The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 11:52 AM

I ... say assimilation and greater restriction/regulation of immigration

And around we go again. Some way up thread, I asked you "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?" You answered "Yes".

Now, if you believe 'mass immigration' has been bad for English culture and should have been limited, you must believe that individual men and women should have been prevented from coming here: there's no other way to limit immigration. And if you think that, then you must think that English culture would be in a better state if those men and women weren't here.

What am I missing? How am I misinterpreting you?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: irishenglish
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 10:31 AM

That's pedantic bullshit WAV. Helped-Returned. Either way you are saying that genuine asylum seekers should be brought to another place nearest to where they are from-correct? There absolutely IS contradiction in the two statements you made that I quoted. England should continue to accept its share of genuine asylum seekers AND genuine asylum seekers should be helped to their nearest safe country. CONTRADICTION. Examples? Where have you explained what you mean by nearest? I asked for a specific example-you offered me none. You answered my question with the question itself. THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER. How about this then. I'll answer the question. You can't answer my questions because you don't know the answers. Theories are fine, I have my own. But if you cannot, or are unwilling to back them up with precedent, then you will not convince me of anything. I repeat-ANYTHING.

And Volgadon and Joseph are spot on regarding a post war European Jewish nation WAV. Maybe the Gypsy's should have been given a European nation too WAV. Lets see, you have Gypsies from Romania, Hungary, Spain, France....oh yeah, that makes complete sense. After all, they are all Gypsy's right? They all should be placed together.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:47 AM

So, you admit to not even knowing what the sons were playing. Various forms of American music are only part of the influences hat made up pop. I would go so far as to say that pop owes just as much to Britain as it does to the USA.
To my ears, this really doesn't sound very American at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQAR-nx4w88
Or this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3gX47rHGg&feature=related

So, if the Jews were given their own nation within Europe, where does that leave the Jews of Morroco, Algiera, Kurdistan and Yemen, to name but a few?
And no, I don't agree that they should have been given a nation within Europe.
Anyway, what would it depend on?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Joseph P
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:31 AM

"but do you agree that, after the war, the Jewish people probably should have been given their own nation within Europe? "

What the f***? There were Jewish Germans, Jewish Poles, Jewish etc etc, not just Jews.

And what country does 'folk' belong to? Oh, sorry, none of them.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:22 AM

Volgadon...I seem to recall someone had mentioned 2 sons in a pop band, and pop is one of the American genres of music. "What was nearest for a Jew in the 1930s?"...That would depend, and I think you would know more about that than me, frankly, but do you agree that, after the war, the Jewish people probably should have been given their own nation within Europe?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:58 AM

What was nearest for a Jew in the 1930s?

Sounds like one of two possibilities. One, either you have no idea what UB40 plays and thus spoke out of ignorance, or two, you were saying that reggae is American.

"Subject: RE: Ian Campbell to retire
From: WalkaboutsVerse - PM
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:15 AM

Like Ewan MacColl, I think Ian has a great gritty folk voice; but it's a shame if his sons have indeed gone into American pop rather than English folk."

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:48 AM

"What's wrong WAV-no answer for me?" (IE)...there was no contradiction and I DID explain what I meant by "nearest"...then you went on about "returning" which I hadn't said anything about.
And, Ruth, I never said reggae was American, either - but it's from the Caribbean, which is part of the Americas.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:20 AM

How is reggae American, or is that your shorthand for 'music I don't like', WAV?

Has anyone seen the French film The Adventures of Rabbi Jacob?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: irishenglish
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 08:02 AM

What's wrong WAV-no answer for me?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:56 AM

Sorry Pip - you said "mix" not "blend" and I - and even, to a lesser extent, New (Scottish) Labour, after a decade of pro-immigrationism/celebrating the diverse state - say assimilation and greater restriction/regulation of immigration: for several (NOT one, as you just suggested) reasons (above and here).
"cultural chauvinism" (Jack!)...that's NOT me either - I love the world being multiculatural and cetainly don't want what some Victorians may have - a world full of English-like men and women.
"cultural isolationism" (Ruth)...that's NOT me either - I'm saying fair-trade and eco-travel between nations (such as my 40 countries).
Stigweard - you clearly see yourself as Bittish and I as English. By the way, another reason for RESTRICTING myself to an English (or thereabouts) repertoire is because there is just so much good folk music out there, and I have only so much time and ability; however, my main one is that I think nationalism WITHOUT imperialism (e.g., English NOT Brittish) is good for humanity.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:42 AM

IE, that's not argument, it's just contradiction. :)

Is Fathom the Bowl Irish...?

Off to Whitby now. I hope Louis Killen sings some Irish songs. Play nicely...

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: irishenglish
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:11 AM

Once again WAV,

To IE - genuine asylum seekers should be helped, via the UN, to their NEAREST (particularly in terms of CULTURE) safe country. And the way the world is now, with almost global capitalism, one can say either capitalist or economic immigration/emigration

This is nothing resembling an answer to what I wrote. I asked you to give me an example, you have none forthcoming-I think because you honestly do not have an actual answer. That's why you quote verbatim again and again. You who espouse so much, cannot give me an answer. I also caught you with a contradiction. Your own words. Two different statements regarding what you call genuine asylum seekers. You're not even going to defend that, or explain that?

Myself, and LH, and Ruth, Pip, Don, and all the others can reflect and answer direct questions in a thorough and thought provoking manner. YOUR ANSWER TO MY QUESTION WAS THE SUBJECT OF MY QUESTION! Sorry for the caps, but that is a cop-out.
Answer please for me, the sensible questions asked of you by myself and others without resorting to a cut and paste job.

By the way Jack, that was never 5 minutes!
I told you, I can't argue with you unless you've paid!

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Stu
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:09 AM

"You like me, Stigweard, should perform E. trads plus hymns and, perhaps, have a go at the works of some of our classical composers;"

Well, I did ask for it, and at least you've replied WAV, so thanks.

But why should I perform English trad? I don't mind it, and I love the singing of the Watersons, Coppers et al, but it doesn't float my boat like the Irish stuff does.

What about my Welsh heritage? Should I abandon that completely? Although born and brought up in England the Welsh side of my family had a deep formative influence. In fact, that sense of being Welsh was a tangible part of our upbringing and although many Welsh people might disagree with me in my soul I feel as Welsh as I do English.

As for the hymns, forget it. I enjoy singing hymns for their own sake but to me monotheism is an anathema and I don't see why I should worship a God who has contributed to the suffering of so many of my ancestors and people in the world today.

I'll stick with 'Fathom the Bowl' and 'Follow me up to Carlow'.

Twll dy din de!

stigweard

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:04 AM

I donno Pip, you seem to be reading a lot into his words that he did not intend. That seems like miscommunication to me.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:58 AM

Pip could that charge be leveled at you?

No, absolutely not. I see every side of all my arguments, including the sides that other people see and I don't. Except that I do see them, because I see every side of my arguments, as I said to begin with.

Seriously, I take your point! I may be seeing racism where it's not there. On the other hand, I know that it's possible not to see racism when it is there - particularly in one's own views.

The way it works with WAV, I think, is that he doesn't see the implications of the views he proclaims. WAV hasn't said that he'd like to make my wife take an Englishness test and deport her if she fails - in fact I'm sure he'd recoil from the idea - but it's the logical implication of his views. If you believe 'mass immigration' was bad for English culture and should have been limited, you must believe that individual men and women should have been prevented from coming here. If you think that, then you must think that English culture would be in a better state if those men and women weren't here.

If, on the other hand, all you're saying is that indigenous cultures (including English cultures) should be respected, then (a) I agree with you 100% and (b what you're saying has absolutely nothing to do with immigration, which you can therefore shut up about.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:48 AM

300 !!!!

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:47 AM

Whatever. I know what I think, and it's based purely on the views that he has repeatedly expressed.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:43 AM

Is there no room for miscommunication here? It that the Merriam-Webster or the OED definition of racist?





;-D
Will that be the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:14 AM

I dunno, Jack - if you go back over the numerous threads started by WAV which eventually end up being about his cultural isolationism, you'll find that many Mudcatters in recent months have perceived WAV's views exactly as Pip doe.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:02 AM

>>You seem to be unable to see your arguments as others see them.

Pip could that charge be leveled at you? I don't see the racism in his arguments. I see misguided (in my opinion) cultural chauvinism certainly, but not racism.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:44 AM

I'll say it until I'm hoarse - there IS a difference between questioning immigration and being racist.

WAV, nobody here denies that. However, there is no difference between questioning immigration on racist grounds and being racist. I believe the grounds on which you oppose immigration are racist, and I've tried to explain to you why I think that. You seem to be unable to see your arguments as others see them.

I think within a nation there should be assimilation or "blending" as you put it - without losing respect for indigenous cultures.

I didn't use the word 'blending'! One more time:

You believe immigration should be restricted so that different cultures don't mix. You believe that native cultures shouldn't mix with immigrant cultures, and that native cultures will suffer if they do, and that people's freedom of movement should be restricted so as to stop this happening. You've spelt all this out many times.

What you've never explained is how this viewpoint is compatible with not being a racist. Here's that OED definition, in full this time:

"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: 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; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occasionally in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities."

Please quote what I actually write the next time - it'll make it much easier to see what you agree or disagree with.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:29 AM

Well, maybe you could explain to me what their "own culture" was in respect of UB40: they grew up in Balsall Heath in Birmingham, in a very culturally diverse neighbourhood. Their father is a Scot who was living in England. So what was their culture - the one they saw all around them (made up of African Caribbean music, food cultures etc), the folk music their father played, which he wrote while living in England, or the music of his native Scotland, which formed part of their heritage?

See, when you're dealing with real life, WAV, it's not so eay to fit people into little boxes.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:18 AM

I respect, rather, Ruth, musicians who are good at their own culture's music (including the late Bob Marley); The Beatles, by the way, even tried talking with American accents.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:07 AM

To avoid polluting the Ian Campbell thread, I'm moving this down here:

From Les in Chorlton:
"As Ruth alludes Ian's sons were singers / guitarist in the mighty UB40 one of the most important bands ever to come out of anywhere. Named after Unemployment Benefit form 40 they wrote and performed music that recorded and damned the Thatcherite policies of the 1980s that condemned millions of people to a life of poverty without work. UB40 are a collection of African-Caribbean and white brummy musicians who more or less created a new musical genre. Although a very long way from TICFG they created music that was exciting and said what needed to be said about the lives of us all and so had a link to the traditional music of this country.



Subject: RE: Ian Campbell to retire
From: Ruth Archer - PM
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:03 AM

Les: just for the record, he has two other sons who weren't in UB40 as well...both have recorded with him.

I knew Ian and Lorna for a while in the early 90s in Birmingham. I didn't know he had moved to Ireland, either.

I remember going to Ian's album launch in Digbeth in around 1992, and their mum, who I think had come down from Scotland specially, singing A Bunch of Thyme. Lovely.


Subject: RE: Ian Campbell to retire
From: WalkaboutsVerse - PM
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:15 AM

Like Ewan MacColl, I think Ian has a great gritty folk voice; but it's a shame if his sons have indeed gone into American pop rather than English folk.

Subject: RE: Ian Campbell to retire
From: Ruth Archer - PM
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:01 AM

" it's a shame if his sons have indeed gone into American pop rather than English folk."

UB40 were an English Reggae band. as the band itself was mixed race, there was no better expression of the musical and cultural values of Birmingham in the 1980s, and they went on to be one of the biggest-selling bands in the world. And they made some brilliant songs.

Only you, WAV, could find this unfortunate.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:43 AM

To IE - genuine asylum seekers should be helped, via the UN, to their NEAREST (particularly in terms of CULTURE) safe country. And the way the world is now, with almost global capitalism, one can say either capitalist or economic immigration/emigration.
To Don - via TV, I've seen terrible ethnic conflict in the USA; and, on my travels, I've also had some friendship from most of those ethnic groups you mention. I'll say it until I'm hoarse - there IS a difference between questioning immigration and being racist.
And, to Pip, I think within a nation there should be assimilation or "blending" as you put it - without losing respect for indigenous cultures.
And the last couple of posts bring us back to capitalism and my last Weekly Walkabout - "Global Regulationism" instead of capitalism.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:11 AM

Everything you've said is spot on, LittleHawk. Sometimes governments stir up immigration (and other) paranoia as a smokescreen to hide the real issues, which are vast.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 12:03 AM

Amen to that, Little Hawk!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:44 PM

I would find it interesting, by the way, to just discuss immigration in a general sense, and see what people think about it.

As things are now in the world, immigration already IS quite restricted. It's not easy in the least to get into most countries as a permanent immigrant. You have to satisfy numerous conditions.

One thing does make it easy, though. If you're rich enough, almost anyone will take you as an immigrant. ;-)

And that is unjust. But it's pragmatic, of course.

Now, here's the basic problem in the world: gross economic inequality. That is the engine that drives millions of people to seek to emigrate. Secondarily, many people wish to emigrate because their countries are dangerous, and their lives are insecure.

THAT is the essential problem.

A real solution to the world's dilemmas does not lie in tinkering with immigration laws, it lies in establishing peace in the international community, and achieving social and economic justice.

The USA today spends over half of the entire world's arms expenditures? To do what? To fight wars on the soil of unfortunate nations, that's what. The UK, Canada, France, Russia, and many other countries also are major participants in arms production and directly or indirectly contributing to maintaining a world at war.

That is the great issue of our time, not our troubles with immigration.

It is the moral bankruptcy of those WITH the most money and power which is destabilizing the whole world, because they are making no serious attempt to achieve either peace or economic and social justice in the world.

Now...if we had peace in the world, and if we had a reasonably good standard of living all over the world, then that in itself would solve the problem of immigration. People would not need to emigrate to secure a safe and prosperous existence, and most would be happy to remain on the land they were born on under that circumstance.

But no nation is seriously addressing that. And therein lies the hypocrisy of our times.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:01 PM

I understand what you're saying, Don, Ruth, and Pip...

I guess I haven't read enough of WAV's stuff to be sure of what all he is saying. Haven't got time to, actually. Well, maybe in a bit.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 06:46 PM

And that sort of thing demands a response.

I don't know who said it, but it's true. "All it takes for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."

'Scuse me for getting my dander up, but them's my sediments!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 06:37 PM

". . . virtually everyone has some racist tendencies. . . ."

That is a opinion and a generalization on your part, Little Hawk. But even if true, there are those who do not act on it, nor do they base their political beliefs and social actions and activities on whatever residual racism they may hold. And when and if they do find it in themselves, it becomes a matter for some heavy soul-searching.

There are othes, however, who would have us all act on their racist views.

Even the United Nations!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 06:06 PM

given all the immigration that has occurred all around the world, what is best FROM NOW ON?; and I'm sure it should be restricted

You've conceded that you believe less immigration would have been better, so it's not just about FROM NOW ON. I'm sure you don't bear any malice towards actual English people of immigrant stock, but your starting-point is still "you're OK, but I wish you hadn't come here" - or, at the very least,"you're OK, but we don't want any more of your kind here".

You believe immigration should be restricted so that different cultures don't mix. You believe that native cultures shouldn't mix with immigrant cultures, and that native cultures will suffer if they do, and that people's freedom of movement should be restricted so as to stop this happening. You've spelt all this out many times.

What you've never explained is how this viewpoint is compatible with not being a racist. Here's that OED definition, in full this time:

"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: 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; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occasionally in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities."

LH: I'm well aware that I have racist views; I grew up in the 1970s, when a certain level of racism was taken for granted, and you never entirely leave the attitudes you grow up with behind. For that reason, if someone does call me out on a turn of phrase or a way of thinking which they think is racist, I take it seriously and think hard about it. That's all I'm asking WAV to do.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:49 PM

I dunno, LittleHawk...when someone repeatedly and dogmatically presents their blueprint for a new world order, constantly drawing attention to their writings on the subject and endlessly starting threads so that these very views can be expressed (English instruments, English folk awards, English music etc), they are inviting others to engage with and judge those views. If others find those views dubious, and see within them an inherent racism, why should they not respond accordingly?

That's not the same as crying "racist" every time someone expresses an opinion you don't agree with.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:53 PM

Don, how many times have I pointed out on this forum that virtually everyone has some racist tendencies?

(That's a rhetorical question.)

Now, how do we decide who is to be called a racist and who is not to be? I'll tell you how. We decide, in our inveterate self-righteousness that WE ourselves are above such criticism...ah, yes, lily-white and spotless in our idealism...but someone else is not...and we call him a "racist".

Let (s)he who is without "sin" cast the first stone. No one here qualifies to do that to another person here in that fashion. That's why I object to it. It's like calling someone a "witch" in Salem.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:47 PM

When you hear someone say, "I'm not a racist, but—," you know bloody well that they are a racist.

At the university I met exchange students from all over the world, some of whom stayed here after completing their schooling. I got the Arab slant on the Arab-Israeli conflict from a young Egyptian. I first heard sitar music played by Nazir Jairazbhoy one afternoon and saw a sitar for the first time. He later did a record for Ethnic-Folkways. Nazir didn't stay in the U. S. He wanted to work on his musical skills, so he went to where he felt the best sitar teachers were to be found:   London. Deb Das, also from India, had one of the most brilliant minds I've ever encountered. We spent hours talking politics and philosophy. And there were others.

Good friends of my wife's and mine are Hieu, his wife Tang, and their son Long. They're from Vietnam. Hieu is a chef. Brilliant. When he lays out a meal, in addition to being an exquisite adventure in flavors, it is a work of art. We also have a couple of friends from Bali.

In the building in which we live, there are two Chinese (one a doctor, the other a student), a young Belgian woman, and Simon, upstairs, who is from South Africa.

A tiny sampling of the immigrants to this country who have greatly enriched my life.

In fact, I went to broadcasting school with a young man from England. He was working hard to get rid of his English accent and sound like an American announcer. I encouraged him to keep his English accent because it would set him apart and could be a sort of trademark for him.

Almost forgot. I also went to university with a lovely young English girl named Phyllis Brooks. Absolutely charming!

Seattle is a real "melting-pot" of different nationalities and cultures. I feel privileged to live in such a city.

I have traveled, but I have a lot of it right here. I don't have to go "Walkabout."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:30 PM

"I have called him xenophobic as well...use that term if you prefer. It's not any nicer than racism."

True, Ruth, but you have not called him apoplectic, tandependentious or nihilistic yet, and I, for one, am relieved about that.

Would anyone mind if I attempt to bring dachshunds into the discussion at some point? (anyone except Spaw, that is, but I gather he's boycotting this thread now anyway, so never mind)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: irishenglish
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:51 PM

WAV, on the one hand you believe,

" 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."

And on the other you believe,

" that genuine asylum seekers should be helped to their NEAREST safe country. And not just "cuturally" but socially as well."

That's a contradiction. So which is it, and what do you mean by the nearest safe country? Haitians should be returned to what, the Dominican Republic? Western Saharans should be returned to...Spa...I mean Moro...oh no, Mauritania, yes thats it. So if I was to venture a guess, I would say you are saying that asylum seekers who have been persecuted for political, religous, or sexual grounds, rather than economic grounds are acceptable. Except when, for some reason (and here's the contradiction) they are not, in which case they should be helped to their nearest safe country, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Keep in mind, I'm only discussing your notions of genuine asylum seekers here, not immigration. You made the distinction, so keep it confined to that. Please, tell me on what possible basis and precedent do you have for thinking the "nearest safe country" is a viable option? Give me an example. It does not seem grounded in any sense of reality. Its a nice notion perhaps, but its not at all likely. What if what you propose as the "nearest safe country" doesn't want asylum seekers. What if the UN deemed that the UK would be the nearest safe country for all the South Ossetians and Georgians left homeless, right now as we speak? What if unspeakable human rights violations were happening in a Commonwealth nation. Wouldn't that make Britain the de facto nearest safe nation?

Also regarding what you said about immigration, what you label economic/capitalist immigration. I'll not even discuss that one, but I find your use of economic/capitalist interesting. Call me crazy, but I've never heard of an immigrant from lets say, Guatemala, consider their act of immigration capitalist. For economic reasons, of course, but capitalist? I can't make a living here in Guatemala, so I'm going to the US for capitalist reasons. Doesn't scan.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:29 PM

I keep stessing Pip - given all the immigration that has occurred all around the world, what is best FROM NOW ON?; and I'm sure it should be restricted, by the UN, much more than the status quo - including making FUTURE economic/capitalist immigration/emigration illegal. (And the USA could set a good example toward this by ending the Green Card lottery scheme.)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:11 PM

Don makes an excellent point:

'Upthread a bit, WAV says

"I believe the cliche of elders that they used to be able to leave their house-doors open."

When WAV attributes this to immigration, as to his racism and bigotry, what more does anyone need?'

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:06 PM

those are not separate races those are slightly different cultures at most

Racism isn't based on biologically real 'races' (not least because there aren't any). There's no Irish 'race', but "dis tick Paddy" jokes are still racist.

can't you at least accept that I am NOT against any ethnic group

That's exactly what I can't accept - because if it were true you wouldn't have the views that you do. If my neighbour told me they wished I'd never moved to their street, I'd conclude that they disliked me - even if they tried to tell me otherwise. If someone says they try to avoid working with Jews, I conclude that they're prejudiced against Jews - even if they say they're not. And if someone says they wish non-English people hadn't come to England, I conclude that they're prejudiced against people with a non-English background *in* England.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:06 PM

You like me, Stigweard, should perform E. trads plus hymns and, perhaps, have a go at the works of some of our classical composers; further, if you ever visit Beijing, you may, again like me, wish to try Peking duck - apparently some of the Oympic swimmers have done very well on it.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: irishenglish
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:59 PM

I don't know WAV. Country derives from bluegrass, which derives from the balladry of English and Irish music originally, so I guess that simply won't do. Rock derives from blues and country, the blues part of that derives from African music, so I guess that simply won't do either. Wait, jazz-no, that comes from a similar source to blues. Cajun, no that derives from Acadia, so thats out. I've got it! The only musical form us Americans, (and this goes for my Canadian friends as well!) can properly play is Native American music. Oh, but wait a sec. I'm not native american. My ancestry comes from Ireland. Oh crap! I can't play music here because following what WAV said , " many reading this will know as well or better than I the perform-your-own policies of 50s and 60s folk-clubs here" then ANY attempt at my singing anything will be tantamount to neglection of the one, truest form of American indigenous music, that being Native American. So WAV, thanks for clearing that up.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:58 PM

As someone born in Newfoundland the traditional music I grew up with came from the eight corners of the globe so to speak. Our sailors and workers venturing forth and returning home and other sailors visiting our ports brought and spread our music all over the world. My box was the world and modern broadcast media made it even more so.

That's a good thing.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Stu
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:51 PM

"What songs do you think I should sing?"

I keep asking him the same thing seeing as I have a Welsh mum and English dad.

As is the way with this sort of thing though, why let reality get in the way of a poor argument?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:48 PM

...what music fills your Iowa "box", KB?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:47 PM

And, if I were you, KB in Iowa, I'd probably be into performing Country or Rock music. Would this apply to anyone from the US who is not of Amerindian ancestry?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:47 PM

Upthread a bit, WAV says

"I believe the cliche of elders that they used to be able to leave their house-doors open."

When WAV attributes this to immigration, as to his racism and bigotry, what more does anyone need?

I've heard this exact same reason given for "red-lining" neighborhoods!

If WAV does not consider himself to be a racist (and most racists do not), perhaps a large dose of self-examination is in order.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:34 PM

I meant that you live in a small box. You have demonstrated a willingness to visit other boxes but you want the contents to stay put.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:28 PM

"small box"!? just after I mentioned my (much enjoyed) travels. And, if I were you, KB in Iowa, I'd probably be into performing Country or Rock music. However, I only listen to those American genres, as well as the chants and drums of Amerindians, because I'm an Englishman.
And Pip, can't you at least accept that I am NOT against any ethnic group - I'm questioning the act of immigration itself.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:22 PM

No Pip Radish, those are not separate races those are slightly different cultures at most. Though the attitude he expresses does seem extreme. Would an economic refugee from Newcastle be forced to settle in York or Sheffield or would they be allowed all the way to London. And if so, would they not dilute the culture of whatever part of London they settled in?