Is mass immigration karma?

Scroll to see replies

Denmark, Sweden and Austria did have colonies.

Denmark-Norway had colonies. The USA bought them in 1917 after Denmark controlled them for 2 centuries, they're now known as the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Sweden had the colony Saint Barthélemy after they bought it off the French in 1784. They also had the short-lived colony of New Sweden in Delaware, Pennsylvania and Maryland until the Dutch took them.

Austria received funds from Spain due to them having the same dynasties, so they received the spoils of Spanish colonies and had their own short-lived Austrian colonies.

As said barely or none which you proove mr right. Thoose places you mentioned are nothing as the population of new Sweden was made up mostly of Finns. The Denmark only had the Vrgil Island which sold to the US with the permission of local population. None of this colonies were involved in the slave trade of opreesed anybody.

And Austria did not have it as even when it was in personal union with Spain they were spanish colonies. Non of them speak german toda.

Reply 41

JezWeCan!

Sigh.

People say some pretty strange things on this website, it is like they don't really engage their brain sometimes?

You are absolutely right that Britain went to war in 1939 because Poland was invaded by Germany.

So the fact that it had become a Soviet vassal state in 1945 was hardly meeting a war aim.

But what do you think Britain should have done to prevent one of the "worst betrayals?" At the end of WW2 there were over 500 Soviet infantry divisions and 50 armoured occupying Poland and Eastern Europe.

Stalin had effectively carved up the cold war frontiers with Roosevelt and Truman and presented it to Churchill as a fait accompli. He invented the phrase "iron curtain" to describe what had happened.

Are you suggesting that we should have taken on the five million plus men of the Red Army alone so as not to "betray" Poland?

Get real.

Reply 42

ServantOfMorgoth

Original post by 0to100

Why? I'm smart as ****. lol

Yeah, I realised lol.

Reply 43

MrControversial

A lot of people have taken it as karma because they basically hate white British. It can be artificial karma or accidental. Except karma for what and if you want to go down that road we'll have to ensure karma for a hell of a lot of people based on ancestry and history. You get things like self fulfilling prophecies. People like to manipulate and focus on the idea that things are ordained, destiny to be, fate. But lets not forget that the British generally weren't bad especially given the power we held. The values under which we are now negatively judged are ones that we either came up with, embraced long before many others or spread across the world. If anything the karma of being too good and soft is coming back to bite us. At the time of the rise of Europe everyone everywhere was on kind of evil, screwed or so on and it's strange to assume that all other populations were defacto innocent. Europe itself was not actually a bastion of modern civility, it had pockets or non-persistent times of calm. The fact is that out of the chaos we came out on top and people are jealous of this. In modern times we've screwed up on immigration and with a self destructive ideology that denies any important in all the things that make us what we are. When people are invoking original sin over the British for being historically successful it is clear what they are and where they stand.

Extreme immigration actually isn't great for foreign countries though when we should be outsourcing instead as companies grow beyond the capacity of our population to supply manpower.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 44

Trapz99

I am a Christian so I don't believe in it.

Reply 45

KnightCode

Why are u being fcking racist.
Whites this. Whites that, white faults.
How about you grow up and stop blaming skin colour.

Immgration is due to us getting invovled in the middle east and supplying the terroist. We drone them and kill innocents also.
Also since we are part of the EU and the UN, we are forced to help those countries and open our gates for them to migrate here.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 46

HucktheForde

Original post by caravaggio2

Building empires is the story of mankind.
How many countries in history in a position to build an empire and take it advantage said. "..nah...do you know what? Tha would be greedy that would...we should just keep to our own territory and not take advantage of them"

Be careful of that sentiment. It is thinkings like this that legitimises putins annexation of crimea.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 47

markova21

Original post by JezWeCan!

I don't think you know very much about this. In fact your comment reveals you haven't the first clue about great swathes of early Imperial history.

Consider the Raj. In the Indian subcontinent an Empire was built from scratch not by the armed forces of the nation state, but by a few individuals from a private trading company.

A handful of Englishmen, separated from their homes by an immense ocean, in a few short years subjugated one of the greatest Empires in the world. with a population of well over one hundred million.

These were not savage people, but highly civilised. They had great cities, sophisticated administrative and financial systems and impressive armies.

It is an amazing story, one of the greatest in all history, rivalling Cortes' conquest of Mexico, with which it shares some similarities. Arguably it was a greater achievement even than that.

But I am guessing not one told you what actually happened in your GCSE history course, from which you seem to have formed your ignorant and ill informed view of imperial history.

Do some research, read up on it. Learn about the Battles of Plassey and Buxar, the massacre of Patna, the life histories of Clive, and Hastings and the likes of Shuja Daula.

Then you will not come out with nonsense like "the British invaded countries which were clearly weaker than them..."

I'm tracing my family tree. My great grandfather ,who was Irish was a soldier in the East India Company,which was a vast company which had its own private army. He was born in the 1820's and don't know how long he was with them,but I would imagine the only reason he joined was so he didn't starve back home in Ireland.

Reply 48

JezWeCan!

Original post by markova21

That is fascinating.

Your ancestor arrived a little later than the battles I described, but fought for the "private trading company" I mentioned all the same

You are probably right about his reason for enlisting, but it shows the opportunities the Empire offered for ambitious young men with little to hope for in the UK (or Ireland).

Thanks to the quite extraordinary East India Company (now pretty much written out of history) he didn't starve and you yourself are here today. And he must have had some remarkable experiences, and seen some sights in the India of the early nineteenth century.

Thanks for sharing. :smile:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 49

markova21

Original post by JezWeCan!

Cheers. All I know is his son,my grandfather,travelled over from Ireland on a cattle boat to start a new life in Manchester. His occupation on his 1896 marriage certificate says Cattle Drover. This was the same occupation as his future father in law. Salford Cattle Market had opened about 30 years earlier and employed tens of thousands of people. As he was from a rural area in County Offaly I would imagine word must have got round that this new-ish place were looking for thousands of people. It's also around the time that the new Trafford Park industrial estate [next door to Salford] was being built was also looking for thousands of workers. I'll never know for definate of course, but this Salford Cattle Market and him travelling over to England on a cattle boat makes sense.