Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Migration Megathread
Comments
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,189 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 37017
Off topic and short posts deleted.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
I would mostly agree with that statement.
However, it raises the question of what happens when the conditions change? What happens when there is an economic crash and the state must (e.g.) retract social supports? What happens when there is an outside event which impacts on the various communities in different manners (e.g. Syrian refugee crisis impact on Lebanon)?
Some of the necessary “appropriate conditions” are not under the control of you or me and can change.
You'll get a rise of the anti-immigrant rhetoric.
What's of note is that in this situation, it's the conditions that have changed. For example, it's not the fault of the immmigrants that the banking sector crashed.0 -
You'll get a rise of the anti-immigrant rhetoric.
What's of note is that in this situation, it's the conditions that have changed. For example, it's not the fault of the immmigrants that the banking sector crashed.
Indeed it is the circumstances that have changed - it is no one individual's fault that there was conflict in Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Rwanda etc. - yet nevertheless there was.0 -
I have limited time so I don't know if I'll do this answer justice.You are incorrectly equating nationalism and self determination with ethic strife.
I don't see why this could be seen as incorrect. Nationalistic struggles for independence is almost the definition of ethnic strife, though I would, as usual, be inclined to throw cultural in there as a qualifier (though as I already said, many take ethnic to include culture, but it does no harm to be precise).The Roman empire fella apart partly because of foreign invasion, partly because of corruption and partly due to nationalistic fervour in the provinces.
The collapse of the Roman Empire is complicated as it took quite a long time (and some claim that it never collapsed but instead morphed into the Eastern Empire, or maybe the Holy Roman Empire, or possibly the Roman Catholic Church). However the most obvious reason for it collapsing was the migration of tribes into its territory, and the diminishing capacity of the central Roman authority to control its provinces. Both these things qualify as ethnic strife, in that the strife was between the central Roman authority and the Barbarians who wanted to settle in Roman territory (from without) and its diverse (formerly Barbarian) peoples from within.
The long timeline, the endemic corruption (which, let's be honest existed from the beginning of the empire), and a host of minor factors (even including the use of lead piping) make this a less clear cut example than some of the more modern ones (particularly since the modern idea of 'nationalism' wasn't a thing back then).The Soviet union, yes it fits the bill of an empire, fell apart because of shakey economic system, a corrupt beurocracy, overspending on the arms race and many other reasons.
Ah yes, those were the conditions for it to fall apart, but how did it fall apart? By the SSRs declaring independence, and those SSRs are based upon the nationalities of Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, etc. all of which are defined by both their ethnicities and cultures. Why did Russia not fall apart? Why did it get into conflict with Chechnya?The ottoman empire fella apart because they allied with the wrong side in WW1 and their military was woefully outraged. Even then it didn't really die. It just turned into Turkey
Saving the best till last.
The Ottoman Empire didn't collapse due to WW1, no more than the Third Reich collapsed due to the Battle of Berlin. WW1 was the last gasp of an empire that was on life support and had lost a significant amount of territory already prior to the outbreak of war.
The territory the Ottoman Empire had lost prior to the outbreak of WW1 (all of the Balkans, the loss of which was the issue which actually started WW1) was due to ethnic strife. This is a clear example of the constituent ethnicities and cultures within the Ottoman Empire wresting free of the central authority of Istanbul. Greeks had long sought independence, and as the Ottomans weakened they could claim it by force of arms. WW1 weakened the Ottoman Empire to the point that Arab nations followed suit (though the fact that the countries of Iraq and Syria that was created out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire were not based upon cultural and ethnic lines has been a source of conflict that is literally going on right to this day).
Turkey is not an example of the Ottoman Empire still being in existence, no matter what Erdogan would want people to think. It is no more the Ottoman Empire than the UK is the British Empire. Turkey, as the name suggests, is predominantly home to the distinct ethnicity of Turks, so all should be fine, right?
Not right, because Turkey also contains Kurds, and while Kurds are not free of the central authority of Ankara there will never be peace in that country.
So, how do you think that relates to the inward migration of muslims into Europe?
On the face of it, not much. Most empires incorporate already existing ethnicities and cultures, while this is an opposite sort of thing. However, we can see that where there has been a large body of a distinct ethnicity and culture within a host country that it tends to be bad news.
Algerians in France are a good example. There is significant tension between Algerian settlers in France, and although much of this is due to their history together, the issues concerning the position of Islam in France is a related issue. France has experienced a great deal of Islamic terrorism in the last number of years. Just last week an Algerian detonated a bomb outside a cafe. This is the epitome of cultural and ethnic strife. The fact that most of these terrorist attacks have been by second or even third generation immigrants actually underscores the point. This isn't really an ethnicity issue in itself though. The real thing is that as long as religion proves a greater unifying force than French nationalism, then these sort of incidents are likely to continue. As it stands the far right continues to grow in popularity, immigrants seem to be no less disaffected, and efforts by anyone to solve existing problems will have been undermined by Merkel tearing up the Dublin convention.0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »I have limited time so I don't know if I'll do this answer justice.
I don't see why this could be seen as incorrect. Nationalistic struggles for independence is almost the definition of ethnic strife, though I would, as usual, be inclined to throw cultural in there as a qualifier (though as I already said, many take ethnic to include culture, but it does no harm to be precise).
The collapse of the Roman Empire is complicated as it took quite a long time (and some claim that it never collapsed but instead morphed into the Eastern Empire, or maybe the Holy Roman Empire, or possibly the Roman Catholic Church). However the most obvious reason for it collapsing was the migration of tribes into its territory, and the diminishing capacity of the central Roman authority to control its provinces. Both these things qualify as ethnic strife, in that the strife was between the central Roman authority and the Barbarians who wanted to settle in Roman territory (from without) and its diverse (formerly Barbarian) peoples from within.
The long timeline, the endemic corruption (which, let's be honest existed from the beginning of the empire), and a host of minor factors (even including the use of lead piping) make this a less clear cut example than some of the more modern ones (particularly since the modern idea of 'nationalism' wasn't a thing back then).
Ah yes, those were the conditions for it to fall apart, but how did it fall apart? By the SSRs declaring independence, and those SSRs are based upon the nationalities of Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, etc. all of which are defined by both their ethnicities and cultures. Why did Russia not fall apart? Why did it get into conflict with Chechnya?
Saving the best till last.
The Ottoman Empire didn't collapse due to WW1, no more than the Third Reich collapsed due to the Battle of Berlin. WW1 was the last gasp of an empire that was on life support and had lost a significant amount of territory already prior to the outbreak of war.
The territory the Ottoman Empire had lost prior to the outbreak of WW1 (all of the Balkans, the loss of which was the issue which actually started WW1) was due to ethnic strife. This is a clear example of the constituent ethnicities and cultures within the Ottoman Empire wresting free of the central authority of Istanbul. Greeks had long sought independence, and as the Ottomans weakened they could claim it by force of arms. WW1 weakened the Ottoman Empire to the point that Arab nations followed suit (though the fact that the countries of Iraq and Syria that was created out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire were not based upon cultural and ethnic lines has been a source of conflict that is literally going on right to this day).
Turkey is not an example of the Ottoman Empire still being in existence, no matter what Erdogan would want people to think. It is no more the Ottoman Empire than the UK is the British Empire. Turkey, as the name suggests, is predominantly home to the distinct ethnicity of Turks, so all should be fine, right?
Not right, because Turkey also contains Kurds, and while Kurds are not free of the central authority of Ankara there will never be peace in that country.
So we’re agreed? The statement that these empires fell apart from “ethnic strife”
Is a complete over simplification...........On the face of it, not much. Most empires incorporate already existing ethnicities and cultures, while this is an opposite sort of thing. However, we can see that where there has been a large body of a distinct ethnicity and culture within a host country that it tends to be bad news.
Algerians in France are a good example. There is significant tension between Algerian settlers in France, and although much of this is due to their history together, the issues concerning the position of Islam in France is a related issue. France has experienced a great deal of Islamic terrorism in the last number of years. Just last week an Algerian detonated a bomb outside a cafe. This is the epitome of cultural and ethnic strife. The fact that most of these terrorist attacks have been by second or even third generation immigrants actually underscores the point. This isn't really an ethnicity issue in itself though. The real thing is that as long as religion proves a greater unifying force than French nationalism, then these sort of incidents are likely to continue. As it stands the far right continues to grow in popularity, immigrants seem to be no less disaffected, and efforts by anyone to solve existing problems will have been undermined by Merkel tearing up the Dublin convention.
.......and trying to apply some sort of lessons from the collapse of these empires to the current state of Muslim migration to Europe is a pointless exercise? Because that’s actually the discussion at hand.they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
Advertisement
-
So we’re agreed? The statement that these empires fell apart from “ethnic strife”
Is a complete over simplification...........
I don't see what part of my post gave you cause to think that the USSR or Ottoman Empire didn't fall apart due to ethnic and cultural strife. These were the most significant aspect of their collapse. This is self evident in the fact that these empires fractured along their cultural and ethnic lines! Never mind the fact that ethnic cleansing was conducted against the Armenians while the Ottoman Empire was in its death throes. Similarly for an Empire like that of Austria (later 'Austria-Hungary' due to ethnic and cultural strife) collapsed due to ethnic and cultural strife within its borders. Why do you think Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia? Have you ever, ever heard of a country splitting into separate independent states no matter what hardship it was facing, if there was no ethnic or cultural divisions present in that country? Ever. Serious question........and trying to apply some sort of lessons from the collapse of these empires to the current state of Muslim migration to Europe is a pointless exercise? Because that’s actually the discussion at hand.
Nominally yes, it's a pointless exercise, because there's no empire in existence currently in Europe. However, their use in terms of what happens when you have distinct peoples being ruled by a central authority, that those people are at odds with, is itself useful. Mind you, we don't have to go very far to see this. We see it currently, in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Ukraine, Serbia (if one counts Kosovo), Belgium and Spain. Granted that the strife in these cases is of unequal severity. That's present day, and not geographically particularly far.0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Nominally yes, it's a pointless exercise, because there's no empire in existence currently in Europe. However, their use in terms of what happens when you have distinct peoples being ruled by a central authority, that those people are at odds with, is itself useful.
The idea that unjust rule, which you've just described, ends because of cultural divisions rather than because if the injustice present seems a bit strange.
Back to yesterday's comments about Ireland seeking independence. Cultural and ethnic reasons are so far down the list that this is essentially a pointless conversation.
Give a distinct culture a seat at the table and a self of Independence and value and you have Wales. Deny them this and you have Ireland. Now clearly, it's a more complicated issue than that but given thet every county, region and headland has a distinct culture, it's fairly easy to find counter examples to this notion that different cultures will tend to split apart.
Additionally, I also feel it has pretty much nothing to do with the issue to hand.
And the historical revisionism is getting crazier and crazier. You need to find a historian who says the Soviet Union broke up because if ethnic strife. That aside, you're making it up as you go.0 -
You'll get a rise of the anti-immigrant rhetoric.
What's of note is that in this situation, it's the conditions that have changed. For example, it's not the fault of the immmigrants that the banking sector crashed.
High immigration, Multiculturalism, the banking crash are all part and parcel of radical free market economics.
They do not stand apart. Package deal.0 -
The idea that unjust rule, which you've just described, ends because of cultural divisions rather than because if the injustice present seems a bit strange.
Back to yesterday's comments about Ireland seeking independence. Cultural and ethnic reasons are so far down the list that this is essentially a pointless conversation.
Are you serious? You're serious.
Where there are no ethnic or cultural divisions, agitation takes the form of reform. Did north England make any noise about independence? No? Before you say anything about injustice realize that Manchester and Liverpool had some of the lowest life expectancies in Europe at the turn of the 20th century, and that general region had the same population as Ireland.
How many people in Sicily today want independence? Noone! The poorest region in Italy, an area that has traditionally been plagued by organised crime, which has been underinvested and poorly managed. Same thing with the poorest parts of America. You just brushed aside what I said about Detroit. Why is Michigan not pushing for independence? The people in Flint county have been poisoned for years with lead in their water. Is that not injustice? Detroit is the poorest city in America and has been declared bankrupt. Is that not injustice?
So yes, economics are not the answer. It's ethnic and cultural divisions that give rise to separate countries. It has always been that way, and always will.And the historical revisionism is getting crazier and crazier. You need to find a historian who says the Soviet Union broke up because of ethnic strife. That aside, you're making it up as you go.
It's just a really weird coincidence that the USSR fragmented along its cultural and ethnic lines. The Solidarity movement had no ethnic or cultural associations. Anybody saying otherwise is a filthy revisionist! It is also just by chance that Socialism is deeply opposed to cultural-nationalism.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,189 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 37017
Uncivil posts deleted and sanctions issued. There have been enough warnings.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
Advertisement
-
RandomName2 wrote: »Are you serious? You're serious.
Where there are no ethnic or cultural divisions, agitation takes the form of reform. Did north England make any noise about independence? No? Before you say anything about injustice realize that Manchester and Liverpool had some of the lowest life expectancies in Europe at the turn of the 20th century, and that general region had the same population as Ireland.
How many people in Sicily today want independence? Noone! The poorest region in Italy, an area that has traditionally been plagued by organised crime, which has been underinvested and poorly managed. Same thing with the poorest parts of America. You just brushed aside what I said about Detroit. Why is Michigan not pushing for independence? The people in Flint county have been poisoned for years with lead in their water. Is that not injustice? Detroit is the poorest city in America and has been declared bankrupt. Is that not injustice?
So yes, economics are not the answer. It's ethnic and cultural divisions that give rise to separate countries. It has always been that way, and always will.
Just to paraphrase here for a minute RandomName2.
But you're actually saying that the reason Ireland sought independence and Manchester didn't is that we're different culturally? Like they had the same case but just weren't into it?
Of course you can find facts to suit your argument. I can find plenty not to suit it. Regions of Wales are the poorest in England, separate culture and language but no independence.
Can I ask please where you get your information. Have you been educated in history and politics in any way or is this all self taught?
Have you ever told a historian of the USSR that the problem with communism was that the people included were different cultures. Like, it'd work better with a homogenous group and the USSR may still be going.
Reallly. I get you want to make a point but stand back and think for a minute.
The great age of European empires (French, British) ended because of ethnic strife? Are you seriously continuing to claim that? Liike in a modern world where human rights have become recognised and you have things happen like the boycott of south africa, the only reason you can't subjegate a group of people would be because they're not ethnically the same. Like we could deny the population of Cork voting rights, unreasonablly tax them, then murder and imprison them if they tried to do anything about it and it would continue to go ahead because they're also Irish.
Take a step back and think of what you are arguing.
Seriously just stop.0 -
That's not the argument: the USSR broke (back down) into individual countries that had their own identity. Had the USSR been limited to "Russia" or even "Russia and those areas of the surrounding countries (Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan etc.) consisting predominantly of Russian peoples" - then the USSR would have evolved into the modern Russian Federation but without a loss of territory.Have you ever told a historian of the USSR that the problem with communism was that the people included were different cultures. Like, it'd work better with a homogenous group and the USSR may still be going.
Reallly. I get you want to make a point but stand back and think for a minute.
As regards identities within the USSR, the Americans were fomenting dissent in the USSR based on Muslim identifying people from the Caucasus etc. Certainly there would have been less scope for them to do that if there were no separate identities (the US similarly supports (or recently supported- I'm not sure what the current status is) Sunni independence fighters in Iran )0 -
Just to paraphrase here for a minute RandomName2.
But you're actually saying that the reason Ireland sought independence and Manchester didn't is that we're different culturally? Like they had the same case but just weren't into it?
Pretty much. The Irish Parliamentary Party never really had reform as an agenda but rather devolved rule. They said that the Irish should decide Irish affairs.Of course you can find facts to suit your argument. I can find plenty not to suit it. Regions of Wales are the poorest in England, separate culture and language but no independence.
Wales has devolved rule and its own parliament, the exact thing that Ireland campaigned for for around 60 years. This seems to be sufficient to assuage desires for full independence, though there is still some discussion of such in Wales and particularly Scotland.Can I ask please where you get your information. Have you been educated in history and politics in any way or is this all self taught?
I have a degree in history, but I read enough outside that.Have you ever told a historian of the USSR that the problem with communism was that the people included were different cultures. Like, it'd work better with a homogenous group and the USSR may still be going.
A problem with communism? Cultures don't crop up in communism. It is antithetical to them. The Orthodox Church was suppressed in Russia just as the Catholic was suppressed in Poland. Different cultures could be seen as an inherent weakness of an overarching structure such as the USSR though, because the Kremlin (until Gorbachev) was determined to clamp down on any activities of the USSR's member states that could threaten Socialist ideology. The main threat consisted of member states breaking away from central authority. So, when you had the Hungarian revolution of 1956 it had to be ruthlessly crushed in order to prevent any other souveranist activity in the Eastern Bloc.Reallly. I get you want to make a point but stand back and think for a minute.
The great age of European empires (French, British) ended because of ethnic strife? Are you seriously continuing to claim that?
It ended because of nationalistic self-determination movements that used the respective empires' difficulty as their opportunity (to paraphrase a particular Irish nationalist).Liike in a modern world where human rights have become recognised and you have things happen like the boycott of south africa, the only reason you can't subjegate a group of people would be because they're not ethnically the same. Like we could deny the population of Cork voting rights, unreasonablly tax them, then murder and imprison them if they tried to do anything about it and it would continue to go ahead because they're also Irish.
I don't understand the hypothetical scenario you've laid out. Subjugation in countries tends to be by a majority group of a minority group, and in cases like South Africa the minority group (in power, not number) was defined by race. This is not particularly uncommon. The only large minority that ever typically existed in the republic of Ireland were Protestants, and they were highly discriminated against. The minority group in Northern Ireland were Catholics, and the discrimination against them is abundantly clear.Take a step back and think of what you are arguing.
Seriously just stop.
randomname
wat r u doin
randomname
stahp0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Pretty much.
You have a degreee in history and when asked is the case for Manchester independence the same as the case for Irish, you say 'pretty much'.
Can you maybe cite some of the books you've read or historians you've stuied under who are influencing you in this regard?0 -
That's not the argument: the USSR broke (back down) into individual countries that had their own identity. Had the USSR been limited to "Russia" or even "Russia and those areas of the surrounding countries (Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan etc.) consisting predominantly of Russian peoples" - then the USSR would have evolved into the modern Russian Federation but without a loss of territory.
As regards identities within the USSR, the Americans were fomenting dissent in the USSR based on Muslim identifying people from the Caucasus etc. Certainly there would have been less scope for them to do that if there were no separate identities (the US similarly supports (or recently supported- I'm not sure what the current status is) Sunni independence fighters in Iran )
I'm not quite sure what the argument is.
It stems from the question 'which empires fell apart due to ethnic strife'.
The answer wasRandomName2 wrote: »Roman Empire
Sasanian Empire (religious rather than ethnic)
Byzantine Empire (if you count invasion)
Hapsburg Empire (religious as well as ethnic)
Austrian Empire
French Empire (pick one)
Ottoman Empire
British Empire (if you count colonial bids for independence)
USSR (if you consider it to be an empire)
This is just off the top of my head.
Do you agree with that fash??
This has nothing to do with Muslims in Europe. Did the British Emprie fall apart due to ethnic strife?
It's amazing to see that people can look at the history of the british empire and come to the consclusion that races don't mix well. Rather than looking it as a type of injustice that the developed world no longer tolerates. Look at everything from the common sense and the rights of man to the Atlantic charter.0 -
You have a degreee in history and when asked is the case for Manchester independence the same as the case for Irish, you say 'pretty much'.
Can you maybe cite some of the books you've read or historians you've stuied under who are influencing you in this regard?
Funny little tid-bit from history; in neighbouring Liverpool was the only member of the Home Rule Party elected outside the island of Ireland - T.P. O'Connor was returned as a Home Rule MP for Liverpool Scotland (dont ask) from 1885 to 1929.
OK so maybe it's not THAT interesting but it make a nice break from the pedantic back and forth no?0 -
Following this thread and the unsupported assertion that empires fail because of ethnic strife is baffling but not surprising. No source has been cited to support this argument, simply someone stating it is the case and they have a degree in history. I have a degree in science but that was 18 years ago and I'm not going to make unsupported scientific arguments here because i studied it nearly two decades ago.
It seems we may actually be moving towards this post truth world. Objective fact is being replaced by subjective opinion and peddled as being the truth - interesting/scary times we live in!0 -
Following this thread and the unsupported assertion that empires fail because of ethnic strife is baffling but not surprising.
It is totally baffling. The Austrian Empire collapsed because all the cartographers got fired, and when they tried to draw the Austrian Empire on a map they couldn't help but get the borders totally messed up, resulting in the accidental independence of a half dozen eastern European countries that just happened to be defined by their majority culture and ethnic groups.
France losing its colonies had nothing to do with separate ethnic and cultural identities of the colonies, and immigration to France from those colonies has resulted in no tensions, because the citizens from those former colonies are indistinguishable, both ethnically and culturally, from Metropolitan France.
And cut and paste, whatever. This open goal is too easy, and insanity is tiresome, so I think I'm going to call a day on responding to tire kickers. Jesus Sand, what did you pull me into?
All these people with their unsupported agenda is baffling and must be a sign of a post truth world made up by the Fake News Media, and they got caught cold! Will @CNN, @nytimes and others apologize? Doubt it!I have a degree in science but that was 18 years ago
Thank you for the unasked for information.You have a degreeee in history and when asked is the case for Manchester independence the same as the case for Irish, you say 'pretty much'.
Can you maybe cite some of the books you've read or historians you've stuied under who are influencing you in this regard?
You aren't reading my answers very well. You misunderstood what I said in the bit you've semi quoted, and ignored most of my post, so forgive me if I don't really feel inclined to run around at your behest, which I have already done too much of.Irish Praetorian wrote: »Funny little tid-bit from history; in neighbouring Liverpool was the only member of the Home Rule Party elected outside the island of Ireland - T.P. O'Connor was returned as a Home Rule MP for Liverpool Scotland (dont ask) from 1885 to 1929.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he was Irish, wasn't he?0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Correct me if I'm wrong, but he was Irish, wasn't he?
You are quite correct, a native of Athlone and a student in Galway if memory serves. It's not surprising that the part of Britain that O'Connor was elected in was a hub for Irish migration at that time.0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »It is totally baffling. The Austrian Empire collapsed because all the cartographers got fired, and when they tried to draw the Austrian Empire on a map they couldn't help but get the borders totally messed up, resulting in the accidental independence of a half dozen eastern European countries that just happened to be defined by their majority culture and ethnic groups.
France losing its colonies had nothing to do with separate ethnic and cultural identities of the colonies, and immigration to France from those colonies has resulted in no tensions, because the citizens from those former colonies are indistinguishable, both ethnically and culturally, from Metropolitan France.
And cut and paste, whatever. This open goal is too easy, and insanity is tiresome, so I think I'm going to call a day on responding to tire kickers. Jesus Sand, what did you pull me into?
All these people with their unsupported agenda is baffling and must be a sign of a post truth world made up by the Fake News Media, and they got caught cold! Will @CNN, @nytimes and others apologize? Doubt it!
Thank you for the unasked for information.
You aren't reading my answers very well. You misunderstood what I said in the bit you've semi quoted, and ignored most of my post, so forgive me if I don't really feel inclined to run around at your behest, which I have already done too much of.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he was Irish, wasn't he?
I don't think anyone has understood what you said. Now you've just descended into mockery.
Maybe you can state the point clearly if you feel it's still worth arguing.
My feeling is that certain people wish to put forward the opinion that races shouldn't mix. so everywhere you see a nationality and independence, you feel this confirms your theory.
My feeling is that there are four flaws with this.
1: You have a very lose idea of national/ethnic/cultural identity. Calrifying this would help.
2: You see only the positives from your side. I'm sure you look at India and Pakistan as a case in favour of your argument but convieniently ignore all the other distinct cultures in India. Similarly, you feel that the Calatans are an example of your case but forget about the Galecians and Asturians.
3: Thirdly you completly ignore the motivations of all the countries trying to keep cultures together. Shouldn't Castillian Spanish want rid of the rest? Can you answer this.
4: Fourth. You view the correlation of any cultural identity with formation of a state to mean that the identity created the state but completly ignore cases where it didn't. Liek Brittany, Wales or Cornwall.0 -
Advertisement
-
All of which (although insufficiently strong as identities to force independence previously) have their own independence movements who depending on the sufficiently favourable (i.e. stressful) conditions are likely to become stronger - possibly sufficiently strong to break the chains that bind them.4: Fourth. You view the correlation of any cultural identity with formation of a state to mean that the identity created the state but completly ignore cases where it didn't. Liek Brittany, Wales or Cornwall.
Edit: there are independence movements in Asturias and Galicia also by the way:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galician_independence
And lots in various parts of India - some violent some less so:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_movements_of_India0 -
I don't think anyone has understood what you said. Now you've just descended into mockery.
Posters who don't want their arguments to get mocked should not call the positions of other posters insane, baffling, ludicrous whilst failing to display how their opponents position conforms to any of these things.My feeling is that certain people wish to put forward the opinion that races shouldn't mix. so everywhere you see a nationality and independence, you feel this confirms your theory.
Where did I ever say this? I said when you have distinct bodies of people, particularly when in a geographically defined area, that have a distinct culture and/or ethnicity from the general population of the country whose centralized authority they are under, the results generally aren't good. And they aren't!2: You see only the positives from your side. I'm sure you look at India and Pakistan as a case in favour of your argument but convieniently ignore all the other distinct cultures in India.
Yeah, because there totally wasn't any problems with the Sikhs in India.
There's actually deep rooted problems in India rooted in the different statuses that certain cultures and ethnicities have in India, but this is mixed up with both Hinduism Caste system and social classes as well, but I'd say it's far from harmonious. From what I know (which is actually not much) the central government seems to be trying to protect minorities from persecution which would occur by default.Similarly, you feel that the Calatans are an example of your case but forget about the Galecians and Asturians.
It's not so much forget as not actually know about in the first place. Looking at the Galecians they do indeed have an independence movement, which makes up about 15% of the Galecian (Parliament?) Can you offer a reason why the independcence movement isn't greater in Galecia, or didn't engage in the levels of miltantism as seen by the Basques? Certainly Catalonia's bids for independence weren't motivated by deprivation, quite the contrary Catalonia is one of the richest parts of Spain.3: Thirdly you completly ignore the motivations of all the countries trying to keep cultures together. Shouldn't Castillian Spanish want rid of the rest? Can you answer this.
This argument is going around in circles so much that I can quote myself.RandomName2 wrote: »That binary opposition, of those wanting to keep the country to which they belong great and powerful, and those wanting to be among people with which they feel kinship is a constant one.4: Fourth. You view the correlation of any cultural identity with formation of a state to mean that the identity created the state but completly ignore cases where it didn't. Liek Brittany, Wales or Cornwall.
I didn't ignore Wales, they have devolved rule, which Ireland would have been happy with at one stage. Who knows, if WW1 hadn't been a thing, we may still have home rule. The island still does have home rule, over the border though (if the power sharing ever gets agreed again between the two opposing cultural factions).
But you make a good point with Brittany and Cornwall, but here's my contention - they aren't that different. The Britans (?) speak French, their culture is predominantly French, their identity is predominantly French. If you went back in time to the 12th century that wouldn't be the case, but the cultural divisions between them and the rest of France and blurred over time, and they are pretty much assimilated by this stage. Same thing for Cornwall. Some people speak Cornish, but very few, and none as a first language. Cornish culture is almost indistinguishable from English culture.
I mean there are degrees of separation. The Irish nationalists were painfully aware of this, which was the whole reason for the revival of the Irish language and Gaelic sports, to try and make us more different from the rest of the United Kingdom and thereby spur the drive for independence.0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Where did I ever say this? I said when you have distinct bodies of people, particularly when in a geographically defined area, that have a distinct culture and/or ethnicity from the general population of the country whose centralized authority they are under, the results generally aren't good. And they aren't!
So basically what you're saying now is...
Centralised authority of foreign peoples leads to bad results. Or to paraphrase 'imperialism leads to problems'
Sounds different when the imperialism or centralised authority is what leads to the problems though unlike the other day when you said it was ethnic differences.
As regards you moving the goalposts with all your examples of separatism. (Remember, you started this by saying ethnic differences were strong enough to bring about the end of the global age of empires, not that there have been nationalists in general). Like I said the other day, there's always some a55hole telling people they shouldn't mix. Treat people fairly well and they won't listen to them much.
But when people feel it's in their interest, the one or two people can become a movement.
Interesting that perhaps the most compelling argument for Brexit in the end was the cost per day. Nationalism alone is not enough. (Similarly with Catalonia, their problem is they are sinking money in to support less profitable regions in Spain) . Ironically given how beneficial it may be for Scotland to now leave the UK, they may get it passed next referendum to join Europe.
Your mistake was to think culture and ethnicity are in the foreground and are causes of this cases whereas they're reactions. Most easily examplified by Gaelic revivalism.0 -
So basically what you're saying now is...
Centralised authority of foreign peoples leads to bad results. Or to paraphrase 'imperialism leads to problems'
Sounds different when the imperialism or centralised authority is what leads to the problems though unlike the other day when you said it was ethnic differences.
In many ways it's same difference. Strip away some of the empty baggage and imperialism, without separate peoples that are defined by distinct cultures and ethnicities, and all you are left with is authoritarianism.As regards you moving the goalposts with all your examples of separatism. (Remember, you started this by saying ethnic differences were strong enough to bring about the end of the global age of empires, not that there have been nationalists in general).
I never said that ethnic differences were strong enough to bring about the end of the global age of empires! I deliberately tried to take examples from different eras! For what it's worth I'd say that ethnic and cultural differences were the key ingredient for the main empires that were present at the turn of the 20th century collapsing, and that it took one or the other of the world wars (depending on which empire you're referring to) to weaken the central imperial authority enough for the peoples under the yoke of those empires to break away (granted that this process had already started for the weaker empires). So okay I didn't make the argument initially, but I think it's a sound enough one.Like I said the other day, there's always some a55hole telling people they shouldn't mix. Treat people fairly well and they won't listen to them much.
On the contrary there tend to be less problems if peoples are well mixed (what is usually referred to as a 'melting pot'). It's when people coalesce into their own separate communities that there tend to be problems. Of course there are always those who profit from setting people against one another.Your mistake was to think culture and ethnicity are in the foreground and are causes of this cases whereas they're reactions.
I don't think it's mutually exclusive.0 -
I suggest people who support mass immigration read the book the Camp of the Saints which was a novel written in the 70s but is now accurately predicting what is happening right now with mass immigration from the third world. Sounds like an excellent read and warning of what could potentially happen if we allow mass immigration to continue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints0 -
I suggest people who support mass immigration read the book the Camp of the Saints which was a novel written in the 70s but is now accurately predicting what is happening right now with mass immigration from the third world. Sounds like an excellent read and warning of what could potentially happen if we allow mass immigration to continue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints
Get enough fiction here, thanks.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »The anti-immigration school are forever telling us things we already know as if we were totally blind to them, as if they had posed some clever trick anecdote on us, as if we were entirely dispassionate and uncaring to some of the problems which immigration has undoubtedly caused. "What about the raped girls in Germany?!" they say, and "Don't you care about kids being blown up at concerts?" -- asking these questions with the most unconvincing tone of superior grasp of compassion. I simply get to a point where I feel compelled to say to many of them. . .well. . . seeing as you perceive yourself as having such an elevated sense of righteousness, perhaps you might translate that into an elevated sense of intellect and lead us silly blind dispassionate snowflakes down some practical path of resolution.
The answers never really come. The circle just kicks off again with some reference to Malmo being a sort of post-apocalyptic wasteland, or France being the most dangerous place anyone could ever hope to find themselves. Lots of eloquent dramatic description ---- but answers? Practical answers? None. Nada. Zilch.
This is highly disingenuous. I've spent a significant amount of time being challenged to evidence that there is any negative outcomes to mass migration, and that it is overall a net negative for Europeans. Either you were not aware of the evidence so you're being dishonest above, or you were being dishonest in pretending to be unaware of the evidence.
I'd also note that I find the above line of argument to be very poor. Should people take a position on climate change being a negative outcome, they are not challenged to provide 'practical answers' for what is recognised as immense, multi-generational challenge.
You (finally) concede that mass migration is negative for Europeans, but then move on to placing this unrealistic standard that now the other side must solve it or be discredited. Oh, and we must do it in 200 words or less so you don't get bored with long posts!Sajid Javid wrote: »Modern day western Islam has begun moving towards change at a pace never seen before. Female Muslims now for the first time have the same access to information technology as non Muslim females empowering them with knowledge.
Even if this claim is correct I'd make two points. Firstly, 'progress' can quickly be reversed as demonstrated in countries like Iran and Turkey. All attempts to 'reform' Islam over the centuries founder as Islamic conservatives can and do murder reformers and critics. It's why Western newspapers are terrified of offending Muslims.
Secondly, even to the extent Islam can or does reform itself, how is this an argument for further mass migration into Europe? Europe has already hosted two world wars and centuries of religious and ethnic conflict. It doesn't need to volunteer to host even more of it.Why the straw man? The corollary of "multi-ethnic States (e.g. Belgium, Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Lebanon) tend to be dysfunctional is not "homogenous States are utopias" - it is "homogenous States have one less headache to deal with"
Exactly. No one is arguing that states without multi-ethnic conflict are utopias without any problems. But they face those problems without multi-ethnic conflict hindering them.
Mass migration is a policy which is demonstrably a bad policy for Europeans whose own advocates cannot support it. It's perfectly reasonable to advocate a bad policy should be halted without any further requirements.0 -
This is highly disingenuous. I've spent a significant amount of time being challenged to evidence that there is any negative outcomes to mass migration, and that it is overall a net negative for Europeans. Either you were not aware of the evidence so you're being dishonest above, or you were being dishonest in pretending to be unaware of the evidence.
I'd also note that I find the above line of argument to be very poor. Should people take a position on climate change being a negative outcome, they are not challenged to provide 'practical answers' for what is recognised as immense, multi-generational challenge.
You (finally) concede that mass migration is negative for Europeans, but then move on to placing this unrealistic standard that now the other side must solve it or be discredited. Oh, and we must do it in 200 words or less so you don't get bored with long posts!
I am not bored by the length of your posts Sand -- just frustrated that they go absolutely nowhere. When challenged to look forward, you raise tenuous and often ludicrous examples from antiquity. When asked to transpose your beliefs into [even attempted] solutions, you complain that other people aren't asked to do it -- which is of course nothing more than a cop-out.
And no, I don't concede that mass migration (a term you always carefully use) has been a negative for Europe. I "concede" that it presents challenges and difficulties. That's not even a concession in truth -- because I have never advocated otherwise, nor do I see anyone on this forum advocating otherwise. I find it strange that a guy as articulate as yourself chose to interpret my words in that way -- while simultaneously firing the word 'disingenuous' around.
All I ask is that you break out of this little intellectual merry-go-round you take us all on, and actually explain why anyone should ever be persuaded to your point of view if it offers no meaningful answers -- only complaints. If you think the governments are getting it wrong.. . if you think the commentators are getting it wrong . . if you think pro-immigration people are getting it wrong. . . .then (seeing as being asked to think of your own solutions seems almost offensive to you) at the very least point us to the examples of countries who are getting it right, and how much better those countries are than ours.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »I am not bored by the length of your posts Sand -- just frustrated that they go absolutely nowhere. When challenged to look forward, you raise tenuous and often ludicrous examples from antiquity. When asked to transpose your beliefs into [even attempted] solutions, you complain that other people aren't asked to do it -- which is of course nothing more than a cop-out.
And no, I don't concede that mass migration (a term you always carefully use) has been a negative for Europe. I "concede" that it presents challenges and difficulties. That's not even a concession in truth -- because I have never advocated otherwise, nor do I see anyone on this forum advocating otherwise. I find it strange that a guy as articulate as yourself chose to interpret my words in that way -- while simultaneously firing the word 'disingenuous' around.
All I ask is that you break out of this little intellectual merry-go-round you take us all on, and actually explain why anyone should ever be persuaded to your point of view if it offers no meaningful answers -- only complaints. If you think the governments are getting it wrong.. . if you think the commentators are getting it wrong . . if you think pro-immigration people are getting it wrong. . . .then (seeing as being asked to think of your own solutions seems almost offensive to you) at the very least point us to the examples of countries who are getting it right, and how much better those countries are than ours.
I'd second this.
Saying..."mass migration is bad because 'insert latest argument in this case here...'" doesn't really achieve much.
While some posters such as Sand make the distinction that 'mass migration' has potential to be harmful, others turn this whole thread into muslim bashing.
It's very hard for anyone arguing against standard muslim bashing on this thread to correctly separate the two factions. This is because the former can at time drift into quite anti-muslim sentiment and often post dubious claims, and also because they never act to call out the latter(bar one recent occasion I believe).
It often feels like this thread is made up of largely vehement anti-muslims and then just more considered anti-muslims.
Importantly, whenever an attempt is made to discuss solutions to the obvious problems that mass migration brings, no discussion ensues. The quietness is eventually broken when some story or study with an anti-muslim or anti-immigrant tinge breaks and it all begins again.
While it's not anyone's duty to find a solution, without further discussion of the situation Europe finds itself and what to do next, this thread essentially functions as a massive circcular echo chamber and everyone involved is just hugely wasting their time.
If you either believe in the far right vision of the capitals of Europe dotted with mosques and Sharia law by the year 2050 OR that mass migration has been fine and we should just progress with open borders, you're clearly a total ****1ing idiot.
However, no-one is willing to discuss what the actualy reality is and what actions will make it better or worse, which is odd because we all live here.0 -
Advertisement
-
However, no-one is willing to discuss what the actualy reality is and what actions will make it better or worse, which is odd because we all live here.
Solutions: recognizing the difficulties and prioritizing integration measures. That means being strongly aware of the limitations of our capacity (and see following point : willingness) to help.
Massively increase the resources (and the expectation of cost going forward) spent on ensuring integration of those permitted to remain.
Supporting (and listening to) minorities within the minorities: ex- Muslims, gay Muslims, women etc. - to break down group identity.
Prioritizing migration of such minorities as well as migration from countries with more secular minded populations: Turkey, Iran etc.0
Advertisement