Mr Hammer
|
Karnal wrote on Jan 7 th, 2017 at 7:34pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 7 th, 2017 at 7:24pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 7 th, 2017 at 7:23pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 7 th, 2017 at 7:20pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 7 th, 2017 at 7:18pm: Frank wrote on Jan 7 th, 2017 at 7:12pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7 th, 2017 at 6:59pm: Frank wrote on Jan 7 th, 2017 at 6:29pm: I do not understand you point of view and I very much doubt that you do. You lost all your arguments along these lines, I am sure.
For example, if you reside in England but do not speak English but only some other language then you are not English. Or if you speak English but with an Australian or American accent - Clive James, say, or Kevin Spacey - you are not English either.
I've had this debate with someone before. I pointed out the absurdly arbitrary (and dare I say - racist) nature of this definition. For example, a black man who immigrates to England from the West Indies can never be 'English' because of where he was born - even if he takes up citizenship and adopts the English culture with gusto. Fair enough - its a chauvinist and unreasonable argument IMO, but it at least has some logic and I can understand it. But then he went on to say that not even his children, or his grandchildren - pretty much going on forever and ever - could ever be 'English' either. Why? Because they could never claim the heritage of an 'Englishman'. Whatever that means. Same deal with those with Pakistani or Indian or Arab etc heritage. So it then becomes nothing about self identity or the culture you adopt (as you seem to claim sometimes) - but purely about what 'race' you are born into. It is a blatantly racist approach specifically designed to keep identities like 'Englishman' or "Dutchman' or "Frenchman" an exclusive club, defined not by what culture you adopt, nor even where you were born - but whose genes you carry. It is a tool that literally has no other purpose than to maintain a stigma on certain minorities - to send the message loud and clear that 'you are not one of us' and therefore 'you are inferior to us'. You hit he nail on the head despite yourself, Gandalf. Aboriginality is defined as being accepted by the Aboriginal community as being an Aboriginal, not by any other measure. Yes, the Aboriginal community is quite arbitrary with who they define as Aboriginal, old chap. You have to have an Aboriginal grandparent or be married/defactoed to an Aboriginal. As arbitrary as getting a British passport, no? Or be married/defactoed to an Aboriginal........ Really sweet cheeks? Really. I wanted to join the Aboriginal Medical Centre once. This was the criteria for Aboriginal identification as defined by the Land Council at the time. So if I marry an eskimo I become an eskimo, no? Strange, isn't it? If that non-Paki neighbour of yours marries another non-Paki, he/she becomes an Australian too. A non-Paki and an Australian. A bit like moi, no? The funny thing about the indigenous races is how they copy Whitey's rules. You know, they call themselves nations, have procedures for identification that mimic national citizenship - some Aboriginal communities even have passports. And yes, marry a Boong, and you get to become a Boong too. My Scottish grandfather came from a clanless family. He married my grandmother, a McNeil. He was subsequently allowed to wear the McNeil tartan, as can I, as their jolly Australian, non-Paki grandson. It is a jolly world, no? Tribes within a ethnic group (Scottish) is a bit different to peoples born out of 1,000's years of isolated evolution. If you aren't an abbo then you aren't an abbo. fullstop!!
|