http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/396390/...ty-by-2066
The trend has been spearheaded by London where, according to the 2011 census, White Britons have become a
minority in their own capital city. We are spending much time here about how the Germanic migration proved to be a turning point for the history of Britain and how it changed its character from Romano-Celtic to Germanic.
Now in Britain, it seems, a demographic development of the same historical magnitude is underway. We attach great importance to the Anglo-Saxon influx in our study of Britain's history, why shouldn't we attach equally large significance to the current influx of African and Asian immigration and its demographic impact? For most historians and archaeologists worth its salt it is undeniable that the ethnic changes of the past brought profound cultural, social, economic and changes to the country's character, so why should it be any different this time?
Quite possibly scholars in the future will look at our time and differ between Britain before and after Third World immigration the same way we routinely do with the Anglo-Saxon or Norman conquest.
From the trends we see today, it does not only seem that white British culture is slowly, but constantly fading, at least numerically, simultaneously we also see it retreating from (certain parts of the) cities. In this it is not unlike the retreat of the Romano-Celts deeper into the country following the Anglo-Saxon incursions who first got a foothold at the strategically and economically important places. Demographers who have identified this trend call it White flight, basically a population replacement whereby ethnic majority areas are growing (link), while white people are retreating from these areas (link).
From the perspective of a historian interested in macrohistorical developments: Is this the end of Britain as we know it? Will the country's face change unrecognizably in the coming decades?
---
Unfortunately, the software is blocking out links to the British press which I would have liked to post.
Whites will be a minority in the US by 2030-ish supposedly.
The tendence seems to be the same in almost all European countries
I've never read an article so packed with covert racism, to be honest. As academics and scholars we should be able to read this as the intentionally misleading diatribe it is. Why does it differentiate between white and non-white Britons? Why does it equate non-white Britons with non-Britons? If you are a British citizen you have a natural right to live here regardless of your skin colour or even your personal beliefs/lifestyle.
Overall the tone is horribly reminiscent of the Fourteen Words, even if it does use sly innuendo rather than overt racism. In case you were wondering though, Professor David Coleman is indeed a eugenicist and also a founder member of MigrationWatch (so no surprise at the endorsement there).
Quote:I've never read an article so packed with covert racism, to be honest. As academics and scholars we should be able to read this as the intentionally misleading diatribe it is.
What exactly is misleading? Do you A. deny the stats or do you B. deny academics the right to research and discuss these population stats? Because these are two very different things.
If White Britons indeed soon become the minority, as the study argues, in what way does this demographic change constitute "racism"? Would you argue by extension that the research into past demographic changes of Britain is also racist? Honestly, I don't think so, (academic) freedom of speech applies here as much as elsewhere.
It is interesting to note that migrants who have fully adapted to the society they came into face a serious problem of being alienated both from their own culture and the one of the country they have migrated to. Shunning migrants who have legally entered a country creates the problem, not the migrants themselves. As long as people adhere to common values, there is no problem as far as I can see. Being tolerant to migrants can enrich a society who is openminded enough to except them as equals, for this is what they are. There are serious issues, this I will not deny, with ghetto-forming (please look up the origin of the ghetto) and non-adaptation, people not speaking the language even after having been there for 20 years, but these should be specificly adressed.
Funny thing is that birthcontrol was propagated by those fearing the inferior (very white) masses would outbreed the academics. Well, that was 100 years ago!! Academia is still there. Human society has a way of assimilating those of foreign decent, in the end run profiting from that process. It is not a new thing, but has been of all times.
IMHO its about culture, not race. Any society that has a large influx of migrants (from whatever race) that do not assimilate into the culture of the county will face a dramatic change in its values and institutions.
I don't know why some feel discussing such things is taboo. Its simple historical fact. The problem occurs when one starts making judgments as to the comparative value of the cultures involved. But noticing and studying the facts and effects should not be off-limits.
Stefan wrote:
From the perspective of a historian interested in macrohistorical developments: Is this the end of Britain as we know it? Will the country's face change unrecognizably in the coming decades?
Dear Stefan,
Every day is the end of the Britain (or the world) as we knew it, with or without migration. Disasters like war or communism can slow down change (Britain of the 30ties was very similar to Britain of the 50ties, but changed beyond recognition in the next decade) but it cannot stop it (the welfare state was developed in the war economy). These changes are not the same as migration, as any historian can tell you.
However, it would seem that with the country's changing face you do not mean change in culture, but literally the change of facial colour. Well then, get from behind your computer and breed!
The main problem that I have with the whole immigration issue is that anyone who speaks out against it is instantly attacked by those who are for it. Let there be civil, reasonable discussion, not name-calling and silencing of the opposition. We should always be questioning and reviewing our view of the world and its history with mind to facts both old and new, imo.
My view is this: I have no problems with people of other races simply because of their ethnicity. I do, however, dislike the whole modern mass-immigration idea in Europe and throughout the world, as well as the self-hate promoted by so many among the natives. I believe in human diversity, but to me that is not achieved by mass-mixing our natural groups together. If anything, that would decrease it, by assimilating one group into another or destroying both to only create one new culture and/or race. Do I advocate isolation, or societal segregation? No, I believe that we can work, play, trade, and so forth together, it would be unfair and counterproductive to act otherwise. However, the natives have just as much a right to their own country, and to not have it taken from them if it is not their will. They allowed these people to come to these lands for a better life. Common courtesy demands that the newcomers don't abuse this gift.
Quote:I don't know why some feel discussing such things is taboo.
'Discussing' immigration isn't a problem - everyone's doing that nowadays. Even the Queen of England.
But the reports and statistics mentioned in the original article are neither disinterested nor objective. They are highly political and controversial, and I've seen them challenged enough times to be very dubious about them.
Self-appointed immigration experts banging their drum in the right-wing tabloid press are not the same as historians studying the migration era from a distance of half a millenium. Nobody is arguing that the Franks should be retrospectively deported, or the Visigoths rounded up and shipped off back to Bulgaria (or wherever they came from). Unfortunately some people like to argue similar things in the world today, and deliberately inflammatory articles like this one only raise the temperature and make a real assessment of the situation impossible.
If a civilization is strong enough, it will survive. It doesn't matter who are the invaders.
Roman civilization was so strong that it survived to the end of the Empire. "Barbarians" started to speak native languages (latin), started to use the roman law, the structure of the society etc.
Why should it be any different today?
To speak frankly : do you think that the muslim religion will obliterate our occidental way of life?
As far as I see, the vast majority of muslims are very well integrated (at least in France).
Skin color is not an issue. Religion could be.
In other points of the globe, people are afraid that their native language will be replaced by english. In other points of the globe, their culture was almost totally replaced (look at the americas or africa).
Good for the gene pool. Stop moaning.
Seriously guys, we should stop comparing this to an invasion. The Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans came to Britain with the intention over taking over the place and let everybody else adhere to their rules. That is an invasion.
The steady influx of slaves into ancient Chinese, Roman and classical Islamic civilisations is something very different altogether. These slaves did not change the civilisations they entered, because they had only their hard work to offer. They or their children were eventually freed, became loyal taxpayers and kept the declining populations of these civilisation up to strenght, being only to glad to part of it.
Todays immigrants should better be compared with those slaves, only they come voluntarily, fleeing from poverty, injustice, backwardness and corruption. They do not arrive with a program to take over the place, as they only have their labour to offer. They so strongly adapt that, just like Stefan and some other aboriginals, a noisy few bemoan the loss of their culture, without really wanting to see what that culture had been.
Calling immigration an invasion is not "academic speech" and throwing nationality, race, culture and religion together as if they are the same thing is not a "scientific debate". They are ultra right-wing humbug, and you know it Stefan, so stop playing the offended innocent, you are not fooling anyone.
I think that the point of it all is simply one of economic migration that will in time create yet other economic problems for the western world.
I think a point that's being missed is this economic migration has always been covered by legislation but never enforced (employees being forced to act as self-employed rather than the actual employees that they are), and businesses hiring them have profited from the resulting erosion of average wages and reduced need to recognise their statutory rights.
Always follow the money.