White Britons to be minority IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY by 2066

[Grave_n_idle]

Within your 'race', there is more genetic diversity - and probably even range of phenotypical expression - than between your 'race' and another 'race'.

I agree with your general point about genetic diversity being largely irrelevant to the social construct of race, but the specific quote above is not inherently and necessarily true.

It would be more accurate to state that human genetic diversity is not tied to race, but rather to distance of a human population from Africa; as a result of bottlenecks within human migration patterns there's greater human genetic diversity within subsaharan Africa than there is within all of the rest of the human population on the planet.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1978547/

Latter link compares genetic variability with cranial phenotype variation.

Well, realistically what they were actually studying was geography, not 'race' - and arguably the difference between midpoints within populations, "Total within-population phenotypic variability was computed as the mean standardised phenotypic variance over all traits".

I'm not denying that there can be clear geographic trends in populations, or that some geographic or otherwise epigenetic trends may exist. That's about geography, climate, etc - and it's a useful tool for tracking migration, and for calculating a possible single origin point.

What it doesn't really address is 'race' - which isn't intrinsically and inherently the same as geography and epigenetic markers. Indeed, that's kind of the point I've been making.

[Woodstead]

"White Britons to be minority IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY by 2066"

That's my problem, bolded.

[Woodstead]

OP, is your logic "All non-white Britons, and non-Britons are very, very bad people; they are so very different to us, because of their ethnicity and race, and that's why we're being invaded."

[Antrema]

Quick question... why is there an assumption that it's the Britons country? Because they are really just invaders.

Because we live here? And that we Brits been doing so for 1,000s of years, of course these isles were settled on during the Paleolithic times but that is irrelevant today.
If there was a group of invaders it'd be the Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans. After those events the English came to being, but I personally would not assume that the tribal groups of the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh are all decedants from invaders.
A little bit of history from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ethnicity
Traditional accounts of the ancestral roots of the British have taught that they are descended from diverse populations: the Scots, Welsh, Cornish and Irish from the Celts,[55][56][57][58][59][60][61] and the English from the Anglo-Saxons, who invaded from northern Europe and drove the Celts to Great Britain's western and northern fringes;[52][62] each are also thought to have a small portion of Viking heritage.[63] However, geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer suggests that DNA analysis attests that three quarters of Britons share a common ancestry with the hunter-gatherers who settled in Atlantic Europe during the Paleolithic era,[62][63][64] "after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands".[63]

Despite the separation of the British Isles from continental Europe as a consequence of the last ice age, the genetic record indicates the British and Irish broadly share a closest common ancestry with the Basque people who live in the Basque Country by the Pyrenees.[62][63] 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.

The difference between western Britain and the East of England is thought to have its origins to two divergent prehistoric routes of immigration — one up the Atlantic coast, the other from continental Europe.[63] Major immigrant settlement of the British Isles occurred during the Neolithic period,[63] interpreted by Bryan Sykes—professor of human genetics at the University of Oxford—as the arrival of the Celts from the Iberian Peninsula, and the origin of Britain's and Ireland's Celtic tribes.[65]

Oppenheimer's opinion is that "..by far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales".[66] The National Museum Wales state that "it is possible that future genetic studies of ancient and modern human DNA may help to inform our understanding of the subject" but "early studies have, so far, tended to produce implausible conclusions from very small numbers of people and using outdated assumptions about linguistics and archaeology."[67]

Between the 8th and 11th centuries, "three major cultural divisions" had emerged in Britain; the English, Scottish and Welsh.[68] The English had unified under a single nation state in 937 by King Athelstan of Wessex after the Battle of Brunanburh.[69] Before then, the English (known then in Old English as the Anglecynn) were under the governance of independent Anglo-Saxon petty kingdoms which gradually coalesced into a Heptarchy of seven powerful states, the most powerful of which were Mercia and Wessex. Scottish historian and archaeologist Neil Oliver said that the Battle of Brunanburh would "define the shape of Britain into the modern era", it was a "showdown for two very different ethnic identities – a Norse Celtic alliance versus Anglo Saxon. It aimed to settle once and for all whether Britain would be controlled by a single imperial power or remain several separate independent kingdoms, a split in perceptions which is still very much with us today".[70] However, historian Simon Schama suggested that it was King Edward I of England who was solely "responsible for provoking the peoples of Britain into an awareness of their nationhood" in the 13th century.[71] Scottish national identity, "a complex amalgam" of Gael, Pict, Norsemen and Anglo-Norman, was not finally forged until the Wars of Scottish Independence against the Kingdom of England in the late 13th and early 14th centuries.[72][73]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britons_historical
The Britons (sometimes Brythons or British) were the Celtic people culturally dominating Great Britain from the British Iron Age until the Early Middle Ages.[1] They spoke the Insular Celtic language known as British or Brythonic. They lived throughout Britain south of about the Firth of Forth; after the 5th century Britons also migrated to continental Europe, where they established the settlements of Brittany in France and the obscure Britonia in what is now Galicia, Spain.[1] Their relationship to the Picts north of the Forth has been the subject of much discussion, though most scholars accept that the Pictish language during this time was a Brythonic language related to, but perhaps distinct from, British.[2]

The earliest evidence for the Britons and their language in historical sources dates to the Iron Age.[1] After the Roman conquest of 43 AD, a Romano-British culture began to emerge. With the advent of the Anglo-Saxon settlement in the 5th century, however, the culture and language of the Britons began to fragment. By the 11th century their descendants had split into distinct groups, and are generally discussed separately as the Welsh, Cornish, Bretons, and the people of the Hen Ogledd ("Old North"). The British language developed into the distinct branches of Welsh, Cornish, Breton, and Cumbric.[1]

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which was originally compiled on the orders of King Alfred the Great in approximately 890, and subsequently maintained and added to by generations of anonymous scribes until the middle of the 12th century, starts with this sentence: “The island Britain is 800 miles long, and 200 miles broad, and there are in the island five nations; English, Welsh (or British), Scottish, Pictish, and Latin. The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia, and first peopled Britain southward”. ("Armenia" is probably a mistaken transcription of Armorica, an area in Northwestern Gaul.)[3] The earliest known reference to the inhabitants of Britain seems to come from records of the voyage of Pytheas, a Greek geographer who made a voyage of exploration around the British Isles between 330 and 320 BC. Although none of his own writings remain, writers during the time of the Roman Empire made much reference to them. Pytheas called the islands collectively αι Βρεττανιαι (hai Brettaniai), which has been translated as the Brittanic Isles, and the peoples of these islands of Prettanike were called the Πρεττανοί (Prettanoi), Priteni, Pritani or Pretani. The group included Ireland which was referred to as Ierne (Insula sacra, the sacred island, as the Greeks interpreted it) "inhabited by the race of Hiberni" (gens hiernorum), and Britain as insula Albionum, "island of the Albions".[4][5] The term Pritani may have reached Pytheas from the Gauls, who possibly used it as their term for the inhabitants of the islands.[5]

The Latin name in the early Roman Empire period was Britanni or Brittanni, following the Roman conquest in AD 43.[6]

Welsh Brython was introduced into English usage by John Rhys in 1884 as a term unambiguously referring to the P-Celtic speakers of Great Britain, as complementing Goidel; hence the adjective Brythonic referring to the group of languages.[7] Brittonic is a more recent coinage (first attested 1923 according to the Oxford English Dictionary) intended to refer to the ancient Britons specifically.

(In non-historical usage Briton and British describe a citizen of the United Kingdom – the British people; it is a collective term for the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Cornish, as well as some people from Northern Ireland.)

[Antrema]

Quick question... why is there an assumption that it's the Britons country? Because they are really just invaders.

Indeed.

Britain should be put under an UN mandate.

Might become the new homeland of the jews, too.

Yeah and start another fight over land

[The Archregimancy]

What it doesn't really address is 'race' - which isn't intrinsically and inherently the same as geography and epigenetic markers. Indeed, that's kind of the point I've been making.

And, as it happens, I agree.

I was merely trying to offer a helpful point of clarity on a specific subsidiary issue; which is why I began by supporting your general point.

[Antrema]

Though I am surprised this is technically genocide, it is, and genocide is not typically good.

it's britain's fault. they did colonize every minority on the planet.

And what about Spanish, French or Belgian colonists?

[Divair]

Gee, it sure would be horrible if an influx of foreigners changed Britain's culture...

700/600 BC The Celts invade
43 BC Emperor Cladius invades
450 AD The Anglo-Saxons invade
410 AD The Romans leave
793 AD The Vikings invade
1066 AD The Normans invade
1688 AD The Dutch invade

Or even worse, imagine if the British themselves started bringing parts of other cultures back from countries they themselves invaded! Imagine that!

The horror.

[Antrema]

It's the multicultural project. It has no limit. The idea that the west shall become a multicultural, global paradise sticks deep in many Europans. Pride to our own culture, is of course plain, evil racism and ignorance, immigrants having pride to their own culture, on the other hand, is to be celebrated as a great step in the "right" direction.

I have no problem with race but I think immigrants should integrate.

I agree with the points raised by the above posters.

[Grave_n_idle]

What it doesn't really address is 'race' - which isn't intrinsically and inherently the same as geography and epigenetic markers. Indeed, that's kind of the point I've been making.

And, as it happens, I agree.

I was merely trying to offer a helpful point of clarity on a specific subsidiary issue; which is why I began by supporting your general point.

Yeah, I just wanted to register roughly what the source was dealing with, before someone trots along and says "See, Arch posted a source that says race is a real and significant issue" or derives from it the logic that Africans are less 'evolved'... or whatever else people manage to drag out of these things.

[The Archregimancy]

And, as it happens, I agree.

I was merely trying to offer a helpful point of clarity on a specific subsidiary issue; which is why I began by supporting your general point.

Yeah, I just wanted to register roughly what the source was dealing with, before someone trots along and says "See, Arch posted a source that says race is a real and significant issue" or derives from it the logic that Africans are less 'evolved'... or whatever else people manage to drag out of these things.

Well, if they'd gone on to say that, they wouldn't have been paying attention.

Though granted it wouldn't be the first time.

[Alice Gardens]

It's the multicultural project. It has no limit. The idea that the west shall become a multicultural, global paradise sticks deep in many Europans. Pride to our own culture, is of course plain, evil racism and ignorance, immigrants having pride to their own culture, on the other hand, is to be celebrated as a great step in the "right" direction.

I agree with the points raised by the above posters.

Well I also agree. I don't see what is so wrong with this view that is it so openly condemned as evil and racist.

[Transhuman Proteus]

I agree with the points raised by the above posters.

Well I also agree. I don't see what is so wrong with this view that is it so openly condemned as evil and racist.

It depends on what one considers successful integration to be.

If you are one of those that think a Sikh isn't integrating because he hasn't done away with his turban, shaved his beard and would rather eat Saag and Makhi di Roti than bangers and mash even if he works as well as any white Englishman, pays his taxes, votes and respects his adopted homeland you might be a bit racist. Depending on how much of a jerk one was it might also mean you're a bit evil.

Which you know, is what a lot of racists attitudes are. When they say "integration" they pretty much mean one should be abandoning anything slightly foreign or that deviates away from their often hackneyed and simplistic concept of culture. And even if an immigrant did that they still wouldn't ever be fully integrated if they happened to not be white, because you know, when brown people have babies they are waging a war on whites in their own country.

[Petrovsegratsk]

See, this would never happen in Russia.

You Westerners are too soft.

[The Occident]

And what, exactly, is the problem?

[Paixao]

Meeeh, Britain gets periodically "invaded" by a new culture every few hundred years. The fact that this time its not by force and not by the Romans, Saxons, Vikings or Normans doesn't make much difference.

The entire British language is just a crude mash up of these "invaders'" native languages anyway.

On a final note, I dislike most of current British culture anyway, maybe some new cultural input would be good for 'us' binge drinking, constantly miserable pub-goers.

[Great Nepal]

And again, small differences in DNA kinda do matter. We share 99% of our genes with Chimpanzees but doesn't mean we're Chimpanzees now, does it?

Every single one of us have different DNA; with exception of identical twins. So, can we say every person is race and death of one person is genocide?

[Czechanada]

Meeeh, Britain gets periodically "invaded" by a new culture every few hundred years. The fact that this time its not by force and not by the Romans, Saxons, Vikings or Normans doesn't make much difference.

The entire British language is just a crude mash up of these "invaders'" native languages anyway.

On a final note, I dislike most of current British culture anyway, maybe some new cultural input would be good for 'us' binge drinking, constantly miserable pub-goers.

Exactly. At least the imperialists will get a taste of their own medicine.

[Ifreann]

Quick question... why is there an assumption that it's the Britons country? Because they are really just invaders.

Because we live here?

And non-white people live there too.

Problem solved, guys.

[Transhuman Proteus]

And what, exactly, is the problem?

White people are special snowflakes that need special protection lest they somehow disappear from the world, which is bad because tradition and white culture.

[Czechanada]

Because we live here?

And non-white people live there too.

Problem solved, guys.

I demand that all white people leave North America, all hispanics leave South America, and all Arabs leave Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco then.

[Great Nepal]

And non-white people live there too.

Problem solved, guys.

I demand that all white people leave North America, all hispanics leave South America, and all Arabs leave Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco then.

I demand that everyone evacuate to the oceans.

[Alice Gardens]

Well I also agree. I don't see what is so wrong with this view that is it so openly condemned as evil and racist.

It depends on what one considers successful integration to be.

If you are one of those that think a Sikh isn't integrating because he hasn't done away with his turban, shaved his beard and would rather eat Saag and Makhi di Roti than bangers and mash even if he works as well as any white Englishman, pays his taxes, votes and respects his adopted homeland you might be a bit racist. Depending on how much of a jerk one was it might also mean you're a bit evil.

Which you know, is what a lot of racists attitudes are. When they say "integration" they pretty much mean one should be abandoning anything slightly foreign or that deviates away from their often hackneyed and simplistic concept of culture. And even if an immigrant did that they still wouldn't ever be fully integrated if they happened to not be white, because you know, when brown people have babies they are waging a war on whites in their own country.

Well no, that Sikh thing is fine by me. I mean I like to eat dumplings myself and I use chopsticks (I don't live in the UK or the US though, I'm a student in Spain). By integration I would say have basic respect for the country you immigrate to (learn the basic customs and language, be friendly, etc). Often what you get is immigrants who stick to views that are incompatible with western society, such as forcing women to wear the burqa, 'honor killings,' or just plain offensive shit like saying white people are worthless anyway and should be replaced as you can sometimes see on the NS forums. Also, if you immigrate to a country like the UK and say the British are just invaders and that Britain doesn't belong to them...well, I think that encroaches on their right to form a nation state and is offensive.

Also, recently there was a thread where someone was going around saying that black people are superior to whites, who evil and genocidal. The thread got closed because someone said something stupid and white supremacist (which is good) but the mod who closed it only reprimanded the ones who made offensive comments against blacks. That seems totally one-sided to me. You can't have double standards if you want racial equality and seeing mods do that is quite shocking to me.

[Transhuman Proteus]

I demand that all white people leave North America, all hispanics leave South America, and all Arabs leave Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco then.

I demand that everyone evacuate to the oceans.

Does this mean... finally we can...

We're going to start a new life... under the sea!

[Czechanada]

I demand that everyone evacuate to the oceans.

Does this mean... finally we can...

We're going to start a new life... under the sea!

I've always wanted to be Mermaid Man.