In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.

Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.

All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.

https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk

Gorsameth

Netherlands21964 Posts

October 07 2025 10:46 GMT

#12861

On October 07 2025 19:20 Uldridge wrote:
That's an interesting angle: when does the amalgamation of subcultures become a culture? Is that even a thing?
Is there a single unifying French or Italian culture? I'd like to say there is. But France is so big and has so many different ways of life that it kind of breaks down almost immediately when you start zooming in.
So, culture is an illusion? A mirage to be used as a spark to start potentially existential problems like wars? It's entirely possible. However, there are so many people hanging their hats on the "cultural identity of my country/roots/race" that it's very difficult to have any discussion talking about the deconstruction of this dogma. People will look at anything to latch on to, so is that what it is then? A practice that gives solace for a group of people instead of individual existential dread? Basically group therapy for the human condition.

Yes culture is an artificial construct.

Does French culture exist? yes, its the current prevailing culture in France. But that itself a something that has formed over centuries by the people, their way of life and the interactions they had with those around them. Culture changes, its not a static thing. French culture today is not the same as French culture from 1792 and that is different from the Franks tribes 500 years before that.

Gorsameth

Netherlands21964 Posts

October 07 2025 10:52 GMT

#12862

On October 07 2025 19:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
The problem is bringing people with such backward values in, in such numbers that it moves the needle.

See the recent post by the NHS last week claiming value in first cousin marriages.Children of such marriages are far more likely to have disabilities putting extra strain on health and welfare services.First cousin marriages should be banned for this reason, not celebrated or treated as normal.

To pre-empt a long discussion about this. Is the number of first cousin children being born in the UK actually an issue?
Like is it happening in increasing and worrying numbers? Or is this a thing that doesn't actually exist and its only being brought up to have a fight over and bash foreigners?

Nebuchad

Switzerland12363 Posts

October 07 2025 11:49 GMT

#12863

On October 07 2025 19:46 Gorsameth wrote:

Show nested quote +

I assume that's not true everywhere but specifically french culture, to the extent that it exists and means something relevant, is mainly the collection of things that were used to crush the regional cultures of France and force them to learn a common language.

MJG

United Kingdom1364 Posts

October 07 2025 12:39 GMT

#12864

On October 07 2025 19:52 Gorsameth wrote:

Show nested quote +

It's known to occur within certain communities at what I would consider to be worrying numbers, but the numbers within those communities appear to be falling. Here are some numbers taken from this BBC article on the subject:

By the 20th century the proportion of marriages between cousins [in the general population] had declined to about 1%. But it remains a relatively common practice among some South Asian minorities. In three inner-city Bradford wards, almost half (46%) of mothers from the Pakistani community were married to a first or second cousin, according to the most recent Born in Bradford data published two years ago.

[But] the practice is in decline. The share of new mothers from across the Born in Bradford study who were first cousins with the father of their baby fell from 39% in the late 2000s to 27% in the late 2010s.

EDIT:

I'm personally in favour of a ban because I find the concept of first cousin marriage morally repugnant.

Not only are children born from such marriages at higher risk of inherited medical conditions, they also have worse childhood development outcomes in general. Again quoting the BBC article:

[The study] found that even after factors like poverty were controlled for, a child of first cousins in Bradford had an 11% probability of being diagnosed with a speech and language problem, versus 7% for children whose parents are not related.

They also found a child of first cousins has a 54% chance of reaching a "good stage of development" (a government assessment given to all five year-olds in England), versus 64% for children whose parents are not related.

We get further insight into their poorer health through the number of visits to the GP. Children of first cousins have a third more primary care appointments than children whose parents are not related - an average of four instead of three a year.

What is notable is that even once you account for the children in that group who already have a diagnosed recessive disorder, the figures suggest consanguinity may be affecting even those children who don't have a diagnosable recessive disorder.

But despite being in favour of a ban, it's important for me to point out that we're still only talking about 1% of all marriages in the country, of which only some is due to immigrant communities. Anybody who wants to frame this issue as "immigrants killing the NHS" or whatever is being ignorant of the statistics.