when white people come over to other lands for their resources, it's labelled "colonialism". when non-white people do this, it's called "cultural enrichment" can I say that?
That awkward moment when you rep someone you disagree with...
Do you genuinely believe that refugees and migrants are colonising Britain? Or that they are stealing your resources? If so, elaborate.
when white people come over to other lands for their resources, it's labelled "colonialism". when non-white people do this, it's called "cultural enrichment" can I say that?
You can say that but then I can say you really really need to go educate yourself on what colonialism means.
I would say your objection is to the perceived shift in cultural values in western countries due to an influx of refugees/migrants from the middle east and Africa who hold different cultural values to us. The extreme of this would be if say we become majority Muslim and that causes a shift away from what we would describe as liberal western values which changes how our governments act. That still wouldn't be colonialism. For it to be colonialism a big stronger state would have to march in with it's army and take control and our nation state would have to obey the stronger nation state and submit to its interests even if it was determinant to our interests. If you think refugees and economic migrants from poor under developed countries that are in civil war are doing this then I don't know what to say.
when white people come over to other lands for their resources, it's labelled "colonialism". when non-white people do this, it's called "cultural enrichment" can I say that?
You can say that but then I can say you really really need to go educate yourself on what colonialism means.
I would say your objection is to the perceived shift in cultural values in western countries due to an influx of refugees/migrants from the middle east and Africa who hold different cultural values to us. The extreme of this would be if say we become majority Muslim and that causes a shift away from what we would describe as liberal western values which changes how our governments act. That still wouldn't be colonialism. For it to be colonialism a big stronger state would have to march in with it's army and take control and our nation state would have to obey the stronger nation state and submit to its interests even if it was determinant to our interests. If you think refugees and economic migrants from poor under developed countries that are in civil war are doing this then I don't know what to say.
I cba to read this but I'm assuming this boils down to you taking my comment literally (when I've said three times in this thread that it was a metaphorical comparison) so cba
not really - I'm just interpreting it in the same way you are. while it *was* metaphorical because immigrants aren't the force behind a government like colonialists are in a new land, the effects of colonialism are similar (or the same) to the case of immigration into western societies.
Make sure you explain that resources = welfare and government dependence, but I don't understand how anyone would think it's a "metaphor" or an inaccurate representation of colonialism.
Make sure you explain that resources = welfare and government dependence, but I don't understand how anyone would think it's a "metaphor" or an inaccurate representation of colonialism.
no I mean to compare it to specifically "colonialism" is obviously analogical
if I said that there is a general cultural integration effect would you be outraged?
The fact that immigration 'affects' a country is inarguable. Often these are positive. Comparing immigration to colonialism makes the migrants themselves seem malicious, destructive and dangerous. And whilst potential ill effects of large-scale immigration on a countries resources and culture are reasonable things to be concerned about any valid argument get's completely swepped away by prejudiced bs.
- 'Migrants' are not 'stripping countries of their resources' in the way that colonialists did. Rather, in GB at least, they make a net contribution to the economy. - Colonialists did not go to places like Africa as refugees or even as economic migrants - they came from a more developed place to a less developed one - that's plain greed. They also, in many cases, systematically pressed and even destroyed the native population. Refugees and immigrants on the other hand are looking for a better life. - If someone comes to Europe illegally then they're an illegal immigrant not 'just a migrant'. They also aren't part of a technologically advanced, racialist, imperialist mob as the colonialists were.
That guy is either a fool or taking his audience for fools.
It is incredibly difficult to respect the arguments of people who do not appreciate that migrants, on an individual level are just people making the incredibly brave decision to improve their and their families future prospects. I'll listen to arguments about school places, the burden to infrastructure and cultural integration all day - but unfortunately too many in this debate are just prejudiced losers.
The fact that immigration 'affects' a country is inarguable. Often these are positive. Comparing immigration to colonialism makes the migrants themselves seem malicious, destructive and dangerous. And whilst potential ill effects of large-scale immigration on a countries resources and culture are reasonable things to be concerned about any valid argument get's completely swepped away by prejudiced bs.
I imagine a lot of people in less developed countries grow up with an image of the UK in their head as a place where they can thrive and succeed despite limited opportunities at home thanks to relatively generous labour laws and publicly provided healthcare. In much of the developed world I imagine the focus is more on our culture, history, high standards of education and the fact that we are the Anglosphere nation of Europe.