Calls to make black, asian and minority ethnic history compulsory

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Hugh and Chris would have us sleep walking into being overrun by an incompatible culture. Their arguments suppose there is no Saudi or similar long term plan; my argument supposes that there is a long term plan for Islam to take over.

There are no facts to prove me wrong - only opinions. Vigilance, my friends.

So the data I posted from the ONS about U.K. birth rates are only "opinion’?

OK, then…

You have put forward a proposition that there is a long-term plan by the Saudi Wahabists (a small minority of 5% of all Muslims) to take over our country in 90 years by out-breeding the Brits, but provided no evidence to back this up - I have provided data to show that all Muslims fertility rate in the U.K. has remained constant over the last 15 years or so.

---------- Post added at 13:57 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

Thanks Chris, sort of proves my point that if we hadn't gone charging about all over the world, many of the people complaining that we did it wouldn't even be here to complain about it . . . or possibly know we even existed

Or, if we hadn’t wiped out 95% of them, then took all their lands and resources, there might be more of them…

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The good that the British did in their previous colonies was as follows:

1. Provide civil infrastructure (including water plants;

2. Provide a civil administration & justice system;

3. Hand over of the mineral or agricultural industries that Britain had established.

That's what I highlight - nothing to validate our past presence there, just our exit from those territories. You really are being preposterous.

The ex-colony to which you refer that has supplied Muslims to the UK is presumably Pakistan. Their culture is incompatible with ours as events of terrorism and Rotherham have demonstrated.

Assume that in 90 years time there is a Muslim majority in Parliament. No matter how benign those MPs might be, it will be the extremists with muscle that will take over government. Then we'll soon have to face east.

Do you want this? Or are you going to hide behind the stupid argument of cultures evolving? Islam does not evolve.

You keep repeating the same ridiculous proposition with literally no proof. This is not a good look ..

BTW, "Rotherham" has proved nothing, in the same way that paedophilic Catholics priests does not prove that all Catholics are paedophiles.

Here are some interesting historical notes (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_...United_Kingdom)

By 1911, the British Empire had a Muslim population of 94 million, larger than the empire's 58 million Christian population. By the 1920s, the British Empire included roughly half of the world's Muslim population.

More than 400,000 Muslim soldiers of the British Indian Army fought for Britain during World War I, where 62,060 were killed in action.

Muslim soldiers of the British Indian Army later fought for Britain against the Nazis in World War II, where Muslim soldiers accounted for up to 40% of the 2.5 million troops serving the British Indian Army.

David Lloyd George, British Prime Minister from 1916 to 1922, stated: "we are the greatest Mahomedan power in the world and one-fourth of the population of the British Empire is Mahomedan. There have been no more loyal adherents to the throne and no more effective and loyal supporters of the Empire in its hour of trial." This statement was later reiterated by Gandhi in 1920.

Winston Churchill also stated in 1942: "We must not on any account break with the Moslems, who represent a hundred million people, and the main army elements on which we must rely for the immediate fighting."

[jonbxx]

I think we can safely put to bed the statement 'there's no islamophobia in the Conservative Party and their supporters' now I guess. Some of the statements in this discussion would get you sooooo fired in the workplace!

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

If both arguments are ultimately based on supposition, neither is more useful than the other.

However, I refute your claim that mine is based on supposition even as you admit that yours is. How extraordinary that you so readily admit to the essential weakness of your position.

Yours is a supposition. Your polemic does not work.

---------- Post added at 15:35 ---------- Previous post was at 15:27 ----------

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I think we can safely put to bed the statement 'there's no islamophobia in the Conservative Party and their supporters' now I guess. Some of the statements in this discussion would get you sooooo fired in the workplace!

My wariness is not a phobia. It's entirely rational.

As to the workplace, there is so much woke around that the subject dare not be raised. Indeed it should not be raised in the workplace because it has no relevance there..

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The good that the British did in their previous colonies was as follows:

1. Provide civil infrastructure (including water plants;

2. Provide a civil administration & justice system;

3. Hand over of the mineral or agricultural industries that Britain had established.

That's what I highlight - nothing to validate our past presence there, just our exit from those territories. You really are being preposterous.

The ex-colony to which you refer that has supplied Muslims to the UK is presumably Pakistan. Their culture is incompatible with ours as events of terrorism and Rotherham have demonstrated.

Assume that in 90 years time there is a Muslim majority in Parliament. No matter how benign those MPs might be, it will be the extremists with muscle that will take over government. Then we'll soon have to face east.

Do you want this? Or are you going to hide behind the stupid argument of cultures evolving? Islam does not evolve.

The thing I've always said about the British Empire is that it was better than the alternatives, that might sound like excusing our past but if people knew what the Spanish, Germans and even Belgiums got up to in their colonies they'd understand the point.

Originally Posted by Chris

Your ignorance of history is extremely thorough.

The only reason we know anything about Classical Greek science and philosophy is because Arabic, Muslim scholars in the Byzantine empire preserved the texts while the inheritors of the western Roman Empire in Europe did not. These were rediscovered by Europeans from around the 13th century onwards and translated into Latin over the following 2-300 years. In the meantime the only way to learn any of it was to go and learn it directly from … Muslims.

What you perceive as unevolved Islam is in many ways an expression of pan-Arab nationalism that began to find its voice in the second half of the 20th century. Islamic countries have all had their high and low points, culturally speaking, just as supposedly Christian European ones have. You don’t have to go far back in history to see newsreel footage of Arab countries whose street scenes are shockingly cosmopolitan and secular compared to the way we tend to assume they look today.

There's also medicine, where Muslim doctors/scientists willingly shared their discoveries with other cultures, unlike the Chinese...

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Yours is a supposition. Your polemic does not work.

---------- Post added at 15:35 ---------- Previous post was at 15:27 ----------



My wariness is not a phobia. It's entirely rational.

As to the workplace, there is so much woke around that the subject dare not be raised. Indeed it should not be raised in the workplace because it has no relevance there..

I will just leave the definition of islamophobia here;

dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

You may consider you thoughts or opinions rational but can you also see that they can also be classified as islamophobic at the same time?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The thing I've always said about the British Empire is that it was better than the alternatives, that might sound like excusing our past but if people knew what the Spanish, Germans and even Belgiums got up to in their colonies they'd understand the point.

But that takes you nowhere. There is no "better" way of being invaded - if it wrong, there is no less wrong. This road leads to mitigation and validation.

---------- Post added at 16:31 ---------- Previous post was at 16:28 ----------

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I will just leave the definition of islamophobia here;

You may consider you thoughts or opinions rational but can you also see that they can also be classified as islamophobic at the same time?

As we're dealing with definitions: rational

based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

I see no reason or logic here, only supposition and conjecture.

Originally Posted by ianch99

But that takes you nowhere. There is no "better" way of being invaded - if it wrong, there is no less wrong. This road leads to mitigation and validation.

Well, yes and no.

Unequivocally, we now see it as wrong. We believe in a rules-based world order which respects the right of nations to self determination; we promote economic and social development through trade and cultural exchange.

However, it is problematic to go too far down the road of applying modern understanding of the world on history. Our modern understanding can explain the reasons why things have changed but it doesn't necessarily help us understand the motives of the people who lived at the time. TheDaddy, for example, makes a perfectly valid point when he suggests the British empire might have been better than the alternatives. if you live in a 19th century Europe in which it is accepted, without question, that it is the duty of the white man to civilise the black man, or a 19th century Africa in which you are powerless to challenge that view or to resist it, the reality is that colonisation is going to happen, and thus it's a legitimate line of historical inquiry to ask whether one nation's colonial habits were better than another's.

None of this means we can't be critical, however it does us no good at all to pretend these circumstances didn't exist. To fail to understand history is to risk repeating it. 'Mitigation and validation' are things you can do with an understanding of history but they are not inevitable and should not be used to try to forbid legitimate lines of academic study.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Well, yes and no.

Unequivocally, we now see it as wrong. We believe in a rules-based world order which respects the right of nations to self determination; we promote economic and social development through trade and cultural exchange.

However, it is problematic to go too far down the road of applying modern understanding of the world on history. Our modern understanding can explain the reasons why things have changed but it doesn't necessarily help us understand the motives of the people who lived at the time. TheDaddy, for example, makes a perfectly valid point when he suggests the British empire might have been better than the alternatives. if you live in a 19th century Europe in which it is accepted, without question, that it is the duty of the white man to civilise the black man, or a 19th century Africa in which you are powerless to challenge that view or to resist it, the reality is that colonisation is going to happen, and thus it's a legitimate line of historical inquiry to ask whether one nation's colonial habits are better than another's.

None of this means we can't be critical, however it does us no good at all to pretend these circumstances didn't exist. To fail to understand history is to risk repeating it.

Agreed but surely you can see the danger in starting to mitigate the colonising process. You run the risk of ending up with the position that we were the better choice of oppressor because we were "nicer". Of course there were countries who were worse than us in certain parts of the world. Belgium's record, for example, in the Congo was atrocious. Understanding of history should focus on what was wrong so we can prevent it repeating. It should not focus on who was the better invader.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Agreed but surely you can see the danger in starting to mitigate the colonising process. You run the risk of ending up with the position that we were the better choice of oppressor because we were "nicer". Of course there were countries who were worse than us in certain parts of the world. Belgium's record, for example, in the Congo was atrocious. Understanding of history should focus on what was wrong so we can prevent it repeating. It should not focus on who was the better invader.

Also agreed. However the problem with academia in that respect is that as you climb the academic ladder to your PhD and beyond you inevitably focus on narrower and narrower areas of study. With a PhD in particular you have to choose an area in which you can make an original contribution. So someone, somewhere, is going to end up asking questions which, taken in isolation, seem to be interested only in establishing who was the better invader. Their freedom to do that should be respected, and so should the results of their research. It is the responsibility of those engaged in the discipline as a whole to see that the end result isn't a distorted view of history and to challenge those who misuse research to push unsavoury modern political agendas.

[Carth]

Just to take us back to the original posted subject . . .

How do all you people know so much about the stuff you're posting?

Were you taught all of it during history lessons at school . . . or has much of that knowledge been acquired over the years since you left?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Also agreed. However the problem with academia in that respect is that as you climb the academic ladder to your PhD and beyond you inevitably focus on narrower and narrower areas of study. With a PhD in particular you have to choose an area in which you can make an original contribution. So someone, somewhere, is going to end up asking questions which, taken in isolation, seem to be interested only in establishing who was the better invader. Their freedom to do that should be respected, and so should the results of their research. It is the responsibility of those engaged in the discipline as a whole to see that the end result isn't a distorted view of history and to challenge those who misuse research to push unsavoury modern political agendas.

Yes, well put. Of course, anyone can & should be able to focus & deep dive into specific aspects of history but these treatise should never be used as a context to misrepresent a wider historical narrative. It is often the case that a niche perspective on a past event is conflated into a justification for a wider program of action.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by ianch99

But that takes you nowhere. There is no "better" way of being invaded - if it wrong, there is no less wrong. This road leads to mitigation and validation.[

Or it leads to putting yourself in the shoes of the indigenous population and deciding what was the better outcome for them. It was wrong but it happened and was always going to happen by someone and looking at what they did, better it was by us than them, that's not excusing what we did although I don't doubt it'll be looked at by some as exactly that

---------- Post added at 17:12 ---------- Previous post was at 17:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Well, yes and no.

Unequivocally, we now see it as wrong. We believe in a rules-based world order which respects the right of nations to self determination; we promote economic and social development through trade and cultural exchange.

However, it is problematic to go too far down the road of applying modern understanding of the world on history. Our modern understanding can explain the reasons why things have changed but it doesn't necessarily help us understand the motives of the people who lived at the time. TheDaddy, for example, makes a perfectly valid point when he suggests the British empire might have been better than the alternatives. if you live in a 19th century Europe in which it is accepted, without question, that it is the duty of the white man to civilise the black man, or a 19th century Africa in which you are powerless to challenge that view or to resist it, the reality is that colonisation is going to happen, and thus it's a legitimate line of historical inquiry to ask whether one nation's colonial habits were better than another's.

None of this means we can't be critical, however it does us no good at all to pretend these circumstances didn't exist. To fail to understand history is to risk repeating it. 'Mitigation and validation' are things you can do with an understanding of history but they are not inevitable and should not be used to try to forbid legitimate lines of academic study.

I could have saved myself posting that now!

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Carth

Just to take us back to the original posted subject . . .

How do all you people know so much about the stuff you're posting?

Were you taught all of it during history lessons at school . . . or has much of that knowledge been acquired over the years since you left?

Degrees in the stuff mate, degrees

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I will just leave the definition of islamophobia here;



You may consider you thoughts or opinions rational but can you also see that they can also be classified as islamophobic at the same time?

dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

Jon, that definition is one of dozens that circulate. None of them have any legal meaning. Even our Parliament has been unable to agree a definition in law.

The reason is simple: They are hung up on the phobia element of the term Islamophobia. A phobia must be irrational - so much can be proven by reference to accepted definitions. Also, racism towards Muslims must be shown to be discriminatory in the sense of violating or promoting violation of human rights. The woke brigade just don't think these matters through.

They need to find another word for it - like Anti-Islamism but then you have define Islamism. So you see the difficulty.

My argument is totally rational and cannot be classified as Islamophobic except by people who haven't thought this through.

Possibly, my critics may accuse me not thinking things through. My exposition and rationale shows that I have indeed given this significant thought. One of the arguments raged against me is that later generations of new cultures don't breed as prolifically as their forebears. Is that true if it is the tradition of the religion to breed? The take-up of Islam in the UK has been analysed by the BBC.

Muslims in Wales and England practise and pass on their faith at much higher rates than any other religion, a Cardiff University study says.

Researchers found 77% of adult Muslims actively practise the faith they were brought up in, compared with 29% of Christians and 65% of other religions.

They also found 98% of Muslim children surveyed said they had the religion their parents were brought up in.

They said the research suggested religion helps minority communities.

The research found 62% of Christian children surveyed had the same religion of their parents, compared with 98% of Muslims and 89% of other religions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17023858

As I said before, wake up.