Migration Megathread

Danzy

Midlife wrote: »

Just seeing as poeple here are posting this utter rubbish blaming Muslims for European anti-semitism. Literally, just read that last line again.



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/anti-semitism-rising-sharply-across-europe-latest-figures-show-1.3794934

The far right rises, antisemitism rises. The far right blames it on immigrants.

In Britain the next likely PM is a man endorsed by Nick Griffin, BNP leader , David Duke KKK leader and described by the New York Times as Europe's most prominent antisemitic.

An EU Agency laid the responsibility for most antisemitism in Europe on Islam and next the Left.

ancapailldorcha

Posts deleted and user banned. This is a discussion forum, not an outlet for ranting and bile.

RandomName2

Midlife wrote: »

So independence campaigns by colonised nations against the imperial centre of power is now 'ethnic strife'

Impressive

The thing that is impressive is how good a job people can do at acting as if they are far more stupid than they really are.

What was the question?

Brian? wrote: »

Which empires fell apart because of ethnic
strife?

An example would be the British Empire.

You disagree with this, and say that the British Empire is still in existence, because there was no ethnic strife.

Or perhaps you are saying that the British Empire fell apart, but bids for independence by, for instance, India, had nothing to do with ethnic strife. That is to say that there was no aspiration for Indians to be ruled by Indians as opposed to by English people.

There genuinely was no ethnic strife in the US War of Independence (or at least none that was particularly consequential) because the area of contention was taxation without representation. This was an exception however, and in most countries that have sought independence, ethnic, religious, and cultural differences have been key to stoking the ambitions for devolved rule, independence, and rebellion. This sort of thing is pretty key to many empires falling apart. These empires don't have to have large oceans separating the hinterland from the peripheral territories though. The Ottoman Empire is an example of different ethnicities being controlled by a central power in Istanbul. In this sense you could say that the Arabian peninsula was not a 'colony' but the exact same dynamic applied.

When you have minority ethnicities, that exist in a geographical distinct area, they will invariably want to separate from the majority ethnicity except where they can exert control over the majority ethnicity. South Africa, etc. Interestingly bids for independence by the minority populations in countries like Rhodesia were motivated by a desire of the minority population to attempt to dominate the majority population, and devolved rule or independence gave them more ability to achieve this. This again you could say is a clear example of ethic strife undermining an empire.

Midlife wrote: »

this relates somehow to mulsims currently immigrating to Europe.

Impressive.

I'll remind you that the question was whether any empires ever collapsed due to ethnic strife. You say you don't believe that any empires ever collapsed due to ethnic strife, and you are entitled to that position (even if it's wrong).

So I answered the question, and whilst doing so I said that migration is very similar to migration. I didn't ask the question, so perhaps you would be better off looking at where the question originated from, rather than biting my head off with a ridiculous reply that no empire ever collapsed to due nationalistic tensions motivated by ethnic strife.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

The thing that is impressive is how good a job people can do at acting as if they are far more stupid than they really are.

What was the question?



An example would be the British Empire.

You disagree with this, and say that the British Empire is still in existence, because there was no ethnic strife.

Or perhaps you are saying that the British Empire fell apart, but bids for independence by, for instance, India, had nothing to do with ethnic strife. That is to say that there was no aspiration for Indians to be ruled by Indians as opposed to by English people.

There genuinely was no ethnic strife in the US War of Independence (or at least none that was particularly consequential) because the area of contention was taxation without representation. This was an exception however, and in most countries that have sought independence, ethnic, religious, and cultural differences have been key to stoking the ambitions for devolved rule, independence, and rebellion. This sort of thing is pretty key to many empires falling apart. These empires don't have to have large oceans separating the hinterland from the peripheral territories though. The Ottoman Empire is an example of different ethnicities being controlled by a central power in Istanbul. In this sense you could say that the Arabian peninsula was not a 'colony' but the exact same dynamic applied.

When you have minority ethnicities, that exist in a geographical distinct area, they will invariably want to separate from the majority ethnicity except where they can exert control over the majority ethnicity. South Africa, etc. Interestingly bids for independence by the minority populations in countries like Rhodesia were motivated by a desire of the minority population to attempt to dominate the majority population, and devolved rule or independence gave them more ability to achieve this. This again you could say is a clear example of ethic strife undermining an empire.




I'll remind you that the question was whether any empires ever collapsed due to ethnic strife. You say you don't believe that any empires ever collapsed due to ethnic strife, and you are entitled to that position (even if it's wrong).

So I answered the question, and whilst doing so I said that migration is very similar to migration. I didn't ask the question, so perhaps you would be better off looking at where the question originated from, rather than biting my head off with a ridiculous reply that no empire ever collapsed to due nationalistic tensions motivated by ethnic strife.

The mental gymnastics here are absolutely first class, gold medal standard stuff.

You're essentially arguing that any time a conquered people fight for freedom from an imperialist conquered is "ethnic strife".

Even if I agree that the primary reason these empires fella apart was ethnic strife(I don't, but that's not important now), how does this relate to Muslim migration to Europe?

Europe is not an empire. Europe is not conquering Muslim countries. Conversely Muslims are not invading and conquering Europe. Some Muslims are moving to Europe. By 2050 about 10-15% of Europe may be Muslim. But then again they may not.

4068ac1elhodqr

Brian? wrote: »

Conversely Muslims are not invading and conquering Europe. Some Muslims are moving to Europe. By 2050 about 10-15% of Europe may be Muslim. But then again they may not.

Perhaps the most accurate expectation would be the 'medium' figure offered from the PEW Centre, which is only 11.2% by 2050.

However... as many Eastern states reject their ideology or mass movement (Poland will still be <0.2% muslim by 2050), it means there will be weighted factors upon more open, liberal Western countries.

These are the 'medium/conservative' percentage projections for 2050:

Sweden: 20% (their high figure is 30.6%!)
France: 17.4%
UK: 16.7%
Belgium: 15.1%
Norway: 13% ...and so on.

There may well also be a decline in other relgiions as atheism takes hold.

Whilst not an 'invasion' if e.g. Sweden was to become 30.6% by 2050, it would certainly be 'fabric changing' to the whole identity of Sweden. It became an outright Christian country about 1,000yrs ago, when Scandanivia converted from their own pagan viking/norse gods and has been that way since, without challenge.

Irish Praetorian

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Whilst not an 'invasion' if e.g. Sweden was to become 30.6% by 2050, it would certainly be 'fabric changing' to the whole identity of Sweden. It became an outright Christian country about 1,000yrs ago, when Scandanivia converted from their own pagan viking/norse gods and has been that way since, without challenge.

To be fair, and I think this really bears out your point rather than diminishing it, the transformation of Sweden in the middle of those thousand years from a Catholic to a Protestant state, was not without a significant period of violence. And that was between people who shared (setting aside religion) a common language, culture and (for the most part) governance.

I think in a lot of cases this argument isn't distinguished so much between those on the political left and right, but rather between those who look at history and think that in the present day who believe that over time we have escaped the shackles and horrors of the past, and those like myself who conclude that the present day despite its wonders, it not some preordained order that cannot be shattered by events and circumstances.

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

The mental gymnastics here are absolutely first class, gold medal standard stuff.

You should cut this sort of frilly rhetoric out of your posts

Brian? wrote: »

You're essentially arguing that any time a conquered people fight for freedom from an imperialist conquered is "ethnic strife".

I'm saying something that is patently obvious, and that is that ethnic differences is a driving motivation for souverainism. It always has been and always will. This is way bigger than anything to do with any individual country, or differences in religion.

You asked whether empires have collapsed due to ethnic strife and you don't like the answer.

I am aware that the question itself is not well phrased, and I took that into consideration in my answer. Was the USSR an empire? Is a struggle for independence strife? Is war, strife? No matter what way you look at it, the answer ends of being the same, even if some of the variables change. Even if you say that the USSR wasn't an empire, it would be hard to argue that the Austrian Empire wasn't an empire. Even if you argue that cultural differences are distinct from ethnic differences, there's still plenty of examples to choose from.

Brian? wrote: »

Even if I agree that the primary reason these empires fella apart was ethnic strife(I don't, but that's not important now)

You should flag in future when your questions aren't actually questions but are just rhetorical devices, where you have no interest in the answer, but will just thank whoever lazily contradicts me, even if what they are saying is clearly wrong, because who cares about truth when you have an agenda?

Brian? wrote: »

how does this relate to Muslim migration to Europe?

I don't know, that's a separate question, but before I put some work into answering it I'll need to know whether this is just a rhetorical device, or a genuine question.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

You should cut this sort of frilly rhetoric out of your posts

It may be frilly, but it’s not rhetoric.

I'm saying something that is patently obvious, and that is that ethnic differences is a driving motivation for souverainism. It always has been and always will. This is way bigger than anything to do with any individual country, or differences in religion.

You asked whether empires have collapsed due to ethnic strife and you don't like the answer.

No. You gave the wrong answer. You named several empires where “ethnic strife” was way down the list of reasons they collapsed.

I am aware that the question itself is not well phrased, and I took that into consideration in my answer. Was the USSR an empire? Is a struggle for independence strife? Is war, strife? No matter what way you look at it, the answer ends of being the same, even if some of the variables change. Even if you say that the USSR wasn't an empire, it would be hard to argue that the Austrian Empire wasn't an empire. Even if you argue that cultural differences are distinct from ethnic differences, there's still plenty of examples to choose from.



You should flag in future when your questions aren't actually questions but are just rhetorical devices, where you have no interest in the answer, but will just thank whoever lazily contradicts me, even if what they are saying is clearly wrong, because who cares about truth when you have an agenda?



I don't know, that's a separate question, but before I put some work into answering it I'll need to know whether this is just a rhetorical device, or a genuine question.

You realise this is a thread about Muslim migration to Europe? Which frames this entire debate.

Nothing I’m saying is a “rhetorical device”. I’m not attempting to illicit an emotional response.

Midlife

RandomName2 wrote: »

You asked whether empires have collapsed due to ethnic strife and you don't like the answer.

The answer is a load of rubbish to be honest.

You're essentially intrepreting things like the Easter rising and the war of independence as ethnic strife?

RandomName2

Midlife wrote: »

The answer is a load of rubbish to be honest.

Strong argument sir.

Midlife wrote: »

You're essentially intrepreting [sic] things like the Easter rising and the war of independence as ethnic strife?

So you're saying that we should live like the lobsters?

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

No. You gave the wrong answer. You named several empires where “ethnic strife” was way down the list of reasons they collapsed.

Way down the list, yet you are not able to proffer any other explanation as to why they collapsed.

I mean, it would be interesting to see you try with the Ottoman Empire, or Austrian Empire, or USSR (if you consider the USSR to be an empire), etc. It is clear that ethnic strife was a leading cause of these empires collapsing. It wasn't in isolation of course. War and financial difficulties also had their part to play, but were clearly less important reasons than ethnic strife. Ethnic strife wasn't just 'ethnic' though, it was cultural as well.

To see people argue against this is ludicrous.

Well Midlife isn't actually arguing, he's flailing his arms around angrily.

Brian? wrote: »

You realise this is a thread about Muslim migration to Europe? Which frames this entire debate.

Sure, but that doesn't in itself negate what Sand originally said. Ethnic strife has always been a major reason for empires collapsing, but interlaced with cultural strife as well. The two things, cultural and ethnic, usually go hand in hand, so much so that people will often use the words interchangeably.

Usually large scale migration in Europe (and elsewhere) has been related to warfare. The migration may be part of conquest (like Norman invasion of England) peoples being forced to move due to local adversity (like Gothic invasion of Roman Empire), or might result from displacement due to the consequences of war (like after WW2). Large scale migration into lands that were already occupied was typically resisted by those already in those lands, at least until the point where the original occupiers could no longer resist.

Okay, let's fast forward to present day. The EU isn't as you said, an empire (though it seems to be slowly moving in that direction). Were it an empire, the main ethnic (and cultural) strife would be between competing nationalities that no longer had any independence under a central European power. The EU isn't analogous with any of the empires I've previously mentioned, so discussion of it falling apart due to ethnic tensions between Muslim migrants and 'Europeans' is irrelevant. For what it's worth it's clear that the EU has some surface parallels with the USSR, but the USSR as being a union of independent socialist states was a clear lie, when the organisation exercised absolute control from the Kremlin.

Muslim isn't an ethnicity, but covers a plurality of ethnicities, including some which are European (like Albanians). Islam has been a lowest common denominator used in relation to recent migration into Europe, and one that I have to wonder whether is particularly helpful. It is a really broad definition without even covering all migrants, so I fail to see a great deal of usage outside of appealing to far-right folk who, like their far-left brethren, like to see everything in black and white.

It also doesn't factor in the fact that there are specific ethnic identities among Muslim migrants. In France the predominant ethnicity is Algerian, though some of their other former colonies feature heavily as well. In Germany, Turkish is a very distinct ethnicity, not that Germany had much history with Turkey except the German's tendency towards morally dubious expediency with little thought for long term consequences.

Very recent migration has featured a very large number of ethnicities, and that's a good thing. As long as migrants are less likely to cluster into distinct communities separate from the country they have moved into, the less likely there will be trouble in the future. However, the tendency for them to be Muslim may prove a strong enough cohesive power to make them separate from their host country. Seeing that a lot of cultural norms are encompassed with religion, this is a realistic concern.

MrFresh

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Indeed, particularly specific when the data table I referred to earlier pertained only to those who had suffered in serious anti-Semitic incidents.

More to the point, what exactly would you have me make of that disclaimer - well this is not representative of all European Jews so there is now no problem? Should I extend the same philosophy to our previous point about right-wing anti-Semitic attacks?

It shows something which would benefit from proper study.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Way down the list, yet you are not able to proffer any other explanation as to why they collapsed.

I mean, it would be interesting to see you try with the Ottoman Empire, or Austrian Empire, or USSR (if you consider the USSR to be an empire), etc. It is clear that ethnic strife was a leading cause of these empires collapsing. It wasn't in isolation of course. War and financial difficulties also had their part to play, but were clearly less important reasons than ethnic strife. Ethnic strife wasn't just 'ethnic' though, it was cultural as well.

To see people argue against this is ludicrous.

Well Midlife isn't actually arguing, he's flailing his arms around angrily.



Sure, but that doesn't in itself negate what Sand originally said. Ethnic strife has always been a major reason for empires collapsing, but interlaced with cultural strife as well. The two things, cultural and ethnic, usually go hand in hand, so much so that people will often use the words interchangeably.

Usually large scale migration in Europe (and elsewhere) has been related to warfare. The migration may be part of conquest (like Norman invasion of England) peoples being forced to move due to local adversity (like Gothic invasion of Roman Empire), or might result from displacement due to the consequences of war (like after WW2). Large scale migration into lands that were already occupied was typically resisted by those already in those lands, at least until the point where the original occupiers could no longer resist.

Okay, let's fast forward to present day. The EU isn't as you said, an empire (though it seems to be slowly moving in that direction). Were it an empire, the main ethnic (and cultural) strife would be between competing nationalities that no longer had any independence under a central European power. The EU isn't analogous with any of the empires I've previously mentioned, so discussion of it falling apart due to ethnic tensions between Muslim migrants and 'Europeans' is irrelevant. For what it's worth it's clear that the EU has some surface parallels with the USSR, but the USSR as being a union of independent socialist states was a clear lie, when the organisation exercised absolute control from the Kremlin.

Muslim isn't an ethnicity, but covers a plurality of ethnicities, including some which are European (like Albanians). Islam has been a lowest common denominator used in relation to recent migration into Europe, and one that I have to wonder whether is particularly helpful. It is a really broad definition without even covering all migrants, so I fail to see a great deal of usage outside of appealing to far-right folk who, like their far-left brethren, like to see everything in black and white.

It also doesn't factor in the fact that there are specific ethnic identities among Muslim migrants. In France the predominant ethnicity is Algerian, though some of their other former colonies feature heavily as well. In Germany, Turkish is a very distinct ethnicity, not that Germany had much history with Turkey except the German's tendency towards morally dubious expediency with little thought for long term consequences.

Very recent migration has featured a very large number of ethnicities, and that's a good thing. As long as migrants are less likely to cluster into distinct communities separate from the country they have moved into, the less likely there will be trouble in the future. However, the tendency for them to be Muslim may prove a strong enough cohesive power to make them separate from their host country. Seeing that a lot of cultural norms are encompassed with religion, this is a realistic concern.

You're comparing occupations to immigration and saying they'll lead to the same issues. It's not a logical comparison.

RandomName2

MrFresh wrote: »

You're comparing occupations to immigration and saying they'll lead to the same issues. It's not a logical comparison.

What.

The Normans occupied England? The Vikings occupied Dublin? The Lombards occupied Italy? Russia occupied Kaliningrad? I don't think I have ever heard anyone use that type of phrase in that context. Occupation has no specific connotation with immigration whatsoever. You do get some people using the word 'occupy' erroneously when they are making a political point, like saying that Britain occupied Ireland for 800 years.

Occupy means exactly that - the occupation by a foreign power without any intention to rule or incorporate it. Tension in WW2 between French, and German occupiers, had nothing to do with German immigration! (except perhaps in Alsace Lorraine which Germany annexed briefly)

I don't see where you are coming from with 'occupation'.

Edit: For what it's worth I don't see the Normans, Vikings, or Lombards as particularly analogous to modern immigration. I was using these examples to illustrate that large scale immigration and warfare have traditionally gone hand in hand. I thought this was particularly relevant since Brian? specifically mentioned the Normans in a previous post in the context of his saying that 'large scale immigration has always been part and parcel of Europe' (my paraphrase)

4068ac1elhodqr

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

To be fair, and I think this really bears out your point rather than diminishing it, the transformation of Sweden in the middle of those thousand years from a Catholic to a Protestant state, was not without a significant period of violence. And that was between people who shared (setting aside religion) a common language, culture and (for the most part) governance.

I think in a lot of cases this argument isn't distinguished so much between those on the political left and right, but rather between those who look at history and think that in the present day that we have escaped the *shackles and horrors of the past*, and those like myself who conclude that the present day despite its wonders, it not some preordained order that cannot be shattered by events and circumstances.

Not sure what point your making, would you support the speedy transformation/erosion of cultural identity of 1,000yrs or so, all within decades?

As for escaping the 'shackles of the past', all well and good. But what horrors did very peaceful/liberal Sweden have over the millenia (outside of world/global wars, that effected everyone).

Going by recent quality of life and world rankings, they have actually dropped Stockholm down a dozen places (nevermind the delight that is Malmo).

Then there is the question over shackles of the future, whereby women in particular might become discouraged from independence, employment and education.

Are 'women only' (for their own safety) music festivals really enlightenment. Is having no-go areas with enhanced/new border checks (due to elevated security risks) really progress?

Irish Praetorian

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Not sure what point your making, would you support the speedy transformation/erosion of cultural identity of 1,000yrs or so, all within decades?

As for escaping the 'shackles of the past', all well and good. But what horrors did very peaceful/liberal Sweden have over the millenia (outside of world/global wars, that effected everyone).

Going by recent quality of life and world rankings, they have actually dropped Stockholm down a dozen places (nevermind the delight that is Malmo).

Then there is the question over shackles of the future, whereby women in particular might become discouraged from independence, employment and education.

Are 'women only' (for their own safety) music festivals really enlightenment. Is having no-go areas with enhanced/new border checks (due to elevated security risks) really progress?

No, the point I'm making is that you are right to identify the kinds of stress that can be placed on a society when dealing with mass migration, and that such stress is particularly important to observe when many people seem to have the idea that our societies have reached some kind of nirvana and will never again face cultural battles or economic hardships.

This, essentially, is the substance of my point about the 'shackles of the past', it is not to say that we are now better than our predecessors and have figured out how things ought to be; rather it is the statement that we owe our present (and relatively pleasant) circumstances to the choices and sacrifices those generations made. For us now to say that, for example, we are able to handle the kind of unprecedented mass movement of people, when so much of European history has played witness to fairly bloody ethnic struggles, is in my view utterly naive.

And some of the points you have made are very much examples of this; we appear to have operation our migration policy on the assumption that everyone was either like us or wanted to be like us. And now it turns out that some people might want to live in Europe for example, but not be particularly enthusiastic about gay people for example (to put it very mildly) or might hold the view that women should be in the home and not the workplace. I think these are serious issues, and the idea that we can sweep them under the rug and have the same kind of migration policies that have characterised much of Western Europe in recent decades, is folly.

the immortals

Islam in the UK is responsible for for fgm, forced marriage, horrific so called Honour crimes against young women by their own families, these facts are easily verified by a quick Google search, why the hell would anyone want this in their country??????

Irish Praetorian

the immortals wrote: »

Islam in the UK is responsible for for fgm, forced marriage, horrific so called Honour crimes against young women by their own families, these facts are easily verified by a quick Google search, why the hell would anyone want this in their country??????

If I can play devil's advocate for a moment, which I think given my track record in these debates I might be best suited for, I'll give you what I think is going on.
Long story short, what we might call 'defenders of immigration' (its a problematic title but it might do for now), well they don't want to see the forced marriage or honour killings either. However, I think they take the view that such acts are simply unfortunate rarities, just as they might be for the existing population of a country, and shouldn't be taken as representative of either the migrant population as a whole, or indicative of deeper problems within a migrant population. More than that, I think perhaps as a product of more 'optimistic' politics, they don't have quite the same pessimistic view of what might happen in the future that I suspect people with more conservative politics have* (certainly I would include myself in the category of pessimists). So essentially it comes down to the competing views that maybe mass migration will mean ethno-religious strife in a troubled and uncertain future or maybe it will mean more people saved from poverty and horrible conditions without too much difficulty by a host society. Anyway, that's just my deduction on the matter, I suspect we might have a few people here who can give us it straight from the horses mouth.

*Though I find it amusing that when it comes to the environment the sides seem to switch and more conservative individuals tend to be more optimistic whereas more liberal individuals have a far grimmer view.

Sand

Brian? wrote: »

Fine straw man. Who’s advocating open borders? Not I, nor anyone in this thread.

You say that, but why then is there such anger and opposition when anyone advocates that migration policy for any country should be made in the interests of that country's people and no one else?

People are making very mild points that mass migration is effecting immense demographic changes on western Europe in what is a very short period of time, and that it is not in the interests of European people. If your views are so conservative and reasonable, why are you so exercised in voicing your disagreement?

You may claim there is no such thing as open border advocates, but what else do we call people who are utterly opposed to any effective border controls?

You’re equating migration and invasion, I’ll file it under “awful nonsense” in your own parlance. Europe is not currently under threat of invasion by any foreign power. People are migrating here, not invading.

I'm not equating it at all. I don't believe Europe's history is one of constant mass migrations, which is what is claimed and what I responded do.

If it wasn’t for mad migration you wouldn’t have the term Anglo Saxon. Or French. Or Norman.

Now you're equating invasion and migration. I'd point out that each of those invasions displaced and dispossessed the people living there, and they resisted it. It wasn't welcomed.

Midlife wrote: »

So you don't believe it to be fixed.

I believe the future is influenced by the policies you make. If you make poor policy choices, you are going to have poor outcomes. Europe has a widespread Islamic insurgency, because it encouraged mass migration. Thousands of UK girls were tortured and raped because the UK encouraged mass migration. Europeans have to pay increased social welfare bills because their countries encouraged mass migration. Germany has an increasing antisemitism problem because it encouraged mass migration.

The point I was making was that advocates of open borders and other neoliberal causes are still convinced we are at the end of history. That humanity and society is on a constant and irreversible ascent to their utopia. That any policy can be followed and no serious consequence has to be considered because everyone will ultimately align with their beliefs. I think is extremely naive, and I contrasted this absolute and fixed certainty in the face of all evidence with the way history is constantly revised and changed to better fit current needs - I.E. ridiculous statements such as Europe has *always* had mass migration, hence the mass migration today is nothing new. The same people who talk such errant nonsense would at the same time decry fake news in the era of Trump with no self awareness or sense of irony.

I mean you've argued that the migration that happened to the US 500 years ago brought about results that will essentially be replicated in modern migration to Europe as the outcome was fixed and unchanging.

Mass migration creates enduring, non-assimilated ethnic enclaves, which creates ethnic strife, which tears states apart. States that endure are based on a common identity. There is no happy outcomes when an indigenous people are displaced and must accommodate an entire new people entering their territory peacefully or violently.

It is a story repeated again and again throughout history.

If the future's not fixed, surely you should be advocating for policy and change rather than essentially using every random fact you can find to say Muslim's in Europe will essentially never work.

Oh it will eventually "work". Today we are all Irish, and we can tell ourselves sanitised narratives about the Irish being a nation of Viking, Norman, English and Scottish immigrants, leaving out the centuries of suffering and bloodshed and the hugely negative impact on the indigenous Gaelic people. In the future, they will tell themselves similar sanitised narratives, leaving out the mayhem and bloodshed such as the suicide bombing of children attending an Ariana Grande concert.

But I'm not concerned that it will all work out in the end, long after I am dead. I'm concerned about the suffering and bloodshed that we are already seeing and will continue to endure for centuries to come. You're steely conviction that in the very, very, very long run it will all be fine is cold comfort for the girls of Rotheram.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Really? But if you are being consistent then surely you would advocate that all religions and races pursue their own version of lite-Zionism and go find their own homelands where they live in perfect homogenous peace

It always ends up that way. In the case of ethnic conflict, either a homogeneous identity is converged upon or the state fragments into homogeneous states. Multi-ethnic strife is not an enduring steady state, though many states have tried through increasing repression. Ask Yugoslavia.

It's a rather long-winded way of saying that you aren't willing to stand by the practical reality of your views. I'm willing to stand by mine -- I know that immigration poses challenges, and that some of the effects of immigration can be damaging. That's called having the courage to understand the practical implications of your convictions . . so let's try it again :

Oh, courage? Remind me, was you or the girls of Roterham that were tortured and raped? Very brave of you to endure what happened to them as a result of mass migration.

You're stubborn determination to continue mass migration in the face of the evidence of the negative outcomes for others is not courage.

Nobody is talking about expelling Jews. But you would surely advocate that Jews are better off just leaving Europe of their own volition and going off to live in a Jewish commune where they can live in a paradise of homogeneity.

If your "Gotcha" point is so non-controversial as to be the entire foundation myth of the Israeli state (established in the direct aftermath of the holocaust - which indeed was very bad for Jews, and then went on to be very bad for Palestinians) then you might as well concede the argument now. To say that Jews are probably safer in Israel than they are in Germany is only embarrassing for advocates of mass migration into Germany that created the conditions for that statement to be arguably true.

Let me clarify for you. Again and again and again I make use of the term mass migration. I have no concern whatsoever with a person moving to live or work in another country. None, zero. Immigrants, emigrants, no issue. Individuals and small groups can and have been assimilated into the indigenous people throughout history.

My concern is mass migration, where the arrivals are in such numbers as to create ethnic enclaves which (through no fault of their own) cannot be assimilated and instead create ethnic strife with the existing people. This is inherently bad for everyone involved, immigrant and indigenous.

All races and religions are better off living apart right? That's your view isn't it? That when they all mix it only causes strife -- right? So . . . could you please be consistent and advocate that all people should divide into homogenous groups and live in communities which do not overlap with eachother?

As above, it ends up that way anyway. One group displaces or absorbs the other or the state fragments into homogeneous pieces.

Yeah yeah you've tried this one before and it was one of the most ludicrous chains of argument I have ever heard . . . what was it again . . .comparing strife between Native Americans and colonial settlers with modern day immigration right?

When you consider the Mayflower landing in 1620, do you consider it some sort of military D-Day landing? An armed invasion into the face of fanatical Native American resistance?

Your rage at me pointing out those settlers were equally peaceful immigrants who were acknowledged and welcomed by the local tribes is just a symptom of cognitive dissonance. You know your idea of European colonialism being always and everywhere a military amphibious invasion is nonsense, but you've been conditioned to believe otherwise. That is your own problem, not mine.

ArthurDayne

Sand wrote: »

It always ends up that way. In the case of ethnic conflict, either a homogeneous identity is converged upon or the state fragments into homogeneous states. Multi-ethnic strife is not an enduring steady state, though many states have tried through increasing repression. Ask Yugoslavia.



Oh, courage? Remind me, was you or the girls of Roterham that were tortured and raped? Very brave of you to endure what happened to them as a result of mass migration.

You're stubborn determination to continue mass migration in the face of the evidence of the negative outcomes for others is not courage.



If your "Gotcha" point is so non-controversial as to be the entire foundation myth of the Israeli state (established in the direct aftermath of the holocaust - which indeed was very bad for Jews, and then went on to be very bad for Palestinians) then you might as well concede the argument now. To say that Jews are probably safer in Israel than they are in Germany is only embarrassing for advocates of mass migration into Germany that created the conditions for that statement to be arguably true.

Let me clarify for you. Again and again and again I make use of the term mass migration. I have no concern whatsoever with a person moving to live or work in another country. None, zero. Immigrants, emigrants, no issue. Individuals and small groups can and have been assimilated into the indigenous people throughout history.

My concern is mass migration, where the arrivals are in such numbers as to create ethnic enclaves which (through no fault of their own) cannot be assimilated and instead create ethnic strife with the existing people. This is inherently bad for everyone involved, immigrant and indigenous.



As above, it ends up that way anyway. One group displaces or absorbs the other or the state fragments into homogeneous pieces.



When you consider the Mayflower landing in 1620, do you consider it some sort of military D-Day landing? An armed invasion into the face of fanatical Native American resistance?

Your rage at me pointing out those settlers were equally peaceful immigrants who were acknowledged and welcomed by the local tribes is just a symptom of cognitive dissonance. You know your idea of European colonialism being always and everywhere a military amphibious invasion is nonsense, but you've been conditioned to believe otherwise. That is your own problem, not mine.

Rage? Not rage, more confusion if am being honest.

One thing I have always noticed about your posts -- and was the very reason I stopped spending time giving lengthy responses to them -- is that you are full of these long-winded posts which meander from point to point, but never actually form into either practical solutions or even a practically consistent form. The question is a simple one which requires only a simple answer: given all that you have said and argued for -- why do you not follow your argument to its logical conclusion and advocate that the ideal course of action for humanity is that we all sub-divide into homogenous groups and find a place for each of those groups to live in isolated peace and prosperity? Wouldn't that achieve the wonderful peace and stability you appear to crave? Wouldn't that be the wonderful watershed where all the ethnic strife ends and world peace is secured?

You argue your point with admirable energy, but always stop short of following it through to where it logically ends -- because deep down you know quite rightly that the logical conclusion is at best ludicrous, and at worst preposterous.

RandomName2

ArthurDayne wrote: »

why do you not follow your argument to its logical conclusion and advocate that the ideal course of action for humanity is that we all sub-divide into homogenous groups and find a place for each of those groups to live in isolated peace and prosperity? Wouldn't that achieve the wonderful peace and stability you appear to crave? Wouldn't that be the wonderful watershed where all the ethnic strife ends and world peace is secured?

A little bit redundant since that was already mostly achieved in the 20th century. We went from large empires in Europe, which consisted of very large volumes of ethnicities and cultures, and subdivided them into their constituent parts. This largely happened after WW1, and empires like the Austrian and German were smashed into Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Austria, etc.

But countries like Czechoslovakia still weren't subdivided enough. Czechs and Slovaks were forced to share a common country, in the same way that Croats, Bosnians, Slovenians etc. were forced to share Yugolsavia. The fact that the Versailles treaty did not adequitely subdivide Europe into homogenous groups was a major contributing factor to the outbreak of WW2. One of the reasons for this was to keep the new nations stronger, by being larger, in order to avoid them being swept up by the major powers of Europe. But these countries were ultimately fragile due to these ethnic and cultural divisions, and could never truly be at peace, or stable, until they were subdivided into homogenous groups.

Today in Spain you can see the trouble caused by forcing people of different cultures or ethnicities into a collective which they are at odds with. 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. Kosovo is the most recent homogenous group to be formed, to be free to live in isolated peace and prosperity. A solution that some Serbs say is at best ludicrous, and at worst preposterous

But pity those unfortunate situations when you have distinct communities, but no clear way to create a demarcation between the two. Northern Ireland is a historical bloody example of this. The enclaves of German speakers in eastern Europe was also ultimately solved in a rather brutal fashion.

ArthurDayne

RandomName2 wrote: »

A little bit redundant since that was already mostly achieved in the 20th century. We went from large empires in Europe, which consisted of very large volumes of ethnicities and cultures, and subdivided them into their constituent parts. This largely happened after WW1, and empires like the Austrian and German were smashed into Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Austria, etc.

But countries like Czechoslovakia still weren't subdivided enough. Czechs and Slovaks were forced to share a common country, in the same way that Croats, Bosnians, Slovenians etc. were forced to share Yugolsavia. The fact that the Versailles treaty did not adequitely subdivide Europe into homogenous groups was a major contributing factor to the outbreak of WW2. One of the reasons for this was to keep the new nations stronger, by being larger, in order to avoid them being swept up by the major powers of Europe. But these countries were ultimately fragile due to these ethnic and cultural divisions, and could never truly be at peace, or stable, until they were subdivided into homogenous groups.

Today in Spain you can see the trouble caused by forcing people of different cultures or ethnicities into a collective which they are at odds with. 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. Kosovo is the most recent homogenous group to be formed, to be free to live in isolated peace and prosperity. A solution that some Serbs say is at best ludicrous, and at worst preposterous

But pity those unfortunate situations when you have distinct communities, but no clear way to create a demarcation between the two. Northern Ireland is a historical bloody example of this. The enclaves of German speakers in eastern Europe was also ultimately solved in a rather brutal fashion.

Then I take it that these countries you mention -- the ones who live in homogenous groups of peace and prosperity -- are utopias that we should all aspire to replicate?

The point of course is that homogeneity is a pipe-dream. Divide people among any sub-division you can think of and, given time, the human nature of individuality will eventually break through. Put an entire class of almost entirely homogenous people together and in time they will eventually form differences, and as the generations go on those differences will grow and grow.

There are those who seem to constantly pursue homogeneity as the way to peace, while seemingly living in ignorance to the fact that homogeneity is an impossibility. Then there are those who accept the impossibility of homogeneity and advocate a stance where we try to find ways to deal with the inevitability of difference -- whether it be difference in intellectual thought, race, religion, culture, politics or whatever else. I do not claim that the latter school of thought by any means holds the map for the road to perfection -- indeed I envisage that the latter school of thought precipitates challenges and costs -- but at least it accepts the phenomena of the real world and tries to find ways to deal with them.

It's called not only living in the real world, but dealing with the real world. You and Sand and anyone else who enjoys the lofty philosophical debates are of course perfectly entitled to go on having them. I have more interest in those whose ideas can actually translate into practical reality and tangible solutions.

Irish Praetorian

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Then I take it that these countries you mention -- the ones who live in homogenous groups of peace and prosperity -- are utopias that we should all aspire to replicate?

The point of course is that homogeneity is a pipe-dream. Divide people among any sub-division you can think of and, given time, the human nature of individuality will eventually break through. Put an entire class of almost entirely homogenous people together and in time they will eventually form differences, and as the generations go on those differences will grow and grow.

There are those who seem to constantly pursue homogeneity as the way to peace, while seemingly living in ignorance to the fact that homogeneity is an impossibility. Then there are those who accept the impossibility of homogeneity and advocate a stance where we try to find ways to deal with the inevitability of difference -- whether it be difference in intellectual thought, race, religion, culture, politics or whatever else. I do not claim that the latter school of thought by any means holds the map for the road to perfection -- indeed I envisage that the latter school of thought precipitates challenges and costs -- but at least it accepts the phenomena of the real world and tries to find ways to deal with them.

It's called not only living in the real world, but dealing with the real world. You and Sand and anyone else who enjoys the lofty philosophical debates are of course perfectly entitled to go on having them. I have more interest in those whose ideas can actually translate into practical reality and tangible solutions.

Well hang on a second here, a pretty compelling case has been made that mutli-ethnic societies do have a tendency to be unstable and, certainly within Europe in recent years, prove difficult to keep in a common country. It may not be a particularly appealing reality but appears to be a convincing one. Now you seem to be haranguing him to take the argument to an absurd level, when the entire thrust of the conservative argument seems to be about keeping things the same. You claim that this is more of a philosophical issue with little bearing on the real world, but I would submit it has been the effects of this fairly unprecedented policy in the 'real world' that has occasioned much of the opposition it now faces. Nor does it seem that the philosophical position you advocate is any more profound than the contrary positions set forth here - though you are perhaps right that a more substantive set of proposals might clarify our arguments and points of contention a bit more; so come on, who wants to whip theirs out first?

ArthurDayne

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Well hang on a second here, a pretty compelling case has been made that mutli-ethnic societies do have a tendency to be unstable and, certainly within Europe in recent years, prove difficult to keep in a common country. It may not be a particularly appealing reality but appears to be a convincing one. Now you seem to be haranguing him to take the argument to an absurd level, when the entire thrust of the conservative argument seems to be about keeping things the same. You claim that this is more of a philosophical issue with little bearing on the real world, but I would submit it has been the effects of this fairly unprecedented policy in the 'real world' that has occasioned much of the opposition it now faces. Nor does it seem that the philosophical position you advocate is any more profound than the contrary positions set forth here - though you are perhaps right that a more substantive set of proposals might clarify our arguments and points of contention a bit more; so come on, who wants to whip theirs out first?

But once again, I am faced with yet another eloquent post that ultimately tells me nothing that I did not know before. Ethnic strife within countries? Yep -- well aware of it. Is it a convincing reality? No -- it's more than that -- it's a stone cold reality. 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.

So when you say I harangue people to take the argument to an absurd level, it's only because I never seem to see anyone on the other side of the argument take the argument . . . well . . . anywhere at all really. And if their argument doesn't go to "absurd" levels, they need only describe their practical solutions to me -- which of course they never actually do. Just long posts bemoaning the problems of the world, forever following the same cyclical formula with no end-product.

At the centre of this debate, to me, are two clear realities -- that (a) humans, not dissimilar to any other animal that migrates, gravitate towards areas where they perceive there to be a better chance of prospering and (b) humans are individualistic creatures who possess great diversity of thought, and as a consequence cultural difference. The combined result is that it is somewhat inevitable that cultures will intermingle and intertwine of different types -- as has been the case since the dawn of civilisation. I say that all we can do is continually find ways to make the best of that phenomenon -- while others say we should eternally flee from it. So to me the burden of proof is on those who flee the reality -- and it's up to them to "whip theirs out" first.

Irish Praetorian

ArthurDayne wrote: »

But once again, I am faced with yet another eloquent post that ultimately tells me nothing that I did not know before. Ethnic strife within countries? Yep -- well aware of it. Is it a convincing reality? No -- it's more than that -- it's a stone cold reality. 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.

So when you say I harangue people to take the argument to an absurd level, it's only because I never seem to see anyone on the other side of the argument take the argument . . . well . . . anywhere at all really. And if their argument doesn't go to "absurd" levels, they need only describe their practical solutions to me -- which of course they never actually do. Just long posts bemoaning the problems of the world, forever following the same cyclical formula with no end-product.

At the centre of this debate, to me, are two clear realities -- that (a) humans, not dissimilar to any other animal that migrates, gravitate towards areas where they perceive there to be a better chance of prospering and (b) humans are individualistic creatures who possess great diversity of thought, and as a consequence cultural difference. The combined result is that it is somewhat inevitable that cultures will intermingle and intertwine of different types -- as has been the case since the dawn of civilisation. I say that all we can do is continually find ways to make the best of that phenomenon -- while others say we should eternally flee from it. So to me the burden of proof is on those who flee the reality -- and it's up to them to "whip theirs out" first.

Whilst I might take on board some of your points I would remind you that it was not so many pages back that the idea of ethnic strife being occasioned by mass movement of people was still seen as some kind of outlandish theory, so you can hardly plead despair at people making a case to the contrary. Moreover, I'm not sure that this 'anti-immigration school' is unique in pulling the rhetorical trick of emotional appeal - how many times in the lead up to this issue were we told that something must be done about affairs far away, that things were terrible and we needed to make a choice - one can hardly expect one side to employ emotional rhetoric and the other side to do nought.

Now you ask for practical solutions so lets put some on the table. I would open with a rhetorical question which was recently posed by an author, namely 'can Europe become a home for anyone in the world who wants to go there?' I would submit the answer is no, and that our migration policy should be founded on three principles - EU freedom of movement, reciprocal migration with nations we send a lot of migrants to and a selective refugee policy for those minorities (or minorities within minorities) that cannot realistically survive elsewhere - namely LGBT persons, atheists, certain classes of political prisoner. Otherwise, the high barrier of economic migration ought to be the order of the day. I'm sure we can debate this set of policies at length.

Now as to your final point regarding the truisms of human migration, diversity of culture and the synthesis that emerges; this seems to be little more than a retrospective attempt to explain away failed policies of the past. There is nothing set which means that the co-mingling of cultures and people had to take the form of, for example, an abandonment of EU border policy in 2016. Nor does it mean we are somehow obligated to continue to take in X many people per year or we are somehow shirking a collective need to undertake some kind of ritual mingling. Instead, these were concrete policies which were set, which failed and the aftermath of which we had to endure today, and I see no reason not to interrogate and analyse the failures of those policies when it comes to choosing how we handle that same issue today.

Sajid Javid

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.

Female circumcision is on the decrease and has been for a number of years.
Female circumcision is illegal in Ireland and the UK, when observing the statistics on female circumcision particular attention should be paid to age and nationality.
It is difficult if not impossible to quantify the figures simply because of the human element.
Female circumcision is what it is and as such deserves to be open to ridicule not only by the many but by all.

Forced Marriage like the above is not quantifiable and no race nor any religion have an exclusive franchise on it, forced marriages occur everyday In the UK and Ireland with no Muslims present again this should be called out for what it is.

Honor Killings are very rare but they do happen, Killing is what it is in any form and it is certainly not right and deserves to be condemned.
Muslims are responsible for about 90% of honor killings It is estimated that around 12 honor murders happen every year in the UK.


So called grooming gangs are extremely problematic in the UK and statistics will show young Muslims are more likely to commit a sexual offense than non Muslims.
Research is urgently required in relation to this matter although the reasons are obvious to the many it is important for all to understand why this anomaly exists.

fash

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Then I take it that these countries you mention -- the ones who live in homogenous groups of peace and prosperity -- are utopias that we should all aspire to replicate?

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"

Midlife

RandomName2 wrote: »

Strong argument sir.



So you're saying that we should live like the lobsters?

It doesn't need to be strong. 2 plus 2 is generally equal to four.

You may like to pontificate along with whatever mismash of history, politics, psychology and jordan peterson you recently read but it deesn't make you in any way correct.

We can talk about islam, we can talk about sensible migration and integration policies but in the last couple of days people have basically said in this thread...

A: Islam is responbile for rising european antisemitism

B: pretty much every empire or country with more than one ethnicity will fall apart in ethnic strife

Both of those points are just flat out wrong. They're just nonsense theory behind racism.

They're not wrong because I argued it well or you failed to defend them, they're just wrong.

A load of bollocks essentially.

RandomName2

Midlife wrote: »

in the last couple of days people have basically said in this thread...

A: Islam is responbile for rising european antisemitism

I didn't say this. I honestly doubt that there is much antisemitism in Europe, so getting reliable figures in relation to something which is very rare, and probably not well recorded, is going to be very tricky. The far-right in eastern Europe has typically used antisemitism as one of its cornerstones, but being anti-Israel is the raison d'etre of most organisations originating from the Middle East. I think it's a dubious position to put much stock on either way.

Midlife wrote: »

B: pretty much every empire or country with more than one ethnicity will fall apart in ethnic strife

Saying that because empires have collapsed due to ethnic strife is not the same thing as saying that any country with more than one ethnicity will fall apart due to ethnic strife. I have repeatedly said that it only becomes an issue is there is a large body of people belonging to a separate collective identity from the country in which they find themselves: they will usually rail against the authority of that country. This is particularly the case if they are in a geographically distinct area.

But the more that this group is different, be it due to race, ethnicity, language, customs, the more likely this is going to be a sticking point. Also the division of resources is a major point - is this group disadvantaged? Economics has always been a constant factor for internal strife. All of these points of difference are relevant in discussing something like illegal immigration across the Mediterranean.

Now you say we can have a sensible discussion about sensible migration policies, but I put it to people who are in favor of the illegal immigration across the Mediterranean what sort of numbers they think would be sensible to take in, and there is no answer. All the while, you have posters who say that the suggestion that people who defend mass immigration are in favor of open borders, is itself a straw man.

You say that pointing out that countries have clearly, obviously, collapsed due largely to ethnic tensions is a nonsense theory behind racism. You don't seem to see the correlation between immigration and the rise of racist organisations in countries where they hitherto have had no presence. I mean it seems gratuitous to point out the rise of terrorism and racist organisations as the indicators of strife incurred through recent immigration in Europe.

Midlife

RandomName2 wrote: »

Saying that because empires have collapsed due to ethnic strife is not the same thing as saying that any country with more than one ethnicity will fall apart due to ethnic strife.

No, you said one, someone else said another. Still both wrong though.

Your idea that, say the British empire flourished and grew for a few hundred years and ultimatly ended due to ethnic strife, that is it fell because the peripheries of this empire were populated by non-English people is conpletly and utterly laughable.

You're saying that race issues ended the British empire.

RandomName2

Midlife wrote: »

Your idea that, say the British empire flourished and grew for a few hundred years and ultimatly ended due to ethnic strife, that is it fell because the peripheries of this empire were populated by non-English people is conpletly and utterly laughable.

You're saying that race issues ended the British empire.

I'm saying something that is patently obvious, and that is that ethnic and cultural differences are the backbone of nationalism and a driving motivation for souverainism. It always has been and always will.

I wouldn't call something like India the periphery of the empire either.

Why is Ireland not part of the UK? Because the Irish wanted to be independent. WHY did the Irish want to be independent? Because of cultural-national differences with the English (for instance religion). If an empire loses its provinces and colonies it will cease being an empire.

You talk about your position as if it is as clear as day, yet you sound like a flat-earther.

You're saying that we are on a ball, spinning around in space, and we have been doing that for billions of years? It's laughable!