The UK

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Dude, about 1.8 million and 2.5 million South Asians from British India fought in the first and second world wars respectively, just for bringing freedom to you guys. After being trampled on and looted for 200 years, these countries finally gained independence.

If the UK is unable to handle 3 million immigrants who contributed so much to the country, be in terms of sovereignty or economy just for some perceived non-existential threat, then all of this is just a farce.

If the Japanese had won WW2 and conquered South East Asia they have treated South Asians as badly as the Chinese and Filipinos. It was in their interest to fight against the Japanese for their own sake.

As for WW1 why don't you go further back? The British couldn't have ruled over South Asia if it wasn't for the native populations. They made up the majority of the rank and file colonial soldiers. They chose to sign up. The British don't owe South Asians anything. If anything Indians owe the British for their nation. The reason why India isn't a collage of nations is because English is the language of doing business in India. It's the language that allows different ethnic groups to be able to relate to each other on a common ground.

[♥ Lily ♥]

I don't really give a damn about the UK to be honest, I just gave my 2 cents. I'm sure that those who fought in those wars didn't just fight out of the goodness of their hearts or because they love Europeans so much.
Pakistanis who are the 2nd largest south Asian group in the UK def. are not a benefit to the UK. Unwilling to integrate, over represented when it comes to rape as well.

Why are you on this thread making ignorant and sweeping statements about crimes in the UK, when you don't live here to see the reality... and if you don't care when the actual statistical facts are shown to you..?

[JohnSmith]

I have to say I find it odd when now American consider Pakistan or Indians with a British accent British.

It seems like Britain is becoming like the USA in the sense that you do not need to be white to be considered British, which seems strange to me.

My wife was telling me about a french guy she was talking to and I thought that interesting then I remember her saying later on that he was black. I am thinking well he is not French then. The world is changing.

Europe is becoming more like America in this regard.

[mustang981]

I don't really give a damn about the UK to be honest, I just gave my 2 cents. I'm sure that those who fought in those wars didn't just fight out of the goodness of their hearts or because they love Europeans so much.
Pakistanis who are the 2nd largest south Asian group in the UK def. are not a benefit to the UK. Unwilling to integrate, over represented when it comes to rape as well.

I agree about the Pakistanis. But Eastern Europeans aren't exactly the best immigrants either.

[♥ Lily ♥]

I have to say I find it odd when now American consider Pakistan or Indians with a British accent British.

It seems like Britain is becoming like the USA in the sense that you do not need to be white to be considered British, which seems strange to me.

My wife was telling me about a french guy she was talking to and I thought that interesting then I remember her saying later on that he was black. I am thinking well he is not French then. The world is changing.

Europe is becoming more like America in this regard.

It's quite simple to understand really.

Your nationality is the land where you were born and raised and can include your place of education and cultural upbringing too. If you were born and culturally raised and educated in a different land... you can move and integrate into a new land and claim citizenship.

A person's race is a different question to their nationality.

Something I find really bizarre and strange is when I see people from both the North and South American continents referring to themselves as 'Europeans' - it's like they're having an identity crisis in those nations, and I don't see American citizens as being Europeans.... especially when I hear their foreign accents, amongst other differences.

Most of them who claim to be European have never even visited or ever lived in Europe, and they don't have European accents, or any experience of growing-up in European nations, and they don't have lots of experience of the daily lifestyle, and of the cultural, social, and political life in any of the various European nations. I'd never call myself as an American as I've never been to the US, let alone ever lived there.

They tend to refer to the nationality of wherever their long-dead ancestors once lived.... even though everyones ancestors stemmed from Africa if people want to go back far enough in time and in evolutionary history. (Natural history and evolution on this 4+billion year old planet didn't start and doesn't stop in Europe.) I had one Irish great-great maternal grandmother, but I would never call myself as Irish - just because she once lived in the land of Western Ireland.

If Americans are confused about their national identity - then all they need to do is look at what it states on their passport.

[Shah-Jehan]

I don't really give a damn about the UK to be honest, I just gave my 2 cents. I'm sure that those who fought in those wars didn't just fight out of the goodness of their hearts or because they love Europeans so much.
Pakistanis who are the 2nd largest south Asian group in the UK def. are not a benefit to the UK. Unwilling to integrate, over represented when it comes to rape as well.

They weren't conscripted, entirely voluntarily fought because of promises of independence by the British, as well as the fact that the leaders encouraged to defend freedom so as that they may gain freedom too oneday.


Idk dude, but British Asians contribute more to the economy than their % of population.

Last week that recognition came. Mr Sheikh became one of just hundreds of British Asians, the majority second generation, who were proud of the Institute of British Asians' announcement that Asians, while making up no more than 2.5 per cent of the British population, account for 10 per cent of its economic output, generating £103 billion into the economy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...s-success.html

In terms of crime rate, British Asians are 16 per 10,000 compared to 14 per 10,000 people for "white British", which is hardly an overrepresentation, especially when you account for the fact that the Asians are virually all urbanized, as well as subject to longer sentences/greater risk of arrest.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...nfographic.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...0/bulletin.pdf


Also, btw, All of India before the British conquered it comprised around 25% of the world's GDP Which was the highest of its share, but during 1947, when they gained independence, the share came down to 2%. The region endured countless famines/massacres during British rule, and the land was used as a source for natural primary resources to be sent to Britain without any significant industrial development done in India itself, while the people were exploited as cheap menial labourer and soldiers.

If the Japanese had won WW2 and conquered South East Asia they have treated South Asians as badly as the Chinese and Filipinos. It was in their interest to fight against the Japanese for their own sake.

As for WW1 why don't you go further back? The British couldn't have ruled over South Asia if it wasn't for the native populations. They made up the majority of the rank and file colonial soldiers. They chose to sign up. The British don't owe South Asians anything. If anything Indians owe the British for their nation. The reason why India isn't a collage of nations is because English is the language of doing business in India. It's the language that allows different ethnic groups to be able to relate to each other on a common ground.

Yeah, despite some nationalistic Indian leaders allying with the Japanese, I personally know that was a bad choice, and they would've treated them badly, yes. Except, that most of them didn't even fight in the Burma campaign in the nearby vicinity, but rather in far-south-eastern Asia, the near-east and Europe.

Also, yeah, you're right that British united India, which itself was a geographical/cultural region, and not a country per se, but even that has barely any benefits.

The ones that I can think of is a large common market which allows for economic cohesiveness, and the fact that larger nations like India pose a bulwark against similar larger nations like China.

My personal view is that nation-states like say "Republic of Gujarat" or "Republic of Punjab" etc would've done much better anyway with the ability to focus on greater local development. Later, a EU like common market, free-travel links or even a common military could've been established to reap the benefits of a large nation.

Also, English is only a lingua franca for South Indians, but overall Hindi/Urdu has supremacy over the entire subcontinent.

A lot of the economic growth in India isn't linear, A lot of the conservative BIMAROU states are only starting to catch up to the overall economic growth, and they lag behind in a lot of facilities. Independent nation-states would get rid of the problem.

And, yes, the British are notorious for employing "Divide and Rule" tactics largely around the country. They first conquered Bengal by allying with the Nawab of Bengal's chief General who chose to betray him in the promise of becoming the ruler himself, with the help of corrupt native Indian bankers and successfully defeat the Bengal army. Similarly, the now recruited heavily from the men from conquered Bengal and conquered Punjab. Like this, they went on to conquer many sovereign states and make remaining ones subservient. When people did revolt, like the 1857 rebellion where the conquered "Bengali presidency" soldiers revolted en masse, the Punjabis resented the people from the east who the British used to conquer them, and now they helped the British to quell these revolts. You have many similar incidences like this, like the Jalianwala Bagh massacre where a gathering of pro-independence Punjabis were mercilessly shot on by Gurkha soldiers from Nepal when ordered by the British. Basically, all revolts from big to small were crushed through the use of the same old dirty politics.

And, lol dude, one of the reasons that post-WWII the UK became second-rate to the US in global supremacy was because they lost their "Crown colony" which had everything in it from natural resources to manpower, which they've been exploiting for 2 centuries. Even one of most important of the queen's crown jewels, the Kohinoor is taken from there.

Also, neither do I resent the British nor am I looking for some reparations for past incidents, but when you can conquer 1/3 of the entire earth, I doubt 3 million immigrants in your country can pose such a great problem.

[JohnSmith]

It's quite simple to understand really.

Your nationality is the land where you were born and raised and can include your place of education, and cultural upbringing too. If you were born and culturally raised and educated in a different land... you can integrate to a new land and claim citizenship.

A person's race is a different question to their nationality.

Something I find really bizarre and strange is when I see people from both North and South American continents referring to themselves as 'Europeans' - when they've never lived in Europe and don't have European accents or any experience of growing-up in European nations and the cultural daily life in Europe. I'd never call myself as an American.

They tend to refer to the nationality of wherever their long-dead ancestors once lived.... even though everyone's ancestors goes back to Africa if people want to go back in evolutionary history. I had an Irish great-great maternal grandmother, but I would never ever call myself as Irish, just because she lived in Ireland.

I know it is simple to understand but seems odd for countries that have very unique identities and cultures that existed for centuries. French people only view French people as being french I would think.

[Grace O'Malley]

I just don't get why europeans did this to themselves.
Granted, I don't care. But it's still baffling.

A lot of Muslims in Britain are from places like Pakistan so British Commonwealth. A lot of Britain's immigrants came from places like India, Pakistan, Jamaica etc; all from Britain's ex-colonies and Commonwealth countries. France is the same with their Muslims coming from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia all former colonies. Places like Germany have a lot of Turkish immigrants who were invited in as "guest workers" in the early 1960s but never left. Europe also has home-grown Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania.

The Muslim percentage in Europe is increasing every year and the instability in the Middle East is just increasing the amounts of Muslims coming to Europe.

[Grace O'Malley]

I have to say I find it odd when now American consider Pakistan or Indians with a British accent British.

It seems like Britain is becoming like the USA in the sense that you do not need to be white to be considered British, which seems strange to me.

My wife was telling me about a french guy she was talking to and I thought that interesting then I remember her saying later on that he was black. I am thinking well he is not French then. The world is changing.

Europe is becoming more like America in this regard.

That's Europe-wide. If you were born there you are considered that nationality. Nationality and ethnicity are two different things.

[Ylla]

They are South Asian Muslims from British India.