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
swisstoni 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". Neither the migrants or the southern border countries are too keen on that and so neither register anything.
When the likes of France and Germany attempt to ‘send them back’’ to Italy and Greece, the latter are simply refusing to acknowledge the request as a protest to the unfairness.
It is about to be replaced by a totally new framework where all EU countries contribute to a central fund and must ensure that they have facilities and procedures in place to take a certain number of migrants a year if other countries (like Italy and Greece) apply to transfer people.
At least you've learned that, contrary to your claim, we could have "easier sent them back before Brexit" after all. And we did. Even in 2017 and 2018 when we were in full on knobhead mode with the EU we returned more than 500 people via the Dublin system.
If I could be bothered to check I'd imagine that the decline from 2008 would probably be pretty closely mirrored by the general decline in removals and processing of claims over the period where the Tories under-resourced and undermined the immigration system, other countries had a very different profile over that period, returning thousands every year.
https://freemovement.org.uk/rejoining-dublin-asylu...
F1GTRUeno said:
Apparently JuanCarlosFandango can because we're anti-white or something.
Anti-white and/or holding a limiting view of non-whites that they are pathetic perma victims awaiting our permission to develop, and best off rowing their way here to work in a car wash until they get it.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Kermit power said:
There's no escaping the fact that the overwhelming majority of the world's wealth (especially when considered on a per capita basis) is concentrated in predominantly white colonial powers or those where white colonists benefited from transitioning in power though.
It's not a black/brown vs white thing though, so much as a question of where the money was generated vs where it ended up.
I don't see it that way. The countries that are richest are the ones which are most developed industrially, socially and legally. Britain is not rich because we have vast hordes of plunder taken from India and Africa. Japan, Germany, Sweden and other countries who didn't have huge empires are rich too because they developed themselves. It's not a black/brown vs white thing though, so much as a question of where the money was generated vs where it ended up.
Development is perfectly possible for other countries by putting those things in place, not by jumping in dinghies and heading for Dover (or Lesbos, Lampedusa or Berlin).
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!
swisstoni said:
blueg33 said:
swisstoni said:
blueg33 said:
TTwiggy said:
Skeptisk said:
It would be a deterrent. Some months back the Danish TV news were interviewing immigrants in camps in France who are trying to get to the U.K. They talked about the Rwandan plan and were told that everyone planning to get across (illegally) to the U.K. were aware of an concerned about the plan.
I’m confused as to how it can be both a deterrent and also the safest, bestist, most amazinest place ever to start a new life?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.
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.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I don't see it that way. The countries that are richest are the ones which are most developed industrially, socially and legally. Britain is not rich because we have vast hordes of plunder taken from India and Africa. Japan, Germany, Sweden and other countries who didn't have huge empires are rich too because they developed themselves.
Development is perfectly possible for other countries by putting those things in place, not by jumping in dinghies and heading for Dover (or Lesbos, Lampedusa or Berlin).
Exactly that. It's people and culture. I always find it amusing when the success is attributed to mere colonialism and material objects, when quite simply It's the intellect, innovation, order, and ambition of our people that paved the way for the entire modern world.Development is perfectly possible for other countries by putting those things in place, not by jumping in dinghies and heading for Dover (or Lesbos, Lampedusa or Berlin).
mwstewart said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I don't see it that way. The countries that are richest are the ones which are most developed industrially, socially and legally. Britain is not rich because we have vast hordes of plunder taken from India and Africa. Japan, Germany, Sweden and other countries who didn't have huge empires are rich too because they developed themselves.
Development is perfectly possible for other countries by putting those things in place, not by jumping in dinghies and heading for Dover (or Lesbos, Lampedusa or Berlin).
Exactly that. It's people and culture. I always find it amusing when the success is attributed to mere colonialism and material objects, when quite simply It's the intellect, innovation, order, and ambition of our people that paved the way for the entire modern world.Development is perfectly possible for other countries by putting those things in place, not by jumping in dinghies and heading for Dover (or Lesbos, Lampedusa or Berlin).
Therefore it's the richest with all the spoils that dictate the world. Who are the richest and how did they get it?
Colonialism is a huge reason for that. Empires are a huge reason for that.
Why do those on the right never, ever see the context behind things? mwstewart with the epitome of 'all you need is hard work, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and crack on'.
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Monday 20th November 10:38
F1GTRUeno said:
mwstewart said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I don't see it that way. The countries that are richest are the ones which are most developed industrially, socially and legally. Britain is not rich because we have vast hordes of plunder taken from India and Africa. Japan, Germany, Sweden and other countries who didn't have huge empires are rich too because they developed themselves.
Development is perfectly possible for other countries by putting those things in place, not by jumping in dinghies and heading for Dover (or Lesbos, Lampedusa or Berlin).
Exactly that. It's people and culture. I always find it amusing when the success is attributed to mere colonialism and material objects, when quite simply It's the intellect, innovation, order, and ambition of our people that paved the way for the entire modern world.Development is perfectly possible for other countries by putting those things in place, not by jumping in dinghies and heading for Dover (or Lesbos, Lampedusa or Berlin).
Therefore it's the richest with all the spoils that dictate the world. Who are the richest and how did they get it?
Colonialism is a huge reason for that. Empires are a huge reason for that.
Why do those on the right never, ever see the context behind things?
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Monday 20th November 10:34
Empires rise and fall. The richest nations rise and fall. Such is the nature of the history of civilisation.
Britain has plundered and been plundered for its wealth, one cannot be separated from the other, otherwise its merely selective cherry picking to suit whichever particular argument/angle that you wish to. The same is true for other nations.
The perspective on the British Empire is entirely coloured by it being the last "great" empire within the collective memory, but give it another 100yrs and its context within and to the world will be entirely different again. It will, in effective, become another Roman, Spanish, Persian, Egyptian context, ie primarily of academic study rather than of grand contemporary import.
As to what India may have become without British involvement, well its an interesting question that has had a number of theses written on it over the years. The general'ish consensus though seems to lean towards it carrying on in a similar manner of individual states and squabbling between them as it largely had done for quite some time. The geography, social structure and logistics being, most arguments, primary driving forces. There are some really interesting works on the pre-Brit Indian sub continent and its various and multitude of States. They tend to be strictly for history geeks though!
Britain has plundered and been plundered for its wealth, one cannot be separated from the other, otherwise its merely selective cherry picking to suit whichever particular argument/angle that you wish to. The same is true for other nations.
The perspective on the British Empire is entirely coloured by it being the last "great" empire within the collective memory, but give it another 100yrs and its context within and to the world will be entirely different again. It will, in effective, become another Roman, Spanish, Persian, Egyptian context, ie primarily of academic study rather than of grand contemporary import.
As to what India may have become without British involvement, well its an interesting question that has had a number of theses written on it over the years. The general'ish consensus though seems to lean towards it carrying on in a similar manner of individual states and squabbling between them as it largely had done for quite some time. The geography, social structure and logistics being, most arguments, primary driving forces. There are some really interesting works on the pre-Brit Indian sub continent and its various and multitude of States. They tend to be strictly for history geeks though!
DeejRC said:
Empires rise and fall. The richest nations rise and fall. Such is the nature of the history of civilisation.
Britain has plundered and been plundered for its wealth, one cannot be separated from the other, otherwise its merely selective cherry picking to suit whichever particular argument/angle that you wish to. The same is true for other nations.
The perspective on the British Empire is entirely coloured by it being the last "great" empire within the collective memory, but give it another 100yrs and its context within and to the world will be entirely different again. It will, in effective, become another Roman, Spanish, Persian, Egyptian context, ie primarily of academic study rather than of grand contemporary import.
As to what India may have become without British involvement, well its an interesting question that has had a number of theses written on it over the years. The general'ish consensus though seems to lean towards it carrying on in a similar manner of individual states and squabbling between them as it largely had done for quite some time. The geography, social structure and logistics being, most arguments, primary driving forces. There are some really interesting works on the pre-Brit Indian sub continent and its various and multitude of States. They tend to be strictly for history geeks though!
Great post.Britain has plundered and been plundered for its wealth, one cannot be separated from the other, otherwise its merely selective cherry picking to suit whichever particular argument/angle that you wish to. The same is true for other nations.
The perspective on the British Empire is entirely coloured by it being the last "great" empire within the collective memory, but give it another 100yrs and its context within and to the world will be entirely different again. It will, in effective, become another Roman, Spanish, Persian, Egyptian context, ie primarily of academic study rather than of grand contemporary import.
As to what India may have become without British involvement, well its an interesting question that has had a number of theses written on it over the years. The general'ish consensus though seems to lean towards it carrying on in a similar manner of individual states and squabbling between them as it largely had done for quite some time. The geography, social structure and logistics being, most arguments, primary driving forces. There are some really interesting works on the pre-Brit Indian sub continent and its various and multitude of States. They tend to be strictly for history geeks though!
Slowboathome said:
DeejRC said:
Empires rise and fall. The richest nations rise and fall. Such is the nature of the history of civilisation.
Britain has plundered and been plundered for its wealth, one cannot be separated from the other, otherwise its merely selective cherry picking to suit whichever particular argument/angle that you wish to. The same is true for other nations.
The perspective on the British Empire is entirely coloured by it being the last "great" empire within the collective memory, but give it another 100yrs and its context within and to the world will be entirely different again. It will, in effective, become another Roman, Spanish, Persian, Egyptian context, ie primarily of academic study rather than of grand contemporary import.
As to what India may have become without British involvement, well its an interesting question that has had a number of theses written on it over the years. The general'ish consensus though seems to lean towards it carrying on in a similar manner of individual states and squabbling between them as it largely had done for quite some time. The geography, social structure and logistics being, most arguments, primary driving forces. There are some really interesting works on the pre-Brit Indian sub continent and its various and multitude of States. They tend to be strictly for history geeks though!
Great post.Britain has plundered and been plundered for its wealth, one cannot be separated from the other, otherwise its merely selective cherry picking to suit whichever particular argument/angle that you wish to. The same is true for other nations.
The perspective on the British Empire is entirely coloured by it being the last "great" empire within the collective memory, but give it another 100yrs and its context within and to the world will be entirely different again. It will, in effective, become another Roman, Spanish, Persian, Egyptian context, ie primarily of academic study rather than of grand contemporary import.
As to what India may have become without British involvement, well its an interesting question that has had a number of theses written on it over the years. The general'ish consensus though seems to lean towards it carrying on in a similar manner of individual states and squabbling between them as it largely had done for quite some time. The geography, social structure and logistics being, most arguments, primary driving forces. There are some really interesting works on the pre-Brit Indian sub continent and its various and multitude of States. They tend to be strictly for history geeks though!
It is a riveting and, to me anyway, revelatory account of how the NE corner of India was transformed, how the locals were involved and also, how it hit the buffers at the Afghan border. That said, if the work had not been curtainled, it could well have meant a very different history for Afghanistan too. POssibly.
Anyway. A truly excellent read.
F1GTRUeno said:
You can have the intellect, ability to innovate, a predilection for order and ambition but if you don't have material wealth it's all for nought. Every country in the world has a culture for that if you give them the tools and the money.
Therefore it's the richest with all the spoils that dictate the world. Who are the richest and how did they get it?
Colonialism is a huge reason for that. Empires are a huge reason for that.
Why do those on the right never, ever see the context behind things? mwstewart with the epitome of 'all you need is hard work, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and crack on'.
In my lifetime countries like South Korea and UAE have developed beyond all recognition. Eastern Europe has gone from brutal communist tyrannies to developed countries. China has gone from obscure Maoist backwater to one of the major economic powers. Millions of people are richer, healthier, happier and freer ad a result and none of any of that is a result of redressing some historic debt owed by former imperial powers.Therefore it's the richest with all the spoils that dictate the world. Who are the richest and how did they get it?
Colonialism is a huge reason for that. Empires are a huge reason for that.
Why do those on the right never, ever see the context behind things? mwstewart with the epitome of 'all you need is hard work, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and crack on'.
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Monday 20th November 10:38
There's a difference between seeing context and being a hostage to it. All countries have some unique set of circumstances in terms of geography, culture, resources and history but the keys lie with better governance and management not with trying to redistribute wealth to right historical wrongs to arrive at a more just outcome.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
China has gone from obscure Maoist backwater to one of the major economic powers.
I'd argue all China has done is erect a nice-looking user interface for the same old communist s
t. That's just my opinion, but it's one I am not alone in.Dumping and subsidy abounds.
Digga said:
Slowboathome said:
DeejRC said:
Empires rise and fall. The richest nations rise and fall. Such is the nature of the history of civilisation.
Britain has plundered and been plundered for its wealth, one cannot be separated from the other, otherwise its merely selective cherry picking to suit whichever particular argument/angle that you wish to. The same is true for other nations.
The perspective on the British Empire is entirely coloured by it being the last "great" empire within the collective memory, but give it another 100yrs and its context within and to the world will be entirely different again. It will, in effective, become another Roman, Spanish, Persian, Egyptian context, ie primarily of academic study rather than of grand contemporary import.
As to what India may have become without British involvement, well its an interesting question that has had a number of theses written on it over the years. The general'ish consensus though seems to lean towards it carrying on in a similar manner of individual states and squabbling between them as it largely had done for quite some time. The geography, social structure and logistics being, most arguments, primary driving forces. There are some really interesting works on the pre-Brit Indian sub continent and its various and multitude of States. They tend to be strictly for history geeks though!
Great post.Britain has plundered and been plundered for its wealth, one cannot be separated from the other, otherwise its merely selective cherry picking to suit whichever particular argument/angle that you wish to. The same is true for other nations.
The perspective on the British Empire is entirely coloured by it being the last "great" empire within the collective memory, but give it another 100yrs and its context within and to the world will be entirely different again. It will, in effective, become another Roman, Spanish, Persian, Egyptian context, ie primarily of academic study rather than of grand contemporary import.
As to what India may have become without British involvement, well its an interesting question that has had a number of theses written on it over the years. The general'ish consensus though seems to lean towards it carrying on in a similar manner of individual states and squabbling between them as it largely had done for quite some time. The geography, social structure and logistics being, most arguments, primary driving forces. There are some really interesting works on the pre-Brit Indian sub continent and its various and multitude of States. They tend to be strictly for history geeks though!
It is a riveting and, to me anyway, revelatory account of how the NE corner of India was transformed, how the locals were involved and also, how it hit the buffers at the Afghan border. That said, if the work had not been curtainled, it could well have meant a very different history for Afghanistan too. POssibly.
Anyway. A truly excellent read.
The north west frontier is a fascinating area, geographically and historically. Love reading about that place.
mwstewart said:
Exactly that. It's people and culture. I always find it amusing when the success is attributed to mere colonialism and material objects, when quite simply It's the intellect, innovation, order, and ambition of our people that paved the way for the entire modern world.
I often ask my friends how come you can say a company has a bad culture but a country's culture can't ever be bad or worse than another.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.
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.
Biggy Stardust said:
They aren't our responsibility & I don't accept the idea of making them our responsibility.
I’d suggest reading this page and seeing what that does to your flawed view of whose responsibility they are https://www.amnesty.org.uk/right-asylum
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff