White Supremacy

1235716

Comments

  • Okay, I can see how talking about the fluidity of populations/ cultures/ genetics takes the wind out of many a nationalist sail. I'm leery, though, of feeding the potential implication that if some people can trace their lineage to some "indigenous" group, that they really do have some special claim to a particular patch of land.

    How do you feel about Eretz Yisroel?
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Unless you think indigenous people spring up out of the dirt or that land invariably belongs to the descendants of the first humans who set foot there, this deep dive into DNA is not useful in a discussion of contemporary white supremacy.

    It is and it isn't. It's useful in the sense that it undermines a leg of (certainly English) white nationalism - they will say something about their heritage and their ancestors and, if you can get them to sit down and talk with you, you can show them it means jack shit. That we, and the Scandis and the Irish and the Germans and the French all share that same heritage and we have the same ancestors, and that there isn't English DNA. From there, we can move on to what is Englishness - today's UKIP/EDL stalwart having very, very little in common with past cultures: almost everything that they see, say, do or believe has arisen in the last 50-100 years.

    That's an interesting point about DNA. I thought that the stalwarts are not dealing with factual stuff, but mythic Englishness, which is also a floating signifier. Thus, Farage can attack various royals. Whether they can be reasoned out of this, I am doubtful.
  • I find this talk of DNA ridiculous, given that to all intents and purposes every single human on the planet has the same DNA. That's kind of what being the same species means.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    I'm leery, though, of feeding the potential implication that if some people can trace their lineage to some "indigenous" group, that they really do have some special claim to a particular patch of land.

    Yes, you're right, which is why I think it's important to acknowledge that yes, your ancestors may have lived in X for many generations, but that in itself doesn't allow you use that as a weapon to beat other people with. I'm unfamiliar with most aspects of Malay culture as it is now, but I'm guessing that, in common with a lot of the world, urban Malays live a very different life to that of their ancestors of 100-200 years ago (or even 50, if there's been rapid urbanisation).

    Most urban Britons barely understand anything that happens in the countryside at all, and their culture is vastly removed from that of 200-300 years ago. The canard of "we're preserving our culture" should be met with some detailed questioning on the date of Lammastide, what a wake walk is, and where the annual Cheese Rolling takes place. Otherwise, I suspect, they're just plain racists and have no actual interest in English culture.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Okay, I can see how talking about the fluidity of populations/ cultures/ genetics takes the wind out of many a nationalist sail. I'm leery, though, of feeding the potential implication that if some people can trace their lineage to some "indigenous" group, that they really do have some special claim to a particular patch of land.

    How do you feel about Eretz Yisroel?

    I favor a single, secular, multi-ethnic state for all inhabitants of Palestine.

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Not sure if this is where Doc Tor and Hugal were going, but I think it does make a difference inasmuch as it points to a place where the UK and the US conversations about race are different.

    In the US, if someone has a problem with black people, then that is pretty obviously a problem with race.

    In the UK, the conversation about race is mixed up with a conversation about immigration.

    I'm pretty sure that U.S. discussions of immigration are also mixed up with race. You may have heard of the American president's problems with immigrants from certain places.

    Yeah, and also, on second thoughts, although most black and brown people in the UK may be the children of immigrants, they probably aren't immigrants themselves, so it's possible I don't actually have much of a point ...
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    It looks as if people are talking at cross purposes here. Doc Tor is using the word 'indigenous' in its 'plain' dictionary sense -- 'originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native' (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2011 edition). Lilbuddha is using it in the more specialised sense of indigenous peoples marginalised by later arrivals, as defined here.
    Doc Tor is not a right-wing extremist. But the instance on calling white Britons indigenous is the very language used by right-wing extremists to marginalise immigrants. So even if I agreed with Doc Tor on his definition, insisting on using a word in a conversion where it is doesn't fit makes it irrelevant at best.
    In short, for purposes of this conversation, whether white Brits are indigenous doesn't bloody matter.

    Not sure if this is where Doc Tor and Hugal were going, but I think it does make a difference inasmuch as it points to a place where the UK and the US conversations about race are different.

    In the US, if someone has a problem with black people, then that is pretty obviously a problem with race.

    In the UK, the conversation about race is mixed up with a conversation about immigration. So someone can rationalise racism by saying what they're really worried about is the strain on the NHS, fragmentation of communities, and pressure on jobs, and equally someone can sound (or be made to sound) pretty racist when they genuinely are worried about those things.
    IME it is inaccurate to separate out the economic fear from the xenophobia because they go hand in hand. Especially in this day and age where it takes but a second to find ties between immigration and a strengthened economy. It is the racist/xenophobe rhetoric that spreads the inaccurate view of immigrant = economic threat. In other words, people believe the threat because it aligns with their established belief, or welcome the belief because it helps focus a fear on a tangible target. Same result either way.

    I did say that it can just be a rationalisation.

    But I don't think the economic arguments are self-evidently wrong. Unless you support a completely open-door policy towards immigration, you acknowledge that there is some theoretical threshold at which immigration causes more harm than good, and once the existence of that threshold is admitted, someone who thinks the threshold is lower than in reality is wrong but not self-evidently wrong.

    Also consider: 'Prices decrease when supply increases, therefore if you increase the supply of labour via immigration, wages will decrease.' This is wrong because of the Lump Labour Fallacy, but not everyone is aware of that.
  • I find this talk of DNA ridiculous, given that to all intents and purposes every single human on the planet has the same DNA. That's kind of what being the same species means.

    Yes and no. There are subspecies and breeds and cultivars within species. Presumably the difference has to do with DNA.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Okay, I can see how talking about the fluidity of populations/ cultures/ genetics takes the wind out of many a nationalist sail. I'm leery, though, of feeding the potential implication that if some people can trace their lineage to some "indigenous" group, that they really do have some special claim to a particular patch of land.

    How do you feel about Eretz Yisroel?

    I favor a single, secular, multi-ethnic state for all inhabitants of Palestine.

    An admirable consistency. Also I agree with your favoring.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Not sure if this is where Doc Tor and Hugal were going, but I think it does make a difference inasmuch as it points to a place where the UK and the US conversations about race are different.

    In the US, if someone has a problem with black people, then that is pretty obviously a problem with race.

    In the UK, the conversation about race is mixed up with a conversation about immigration.

    I'm pretty sure that U.S. discussions of immigration are also mixed up with race. You may have heard of the American president's problems with immigrants from certain places.

    Yeah, and also, on second thoughts, although most black and brown people in the UK may be the children of immigrants, they probably aren't immigrants themselves, so it's possible I don't actually have much of a point ...
    Here is how it works in practice: White children born in the UK from immigrants are British. Brown people born in the UK from immigrants are immigrants. There is some variation on the former, of course, but a white child can eschew parental culture and blend in, the same opportunity is not allowed to brown peoples.
  • BullfrogBullfrog Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Not sure if this is where Doc Tor and Hugal were going, but I think it does make a difference inasmuch as it points to a place where the UK and the US conversations about race are different.

    In the US, if someone has a problem with black people, then that is pretty obviously a problem with race.

    In the UK, the conversation about race is mixed up with a conversation about immigration.

    I'm pretty sure that U.S. discussions of immigration are also mixed up with race. You may have heard of the American president's problems with immigrants from certain places.

    Yeah, and also, on second thoughts, although most black and brown people in the UK may be the children of immigrants, they probably aren't immigrants themselves, so it's possible I don't actually have much of a point ...
    Here is how it works in practice: White children born in the UK from immigrants are British. Brown people born in the UK from immigrants are immigrants. There is some variation on the former, of course, but a white child can eschew parental culture and blend in, the same opportunity is not allowed to brown peoples.

    I've heard of similar studies done with African immigrants in America, and it looks similar. It seems like once you "go native," you're either white or black. And with that, the usual disparities materialize. It's aggravating.
  • It seems to me that white supremacy and its fragility are a consequence of colonisation. Therefore it has different effects on colonial powers and colonised cultures, even if they ceased to be colonies a long time ago. Mass immigration of white people has overlaid this in the US and many other places, but the effect is still there.

    Whiteness is an imposition in any ex-colony of a European country, whereas it is the background position in Europe. That doesn't give it the automatic right to be favoured even where it is the background position, since we are all human, but it does give the whole debate a different complexion in the two circumstances.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    It seems to me that white supremacy and its fragility are a consequence of colonisation. Therefore it has different effects on colonial powers and colonised cultures, even if they ceased to be colonies a long time ago. Mass immigration of white people has overlaid this in the US and many other places, but the effect is still there.

    I think it's more accurate to describe this process as "immigration by people who later became white". For example, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was born an Italian-American in 1936 but by the time he died in 2016 he was simply "white". Whiteness shifts over time.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    For example, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was born an Italian-American in 1936 but by the time he died in 2016 he was simply "white". Whiteness shifts over time.

    This is true. As I grow into antique-hood, I recall times from my distant childhood in the Boston area when Irish Catholics (though distinctly pale of complexion) were so non-white as to be virtually indistinguishable from blacks (at least for some people of the Cabot, Lodge, God, and other Beacon Hill types).

    There are also degrees of whiteness. The same "some people" mentioned above would have faced quite the dilemma in deciding whom to save among a sinking rowboat full of Irish or Italian Catholics, Eastern European Jews (though other Jews sometimes bordered on being country-club-eligible) and ordinary "poor white trash." (AFAIK, that's a Southern meme; in the North, they were "laboring classes.")

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Sorry; for "Lodges" read "Lowells." It's from an old rhyme (various versions) which I learned growing up as,
    "Hail to thee, great Massachusetts,
    Home of the sacred cod,
    Where Lowells speak only to Cabots,
    And Cabots speak only to God."

    One cousinly branch of my family had Serious Social-Status-Seeker Syndrome of the Boston Brahmin- Beacon Hill-Back Bay-Blue Blood Brand. They tried, when I was 15 or 16, to turn me into a debutante. They might have pulled this off had I only evinced some slight interest in becoming a breed sow for the Social Register. Later they mounted a concerted effort to enlist me in the D.A.R. I could tell you tales.

    Ohher, once a near-miss White Supremacist-in-Training.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Okay, I can see how talking about the fluidity of populations/ cultures/ genetics takes the wind out of many a nationalist sail. I'm leery, though, of feeding the potential implication that if some people can trace their lineage to some "indigenous" group, that they really do have some special claim to a particular patch of land.

    How do you feel about Eretz Yisroel?

    I favor a single, secular, multi-ethnic state for all inhabitants of Palestine.

    An admirable consistency. Also I agree with your favoring.

    It's never going to be that. Zero percent chance. Not sure that the discussion of it fits in this topic.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Okay, I can see how talking about the fluidity of populations/ cultures/ genetics takes the wind out of many a nationalist sail. I'm leery, though, of feeding the potential implication that if some people can trace their lineage to some "indigenous" group, that they really do have some special claim to a particular patch of land.

    How do you feel about Eretz Yisroel?

    I favor a single, secular, multi-ethnic state for all inhabitants of Palestine.

    An admirable consistency. Also I agree with your favoring.

    It's never going to be that. Zero percent chance. Not sure that the discussion of it fits in this topic.

    Because the question of "our ancestors were here first" was raised in conjunction with what it means to be "indigenous" and the role that concept plays in white supremacy. The Israelis claim to have a right to Palestine because their ancestors were "there first" 3000 years ago.
  • I was asked what I thought and I gave what I think would be a good solution. Obviously no one there gives a shit what I think.

    That said, the status quo is not viable and the two state solution is dead, so...
  • mousethief wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Okay, I can see how talking about the fluidity of populations/ cultures/ genetics takes the wind out of many a nationalist sail. I'm leery, though, of feeding the potential implication that if some people can trace their lineage to some "indigenous" group, that they really do have some special claim to a particular patch of land.

    How do you feel about Eretz Yisroel?

    I favor a single, secular, multi-ethnic state for all inhabitants of Palestine.

    An admirable consistency. Also I agree with your favoring.

    It's never going to be that. Zero percent chance. Not sure that the discussion of it fits in this topic.

    Because the question of "our ancestors were here first" was raised in conjunction with what it means to be "indigenous" and the role that concept plays in white supremacy. The Israelis claim to have a right to Palestine because their ancestors were "there first" 3000 years ago.

    It's mostly about security now and belief that peace isn't achievable. Which the history appears to demonstrate. Followed currently by political opportunism.

    I hadn't heard that the founding of Israel was about aboriginal title. I understood it was about Jewish safety, with the British finally leaving after they took over from the Turks.

    I can see how it could be told the way you see it.
  • I hadn't heard that the founding of Israel was about aboriginal title. I understood it was about Jewish safety, with the British finally leaving after they took over from the Turks.

    I can see how it could be told the way you see it.

    As it has been and is.
  • And that's one reason for continuing to build and expand settlements: per God, the land is theirs, no matter what anyone else says, or who gets in the way.

    I don't know what did or didn't happen. But I grew up fundamentalist, with the idea that it was very important for Jews to be "back in the land".
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    OK so what about the Caribbean? Are the current people group indigenous or was it original peoples.
    Whilst there is some indigenous DNA in portions of some populations, there is not continuous cultural link. So, IMO, no.

    One indigenous people, on what seems to be your definition, would be the Maori, the first human inhabitants of NZ when they arrived 700 or so ago.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    It looks as if people are talking at cross purposes here. Doc Tor is using the word 'indigenous' in its 'plain' dictionary sense -- 'originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native' (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2011 edition). Lilbuddha is using it in the more specialised sense of indigenous peoples marginalised by later arrivals, as defined here.
    Doc Tor is not a right-wing extremist. But the instance on calling white Britons indigenous is the very language used by right-wing extremists to marginalise immigrants. So even if I agreed with Doc Tor on his definition, insisting on using a word in a conversion where it is doesn't fit makes it irrelevant at best.
    In short, for purposes of this conversation, whether white Brits are indigenous doesn't bloody matter.

    Not sure if this is where Doc Tor and Hugal were going, but I think it does make a difference inasmuch as it points to a place where the UK and the US conversations about race are different.

    In the US, if someone has a problem with black people, then that is pretty obviously a problem with race.

    In the UK, the conversation about race is mixed up with a conversation about immigration. So someone can rationalise racism by saying what they're really worried about is the strain on the NHS, fragmentation of communities, and pressure on jobs, and equally someone can sound (or be made to sound) pretty racist when they genuinely are worried about those things.
    IME it is inaccurate to separate out the economic fear from the xenophobia because they go hand in hand. Especially in this day and age where it takes but a second to find ties between immigration and a strengthened economy. It is the racist/xenophobe rhetoric that spreads the inaccurate view of immigrant = economic threat. In other words, people believe the threat because it aligns with their established belief, or welcome the belief because it helps focus a fear on a tangible target. Same result either way.

    Seems to me that if you want to change things you need a good understanding of why they are as they are.

    Some people do oppose immigration for economic reasons. You may think their view of economics misguided, but it's neither evil nor stupid. (It's conceivable that if you're a waitress, then mass immigration from countries where for cultural reasons the people often take jobs in the catering sector could reduce your personal marketability whilst being good for the economy as a whole).

    Some people oppose mass immigration for cultural reasons - happy to have immigrants who assimilate - adopt the local accent and culture - but don't want the tailor's shop and the church in their local high street to be replaced by a sari shop and a mosque.

    Some people oppose net immigration for reasons to do with population size and sustainability.

    Views on immigration tie into the tribalism that Barnabas62 was talking about. I guess we all experience tribal feelings - identify some people as "one of us" and some not - but relate differently to different markers of tribal identity.

    I'm never quite sure when "xenophobia" is being used literally - in the sense of an unchosen irrational fear, akin to more common phobias about heights or confined spaces - or figuratively. Presumably we have the word to use figuratively because there are some people who experience it literally ?

    We've talked on other threads about prejudice. Prejudice is the application of simple rigid categories (like thinking all dogs are vicious because you were once bitten by a terrier or scared by a rottweiler). And there are prejudices that are entirely false, and prejudices that have a larger or smaller element of truth (being cautious in dealing with rottweilers seems pretty sensible, even if it means you lose out on the chance to get to know the good-natured and friendly ones).

    None of these phenomena amount to white supremacism, which I take to be an ideology of the superiority of the white race.

    Your apparent desire to wrap up all these things together and stick a big label "Evil Racism" on it seems like a deliberate rejection of trying to understand the psychology involved.

  • Russ wrote: »
    Some people do oppose immigration for economic reasons. You may think their view of economics misguided, but it's neither evil nor stupid. (It's conceivable that if you're a waitress, then mass immigration from countries where for cultural reasons the people often take jobs in the catering sector could reduce your personal marketability whilst being good for the economy as a whole).

    It’s also, IMO, reasonable to observe that the available quantity of homes, school places, GP appointments, hospital beds, etc. is finite, and thus once the population grows above that level there won’t be enough to go round. Given that many areas already have a shortage of some or all of those things it’s not without evidence either.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    It’s also, IMO, reasonable to observe that the available quantity of homes, school places, GP appointments, hospital beds, etc. is finite, and thus once the population grows above that level there won’t be enough to go round. Given that many areas already have a shortage of some or all of those things it’s not without evidence either.

    It would be reasonable, if it were true. Given that immigrants are net contributors to the Treasury, then the more immigrants there are, the more GP appointments, school places and hospital beds there will be. This is without the salient fact that there are a great many immigrant teachers and doctors.

    That there is a shortage in some areas is certainly evidence, but it's not evidence of 'immigrants taking our resources'. It's evidence of massive, systematic underinvestment in public services and infrastructure and the deliberate redirection of money from the poor to the rich.

    So basically, your entire paragraph is not just bullshit, it's dangerous bullshit.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    We've talked on other threads about prejudice. Prejudice is the application of simple rigid categories (like thinking all dogs are vicious because you were once bitten by a terrier or scared by a rottweiler). And there are prejudices that are entirely false, and prejudices that have a larger or smaller element of truth (being cautious in dealing with rottweilers seems pretty sensible, even if it means you lose out on the chance to get to know the good-natured and friendly ones).

    None of these phenomena amount to white supremacism, which I take to be an ideology of the superiority of the white race.

    Your apparent desire to wrap up all these things together and stick a big label "Evil Racism" on it seems like a deliberate rejection of trying to understand the psychology involved.

    Yeah, that kind of parsing is becoming more popular these days, trying to differentiate between "evil racism" (e.g. the Klan) and "good racism" (e.g. all Jews greedily engage in "cut-throat business practices"). I'm not sure there's a lot of virtue in NABA* racism, where you get to proclaim your own goodness because you've never [ used a racial slur to someone's face / painted a swastika on a synagogue / committed a racially motivated assault / shot Medgar Evers ]. This kind of thing isn't the search for precision that it pretends to be, it's more along the lines of trying to define most racism out of existence, where only the most blatant forms of white supremacy count as "racist".


    *Not As Bad As
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 16
    I believe the term for the underlying racist ideas as described by Russ and Marvin the Martian on this page is “coded” or “dog-whistle”.

    Failing to recognise this is what previously trapped some BME folks into believing UKIP might have something to offer them.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    It’s also, IMO, reasonable to observe that the available quantity of homes, school places, GP appointments, hospital beds, etc. is finite, and thus once the population grows above that level there won’t be enough to go round. Given that many areas already have a shortage of some or all of those things it’s not without evidence either.

    It would be reasonable, if it were true. Given that immigrants are net contributors to the Treasury, then the more immigrants there are, the more GP appointments, school places and hospital beds there will be.

    That doesn’t follow at all. At best it’s one possible way the extra treasury funds can be spent.

    And even if those things were doled out by the government on a per-person basis, where are we going to build all the extra buildings to house them? Do we just keep building until there’s no countryside left, and then just keep building vertically until the laws of physics prevent us building any more? And even then I imagine people like you would still find ways to argue that we’re not full yet. I doubt you’d even say that cramming every single human on the planet into Britain would be too much.
    That there is a shortage in some areas is certainly evidence, but it's not evidence of 'immigrants taking our resources'. It's evidence of massive, systematic underinvestment in public services and infrastructure and the deliberate redirection of money from the poor to the rich.

    ‘Immigrants taking our resources’ is not a phrase I’ve used. For what it’s worth I’m just as wary of native brits who have too many children, and for the same reasons.

    My point is that we barely have enough to go round with our current population - pipe dreams about taxing the rich until they’re poor notwithstanding - so how can we keep adding more people? How thin do our resources have to be spread before it’s too much?
  • I believe the term for the underlying racist ideas as described by Russ and Marvin the Martian on this page is “coded” or “dog-whistle”.

    Are you accusing me of lying? Because it sounds a lot like you’re accusing me of lying.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    I believe the term for the underlying racist ideas as described by Russ and Marvin the Martian on this page is “coded” or “dog-whistle”.

    Are you accusing me of lying? Because it sounds a lot like you’re accusing me of lying.
    People can blow that whistle without understanding they are doing it.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Thanks Doublethink, "dog whistle" is a term I've puzzled over. For some reason the one that is beyond the range of human hearing didn't occur to me, possibly because whistling in general is often beyond the range if mine personally.
  • I believe the term for the underlying racist ideas as described by Russ and Marvin the Martian on this page is “coded” or “dog-whistle”.

    Are you accusing me of lying? Because it sounds a lot like you’re accusing me of lying.

    This is a thread about white supremacy, racism and the difficulty white people have in acknowledging anything but the most blatant direct insult as racist. However, you think I am accusing you of dishonesty. That is an interesting perspective
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    MtM,

    Your argument is both an idiot and an example of shifting the goalposts with no reason to do so.
    Immigrants boost the economy. If there are still shortfalls, then where is that boost going?
    Attacking immigrants is the wrong way round on solving inequities as those causing the inequity are not going to voluntarily make it better.
    I am not going to call you a racist, but I will point out that your words are resembling theirs.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    That doesn’t follow at all. At best it’s one possible way the extra treasury funds can be spent.

    And even if those things were doled out by the government on a per-person basis, where are we going to build all the extra buildings to house them? Do we just keep building until there’s no countryside left, and then just keep building vertically until the laws of physics prevent us building any more? And even then I imagine people like you would still find ways to argue that we’re not full yet. I doubt you’d even say that cramming every single human on the planet into Britain would be too much.

    I'm struggling to accept there's any thought going on behind these ludicrous statements whatsoever. The total built-up area of the UK - including roads, rail, industrial, commercial and residential - stands at about 6%. Actual buildings account for just about 2%. In urban areas, roughly half the land is in the form of parks, allotments and outdoor sports facilities. So if you want to 'imagine' anything, why not use some facts to base your fancies on?
    ‘Immigrants taking our resources’ is not a phrase I’ve used.

    No, but that's the only possibly interpretation of your reply to Russ. If you meant to say something different, you would have used different words. And as @Doublethink noted, you used the exact same argument as a racist would use.
    My point is that we barely have enough to go round with our current population - pipe dreams about taxing the rich until they’re poor notwithstanding - so how can we keep adding more people? How thin do our resources have to be spread before it’s too much?

    Again, that's not really a point when you consider that the source of our underfunded public services is not too many, or too few people, but that it is deliberate policy decisions made by government. For the sake of argument, would we have better or worse access to a GP if there were half as many taxpayers?

    This resource question is orthogonal to racism and white supremacy, unless you're a racist.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    And even if those things were doled out by the government on a per-person basis, where are we going to build all the extra buildings to house them? Do we just keep building until there’s no countryside left, and then just keep building vertically until the laws of physics prevent us building any more?

    For reference, increasing the population of the U.K. by 50% (a rather extreme example) would make it an urbanized hellhole with the same population density as . . . [ checks notes ] . . . the Netherlands! :scream:
    My point is that we barely have enough to go round with our current population - pipe dreams about taxing the rich until they’re poor notwithstanding - so how can we keep adding more people? How thin do our resources have to be spread before it’s too much?

    As @Doc Tor pointed out this view ignores the fact that population is a resource, and indeed the source of production for most of the other "resources" you worry about being spread too thin.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Some people do oppose immigration for economic reasons. You may think their view of economics misguided, but it's neither evil nor stupid. (It's conceivable that if you're a waitress, then mass immigration from countries where for cultural reasons the people often take jobs in the catering sector could reduce your personal marketability whilst being good for the economy as a whole).

    It’s also, IMO, reasonable to observe that the available quantity of homes, school places, GP appointments, hospital beds, etc. is finite, and thus once the population grows above that level there won’t be enough to go round. Given that many areas already have a shortage of some or all of those things it’s not without evidence either.

    And here, we can add water and land suitable for food crops to the list of what is finite. Especially for water, our sustainable population is about 75% of what it is now - and still politicians call for greater population growth.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    MtM's comments are part of the implicit racism I was talking about upthread. For some it is deliberate dogwhistle, but for others it is the hidden sort. Granted, it is possible to spout the same rubbish and be completely free of racism or xenophobia, but it serves that end regardless.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    Some people do oppose immigration for economic reasons. You may think their view of economics misguided, but it's neither evil nor stupid. (It's conceivable that if you're a waitress, then mass immigration from countries where for cultural reasons the people often take jobs in the catering sector could reduce your personal marketability whilst being good for the economy as a whole).

    It’s also, IMO, reasonable to observe that the available quantity of homes, school places, GP appointments, hospital beds, etc. is finite, and thus once the population grows above that level there won’t be enough to go round. Given that many areas already have a shortage of some or all of those things it’s not without evidence either.

    And here, we can add water and land suitable for food crops to the list of what is finite. Especially for water, our sustainable population is about 75% of what it is now - and still politicians call for greater population growth.
    Australia is a massive desert with a few green bits, so even if what you say is accurate, it doesn't represent the UK. And, if Australia is anything like the UK, US, and most of the world; a small percentage of people use the most resources. So the solution to more is not removing the bottom end.
  • Australia could support many more people despite our water problems. We have barely begun to institute technologies that can collect and recycle our waste water, and we stubbornly refuse to change our crops and farming methods to suit our environment. The tropical parts of the NT and FNQ are virtually empty and unused. We need to respect Aboriginal ownership in these areas and not trample them again in our rush to development, but Aboriginal leaders are ready and willing to genuinely partner with investors in their communities. The trouble is finding them.

    There is regular bleating about infrastructure in Sydney and Melbourne, but the fact is that low taxes and the previous prevalence of public/private partnerships that are hugely advantageous to the private partner has sapped our Governments capacities. In Victoria we have a Govt changing this, but it is difficult because those who whinge are often also the loudest whingers about tax.

    The fact is that there are plenty of bigger cities in other WEIRD nations that manage to house and transport more people. It is selfish of us to use our environment and our infrastructure issues to deny other people the chance to live with us.

    Gee and I have discussed this before. The view he expresses is that of most Australians, people of good will and progressive views. But I must disagree, for the reasons above and any others I can think of to chuck into the mix.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    "lilbuddha wrote: »
    And, if Australia is anything like the UK, US, and most of the world; a small percentage of people use the most resources. So the solution to more is not removing the bottom end.

    Exactly. There is plenty to go around; the problem is that it isn't actually going around.
    ... pipe dreams about taxing the rich until they’re poor notwithstanding ...

    It isn't a pipe dream to tax the rich until they're merely affluent. The top marginal tax rate in the US was over 90% from 1944 to 1963, 77% in 1964, and 70% from 1965 to 1981. In the entire period from 1932 to 1986, the highest marginal tax rate was at least 50%. The world's most successful economy did just fine with a high tax rate on the top dollars earned by its wealthiest people. Lowering the highest marginal tax rate and allowing rich people to become even richer has been the real disaster for poor people in the US, not immigration. Is the UK substantially different?

    Finding space for immigrants in the UK is not a problem - not just because there's still plenty of space there, but also because the birth rate is falling. Immigration in fact is crucial to maintaining a decent standard of living in the developed world because our birth rates have fallen below replacement level. It's a good thing in some ways, as we're using far too many of the world's resources, but our populations need to come down gradually, not fall through the floor. Look at Japan - their economy has been stagnant for 30 years, and demographics are a big contributor to this. Their birth rate has plunged and their population skews old. They need immigrants, and they're struggling to come to terms with that. Europe, the UK and the US are headed in the same direction.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Ruth, the resource I was chiefly thinking of was water. As Simon Toad notes, he and I disagree and the view I take is the majority one on the left. Of course some super-rich have mega sized swimming pools and use more water but otherwise per capita water use is much less dependent on affluence than are some other resources.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    MtM's comments are part of the implicit racism I was talking about upthread. For some it is deliberate dogwhistle, but for others it is the hidden sort. Granted, it is possible to spout the same rubbish and be completely free of racism or xenophobia, but it serves that end regardless.

    So basically, anyone who isn’t unconditionally 100% affirming of immigration is effectively a racist?
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    That doesn’t follow at all. At best it’s one possible way the extra treasury funds can be spent.

    And even if those things were doled out by the government on a per-person basis, where are we going to build all the extra buildings to house them? Do we just keep building until there’s no countryside left, and then just keep building vertically until the laws of physics prevent us building any more? And even then I imagine people like you would still find ways to argue that we’re not full yet. I doubt you’d even say that cramming every single human on the planet into Britain would be too much.

    I'm struggling to accept there's any thought going on behind these ludicrous statements whatsoever. The total built-up area of the UK - including roads, rail, industrial, commercial and residential - stands at about 6%. Actual buildings account for just about 2%. In urban areas, roughly half the land is in the form of parks, allotments and outdoor sports facilities. So if you want to 'imagine' anything, why not use some facts to base your fancies on?

    The thing is, I like having that much countryside and urban greenery. I don’t want to lose it just to serve your “cram them in” ideology.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    You probably need that much countryside to manufacture and store all the straw men you appear to need.

    You've simply assumed my position, reacting negatively because I've driven a coach and horses through your specious anti-immigration arguments.

    If you don't want to be lumped in with the racists, come up with better arguments.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    MtM's comments are part of the implicit racism I was talking about upthread. For some it is deliberate dogwhistle, but for others it is the hidden sort. Granted, it is possible to spout the same rubbish and be completely free of racism or xenophobia, but it serves that end regardless.

    So basically, anyone who isn’t unconditionally 100% affirming of immigration is effectively a racist?
    Binary thinking much?

    Anyone who spouts the same, inaccurate rhetoric as racists should at least reconsider their position.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Ruth, the resource I was chiefly thinking of was water. As Simon Toad notes, he and I disagree and the view I take is the majority one on the left. Of course some super-rich have mega sized swimming pools and use more water but otherwise per capita water use is much less dependent on affluence than are some other resources.
    The resources consumed by a country are not only in people’s residences.
    Rich people do not become rich because they have nice properties.
    I trust you are bright enough to work out the rest
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited August 18
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Ruth, the resource I was chiefly thinking of was water. As Simon Toad notes, he and I disagree and the view I take is the majority one on the left. Of course some super-rich have mega sized swimming pools and use more water but otherwise per capita water use is much less dependent on affluence than are some other resources.
    The resources consumed by a country are not only in people’s residences.
    Rich people do not become rich because they have nice properties.
    I trust you are bright enough to work out the rest

    Thank you for such a kind post. Can I, as a favour, ask that you read mine in its entirety? As a help, the key is the indication that the resource I was referring to as being particularly scarce here was water.
  • There's a huge thing going on about the Murray Darling River system which illustrates the problems concerning water use in Australia. I follow a couple of Indigenous pages on facebook and they are bloody ropable about the degradation of their land and waterways by inappropriate and unsustainable farming practices. The farmers are upset too, especially those downstream. My QLD cousin posts about it too. Basically everybody is pissed off and can see that it is a disaster caused by greed and corruption in the administration of Govt. programs to try and fix it. I hope that our dire situation leads to innovative changes to water use and farming practices. I also hope that our indigenous people will help us. We bloody need them if we are going to be able to work out how to marry sustainable land use with capitalism.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    There is an enormous problem caused by cotton growing in Qld using excessive amounts of inland water. I have a relation who with her husband has a property outside Wentworth. They have a frontage of about 11 km to Lake Victoria and until recently have known hard years every now and then. She says that this year's the worst by far that they've experienced; they're now to about 25% of normal stock. I don't think there's a way to "marry sustainable land use with capitalism". The sort of unrestricted use that cotton farmers were allowed as a term of their developing the land just should not have been allowed. And of course if the ALP loses the next Qld election, quite likely as I gather things are*, things will just get worse.

    *And shown by the poor primary vote there in the last Federal election.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Your apparent desire to wrap up all these things together and stick a big label "Evil Racism" on it seems like a deliberate rejection of trying to understand the psychology involved.
    Is your desire to "try to understand the psychology involved" a deliberate rejection of trying to appreciate the effects of the attitudes you describe on the people on the other end of those attitudes?

This discussion has been closed.