'A generation of Muslims not able to go to university?' blog discussion

dktreesea

Fire_Fox wrote: »

.....'One world under God' isn't really that different from 'one nation (all Brits) under parliament/ Queen' is it?.....

But that's just it. We're not one nation. There is no such thing as the British nation. "British" to me just means a native of the Island of Britain. There's no such country as Britain, Great Britain or the UK. Nationality is for countries, not some arbitrary collection of countries. The Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands are countries in their own right. So are Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Yet it comes to something like the Olympics and these countries get treated as if they were part of a British version of the Soviet Union. Or Yugoslavia. It didn't work for them and it's about time we as a set of nations grew up and separated into our own countries.

Fire_Fox wrote: »

We are a country of minorities in so many ways, communities are not simply divided by identity or even geographically but by interest too. Seems to me there is far too much emphasis on colour and ethnic background. I'm generic white British, yet child free which is about 10% of forty-something women. So a minority yet hopefully significant much as practising Christians.

This division by Englishness is so artificial, we are one people by species yet many people by community. This English identity and English culture ... I'm not sure it truly exists as perhaps it does for the Welsh or Scottish. English shire county life is just nothing like northern multicultural city life.

Totally agree that is a pity, we are fully on the same page there. As I said a couple of posts back "I'd seriously consider voting for a party that is positively patriotic a la SNP or Plaid Cymru." I was never in favour of devolution but I eat my words, the Scottish and Welsh parliaments seem to achieve so much more than they do in London. It would be great if the flags could be reclaimed but I think that has to be a non political context, a legacy of extreme right political groups hijacking it.

I think there are a lot of things that are English, and part of English culture. Let's see, certainly the food. People eat roasts up here, but for me, roast meat without Yorkshire pudding doesn't really seem "right" . Morris dancing, bowls, the railway/steam trains, Pink Floyd/The Rolling Stones/The Beatles, English classical music composers, like Elgar and Britten, cricket, rugby, the premier league, Twiggy, Cilla Black, the Sex Pistols, Queen (the band).

Vast country houses, going to the seaside, Butlins, fish and chips, whelks, cockles, Mother Shipton, the Glastonbury festival, Stonehenge, London, the West End shows, Shakespeare, Chaucer, poetry, from Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath, back through the centuries. Likewise art. Turner, Constable. Ceramics, like Moorcroft, Wedgwood. What about fashion, like the mini skirt? Mary Quant. Vivienne Westwood. Doc martens, corduroy anything. The flat cap.

I could have come up with equally long lists for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland - but they would have completely different contents.

However did we end up with a group of countries called the U.K. where England seems to be last on everyone's agenda including Westminster's?

Errata

We're not one nation. There is no such thing as the British nation.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a sovereign nation, and recognised as such in the same way as the now non-existant USSR was.

Gloomendoom

dktreesea wrote: »

But that's just it. We're not one nation. There is no such thing as the British nation. "British" to me just means a native of the Island of Britain. There's no such country as Britain, Great Britain or the UK. Nationality is for countries, not some arbitrary collection of countries. The Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands are countries in their own right. So are Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Yet it comes to something like the Olympics and these countries get treated as if they were part of a British version of the Soviet Union. Or Yugoslavia. It didn't work for them and it's about time we as a set of nations grew up and separated into our own countries.

It seems to work well enough for the United States of America. Why not us?

waqasahmed

whitegoods_engineer wrote: »

Well I've read some nonsense in my time but I think ML has perhaps had £80 million make his head a bit soft.

I'm sorry but if Muslims believe they cannot go to university because a student loan attracts interest, then the world, and ML has finally gone mad!

I can honestly say that PC has now reached an all new low!

I'm sure that any Muslims so affected by this problem can surely find a suitable university in Saudi Arabia or Iran which will suit.

Can we all please remember that this is Britain, and should anybody wish to be educated here then please conform to the host country rather than expecting the host country to accommodate every whim of the incomers!

Interestingly enough, much of the Arab world's university education is free (for home students) but very expensive for international students

And I know of a Kuwaiti who's government pays for him to study in the UK. So I think you should perhaps go generalise some more

And the Muslims complaining about this aren't saying "Give us another system" but more just saying "Oh we can't go to uni any more "

In my personal opinion, seeking knowledge is the lesser evil than having to pay interest for the privilege

And sorry, but I was born here (and I pay the 3K fees ) The UK is not my "host country" I see myself as British...

When people ask me where I'm from, I tell them where I'm from in the UK, and not say Pakistan

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Host country?? Incomers??

Plenty of Muslims are born here, love! You know, birth certificate, passport, PAYE tax code, NI number, on the electoral roll and all that jazz. Have you traced your family tree and had your DNA tested so you are sure you aren't descended from invaders or other immigrants? :rotfl:

Perhaps you'd only be willing to help out the 'incomers' who study the subjects most desirable amongst certain communities: medicine, the law, business, dentistry, pharmacy. You know the sort of professions that tend to mean paying a fair bit of income tax .....

This. Exactly. I mean my intended job role means that I'd be paying the 40p rate of tax

thebull wrote: »

‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great British freedom, ‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.’
‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.’
Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, WE will find the courage to start speaking and voicing the same truth

Im part of this country. I can criticise the country if I want to. It is my democratic right. If any thing, there's nothing really more British about people than complaining.

I mean we find something wrong. We voice our concern with complaining about things

And if it makes you feel any better, I don't just criticise the UK, I criticise most of the world.

Why is is that if a White person said the same criticisms about the UK as I do (and I share the same beliefs as many white people), you'd accept that as perfectly OK, but when I make the same criticisms, it's somehow wrong of me for doing so?

Sorry, but I didn't ask to be born any where. I think that we should all consider ourselves lucky to be born here. None of us chose to be born where we were. I mean, any one of us could have been born to a starving family in Zimbabwe for instance.

I don't see why I need to be patriotic either?

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Quite true.

There is no-one left who speaks for me because they are all so busy speaking for the others. I have been sidelined because I am English and Christian.

(I support various charities that DO speak for others.)

Hardly. Being English and Christian doesn't really put you at a disadvantage. In every society in the world, the majority tend to get the better deal.

I mean sexism and racism still exist in the UK today (even if it is far, far worse in other parts of the world)

dktreesea

Errata wrote: »

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a sovereign nation, and recognised as such in the same way as the now non-existant USSR was.

During the time of the Soviet Union, did people native to that whole region call themselves "Soviets"? No. They held fast to their own countries and regarded the Russian occupation as just that.

One side of my family is Welsh. I've been hearing about the (400 year long) occupation of Wales by England most of my life. Just because Russia, at some point in the past, chose to occupy a whole lot of countries and rename the region "The Soviet Union" didn't make the occupation right.

As to Scotland staying in the union, imho they would have to be mad to concede any control of anything to Westminster. The Scottish government has been a much better manager for Scotland than Westminster has been for the English. The day Scotland becomes independent, I would think that millions of overseas Scots and their descendants will invest in and/or return to Scotland.

Nations and nationality are for countries, not for a group of countries. "British" ought to mean native to the island of Britain.

Gloomendoom

dktreesea wrote: »

Nations and nationality are for countries, not for a group of countries. "British" ought to mean native to the island of Britain.

Have you travelled overseas much?

I have and I soon learnt that, to the vast majority of foreigners, "English" means anyone native to the island of Britain.

waqasahmed

dktreesea wrote: »

During the time of the Soviet Union, did people native to that whol region call themselves "Soviets"? No. They held fast to their own countries and regarded the Russian occupation as just that.

One side of my family is Welsh. I've been hearing about the (400 year long) occupation of Wales by England most of my life. Just because Russia, at some point in the past, chose to occupy a whole lot of countries and rename the region "The Soviet Union" didn't make the occupation right.

As to Scotland staying in the union, imho they would have to be mad to concede any control of anything to Westminster. The Scottish government has been a much better manager for Scotland than Westminster has been for the English. The day Scotland becomes independent, I would think that millions of overseas Scots and their descendants will invest in and/or return to Scotland.

Nations and nationality are for countries, not for a group of countries. "British" ought to mean native to the island of Britain.

Bloody hell. The Soviet union isn't exactly centuries old, as the idea of Britain is. Yeah, if today England, Wales and Scotland were apart, there'd be less of those who'd consider themselves British.

And what an absurd assumption. Why on Earth would independence from the UK by Scotland, mean that "millions" of overseas Scots return to the UK (Bearing in mind that Scotland, Wales and the surrounding isles only have around a 10 million population combined... )

Ill give you an example. Currently, Pakistan and India are at war for Kashmir. Kashmir is part controlled by Pakistan and part by India. In esence, it's like another country, yet youll never hear a Kashmiri person saying that they're a "Kashmiri" or even if they do, they'll say that they're Indian or Pakistan as well

You can be English, British and European at the same time. There are no conflicts there

And why should the term "British" be something that's preferential for natives only?

Why should I be denied my citizenship? I may not be a native, but for it's history, it's politics, Ill tell you I know a fair bit more than quite a lot of "natives"

And do you really think that people drinking, urinating in the streets at 12pm, being yobbish is generally British behavior?

This may sound arrogant, but I reckon Im above that, and you say that they're British and I'm not, purely because they have ancestry here?

Fire_Fox

dktreesea wrote: »

As to Scotland staying in the union, imho they would have to be mad to concede any control of anything to Westminster. The Scottish government has been a much better manager for Scotland than Westminster has been for the English. The day Scotland becomes independent, I would think that millions of overseas Scots and their descendants will invest in and/or return to Scotland.

Nations and nationality are for countries, not for a group of countries. "British" ought to mean native to the island of Britain.

You still have not established exactly what 'native' is in the context of Britain, what year do our ancestors have to have been here by to qualify or how many generations? How can you have British 'natives' yet not recognise British as a nationality?

"na·tion·al·i·ty (nsh-nl-t, nsh-nl-)
n. pl. na·tion·al·i·ties
1. The status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization.
2. A people having common origins or traditions and often constituting a nation.
3. Existence as a politically autonomous entity; national independence.
4. National character.
5. Nationalism.

nationality [ˌnæʃəˈnælɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the state or fact of being a citizen of a particular nation
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a body of people sharing common descent, history, language, etc.; a nation
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a national group 30 different nationalities are found in this city
4. national character or quality
5. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the state or fact of being a nation; national status

na•tion•al•i•ty (ˌnæʃ əˈnæl ɪ ti)

n., pl. -ties for 1,2,5,6 .
1. the status of belonging to a particular nation, whether by birth or naturalization.
2. nationalism.
3. existence as a distinct nation.
4. a nation or people.
5. national quality or character."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nationality


What nationality are 'non natives' that have only been here a couple of generations or a couple of hundred years? What nationalities are we going to label people who were born in Britain, whose parents and grandparents were born in Britain, never been to Africa/ Pakistan/ China and who speak no language except English as? What about those who are of dual heritage?

Scotland is only about 1000 years old, mainland Britain was one island with one people long before that. Maybe Westminister should make it one independent country with Ireland since there was historically a huge intermingling and they have the same root language (Gaelic) and plenty have the same religion (Catholicism). Can't really see the logic of welcoming descendants of Scots (immigrants!), since their ancestors clearly weren't patriotic enough to stay and fight or graft for 'their' country. Some lineages have been gone hundreds of years! All sounds a bit 'keep Britain white' by the back door.

dktreesea

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Have you travelled overseas much?

I have and I soon learnt that, to the vast majority of foreigners, "English" means anyone native to the island of Britain.

Yes, I also met plenty of people overseas who confused British with English.

I also noticed how those who weren't English were very quick off the mark to say they weren't English, but a Scot, or Welsh, or Irish instead.

dktreesea

waqasahmed wrote: »

Bloody hell. The Soviet union isn't exactly centuries old, as the idea of Britain is. Yeah, if today England, Wales and Scotland were apart, there'd be less of those who'd consider themselves British.

And what an absurd assumption. Why on Earth would independence from the UK by Scotland, mean that "millions" of overseas Scots return to the UK (Bearing in mind that Scotland, Wales and the surrounding isles only have around a 10 million population combined... )

Ill give you an example. Currently, Pakistan and India are at war for Kashmir. Kashmir is part controlled by Pakistan and part by India. In esence, it's like another country, yet youll never hear a Kashmiri person saying that they're a "Kashmiri" or even if they do, they'll say that they're Indian or Pakistan as well

You can be English, British and European at the same time. There are no conflicts there

And why should the term "British" be something that's preferential for natives only?

Why should I be denied my citizenship? I may not be a native, but for it's history, it's politics, Ill tell you I know a fair bit more than quite a lot of "natives"

And do you really think that people drinking, urinating in the streets at 12pm, being yobbish is generally British behavior?

This may sound arrogant, but I reckon Im above that, and you say that they're British and I'm not, purely because they have ancestry here?

Golowan, Beltane, Stonehenge, Rannoch Moor, Ben Bhraggie, Glastonbury Tor - it's not just knowing about these places that matters. Our history is alive to us. The difference between new immigrants/their children and the first peoples of this land is that we actively engage with our land and celebrate it. Long before Golowan became the massive festival it now is, we would go down to Cornwall for the solstice, climb the hill and light a bonfire, and then watch as other bonfires were lit on the surrounding hills. On Ben Bhraggie is a statue of the Duke of Sutherland. People climb Ben Bhraggie to stone that statue, and some to curse his soul, in English and in Gaelic. In 2011 attempts were made to topple the statue. God willing, someone succeeds. There stands the image of a man who was, and remains, if his soul continues on, a disgrace to humanity.

You describe the native people as "people drinking, urinating in the streets at 12pm, being yobbish". That's exactly the kind of "engagement" I would expect from immigrants and their families who don't feel any connection with the land.

Our history isn't something learnt from books. It's alive for us. We practice it. Practicing it together is what binds us. I've met Americans, whose ancestors haven't lived here for well over 200 years, come to Scotland and participate in the activities of their ancestors as if they had never left. At the other end of the scale are immigrants or the children of immigrants such as yourself, who turn their noses up at the local people and have nothing to do with them. A British passport, to people like this, will not make a difference.

As to the millions of overseas Scots, how many descendants of Scots do you think there are around the world? Approximately 40 million, 10 million of those just in one country, the United States. There are plenty of Scots and their descendents around the world who would invest in Scotland, provided Scotland is independent and doesn't come under Westminster's thumb.

And from what I see, the Scottish government does a far better job of managing Scotland than Westminster does for England. Look at Morpeth. Flooded in 2008, and again in 2012, and still no adequate flood defences have been built.