
Britain has an ethnic problem: the English  - ilamont
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/britain-has-an-ethnic-problem-the-english/article15792740/
======
yetanotherphd
Cute. 10 years ago I would appreciate this lambasting of the unfair criticism
that minorities often receive.

But why does criticism of minorities tend to be sometimes unfair in the first
place (not that all criticism is unfair)? I think it is because deep down,
most people don't want multiculturalism, or even multiracial/ethnic societies.

I think it's time we stopped forcing immigration on people who don't want it.
I'll finish with a quote from a prime minister of a particular country, on
asylum seekers. As an experiment, I've modified the quote by changing the
country in question, though of course the original quote is easy to look up:

"If we don't stop their entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000
could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence as an [English] and
democratic state. This phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social
fabric of society, our national security and our national identity."

~~~
GuiA
Agreed. I think most humans are deeply and innately scared of change, the
unknown, and the Other with a capital O.

I do hope that eventually, over a few hundred years, the human race has mixed
enough so that we all sort of have the same skin color and appearance. Is that
plausible genetically? It's be interesting. Although I'm sure people would
find other minor things to quibble about ("those blue eyed people are taking
our jobs!")

~~~
yetanotherphd
I don't think people are wrong to oppose immigration actually.

What you characterize as an irrational fear, I would say is an desire to
preserve unique aspects of one's culture, and possible genetics.
Unfortunately, this viewpoint has been associated, often unfairly, with taking
an extreme approach where this desire is held above all other considerations.

~~~
moocowduckquack
I think people are wrong to oppose immigration while at the same time thinking
that they can migrate, as they are sides of the same coin.

If you ask people if they think that they themselves should be denied the
right to travel for extended periods and work abroad you will find very few
who agree, even if they hold that view about people from abroad coming to work
in their country.

Beyond that, I think that people are not so much morally wrong, but just plain
stupid to oppose migration on principle. Populations rarely prosper without
trade and trade does not prosper without migration.

As far as the 'preserving genetics' argument, that just isn't the way
evolution works. The environment is always in flux and in general it is a bad
idea to assume that a particular makeup should be kept static, as it is then
doomed to be an evolutionary backwater while the growth is being done by those
who are freely mixing.

\---

edit - @yetanotherphd, it isn't letting me reply directly to your post below
at the moment, so I have posted my reply here:

 _It 's like saying that we should cut all social services because everyone
thinks they should be paying less tax._

It isn't like that at all. In that metaphor it is like asking both questions
and pointing out that if you don't want tax then you can't have state
services.

 _the most valuable trade is within Europe and East Asia, and yet East Asian
immigration is relatively small._

That trade was built up over centuries and involved European empires all over
the far east.

 _How can you explain the success of the very un-diverse Scandinavia?_

The Vikings travelled most of the known world and shagged around a hell of a
lot. Scandinavian DNA has genes from all over the place.

[http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...](http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011898)

[http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/dna-shows-
genetic...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/dna-shows-genetic-
diversity-find-refutes-scandinavian-racial-purity-myth-a-559284.html)

 _If you want to base your claim on some general theory, what about how plant
and animal breeders maintain specific breeds instead of mixing them all
together?_

Go look up the genetic diseases of purebred dogs.

 _" Current genetic evidence refutes the theory of inbreeding for typological
traits to achieve breed purity (18,19). Population genetics is the tool that
exposes the fallacy of purebred dogs and, hopefully, it can also be the tool
with which the canine species is revitalized. Population genetics is used to
calculate gene frequencies, and the frequencies of alternative alleles within
genes, both of which are integral to assessing the health of a species._

 _An individual canine’s genotype will dictate the production of specific
structural and functional proteins, and in combination with environmental
influences, result in individual phenotypes, or visible outcomes (1,20). If
both parents supply the same allele for a particular gene, then the offspring
is regarded as homozygous for a specific trait. If the alleles supplied by
each parent are different, then the offspring is heterozygous for that trait.
Heterozygosity is an important occurrence for species’ fortitude and survival
(1). The Hardy-Weinberg Principle describes how a natural balance, in most
species, maintains a high degree of genotypic heterozygosity in order to
preserve genetic fitness and, hence, species’ health (2,4,18,19). High rates
of homozygosity can occur in nature due to “bottleneck situations,” such as a
limited gene pool in island populations, but in canines, homozygosity is
deliberately accomplished by people trying to achieve specific breed
standards. Many desired breed traits are recessive, rather than dominant, and
require that both copies of the inherited alleles be the same for the trait to
be expressed phenotypically. Individuals selected for consistent expression of
alleles specific to desired physical traits results in offspring that are
homozygous._

 _Breed purity and genotypic homozygosity is harmful to canine health because
it requires inbreeding and results in an abnormally high occurrence of
inherited diseases. Unfortunately, when breeders selectively “double up” on
desired traits for physical conformation, they also double up on genes that
can result in decreased fitness and increased disease. "_

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1950109/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1950109/)

~~~
yetanotherphd
I already dealt with the alleged hypocrisy in the other thread, but also
logically, this is a red herring. It's like saying that we should cut all
social services because everyone thinks they should be paying less tax.

On trade, the most valuable trade is within Europe and East Asia, and yet East
Asian immigration is relatively small. The amount of immigration that is truly
needed for trade is very small.

On genetics, I never claimed that it is objectively better to preserve
particular ethnic groups. In fact, I don't think evolution implies anything
about how things should be. However, your claim about how important genetic
diversity is for overall success, strikes me as either untestable or wrong.
How can you explain the success of the very un-diverse Scandinavia? Or if you
can explain this away, how is your claim testable, and therefore backed up by
fact. If you want to base your claim on some general theory, what about how
plant and animal breeders maintain specific breeds instead of mixing them all
together?

EDIT: there is a time limit placed on replies, to slow the discussion down the
deeper the thread gets. This is intended to cool the tone of the discussion
and prevent flame wars. If you repost your edit as a reply, I will reply to it
when I can.

------
peteretep
Almost every setence in this article needs a "citation needed" marker. Also,
white != English. In conclusion: please stop posting this drivel.

~~~
moocowduckquack
The style of it is meant as a satire on similar articles directed at immigrant
communities and the use of the word English is part and parcel of that satire.
It is a rhetorical device to make a point, not an attempt to use accurate
terminology. Also, it does include a fair amount of citations throughout the
text.

------
sdfjkl
As an EU migrant living in Britain, I find this is sadly spot on. A few years
ago I didn't dream of going back (or somewhere else), but now I'm seriously
considering it. Almost every day there's more about anti-EU notions,
xenophobia and creeping internet censorship in the news here. A couple months
ago a bunch of EDL goons were marching around shouting nonsensical propaganda
and waving flags. Made me feel very uncomfortable.

~~~
danoprey
Just for the record, there are plenty of us that are anti-EU and welcoming of
immigration. There are plenty of non-bigoted reasons to dislike the European
Union.

------
mynameishere
Kind of heavy-handed. The comments are almost exclusively against the article,
which makes sense: People don't want to be demographically replaced. So they
complain about it.

Reporters, being the morally superior people they always are, do their best
with 3rd-rate satire to illustrate to nativists how evil and stupid such
complaints are.

