Again, no need to get personal: someone objectively observing and denouncing a vast, high level, well coordinated effort of smearing and humiliating hundreds of millions of people based on their skin color (wait, what's that called again? Starts with an R...) doesn't at all imply that the person making that observation feels like a legit target of that slur, that it's their "own issue". If I suddenly call you a dumbass or a douchebag (which I won't), does that suddenly make you one? It doesn't make any sense, at least I'd hope so.
I never said that native British ethnicity was equal to or limited to skin whiteness; Britain has obviously been interacting with the continent and the Mediterranean Basin, just like other European countries have, so of course many Brits will have mixed origins. This doesn't change the fact that the vast majority have been ethnically white European for as long as it's been recorded. Denying this and implying instead that, since lots of peoples have had their fair share of diversity they anyway have become indistinguishable from each other, is asinine. The ultimate proof are the DNA tests which I'm sure you've taken and which can accurately tell what your ethnic roots are; sure today in the 21st century it will be more broken down into a mix than in the past, but that alone proves that
various ethnic origins do exist and can be traced back in time, because there was indeed a time where people were sedentary enough and gene homogeneity was high enough that it could be pinpointed to a specific area.
You brought up Elizabeth II, I never claimed she was a prime example of native British ethnicity. People have always been circulating, at least to some extent around their area of birth, and have intermingled as a consequence. So yes, due to geographical closeness, there will be more ethnic proximity between England and Germany than, say, between England and Uzbekistan, or England and Ivory Coast, do I really need to state the obvious? We're talking large number statistics, the average native Brit today is whiter than the average immigrant Brit, and doesn't look exactly like the average Spaniard or the average Swede, whether you like it or not. Again, your relativistic steamrolling of
real world diversity which you are fighting against in the name of diversity doesn't make much sense. Or perhaps you secretly hope your great-grand-children won't look anything like you because you don't like how you look and wouldn't like to pass it along?
Actually, claiming that black/minority Brits are native Brits makes you run into a host of contradictions:
- If there are diverse/immigrant Brits categorized as minority based on their skin color, then there also must be native Brits categorized as majority based on their skin color, simply to complete the chart.
- We cannot encourage minorities to cherish their ethnic origins and be proud of their skin color, while at the same time claim that all of this is irrelevant because everyone is mixed up anyway and nativeness doesn't mean anything anymore. We cannot praise the ethnic origins of some while shaming those of others, just because the latter happen to be more local and less homogenous to begin with (but, but I thought less homogenous was better?). Plus Africans are diverse too, it is very simplistic to lump them together as just black like you are doing, but if we do classify them as black minority to defend their rights, then we should also be able to classify the white majority as white and defend its rights when under attack for being white.
- There is an irreductible conflict between, on the one hand, claiming that a nation unites peoples of various origins under one common banner which will be their new home, and on the other hand, encouraging minorities to maintain their original identity, language, flag, customs, garment style and live separated, which has proven to lead to disintegrated nations and fractured societies, like today's UK is, i.e. a failed society. Simply calling everyone native won't suddenly and magically make integration bond like reinforced concrete.
...i.e. you can't have it both ways.
Again, I was only and specifically referring to native Brits as the
majority white population of Britain, who are mainly of British and European descent, as being targeted by a huge and ubiqutous racist smear campaign. The same goes for white people in other Western countries (France, USA...) who also have large minority populations, but it doesn't matter because I was talking about the ethnic background, not about the common belonging to a single (and diverse) nation. Which by the way is precisely the motto of our modern Western societies:
diverse origins and ethnic backgrounds united in one nation under one flag; well, out of all those diverse origins, there is no justifiable reason to smear and try to destroy one just because it happens to be the most numerous and the most local, as if worth were somehow growing proportionally to distance. This is insane, deliberate,
large scale discrimination and I'm pretty sure discrimination is bad in your book.
There is only one person that I know of here who is obsessed with race and skin color, constantly virtue-signals and panders to various communities he sees as "victims", and keeps projecting his obsession on others. You probably think the world is this nice and cheerful utopian village where everyone is different yet everyone is happy and smiling and courteous and getting along together, perhaps like at your workplace? Well it ain't so at all in the real world, but staying in a bubble too high off the ground and turning a selective blind eye prevents you from acknowledging it, so when someone points out that hatred and evil and violence are being officially allowed and encouraged against the majority, you are getting irritated because it doesn't match your narrative and mental map.
As far as I'm concerned, whatever group I may have ever spoken against, it's always been a reaction to hateful, violent, intolerant or separatist behavior -- color or religion just happened to be identifying criteria of those particular groups, not a necessary, ingrained and inescapable cause of given behavior. By dismissing fact-based arguments and calling them "attacks", you are showing that
you aren't here at all for rational debate as you're claiming above but for blind irrational militantism and a weird tendency to signal virtue and show clean hands. Not very nice for Muslims by the way to imply that suggesting Obama might be Muslim is an insult -- are you saying it's a bad thing?
So as I said, no personal insults are needed, but if by any chance I think you look like a moron and quack like a moron, exactly what should I conclude? This will be my last reply to what is routinely turning into character attack parading as civilized debate. Hopefully other members will have stumbled upon a few useful keys of comprehension in the mix.
