Politically Acceptable Racism

[Ultimatum]

Is there such a thing/will there ever be such a thing as politically acceptable racism?- for lack of a better word.
For example, could there ever be a time where a country denies a race (due to overwhelming net immigration numbers of that race, for example) entry into a country?
I believe that there will be a time when this happens, at least, for my United Kingdom (considering, of course, that it is a small country that is attractive such as what Switzerland is). For a country union citizen, such as an American, this will seem like a silly idea- but this is fine for your geographically large country.
Whilst I understand that the term "overpopulation" is subjective, I believe that if it is in the country's best interest to push back migrants due to "overpopulation", then it should be understood and still seen as "politically correct" by the rest of the world.

Thoughts?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Our history is heavily polluted with such discrimination and racism. It's likely that it will continue for the foreseeable future.

 

[Alceste]

Most countries , including yours and mine, already restrict immigration from certain regions. It's not exactly on the basis of race, but close enough.

 

[Valjean]

People are innately tribal. It's in our genes. I don't anticipate it going away any time soon.

 

[metis]

It wouldn't surprise me to see some pretty strong anti-immigration laws eventually coming out of France because of the demographic projections, whereas those of Middle Eastern ancestry will outnumber the rest in about 50 or so years.

 

[moshlawd]

Never is, never will be

 

[Ultimatum]

Our history is heavily polluted with such discrimination and racism. It's likely that it will continue for the foreseeable future.

You are right. I must say, however, that in history this racism is usually enacted by a ruler and enforced upon the peoples. In the future, it's going to be enacted by the people (notwithstanding a higher majority of immigrants, which is inevitable) and enforced upon the authorities, who are scared of being politically incorrect.

Most countries , including yours and mine, already restrict immigration from certain regions. It's not exactly on the basis of race, but close enough.

EU-restricted citizen reporting in..

It wouldn't surprise me to see some pretty strong anti-immigration laws eventually coming out of France because of the demographic projections, whereas those of Middle Eastern ancestry will outnumber the rest in about 50 or so years.

Exactly. In order to preserve the ideals of an individual nation, the majority HAVE to be the originators of that country, otherwise foreign ideals are imposed upon the establishment.
Classifying whether or not families are originators for a country is another matter, however..

 

[Yerda]

In order to preserve the ideals of an individual nation, the majority HAVE to be the originators of that country, otherwise foreign ideals are imposed upon the establishment.

You are assuming that nations possess ideals. Can you defend this?

If the majority HAVE to be originators we would have no nations, or have to reset every generation. No?

What if the establishment hold foreign ideals?

What if foreign ideals are better?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Never is, never will be

Already has been.
My country instituted the White Australia Policy (actually a series of policies).

White Australia policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not for a moment suggesting I see this as acceptable, it's actually a blight on our history to my mind.
But it was clearly politically acceptable at the time, given the time span these policies ran for.

For any not linking to Wiki, here's an image of a badge produced by the Australian Natives Association circa 1910.
Our Prime Minister of the time was a member of this group...

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Is there such a thing/will there ever be such a thing as politically acceptable racism?- for lack of a better word.

No...

 

[Ultimatum]

You are assuming that nations possess ideals. Can you defend this?

Absolutely. All nations have a history and certain way of doing things. And here in England, English values are held. If we are inundated with foreigners, those values start to get very diluted and end up non-existant. All we become is one giant melting pot of lots of different identities and values- instead of just one; which is the ideal way of doing things. For example, in this Christian country (or at least, in the past) we believe that the sovereignty of Crown and Parliament are the highest powers, but to some foreigners (who, parhaps, hold an Islamist agenda), this isn't acceptable- which dilutes the voice of the majority who want it to be a Christian country.

If the majority HAVE to be originators we would have no nations, or have to reset every generation. No?

As I previously typed, classifying a peoples as originators of a country is a touchy matter. And I hold the belief that if an individual country is composed mostly of foreigners, that country is no longer individual and has been lost to the history books- merely keeping the name.
England should be English, no?

What if the establishment hold foreign ideals?

I think you mean, the establishment DOES hold foreign ideals- at least in this country.
Thank God UKIP and the Greens are eating their way into things now.

The establishment doesn't want to be "politically incorrect", you see.

What if foreign ideals are better?

If they are better for the country and economy, I don't see the problem with them. We are, however, going a little off topic- the discussion is about the dilution of the people of a country due to foreigners.

 

[Yerda]

Absolutely. All nations have a history and certain way of doing things. And here in England, English values are held. If we are inundated with foreigners, those values start to get very diluted and end up non-existant. All we become is one giant melting pot of lots of different identities and values- instead of just one; which is the ideal way of doing things. For example, in this Christian country (or at least, in the past) we believe that the sovereignty of Crown and Parliament are the highest powers, but to some foreigners (who, parhaps, hold an Islamist agenda), this isn't acceptable- which dilutes the voice of the majority who want it to be a Christian country.

I think you have a romantic and simplistic idea of nationhood and Englishness. Which is not a terrible thing, I admit.

As for myself, I'm not English but Scottish. We share a state (for now) but I do not believe in Christ or the sovereignity of the crown or the parliament. We do share (I hope) a belief in the tenets of civil liberal democracy.

You are right; an Islamist agenda is contrary to English heritage, culture, legal systems, governance, etc. Not because it is Islamic but Islamist. Muslims can be as English as they want.

As I previously typed, classifying a peoples as originators of a country is a touchy matter. And I hold the belief that if an individual country is composed mostly of foreigners, that country is no longer individual and has been lost to the history books- merely keeping the name.
England should be English, no?

Look at America. They formed a nation completely from "foreigners". Look at Scotland. Long before the referendum (that reinforced matters) we had taken our particular state of affairs and forged something like a national identity. Nationhood doesn't have to be ethnic.

I think you mean, the establishment DOES hold foreign ideals- at least in this country.
Thank God UKIP and the Greens are eating their way into things now.

I do think the establishment holds foreign ideals because the elites have no nation. UKIP, however, are not anti-establishment.

 

[Ultimatum]

Look at America. They formed a nation completely from "foreigners". Look at Scotland. Long before the referendum (that reinforced matters) we had taken our particular state of affairs and forged something like a national identity. Nationhood doesn't have to be ethnic.

They formed a nation from the beginning. They didn't have a collective identity from the start. We have. We know our identity and we're watching it being diluted away.
And in the case of Scotland: we are classed as Great Britain- as one "group". We are, however, different countries with different languages (although not so much anymore in Scotland) and, obviously, ideals: considering Scotland was torn between a Yes or No vote, whereas England wanted Scotland to stay.

I do think the establishment holds foreign ideals because the elites have no nation. UKIP, however, are not anti-establishment.

They are anti-EU. Which is a political taboo. All other parties (the establishment is the political majority) are in denial of this. Only UKIP (BNP doesn't count) wants out of the EU, and I don't believe Mr Cameron will deliver on an in/out referendum- as he was supposed to in 2009.

Remember:
"The Establishment"- Political Majority who hold most of the votes, usually due to no other choice/traditionalism.
"Anti-Establishment"- Political Minority who don't hold many votes, usually due to a leftist media.

Which is why we say that we are currently "eating" into the establishment.

 

[metis]

As for myself, I'm not English but Scottish.

Hey, say hi to my relatives on the Isle of Skye (MacDonald Clan Ranald).

 

[Yerda]

They formed a nation from the beginning. They didn't have a collective identity from the start. We have. We know our identity and we're watching it being diluted away.

OK.

Remember:
"The Establishment"- Political Majority who hold most of the votes, usually due to no other choice/traditionalism.

Nope.

It is the landowners. The aristocracy (the crown included). The bankers and financiers. The predatory capitalists. The BBC Trustees. The print media owners. The political classes. The entrenched civil service. The lawyers and accountants (the big four). The arms traders. And more.

There is of course much overlap. Now look at Nigel Farage and tell me he is not a member of the group which de facto governs the UK.

"Anti-Establishment"- Political Minority who don't hold many votes, usually due to a leftist media...

...Which is why we say that we are currently "eating" into the establishment.

You mentioned the Greens before. Why do you suppose they recieve a tiny fraction of the newspaper inches that UKIP do? The fact that you think the media is leftist suggests you understand neither the left nor the media.

UKIP looks to me like a Euro expenses gravy train scam, soon to be a Westminster gravy train scam. Ask Nigel Farage how much he has taken in expenses from the Parliament he tells us he opposes.

 

[Ultimatum]

Nope.
It is the landowners. The aristocracy (the crown included). The bankers and financiers. The predatory capitalists. The BBC Trustees. The print media owners. The political classes. The entrenched civil service. The lawyers and accountants (the big four). The arms traders. And more.
There is of course much overlap. Now look at Nigel Farage and tell me he is not a member of the group which de facto governs the UK.

"Political" encompasses those connected with public affairs.. including those who influence politics.

You mentioned the Greens before. Why do you suppose they recieve a tiny fraction of the newspaper inches that UKIP do? The fact that you think the media is leftist suggests you understand neither the left nor the media.

I meant the fact that the media is further left-field than what UKIP is perceived to be (further right than the Conservatives). That was my wording mistake.

UKIP looks to me like a Euro expenses gravy train scam, soon to be a Westminster gravy train scam. Ask Nigel Farage how much he has taken in expenses from the Parliament he tells us he opposes.

It certainly looks like it, but in order to make a difference in today's world you need to be in a prominent position- and for Nigel Farage, that means being an MEP to make his voice heard. And one of the perks of being an MEP and having a rising surge in media coverage will mean an extraordinary wage, no doubt. You can't do anything about that.

We can debate all we want about how much someone pockets, but that doesn't do us much good does it?

 

[Ultimatum]

The fact of the matter is this:
Giving away your democracy, freedom, and ability to decide your country's own future to a foreign institute in where you only have a small percentage of say is not a democracy. I would rather have our parliament decide on whether or not to pass legislation concerning this country over some mid-life crisis victim of a Eurocrat.

 

[Yerda]

The fact of the matter is this:
Giving away your democracy, freedom, and ability to decide your country's own future to a foreign institute in where you only have a small percentage of say is not a democracy. I would rather have our parliament decide on whether or not to pass legislation concerning this country over some mid-life crisis victim of a Eurocrat.

On this we agree.

 

[George-ananda]

Is there such a thing/will there ever be such a thing as politically acceptable racism?- for lack of a better word.
For example, could there ever be a time where a country denies a race (due to overwhelming net immigration numbers of that race, for example) entry into a country?
I believe that there will be a time when this happens, at least, for my United Kingdom (considering, of course, that it is a small country that is attractive such as what Switzerland is). For a country union citizen, such as an American, this will seem like a silly idea- but this is fine for your geographically large country.
Whilst I understand that the term "overpopulation" is subjective, I believe that if it is in the country's best interest to push back migrants due to "overpopulation", then it should be understood and still seen as "politically correct" by the rest of the world.

Thoughts?

Every country has an immigration policy. No country in the world has unrestricted immigration. The government sets quotas based on national origin (not race) and can change quotas so this always has been happening. And I wouldn't call it racism either; it's just immigration policy. People debate how much is too much or too little all the time. Sounds like you are making an argument for the United Kingdom to restrict immigration and I'm sure a good argument can be made. What are the arguments of the other side?

 

[dust1n]

Is there such a thing/will there ever be such a thing as politically acceptable racism?- for lack of a better word.
For example, could there ever be a time where a country denies a race (due to overwhelming net immigration numbers of that race, for example) entry into a country?
I believe that there will be a time when this happens, at least, for my United Kingdom (considering, of course, that it is a small country that is attractive such as what Switzerland is). For a country union citizen, such as an American, this will seem like a silly idea- but this is fine for your geographically large country.
Whilst I understand that the term "overpopulation" is subjective, I believe that if it is in the country's best interest to push back migrants due to "overpopulation", then it should be understood and still seen as "politically correct" by the rest of the world.

Thoughts?

Maybe it's the backlash from Britain's invasion into the world for 200 years; like their own worst nightmare sort of thing.