:
"As a result of the 2011 census the White British population was estimated 51,736,290 (81.9% of the UK total population)."

Now that it's 2016, let's assume White British is in the high 70s. And the culture of these White British people is the native culture. Now let's take into account immigrants are largely concentrated in cities. That's huge swathes of the country populated with native Brits.

Modern British culture is still very much Native outside of the big cities. Native Britain is not yet lost, it is very much alive.

Adaia wrote: And, it has to be said, there's little comparable between colonisation and immigration within an existing society.

I have a glass of coke with a hole in the bottom.
I begin filling the glass with water to stop it from becoming empty.

What happens to my glass of coke?

Britain has below replacement birthrates.
This is being combated by importing foreigners continuously to offset the demographic deficit, without even addressing the negative birthrates.

South coraline

It might seem out of place (with the British nativism debate happening right now) but I worked on the factbook for quite some time and I want to get some feedback as to how it is.

Past Election Results

by South coraline

Presidential Elections



Order

Election Year

Winner

Other Major Candidates

1st

1888

Jack Grey (Federalist) - 100 Electoral Votes

None - 0 Electoral Votes

2nd

1893

Jack Grey (Federalist) - 100 Electoral Votes

None - 0 Electoral Votes

3rd

1898

Gerard Uharm (Federalist) - 55 Electoral Votes

Jacob Kiran (Federalist) - 45 Electoral Votes

4th

1903

Taylor Blue (Constitution) - 91 Electoral Votes

Gerard Uharm (Democratic-Republican) - 9 Electoral Votes

5th

1908

Taylor Blue (Constitution) - 63 Electoral Votes

Arthur Cobb (Democratic-Republican) - 37 Electoral Votes

6th

1913

Jackson Valour (Constitution) - 71 Electoral Votes

Arthur Cobb (Democratic-Republican) - 29 Electoral Votes

7th

1918

Jackson Valour (Constitution) - 56 Electoral Votes

Kirk Harrison (Democratic-Republican) - 44 Electoral Votes

8th

1923

Tyler Jackson (Constitution) - 50 Electoral Votes

Frank Butler (Democratic-Republican) - 50 Electoral Votes

9th

1928

Tyler Jackson (Constitution) - 58 Electoral Votes

Eugene Turner (Democratic-Republican) - 42 Electoral Votes

10th

1933

Jack Bryant (Constitution) - 64 Electoral Votes

Harold Hill (Democratic-Republican) - 36 Electoral Votes

11th

1938

Jack Bryant (Constitution) - 65 Electoral Votes

Craig Allen (Democratic-Republican) - 35 Electoral Votes

12th

1943

John Breckenridge (Constitution) - 71 Electoral Votes

Jack Washington (Democratic-Republican) - 29 Electoral Votes

13th

1948

John Breckenridge (Constitution) - 71 Electoral Votes

Jack Washington (Democratic-Republican) - 29 Electoral Votes

14th

1953

George Vernon (Constitution) - 66 Electoral Votes

Aaron Cobb (Democratic-Republican) - 34 Electoral Votes

15th

1958

Harry Alexander Hamilton (Constitution) - 63 Electoral Votes

Aaron Cobb (Democratic-Republican) - 37 Electoral Votes

16th

1963

Harry Alexander Hamilton (Constitution) - 99 Electoral Votes

Aaron Cobb (Democratic-Republican) - 1 Electoral Vote

17th

1968

Barry Johnson (Constitution) - 91 Electoral Votes

Joseph Powell (Democratic-Republican) - 9 Electoral Votes

18th

1973

Barry Johnson (Constitution) - 58 Electoral Votes

Thomas Wilson (Democratic-Republican) - 42 Electoral Votes

19th

1978

Herbert Kiser (Constitution) - 65 Electoral Votes

Thomas Wilson (Democratic-Republican) - 35 Electoral Votes

20th

1983

Herbert Kiser (Constitution) - 71 Electoral Votes

Aaron Edwards (Democratic-Republican) - 29 Electoral Votes

21st

1988

Adam Jackson (Constitution) - 63 Electoral Votes

Robinson Curtis (Democratic-Republican) - 37 Electoral Votes

22nd

1993

Adam Jackson (Constitution) - 52 Electoral Votes

Tim Roy (Democratic-Republican) - 48 Electoral Votes

23rd

1998

Donald Brown (Constitution) - 71 Electoral Votes

Marco Gutierrez (Democratic-Republican) - 29 Electoral Votes

24th

2003

William Tyler (Constitution) - 49 Electoral Votes

Mason Gustavo (Democratic-Republican) - 48 Electoral Votes

John Basil (Democratic-Republican) - 3 Electoral Votes*

25th

2008

William Tyler (Constitution) - 52 Electoral Votes

Marco Gutierrez (Democratic-Republican) - 48 Electoral Votes

26th

2013

Andrew Willard (Constitution) - 65 Electoral Votes

Charleston Charlie Crist (Democratic-Republican) - 35 Electoral Votes

*North Demuran faithless electors casted state Electoral Votes to Marco Gutierrez's running mate John Basil.

Senate Elections



Year

Previous Composition

Composition After Elections

Swing

1888

0 - 0

26 - 0

26

1893

26 - 0

23 - 3

3 3

1898

23 - 3

23 - 3

--

1903

14 - 12

21 - 5

9 9

1908

21 - 5

25 - 1

4 4

1913

25 - 1

22 - 4

3 3

1918

22 - 4

19 - 6 - 1

2 1 3

1923

19 - 6 - 1

17 - 7 - 2

1 1 2

1928

17 - 7 - 2

17 - 9

2 2

1933

17 - 9

18 - 8

1 1

1938

18 - 8

18 - 8

--

1943

18 - 8

19 - 7

1 1

1948

19 - 7

20 - 6

1 1

1953

20 - 6

19 - 7

1 1

1958

19 - 7

19 - 7

--

1963

19 - 7

26 - 0

7 7

1968

26 - 0

25 - 1

1 1

1973

25 - 1

21 - 5

4 4

1978

21 - 5

20 - 6

1 1

1983

20 - 6

21 - 5

1 1

1988

21 - 5

19 - 7

2 2

1993

19 - 7

16 - 10

3 3

1998

16 - 10

21 - 5

5 5

2003

21 - 5

13 - 13

8 8

2008

13 - 13

17 - 8 - 1

4 1 1

2013

17 - 8 - 1

23 - 3

6 1 5

Brownish-Gold = Federalist
Dirty Gold = Constitution
Blue = Democratic-Republican
Yellow = Independent

House Elections



Year

Previous Composition

Composition After Elections

Swing

1888

0 - 0

100 - 0

100

1893

100 - 0

97 - 3

3 3

1898

97 - 3

98 - 2

1 1

1903

54 - 46

79 - 21

25 25

1908

79 - 21

81 - 19

2 2

1913

81 - 19

85 - 15

4 3

1918

85 - 15

64 - 36

21 21

1923

64 - 36

56 - 44

8 8

1928

56 - 44

65 - 35

9 9

1933

65 - 35

69 - 31

4 4

1938

69 - 31

77 - 23

8 8

1943

77 - 23

81 - 19

4 4

1948

81 - 19

81 - 19

--

1953

81 - 19

76 - 24

5 5

1958

76 - 24

77 - 23

1 1

1963

77 - 23

98 - 2

21 21

1968

98 - 2

96 - 4

2 2

1973

96 - 4

87 - 13

9 9

1978

87 - 13

83 - 17

4 4

1983

83 - 17

82 - 18

1 1

1988

82 - 18

75 - 25

7 7

1993

75 - 25

70 - 30

5 5

1998

70 - 30

68 - 32

2 2

2003

68 - 32

51 - 49

17 17

2008

51 - 49

67 - 33

16 16

2013

67 - 33

89 - 10 - 1

22 1 22

Brownish-Gold = Federalist
Dirty Gold = Constitution
Blue = Democratic-Republican
Yellow = Independent

Related Articles:
Parties of South Coraline (BEWARE WIP)
Senators, Governors and Representatives

Read factbook

South coraline wrote:It might seem out of place (with the British nativism debate happening right now) but I worked on the factbook for quite some time and I want to get some feedback as to how it is.

Past Election Results

by South coraline

Presidential Elections



Order

Election Year

Winner

Other Major Candidates

1st

1888

Jack Grey (Federalist) - 100 Electoral Votes

None - 0 Electoral Votes

2nd

1893

Jack Grey (Federalist) - 100 Electoral Votes

None - 0 Electoral Votes

3rd

1898

Gerard Uharm (Federalist) - 55 Electoral Votes

Jacob Kiran (Federalist) - 45 Electoral Votes

4th

1903

Taylor Blue (Constitution) - 91 Electoral Votes

Gerard Uharm (Democratic-Republican) - 9 Electoral Votes

5th

1908

Taylor Blue (Constitution) - 63 Electoral Votes

Arthur Cobb (Democratic-Republican) - 37 Electoral Votes

6th

1913

Jackson Valour (Constitution) - 71 Electoral Votes

Arthur Cobb (Democratic-Republican) - 29 Electoral Votes

7th

1918

Jackson Valour (Constitution) - 56 Electoral Votes

Kirk Harrison (Democratic-Republican) - 44 Electoral Votes

8th

1923

Tyler Jackson (Constitution) - 50 Electoral Votes

Frank Butler (Democratic-Republican) - 50 Electoral Votes

9th

1928

Tyler Jackson (Constitution) - 58 Electoral Votes

Eugene Turner (Democratic-Republican) - 42 Electoral Votes

10th

1933

Jack Bryant (Constitution) - 64 Electoral Votes

Harold Hill (Democratic-Republican) - 36 Electoral Votes

11th

1938

Jack Bryant (Constitution) - 65 Electoral Votes

Craig Allen (Democratic-Republican) - 35 Electoral Votes

12th

1943

John Breckenridge (Constitution) - 71 Electoral Votes

Jack Washington (Democratic-Republican) - 29 Electoral Votes

13th

1948

John Breckenridge (Constitution) - 71 Electoral Votes

Jack Washington (Democratic-Republican) - 29 Electoral Votes

14th

1953

George Vernon (Constitution) - 66 Electoral Votes

Aaron Cobb (Democratic-Republican) - 34 Electoral Votes

15th

1958

Harry Alexander Hamilton (Constitution) - 63 Electoral Votes

Aaron Cobb (Democratic-Republican) - 37 Electoral Votes

16th

1963

Harry Alexander Hamilton (Constitution) - 99 Electoral Votes

Aaron Cobb (Democratic-Republican) - 1 Electoral Vote

17th

1968

Barry Johnson (Constitution) - 91 Electoral Votes

Joseph Powell (Democratic-Republican) - 9 Electoral Votes

18th

1973

Barry Johnson (Constitution) - 58 Electoral Votes

Thomas Wilson (Democratic-Republican) - 42 Electoral Votes

19th

1978

Herbert Kiser (Constitution) - 65 Electoral Votes

Thomas Wilson (Democratic-Republican) - 35 Electoral Votes

20th

1983

Herbert Kiser (Constitution) - 71 Electoral Votes

Aaron Edwards (Democratic-Republican) - 29 Electoral Votes

21st

1988

Adam Jackson (Constitution) - 63 Electoral Votes

Robinson Curtis (Democratic-Republican) - 37 Electoral Votes

22nd

1993

Adam Jackson (Constitution) - 52 Electoral Votes

Tim Roy (Democratic-Republican) - 48 Electoral Votes

23rd

1998

Donald Brown (Constitution) - 71 Electoral Votes

Marco Gutierrez (Democratic-Republican) - 29 Electoral Votes

24th

2003

William Tyler (Constitution) - 49 Electoral Votes

Mason Gustavo (Democratic-Republican) - 48 Electoral Votes

John Basil (Democratic-Republican) - 3 Electoral Votes*

25th

2008

William Tyler (Constitution) - 52 Electoral Votes

Marco Gutierrez (Democratic-Republican) - 48 Electoral Votes

26th

2013

Andrew Willard (Constitution) - 65 Electoral Votes

Charleston Charlie Crist (Democratic-Republican) - 35 Electoral Votes

*North Demuran faithless electors casted state Electoral Votes to Marco Gutierrez's running mate John Basil.

Senate Elections



Year

Previous Composition

Composition After Elections

Swing

1888

0 - 0

26 - 0

26

1893

26 - 0

23 - 3

3 3

1898

23 - 3

23 - 3

--

1903

14 - 12

21 - 5

9 9

1908

21 - 5

25 - 1

4 4

1913

25 - 1

22 - 4

3 3

1918

22 - 4

19 - 6 - 1

2 1 3

1923

19 - 6 - 1

17 - 7 - 2

1 1 2

1928

17 - 7 - 2

17 - 9

2 2

1933

17 - 9

18 - 8

1 1

1938

18 - 8

18 - 8

--

1943

18 - 8

19 - 7

1 1

1948

19 - 7

20 - 6

1 1

1953

20 - 6

19 - 7

1 1

1958

19 - 7

19 - 7

--

1963

19 - 7

26 - 0

7 7

1968

26 - 0

25 - 1

1 1

1973

25 - 1

21 - 5

4 4

1978

21 - 5

20 - 6

1 1

1983

20 - 6

21 - 5

1 1

1988

21 - 5

19 - 7

2 2

1993

19 - 7

16 - 10

3 3

1998

16 - 10

21 - 5

5 5

2003

21 - 5

13 - 13

8 8

2008

13 - 13

17 - 8 - 1

4 1 1

2013

17 - 8 - 1

23 - 3

6 1 5

Brownish-Gold = Federalist
Dirty Gold = Constitution
Blue = Democratic-Republican
Yellow = Independent

House Elections



Year

Previous Composition

Composition After Elections

Swing

1888

0 - 0

100 - 0

100

1893

100 - 0

97 - 3

3 3

1898

97 - 3

98 - 2

1 1

1903

54 - 46

79 - 21

25 25

1908

79 - 21

81 - 19

2 2

1913

81 - 19

85 - 15

4 3

1918

85 - 15

64 - 36

21 21

1923

64 - 36

56 - 44

8 8

1928

56 - 44

65 - 35

9 9

1933

65 - 35

69 - 31

4 4

1938

69 - 31

77 - 23

8 8

1943

77 - 23

81 - 19

4 4

1948

81 - 19

81 - 19

--

1953

81 - 19

76 - 24

5 5

1958

76 - 24

77 - 23

1 1

1963

77 - 23

98 - 2

21 21

1968

98 - 2

96 - 4

2 2

1973

96 - 4

87 - 13

9 9

1978

87 - 13

83 - 17

4 4

1983

83 - 17

82 - 18

1 1

1988

82 - 18

75 - 25

7 7

1993

75 - 25

70 - 30

5 5

1998

70 - 30

68 - 32

2 2

2003

68 - 32

51 - 49

17 17

2008

51 - 49

67 - 33

16 16

2013

67 - 33

89 - 10 - 1

22 1 22

Brownish-Gold = Federalist
Dirty Gold = Constitution
Blue = Democratic-Republican
Yellow = Independent

Related Articles:
Parties of South Coraline (BEWARE WIP)
Senators, Governors and Representatives

Read factbook

It's good. Only real improvement I could think of is giving a brief summary of the history surrounding the election, just so there's some context to all the numbers.

South coraline

Harkain wrote:It's good. Only real improvement I could think of is giving a brief summary of the history surrounding the election, just so there's some context to all the numbers.

Thanks for the feedback! I'll have to do that on a new factbook though, or else it's gonna be a bit congested.

Post self-deleted by Lowell Leber.

Sunthreit wrote:Ok then, I guess I should've said "native British peoples". Sorry about that mistake.

The only group which is really "Native British" in anything approaching a meaningful sense are the Celts, which in the modern sense is pretty much an artificial creation anyway, since there's not much of a genuine "Celtic lineage" or anything of the sort. Regardless, that's a predominantly Irish, Scottish and Welsh identity and is hardly relevant to England, which is the only part of Britain with a substantial non-white population. Like everything else, it's all mixed together. Germanic immigrants and French immigrants throughout the middle ages have as much of an impact on what white Britain is today as anything. Even where the divisions are most recent, artificial and seemingly stark they aren't neat - there's something like 9,000,000 Americans who identify as multiracial.

Sunthreit wrote:To quote wikipedia:
"As a result of the 2011 census the White British population was estimated 51,736,290 (81.9% of the UK total population)."
Now that it's 2016, let's assume White British is in the high 70s. And the culture of these White British people is the native culture. Now let's take into account immigrants are largely concentrated in cities. That's huge swathes of the country populated with native Brits.
Modern British culture is still very much Native outside of the big cities. Native Britain is not yet lost, it is very much alive.

Have you ever been in rural Britain? At all? There's an identity there, to be sure; there really isn't anything that can be said to define British culture in a meaningful way, though, and certainly not modern culture. In fact, there's very little that's identifiably British at all.

Sunthreit wrote:I have a glass of coke with a hole in the bottom.
I begin filling the glass with water to stop it from becoming empty.
What happens to my glass of coke?
Britain has below replacement birthrates.
This is being combated by importing foreigners continuously to offset the demographic deficit, without even addressing the negative birthrates.

And you still haven't answered the question of why this matters. The Earth and its various countries aren't glasses of water or whatever grim beverage you may choose. They're full of people who live and contribute to society and enrich each other's existence regardless of where they're "from" (which you continue to define in vague and arbitrary terms). If one group's birth rates naturally decline that's all the better for the planet as a whole. We gain nothing by pretending it's still the 14th century. Chaucer might get a bit easier to read, I guess...

The Scottish Government is now allowing A 2nd referendum for Independence

Adaia wrote:There's no such thing as the native British people, and even if there were there's no reason whatsoever that they'd have a greater right to live here than anyone else.

There is indeed a "native" British people. They are respectively the English, the Scots, and the Welsh. They are native as in it is their cultures that make up the culture of Great Britain. And they have a greater right then many too live there because it has been the home of their ancestors and their culture for almost 1000 years if not more. To say that Boris the Bulgarian or Sid the Turk have just as much right to live in the UK is preposterous, and is the fatal flaw of the European Union.

Sunthreit

Adaia wrote:The only group which is really "Native British" in anything approaching a meaningful sense are the Celts, which in the modern sense is pretty much an artificial creation anyway, since there's not much of a genuine "Celtic lineage" or anything of the sort. Regardless, that's a predominantly Irish, Scottish and Welsh identity and is hardly relevant to England, which is the only part of Britain with a substantial non-white population. Like everything else, it's all mixed together. Germanic immigrants and French immigrants throughout the middle ages have as much of an impact on what white Britain is today as anything. Even where the divisions are most recent, artificial and seemingly stark they aren't neat - there's something like 9,000,000 Americans who identify as multiracial.
Have you ever been in rural Britain? At all? There's an identity there, to be sure; there really isn't anything that can be said to define British culture in a meaningful way, though, and certainly not modern culture. In fact, there's very little that's identifiably British at all.
And you still haven't answered the question of why this matters. The Earth and its various countries aren't glasses of water or whatever grim beverage you may choose. They're full of people who live and contribute to society and enrich each other's existence regardless of where they're "from" (which you continue to define in vague and arbitrary terms). If one group's birth rates naturally decline that's all the better for the planet as a whole. We gain nothing by pretending it's still the 14th century. Chaucer might get a bit easier to read, I guess...

You wish to wave away the differences between cultures? How arrogant. We should celebrate the positive differences between cultures as well as critique the negative aspects of any and all cultures. All cultures are not the same. Nor should they be. Nor will they ever be.

Sunthreit

Adaia wrote:The only group which is really "Native British" in anything approaching a meaningful sense are the Celts

yeah nah

Adaia wrote:which in the modern sense is pretty much an artificial creation anyway, since there's not much of a genuine "Celtic lineage" or anything of the sort.

Yeah it's not like they're a cultural group with a common origin containing several different branches or anything. Just like how it's not the case with Slavs or the Scandinavians.

Adaia wrote:Regardless, that's a predominantly Irish, Scottish and Welsh identity and is hardly relevant to England, which is the only part of Britain with a substantial non-white population.

The English are quite influenced by the British peoples who came before them AFAIK.
One of the reasons English grammar is so much more simple than other Germanic languages' grammar is because they were communicating with the celtic people there. Not to mention that many Celtic cultural tropes made their way into English culture. Oh, and phenotypically/genetically the Anglos of today are actually very similar to the people who lived in Britain before them. Also, the English culture and people came in the early centuries AD so they should have a "pretty good claim"

Adaia wrote: Germanic immigrants and French immigrants throughout the middle ages have as much of an impact on what white Britain is today as anything.

For Germanic immigrants you're not wrong, although that was in the early centuries AD so they should have a "pretty good claim". Same with the French, although their contribution is more cultural than anything (relatively few Normans actually came to live in England, and they were absolutely blighted by the plague).

Adaia wrote: Even where the divisions are most recent, artificial and seemingly stark they aren't neat - there's something like 9,000,000 Americans who identify as multiracial.

"Multiracial". Heh. You're not even breaking some kind of artificial division there, you made another one. Lumping all these different combinations of peoples together just because they're mixed.

Adaia wrote:

Have you ever been in rural Britain? At all? There's an identity there, to be sure; there really isn't anything that can be said to define British culture in a meaningful way

Well one of the native British cultures, the English culture, is defined there. Which has a lot in common with other native british cultures due to historical connections.
If you're trying to say the native English lack a culture to be defined then you should probably go see how differently some other people live friendo.

Adaia wrote: and certainly not modern culture.

Thank god

Adaia wrote:modern culture.

Read: Americanised cancer causing the mental, spiritual and ultimately physical death of western civilisation

Adaia wrote:In fact, there's very little that's identifiably British at all.

Adaia wrote:There's an identity there, to be sure

Also, the British cultures all share a very induvidualistic, maratime mentality among other things. They share a psyche. They share an aesthetic. They share a history. They share art. They share music. They share religion. They share genetics.

Adaia wrote:And you still haven't answered the question of why this matters. The Earth and its various countries aren't glasses of water or whatever grim beverage you may choose.

Look at what the native British people have achieved. They achieved great prowess in industry, culture, technology, military, you name it. Even countries that absolutely hate the Brits, that were colonised by them and swear to banish their influence forever, take part in using the achievements of the British people. For several centuries native British peoples have dominated geopolitics.

It does not make sense that a great people with such a great history of achievement should be replaced, especially not by the kind of people who are replacing them right now. Congoids, Turks and Afro-Asiatics have no business setting foot on the European continent, much less in the splendid British isles. Their culture and their genetics will not enrich the native British culture or people in any way- they will destroy it. They are just too different, their temperaments and psyche and everything else are not compatible. Also, the replacement is so fast I fear the natives will not have much time to influence so many newcommers. This is not enrichment, this is not augmentation, this is replacement.

The native British people have a god-given right to exist.

Adaia wrote:They're full of people who live and contribute to society and enrich each other's existence regardless of where they're "from" (which you continue to define in vague and arbitrary terms).

I live in a very enriched community, and I'm not convinced tbh. The different peoples of the world have different temperaments- objectively they are not superior or inferior, just different. And they should stay that way, they should embrace that difference by living in different communities. They can trade, they can cooperate, they can exchange ideas without mixing together and destroying the diversity they have (and making things generally unpleasant for the people living in said mixed communities).

Adaia wrote: If one group's birth rates naturally decline that's all the better for the planet as a whole.

Except the groups whose birth rates have gone down the drain are whites and east asians...
Enjoy exploring the stars with your Somali crew, space cadet.

Adaia wrote:We gain nothing by pretending it's still the 14th century.

Yeah, ikr. It's 2016 after all.

Lowell Leber wrote:There is indeed a "native" British people. They are respectively the English, the Scots, and the Welsh. They are native as in it is their cultures that make up the culture of Great Britain. And they have a greater right then many too live there because it has been the home of their ancestors and their culture for almost 1000 years if not more. To say that Boris the Bulgarian or Sid the Turk have just as much right to live in the UK is preposterous, and is the fatal flaw of the European Union.

They have more right to live here because (some of) their great great great etc. grandparents were here first? If you say so...

Lowell Leber wrote:You wish to wave away the differences between cultures? How arrogant. We should celebrate the positive differences between cultures as well as critique the negative aspects of any and all cultures. All cultures are not the same. Nor should they be. Nor will they ever be.

Of course cultures are different. But they blend and they change and so the world progresses as it always has. "Arrogant" is not one I hear often, I'll admit, but every contribution to the bank of silly insults people have thrown at me because they disagree with me is appreciated.

Adaia wrote: but every contribution to the bank of silly insults people have thrown at me because they disagree with me is appreciated.

k

Adaia wrote: dumbasses

Adaia wrote:stupidity

Adaia wrote:absolute embarrassment

Adaia wrote:joke of a country.

Adaia wrote: Wales only has one and a half civilised settlements in it (Cardiff and Aberystwyth, between them, are the half).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPtQFI4qeoE

«12. . .1,2271,2281,2291,2301,2311,2321,233. . .1,8871,888»

Advertisement