Are these people really British?

[glitterpaperchain]

In 1688, foreign strangers were arriving on British shores daily. The locals complained of despoilment of their environment. Londoners complained that French was everywhere, and not a word of English could be heard spoken! The French immigrants were denigrated either for being too poor, thus a drain on rate-paying parishioners, or too prosperous, at the expense of local merchants and business owners.

(Taken from Thou Savage Woman by Blessin Adams, great book!)

That sounds exactly like what I hear the media saying about immigrants now! So when the far right are making sure that Britain is for the British, shall they make sure we all trace our lineage back to the 1600s, and make sure no descendents of those awful French immigrants count as British?

I think you're being very pedantic and I'm not sure why

🤣 No, I think that was just you!

But we should DEFINITELY have a beef with the Italians for Roman Britain!

I think that’s an interesting question. Being of mixed heritage myself, I know that some British Citizens’ loyalty and support for Britain is extremely sketchy, far more so than people might assume.
I’m also troubled by people who trot out ‘We should all be ashamed of ourselves because of what Britain has done in the past.’Have they ever thought about their loyalty to the UK? How much do they really know about Britain’s past? IMO, if they were properly informed, they would not parrot these things.
I think a nation is composed of people who are loyal to that nation and have some sympathy with the idea that they should just move on and find something better if they’re so troubled by British history.
I know that’s not enforceable!

I don't need to worry about it

I know I'm British because I'm British. I can look around myself and see most other people in the area I live are British as well. They aren't all white. If I needed to I could draw up a list of traits almost all of them share and it would be quite stereotypical but also reasonably accurate.

Likewise I know I'm English, I can feel reasonably aware of who I consider is English and who isn't, although that's complicated by the fact it hasn't got a legal definition so it's partly down to self identity. There are people I would think of as English who might not call themselves that. But there were grown men literally crying when England lost to Argentina so that's a clue.

I think it's probably a much more pressing issue if your own identity is unsettled. For example this really seems to bother some Americans who themselves aren't English/Scottish/Irish but for whom the identity of being of English/Irish/Scottish heritage is important. Which is fine. But anyone growing up in Britain just "is". It's like fish don't need to define water.

But 1688 the population was less than 6.5 million. Now it's in excess of 70 million.

In 1688 everyone had to work, be supported by family or the parish in which you had lived in for years today the benefits bill is over £300 billion

In 1688 you were responsible for housing yourself...the government weren't putting you in the 4 star hotel I used to stay in when I was a manager for an insurance company (Siswood Horsham, one time summer house of the owner of Harrods)

In 1688 the was a revolution based on an argument about religion... today people not even allowed to question religious ideas

In 1688 if you committed child abuse you were executed. Today you can't even be reported.

You tell me why people are rightfully questioning immigration

I answer therefore, I guess for people like JD Vance the cut of for what makes the "British" or "English" or "Scottish" ethnicity is what those places looked like ethnically when the Mayflower left. All immigration before then contributed to the ethnography. All immigration after was a weakening of it.

And if that's the definition people want them it's fine. But it's very self absorbed.

The state has had a responsibility to feed and if needed house those unable to feed and house themselves since the Elizabethan poor laws. Well before 1688.

As you said, initially that was at a Parish level. But Parishes had responsibility towards people from outside the Parish who fit certain criteria (at one point it was staying in the Parish for a set period, I think it was for a few months. So people would hide...) or whose father's had been born in the parish if they were illegitimate but the father was known. The debates about which Parish had responsibility and about incomers to the Parish claiming alms are actually very similar to the debates today it's just our borders at bigger (state level rather than parish level).

People aren't allowed go question religious ideas? People criticising Muslims are absolutely all over the Internet including this very website!

You absolutely were not executed for committing child abuse, it was extremely hard to prove, the most recent chapter of the book just talked about that. I think you have an ill-informed view of things

Incidentally, our definition of "deserving poor" has narrowed considerably since then. Disabled people and single mothers werenpretty much unequivocally considered worthy of support.

Yes, that is something that is being promoted now in literature, etc that we are not homogeneous white. Seems a bit worrying.

What do you do about the illegal nail bar worker who has a baby, or the recently arrived young family on a visa who can't pay their rent? Chuck them out on the streets without assistance?

The age of consent came in as law in 1885. The Victorian times was the first time that there being a specific age below which sexual activity was child abuse became a concept. (That does NOT mean that in medieval times etc all girls were getting married at 14 or whatever nonsense people talk about. Parents still cared about their children and child abuse was still abuse. It just wasn't codified in law). But it's definitely not true that child abuse was punishable by death. Killing a child could be for sure.
If she meant child abuse as in physical child abuse then that's also clearly nonsense. Beating children was fine.

I think I'd put myself in the category of "identity is unsettled" so I agree to some extent with that. But I'd also say that I agree with @SixtySomething in that my experience of also being a bit mixed, makes me see it from the other side as in I have relatives and friends who will staunchly identify to the grave that they are X (not British), even as they happily sign up to multiple citizenships on paper. And will assist others of our group preferentially etc. I think it's nice to believe in a beautiful colour-blind world but I don't think that's how most people in the world actually see it.

For the record, I have some non-white-but-raised-here-for-some-generations friends who I consider more British than I am. I think they'd die for this country / send their sons to die for it. I can't say that for all of my friends though. This isn't a moral judgement - they're all very pleasant, hard working etc, but if push came to shove they'd go back home because this is just a generally pleasant economic zone for them.

All good points, I'd assumed she meant SA

Well, that's why we have laws around tax etc not just a voluntary system. Because not everyone does feel as if they owe the system something and some will always take the piss. Personally if someone came over here 25 years ago and had worked hard and done well for themselves In happy for them but expect them to pay back into the system. Likewise someone who was born here. I'm not sure if there is a racial component to this. It would be interesting to see.

And if you look at legal records from the 1600s etc, you will see there were people back then who were the same.

What's ironic is some of the influential people most invested in promoting an ethnic/religious English identity are also strongly opposed to the idea of rich people paying tax. And sometimes are non-doms for tax purposes themselves.

Fucking beaker people.

Comin' over here with their bronze shit.

Twats.

To be fair, "I would give my life for this nation" and "I will gladly pay taxes to this state" are not quite the same statement...!

Don’t be silly. There’s a clear difference between someone who was born and grew up here so is generally regarded as British (in contrast to a lot of countries such as Sweden or Korea where people commonly don’t view such people as nationals) and someone who arrived more recently having grown up in a completely different culture and speaking a basic level of English or none at all.

Yes
Like a husband who says he'd do anything for his wife but also never washes up.
It's easy to be patriotic about big theoretical gestures.

Agree with this very sensible point.

Even this I could have got on board with on the basis that leadership knew we needed immigration to boost economic growth, and it would not be popular.

But two things have come to light that have hardened my view. Most importantly the Pakistani rape gangs - operating in 149 areas, an organised endeavour, with as many as 250,000 potential victims. Our governments simply failed to keep us safe, the fear of being called a racist so great that many people kept quiet who had a duty to protect young vulnerable girls.

The second one is the research that shows that immigrants of a South Asian origin excluding Indians are a net cost to the country. Overall immigration is a net gain, but take out Europe and it’s net cost, though Indians are net gain.

The media didn’t report this strongly (again likely because being called a racist is the worst thing you could be) but it really matters.

Our governments have failed us badly on this issue.

Re. your last paragraph, good point. I think that in England, at least, the vast majority of people stayed in one place for hundreds of years. I've read about this before. There was a study from Liverpool University a few years ago that showed how, even today, most white British people stay quite close to where they grew up - or they come back after a few years away. Check out my Google results below from a search on it just now. When I did my family history, it was the case that both sides had stayed local for hundreds of years, same as yours. I only got back as far as 1600s, so maybe they were around in those areas much earlier.

So I do wonder if the study was designed the way you describe because we know, from previous research, that the white British are homogenous and tend to stay in one place - at least, up to the last few decades when there have bene more changes and mobility for more people.

I haven't read it properly though - just skimmed. Maybe there's a disclaimer that cautions what you caution.

It's fascinating, isn't it. I would have said that as a nation, even white British are heterogenous and that we move around a lot, but quite the opposite appears to be true!

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

What about them Romans, giving us bloody straight roads? Absolute nerve.

Well it's very difficult, because you can't have the conversation without mentioning religion or culture ever at all, at which point it's hard to avoid either actually being swayed by stereotypes or having people think you are and shutting the discussion down before it's started. Race is easier to avoid as it's genuinely less relevant except as something that creates a perception of difference, but by itself there's no actual effect. Again it's like weather in that human migration's effects are incredibly complex and the same type of migration can affect different places in different ways . Temperature, pressure, humidity, how built up a place is, how far inland it is, altitude, local environment, infrastructure, all affect people's experiences of weather. Types and extent of religious, cultural and language differences, what the community is like before the migration, how big it is, how well off... likewise affect experiences of immigration.

So… a bunch of Heugenots came to England and so we can’t be concerned about mass immigration? Is that the gist?
Thats a bit silly, if so.
I am genetically 100% not British (various genes, some from much further than France, and some certainly refugees, although not ever supported by the state) but I can appreciate that the level and speed of immigration of people from places that will not (and have no desire to) assimilate here is a major problem.
My family, on both sides, have been both grateful and loyal to this country (and yes, have risked their lives to defend it). That is not the case- and never is likely to be- for many of the recent immigrants.

I’m not intending to be pedantic.
I simply was confused by what you wrote ( in fact, still am, a little). That’s why I’m being, as you put it, very pedantic.

Since you recommend it, I might check out the book, and that might clear things up for me. 🙂