You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Is Britain a racist country?
November 22 2024 2.23pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Is Britain a racist country?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 14 of 25 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >

  

serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 05 Jun 15 4.04pm Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote Stirlingsays at 05 Jun 2015 3.58pm

Quote serial thriller at 05 Jun 2015 3.41pm

I disagree with this. Nationality is not an innate trait, it is a cultural unifying myth which we invent and perpetuate that is based in the material advances of humanity.

The concept of a nation is a modern ideology, developing as much from the industrial revolution, which allowed humans to interact on a larger scale at a faster rate, as it did from conquest and tribal mentality.

Thus when/if we empathise with someone merely because they identify with a similar nation to us, it is a completely arbitrary connection that we are creating. The reason nationality is so prevalent in contrast to our features, such as date of birth, hair colour etc. is because nationality is such a loaded concept, and so readily manipulated by those in authority to achieve anything from raising war funds to allowing human beings to drown in the sea.


Nope, you're just wrong though your hubris is enjoyable to read.

So nationalism is an innate quality?

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 05 Jun 15 4.05pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 3.27pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 05 Jun 2015 3.08pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 9.37am


The History of the UK is generally about thousands of people moving here, usually without asking. Neither the Angles or the Saxons were native to the UK, nor were the Normans, Romans or Celts.

Even the Royal Families of England and the UK have often been born abroad and of a very different nationality than the people they ruled.

During early periods of Norman rule, you had Normans, Norman Franks, Saxons, Angles, Danish, Jute, Dane, Cymri and celtic peoples making up the population of England in significant numbers or positions of authority.

Europe has always been a melting pot of cultures. There never has been a dominant culture not really (Culture tends to exist in flux of different internal cultural ideas, in conflict. The idea of a national shared culture is really a myth, rather there are a number of shared and disputed ideas about national culture).



Yeah, a lot of that 'migration' was in fact warfare Jamie.

It resulted in wars......Just because migration has happened regularly in the past doesn't mean that it was accepted and so should be considered so.

I also find your ideas on 'dominant culture' to be way off. To say that generations of peoples who live in the same areas don't share rituals, language and knowledge bases and hence a culture is just wrong. You nit pick in proving your point but its more a play of words than an actual convincing argument. I think its related to dislike of nationality rather than a balanced analysis of what culture is.

It was never accepted. Culture is based in the very nature of conflicting ideas, being resolved through historical discourse within society (not necessarily by violence).

For example, cultural imperitives about race, gender and sexuality, have developed through conflicting ideas about those subjects, and their expression and conflict with the 'dominant idea of their time' and resulted in change.

Change is of course neither good, nor bad, it just is, the subjective value judgement generally is about which factional idea you identify with and how it fares, rather than any real truth.

The Celts didn't welcome the Romans, nor the Cymri the Saxons, but for us, we see it inevitably as a good thing, because it creates our world (ie that Ultimately the Saxons, and then the Normans would go on to inform our culture, and ultimately we end up in a position where we are judging the 'value' from our position, which of course is inherently biased by the 'victor'.

Which of course is why so few people speak Gallic and so many speak English (Saxon and Norman dominance).



I think that's excellent analysis.

Though I would add that the 'value' of a culture can be measured within certain parameters. This isn't so much about superiority but rather 'usefulness' in terms of achieving humanistic aims.....Scientific advancement, freedom of expression and so on.

Of course we are all inherently biased in favour of the view from the lens that our culture gives us.....But then again we are all free to experience cultures within other countries and see if they fit us more comfortably or less.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 05 Jun 15 4.08pm

Quote serial thriller at 05 Jun 2015 3.41pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Jun 2015 12.52pm

Quote serial thriller at 04 Jun 2015 12.04pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Jun 2015 11.57am

Quote serial thriller at 04 Jun 2015 11.53am

But why should nationality even play a role in tragedy? Is it sadder if a British stranger dies than a Libyan one?


Of course it is.

Ok, lets test your logic. Is it sadder to you if your mother or father or child dies rather than a Libyan?

If so why?

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jun 2015 11.58am)


But why does nationality come in to it? There are British citizens who go out to fight for ISIS, do I feel sympathy when they die, or am I only meant to be feeling pity for those British people who have those wonderful British values which no one seems to be able to identify objectively?

No but you also probably feel a greater anger.

Its generally because we 'share' something with those people and that in turn makes the event more relevant to us and our attention. This occurs apriori, as we look at the world in relation to ourselves and our experiences, and so pay attention when factors we relate to ourselves are present in stories. Its how we understand the world and our place in it, is through relationships in the external world and our internal being.

Its a maladaptation (a beneficial evolutionary trait that has begun to outlive its benefit, but still remains present in a species because its not detrimental).

Value doesn't really come into it. These events are more real, because they're more relevant.



I disagree with this. Nationality is not an innate trait, it is a cultural unifying myth which we invent and perpetuate that is based in the material advances of humanity.

The concept of a nation is a modern ideology, developing as much from the industrial revolution, which allowed humans to interact on a larger scale at a faster rate, as it did from conquest and tribal mentality.

Thus when/if we empathise with someone merely because they identify with a similar nation to us, it is a completely arbitrary connection that we are creating. The reason nationality is so prevalent in contrast to our features, such as date of birth, hair colour etc. is because nationality is such a loaded concept, and so readily manipulated by those in authority to achieve anything from raising war funds to allowing human beings to drown in the sea.

I don't have much national feeling any more as the nation has been so f-uped by the lib-left establishment, cheered on by the likes of you. But I find it hard to see how my remaining national feelings could be in any way responsible for people drowning in the Med. (Seems to be fixation of yours, with you finding increasingly bizarre reasons for it happening.)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 05 Jun 15 4.09pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote serial thriller at 05 Jun 2015 4.04pm

So nationalism is an innate quality?


Tribalism is an innate quality. Nationalism is a merely an extension of it.

Whether you are for or against that probably comes down to the family or group culture that you were raised within or accepted.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 05 Jun 15 4.26pm Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote derben at 05 Jun 2015 4.08pm

Quote serial thriller at 05 Jun 2015 3.41pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Jun 2015 12.52pm

Quote serial thriller at 04 Jun 2015 12.04pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Jun 2015 11.57am

Quote serial thriller at 04 Jun 2015 11.53am

But why should nationality even play a role in tragedy? Is it sadder if a British stranger dies than a Libyan one?


Of course it is.

Ok, lets test your logic. Is it sadder to you if your mother or father or child dies rather than a Libyan?

If so why?

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jun 2015 11.58am)


But why does nationality come in to it? There are British citizens who go out to fight for ISIS, do I feel sympathy when they die, or am I only meant to be feeling pity for those British people who have those wonderful British values which no one seems to be able to identify objectively?

No but you also probably feel a greater anger.

Its generally because we 'share' something with those people and that in turn makes the event more relevant to us and our attention. This occurs apriori, as we look at the world in relation to ourselves and our experiences, and so pay attention when factors we relate to ourselves are present in stories. Its how we understand the world and our place in it, is through relationships in the external world and our internal being.

Its a maladaptation (a beneficial evolutionary trait that has begun to outlive its benefit, but still remains present in a species because its not detrimental).

Value doesn't really come into it. These events are more real, because they're more relevant.



I disagree with this. Nationality is not an innate trait, it is a cultural unifying myth which we invent and perpetuate that is based in the material advances of humanity.

The concept of a nation is a modern ideology, developing as much from the industrial revolution, which allowed humans to interact on a larger scale at a faster rate, as it did from conquest and tribal mentality.

Thus when/if we empathise with someone merely because they identify with a similar nation to us, it is a completely arbitrary connection that we are creating. The reason nationality is so prevalent in contrast to our features, such as date of birth, hair colour etc. is because nationality is such a loaded concept, and so readily manipulated by those in authority to achieve anything from raising war funds to allowing human beings to drown in the sea.

I don't have much national feeling any more as the nation has been so f-uped by the lib-left establishment, cheered on by the likes of you. But I find it hard to see how my remaining national feelings could be in any way responsible for people drowning in the Med. (Seems to be fixation of yours, with you finding increasingly bizarre reasons for it happening.)


What were the justifications for us not saving those in the Med Derben?

In November, when we withdrew funding from Mare Nostrum, the search and rescue mission, Tory Peer Lady Anelay claimed it was to stop more migrants attempting the journey. Everyone at the time knew this was bollocks, as it proved when the numbers actually went up after we withdrew the funding. What it was really riding on was a nationalist sentiment which is hostile to the idea of any kind of migration, even for the most desperate of asylum seekers. The evidence for this is staggering. The major national newspaper calls them 'cockroaches', our intake of Syrian refugees is barely out of double figures while we are constantly reminded of the thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians who are overpopulating our land (net migration from these countries combined, interestingly, is under 8000 since 2007).

So why do we allow the mainstream media and politicians to get away with these acts of inhumanity? If you think it's anything other than nationalism, you're deluded. UKIP gained 6 million votes at the election on a ultra-nationalistic ticket, the Tories badge is a f*cking union jack, even Ed Milliband, the dangerous lefty, was spouting out on 'one-nation Labourism'. We have a conservative nationalism that doesn't want to deal with immigration, that condones us withdrawing funding for search and rescue in the Med and then turns a blind eye as thousands drown. It really is a pretty simple lineation.

Oh, and for the record, I have a wide grin on my face that you think I am one of the reasons this country's going to the dogs

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 05 Jun 15 4.28pm Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote Stirlingsays at 05 Jun 2015 4.09pm

Quote serial thriller at 05 Jun 2015 4.04pm

So nationalism is an innate quality?


Tribalism is an innate quality. Nationalism is a merely an extension of it.

Whether you are for or against that probably comes down to the family or group culture that you were raised within or accepted.


Then why is it such a new phenomenon? People didn't really identify with their nation until the mid-18th century...

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 05 Jun 15 4.41pm

Quote serial thriller at 05 Jun 2015 4.26pm

Quote derben at 05 Jun 2015 4.08pm

Quote serial thriller at 05 Jun 2015 3.41pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Jun 2015 12.52pm

Quote serial thriller at 04 Jun 2015 12.04pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Jun 2015 11.57am

Quote serial thriller at 04 Jun 2015 11.53am

But why should nationality even play a role in tragedy? Is it sadder if a British stranger dies than a Libyan one?


Of course it is.

Ok, lets test your logic. Is it sadder to you if your mother or father or child dies rather than a Libyan?

If so why?

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jun 2015 11.58am)


But why does nationality come in to it? There are British citizens who go out to fight for ISIS, do I feel sympathy when they die, or am I only meant to be feeling pity for those British people who have those wonderful British values which no one seems to be able to identify objectively?

No but you also probably feel a greater anger.

Its generally because we 'share' something with those people and that in turn makes the event more relevant to us and our attention. This occurs apriori, as we look at the world in relation to ourselves and our experiences, and so pay attention when factors we relate to ourselves are present in stories. Its how we understand the world and our place in it, is through relationships in the external world and our internal being.

Its a maladaptation (a beneficial evolutionary trait that has begun to outlive its benefit, but still remains present in a species because its not detrimental).

Value doesn't really come into it. These events are more real, because they're more relevant.



I disagree with this. Nationality is not an innate trait, it is a cultural unifying myth which we invent and perpetuate that is based in the material advances of humanity.

The concept of a nation is a modern ideology, developing as much from the industrial revolution, which allowed humans to interact on a larger scale at a faster rate, as it did from conquest and tribal mentality.

Thus when/if we empathise with someone merely because they identify with a similar nation to us, it is a completely arbitrary connection that we are creating. The reason nationality is so prevalent in contrast to our features, such as date of birth, hair colour etc. is because nationality is such a loaded concept, and so readily manipulated by those in authority to achieve anything from raising war funds to allowing human beings to drown in the sea.

I don't have much national feeling any more as the nation has been so f-uped by the lib-left establishment, cheered on by the likes of you. But I find it hard to see how my remaining national feelings could be in any way responsible for people drowning in the Med. (Seems to be fixation of yours, with you finding increasingly bizarre reasons for it happening.)


1. What were the justifications for us not saving those in the Med Derben?

In November, when we withdrew funding from Mare Nostrum, the search and rescue mission, Tory Peer Lady Anelay claimed it was to stop more migrants attempting the journey. Everyone at the time knew this was bollocks, as it proved when the numbers actually went up after we withdrew the funding. What it was really riding on was a nationalist sentiment which is hostile to the idea of any kind of migration, even for the most desperate of asylum seekers. The evidence for this is staggering. The major national newspaper calls them 'cockroaches', our intake of Syrian refugees is barely out of double figures while we are constantly reminded of the thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians who are 2. overpopulating our land (net migration from these countries combined, interestingly, is under 8000 since 2007).

So why do we allow the mainstream media and politicians to get away with these 3. acts of inhumanity? If you think it's anything other than nationalism, you're deluded. UKIP gained 6 million votes at the election on a ultra-nationalistic ticket, the Tories badge is a f*cking union jack, even Ed Milliband, the dangerous lefty, was spouting out on 'one-nation Labourism'. We have a conservative nationalism that doesn't want to deal with immigration, that condones us withdrawing funding for search and rescue in the Med and then turns a blind eye as thousands drown. It really is a pretty simple lineation.

Oh, and for the record, I have a wide grin on my face that you think 4. I am one of the reasons this country's going to the dogs

1. Because it is f-all to do with us?

2. Net immigration is running at 300,000 per year.

3. LOL - it is as if we had sunk the boats.
f*in union jack - bet you don't say "f*in Palestinian flag" do you?

4. Yes, people like you, laughingly passing as left wing these days, have played a roll in the lib-left wonderland that we now live in.

Edited by derben (05 Jun 2015 4.45pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 05 Jun 15 4.45pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 05 Jun 2015 4.09pm

Quote serial thriller at 05 Jun 2015 4.04pm

So nationalism is an innate quality?


Tribalism is an innate quality. Nationalism is a merely an extension of it.

Whether you are for or against that probably comes down to the family or group culture that you were raised within or accepted.

I'm not so sure tribalism is an innate quality either, or that its often misused to suggest 'distancing and seperation', traditional tribal groups tend towards co-operative self interest, rather than self isolationism.

Also tribes tend towards internal conflict more than external conflict. But I do get where you are coming from.

I think, the root lies in the cognitive function by which humans understand the world, in relationships of similarity and difference between their self, expectations and the external world.

The Blue eyes Brown Eyes experiment is a good example of just how simple the ideas of 'tribalism' can be constructed and reconstructed socially, rather than being inherent.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 05 Jun 15 4.50pm

Quote derben at 05 Jun 2015 4.41pm
1. Because it is f-all to do with us?

Surely acting to save lives, rather than choosing not to save lives, when you can, is a self fulfilling moral argument. Arguably, these are people in peril and grave danger - the sums involved aren't staggering (and we have a navy anyhow), so to not act doesn't really seem an option.

Just because we save them doesn't mean they have to be returned to the UK.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 05 Jun 15 4.52pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote serial thriller at 05 Jun 2015 4.28pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 05 Jun 2015 4.09pm

Quote serial thriller at 05 Jun 2015 4.04pm

So nationalism is an innate quality?


Tribalism is an innate quality. Nationalism is a merely an extension of it.

Whether you are for or against that probably comes down to the family or group culture that you were raised within or accepted.


Then why is it such a new phenomenon? People didn't really identify with their nation until the mid-18th century...


Where on earth did you get that from?

All that ancient history with wars between countries didn't contain any nationalism then? What an unusual take on things.
Shakespeare's Henry V then. No nationalism there then no?.....The concept of Rome and its state nationalism passed you by eh....Persia doesn't ring a bell no? God the list is massive.

Let's just say that you are just a whole heap of wrong on this.


Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Jun 2015 4.54pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Steptoe Flag 05 Jun 15 5.01pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 4.50pm

Quote derben at 05 Jun 2015 4.41pm
1. Because it is f-all to do with us?

Surely acting to save lives, rather than choosing not to save lives, when you can, is a self fulfilling moral argument. Arguably, these are people in peril and grave danger - the sums involved aren't staggering (and we have a navy anyhow), so to not act doesn't really seem an option.

Just because we save them doesn't mean they have to be returned to the UK.


The same people all for us 'liberating' those in foreign nations are happy for us to leave people to drown in the sea. Nothing in it for us I assume?

Edited by Steptoe (05 Jun 2015 5.02pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 05 Jun 15 5.02pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Jun 2015 4.50pm

Quote derben at 05 Jun 2015 4.41pm
1. Because it is f-all to do with us?

Surely acting to save lives, rather than choosing not to save lives, when you can, is a self fulfilling moral argument. Arguably, these are people in peril and grave danger - the sums involved aren't staggering (and we have a navy anyhow), so to not act doesn't really seem an option.

Just because we save them doesn't mean they have to be returned to the UK.


Why can't the many countries who border on the Med do it? Why us? Why our problem? If it were the English Channel, perhaps.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 14 of 25 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Is Britain a racist country?