Some of yesterday's post was whited out by mistake - now corrected.
Apropos of yesterday's post and a question that was posed; "Couldn't one make a case for saying that the very essence of British culture is, and always has been, its multiculturalism. Which means that British Culture is an enemy of the state ..... maybe?"
Apropos of yesterday's post and a question that was posed; "Couldn't one make a case for saying that the very essence of British culture is, and always has been, its multiculturalism. Which means that British Culture is an enemy of the state ..... maybe?"
My answer is that history can teach us valuable lessons and we ignore it at our peril (a lot of mistakes arise from ignoring history - like Afghanistan). One only has to look at the experience of the Native Americans, the Aborigines and the various tribes of what is now South Africa and the devastation that uncontrolled immigration wrought. We now have massive ghettos of white people there who have imposed their own laws, customs and religion, and while South Africa is gradually reclaiming its culture, it does still remain predominantly western.
There are no instances of immigration that I can think of where cultural ghettos were not the immediate (and in mist cases, permanent) result, although I bet someone will prove me wrong with the exception that proves the rule. Just as a note, the countries with the highest Muslim populations in Europe are France, Germany and the UK, in that order. France and the UK's population is predominantly the result of colonialism; Germany's was as a result of a much more sinister relationship with Islam during the Nazi era, combined with rampant labour immigration in the 90s. Both France and Germany are having undeniable and massive problems with their Muslim communities.
I have more to say on this issue - to do with the label 'racist', when in the majority of cases (admittedly not all) the label would more accurately be termed 'culturalist', but I'll leave that for another day. However, while talking about racism, I was told the term paddywaggon (which I used yesterday) is a racist term, yet there's a tour firm in Ireland called Paddywaggon Tours. So much for Irish people being offended by the term - I hate it when people get offended on behalf of people who aren't offended at all.
I have more to say on this issue - to do with the label 'racist', when in the majority of cases (admittedly not all) the label would more accurately be termed 'culturalist', but I'll leave that for another day. However, while talking about racism, I was told the term paddywaggon (which I used yesterday) is a racist term, yet there's a tour firm in Ireland called Paddywaggon Tours. So much for Irish people being offended by the term - I hate it when people get offended on behalf of people who aren't offended at all.
Went yakking again yesterday and did the Bathampton to Bath section of the River Avon. Some photos:
We called in at Saltford Marina on the way home:
12 comments:
If history really does have a lesson to teach us (and I wouldn't mind discussing that concept over a pint or two) surely it is a more sophisticated one than to simply respond to the idea of multiculturalism by saying "look at what happened to the Aborigines and the North American Indians"
Alan - I would insist on Cobra or Tsing Tao. None of your multicultural Yorkshire beer...
The business that is called Paddywagon is a tour company and operated by an Irish firm. What they have done is to reclaim the derisory term and used it for profit.
They are not using it the same way as you did yesterday which was ignorant and racist.
So the Irish friends I have who use the term and express no offence at anyone else's use of the term are either ignorant of its use or racist (it's a logical fallacy for someone to be both ignorant of the use and racust)?
Your response smacks somewhat heavily of the dogmatic, trendy, left wing penchant for labelling just about everything as racist. I'll leave aside for now that we're all Caucasian.
In regards to my political leaning you are correct I am a Socialist.
It is an ill founded assumption that we are all Caucasian.
The phrase caucasian comes from the area of southern Russia
called the Caucasus (series of mountains, contains nations
including Georgia and Azerbaijan).
Genealogy DNA studies suggest that the whole human race
began in North Africa/Middle East and our pigmentation differences
are due to melatonin and exposure to sunlight.
I suggest you read Blood of the Isles by professor Bryan Sykes. Cent is a cultural designation, not genetic. What we call the Celts have their origin in central Europe.
Yes, I have studied the origins of the Celts thank you and it is widely believed that their origination was the Himalayas, they occupied most of Europe from the Steppes of Russia to the Iberian Peninsula; incidentally many of the Celts that migrated to Ireland came from Iberia. A good source can be found on UCC Celt.
Thank you for your interest.
Believed, is the operative word. Bryan Sykes analysed the mitichondrial DNA of a large sample from all over the UK to reach evidence based conclusions. Honestly, I urge you to read his page on Wiki. The book is fascinating.
Are you aware of any ecumenical beers?
Research reveals:
The latest research into Irish DNA has confirmed that the early inhabitants of Ireland were not directly descended from the Keltoi of central Europe. In fact the closest genetic relatives of the Irish in Europe are to be found in the north of Spain in the region known as the Basque Country. These same ancestors are shared to an extent with the people of Britain - especially the Scottish.
DNA testing through the male Y chromosome has shown that Irish males have the highest incidence of the haplogroup 1 gene in Europe. While other parts of Europe have integrated contiuous waves of new settlers from Asia, Ireland's remote geographical position has meant that the Irish gene-pool has been less susceptible to change. The same genes have been passed down from parents to children for thousands of years.
This is mirrored in genetic studies which have compared DNA analysis with Irish surnames. Many surnames in Irish are Gaelic surnames, suggesting that the holder of the surname is a descendant of people who lived in Ireland long before the English conquests of the Middle Ages. Men with Gaelic surnames, showed the highest incidences of Haplogroup 1 (or Rb1) gene. This means that those Irish whose ancestors pre-date English conquest of the island are direct descendants of early stone age settlers who migrated from Spain.
"The indigenous people of the British Isles are made up of a combination of Celtic, Norse, Anglo-Saxon and Norman ancestry. Modern studies using DNA analysis, popularized by the geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer and others, increasingly suggest that three-quarters of Britons share a common ancestry with the hunter-gatherers who settled in Atlantic Europe during the Paleolithic era, "after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands".
Despite the separation of the British Isles from continental Europe following the last glacial period, the genetic record indicates that the British and Irish broadly share a closest common ancestry with the Basque people, who live in the Basque Country by the Pyrenees. Oppenheimer continues that the majority of the people of the British Isles share genetic commonalities with the Basques, ranging from highs of 90% in Wales to lows of 66% in East Anglia"
Ergo, there's not that much difference and we're all from the same basic stock.
In the final analysis, we're all out of Africa. Just how far back do you want to go?
And I was mistaken on the Central Europe statement. Mea culpa - but it makes no difference to the fact that the Britons were basically the same and subsequent invasions made little difference.
Post a Comment