|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2010 11:23:16 GMT
The point was that Indians DO want to come to the UK for financial reasons, and it is that that applies to them. Not that they are queuing up in Calais trying to jump on a truck.
No Indians don't queue up in Calais to get in. When I was living in the UK just recently, it was the Eastern Europeans that were a big concern for the British government. If you want to look at immigration rules today, you'll see that it is very hard to Indians to come to the UK at all, whether for financial reasons, or even to get a visa to visit.
You're living in the past. Most of the Indians in the UK have been there decades and like I said before. They were encouraged and asked to come because of the shortage of labour. Some of them were already British citizens when they came (my dad for instance was born a British Citizen), and his parents before him was also a British Citizens.
You say, "I suggest we get back to the topic of the OP" as though you just thought of that when I've already said at number 17, "Aren't you leading this somewhat away from your OP?"
You typed the last sentence as I was typing, so we were thinking the same thing there. You are all over the place, you bought in other angles and subjects to this thread, which I questioned. If you want to 'stick to the OP' then that starts with you.
You're very frustrating when you seem to forget what's been said or try and twist it round.
You are the one doing the twisting, asking questions without answering the ones asked of you. And then you make assumptions and statements, and when questioned, you have no real answer for, so you change the subject, (again).
Anyway, lets try to get back to the main subject: Colonization and Imperialism.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 1, 2010 11:58:15 GMT
Jeez Deyana, you are difficult.
Read what I am saying. I am saying that many Indians want to come to the UK for financial reasons. I am not saying they queue up at Calais, I am not saying it isn't difficult for Indians to enter the UK, I am not saying that there aren't Indians who've lived in the UK for decades, I am not saying that they weren't invited to the UK, I am not saying that they weren't born as British citizens. I am saying that many Indians want to come to the UK for financial reasons.
You are all over the place, you bought in other angles and subjects to this thread, which I questioned. If you want to 'stick to the OP' then that starts with you. You are the one doing the twisting, asking questions without answering the ones asked of you. And then you make assumptions and statements, and when questioned, you have no real answer for, so you change the subject, (again).
I've re-read all the way back through the thread. Your accusations are false. Your opinion is obviously different. You seem to repeat what I've said as though you thought of it first, take what I say and focus on the wrong thing, the thing of minor relevance and try and make a big issue of it and lose sight of what I actually did say. The easiest thing is for me not to express any opinion whatsoever and just give simple yes or no answers - even then I suspect you'll misinterpret that, deliberately or not I don't know. C'est la vie.
Anyway, lets try to get back to the main subject: Colonization and Imperialism. Yes, good idea, why didn't I think of that? Hang on a minute ...... I did.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2010 12:07:06 GMT
I've re-read all the way back through the thread. Your accusations are false.
So have I, and no they are not.
The easiest thing is for me not to express any opinion whatsoever and just give simple yes or no answers - even then I suspect you'll misinterpret that, deliberately or not I don't know.
And I've tried to be as clear as possible when replying to you. It's good that you at least seem to understand and take in to account some of what I have said. I think you have a habit of being condescending and insulting just to get a rise out of people. While avoiding any questions that you have no answers for. Whatever Mark. Best get back to the subject of OP, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 1, 2010 12:53:41 GMT
I think you have a habit of being condescending and insulting just to get a rise out of people. As you put it - whatever.
While avoiding any questions that you have no answers for. Point them out, I'll answer them.
Best get back to the subject of OP, don't you think? Yes, good idea, why didn't I think of that? Hang on a minute ...... I did.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2010 14:37:49 GMT
Whoever is coming to immigrate to the UK is doing it in smaller numbers than a number of other European countries, because the immigrant population is only 8.9% so it is not being "colonized" in spite of what some of the political parties might think.
The following countries have a higher percentage of immigrants: Andorra 77%, Monaco 70%, Luxembourg 37%, Liechtenstein 35%, San Marino 32%, Switzerland 23%, Latvia 19%, Estonia & Croatia 15%, Cyprus & Ireland 14%, Moldova 13%, Germany, Sweden & Belarus 12%, Spain 11%, France & Netherlands 10%.
It's about time to get rid of borders and simplify things.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on May 1, 2010 15:24:32 GMT
I've come to a similar radical conclusion. The upsides of restricting ordinary people's movements between states is outweighed by the downsides- which are mostly to do with maintaining immorally disparate levels of wealth. I'd like to see freedom of movement anywhere and anytime on the face of the globe enshrined as an intrinsic human right. Let the Western world unblinkingly face the reality they have grown comfortable with as long as it is kept at a safe distance.
|
|
|
Post by imec on May 1, 2010 16:20:28 GMT
It's about time to get rid of borders and simplify things. I'd like to see freedom of movement anywhere and anytime on the face of the globe enshrined as an intrinsic human right. I think you're both trolling - neither of you could be that shockingly naive.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2010 17:00:19 GMT
I have to agree with you there, imec.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2010 17:16:56 GMT
Whoever is coming to immigrate to the UK is doing it in smaller numbers than a number of other European countries, because the immigrant population is only 8.9% so it is not being "colonized" in spite of what some of the political parties might think. The following countries have a higher percentage of immigrants: Andorra 77%, Monaco 70%, Luxembourg 37%, Liechtenstein 35%, San Marino 32%, Switzerland 23%, Latvia 19%, Estonia & Croatia 15%, Cyprus & Ireland 14%, Moldova 13%, Germany, Sweden & Belarus 12%, Spain 11%, France & Netherlands 10%. That's really interesting, and not surprising.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on May 1, 2010 17:50:41 GMT
I think you're both trolling - neither of you could be that shockingly naive. I'm quite serious. I don't think humans are sufficiently morally evolved to actually take whatever steps are necessary to alleviate endemic extreme poverty in the world as long as it can be rationalized as someone else's fault or problem or held at a safe emotional and physical remove. Further I find all of the West's high minded moralizing about human rights and progress to be essentially just hypocrisy and moral cowardice as long as millions of people are dying of the symptoms of extreme poverty while others live lives of comfortable plenty. It's easy to put on a front of smug moral superiority as long as one knows one's privileged place in the world is safe. Moral courage can only be evidenced when one's own self interests are truly put in jeopardy by moral action. Otherwise it's essentially empty rhetoric and platitudes. And I think if the human race is actually on a more or less progressive arc of development and these problems are actually faced with honesty, we could be looked back upon as being just as morally compromised by our blithe acceptance of widespread extreme poverty as those who dismissed slavery or the institutional subjugation of women or having systemic underclasses to perform our work cheaply with a cynical shrug as the natural state of man and viewed any efforts at improving the lot of the larger portion of humanity as opposed to the privileged few as naïveté.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on May 1, 2010 18:00:41 GMT
Hear, hear, Fumobici!
I read your remarks and those of Kerouac and quite agreed, although I am unable to express that as eloquently and perfectly as you just did.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 1, 2010 18:04:04 GMT
So to alleviate this appalling situation, which I can understand, and you feel so strongly about, you are doing what exactly? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2010 18:07:18 GMT
Quote: ''I don't think humans are sufficiently morally evolved to actually take whatever steps are necessary to alleviate endemic extreme poverty in the world as long as it can be rationalized as someone else's fault or problem or held at a safe emotional and physical remove. Further I find all of the West's high minded moralizing about human rights and progress to be essentially just hypocrisy and moral cowardice as long as millions of people are dying of the symptoms of extreme poverty while others live lives of comfortable plenty. It's easy to put on a front of smug moral superiority as long as one knows one's privileged place in the world is safe. Moral courage can only be evidenced when one's own self interests are truly put in jeopardy by moral action. Otherwise it's essentially empty rhetoric and platitudes.''
I love the way you put that, fumobici. Your way with words leaves me speechless, really. If only more would see it that way, we might actually get somewhere. But I think that is far, far in the future as yet, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on May 1, 2010 18:29:47 GMT
So to alleviate this appalling situation, which I can understand, and you feel so strongly about, you are doing what exactly? Just curious. There's nothing concrete we as individuals can effectively do any more than individuals could do about slavery or institutional misogyny or serfdom in the past. I'm not opposed to charity but it does little or nothing to address the underlying structural issues that perpetuate the current morally untenable reality. Change cannot really be forced, it will require a moral evolution at some point resulting in a consensus for change being arrived at. There are however things that perhaps could be done to hasten an arrival at the necessary consensus. Like breaking down the institutional barriers that allow some people- us frankly- to live in relative fabulous comfort and lack of need cordoned off from the sufferings the vast majority like the rich in their gated communities protected by armed guards from the festering slums that surround them. Even I'm not naive to believe this will happen anytime soon. Human nature mightily conspires against it. Humans may never evolve past being capable of quite happily ignoring great and unjust suffering as long as they can continue live in pampered comfort insulated from that suffering. There's certainly no lack of historical precedent suggesting such a thing to be the case. That seems a pretty bleak and terminally cynical outlook really though to me. Perhaps we can do- be- better than that. Eventually, at least. Perhaps we could at least honestly try.
|
|
|
Post by imec on May 1, 2010 18:29:54 GMT
Sure - peace, love and Woodstock for all - to hell with the profound impact to security, economic stability and to hell with the inevitable clash between established cultures and values.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2010 18:43:58 GMT
I can understand what you are saying, imec. but I do admire the way fumobici thinks.
Quote:
live in relative fabulous comfort and lack of need cordoned off from the sufferings the vast majority like the rich in their gated communities protected by armed guards from the festering slums that surround them.
I would find that very hard to do, to live in that situation. And at the same time be trying to teach my kids right from wrong, and give them some moral backbone. Thankfully I am not in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on May 1, 2010 18:49:40 GMT
What is "security" but a euphemism for a continuation of the morally untenable status quo? What is "economic stability" but the same? Does the current economic stasis serve the needs and interests of most of the world's inhabitants? If no, why would one tout stability as a virtue rather than a vice? And what is the fear of cultural intermixing and the means necessary to prevent it happening really but apartheid writ large?
|
|
|
Post by bjd on May 1, 2010 18:57:20 GMT
What is "security" but a euphemism for a continuation of the morally untenable status quo? If no, why would one tout stability as a virtue rather than a vice? Just ask the people who lived in the ex-Soviet Union in the early-mid 1990s, when authoritarian control disappeared and it became an economic free-for-all, with only a few becoming extremely rich and very many with nothing. I talked to various Russians at the time, and, to my surprise, since I figured they would be happy to be rid of the Soviet system -- which by the way was not as equal as it was made out to be -- and their main complaint was that there was no order. They certainly saw stability as a virtue.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 1, 2010 19:07:31 GMT
Eloquent and emotional words, and yet on a practical level - There's nothing concrete we as individuals can effectively do
Bit of a cop out that is then don't you think? It's too big for me as an individual so I'll do nothing. I think someone like Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Germaine Greer, Lech Wałęsa to name but a few in modern times might have something to say about that.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 1, 2010 19:11:42 GMT
Just ask the people who lived in the ex-Soviet Union in the early-mid 1990s, when authoritarian control disappeared and it became an economic free-for-all, with only a few becoming extremely rich and very many with nothing. I talked to various Russians at the time, and, to my surprise, since I figured they would be happy to be rid of the Soviet system -- which by the way was not as equal as it was made out to be -- and their main complaint was that there was no order. They certainly saw stability as a virtue. Which funnily enough comes back to what I said in the first reply on this thread - I suspect that many Russians wish for a return to power of Stalin when there was what they deem to be a certain 'stability'.
|
|
|
Post by imec on May 1, 2010 19:12:36 GMT
"What is "security" ?"
The luxury of waking up each day with a reasonable expectation that I won’t be killed by someone who doesn’t like my beliefs.
"morally untenable status quo?"
According to whose morals? Who says they’re right?
"What is "economic stability"?"
My country as well as yours enjoys a reasonable degree of economic stability – inflation for instance in the worst case is measured in double digits at most.
"Does the current economic stasis serve the needs and interests of most of the world's inhabitants? If no, why would one tout stability as a virtue rather than a vice? "
What’s the alternative - economic chaos? Who does that serve?
"And what is the fear of cultural intermixing and the means necessary to prevent it happening really but apartheid writ large?"
Not all cultures mix. I, for one, categorically reject many aspects of middle eastern and other cultures which deny basic human rights often in the name of religion or other such dogmas.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your ideal, fumobici, but I do challenge the practicality of achieving or even pursuing it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2010 4:51:24 GMT
I remember that before 1973, all of the citizens of the former colonies of France did not require visas to visit France. It was also easy to get working papers. There was no problem with immigration at that time -- people would come for a few years and go home.
It was only when fear began to rule the West again in 1973 that the freedom to travel was cancelled, and the immigration "problem" began. Hundreds of thousands of Maghrebis and black Africans dug in their heels for good, afraid that if they returned home, they would never be allowed to come back to France.
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on May 11, 2010 6:57:51 GMT
Yeah -- with the nasty end of the scale occupied by the Belgians. No doubt about that. The biggest ever piece of land that actually belonged to a single private person, the Congo. The'big three' are Spain, Britain and France. Mark, I believe the Dutch were quite important too, and not just in the East Indies but in the West Indies too. The Germans had colonies for about 40 years and it was more the politicians bowing to the business people. Even Italy and Denmark had colonies...
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 11, 2010 16:02:42 GMT
You're right. Most of Europe had a colony or two, or three or more. Some with more 'success' than others. I liked how at the end of one of the inter-European wars the victors would share out the countries from the loser. I think that's how the UK got quite a few.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 11, 2010 16:04:44 GMT
Oh, forgot. Interesting reading regards the Congo was the life history of Henry Morton Stanley. Got about a bit, that bloke did.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2010 17:03:46 GMT
Portugal had some damned big colonies. I remember visiting Portugal during the Salazar reign, and there were posters of Mozambique and Angola superimposed over a map of Europe to show that actually Portugal was bigger than all of the other countries combined.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 11, 2010 18:09:52 GMT
I don't quite get that. Portugal was bigger or the Portuguese colonies were bigger, or ?
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on May 13, 2010 9:21:48 GMT
Jesus! I just read through what was written before I posted at #52!
Didn't realize that the subject had been discussed quite controversially.
I'm on the side of law and order. Borders can't go down, immigrants need to be screened and deemed eligible.
Sorry, the days when immigration generally was a trickle and everybody could go anywhere, are over. Integration isn't encouraged, ghettos establish themselves, safety and security is lacking. People become scared and bang, the next genocide occurs.
No thanks. It's best not to overstay your welcome, a very basic truth, respected by everybody from the Pathans of Pakistan to the Tuareg of the Sahara.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2010 19:21:07 GMT
Mark, I believe that Portugal considered its various African colonies to be an integral part of Portugal, the same way France once considered Algeria (and still considers Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyane and Réunion -- which are part of the EU and use the euro) -- so that made Portugal the biggest country in Europe.
|
|