Reply to: 1/3rd to be 'non white

[speling bee]

I wouldn't ask you to do that.

Good, as that would be in contravention of Rule 9.

[d000hg]

I wouldn't ask you to do that.

[speling bee]

Then switch to PM or phone him up.

I may have been a little squiffy last night. I would apologise if it were not in contravention of CUK Rule 1.

[d000hg]

We're having a chat. Chill out.

Then switch to PM or phone him up.

[xoggoth]

The Yugoslav civil wars and the current Ukranian crisis are interesting as they are post WW2 European conflicts in countries without mass immigration.

I have not said that immigration is the main cause of all conflicts. I have specifically said above that divisions within nations take all forms, ethnic, religious, political and class and that mass immigration without requiring integration is but one of many means of creating such divisions. The Ukranian situation (which I also mentioned) and Yugoslavia are in fact perfect examples of what I mean, of unworkable nations that attempted to impose a single society on people of very disparate views. They simply cannot work. Iraq is another example of a nation where there is huge violence between disparate groups, Sunni, Shia and Kurdish, now that unity is no longer imposed by a dictator.

By allowing in many people with different views on major issues, or who do not succeed and will be resentful, we are moving in the direction of those nations and creating conflicts we never needed to have.

I'm afraid I have to give up here as you are clearly arguing with an imaginary someone else and cannot grasp a point.

[speling bee]

That wasn't the question you asked... can you rephrase exactly what type of conflicts count, and in what exact time periods?

We're having a chat. Chill out.

[xoggoth]

I would suspect that countries experiencing mass immigration are less likely to have civil war for much the same reason they have mass immigration i.e. they have healthy economies. Immigrants don't tend to head for basket case places.

Very true. Although tensions short of civil war - riots, gang membership, religious extremism or terrorism by youths who feel excluded, aiding illegal immigration, crimes by those who feel no duty to our society or failure to report crimes by those who have no trust in our authorities, are all very costly problems too

PS By those who have no trust in our authorities I mean those who have even less than we do.

[d000hg]

There are other large scale European wars of note within the 50 year pre mass immigration timeframe, such as the Russian and Spanish civil wars.

That wasn't the question you asked... can you rephrase exactly what type of conflicts count, and in what exact time periods?

[speling bee]

Good grief. Has Sasguru been teaching you statistics?? More people are using mobile phones today, maybe that's the reason for the drop in nation vs nation wars. International treaties, military organisations and the necessity for international trade look a much better explanation than either.

If immigration reduced tensions then surely tensions within nations would be reducing. In fact there are numerous areas of serious racial and ethnic tensions, Myanmar and India on the borders of Bangladesh, in SA against migrants from other African countries, in the US between blacks and Hispanics, in Indian cities against those from other parts of India. You will find a full list on the net. It would hard to find a single place in the world where people of different ethnicity coexist side by side with zero tensions. European nations are very tolerant compared to some places, but France, Italy, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands and the UK have all seen riots sparked by ethnic tensions. In some of these, as in Birmingham 2005, the indigenous population was not even involved.

Who said immigration reduces tensions? I'm interested in your views on the apparent correlation between increased immigration and reducing incidence of major wars?

Increasing use of mobile phones in Ukraine doesn't appear to correlate with peace, so we can discount that.

Perhaps less cohesive countries can't be arsed to go to war with their neighbours? Maybe there's another reason?

[xoggoth]

But doesn't it look as if the more immigration there is, the fewer major wars there are?

Good grief. Has Sasguru been teaching you statistics?? More people are using mobile phones today, maybe that's the reason for the drop in nation vs nation wars. International treaties, military organisations and the necessity for international trade look a much better explanation than either.

If immigration reduced tensions then surely tensions within nations would be reducing. In fact there are numerous areas of serious racial and ethnic tensions, Myanmar and India on the borders of Bangladesh, in SA against migrants from other African countries, in the US between blacks and Hispanics, in Indian cities against those from other parts of India. You will find a full list on the net. It would hard to find a single place in the world where people of different ethnicity coexist side by side with zero tensions. European nations are very tolerant compared to some places, but France, Italy, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands and the UK have all seen riots sparked by ethnic tensions. In some of these, as in Birmingham 2005, the indigenous population was not even involved.

[doodab]

I would suspect that countries experiencing mass immigration are less likely to have civil war for much the same reason they have mass immigration i.e. they have healthy economies. Immigrants don't tend to head for basket case places.

[speling bee]

Well, Bosnians, Croatians, Montenegrans and now Ukrainians might disagree.

Plus; Britain and other western countries might not have any choice but to get involved in Saharan Africa given the fundamentalist loons threatening to take over there and cause refugee migrations on a scale that we've never seen before; France has already been involved in Mali all over again for precisely that reason.

The Yugoslav civil wars and the current Ukranian crisis are interesting as they are post WW2 European conflicts in countries without mass immigration.

[Mich the Tester]

I believe they had a bit of social unrest in the late 18th century, but apart from that you're right.

6 February 1934 crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

16 dead, 2000 injured on the streets in Paris.

[doodab]

Much better than now. Were there any riots in France remotely comparable to those we saw in 2005?

I believe they had a bit of social unrest in the late 18th century, but apart from that you're right.

[Mich the Tester]

Nationalism is always compared to Hitler's Germany but, in the modern world, with the checks and controls we have to ensure nations coexist with a degree of mutual respect, I think those days are as much part of history as Britain colonising Africa. The problems of civil wars, tribal wars and other internal conflicts and tensions within nations remain and the key to solving those is to aim for nations with cohesive societies.

Well, Bosnians, Croatians, Montenegrans and now Ukrainians might disagree.

Plus; Britain and other western countries might not have any choice but to get involved in Saharan Africa given the fundamentalist loons threatening to take over there and cause refugee migrations on a scale that we've never seen before; France has already been involved in Mali all over again for precisely that reason.