Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by ugetmi: quote: Originally posted by Tarnhari: quote: Originally posted by ugetmi: quote: Originally posted by Tarnhari: quote: Originally posted by Little RJ: quote: Originally posted by Tarnhari: quote: Originally posted by Blake2go:
Have Black Americans added to, or subtracted from, your life.
This is an open ended question, take it where you will.
Well if drive by shootings, ridiculous `street gangsta` clothing and misogynist and racist `music` is anything to go by then I would say that their effect has been `less than positive.`
But if you're that selective about what you call 'culture' you haven't asked the question, let alone tried to answer it.
Are you saying that black `gangsta rapper` streetlife constitutes a `culture`? In what way? Would we not have to radically shift the permimetres of how we define culture?
I don't think it would: One definition of culture is: way of life, lifestyle, customs, ways, habits and mores.
Obviously your definition of `culture`. I would propose the following: 1. the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc. 2. that which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc. 3. a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture. 4. development or improvement of the mind by education or training. I would hardly classify black street `culture` as falling in to any of those categories, which is how any great civilisation would define the term.
My definition is a dictionary sub-definition for culture. For instance, [1 & 2] is what I'd call 'cultured' rather than a 'culture'. A culture can be good or bad, depending on your point of view. You might hear the phrase "A culture of enlightenment", "A culture of ignorance" or a "Superficial culture", all still 'cultures'.
Ok, if you are categorising violent black `gangsta street culture` as low culture or anti-culture then I would agree with you. This is one aspect of immigration that has certainly not `enriched` the peoples of Britain! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Miss Dee: quote: Originally posted by ugetmi:
[However, '-saxon' has nothing to do with the racial mix or orgins of modern black british people.
Does it have much to do with the racial mix of modern white British people? By the way, I'm commonly what's referred to as 'black', but I have a Scottish great great grandfather. So do I have the right to be called a Black Briton? When I've traced my granny's family tree I believe I might find an Englishman: would I then be justified in taking the label of Afrosaxon? Or are we taking the view that one drop of 'black' blood taints the whole?
If you have one Scottish great great grandfather then one would infer that you are 1/16 Scottish[6.25%]. Your phenotype would undoubredly be black not European and it is from the persons phenotype that we would classify race. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ugetmi: quote: Originally posted by Miss Dee: quote: Originally posted by ugetmi:
[However, '-saxon' has nothing to do with the racial mix or orgins of modern black british people.
Does it have much to do with the racial mix of modern white British people? By the way, I'm commonly what's referred to as 'black', but I have a Scottish great great grandfather. So do I have the right to be called a Black Briton? When I've traced my granny's family tree I believe I might find an Englishman: would I then be justified in taking the label of Afrosaxon? Or are we taking the view that one drop of 'black' blood taints the whole?
It's just that Afrosaxon is a silly label because of what it implies. Saxon being a term for germanic settlers/invaders in England around 1000 years ago. You ask if you have the 'right' to be called a 'black briton', why ask me? I'm just saying that Afrosaxon is a silly and inaccurate term that sounds very politically correct. And has the ring of "well Afro sounds a little bit like Ango, so why not?" If you're black and you are from Britian then surely you're British, Black British, English, Scottish, Welsh or whatever way you want to describe yourself? I call myself English but I'm really British. If you can trace your family tree back to Saxon invaders/settlers then you can describe yourself as Afrosaxon, if you want, but I'd guess that very few modern black people can do that. For instance, if you have Scottish forebears why describe yourself as Afrosaxon when you could equally describe yourself as Afro-Scottish - as your Scottish roots are closer than your Saxon roots!
How can someone whose origins lie in Africa rightfully refer to themselves as being `English`? To be English one should be able to assume to be a descendant of the Angli/Engle[the Angles] or their Saxon brothers who invaded and started to colonise Britain in the mid 5th century CE. It is an ethnic not a political term and rightfully is the posession of the Anglo-Saxon peoples. Being born in England or having a British passport does not change your ethnicity! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Tarnhari: quote: Originally posted by ugetmi: quote: Originally posted by Miss Dee: quote: Originally posted by ugetmi:
[However, '-saxon' has nothing to do with the racial mix or orgins of modern black british people.
Does it have much to do with the racial mix of modern white British people? By the way, I'm commonly what's referred to as 'black', but I have a Scottish great great grandfather. So do I have the right to be called a Black Briton? When I've traced my granny's family tree I believe I might find an Englishman: would I then be justified in taking the label of Afrosaxon? Or are we taking the view that one drop of 'black' blood taints the whole?
It's just that Afrosaxon is a silly label because of what it implies. Saxon being a term for germanic settlers/invaders in England around 1000 years ago. You ask if you have the 'right' to be called a 'black briton', why ask me? I'm just saying that Afrosaxon is a silly and inaccurate term that sounds very politically correct. And has the ring of "well Afro sounds a little bit like Ango, so why not?" If you're black and you are from Britian then surely you're British, Black British, English, Scottish, Welsh or whatever way you want to describe yourself? I call myself English but I'm really British. If you can trace your family tree back to Saxon invaders/settlers then you can describe yourself as Afrosaxon, if you want, but I'd guess that very few modern black people can do that. For instance, if you have Scottish forebears why describe yourself as Afrosaxon when you could equally describe yourself as Afro-Scottish - as your Scottish roots are closer than your Saxon roots!
How can someone whose origins lie in Africa rightfully refer to themselves as being `English`? To be English one should be able to assume to be a descendant of the Angli/Engle[the Angles] or their Saxon brothers who invaded and started to colonise Britain in the mid 5th century CE. It is an ethnic not a political term and rightfully is the posession of the Anglo-Saxon peoples. Being born in England or having a British passport does not change your ethnicity!
But England is a country name that's stuck, not a race. You make the point of saying Saxons 'invaded'. You wouldn't need to invade a land if you were indigenous to it. In theory, the government could rename England, 'Albion' tomorrow. Where would that leave the descendants (by now much diluted anyway) of Saxons, Angles etc? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ugetmi: quote: Originally posted by Tarnhari: quote: Originally posted by ugetmi: quote: Originally posted by Miss Dee: quote: Originally posted by ugetmi:
[However, '-saxon' has nothing to do with the racial mix or orgins of modern black british people.
Does it have much to do with the racial mix of modern white British people? By the way, I'm commonly what's referred to as 'black', but I have a Scottish great great grandfather. So do I have the right to be called a Black Briton? When I've traced my granny's family tree I believe I might find an Englishman: would I then be justified in taking the label of Afrosaxon? Or are we taking the view that one drop of 'black' blood taints the whole?
It's just that Afrosaxon is a silly label because of what it implies. Saxon being a term for germanic settlers/invaders in England around 1000 years ago. You ask if you have the 'right' to be called a 'black briton', why ask me? I'm just saying that Afrosaxon is a silly and inaccurate term that sounds very politically correct. And has the ring of "well Afro sounds a little bit like Ango, so why not?" If you're black and you are from Britian then surely you're British, Black British, English, Scottish, Welsh or whatever way you want to describe yourself? I call myself English but I'm really British. If you can trace your family tree back to Saxon invaders/settlers then you can describe yourself as Afrosaxon, if you want, but I'd guess that very few modern black people can do that. For instance, if you have Scottish forebears why describe yourself as Afrosaxon when you could equally describe yourself as Afro-Scottish - as your Scottish roots are closer than your Saxon roots!
How can someone whose origins lie in Africa rightfully refer to themselves as being `English`? To be English one should be able to assume to be a descendant of the Angli/Engle[the Angles] or their Saxon brothers who invaded and started to colonise Britain in the mid 5th century CE. It is an ethnic not a political term and rightfully is the posession of the Anglo-Saxon peoples. Being born in England or having a British passport does not change your ethnicity!
But England is a country name that's stuck, not a race. You make the point of saying Saxons 'invaded'. You wouldn't need to invade a land if you were indigenous to it. In theory, the government could rename England, 'Albion' tomorrow. Where would that leave the descendants (by now much diluted anyway) of Saxons, Angles etc?
Yes England is a country name, formed from Englalond, the land of the Angles and their related Germanic tribesmen. An Englishman is a descendant of these selfsame creators of England. It is an ethnic term, not a political one. An immigrant may acquire British citizenship but he cannot acquire an ethnic identity which does not belong to him but to the indigenous people. The English people are not `diluted`. They still exist as a distinct ethnic identity. The presence of non-English people within England does not `dilute` the authentic English people. The English people are `indigenous` in the sense that England was formed by them through conquest and is their exclusive possession. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Tarnhari:
England is a country name, formed from Englalond, the land of the Angles and their related Germanic tribesmen. An Englishman is a descendant of these selfsame creators of England. It is an ethnic term, not a political one. An immigrant may acquire British citizenship but he cannot acquire an ethnic identity which does not belong to him but to the indigenous people.
The English people are not `diluted`. They still exist as a distinct ethnic identity. The presence of non-English people within England does not `dilute` the authentic English people.
The English people are `indigenous` in the sense that England was formed by them through conquest and is their exclusive possession.
This is all very odd, and I'm still not clear what noun I am supposed to use to refer to my nationality! As far as you're concerned, ethnicity, defined principally by what one looks like, is all that matters. Many diasporic black people in Europe and the Americas have actually taken that line, principally as a result of rejection by white people, but they have unfortunately found it doesn't really get them very far; calling yourself 'African' just because your skin is black leads to problems of its own, not least the fact that Africans can tell the difference between a member of their own culture and the culture of a visitor raised in Europe or the US! For you, culture is apparently irrelevant, though. This is very revealing. It provides an explanation as to why some white people will never accept black people as one of them, whatever they do to assimilate or integrate. Blackness remains the inescapable prison of the outsider in any context where there are white people. Furthermore, you are essentially saying that black people of the diaspora must be at home nowhere, always outsiders because their neighbours will always see them as such, whether they stay in Europe or 'go back to Africa'. Have you ever read Frantz Fanon's 'Black Skins, White Masks'? A mid-twentieth century classic that is still relevant to what you are saying. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Miss Dee: quote: Originally posted by Tarnhari:
England is a country name, formed from Englalond, the land of the Angles and their related Germanic tribesmen. An Englishman is a descendant of these selfsame creators of England. It is an ethnic term, not a political one. An immigrant may acquire British citizenship but he cannot acquire an ethnic identity which does not belong to him but to the indigenous people.
The English people are not `diluted`. They still exist as a distinct ethnic identity. The presence of non-English people within England does not `dilute` the authentic English people.
The English people are `indigenous` in the sense that England was formed by them through conquest and is their exclusive possession.
This is all very odd, and I'm still not clear what noun I am supposed to use to refer to my nationality! As far as you're concerned, ethnicity, defined principally by what one looks like, is all that matters. Many diasporic black people in Europe and the Americas have actually taken that line, principally as a result of rejection by white people, but they have unfortunately found it doesn't really get them very far; calling yourself 'African' just because your skin is black leads to problems of its own, not least the fact that Africans can tell the difference between a member of their own culture and the culture of a visitor raised in Europe or the US! For you, culture is apparently irrelevant, though. This is very revealing. It provides an explanation as to why some white people will never accept black people as one of them, whatever they do to assimilate or integrate. Blackness remains the inescapable prison of the outsider in any context where there are white people. Furthermore, you are essentially saying that black people of the diaspora must be at home nowhere, always outsiders because their neighbours will always see them as such, whether they stay in Europe or 'go back to Africa'. Have you ever read Frantz Fanon's 'Black Skins, White Masks'? A mid-twentieth century classic that is still relevant to what you are saying.
In my view nationality is the wrong term to use as it is related to the term `nation`. Members of a nation share primarily the same ethnicity. Culture and language are side products of this. The principal element is the biological tie between one member of a nation with another. One must be born into a nation which is the extension of the clan and the family. One cannot arrive at someone else`s house, expect to be admitted and then be accepted as `one of the family`. It is ludicrous to expect anything different. As far as I can tell there never has been a referendum by the Celtic and Germanic inhabitants of Britain as to whether they wished to have a multiracial and multicultural society imposed upon them. And imposed it was! |
| |
|
|
Tarnhari
You're making yourself clearer and clearer, but I still find your complete identification of genes (or just skin colour) with culture to be a strange one. It seems to fly in the face of the reality of globalisation, pluralism and identity formation.
Plus, complaining about the imposition of multiracialism/multiculturalism is bizarre when you consider that ethnically British people have been spreading their genes around the world for centuries!
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Miss Dee:
Tarnhari
You're making yourself clearer and clearer, but I still find your complete identification of genes (or just skin colour) with culture to be a strange one. It seems to fly in the face of the reality of globalisation, pluralism and identity formation.
Plus, complaining about the imposition of multiracialism/multiculturalism is bizarre when you consider that ethnically British people have been spreading their genes around the world for centuries!
No, race is far more than just skin colour. Other physical characteristics come into play as well.  And of course there are the very different behavioural and intellectual differences. Just as no two people are the same no two peoples or races are either. Most peoples `identity formation` is based upon their racial origins. Those who seek to stray beyond nature`s limits such as `wiggers` end up confused, isolated, ridiculed and rejected by both their own people and the race that they would seek to mimic. Constant talk about `globalism` does not eradicate the reality of race and racial differences. It suits the agenda of global capitalism to eradicate all differences based on nationality, race and culture. It is more convenient for the Coca-Cola anti-culture that the world be reduced to a `global village`, a one shoe size fits all society for the manufacture and sale of their shoddy goods. The `democratic` politicians are all part of the process. There is no such thing as an `ethnically British` person unless you are referring to a Welsh or Cornishman! Anyway to address your point I do not support the practice of `spreading one`s genes around the world` as I think you may have gathered by now! |
| |
|
|
Tarnhari
Reading your posts on this subject it seems to be me that I will never agree with you because I don't see the distinction you see on racial/ethnic grounds.
I regard England as a nation state not an ethnic identity that is exclusively the property of Anglosaxon-derived people. I don't believe that many can trace their lineage directly to those people. It's really a case of "What's in a name" to me.
The fact the England derives from the original Angleland (or whatever) is merely a fact of history rather than a statement of ownership. I understand that America may have derived from Amerigo Vespucci an Italian cartographer, so should only Southern European originated people have a right to call themselves American?
In the case of America you have a country that was simply derived from the name of cartographer/merchant, but no one bothered to rename it, so to me, it's just "What's in a name".
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Tarnhari: quote: Originally posted by Miss Dee:
Tarnhari
You're making yourself clearer and clearer, but I still find your complete identification of genes (or just skin colour) with culture to be a strange one. It seems to fly in the face of the reality of globalisation, pluralism and identity formation.
Plus, complaining about the imposition of multiracialism/multiculturalism is bizarre when you consider that ethnically British people have been spreading their genes around the world for centuries!
No, race is far more than just skin colour. Other physical characteristics come into play as well. And of course there are the very different behavioural and intellectual differences. Just as no two people are the same no two peoples or races are either. Most peoples `identity formation` is based upon their racial origins. Those who seek to stray beyond nature`s limits such as `wiggers` end up confused, isolated, ridiculed and rejected by both their own people and the race that they would seek to mimic. Constant talk about `globalism` does not eradicate the reality of race and racial differences. It suits the agenda of global capitalism to eradicate all differences based on nationality, race and culture. It is more convenient for the Coca-Cola anti-culture that the world be reduced to a `global village`, a one shoe size fits all society for the manufacture and sale of their shoddy goods. The `democratic` politicians are all part of the process. There is no such thing as an `ethnically British` person unless you are referring to a Welsh or Cornishman! Anyway to address your point I do not support the practice of `spreading one`s genes around the world` as I think you may have gathered by now!
Races are not a barrier of nature. What barrier is this? I don't think there is a 'natural' barrier at all. As for white people adapting popular cultural influences like rap and dressing in 'street' styles, being ridiculed. They are only ridiculed in the same way that a person brought up in, say rural Cambridgeshire, would be if they tried to speak with a cockney accent. And this is simply because it sounds out of character to their upbringing. Whatever you think about rap etc, there's a hell of a lot of white people who like it and take their influences from it. R&B/Rap are THE most popular forms of music and influences of fashion this country. Personally, I mostly don't like either, but that's not the point. One problem with sharing a common language with Americans is that we do have their media and culture rammed down our throats. Just the same as we watch their films, use their business clichés, eat their burgers, enevitably we listen to their music, and their most popular music is Rap/R&B. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ugetmi: quote: Originally posted by Tarnhari: quote: Originally posted by Miss Dee:
Tarnhari
You're making yourself clearer and clearer, but I still find your complete identification of genes (or just skin colour) with culture to be a strange one. It seems to fly in the face of the reality of globalisation, pluralism and identity formation.
Plus, complaining about the imposition of multiracialism/multiculturalism is bizarre when you consider that ethnically British people have been spreading their genes around the world for centuries!
No, race is far more than just skin colour. Other physical characteristics come into play as well. And of course there are the very different behavioural and intellectual differences. Just as no two people are the same no two peoples or races are either. Most peoples `identity formation` is based upon their racial origins. Those who seek to stray beyond nature`s limits such as `wiggers` end up confused, isolated, ridiculed and rejected by both their own people and the race that they would seek to mimic. Constant talk about `globalism` does not eradicate the reality of race and racial differences. It suits the agenda of global capitalism to eradicate all differences based on nationality, race and culture. It is more convenient for the Coca-Cola anti-culture that the world be reduced to a `global village`, a one shoe size fits all society for the manufacture and sale of their shoddy goods. The `democratic` politicians are all part of the process. There is no such thing as an `ethnically British` person unless you are referring to a Welsh or Cornishman! Anyway to address your point I do not support the practice of `spreading one`s genes around the world` as I think you may have gathered by now!
Races are not a barrier of nature. What barrier is this? I don't think there is a 'natural' barrier at all. As for white people adapting popular cultural influences like rap and dressing in 'street' styles, being ridiculed. They are only ridiculed in the same way that a person brought up in, say rural Cambridgeshire, would be if they tried to speak with a cockney accent. And this is simply because it sounds out of character to their upbringing. Whatever you think about rap etc, there's a hell of a lot of white people who like it and take their influences from it. R&B/Rap are THE most popular forms of music and influences of fashion this country. Personally, I mostly don't like either, but that's not the point. One problem with sharing a common language with Americans is that we do have their media and culture rammed down our throats. Just the same as we watch their films, use their business clichés, eat their burgers, enevitably we listen to their music, and their most popular music is Rap/R&B.
I didn`t use the term `barrier`: you did! Europeans have inherited the most advanced culture in the world. Why any European would choose to adopt an alien culture which is focused around calling women `biatches`, violent crime, drugs and hatred of white people is beyond me. Perhaps these people are mentally deficient? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ugetmi:
Tarnhari
Reading your posts on this subject it seems to be me that I will never agree with you because I don't see the distinction you see on racial/ethnic grounds.
I regard England as a nation state not an ethnic identity that is exclusively the property of Anglosaxon-derived people. I don't believe that many can trace their lineage directly to those people. It's really a case of "What's in a name" to me.
The fact the England derives from the original Angleland (or whatever) is merely a fact of history rather than a statement of ownership. I understand that America may have derived from Amerigo Vespucci an Italian cartographer, so should only Southern European originated people have a right to call themselves American?
In the case of America you have a country that was simply derived from the name of cartographer/merchant, but no one bothered to rename it, so to me, it's just "What's in a name".
England is not a `nation state`. It has none of the apparatus of a state. Perhaps you are confusing England with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? England has taken its name from the folk group who created it, the Anglo-Saxons. The land was fought for with the spilling of blood-our own blood and the blood of the pre-conquest Celtic population. What the English fought for and held onto for centuries disloyal politicians from the 1950s onwards have given away to divers alien peoples. And what is worse none of these traitors have ever been called to account for their crimes against the English people. All peoples are entitled to their own Lebensraum without interference from others. As I have already said no one asked the English or British peoples whether they ever wanted a multiracial society: it was forced upon us. Comparing England and its origins with the discovery of the Americas betrays your ignorance of ancient English history. Unfortunately even the native English are ignorant of this history as well despite state education. One good reason why I intend to homeschool my daughter. |
| |
|
|
I wish her well!
|
| |
|
|
Tarnhari
Wherever your daughter gets her education, she'll have to to grow up and live in society as it is now.
Don't we all have a role to play in creating a harmonious society? Is it really a good idea to encourage people to feel bitter and grudgeful because they're living amongst 'the wrong' sort?
I was also wondering what kind of books you'll be teaching your daughter from. There can't be many historians out there who share your perspectives on ethnic and cultural purity. Will you have to write her history books yourself?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Tarnhari: quote: Originally posted by ugetmi: quote: Originally posted by Tarnhari: quote: Originally posted by Miss Dee:
Tarnhari
You're making yourself clearer and clearer, but I still find your complete identification of genes (or just skin colour) with culture to be a strange one. It seems to fly in the face of the reality of globalisation, pluralism and identity formation.
Plus, complaining about the imposition of multiracialism/multiculturalism is bizarre when you consider that ethnically British people have been spreading their genes around the world for centuries!
No, race is far more than just skin colour. Other physical characteristics come into play as well. And of course there are the very different behavioural and intellectual differences. Just as no two people are the same no two peoples or races are either. Most peoples `identity formation` is based upon their racial origins. Those who seek to stray beyond nature`s limits such as `wiggers` end up confused, isolated, ridiculed and rejected by both their own people and the race that they would seek to mimic. Constant talk about `globalism` does not eradicate the reality of race and racial differences. It suits the agenda of global capitalism to eradicate all differences based on nationality, race and culture. It is more convenient for the Coca-Cola anti-culture that the world be reduced to a `global village`, a one shoe size fits all society for the manufacture and sale of their shoddy goods. The `democratic` politicians are all part of the process. There is no such thing as an `ethnically British` person unless you are referring to a Welsh or Cornishman! Anyway to address your point I do not support the practice of `spreading one`s genes around the world` as I think you may have gathered by now!
Races are not a barrier of nature. What barrier is this? I don't think there is a 'natural' barrier at all. As for white people adapting popular cultural influences like rap and dressing in 'street' styles, being ridiculed. They are only ridiculed in the same way that a person brought up in, say rural Cambridgeshire, would be if they tried to speak with a cockney accent. And this is simply because it sounds out of character to their upbringing. Whatever you think about rap etc, there's a hell of a lot of white people who like it and take their influences from it. R&B/Rap are THE most popular forms of music and influences of fashion this country. Personally, I mostly don't like either, but that's not the point. One problem with sharing a common language with Americans is that we do have their media and culture rammed down our throats. Just the same as we watch their films, use their business clichés, eat their burgers, enevitably we listen to their music, and their most popular music is Rap/R&B.
I didn`t use the term `barrier`: you did! Europeans have inherited the most advanced culture in the world. Why any European would choose to adopt an alien culture which is focused around calling women `biatches`, violent crime, drugs and hatred of white people is beyond me. Perhaps these people are mentally deficient?
[Quote]Europeans have inherited the most advanced culture in the world. Why any European would choose to adopt an alien culture which is focused around calling women `biatches`, violent crime, drugs and hatred of white people is beyond me. Perhaps these people are mentally deficient?{/QUOTE] Are these the same Europeans who started two World Wars costing the lives of millions of peoples, using what must be the most barbaric methods of mass murder the planet has ever seen. The same ones that could possibly accuse ANYother race of people of being, hateful or violent? If that's what you regard as Advanced God help us all.  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Miss Dee:
Tarnhari
Wherever your daughter gets her education, she'll have to to grow up and live in society as it is now.
Don't we all have a role to play in creating a harmonious society? Is it really a good idea to encourage people to feel bitter and grudgeful because they're living amongst 'the wrong' sort?
I was also wondering what kind of books you'll be teaching your daughter from. There can't be many historians out there who share your perspectives on ethnic and cultural purity. Will you have to write her history books yourself?
My daughter will be educated at home and will be shielded from all the chaos of school life and the mind conditioning which goes with it. I have rather a large library of books which will one day be hers, books on history, especially Indo-European and Garmanic history, mythology, Germanic languages and authentic Indo-European and Germanic spirituality. All these books have been carefully selected being reprints of works published originally in the late 19th and early 20th centuries or sympathetic to a Traditional[meant in an Evolian/Guenonian sense] world view, free from the bias and taint of mordern day bolshevic indoctrination. She will be trained to think as an individual and to analyse critically the degraded society in which she finds herself. Being in society but aloof from it-in an Evolian sense. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Keyser Söze: quote: Originally posted by Tarnhari: quote: Originally posted by ugetmi: quote: Originally posted by Tarnhari:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Miss Dee:
Tarnhari
You're making yourself clearer and clearer, but I still find your complete identification of genes (or just skin colour) with culture to be a strange one. It seems to fly in the face of the reality of globalisation, pluralism and identity formation.
Plus, complaining about the imposition of multiracialism/multiculturalism is bizarre when you consider that ethnically British people have been spreading their genes around the world for centuries!
No, race is far more than just skin colour. Other physical characteristics come into play as well. And of course there are the very different behavioural and intellectual differences. Just as no two people are the same no two peoples or races are either. Most peoples `identity formation` is based upon their racial origins. Those who seek to stray beyond nature`s limits such as `wiggers` end up confused, isolated, ridiculed and rejected by both their own people and the race that they would seek to mimic. Constant talk about `globalism` does not eradicate the reality of race and racial differences. It suits the agenda of global capitalism to eradicate all differences based on nationality, race and culture. It is more convenient for the Coca-Cola anti-culture that the world be reduced to a `global village`, a one shoe size fits all society for the manufacture and sale of their shoddy goods. The `democratic` politicians are all part of the process. There is no such thing as an `ethnically British` person unless you are referring to a Welsh or Cornishman! Anyway to address your point I do not support the practice of `spreading
| |
