In Defence of the English Defence League

[Albion]

That's a particular and should be treated as such.




(A) Because it's nonsense in the first place.
People conflict with each other not over "ethnic origin" but over values; "ethnic origin" is an accidental.

And ethnic origin shapes values unless you are born and raised in a culture, thus getting back to my original point that one has to be born into an ethnicity, the point that you are yet to dispute.

Yes, I primarily think of harmful elements but even if we consider decent, contributing individuals why do they have to live outside their own nation in a country the don't belong in !? Your forwarding the idea that if a person is valuable he should be accepted regardless of his ethnic background !? Isn't a nation self sufficient enough that it has to accept foreigners !?

Sblast just thinks that people somehow have to accept immigrants just because he sees no problems. Regardless of all the other points, the will of the majority alone should be respected, and the majority of English don't want further immigration. Whether Sblast agrees with this or wishes to argue with everyone that wants to keep their nation to their own kind is irrelevant since he doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Essentially, nations have a right to be selfish and keep themselves to themselves. We have no obligation to accept immigrants.

You keep repeating the same notions without reasoning.
Why do you think they don't 'belong' there? Why should a nation not accept foreigners?

Your are yet to provide a reason why a nation should accept foreigners. It's up to the public of that nation, or at least it would be if politicians actually did speak for the people instead of down to them.
I don't know about Israel, but as far as England is concerned you can mind your own business.

Lol, the picture includes Davic Beckham, who has referred to himself as "half Jewish" and wrote in his autobiography "I've probably had more contact with Judaism than with any other religion". And I dont think this is what you were going for..

His maternal grandfather was Jewish, so by ancestry that would make him quarter Jewish. Idiot can't do maths.

Indeed.
Apparently that can spawn subsets that are still relevant to the conversation - unlike your posts.
This will be the last request before I ignore you.

The thread is about the EDL and has wondered significantly away from that. Balutre asks a valid question.



Anyway, now that's done, please can nobody come in with daft arguments because I don't fancy doing another load of massive posts again tomorrow.

[Anglojew]

Yes but it is estimated that around 11 million 'white English' people have Westafrican ancestry. That was my point. I think you lack reading comprehension.

This is simply untrue.

[Sblast]

So by that logic, if I learn Chinese I'am Chinese? Maybe more Chinese than the Chinese themselves if they happen to have say a speech impediment?

If the word "ethnicity" has any meanings, then yes you are more more Chinese than the Chinese in that aspect.
If you have more properties and he lacks them you are more Chinese then him.

English is defined by a number of things like any other thing, including (but not solely) based on ancestry, language, some shared beliefs and values and a common identity.

It could be some of them or part of them, including values.
It's just a lexical definition, not an essentialist one.

If I know 20 languages, can I pick from 20 ethnicities to be? If I know Sesotho, can I go and join my new ethnicity in Lesotho? Am I suddenly one of them.

That is basically your argument, see how stupid it sounds?

To you because you are (A) presenting something I didn't (B) can't imagine a composite identity.
I never said ethnicity is based on language alone. I pointed at out is that people who wear the badge of their ethnicity tend to lack in one of it's major departments and are still considered a part of that ethnic group - some people actually don't know the language at all and still are considered a part of the ethnic group.
If you are referring to the lexical definition, it won't be an essentialist one where one has properties that MUST be there and a few that are ENOUGH to be considered "English" (something that any dictionary doesn't do, rather they describe use). We learn to use words in later contexts
based on the perceived similarities and differences to earlier uses.
So English need not share common values at all or ancestry but other properties or similarities for that matter and still be considered English under a lexical definition.

You're attempt to draw a clear line where it is actually vague is wrong and simply means their is a normative issue that needs to be solved. Why does it matter again if someone is from your ethnicity or not as an individual? Why should I care about his ancestry if he shares my values?

[mr. logan]

Negroids and australoids wandering around 1600 England? Is this the new morgan freeman movie? Who can believe 11 million english have negroid genes, except for Tom Jones, maybe ?

[Methusalem]

Negroids and australoids wandering around 1600 England? Is this the new morgan freeman movie? Who can believe 11 million english have negroid genes, except for Tom Jones, maybe ?

Australoids? How is your head mate? Everything alright?

Here a link and educate yourself:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_British#16th_century

Around the 1750s, London became the home of many Blacks, as well as Jews, Irish, Germans and Huguenots. According to Gretchen Gerzina in her Black London, by the mid-18th century, Blacks comprised somewhere between one and three percent of the London populace.