Islamic Jihadists ISIS

[Milltown Row2]

Immigration is needed when the rich control most of the wealth and or when there aren't enough workers  .

Are you say that unemployment levels would need to be zero? because if we have high unemployment a need for immigration is pointless

[J70]

By the way sorry to drag this thread off topic by the way though I'm sure events as they happen will bring it back on course.

I wrote the following in response to J70:

Yes, though the far right seem to have grown in the USA lately as a result of those trends, this is before Donald Trump or Trayvon Martin happened. How big I don't know but as I said before this issue will likely get bigger as these trends continue. It might well just be whites adjusting to life as a minority, essentially becoming their own lobby group just as others do. With that in mind Seafood brought up Singapore, secessionist movements could even spring up. But you know the USA better than myself and the Internet can make things seem bigger than they actually are.

As for who can claim Fijian identity gets to the nub of this debate, it's pretty clear on the ground who is from the islands and who is from India, by physical appearance, by religion, lifestyle and where they live. The groups from the other Pacific islands is harder for the likes of myself to determine.

It's important to remember that Fiji is not like the USA, it's a small cluster of islands. It has a population of 800,000. If the native Fijians were to continue to lose out they could have effectively disappeared. The question is, and one I don't think you answered, had they the right to make such a stand?

Disappeared?

How can you legislate that? Kick all other ethnics out? Forbid inter-racial/ethnic marriage? If native Fijians disappear, it will be down to a multitude of individual choices. I don't see any moral defense of policies that would seek to preserve a racial or ethnic group by discriminating against others or limiting individual freedom. Societies evolve. Always have.

[seafoid]

Immigration is needed when the rich control most of the wealth and or when there aren't enough workers  .

Are you say that unemployment levels would need to be zero? because if we have high unemployment a need for immigration is pointless

UK growth in the last 5 years is mostly due to immigration .
If the money was spread out there would be less need for immigration

[Milltown Row2]

Immigration is needed when the rich control most of the wealth and or when there aren't enough workers  .

Are you say that unemployment levels would need to be zero? because if we have high unemployment a need for immigration is pointless

UK growth in the last 5 years is mostly due to immigration .
If the money was spread out there would be less need for immigration

So take the money off the high earners (which they do, tax) and spread it around to people who are on minimum wage and on the dole? like equal pay for everyone? Now, where did they try that before?

[thejuice]

How can you legislate that? Kick all other ethnics out? Forbid inter-racial/ethnic marriage? If native Fijians disappear, it will be down to a multitude of individual choices. I don't see any moral defense of policies that would seek to preserve a racial or ethnic group by discriminating against others or limiting individual freedom. Societies evolve. Always have.

But J70, individual choices made in what context? The Fijians did not choose the importation of indentured slaves. They had a way of life that did not produce and support as many children as the the Indians. Should they have chose to have more children just to keep a stake in the game? Is that what you call societal evolution?

Because this "process of evolution" is not some natural process when it comes to demographic change. It is more often than not the result of policy and short term economic decisions. But once they are done, that's it, no going back.
Its evolution baby!

[J70]

How can you legislate that? Kick all other ethnics out? Forbid inter-racial/ethnic marriage? If native Fijians disappear, it will be down to a multitude of individual choices. I don't see any moral defense of policies that would seek to preserve a racial or ethnic group by discriminating against others or limiting individual freedom. Societies evolve. Always have.

But J70, individual choices made in what context? The Fijians did not choose the importation of indentured slaves. They had a way of life that did not produce and support as many children as the the Indians. Should they have chose to have more children just to keep a stake in the game? Is that what you call societal evolution?

Because this "process of evolution" is not some natural process when it comes to demographic change. It is more often than not the result of policy and short term economic decisions. But once they are done, that's it, no going back.
Its evolution baby!

What I mean is they are where they are and can't undo the past and short of either discriminating against non-natives or prohibiting miscegenation or implementing pogroms or ethnic cleansing, then it's down to the accumulation of choices of individuals how Fijian society will evolve. If one falls in love with some cute Indian woman, are they really going to give a shite that they might be diluting the gene pool and contributing to the extinction of ethnic Fiji through death by a thousand cuts?

[omaghjoe]

This is an interesting dilemma.

On the one hand should a culture and people be allowed  to overtaken by another culture simply because the other group has developed a more thorough breeding culture

IS it just tough shit for those people and their culture?

J70 I think you are saying that the rights of he individual usurp the rights of the people here is that right? But is that ok considering the individuals where given an anthropological stepping stone over other individuals? And if so why?
Also if that is the case to be fair you would have to apply that to the tribes in the jungles as well...?

[thejuice]

Going back to my original question then, if you could pre-emptively foresee such a thing occurring do you not have a moral position to take measures to prevent it i.e. Reduce or stop immigration?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet

[Milltown Row2]

This is an interesting dilemma.

On the one hand should a culture and people be allowed  to overtaken by another culture simply because the other group has developed a more thorough breeding culture

IS it just tough shit for those people and their culture?

J70 I think you are saying that the rights of he individual usurp the rights of the people here is that right? But is that ok considering the individuals where given an anthropological stepping stone over other individuals? And if so why?
Also if that is the case to be fair you would have to apply that to the tribes in the jungles as well...?

If you immigrated to Syria would you expect to be treated differently?

[omaghjoe]

Going back to my original question then, if you could pre-emptively foresee such a thing occurring do you not have a moral position to take measures to prevent it i.e. Reduce or stop immigration?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet

As I said before juice I think I am the only one to answer your question I would say yes... to a degree. The scenario you proposed is extreme and some sort of action should be taken to prevent it developing but it does not mean that immigration should be stopped
And morals aside, its a question of survival and self maintenance, preservation and cohesion and the only way to prevent it happening is to increase the birth rate.  Because no government that presides over a policy  of reduced immigration during a period of low birth rate and resultant falling population would be likely to survive  democratically. Such conditions would see an economic slump and a policy like this would not last long.
A middle ground is key, immigration must be controlled and balanced with economic well being on one side and social cohesion on the other.

[omaghjoe]

This is an interesting dilemma.

On the one hand should a culture and people be allowed  to overtaken by another culture simply because the other group has developed a more thorough breeding culture

IS it just tough shit for those people and their culture?

J70 I think you are saying that the rights of he individual usurp the rights of the people here is that right? But is that ok considering the individuals where given an anthropological stepping stone over other individuals? And if so why?
Also if that is the case to be fair you would have to apply that to the tribes in the jungles as well...?

If you immigrated to Syria would you expect to be treated differently?

I dont see where you going with that or how it relates. But Im wondering what my expectations have to do with how I would actually be treated...that is also not really irrelevant.

[seafoid]

Immigration is needed when the rich control most of the wealth and or when there aren't enough workers  .

Are you say that unemployment levels would need to be zero? because if we have high unemployment a need for immigration is pointless

UK growth in the last 5 years is mostly due to immigration .
If the money was spread out there would be less need for immigration

So take the money off the high earners (which they do, tax) and spread it around to people who are on minimum wage and on the dole? like equal pay for everyone? Now, where did they try that before?

In the UK/US  between 1948 and 1960 . Bonds were savaged. Growth was fabulous

[seafoid]

It is very similar to NI terrorism in the 70s. You have to draw people away from nihilism and that means serious money
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/07/16/nice-attack-isis-durability-of-chaos/

we will not be able to defeat ISIS itself until we find a way to reconnect the neighborhoods, online communities, and other particularly susceptible social and political settings where attacks like what occurred in Nice continue to find inspiration and support.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/27/teenager-who-murdered-french-priest-was-like-a-ticking-time-bomb

His mother, a schoolteacher, spoke to a Geneva newspaper in May 2015, shortly after her son had been apprehended attempting to enter Syria for the second time, about her efforts to keep her son out of the grasp of jihadis.

"He said that [Muslims] couldn't exercise their religion peacefully in France," his mother said. "He spoke with words that didn't belong to him. He was under a spell, like a cult."

[J70]

This is an interesting dilemma.

On the one hand should a culture and people be allowed  to overtaken by another culture simply because the other group has developed a more thorough breeding culture

IS it just tough shit for those people and their culture?

I think so in a case like Fiji. You're looking at people who have been on the island for a hundred years or more with the ethnic Indians. You can't just boot them off or order them to slow down in the offspring department. They're Fijian too, even if they look different and may have different ethnic customs.

J70 I think you are saying that the rights of he individual usurp the rights of the people here is that right? But is that ok considering the individuals where given an anthropological stepping stone over other individuals? And if so why?

If that is an objection, why stop at anthropological stepping stones?

What about financial? Or looks? Or intelligence?

Has it ever turned out well when a group has been granted priority or privileges over another group?

And if being outbred IS a justification for favouring one group, what happens when the inevitable happens and you are in fact outbred into minority status?!

Also if that is the case to be fair you would have to apply that to the tribes in the jungles as well...?

In what respect?

That we honour their claims to their traditional territories and not take over slash and burn their forest, allowing them to live on in a preserve, so to speak? That we let them continue as they were, and try not to encourage them to join the modern world and hope they'll live on as they are as a curiosity? Or that we say tough shit, we're here now, we're stronger and more organized and you better adapt?

It is all a very interesting dilemma, as you say.

I'm basically spitballing here, to use a horrible Americanism. Don't pretend to have any answers to what are complex questions.

Part of the issue is whether an ethnic group is something with any real moral or legal basis. Although I guess anything can have a legal basis if laws are written to reflect that! Someone mentioned the whole nation state thing in another post.

But does it matter if ethnic Fijians become scarce? What if their customs are preserved by the mixed Indian-Fijian people? Are customs and culture worth anything outside of the people who would practice them? Do they have any intrinsic value? Or are individuals all that matter? Customs and cultures have come and gone many, many times.

I learned Irish at school for 12 years. Can hardly speak a word now, and don't really care to relearn it. I'd be sad if it died out and I'm happy its being preserved, but I don't care enough to personally invest. Maybe its complacency because someone else is taking care of it. But, ultimately, it won't make much difference to my day to day life, either way.

Globalization is changing the world. A lot of cultural distinctness will be lost as everything becomes homogenized.

But is that a bad thing if its the result of all these individual choices? I know someone will come along and talk about big, bad multinationals, but no one is forcing anyone in Africa or Malaysia to buy those Nikes or watch the video of Kim Kardashian's massive, bloated arse! You can't (or at least shouldn't be able to) force people to choose their traditional culture or to marry the same ethnicity.

And, again, I have difficulty with the idea of favouring and bestowing privileges on individuals on the basis of their membership of a group.

Sorry for the rambling and probably incoherence!

[foxcommander]

Sorry for the rambling and probably incoherence!

Got that right.