Comments by "Arnold Hubbert" (@arnoldhubbert6779) on "The New Culture Forum" channel.

That's what you get, Britain, for allowing unrestricted black (and other) immigration into your country. At first, they're very humble, and "just need help and an equal opportunity." But, eventually, as soon as they have enough power, they'll discrimate against the natives and want you "out of (their) way." The same thing has happened in every European (including US) country to which they've gone.
3
I have talked with immigrants from Africa who have literally said that very thing. They've said they don't feel any loyalty to Britain and plan to just take advantage as much as they can, as revenge against the UK for it's colonial past.
1
@Oozaru85 actually it ranges. up to about 45%. and, in fact, it is the largest single contributor to English ancestry.
1
@nealgrimes4382 To Anglo Saxon is different than being Viking. Does Anglo Saxon ethnic identity still exist even if the anglo saxon kingdom no longer does? I think you could argue that it does, is some places and by some people.
1
@Mario-p1m Just because they had an ancient origin doesn't mean they can't still exist as a distinct ethnic identity. Do Scots still exist? Do the Welsh still exist?
1
@nealgrimes4382 Then perhaps the anglo saxon ethnic identity still exists as well. Why would it have ceased to exist necessarily, just because the anglo saxon kingdom was defeated?
1
@Mario-p1m Why are you equating the Anglo Saxons with the Vikings but not with the Scots or the Welsh? And, just because the anglo saxon kingdom was defeated, does that mean the anglo saxon people ceased to exist? Didn't they keep existing as a distinct identity beyond their defeat? If so, when did they officially cease to exist?
1
Maybe you could define how a distinct ethnic identity ceases to exist and we'll see if it holds water? Certainly some identities have ceased to exist in history.
1
@Mario-p1m Also, certainly you understand the difference between a Viking and a Scot, or the Welsh, or Anglo Saxon? The Norse people were all considered "Vikings" during the Viking period as result of the activities of the Norse people at the time. Which is why historians considered the end of the Viking age as a result of a defeat of "Viking" activity. Also, the Norse never referred to themselves as Viking, anyway. Whereas the Anglo Saxons did refer to themselves as such, to one degree or another. And, Anglo saxon isn't equated with "anglo Saxon" activity. It's purely and ethnic identity. So, please define how and when an ethnic identity ceases to exist (it has happened in history)?
1
@Mario-p1m Did the Anglo Saxons cease to exist in 1066 too, or, if they continued, when did the officially cease to exist?
1
@Mario-p1m So, you still haven't answered my question. Why did they cease to exist as an ethnic group but the scots and welsh did not?
1
@Mario-p1m So, you still haven't answered my question. Why did they cease to exist as an ethnic group but the scots and welsh did not?
1
@Mario-p1m So, you still haven't answered my question. Why did they cease to exist as an ethnic group (and when) but the Scots and Welsh did not? I know a lot of Welsh who don't speak Welsh and live in England (even for a few generations) but still say they're Welsh. Are they not Welsh?
1
@Mario-p1m "But what precise date did Picts cease to exist?" I've already acknowledged, twice, that there are ethnic identities that have basically ceased to exist. Why are you now trying to get me to answer the question I've asked you several times already. Also, my name actually isn't Arnold and I'm not, nor do I claim to be, Anglo Saxon. I'm an American of mostly Scandinavian ancestry (last name actually ends in "son"). I don't clam to be Viking either (though my ancestors were).
1
@Mario-p1m So close to what? Of course 1066 was the Norman invasion. It's also the same year as the Viking defeat at Stamford Bridge, which historians officially declare as the end of the Viking age (were you not aware of that obvious part of British history? And, I was of course asking you, if you also consider that year the official end to Anglo Saxon ethnic identity, which, you refuse to answer. I've found when people refuse to answer a simple question, it usually means they can't (either due to lack of knowledge or just due to a faulty position to begin with), especially when you factor in your consistent pointless condescending responses. I assumed you were more knowledgeable. Are you in high school (secondary school)? If so, my mistake for engaging with a kid.
1
@nealgrimes4382 Not much of an answer but if that's all you've got...
1
@nealgrimes4382 Not much of an answer, but if that's all you have...
1
@Mario-p1m No thanks. I'm no longer interested in your answer. If you're not even aware of basic English history, I doubt very much that your answer would be worth much. Thanks anyway for the offer.
1
@nealgrimes4382 When did anglo Saxon ethnic identity cease to exist and how do you define their ceasing? It couldn't have been just at the 1066 Norman invasion, since their are numerous records of their continuing in their anglo saxon identity (there were Anglo Saxons who continued to self identify and even offered some continuing, though mostly passive, resistance). So, if they're no more, when did it officially happen (I'm not looking for an exact date). Also, if being "English" is identical to being "Anglo Saxon" then only the title has been slightly altered, but the ethnic identity may still exist. Or, if English is a new identity meant to supplant the Anglo Saxon one, how are you so sure all the Anglo Saxons accepted it? Many Anglo Saxon resisted and even migrated to other locations in order to maintain their identity. Some went to Denmark. Some even went to form a new colony called New England (not in the US, but in the Crimea). And, even though many Brits would criticize this as absurd (and it is, a little), many Americans, including some founding fathers, but also many since, have traditionally considered the American Revolution as an "Anglo Saxon" revolution and rebellion against Norman rule. Of course this would be hard to justify this claim as literal and, in fact, it's probably more symbolic, but it still proves the point that, perhaps, there have always been those identifying as Anglo Saxon (even if just a glorified and symbolic way, and regardless of whether or not they were really of "pure" Anglo Saxon ancestry) and never really went away. Though I'm an American of mostly Scandinavian heritage and consider myself a Scandinavian American (and don't consider myself "Anglo Saxon" in any way), my English ancestors were part of a group of immigrants who actually did claim to be Anglo Saxon as much as they did English, even going so far as to claim having left the tyranny of the Norman rule in Britain. And, it wasn't in a racist way, but just in an anti-oppression kind of a way (again, even if largely symbolic).
1
Is there anything you can do about it or is it a lost cause? I'm not British, btw.
1
@charleshayes2528 "I know many immigrants from all around the world and none of them have said they wish to impose anything." That is very untrue and it's not the minority (I would say, it a minority who doesn't say or at least think this). There have been several muslims (recorded) who have explicitly stated that they want to impose Muslim law, religion, and eventually replace the native Europeans through forced conversion and through a higher birthrate. Despite the sometimes arrogance of British (and other) expats, non of them have made threats like those (nor are they in any significant numbers to be able to do so).
1
@nealgrimes4382 But doesn't the word English just mean Angle as in Anglo Saxon? Doesn't he still speak the anglo saxon language (more or less)? Doesn't he have, in many cases, a majority Anglo Saxon ancestry? Explain how the Anglo saxons no longer exist?
1
@angelnumber_444-o9h Do Welsh people still exist? Do Scottish people still exist? Aren't they all mixed, to a degree also (not purely Scottish and not purely Welsh)? If they still exist, why don't Anglo Saxons? Isn't the word English just an abreviated form of Anglo Saxon?
1
@angelnumber_444-o9h Why don't the Anglo Saxons still exist if the Scotts and Welsh do? The Scotts and Welsh aren't purely of Scotch or Welsh ancestry. DNA has shown that English people actually do have a great deal of Anglo Saxon (and Jutish) ancestry, some even have a majority of that as their ancestry. Your description of Welsh history could be used to describe the Anglo Saxon as well. "The "Anglo Saxon" (Welsh) were never fully absorbed into the indigenous kingdoms and retained their own identity, especially through their language and customs." English is a descendant of the Anglo Saxon language, is it not? English, just means Anglo, does it not? "Historically, "England" (Scotland) was divided into various tribes and kingdoms, such as the Anglos and Saxons (and Jutes), before a unified kingdom." See how it works? If the Scotts and Welsh still exist, then so does the Anglo Saxon. Btw, I'm not Anglo Saxon (though I do have some ancestry) and don't claim that identity, so I don't have a personal bias (I'm an American of mostly Scandinavian ancestry), but this just make sense to me.
1
@angelnumber_444-o9h You misunderstood my comment. I know Scotts and Welsh aren't Anglo Saxon. My point was that if the Scotts and Welsh still exist, then so do the Anglo Saxons, because the same standard for their existence should be applied.
1
@angelnumber_444-o9h Let's continue applying the same standard with your comments. IF the Norman conquest caused the end of the Anglo Saxons, then it would have caused the demise of the Scotts and Welsh as well (the Scotts were controlled by the Normans and most of Wales was conquered). And yet, we consider them to continue as an distinct ethnicity, despite their being conquered/occupied and despite their Scottish or Welsh ethnicity not remaining pure. Regarding language, modern English is a direct descendant of the original Anglo Saxon language (even if additonal elements have been introduced. All languages do this). Btw, what language do the modern Scotts and Welsh speak? Even though there are a few pockets who retained their original language to a very small degree (though they were still influenced by English), they all both speak English, don't they? By your standard, wouldn't the Scotts and Welsh no longer exist, then? And, in fact, the modern English still speak a language that dirctly descended from the Anglo Saxon, so they're closer than the Welsh and Scotts, in regard to language retention as being a factor. "But what’s helped them keep their unique identities is holding on to their cultures, languages, and traditions over the years, even with all the outside influences." People often assume some people don't have any culture or retained any of their original culture but that's largely due to the fact that the dominant culture of the Anglo Saxon people has been spread around the world and has become the dominant culture around the world. You seem to assume that the only people to have retained their culture are just those of more "primitive" cultures that haven't spread much beyond their own people, so it's more easily distinguished. Asking someone if they recognize Anglo Saxon or English culture would be like asking a fish if he recognizes water. So, if the Welsh and Scotts still exist, so do the Anglo Saxon.
1
@angelnumber_444-o9h "the way of life and language of the Anglo-Saxons aren’t really part of modern England anymore." Sorry, but you are SO wrong. Like I said before, you just don't recognize Anglo Saxon/English culture because it's so dominated the west that it would be like asking a fish if he reconized water. The Scots may have retained a few cute little traditions, but that's nothing by comparison to the system and framework of laws that originated from the Anglo Saxons and have spread to the rest of the world (among many other things that are just taken for granted). How about the English language (despite additions, it's origins were the Anglo Saxons), which is spoken at least as a second language by the entire world. For much of the world, things that orignated from the Anglo Saxons are just consider "normal" or "everyday." Btw, I don't consider myself Anglo Saxon (I'm a Scandinavian American, though I do have some AS ancestry too), so I don't think I have a personal bias towards the Anglo Saxons, but truth is truth.
1
@charleshayes2528 I think you're missing the point. I don't anyone who claims at least a degree of anglo saxon heritage (and legacy) denies the truths you mentioned in regard to the racial history of Britain. However, what is happening is that there are political forces (all in an effort to gain power) who are doing all they can to erase any sense of identity that Western Europeans have, so that they'll be less resistant to the massive changes (non-Western, non-European, massive immigration, etc.) being forced on their country. If a people don't have any kind of an identity (including an ethnic one), for many of them, there's nothing left to defend so they're easily overrun and overpower. They don't even care about the future of their descendants or their country. Btw, you're mistaken that "no one" is trying to deny that those people even existed. It only starts small, by denying they existed as a distinct group (which, they eventually did, even before the Norman invasion, but especially during the Norman invasion), but eventually evolves into claiming that they were only a small group of oppressors, and that modern English aren't descended from them, or even things like they were "black," etc. All of these things are also being pushed. Eventually, their history won't be taught or remembered at all, which is the same as denying their existence at all.
1
@charleshayes2528 The results of a resent study (conducted over several years) showed that the social results of ethnic diversity were all the opposite of what those promoted diversity claim. Rather than being a strength, it has proven to be the opposite. They found people are way less likely to be civic minded, way less unified, way less lawful, way less likely to be charitable, way less freedom but way more laws, way more crime, way more corruption, way more on welfare, way more environmental problems and neglect, etc. Why is that? Because there's very little community mindedness long sightedness and way more self-interest and shortsightedness, when people don't have a community identity. Iceland, for example (and although this is starting to change) largely see themselves as a large extended family. You behave differently towards your extended family than you do to a people with whom you have no association, not connection, no history, and instead see them as alien, and protentional threats (or even hate them, especially if the media is convincing you to). NO ONE has a RIGHT to immigrate to another country, unless invited. However, a host country does have the right (even moral obligation) to both limit and even expel immigrants if they are seen as a threat to the wellbeing of it's citizens.
1
Do some British people really think this way, and still see the Anglo Saxons as invaders? I would say, though, that England was definately an Anglo Saxon nation.
1
Among other reasons, a large one is due to the fact that Europeans aren't having children anymore. If don't have children, you have less of a stake in your society's future. You tend to only care about yourself, in the present.
1
Among other reasons, a large one is due to the fact that Europeans aren't having children anymore. If don't have children, you have less of a stake in your society's future. You tend to only care about yourself, in the present.
1
Having read a lot of the comments, there's a lot of support for a continuing British identity, mostly with a lot of "proud to be..." etc. That's great, and words can be powerful, BUT, WHAT ARE YOU ALL GOING TO ACTUALLY DO ABOUT IT? In addition to all the attempts to destroy your identity from without, most of your destruction is coming from within. Those with English or British ancestry and heritage are just not having enough children. I've met so many who seem to be so concerned about your country losing it's identity but at the same time they'll have just one or two children (or none). I have 7 children (but it doesn't do you any good since I'm an American). Get with the program or lose your country. If you all want to protect and preserve you identity, HAVE CHILDREN, and stop leaving the responsibility of having children to other people, who will replace you.
1
@egosumhomovespertilionem wokism, may have started in the US, but it's nothing more than the latest apparition of Marxism (particularly class warfare). Marxism didn't just start in Europe either. It's older than the earth.
1