Do you think it is acceptable to send immigrants to Rwanda?
Poll: Do you think it is acceptable to send immigrants to Rwanda?
Total Members Polled: 669
Discussion
PurpleTurtle said:
I haven't had time to read the entire thread, but has anyone commenting on this actually been to Rwanda?
I have, most recently in 2004. My ex-girlfriend's brother worked for the Foreign Office there. He was 'our man in Kigali', if you like.
It's a world apart from modern Britain. Outside Kigali itself kids walk to school with no shoes, they stop vehicles at junctions to beg you for spare mineral water bottles so they can use them to fill up at the well, and almost everyone in the villages is wearing clothes donated by Western charity shops. My favourite spot was a dude strutting down the street in a Westlife t-shirt, oblivious (I assume) to who they were.
This is a country where during the (very recent, relatively speaking) genocide, neighbour was turned against neighbour and encouraged to hack their friends to death with machetes. They did it because "they are not our tribe". Rwandan against Rwandan. What chance would some third-country person stand when it inevitably all kicks off there again?
If you'd seen the horrors inside their genocide memorial museum, and had an ounce of humanity, you would not think for a moment that this is a 'safe' country to send people to. It's utterly bonkers to even consider it.
Cant be true they sponsor Arsenal with a ‘Visit Rwanda’ slogan.I have, most recently in 2004. My ex-girlfriend's brother worked for the Foreign Office there. He was 'our man in Kigali', if you like.
It's a world apart from modern Britain. Outside Kigali itself kids walk to school with no shoes, they stop vehicles at junctions to beg you for spare mineral water bottles so they can use them to fill up at the well, and almost everyone in the villages is wearing clothes donated by Western charity shops. My favourite spot was a dude strutting down the street in a Westlife t-shirt, oblivious (I assume) to who they were.
This is a country where during the (very recent, relatively speaking) genocide, neighbour was turned against neighbour and encouraged to hack their friends to death with machetes. They did it because "they are not our tribe". Rwandan against Rwandan. What chance would some third-country person stand when it inevitably all kicks off there again?
If you'd seen the horrors inside their genocide memorial museum, and had an ounce of humanity, you would not think for a moment that this is a 'safe' country to send people to. It's utterly bonkers to even consider it.
You could level most of the above at Cambodia, but loads go there for holidays.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Kermit power said:
Without any doubt the industrial revolution was the biggest single contributor to the wealth of Britain, but a huge part of that was giving us the weapons and other technologies with which to conquer the empire.
It's also true that countries can develop without having an empire, although Japan, Germany and Sweden all did have empires. Not anything remotely close to the scale of ours of course, but they certainly didn't hurt when it comes to seed money to spend on industrial development even after they'd lost their empires. That's without considering the enormous amount that the US poured into rebuilding Germany and Japan after WW2 either.
Japan is an interesting parallel as well. Their industrialisation coincided with the rise of the Japanese Empire after the Meiji Restoration in 1868, but the arguably greater contributor to that growth was the simple fact of opening Japan to the world after two centuries of almost complete isolationism. That allowed for trade, and crucially for the revenue it generated, which again provided the seed money for industrialisation.
In comparison, India was already producing vast amounts of wealth - as previously mentioned 25% of global GDP before the arrival of the EIC - but over the course of the next two centuries leading up to 1947, we extracted an estimated $45 trillion in wealth in the money of the day! Bearing in mind the fact that the annual GDP of the UK in today's money is only $3.3 trillion, surely it must be self-evident to anyone who cares to look at it that the drain in wealth was on a scale we can barely imagine today! Just think what India might look like today if that money had stayed in India?
Probably the most staggering fact of all when it comes to the British time in India is just how much of it wasn't the actions of the British government at all. The British Raj only actually lasted for under 90 years leading up to 1947. Prior to that, India spent just as long under the rule of the EIC, a private company!
Included in the period of company rule was the Bengal Famine of 1770, in which even British estimates at the time estimated that there had been 10 million deaths. During the famine, the EIC still proudly collected 100% of its tax revenue!
It should probably come as no surprise to discover that at one point, over 70% of British MPs held shares in the EIC, and fully a third of them were former Company men who had made such huge fortunes in India that they were able to return home after just a few years and buy themselves a Rotten Borough!
You can find any number of examples of nations rising to prominence without an Empire, or of other nations committing atrocities in the name of their empires, but nobody before or since has done it on the colossal scale that we did, and we've not even started to talk slavery yet!
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2021/09/british-india-and-the-45-trillion-lie/It's also true that countries can develop without having an empire, although Japan, Germany and Sweden all did have empires. Not anything remotely close to the scale of ours of course, but they certainly didn't hurt when it comes to seed money to spend on industrial development even after they'd lost their empires. That's without considering the enormous amount that the US poured into rebuilding Germany and Japan after WW2 either.
Japan is an interesting parallel as well. Their industrialisation coincided with the rise of the Japanese Empire after the Meiji Restoration in 1868, but the arguably greater contributor to that growth was the simple fact of opening Japan to the world after two centuries of almost complete isolationism. That allowed for trade, and crucially for the revenue it generated, which again provided the seed money for industrialisation.
In comparison, India was already producing vast amounts of wealth - as previously mentioned 25% of global GDP before the arrival of the EIC - but over the course of the next two centuries leading up to 1947, we extracted an estimated $45 trillion in wealth in the money of the day! Bearing in mind the fact that the annual GDP of the UK in today's money is only $3.3 trillion, surely it must be self-evident to anyone who cares to look at it that the drain in wealth was on a scale we can barely imagine today! Just think what India might look like today if that money had stayed in India?
Probably the most staggering fact of all when it comes to the British time in India is just how much of it wasn't the actions of the British government at all. The British Raj only actually lasted for under 90 years leading up to 1947. Prior to that, India spent just as long under the rule of the EIC, a private company!
Included in the period of company rule was the Bengal Famine of 1770, in which even British estimates at the time estimated that there had been 10 million deaths. During the famine, the EIC still proudly collected 100% of its tax revenue!
It should probably come as no surprise to discover that at one point, over 70% of British MPs held shares in the EIC, and fully a third of them were former Company men who had made such huge fortunes in India that they were able to return home after just a few years and buy themselves a Rotten Borough!
You can find any number of examples of nations rising to prominence without an Empire, or of other nations committing atrocities in the name of their empires, but nobody before or since has done it on the colossal scale that we did, and we've not even started to talk slavery yet!
The $45 trillion figure is bonkers. An attention grabbing headline.
Any attempt to account for 2 centuries of history in such a way is going to be meaningless.
You can quibble all you like, but we made a fortune off empire.
Kermit power said:
Staggering how the author (a student writing an essay apparently) can blithely refer to "a small amount of Bengal's taxes being siphoned off to pay for exports to Britain" without thinking it worth mentioning that the period in question included the Bengal Famine of 1770 which not only saw millions die, it also saw the EIC raise land taxes by 60% in 1771 to ensure the remaining peasants paid up on behalf of their dead compatriots.
You can quibble all you like, but we made a fortune off empire.
It's a staggeringly stupid argument to start with. How does it compare with the damage we prevented the Mughal empire committing? You can't account for history that way. You can quibble all you like, but we made a fortune off empire.
The wars in Libya and Syria and ISIL in Iraq (created through the Iraq war) played a huge part in the migrant crisis in 2015 - who played the biggest role in those wars? The west.
Then you add in a huge percentage of African economic migrants as part of that - who f
ked up Africa enough that people flee constantly? - The west.
So the boats now are a direct result of both recent and colonial history. You can't ignore it, you can't say well 'that was the past, let's crack on with the future' because it's all a legacy.
We played a huge part in fking over swathes of the world (Africa and the middle east, still reeling from our centuries of interventions, we plundered and pillaged their wealth for our own ends and then wonder why they want to come to where the wealth is these days) and in my book if you fk something up it's on you to sort it out. Again something that those on the right don't seem to agree with.
That's ignoring the slavery argument and nothing to do with 'but whitey'.
Then you add in a huge percentage of African economic migrants as part of that - who f
ked up Africa enough that people flee constantly? - The west.So the boats now are a direct result of both recent and colonial history. You can't ignore it, you can't say well 'that was the past, let's crack on with the future' because it's all a legacy.
We played a huge part in f
king over swathes of the world (Africa and the middle east, still reeling from our centuries of interventions, we plundered and pillaged their wealth for our own ends and then wonder why they want to come to where the wealth is these days) and in my book if you fk something up it's on you to sort it out. Again something that those on the right don't seem to agree with.That's ignoring the slavery argument and nothing to do with 'but whitey'.
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Tuesday 21st November 08:58
F1GTRUeno said:
The wars in Libya and Syria and ISIL in Iraq (created through the Iraq war) played a huge part in the migrant crisis in 2015 - who played the biggest role in those wars?
Saddam Hussein? Assad? IS?F1GTRUeno said:
The west.
Oh. It's all our responsibility again then.If the buck stops with us every time perhaps we should be running these countries rather than just being charged with offering them a social security net...
Russia and China are behind the scenes of a lot of the current ills in the developing world. We all know what Russia get up to. China uses Belt and Road to steer votes on UNHCR.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/30/chinas-growing-inf...
It is a huge oversimplification to equate what is going on now solely with UK, US and Western influence on developing world.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/30/chinas-growing-inf...
It is a huge oversimplification to equate what is going on now solely with UK, US and Western influence on developing world.
768 said:
F1GTRUeno said:
The wars in Libya and Syria and ISIL in Iraq (created through the Iraq war) played a huge part in the migrant crisis in 2015 - who played the biggest role in those wars?
Saddam Hussein? Assad? IS?F1GTRUeno said:
The west.
Oh. It's all our responsibility again then.If the buck stops with us every time perhaps we should be running these countries rather than just being charged with offering them a social security net...
Assad is responsibie for his own crimes but we've been meddling arming forces against him as part of the overall forever war with Russia. Libya similarly.
IS as mentioned were created in the vacuum we left during the Iraq war. The war we'll be feeling the effects of for years to come.
It doesn't stop with us every time. It's not just 'always blame the west'.
It's that the west has been the dominant force for so long and they've been the ones responsible for meddling in the middle east and they've been the ones responsible for pillaging Africa - the two things contributing to the migrant crisis. Surely that's pertinent?
Add in the wealth concentrated in the west meaning the opportunities are there and English being the dominant language in the world, is it any wonder we end up with people trying to get here?
You can't go round f
king things up then complain about the consequences of you fking things up. You've gotta take responsibility and deal with your actions.Digga said:
Russia and China are behind the scenes of a lot of the current ills in the developing world. We all know what Russia get up to. China uses Belt and Road to steer votes on UNHCR.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/30/chinas-growing-inf...
It is a huge oversimplification to equate what is going on now solely with UK, US and Western influence on developing world.
They are doing little different to what the US always has done though. It might be somewhat less salubrious the way they go about it rather than trying (but usually failing) to maintain the facade of righteousness that the US so loves about pretending that they believe in but it doesn't change the fact self interest is and always has been paramount in state actions.https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/30/chinas-growing-inf...
It is a huge oversimplification to equate what is going on now solely with UK, US and Western influence on developing world.
F1GTRUeno said:
The wars in Libya and Syria and ISIL in Iraq (created through the Iraq war) played a huge part in the migrant crisis in 2015 - who played the biggest role in those wars? The west.
Then you add in a huge percentage of African economic migrants as part of that - who fked up Africa enough that people flee constantly? - The west.
So the boats now are a direct result of both recent and colonial history. You can't ignore it, you can't say well 'that was the past, let's crack on with the future' because it's all a legacy.
We played a huge part in fking over swathes of the world (Africa and the middle east, still reeling from our centuries of interventions, we plundered and pillaged their wealth for our own ends and then wonder why they want to come to where the wealth is these days) and in my book if you fk something up it's on you to sort it out. Again something that those on the right don't seem to agree with.
That's ignoring the slavery argument and nothing to do with 'but whitey'.
What about the Arabs? They were all over Africa, and sold many of the slaves. And then the Berbers and North Africans who took slaves, including from Europe. The Moors who ruled Spain for centuries. The Ottomans who subjugated Greece and much of the Balkans.Then you add in a huge percentage of African economic migrants as part of that - who f
ked up Africa enough that people flee constantly? - The west.So the boats now are a direct result of both recent and colonial history. You can't ignore it, you can't say well 'that was the past, let's crack on with the future' because it's all a legacy.
We played a huge part in f
king over swathes of the world (Africa and the middle east, still reeling from our centuries of interventions, we plundered and pillaged their wealth for our own ends and then wonder why they want to come to where the wealth is these days) and in my book if you fk something up it's on you to sort it out. Again something that those on the right don't seem to agree with.That's ignoring the slavery argument and nothing to do with 'but whitey'.
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Tuesday 21st November 08:58
And why even use nations as the dividing line? As far as I know none of my family had anything whatsoever to do with the East India Company. What do I owe the descendents of Jamsetji Tata, educated at a British funded school who went on to found the Tata group.
It's a stupid and divisive lens through which to view the world.
isaldiri said:
Digga said:
Russia and China are behind the scenes of a lot of the current ills in the developing world. We all know what Russia get up to. China uses Belt and Road to steer votes on UNHCR.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/30/chinas-growing-inf...
It is a huge oversimplification to equate what is going on now solely with UK, US and Western influence on developing world.
They are doing little different to what the US always has done though. It might be somewhat less salubrious the way they go about it rather than trying (but usually failing) to maintain the facade of righteousness that the US so loves about pretending that they believe in but it doesn't change the fact self interest is and always has been paramount in state actions.https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/30/chinas-growing-inf...
It is a huge oversimplification to equate what is going on now solely with UK, US and Western influence on developing world.
Don't even get me started on Genghis Khan.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
F1GTRUeno said:
The wars in Libya and Syria and ISIL in Iraq (created through the Iraq war) played a huge part in the migrant crisis in 2015 - who played the biggest role in those wars? The west.
Then you add in a huge percentage of African economic migrants as part of that - who fked up Africa enough that people flee constantly? - The west.
So the boats now are a direct result of both recent and colonial history. You can't ignore it, you can't say well 'that was the past, let's crack on with the future' because it's all a legacy.
We played a huge part in fking over swathes of the world (Africa and the middle east, still reeling from our centuries of interventions, we plundered and pillaged their wealth for our own ends and then wonder why they want to come to where the wealth is these days) and in my book if you fk something up it's on you to sort it out. Again something that those on the right don't seem to agree with.
That's ignoring the slavery argument and nothing to do with 'but whitey'.
What about the Arabs? They were all over Africa, and sold many of the slaves. And then the Berbers and North Africans who took slaves, including from Europe. The Moors who ruled Spain for centuries. The Ottomans who subjugated Greece and much of the Balkans.Then you add in a huge percentage of African economic migrants as part of that - who f
ked up Africa enough that people flee constantly? - The west.So the boats now are a direct result of both recent and colonial history. You can't ignore it, you can't say well 'that was the past, let's crack on with the future' because it's all a legacy.
We played a huge part in f
king over swathes of the world (Africa and the middle east, still reeling from our centuries of interventions, we plundered and pillaged their wealth for our own ends and then wonder why they want to come to where the wealth is these days) and in my book if you fk something up it's on you to sort it out. Again something that those on the right don't seem to agree with.That's ignoring the slavery argument and nothing to do with 'but whitey'.
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Tuesday 21st November 08:58
And why even use nations as the dividing line? As far as I know none of my family had anything whatsoever to do with the East India Company. What do I owe the descendents of Jamsetji Tata, educated at a British funded school who went on to found the Tata group.
It's a stupid and divisive lens through which to view the world.
Why are the boats coming in. Why do we feel the need to ship them off to Rwanda. Keep working through it.
Case by case - what are the roots of this specific issue - it's us for me hence we get to take the responsibility on this one.
If you can point to the Arabs, the Berbers and North Africans, The Moors and the Ottomans when looking at the boats right now then by all means ask them to help and do their part, I'm absolutely fine with everyone helping to solve things. If you can't then ask the ones who caused this one.
The roots are based in recent wars and then the last line of people/companies/countries that sucked up the wealth and divided up land.
The western world has been the cause most conflicts in the past century so we should be solving the past century's problems. Simple.
F1GTRUeno said:
Just look at the current crisis. It's not hard.
Why are the boats coming in. Why do we feel the need to ship them off to Rwanda. Keep working through it.
Case by case - what are the roots of this specific issue - it's us for me hence we get to take the responsibility on this one.
If you can point to the Arabs, the Berbers and North Africans, The Moors and the Ottomans when looking at the boats right now then by all means ask them to help and do their part, I'm absolutely fine with everyone helping to solve things. If you can't then ask the ones who caused this one.
The roots are based in recent wars and then the last line of people/companies/countries that sucked up the wealth and divided up land.
The western world has been the cause most conflicts in the past century so we should be solving the past century's problems. Simple.
Well it's certainly simple I'll grant you.Why are the boats coming in. Why do we feel the need to ship them off to Rwanda. Keep working through it.
Case by case - what are the roots of this specific issue - it's us for me hence we get to take the responsibility on this one.
If you can point to the Arabs, the Berbers and North Africans, The Moors and the Ottomans when looking at the boats right now then by all means ask them to help and do their part, I'm absolutely fine with everyone helping to solve things. If you can't then ask the ones who caused this one.
The roots are based in recent wars and then the last line of people/companies/countries that sucked up the wealth and divided up land.
The western world has been the cause most conflicts in the past century so we should be solving the past century's problems. Simple.
Even in Iraq, the text book case of western adventurism gone very wrong, where we made an idiotic mistake, the roots of the conflict way predate our intervention. The Sunni/Shia schism already goes back to the 7th century AD, and that probably has its roots in the country being used as a battleground between the Byzantine and Sassanid empires, who inherited a load of baggage from the Romans, Greeks, Parthians and others.
Not only do they predate our intervention, they predate western hegemony, the patriarchy and our very existence.
The idea that "it's all our fault" and that but for our avarice these harmless creatures would be sitting around eating watermelons in a land of peace and plenty is insultingly simplistic and patronising. They're human beings like us. With all the faults and frailties that make our history turbulent, and all of the same qualities and abilities which can hopefully make the future better.
But it will be made better by better governance and better economic management, not by encouraging people to give their life savings to criminal gangs to shove them on dinghies and get to "a rich country" which owes them something because of some convoluted misunderstanding of history.
F1GTRUeno said:
Saddam was gone before Libya, Syria and ISIL but us trying to justify and then waging a ridiculous war to get rid of him created the vacuum that created IS.
Assad is responsibie for his own crimes but we've been meddling arming forces against him as part of the overall forever war with Russia. Libya similarly.
IS as mentioned were created in the vacuum we left during the Iraq war. The war we'll be feeling the effects of for years to come.
...
So Saddam was gone too early to be responsible at all.Assad is responsibie for his own crimes but we've been meddling arming forces against him as part of the overall forever war with Russia. Libya similarly.
IS as mentioned were created in the vacuum we left during the Iraq war. The war we'll be feeling the effects of for years to come.
...
Yet the war which started before he went wasn't too early. And we therefore bear responsibility for a Wahabbist jihadi group, something which the region would never otherwise have seen.
bennno said:
Electro1980 said:
bennno said:
We are a soft touch nation, with over generous benefit and healthcare systems for non indigenous people who have never contributed.
Who’d stay in a tented camp in France if they can get a hotel here and 3 hot meals a day.
Why we are taking in Albanian asylum seekers at the same time as BA is pushing Albania as a holiday destination is beyond me, let’s align asylum with fco advice on where is safe to travel.
BA are offering holidays to Saudi Arabia. You go there as a same sex couple and see how it goes. Safe travel does not mean everyone is free from persecution.Who’d stay in a tented camp in France if they can get a hotel here and 3 hot meals a day.
Why we are taking in Albanian asylum seekers at the same time as BA is pushing Albania as a holiday destination is beyond me, let’s align asylum with fco advice on where is safe to travel.
We [rightly] persecute bigamy and pedophiles here, whilst in other countries you can be married to multiple wives and the age of consent is as low as 12.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/albanian-gan...
Bo_apex said:
Their three biggest areas are Labour wards. E63eeeeee... said:
swisstoni said:
We could have no easier ‘sent them back’ before Brexit than we can today.
You should look up the Dublin agreement. An entire international agreement about "sending them back". Vanden Saab said:
E63eeeeee... said:
swisstoni said:
We could have no easier ‘sent them back’ before Brexit than we can today.
You should look up the Dublin agreement. An entire international agreement about "sending them back". Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff