|
Post by jean on Nov 22, 2013 16:27:49 GMT
Apparently you never knew there is a large Moslem ghetto in Sofia either... I know the proportion of Muslims in Bulgaria is quite high, though probably not as high as it was all over the Balkans before what we now call ethnic cleansing became fashionable. I didn't know the exact figure, but I've just checked, and I see it's less than 8%. So, if you or cleefy aren't fearful of an Orthodox invasion, I'm not quite sure why you mentioned Bulgaria at all.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 22, 2013 16:30:27 GMT
(I’m not clear, incidentally...how you would easily spot a white Muslim ghetto in this country.) Nick seems to think they might be identifiable as Bulgarians. But see my post above.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 22, 2013 17:21:23 GMT
'No, he meant what you know he meant, so don't be so bluddy disingenuous.' Then what do you mean by this comment Aqua? I was replying to what what NCS said to me - I think it would be better for you to keep any racist sentiments you might have out of it. Yes - and it would. Some hope, though. It most certainly is not. To avoid any further bafflement on your part: I assert most confidently that Nay was not relating his points about ghettoes to skin colour - in the slightest. Yes, you're as confused as Jean. Let me help you then. It is a fact that the indigenous population of this country used to be predominantly white - everywhere, in every town and city. It is a fact that in many cities and large towns, perhaps most, this has within many people's lifetimes changed, and is rapidly, inevitably, continuing to change in the same direction. Because of past, present, and very probably future government policies on immigration. Now, some people may object to these facts because they have racist sentiments - they don't like non-white people, or consider them inferior, or whatever else you take racism to mean. Call these people racists, by all means, if you think it helps you any counter their objections. Other people object to these facts because of concerns of an entirely different and far more serious nature. Nothing to do with the colour of their skin, or their ethnic background. These objections would be to do with the concern to see the continuance of what was previously a predominant British culture (which, yes, just happened to be white), with important values and principles and institutions developed over centuries, and which are because of those changes under evident threat. Another concern would be to do with the economic and socio-political costs of allowing any community to be overwhelmed by sudden immigration on such a scale. Another concern would be to do with a wish to maintain the cohesiveness and peaceful harmony of communities that have been established in a long and balanced organic process, given the overwhelming evidence that such sudden introductions of distinct and competing cultures usually leads to widespread discord and sociological phenomena that we all recognise as undesirable. None of these concerns have anything to do with skin colour, ethnic background, or any other normally understood cognate of race. Are you any more clear now? Then you should be careful about using such terms as "whitey", I think. I will accept you weren't characterising Nay's position, if you insist. I'm at a loss as to what you were doing, but never mind: I usually am. There are far more substantial reasons displaying that conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 22, 2013 17:27:07 GMT
Are you seriously suggesting that any reference to White British is now automatically to be deemed racist? Of course not. You're putting words in my mouth. But when the person who is drawing my attention to the variety of ethnic groups in some British cities goes on Well , we were asked whether we wanted to become a minority in our own Cities , and we did say yes, didn't we? do you think I'm wrong to suspect he isn't exactly celebrating what he's just told us? Celebrating? I have no idea what the hell you may or may not suspect, or what on earth you're trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 22, 2013 17:33:27 GMT
Apparently you never knew there is a large Moslem ghetto in Sofia either... I know the proportion of Muslims in Bulgaria is quite high, though probably not as high as it was all over the Balkans before what we now call ethnic cleansing became fashionable. That's right - twice that of ours. And I have no idea why you're talking about "Orthodox invasions". Bulgarian Moslems just happen to be predominantly white. I repeat: Nay's point would still have been just as valid. If he disagrees with that simple point, which apparently needs spelling out three times before you and Aqua appreciate even its sense, then I'm sure he'll set me straight.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 22, 2013 17:37:14 GMT
(I’m not clear, incidentally...how you would easily spot a white Muslim ghetto in this country.) Nick seems to think they might be identifiable as Bulgarians. They might well be before long. There is certainly already an Albanian one in the East End, and a long established Turkish one, and a Azerbaijani one, and no doubt several others. You're getting as gnomic as Aqua.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 22, 2013 17:51:28 GMT
I didn't know the exact figure, but I've just checked, and I see it's less than 8%. That's right - twice that of ours. Neither proportion large enough to get worried about, then. Well, yes. But Bulgarians of any sort are predominantly Christian. Muslims are a very small proportion of the total quantity of Bulgarians. Are you telling me they're all over here, holed up in some ghetto?
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 22, 2013 18:52:27 GMT
That's right - twice that of ours. Neither proportion large enough to get worried about, then. Is that so? And what proportion does it have to reach before you do start to get worried, then? Not the ones in Moslem ghettoes, obv. Jeez. Just forget the Sofia thing, would be best. I'm sorry you've got so confused by it. I blame comprehensive education.
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Nov 22, 2013 19:55:44 GMT
I'm sure, NCS, that Nay (or cleefarquhar - I insist on this spelling!) is most grateful for your apologetics.
Unless you can prove that you're joined with him at the brain, however, I'd rather hear from him on how I have (mis)interpreted his posts, and whether he agrees with your repeated claims and insinuations that I am a racist.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 22, 2013 21:52:42 GMT
I've only just realised just what a mess Nick has made of his attempts to exonerate cleefy. No wonder aqua is exasperated. Cleefy originally wrote of ...any British city and inded most towns in Britain, where you wuill see ghettoes of Moslems living as they would in Rawalpindi... To this, aqua commented: The point being that Nay/cleefarquhar/allman and MR...hold immigration from Pakistan to be the chief abomination. Any whites included in that? What was needed at this point, to absolve cleefy from the charge of being too concerned by the colour of anyone's skin, was an example of a community of white Muslims settled in this country, who cleefy could freely excoriate without incurring any possible suspicion of racism.But what Nick produced was this: His point would be every bit as valid were the inhabitants of Rawalpindi as white as yourself; or if instead of Rawalpindi, he' said Sofia. For the comparison between Rawalpindi and Sofia to work, Sofia would have to be a city from a country where the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants are Muslim, from which significant numbers of people have come to this country to settle. This is patently not the case. Bulgaria is a predominantly Christian country with a Muslim minority, so the analogy has no value whatsoever. The fact that there are small groups of white Muslims living in Sofiahas nothing to do with this country, cleefy knows nothing about it and cares less, and I can't imagiine why Nick ever mentioned it in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 23, 2013 11:43:23 GMT
How would aqua characterise a culture/religion that forbad its women (courtesy of Sharia law) to marry anyone but a co-religionist?
I would suggest this extreme religious xenophobia is akin to racism in its compulsory self-segregation of the community's wombs from the "other" and is an inherent part of the totalitarian ideology that is Islam.
It will be interesting to find out about the religious upbringing of aqua's muslim grandchildren and who gets custody of the kids when the relationship breaks down.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 23, 2013 11:55:19 GMT
I'm sure, NCS, that Nay (or cleefarquhar - I insist on this spelling!) is most grateful for your apologetics. Unless you can prove that you're joined with him at the brain, however, I'd rather hear from him on how I have (mis)interpreted his posts, and whether he agrees with your repeated claims and insinuations that I am a racist. You misunderstand: I'm not defending Nay. I'm defending truth and decency and the canons of rational debate. A propos of which, it would seem that you have some sort of objection to it being insinuated that you're a racist. Lesson learned, I would say.
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Nov 23, 2013 12:01:24 GMT
How would aqua characterise a culture/religion that forbad its women (courtesy of Sharia law) to marry anyone but a co-religionist? I would suggest this extreme religious xenophobia is akin to racism in its compulsory self-segregation of the community's wombs from the "other" and is an inherent part of the totalitarian ideology that is Islam. It will be interesting to find out about the religious upbringing of aqua's muslim grandchildren and who gets custody of the kids when the relationship breaks down. The worst kind of grandchildren you can have.
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Nov 23, 2013 12:03:46 GMT
I'm sure, NCS, that Nay (or cleefarquhar - I insist on this spelling!) is most grateful for your apologetics. Unless you can prove that you're joined with him at the brain, however, I'd rather hear from him on how I have (mis)interpreted his posts, and whether he agrees with your repeated claims and insinuations that I am a racist. You misunderstand: I'm not defending Nay. I'm defending truth and decency and the canons of rational debate. A propos of which, it would seem that you have some sort of objection to it being insinuated that you're a racist. Lesson learned, I would say. Right. You are both racist. Can we move on now?
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 23, 2013 12:13:33 GMT
I've only just realised just what a mess Nick has made of his attempts to exonerate cleefy. Oh, here we go again! Now, settle down, class, it's time for me to abuse and attempt to humiliate the boy at the back again. What was needed before this point was some evidence that any concern for the colour of anyone's skin had been expressed before such a charge was made. Not at all. The failure in logic is yours, as usual. I'll put it in the straighforward formulaic terms of propositional logic, if you want. Do you understand the symbolism? I suspect not, on this and past evidence. No. For that to be true you require a missing premise, that Nay did not state - that his objection only applies to ghettoes deriving from such a country. But of course there is absolutely no need for him to make such an elaboration, because it doesn't. Does it? Hmmm? Speak up now, teacher. Patently, no one ever said it was, because it's irrelevant. A ghetto is a ghetto. It's not an analogy. Let me explain then, again. Nay's point that Moslem communities in this country behave as self-contained ghettoes would be as valid when compared to a Moslem community in Sofia as it is when compared to one in Rawalpindi. One is white, one is not. Therefore, the colour of the skin is not required as a premise - it forms no part of his argument. Have you understood now? Write it out 100 times after class.
|
|