Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesy55
That's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison though.
The 40% figure for London is those who are a) identify as British and B) identify as white. The comparable figure for US metro areas would be the proportion who a) identify as (US) American and B) identify as white. I would think there are many where that figure exceeds 40%.
That isn't the same as those people having one single national background. For example Boris Johnson the current UK Prime minister will be counted among that 40% of Londoners who are 'White British' but he was born in NYC while his grandparents and great-grandparents included people from Turkey, France, Germany and Russia. There will be many many others in London who identify as white British but who have ancestry from outside the UK, just as there are many in NYC who have Irish or Italian ancestors but still identify as white and American.
|
Well, I think it becomes an arbitrary and dubious line-drawing exercise as to why a white (but not having any more than recent ancestry in the islands) Brit by virtue of being white counts more than a non-white Brit as being "indigenous" British (like why does a Londoner whose ancestors came from France or Russia count more as "old stock" Brit than a Londoner whose ancestors came from India or Jamaica, if say both are three generations removed from Britain).
Either way you're not really getting at who are the people whose ancestors are of (or predominantly are of) the "Smith" and "Wilson" lineages anyway. By saying "white" and "identifies as British", you're just saying that somehow, by being of European descent and looking closer to a "Smith" by skin tone and apperance, even if your surname is Schmidt or Ricci or something, somehow that's meaningful. That would be like saying if an indigenous South American immigrant moved to the US, and identified as "American" then there are equally as Native US American as the actual Najavo or Ojibwe, just because of their "looks" and broad "racial classification".
Also, on that note, why is "white" and "identifies as American" significant over not white and "identities as American"? Shouldn't the "identify as American" be the key since most Americans are
not predominantly indigenous to begin with.
Many people are tired about how people won't shut up about race and diversity, but maybe we wouldn't have so many conversations if people would just be more chill about obsessing over who is the legit "old stock" and stop trying to make others act like they don't belong in their own cities of origin because of some claimed legitimacy over ancestry.
Even if (and I will be sympathetic to this in quite a few ways) you truly care about globalization undermining local culture, I'll still be way more sympathetic if you actually make it clear you care about cultural preservation and that it's not about hidden connotations of favoring any lineage and "blood ties". I've seen Acajack's posts about Quebec and immigrant cultural minorities and one thing I do admire is how in some places though Quebec may be tarred as being xenophobic sometimes, they in many ways have shown that they really do care about culture over "pure laine" lineage -- they'll in some places see a Haitian Francophone immigrant as their "us" over a blonde guy named Desjardins who grew up 100% English speaking only and cares not one lick about French Canadian culture.
The people who claim that they care about cultural change but really care about blood and race really undermine the credibility of those who generally want to have the conversation about real cultural change (such as globalization and loss of local culture). Surely, if you really cared about cultural change, you would rather an immigrant next door who looks different than you but is more than willing to share and help preserve your culture with you, over an old stock neighbor of your same lineage or "race" who has no interest in your culture at all but is in fact favoring the Subway, H&M, McDonalds, mass consumer culture in your quaint little town.