|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Worked well in america.
Worked well in the UK.
Both countries made by long term immigration of varied ethnicities over centuries |
In the case of the US, up until around 1965, it was nation forged by long-term European immigration. Since then, it has become a far more divided nation, and it remains to be seen if the US will remain a prosperous and stable nation as it gets ever more diverse.
In the case of the UK, up until the 1950s, immigration played a minor role. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
Worked well in america.
Worked well in the UK.
Both countries made by long term immigration of varied ethnicities over centuries |
In the case of the US, up until around 1965, it was nation forged by long-term European immigration. Since then, it has become a far more divided nation, and it remains to be seen if the US will remain a prosperous and stable nation as it gets ever more diverse.
In the case of the UK, up until the 1950s, immigration played a minor role. |
There is also the case of Australia, it seemed like there were almost as many Asians there as white people in some places. However, Australia probably genuinely does not have enough people, which is a pretty rare circumstance. Also, Australian food is not very good, so they need some help in that regard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Immigration doesn't mean anyone else is getting wiped out. |
Han Chinese immigration to Tibet may well result in the Tibetans becoming an ethnic minority in their own homeland, and the marginalization of their language, culture, and traditions. Are they justified in opposing this?
| Quote: |
| Also yes, the English do not exist as an ethnicity. My grandparents came from England, Scotland and Ireland...according to you am I 'Ethnically English'?? |
You accuse me of being one of those 'white genocide' people, and then make a statement (English do not exist) that bears a striking resemblance to justifications for ethnic cleansing. I don't think you would dare say to a Maori or a Mongolian that his group 'did not exist,' and therefore had no right to oppose mass immigration and the demographic transformation of their societies.
I also have some Scottish ancestry. However, the fact that we may have non-English grandparents (the peoples of the British Isles are quite closely related anyhow) does not mean the English do not exist as an ethnicity. Or the Welsh, Irish, or any other ethnicity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| In the case of the UK, up until the 1950s, immigration played a minor role. |
So the multiple invasions by the normans, vikings, saxons and romans...played a minor role?
| Quote: |
| it was nation forged by long-term European immigration. |
oh so now "european" = one single ethnicity to you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So the multiple invasions by the normans, vikings, saxons and romans...played a minor role? |
Played a major role, a millenia ago. We are talking here about modern day immigration, which indeed has played a minor role in the UK's contemporary history until recently.
| Quote: |
| oh so now "european" = one single ethnicity to you? |
I never said it was a single ethnicity, but America was a far more unified, majority European-derived society. The waves of European migrants were expected to assimilate into Anglo-American society, learn English, and leave their cultural bagage and ethnic loyalties at home, and most did. It is increasingly moving away from that, towards a far more fractured, multi-racial, and multi-ethnic society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| We are talking here about modern day immigration, |
So the lessons of history don't matter?
| Quote: |
| which indeed has played a minor role in the UK's contemporary history until recently. |
immigration was a consequence of emigration. That is to say, british people inviting themselves into everyone elses countries. The empire.
You're saying its ok for you to commandeer everyone elses back yard but they're not allowed to come into yours?
| Quote: |
| It is increasingly moving away from that, towards a far more fractured, multi-racial, and multi-ethnic society. |
British society has always been fractured. You've never heard of the class divide/ the north-south divide? Every society naturally favors certain people and not others. Its the human condition. The stresses and injustices you rail against are part and parcel of our species, they have nothing to do with racial characteristics.
Malcontents- usually angry young men -invariably seek out a someone or something to blame for all their percieved grievances. Racism is usually the easiest option for these loser males.
You see it often in korea. The aggression is consistently from very insecure guys, usually ones without wives girlfriends or interpersonal skills. It doesn't come from people who are happy and busily getting on with their lives. Usually the guys rejected by their own societies tend to try and project that rejection onto foreigners- the easiest targets- in order to boost their self esteem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Han Chinese immigration to Tibet may well result in the Tibetans becoming an ethnic minority in their own homeland, and the marginalization of their language, culture, and traditions. Are they justified in opposing this? |
The Tibetans are a colonized people suffering under the yoke of Chinese imperialism.
What relevancy does that have to the UK???
| Quote: |
You accuse me of being one of those 'white genocide' people, and then make a statement (English do not exist) that bears a striking resemblance to justifications for ethnic cleansing. I don't think you would dare say to a Maori or a Mongolian that his group 'did not exist,' and therefore had no right to oppose mass immigration and the demographic transformation of their societies.
I also have some Scottish ancestry. However, the fact that we may have non-English grandparents (the peoples of the British Isles are quite closely related anyhow) does not mean the English do not exist as an ethnicity. Or the Welsh, Irish, or any other ethnicity. |
The English are an ethnically and culturally diverse people. If we already have bits of Celt, Basque, German and Scandanavian in us what is the problem with adding a bit of Indian, Jamaican or Polish?
Someone born in India who came to this country as an immigrant and gained British citizenship has every right to call themselves British/English/Scottish etc. Because our national identity is civic and not ethnic.
The only party who disagrees with that is the BNP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Played a major role, a millenia ago. We are talking here about modern day immigration, which indeed has played a minor role in the UK's contemporary history until recently. |
There has since at least the 18th century been a large number of Africans and South Asians living in Britain.
Many Europeans have also immigrated to Britain including the Hugenots, Romani, Russian Jews and Germans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The Tibetans are a colonized people suffering under the yoke of Chinese imperialism.
What relevancy does that have to the UK??? |
You stated that 'immigration doesn't mean anyone else is getting wiped out.' Large-scale movements of people change on-the-ground demographic realities. It is the mass movement of Han Chinese immigrants, not Chinese 'imperial rule,' which threatens their existence as a distinct culture and people. Similarly, countries like France have seen a massive increase in their Muslim populations, with little thought of how this will play out in 50 years time.
| Quote: |
| If we already have bits of Celt, Basque, German and Scandanavian in us what is the problem with adding a bit of Indian, Jamaican or Polish? |
If it was a 'bit' of Indian, Jamaican, or Polish it might not be a problem. What we are dealing with is mass movements of millions of people, some of whom will never assimilate. Moreover, such drastic demographic shifts often lead to conflict.
| Quote: |
| Someone born in India who came to this country as an immigrant and gained British citizenship has every right to call themselves British/English/Scottish etc. Because our national identity is civic and not ethnic. |
As you've already said, many immigrants do call themselves 'British' because it is not an ethnic identity in the same way that Scottish and English are. They have every right to call themselves whatever they wish, but someone born in India is an Indian. Also, I think you will find that many minorities call themselves 'British' out of convenience, or to allay fears the indigeneous people may have about their presence. They often switch their allegiance when in the company of co-ethnics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There has since at least the 18th century been a large number of Africans and South Asians living in Britain. |
Their numbers, as a percentage of the population, were tiny.
| Quote: |
| Many Europeans have also immigrated to Britain including the Hugenots, Romani, Russian Jews and Germans. |
Compared to post-war immigration, such immigration was small in scale and limited in time frame. In the case of the Huegenots:
"In 1681, Charles II of England offered sanctuary to the Huguenots, and from 1670 to 1710, between 40,000 and 50,000 Huguenots from all walks of life sought refuge in England"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/london/article_1.shtml
40-50,000 over the course of forty years! We receive many more than that now in a single month! And the Huegenots were highly skilled, Christian, and European, so caused little problem in terms of assimilation.
Recent immigration is historically unprecendented in its size and nature and will demographically transform the country into something entirely different. It is not in any way comparable to the previous movements you speak of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You're saying its ok for you to commandeer everyone elses back yard but they're not allowed to come into yours? |
The empire ended long before I was born and the former colonies have now been independent for decades. Historical guilt is no justification for present-day mass immigration.
| Quote: |
| You've never heard of the class divide/ the north-south divide? Every society naturally favors certain people and not others |
Indeed, so why exacerbate already present social and class divides with ethnic and racial divides?
| Quote: |
| The stresses and injustices you rail against are part and parcel of our species, they have nothing to do with racial characteristics. |
If ethnic and tribal conflict are indeed 'part and parcel of our species,' then what is the logic in creating 'multicultural' societies where such conflict becomes almost guaranteed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You stated that 'immigration doesn't mean anyone else is getting wiped out.' Large-scale movements of people change on-the-ground demographic realities. It is the mass movement of Han Chinese immigrants, not Chinese 'imperial rule,' which threatens their existence as a distinct culture and people. Similarly, countries like France have seen a massive increase in their Muslim populations, with little thought of how this will play out in 50 years time. |
The Tibetans example has no relevancy to this discussion.
UK immigrants are not being forced on the UK by a foreign colonizer as part of a wider policy to solidify sovereignty over the country.
| Quote: |
| If it was a 'bit' of Indian, Jamaican, or Polish it might not be a problem. What we are dealing with is mass movements of millions of people, some of whom will never assimilate. Moreover, such drastic demographic shifts often lead to conflict. |
The vast, vast majority of immigration is from EU countries. Please stop overstating the case, you make out like White Brits are going to disappear from the map.
Also the 'Rivers of Blood' prophecy turned out to be a load of rubbish in the 60s and 70s. Why would 21st century Britain see a greater degree of ethnic conflict when most of the new arrivals are racially indistinguishable from Brits?
| Quote: |
| As you've already said, many immigrants do call themselves 'British' because it is not an ethnic identity in the same way that Scottish and English are. They have every right to call themselves whatever they wish, but someone born in India is an Indian. Also, I think you will find that many minorities call themselves 'British' out of convenience, or to allay fears the indigeneous people may have about their presence. They often switch their allegiance when in the company of co-ethnics. |
I know this is going to blow your mind, but non-white people can be English too...
Also some of them do indeed feel English without it being part of some great conspiracy to undermine the white man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| indeed, so why exacerbate already present social and class divides with ethnic and racial divides? |
because we need to prepare the world for the new global reality. Exposure to other cultures enriches and strengthens a nation, it also better equips them to interract with the world at large.
| Quote: |
| If ethnic and tribal conflict are indeed 'part and parcel of our species,' then what is the logic in creating 'multicultural' societies where such conflict becomes almost guaranteed? |
its only complicated for simpletons.
monocultures tend to be stagnant and dull. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| because we need to prepare the world for the new global reality |
This sounds very ominous....and deliberately vague. What exactly is this new reality that justifies the importation of millions of immigrants?
| Quote: |
| Exposure to other cultures enriches and strengthens a nation |
Specifically, how?
| Quote: |
| it also better equips them to interract with the world at large |
China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are some of the largest exporting nations in the world. They do this without large-scale inward immigration. How is this possible?
| Quote: |
| its only complicated for simpletons. |
You're completely unable to answer a basic question, and offer up the most bland platitudes - 'the new global reality,' - in defence of mass immigration and multiculturalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The Tibetans example has no relevancy to this discussion. |
Well, that's debatable. But, for argument's sake, if Tibet were an independent country, would they be justified in restricting Chinese immigration if they saw it as a demographic threat?
| Quote: |
| UK immigrants are not being forced on the UK by a foreign colonizer as part of a wider policy to solidify sovereignty over the country |
No, they're being forced on the people by special business interests and politicians who either benefit from immigration directly (Labour Party), or who believe in mass immigration as a way of undermining the nation states of Europe.
| Quote: |
| The vast, vast majority of immigration is from EU countries. |
Of the 532,000 people who came to Britain in the year to last September, 244,000 of them were non-EU citizens. That’s less than 269,000 the year before but still nearly half, and it was about half the previous year’s total too. And of the 3.8 million people – net, not gross – who came to Britain under Labour, no fewer than 70 per cent were from outside the EU. The notion that immigration is a problem of EU membership just isn’t true.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/03/nigel-farage-keep-on-about-eu-migration-but-non-eu-migration-is-the-greater-problem/
Since 1997, not the vast majority. In fact, not even the majority. Even last year, non-EU migrants were slightly under half of all migrants. Perhaps, the balance will shift going forward.
| Quote: |
| Also some of them do indeed feel English without it being part of some great conspiracy to undermine the white man. |
Who said anything about a 'great conspiracy'? I have personally seen many black and Asian Brits claim to be British or English, but change their allegiance under different circumstances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
