Conquer Club

...is classed as a naturalised, indigenous part of a country?


After emmigrating, and arriving on the shores of a new land, how long is it that you believe the immigrant and their spawn are naturalised, and indigenous to that particular country?

I believe 10 generations.

isn't that exactly what citizenship means?

This question is irrelevant. Who fucking cares?

It totally depends on the circumstances. If it's a country like Australia, for instance, where white people invaded only 200 years ago and routinely participated in genocide of local indigenous people and proclaimed the country their own, it is as soon as the step foot in the country. Same goes for pilgrims to America (wow, the British were pretty mean bastards, hey)


Nationalism (along with some other social structures) is the death of humanity

You're never gonna get a universal response. I remember a mate of mine (who's from guyana) have his mum complain about immigrants, only for him to point out she immigrated (obv.), when she claimed because she had a british passport she wasn't an immigrant any more

IMPFTNHO, though, I think the kids are probably nationalised (except in certain, individual cases) because otherwise how would you classify them?

radiojake wrote:Nationalism (along with some other social structures) is the death of humanity

And Jingoism is the coffin.

I think that everybody is missing the point of the poll.....

If I were to move to, say, China, would my child be "in your own stupid opinions" an indigenous, naturalised chinese person?

Not in my superior opinion. Maybe 9 generations down the line they will be.

An Radiojake, you bleating pussy, you do not even know what the word nationalism means if you think it is "the death of humanity"..

Again, another fucking idiotic meaningless, quirky little saying, that is adopted by shit for brain drones. Dude, what's that I can hear? oh my, it is the cacaphonic whines of the bleeding heart liberals.

Norse wrote:If I were to move to, say, China, would my child be "in your own stupid opinions" an indigenous, naturalised chinese person?

If you moved to china and settled there then your kids would be counted as nationalised imo. Indigenous? No such thing.

The1exile wrote:

Norse wrote:If I were to move to, say, China, would my child be "in your own stupid opinions" an indigenous, naturalised chinese person?

If you moved to china and settled there then your kids would be counted as nationalised imo. Indigenous? No such thing.

Nationalised? Like the postal service?

You mean naturalised.

No such thing as indigenous? ...Interesting. I see what you mean, but simply do not agree.

Norse wrote:Nationalised? Like the postal service?

You mean naturalised.

My bad. Buyt the very definition of naturalised is that the person who has achieved naturalisation is a citizen (presumably with passport and such that goes with it).

Norse wrote:No such thing as indigenous? ...Interesting. I see what you mean, but simply do not agree.

Each to his own. I just don't see how in the days of such a small world anyone can count themselves as indigenous.

It depends on the individual but if a Chinese kid is born in Britain,speaks English and adopts the host culture then it would be difficult to deny that he was British.

Well, the world is as small as the eye of the beholder who see's it, and it seems pretty damn collosal to me.

I mean, assuming that I am of Germanic origin and the predecesor of germanic immigrants from the 4th century, assuming every generation is 25 years, I would be about 80 generations into Britain.


Why are different ethnicities different? Why do nordic people have big noses? or Black people have Black skin?

It is because during their evoloutionary path, they have adapted to the climate that they are accustomed to, and developed certain aspects to their physiology and psychology dependent on that climate. That my friend is a fact.

Therefore, idigenuity has had it's effects on every group.

Is it important to you?

It is to me.

if i go back 10 generations on my paternal grandmothers side of the family im english all the way. i know because i traced it. if i go back 2 generations on my paternal grandfathers side im scottish after 3 generations. on my mothers side im welsh and irish after 4 generations.

so i guess thats me well and truly fucked

and please dont point out that they are part of the uk. i would have the same problem if they were dutch, german or, god forbid argentinian.

Norse wrote:Well, the world is as small as the eye of the beholder who see's it, and it seems pretty damn collosal to me.

I mean, assuming that I am of Germanic origin and the predecesor of germanic immigrants from the 4th century, assuming every generation is 25 years, I would be about 80 generations into Britain.


Why are different ethnicities different? Why do nodic people have big noses? or Black people have Black skin?

It is because during their evoloutionary path, they have adapted to the climate that they are accustomed to, and developed certain aspects to their physiology and psychology. That my friend is a fact.

Therefore, idigenuity has had it's effects on every group.

Is it important to you?

It is to me.

Your right, but so? Why is it important?

I get what Norse is saying. I say 2-3rd generation, because by then the kid grows up with the countries culture and so on and acts and behaves like the indigenous population.

Well, my family (at least on one side) has been in the US for about 6 generations, and 4 of those are still alive. In short, my ancestors were rebels in Ireland. I'm thinking, maybe IRA, but I could be wrong.

I'm not too sure about my dads side (their family hasn't exactly been diligent about recording ancestors) but on my mothers side I'm pretty sure I'm Danish back until the 12th-14th century when I have a few Dutch ancestors.

And my family "head" I guess, went to Ireland shortly after the Battle of Hastings (according to one site I found, apparently we helped out the Duke of Normandy quite a bit) and became a major family in Galway County Ireland.

i guess my only question is to what end would it matter, if you determined a delinating line for where a person could be considered naturalized, it would only create logistical nightmares as in all likelyhood...if such a conservative line as you suggest norse was implemented, the majority of the people would therefore not qualify.

If this was taken to a logical outcome you would have some pretty large scale problems.

i'm certainly not going down those avenues.

Im just saying, sometimes identity is important to some people, not to say that it is exclusive and pretentious.

Norse wrote:i'm certainly not going down those avenues.

Im just saying, sometimes identity is important to some people, not to say that it is exclusive and pretentious.

im not saying you did per say...im just saying they arent hard to find from that vantage point...

as to simply the question presented, i can understand the practical tension between giving all born in country naturalized status and resource drain (as i dont think i can quite seperate the two if your looking to look it at analytically) but i dont know if theres a great line of demarcation if you dont take anyone who isnt born into the country.

So, to clarify, if one is not born within a country, there will be no disparity if they are to not enter the country?

Sounds logical to me.

I'm not sure the EU will like that idea though

Norse wrote:So, to clarify, if one is not born within a country, there will be no disparity if they are to not enter the country?

Soiunds logical to me.

I'm not sure the EU will like that idea though

i think we both know im far too much of a bleeding heart liberal to agree with that, your talking about generations of naturalization, clearly there are other processes in place ot naturalize a citizen.

got tonkaed wrote:

Norse wrote:So, to clarify, if one is not born within a country, there will be no disparity if they are to not enter the country?

Soiunds logical to me.

I'm not sure the EU will like that idea though

i think we both know im far too much of a bleeding heart liberal to agree with that, your talking about generations of naturalization, clearly there are other processes in place ot naturalize a citizen.

To agree with what? I wasn't posing a question, just trying to clarify what you had posted previously.

Well, as exile pointed out earlier,the definition of naturalisation is "gaining of citizenship" which pretty much sealed that one up.

As for indigenuity, I believe that the only way one can become indifenous to a different country is time spent. You can't just "indigenise" a group of people by waving a liberal wand around and filling their pockets with treats.

It aint that simple.

id argue you certainly can, as is evidenced by the large government organizations which currently do just that.

edit...i was only referring to how to determine if a generation of individuals should be deemed natives to the area...not whether or not they have been naturalized.

got tonkaed wrote:id argue you certainly can, as is evidenced by the large government organizations which currently do just that.

.

Hmmm...this does not spark me with a great deal of confidence.

Are there any examples of this? How it has succesfully worked on non-commonwealth immigration?