''Diversity'' and ''Inclusion'' in the UK: the rise of the Racist White Liberals

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

Who says people have to leave if they refuse to be educated to your political preferences? They can vote and tear down the system. The UK political scene is a good example of what's going on as political parties have all run themselves into this ''diversity and inclusion'' corner and conservative voters are revolting.

Not to my political preferences. Just to accept that there are political/social/cultural perferances and that people won't always agree.

The home office says, we have a functional police force.

The revolt against the conservatories is because they failed to deliver brexit, the Brexit part is moderate, it has some left wingers and some right winners, some gays, several blacks, and a European. It's the brexit party mate, not ing Ukip, Ukip still exists, and has a total of one MEPs.

You're talking again.

Here are a few:

Population Replacement in Early Neolithic Britain

The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe

The full texts might be behind a paywall. I can't tell because I'm signed in through a university proxy.

Cheers for that, I properly appreciate it.

MENA people in Europe are all the controversy lately, but what I said equally applies to South Asians, sub-Saharan Africans, or whoever. Their cultures are not "outdated". They have developed along different trajectories.

Barbaric then, whatever, such assaults on the rights of the individual are unacceptable, and violate and undermine a stable democratic nation. This is not to say debate is not to be encouraged, but it is to be consensual with those participating and listening wishing to take part.

There aren't universally held values.

They're pretty worldwide. But nothing is universal, and it's a far cry from being universal among citizens where it official policy. It's still necessary to prevent disruption to peoples lives and to national progress.

Wahhabism is quite modern, in fact quite young, and on the rise. It seeks to recreate an idealized past that never existed. I hear Westerners talk about how Islam needs a reform movement. Wahhabism is a modern reform movement, maybe just not what Westerners were hoping for.

Okay, well it's a reactionary reform, it's still barbaric brutal, and has no place in a modern civilization.

For many, that would be demanding they conform.

That's not the same, it is technically conforming, but it's conforming to a consensus against conformation. Everyone is still at liberty to have their own views dress, cultures, and customs.

This distinction is meaningless to me.

Then you're boiling down European culture, which is incredibly diverse into a single entity we're not.

That only applied to people of the book, others were required to convert or be killed. That was how it was supposed to work anyway. In practice, dhimmi status was sometimes extended to some who shouldn't qualify. In practice, there were still anti-Jewish and anti-Christian pogroms and forced conversions. The Samaritans should have had dhimmi status, and yet they were almost all exterminated in the Seventeenth Century. Today there are only 810 of them. The Druze were systematically persecuted under Mamluk rule. Al-Maqrizi's kitab al-khitat recorded eight violent pogroms carried out against Copts in Cairo and throughout the countryside in 1259, 1264, 1279, 1283, 1293, 1301, 1321, and 1354, alongside a series of new laws meant to humiliate them and allow for the confiscation of their property.

And yet it's still far, far better than medieval Europe.

Quoting Little's translation of Al-Maqrisi:

again that required them to wear turbans, what happened to the ones who did?

Just to point out a few counter-examples. History as seen by the religious minorities who lived under Islamic rule is quite different than what is emphasized in modern Western academia.

It's was brutal, horrific, and awful, but we're comparing imperial Russia with nazi Germany here, being a leader in tolerance, doesn't mean you were tolerant by modern standards.

This is another conversation I don't think belongs in modern politics. I find it annoying that a one-sided narrative seems to have developed for political reasons. I'm not trying to offer a counter-narrative, but the other side of the full picture. Hopefully someone won't feel obligated to come along and talk about how Muslim Andalusia was all flowers and rainbows.

This is true, but but my point was that Islam then was in many way more tolerant that Islam now, or Christianity then as well.

I burst out laughing when I realised this was saying that native Britons haven’t existed since the neolithic, and that the native Brits were black, which they weren’t.

Hoo boy.

He's pretty ing black, black FYI =/= African, it doesn't even = literal black (much to 6 year old me's consternation), but I'd call that guy black, but whatever, he's not white.

Someone begin older than an arbitrary number does not change their native status. Point is that change didn't end the world.

[Basil II the B.S]

Not to my political preferences. Just to accept that there are political/social/cultural perferances and that people won't always agree.

The home office says, we have a functional police force.

The revolt against the conservatories is because they failed to deliver brexit, the Brexit part is moderate, it has some left wingers and some right winners, some gays, several blacks, and a European. It's the brexit party mate, not ing Ukip, Ukip still exists, and has a total of one MEPs.

1/3 of BAME voters voted Leave. Just like 1/3 of Labour voters voted Leave. Of course the Brexit party includes them. Because the claim that Brexiteers are just racist and sexist is retarded.

Also for accepting that people won't agree, maybe you can start by accepting that people do not agree with ''diversity and inclusion'' policies that in the end are always about discriminating against straight white males?

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

This has been debunked:
https://www.newscientist.com/article...y-not-be-true/
Full text without paywall:
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingd..._man_find_may/

It is his most probable profile, based on current research.” - ergo is the most likely, also the romans defined native non-Celt Brits as "SWARTHY" make fo that what you will, but it's not just uncertain New newfangled DNA.

http://survivethejive.blogspot.com/2...eddar-man.html

Aryan blog. off with that .

https://blog.insito.me/slicing-chedd...e-43798bf764fa

Still a blog with little critical merit, although it's proposition is intriguing.

This whole thing is a typical example of leftists falling for a media hoax more easily then Soviets did for claims in Pravda.

Described by the Romans as darker than the Romans. Yeah, totally made up in 20011, no evidence from 40-50 BC.

OMG THE ROMANS WER EIN ON WHITE LIBERIALIST TOLELRANCE YOU GUIES! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

[Basil II the B.S]

The Romans also described Attila and Hannibal Barca as ''dark skinned''. Both spent most of their lifetime in war campaigns, meaning they got ton of exposure. Of course they were ''darker''. That doesn't make any of them Sub-Saharian African.

Nor Septimius Severus, nor any of the other that's occasionally brought up the historical revisionist for political reasons.

[sumskilz]

Seems very darkskinned to me...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...alysis-reveals

These are two reconstructions of Kennewick Man:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The first was done by a reconstruction artist when the skull was first found and everyone was marveling at how surprisingly Caucasian it looked for having been found in North America. The second was done after DNA proved that he was in fact an ancestor of Native Americans. It's more art than science at this point, and obviously subject to suggestion bias.

This has been debunked:
https://www.newscientist.com/article...y-not-be-true/
Full text without paywall:
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingd..._man_find_may/
http://survivethejive.blogspot.com/2...eddar-man.html
https://blog.insito.me/slicing-chedd...e-43798bf764fa

This whole thing is a typical example of leftists falling for a media hoax more easily then Soviets did for claims in Pravda.

What is certain is that Western Hunter Gatherers didn't have any light pigmentation alleles that we know of. The reason that particular author points out that there's reason to doubt they had dark skin is that East Asian and West Eurasian light skin alleles had independent origins, so it's possible that Western Hunter Gatherers had one or more light skin mutations that no longer exist in any modern population. What is certain is that regardless of skin color, they were West Eurasians more closely related to modern Europeans than to any other modern population.

I find this reconstruction of a dark complected Western Hunter Gatherer more reasonable:



And here is a reconstruction of a Western Hunter Gatherer from before the lack of modern European pigmentation alleles was known:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Reconstructions don't really give you any more accurate information than just looking at skulls does, and it can certainly give you less accurate information. That will change as we get better at interpreting phenotype from DNA.

[Aexodus]

All the same, it’s foolhardy to weaponise anthropology as a political tool to say we are an ‘immigrant nation’ or that the original Britons were Black Africans.

As sunskilz said the group that we now call Britons didn’t really arrive until the Bronze Age.



https://www.channel4.com/news/afua-h...response-in-me

This is why white and black are such bad monikers compared to European and Sub-saharan african. The same way we don’t call Asian people ‘yellow’.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

were are an immigrant nation, Bell beakers, celts, romans, saxons, agles, jutes, vikings, normans, french, then the peoples of the Empire. It woudl be foolish to say that we are nit, although equal foolish to open arms on that basis to every migrant without considering their merits.

[Aexodus]

Actually the English are more or less anglo saxon while the rest are more celtic in ancestry. The Normans and Romans made minimal difference to our demographics.

We’re not an immigrant nation. None of my family for example are immigrants. This isn’t Brazil, Mexico, or Canada.

[sumskilz]

Actually the English are more or less anglo saxon while the rest are more celtic in ancestry.

Anglo-Saxon ancestry tops out at 38% in the east, so less than that in the rest of the country.

[Heathen Hammer]

Aryan blog. off with that .

It is a blog about Indo-European culture and history. The article itself is well-sourced.

Still a blog with little critical merit, although it's proposition is intriguing.

It is also well-sourced. So now you admit that the whole "Original Britons were black" argument is false?

Described by the Romans as darker than the Romans. Yeah, totally made up in 20011, no evidence from 40-50 BC.

But of course, you don't have a source. Well, a real source, not Guardian article claiming some nonsense.

[sumskilz]

Razib Khan's blog is actually pretty good. He's a population geneticist who works with Spencer Wells.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

None of my family for example are immigrants.

Your whole family were british or scottish immigrants in Ireland.

[Basil II the B.S]

were are an immigrant nation, Bell beakers, celts, romans, saxons, agles, jutes, vikings, normans, french, then the peoples of the Empire. It woudl be foolish to say that we are nit, although equal foolish to open arms on that basis to every migrant without considering their merits.

Most of those you mention are invaders, not immigrants.
Thus at best, you are a nation that gets invaded. You can make that your national identity and thus tell your citizens that it's ok if they get invaded by foreigners, because that's your historical heritage and identity.

[Infidel144]

N
Okay, well it's a reactionary reform, it's still barbaric brutal, and has no place in a modern civilization.

What makes it "barbaric brutal"?

[Basil II the B.S]

Wow I missed that. We can call MENA cultures barbaric now?

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

Most of those you mention are invaders, not immigrants.
Thus at best, you are a nation that gets invaded. You can make that your national identity and thus tell your citizens that it's ok if they get invaded by foreigners, because that's your historical heritage and identity.

Well my national identity is as the last invaders of this country, the normans, also the Empire, didn't invade us, we invaded them it was our empire, and we gave them citizenship of a common identity.

Razib Khan's blog is actually pretty good. He's a population geneticist who works with Spencer Wells.

Fair

Anglo-Saxon ancestry tops out at 38% in the east, so less than that in the rest of the country.

Which doesn't reflect multiple ancestor paths. 1/5 is related to royals, 1/2 to nobles, it doesn't make them those things, or exclusively related to them. indeed if anything that show historical integration, which was Norman policy.

What makes it "barbaric brutal"?

It's demands to attitude conformity, it's dominance and enforcement and moral legislation of all regardless of religion.

It is a blog about Indo-European culture and history. The article itself is well-sourced.

It is also well-sourced. So now you admit that the whole "Original Britons were black" argument is false?

But of course, you don't have a source. Well, a real source, not Guardian article claiming some nonsense.

I think, and i have raised this elsewhere, that we draw different distinctions to what is "black". That guy, i think is non-white, good enough fro me, all the same to my argument.

I will reconsider your links later then. I'm sorry, I was being snooty. That was unbecoming of me.

Here's a source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient.../iron_01.shtml just C+F swarthy. It's tacticus btw.

Wow I missed that. We can call MENA cultures barbaric now?

Absolutely not, that's like calling Americans mass murderers because some of them shoot up schools, it's called taring with the same brush. One element of a culture, does not necessarily universally apply.

[Basil II the B.S]

The Normans didn't invade you? I'm not sure I'm reading that correctly.

Also, technically, the Dutch invaded after that.

[Infidel144]

It's demands to attitude conformity, it's dominance and enforcement and moral legislation of all regardless of religion.

Such as?

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

Such as?

Commanding right and forbidding wrong[edit]

Wahhabism is noted for its policy of "compelling its own followers and other Muslims strictly to observe the religious duties of Islam, such as the five prayers", and for "enforcement of public morals to a degree not found elsewhere".^[216]
While other Muslims might urge abstention from alcohol, modest dress, and salat prayer, for Wahhabis prayer "that is punctual, ritually correct, and communally performed not only is urged but publicly required of men." Not only is wine forbidden, but so are "all intoxicating drinks and other stimulants, including tobacco." Not only is modest dress prescribed, but the type of clothing that should be worn, especially by women (a black abaya, covering all but the eyes and hands) is specified.^[67]
Following the preaching and practice of Abdul Wahhab that coercion should be used to enforce following of sharia, an official committee has been empowered to "Command the Good and Forbid the Evil" (the so-called "religious police")^[216][217] in Saudi Arabia – the one country founded with the help of Wahhabi warriors and whose scholars and pious citizens dominate many aspects of the Kingdom's life. Committee "field officers" enforce strict closing of shops at prayer time, segregation of the sexes, prohibition of the sale and consumption of alcohol, driving of motor vehicles by women, and other social restrictions.^[218]

The Normans didn't invade you? I'm not sure I'm reading that correctly.

Also, technically, the Dutch invaded after that.

As one of those invaders, not me no. But the Romans invaded everyone, begin invaded does,at what point, did something mean everything?

Not really, the dutch kinda ed off back home after the revolution for the most part. They didn't stick around.

incase you hadn't noticed, you're an immigrant. do you relaly wanna give american back to the "indjins"

[Aexodus]

Basil’s Italian