Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Does Anyone Think That By Visiting Stately Homes, It Will Make Our Immigrants Feel More British?
55 Answers
http://
/// Mr Parker told The Telegraph: "We all of us need to have a sense of how did we arrive at where we are today. ///
I think most of us know.
/// "[This is] ever more important because you have people in this country from so many backgrounds and they need to be tied together by something. It is a sense of being an inhabitant of these islands.” ///
/// Mr Parker told The Telegraph: "We all of us need to have a sense of how did we arrive at where we are today. ///
I think most of us know.
/// "[This is] ever more important because you have people in this country from so many backgrounds and they need to be tied together by something. It is a sense of being an inhabitant of these islands.” ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Mr Parker is, I'm afraid, peeing in the wind.
Earlier this week the NT announced that it would be removing many of the exhibits and furniture items from some of its properties as it was felt they were too overbearing and complicated for the plebs to grasp.
Now this. Most immigrants to this country know how they arrived here. Whilst some of them intend to assimilate with the population already here, many have no intention of ever doing so. Instead they want to conduct their lives in precisely the same manner as they would if they had remained in their country of origin (where, of course, the National Trust or its equivalent does not exist). This attitude is being passed on to second and subsequent generations.
There are many things that immigrants to the UK do not do. Few of them visit NT or English Heritage properties. Few of them visit heritage railways or other industrial historic attractions. Few of them walk the Fells or the Dales. Few of their children join the Scouts, the Guides or military cadet units. Attitudes originating from the chattering classes (or the liberal elite, or call them what you will) are emerging that these organisations and attractions are therefore not “inclusive” and in some cases this jeopardises their funding or even their very existence.
All these things are fully inclusive – that is to say they are open to all. It is the people who do not use them that are excluding themselves and no amount of claptrap from the likes of Mr Parker will persuade them to do so. They have been encouraged by successive governments to “celebrate their diversity” (i.e. carry on precisely how they would have had they remained “at home”) and they are most unlikely to change their habits.
The kindest thing Mr Parker can do is to move on to running an organisation where his views and talents can be more readily accommodated and welcomed. To suggest that Bangladeshis from Bradford will feel more British if they visit Fountains Abbey or Hardcastle Crags is just a waste of space.
Earlier this week the NT announced that it would be removing many of the exhibits and furniture items from some of its properties as it was felt they were too overbearing and complicated for the plebs to grasp.
Now this. Most immigrants to this country know how they arrived here. Whilst some of them intend to assimilate with the population already here, many have no intention of ever doing so. Instead they want to conduct their lives in precisely the same manner as they would if they had remained in their country of origin (where, of course, the National Trust or its equivalent does not exist). This attitude is being passed on to second and subsequent generations.
There are many things that immigrants to the UK do not do. Few of them visit NT or English Heritage properties. Few of them visit heritage railways or other industrial historic attractions. Few of them walk the Fells or the Dales. Few of their children join the Scouts, the Guides or military cadet units. Attitudes originating from the chattering classes (or the liberal elite, or call them what you will) are emerging that these organisations and attractions are therefore not “inclusive” and in some cases this jeopardises their funding or even their very existence.
All these things are fully inclusive – that is to say they are open to all. It is the people who do not use them that are excluding themselves and no amount of claptrap from the likes of Mr Parker will persuade them to do so. They have been encouraged by successive governments to “celebrate their diversity” (i.e. carry on precisely how they would have had they remained “at home”) and they are most unlikely to change their habits.
The kindest thing Mr Parker can do is to move on to running an organisation where his views and talents can be more readily accommodated and welcomed. To suggest that Bangladeshis from Bradford will feel more British if they visit Fountains Abbey or Hardcastle Crags is just a waste of space.
What you say may well be true, sp (and I'm glad you've said "some" indigenous Brits - most that I know are very accommodating).
However, many of them (the immigrants) never get as far as to find out. They simply isolate themselves from all things British (or, in some cases, all things "Western") and carry on exactly as they would have had they not come here. The only difference is that they live in somewhat more agreeable surroundings. In those circumstances it is scarcely surprising that some Brits (me included) will never accept them as English.
However, many of them (the immigrants) never get as far as to find out. They simply isolate themselves from all things British (or, in some cases, all things "Western") and carry on exactly as they would have had they not come here. The only difference is that they live in somewhat more agreeable surroundings. In those circumstances it is scarcely surprising that some Brits (me included) will never accept them as English.
NJ
You're talking about two different things though.
The 'dog in a stable' analogy (thanks for the correction mushroom25) relates to the the descendants of immigrants (hence 'born'), rather than immigrants themselves.
The phrase indicates that some people will not accept the children/grandchildren of immigrants as English or British because they are not white.
This phrase is particularly pernicious, because it's only thrown at non-whites.
Ulrika Johnson and Helen Mirren have (respectively) Swedish and Russian blood running through their veins, but they would never be considered anything but English.
And whilst you could argue that a proportion of first generation immigrants fail to fully assimilate, it's complete nonsense to make of their descendants.
You're talking about two different things though.
The 'dog in a stable' analogy (thanks for the correction mushroom25) relates to the the descendants of immigrants (hence 'born'), rather than immigrants themselves.
The phrase indicates that some people will not accept the children/grandchildren of immigrants as English or British because they are not white.
This phrase is particularly pernicious, because it's only thrown at non-whites.
Ulrika Johnson and Helen Mirren have (respectively) Swedish and Russian blood running through their veins, but they would never be considered anything but English.
And whilst you could argue that a proportion of first generation immigrants fail to fully assimilate, it's complete nonsense to make of their descendants.
-- answer removed --
The dropping of phrases like 'British of Pakistani origin' for subsequent generations might help in the creation of the great melting pot so beloved of the dreamers.
Visiting certain stately homes may just open old days of empire and slave trade wounds.
It's a no win situation while people won't let go and move on.
Visiting certain stately homes may just open old days of empire and slave trade wounds.
It's a no win situation while people won't let go and move on.
sp1814
/// This phrase is particularly pernicious, because it's only thrown at
non-whites. ///
You just had to introduce colour into the debate yet again, there are other immigrants you know apart from those with a darker skin.
Simply by obvious geographical reasons, the British Isles are positioned close to the European continent, and the inhabitants happen to have a much lighter skin colour than those who's heritage belongs on the continent of Africa or on the sub-continent of India.
So just as a white person being born and also living on those two continents no matter how long they have lived there cannot truly class themselves as African or even Asian/Indian.
Neither can anyone with a darker skin colour class themselves truly European or even British, perhaps it should be as it is in America, where they like to be considered African-American, or Black Americans or Afro-Americans?
So what about African-British, or Black British or Afro-British, so as to prevent any confusion you understand?
/// This phrase is particularly pernicious, because it's only thrown at
non-whites. ///
You just had to introduce colour into the debate yet again, there are other immigrants you know apart from those with a darker skin.
Simply by obvious geographical reasons, the British Isles are positioned close to the European continent, and the inhabitants happen to have a much lighter skin colour than those who's heritage belongs on the continent of Africa or on the sub-continent of India.
So just as a white person being born and also living on those two continents no matter how long they have lived there cannot truly class themselves as African or even Asian/Indian.
Neither can anyone with a darker skin colour class themselves truly European or even British, perhaps it should be as it is in America, where they like to be considered African-American, or Black Americans or Afro-Americans?
So what about African-British, or Black British or Afro-British, so as to prevent any confusion you understand?
AOG
No.
It doesn't matter how long non-whites are in the country, some people will never consider us English.
However, the same is not true of the descendants of immigrants from 'white' regions.
If a Canadian couple who come to England in 1935, settle down and raise a family and you met their grandchildren, none of whom have Canadian accents. You would not hesitate to call them English.
You would not say the same of descendants of non-whites.
Or would you?
No.
It doesn't matter how long non-whites are in the country, some people will never consider us English.
However, the same is not true of the descendants of immigrants from 'white' regions.
If a Canadian couple who come to England in 1935, settle down and raise a family and you met their grandchildren, none of whom have Canadian accents. You would not hesitate to call them English.
You would not say the same of descendants of non-whites.
Or would you?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Are We Heading Towards Another...
Politics8 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.