The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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 (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 (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: 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 - 05:20 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: catspaw49
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 05:38 PM

Good job there Pip!

Now that its been factually and logically decided and determined that Wavyboy is obviously a racist, how about we look up "Dipstick" and/or "Brokedick Jadrool" so that these terms might also be used freely?

That's not an attack. I'm simply hoping and trying to define terms...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 10:33 PM

Well, lemme see. "Dipstick" was a cartoon duck in a short-lived comic strip by a local cartoonist in one of the Seattle papers. Dipstick wasn't like Donald Duck. He wore a jacket and what looked like a derby hat, spent most of his time sitting on the end of a dock on the waterfront and commenting on the news of the day. He appeared on the editorial page rather than the regular comic page. He had a sort of semi-human appearing buddy named Cecil Addle (Get it? C. Addle.)

I think he got his name from coming out second best in too many encounters with oil-spills.

Anybody have a good definition for the word "dork?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 11:08 PM

walkabout
>>>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.

Pip
>>>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.<<<

He certainly is not from this quote. What he is saying is that they are not a part of English culture. Which is true. True but not racist.

I find keeping people out to protect English culture a bit daft at this point because modern English culture certainly includes such things as south Asian curry shops. But that alone would qualify as proof as racism.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 11:32 PM

I don't think it's racism either. The desire is to preserve English culture in England. An appreciation for other cultures has been expressed by the one articulating this desire numerous times. The difference is that the thread originator is concerned that English culture will die out (not that other cultures are not as valid as English culture), and the belief is that stopping some kinds of immigration will prevent this from happening. I don't happen to agree with this idea myself, but it's not racist.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:33 AM

I am sure its 220!

220 is right
At this time of night
Later you'll see
Its all about ME!!!

The OCness of Boredom


Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:20 AM

Its plain to see that what the devil will do with idle hands.

For the sake of peace and harmony on the Mudcat I just wish that more threads were closer to one hundred.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:26 AM

"The difference is that the thread originator is concerned that English culture will die out (not that other cultures are not as valid as English culture), and the belief is that stopping some kinds of immigration will prevent this from happening. I don't happen to agree with this idea myself, but it's not racist."

The politics of seige have been used in many places to justify bigotry. The "our culture is under threat" chestnut is a favourite of the BNP.

"I love our world being multi-cultural", but not wanting to see any of that multiculturalism in England, is one of the most fundamental tenets of xenophobia: "I don't mind them, as long as they're not over here."

I'm afraid I disagree with you, Carol. I think these views are not only racist, but they are of a particularly nasty variety, as they try and couch themselves under a veneer of acceptability.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:00 AM

The BNP supporting a position does not automatically make it racist.

Wanting to preserve one's culture certainly is not. Though racist politicians may use that argument when less palatable ones prove unpopular.

On the other hand, isn't all the talk about racism here an attempt to stop the poetry? Racist talk is banned on the Mudcat. If WalkaboutsVerse says something blatantly racist on this forum, y'all can ask the moderators to delete it. On the other hand, the harmless descriptions of geographical English blandness, seem to be drawing a very high level on hostility. They also seem to be drawing a high number of personal attacks from at least one esteemed member. Its making us all look a little childish.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:15 AM

I agree that racists definitely couch their racism in that kind of terminology. But racists have universal contempt for people and cultures other than their own. The person who started this thread has expressed appreciation and admiration for many cultures other than his own, many of which are non-white cultures, which are the most hated by racists. For pete sake, just look at his myspace friends...

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=167864750


As I said before, I don't agree with the methods proposed, but wishing to preserve one's own culture is not racism.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:16 AM

By the way, I notice that someone with moderator powers has altered the contents of the link in the opening post in this thread.

---

Noted and repaired.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:44 AM

racists have universal contempt for people and cultures other than their own

Some racists may do, but most don't. Racists divide the world into their own race/ethnicity/culture and other races/ethnicities/cultures, and see other cultures as a threat to their own. Even the white South African government used to proclaim its respect and admiration for black culture - they just thought it was best if black and white cultures were kept separate (which is the meaning of the 'apart' in Apartheid).

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:01 AM

They did a lot more than keep Blacks and Whites separate. They completely subjugated the indigenous Black population and rendered them effectively captive in their own lands. That's an entirely different kettle of fish than someone saying they'd like to preserve their own culture in the location from which it sprang.

Another thing racists don't do is seek out people of cultures other than their own (because they consider them inferior), unlike the person who started this thread.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:16 AM

Esteemed member? Me? Surely not. Although at one point early on I was enjoying a few shots at Walky, I have since even had posts deleted and have not posted anything attack-like since. Saying he's a racist and a bigot is not an attack. Ruth and Pip and others are not attacking the lad either. Simply stating an opinion that one considers true in even tones is not an attack. Walky says he believes his stuff and I don't feel he's attacking me by saying I am not telling the truth. Its his opinion.

And it was Walky himself who long ago made the subject matter of his poetry the topic of these threads.

228, now ain't that great
I couldn't wait til 228
Later you'll see
Its all about me.

The OCness of Boredom

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:55 AM

"a few shots at Walky" (Spaw)..well this has become something of a tennis/ping-pong thread...BS, Music, BS...(but I've had an email saying it's back down due to lack of verse, sorry Spaw - the next Weekly Walkabout will not be posted until Saturday...I wonder if we'll wander back up again?!).
As for the "shots" regarding racism, from Pip, Ruth, Spaw, etc., I will always respond as I know myself, and my genuine enjoyment of travelling and being in-among other cultures for a time. However, what Carol just said of me/answered for me is accurate, and I'll leave it at that on this occasion.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:34 AM

>>>Simply stating an opinion that one considers true in even tones is not an attack.

So if I were to observe that Walkabout's calm responses to your constant, yammering, and teasing is making you look like a desperate, screaming, playground bully, you would not perceive that as an attack? Because of course I would never voice such an opinion, even though I hold it, except as an illustration. Because such an attack, if I did voice it, would not hurt you so much as it would the harmony of this forum. I do not have the relish for making extra work for the moderators that some have demonstrated.

Though Spaw, you are not identifiable as the worst upsetter of this little apple-cart we lovingly call the 'Cat. That honor should be held for the "moderator" who abused his (not likely her) position to vandalize this thread. I don't care to speculate on who that might be.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:45 AM

Pip Radish
Ruth Archer

You are both making excellent points. I also think that Walkabouts has said some unfortunate things which open him up to your accusations. I don't see what you two are doing as attacks, because they clearly are not meant that way. You are rightfully offended by his words. I don't think it is likely that you will get him to admit to racism though, I don't think he believes that he is racist, which may be understandable, because I am not completely convinced that he is racist. For the purpose of peace and harmony, I would like to respectfully suggest that now might be the time for you two to drop the subject of racism.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 06:16 AM

You're probably right, Jack. I know how pointless these threads are - I keep returning to them in the way you keep prodding a sore tooth with your tongue...

I know that the sensible thing to do is to walk away, because WAV won't ever change his opinions on any of these topics, no matter how many very clever people (I'm not including myself, but referring to some of our esteemed colleagues) present evidence that there is no cultural or historical foundation for many of the beliefs which inform his world view. My instinct is always to confront bigotry, and bigotry is what I see in WAV's views - and while he insists on repeating those views ad infinitum, it is very hard not to challenge them.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: irishenglish
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:16 AM

I prefer to challenge WAV on some of his more outrageous claims of musical issues. He can have all the aboriginal and Native American friends on myspace he wants, but he somehow (because he has never answered this point to me)believes that music has border checkpoints, that there is no cross pollinization, something which I believe Don Firth also pointed out. WAV has what he feels should be the strictest of all rules for English traditional music, yet he ignores the wise advice given to him by professional musicians who have countered his assertions. Again to WAV I quote Dave Swarbrick-you can do anything you want with music, it doesn't mind. That's the policy I stick with when I here such rigidity from the mind of WAV. Enjoy the music, promote it, share it with others. But to govern it WAV? Sorry, but I don't think it needs your type of governance.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:44 AM

Also a valid point Irishenglish, but one I've read a number of times and not just from you. Maybe he just is not interested in your opinion.

He has shared his opinions you all have shared yours with him. I'm not an expert myself, but I'm fairly confident that his musical ability is not such that droves of young musicians will be emulating him and following him like some pied piper of musical values. So maybe its time to let that subject drop as well.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:56 AM

My last post to any of your threads for any reason at any time.

WAV, I believe you are exactly what I have said and you cloak it in the aura of something else. You say otherwise but I don't believe it.

I'm off your self aggrandizing threads for good.

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: irishenglish
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:02 AM

No offense Jack, but its not up to you to tell me to drop the subject. I'll keep trying to prod answers out of WAV, and whether you seek to read the process is up to you.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:07 AM

No offense taken by be no offense meant to you. I'm just asking nicely, make your point once, or ten thousand times, its up to you. You are doing nothing wrong. It just seems tedious to me, and pointless, thats all. It looks like talking to a wall.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:12 AM

Ruth - as I've said before, you're someone who doesn't like immigration being questioned, so you try and label anyone who does as a bigot or a racist. And, when they give genuine non-racist reasons for doing so, you talk about what's underlying. Further, if you scroll back, this topic came up again when I frankly answered a question on it again, and my responses are somewhat repetative because the questions/accusations are.
Perhaps everyone who has posted here AGREES on liking our world being multicultural - the dispute is over whether trying to have a multiple number of cultures living under the one state law is a good idea, and whether immigration should be more restricted/regulated (I've said via a stronger UN). My concerns are certainly not just over England, by the way, I genuinely don't like moneyed English, Germans, etc. pricing young Spanish couples out of the Spanish property market - and, if I VISIT Spain again as a respectful TOURIST, I'd like another taste of SPANISH culture whilst there, frankly.
"believes that music has border checkpoints"...I believe, IE, there is more-and-more blending of cultures, globalisation, Americanisation; and, as I do like our world being multicultural, I'm at least trying to do something about it - as 50s and 60s folk-club organisers here did when they encouraged/insisted on folks performing music from their own culture.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:24 AM

The reason I haven't given up on WAV (yet) is that I don't believe he's a lost cause. It seems obvious to me that he holds views that are grounded in racism; I'm hoping that something that one of us says will make him realise this and reflect on it, rather than taking his usual approach of redefining 'racist' so that it won't apply to him.

I've also got a personal interest, as my wife's parents were both born a long way away & grew up speaking languages other than English. WAV seems to be saying that it would have been better for English culture if my wife's parents had never come here, in which case she would have been born somewhere else and I'd never have met her. Now, I love English culture, but I also love my wife, and I'm personally affronted by the idea that she's alien to it - she's part of it, just as much as I am.

I'm sure WAV will say that he's not thinking of people like my wife, but I can't see on what basis. If you want fewer foreigners to come here, that must mean you think it was a bad thing that so many foreigners have come here. People like my wife's parents.

So, WAV, a simple question, which you can answer in one word. 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?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Joseph P
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:28 AM

I will say this for the last time, forgetting the race issue, forgetting the migration issue, Culture does not equal nationality. This is a fact.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:29 AM

"Ruth - as I've said before, you're someone who doesn't like immigration being questioned, so you try and label anyone who does as a bigot or a racist."

I am happy for real dialogue to take place, WAV, but you are not interested in real dialogue. You repeat the same points endlessly; you try to ringfence music and culture; whenever anyone points out the mistakes you've made in your reasoning, or the factual inaccuracies inherent in your attempt to invent a culturally pure version of Englishness, you ignore them or post yet another link to your website.

You do not approve of immigration to the UK because you feel economically threatened by it, and because you are afraid of English culture being damaged or diluted by the presence of other cultures. Read the OED definition again, WAV. Regardless of my own feelings on immigration, the dictionary defines this position as a racist one. Your response is to dismiss the OED definition.

There's only one person who's in denial here.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:47 AM

Yes, Pip - but the particular country of origin does NOT matter to me (no need for you to list that few), except to say that genuine asylum seekers should be helped to their NEAREST safe country. And not just "cuturally" but socially as well - I believe the cliche of elders that they used to be able to leave their house-doors open. However, the most important thing is, given all the immigration that has occurred world-wide, what's best from now on - which brings us back to my last Weekly Walkabout, among others, "Global Regulationism."

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Paul Burke
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:58 AM

Perhaps everyone who has posted here AGREES on liking our world being multicultural

I really don't think there is any realistic prospect of the world becoming monocultural.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:01 AM

"You do not approve of immigration to the UK" (Ruth)...I don't approve of the UK (as mentioned in the "No Football Olympics" below): the UK, The Commonwealth, The EU, etc. should all be dissolved - apart from some local government within nations, all we all need is our own nation and the United Nations. And England should continue to accept it's share of genuine asylum seekers, in line with my last post, and some immigration (medical, love/marriage, etc.) but NOT economic/capitalist immigration.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:21 AM

Yes, Pip - but the particular country of origin does NOT matter to me (no need for you to list that few)

Thanks for answering the question. I listed the countries and regions from which most immigrants have come to England, since about 50 years ago, when mass immigration began in your words.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:21 AM

One thing needs to be done in the world, and it would permanently solve the problems that arise from economically-inspired immigration (the movement of vast numbers of people from impoverished areas of he world to richer areas of the world).

That one thing would be to provide a decent standard of living and equally good employment opportunities and equally good social justice to people in every part of the world.

That would be the real solution. That would be the enlightened solution.

It hasn't been attempted, however, because humanity is presently disunited, divided against one another, and ruled by various elites of oligarchs, captains of industry and commerce...robber barons who prefer things just the way they are now...so they can get even richer.

And there is your problem, in a nutshell. We need world liberation from the forces presently running the show.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:23 AM

Nicely avoided, WAV. The POINT of my message was that "You do not approve of immigration to the UK because you feel economically threatened by it, and because you are afraid of English culture being damaged or diluted by the presence of other cultures."

By this criteria, using the OED definition, you are a racist. It is not your "questioning of immigration" which makes you so, it is the grounds upon which that questioning is based.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Mr Happy
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:47 AM

.............hmmmnnnnnnnn, that's the trouble with having holidays abroad, there's far too many foreigners there!!

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:08 AM

Actually, Ruth, people are economically threatened when very large numbers of immigrants from impoverished societies come into a wealthier society and are willing to work jobs at a wretchedly low levels of pay and under wretchedly bad conditions.

That kind of thing has always caused great social stress in any society where it occurred, not just in the UK, but everywhere, and it hurts many people (both locals and immigrants)...but it plays into the hands of the employers and industrialists, because:

1. they want to keep wages down
2. they want cheap labour who will put up with bad working conditions
3. they want to keep a certain number of people unemployed at all times, because that puts the public at their mercy, so to speak, and people will then accept marginal employment, low wages, and bad conditions, because they have no choice.

To oppose that sort of thing is natural, and it has nothing to do with racism (although it often results in a racist reaction setting in amongst some local people who aren't very deep thinkers). It has to do with general human rights and workers rights all over the world.

I think you are just becoming emotionally wedded to your own past arguments on this thread to the extent now that you have to prove it to yourself that WAV is a "racist", otherwise your past argument would be "wrong"! And that would trouble your ego, wouldn't it?

On the other hand, maybe WAV is a diabolically clever closet racist who has deliberately set this entire discussion up just so that Ruth and Little Hawk and various other forum members can disagree over it and end up hating each other! ;-) (and now the paranoia REALLY sets in...OUCH!)

Yeah, well, anything's possible, isn't it? I haven't read enough of this thread to be sure about it one way or another, but I don't think it's wise or judicious to label other people as "racists". I really don't. Not unless you are 100 % sure, and maybe not even then.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:15 AM

To oppose that sort of thing is natural, and it has nothing to do with racism

I entirely agree. You're describing opposition to immigration on economic grounds - which isn't racist. WAV is expressing opposition to immigration on cultural grounds - which is.

I don't think it's wise or judicious to label other people as "racists"

If someone expresses what I think are Christian or Marxist or Tory views, I'm quite likely to comment that I think they're a Christian or a Marxist or a Tory. WAV has expressed what I think are racist views.