Whites Only...

[macsen rufus]

Terrible yes, but one must note the effort to assimilate the native populations (as evidenced by the loss of treaty status for women upon marriage). This is looks far more like cultural assimilation than aparteid. The effort of the one is to unite the "native" and colonial population by subsuming the former into the latter. You may not like it, and rightly so, but the ultimate aim is equality. The sole aim of Aparteid is to keep the population under-heel as slaves.

Aparteid usually results from the fear of a vastly more numerous native population, while assimilation is attempted when the native population is much smaller than the colonial one.

What? You're suggesting that the only options for an indigenous population are to either "assimilate" or stay in the ghetto? And this is good? Why? A culture that has grown up in situ just has to f@£%$ off out of the way because the new overlords say so, like assimilation is some sort of concession? 'We've kicked you off your own land, outlawed your language, and destroyed your cultural integrity, but we're willing to let you into our world as servants, welfare recipients and the occasional tokens, so just be grateful for the scraps we throw to you.'???

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What? You're suggesting that the only options for an indigenous population are to either "assimilate" or stay in the ghetto? And this is good? Why? A culture that has grown up in situ just has to f@£%$ off out of the way because the new overlords say so, like assimilation is some sort of concession? 'We've kicked you off your own land, outlawed your language, and destroyed your cultural integrity, but we're willing to let you into our world as servants, welfare recipients and the occasional tokens, so just be grateful for the scraps we throw to you.'???

Save your moral outrage. I began with "Terrible yes" for a reason. Like it or not, assimilation was attempted in the belief it was for the benefit of the "native" population. That is radically different than Apartied. Also, as I said, the effort of assimilation is not to keep the native population as, "servants, welfare recipients and the occasional tokens", quite the opposite.

I shall quote an Academic, when talking about the Roman Empire, "I do not have to like the cultures I study". The point is relevant here, I do not have to like assimilation to recognise that the aim is at least more benevolant than Apartied. For one thing, Assimilation policies assume that the population to be assimilated is not by nature inferior, merely by culture. Apartied simply assumes the population under subjugation are no better than wild animals.

I don't support either policy, both are racist, but that doesn't change the fact that one is much worse and much more racist.

[macsen rufus]

Quite agree that both are racist policies, but not sure you can quantify the degree. They're both policies designed to subjugate native cultures and populations and reserve power and wealth for the colonial population. The difference is purely practical, as you hinted at, and is driven more by the relative size of the populations than any great ideological differences - smaller populations can be swamped, but larger ones, to be politically neutered, must be isolated.

Even where 'assimilation' is attempted it's on the basis that the indigenous people give up their culture in order to join - and even then can still be excluded into marginal positions. Poverty, social exclusion, crime, substance abuse and the like tend to cluster together regardless of the ethnicity.

As to the OP, I think this case undermines the asylum system, and the main racist in the picture is probably Huntley. I agree with pretty much everything Adrian II has said .

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Quite agree that both are racist policies, but not sure you can quantify the degree. They're both policies designed to subjugate native cultures and populations and reserve power and wealth for the colonial population. The difference is purely practical, as you hinted at, and is driven more by the relative size of the populations than any great ideological differences - smaller populations can be swamped, but larger ones, to be politically neutered, must be isolated.

Even where 'assimilation' is attempted it's on the basis that the indigenous people give up their culture in order to join - and even then can still be excluded into marginal positions. Poverty, social exclusion, crime, substance abuse and the like tend to cluster together regardless of the ethnicity.

As to the OP, I think this case undermines the asylum system, and the main racist in the picture is probably Huntley. I agree with pretty much everything Adrian II has said .

I disagree, leaving aside cultural relativism (a philosophy I'm not convinced of) the intended aim of assimilation is to make the lives of the natives better in the long run. British cultural assimilation was based on the Roman concept, but they had the additional problem that the native populaton looked very different than the immigrants.

Assimilation isn't really about "subjugating" people, it's about the belief in cultural superiority. If you look at the places it has worked, such as England when the Anglo-Saxons arrived, you can see that A: it took 250-300 years and, B: the two populations looked fairly simlar to begin with.

Apartied, on the other hand, never works because it depends on deprivation.

Witness again, England when the Normans took over. Slaughtering the native aristocracy and taking ownership of all the land and religious institutions, the cutlure was able to remain distinct for 300 years, after which it was completely subsumed into the Anglo-Saxon one.