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*

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!

  I doubt modern immigrants invented modern English.

  Even if someone is prejudiced against *current* immigration, that
doesn't automatically mean he is prejudiced against people from 1000
years ago.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:06:53 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Even if someone is prejudiced against *current* immigration, that
> doesn't automatically mean he is prejudiced against people from 1000
> years ago.

It's been my experience, though, that this is generally the case.

In the US, a lot of people complain about illegal immigration (and many 
about *legal* immigration), forgetting that if you go back at most 3-4 
generations, we're all pretty much immigrants over here.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote

> In the US, a lot of people complain about illegal immigration (and many
> about *legal* immigration), forgetting that if you go back at most 3-4
> generations, we're all pretty much immigrants over here.

Fatal flaw with that argument is that if you go back 3-4 generations, *we*
don't exist.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:37:33 -0600, . wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
> 
>> In the US, a lot of people complain about illegal immigration (and many
>> about *legal* immigration), forgetting that if you go back at most 3-4
>> generations, we're all pretty much immigrants over here.
> 
> Fatal flaw with that argument is that if you go back 3-4 generations,
> *we* don't exist.

What, you and me?  That's not a flaw in the argument at all - 
"we" (meaning some people of our generation) seem to merely have 
forgotten our roots 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).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:37:33 -0600, . wrote:

> > Fatal flaw with that argument is that if you go back 3-4 generations,
> > *we* don't exist.

> What, you and me?  That's not a flaw in the argument at all -
> "we" (meaning some people of our generation) seem to merely have
> forgotten our roots

I honestly cannot *remember* my roots, nor can you. We were non-existant
back then. Nor can we do anything about times past. My ancestors might have
been kings or thiefs. Either way, I am not going to be proud or ashamed of
them, or claim that ruling or stealing is the way to go - always. What we
can only affect is now and here, based on realities of now and here.

> 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?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> In the US, a lot of people complain about illegal immigration (and many 
> about *legal* immigration), forgetting that if you go back at most 3-4 
> generations, we're all pretty much immigrants over here.

  As . pointed out, you made the same mistake as Andrew did: You equate
yourself with your ancestors.

  I'm not saying you are wrong in principle. I'm just saying that you
shouldn't assume things nor generalize. The modern world is different
from the world 100 years ago. What was a good idea back then might not
be a good idea today. As the population, politics and culture change,
so do the needs of the society.
  Just because there was mass immigration 100 years ago, and that mass
immigration formed modern civilizations, that doesn't *automatically*
mean that mass immigration in the *current* world is a good thing.

  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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:28:02 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Immigration policy should be based on what is the best for the current
> civilization, not on what happened 100 years ago.

Absolutely, but what I'm saying is that the people who express *hatred* 
of immigrants have forgotten their history...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:10:46 -0600, . wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:37:33 -0600, . wrote:
> 
>> > Fatal flaw with that argument is that if you go back 3-4 generations,
>> > *we* don't exist.
> 
>> What, you and me?  That's not a flaw in the argument at all - "we"
>> (meaning some people of our generation) seem to merely have forgotten
>> our roots
> 
> I honestly cannot *remember* my roots, nor can you. We were non-existant
> back then. Nor can we do anything about times past. My ancestors might
> have been kings or thiefs. Either way, I am not going to be proud or
> ashamed of them, or claim that ruling or stealing is the way to go -
> always. What we can only affect is now and here, based on realities of
> now and here.

Hmm, so we shouldn't remember any lessons from history because we don't 
remember it?  I wasn't around for WWII, so I shouldn't celebrate the 
victory of D-Day?  I wasn't around for the building of Stonehenge, so I 
shouldn't care if they decide to knock it down and make a new car park in 
the Salisbury plains?  After all, I don't remember it being built - it 
must not have happened.

Most people form their ideas of what's right and wrong from historical 
precedents.  You're saying we should abandon that, at least that's what 
it sounds like to me.

>> 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?

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

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:28:02 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   Immigration policy should be based on what is the best for the current
> > civilization, not on what happened 100 years ago.

> Absolutely, but what I'm saying is that the people who express *hatred* 
> of immigrants have forgotten their history...

  The history of a person started when he was born. His parent's history
is not his. Just because his grand-grandparents made something doesn't
automatically mean that he should agree people today doing the same thing.
Why should he? He's not responsible for what his ancestors did or didn't.

  And as for learning from the past, what can be learn from past
immigration? Let's take, for the sake of example, the past 200 years
of the United States.
  In the context of this thread, what you are basically saying is that
because the ancestors of an American citizen went to America, took some
land, maybe killed a couple of indians along the way, this American
citizen should remember this past and... be lenient towards immigration?
Isn't that quite twisted thinking?
  I don't even see the connection between American immigrants of the
past with what modern Americans should think about immigration. If anything
else, they should feel *negatively* about immigration precisely because
of their past and what their ancestors did.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message