No post body was provided.
Untitled topic
1–10 of 47 posts
Re: undefined
#2There is an anecdote that is often used in India about how the Parsis (Zoroastrians who escaped the Islamic conquest of Persia) came to India and assimilated into the society.
When a group of Parsis landed in Gujarat (Western India), the local chieftain posed a question to the leader of the group in the form of a glass of milk. The leader responded by adding a spoon of sugar to the glass and stirring the contents. The answer was found to be acceptable and the Parsis, the tiniest of the minorities, continue to live and prosper in India to this day.
Would they have managed this if the leader had smashed the glass, danced on the fragments, and then taken a hammer to the face of the principal deity at the local temple?
Immigration wiped out Native American tribes, and many other peoples, because the people who immigrated were different and were in no mood to assimilate. Europe is facing this kind of immigration, not the Parsis.
A father who wonders if his daughter will be stabbed in school today may not vocalize such sentiment, but when the time to cast a vote comes, that vote will go to Geert Wilders.
Re: undefined
#3Interesting. The researcher correctly states that economic concerns are only an excuse. But he never asks why people object to reducing their homelands to mere economic zones. This is typical of such research - their goal (openly stated in this interview) is to undermine national identity and promote immigration. He does not ask or propose what we should do instead of mass immigration - he is only concerned how to continue immigration despite the people's objections, and how to silence those objections.
All running on the implicit assumption that "xenophobia" is simply incorrect (not just morally wrong) - that humans are unique in the animal kingdom in that they benefit from more competitors in the same territorial and ecological niche.
Re: undefined
#4There is an anecdote that is often used in India about how the Parsis (Zoroastrians who escaped the Islamic conquest of Persia) came to India and assimilated into the society. When a group of Parsis landed in Gujarat (Western India), the local chieftain posed a question to the leader of the group in the form of a glass of milk. The leader responded by adding a spoon of sugar to the glass and stirring the contents. Th…
30,000 years worth of missing genetic immunity to essentially every disease imaginable wiped out native populations in the Americas and precipitated the collapse of civilizations there, actually.
Re: undefined
#5There is an anecdote that is often used in India about how the Parsis (Zoroastrians who escaped the Islamic conquest of Persia) came to India and assimilated into the society. When a group of Parsis landed in Gujarat (Western India), the local chieftain posed a question to the leader of the group in the form of a glass of milk. The leader responded by adding a spoon of sugar to the glass and stirring the contents. Th…
[dead]
Re: undefined
#6There is an anecdote that is often used in India about how the Parsis (Zoroastrians who escaped the Islamic conquest of Persia) came to India and assimilated into the society. When a group of Parsis landed in Gujarat (Western India), the local chieftain posed a question to the leader of the group in the form of a glass of milk. The leader responded by adding a spoon of sugar to the glass and stirring the contents. Th…
I grew up hearing this story (it's famous in India), but it's not applicable to the current immigration crisis in Europe / US.
For one thing, the Parsis were lobbying to be allowed in. Europe and US are in need of immigrants due to shrinking, aging populations as their populations stop having kids. Their economies require a working class that they need to import. So immigration bans aren't really an option. And because the immigrants have some leverage in this situation they don't have to lobby like the Parsis did.
In the other case: refugees. This is a policy Europe and the US (and by extension the rest of the world adopted due to their negligence in WWII and the need to resolve that conflict post-war. It's another situation where the immigrants / refugees have the leverage and do not need to lobby. The US and Europe could revoke this policy, but they will suffer in the world if they do.
In contrast, the Parsis and the king in whose kingdom they moved to did not have this backdrop, and there was no need to take them in nor any pre-accepted agreement to amend. Additionally imagine if the Parsis had, 3 or 4 centuries later become a "problem" population in India in spite of the story. It's not as if that story alone kept the entire community from ever committing crimes or otherwise changing the fabric of society. In that scenario, it would not be possible to then remove them once they have moved there for generations. The same thing is true in Europe and North America.
Re: undefined
#7Interesting. The researcher correctly states that economic concerns are only an excuse. But he never asks why people object to reducing their homelands to mere economic zones. This is typical of such research - their goal (openly stated in this interview) is to undermine national identity and promote immigration. He does not ask or propose what we should do instead of mass immigration - he is only concerned how to co…
I'm interested to hear alternatives. The only one I've ever heard is that countries should promote fertility amongst the existing citizenry, and that has a lot of opposition from feminists for obvious reasons.
Re: undefined
#8There is an anecdote that is often used in India about how the Parsis (Zoroastrians who escaped the Islamic conquest of Persia) came to India and assimilated into the society. When a group of Parsis landed in Gujarat (Western India), the local chieftain posed a question to the leader of the group in the form of a glass of milk. The leader responded by adding a spoon of sugar to the glass and stirring the contents. Th…
[flagged]
Re: undefined
#9Interesting. The researcher correctly states that economic concerns are only an excuse. But he never asks why people object to reducing their homelands to mere economic zones. This is typical of such research - their goal (openly stated in this interview) is to undermine national identity and promote immigration. He does not ask or propose what we should do instead of mass immigration - he is only concerned how to co…
I'm interested to hear alternatives. The only one I've ever heard is that countries should promote fertility amongst the existing citizenry, and that has a lot of opposition from feminists for obvious reasons.
> a lot of opposition from feminists for obvious reasons
They oppose financial aid to young families, flexible working hours, and the promotion of living in multigenerational/extended family homes, where relatives help care for children, and free schooling/kindergartens? There are many countries, past and present, with above-replacement fertility, so this is nothing but pretend-helplessness. Israel, for example, is a modern economy, yet has a 2.9 fertility rate [1]. France and Ireland are at 1.8 - just a small push away from the 2.1 replacement level.
From the point of view of the native population (and not "the economy"), immigration is the worst option - not only does it introduce a competing group, it allows the system that resulted in their sub-replacement fertility to persist, where otherwise some change would be forced to come about.
[1] And better gender equality than the US, as well as China. The latter has a 1.2 fertility rate, which, together with the high fertility of Islamic countries, shows there is no simple linear link between gender equality and fertility. Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fer...
Re: undefined
#10There is an anecdote that is often used in India about how the Parsis (Zoroastrians who escaped the Islamic conquest of Persia) came to India and assimilated into the society. When a group of Parsis landed in Gujarat (Western India), the local chieftain posed a question to the leader of the group in the form of a glass of milk. The leader responded by adding a spoon of sugar to the glass and stirring the contents. Th…
30,000 years worth of missing genetic immunity to essentially every disease imaginable wiped out native populations in the Americas and precipitated the collapse of civilizations there, actually.
That's irrelevant. The point of the story, if you missed it, is that Europeans were not interested in adopting the Native American way of life and assimilating.
Cortez didn't arrive in Mexico and swear loyalty to the local king, and adopt their religion