Chamber of Debate

BRITISH NATION: its races and its nationhood

It is suggested that the police identification code system could be very helpful, allowing us to resolve questions of national and ethnic identity in one fell swoop.

The key:

IC1 for someone of Caucasian appearance, eg white-skinned European types - English, Scottish, Welsh, Scandinavian and Russian

IC2 for Mediterranean, eg dark-skinned European types - Sardinian, Spanish, Italian

IC3 for Afro-Caribbean, eg Negroid types - Caribbean, West Indian, African, Nigerian

IC4 for Asian, eg Indians and Pakistanis

IC5 for Oriental, eg Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, Siamese

IC6 for Arabians, Egyptians, Algerians, Moroccans and North Africans

Thus one could be English IC1 to 6, Scot IC1 to 6, Welsh IC1 to 6. This may be a sensible compromise since it is well-known that some white Britons resent their Englishness, Scottishness and Welshness being diluted by non-white Britons who are not their traditional and typical idea of one of their own countrymen, even if they were born and bred and speak with an identifiable regional accent, eg an Asian with a perfect Glaswegian, Cockney, Welsh accent that would pass any blind test.

*************************
Extremism among young Muslims in the UK is growing amid failure to combat alienation and poor handling of anti-terror laws, says a race watchdog.
Khurshid Ahmed, spokesman for Muslim issues at the Commission for Racial Equality, said Muslim communities need to stand up and be counted as British.

But the government had to stop the "terror" unleashed on UK Muslims by the security powers which followed 9/11.

Radicalisation among disaffected young Muslims was a real threat, he warned.

"I think [extremism] is growing and that is the worrying thing. It's a tiny minority of young people but they have proved vulnerable to external pressures," said Mr Ahmed. "This is the time to be vigilant."

Mr Ahmed, a CRE commissioner and former head of race equality in the west Midlands, said Muslims in that area had already established an early-warning network to alert mosques to potential agitators or extremists in the hope of marginalising and neutralising their influence.

Mr Ahmed said he had seen increasing instances of young Muslims believing they should not vote on religious grounds, influenced by radicals who say that democracy contradicts Islam.

"That's another area where some misinformed young people are going round.

"You can tell from their hate doctrine they don't want to be part of mainstream society and that's why we need to make sure we tackle the alienation of our young people to make them less vulnerable to these influences."

ENGLISH IDENTITY

Mr Ahmed, also chair of the National Association of British Pakistanis, said many Muslims lacked a pride in the UK because of historic race and religious discrimination.

But speaking ahead of St George's Day, he stressed new generations born in England who question their identity "needed to" describe themselves as English rather than just British, he said.

"We have to move away from this psychological barrier that you can only be English if you are white, Anglo-Saxon. Our children are born in this country and know no other country and that makes them indigenous.

"Most of these young people when they come to look at reality see they have no other choice than to be British.

"The Muslim community has to stand up and be counted as a British Muslim community and re-engage with young people who we have failed to engage for the last three decades.

"It is this alienation from community and family which pushes people to the laps of extremism.

"The responsibility [to act] lies within the community, but also within the government and others. The community cannot do it alone."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/3649137.stm

Published: 2004/04/23 01:05:36 GMT

© BBC MMVII

Vote: Should the respective identities of English, Scots and Welsh be reserved solely for people of Caucasian appearance?

Our Unique Parallel Polling System

OMOV (One Member One Vote)

Yes 45%

No 55%

Yes

OMMV (One Member Multiple Votes)

Yes 0%

No 100%

Yes

AAA Awarded members only.

Members Comments

Page 1 of 2

1 2

Records Per Page


EICHLAN	24-Apr-2010 0:34
Religions are the cross that God has on its back, they are the creation of men not God. If God made all mankind the it made them all equal. The hate is created by the writings of man as I don't think God had a pen.

WelshPatriot	22-Nov-2009 13:52
Prior to 1948 Britain was generally white and peaceful. Now it is rainbow and not peaceful, the evidence speaks for itself!

1in10	19-Jul-2009 19:33
I would define the difference between nationality and citizenship as follows: Nationality refers to a population group into which you are born - you cannot join, you are either a member or you are not. Citizenship refers to what polity you are currently a part of - it is determined by the Government and you may be allowed to join or leave as that Government wills, and you may be a member of as many polities as the various Governments allow. So for example there is no EU Nation, but there are citizens of the EU. There is a Hawaiian nation but there is currently no Hawaiian polity so no Hawaiian citizens.

Andromeda	19-Jul-2009 7:36
1in10, I think you are confusing nationality with ethnicity! Citizenship as far as I am concerned means nationality and I use them interchangeably. If you disagree, I must ask you to explain the difference between nationality and citizenship. You can have many nationalities, you hold as many nationalities as you hold passports from different countries, but you can only have one ethnicity, assuming that you know who both your parents are, their country of origin and ethnicity. Of course there would be sub-groups within the IC1 group, eg indigeneous white, a white from America, Canada, Australia, South Africa etc. This is to be discovered upon enquiry, or what it says with regard to place of birth on the passport. I cannot abide the nonsense that is this oxymoron - an "African American"! Identity is in any case a combination of these: 1) who you think you are 2) what others think you are 3) what you really are It should be defined as uncontroversially and as objectively as possible.

1in10	15-Jul-2009 23:30
There is a conflation here between nationality and citizenship which are not the same thing. You can have a state where the citizens are of a different nationality - China is a prime example. The scheme, as well as confusing citizenship with nationality, would seem to deny the unique identity of the indigenous people of these islands. It also, ironically, denies the unique identity of the non-British people. ‘Non-white’ means nothing, these people have their own nationality. If they wish to give up their nationality and become identity-less, culture-less cosmopolitans then that is their choice not something that should be forced on the British. There is also a question of who determines this. If the government determines your nationality they could determine it however they want – they could claim that the English are now all Peruvians! The idea that one can change one’s nationality is simply ludicrous. You are what you are. So why could we not instead have something similar to that of China with ethnic British being the equivalent of the Hanren?

Andromeda	31-Mar-2009 9:48
The purpose of the question is to separate the concept of race from the concept of nation. You may be aware of the existence of ethno-nationalists, ie the British National Party AKA the British NOSTALGIA Party, who believe that non-whites cannot by definition be part of the British nation. In my opinion , they confuse and conflate race with nation. Race is perceived visually while nationhood is abstract and must be defined. While a non-white British citizen may feel more Welsh than English or more English than Scots merely by virtue of the length of his residence in one of the 3 British countries, he tends not to be accepted as English/Scots/Welsh. Our identities are a combination of 2 perceptions: 1) who we think we are (the subjective and changeable, eg our religion and personal loyalties) 2) who other people think we are (what is objective, ie what we cannot change, eg our gender, race and family origins) I propose that our identity could be more rationally defined. You may be aware that non-whites are wary of defining themselves as English/Scots/Welsh, for fear of being laughed at and told: "You're not English/Scots/Welsh (one of us), you're a Paki/Black/Chink etc." Under the proposed system of being English/Welsh/Scots 1C1-6, non-whites can call themselves English/Welsh/Scots IC2-6 without offending the indigenous 1C1s who claim Englishness, Welshness, Scottishness as exclusive only to whites. In short this proposal gives a balanced definition of a British citizen's identity that takes into account both the objective and subjective elements of this equation. Since it is perfectly rational, I do not expect it to be adopted any time soon, either by the liberals or the ethno-nationalists!

TheBritishCitizen	30-Mar-2009 12:33
Who proposed or framed the wording of this question? I've never heard anyone suggest such a preposterous idea. The colour of someone's skin or the nature of their 'ethnicity' has nothing to do with where they were born, which is the main criterion of identity as a citizen. I'm sure over the centuries there have been all kinds of ethnic influences on our population, not least of which would be the Germanic roots of our so-called 'royal family'. There's a whole other debate about who we give citizenship (and therefore identity) to, and whether there should be some kind of 'approval' period before granting British (or English, Scots...) citizenship and identity. Having said all that, the notion of identity in someone's own head is an abstract one. I may be technically British because I was born here, but I could still feel American (or Indian, or Spanish...) if my parents were born abroad and instil in me that country's culture and values. But colour of skin as the basis of deciding identity? That's daft.

stuartac	1-Mar-2009 17:3
Ethnic is middle english and means 'heathen nation' and refers to someone who is neither christian nor jew hence is referred to as a 'heathen'. Race denotes a group with common features. Ideas of supposed racial superiority and social Darwinism reached their culmination in Nazi ideology of the 1930s and gave pseudoscientific justification to policies and attitudes of discrimination. Caucasian: one of the traditional divisions of humankind, covering a broad group of peoples from Europe, western Asia, and parts of India and North Africa. [ORIGIN: so named because the German physiologist Blumenbach believed that it originated in the Caucasus region of southeastern Europe. In the racial classification as developed by anthropologists in the 19th century, Caucasian (or Caucasoid) included peoples whose skin color ranged from light (in northern Europe) to dark (in parts of North Africa and India). English, Scottish or Welsh has nothing to do with appearance and everything to do with where the stork dropped you off! The English are a bastard race as it is because we have been subjected to invasion, and immigration for over 3,000 years. Even though an island we have not been able to keep wandering hoards and foreigners out. Even though we take pride in the fact that the last time we were conquered was when William came over and gave Harold a poke in the eye. Let alone the fact that the English subjugated 25% of the worlds land mass to Rule Britannia. If you cannot be labelled then you cause panic to various officials. The police think for the purposes of identification that they must put you in a pigeon hole. Then there are those whose aim is to make themselves unique, one of only a few, different. So they list their differences compared to the next person. That leads to segregation, people who feel they don't belong because they are reminded of their differences. They don't integrate because they are constantly reminded that they don't belong. The comments in this Vote: Should the respective identities of English, Scots and Welsh be reserved solely for people of Caucasian appearance: has nothing to do with a nation and everything to do with religion. How can you use external features to resolve questions of national and ethnic identity?

AndrewSlade	5-Jan-2009 15:53
2nd Comment: there is a totally false dichotomy between "moderate" and "extreme" Muslim invaders in Europe. The self styled "moderates" come to colonise, take over the professions, infiltrate politics & business & get power in those ways, at the expense of the benighted, demoralised & disorganised white native indigenes (many of whom collaborate enthusiastically with their own nemesis). Often, these "moderate" Muslim colonialists are older & of the first & 2nd generation infiltrators. But the younger men, as is the way with young men, are more confident& more ruthless in their lust for power and "lebensraum". Thrusting into what they rightly see as decadent, lazy Western societies, they elbow aside the great mass of discriminated, oppressed & poorly educated white debt-serfs, not disdaining the use of deadly force whenever effective. Seeing how Whitehall & Westminster capitulated to the Zionists in 1948, the IRA in 1992 & all the Independence Movements throughout the Developing World in between, now these young Muslims calculate (understandably) that the Establishment makes more & more concessions to them the more force they use or threaten. Each succeeding generation of Muslim Occupiers will become more emboldened by their thirst for Power & Conquest & yet more ruthless in their use of force to obtain that, as the indigenous Liberal Establishment retreats & collapses. So it was in British India, when the boot was on the other foot! Starting as small traders & shopkeepers in 1600, the Brits bided their time for 6 generations, until Muslim India collapsed & the British Raj seized the whole subcontinent by force. And so it may be here: already we see the first shopkeeper generation of invaders retire. By tolerating these cuckoos in the West European nest their sons & daughters have been allowed to infiltrate the professions: the Law, the Police and Politics. The third generation does not disdain the use of force against the Natives; whom they ALL equally despise as ignorant, lazy kaffirs- unbelievers- whose land rightly belongs to Allah's People and not to its original inhabitants. As each generation succeeds, these Invaders will become bolder & bolder, the white Kaffirs weaker & weaker & more demoralised.

AndrewSlade	5-Jan-2009 15:19
Of course the English are a white, uncircumcised indigenous people (none of which is their fault). They are now back at the bottom of the heap, as they were in William the Conqueror's time & the British under the Roman lash. Nearly every other indigenous people in the world has their own Homeland, larger or smaller, from China to Swaziland, mostly won through bloody sacrifice & struggle over the last 60 years. But the English & French, partly through negligence and mainly through the ruthlessness of foreign invaders & colonialists, who have raped and stolen their countries from them, ethnically cleansed their people out of the cities they built and out of their most lucrative & powerful professions. This is either irony or Divine Justice, since the Brits & French have been doing just the same to other Nations & Tribes all over the world for centuries past! Biters bit & hoist with their own petards! Muslims have approximately 60 Sovereign Nations & City States of their own (no one denies that, not even in Palestine) & Blacks have approximately 57 Black Supremacist States (some are both black & Muslim, eg Senegal). Meanwhile, no one denies the right of the Welsh, Scots, Basques & Irish to their own Homelands. Yet thereare two noteable exceptions to the rule of self determination established in Magna Carta, the UN Charter etc. English & French people are not allowed their own homelands. Why not? Because the World Ruling Elite wants revenge on defeated imperialists ("How are the mighty fallen") who once oppressed them & are now the oppressed. More particularly, the two great cities Paris % London, have been appropriated as International Cosmopolises, which, unfortunately, entails ethnically cleansing their indigenous populations ("white flight") & killing off indigenous babies by millions in the cosmopolitans' Abortion Holocaust.