Re: Nazis, eh? I gotcher Nazis, right here...

On Aug 21, 7:17 am, White Spirit <wspi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
TPS wrote:
So the idea of indigeneity shifts over time.

Yes, and since our ancestors have fought for this country and fertilised
its soil with our blood we have more right to it than ingangers who come
here for their own reasons, particularly those who fail to contribute
anything.

It's not bigotry to want to preserve our culture and heritage.
So preserve your culture and heritage.  Don't forget the parts that
depend on relations with people beyond the islands borders and with a
different genetic background.

Trade, communication and a sensible level of immigration that only
admits people who have skills we lack would be a step in the right
direction.  Of course, we'd have to jettison the ballast as well.


Some people would suggest that people who get drunk on caffeine and
vandalize buildings should be included among the "ballast".


 It seems
arrogant that you, as an American, should expect Europe to adopt the
same immigration model that America has.  Of course, your roots are not
nearly as deep as ours so you have little other option but to see things
that way.
Oh please.  I share many of the same genetic roots that you have, and
it has no bearing on my ability to see things from different points of
view.   What I expect is that a nation that built its wealth largely
from colonizing most of the world, exploiting the inhabitants of other
countries and extracting their resources could at the very least allow
people from those places to cross the border in the opposite direction
in order to share in some of the fruits of that wealth.

So it's back to the usual, hackneyed 'sins of the father' argument.  We
have paid more than enough in foreign aid to those nations.  It's about
time that they stood on their own two feet so that if they fall they
don't get to blame it on us any more.

Ironic. You believed that your ancestors "fertilised the land" with
their blood in the 6th and 7th centuries, and that this somehow gives
you some exclusive rights to the land. But to suggest that your land
came by its wealth because of blood that your ancestors shed in the
19th century is somehow a "hackneyed" argument. Actually, "self-
serving" would be a better term than ironic.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Steven Akins Of That Bilk...
    ... >> country from the original owners, especially the type of country>> Scotland ... >> for their right to land. ... > It was given to them by the then sovereign of Scotland. ... In the first millenium the bulk of the people living in what is now Scotland would have had British/Pictish ancestors whilst others had Anglian, Norse and of course the Dalriadan Scotti had the said Irish ancestors as did some Galwegians from a much later period. ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: OT: Who Owned Archie Bunkers Ass?
    ... >> Which ones didn't kill the Indians and steal their land? ... >and "bigots" just because they owned land that their ancestors had paid ... Don't forget the blood and tears and lives of the thousands of Indians ...
    (rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: A warm story
    ... think of England or had a chance to visit that country...the country ... homecoming" when they visit the land of their ancestors. ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: What Obama Left Out
    ... I'm not usually a big fan of William the NeoCon. ... Obama a draft dodger -- I'd agree that Barry was in the company of all ... I served our country on active military duty during WWII, Korea, and Viet ... has to earn its own because, lacking that, the graves of those ancestors ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: civility please?
    ... be able to support what you say with factual evidence. ... spinning and spinning and spinning around Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, ... 16 For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood. ... The Earth is One Great Country, ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
Loading