Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think people are just at the end of their tether when it comes to the free movement of people within the EU. Places like the UK are number one on the list for immigrants to come and work.
People are fearing Bulgaria and Romania joining the party at the start of next year when we already have record levels of unemployment and will soon be hitting the 70+ million population on a small Island which is 1/3 the size of Texas. People are seeing communities changing rapidly and turning into makeshift homes for people who have little affiliation to the country. It's difficult to unify and feel proud to be British when you look around and everything isn't British. This is because we all have contrasting views on what it means to be British. For example I was admiring the prospect of the Belgium lad at Manchester United getting a British passport to play for England in 5 years. I find a easy citizenship test and passport after 5 years to not really understand the essence and feeling of what it is to be part of this country. However another person might think 5 years is sufficient.
Turkey could be on it's way which would be controversial and increase the Islamic fear in Britain if that goes through a couple years. In essence it's a difficult place to be at the moment, which is why so many people including myself have learned to keep themselves to themselves. It's sad that we have to live in hibernation and afraid off one another when we are actually alike in many ways. I think people was slowly finding peace when naturalised Blacks and Asians came to the country, but the emergence of the EU has just stirred it up to breaking point.
I never felt proud regarding countries and nationalities. Whatever is good about a country, it would be there with and without me. Somehow I just can't be proud of other people's achievements.
I don't even feel the need to be proud of a country. I am happy as long as I can live in a safe and pleasant environment, wherever that is.
If you want to be around white Brits, most of Britain still is white. Minorities live mostly in the bigger cities, because the rest of the country is not attractive to immigrants, not least because ethnic groups want to stick together, which is difficult when you are surrounded by white Brits
Record levels of unemployment? The current rate is 7.7 percent, the lowest in 4 years. If you want to see record unemployment, go to Spain or Greece, at least by European standards
You know, I have a general problem with Europeans complaining about immigrants and minorities, their influence on local culture, etc. We went around the world and all but extinguished local cultures and civilizations. And now we are making a fuss about immigrants. What goes around comes around. Plus, we are still the richest countries in the world. We are not complaining based on facts, but based on comfort.
I agree that we went around the world, however those was the decisions of the political elites of the time. Those are not the actions of the other 99% of the population whose opinions didn't matter at the time and didn't get the chance to vote. On that theory British people would deserve what they get on being in the war on terror, Libyan civil war, Afghanistan and the list goes on. As you know because it's in your lifetime you can see that the British people didn't get to make these decisions so i don't see why we should share that burden. The government has cleverly got rid of British Empire history in the school curriculum to make the immigration transition better. It's obvious they only look out for themselves. In many cases the British Empire wasn't this tyrant that enslaved people, it actually built up the infrastructure and improved many countries but that always get overlooked. They are still using trains in India from the Victorian times and other examples can be seen.
Therefore i don't share the sentiment that what goes around comes around as a fair deal for immigration. You have to remember we also fought two world wars between that time to defend this country and European traditions. I don't care about being around White Brits, i'm not that closed minded i have done both and just expressing my experiences that non-white Brits seem to go their own way. In terms of being a rich country, well that's debatable we are the 8th largest economy in the world we use to be number 1. We are expected to shrink even further and turn into a 2 rate nation in the next 50 years. That decline alone just goes to show that immigration isn't working it hasn't benefited the country. Of course i expect the argument to arise that we refuse to do jobs and they wouldn't get done without immigrants, which plays into more racial stereotyping.
Well, people in those former colonies are still suffering from the aftermath of colonial times, most of them were not around before the 60's, either. If there were not so much poverty, which is a consequence of colonial times, people from Africa, India etc. would not come to Europe in the first place. So at the end of the day it is indeed what goes around comes around.
Being among the top10 of the richest countries means being rich, after all it means that the other 190 or so countries are poorer I guess Brits, just like many other Europeans and Americans, cannot really evaluate their richness unless they have lived in a developing country for some time.
Well, people in those former colonies are still suffering from the aftermath of colonial times, most of them were not around before the 60's, either. If there were not so much poverty, which is a consequence of colonial times, people from Africa, India etc. would not come to Europe in the first place. So at the end of the day it is indeed what goes around comes around.
Is the poverty a consequence of the colonial times?
Fact is, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, were all British Colonies, and all have fared very well post independence.
So there is no apparent correlation between colonization and subsequent poverty during independence, there are other factors in play that are being ignored. We'd need to determine those factors to ascertain whether they are the result of British actions, or that independent nations actions.
Is the poverty a consequence of the colonial times?
Fact is, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, were all British Colonies, and all have fared very well post independence.
So there is no apparent correlation between colonization and subsequent poverty during independence, there are other factors in play that are being ignored. We'd need to determine those factors to ascertain whether they are the result of British actions, or that independent nations actions.
There is a huge difference: In those countries native people and civilizations have basically been wiped out and replaced. They are just extensions of Europe so to speak.
In Africa, India etc. that is not the case, it is still native people, but kind of torn and lost between the remainders of their own and imported cultures.
There is a huge difference: In those countries native people and civilizations have basically been wiped out and replaced. They are just extensions of Europe so to speak.
In Africa, India etc. that is not the case, it is still native people, but kind of torn and lost between the remainders of their own and imported cultures.
That would be one of those "other factors" I mentioned.
So you're saying it wasn't colonization per-se, but colonization with genocide that led to resultant "strong" economies.
This sounds like the Eddie Izzard "Death or Cake" skit.
We're going to colonize you, when your children, grand children, or great grandchildren gain independence you will either be a poverty stricken nation, or we can kill all you indigenous people then import our own and when you gain independence the few survivors will have a good economy and standard of living... Which do you want? Oh and do you have a flag?
I actually think you're oversimplifying, dependent on culture there were activities taken by the early governments post independence that had long term and reaching effects on that countries economic development. In India I believe that the partition post independence was such an activity. Sikh's Hindu's, Jains, and Sindhi's moved from East Pakistan into India (Punjab, Assam). This led to huge amounts of economic stress on newly formed India and Pakistan because of refugee's leaving India for Pakistan and vice-versa. Hindu Sindhi's in particular had a hard time of it, because their traditional homeland was now part of Pakistan and Islamic, and many natives of Sindh didn't speak Hindi, but Sindhi. That is what I believe caused India's slow down from colonialization.
However if we look at Singapore, there were no huge changes after handover. Singapore is currently the 4th largest financial center on the planet and it has the 3rd highest GDP per capita, and it was a former colony.
Firstly India was not a unified state when Britain came along they was in dire straits. They traded peacefully for 100's of years prior to Britain taking over. This was not done by force they made legitimate deals with the leaders of India so that competition from other countries such as France couldn't try and take over India with force. It was the Mughal empire that screwed India over years before the British showed up. I would even argue that without Britain's intervention we would not see India as one of the emerging BRIC nations of the 21st century. India has the 9th largest economy in the world and will soon take over Britain in the next 10 years. The superior British know how of the Industrial revolution was passed onto India and now they are a big player in the world. Even the current prime minister of India Manmoohan Singh has been quoted as speaking about how Britain laid the foundations of this new exciting age they are currently experiencing in India.
They have done well out of the deal it has just taken time because they have a massive population which the government struggles to support. I have been to India many times it is one of the most culturally diverse places in the world, no signal that culture has been taken away. There is over 700 languages native to India spoken in that country, with many tribes living in the same way for thousands of years. They even have protected regions for certain types of people to live in. If you are so worried about culture, what would be your take on the lack of English culture in regions of London such as Southall? From a onlooker it appears to me that the British are the one with the identity crisis and Africans and India have no struggle in that department.
I think it's easy to look at countries which Britain was involved in and place the blame all on Britain. You have to remember it has nearly been over 100 years since Britain was involved so that's plenty of time to recover from what ever minimal cultural impact Britain had. It really didn't go beyond trade that is what the entire Empire was all about. I like to think people don't hold grudges and that the immigration to Britain is some kind of revenge being played out. If that is the case i don't want people with that level of vendetta in my country. I want people who want to be part of British society and love the country they call home which has given them a opportunity to afford a better lifestyle.
In terms of Africa that can be linked in with Britain trying to protect routes into India, there was several European nations in Africa at the time and some was brutal and others wasn't. It was a time of industrial revolution and Britain was doing so well that it had to many products for it's people and like any business it needed to expand. It's this same globalisation and movement of people which has enriched peoples life. I could write a lot on this subject and you won't agree with me which is fair enough. I have seen this debate unfold time and time again growing up in London, White people are the devil etc etc. Yet people are storming to Europe, they are not improving their own countries.
That would be one of those "other factors" I mentioned.
So you're saying it wasn't colonization per-se, but colonization with genocide that led to resultant "strong" economies.
This sounds like the Eddie Izzard "Death or Cake" skit.
We're going to colonize you, when your children, grand children, or great grandchildren gain independence you will either be a poverty stricken nation, or we can kill all you indigenous people then import our own and when you gain independence the few survivors will have a good economy and standard of living... Which do you want? Oh and do you have a flag?
I actually think you're oversimplifying, dependent on culture there were activities taken by the early governments post independence that had long term and reaching effects on that countries economic development. In India I believe that the partition post independence was such an activity. Sikh's Hindu's, Jains, and Sindhi's moved from East Pakistan into India (Punjab, Assam). This led to huge amounts of economic stress on newly formed India and Pakistan because of refugee's leaving India for Pakistan and vice-versa. Hindu Sindhi's in particular had a hard time of it, because their traditional homeland was now part of Pakistan and Islamic, and many natives of Sindh didn't speak Hindi, but Sindhi. That is what I believe caused India's slow down from colonialization.
However if we look at Singapore, there were no huge changes after handover. Singapore is currently the 4th largest financial center on the planet and it has the 3rd highest GDP per capita, and it was a former colony.
India has a civilization dating back thousands of years, Brits just like the Muslim invaders before threw India back for some time, but unlike Africa there still is that ancient cultural backbone.
Singapore is mostly Chinese, another people that have an ancient, 5000-year history to build on.
India and China are just recuperating from their preliminary time-out.
There is no comparable African civilization like that, unfortunately. Thus they had not much to go back to when the Brits were gone. They were left with their self-esteem destroyed by the racist invaders.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess Brits, just like many other Europeans and Americans, cannot really evaluate their richness unless they have lived in a developing country for some time.
