United Ireland?

Pithythefool wrote: »

No, it was a different post.

Anyway, what I find zombie-like is disregarding your own home and its traditions and way of life etc, in exchange for things that are not OF your own home.

Let me put it in an analogy. There are 10 people living in a village, all with an equal share of everything, their own little hut, own little job, own little income.....everything they need, all equally divided.

One day, 5 of them decide "hey, we don't need to really own all this stuff, sure we can share between all of us. It'll be great, you can take food from me when you need it, I'll take food from you when you need it. Fantastic".

The problem with this idealism is that the 5 sharing people put more stock in each other rather than the big picture. So while they are having a great time with one another, the other 5 members of the village just take ownership of the whole freaking lot. Now there is nothing left to share.

Long story short.....idealism requires everyone, all at the same time, to buy into something. Otherwise its like Christmas for the more shrewd, cunning ones.

That's why I see that kind of thing as apathy, and zombie-like. As I said above, divided we fall. If you don't look after your own country, in all various regards, then someone else most definitely will, and you wont be left with a pot to do the proverbial in afterwards.

Pithythefool wrote: »

If your culture is based on every culture.....that's the exact same as having no culture.

And as I said above, if everyone bought into this idealistic thought process at the EXACT same time, to the EXACT same degree, we wouldn't have any problems.

Its like one person taking all the money out of their account and distributing it to every person they meet along the way. But you wouldn't do that and expect other people to reciprocate, right?

No, what will happen in that hypothetical is that you'll end up broke in no time, while others who weren't stupid enough to do it end up better off with your money.

Replace "money" with "culture", "identity", "country", whatever. its the same principle.

It can all be boiled down to idealism versus reality. One is hypothetical and built on goodwill and fanciful notions, the other is what actually happens in real life.

Pithythefool wrote: »

Shooting off in too any directions here. I'm not saying that people cant have hobbies or interests, or that they cant share them with different people. Nothing like that at all.

Pithythefool wrote: »

Have we all become apathetic zombies belonging to micro-groups?

I'm talking about the trade-off. From what I observe, when it comes to culture (lets keep it simple, just culture), it is a case of absorbing everyone elses at the expense of our own.

If it was reciprocated, if you could say, for example, that the average Russian or Saudi Arabian was actionably allowing/promoting Irish culture to take hold in their countries.......there'd be nothing to talk about! Fair is fair, that would be balance.

But its a one way street. And that, self-evidently, is NOT fair or balanced.

Long story short.....don't lose sight of your own country, lest you wake up one day and its no longer your country anymore.

You mentioned something about "terms", well you can no more negotiate the terms of getting money you don't own from a bank than you can negotiate terms of a majority culture. You either have it or you don't, there will be no-one to complain to about it, and no-one that will listen.

Pithythefool wrote: »

But what do you have to say about my example, what you can say cultural sharing has resulted in Birmingham?

Or even more to the point, do you think its balanced?

I cant break it down any simpler than that. Is cultural "sharing, as you put it, balanced in your opinion?

Pithythefool wrote: »

Well at least we boiled it down and have some common understanding.

The reality that we both agree upon is that cultural sharing is indeed imbalanced. Personally, I think it is severely imbalanced to the point of hilarity.

Our interpretation of the reality is different. You don't see any problem with imbalance, or one person taking all the time versus another person giving all the time. I think its completely whacked out. So on that we differ!

At least we talked through to some common understanding, unlike some.

Pithythefool wrote: »

I just cant agree with that, not wholesale anyway.

Seeing as I used it already, the example of Birmingham is not anywhere close to enriching anyone but the people who have settled there and essentially (whether through their own prejudices, English prejudices or both at the same time) gained a pre-made city in which they largely continue their own beliefs unchanged.

As I said before, compared to the camps that Europeans are walled into when working in their respective countries......that's not enriching.

The problem comes completely from the imbalance. We agreed on that, we just don't interpret the RESULT of it the same way.

Pithythefool wrote: »

I agree with what you say. Its not that I think people should be walled off from each other.

I suppose its a matter of mutual respect, or just mutuality in general. Its good to share, it is enriching culturally. But it still comes down to the same sticking point for me, the imbalance of it.

If as many europeans were moving to asia as vice-versa, then its not such a big deal. But you wont find any place in asia such as Birmingham, where it is street upon street of, say, German shops, german people, under effectually german law, where you wont really see any Asian people. It sounds mad when you put it that way, very hard to imagine that happening.

But that IS what is happening here. There comes a point where being treated unfairly rises to the fore. And I think its very evident across large parts of Europe, that people are completely unhappy with this situation. And the more it happens, naturally, the less tolerant and content people will become.

Its so bloody basic of a problem, and so visible, that ignoring it is downright dangerous.

To go off on a slight tangent, if these population changes continue, what do you think the reaction would be if Irelands population becomes 40% non-irish? What about 50%? Surely its not hard to imagine a drastic reaction to such a thing.

America is a perfect example of this already in motion. The majority population is going down while immigration is going up. Trump is the tip of the iceberg of the retaliation against the imbalance. Can you actually imagine a realistic scenario where this all blows over?

This imbalance is not a good thing, for anyone, anywhere.

My solution, in a nutshell, is that all our efforts should be placed on COOPERATION, not (obviously) unwanted INTEGRATION. And besides that, the more of a certain demographic moves to an area, the less integration even means, such as Birmingham. Theres nothing to integrate into if everyone around you is the same.

Pithythefool wrote: »

That last post of mine was a natural extension of what we were both talking about.

It has gone a bit off the original post, but its more closely related than you think. I started the thread talking about what defines us as a people. Simple enough. Then I was talking about why its important to recognise out own culture....an then (naturally enough) it got to comparisons between our culture and others, and the effect of the one on the other, one overtaking the other etc.

More or less!

But as I said above anyway, current trends wont last. And any of the benefits of sharing cultures will ultimately be thrown out of the window with the bad.

There are big problems here, and nobody wants to admit it, never mind do anything about it. Sleep-walking into some eventual big show down at the OK corral!

Maybe the thread is finished at this point, but if it makes you feel any better, this isn't JUST hypothetical. We are both going to find out eventually, I'd wager sooner than later!