The leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is awfully Han Chinese. The Indian cabinet, too, appears to be horrifically full of ethnic Indians. The Japanese Imperial Family? Horribly Japanese. Same goes for the House of Saud too – frightfully Saudi.
What I find bizarre is that Brits with Indian or African ancestry make up 3% of the population. Let me repeat that - THREE PERCENT ARE WHAT IS NOW CALLED BLACK EVEN IF THAT FIGURE IS 19% IN LONDON. Across the United Kingdom, 97% of citizens are Anglo-European, otherwise known as White.
This 'black'group is appallingly over-represented in film, television, theatre, the media, publishing and many other fields. WHY? They are a trivial minority and should not be represented as they so often are, as making 50% or more of British society and culture.
We now have the insanity of Jane Austen movies being filled with blacks, who did not exist in 18th century England. In that time there were two members of the aristocracy, female, who had some, not even 50%, African ancestry and yet anything made in that period now is awash in people with African and sometimes Indian or Asian ancestry. It never happened.
The greatest insanity was the remake of Henry VIIIth and his wives with a clearly African actress playing Anne Boleyn. Does this madness know no bounds? Some might say, it does not matter because it is inclusive. Well, sure, you can get away with that for stories set in modern times, almost, but you cannot get away with it reinventing past centuries and retrofitting them with Woke agendas. Let alone rewriting great English literature to fit with modern fancies.
One thing is certain, forcing 'blackness' down people's throats in this way is guaranteed to create a racism which previously did not exist.
Just an observation from fashion websites. Usually about 50 - 75% of the models are women of colour (not trans women......yet) and in order for the photos to look good, the clothes have to be colours which match their skin tones so they can wear very vivid colours. I am blonde, white and blue eyed and because most of the clothes are designed to look good on darker skinned people it really reduces the options available to me. I can only hope that these companies have a reduction in sales but I imagine they will blame it on the economy rather than their strategy. By the way, if they ever start using male models for women’s clothes then I shall stop buying clothes altogether.
London has changed out of all recognition in my lifetime. I often think about the fact that my parents' generation were never asked about mass immigration - they were just confronted with it. My parents were born in the '20s and never even had passports until the '70s. They grew up in a white country. London was a white city. The Empire was something they waved a flag about at school but they had no connection with it. They probably hadn't ever met a non-white person until the '60s and '70s. Were there any proper discussions and debates about mass immigration? If there were and it was all explained and justified, why did so many people object? Many of my parents' generation were, by modern standards, very racist but they had never been exposed to other cultures and suddenly they were being displaced by people very different to them. And they were displaced - housing suddenly went to foreigners, low-grade jobs went to foreigners, doctors became foreigners (always Dr Singh who nobody could understand). There never was a proper debate and now it would be considered racist to start one. Very tedious.
What I find bizarre is that Brits with Indian or African ancestry make up 3% of the population. Let me repeat that - THREE PERCENT ARE WHAT IS NOW CALLED BLACK EVEN IF THAT FIGURE IS 19% IN LONDON. Across the United Kingdom, 97% of citizens are Anglo-European, otherwise known as White.
This 'black'group is appallingly over-represented in film, television, theatre, the media, publishing and many other fields. WHY? They are a trivial minority and should not be represented as they so often are, as making 50% or more of British society and culture.
We now have the insanity of Jane Austen movies being filled with blacks, who did not exist in 18th century England. In that time there were two members of the aristocracy, female, who had some, not even 50%, African ancestry and yet anything made in that period now is awash in people with African and sometimes Indian or Asian ancestry. It never happened.
The greatest insanity was the remake of Henry VIIIth and his wives with a clearly African actress playing Anne Boleyn. Does this madness know no bounds? Some might say, it does not matter because it is inclusive. Well, sure, you can get away with that for stories set in modern times, almost, but you cannot get away with it reinventing past centuries and retrofitting them with Woke agendas. Let alone rewriting great English literature to fit with modern fancies.
One thing is certain, forcing 'blackness' down people's throats in this way is guaranteed to create a racism which previously did not exist.
Will there ever be a black Hitler, or Stalin, to grace our screens, courtesy of Netflix? I doubt it.
Every day, in every way, I tell myself that it's still-just- alright to be white: ( and adult human female).
How long will this be allowed, before the great homogenisation is completed.
Just an observation from fashion websites. Usually about 50 - 75% of the models are women of colour (not trans women......yet) and in order for the photos to look good, the clothes have to be colours which match their skin tones so they can wear very vivid colours. I am blonde, white and blue eyed and because most of the clothes are designed to look good on darker skinned people it really reduces the options available to me. I can only hope that these companies have a reduction in sales but I imagine they will blame it on the economy rather than their strategy. By the way, if they ever start using male models for women’s clothes then I shall stop buying clothes altogether.
Tedious isn't it?
London has changed out of all recognition in my lifetime. I often think about the fact that my parents' generation were never asked about mass immigration - they were just confronted with it. My parents were born in the '20s and never even had passports until the '70s. They grew up in a white country. London was a white city. The Empire was something they waved a flag about at school but they had no connection with it. They probably hadn't ever met a non-white person until the '60s and '70s. Were there any proper discussions and debates about mass immigration? If there were and it was all explained and justified, why did so many people object? Many of my parents' generation were, by modern standards, very racist but they had never been exposed to other cultures and suddenly they were being displaced by people very different to them. And they were displaced - housing suddenly went to foreigners, low-grade jobs went to foreigners, doctors became foreigners (always Dr Singh who nobody could understand). There never was a proper debate and now it would be considered racist to start one. Very tedious.