Chaos is a ladder

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The west must be the only civilization since ever that seemingly welcomes it's native people become less of a majority in their own lands.
Insanity.

[Razgovory]

I live in a racially diverse neighborhood.   Also, I'm poor.

[Sheilbh]

The west must be the only civilization since ever that seemingly welcomes it's native people become less of a majority in their own lands.
Insanity.

People who aren't white can be British.

Although on diversity I'd add that the UK, like many European countries, actually has a higher proportion of first generation immigrants than the US - which I think is probably the first time that's happened.

[HVC]

The west must be the only civilization since ever that seemingly welcomes it's native people become less of a majority in their own lands.
Insanity.

Depends if you consider a civilization an ethnicity or a society of peoples.

[Sheilbh]

Depends if you consider a civilization an ethnicity or a society of peoples.

Exactly - and much as I hate to credit him, I do like King Charles' phrase of the UK being a "community of communities". Who should all able to English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Northern Irish and/or British depending on their identity (and fully acknowledging that each of those identities may have a different meaning for different groups).

[HVC]

I mean belgiums golden age was when it was part of the Netherlands, and even that came because of the influx of Portuguese and Spanish jews bringing along cartographic and banking knowledge. Yay immigration

[viper37]

The west must be the only civilization since ever that seemingly welcomes it's native people become less of a majority in their own lands.
Insanity.

It's hard to tell for people without a writing system.

All we know about the Britano-Romans is that in the East, there is no widespread trace of conflict dating from the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, but in the West, there is more traces of battles and fortifications.

We don't even know if there was still 'a people' there or if it was depopulated.  And we still have difficulty figuring the exact genetic make up of the Celtic/Roman populations of Britain before the Anglo-Saxon settlements.

So... Hard to tell.  Culturally, it was a shift for sure, but again, we don't know how it happen, other than it was peaceful.  So, my guess is that your hypothesis is wrong there, the society was welcoming of the cultural change, at the very least.

As for the Vikings, then Anglo-Saxons did indeed greatly resisted the migration.  Christians were always less accepting of difference than Pagans.    Still, they were granted the Danelaw for a while, so there was some form of grudging acceptance from the people.

I wouldn't say we were the first to welcome other people en masse through their borders.  The people of the middle East seems to have shifted quite a lot over time.  I don't know much about Africa though.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't think "lack of proof of battle" is sufficient ground to say the Anglo-Saxons were welcome.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. Purely on the linguistics there are almost zero surviving British place names or loan words or anything like that in England.

My understanding is that the genetics indicate pretty hefty displacement too (at least from the South and East). Plus the written sources (written long after the event) talk about violent forcing people out - so that was at least the Anglo-Saxon memory.

It might have been peaceable, but I think there's also good reasons to think not (garbon would probably know best). On the other hand I think there's lots of evidence that well as conquest and violence, there was intermarriage, trading etc with the Vikings.

[Jacob]

The west must be the only civilization since ever that seemingly welcomes it's native people become less of a majority in their own lands.
Insanity.

Rome didn't care particularly about the ethnicity of its citizens, as I understand it.

[Maladict]

The west must be the only civilization since ever that seemingly welcomes it's native people become less of a majority in their own lands.
Insanity.

Rome didn't care particularly about the ethnicity of its citizens, as I understand it.

Doesn't any sufficiently growing empire make its founding ethicity a minority within its borders? Against the other ethnicities' wishes, I might add.

[Maladict]

I mean belgiums golden age was when it was part of the Netherlands, and even that came because of the influx of Portuguese and Spanish jews bringing along cartographic and banking knowledge. Yay immigration

The native Belgians, or at least the first ones to carry the name, were wiped out by Caesar and the remnants assimilated into the empire. So much for the borealist dream.

[Josquius]

Basically every pre 19th century empire didn't care about ethnicity.
It's another discussion we've had lately. This idea that all our traditions have existed since forever but are actually less than 200 years old.
Getting so hung up on race and nationality is a key one of these.

One of the few examples that does come to mind further back would be the Qing who had pretty strict segregation policies in place....but even there it was more about bannerman status than race, there were han bannermen too.

[Tamas]

Basically every pre 19th century empire didn't care about ethnicity.
It's another discussion we've had lately. This idea that all our traditions have existed since forever but are actually less than 200 years old.
Getting so hung up on race and nationality is a key one of these.

One of the few examples that does come to mind further back would be the Qing who had pretty strict segregation policies in place....but even there it was more about bannerman status than race, there were han bannermen too.

Slavery of Africans in European countries or their colonies was in place long before the 19th century and long after it was legal for them to keep white people as slaves.

[Josquius]

Basically every pre 19th century empire didn't care about ethnicity.
It's another discussion we've had lately. This idea that all our traditions have existed since forever but are actually less than 200 years old.
Getting so hung up on race and nationality is a key one of these.

One of the few examples that does come to mind further back would be the Qing who had pretty strict segregation policies in place....but even there it was more about bannerman status than race, there were han bannermen too.

Slavery of Africans in European countries or their colonies was in place long before the 19th century and long after it was legal for them to keep white people as slaves.

And this led to the development of the concept of black and white people as we know it.
Africans weren't enslaved because Europeans were racist against black people.
Rather Europeans developed racism against black people because Africans were enslaved.
The Africans not being Christian was the key factor.

Yes. This development largely took place between the 16th and 18th centuries. But then key to it was slaves being regarded as outside of the general population. It wasn't really until the 19th century that modern conceptions of nation really became firm.