In 2007 a motion was signed stating “That this House welcomes the Government’s support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted in September 2007, as well as its acknowledgement at that time that `indigenous peoples have suffered many historic injustices and continue to be amongst the poorest and most marginalised peoples of the world’; believes that these injustices will be brought to an end and their poverty alleviated only if the land rights of indigenous peoples are recognised and respected; further believes that a major step forward in achieving this is International Labour Organisation Convention 169 on Tribal and Indigenous Peoples, which puts those rights on a firm legal footing; regrets the Government’s current refusal to ratify the Convention on the ground that there are no indigenous people in the UK; notes that this has not prevented other European countries like Spain and the Netherlands from ratifying the Convention; recognises that it is particularly important for the UK to do so because British interests are often involved in overseas projects which affect the lives of these peoples; and calls upon the Government to ratify Convention 169 without further delay.”
Britain should give the native ethnicities indigenous status and give them the same support that other governments give to their indigenous populations.
Interesting James - This statement of theirs shows a use of the word “indigenous” that is not correct. It literally means people who are native to a region or country, so HOW can they be a subset of humanity ( “Amongst the poorest in the world”) This is yet another example of thousands of liberal in built prejudicial vocabulary
In conclusion - You can’t have an intelligent conversation with people who not only attach their own definitions and prejudice to terms, but even change their own to suit the situation. When you talk to these people remember their primary rule. “I am right and you are wrong” - That’s liberal
It’s noticeable how native Europeans are treated in comparison to natives of other lands.
When foreigners enter our land, we are told that borders do not exist, race doesn’t matter and any argument against these are evil. When we enter another land, we have committed a heinous crime worthy of generational punishment.
Many powerful institutions in this era are motivated by anti-white sentiment.
Whilst in principal i see the point. I would always be apposed to any form of legislation, however well intentioned thay stands in the way of absolute equality before the law. The current problems that we have are a result of bad law being taken to its absurd conclusion.
There is, as I see it no sensible way that any country can truly define it’s ‘native population’. Eventually we must deal with every person as an individual, on their own merrits.
“There is, as I see it no sensible way that any country can truly define it’s ‘native population’.”
I partly agree, but the reason is that the “native populations” people are made to think about are nothing to do with them. Mainly because they are too big. They should be less than 3000 people. When populations are bigger than small villages, nobody can track their native population. In the future, we need ways to stitch together small populationsm, so that they can be an integral part of a bigger picture. Even voting in a parliamentary constituency is way beyond meaningful. We need to choose our people , be connected to other smaller groups and able to escape from one community to another that accepts us if needed
It seems that there is an inherant contradiction between the ideas of ‘stitching together small populations to be part of the bigger picture’, and the ability to ‘escape from one community to another that accepts us if need be’.
I fear that heading down this route would lead to a further balkanisation of communities that has been so damaging to the country.
I agree that peoples sense of belonging begins on a small scale. First with self and family and then out into their local community and beyond.
I suspect that one of the things that gives people a sense of belonging on a wider scale, at the national level for example is seeing from wider society their own community values reflected back at them.
Within our national boarders the things we should be concentrating on are those things that can bind us together:
Absolute equality before the law.
Good faith conversation.
An understanding of our shared cultural history.
A focus on our responsibilities as a custodian of our society and culture.
A recognition of the frailty of civilisation and it’s rarity in history.
My 2 concerns with the idea of native:
The potential for building boundaries between between people that don’t need to be there.
I would contend that it is perfectly possible to have a multi ethnic society. But, by definition. You can never have a multicultural society. Without an over arching umbrella culture that people share, then society will inevitably fall.
I disagree that multi-cultrulism doesnt work, it absolutely has worked in the past. But only when part of an empire.
Hapsburg empire was multi cultural. USSR, Russian Tsardom, Rome, even the british empire etc were all multi-cultural
The thing is do we want to turn into a people in an empire, with all the oppression that that entails.
Remember the UK is multi ethnic already (english irish scots and welsh).
Native needs to be established to allow for indigenous protections.
How could it be wrong to state that the point of the government of the english welsh scots and irish tries to protect englishness scottishness irish ness and welshness.
Non of those empires were multicultural in the sense that it is commonly used. They were supranational organisations that imposed control and some level of culture onto extant nations and populations.
The biggest issue with native populations is how far back do you go? I have no issue with the idea of protecting the evolved culture of a nation but going down the nativist route risks an infinite regression in search of the ‘True Englishman’.
