Forgot that you didn’t understand what libel was.

So you agree with the caller then? David Lammy isn’t English?

Edited by DanH (29 Mar 2021 10.33pm)

They do have great comedy value. Boris isn't bad either. Could be a half decent modern Python. Perhaps Corbyn could be a Terry Gilliam like figure? I guess Abbott in drag for all the females, Boris some kind of Cleese? Lammy could be the new Chapman - he'd certainly be Brian.
Lammy would be good in that being the poorest sketch. Can't remember what it's called. 'Lived in a shoebox' etc.

Red and Blue Army!

And if he was born in Japan or China? Yes of course Dan. Everyone everywhere would say he’s Japanese or Chinese.

If he was born in Nigeria he’d by Nigerian? I knew a white man from an English family who grew up in Nigeria and went to an English school and had an English accent. Nobody anywhere said he was Nigerian or should be. Not he, not anyone. He could do the Nigerian accent if he wanted to perfectly though.

COYP

I guarantee he’ll do either strictly or ‘I’m a celebrity get me out of here’, or both.

COYP

This is about identities.

There is a genetic identity and there is a cultural identity....there is also what a passport says.

Lammy is not English genetically and it doesn't matter how he feels about it. The English are actually a recognised ethnic group and membership of it is genetically set. As I write this I don't seriously believe that Lammy considers himself English in this regard.

If Lammy considers himself culturally English that's for him. I've met fine people who consider themselves culturally English and depending upon how sincere it is people will take how they find.

For example, many people think that Freddie Mercury was English or British when he wasn't, but culturally he was and it was genuine so people accepted him.

However, personally I think Lammy is being disingenuous because I think what he really wants to do here is attack notions of indigenous English rights using old deconstruction arguments.

The indigenous English/British/Irish have both a historical and ancestral claim to their lands, just as indigenous peoples' have claims on their homelands all over the world.

My view of Lammy is that he's black British because he was born here. I know that lawmakers want to pretend that birthplace and ethnicity are intrinsically linked but in my view that's a fantasy.

The point has been made many times but instances of birth in foreign lands is very weak as a claim that most believe....for example, David Gower, Cliff Richards and even Rudyard Kipling were born in India....only the deluded thinks this makes them Indian.

There is no hard and fast rule but personally I think you have to be at least 50 genetically European before you can start claiming a European heritage as your identity. I recognise that if someone is mixed then they have that self identity to decide. However, the reality of Lammy is that if he has any European genes at all it's obviously nowhere near half.

However, if someone wants to consider themselves English and they are genuine it isn't a big deal...Hell, if someone considers themselves a fruit bowl, I have no issues about that as long as I don't have to be involved in the delusion.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Mar 2021 12.59am)

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

So what we have is the difference between the technical and what people actually think.

David Lammy, as a politician, will use any identity that suits his agenda, but many people will never see him as English. A British citizen maybe, but nothing more. You have to have many generations behind you to get that accolade in many people's eyes. People like you can bang on about this stuff till you turn blue, but it makes no difference.