White Britons no longer a majority in London

[minionofmidas]

Many Roma are immediately apparent as such and could not be anything else. Others are more borderline, vaguely roma-ish looking but you're not certain (especially if you take away dress clues). Only very occasionally, however, do you meet a Roma who looks decidedly like an Indian (and many North Indians could pass for White no problem). I don't know if there's been any genetic work done on the issue - I would figure Roma would be understandably reluctant to participate, ahem - but I doubt they kept the blood all *that* "pure". More probably a classic case of any mixed bloods being automatically considered as belonging to the outgroup, just as with American Blacks.

Anyways, that's Eastern and Central European Roma. Most British Travellers have little if any Roma ancestry; it's a domestic quasi-ethnic group that also assimilated what very little Roma immigration there had been to Britain. It would be beyond absurd to call them anything else than White.

[GMantis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London#2011_Census

Strange that they consider Gypsies white.

I don't see it as strange, the average North European don't see a physical difference between Gypsies and Romanians and Bulgarians and the latter are also seen as White. Of course most Gypsies in Britain are from Romania and they mostly Christians (and Christianity lighten in this context)

If the average North European is ignorant about Gypsies, that doesn't excuse the people who carry out the censuses. After all, they don't put Indians in the White category which would be equally valid.
Also I don't think that Northern Europeans can't recognize Balkan Gypsies from Eastern Europeans. it's just that many assume that all Eastern Europeans look like Gypsies.

Seeing as the gypsies have lived in Europe for close to a millenium, have significant interbreed with the local population and lack a connection to India, I don't think it's really fair to cll them Indians, unless we should take to call the Bulgarians for Central Asians and Romanians for Syrians (as the colonists settled there by the Romans was rumoured to be from Syria).

First, the Gypsies arrived in Europe at the earliest in the 14 th century and secondly, I dispute the "significantly interbreeded" part. The Gypsies have always been extremely endogamous, while they have been rarely popular marriage partners for outsiders. In fact, Gypsies rarely interbreed even outside of their various clans and subgroups, which is one of the reasons for the significantly higher incidence of genetic disorders among them.
The comparison with the Bulgarians is incorrect, as the Bulgars were a relatively small group that was quickly assimilated into the far more numerous Slavs and left only a name behind. Same Romanians, where there is serious doubt that they're descended from those Roman settlers.
A better comparison would be with American Blacks. Would you dispute calling them African?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that most well meaning people would probably agree that indigenous people outside of Europe should not be marginalized on their own land, so why shouldn't this hold true for the indigenous people of Europe?[/quote]

Honestly I don't see the big deal, this is purely a technical definition. In old days London was also full of non-British people, of course those was mostly white and have assimilated today, but when we take groups like Black British if they had been paler most of them wouldn't have been defined as a separate group, as they share language, culture, lifestyle and religion with their  White countrymen and their intermarriage rate is like they were part of the general population (which they are outside). As such this article is slightly ridiculous, as while it's true what is written, it indicate a context which doesn't exist (the Musselmen and darkies are taking over).
[/quote]
I'm not saying that they do, just that it's a valid viewpoint to be concerned about if they were taking over.[/quote]

Yes just as it valid point to be concern whether a meteor will hit you in the head. The White British make up 85% of UK's population the biggest other group is White (other) with 5% that leave 10% who are going to take over, and they are a mix of groups known for their cooperation like Pakistanis and Indians (1,6 and 1,8), White Irish (1,2%), Mixed (1,2%), Caribbeans (1%) no other group get over 1%. Clearly people need to really afraid of the Polish-Romanian-Bulgarian-Indian-Pakistani-Irish Liberation Front taking over UK.
[/quote]
Again, I don't say that this is happening. Just that the concept of not liking a nation to be displaced is not something that can be automatically be dismissed as racist paranoia. Though I agree that in the case of the UK that is indeed overblown. Especially when you consider that most of the new immigrants are Poles.

[ingemann]

Many Roma are immediately apparent as such and could not be anything else. Others are more borderline, vaguely roma-ish looking but you're not certain (especially if you take away dress clues). Only very occasionally, however, do you meet a Roma who looks decidedly like an Indian (and many North Indians could pass for White no problem). I don't know if there's been any genetic work done on the issue - I would figure Roma would be understandably reluctant to participate, ahem - but I doubt they kept the blood all *that* "pure". More probably a classic case of any mixed bloods being automatically considered as belonging to the outgroup, just as with American Blacks.

I would say that to large extent, Gypsies are recognisable as Gypsies in Balkan context more through the clothing they wear (and here I don't mean colourful folk costumes) and lifestyle than anything physical. Yes they may be on average be darker. But most of them if put them in blue collar clothing and saw them work in the building industry, you wouldn't be able to see a difference between them and other east workers. In fact I guess a lot of the east workers are Gypsies, but when they work in the same businesses as their countrymen we don't discover it, while when they beg and commit other petty crimes, we tend to see them as Gypsies.

[ingemann]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London#2011_Census

Strange that they consider Gypsies white.

I don't see it as strange, the average North European don't see a physical difference between Gypsies and Romanians and Bulgarians and the latter are also seen as White. Of course most Gypsies in Britain are from Romania and they mostly Christians (and Christianity lighten in this context)

If the average North European is ignorant about Gypsies, that doesn't excuse the people who carry out the censuses. After all, they don't put Indians in the White category which would be equally valid.
Also I don't think that Northern Europeans can't recognize Balkan Gypsies from Eastern Europeans. it's just that many assume that all Eastern Europeans look like Gypsies.

Seeing as the gypsies have lived in Europe for close to a millenium, have significant interbreed with the local population and lack a connection to India, I don't think it's really fair to cll them Indians, unless we should take to call the Bulgarians for Central Asians and Romanians for Syrians (as the colonists settled there by the Romans was rumoured to be from Syria).

First, the Gypsies arrived in Europe at the earliest in the 14 th century and secondly, I dispute the "significantly interbreeded" part. The Gypsies have always been extremely endogamous, while they have been rarely popular marriage partners for outsiders. In fact, Gypsies rarely interbreed even outside of their various clans and subgroups, which is one of the reasons for the significantly higher incidence of genetic disorders among them.
The comparison with the Bulgarians is incorrect, as the Bulgars were a relatively small group that was quickly assimilated into the far more numerous Slavs and left only a name behind. Same Romanians, where there is serious doubt that they're descended from those Roman settlers.
A better comparison would be with American Blacks. Would you dispute calling them African?

The difference between an North Indians and a Mediterraneans are much smaller than the difference between Africans and Europeans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that most well meaning people would probably agree that indigenous people outside of Europe should not be marginalized on their own land, so why shouldn't this hold true for the indigenous people of Europe?[/quote]

Honestly I don't see the big deal, this is purely a technical definition. In old days London was also full of non-British people, of course those was mostly white and have assimilated today, but when we take groups like Black British if they had been paler most of them wouldn't have been defined as a separate group, as they share language, culture, lifestyle and religion with their  White countrymen and their intermarriage rate is like they were part of the general population (which they are outside). As such this article is slightly ridiculous, as while it's true what is written, it indicate a context which doesn't exist (the Musselmen and darkies are taking over).
[/quote]
I'm not saying that they do, just that it's a valid viewpoint to be concerned about if they were taking over.[/quote]

Yes just as it valid point to be concern whether a meteor will hit you in the head. The White British make up 85% of UK's population the biggest other group is White (other) with 5% that leave 10% who are going to take over, and they are a mix of groups known for their cooperation like Pakistanis and Indians (1,6 and 1,8), White Irish (1,2%), Mixed (1,2%), Caribbeans (1%) no other group get over 1%. Clearly people need to really afraid of the Polish-Romanian-Bulgarian-Indian-Pakistani-Irish Liberation Front taking over UK.
[/quote]
Again, I don't say that this is happening. Just that the concept of not liking a nation to be displaced is not something that can be automatically be dismissed as racist paranoia. Though I agree that in the case of the UK that is indeed overblown. Especially when you consider that most of the new immigrants are Poles.[/quote]

Maybe we should discuss this issue if there was a chance in Hell that the indigenous population of the British island was being replaced, seeing as it's not it's completely irrelevant issue to discuss.

[GMantis]

Many Roma are immediately apparent as such and could not be anything else. Others are more borderline, vaguely roma-ish looking but you're not certain (especially if you take away dress clues). Only very occasionally, however, do you meet a Roma who looks decidedly like an Indian (and many North Indians could pass for White no problem). I don't know if there's been any genetic work done on the issue - I would figure Roma would be understandably reluctant to participate, ahem - but I doubt they kept the blood all *that* "pure". More probably a classic case of any mixed bloods being automatically considered as belonging to the outgroup, just as with American Blacks.

There are indeed some who can't be recognized as Gypsies (the leader of the Euroroma party in Bulgaria, for example), though most can be recognized even if they don't have a noticeably different skin color. And there are borderline cases. For example, this individual has been often accused of being a Gypsy, though there is no evidence that he is.
There's been plenty of genetic work and it seems to indicate that while there has been admixture, the most of their ancestry, even when considering Y chromosome haplogroups, is from the Indian subcontinent. See here, for example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but one would think that they are now outnumbered by Gypsies from Eastern Europe. Though perhaps they don't want to identify as such.

[minionofmidas]

But most of them if put them in blue collar clothing and saw them work in the building industry, you wouldn't be able to see a difference between them and other east workers. In fact I guess a lot of the east workers are Gypsies, but when they work in the same businesses as their countrymen we don't discover it, while when they beg and commit other petty crimes, we tend to see them as Gypsies.

The non-Roma Romanians and Bulgarians in the building industry here are mostly seasonal. They're recruited in their home countries, along fairly informal networks. These networks are closed to Roma.

Bulgarian* Roma have completely taken over the (legal) scrap metal market here in the past few years. Also the low end of the used car market.

Or ex-Bulgarian, rather. These people have no intention whatsoever to return to the mantis' racist hellhole. Not that all of them work, of course, and not all who work do so in the way described, but they certainly try to find a field where the family can work together and where they're not taking direct orders from gadje.

[minionofmidas]

For example, this individual has been often accused of being a Gypsy, though there is no evidence that he is.

He doesn't look Gypsy to me... but he does fit remarkably well into a certain quite "White-looking" North Indian and Pakistani type.

[Silent Hunter]

Anyways, that's Eastern and Central European Roma. Most British Travellers have little if any Roma ancestry; it's a domestic quasi-ethnic group that also assimilated what very little Roma immigration there had been to Britain. It would be beyond absurd to call them anything else than White.

It's a sufficently different culture to warrant a separate category.

[GMantis]

Many Roma are immediately apparent as such and could not be anything else. Others are more borderline, vaguely roma-ish looking but you're not certain (especially if you take away dress clues). Only very occasionally, however, do you meet a Roma who looks decidedly like an Indian (and many North Indians could pass for White no problem). I don't know if there's been any genetic work done on the issue - I would figure Roma would be understandably reluctant to participate, ahem - but I doubt they kept the blood all *that* "pure". More probably a classic case of any mixed bloods being automatically considered as belonging to the outgroup, just as with American Blacks.

I would say that to large extent, Gypsies are recognisable as Gypsies in Balkan context more through the clothing they wear (and here I don't mean colourful folk costumes) and lifestyle than anything physical. Yes they may be on average be darker. But most of them if put them in blue collar clothing and saw them work in the building industry, you wouldn't be able to see a difference between them and other east workers. In fact I guess a lot of the east workers are Gypsies, but when they work in the same businesses as their countrymen we don't discover it, while when they beg and commit other petty crimes, we tend to see them as Gypsies.

That would be so if most Eastern Europeans look like Gypsies, but that isn't actually true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London#2011_Census

Strange that they consider Gypsies white.

I don't see it as strange, the average North European don't see a physical difference between Gypsies and Romanians and Bulgarians and the latter are also seen as White. Of course most Gypsies in Britain are from Romania and they mostly Christians (and Christianity lighten in this context)

If the average North European is ignorant about Gypsies, that doesn't excuse the people who carry out the censuses. After all, they don't put Indians in the White category which would be equally valid.
Also I don't think that Northern Europeans can't recognize Balkan Gypsies from Eastern Europeans. it's just that many assume that all Eastern Europeans look like Gypsies.

Seeing as the gypsies have lived in Europe for close to a millenium, have significant interbreed with the local population and lack a connection to India, I don't think it's really fair to cll them Indians, unless we should take to call the Bulgarians for Central Asians and Romanians for Syrians (as the colonists settled there by the Romans was rumoured to be from Syria).

First, the Gypsies arrived in Europe at the earliest in the 14 th century and secondly, I dispute the "significantly interbreeded" part. The Gypsies have always been extremely endogamous, while they have been rarely popular marriage partners for outsiders. In fact, Gypsies rarely interbreed even outside of their various clans and subgroups, which is one of the reasons for the significantly higher incidence of genetic disorders among them.
The comparison with the Bulgarians is incorrect, as the Bulgars were a relatively small group that was quickly assimilated into the far more numerous Slavs and left only a name behind. Same Romanians, where there is serious doubt that they're descended from those Roman settlers.
A better comparison would be with American Blacks. Would you dispute calling them African?

The difference between an North Indians and a Mediterraneans are much smaller than the difference between Africans and Europeans.

Most Eastern Europeans hardly count as Mediterraneans. And my point about the Blacks in America was that while they have also significantly interbreededed with whites, but they're still called African-Americans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that most well meaning people would probably agree that indigenous people outside of Europe should not be marginalized on their own land, so why shouldn't this hold true for the indigenous people of Europe?[/quote]

Honestly I don't see the big deal, this is purely a technical definition. In old days London was also full of non-British people, of course those was mostly white and have assimilated today, but when we take groups like Black British if they had been paler most of them wouldn't have been defined as a separate group, as they share language, culture, lifestyle and religion with their  White countrymen and their intermarriage rate is like they were part of the general population (which they are outside). As such this article is slightly ridiculous, as while it's true what is written, it indicate a context which doesn't exist (the Musselmen and darkies are taking over).
[/quote]
I'm not saying that they do, just that it's a valid viewpoint to be concerned about if they were taking over.[/quote]

Yes just as it valid point to be concern whether a meteor will hit you in the head. The White British make up 85% of UK's population the biggest other group is White (other) with 5% that leave 10% who are going to take over, and they are a mix of groups known for their cooperation like Pakistanis and Indians (1,6 and 1,8), White Irish (1,2%), Mixed (1,2%), Caribbeans (1%) no other group get over 1%. Clearly people need to really afraid of the Polish-Romanian-Bulgarian-Indian-Pakistani-Irish Liberation Front taking over UK.
[/quote]
Again, I don't say that this is happening. Just that the concept of not liking a nation to be displaced is not something that can be automatically be dismissed as racist paranoia. Though I agree that in the case of the UK that is indeed overblown. Especially when you consider that most of the new immigrants are Poles.[/quote]

Maybe we should discuss this issue if there was a chance in Hell that the indigenous population of the British island was being replaced, seeing as it's not it's completely irrelevant issue to discuss.
[/quote]
That may well be so, but there are not many countries where the native population is a minority in their own capital.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

People are always moving in and out of London anyway. My Taid moved from Meirionnydd to London in the 30s, left the city when the War broke out and never returned (I think it's possible that he never even visited). Until the end of his life he was prone to speaking Cockney rhyming slang in a Ffestiniog accent, which may have been unique.

[GMantis]

People are always moving in and out of London anyway. My Taid moved from Meirionnydd to London in the 30s, left the city when the War broke out and never returned (I think it's possible that he never even visited). Until the end of his life he was prone to speaking Cockney rhyming slang in a Ffestiniog accent, which may have been unique.

Grandfather?

[minionofmidas]

Until the end of his life he was prone to speaking Cockney rhyming slang in a Ffestiniog accent, which may have been unique.

Lol.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

People are always moving in and out of London anyway. My Taid moved from Meirionnydd to London in the 30s, left the city when the War broke out and never returned (I think it's possible that he never even visited). Until the end of his life he was prone to speaking Cockney rhyming slang in a Ffestiniog accent, which may have been unique.

Grandfather?

Yep