IMMIGRATION thread

Originally Posted by Husar

And if you want to get fewer refugees, why set up outposts near locations where most of the refuges in the world are and take applications there? The number of total refugees may easily increase then.

The answer to this is blindingly simple - you're going to refuse the vast majority of applications because you don't accept "refugees" you accept political Asylum Seekers. People forget that the whole point of political asylum is to protect the political opposition to a tyrannical regime, it is NOT a reason to allow mass migration.

We should not be allowing mass migration, end of, because it hurts our citizens and our first duty is to them and not to aliens. Look, a "refugee" who escapes Somalia to Uganda and has a place in a camp in Uganda should not then be allowed to enter the UK because he already has a safe place to live, it might be crap but the reality is that if we take him in he will likely go from living off UN handouts in that camp to living off UK handouts in a Council House and that, frankly, is not a beneficial change for anyone. He might as well wait in the UN camp until Somalia is stabilised and then he can go home and help rebuild his country.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

To send the European navies to control the Med Sea shouldn't be that hard to organize... Italy does some work already, other countries should help.... I mean, really, it's not like our navies have all THAT much other things to do...

Sweden's one does. Chasing Russian submarines along the Swedish rather idented coastline.

I gave you fair warning.

Originally Posted by Husar

So your point is to go to the refugees who go to these camps (and don't want to come here apparently) and offer them refugee status as well?
Okay, works for me.

Your view of refugees actually say a LOT about the ideas a socialistic german might have.

Your view:
There is a war here - better move to Europe and get a better life.

My view:
There is a war here - better get the **** out of this location and plead for my life.

I'm just not sure how that stops the ones who avoid those camps and try to get here. Oh right, turn around the boats. Who will turn around the boats?

People who avoid refugee camps and straight want to get here, most often do it not because their life is at risk, but because they can afford smugglers to take them to the "Heavenly West".

YOUR position only comfort the ones who pay criminal smugglers who set them on sinking ships, can you get that?

As to who will turn around the "boats"... Read what I already wrote? European nations have to help out to secure the coasts, as it IS a shared problem.

I never suggested otherwise, I asked what if the ones you turn down still try to come here on boats?- -but yes, turn around all the boats, see above.

Exactly, see above.

Sorry, but that line of you is just... Less than I expect when speaking to a fellow Org.

YES we should sink the ships in the harbour.
YES we should drag the ships who make it to open sea back.

Why?

A) To make sure people don't die in masses in faulty crafts as is how it is today.
B) To strengthen the point that ILLEGAL immigration is, well, illegal and will not be submitted.

What if all the boat people go to the fence then? Build a concrete fortress?

"Fortress Europe"... sure, I can live with that idea... I would rather live in a fortress than in some place where Africans can just walk in any day of the week and decide they want to live there and disrupt the society and culture around them...

What if they find other ways? And again, securing such a long coastline is probably very expensive and requires a lot of effort, who is going to pay for this? We used to pay the local dictators to keep people away but apparently that doesn't work anymore since we bombed them away.

They have found other ways, that is why Eastern European countries have started to build HUGE fences with barbed wire and all...

I don't think this is positive... We HAVE to just automatically send them back if they come here illegally. If you are against THAT you are efficiently pro:

A) Illegal immigrants.
B) Immigrants risking their life with bad odds just to get here.

The blood will be on your hands, Mr. Good Guy.

Isn't that part of the problem? That we want to have our cake, eat it and not pay for it either? And then we just blame the desperate masses who arrive here for demanding a crumb that fell off our cake.

I see it more as neither wanting chaos-cultures to influence my nation... Neither do I like that humans are dying because of shitty smugglers trying to bring them here.

I would like some god damned ORDER in the whole thingy, you might appreciate that at least.

Originally Posted by Viking

The article does so too, in part:

It blames Kenya for not aowing the refugees to work while they are there in camps.
You are aware that they are not allowed to work in Germany for example either?

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The answer to this is blindingly simple - you're going to refuse the vast majority of applications because you don't accept "refugees" you accept political Asylum Seekers. People forget that the whole point of political asylum is to protect the political opposition to a tyrannical regime, it is NOT a reason to allow mass migration.

There might be a lot of legit cases for that in these camps. And even if not, the number of applicants will robably be huge. Currently there are tens of thousands who come to Europe but in these camps there are millions. IIRC only about 5% of the refugeees come to Europe, the rest stay somewhere in Africa or the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

We should not be allowing mass migration, end of, because it hurts our citizens and our first duty is to them and not to aliens. Look, a "refugee" who escapes Somalia to Uganda and has a place in a camp in Uganda should not then be allowed to enter the UK because he already has a safe place to live, it might be crap but the reality is that if we take him in he will likely go from living off UN handouts in that camp to living off UK handouts in a Council House and that, frankly, is not a beneficial change for anyone. He might as well wait in the UN camp until Somalia is stabilised and then he can go home and help rebuild his country.

I agree that taking in half of Africa is not a solution, but at the same time, I also think that we had part in creating the problem in the first place. And not only because France and Britain wanted to bomb Gaddhafi. African and Middle Eastern countries already house the vast majority of the millions of refugees from their areas, sometimes with UN help and their infrastructure is neither as strong as that of European countries, nor are they even responsible for the problems that made people flee in many cases. The question is, why can we bomb other countries and then force yet other countries to pick up all the refugees while we take none? Most of the refugees are fleeing temporarily and I never said we should give them all citizenship. What we could do is take some of them temporarily, just like countries in the area do, and stop screwing up other countries.
Yes, maybe Gaddhafi was an evil dictator, but we hardly helped that by supporting him for years. Now we bombed him and still complain about the result. Maybe it's this application of half-done "solutions" that just increases the amount of problems.
Who upplied weapons to Syrian islamist rebels and whose weapons and political vacuum did ISIS use to begin its reign of terror? Who originally trained Al Queda o fight the other evil soviets? The west keeps having the strangest alliances for the weirdest gains, lets companies go rouge in these regions in ways that do not help the locals build anything at all and the response is to blame the locals for not having beaten colonialization and the US hegemony in the first place or something like that. I'm saying that stance it very weird according to modern morals. If you're a Darwinist it might be "fair", but then you also shouldn't mind people dying in the Mediterranean or bankers doing what they want (which probably includes ruining African countries even further).

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I gave you fair warning.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Your view of refugees actually say a LOT about the ideas a socialistic german might have.

Your view:
There is a war here - better move to Europe and get a better life.

It is a view I can understand from their perspective, but as I said to PVC, I do not think taking in everyone who wants to be a football player for Manchester United is a viable solution to African problems in the long term. Your understanding of my view is questionable at best.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

My view:
There is a war here - better get the **** out of this location and plead for my life.

Is that your view because you live in a safe country, grew up in a safe country and do not want so many refugees here?
Would you also have that view if you grew up in Africa, had no education, no job, no perspective for the future in your country and no idea how to change it AND grew up learning tht the only one who looks out for you is yourself and maybe your family?
It just doesn't seem genuine to say that you would act differently given that you have a completely different background compared to these people. And neither you nor they chose to be born in the place you were born.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

People who avoid refugee camps and straight want to get here, most often do it not because their life is at risk, but because they can afford smugglers to take them to the "Heavenly West".

And people who undercut the prices of African farmers do it to make profit, not because they actually want to help Africa.
People who built leaking oil rigs in Africa do it because of "heavenly profits", not because their life depends on it or because they can't afford to repair the leaks. And the people who gave weapons to islamists also didn't quite do it because their lives depended on it. Colonialization didn't happen because we had to, but because we wanted "heavenly profits" from all the resources and slavery and so on. Many profitable businesses with oil, diamonds and other resources are still run by Europeans and the African countries get almost nothing from the profits. I think Viking was suggesting that the Africans just murder anyone who tries to prevent them from throwing out these companies and taking over their mines and oil rigs. What do you think? I honestly think it's a hard decision but we certainly aren't helping them by continuing to run these operations while we take in most of the profit.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

YOUR position only comfort the ones who pay criminal smugglers who set them on sinking ships, can you get that?

What position of mine? Are you capable of explaining that?

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

As to who will turn around the "boats"... Read what I already wrote? European nations have to help out to secure the coasts, as it IS a shared problem.

Well, why don't they? Didn't Italy already complain and beg for help several times? And shouldn't e drop the EU anyway and just let each country go alone? Why is it Britain's problem if Italy is overrun by Africans? If all the borders were closed, they wouldn't even come to the channel. Why do the stupid Italians try to offload their problems on other countries? They should fix their neighbors if they have a problem, just like Kenya should. No?

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Exactly, see above.

Sorry, but that line of you is just... Less than I expect when speaking to a fellow Org.

So are your condescending replies. You see, I gave PVC a much nicer reply because he gives respectful replies as well. Telling me I'm an idiot and then repeating what I already gave replies to is not a proper way to debate an issue.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

YES we should sink the ships in the harbour.
YES we should drag the ships who make it to open sea back.

Why?

A) To make sure people don't die in masses in faulty crafts as is how it is today.
B) To strengthen the point that ILLEGAL immigration is, well, illegal and will not be submitted.

Kenya could close the UN camps with the same argument, but refugees are not illegal immigrants. Noone demanded that we give all of them ctizenship. It's almost as though you are fighting windmills.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

They have found other ways, that is why Eastern European countries have started to build HUGE fences with barbed wire and all...

I don't think this is positive... We HAVE to just automatically send them back if they come here illegally. If you are against THAT you are efficiently pro:

A) Illegal immigrants.
B) Immigrants risking their life with bad odds just to get here.

Again, windmills. We are causing maybe 40% of the problems in Africa and the Middle East, yet are unwilling to temporarily house even 5% of the refugees. And you keep referring to Africans when the vast majority of refugees who arreive in Italy are from Syria and Afghanistan. "We" delivered weapons to Syrian rebels and I suppose we have nothing to do with why people flee from Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

The blood will be on your hands, Mr. Good Guy.

If it's as real as the giants you're fighting then it's probably not a big problem.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I see it more as neither wanting chaos-cultures to influence my nation... Neither do I like that humans are dying because of shitty smugglers trying to bring them here.

I would like some god damned ORDER in the whole thingy, you might appreciate that at least.

There we go again.
As for the order, how about we stop disrupting that? Once we stop bombing these countries or paying their dictators to afford a military that allows them to stay in power and support our companies in bleeding the countries dry, maybe we can begin blaming the problems entirely on them. But at the moment we want to bomb our cake and eat it, too.

For your consideration Husar, it doesn't adress everything you say, and often agrees with you, but mostly not http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...o-1519875.html Good read.

OK, well we intervened in Libya and that looked like it might go well but in the end it broke down into tribal and secular/islamist infighting. Then we refused to intervene in Syria and now we have Islamic State.

I think we should have been more hands on in the first few months after Gaddaffi fell, got the transitional government to let us station a small a number of NATO troops in the capital and in particular a disproportionate number of military engineers to quickly repair roads and other infrastructure to get people's lives back to something as close to normal as we could, as quickly as possible.

In any case, Syria gives the lie to the charge that Libya is "our fault" because there's every chance things could be worse there now had we not bought the high intensity war to a close quicker.

As regards turning ships back - we should be doing it as close to the African and Levantine coast as we can manage, legally, because that's the minimum distance travelled for these deathtraps and it offers the best deterrent.

Importing refugees en masse just imports all their social problems, we should be taking practical steps to stem the human flood and to stabalise the countries they're fleeing from. Historically we did that last part by propping up Tyrants, I think that was a mistake but it's hard to find another solution.

Originally Posted by Husar

It blames Kenya for not aowing the refugees to work while they are there in camps.
You are aware that they are not allowed to work in Germany for example either?

This was the important bit:

Rather than force refugees into camps, Uganda allowed waves of refugees from conflicts in Rwanda and Congo to settle in local communities,

They were allowed to settle and didn't have to stay in the camps.

Originally Posted by Fragony

For your consideration Husar, it doesn't adress everything you say, and often agrees with you, but mostly not http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...o-1519875.html Good read.

Sorry, just have tme to skim the article, may read it a bit closer later. From what I read so far:
I think Africa needs the right kind of aid where it is warranted. The current situation seems more like throwing money at the problem, hoping it goes away. This money can both undercut the local economy and also end up in the hands of people who make the problems worse. On the whole, Africa seems to be improving, as does South America, but both parts also need to address the social inequalities. It does not help much if the wealthy and the upper middle class raise the national average by becoming even richer while the poor still have nothing. There might actually be some trickle down (since it is also impossible to have anything trickle up when the poor have nothing), but if there is, it is apparently very, very slow.

I agree that we can't just invite all the poor people to "make them rich", we have to help fix the problems in their countries in a way that actually fixes them. Throwing bombs and money at them almost indiscriminately only seems to work in very few cases since it tends to hit the wrong people as well or result in unexpected/unwanted outcomes.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I think we should have been more hands on in the first few months after Gaddaffi fell, got the transitional government to let us station a small a number of NATO troops in the capital and in particular a disproportionate number of military engineers to quickly repair roads and other infrastructure to get people's lives back to something as close to normal as we could, as quickly as possible.

Perhaps, I'm mostly just saying that we are dealing with the consequences of our past mistakes and maybe we shouldn't whine as much or try to blame the people whose forefathers we turned into puppets and tried to make them willing slaves rather than foster a democratic process/culture, which they now lack.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In any case, Syria gives the lie to the charge that Libya is "our fault" because there's every chance things could be worse there now had we not bought the high intensity war to a close quicker.

Or maybe we supported the wrong people in both cases. Or maybe we shouldn't have supported the dictator in the first place. It depends on what you want. Gaddafi did stop the immigrants from taking off for the most part. On the other hand he was maybe not the best ruler for his country. And that there was no real political opposition in the country was amybe also the fault of us supporting him and his predecessor, who were both autocrats. Oh and before that they had a queen somewhere far away, not exactly a democratic or democracy-supporting "form of government" either. Maybe if these countries had just been trade partners for us, they would have developed in a completely different direction, and possibly have far more natural national borders than the often straight lines drawn in arbitrary places by their former overlords. But hey, let's not assume historical development could have any impact on how things are today, after all if you had not gone to school, you would have learned to read and write naturally.
It all depends on what you want though, do you want puppets who keep the poor in place or do you want them not to be poor? At the moment we seem to switch from the former to the latter, or rather, we try and find out it's not so easy. In a way we are also paying for our past mistakes. We can either whine about it or try to deal with it and improve the situation for the future.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As regards turning ships back - we should be doing it as close to the African and Levantine coast as we can manage, legally, because that's the minimum distance travelled for these deathtraps and it offers the best deterrent.

Importing refugees en masse just imports all their social problems, we should be taking practical steps to stem the human flood and to stabalise the countries they're fleeing from. Historically we did that last part by propping up Tyrants, I think that was a mistake but it's hard to find another solution.

Then what should Kenya or Jordania say? They house millions of refugees and don't seem to whine quite as much as Europeans currently do. I think that our preparations and the way we deal with the isue are the major problems. And I wouldn't give all refugees citizenship either. But look at Germany, in 1935 it was so easy to build huge barracks for people noone wanted in order to murder 6 million of them. Nowadays a few thousand already cause "problems". How about we build them some simple but effective shelters, house them there until we have maybe helped improve/secure their countries and then send them back when it is safe again? If they just fled for financial reasons, send them back as well and stop exploiting their countries or supporting those who keep them at bay with weapons supplied or financed by us. This may not fix everything but maybe after 50 years you can actually say the lack of development is their own fault because at least you're not supporting this lack to keep the wages in the diamond mines low or something.

The facts are there are not only emigrants fleeing from wars, but as well migrants wanted better life.
The reasons for people to go and risk their lives on flimsy boats, to go in countries they know don’t want them have to be addressed no?
So?
Wars: NATO is one of the biggest providers (if not the biggest). Like it or not, good reasons or not, that is the reality.
Oppression: In the fight against communists, Western Powers forgot that Nazism and Fascism were the best enemies of it. Or, more accurately, they turned blind eyes on the fact the ones fighting Communism were fascists (sometime limit to Nazism like in Indonesia, or Malaysia and the repression led by British SAS). In helping dictatorships to eradicate all what was “communist”, (definition going to students having Che Guevara T-shirt to unionist asking for pay rise), they first protected those as Saddam Hussain, Iranian Shah, Pinochet and others St Lazare and Franco. We are still supporting Saudis’ and Qatar… In killing all the lefties, we let a vacuum for the despaired, and this vacuum was filled by Religious. And because in this field, there are no borders and a strange understanding for all their against-basic-human-right, we helped the ones as ISIL and Al-Qaida to flourish.
Some might finally see that there are more Muslims fleeing the Islamic Paradise created by ISIL than ones who want to join.
You might say why these are not fighting the Religious Enemies. The answer is because we killed or helped to kill the potential leaders who might have done so.
Climate changes: Nobody speaks about this one. We have conferences after conferences about what we should do, but nothing happens.
So, how long must wait the populations whose lands are flooded every years for now 5 years, thanks to our industries and our greed (I shortcut).
California is now on its 4th years of drought. Being part of the USA helps, but in Somalia? Same conditions, plus war lords? Really? Emigration is the only way to stay alive.

You might built a new Chinese wall (which failed), or to make more ropes (made in Bangladesh anyway), put more borders, more wires, people who are dying will come.
Developed countries have to take their responsibilities and work on durable solutions.
And throwing back refugees in the sea or in the fire is not.

It's not an article Husar it's a review of a book. I would absolutily file it under essential reading. Author is from Africa, understands Africa, and is both a Harvard and an Oxford graduate.

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's not an article Husar it's a review of a book. I would absolutily file it under essential reading. Author is from Africa, understands Africa, and is both a Harvard and an Oxford graduate.

Works at Goldman Sachs, would probably tell you arsenic is good for your health.

Whilst there are merits in the argument, there are also flaws. Economy can only work if it is grown organically, if not, it ends up being like those ghost-towns in China where they build houses, shops and infrastructure, but there is nothing there to sustain a living environment.

So simply going to Africa, and building a town far removed from communities can fail hard, but working with the grass-roots, you can start to develop and advance an economy. Similarly by simply shipping over tons of food, it can make the rural community weak as they are unable to build and advance their farms, similar again can happen with charity shop clothes.

Husar, I'm not saying we have had no influence on these places, but in the case of North Africa and the Levant the people there have spent most of their history quasi-autonomous under a distant "Imperial" government of one description or another and, in fact, Europe has had far less influence than the Turks in the preceding centuries.

At the end of the day you either treat these people like adults or you don't. If you aren't willing to treat them as adults then you either leave them to it until they grow up or you invade and take over to "parent" them.

Also, Kenya and Jordan DO frequently complain about the refugees flooding over their borders - but that's their problem unless they and we want to work on a common solution.

I repeat, the first duty of a government is to its own people, then we should look to helping outsiders.

Originally Posted by Beskar

Works at Goldman Sachs, would probably tell you arsenic is good for your health.

Whilst there are merits in the argument, there are also flaws. Economy can only work if it is grown organically, if not, it ends up being like those ghost-towns in China where they build houses, shops and infrastructure, but there is nothing there to sustain a living environment.

So simply going to Africa, and building a town far removed from communities can fail hard, but working with the grass-roots, you can start to develop and advance an economy. Similarly by simply shipping over tons of food, it can make the rural community weak as they are unable to build and advance their farms, similar again can happen with charity shop clothes.

There is a lot of critisism as well as praise. I found it a good read because it's such a different take on things. I have my reservations as well but she is not someone to just dismiss {not that you do that, but some do}

Originally Posted by Husar

But look at Germany, in 1935 it was so easy to build huge barracks for people noone wanted in order to murder 6 million of them. Nowadays a few thousand already cause "problems".

You want those few thousands live under conditions good for 1935. Would you be satisfied with them?
I believe they have such conditions back in their home countries and they are one of the reasons that makes them flee in droves.

Originally Posted by Brenus

Developed countries have to take their responsibilities and work on durable solutions.
And throwing back refugees in the sea or in the fire is not.

Every time developed countries take the responsibility (it is called meddling) it turns into a mess, because they pursue their own interests (and that is natural).
Another choice is to let the others find their own course in life.

"Every time developed countries take the responsibility (it is called meddling) it turns into a mess, because they pursue their own interests (and that is natural).
Another choice is to let the others find their own course in life." Agree. But it is not natural. It is for the interests of the moment. And long term interest of Western World is to develop others countries. Short term is to bomb them. And when we disagree with their choice, we bomb them, or plot Coup, organise chaos etc.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Husar, I'm not saying we have had no influence on these places, but in the case of North Africa and the Levant the people there have spent most of their history quasi-autonomous under a distant "Imperial" government of one description or another and, in fact, Europe has had far less influence than the Turks in the preceding centuries.

Our influence was during the time where a lot of countries turned democratic, even Turkey got onto a democratic path, but the countries that were under colonial governments all did not, nd quite a few of their attempts to break free were silenced with lots of blood. My point was that this suppression prevented them from even developing a sense for democracy or national unity as they were on one hand not allowed to do so and on the ther hand, their foremost concerns were not about how to govern themselves after colonial rule but how to get rid of it in the first place. And when that finally happened, the natural tendency was to accept the strongman who prevailed through all of it instead of having elections. In Europe the whole democracy thing didn't develop out of nowhere either.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

At the end of the day you either treat these people like adults or you don't. If you aren't willing to treat them as adults then you either leave them to it until they grow up or you invade and take over to "parent" them.

Yes, but telling them that they have to do this or that in order to get money from you that they desperately need or bribing their leaders is hardly treating them as adults. Treating them as adults may also mean treating them as equals. Unless by treating them as adults you mean to use your power as much as possible until they fight back or succumb to it.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Also, Kenya and Jordan DO frequently complain about the refugees flooding over their borders - but that's their problem unless they and we want to work on a common solution.

So if we crete a problem, then the result of it is their problem. If by that you mean all surrounding countries around a war zone could just not let any refugees in and watch them get slaughtered or starve at the border fences, then we can also just sink all the boats at sea and call it an act of charity as we end their suffering. I suppose this is not what you want though.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I repeat, the first duty of a government is to its own people, then we should look to helping outsiders.

I think the first duty of any human is to help other humans who are in need. And no, I do not give money to all the homeless people I see, but I expect my government to help where it can and make sure people stop being homeless (even a problem in Germany). I pay taxes so that the government can decide who needs the money. Of course I do not decide this alone, so I may not always like the result, such as bailouts for banks while other people have to sleep in the streets even though helping them would require only a fraction of the money spent on the banks.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

You want those few thousands live under conditions good for 1935. Would you be satisfied with them?
I believe they have such conditions back in their home countries and they are one of the reasons that makes them flee in droves.

Way to misinterprete my point. Which was that our country is capable of quickly building housing for a lot of people if it wants to, even more so today than it was in 1935. Yet nothing like that is done while cities complain that they have no space for the refugees. Meanwhile we have a problem with increasing rents anyway as not enough new houses are built. There are students who have to take very creative housing because there are no open homes for them. The ones who profit are, in simple terms, the haves not not the have-nots. As usual.
Meanwhile we earned 100 billion € from the Euro-crisis while we still haven't paid a cent, only given guarantees for Greek debt. And the Greeks are often left to deal with the refugees as well. Is Germany a wealthy country that could afford to help out now or not? If yes, what is stopping us? And I'm still not talking about giving them all citizenship, just for reference.

Originally Posted by Husar

Our influence was during the time where a lot of countries turned democratic, even Turkey got onto a democratic path, but the countries that were under colonial governments all did not, nd quite a few of their attempts to break free were silenced with lots of blood. My point was that this suppression prevented them from even developing a sense for democracy or national unity as they were on one hand not allowed to do so and on the ther hand, their foremost concerns were not about how to govern themselves after colonial rule but how to get rid of it in the first place. And when that finally happened, the natural tendency was to accept the strongman who prevailed through all of it instead of having elections. In Europe the whole democracy thing didn't develop out of nowhere either.

You're conveniently forgetting all the East Asian Colonial Possessions that developed democratic institutions. India is a good example of this, though the long-term goal was Dominion status alongside the likes of Canada and Australia the Indians forced Britain's hand, about two decades before Britain wanted to give them self-rule.

[quote[Yes, but telling them that they have to do this or that in order to get money from you that they desperately need or bribing their leaders is hardly treating them as adults. Treating them as adults may also mean treating them as equals. Unless by treating them as adults you mean to use your power as much as possible until they fight back or succumb to it.[/quote]

You're talking about the past, I'm talking about the present and the future.

So if we crete a problem, then the result of it is their problem. If by that you mean all surrounding countries around a war zone could just not let any refugees in and watch them get slaughtered or starve at the border fences, then we can also just sink all the boats at sea and call it an act of charity as we end their suffering. I suppose this is not what you want though.

I don't think we did create this problem, I think at certain points we have exploited certain groups for either economic or political reasons but the West did not create radical Islam or the tactic of suicide bombing, or encourage the adoption of Sharia.

Again - compare India - although a lot of India is very backward, and backward looking , we saw no mass-mobilisation of maniacal groups devoted to Shiva or Karli, did we? No, the demand was for democracy and self-rule and when these were granted they mostly stuck - in India.

Now consider Muslim Pakistan - it had the same start as India but now large swarthes of it's tribal areas near Afghanistan have devolved into warlords who claim religious sanction for their rule, the same as in the Middle East.

This is a cultural problem, and one which seems to latch on to Islam as a fig leaf for brutality much as Socialism and Communism did in the rest of the World but unlike the latter these extreme Muslim schools have the backing of God and seem to therefore have more staying power.

I think the first duty of any human is to help other humans who are in need. And no, I do not give money to all the homeless people I see, but I expect my government to help where it can and make sure people stop being homeless (even a problem in Germany). I pay taxes so that the government can decide who needs the money. Of course I do not decide this alone, so I may not always like the result, such as bailouts for banks while other people have to sleep in the streets even though helping them would require only a fraction of the money spent on the banks.

well, do you want your government to help the homeless in Germany or in Syria first? Should your government be taking in 750,000 refugees when it can't feed and house all its own people?

Just look at what is happening at Greece to see the magnitude of the problem. Being soft on these illegal immigrants is what is causing the problem. Greece can't afford to look after it's own people so how can they look after these people also.

Originally Posted by classical_hero

Just look at what is happening at Greece to see the magnitude of the problem. Being soft on these illegal immigrants is what is causing the problem. Greece can't afford to look after it's own people so how can they look after these people also.

Greeks can try and borrow some money from them (as a fee for shipping them forward to the West).

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You're conveniently forgetting all the East Asian Colonial Possessions that developed democratic institutions. India is a good example of this, though the long-term goal was Dominion status alongside the likes of Canada and Australia the Indians forced Britain's hand, about two decades before Britain wanted to give them self-rule.

Weren't those cultures at quite a different level of development and not seen as the same kind of subhumans?
If I'm not mistaken they did at least have a more educated upper class that was somewhat incorporated into the colonial rule while Africa had a stronger top-down approach.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You're talking about the past, I'm talking about the present and the future.

I don't think all African countries are presently treated as adults. The ones that are probably have pro-western governments where we basically treat the governments as adults so they keep their children/sheeple in check so that our companies can pay them badly to extract resources. Even in China and India a lot of people can work in western-backed sweatshops or be unemployed. IF we treated them as aduts, we would pay fairer wages for example. At least in Germany the trend seems to be the other way around, where even Germans aren't treated as adults anymore and are forced into lower-wage jobs or lose their unemployment benefits. The well-educated can so far often avoid this, but everybody else is treated like a child unable to make choices for themselves. This sort of behavior erodes belief in democracy, even in developed countries. The difference nowadays is just that companies seem to dictate more on how people are treated than governments do. There was this African government that couldn't afford to sue Philipp Morris so they had to let them do what they want for example.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I don't think we did create this problem, I think at certain points we have exploited certain groups for either economic or political reasons but the West did not create radical Islam or the tactic of suicide bombing, or encourage the adoption of Sharia.

Again - compare India - although a lot of India is very backward, and backward looking , we saw no mass-mobilisation of maniacal groups devoted to Shiva or Karli, did we? No, the demand was for democracy and self-rule and when these were granted they mostly stuck - in India.

Now consider Muslim Pakistan - it had the same start as India but now large swarthes of it's tribal areas near Afghanistan have devolved into warlords who claim religious sanction for their rule, the same as in the Middle East.

I do not remember claiming that the entire world would be democratic today if we had just stayed out of it. And of course the different cultures react differently to oppression. But maybe trying to force your ideals on people who will react with suicide bombings is the wrong approach for that culture. Or is it just that good cultures accept oppression and do what the oppressor wants and only bad cultures fight back?

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This is a cultural problem, and one which seems to latch on to Islam as a fig leaf for brutality much as Socialism and Communism did in the rest of the World but unlike the latter these extreme Muslim schools have the backing of God and seem to therefore have more staying power.

This is also a cultural problem of us expecting that everybody we meet should love us and our culture and our rule or they must be bad people. Most of these muslim terror groups came into existence as a response to foreign oppression. What would have happened without this foreign oppression is a big what-if. How many suicide bombings happened before colonialization?

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

well, do you want your government to help the homeless in Germany or in Syria first? Should your government be taking in 750,000 refugees when it can't feed and house all its own people?

It's not an issue of can't....
The government made 100 billion € in profit from the greek crisis alone and increased weapon exports by a whole lot.
It could certainly afford to bail out banks, how much more does that cost than building homes for the homeless?
Germany is seen as the economic powerhouse of Europe and you eriously think the government could not afford to help the homeless if it actually wanted to?
I think it is more likely that they do not care and the homeless probably often don't vote anyway as it would require them to invest a lot more effort than someone who has a home and is automatically notified and registered. A cynic might also say they serve as a reminder for everybody else not to mess with the system too much.

Originally Posted by Husar

Weren't those cultures at quite a different level of development and not seen as the same kind of subhumans?
If I'm not mistaken they did at least have a more educated upper class that was somewhat incorporated into the colonial rule while Africa had a stronger top-down approach.

So you're saying Indian culture was more "developed" than African culture?

More literate and keener to Westernise at one point, perhaps, but by the first quarter of the 20th century Africa also had a well educated elite - or at least the elite had the opportunity to be well educated. Nelson Mandela was a Lawyer as well as a Marxist and a terrorist, for example.

Or is it just that good cultures accept oppression and do what the oppressor wants and only bad cultures fight back?

I'm happy to draw the line at "does not kill own people to make a point".

The Catholic PIRA are in that boat too.

This is also a cultural problem of us expecting that everybody we meet should love us and our culture and our rule or they must be bad people. Most of these muslim terror groups came into existence as a response to foreign oppression. What would have happened without this foreign oppression is a big what-if. How many suicide bombings happened before colonialization?

Before colonialism it wasn't possible to do suicide bombings and, in fact, I think you'll find that the modern Jihadist and suicide bomber only appeared after WWII as these countries gained independence.

It's not an issue of can't....
The government made 100 billion € in profit from the greek crisis alone and increased weapon exports by a whole lot.
It could certainly afford to bail out banks, how much more does that cost than building homes for the homeless?
Germany is seen as the economic powerhouse of Europe and you eriously think the government could not afford to help the homeless if it actually wanted to?
I think it is more likely that they do not care and the homeless probably often don't vote anyway as it would require them to invest a lot more effort than someone who has a home and is automatically notified and registered. A cynic might also say they serve as a reminder for everybody else not to mess with the system too much.

Well, everybody knows the current German government are a bunch of puritanical nationalistic prigs, so that's a bad example.

Originally Posted by Husar

Weren't those cultures at quite a different level of development...

With so much questionable content coming from you lately, let me just stop you at that very FIRST phrase of an otherwise long post.

Since you obviously now finally have accepted that different cultures are at different levels of development, may I ask you, what factors do you count in as being developed? What factors do you factor in as undeveloped?

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So you're saying Indian culture was more "developed" than African culture?

More literate and keener to Westernise at one point, perhaps, but by the first quarter of the 20th century Africa also had a well educated elite - or at least the elite had the opportunity to be well educated. Nelson Mandela was a Lawyer as well as a Marxist and a terrorist, for example.

More literate and more technologically advanced was what I meant, of course a culture adapts to these developments. I'm not sure whether Nelson Mandela is a great example, I don't think black Africans were free to choose their future in South Africa when he started to appear publicly. Does his education mean that apartheid wasn't so bad after all?
Did this also happen in India?
http://revealinghistories.org.uk/afr...by-europe.html

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I'm happy to draw the line at "does not kill own people to make a point".

The Catholic PIRA are in that boat too.

Isn't "own people" a very relative term or do we have to define it along racial or national lines? And what about countries where many tribes or ethnicities ended up within a border against their will? Are they still their "own people" or not?

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Before colonialism it wasn't possible to do suicide bombings and, in fact, I think you'll find that the modern Jihadist and suicide bomber only appeared after WWII as these countries gained independence.

And why is that so?

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, everybody knows the current German government are a bunch of puritanical nationalistic prigs, so that's a bad example.

You have no homeless people in the UK?
I thought your way of fighting homelessness was to install spikes to get it out of sight.

Originally Posted by Husar

More literate and more technologically advanced was what I meant

I'll again stop you at the first phrase.

What, in your view, made Africa fall behind when it came to being literate or technologically advanced?

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I'll again stop you at the first phrase.

What, in your view, made Africa fall behind when it came to being literate or technologically advanced?

That's hard to say, different regions developed in different ways, maybe more contact with other people. Maybe more natural changes, different natural resources. If people do not have access to iron for example, it's hard for them to develop steel and technologies related to it. The article I linked above mentions that they had gold and quite extensive trade and empires. It's not like they were not developing, just differently from other people. And you can't just think all of Africa was the same as Africa is also a diverse continent.
The Incas and the apaches also had completely different lifestyles that were adjusted to their surroundings, just like a lot of other people. The early high cultures of Europe all seemed to develop around the Mediterranean. It might be silly to dismiss natural influences.

What do you think?

No iron, my collection of African weapons must be fake than. Except it isn't

Also density of food, especially protein. It was too low in general to support a high enough population for development - things were too close to hand to mouth for too many to develop.

Perhaps rather than speaking of development which is very subjective, how about talk about desirability of a society?

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

What, in your view, made Africa fall behind when it came to being literate or technologically advanced?

I heard a theory that technological advancement was faster in areas of moderate climate, since too cold climate made the inhabitants think only of survival while too hot climate meant an easy access to food and consequently all attempts at improvement unneccessary.

As ever, everyone argues a load of nonsense and misses the point.

Who owns the world? Do I own England? Do I need the permission of a frenchman to go and live in France? Am I responsible for the government of the country I live in destabilising another country?

If a person decides to make the choice to try and make a better life for themselves on a different part of the planet, then how can I object? The issues created by this immigration are just administrative ones.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

I heard a theory that technological advancement was faster in areas of moderate climate, since too cold climate made the inhabitants think only of survival while too hot climate meant an easy access to food and consequently all attempts at improvement unneccessary.

Which explains why the innuit dominate the world and the Hong Kong and Singaporeans are a poor and miserable people.