IMMIGRATION thread

[rajpoot]

As always I'm rather late to the party (hey hey!) but I'll leave my two cents here.
IMO EU isn't responsible. And they shouldn't be allowing the hundreds of thousands inside their borders.
More than a hundred years ago there was this thing about the 'White Man's Burden' which made a lot of European nations do stuff that today would be considered really really bad. What they're doing today is perhaps equally bad.
You lot don't have any burden or moral obligation. Whatever has happened has happened. Doing stupider stuff to fix that isn't going to help anyone. Two wrongs don't make a right and two stupid actions don't make an intelligent action.

[Greyblades]

More than a hundred years ago there was this thing about the 'White Man's Burden' which made a lot of European nations do stuff that today would be considered really really bad. What they're doing today is perhaps equally bad.

I'm bored and history allways interests me, could you explain what the idea of "white man's burden" caused that was bad?

I ask because of all the ideas of the 19th and early 20th century I was under the impression that one was one of the more harmless ideas. Condescending as hell, of course, but not harmful to my knowledge.

[Pannonian]

I'm bored and history allways interests me, could you explain what the idea of "white man's burden" caused that was bad?

I ask because of all the ideas of the 19th and early 20th century I was under the impression that one was one of the more harmless ideas. Condescending as hell, of course, but not harmful to my knowledge.

By lengthening our involvement in these countries, and thus making us responsible for everything bad that's been happening since, even decades after they've gained independence (with everything good being the hitherto restrained potential of the natives, of course). I raised the example of Hong Kong some time ago as an example of where Britain has governed a colony responsibly, and the appreciation of the native Chinese was dismissed, whilst everything that wasn't ideal was pinned as the fault of the British, even where the native Hong Kongers point to Beijing as the source. Trying to do good is pointless. We might as well embrace the universally agreed fact that we're evil, and look to our interests only.

[AE Bravo]

...there was no civil war (note the term "insurgents" used to describe those fighting Assad), this is a war brought down upon Assad by his enemies, for various geo-political, economic and ethnic/religious reasons. Selling arms to the likes of Saudi-Arabia (or any of the so-called "moderate" rebels) is pretty much the only reason there is war in Syria.

Of course, that's all common knowledge. I was suggesting that the problem (ksa) is the biggest part of the solution one way or another and arming them doesn't mean arming extremists in Syria because that's a separate issue. Arms sales are for Saudi security and Yemen, not arming Syrian opposition.

I'm not entirely up-to-date on who the bad guys are down there but it certainly produces a lot of refugees

Probably all parties, but cutting them off won't help either.

[Sarmatian]

By lengthening our involvement in these countries, and thus making us responsible for everything bad that's been happening since, even decades after they've gained independence (with everything good being the hitherto restrained potential of the natives, of course). I raised the example of Hong Kong some time ago as an example of where Britain has governed a colony responsibly, and the appreciation of the native Chinese was dismissed, whilst everything that wasn't ideal was pinned as the fault of the British, even where the native Hong Kongers point to Beijing as the source. Trying to do good is pointless. We might as well embrace the universally agreed fact that we're evil, and look to our interests only.

Actually, the bad part comes from using white man's burden excuse to basically plunder everything that's not Europe and USA.

Hong Kong is indeed an example of colony governed responsibly. Personally, I don't think that had much to do with the well being of Chinese there, but because it suited British interest. Those two coincided in a few cases, but in majority of cases didn't. I don't see a reason why Britain should feel guilty today, but I hate the whitewashing this topic usually gets from British people - we built some schools, we were mostly just trading, we invested some money back.

It's in the past, nothing to do with modern Britain, but it needs to be acknowledged for what it was.

[Pannonian]

Actually, the bad part comes from using white man's burden excuse to basically plunder everything that's not Europe and USA.

Hong Kong is indeed an example of colony governed responsibly. Personally, I don't think that had much to do with the well being of Chinese there, but because it suited British interest. Those two coincided in a few cases, but in majority of cases didn't. I don't see a reason why Britain should feel guilty today, but I hate the whitewashing this topic usually gets from British people - we built some schools, we were mostly just trading, we invested some money back.

It's in the past, nothing to do with modern Britain, but it needs to be acknowledged for what it was.

You should read about the Mui Tsai then, where the British ignored their pledge to rule according to Chinese custom and traditions, and ended a longstanding Chinese custom because of British moral values, against much native Chinese opposition. Today, that tradition is seen as a source of shame for the Chinese, and its banning by the British as an overdue move to bring Hong Kong in line with the modern world and values. Absolutely nothing to do with British interests, and everything to do with Britain's own tradition of opposing slavery and anything that smells of slavery.