Turn on thread page Beta

I won't put a cap on immigration vows Alan Johnson watch

    Offline

    14
    (Original post by 1721)
    really its strange how divided it is.
    its suprising how little its discussed.
    its almost as if people wont touch it with a 10 ft barge pole as they are 100% going to disagree with someone and loose them votes.
    You can see examples of similar responses in cases where the jobs move to the labour (rather than the labour moving to the jobs, as is the case with immigration). Many manufacturing jobs have moved to China, leaving anger and resentment among those who have lost the jobs, such as those in the US's industrial mid-West. This anger leads to calls for protectionism, and often politicians feel thatt those calls must be answered in some way. The anger felt by those who have lost their jobs is often louder and more dangerous for politicians than those who dispassionately make the case for free trade (and the reduced consumer prices that come with it).

    (Original post by God of War)
    the CIA created the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union
    False. The Taliban were formed during the Afghan civil war by Mullah Muhammad Omar, making their first notable appearance in early 1994.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    we don't have a moral duty to take the whole third world, but again people sort of have to understand that some of their issues are down to the west, and the pope banning condoms

    i think it was a French major said we are seem as a bit of a east touch
    Agreed, it seems for once. However i do think that the best course of action long term is to make places like Africa and SE asia more bearable and somewhere where people want to work. Population in the magnitudes that exist globally today cannot be realistically confined to small areas.

    I actually agree with a Daily Mail article (although it does burn to type this:p: ), written by their Science Editor today. The debate isn't truly about race,nationality or religion etc. Its about cold, hard numbers. I mean, Australia has for my money, the best system in the world, yet they are certainly not racist!
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    You can see examples of similar responses in cases where the jobs move to the labour (rather than the labour moving to the jobs, as is the case with immigration). Many manufacturing jobs have moved to China, leaving anger and resentment among those who have lost the jobs, such as those in the US's industrial mid-West. This anger leads to calls for protectionism, and often politicians feel thatt those calls must be answered in some way. The anger felt by those who have lost their jobs is often louder and more dangerous for politicians than those who dispassionately make the case for free trade (and the reduced consumer prices that come with it).

    False. The Taliban were formed during the Afghan civil war by Mullah Muhammad Omar, making their first notable appearance in early 1994.
    The CIA did fund resistance against the Soviet Union but your right, technically the Taliban did not exist then. However the Taliban have been created indirectly because of this funding.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You obviously haven't read the thread very well, then. I have posted my view that our transport infrastructure cannot take an extra ten million people, that we do not have enough space for the extra housing needed and that currently resident young people will be disadvantaged by the resulting massive long-term rise in property prices. Race has nothing to do with it. I object to unrestricted immigration from any source.
    You misread my post. Read it again word for word. Realize that you got this backwards.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    world debt is a big issue, wiping that clean would help lot of places in Africa and SE, and your sweet shops, and a good pay, not saying the same as UK or what ever, due to the cost of living is different

    Australia do have a good system in a way, their people as a whole a racist, moves they take are not, but its like UK in the 70's they don't like outsiders, they have issue with English people moving over there, family members out there have told me that

    i'll agree its nothing to do with race,nationality or religion, that shouldn't matter
    I agree with all but the bit in bold. Your family probably had a bad experience, but i know people who have/ are in the process of moving out there and they comment on how friendly everyone is compared to us here. IMO, "Britain" as a concept in my mind is represented most closely by Australia these days.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    they say once people get to know they are friendly people, and welcoming, they say people are alot nicer, like walking down the street people will say morning or afternoon, do it here people won't look into each others eyes of fear of people saying something, this is more a london view of that

    i think its more of a fear of outsiders more then anything
    That is a natural reaction to most people. I volunteer in a charity shop on saturday afternoons, and my town has a significant Polish community, which frequent stores like ours. I always try to be friendly, but there is a fear in the back of my mind that i might come across as unwelcoming and patronising, and go into my shell a bit. Its difficult to talk to some people when you dont know them, regardless of their origin.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    simple solution: just don't allow immigration to be higher than emigration
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I believe we have already been discussing this; with you trying very poorly to suggest countries to live in that are 99% white.
    Finland? They REALLY value their freedom and independence. Comes with fending off the Bear, I guess.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    True, I don't understand why Brits are so keen to dismantle and destroy any celebration or understanding of its past...no other country seems to, bar other equally pathetic governments in places like Sweden.
    Indeed. :eek3:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarve99)
    You misread my post. Read it again word for word. Realize that you got this backwards.

    Sorry. Must read more slowly.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The point was we can milk globalisation for everything its worth without letting millions of people come to our country to live.
    That isn't true. We are preventing ourselves from benefiting from the globalization of the work force. Restricting the movement of cheaper labour to jobs in the UK will keep consumer prices higher than they need to be, something that is undesirable for you, the consumer, and undesirable for the UK if it wishes to be economically competitive.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Our culture is built on migration from Northern European nations who already had an obvious cultural similitude to the native settlers of Britain (Saxon, Jute, Angles, Gauls, Normans etc. having developed under same geographical and climatic conditions). To compare this modest - gradual - change to the unprecedented turnaround caused by mass immigration from the Third World (with very little cultural similitude) today is simply absurd. Although the influences of other European interventions and a movement towards secularism post-Enlightenment have altered the manifestations of our periphery culture; traditional British culture consists of those that form the spine. For the sake of argument these are those things that can be considered exclusively British and those things that have been consistently present across the past 3,000 years. Third World immigration doesn't only threaten to work around this spine. It threatens to destroy this spine altogether. Plus, Britain is a culturally Christian country, and with the influx of various alien religions, one which specifically orders to "take not the Jews and Christians for your friends" and "slaughter the infidels" - being disgustingly mysoginistic in addition - others encouraging female circumcision and torture of children on the suspicions of witchcraft, then yes, I'd certainly say that Third World immigration is totally incompatible with British cultural and moral values.
    I suspect you have no idea whatsoever of the cultural life of 'Saxon, Jute, Angles, Gauls, Normans etc' but I'm happy to tell you that British people today (white or not) don't in any way, shape or form, live as these people lived, culturally speaking. Anglo-Saxon society was a slave society for one thing, and medieval England was a place where people were tortured and killed for their alleged witchcraft - are these part of our 'British culture' today?

    You keep saying that British people are 'culturally Christian' but never elaborate. I'm British but I'm no more 'culturally Christian' than I am a Christian. Are you going to spend your whole life persuading no one but yourself with such vague and unsubstantiated arguments?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I suspect you have no idea whatsoever of the cultural life of 'Saxon, Jute, Angles, Gauls, Normans etc' but I'm happy to tell you that British people today (white or not) don't in any way, shape or form, live as these people lived, culturally speaking. Anglo-Saxon society was a slave society for one thing, and medieval England was a place where people were tortured and killed for their alleged witchcraft - are these part of our 'British culture' today?
    It doesn't matter whether or not we still maintain these particular ideals. We've moved on as a consequence of an evolved morality and movement towards secularism. But they are still a basis of tradition. And, as I said, these were not at the forefront of my argument. The Saxon, Jute, Angles etc. worked around the periphery and had little effect on the spine of what today constitutes traditional British culture.

    (Original post by Oswy)
    You keep saying that British people are 'culturally Christian' but never elaborate. I'm British but I'm no more 'culturally Christian' than I am a Christian. Are you going to spend your whole life persuading no one but yourself with such vague and unsubstantiated arguments?
    I've elaborated plenty of times. Probably not to you, but meh. You cannot be British without being culturally Christian simply due to the degree of intensity that institutional Christianity has had both on the nation's societal structures and our historical peoples. It has little to do with faith, if anything at all.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    It doesn't matter whether or not we still maintain these particular ideals. We've moved on as a consequence of an evolved morality and movement towards secularism. But they are still a basis of tradition. And, as I said, these were not at the forefront of my argument. The Saxon, Jute, Angles etc. worked around the periphery and had little effect on the spine of what today constitutes traditional British culture.

    I've elaborated plenty of times. Probably not to you, but meh. You cannot be British without being culturally Christian simply due to the degree of intensity that institutional Christianity has had both on the nation's societal structures and our historical peoples. It has little to do with faith, if anything at all.
    Again, more of the ultimately empty assertions. How, culturally, does modern british life reflect that of Angles, Saxons, Jutes or Normans? Why can you never get specific?

    Basis of tradition? I've already told you about how Anglo-Saxon society was a slave society, about how medieval England was a place that burned old women for being witches, maybe I should add that homosexuality was only rendered legal a few decades ago and that the democracy we're so proud of wasn't anywhere near a universal franchise on equal terms until after the First World War. What specifics do you have? - you have no idea what you're talking about.

    I'm happy to state right here that I am not a 'cultural Christian' - simply asserting otherwise without getting specific on evidence, which is all you're doing, carries no weight. Are you going to tell me that having a Christmas tree in the house once a year makes me a 'cultural Christian'? lol
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Again, more of the ultimately empty assertions. How, culturally, does modern british life reflect that of Angles, Saxons, Jutes or Normans? Why can you never get specific?

    Basis of tradition? I've already told you about how Anglo-Saxon society was a slave society, about how medieval England was a place that burned old women for being witches, maybe I should add that homosexuality was only rendered legal a few decades ago and that the democracy we're so proud of wasn't anywhere near a universal franchise on equal terms until after the First World War. What specifics do you have? - you have no idea what you're talking about.
    As I said, modern British life does not reflect that of Angles, Saxons, Jutes or Normans; or at least it's been significantly diluted. But this doesn't matter. I've defined what I believe traditional British culture consists of above. Considering that these odious practices have not been "consistently present across the past 3000 years" and have died out, then they can hardly be treated as traditional British culture in today's society. You're not adhering to my definition by going off on tangents about dead practices. I'm talking about what makes certain practices we do exercise today traditional British culture, looking in retrospect to the past.

    (Original post by Oswy)
    I'm happy to state right here that I am not a 'cultural Christian' - simply asserting otherwise without getting specific on evidence, which is all you're doing, carries no weight. Are you going to tell me that having a Christmas tree in the house once a year makes me a 'cultural Christian'? lol
    I'm not simply asserting at all. How can you doubt that the clergy has had a constant influence over societal hierarchies and the lives of citizens? How can you doubt that the separation of church and state didn't come about until within the last 500 years? How can you doubt that the British populace was previously very devout? These are what our society is based on; and has flourished from. Just like Saudi Arabia is a culturally Islamic nation, despite not particularly adhering to scripture and teaching in many cases.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    As I said, modern British life does not reflect that of Angles, Saxons, Jutes or Normans; or at least it's been significantly diluted. But this doesn't matter. I've defined what I believe traditional British culture consists of above. Considering that these odious practices have not been "consistently present across the past 3000 years" and have died out, then they can hardly be treated as traditional British culture in today's society. You're not adhering to my definition by going off on tangents about dead practices. I'm talking about what makes certain practices we do exercise today traditional British culture, looking in retrospect to the past.

    I'm not simply asserting at all. How can you doubt that the clergy has had a constant influence over societal hierarchies and the lives of citizens? How can you doubt that the separation of church and state didn't come about until within the last 500 years? How can you doubt that the British populace was previously very devout? These are what our society is based on; and has flourished from. Just like Saudi Arabia is a culturally Islamic nation, despite not particularly adhering to scripture and teaching in many cases.
    Now you're defeating your own argument.

    If we don't live like Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings or Normans (or whatever) then we're hardly in danger of losing their cultural life!

    As for the Church - asserting that Christian institutions, even Christianity itself, has had a part in shaping aspects of past life in Britain doesn't make me a 'cultural Christian'. You're just trying to imply a connection where there is none. I'm British but nothing in my cultural life has a meaningfully Christian dimension - putting a Christmas tree up once a year is about the closest you'll get.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Now you're defeating your own argument.

    If we don't live like Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings or Normans (or whatever) then we're hardly in danger of losing their cultural life!
    I didn't say we were in danger of losing their cultural life. I'm saying we're in danger of losing traditional British culture TODAY. You're trying to deny it exists. But by looking in retrospect at these two criteria; it does. I mean, narrowing it down to a strict criteria like that is a bit petty, admittedly, but people like you don't seem to like anything unless it's set in stone.

    (Original post by Oswy)
    As for the Church - asserting that Christian institutions, even Christianity itself, has had a part in shaping aspects of past life in Britain doesn't make me a 'cultural Christian'. You're just trying to imply a connection where there is none. I'm British but nothing in my cultural life has a meaningfully Christian dimension - putting a Christmas tree up once a year is about the closest you'll get.
    There is a connection. Everything is contingent. Overt things like 'Christmas trees' - although obviously denoting Christmas - are not the only things that point to someone being a 'cultural Christian'. You don't have to be Christian at all. But if you're adhering to British customs and values which were built upon a Christian foundation, then you are, regardless, a 'cultural Christian'. Even Richard Dawkins admits he's a cultural Christian FFS!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    That isn't true. We are preventing ourselves from benefiting from the globalization of the work force. Restricting the movement of cheaper labour to jobs in the UK will keep consumer prices higher than they need to be, something that is undesirable for you, the consumer, and undesirable for the UK if it wishes to be economically competitive.
    Wages here are not competitive anyway. We have a minimum wage, so it's not like an influx of labour will bring that down.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    I didn't say we were in danger of losing their cultural life. I'm saying we're in danger of losing traditional British culture TODAY. You're trying to deny it exists. But by looking in retrospect at these two criteria; it does. I mean, narrowing it down to a strict criteria like that is a bit petty, admittedly, but people like you don't seem to like anything unless it's set in stone.

    There is a connection. Everything is contingent. Overt things like 'Christmas trees' - although obviously denoting Christmas - are not the only things that point to someone being a 'cultural Christian'. You don't have to be Christian at all. But if you're adhering to British customs and values which were built upon a Christian foundation, then you are, regardless, a 'cultural Christian'. Even Richard Dawkins admits he's a cultural Christian FFS!
    If you now admit that the culture of the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, Vikings (etc) is not in any meaningful way the culture of modern Britain, then bringing it up is superfluous and, it seems to me, disingenuous. I've also made it plain several times that culture always changes and that 'traditions' of culture come and go, so what? The culture of 'fish and chips' arrived in urban Britain around the 1860s with Italian immigrants, funnily enough. Italy is also the soruce of the 'traditional' punch and judy show at the seaside. Indeed the working-class seaside holiday tradition, now much abandoned, emerged during the nineteenth century with the arrival of both an urban working class and cheap transport to the seaside via the railways. Simply stating that something is 'traditional' doesn't mean much, slavery was 'traditional' in many, many previous societies, including the Anglo-Saxon society. Simply banging on about something being traditional doesn't give it value. Traditions are created, they enjoy periods of popularity and they often decline or are transformed - the 'traditional' fish and chip shop is largely being replaced by fast-food shops which provide pizzas, kebabs and curries alongside, or instead of, fish and chips - because in modern Britain people have more freedom to follow their tastes. So, stop with the silly talk of 'tradition' as if merely mentioning it requires us to hate black people or want them out of the country. We have the freedom to continue traditions - nobody is stopping you joining your local morris-dancing group - and we also have the freedom to abandon traditions too, to modify them or blend them with new and novel things which interest us, that's what cultural freedom is all about.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    If you now admit that the culture of the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, Vikings (etc) is not in any meaningful way the culture of modern Britain, then bringing it up is superfluous and, it seems to me, disingenuous. I've also made it plain several times that culture always changes and that 'traditions' of culture come and go, so what? The culture of 'fish and chips' arrived in urban Britain around the 1860s with Italian immigrants, funnily enough. Italy is also the soruce of the 'traditional' punch and judy show at the seaside. Indeed the working-class seaside holiday tradition, now much abandoned, emerged during the nineteenth century with the arrival of both an urban working class and cheap transport to the seaside via the railways. Simply stating that something is 'traditional' doesn't mean much, slavery was 'traditional' in many, many previous societies, including the Anglo-Saxon society. Simply banging on about something being traditional doesn't give it value. Traditions are created, they enjoy periods of popularity and they often decline or are transformed - the 'traditional' fish and chip shop is largely being replaced by fast-food shops which provide pizzas, kebabs and curries alongside, or instead of, fish and chips - because in modern Britain people have more freedom to follow their tastes. So, stop with the silly talk of 'tradition' as if merely mentioning it requires us to hate black people or want them out of the country. We have the freedom to continue traditions - nobody is stopping you joining your local morris-dancing group - and we also have the freedom to abandon traditions too, to modify them or blend them with new and novel things which interest us, that's what cultural freedom is all about.
    I don't hate black people or want them out of the country. The point is that you're so convinced that the spine of traditional British culture (which I've defined above without you really tackling) will remain and just work alongside other cultures, when I doubt this'll remain the case. I fear a bland, global monoculture tbh. You may want that, but I don't. I support cultural diversity on a global level.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 17, 2009
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.