r11co wrote:
You still choose to ignore that it {migration} happens (1066 and all that), always has and always will,
That, r11co old chap, is why it is so hard to have a sensible debate with you. I wrote on Monday:
Of course we have been taking in foreigners for centuries. But never in the history of the British Isles has there been such a massive influx of people of different nationalities, tongues and appearance - millions upon millions of them, to the extent that in some London boroughs indigenous British people have become a minority. Ironically, even some second/third generation British BLACKS say they feel overwhelmed by all the new arrivals.
Is that "choosing to ignore that migration happens"?
It also goes a long way to answering your question about the meaning of indigenous. I would not attempt to give it a precise definition. A million or more larch, pine, spruce and cedar trees are classed as non-indigenous species. Yet if you take indigenous as "native", the literal meaning is "born here." Within limits it can mean what you want it to mean. To me it says at a minimum: born here, speaks the language, has absorbed the culture. Will that do?
Thanks for removing the pictures, by the way. And there's no need to take such offence at my comment. They weren't that big.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
