RAH - How can one's ancestors, their origin, history and culture NOT be an essential part of one's identity?

It seems to me that mass immigration has undermined the legitimacy of our nation state, which, as the name "United KINgdom" implies, used to be essentially a nation of ethnically, historically and culturally closely related individuals with, class differences aside, a shared sense of being "a people", as opposed to other European peoples and a myriad of non-Europeans.

Even relatively large numbers of European immigrants were never a major problem, because we are Europeans ourselves, and once they'd learned the language, their ethnicity, histories and cultures were so similar to (i.e. had so much in common with) our own that they quickly became indistinguishable from the rest of the population - only a surname might give their Continental origins away.

Although it is considered politically incorrect (if not downright "racist") to say so, it is very different with non-European immigrants, who, even after they have adopted our language, still have their own distinctive ethnicity, history and culture, which are extremely important (despite us being officially in denial of the fact), because ethnicity (and culture) distinguishes them immediately from the natives, and because they form the foundations of an individuals identity, certainly if it is an identity with any depth and substance. How can one's ancestors, their origin, history and culture NOT be an essential and central element of one's identity?

The answer to my question, of course, is when the power structures of the state demand it!

But what is more fundamental and will prove to be most persistent: the power structures of the state, or the natural basis of an individual's identity?

2nd Post

[antropolog], Hi. You show a remarkable (to me, quite incredible) degree of scientific objectivity, which, in respect to my own identity (that is deeply rooted in the knowledge who my ancestors were), I do not and cannot share.

I know this it is not the politically correct attitude to take and that the powers that be (i.e. of the state and its adherents) demand the opposite, but I insist on following my (not entirely irrational) gut feelings, which I gave some expression to above.

You cannot compare London, or any European city with New York. America is a nation of immigrants. Its dominant culture is immigrant (European). The one thing Americans share (apart from a small and sadly insignificant number of natives) in the fact that they are ALL immigrants. The situation in Europe, and most other parts of the world, is entirely different, where you have predominantly NATIVE populations and cultures. The natives of Europe have a common history and prehistory ("hideously white") that stretches back to the last ice age, for heaven sake!

Picking up where I left off in my first post, above: politicians' assumption that Britain's ethnically and culturally now divers population must subscribe (and subordinate any personal sense of ethnic or cultural identity, no matter how profound) to a superficial sense of shared British identity is, in my view, an expression of the gross "arrogance of power".

A consequence of this misuse of power, will be the gradual and (hopefully) peaceful dismantling of the power structures of the British nation state and replacement with something much better.

My Homepage: http://www.spaceship-earth.org

[antropolog]'s post: "it is very different with non-European immigrants, who, even after they have adopted our language, still have their own distinctive ethnicity, history and culture, which...distinguishes them immediately from the natives... How can one's ancestors, their origin, history and culture NOT be an essential and central element of one's identity?

Hi Roger, you would do well to read a book such as "In search of respect : selling crack in El Barrio" by Philippe Bourgois. It's a work of anthropology about Puerto Rican immigrants in New York and the heroin underworld in East Harlem. In the opening chapters he relates the history of various waves of immigrants in New York. The Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Puerto Ricans etc. What this history shows is that each wave of immigrants, for the first couple of generations, organises itself in an ethnic ghetto, largely adhering to the customs, traditions and lifestyle they are familiar with. And the population of the country will discriminate against them and continue to call them foreigners. However, this only lasts for a couple of generations, and eventually, although they retain something of the "old country", they become well integrated into the adoptive country, e.g. Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Chinese Americans etc. The conservative and the racist might continue to discriminate against them and insult them, but they are fully integrated into the community of the country of which they are now citizens. This takes a couple of generations or more. You can see the same pattern throughout history. All the historical evidence to support this is available. Check the history books, and don't let the ideologues and racists sway you.

To: Guardian CiF Re: Ethnicity, history, identity and the State Date: Wednesday 21 February 07"

In response to the Guardian article, "Those in power are right to see multiculturalism as a threat" by Terry Eagleton. Link to article and thread at The Guardian. It seems to me that mass immigration has undermined the legitimacy of our nation state, which, as the name "United KINgdom" implies, used to be essentially a nation of ethnically, historically and culturally closely related individuals with, class differences aside, a shared sense of being "a people", as opposed to other European peoples and a myriad of non-Europeans. Even relatively large numbers of European immigrants were never a major problem, because we are Europeans ourselves, and once they'd learned the language, their ethnicity, histories and cultures were so similar to (i.e. had so much in common with) our own that they quickly became indistinguishable from the rest of the population - only a surname might give their Continental origins away. Although it is considered politically incorrect (if not downright "racist") to say so, it is very different with non-European immigrants, who, even after they have adopted our language, still have their own distinctive ethnicity, history and culture, which are extremely important (despite us being officially in denial of the fact), because ethnicity (and culture) distinguishes them immediately from the natives, and because they form the foundations of an individuals identity, certainly if it is an identity with any depth and substance. How can one's ancestors, their origin, history and culture NOT be an essential and central element of one's identity? The answer to my question, of course, is when the power structures of the state demand it! But what is more fundamental and will prove to be most persistent: the power structures of the state, or the natural basis of an individual's identity? 2nd Post [antropolog], Hi. You show a remarkable (to me, quite incredible) degree of scientific objectivity, which, in respect to my own identity (that is deeply rooted in the knowledge who my ancestors were), I do not and cannot share. I know this it is not the politically correct attitude to take and that the powers that be (i.e. of the state and its adherents) demand the opposite, but I insist on following my (not entirely irrational) gut feelings, which I gave some expression to above. You cannot compare London, or any European city with New York. America is a nation of immigrants. Its dominant culture is immigrant (European). The one thing Americans share (apart from a small and sadly insignificant number of natives) in the fact that they are ALL immigrants. The situation in Europe, and most other parts of the world, is entirely different, where you have predominantly NATIVE populations and cultures. The natives of Europe have a common history and prehistory ("hideously white") that stretches back to the last ice age, for heaven sake! Picking up where I left off in my first post, above: politicians' assumption that Britain's ethnically and culturally now divers population must subscribe (and subordinate any personal sense of ethnic or cultural identity, no matter how profound) to a superficial sense of shared British identity is, in my view, an expression of the gross "arrogance of power". A consequence of this misuse of power, will be the gradual and (hopefully) peaceful dismantling of the power structures of the British nation state and replacement with something much better. My Homepage: http://www.spaceship-earth.org [antropolog]'s post: "it is very different with non-European immigrants, who, even after they have adopted our language, still have their own distinctive ethnicity, history and culture, which...distinguishes them immediately from the natives... How can one's ancestors, their origin, history and culture NOT be an essential and central element of one's identity? Hi Roger, you would do well to read a book such as "In search of respect : selling crack in El Barrio" by Philippe Bourgois. It's a work of anthropology about Puerto Rican immigrants in New York and the heroin underworld in East Harlem. In the opening chapters he relates the history of various waves of immigrants in New York. The Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Puerto Ricans etc. What this history shows is that each wave of immigrants, for the first couple of generations, organises itself in an ethnic ghetto, largely adhering to the customs, traditions and lifestyle they are familiar with. And the population of the country will discriminate against them and continue to call them foreigners. However, this only lasts for a couple of generations, and eventually, although they retain something of the "old country", they become well integrated into the adoptive country, e.g. Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Chinese Americans etc. The conservative and the racist might continue to discriminate against them and insult them, but they are fully integrated into the community of the country of which they are now citizens. This takes a couple of generations or more. You can see the same pattern throughout history. All the historical evidence to support this is available. Check the history books, and don't let the ideologues and racists sway you.