I think you'll find that's a stone cold fact. EDIT: I mean, what I put before. Not that I'm a racist.
Thank **** for that, I was bored to tears humouring the moronic ****e that you try to pass off as opinion.
The 10yr old's off on his Internet warrior abuse again.wipe your snotty nose son and go to bed it's way past your bed time.
Don't shoot the messenger! Just repeating what I'd heard and having the job she does, I'd assume she knows what she's talking about. Personally, I was never any good at this historical malarkey! But, with my limited knowledge, I would assume that the invasion of the Romans, Vkings, Normans etc. must have had an influence on people's ancestory and I would have thought that many people in this country could trace their roots and find they have heritage descending from these 'outer tribes' for want of a better phrase. But anyway, this is much of a muchness really. I guess it depends on who you really class to be English. Now, I guess most people would answer that as people who are born here (although there might be a few who think you have to be white). And the thing is, a good number of Leicester's non-white population are actually 2nd or 3rd generation and so were actually born here in England which actually qualifies them as English - just to state that this renders Forests chanting inaccurate rather than racist. Racism is all about context and if the Police are gonna go round charging people then have to be able to prove conclusively that the context of these chants were racist and they probably can't do that going on the evidence they've been given. As for the Baghdad chants, I don't even have a clue what they're meant to mean and probably says more about the people chanting than the city of Leicester.
Just typical of the poor standards in education. I tend to look things up for myself rather than believing teachers. They tend to be a bit lazy and hazy when it comes to real facts. To save you hunting too hard, I'll drop the first link I found when I gogled this myth your mate's peddling. There are links from the link that elaborate too. A simple link, but pops the teachers myth I feel. In case you can't click the link I'll summarise the text, perhaps you could share it with your mate?: Myths of British ancestry there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words âCelticâ or âAnglo-Saxon.â What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years. The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language. Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix. So, based on the overall genetic perspective of the British, it seems that Celts, Belgians, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings and Normans were all immigrant minorities compared with the Basque pioneers, who first ventured into the empty, chilly lands so recently vacated by the great ice sheets.
Which are even worse dumps than Nottingham! I was suggesting that the racist chants may have been from fans that are from predominately white towns. Predominately white areas are the worst for racism. Fear of the unknown and all that.
How can facts be racist? People from multicultural backgrounds are less likely to be racist that those that aren't. If you even try to argue against this you're an idiot. Regarding Mansfield and Hucknall, I worked for the local authority in both these areas, so I know first hand that they are areas with failing schools and in desperate need of regeneration.
A compelling argument, "anyone that disagree with you is an idiot", but I feel that racists like you should be challenged. The uncomfortable fact that most victims of racial assault are white would seem to shed a little doubt on your funny little theory.
Ahh, quite interesting actually. So the 'indigenous' people of England are the Basque's who themselves originated from Spain and France I believe? You would have thought the likes of the Romans and Normans would provide a greater part of our ancestory than 5%. Oh well. We live and learn
We do in deed, or at least we should at least be prepared to. OOPs, I meant to say that the origins of the Basques is a bit of a mystery but isn't believed to be the French or the Spanish. The Normans are Viking in origin, who themselves bizarrely originate in North Africa.
It's not "my opinion", it's about having a basic understanding of human nature. People are influenced by their experiences, and if the only experiences you have of other cultures are through the intrinsically racist western media or secondary accounts then you will have a skewed view of the world. Growing up in a multicultural society allows you from an early age to learn about, understand and appreciate people of different backgrounds and religions. And skin colour, as you've somewhat naively decided to focus on, is only a small part of the problem of racism. Figures recently released by Commission for Racial Equality show that "white" people are the most common victims of racial abuse. But experts believe that many of the white victims could be Jewish, Irish or from other European minorities (I know for a fact that many victims of racist abuse in Nottingham are Polish). Other incidents result from tensions between the English, Welsh and Scottish, are also increasingly seen as racial. Effectively - white on white. As I said earlier, fear of the unknown, which doesn't just pertain to skin colour. And as for called me a racist - grow up.
