Re: OT: A metaphorical way to view current cultural changes
Posted by:
Sawfish (IP Logged)
Date: 25 July, 2021 04:29PM
Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Dale Nelson Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > As for Europe -- my opinion, for what it's
> > worth,
> > > is that the countries heavily invested in
> > colonial
> > > activity (e.g. France) probably did have an
> > > ethical obligation to welcome
> commonwealth-type
> > > immigrants to their cities. ...
> >
> > The Christian guilt-complex; repent, and
> > atonement.
> >
> > No, it makes matters worse, for all parts. Help
> > them, if absolutely needed, in their homeland
> > instead.
>
>
> I dunno know about a "Christian guilt-complex,"
> Knygatin. One might think more readily in terms
> of ordinary commercial interactions, etc. In
> other words, for perhaps 200 people of Northern
> European origin X settled in Tropical Region Y,
> probably bringing many benefits (e.g. hospitals)
> but also profiting for a time from these "jewels
> in the crown." (My understanding is that
> eventually these colonial empires sometimes were
> more costly than the exports they produced, etc.
> -- or maybe I'm thinking of the Roman Empire.
> Don't know very much about this stuff.) I'm just
> saying that a fair-minded observer might suppose
> that, if for 200 years the Europeans settled in
> Region Y, well, fair's fair, people from Region Y
> might be regarded as having a right to settle in
> European Region X.
>
> Is there an obvious error of reasoning there? I
> understand that (say) native Parisians might wish
> the Moroccans or whatever would stay home, but
> perhaps the Moroccans wished the Parisians would
> stay home back then.
It was not based on a notion of "rights"; indeed, it's not hard to argue that the idea of "rights" is a sort of western construct.
The French had the same "right" to Algeria as Atilla did to central Europe. It was not a matter of rights so much as it was within his power to do so, and he exercised that power.
>
> I'm really not all that interested in this type of
> question, by the way, since I feel no personal
> duty to concern myself with it, am not captivated
> imaginatively by it, and so on, but I hope my
> comments can receive temperate responses if any.
> Reasonable responses differing from mine would be
> welcome. One such response might be, "The
> Northern Europeans never should have colonized
> those Tropical Regions, but the wrong of
> Commonwealth-type immigration would be just a
> further wrong and it wouldn't set right the first
> one."
>
> I suspect I'll be watching from the sidelines from
> now on, on this, and I wouldn't be surprised if I
> will see sentiments attributed to me that I
> haven't expressed and that are not necessary
> implications of what I did say. Cheers!
I won't, and wouldn't, do that Dale. I enjoyed trying to think this thru.
There is no "right answer" here; I'm merely after trying to follow the threads of any given [policy to see where they may be likely to lead.
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~