The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:19 PM

I didn't say there were no ethnic groups, or no ethnic conflict, in the 1950s, CB - I said: "Whether or not we like the changes due to mass immigration, Joseph, it would be silly to deny that in the 1950s England was culturally a much more English place."

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:27 PM

Okay Wavy, ya' gotta' point there. England in the 1950's was culturally a much more English place than the Bronx or Santa Fe. No two ways about that!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: irishenglish
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:32 PM

Hey catspaw-you making fun of the bronx? Look out man, my dad's from the bronx and thems fighting words!!!

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:32 PM

"Whether or not we like the changes due to mass immigration, Joseph, it would be silly to deny that in the 1950s England was culturally a much more English place."

And the only logical question to arise from this statement, David, is whether you think that was a good thing? Do you think that this made England intrinsically "better" then than now?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 01:37 PM

Nope IE......I love the Bronx! I thank the lord daily that its not English.......LOL

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:35 PM

...and as Ruth already knows from other threads, but wants me to repeat, I genuinely prefer England "then than now" - although I do love our world being multicultural.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:42 PM

Are you going to answer any of my points and questions, WAV?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: irishenglish
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:52 PM

So you genuinely prefer an England "then" that you never existed in, because you were born too late? What are the reasons you prefer England then as opposed to now?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 03:20 PM

"And I've also enjoyed those cuisines you and FT mention - DURING MY TRAVELLING - which was, in hindsight, the eco-travel/eco-tourism you questioned."

Well, how lovely for you, WAV!

Within walking distance or easy driving distance of where I live, there are a number of ethnic restaurants: three Chinese (not "chop suey" and "chow mein" joints, each serves authentic cuisine from a different part of China), Thai, Indian, two Mexican restaurants, two Italian, one Greek, restaurants that feature foods of other Mediterranean countries—a whole United Nations General Assembly of cuisines available to me and others who live where I do.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in this world who cannot afford to go to Iran for luleh kebabs or Spain for paella or Turkey for babaganoush or Thailand for tom yum kung or Brazil for caruru do par. According to you, the right to enjoy the variety of the world's provender should be limited to those who can afford to indulge in eco-travel/eco-tourism. And everyone else (at least your fellow English) should stay home and dine on the legendary English "cuisine" of fifty years ago (which—I have been told—consisted of boiling the flavor out of everything)!

That is, at the very least, elitist!

"However, trying to have a multiple number of cultures living under the one state law will always cause problems - the UN should agree to stop economic/capitalist immigration/emigration (including the American Green Card lottery system) FROM NOW ON. Further, it IS much more difficult for tourists to terrorize."

In addition to being blatantly inaccurate, the level of bigotry betrayed by this statement is shocking. This is the sort of stuff spouted by Southern rednecks and neo-Nazis.

And if you knew anything about the United Nations at all, you would know that what you would have them do regarding immigration/emigration just isn't ever going to appear on their agenda.

Incredible!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 03:21 PM

you are a xenophobe, David.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 03:55 PM

Hell Ruth, that's okay.......Why I tell ya' Bigass Amazon scares the crap outta' me too!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 03:55 PM

Are you going to answer any of my points and questions, WAV?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 05:39 PM

Xenophobia, Ruth, is a fear or hatred of aliens/strangers, which is a ridiculous thing to say of someone who DID enjoy travelling on a shoestring through about 40 countries and, in frank response to your earlier question, made a point of stressing a love of our world being multicultural. And, if you set up some kind of candid camera to see if I would help a tourist of any culture or race, you would once more be proven wrong. It's the act of economic/capitalist immigration/emigration itself that I keep questioning.
Don: for similar reasons, I hate imperialism be it Nazi, Victorian, American, or any other.
Volgadon: I did answer your questions, equally frankly - the only extra detail I can give is that, if attitudes changed radically and I was some kind of leader, I'd delegate for experts in their field to flesh-out the details of my above REGULATIONISM; i.e., macro NOT micro management...and how's your standard English dictionary going?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 06:38 PM

Says something, then when questioned about it or called on it, he ducks it and says something else.

Like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

What exactly do you mean by "economic/capitalistic immigration/emigration?"

Some detail, please.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (temp.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 06:44 PM

By the way, WAV, it was imperialism (you have heard of "The British Empire," haven't you?) that made English culture during the period you're so fond of possible.

Just thought I'd point that out to you.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:50 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.