so the potato famine was our fault? american industrialist in italy forced the massive wave of emmigration from there in the late 20 century. no. no sir, it doesnt matter a lick why they come. what youre saying, you could say the same for any wave of immigration. my mother didnt come here when she was a child to escape american policy in the dominican republic (lol).PureFodder wrote:
The point is that current immigration to America isn't necessarily because people are following the American dream and see America as a wonderland, it can be (and currently mainly is) the results of American policy destroying the lives of foreigners and forcing them into America, hence high immigration to a country is not obviously a sign of society being wonderful and can in fact be quite the opposite. So yes, it does matter where they're coming from. As far as the preceeding centuries go, America was a vast country with a tiny population density, hence large net immigration to America is what you'd expect regardles of societies.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
so what about the last century? Or the one before that. Does it really matter that immigrants are coming from latin america? Stupid question, it doesnt.
Oh, that's right. I keep forgetting. It's all America's fault.PureFodder wrote:
Probably worth noting that most of the immigrants to America are from South America and Mexico, and the immigration is a result of American influence damaging the countries to such an extent to force the immigration in the first place. If you want to know why so many Mexicans are illegally immigrating go read about NAFTA. They aren't risking everything to get to America out of choice, they're finding they have nothing left to risk and are being economically pushed into America.
If America is making their lives hell in Central America and Mexico, then why would they come to the very place that is making their lives so difficult? We're shipping high-paying (for their economies) jobs to Mexico...but that's not stemming the tide. Is that how the US is "economically pushing" them into America? By sending many of our manufacturing jobs to their countries? Your argument makes no sense.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-30.htmFEOS wrote:
Oh, that's right. I keep forgetting. It's all America's fault.PureFodder wrote:
Probably worth noting that most of the immigrants to America are from South America and Mexico, and the immigration is a result of American influence damaging the countries to such an extent to force the immigration in the first place. If you want to know why so many Mexicans are illegally immigrating go read about NAFTA. They aren't risking everything to get to America out of choice, they're finding they have nothing left to risk and are being economically pushed into America.
If America is making their lives hell in Central America and Mexico, then why would they come to the very place that is making their lives so difficult? We're shipping high-paying (for their economies) jobs to Mexico...but that's not stemming the tide. Is that how the US is "economically pushing" them into America? By sending many of our manufacturing jobs to their countries? Your argument makes no sense.
NAFTA fucked the Mexican populace. Mexican working wages have dropped since NAFTA was started by about 13% and destroyed about 800,000 jobs. Why do they go to America? The trip to the USA is cheaper easier and faster than the trip to anywhere else. I'm sure if the trip to New Zealand was as easy and cheap as the trip to the US then there would be plenty of Mexican immigrants there too.
@ Gunslinger. As I said, it does make a difference where they come from. If you look at immigration to Syria in the last few years you'll find a huge increase. Is this because millions of people suddenly decided Syria was a wonderful place? No, they were fleeing a war in a country that happened to border it. Obviously lots of people did choose to go to America for possitive reasons, but if you don't examine where someone came from and why, you can't make the assumption that FEOS made that it's purely due to the wonderfulness of one particular society. The Mexico/NAFTA and Syria cases is direct proof of this. Over the last few centuries the predominant force creating the large net immigration to America is tha same as that of Australia. A huge amount of temperate land and untapped resources and a tiny population density.
Ok, I understand what you are saying. So almost all "Americans" are really immigrants.Vilham wrote:
im not saying it does. But the statement only 31 million people are immigrants kinda ignores the fact that only native Americans are native to America. Everyone else came from Europe at some point.avman633 wrote:
No but that doesn't mean that 97% of them are of French descentVilham wrote:
Do you actually think Americans have lived in America for all time? Didnt you study your history at all?
Actually, all Native Americans were actually immigrants at one time too.
However, I was born and raised in California. I don't consider myself an immigrant, and that is probably the basis of the idea that there are only 31 million immigrants in the U.S.
If you consider every American an immigrant, that means every single person in England is an immigrant too, not to mention most of the world.
However, I was born and raised in California. I don't consider myself an immigrant, and that is probably the basis of the idea that there are only 31 million immigrants in the U.S.
If you consider every American an immigrant, that means every single person in England is an immigrant too, not to mention most of the world.
Um... Many of our black people might have some European lineage, but they are largely from Africa, not Europe. That's 12% of our population. About 4% is Asian. So, given that about a quarter of our black people have no European ancestors, 97% of our population being French is literally impossible.Vilham wrote:
im not saying it does. But the statement only 31 million people are immigrants kinda ignores the fact that only native Americans are native to America. Everyone else came from Europe at some point.avman633 wrote:
No but that doesn't mean that 97% of them are of French descentVilham wrote:
Do you actually think Americans have lived in America for all time? Didnt you study your history at all?
The "97% of Americans are of French lineage" probably falls under the "64% of all statistics are made up" category.Turquoise wrote:
So, given that about a quarter of our black people have no European ancestors, 97% of our population being French is literally impossible.
I could give a fuck what they think or what they care about.
You are right!Bf2-GeneralArnott wrote:
Technically, if it wasn't for Europeans, Americans wouldn't be like you are, like, because alot of the settlets were British, French and Spanish, alot of Americans are decendants of Europeans right? Or am i wrong?
Early Americans ARE decendents of European ancestry. I myself come from a primarily Irish and Portuguese backround. . . . Most Americans have English surnames or some derivative of a French name as well. Lots of Spanish surnames are here as well, but more in the Southwest and West Coast. Today the country is greatly different than what it was in the early days. . .
Today lots of Americans (1st or 2nd generation) are Chinese, Mexican, Japanese etc etc etc.
I live in California as most of you know, and the majority of people living here now, seem like they are from South America (i.e. Mexico). Keep in mind California was owned by the Spanish and filled with Spanish and Mexican people. So its not too hard to believe that this majority is primarily represented here. Yet, if you go to San Francisco, it seems like the city is filled with Asians, Blacks or White people. . . . I barely ever see a Hispanic person in the city.
America is actually better with diversity!! California is so unique in the sense that I see people from all over the world at any given time, any where, and in any city. Its cool to meet people from all over the world cause you get a better idea of how the world works, and some idea of different cultures (good or bad). I dont forsee mass immigration from Europe like in the early 20th century, quite the contrary!! I see more immigrants from South America taking up space in the USA. This I am not happy with due to various reasons, but its not a racial thing, its more a legal, language and assimilation problem I have. None the less, American sur names in the future are more likely to be of Spanish in nature rather than Anglo European.
I just hope everyone learns to love/respect the USA as much as I do, wants to be here, and learns the language!! Then everything will be gravy!!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-12-09 01:47:21)
Yep, technically the native Americans are immigrants from Siberia and we all immigrated from somwhere in North Africa.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Actually, all Native Americans were actually immigrants at one time too.
However, I was born and raised in California. I don't consider myself an immigrant, and that is probably the basis of the idea that there are only 31 million immigrants in the U.S.
If you consider every American an immigrant, that means every single person in England is an immigrant too, not to mention most of the world.
Yeah humans origionated from africa, so lets just say we are all immigrants eh?PureFodder wrote:
Yep, technically the native Americans are immigrants from Siberia and we all immigrated from somwhere in North Africa.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Actually, all Native Americans were actually immigrants at one time too.
However, I was born and raised in California. I don't consider myself an immigrant, and that is probably the basis of the idea that there are only 31 million immigrants in the U.S.
If you consider every American an immigrant, that means every single person in England is an immigrant too, not to mention most of the world.
Penis envy.
The population may 'hate' America (I doubt it, I just think it was the unilaterialism that infuriated the people) but European governments generally work with the US. In our squabbles amongst ourselves we fail to remember that the US and Europe are allies (Western Europe AND Eastern). Our division only makes us weaker in the face of a rising totalitiarian Russia and a rising and militarizing China.
The EU has realized this and has imposed upon itself an arms embargo to China. The EU is currently focusing on energy independence so it does not have to rely on Putin's Russia Just as Bush is now trying to focus on lessing energy dependence on the Middle East, albeit some would argue he is not extreme enough in his measures.
You know there is an organization called the 'Putin Youth', like the 'Hitlerjüngend' now? Does 'cult of personality' ring a bell?
China is now not communist in the 'state socialist' sense, but 'state capitalist', basically an authoritarian-bureaucratic nation. Back when it was 'state socialist' it had a 'raison d'tat'. According to China and it's Bolshevik-like interpretation of Communism (there are many; anarcho-syndicalists, marxists, trotskyists), the purpose of authoritarian government was for it to be a 'vanguard' for the working class and to defend communism there, as well as implement it. Yet even China knows that this is to be temporary, until true communism could be reached. If you've read Marx you'll know this centralized temporal government is supposed to dissolve once communism has been fully implemented. Well China has turned away from communism. And there is no more threat to communism to defend against (it is now destroying communism itself). Then what is the purpose of this authoritative government now? It has lost it's 'raison d'tat' and needs to democratize. The Communists Party has spoken about a new 'Socialist Countryside' policy to appease the peasants hurt during this capitalist transition. I doubt that this is anything but lip service and the policy is more about concessions to the peasants to stop their revolting and constantly protesting citizenry. The Communist Party is full of businessmen. What is the Communist Party's 'raison d'tat'? It has none. I'm not advocating overthrowing China and attempting to 'democratize' China like we tried to do in Iraq. But we must be vigilant in watching this authoritative state's actions and counter their ambition for Asia to become a gigantic 'China's Sphere of Influence'.
We owe it to our allies, both the US's and Europe's, We owe it to Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. If you want evidence of how China is currently undermining the West, look up this BBC article about China's influence in Africa. They have an entire section on it. Read articles in the 'Foreign Policy' Magazine. China is giving low-interest loans with no strings attached to African despots. That means loans that do not require reforms of corrupt institutions and no economic reforms, as such that the IMF and World Bank loans give. This loan is not meant to help Africa sincerely, it is only to acquire influence in corrupt African governments and so Africa can repay China in giving out economic development contracts (which ultimately benefit China more than Africa as the trade balance favors China). This undermining of Western influence and our progress we are trying to accomplish in trying to reform African institutions are being undermined by China in its greed for raw resources that they need to fuel China's economy. If you want more information google 'Millenium Challenge Corporation'. It is a US government sponsored aid organization that only gives aid to nations that have made the necessary adjustments and reforms.
There is no purpose to keep pouring in aid into africa if the aid is squandered due to corruption and economic policy inefficiencies.
I would also like to point out a BBC article about Amnesty international reporting of Russian and Chinese arms sales to the Sudanese government, which had backed the janjaweed militia. About how there are reports of aircraft firing upon Darfur civilians (this was prior to our current AU-EU solution that we have currently)
The US may have the largest military budget in the world, but look at its relative size in relation to its GDP. Other nations have higher percentages of military spending in relation to their GDP. We only are spending so much because our economy is the largest in the world. Although we should also mention the fact that we need to have a presence in the world as a deterrent--there may be some places where it is unnecessary to have American soldiers stationed--however our 30,000 troops in the North Korean/South Korean border was the only thing standing in the way of NK invading SK long long ago. If we didn't have minefields, the troops there, the troops in Japan, and our Navy patroling East Asia, they would have ignored American and world criticism long ago and invaded it. Words and diplomacy are important in international affairs--power to back up your words is not to be underestimated however.
The West (US and Europe, and one may include Australia ) must settle their differences and work together. We are all liberal democracies in a world facing jihadist international terrorism, rising authoritarianism in Russia and a China with uncertain ambitions. The nuclear proliferation in the ex-USSR isn't helping, and Iran, a known state sponsor of terrorism (hezbollah, etc) having nuclear technology--not saying they want nuclear weapons, they might just want it as they say for peaceful means. But this, coming from a state sponsor of terrorism? Can you imagine a nuclear weapon in the hands of jihadist terror?
Our ties with the UK are the strongest, our ties with Germany second. Our ties with Europe are undeniable. Our ties with Australia (and NZ) are undeniable (ANZUS). Our ties with our Asian allies of Japan (whom we've rescued from authoritarianism), South Korea (whom we've regrettably occasionally PLACED authoritarianism in during the Cold War in an attempt to avoid communism--regrettable, but it was the Cold War), and Taiwan (not official ally but we have a pact).
We as the US, EU, and Australia must also focus on energy independence and the production of non-fossil fuel energy sources (perhaps look keenly upon 'clean coal' with CO2 trapping technology, which is a fossil fuel, but emits nothing).
Energy Independence through non-CO2 emitting sources not only helps Climate Change (which is unevitable but we can stop the worst effects of it now--effects which will harm poor nations the most), but also help fight international jihadist terror.
Where do you think international terrorists organizations are getting their funding? Oil gets the Saudi economy running, Saudi Arabia practices the most extreme form of Islam called Wahhabism, many rich businessmen involved in this economy donate their money to very strict Islamic charities, and some, not all, but some are affiliated to terrorist organizations. In Islam one of the pillars is to give charity, I'm not sure but I believe it is around 10% of your wealth to charity? Thats a lot of charity and its more than westerners give to charities. That's also a lot of funding for the few extremist Islamic 'Charities' that fund extremist Mosques (the same mosques that wanted to behead those Scandinavians for drawing a cartoon) and terrorist organizations. It's not just al-Qaeda, there are 20 other different international jihadist (yes i know jihad means struggle and not holy war, but it is implied as such in the terrorist vocabulary) organations that want to destroy us (According to a released National Intelligence report after 9/11).
Anyone who thinks jihadist terrorism is a over-blown threat, think of not only 9/11, london bus bombings, and spain. Think of Turkey (a nation that was against the war). Think of the Ugandan Embassy bombing. Think of the 30+ incidents involving jihadist terrorism (less publicized) that occured all throughout north and west Africa.
We, as the US, EU and Australia, have lost our way. We have become weakened through internal squabbling. We as liberal democracies should work in a multilateral fashion (not necessarily through the UN, as China and Russia control 2 SC seats) to meet to challenges of the 21st century. And that is Jihadist terrorism, Authoritarianism and Climate Change/Energy Independence (as well as those side projects such as helping alleviate poverty and develop poor countries--We as Americans may be giving the most world aid, but as a proportion of our GDP, it is abysmal, and must be changed.)
And there is still signs of hope. The US, Germany, France and the UK are currently in line with a unified policy against Iranian uranium enrichment. US (AND FRENCH, I MIGHT ADD) intelligence might be wrong that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but could this historical state-sponsor of terrorism be trusted with uranium enrichment? Why did it reject uranium offers from the Gulf states? Why did it reject the offer of Russia to have Iranian uranium enriched in Russia under supervision? Many compromises, many rejections. There is still hope however--Ahmadinijad's power is waning.
The EU has realized this and has imposed upon itself an arms embargo to China. The EU is currently focusing on energy independence so it does not have to rely on Putin's Russia Just as Bush is now trying to focus on lessing energy dependence on the Middle East, albeit some would argue he is not extreme enough in his measures.
You know there is an organization called the 'Putin Youth', like the 'Hitlerjüngend' now? Does 'cult of personality' ring a bell?
China is now not communist in the 'state socialist' sense, but 'state capitalist', basically an authoritarian-bureaucratic nation. Back when it was 'state socialist' it had a 'raison d'tat'. According to China and it's Bolshevik-like interpretation of Communism (there are many; anarcho-syndicalists, marxists, trotskyists), the purpose of authoritarian government was for it to be a 'vanguard' for the working class and to defend communism there, as well as implement it. Yet even China knows that this is to be temporary, until true communism could be reached. If you've read Marx you'll know this centralized temporal government is supposed to dissolve once communism has been fully implemented. Well China has turned away from communism. And there is no more threat to communism to defend against (it is now destroying communism itself). Then what is the purpose of this authoritative government now? It has lost it's 'raison d'tat' and needs to democratize. The Communists Party has spoken about a new 'Socialist Countryside' policy to appease the peasants hurt during this capitalist transition. I doubt that this is anything but lip service and the policy is more about concessions to the peasants to stop their revolting and constantly protesting citizenry. The Communist Party is full of businessmen. What is the Communist Party's 'raison d'tat'? It has none. I'm not advocating overthrowing China and attempting to 'democratize' China like we tried to do in Iraq. But we must be vigilant in watching this authoritative state's actions and counter their ambition for Asia to become a gigantic 'China's Sphere of Influence'.
We owe it to our allies, both the US's and Europe's, We owe it to Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. If you want evidence of how China is currently undermining the West, look up this BBC article about China's influence in Africa. They have an entire section on it. Read articles in the 'Foreign Policy' Magazine. China is giving low-interest loans with no strings attached to African despots. That means loans that do not require reforms of corrupt institutions and no economic reforms, as such that the IMF and World Bank loans give. This loan is not meant to help Africa sincerely, it is only to acquire influence in corrupt African governments and so Africa can repay China in giving out economic development contracts (which ultimately benefit China more than Africa as the trade balance favors China). This undermining of Western influence and our progress we are trying to accomplish in trying to reform African institutions are being undermined by China in its greed for raw resources that they need to fuel China's economy. If you want more information google 'Millenium Challenge Corporation'. It is a US government sponsored aid organization that only gives aid to nations that have made the necessary adjustments and reforms.
There is no purpose to keep pouring in aid into africa if the aid is squandered due to corruption and economic policy inefficiencies.
I would also like to point out a BBC article about Amnesty international reporting of Russian and Chinese arms sales to the Sudanese government, which had backed the janjaweed militia. About how there are reports of aircraft firing upon Darfur civilians (this was prior to our current AU-EU solution that we have currently)
The US may have the largest military budget in the world, but look at its relative size in relation to its GDP. Other nations have higher percentages of military spending in relation to their GDP. We only are spending so much because our economy is the largest in the world. Although we should also mention the fact that we need to have a presence in the world as a deterrent--there may be some places where it is unnecessary to have American soldiers stationed--however our 30,000 troops in the North Korean/South Korean border was the only thing standing in the way of NK invading SK long long ago. If we didn't have minefields, the troops there, the troops in Japan, and our Navy patroling East Asia, they would have ignored American and world criticism long ago and invaded it. Words and diplomacy are important in international affairs--power to back up your words is not to be underestimated however.
The West (US and Europe, and one may include Australia ) must settle their differences and work together. We are all liberal democracies in a world facing jihadist international terrorism, rising authoritarianism in Russia and a China with uncertain ambitions. The nuclear proliferation in the ex-USSR isn't helping, and Iran, a known state sponsor of terrorism (hezbollah, etc) having nuclear technology--not saying they want nuclear weapons, they might just want it as they say for peaceful means. But this, coming from a state sponsor of terrorism? Can you imagine a nuclear weapon in the hands of jihadist terror?
Our ties with the UK are the strongest, our ties with Germany second. Our ties with Europe are undeniable. Our ties with Australia (and NZ) are undeniable (ANZUS). Our ties with our Asian allies of Japan (whom we've rescued from authoritarianism), South Korea (whom we've regrettably occasionally PLACED authoritarianism in during the Cold War in an attempt to avoid communism--regrettable, but it was the Cold War), and Taiwan (not official ally but we have a pact).
We as the US, EU, and Australia must also focus on energy independence and the production of non-fossil fuel energy sources (perhaps look keenly upon 'clean coal' with CO2 trapping technology, which is a fossil fuel, but emits nothing).
Energy Independence through non-CO2 emitting sources not only helps Climate Change (which is unevitable but we can stop the worst effects of it now--effects which will harm poor nations the most), but also help fight international jihadist terror.
Where do you think international terrorists organizations are getting their funding? Oil gets the Saudi economy running, Saudi Arabia practices the most extreme form of Islam called Wahhabism, many rich businessmen involved in this economy donate their money to very strict Islamic charities, and some, not all, but some are affiliated to terrorist organizations. In Islam one of the pillars is to give charity, I'm not sure but I believe it is around 10% of your wealth to charity? Thats a lot of charity and its more than westerners give to charities. That's also a lot of funding for the few extremist Islamic 'Charities' that fund extremist Mosques (the same mosques that wanted to behead those Scandinavians for drawing a cartoon) and terrorist organizations. It's not just al-Qaeda, there are 20 other different international jihadist (yes i know jihad means struggle and not holy war, but it is implied as such in the terrorist vocabulary) organations that want to destroy us (According to a released National Intelligence report after 9/11).
Anyone who thinks jihadist terrorism is a over-blown threat, think of not only 9/11, london bus bombings, and spain. Think of Turkey (a nation that was against the war). Think of the Ugandan Embassy bombing. Think of the 30+ incidents involving jihadist terrorism (less publicized) that occured all throughout north and west Africa.
We, as the US, EU and Australia, have lost our way. We have become weakened through internal squabbling. We as liberal democracies should work in a multilateral fashion (not necessarily through the UN, as China and Russia control 2 SC seats) to meet to challenges of the 21st century. And that is Jihadist terrorism, Authoritarianism and Climate Change/Energy Independence (as well as those side projects such as helping alleviate poverty and develop poor countries--We as Americans may be giving the most world aid, but as a proportion of our GDP, it is abysmal, and must be changed.)
And there is still signs of hope. The US, Germany, France and the UK are currently in line with a unified policy against Iranian uranium enrichment. US (AND FRENCH, I MIGHT ADD) intelligence might be wrong that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but could this historical state-sponsor of terrorism be trusted with uranium enrichment? Why did it reject uranium offers from the Gulf states? Why did it reject the offer of Russia to have Iranian uranium enriched in Russia under supervision? Many compromises, many rejections. There is still hope however--Ahmadinijad's power is waning.
I don't really care about America, I think my thoughts are echoed by millions of other people. I like some Americans, like Parker, but to say Europeans are obcessed with you is just fucking stupid.
thanks ! pretty much my point exactly ( minus the gutter educated vocabulary vulgarities )jord wrote:
I don't really care about America, I think my thoughts are echoed by millions of other people. I like some Americans, like Parker, but to say Europeans are obcessed with you is just fucking stupid.
and as such the reverse must also hold true, Correct ?
Looks like people have seriously derailed this thread which began as a response to name calling by a rabid anti American eunuch to begin with.
It may seem pertinent and correct me if I am wrong but basically.
in 1968 ted kennedy and other politicians like him ( IE people who desperately want to ruin our country )
passed a bill that basically said " only 10 percent of immigrants can come to the USA from northern Europe, all the rest must be Latin’s or Orientals.
Is that not racism ? and why would they do that?
To create a larger voter base of poor and dependant people ?
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2008-01-11 08:01:56)