Differences Between Early And Recent Migrations

[Freomæg]

A lot is said about our current racial tragedy being merely the most recent chapter in a long history of migration, invasion, colonisation and settlement in the world. The colonisations of the past are used to justify what is happening now in Europe particularly, but all over the western world. Indeed, many self-hating 'liberals' will actually state that 'we deserve it' due to what Europeans did to the native Americans and Australians.

But it's not the same. Here are some fundamental differences:

The first settlers to arrive in the New World, Australia and New Zealand were not doing so for economic reasons. What they inherited through their quest was simply a piece of land upon which no economic system to speak of had been established. Immigrants to the west, now, are doing so entirely for economic reasons - to prosper from the wealth and civilisation which has been built by the ancestors of European peoples.


The natives of the new world colonies were not subdued by their own leaders, but were very much permitted to fight in defence of their homeland. The fact that they lost the war is a tragedy to their kind, but they gave it their all, which is more than can be said for our disarmourment and inability to defend our home (-lands in Europe).


Australia and the Americas were extremely large, relatively uninhabited pieces of land. Europe is already densely populated by comparison.


Australia and the Americas had no central governments and no real claim to land ownership. Europe's nations do have central governments and have layed claim to this land as belonging to the people or ruling body of the land.

[Osweo]

The key is parasitism and intent. We didn't latch onto Redskins' political systems and twist them to our advantage, or use Australians' own political ideologies and social legislation to defeat them and rub victory in their faces as though they themselves had asked for it. Non-settler colonies are harder to defend, being purely financial in purpose, near enough, but there was never any intent to displace Hindus on their own soil, shunting their culture aside and transplanting an alien one, reinforced by a soaring birthrate. Colonial administrators treated natives in a paternalistic fashion, trying to do for them what they saw as good for them.

[Freomæg]

Yes Oswiu. And their own elected leaders have not been utterly complicit in their own destruction the way ours have.

[Allenson]

As Aemeric will tell you, the 'looney left' is firmly entrenched here in Vermont--due largely to a massive influx of liberal whites drawn mostly from the large east coast cities to our south and a fair few from the Rustbelt cities as well. They started arriving in the 70s and since then, have slowly but steadily changed the socio-political landscape here.

In short, many of my friends here have very different outlooks than do I regarding political & social matters. Nine times out of ten, I keep my mouth shut when political conversations arise at social gatherings but every so often, I just have to chime in.

A few weeks back, over a few beers, the topic of the decline of the percentage of whites of the US population came up (mind you, everyone at the table was quite white) and how in the not too distant future, we would be below 50% of the total. The general mood of all this was smiles, agreement, coolness and what not. I sat there quietly for many minutes while the conversation rolled along but finally jumped in when there was a bit of a pause.

"I've heard about this too" I said. "One thing that really strikes me about this issue is that even amongst whites, it's seen as something positive and something that folks are looking forward to. We seem to be the only group of people in the world that at the least, is apathetic about and at the worst, actually happy about our own decline. Can anyone think of any other group of people out there in the world that would have this sort of mindset?"

I got nothing in response other than slow nods, some contemplative looks and a few "that's true"s......

[Bridie]

A lot is said about our current racial tragedy being merely the most recent chapter in a long history of migration, invasion, colonisation and settlement in the world. The colonisations of the past are used to justify what is happening now in Europe particularly, but all over the western world. Indeed, many self-hating 'liberals' will actually state that 'we deserve it' due to what Europeans did to the native Americans and Australians.

But it's not the same. Here are some fundamental differences:
I'm going to have to disagree with you there... it is basically the same.

Of course, it certainly doesn't justify the ethnocide/genocide of Europeans. Modern Europeans (well, the modern British we're speaking of here, really) should not feel guilty for histories that they themselves did not personally make. We cannot be held responsible for the fashions of old, nor for political decisions made long before we were ever born. There is no point in living in the past... we need to just move on.




The first settlers to arrive in the New World, Australia and New Zealand were not doing so for economic reasons. These lands were originally conquered and settled for economic reasons for sure. Not for the financial gain of the colonists, but for the financial gain of the Empires.




Australia and the Americas were extremely large, relatively uninhabited pieces of land. Europe is already densely populated by comparison."Relatively" uninhabited, but still inhabited.



Australia and the Americas had no central governments and no real claim to land ownership. Europe's nations do have central governments and have layed claim to this land as belonging to the people or ruling body of the land.A people have to have a central government to be entitled to claim land ownership? Not true.



Colonial administrators treated natives in a paternalistic fashion, trying to do for them what they saw as good for them. I don't know which history books you've been reading Os, but they must be very fanciful ones! :D I don't think Colonial administrators had any ambition in mind except the prosperity of the Empire as a political/financial institution. They cared little for their own people, let alone the natives.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Cythraul
The natives of the new world colonies were not subdued by their own leaders, but were very much permitted to fight in defence of their homeland.

That’s the only point of relevance in all that to me, I don’t justify European colonisation or imperialism, the Spaniards, Portuguese, English, Dutch, French etc wiped out to greater or lesser degrees the indigenes in order to take their land off of them, the English settler in America, for the most part, didn’t care one bit about “civilising the savage” what he wanted was his land and if that meant driving off a few Indians with “Stone Age” tools so much the better, he didn’t want to live in squalor in England when there was land for the taking, that’s the reality of existence, whether we like it or not. Does might make right? Probably not in philosophy but where existence is at stake, yeah it usually does.

Now the same thing is happening to us, who can blame all those immigrants in Calais? They know damn well if they get into Britain they will never have to work again and will be more wealthy than if they stayed at home, they would have to be stupid not to try, Rome is open to the Goths, and the Romans no longer have the will to defend their own, not just that we told not to fight, not to resist, by the very people who we entrust with our welfare.

Those immigrants aren’t the cause of the disease, they are a symptom of it. The disease is very much within.

[Freomæg]

These lands were originally conquered and settled for economic reasons for sure. Not for the financial gain of the colonists, but for the financial gain of the Empires.
I'll concede, possibly, that "economic" was the wrong choice of word. Perhaps my vocabulary failed me, but I couldn't think of a more appropriate word for "migration in the name of prospering from existing economic prosperity at the destination". "Exploit" perhaps?


That’s the only point of relevance in all that to me, I don’t justify European colonisation or imperialism
I'm not necessarily trying to justify European imperialism either. I think, all things considered, Europe should have been enough for Europeans. But whilst early colonisation by Europeans may have been at least partly deplorable, it's still important to note the important differences between what happened then and what is happening now.

[Osweo]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there... it is basically the same.
How basic do you have to go before everything is the same? This thread is about the differences, which undoubtedly exist. The end result is ethnic and racial replacement, but you have to admit that it's happening in a very different way.

A people have to have a central government to be entitled to claim land ownership? Not true.

In the 1700s they did. :shrug:
Who is the independent arbiter to decide these questions? There certainly wasn't one then, and there's hardly one now.

I don't know which history books you've been reading Os, but they must be very fanciful ones! :D I don't think Colonial administrators had any ambition in mind except the prosperity of the Empire as a political/financial institution. They cared little for their own people, let alone the natives.
History books for the most part are written by people anxious to make a name for themselves by means of calling dead people liars. And the dead lied often enough, but not always. And the fact that they often lied to themselves should be brought up here. In the paternalistic mindset, they told themselves that they were acting in the natives' best interest. As to the truth of that, well, sometimes it fell a little short of it! But the INTENT was there, all the same, and far more so than your simple dismissal of it would indicate.

No, the 1700s are NOT a good parallel for what's happening to us now. A few millenia BC in Mesopotamia is better, when Semitic pastoralists took over Sumerian civilisation. The incomers benefited from the organisation of state, economy, society and religion that their victims had built up over centuries. Exactly our situation. The language even survived a good long while, but the heart of it was completely different.

Englishmen didn't go to Worraworra and steal the Big Man's nose bone and take over the benefits of minding the Big Cloud Rock, distorting the true meanings of the ancient sacred Bandicoot Dance, after all... ;)