Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

billy-g

Immigration

Recommended Posts

I recieved this as an e-mail this mornng. Amazing, as it was sent to me by a friend whose parents came here from India, legally, in the 60's. His views on illegal immigration make a few on here look pussy.

Immigrants

> >>

> >>Recently, demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting

> >>the fact that Parliament is finally addressing the issue of illegal

> >>immigration.

> >>

> >>Certain people are angry that the UK might actually want to protect it own

> >>borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here,

> >>make it harder as an illegal immigrant to stay indefinitely.

> >>

> >>Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

> >>

> >>Let us say I break into your house. Then, when you discover me in your

> >>house, you insist that I leave, but I say, I've made all the beds and

> >>washed

> >>the dishes and done the laundry and swept the floors. In fact, I have

> >>done

> >>all the things you do not like to do. I am hard working and honest.

> >>Well,

> >>except for when I broke into your house.

> >>

> >>According to the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must also

> >>add me to your family's insurance plan, educate my children, pay for all

> >>my

> >>family's medical and other healthcare needs, and provide many other

> >>benefits

> >>to me and to my family. My husband will do your gardening and general odd

> >>jobs because he, too, is hard-working and honest. Well, except for when

> >>we

> >>broke into your house.

> >>

> >>If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends, who

> >>will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my illegal right to be

> >>there. It is only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I

> >>do, and I am just trying to better myself. I am hard working and honest.

> >>Well, except for the . . . . . um, you know. . . . . The breaking in part.

> >>

> >>And what a great deal it is for me! I live in your house, contributing

> >>only

> >>a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about

> >>it

> >>without being accused of selfishness and prejudice against house breakers.

> >>

> >>I want you to learn my language, so you can communicate with me, because

> >>English is too hard for me to learn. Also, you must change the rules in

> >>our

> >>schools so that my children can wear the clothes I want them to wear,

> >>rather

> >>than the uniform your children have to wear. Your schools must also

> >>provide

> >>special foods to my children and your children must eat these foods, too,

> >>because I do not want my children eating many of the foods you and your

> >>children eat. Otherwise, you must build schools that are especially for

> >>my

> >>children, and others like them, where they can wear the clothes of my

> >>choice, speak the language of my choice, eat the food of my choice and are

> >>taught the subjects of my choice.

> >>

> >>If you are of a different religion to me, you and your children must also

> >>learn all about my family's religion, although the schools you build for

> >>my

> >>children will not teach them about the religion of you and your family.

> >>As

> >>I am living in your house, you and your family must stop celebrating your

> >>own religious festivals but allow me always to celebrate mine.

> >>

> >>If I break the rules of your house, I should not be subject to the same

> >>punishments as your own family because my rules may be different from

> >>yours.

> >>You should also allow me to vote in my own language because I live in your

> >>house.

> >>

> >>Only in the UK could all this happen.

> >>

> >>Why cannot people see how ridiculous this is?

> >>

> >>If you agree, pass it on in English!

> >>

> >>If not, delete it . . . . . along with your future

Bloody hell :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
Hi Billy,

Although i agree (in principle) with what is being said in the er 'e-mail', did you really receive from Indians?

If I don't ask, you'll only get a wishy washy liberal doing it instead.

I've known Indians who shared these sentiments. :) I think it is not a question of what nationality immigrants are or even what religion they are, as regards their willingness to adapt to our way of life a bit. It is the 'brand' of Islam they have 'ingested'. I found Ugandan-Asian Muslims very must less dogmatic that those who hailed from 'other parts', and Hindus no probs. at all. I used to drink with a Hindu priest at my local: He was a real yell!! :lol:

I think you will find that the full veil and dogmatic stance of some Muslims is a recent occurence. Forty years ago they weren't as adamant or militant as they are now.

I also think it has quite a bit to do with education and class. Those I met at Uni' were totally unphased by the western way of life, and joined in for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bull, recieved it from a lad I went to school with, and we now use the same gym after not seeing each other for a good few years. In that time, he has worked hard, and became succesfull, outside the realms of his families traditional business.

He sees the influx of illegal immigration as killing the respect he and his parents have earned over the years, and isn't shy at saying so. He sees himself as 100% British, no ifs or buts, and has real issues with these clowns who proclaim (Insert religion here) first, then (insert parents country of origin here) second and British third.

Interesting times we live in indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Billy, nice reply.

Yeap and these are the people we need to remember when we go on about immigration, i.e. as you say, these are 100% British and not connected to the current debacle our porous borders are currenlty being subjected to.

As a Nationalist I disagree with you there but from their point of view the danger is that most ethnic Brits will get so fed up with immigration that they simply won't differentiate between an indian who has been here 3 generations and one just off the "bananna boat".

Established immigrants have the most to lose in economic terms. Interestingly the influx of Poles has had a much greater effect on the unemloyment rates of "visible ethnic minorities" than the general population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see why you do SC? :unsure:

Whether you, I or the next man like it or not, there are people (who have a historical originating background different from our own) which consider themselves British first, no matter their ancestoral origins.

It is a fact of life which you or I can't change that a proportion of immigrants have integrated and are truely British.

I don't see why only White people can consider themselves British or English.

Is this want you are saying?

I'm not sticking up for the crap which put 'their' culture, religion way before this land and then only say they are British for the benefits of the British passport.

I agree with the rest of your post btw SC.

Please expand on your disagreement with me.

Thanks Bull.

Edited for clarity.

To put it simply a dog born in a stable is not a horse. Even if it wears a saddle and jumps fences it remains a dog.

The British are a European people. It therefore follows that all Britons are Europeans though not all Europeans are Britons.

Perhaps look up Ethno Nationalism to get the gist of where I'm coming from.

If you don't subscribe to ethnonationalism I don't see how you can discriminate between a third generation Indian immigrant and a first. I mean if the new Indian immigrant has grand children here then the grand children are just as "British" as you (if I understand what you are saying correctly?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will look up 'Ethno Nationalism' this is a new one on me, I've never heard of it before.

Yes you do understand me correctly, that's exactly what I'm saying i.e. the Brit in the OP example has integrated and has taken his history (I assume) to be that of Englands.

Is there any author on this subject i.e. Ethno Nationalism.

You example is a little harsh if I may say so, but, is it along the same lines as Mohammad Ali when he gave the example on Parkinson (Second interview, 70's), of different birds not mixing and his example of his women not mixing with our men? Basically it was along the lines of not mixing the races or cultures.

Basically Ethno Nationalism maintains that to be a member of the Nation you must be descended of the Nation by blood.

What you are referring to is Civic Nationalism where any Tom, Dick or Harry can become a member of the Nation by subscribing to a set of rules or by an accident of birth by being born within geographical area.

The ultimate conclusion of your position is that we will cease to exist as a distinct people - we will have been replaced by people who you regard as British but who are of alien stock.

It seems obvious to me that Culture and Blood are strongly (though not exclusively) linked. This is why 3rd generation Indians support India at cricket for example. Or why 3rd generation Pakistanis blow themselves up on tube trains.

Can't comment on Muhammad Ali's position save to say it seems bizarre that he turned his back on his birth name and chose to embrace Islam when Islam had been enslaving Blacks just as viciously as the Europeans. Why couldn't at least adopt a west African indigenous religion and name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically Ethno Nationalism maintains that to be a member of the Nation you must be descended of the Nation by blood.

Hmm - so what you are saying is that the very same theory must also apply to the "native" British? given that British is a mixture of Germanic/Nordish identities (iirc so please feel free to correct)? and through immigration came the native British or the British what we know as today?? which to me means that the third gen indian is really no different to the 1st gen German who came here many moons ago as.. yep you guessed it an immigrant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm - so what you are saying is that the very same theory must also apply to the "native" British? given that British is a mixture of Germanic and Nordish identities (iirc so please feel free to correct)? and through immigration came the native British or the British what we know as today?? which to me means that the third gen indian is really no different to the 1st gen German who came here many moons ago as.. yep you guessed it an immigrant?

That would all depend on when you regard the Nation as having come into existance.

The British are primarily composed of the hunter gatherers who followed the retreating ice sheets following the last glaciation. The following waves of invaders Celt, Roman, Saxon, Dane made very little genetic impact though significant cultural impacts. We can argue about when the Britsh Nation and identity was forged but it's certainly prior to the recent era of mass migration.

If you can't tell the difference between an Angle/Saxon/Jute and an Indian I suggest you get an eye test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would all depend on when you regard the Nation as having come into existance.

The British are primarily composed of the hunter gatherers who followed the retreating ice sheets following the last glaciation. The following waves of invaders Celt, Roman, Saxon, Dane made very little genetic impact though significant cultural impacts. We can argue about when the Britsh Nation and identity was forged but it's certainly prior to the recent era of mass migration.

If you can't tell the difference between an Angle/Saxon/Jute and an Indian I suggest you get an eye test.

Now now.. no need to get your back up.. all I did was make an observation about your claims of "Ethno Nationalism" and how they could also be used against yourself if used in the same context...

See and this is the problem I have with this type of pseudo theories/rationale.... is that what you are saying is that essentialy being British means white? regardless of origin? yet white British can be europeans and europeans cannot be British? even though we are effectivly part of europe? :huh:

Wonder why no-one has ever heard of "Ethno Nationalism".. Anyways - by your own admission, what you seem to class as being British conforms to the very same defention of migration that the Indian has... so we as man have a history of movement/migration an no race/culture is exempt to this but your claims make it sound that the British have a right over a piece of land that they simply moved to?

Sorry, not in need of an eye test but maybe you need to revisit "Ethno Nationalism".

Why not just say simply that ones national/origin/identity is ultimatly determined by the colour of ones skin over anything else so instead of using pseudo semantic arguments?

How do you explain the differances between the Scot, Welsh and the British? using your "Ethno Nationalism?" because by defeniton, what you are claiming to be British is actually alien to the very island you are using this ideology for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now now.. no need to get your back up.. all I did was make an observation about your claims of "Ethno Nationalism" and how they could also be used against yourself if used in the same context...

See and this is the problem I have with this type of pseudo theories/rationale.... is that what you are saying is that essentialy being British means white? regardless of origin? yet white British can be europeans and europeans cannot be British? even though we are effectivly part of europe? :huh:

Wonder why no-one has ever heard of "Ethno Nationalism".. Anyways - by your own admission, what you seem to class as being British conforms to the very same defention of migration that the Indian has... so we as man have a history of movement/migration an no race/culture is exempt to this but your claims make it sound that the British have a right over a piece of land that they simply moved to?

Sorry, not in need of an eye test but maybe you need to revisit "Ethno Nationalism".

Why not just say simply that ones national/origin/identity is ultimatly determined by the colour of ones skin over anything else so instead of using pseudo semantic arguments?

How do you explain the differances between the Scot, Welsh and the British? using your "Ethno Nationalism?" because by defeniton, what you are claiming to be British is actually alien to the very island you are using this ideology for?

My back isn't up. :)

No that isn't what I said. I said the British are a European people. So all ethnic Britons would be European - though not all Europeans are British. I guess we could use the term "white" or "Caucasian" though those terms are more expansive than the one I chose. It's my contention that ethnic Britons are "white" -this isn't a controversial position to take AFAIK. Not all "whites" are Britons. Again this isn't a controversial position to take. A Pole isn't British, an Albanian isn't British, a Turk isn't British though all would be classed as "white".

Are you saying that no nation has any right to any land? Or that you don't believe in the state system? :blink:

Yes I absolutely believe that the British have a right to their own land to the exclusion of all other nations. It's called "self determination" and is the ultimate legitimacy of a states sovereignty.

Whilst I think that "skin colour" is an important factor in ones ethnicity is is not the sole determinant. A Zulu and a Xhosa have a similar skin tone but I don't think they are the same nation or interchangeable.

My own view is that Scots, Welsh, English and Irish are sub groups of a wider British group, though they are perfectly entitled to claim their own sovereignty and state if they so wish. (as indeed the free state did.)

I actually favour a British Federation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My back isn't up. :)
B) cool
No that isn't what I said. I said the British are a European people. So all ethnic Britons would be European - though not all Europeans are British. I guess we could use the term "white" or "Caucasian" though those terms are more expansive than the one I chose. It's my contention that ethnic Britons are "white" -this isn't a controversial position to take AFAIK. Not all "whites" are Britons. Again this isn't a controversial position to take. A Pole isn't British, an Albanian isn't British, a Turk isn't British though all would be classed as "white".

No its not a controversial position and I can see what you mean but the problem I have is how you narrow down these social groups into what is and what is not "white" based on ethnic nationilism. You oculd find yourself in a position where there are people lining up and being selected based on colour, hieght, hair colour etc? So in a way this could lead to selective discrimination on all things white?

Are you saying that no nation has any right to any land? Or that you don't believe in the state system? :blink:
I am not sure where I stand on this... and this is why, I look at the US and see the yanks preach about the land of the free and how the constitution protects any man etc.... yet this land was occupied by the Navajo for centuries before what can only be reffered to as mass genocide by Europeans?? and claiming a land that in truth was never thiers to take? I look at Israel and how this occupation is quite possibly the crux of many problems to date and again this is all over illegal land grab. Surely, if the land was occupied by what you could argue as its own indigenious was then removed illegally to make way for another race? this land was and had been claimed by the palestinians but they were then removed? using this ethnic nationlisim, the land was and had been occupied by palestinians and to come along in modern day times and to shift them them to make room for "persecuted" jews is wrong? or am I missing something here?
Yes I absolutely believe that the British have a right to their own land to the exclusion of all other nations. It's called "self determination" and is the ultimate legitimacy of a states sovereignty.

I do not dispute this in anyway whatsoever, all I say is that using and applying this train of thought will lead to questions and "greyness" as to what is ones man land and what is not which is why I alluded to the analogy of the scots/welsh/british as I see this as being a huge problem if we ever did come to this? Because of and I hate to use this term "race mxing" what many consider to be English today is quite possible a mixture of all three and then something else? A conversation in work some time back lead to a discovery that one lass was of Jewish-Polish decent which drew many a high eyebrow as she was considered as white...

My own view is that Scots, Welsh, English and Irish are sub groups of a wider British group, though they are perfectly entitled to claim their own sovereignty and state if they so wish. (as indeed the free state did.)

I actually favour a British Federation.

In a way this is begining to take place, would you agree? with the scots looking at independance so this from a geographical/political point of view is taking place already but to me has always been there as a barrier which all have ignored or tried to ignore.

The cricket theory B)

this is a really good way of looking at the situation, I find it strange that this happens but I do agree that there is a form of kinship which causes this and proves of underlying feelings that one has to his/her country regardless of the nationaliity that person is carrying.

I think the fact that the British in general have never really welcomed migrants has a huge part to play in this, social rejection because of colour/creed was rife with the first wave and there has always been a barrier based on colour and ethnic origin. I think, and I do genuinly believe this that the first and maybe second wave of migrants did try to mix in but were unable to as these were skilled or looking for jobs etc and coming to create political unrest. Most of what has come since is possibly part of the problems we have today. Migrants from poor backgrounds which have failed to mix in with wider communities etc and this is mostly evident in places like Yorkshire etc. The creed/cast of these are usually all the same and that the majority all come from poor little villages and had no education.

Creating thier own little villages in the UK and ignoring the wider community in a self imposed exile has created this void I suppouse whic has resulted in a breed of third/fourth generation "british" muslim which hates the indeginous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, so the British populous were never asked or consulted about the amount of immigration which happened in the 50 - 60's. Can you blame them for not 'really welcoming migrants'?

Same thing could be said of tourisim and how locals feel about the British abroad - the media has vilified the British tourist into anything but a drunken football supporter, is that a fair portrayal of the average British tourist? hell no, but its what you see in the media and the tourist hotspots or teh british are fast becoming a no go as a result of this.

You highlight in your own post of migrants (whether welcomed or not), which now choose to live in a self imposed exile.

Not really embracing the motherland culture is it?

Rather than point fingers, I think its a combination of factors that cause this self imposed exile, local councils, communities not wanting to know what the mussie or indian is upto and 10 years down the line we have a community that preaches extremisim... you cannot ignore the fact that because as society, we chose to ignore what was once a small part of British society is now moderate in size and growing but wanting to form its own identity as a result of rejection from mainstream society so regardless wether or not the locals were consulted or happy with it, what has followed has formed what we see today.

And I do believe there is something to be said for the bird analogy where robins will not mix with Golden eagles or why blue tits won't mix with starlings, just as one could argue why Jewish people don't on the whole mix with Muslims.
Depends on whos the eagle and whos the tit... but does not justify what the Jewish (or for that matter the British government) did in the 60s where they basically moved indigenious locals to make space for a group of people who have no true home? If they chose to travel the world to try and take control leaving behind what was possibly party thiers, how can theu jusify turning up hundreds (if not thousands) of years later wanting to take back something which they abonded in search of possibly better?
Culture, religion, colour, habits and appearance all go some way in my mind as to why an integrated society is as much a fantasy as a multicultural one where people accept their differences openly.
I think multi cultural is nothing more than a load of tosh - it has never existed before and never will now.. its a nulab plot to on the face of it try and create harmony but at the same time create divison.
One could state its the human condition.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
OK, so the British populous were never asked or consulted about the amount of immigration which happened in the 50 - 60's. Can you blame them for not 'really welcoming migrants'?

It's not just the British which are unwelcoming of migrants, if you are traveled you will see that all the European nations have well in excess of populations of 90% made up of their 'own nationality or people as it were.

One could argue, and I would, that it was a social experiment in the 50's onwards which brings us to the point we have today.

You highlight in your own post of migrants (whether welcomed or not), which now choose to live in a self imposed exile.

Not really embracing the motherland culture is it?

And I do believe there is something to be said for the bird analogy where robins will not mix with Golden eagles or why blue tits won't mix with starlings, just as one could argue why Jewish people don't on the whole mix with Muslims.

Culture, religion, colour, habits and appearance all go some way in my mind as to why an integrated society is as much a fantasy as a multicultural one where people accept their differences openly.

One could state its the human condition.

Here is the extract:

As Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn said in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech attacking multiculturalism, "the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind. its collective personalities."

Here are another two:

The urge for selfsegregation - surrounding yourself with people like you - is likely to triumph over the more ephemeral economic and political incentives to leave what you know.......

.....Sharing the same language, culture and values as the people you come into daily contact with may not be excitingly multicultural, but it means you end up with deeper relationships, a sense of community, belonging and security.

Here is the article:

http://bussorah.tripod.com/browne.html

Says it all, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello SC,

You have obviously thought throught your arguments and given it a lot of time and I respect that.

Yes it isn't a position I have taken lightly.

Perhaps we are coming to the same conclusions from different angles?

Quite possibly.

I agree that historical pulls can influence a person's perspective and where their true alligence lies. However, we cannot and should not IMHO turn our backs on people which genuinely embrace our nation (what ever the colour of their skin.

Hmmn it's a tough one isn't it? I disagree - how can you know that an immigrant who fully embraces our culture and history won't have kids who reject it and embrace that of their homeland? Many Jihadis have parents who have embraced our culture. In fact it has been a noted phenomenon that many Jihadists have lived in the west, found themselves caught between cultures and embraced radical Islam as a kind of reaction.

I like the Cricket test theory becuase, to me anyway, it shows where your true alligence lies.

I am dismayed and horrified when I see young Britsh people (obviously who have Grandparents from India) supporting

India.

Why? Because to me at least it shows that their parents or grandparents have influenced them to suppport a country which didn't bare them.

It kind of illustrates the point however I think it's an assunption that it's the Grandparents causing this. Many 3rd generation Indians come to this themselves. To me it's not a suprise but rather perfectly natural. Everybody needs an indentity. Clearly they aren't British so they cling to something else.

This shows an obvious failing in the integration policy forced upon us by Nu liars et all.

I think it shows the stupidity of importing people of alien stock and expecting them to behave like us. It's sheer arogance.

Surely though you wouldn't discriminate against the OP school friend because his heritage isn't from a European background?

Depends what you mean by discriminate. I wouldn't accept him as British if that's what you mean. Any more than I'd accept a Tiger living in Africa as being a Lion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the extract:

As Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn said in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech attacking multiculturalism, "the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind. its collective personalities."

Here are another two:

The urge for selfsegregation - surrounding yourself with people like you - is likely to triumph over the more ephemeral economic and political incentives to leave what you know.......

.....Sharing the same language, culture and values as the people you come into daily contact with may not be excitingly multicultural, but it means you end up with deeper relationships, a sense of community, belonging and security.

Here is the article:

http://bussorah.tripod.com/browne.html

Says it all, really.

Good article AJ.

It's pretty obvious really all the guff the multi cultist spew about "diversity" is bullsh!t. Mixing people up reduces global diversity.

The effects of "diversity" on community is well documented in "Bowling Alone" link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest d23
My back isn't up. :)

No that isn't what I said. I said the British are a European people. So all ethnic Britons would be European - though not all Europeans are British. I guess we could use the term "white" or "Caucasian" though those terms are more expansive than the one I chose. It's my contention that ethnic Britons are "white" -this isn't a controversial position to take AFAIK. Not all "whites" are Britons. Again this isn't a controversial position to take. A Pole isn't British, an Albanian isn't British, a Turk isn't British though all would be classed as "white".

Are you saying that no nation has any right to any land? Or that you don't believe in the state system? :blink:

Yes I absolutely believe that the British have a right to their own land to the exclusion of all other nations. It's called "self determination" and is the ultimate legitimacy of a states sovereignty.

Whilst I think that "skin colour" is an important factor in ones ethnicity is is not the sole determinant. A Zulu and a Xhosa have a similar skin tone but I don't think they are the same nation or interchangeable.

My own view is that Scots, Welsh, English and Irish are sub groups of a wider British group, though they are perfectly entitled to claim their own sovereignty and state if they so wish. (as indeed the free state did.)

I actually favour a British Federation.

what are your thoughts on the indigenous people of North America, South America and Australia kicking out their white / european immigrants and sending them back to their ancestral homelands?

would you support that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
what are your thoughts on the indigenous people of North America, South America and Australia kicking out their white / european immigrants and sending them back to their ancestral homelands?

would you support that?

For my part I can't see how it could be done. Don't the Europeans, Negros, Asians, Polynesians and Negroes and Hispanics outnumber the original American Indians? You would be removing over 95%.

Each of the above categories includes people who identify their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino.[12] U.S. federal law defines Hispanic to indicate any person with ancestry from a Latin American country or Spain.[13]

Hispanics of any race: 14.5% or about 41.9 million.[14] extract from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_...s#Racial_groups

Australia: 94% European

4.5% Asian

1.5% Aboriginal

extract from http://www.irishaustralia.com/Australian/Demographics/demographics.htm

You can't remove over 90% of any population..... even if it were possible. What is the point of such a question ?

Maybe if they were going to do it, they'd have been as well to do it 400 years ago...it's a bit late now.

A cautionary tale - I suppose - to any indigenous population. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what are your thoughts on the indigenous people of North America, South America and Australia kicking out their white / european immigrants and sending them back to their ancestral homelands?

would you support that?

In principle yes.

All peoples have the right of national self determination.

HOWEVER I think it would not be credible for the entire population of say the USA to be up rooted in toto so I think a compromise where the indigenous peoples get a territory of their own to govern as a free and sovereign people with the remaining territory going to the US. I'm not sure exactly how you would work out which Native nation gets what territory but it would be do-able.

As they constitute such a small number of voters I'm not sure how they would go about achieving this mind you. Still Native land rights are an issue in most parts of the "Anglo Saxon" world. Not so much an issue in the rest of the world. You never hear much about the struggle of the Negritos in Malaysia or the Copts in North Africa or the Khoi-san in South Africa. Strange that isn't it?

Remember that these native peoples became a minority in their own lands and as a result lost their land to immigrants. There's a lesson there for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe if they were going to do it, they'd have been as well to do it 400 years ago...it's a bit late now.

A cautionary tale - I suppose - to any indigenous population. :blink:

Quite! If the American INdians had managed to nip European immigration in the bud things might have turned out different for them.

You might find this amusing...

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In principle yes.

All peoples have the right of national self determination.

HOWEVER I think it would not be credible for the entire population of say the USA to be up rooted in toto so I think a compromise where the indigenous peoples get a territory of their own to govern as a free and sovereign people with the remaining territory going to the US. I'm not sure exactly how you would work out which Native nation gets what territory but it would be do-able.

This is comical at best!

Please keep them coming! :lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is comical at best!

Please keep them coming! :lol::lol:

So you don't want the Native American Nations to enjoy the right of self determination??? I'm puzzled as to why you'd want to deny them this basic right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 355 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.