A muslim attack on christmas!! No, wait...

[Idaho]

"Multiculturalists" and "multiculturalism" are both straw men. There isn't really any such thing. People have migrated and moved to different places throughout history. And throughout history there has been debate as to whether it is a good or band thing, and how it should be dealt with. There is nothing new here. Only the labels on the participants changes.

There are some people who have said (and currently do) that such migrations are the end of the world and will cause problems. There are some people who have said (and currently do) that migrations are necessary. There are some people who have said (and currently do) that these things are inevitable. There are some people who claim to like migrations, but would really rather they only happened in the scruffy parts of town where they can visit from time to time to buy interesting ethnic artifacts.

My problem with your position, Fragony, is that it neither understands it's own historical context, nor does it really have any cohesive vision about what it really *does* want. You seem to want to impose some vision on what being Dutch/British/European is, but at the same time rail against the external imposition of cultural notions.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No country is a finished picture. All it can ever be is an expression of a time and place. England isn't the same as in 1410 or in 1782. And it didn't exist at all 1500 years ago. There is nothing to defend. It will all change and change again. And when people look back they will see traditions as fleeting fashions and traditionalists as people who are slow to change fashions.

This kind of talk is the dream result for progressive historians. Convince people that it's all just fashion and that you're the avant garde.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No country is a finished picture. All it can ever be is an expression of a time and place. England isn't the same as in 1410 or in 1782. And it didn't exist at all 1500 years ago. There is nothing to defend. It will all change and change again. And when people look back they will see traditions as fleeting fashions and traditionalists as people who are slow to change fashions.

Rapid change has generally precipitated social collapse. You might think England has changed a lot in the last 1000 years, but you live in the same shire you would have 1000 years ago, the same city, walking the same basic street plan (excepting Princesshay and the Iron bridge). The majority of the people you see every day have pale faces, dark-ish hair, or blond and the most common eye colour are a fairly neutral blue, brown and hazel. These people speak a Germanic language, most identify as heterosexual, they live in family units, usually, with two parents, sometimes the father is absent. Those couples that do go together, the men tend to take one night a week to go out and get drunk on some form of grain-based intoxicant, and possibly indulge in some opiates or something more exotic.

This is not unlike 1,000 years ago, and just like 1,000 years ago the South is prosperous, especially the London merchants, and the Danes in the North are poor.

It's comforting to talk about tour culture being "unifinished" but since we kicked the Vikings out under Alfred, Edward and Aethelstan we have mostly been adding to the edges, even the Norman invasion made more of a dent in the nation's social and political trajectory rather than fundamentally altering it.

However, when you have a large new demographic come in, as we have not had since the Viking invasions, they really stir things up and not in a way that is pleasent for the indiginous people who live through the turmoil.

Just curious, why 1410? That's not really an important English date like say, 1399, 1401 or 1415.

[Strike For The South]

Nice try, Benidict Anderson

[Greyblades]

Just curious, why 1410? That's not really an important English date like say, 1399, 1401 or 1415.

I'm abit curious too, what happened on 1401?

[Strike For The South]

I'm abit curious too, what happened on 1401?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_heretico_comburendo

LEARN YOUR HISTORY LIMEY

[Fragony]

@Idaho, there is really an ideoligy behind it it's not just freedom of movement. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-adviser.html

[Greyblades]

LEARN YOUR HISTORY LIMEY

BITE ME YANKY

Seriously though, it never came up in my school's history class, the closest thing I got was a 4th year with the tudors.

[Strike For The South]

BITE ME YANKY

Seriously though, it never came up in my school's history class, the closest thing I got was a 4th year with the tudors.

Perhaps you should do some suplemental reading

[Greyblades]

Yeah, I should, good thing half the stuff I read in the backroom from members like PVC are pretty educational.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_heretico_comburendo

LEARN YOUR HISTORY LIMEY

Strike has the right of it.

Kudos Strike for being particularly well informed.

Yes, until 1401 we did not burn heretics at the stake, in fact generally we didn't execute them either, and torture was illegal.

Then we went all "European" after Wyclif died and the Lollard peasants got uppardy.

[Strike For The South]

Wyclife, Hus, Luther, Calvin. The most imporant men in true Christendom

/troll face

[Idaho]

Rapid change has generally precipitated social collapse.

....

Just curious, why 1410? That's not really an important English date like say, 1399, 1401 or 1415.

No it hasn't. It simply hasn't. Give me three examples. I could give you 20 examples of the contrary off the top of my head where civilisations where predicated and *built* upon rapid change.

1410 - just an arbitrary date. A bit like 2012.

[Idaho]

This kind of talk is the dream result for progressive historians. Convince people that it's all just fashion and that you're the avant garde.

Sorry I don't understand this comment.

Are you saying that things don't go in cycles, that cultures, politics and economic modes come and go?

I know the idea is galling to Americans brought up on the neo-con "end of history" fantasy.

[Strike For The South]

Sorry I don't understand this comment.

Are you saying that things don't go in cycles, that cultures, politics and economic modes come and go?

I know the idea is galling to Americans brought up on the neo-con "end of history" fantasy.

Don't blame Francis. Blame Hunington.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sorry I don't understand this comment.

And when people look back they will see traditions as fleeting fashions and traditionalists as people who are slow to change fashions.

This is the kind of narrative that has resulted in modern art. "Change good, traditionalists stupid".

Culture is not fashion, people who think so have no depth. It's sad that people are really into fads and fashions, but it's sick that they treat politics like fashion.

[Idaho]

Don't blame Francis. Blame Hunington.

No idea of who you are talking about. American cultural reference?

[Idaho]

This is the kind of narrative that has resulted in modern art. "Change good, traditionalists stupid".

Culture is not fashion, people who think so have no depth. It's sad that people are really into fads and fashions, but it's sick that they treat politics like fashion.

Imagine human culture is a line. Think of fashion at one end - the fickle end of the line and politics a lot further along towards the other end, the significant, macro end of human culture. Both are subject to change. Both have a cyclical element. Both are intrinsically bound up with economic cycles.

I am not saying that change for it's own sake is good (although, of course, the Buddhists would suggest that it is the one constant in the universe). I am saying that cultural change is inevitable. Cultural entropy if you will. It has always happened according to any study of the historical, genetic and archaeological evidence. In the face of all I have seen, read and studied, I can only be a pragmatist. Being a traditionalists or cultural conservative makes no sense. No one has ever successfully fought off change or entropy.

And yet conservatism and traditionalism is never truly about rejecting change. It's confused and irrational. It's all about that natural human urge to fear the tribe over the hill. The tribe that came over the hill and enslaved our ancestors is doubtless deep in our genetic memory. It's a natural instinct. It's instinctive element is what makes it stand up so poorly to scrutiny. Conservatives in this country are probably like those in yours, in that they are anti-immigration, yet employ immigrant servants (because they are cheap), hold their money offshore (to pay less tax) and move unfettered around world making money. And why not eh? It's their planet after all.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

hmm, my impression is quite different.

Progressives are people trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, because they can't tell the difference, or can't be bothered. Conservatives are people who were going about their regular lives until they saw what the progressive was trying to do, which came as a nasty shock, and reacted by going to save the baby. (Meanwhile the libertarian is there saying "the baby can fend for itself! Leave it free to fend for itself!", lol)

I place the blame squarely on progressives. If you are arguing for change, you have to do a really good job. You can't just pat yourself on the back about how the conservatives don't realize the bathwater is dirty.

"Change is inevitable" is not an answer to the question "Why change?"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No it hasn't. It simply hasn't. Give me three examples. I could give you 20 examples of the contrary off the top of my head where civilisations where predicated and *built* upon rapid change.

1410 - just an arbitrary date. A bit like 2012.

Mass influx of Saxons to Britannia: social collapse, province fragments into petty kingdoms, Celtic culture largely dies out.

Mass influx of Danes to Northumbria: Social collapse, Kindom fragments, Saxon administration wiped out, including Eccesiastical, many Saxons reportedly revery to Paganism - the language survives only because it is close to Norse and the kingdom comes under West Saxon sway within two generations.

Mass influx of German refugees into Roman Empire: Social collapse, civil strife, break down of law and order as well as central control leads to fighting between German exiles Roman army, Empire ceases to exist in less than four generations.

Mass influx of the Caliph's Arabian armies into North Africa: Abject and total collapse, language, culture, religion and civil administration completely replaced.

Large influx of Normans and English mercenaries into Ireland: Partial collapse, Kingdom never recovers economically or administratively, precipitates population collapse, Kingdom eventually absorbed by Engalnd. Relatively strong cultural survival due to (relatively) small number of immigrants.

Mass influx of Romans into Gaul (post-Gallic War): Indiginous culture wiped out, worst estimate states 1 million dead, 1 million enslaved, constituting 2/3rds of population.

To give you an idea, the number of Saxons who came to Britain is estimated at around 200,000 over a few generations, against about 2 million Romano-Britons. As you know, the Romano-Britons were driven to Wales, Cornwall and Ireland.

Lets see...

Mass influx of Spanish and Portugese settlers into Meso America: Effective genocide, several cultures completely wiped out, scant remaining traces.

Mass influx of Europeans into Northern Americas: Native genocide, estimates of potentially 90% drop in native population numbers, culture survives in only small pockets.

I gave you nine examples, so you owe me sixty where a rapid demographic change didn't precipitate widespread strife and suffering. You'll note that in most cases I have not chosen actual deliberate expeditions of conquest.

[HoreTore]

How did this thread turn into an english history lesson?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How did this thread turn into an english history lesson?

because when Swein and then Cnut invaded England it didn't stick.

Norwegian conquest failed to make a lasting impression, except for the Huscarls.

[Tellos Athenaios]

No idea of who you are talking about. American cultural reference?

Clash of Civilizations. He meant (Samuel) Huntington, and Francis Fukuyama of course.

[Idaho]

Mass influx of Saxons to Britannia: social collapse, province fragments into petty kingdoms, Celtic culture largely dies out.

To give you an idea, the number of Saxons who came to Britain is estimated at around 200,000 over a few generations, against about 2 million Romano-Britons. As you know, the Romano-Britons were driven to Wales, Cornwall and Ireland.

Mass influx of Danes to Northumbria: Social collapse, Kindom fragments, Saxon administration wiped out, including Eccesiastical, many Saxons reportedly revery to Paganism - the language survives only because it is close to Norse and the kingdom comes under West Saxon sway within two generations.

Interesting examples. Especially as the notion of a Saxon invasion en masse is now widely discredited by the archaeological and genetic record. The prevailing theory now being that a gradual influx of a smaller number of wealthy and technologically advanced Saxon tribes supplanted the existing post Roman heirarchy, without really affecting the general populous. The very notion of celts being a distinct group displaced and driven into Wales, Scotland and Cornwall by a distinct group of ravaging Saxons has been largely abandoned by scholars.

As with your second example, most of this history is based on the written work of monks many hundreds of years later from a limited number of existing documents plus the oral history at the time. It invariably conflates the activities of the ruling class with the general conditions of the wider populous.

Mass influx of German refugees into Roman Empire: Social collapse, civil strife, break down of law and order as well as central control leads to fighting between German exiles Roman army, Empire ceases to exist in less than four generations.

Mass influx of the Caliph's Arabian armies into North Africa: Abject and total collapse, language, culture, religion and civil administration completely replaced.

Large influx of Normans and English mercenaries into Ireland: Partial collapse, Kingdom never recovers economically or administratively, precipitates population collapse, Kingdom eventually absorbed by Engalnd. Relatively strong cultural survival due to (relatively) small number of immigrants.

Mass influx of Romans into Gaul (post-Gallic War): Indiginous culture wiped out, worst estimate states 1 million dead, 1 million enslaved, constituting 2/3rds of population.

My knowledge of these isn't good. But they appear to be describing military invasions and occupations, as opposed to migrations of peoples.

Lets see...

Mass influx of Spanish and Portugese settlers into Meso America: Effective genocide, several cultures completely wiped out, scant remaining traces.

Mass influx of Europeans into Northern Americas: Native genocide, estimates of potentially 90% drop in native population numbers, culture survives in only small pockets.

I gave you nine examples, so you owe me sixty where a rapid demographic change didn't precipitate widespread strife and suffering. You'll note that in most cases I have not chosen actual deliberate expeditions of conquest.

Now those are worth a look. Mainly because they are such a polar opposite to the migrations we are currently seeing in both scale, technological disparity and pre-existing conditions. Modern estimates suggest that the vast majority of the genocide of the native Americans was triggered by first contact. The spreading of smallpox, measles and other germs is thought to have wiped out well over 50% of the population before people started showing up with guns and armour.

Surely we should be looking at examples where a relatively small immigrant group - say less than 5% of the pre-existing population - are brought into society in a short space of time. Irish immigration into England in the mid C19th. Huguenot immigration to London in the late C17th. Jewish immigration into London and Manchester in the late C19th. Chinese migrations into key cities in South East Asia. Indian migration into East Africa in the C20th.

All these above example show that conflict, rioting and civil unrest are inevitable, but relatively short-lived. There is resentment, political pressure and violent reaction from the pre-existing populous, but after 50 years, it's business as usual.

[Idaho]

"Change is inevitable" is not an answer to the question "Why change?"

It isn't an answer at all. The question "Why change?" is like my children asking me "Why can't it be sunny today? We want to go to the park". There is no answer. Just that "bad weather is inevitable".

[HoreTore]

Might as well add "urbanization in general" to your list, Idaho.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting examples. Especially as the notion of a Saxon invasion en masse is now widely discredited by the archaeological and genetic record. The prevailing theory now being that a gradual influx of a smaller number of wealthy and technologically advanced Saxon tribes supplanted the existing post Roman heirarchy, without really affecting the general populous. The very notion of celts being a distinct group displaced and driven into Wales, Scotland and Cornwall by a distinct group of ravaging Saxons has been largely abandoned by scholars.

I take it you didn't do the maths - 200,000 Saxons over several generations, that is modern estimate - once they were all here they would have constituted around 10% of the population, perhaps less, and yet they drove the Romano-British (the previous ruling class) into Wales, Cornwall and Ireland and sufficiently subjugated the people that they ceased to speak any Celtic language, or worship Celtic or Roman Gods.

That is a catastrophic social collapse, where the population isn't wiped out but the culture is completely subsumed or just replaced.

The very notion of "Celts" has been abandoned by scholars, but the "Celtic" cultural grouping is still accpeted, you are confusing ethnic migration with cultural displacement. Ethnically, the people in East and West Wales today are the same, but culturally they are distinct.

As with your second example, most of this history is based on the written work of monks many hundreds of years later from a limited number of existing documents plus the oral history at the time. It invariably conflates the activities of the ruling class with the general conditions of the wider populous.

No it isn't, not "hundreds of years later" at any rate. This was going on whilst the West Saxons and Alfred himself was writing. You forget, Saxon culture was highly advanced and more literate than any other probably outside Italy at this time. More so, you make the point yourself - the fact that there were no monks in contemporary Northumbria speaks volumes given the number of Monestaries the Northumbrian nobility endowed.

My knowledge of these isn't good. But they appear to be describing military invasions and occupations, as opposed to migrations of peoples.

The Germans entered Roman territory as supplicant reffugees, only later did they go to war with Rome, the Germanic unwillingness to fight or destroy Roman property is amply demonstrated by Alaric's sack of Rome. Bear in mind, the Germans were also Christians (by and large).

The Roman Gallic invasions, well consider this: Rome also invaded Britain, yet the lower classes never spoke vulgar Latin to the exclusion of their Celtic tongues in Britain as they did in Gaul, so far as we know.

Now those are worth a look. Mainly because they are such a polar opposite to the migrations we are currently seeing in both scale, technological disparity and pre-existing conditions. Modern estimates suggest that the vast majority of the genocide of the native Americans was triggered by first contact. The spreading of smallpox, measles and other germs is thought to have wiped out well over 50% of the population before people started showing up with guns and armour.

Surely we should be looking at examples where a relatively small immigrant group - say less than 5% of the pre-existing population - are brought into society in a short space of time. Irish immigration into England in the mid C19th. Huguenot immigration to London in the late C17th. Jewish immigration into London and Manchester in the late C19th. Chinese migrations into key cities in South East Asia. Indian migration into East Africa in the C20th.

All these above example show that conflict, rioting and civil unrest are inevitable, but relatively short-lived. There is resentment, political pressure and violent reaction from the pre-existing populous, but after 50 years, it's business as usual.

What about the other 40% though? They were displaced by what were, initially, relatively small numbers of Europeans.

The point is, Euorep is not experiencing "relatively" small immigrations, but mass immigrations at a faster rate than any time probably since the fall of Rome. The last census in the UK saw the "other ethnic groups" rise by about 1%, in the space of ten years, if that trend keeps up at the current rate the population of "ethnic minorities" in the UK will double from around 10% today to 20% certainly by the before the end of my life if not the end of my children's lives. I would say it will take 50 years at the outside.

To put it another way, if 200,000 Saxons came to Britain over the course of 3-4 generations then we are at least equalling that rate today, and history tells us we should be concerned.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It isn't an answer at all. The question "Why change?" is like my children asking me "Why can't it be sunny today? We want to go to the park". There is no answer. Just that "bad weather is inevitable".

England has no more control over immigration than over the weather?????

[Idaho]

England has no more control over immigration than over the weather?????

Now that would be an interesting discussion. Does limiting and guiding a random current make it any less random? I think we would be going considerably off piste though.

[Idaho]

To put it another way, if 200,000 Saxons came to Britain over the course of 3-4 generations then we are at least equalling that rate today, and history tells us we should be concerned.

An interesting discussion. There are numerous directions it could take. How about we take your premise at face value, for argument's sake. What would you then propose? Would you also limit British people's freedom to travel and emigrate? Would you accept other countries restricting our liberty in this regard?