Jane Clare Jones on purity spirals

[IamSarah]

Really insightful post on X the platform formally known as Twitter I feel it's worth sharing on here:

x.com/janeclarejones/status/1745760345954689255?s=46&t=NGJBRqkXgp1UazF5I8yjXA

BTW evangelical means try to convert others, often happy clappy, mostly anti gay. Fundamentalist means literal interpretation of the bible as fact. Most evangelical churches especially in the UK are not Fundamentalist.

AdamRyan

The equality act makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone because of religion or belief, or because of a lack of a religion or belief.

I’m deeply uncomfortable that you seem to be equating someone being Christian with them being suspect and to be shunned

Or the third explanation, what the researchers said which is black women did disproportionately die of plague, likely because the plague killed certain social groups most and black women were disproportionately in those groups.

It's by no means an outlandish theory as far as archaeology goes

From the BBC article.

The report said: "There is a significantly higher proportion of people of estimated African affiliation in the plague burials compared to the nonplague burials (18.4% vs. 8.3%).

This suggests that 8.3% of the population of Britain at that time was of African descent. This seems unlikely. The proportion of the population who are of African descent has increased over time, but in the 1991 census less than 2% said their ethnicity was African/Caribbean/Black and it's less than 4% now.

There seems to be something wrong with their method of determining ethnicity.

I'm deeply uncomfortable with a number of our politicians (including Cates) aligning with an American started and funded movement that wants to "root social life in Christianity" and "treat the bible as first among sources in public life".

That isn't being prejudiced against Christians, it's about wanting a secular state (which incidentally would reflect the UK population too)

Anyway, blah. Some of you think Cates is great, I don't. I'm leaving it there.

Because this thread is not just about Sarah. This thread is about a thread that Jane Clare Jones posted. And in the process of that discussion, it has come about that the OP is now demanding an apology from KJK for a tweet that seems to not be a lie, yet we are told categorically that it is a lie and then other things that need to be apologised for were included. And those things also don’t seem to be truthful accounts of what has happened also.

It tracks because the cycle is being continued by a group. Not just one person. And this group, as I am sure you realise is in positions of leadership with other UK feminism groups. Do you believe that ignoring it will mean the cycle will now be broken?

Hate to break it to you @AdamRyan but this country is a Christian country with our laws based on Christian principles. Our head of state is also the Head of the CofE, King Charles. There are 26 bishops in the house of Lords.
In fact our quite unusual approach in Europe of multiculturalism instead of assimilation of migrants is down to our Christian values.

I am an atheist. Just some facts.

Is it possible to have a truly secular state when the Head of State is also the Head of the Church of England?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18903391.amp

Britain always been racially diverse

Why are you so invested in this?

The UK is not just England. The King's role in the CofE is largely symbolic. The Kings role in Parliament is also largely symbolic.

My understanding is the CofE is a pretty relaxed interpretation of the bible, compared to others.

I do not want any movement to a greater alignment between state policies and biblical teachings. And the fact I'm constantly having to sit here, spell it out and be accused of "anti Christian prejudice" for saying that is precisely why I think some posters are on here for religious reasons not to support women.

I haven’t noticed religious posters not here for women

No, just someone who is interested in uk history and archaeology I'm not a bot for stating a fact with evidence.
Why is the idea there were significant numbers of black people in the UK in tudor times challenging for you?

I'll tell you what's challenging for me. Your conviction that your non-sequitur there contributed to the conversation.

OldCrone was quoting from the BBC article which I linked, which also says:

Social and religious divisions based on origin, skin colour and appearance were present in both medieval England and Europe.
The paper said that from 1336 to 1584 "nearly 18,000 'foreigners' had come to London from India, Greece, Iceland, and mainland Europe".
While no population figures for black women in London have been recorded the paper added during this period mercantile and richer migrants who regularly stayed in London, accompanied by entire households, often had servants who were free or enslaved people originating from Sub-Saharan and northern Africa or Eastern Europe.
The research team added people of colour were established in the UK thousands of years and ago and this was reflected in literature and other sources.

The presence of black people in the UK during that period is firmly established. OldCrone was not disputing it. She was querying whether the report was claiming there to have been a greater population than the number of black Britons today.

What do you do? Do you respond to what she commented? No, you post a link informing us that black people lived in Britain in the 1600s. Yes. We. Know.

Again, I ask, are you a fucking bot?

Well, yes, but 8.3% of the population having African heritage in the 14th century seems absurdly high.

What happened between then and 1991, when the African/Caribbean population was only 1.6%, despite all the immigration which had taken place?

Adam Ryan
Are you Black? I think not, otherwise I'd recognise you from BMN.

Is there a reason you keep going on about Black people and the plague and some historical dig? It's like some big reveal that only you are privy to, and yet it's not. Your constant mention of it is getting bizarre now.

We've been in Britain since Roman Times, not Tudor, incidentally.
Facts are indeed important.

The black population in a specific grave site in London says nothing about the black population in the UK as a whole.

Recent census data is pretty irrelevant to the populations in London 600 years ago. Lots has happened since then - like in the link I posted it says Elizabeth 1st deported black people to "the Barbary".

And why do you think random googling and Internet posting is more reliable than the actual archaeologists doing the study? I trust the people whose job it is better than Google and assumptions.

Because of the Kemi Badenoch "woke archaeology" thing. I assume you haven't rtft

No I'm not black. Just someone who likes archaeology and dislikes undermining of science and fact.

AdamRyan only seems to be interested in it as a way of attacking a black female politician

Because of the Kemi Badenoch "woke archaeology" thing.

She didn't use that term, stop lying about what she said. She's a black woman who is quite entitled to her own opinion on it.

That clears that up then. You didn't read the link at all.

And why do you think random googling and Internet posting is more reliable than the actual archaeologists doing the study?

What random googling? I posted a link to the BBC article about the study, which we're only discussing because you said Kemi called it "woke". An accusation you have not withdrawn, even though checking what she said on Hansard and twitter shows the media is holding her responsible for the terms used by another MP.

Said article took care to clarify the presence of black Britons and absolutely no-one was contesting their existence as a demographic.

So what do you do? You randomly google an entirely different BBC article to tell us that black people were in Britain. We. Know.