On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:50:02 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:

>Somebody sent me a text message that ended with "this message is not 
>available in arabic, [...] or any other **** immigrant tongue!"
>
>I just found it interesting that "immigrant" is basically a Latin word, 
>brought to us from Italy when the Romans invaded Britan. And "tongue" is 
>from an old German language, from when they invided Britan.
>
>In fact, you know what? Basically "our" entire language was created by 
>these hated "immigrants". So next time you curse them, just remember 
>that the words you're using to do it with are words THEY INVENTED!
>
>Irony, much?

Some of us still consider you Angels and Saxons et al as immigrants.
With your invading and pillaging, taking all the good jobs,
undercutting the rest. And the food! Made these isles the laughing
stock of the culinary world. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> And the food! Made these isles the laughing
> stock of the culinary world. 

  I hear tea is good there, though. :)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23 Apr 2008 19:13:18 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> And the food! Made these isles the laughing
>> stock of the culinary world. 
>
>  I hear tea is good there, though. :)

True, we grow the best tea this side of India :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:11:06 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   The history of a person started when he was born.

Gads, I smell another semantic battle coming up here, so I'll bow out.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:480fbee1@news.povray.org...
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:10:46 -0600, . wrote:
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote

> >> and that if restrictions on immigration that are being proposed were in
> >> place, *we* might not ever have existed (ie, our ancestors might never
> >> have immigrated to the US, met, etc).

> > That's absurd. We also might not have existed if, say, WWI did not take
> > place, among other things. Should we continually create new world wars
> > so people who would not otherwise exist, will exist?

> I'm in the position of being the son of a WWII veteran who was ready to
> be deployed to Japan (dad served in Europe).  If the A-bomb hadn't been
> dropped, he would've been deployed there, and there's a fairly good
> chance he'd have been a casualty because of his rank and position in the
> army (a private).  So, if the bomb hadn't been dropped (twice) in Japan,
> I might not be here to be having this argument.  Does that mean that
> dropping the bomb was the right thing to do?  Of course not, but I can't
> help but be just a little conflicted about it.  In terms of the suffering
> it caused, no - it was the wrong thing to do.  But if it hadn't been
> done, who knows how many more would have died?

And had native Americans were willing and able to protect their land and
prevent conquest and immigration, maybe the world would be a better place
now. It's pointless to argue what ifs, but it should help convince you that
whatever happened in the past (immigration included) need not have been the
"right" thing.

> What you seem to be saying is that since we can't do anything about the
> past, we should just forget that it happened and not learn from it.

No. I'm saying we should base today's decisions on present circumstances,
not past circumstances. Just because people immigrated in the past in large
numbers to their present locations, we cannot assume immigration is always
desirable. There's no hypocricy in realising what worked in the past may not
work now (or vice versa).

> I don't have that luxury - and remember that those who fail to learn from
> history are doomed to repeat it.

Learning is one thing. Making present decisions based on historical data or
pretext is something entirely different.

Post a reply to this message

Warp escribió:
>   I'm not saying it's a bad thing either. I'm just pointing out that
> equating ourselves with our ancestors 100 years ago might not be such
> a valid argument.
> 
>   Immigration policy should be based on what is the best for the current
> civilization, not on what happened 100 years ago.

Correct; but one thing is disagreeing with immigration, and another is 
racism...

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:04:19 -0600, somebody wrote:

> And had native Americans were willing and able to protect their land and
> prevent conquest and immigration, maybe the world would be a better
> place now. It's pointless to argue what ifs, but it should help convince
> you that whatever happened in the past (immigration included) need not
> have been the "right" thing.

Are you saying the native Americans weren't willing to fight to protect 
their land, or didn't try?  Because if you are, perhaps you should read 
some early American history.

>> What you seem to be saying is that since we can't do anything about the
>> past, we should just forget that it happened and not learn from it.
> 
> No. I'm saying we should base today's decisions on present
> circumstances, not past circumstances. Just because people immigrated in
> the past in large numbers to their present locations, we cannot assume
> immigration is always desirable. There's no hypocricy in realising what
> worked in the past may not work now (or vice versa).

I don't disagree with that, but at the same time, people need to realise 
that they're not *native* Americans, everyone came from somewhere. Unless 
you're descended from actual Native American tribes, you really have no 
more claim on this land than anyone else.

>> I don't have that luxury - and remember that those who fail to learn
>> from history are doomed to repeat it.
> 
> Learning is one thing. Making present decisions based on historical data
> or pretext is something entirely different.

No, making decisions based on historical *and* current data is the wise 
thing to do.  You can't make a good decision based solely on historical 
data, and I would argue that you also can't make a good decision based on 
a total lack of historical understanding.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Are you saying the native Americans weren't willing to fight to protect 
> their land, or didn't try?  Because if you are, perhaps you should read 
> some early American history.

Before horses and metal weapons, they were really pretty helpless. 
Something like 100 Conquestadors wiped out 10,000 south american 
natives, because the swords went right through the reed "armor", the 
horses could run down anyone who might be running to get reinforcements, 
and the metal armor was immune to the clubs they natives had.

It's a pretty fascinating story, if you track it down.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:33:31 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Are you saying the native Americans weren't willing to fight to protect
>> their land, or didn't try?  Because if you are, perhaps you should read
>> some early American history.
> 
> Before horses and metal weapons, they were really pretty helpless.
> Something like 100 Conquestadors wiped out 10,000 south american
> natives, because the swords went right through the reed "armor", the
> horses could run down anyone who might be running to get reinforcements,
> and the metal armor was immune to the clubs they natives had.
> 
> It's a pretty fascinating story, if you track it down.

Yep, living in Utah, we have a holiday called "Pioneer Day", which for 
the non-Native Americans is a pretty big deal.  For the Native Americans 
who live out here, it's been a day of mourning.

But yes, they didn't really stand a chance because of the technological 
differences - that doesn't mean they didn't try or that they weren't 
willing to do so.

Of course, European conquest in general is a pretty bloody history.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Somebody sent me a text message that ended with "this message is not
> available in arabic, [...] or any other **** immigrant tongue!"
>
> I just found it interesting that "immigrant" is basically a Latin word,
> brought to us from Italy when the Romans invaded Britan. And "tongue" is
> from an old German language, from when they invided Britan.
>
> In fact, you know what? Basically "our" entire language was created by
> these hated "immigrants". So next time you curse them, just remember
> that the words you're using to do it with are words THEY INVENTED!
>
> Irony, much?
>
> --
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

It's a funny separation of "immigrants" and "natives".
Especially when we take a look at human DNA.
Have you known, that all humans have one single RNA-strand, which marks them as
relatives?
Scientists are able to understand the early migrations of human populations from
Africa to the North because of this molecular biological fact. ;)
A question I couldn't answer myself: If we all spring from a single tribe of a
few homo sapiens, why do we have such a great gene pool? Wouldn't it be the
same as with clones, that there will be one time, when all humans have similar
genes and cannot reproduce?
Or that humans get a lots of diseases, because they lack of beautiful mutations
or "new blood"?

Regards
bluetree

Post a reply to this message