 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> Correct; but one thing is disagreeing with immigration, and another is
> racism...
Most multuculturalists seem to equate the two things.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news:
480fc20a@news.povray.org...
>He's not responsible for what his ancestors did or didn't.
Have you ever noticed that people who claim full glory and responsibility
about the wonderful stuff their ancestors did are often the same who
suddenly claim to have neither shame or responsibility about the horrible
stuff the same ancestors did?
It goes like this :
- Your grandpa's stepfather's cousin invented the nail clipper
- Wow, WE invented the nail clipper in MY family! WE're the greatest family
that ever lived. I'm so proud to be part of that family, to live in the land
that invented the nail clipper and to breathe the air that went through the
lungs of people who invented the nail clipper. No other civilization could
invent the nail clipper! It's in MY genes!
- He made a bundle of money out of it and paid for the family mansion you're
still living in
- WE are a hard-working family and I deserve every single cent from all this
hard work!
- Your grandpa traded slaves and committed genocide
- Not my fault! I wasn't even born! Why should I care?
- He made a bundle of money out of it and paid for the family mansion you're
still living in
- Not my fault! I wasn't even born! Why should I care?
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I found this opinion on the subject interesting:
http://ars.userfriendly.org/news/?id=1208466459
On a related note, the prime minister of Sweden bragged some time ago
about how many hundreds of different languages are spoken in Sweden, that
all those languages have a great potential.
I have the feeling that most multiculturalists seem to have this
utopistic (and naive) notion that the more the languages in some place,
the merrier. That it's a richness if there are people speaking different
languages.
I fail to see how this is a good thing. Even if all those people understood
and spoke fluently the official language of the country (which many of them
usually don't), I still fail to see the benefits of so many languages. On
the contrary, too many people speaking too many different languages and
not understanding each other only causes problems, monetary problems (which
are usually paid by taxpayers) not being the least of them.
One may argue that people have the *basic right* to their own language,
to preserve it and to use it, and nobody has the right to force them to
use another language, that it's part of basic human rights. That's fine,
but that's not my point. My point is that most multiculturalists seem to
believe that it's *beneficial* the more the languages are spoken in a
given community. Beneficial to who, and how exactly?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 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.
No, it's not about semantics.
You claim that a person's history consists of his ancestors' history
besides his own life. I disagree. Why should it have any effect on your
actions what your ancestors did or didn't do? Why should your own
ancestors' actions have more effect on yours than the actions of someone
else's ancestors?
And in this thread in particular: Why should the social status (in this
case being an immigrant) of your distant ancestors have any effect on your
own social status or your opinions? You are not your ancestors. You are
not what they were. You are you, and what you are depends only on what
you have done.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a ?crit dans le message de news:
> 480fc20a@news.povray.org...
> >He's not responsible for what his ancestors did or didn't.
> Have you ever noticed that people who claim full glory and responsibility
> about the wonderful stuff their ancestors did are often the same who
> suddenly claim to have neither shame or responsibility about the horrible
> stuff the same ancestors did?
That may be, but I was just expressing *my* opinion above. It might not
be the same as the average opinion of people.
I can honestly say that I wouldn't take any credit of anything my
ancestors have made, be them great or horrible. I only take credit of
things I have done personally. (And no, this is not something I decided
because of this thread. I'm absolutely sure that if I was asked about this
in the past, I would have answered like this.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news:
48105b19@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
>> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a ?crit dans le message de news:
>> 480fc20a@news.povray.org...
> That may be, but I was just expressing *my* opinion above. It might not
> be the same as the average opinion of people.
The problem being that in countries where such debates are common, this is
not just the average opinion of people but part of the political platform
for the extreme or no so extreme conservative/right-wing parties that
eventually shape actual policies: taking all the credit for the good things
and "Who, me?" denial for the unsavory stuff, typically acts of genocide,
slavery and colonization that are still an everyday burden for the victims'
descendants. The denial can go even further: in France, the ruling
conservative party just tried to push the idea that colonization was a jolly
good thing after all, too bad the uppity natives didn't like it so we had to
kill thousands of them.
You can somehow see that in sport supporters. When their team wins it's
"their" win and "their" victory - even though they're just a bunch of couch
potatoes - but when it looses it's everybody else's fault but theirs.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> And the food! Made these isles the laughing
> stock of the culinary world.
In the European version of heaven, the cooks are French, the police are
British, the mechanics are German, the lovers are Italian, and it's all
organized by the Swiss.
In the European version of hell, the cooks are British, the police are
German, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss, and it's all
organized by the Italians.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 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?
>
The U.S. is much, much worse about this, considering how we colonized
this continent. Heck, we're building a wall, even!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news:
4810592a@news.povray.org...
> You claim that a person's history consists of his ancestors' history
> besides his own life. I disagree. Why should it have any effect on your
> actions what your ancestors did or didn't do? Why should your own
> ancestors' actions have more effect on yours than the actions of someone
> else's ancestors?
Everybody is born with some inheritance in the practical form of economic
capital and in the figurative form of social and cultural capital (*). This
capital can be positive (wealth, good networks, education) or negative
(poverty, bad networks, illiteracy) and affects directly your history,
present and future. So while your history does technically start when you're
born, it is shaped (positively or negatively) but what came before, and so
are your actions, like it or not.
It's possible to unclaim some of the assets you were born with (**), but
most of the time you have to live with them (***) and act accordingly.
G.
(*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_capital
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital
(**) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_%28sociology%29
(***) http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf
and lolcats http://elusis.livejournal.com/1744514.html (only if you read the
above)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
> (***) http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf
Maybe it's a cultural thing (ie. I don't live in the US), but I didn't
understand what she is talking about.
Maybe it isn't, but it just *sounds* like heavy multiculturalist
propaganda (ie. white westerners are all racists, even without knowing).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 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?
>
Of course, being descended from Polish Jews and Dutch Tea Planters on
one side of my family and wild Scottish Highlanders on the other, having
been married twice to non-English wives and atm having a Slovakian gf
and finally, teaching twice a week at the Migrants Resource Centre, I,
of course, could have no possible interest in this thread ;-)
Unfortunately, fighting prejudice with facts doesn't work. The average
bigot is not interested in listening to arguments that might destroy his
"comfort zone".
I wish I knew the answer.
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
> The problem being that in countries where such debates are common, this is
> not just the average opinion of people but part of the political platform
> for the extreme or no so extreme conservative/right-wing parties
No members of other parties have this kind of attitude?
> that
> eventually shape actual policies: taking all the credit for the good things
> and "Who, me?" denial for the unsavory stuff
The credit may be unjustified, but is denial of the negative things wrong?
From a purely logical point of view it's true: Modern people are *not*
responsible of what their ancestors did 200 years ago. Thus how can it be
wrong to deny any responsibility?
Sure, it may be hypocritical to take credit for the good things, but
that's not really my point.
> The denial can go even further: in France, the ruling
> conservative party just tried to push the idea that colonization was a jolly
> good thing after all, too bad the uppity natives didn't like it so we had to
> kill thousands of them.
There are two sides to every coin. Claiming that eg. African colonization
did not bring *any* good to Africa would be simply false.
I think Zimbabwe is a good example of this. Have negative things happened
in Zimbabwe because of colonization? Sure. However, have *good* things
happened there because of colonization? I think that the answer can be
seen indirectly when the expelled all the white farmers.
Exactly like white power activists only see the positive side of things
and deny the negative things, multiculturalists do the exact opposite: They
only want to see the negative things and ignore the positive ones.
> You can somehow see that in sport supporters. When their team wins it's
> "their" win and "their" victory - even though they're just a bunch of couch
> potatoes - but when it looses it's everybody else's fault but theirs.
But "right extremists" and "white power activists" are not the only
ones who do this. Selective view of history is common to all political
orientations.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> fighting prejudice with facts doesn't work.
Especially if those facts are irrelevant from the point of view of
the modern world and modern political situation.
IMO "your ancestors were immigrants too" is *not* an effective and
logical way to fight racism and prejudice. It's irrelevant.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> IMO "your ancestors were immigrants too" is *not* an effective and
> logical way to fight racism and prejudice. It's irrelevant.
>
Selective, aren't we? I think that working for free at
http://www.migrantsresourcecentre.org.uk might have some relevance in
this discussion
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news:
48108cd2@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
>> (***) http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf
>
> Maybe it's a cultural thing (ie. I don't live in the US), but I didn't
> understand what she is talking about.
Now that's surprising :D
The damn knapsack is *** invisible *** for those who wear it. That's the
whole point of the essay.
She's just saying that people who are born with a certain set of privileges
have a hard time understanding that they have it in the first place (that's
the social and cultural capital). It's invisible to them, they were born
with it, so they can pretend (rightfully) that it doesn't exist.
However, people who don't have it not only can see it all right but are
reminded every minute of the loss.
> Maybe it isn't, but it just *sounds* like heavy multiculturalist
> propaganda (ie. white westerners are all racists, even without knowing).
The text was written with regard to the particular white/black US situation
in the 80s but you can transpose it anywhere with local modifications (i.e.
Kurds in Turkey etc.) and replace "race" by whatever gradient of
socio-economic status is available where you live.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Selective, aren't we? I think that working for free at
> http://www.migrantsresourcecentre.org.uk might have some relevance in
> this discussion
I think that there are basically three different points of view about
the same thing.
Let me present two hypothetical situations:
1) "I lost my job and my home burned to ashes and I have nowhere to live.
Could you please let me stay at your home until I can get a job and a
new house? I'll try to pay half of your rent as soon as I can."
2) "Your house is much more expensive than mine. You have the duty to
share it with me, and while we are at it, you have the duty to feed me
because your salary is much larger than mine."
Neonazis and white power racists want to see *all* immigrants as being
of the second type: They just want to come here and live at our expense,
and that we don't have any responsibility nor duty to do that.
Multiculturalists want to see *all* immigrants as being of the first
type: All immigrants are honest and hard-working people who are forced
to leave their home countries because of atrocities, and who move to
richer countries out of necessity and in order to make a living with
honest work.
Then there are those who dare to claim that actually *both* types of
immigrants exist, and who dare to claim that the first type of immigrants
are beneficial while the second type are detrimental. What is worse, they
actually look at trends (eg. unemployment and crime rates) to see where
the first and second types of immigrants are mostly coming from, and they
claim that the country of origin can often make a difference.
Of course multiculturalists just classify this as racism, and equate
them with the neonazis and white power activists. Of course the racists
also take the negative things they are saying and use these things for
their own racist agendas. It's a lose-lose situation.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
> Now that's surprising :D
> The damn knapsack is *** invisible *** for those who wear it. That's the
> whole point of the essay.
> She's just saying that people who are born with a certain set of privileges
> have a hard time understanding that they have it in the first place (that's
> the social and cultural capital). It's invisible to them, they were born
> with it, so they can pretend (rightfully) that it doesn't exist.
> However, people who don't have it not only can see it all right but are
> reminded every minute of the loss.
What I meant to say with "I don't understand what she is talking about"
was that even if this was so, what's the writer's point?
Is her point that I should feel guilt or something because sometimes
other people may treat me differently because of my skin color (or other
attributes)?
Perhaps this is more relevant in places where open racism is prevalent.
I just can't see this here. Maybe I *am* blind.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news:
4810924a@news.povray.org...
> The credit may be unjustified, but is denial of the negative things
> wrong?
> From a purely logical point of view it's true: Modern people are *not*
> responsible of what their ancestors did 200 years ago. Thus how can it be
> wrong to deny any responsibility?
The usual situation is the following:
The ancestors of Group A do bad stuff to the ancestors of Group B.
X years later, Group B still *** suffers *** from the crime while Group A
still *** benefits *** from it (*)
Now obviously people in Group A are innocent and are not responsible. But
there's still a pending debt to pay to contemporary Group B and the only
people who can pay it are Group A, who are, after all, living off the
interest of grandpa's crimes. If you're from Group B, hearing Group A say
"Well, I don't care" doesn't really cut it.
(*) The French town of Nantes is, according to polls, the nicest city in the
country. Should we forget that its current prosperity was inherited from the
17-18th centuries when being the slave trade capital turned Nanted into a
large, wealthy city? Likewise, some of the corporations (banks,
industries..) that provided the funds for colonization in the 19th century
are still in operation today and wealthy as ever. People die, but capital
rolls on.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24 Apr 2008 10:43:34 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>what's the writer's point?
IMO
I think what she is saying is that people who are born into a
"privilege" don't see that the "privilege" is a privilege and don't
take it into account when dealing with people who were not born with
that "privilege".
That is a bit wordy it just means that because you are a
man/white/educated etc. You won't see how you are putting others at a
disadvantage because they are not a man/white/educated etc.
(I think)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Of course multiculturalists just classify this as racism, and equate
> them with the neonazis and white power activists. Of course the racists
> also take the negative things they are saying and use these things for
> their own racist agendas. It's a lose-lose situation.
>
I think not. Of course there are some "multiculturalists" that take that
viewpoint but IMO they are as bigotted as the neonazis. Most of those
that work or volunteer at MRC take the more balanced position. It is
important to note that many refugees coming here as migrants will have
psychological problems stemming from their experiences in their country
of origin, their (probably) stressful journey here and the culture shock
when they arrive. To expect them to instantly integrate within our
society is short-sighted and counter-productive.
They will, in time, be of benefit to this country; they will, in time,
consider themselves to be British and eventually their descendants will
be able to post to newsgroups stating
> Of course, being descended from Polish Jews and Dutch Tea Planters on
> one side of my family and wild Scottish Highlanders on the other
or words to that effect.
Don't tar us all with the same brush. The issue is way too complicated
to be simply presented in a black/white, true/false manner
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:06:00 +0200, "Gilles Tran"
<gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
>
>(*) The French town of Nantes is, according to polls, the nicest city in the
>country. Should we forget that its current prosperity was inherited from the
>17-18th centuries when being the slave trade capital turned Nanted into a
>large, wealthy city? Likewise, some of the corporations (banks,
>industries..) that provided the funds for colonization in the 19th century
>are still in operation today and wealthy as ever. People die, but capital
>rolls on.
No we shouldn't {I can think of a few British examples (my home town
was a stop on the "Slave Triangle")} But we shouldn't take personal
responsibility. Just don't compound the problem.
On a personal note when I was working in Kingston (a former slave
colony of ours). A lot of people had a great deal of fun with me, on
the subject of slavery.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news:
48109c95@news.povray.org...
> Is her point that I should feel guilt or something because sometimes
> other people may treat me differently because of my skin color (or other
> attributes)?
Guilt would be pointless. Awareness will suffice.
> Perhaps this is more relevant in places where open racism is prevalent.
Doesn't need to be open and it doesn't even need to be plain racism (again,
that's the point of the essay). But yes, Wikipedia tells me that Finland has
2% of immigrants (vs 8-10% in countries like UK or France), most of them
from neighbouring countries of close cultural background so I guess that
these kinds of problems are rather theoretical there.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:10:19 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:
>The issue is way too complicated
>to be simply presented in a black/white, true/false manner
Too true! And my good Scottish friend Peter Lukiewicz would agree with
you.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:10:19 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
> wrote:
>
>> The issue is way too complicated
>> to be simply presented in a black/white, true/false manner
>
> Too true! And my good Scottish friend Peter Lukiewicz would agree with
> you.
'Afternoon, Stephen.
Fancy a pint in a bar staffed by Polish, French and Italian workers? Say
a week from today i.e. 1st May.
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:30:30 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:
>'Afternoon, Stephen.
>Fancy a pint in a bar staffed by Polish, French and Italian workers? Say
>a week from today i.e. 1st May.
As long as I've already voted. I don't want Boris to get in by default
:)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
>
> As long as I've already voted. I don't want Boris to get in by default
> :)
OK will confirm exact time nearer to the date
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
> But yes, Wikipedia tells me that Finland has
> 2% of immigrants (vs 8-10% in countries like UK or France), most of them
> from neighbouring countries of close cultural background so I guess that
> these kinds of problems are rather theoretical there.
I live in a suburb with a much higher % of foreigners than that because
there's a University here and a lot of exchange students.
OTOH this might not be the "best" place to find rampant racism because
most people living here (both Finnish and the exchange students) are
highly educated.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
True. I misread your original post that I followed up to. Your
"unwilling, or didn't try" came out as binary alternatives in my brain
rather than two restatements of the same idea.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I think what she is saying is that people who are born into a
> "privilege" don't see that the "privilege" is a privilege and don't
> take it into account when dealing with people who were not born with
> that "privilege".
I think calling it a "privilege" is disingeuous myself. Almost all the
stuff she talks about being a "privilege" is stuff that a politician
would call "rights". It's not a "privilege" to be treated fairly by the
courts, or to be allowed to live without being hassled by your
neighbors, or to avoid being beat up for no reason when you walk down
the street.
The idea that you'd want to take these "privileges" away from someone in
order to be "more fair" is absurd in my mind.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> X years later, Group B still *** suffers *** from the crime while Group A
> still *** benefits *** from it (*)
And in many cases group B still benefits and group A still suffers. I
don't see why the work can't be to simply make things fair and balanced
without any "payback" portion of it, myself. But maybe that's because I
take responsibility for my own actions and the results thereof.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
