The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 05:20 PM

if someone says immigrants of some particular ethnicity are all like this or that, they may be racist

But that's exactly what you're saying! You're saying that immigrants of any ethnicity other than English are all alien to English culture and a potential threat to it. You're a racist even by your own arbitrarily limited definition, I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 05:18 PM

But what happens when they close the borders and you STILL can't find a job? Who do you blame then?

Bush

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 05:16 PM

WAV, 12th August:

"Look up your dictionary, Pip, and you'll find it's something quite different from the questioning of immigration you just re-posted."

WAV, 13th August:

"pro-immigrationist keep trying to equate racism with the questioning of immigration, so it's not surprising that dictionary definitions have moved that way."

So the dictionary definition supports you - except where it doesn't, in which case the dictionary is wrong.

But set that aside. Please, let's stop talking about 'questioning immigration'. You don't question immigration, do you? You're opposed to immigration, specifically on the grounds that you think there shouldn't be multiple cultures in one country - you've said this many times. Which means, in the English context, you don't think that West Indian and South Asian and Irish cultures should have been brought here. Which means you're antagonistic to, or prejudiced against, those cultures and the people who brought them here.

A straight question: do you think it would have been better for England, culturally speaking, if immigration from the West Indies, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Uganda had been severely limited? A simple Yes or No will suffice.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 04:52 PM

"Closing the borders is one way to avoid facing certain bitter truths."

Indeedio. But what happens when they close the borders and you STILL can't find a job? Who do you blame then?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 04:11 PM

In the area of the country where I live, what I wrote above is true. The construction trades have fairly strong unions, and these unions are supported by other unions, so a construction worker working for less than union wages is pretty rare.

On the other hand, I am aware of a number of janitorial and housecleaning services that pay minimum wage, and most of them hire immigrants, almost totally Hispanic. Eastern Washington is farm country, and both legal and illegal immigrants do get this far North, following the crops. In addition to various kinds of produce, Eastern Washington is wine country (good volcanic soil), and Washington apples are world famous. Without immigrant workers working for very low wages, these jobs simply wouldn't get done because most Americans, no matter how hard up, just simply don't want to do them. Hard work, dirty work, long hours.

Of course, this doesn't stop people from saying that "these illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American workers."

Computer companies tend to hire a lot of programmers and technicians from India, not because they can pay them cheaper wages, but because they are just darn good at what they do. Better educated, better qualified.

Closing the borders is one way to avoid facing certain bitter truths.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 02:00 PM

But how does nationalism fit into fair trade? That is what you haven't explained.

The earliest reference to Barbara Allen calls it a Scottish song.

Well, do a little reading and listening up on Noel Coward, then tell me if you think he sounds English or American.

BTW, what happens if the UN decides to listen to you, meets together and decrees that immigration should be increased threefold, with half of it being directed at your current place of residence?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 01:53 PM

No, Stu - if someone says immigrants of some particular ethnicity are all like this or that, they may be racist; but questioning the act of immigration itself is certainly NOT.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 01:50 PM

"it IS acceptable to question immigration, and NOT acceptable to brand someone as a racist for doing so. So your criticism IS false and defamatory."

It depends on what your grounds for questioning immigration are. If it's because immigrants are "felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being", then it constitutes racism.

You can't simply dismiss the OED's definition because you don't agree with it.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: GUEST,Stu
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 01:46 PM

Aren't immigrants people of different race from the target country? So if you're anti immigration, you're anti (some race or other). Or are immigrants ex-pats. Frankly I find your reasoning lacking in coherence.

Stu

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 12:52 PM

"Racism: belief in superiority of particular race,; antagonism towards members of a different race based upon this" (Collins Dictionary)...I hate imperialism/"superiority of particular race" and I have only questioned the act of immigration itself - NOT any "differnet race" Pip. However, it's not just on Mudcat that pro-immigrationist keep trying to equate racism with the questioning of immigration, so it's not surprising that dictionary definitions have moved that way. But, just recently, there has been a movement back toward the understanding that, in a democracy, it IS acceptable to question immigration, and NOT acceptable to brand someone as a racist for doing so. So your criticism IS false and defamatory.
Volgadon - I cited Dig. Trad. above over "Barbara Allen"...there is an English and a Scottish version, and dispute over which came first.
I don't know a lot about Noel Coward, frankly - I'm mainly into English folk and hymns.
Nationalism with fair-trade - a UN regulated (NOT free) global economy.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 12:26 PM

Perhaps WAV is on to something. You see, this being the 21st century, Dr. Fu Manchu, ever striving to strike at the heart of everything English and decent, has had to refine his modus operandi somewhat, putting aside his posion cats and green mists for something a lot more dangerous: MASS IMMIGRATION. You see, apart from helping to plan the opening ceremonies at the olympics, and introducing chords and harmony to folk music (English trad, naturally, Gaels and renegade Amerindian chanters should keep to their own corner of the Isles), the insidous dr has been encouraging furriners to leave that poor, benighted corners of the world (tho very pretty to eco-travel in) and move to England's fair and pleasent green, where different cultures cannot, must not, live under one roof. Thus the good, wholesome English lifestyle, of tennis on the village green on Sunday afternoons (after a rousing, yet entirely composed and dignified High Anglican service) cucumber sandwiches washed down with mead and morris dancers with bells merrily jingling (accompanied by top-line melody tunes played on recorder) will become a thing of the past. Other outrages of the nefarious evil genius, the greatest genius ever to set his mind to crime in the furtherance of his foul goals, are introducing spicy vindaloos, by which he hopes to seduce good, honest Englishmen everywhere away from wholesome, traditional stodgy foods. Yes, he has introduced flavour, which will soon make a mindless slave out of decent folk everywhere. He has also corrupted footie by passionate foreigners, spread tolerance, and, yes, horror of horrors, danced at E-ceilidhs instead of at an English Country Dance.
Will the roving commision of the UN, under the intrepid Nayland Smith and Dr. Petrie be able to stop mass immigration and the insidous Dr. Fu Manchu in time??????????

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 11:58 AM

I've given several reasons here (non of them "racist", Joseph)

WAV: you said your concerns are that

trying to have a multiple number of cultures living under the on state law will always cause problems

and that
the resulting loss of local culture will be bad for society

You think it would have been better for England if many of the people of other cultures who have come here in the last 50 years had not done so. Correct?

The OED defines racism as "prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, especially those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being"

You are a racist. If you're unhappy about being called a racist, it's you who needs to change.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 11:29 AM

WAV, my question about Barabara Allen is why is it acceptable for you to sing an English variant of a Scottish song, but for an Englishman to sing something like House of the Rising Sun would be an abomination?

You haven't answered it.

Now, without ignoring that one, on to my other questions.

1) What do you think of Noel Coward, is his music not English?
2) explain in greater detail what you mean by nationalism with fair trade. Then again, maybe you have cause for retinence, hmmmm.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: irishenglish
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 11:03 AM

There is a broader scope for all of this, as Carol and others have mentioned, regarding, in my case, immigration and employment in the US that speaks to national policy. But one must not forget that for some jobs, although immigrants may be taking skilled jobs away from citizens, for others, they are tolling away in the lowest paid,most physically demanding, and most soul sucking jobs available in our workforce. In other words, they are taking a lot of the jobs, and hours that most of us would have no desire to take all for the most meager salary, with no benefits, and with long, gruelling hours. The guilt, I have always felt belongs in part to the employers who sustain that aspect of our workforce, as well as to the mentality that I have heard many times, even from some people I know, to "hire some Mexicans, they'll do anything for the money." Like professionals in the Olympics, there are too many loopholes existent that are punishing the wrong people.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 05:00 AM

"on the subject of immigrants to the US from Latin America, they are definitely competing for jobs with people born in the US in the area where I live, where they comprise most of the workforce in the building and flooring trades, and other carpentry related trades. There is a lot of resentment towards these immigrants from people who feel that they are unable to get good jobs in these trades because people are coming here from other countries and working for less than what people in this country can afford to work for."

That's interesting Carol, because it reminded me of America in the late 80s, before I emigrated to the UK (definitely NOT for economic reasons!). Before I left, when the Celtic Tiger had yet to roar, many of the people I knew doing the sorts of jobs you mention, as well as restaurant and bar work, in New York, New Jersey and even LA, were illegal Irish immigrants. Actually, "immigrants" probably isn't the right word, because most of them didn't intend to stay forever - like many of the young Poles currently living in the UK, they were there for a few years, making money, and intended eventually to return home. Most did - unless they happened to meet an American girl and settle in the US. But there were so many of them in America that the Morrison Visa lottery system was introduced.

In any case, the thing that's interesting is that there was no sense of resentment in the communities where they lived, even though the jobs they were doing could undoubtedly have been done by unemployed locals. I even knew illegal Irish who owned their own businesses and employed scores of illegal Irish labour - police turning a blind eye, by any chance?

My point is that, because the local communities felt a cultural affinity to the immigrants in question, they were welcomed into the community with open arms. The resentment you speak of, I think, is at least partly rooted in the sense of "otherness" which comes from people with different language and cultural practices. It's that sense of an alien invasion of sorts which makes people resentful - it's not just economics.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 04:15 AM

I've given several reasons here (non of them "racist", Joseph), and others elsewhere, why the world would be a better safer place if the UN agreed on the kind of Global Regualtionism I mention above - inluding economic immigration/emigration being illegalised. Yes, a lot of us are where we are in the world now due to the fact that it has been legal (if restricted) for many years - but that should NOT mean that we just have to continue to support it. Slave immigration/emigration was, of course, legal for a long time - it still goes on, e.g., for prostitution, but most are now heavily against it.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Joseph P
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 03:49 AM

CarolC, your point against economic migration is completely different in sentiment and content to the originator of this thread (WAV). Your point there shows a specific example where certain unfavourable conditions have led to migration, in turn creating further problems for all. What WAV is arguing is that economic migration is bad because cultures cannot and should not mix. The two sentiments are very different.

I am not pro-immigration as such, but when I see what I see as racist motivations behind an anti immigration policy or argument, I have to point it out for what it is!

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 11:37 PM

By the way, on the subject of immigrants to the US from Latin America, they are definitely competing for jobs with people born in the US in the area where I live, where they comprise most of the workforce in the building and flooring trades, and other carpentry related trades. There is a lot of resentment towards these immigrants from people who feel that they are unable to get good jobs in these trades because people are coming here from other countries and working for less than what people in this country can afford to work for.

This is what's wrong with economic imperialism. The US undercuts the ability of people in Latin America to make a living by flooding the markets there with subsidized corn and other things, and the workers there are forced to seek employment in the US, which forces the workers in this country to have to work for less than a living wage. In this respect, I am in complete agreement with the sentiments of the thread originator.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 08:10 PM

A most interesting and informative article, Pip. Thank you.

There is much in it that I need to absorb yet, but obviously the problem is considerably more complex than I was aware of. However, with a measure of good will on both sides (a commodity hard come by these days), it would seem that the problem could be solved with some serious negotiation. But then, so could most of the world's problems!

I do not see, however, that these difficulties justify closing international borders to immigration. The advantages far outweigh the occasional problem that manifests itself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 05:19 PM

Don - the French law relates to the non-religious character of the state, which they take a bit further than the similar US idea - the idea is that when you're on state property you shouldn't assert any religious allegiance (so no crucifixes in school, and no hijabs). More background here.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 05:08 PM

Don, one thing to remember is that a lot of state schools in Europe (including the UK) have uniforms, and therefore a uniforms policy. When these cases arise, they usually result from a violation of the uniform policy - extending a privelege to those of a religious persuasion which isn't enjoyed by the rest of the school body. If certain forms of self-expression are denied to the rest of the kids, one could argue, why are some forms allowed to others?

Whether you think freedom of religious expression is sufficiently important to warrant the relaxation of the school rules for some pupils is probably a separate issue, but I personally support the basic principle of school uniforms.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 04:43 PM

I'm glad someone likes my posts. I hope people can see that it is possible to discuss these issues and even disagree about them without attacking or even discussing the originator of the thread. In my opinion, it's a lot more productive to discuss the issues rather than discussing the people who are discussing the issues.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 04:20 PM

Excellent posts, Carol!

Regarding discrimination against immigrants from Latin America, you say, "This is because they are largely from the lower levels of the social/economic strata and they compete with the people here for jobs."

I would add that, for the most part, this discrimination is unfounded, because most of the jobs they take are the menial, low-paying jobs that most Americans, even those in fairly desperate straits, simple will not take. Most Americans would find wearing a paper hat and asking "Do you want fries with that?" is acceptable, but swabbing out toilets in public rest rooms is not, even though the two jobs might pay the same. Or the classic, farm labor, down and dirty, all day long in the blazing sun. You'll find a whole lot more Gomezes and Moraleses out in the fields and orchards than you will Smiths and Joneses.

And WAV,

". . . what about the law of the land matching the culture. Examples such as the following sometimes make the news here - a school with a strict no-jewellery policy (similar to all French schools now having a no-veil policy, I think) ends up in court because a student insists that a bracelet is very important to her culture and religion. . . ."

First of all, such things as the French school regulations are, as I understand it, not the law of the land, they are regulations of the schools themselves, and they tend to be arbitrary and draconian. Even if they were the law of the land, they would still be arbitrary and draconian, and since it can be construed as a form of religious oppression (forbidding the wearing of jewelry, such as a necklace with a cross, or items such as a yarmulke or a headscarf), that is what needs to be addressed.

I would object to a tax-supported educational institution promoting or suppressing any expression of a student's religious belief as long as that expression was passive, such as the wearing of a headscarf. Proselytizing, either by the student or by the school, would be another matter. But how does a student wearing a yarmulke in class affect any other student—unless that student it bothers harbors the seeds of religious bigotry?

And WAV, the idea you have that the United Nations should regulate immigration/emigration, especially for economic reasons (the individual or family seeking a better life than what is possible for them in their country of origin) shows that you have little or no understanding of what the UN is all about.

I would like to see a world in which such things as passports, border guards, check points, and barbed wire fences are simply eliminated and people can come and go anywhere they want, anytime they want.

I don't anticipate this happening in my lifetime, but being (for some bizarre and unfounded reason) optimistic about the future of humankind, I think that time will come.

After all, science has found the missing link between early primates and Civilized Man.

It is us.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:28 PM

The OED says:

"prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, especially those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being"

I stand by what I said.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 03:14 PM

That's a good point. I should have said that a lot of people convert from one religion to another, or to no religion at all without ever leaving their area of origin. And this does cause conflicts between the various groups without immigration being a part of the equation.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 02:46 PM

"This is because in a culturally homogeneous area, the local culture is so taken for granted, it is quickly discarded in favor of the new. But where there is a variety of cultures all in the same place, everyone becomes more keenly aware of their own culture of origin, and they are much more likely to embrace it and preserve it."

That is an astute observation, Carol. I think that's exactly what we're observing in multi-cultural England right now, in both a positive and a negative way.

"Examples such as the following sometimes make the news here - a school with a strict no-jewellery policy (similar to all French schools now having a no-veil policy, I think) ends up in court because a student insists that a bracelet is very important to her culture and religion"

what about those cases where the religion being defended is Christianity? There have been several. So does that mean that Christianity is in conflict with the law of the land?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 02:44 PM

Look up your dictionary, Pip, and you'll find it's something quite different from the questioning of immigration you just re-posted.
Volgadon - you say I don't when I do answer your questions, e.g., over "Barbara Allen," which may be one from my repertoiree that I choose to sing at a singaround tonight - the English version, i.e.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 02:35 PM

It's not possible to prevent such occurances even if immigration is not allowed. People often convert to other religions without ever leaving their locality of origin, so such problems will arise regardless of whether or not there is immigration.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 02:09 PM

WAV, nice job of ignoring my questions. Are you going to answer, do you have something to hide, or do you simply not know how to explain things beyond writing a sentance or two on your site?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 02:04 PM

there IS a difference between questioning immigration and being a racist

You've said this many times, but I don't think you've persuaded anyone yet. The problem is, WAV, that people who feel that trying to have a multiple number of cultures living under the on state law will always cause problems, or that the resulting loss of local culture will be bad for society are racist - that's almost a definition of racism.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 01:36 PM

But Carol and Volgadon - what about the law of the land matching the culture. Examples such as the following sometimes make the news here - a school with a strict no-jewellery policy (similar to all French schools now having a no-veil policy, I think) ends up in court because a student insists that a bracelet is very important to her culture and religion...and cases can, of course, get a lot more serious than this. Why doesn't everyone agree that, given all the economic immigration that has occurred around the world, it's definitely better overall if it is, from now on, slowed right down, via UN regulations.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 01:07 PM

People also don't feel like they are being forced into a particular culture, so are more liekly to choose their own than reject it as an act of rebellion.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 01:00 PM

Also, when I have lived in areas that were extremely homogeneous (where almost everyone was White and Protestant), the local culture had a greater tendency to give way to bland, corporate popular culture than areas that had a lot of different cultures living together. This is because in a culturally homogeneous area, the local culture is so taken for granted, it is quickly discarded in favor of the new. But where there is a variety of cultures all in the same place, everyone becomes more keenly aware of their own culture of origin, and they are much more likely to embrace it and preserve it. So I would say that mixing cultures in a particular geographic area is the best way to preserve the cultures of many localities.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 12:50 PM

"Why don't you at least admit that it is possible for someone who genuinely does like the world being multicultural to not like economic immigration"

Becuase you like the WORLD to be multicultural only as long as it doesn't try and make it's way to your doorstep.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 12:49 PM

I think that the inclination for people to move to other countries will diminish if and when there is more economic equality between the various nations of the world. I also agree that the need for people to move to other countries because of economic need is unfortunate. I don't agree that mixing cultures within any given country is the cause of the problems that we see in those countries where such mixing occurs. I think the problems are the result of institutionalized discrimination in those countries.

As a for instance, here in the US, there is little or no friction between immigrants from Muslim countries and the rest of the population. That is because, until recently, this country didn't practice discrimination against Muslims, and because the Muslim immigrants to this country came from the higher social/economic strata of their countries of origin. In parts of Europe, they have come more from the middle and lower strata, and they have been very much discriminated against (as are most immigrants from lower levels of the social strata), causing unrest and friction between them and the rest of the population of their adopted country. Also, the lower levels of the social/economic strata are have less job security and when they have to compete with immigrants for jobs, there is friction.

The people in this country that one hears the most about with regard to friction are the immigrants from the countries of Latin America. This is because they are largely from the lower levels of the social/economic strata and they compete with the people here for jobs. They also experience more discrimination than immigrants from some countries.

This is not because different cultures cannot live side by side. It is because people are in the habit of sticking with the familiar. This is something that is changed over time with exposure to those who are different.

So from my perspective, the answer to the problem is greater economic equality and greater equality of opportunity everywhere. The solution to that is in large part the end of economic imperialism. We are in agreement on that. But we disagree about whether or not different cultures can live together in peace. My experience has been that they can, provided everyone has the same opportunities and receives the same treatment.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 12:48 PM

"Volgadon: I did answer your questions,"

Then where have you explained in greater detail what you mean by nationalism with fair trade, where have you answered my Noel Coward question, where have you addressed why it is acceptable for you to sing a Scottish song, yet others shouldn't an American one?

My English Dictionary is going superbly. Do you want to read an extract from the foreword?

You might find my style a little too conversational, WAV, but I don't see why a dictionary has to be a dull doorstopper.


The English language is rich and varied. In England alone there are around sixty different dialects, as well as numerous regional varieties throughout the world. Most of those variances can be traced to different traditions in the British Isles before standardisation began in the 18th century. The peculiar nature of the English langue is, perhaps, best demonstrated by the following saying. English does not borrow from other languages- English follows other languages don dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
A people's history is often best told by their language. English is no exception.
Germanic in origin, it absorbed many of the idionsyncrancies of various Celtic languages, Norman French, Latin, Dutch, as well as Hindi, through a long, shared history.
Each encounter has enrichened our vocabulary and culture.
In this dictionary, as well as standard British forms, we have chosen, when appropriate, to present some variations which have or have had wide currency, as well as some historical oddities.

All that remains is to write the confounded thing!

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 12:46 PM

You already have posted them on your own website. You've reposted them here in many cases repeatedly and linked your crap ad infinitum.

Nothing new and nothing related to any real folklore or the music now is there? Just one little man's opinions repeated in verse (and also prose) over and over. Note that we don't do that even for performing artists here. Why repost?

Yeah......I know I don't have to open it but then again you don't have to post it. You got your own site for all your crap, just link it one more time and call it a day.

BTW, this is definitely BS.

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 12:26 PM

Time and time again, some of you pro-immigrationists, in desperation, try and label anyone who dares to question immigration as a bigot or a racist - and time and time again I've tried to make it clear that there IS a difference between questioning immigration and being a racist. Why don't you at least admit that it is possible for someone who genuinely does like the world being multicultural to not like economic immigration - e.g., Joseph, because they feel that trying to have a multiple number of cultures living under the on state law will always cause problems, or that the resulting loss of local culture will be bad for society, or that a given nation is already over-crowded, etc.
Go through all I've published on the web, and you'll only find repeated questioning of immigration - you will NOT, Spaw, find any racist or defamatory attacks on any given person or people ("IT'S a fact").
(And this is usually where the thread gets closed, but I hope not this time, as there are many other topics/Weekly Walkabouts I'd like post for discussion.)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Joseph P
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 11:59 AM

"I'm sure, Joseph, that economic/capitalist/money immigration/emigration is not a good think for several reasons."

Another unjustified comment, with no proof. Is it not a good thing for the individual, the area the individual has left or the area the individual has gone to? What are the pros and cons resulting from emigration for each of these? Balance these up, ideally with lots of supporting evidence and examples, then you can say whether it is a bad or good thing, then you can hold a justified opinion.

What is good anyway? Good for culture, the economy, happiness, infrastructure, environment? Its no black and white issue (or maybe it is :-p )

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 09:08 AM

I am continuously amazed at the number of ways and the terminology used by Wavydoof to mask his bigotry and racism,

WAV......You are a bigot and a racist. This is not an attack upon you.......Its a fact.

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 08:14 AM

I'm sure, Joseph, that economic/capitalist/money immigration/emigration is not a good think for several reasons. I'm equally sure, though, that genuine asylum seekers should be helped, again via the UN, to their NEAREST safe nation.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Joseph P
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 07:41 AM

You argue on the one hand to reduce immigration for economical reasons, but then that England was better in the 1950s due to it's cultural purity.

The two are completely separate issues, but arguments citing economical reasons are often made by people with a more sinister agenda, and more often than not, the arguments made are unfounded.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 06:14 AM

"It's too late to stop immigration of any kind, economic or otherwise (not that I would want to stop it, myself). That horse has left the barn. But it is possible to make it easier for people to stay in their own countries (because most people would prefer to live well in their own countries than to move to other countries for economic reasons), and this is what we should be doing." (Carol)...yes and no: it would be great if the inequality between nations began to greatly reduce - but capitalist/economic immigration/emigration IS not going to aid this process. If politicians in London, e.g., talk about quality and skilled immigrants, then the gap between our nation and the poorer nations will increase. We need my above GLOBAL REGULATIONISM, via a stronger UN (NOT US - we've had heaps of next-US-leader coverage here in England, but got hardly any about the newish UN leader).
And I say capitalist/economic immigration/emigration, Don, to distinguish it from other kinds - such as couples falling in love on holiday, medical reasons, etc.
And a couple of other critical posts (Don, Ruth!) since my last ignored the fact that it IS the act of immigration/emigration itself that I repeatedly question - and NOT any particular culture/race. I really do love the world being multicultural and again see REGULATIONISM as the good peaceful solution to keep it so.
Anyway, at least I didn't log-in to "WAVe couldn't rule a straight line"!

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 01:35 AM

"the criterion I use for whether I learn a song or not is simply that I like the song and want to sing it. I sing folk songs, but I do not consider myself to be a "folk singer." A "singer of folk songs," perhaps. But not all of the songs I sing are folk songs."

Me too - I'm a muso - maybe a 'folkie', but definitely a muso - I even do 'Classical' stuff.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 10:57 PM

When a person is urban born, grows up listening to popular music on the radio (whatever the current fads happen to be), then becomes interested in folk music from going to a concert, hearing a recording, or through a friend—then developes that interest by learning to play a guitar, banjo, or whatever, and learning a bunch of songs from song books and records—I have always taken a dim view of calling such a person a "folk singer." Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always considered a folk singer to be someone who was born and raised in the tradition like, say, Jean Ritchie, Frank Proffitt, or Jeanne Robertson.

This is essentially how my interest developed way back, and I think this is also true for the vast majority if people here on Mudcat. Am I (are we) keeping "the Tradition" alive? And if so, what tradition is that?

Contrary to WAV, I sing songs from a whole variety of "traditions." English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, songs from all over the United States and Canada, and I manage to wrap my mouth around a bit of French, Serbo-Croatian, and Czech. In fact, the criterion I use for whether I learn a song or not is simply that I like the song and want to sing it. I sing folk songs, but I do not consider myself to be a "folk singer." A "singer of folk songs," perhaps. But not all of the songs I sing are folk songs.

Music—of all kinds—is a universal language. And songs are too, even when we may not understand the language in which a song is sung. It can still convey emotions and communicate. Placing limitations on what people should or should not sing is something I simply refuse to accept, and I will not be bound by any one tradition or culture.

Borders between countries are man-made and artificial. Astronauts have remarked that, from space, you can see no borders.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: RobbieWilson
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 07:52 PM

One thing that is fairly evident about the fifties is that culture in the UK was much narrower than nowadays; in that most of the culture accorded popular value here was American: Movies, music, food, drinks, clothes

I think this touches on a couple of the running sores (or discussions as they are sometimes described here. One is that people blithely talk about traditional music as if it was obvious or agreed what a tradition is. Most of the tales of traditional music described in this forum have no basis in tradition at all. Tradition is something continuous which you are brought up within and pass on. It is not about how old the music is. It certainly has nothing to do with how the rich and powerful divide us up at any given moment in time.

When you research and learn a song which was sung by people in a different context in a different era there is no element of tradition in this, whether the songs come from the place you were born or not. It may be a fascinating and interesting intelectual excercise but it has nothing to do with tradition, yet so many people in here get self-righteous about the authenticity of their keeping "The Tradition" alive..

My fathers family all worked in the Clyde Shipyards. I have no knowledge of any link to the Lords, Ladies, Kings, Queens, ploughmen, Shepherds, Sailors or Dragoons who inhabit the so called Traditional songs of whichever country you would care to assign me to ( Wilson is an English name, 2 of my grandparents were Irish) My daughters were both born in England. Which Tradition would you wish me to pass on to them?

My father taught me, among many other things, Tom Paxton songs which I have passed on to my daughters. I have learned Archie Fisher and Ewan McColl songs to keep alive the memory of socialist, working people; that is my history, even if some of it is set in Spain, Salford or Chile.

For the past 20 years I have been very interested in the history of old songs. I have even learned a few. I found that most of the songs which I think of as Traditional Scottish are nothing of the sort but were the popular mass entertainments of 2 generations before mine; pre tv music halls and theatres.   However I learned them singing at my Grandparents' houses where we would have big family get togethers at New Year; community singing. That was one of our traditions, shared by a lot of Scottish people. I was brought up with a love of music by my parents and their families. I was brought up in a tradition of getting together and singing or playing anything you could. We spent so long doing it that to find a song which no-one had yet sung different generations would have to sing things from their own era as well as the songs we all shared. Many of the songs I think of as American, or Irish, or English are in fact Scottish in origin but my singing them is not continuation of any Scottish tradition.   I recently relearned an old American folk song " Mr Froggy went a courting", passed on to me by my Dad from Burl Ives in the sixties but reinforced by Tom and Jerry in the seventies. It is only through Mudcat that I now know this song to be a very old Scottish song. The oldest song which I sing ( I think) is Lord Randall an ancient precursor of many songs down the centuries but I picked it up from Pete Morton, a young man from Leicester and one of the few people I have heard over the years who really can make the old multiverse ballads come to life.   

For centuries music has been used to undermine boundaries of politics and class. However there have always been people like WAV who try to use it in the opposite direction -Keep the poor people of the world in their place/country, pretend that this is the natural order of things. Music lasts as it moves round the world and down generations because it speaks universal truths. Borders and populations come and go to reflect the power politics of a moment.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 07:30 PM

It's too late to stop immigration of any kind, economic or otherwise (not that I would want to stop it, myself). That horse has left the barn. But it is possible to make it easier for people to stay in their own countries (because most people would prefer to live well in their own countries than to move to other countries for economic reasons), and this is what we should be doing.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 07:25 PM

"Xenophobia, Ruth, is a fear or hatred of aliens/strangers,"

it is equally xenophobic to say "foreigners are fine - I just don't want them in my street/neighbourhood/country. Let them stay where they come from/belong."

Just as it is homophobic to say "homosexuals are fine - I just don't want to have to see them."

Both are about artificially preserving an illusion of homogeneity and "safety" within a majority population. Both are equally deluded and prejudicial.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 07:10 PM

In a debate in Parliament around 1945, one MP was heard to rant, "We've got to keep those wogs on their own side of the Channel!"

WAV, it would appear, echoes that sentiment.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 06:50 PM

And of course it's that same imperialism that resulted in the arrival in England of those awful people with their objectionably brown skins
no, wait...
heathen religions
er...
funny cooking
how shall I put this...
foreign wonts. Because, let's face it, if there's one thing we can't be doing with here in tolerant liberal England, it's foreign wonts.