Make your land like ours!

[Praefectusclassis]

Or just to make de jure what de facto already was.

[Tarbicus]

Especially one centred around a civilisation that even gave their foreign soldiers citizenship after service

True, but that was after 25-6 years of service in a thorougly Romanizing entity.

Ghurkas, Bengal Lancers, all professional longtime recruits. The Ghurkas only won, after having to drag the issue to court, the right of abode in the UK a couple of years ago. The enlistments from the Commonwealth alone into the British Army during World War One were 1,000,213 not including India (out of 5,971,115) .
SOME GREAT WAR STATISTICS

Recruitment from the Commonwealth increased by 75% last year as the army tried to meet its shortfall of almost 4,000 troops.

Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said 1,960 Commonwealth soldiers had joined up - 12% of the total recruits. Five years ago 140 were from Commonwealth countries and in 2001-02 it was 1,115.

From Foreign soldiers swell ranks

As for Victoria Crosses given to those not from the British Isles alone, here you go:

American ... 5
Australian ... 96
Belgian ... 1
Canadian ... 90
Ceylonese ... 1
Danish ... 4
Fijian ... 1
German ... 2
Grenadan ... 1
Indian ... 29
Kenyan ... 1
Nepalese ... 11
New Zealander ... 24
Newfoundlander ... 1
Rhodesian ... 3
Sikkimese ... 1
South African ... 21
Swedish ... 1
Swiss ... 1
Ukrainian ... 1
West Indian ... 3

None of the above were thought worthy of automatic British citizenship, or even the right to live here if desired. Plainly and simply wrong.

As for moaning about their adopted country, Britain's a nation of moaners!! That's real assimilation - they fit in just great!!

[hansvl]

Hi,

I can follow the opinion of Tom (Ursus) a little bit, but not the whole way. I agree that people who have chosen to live in a country that is 'new' for them, should (try to) integrate and not try to alter it completely to their customs and culture. E.g.: only two years ago a political party of Arabic immigrants in my country (Belgium) wanted to impose Arabic as an official language! This I think is quite absurd and demeaning towards the guest-country. In saying this they denied their will to become part in our community.

But on the other hand we (the 'original' inhabitants) should allow them to integrate, which we often aren't really open to do so. E.g.: Just yesterday a television program revealed that a belgian of foreign origin (Maroccan) was refused as a member of a gym-club. The (western) owners of the club said that they were full and no new members were accepted. Just ten minutes later they send in a belgian of local origin and he was immediately accepted with no questions asked.

So there are always two sides of the same story.

Hans

[Arthes]

Greetings,

Nail-on-head Tarby

Immigrants have also died for the UK in Iraq eg. Donal Meade, originally from Montserrat: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1564239,00.html

Monserrat is actually British and his name would probably make him of Irish ancestry.
There will no doubt be immigrants in the Forces as immigration to Britain is not a recent pheonomen and some have been here for generations, I have relatives of immigrant blood, I had one immigrant Grandparent from Southern Ireland, I have immigrant Normans as ancestors too.
I know lovely people with darker skin and horrible people with white and vice versa.
That is the whole point.
Immigrants are accepted as part of British culture, but there are immigrants and immigrants.
Stefanos is correct, the majority of immigrants settled here and aside from founding their own churches, temples, mosques or whatever and small communities, just became part of our way of life.
Look at Golders Green in London, it is known as a Jewish community with all the Jewish bits and bobs, but I don't hear them insist on Yiddish being spoken in schools and everone wearing skullcaps on Saturday and nobody suggests it will offend them not to do so. I don't hear that the Chinese are demanding that November 5th is offensive to them, as they invented fireworks...or that the British call food Chinese that isn't.
I do remember, however, many motorcyclists wearing turbans and pretending they were Sikhs... :lol: !
Of course immigrants should have fair treatment and be allowed to embrace thier own culture and beliefs..but not to impose it on others, even if it happens to be members of their own family, who no longer wish to live in that manner. They have come to Britain and should accept that many will prefer the different way of life:
I remember being shocked at finding the African cleaner at a College, when in my 20's was actually a Princess in her own country and was going to complain to the Principal, I was told not to worry about it, she needed the job. I didnt think Princesses, of whatever colour or nationality, should be doing menial work like that.
The balance has tipped too far in the other direction now, with the British and that includes earlier immigrants, being pushed gradually into second place.
It is not immigration, it is the effect and consequences on those who were here before...
Tarby mentions Rome - exactly, what did the Romans do...?
They invaded, took the invaded into their Legions and Auxiliaries then used them to invade elsewhere. The invaded countries became 'Roman', with restrictions on what they could do and paid tribute to Rome.
In return Rome protected them against other invaders (sometimes for ulterior motives) recruited their young men (sometimes against their will) and to a certain extent allowed them to follow their own faith and culture. Until Constantine decided everyone had to become Christian, then you did what you were told, on the surface at least.
If the invaded countrypeople rebelled against the Romans, they simply killed them, or tried to.
If Roman vetrans decided they wanted to live somewhere, it was their right, tough if it happened to be yours - this land belongs to Rome.
What did the Romans do when Rome's empire was under attack? Took all the Roman legions away and left Britain to get on with dealing with the Picts, Saxons and everyone else who wanted a piece of this island... :evil:
regards
Arthes

[hoplite14gr]

There are many historical cases were the hosts gave right to non hosts for exchange of military service. But this was the fulfilment of a contract undertaken from both sides. Inviting people from whereever to perform a task whatever that is and offering agreed rewards is very different than people demading them just because its good for them.
Having talking to people of different coultures, I have so far discovered that what ever the social belifs it is considered universally bad manners to bring yourself uninvited or annoy your host by trying to rule his house.
Also we all here though we might dissagree with each othe we are having a civilised discussion.
I cannot stomach the fact that common sence does not prevail in real life.
Roberts fears for "extremist views impact" have greatest risk of exploding into brutal reality by suppression rather by discussion.
The comon querry here is that the universally accepted bad maner of imposing yourself on others seem to be ignored by some people and that creates illegal situations and exploitation. why pointing that makes you an extremist. If children ask the grown ups about obedience tothe law we answer first by listing the exceptions?
If the Admin feel we exceed the limit I suggest that somebody proprse a site where we can move the discussion there.
I do not want this site to have problems because it is trully a site that edjucates people.
Kind regards

[Praefectusclassis]

The admin is watching this thread with eagle eyes to make sure people don't start tearing eachothers limbs off. Until then, I'm letting this go as an experiment.

[Tiberio]

Hi MARIVS TARQVINIVS VRSVS,
what you are getting at sounds like this "political correct" stuff here politicians
creat the weirdest terms just not to say "Christmas" as if Christmas was something new here in Canada and shouldn´t get a foot hold here. I don´t know but I find that rather loony! Try that in a muslim country to have them deny their "Ramadan" and see what happens! I find things like that just plain silly! hock:
Martin

[Tarbicus]

If the invaded countrypeople rebelled against the Romans, they simply killed them, or tried to.

Here's a quote from Cicero ( On Duties, I.34-5, 38)

"There are two ways of sorting out a disagreement, one by negotiation, the other by force, and since the first is a human characteristic, and the second of brutes, we must only use force when we are not able to use negotiation. So, the only way to give war is in order to live safely in peace. When victory is achieved, those who did not fight in a bloodthirsty or barbaric way we should spare. For example, our ancestors allowed the Tusculans, Aequians, Voluscians, Sabines and Hernicians to become full Roman citizens, but they burned down Corinth and Numantia. I wish Corinth had not been razed, but I believe there were special reasons for what was done, perhaps the advantageousness of its location, which might in the future have provided a temptation to go to war again. At the very least my view is that we should always try to achieve a peace that involves no trickery ....
We must be considerate to those whom we have defeated by force and also protect those who surrender and offer themselves up to the mercy of our generals, even though battering rams have battered their walls. Justice has been so conscientiously observed amongst our own people on this subject that those who have promised protection to districts or nations defeated in war become patrons of those places, according to our ancestors' customs ....
But when a war is fought to gain the upper hand and its purpose is glory, it must be started for the same motives I outlined just before as the only morally acceptable reasons for going to war. Wars fought for glory as their purpose must be conducted with less harshness."

I'm not so naive as to believe that was the practice in all of Roman history, but Roman leaders were well versed, and it is a clear piece which at least suggests there was some 'standard' of, or desire for, some decency in what are supposed to be brutal and bloodthirsty times abhorrent to our own values. The Romans may have Carthage, Numantia and Corinth to answer for, but then I think, "Ireland, Native Americans, Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, the Boers (where the British invented the concentration camp), Algeria, China, the Hindus, the Congo, Kenya, New Zealand, Australia, and on and on and on ...."

Total up the estimates of how many Rome killed in 'genocides' and war over its entire history, and get the world population numbers for those times (they're out there, I've done this exercise, but you need to do it for a couple of different population estimates). Do the same for war and 'genocide' with the British Empire over its three centuries, or the big three dictators of the 20th Century (Hitler, Stalin and Mao), and work out for each of them a percentage of world population killed through their actions, averaged over the timespans involved. I think you'd be very very surprised at how unbloodthirsty the Romans were, believe it or not, especially when ancient Romans are compared to those of an "enlightened age". The per capita numbers are no good unless divided by the years that the various Empires/individuals had power.

Perhaps slavery would need to be thrown into the mix, but then the British Empire would hardly look too favourable, or others come to think of it. But, when comparing to the Romans bear this in mind from Pliny the Younger (Letters, III.14)
"Actually, I can tell you one more thing about Macedo, which has just occurred to me. Once he was in a public bath in Rome when an extraordinary and portentious (considering how he died) accident happened to him. One of his slaves stepped out of his master's way and placed his hand gently on an equestrian. The equestrian turned round suddenly and hit, not the slave who had touched him, but Macedo, with such a violent slap that he nearly knocked him over."

As for some general sentiments in our respective nations go to ([url:1nv9d895]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide[/url]) and scroll down to "Stages of genocide and efforts to prevent it". Check out stages 1 and 2.

[Marius_Ursus]

Hi,

I can follow the opinion of Tom (Ursus) a little bit, but not the whole way. I agree that people who have chosen to live in a country that is 'new' for them, should (try to) integrate and not try to alter it completely to their customs and culture. E.g.: only two years ago a political party of Arabic immigrants in my country (Belgium) wanted to impose Arabic as an official language! This I think is quite absurd and demeaning towards the guest-country. In saying this they denied their will to become part in our community.

But on the other hand we (the 'original' inhabitants) should allow them to integrate, which we often aren't really open to do so. E.g.: Just yesterday a television program revealed that a belgian of foreign origin (Maroccan) was refused as a member of a gym-club. The (western) owners of the club said that they were full and no new members were accepted. Just ten minutes later they send in a belgian of local origin and he was immediately accepted with no questions asked.

So there are always two sides of the same story.

Hans

Unless I'm grossly misunderstanding your post, we agree 100%. I'm not pro-segregation. I'm not anti-foreigner, and I'm certainly not anti-immigration. My own family came here from Ireland...and I grew up, lived in, and visited more countries than a lot of Americans have even heard of. (Lichtenstein??? Is that near Pittsburgh???)

I'm pro legal immigration. I'm pro productivity, harmony, and increasing the standard of living for anyone willing to put the hard work into creating a prosperous life. I'm also strongly pro-integration but not forced integration (Take a look at the bussing controversy of the US in the late '60s and see what that did to our education system as a whole. We've never recovered.) and very much in favor of majority rule as long as those rules don't oppress anyone (self-imposed oppression withstanding).

[Marius_Ursus]

Hi MARIVS TARQVINIVS VRSVS,
what you are getting at sounds like this "political correct" stuff here politicians
creat the weirdest terms just not to say "Christmas" as if Christmas was something new here in Canada and shouldn´t get a foot hold here. I don´t know but I find that rather loony! Try that in a muslim country to have them deny their "Ramadan" and see what happens! I find things like that just plain silly! hock:
Martin

Just this morning I learned from my lovely wife that 500,000 patrons of Target have boycotted the stores because they banned the phrase "Merry Christmas" in the stores. :lol:

[Arthes]

Having talking to people of different coultures, I have so far discovered that what ever the social belifs it is considered universally bad manners to bring yourself uninvited or annoy your host by trying to rule his house.

That is true.
You have a party and somebody brings a friend who turns out to be a loud mouthed obnoxious sort, who complains there are no beef sandwiches.
They then turn off the music and put on something of their choice (sounds like an ex of mine... :lol: ) when there are complaints he starts lecturing on how useless that band is (definitely sounds like him..)
What does the host do?
You have another guest who does not say anything but refuses to eat or drink what is there and then makes quiet comments about 'not catering for them'. They walk out of the room, quietly saying they do not like the music and disappear to return with a take-away. They walk into the room full of guests and quietly proceed to eat the take-away.
They then quietly ask why they were invited when the food and music is 'unsuitable' for them, you point out suitable food and explain that other guests have their own choice in music.
They quietly explain that you are wrong to invite them if you cannot prepare suitable food and play music they like.
What does the host do?
Two different situations one aggressive, one passive.
regards
Arthes

[Viventius]

Viventius wrote:
Nail-on-head Tarby

Immigrants have also died for the UK in Iraq eg. Donal Meade, originally from Montserrat: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1564239,00.html

Arthes wrote:
Monserrat is actually British and his name would probably make him of Irish ancestry

He was Montserrat born and chose to come here when the volcanoe erupted. And then chose to go into the UK army. It was an honour all round for us to have him. Not sure what the defiition of an immigrant is otherwise. If I went to Australia (if they let me in) I would be an immigrant from England ... And I've have to learn the language too :wink:

Does it matter what Mr Meades ancestry was? One of my lot was Italian - so what? Gonna send me back there or lock me up on the Isle of Man if hostilities are declared? Apparently, I might even get be eligible to claim Italian citizenship, if I can get the documentation together - whoppee!!!! When can I go? 8)

[Robert Vermaat]

Greetings,
Stefanos put it more or less as I would....it is not so much immigrants as those particular ones who are not happy with the country they have chosen and expect things to change to suit them.....!

I agree, that sound very antisocial. But even newcomers have right to ask for change, they are not obliged to sit tight and shut up. Which generation of immigrants would have the right to demand change?

I tast something different in these arguments (not just your); is this against immigrants who expect that everybody around them should change according to their values, disregarding the values of the people the come to move among?
In that case, I stand on your side. We're mostly talking about religious fundamentalists here, aren't we, not immigrants who demand more trees in each front yard.

Yes, I've seen that before, with fundamentalists from each of the three big religions. The talk of the town is mostly about Muslims these days, but I've met Christians who bombed abortion clinics, and seen how Jewish immigrants from the US force moderate Israelis out Old Jerusalem.
Did you know that Muslims are actually required by the Qur'an to accomodate themselves according to the rules of the foreign country they move to?

I do appreciate some of these people are refugees who escaped awful conditions and needed help but I think many have abused our hospitality.

In my experience (I worked in these circles, both as a student as well as with Amnesty International) it's the quiet ones you don't notice, and they tend to be a large majority. They ones with the big mouth are the ones who are in the spotlight, but they tend not to be a majority.

There have been some distressing incidents too, one pretty teenager was murdered by her father, because her boyfriend was of a different faith and she wanted a lifestyle more like the British girls. He tried to claim it was his right to kill her, as she shamed him :evil:

I hate those things. But the sad thing is, these are incidents, whereas many many times more of 'our own' children are beaten to death or neglected by their parents, something nobody seems to find neccesary to mention in the morning paper.
It's remains awful, but let's keep things in perpective.

The 'politically correct' situation in England means that some Police Forces in this country have been turning down suitable candidates as they could not meet the 'black' 'ethnic' 'gay' 'disabled' and 'female' percentages....so if none of those want to join the Police..... :?

that's a big problem, indeed, we have the same situation over here. But the 'quotas', though of course also politically inspired, also serve to make the police (which together with the army is and will always contain more people of the conservative/right of the political spectrum) nota mainly 'white' force. The police need to remain in contact with the non-white part of society, and that's why they need a certain number of non-whites.
Yes, how do we get the minorities to oparticipate in society - that's the big question!
If that's solved, we've taken a large step towards integration of these groups.

Where do you draw a line between accepting immigrants and being invaded by the back door....a la Vortigern...?

I take exception to that!
No, seriously, Vortigern had nothing to do with back-door immigration! he merely did (together with the rest of the city councils) what the Romans had done before - it was Caesar who took the first Germans with him to Britain...

To be a little political....how come the British powers that be are so politically correct with certain peoples, yet damn difficult when it comes to dealing with Scotland, Wales and Ireland...... :roll:
regards

In The Netherlands, it's the other way around! Every maroccan, Turk or whatever is required to speak Dutch and the get integrated in Dutch society.
Yet in the province of Friesland, they have their own anthem :x evil: and if you go to court, you have to pay to get a Dutch translation of the verdict!!!!! hock: hock: hock:
I say, that's darned unfair!

[Arthes]

Will there be a time when even listening to this old favourite may be considered offensive...?

White Christmas

I'm dreaming of a white Christmas
Just like the ones I used to know
Where the treetops glisten,
and children listen
To hear sleigh bells in the snow

I'm dreaming of a white Christmas
With every Christmas card I write
May your days be merry and bright
And may all your Christmases be white

I'm dreaming of a white Christmas
With every Christmas card I write
May your days be merry and bright
And may all your Christmases be white

words by Irving Berlin
sung by Bing Crosby

[Tarbicus]

Know what, if someone moves here and can't speak English I couldn't care less. If they can't communicate what they want to say it's their lookout.

Councillors who take down statues against popular public opinion will be voted out at their next election, and those who promise to put the statue back will be voted in.

Ethnic minorities being helped into the police force is the force's own fault because it was racist to its core - tough luck, and they made their own. To clarify, I've been a victim of violent crime fairly recently and was impressed (a change from my youth), and have friends in the force, but I'm only saying what I'd say to their faces.

Newspapers and programmes love to sensationalise everything - it gets you to put money in their pockets. I know plenty of immigrants here in London and they're top people by and large (I was best man to a mate who married one). The service industries would collapse without them, I am convinced of that, and (some of you aren't gonna like this) many offices, streets, and workplaces would be filthy without (here it comes) immigrants and illegal immigrants. If you don't like that plain simple cold hard fact, I didn't come up with it. Secret life of the office cleaner
Even cleaners working in Whitehall have been found to be illegal immigrants!

"How was it done before all this immigration, though?" you may ask. Simple, the general workforce was cleaner and tidied up after themselves. So, guess who caused the above situation - tough luck. When I have to go to work at 4 or 5am they are everywhere waiting for buses, and I just think "I'm glad I'm not in their situation." The fact is that they do the work at a price no one else wants to do, have pretty miserable lives (these are the ones who are not on our radar, the quiet ones Vorti mentioned), and are then victimised for it.

And before anyone says they're taking jobs from people you know, etc, they're not. And, I don't believe it's actually the Government's fault (employers are supposed to obtain copies of passports, etc): It's the agents, who recruit them abroad through whatever means, and their clients keeping costs at rock bottom.

The immigrants are just trying to eat and have a roof above their heads.