Asylum seekers put up in luxury hotel at cost of £400,000 to the taxpayer

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-12-2013, 01:27 PM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by ihatehash

Regarding multiculturalism
I live in possibly one of the most multicultural cities in the world and personally I love the fact that I there are so many people from different walks of life in my society. Learning from the large number of fijian indians and pacific islanders I work with as well as people of asian descent who I go to uni with I think has personally made me better as a person. Economically I don't think my city would be better off without migrants, as there are probably more native Maori living off welfare than other cultures and also migrants come here with the desire to work.
I love multiculturalism, It's one of the greatest things about my city.

Are you aware of what multiculturalism actually is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

You're writing off millions of people who vary incredibly in appearance, origin and personalities by calling them 'backward' and the last time I remember, this was called being racist so start apologizing endlessly

So what race have I singled out or said is backward? The cultures are what are backwards darling, not the skin colour of the people - try letting that sink into your head for a while.

It makes me laugh because one of the issues I have been posting about constantly for the past few months has been WHITE European immigration - Romania and Bulgaria - indeed i've hardly talked about Arabian/African or Asian immigration.

So being white myself and complaining about uncontrolled white immigration, am I still a racist or what? Or are you now so confused by these facts that you'll ignore this part?

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

All I read is "I'm a white supremacist and have no tolerance for any non white people who I collectively label as third world citizens and backward". You have no problem with Poles and Irish people in your country right? Why's that??

Actually I do have a problem with hundreds of thousands of Poles in this country yes, that's why - if you paid attention - you'd notice that over the past few months i've been posting almost exclusively about EU immigration which is mainly white and have barely touched on non-EU immigration.

Indeed i've said in the past that one of my annoyances with the immigration system in the UK at the moment is that any uneducated European migrant is allowed into this country instantly whereas an educated Asian or African is not - if anything it should be the other way around. But you wouldn't know that because again, you don't pay attention and instead think you can slur me by shouting waycist.

http://treatygate.files.wordpress.co...ment-shout.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

Gorkha and Bhutia people wanted independence so India never annexed Nepal and Bhutan. Same with Sikkim, until the 1960s when the monarch decided to join with India. Same with Kashmir, Tripura, Manipur. All these princely states had their distinct cultures but Hyderabad was ruled by Razakars and was in fact a land stolen from Telangana. The Razakars were not even Indians - they were of Arab and Afghani Pashtun origin so why should India treat them any different than the British?

Because they have the right of self-determination dear. And isn't that a bit of a racist statement by yourself? You're essentially saying here that because a group of people in an independent state aren't Indian ethnically, therefore they do not deserve statehood on the Indian subcontinent.

India is sickening in it's hypocrisy and you demonstrate it perfectly. Yet you have the nerve to call me a racist. Ha ha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

I'm of Kashmiri origin and I believe Kashmir is an integral part of India and has been for centuries and I could really go on about Kashmir. However almost all countries either support India on the Kashmir issue or refuse to take a stand even when Pakistan begs for support. Indian Kashmir is a developed and progressing state while Pakistani side of Kashmir is a playground of Al-Qaeda

Just because a patch of land has been an integral part of 'India' (a British concept after all) does not mean it should be today. By that extent, Brittany in northern France should be a part of the United Kingdom as should southern Ireland. Or if you want to go back even more, Britain should belong to Italy as should most of Europe.

Kashmir should be decided on the basis of self-determination: something you clearly reject as above you strongly support the annexation of different states in the Indian subcontinent into India itself. Hypocrite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

No. Goa traditionally represents Konkan culture, not Portugese culture. I believe Portugal complained about the annexations at The Hague but the final judgement said that India had a right to deny Portugal the access to the enclaves. Not only that, Goan people voted for Goa to be a part of India.

Then they should have had a vote rather than India forcibly going in and seizing what were genuine and rightful Portugese possessions. India acted like the colonial power - which is what makes me glad it is getting a taste of it's own medicine over Kashmir.

If India refuses to respect international law when it comes to borders and sovereignty, then why should Pakistan or even China be expected to when it comes to Indian territory?

I have little sympathy for a country that whinges about colonalism but acts, as soon as it gets the chance, as a colonial bully against smaller states on the continent it shares with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

About half of the network of railways in India was in Pakistan, you know that right? The zoning, expansion and integration was only done in the 1950s. Colonial railways were only used to connect a few cities with ports- Bombay, Delhi, Karachi, Calcutta. Almost all units were built indigenously.

Still using the same infrastructure as you were when we British left, progress in India (apart from the past 20 years) was incredibly slow thanks to your poor economic model. Thankfully things are changing now, but don't pretend to me that it was all wine and bread when the British left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-delhi1947.jpg
This is a train from Colonial times

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ndia_Train.jpg

http://im.rediff.com/getahead/2012/jul/03stations2.jpg

This is what the passenger trains look like now.

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/d...MI__17310f.jpg

http://www.railnews.co.in/wp-content...etro-rail1.gif

This is what metro rail system looks like

So....if you're talking about the Victoria Terminus or the few stretches of Mountain Railways of India (the entire tracks for which have been changed) then the whole nation thanks you for it, really.

I'm not arguing about India concerning the past 20 years, it's made great - but comparatively to China slow - progress. And that's good. I am saying that in the post-colonial period, India was a mess and was in many ways much worse off than it was under British rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

And it has been nearly eliminated but of course in a poor country, people will rely on bonded labour and domestic servitude. But hey, let's ignore stuffing people up and then sending them to Pacific and Carribean colonies and using a system of hierarchy a country's fighting so hard to eliminate as an excuse for the horrible deeds that were done to the people in the past. :)

We abolished slavery hundreds of years ago, you are still practicing informal slavery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

[IMG]GDP image[/IMG]

GDP is often the wrong figure to work with, GDP after all rises with population growth making the country 'richer' but not really in terms of per capita. After independence, the Indian economy per capita has become poorer than it was under British rule meaning Indians have been less well off than prior to 1947. That's an economic reality and an uncomfortable one for you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...50-1995%29.png

Even economist Milton Friedman refers in his work to the disaster India has been economically since independence - and he's not even a supporter of the imperial age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

Oh yes because that's the least important thing right? You mentioned great schools the britishers built but didn't even look at the massive illiteracy figure of pre independence India

The same can be said for Britain itself, literacy levels across all countries have risen massively over the past 50 or so years. That doesn't mean the country as a whole is doing well - ie, look at the Soviet Union. Or Cuba. Or North Korea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

If your friend gives me one more example except that of 1984 then I'll happily agree

He tells me that many Sihks want independence yet India will not grant it to them. Whereas today in 2013 we are allowing Scotland a referendum on independence. Maybe India should move out of the colonial era and join Great Britain in allowing self-determination, don't you agree?
10-12-2013, 04:27 PM
karter

You DO NOT need to single out ONE race in order to be racist. You are implying that whitness = superior itself says that you are racist, LIKE I said earlier, you put a rigid identity of backwardness on Asians and Africans regardless of their appearance, culture and personalities. You said that Anglo-sphere nations are the most tolerant. You do all the social stratification keeping the whites at the top and the third world "backward people" below. So screw your 'whiteness is superior and y'all Asians and Africans have nothing me on us, the enlightened ones but hey I'm not racist' attitude. Just open the dictionary and look at the meaning of racism and you'll know. You think you are superior just for being BORN in a country, a country which prospered by genocides and violence AROUND THE WORLD. Tell me more about your legal system and your superficial democracy you introduced around the world, no really...tell me how you destroyed cultures in the name of civilizing people and reducing barbarism and how you continue to criticize and call people backward just because they don't match with your standards. I found the photo you used really cute by the way.

http://oi41.tinypic.com/207pydt.jpg

Quote:

He tells me that many Sihks want independence yet India will not grant it to them. Whereas today in 2013 we are allowing Scotland a referendum on independence. Maybe India should move out of the colonial era and join Great Britain in allowing self-determination, don't you agree?

Khalistan movement is DEAD with the last activity in the early 90s, it's been long forgotten and the last time some men carried out terror activities in support of Khalistan were rejected by the community and they fled to Pakistan. That literally sums up everything. Now if your friend and like 5 other people want the government of India to consider then I don't know really because if India starts doing that then it'll seperate into 100 countries, literally. The last time I remember there WERE polls in Sikkim and Kashmir for opting independence or union with India and they did choose India so .. Don't compare the situation of Britain and Scotland with India because it's absurd

Quote:

but comparatively to China slow

Was China colonized? No. Did China need to start over? No. Is China a whole different country with different economic system and different type of government? Yes.

Quote:

After independence, the Indian economy per capita has become poorer than it was under British rule meaning Indians have been less well off than prior to 1947.

I couldn't find the source. Care to provide?

Quote:

Because they have the right of self-determination dear. And isn't that a bit of a racist statement by yourself? You're essentially saying here that because a group of people in an independent state aren't Indian ethnically, therefore they do not deserve statehood on the Indian subcontinent.

Aah Yes. Self determination to Pakistan's arm supply which was at war with India at that time. Yet when Hyderabad was occupied, Razakars were allowed to return to Yemen, Pakistan, Arabia whatever they chose. However most chose to stay and Hyderabad still has a distinct Muslim culture with 40%+ population (15% at the time of occupation). And no demands of seperating from India.
10-12-2013, 04:47 PM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

You DO NOT need to single out ONE race in order to be racist. You are implying that whitness = superior itself says that you are racist, LIKE I said earlier, you put a rigid identity of backwardness on Asians and Africans regardless of their appearance, culture and personalities. You said that Anglo-sphere nations are the most tolerant. You do all the social stratification keeping the whites at the top and the third world "backward people" below. So screw your 'whiteness is superior and y'all Asians and Africans have nothing me on us, the enlightened ones but hey I'm not racist' attitude. Just open the dictionary and look at the meaning of racism and you'll know. You think you are superior just for being BORN in a country, a country which prospered by genocides and violence AROUND THE WORLD. Tell me more about your legal system and your superficial democracy you introduced around the world, no really...tell me how you destroyed cultures in the name of civilizing people and reducing barbarism and how you continue to criticize and call people backward just because they don't match with your standards. I found the photo you used really cute by the way.

It's clear that YOU are the racist because you can't seem to seperate culture (anglo-saxon culture that was spread by the British Empire of liberty, sovereignty, democracy, common law, the seperation of powers, the Westminster system of parliament, the modern-day education system and so on...) from race. I didn't say race, only YOU have said or mentioned race.

When I say the anglo-saxon culture of common law, liberty, democracy, trial by jury, family model, Westminster style of government and sovereignty is better than the likes of modern-day Zimbabwe, France, Saudi Arabia, China, Brazil and Vietnam - i'm saying the CULTURE is superior. Just because the people who spread these ideals happen to be white hasn't a jot to do with it - unless you are claiming so.

So yeah, i'm absolutely sure and correct when I say that i'm proud of the things Britain spread around the world and I think those ideals - when put in place properly - produce the most civilised societies in world history; Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, America. Would I rather live in one of those nasty white countries or an economic backwater like Zimbabwe? Would I rather live in a country that still practices racism like India in 2013? No and no.

Britain has it's fair share of terrible crimes, thats true. But so do you in India.

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

Khalistan movement is DEAD with the last activity in the early 90s, it's been long forgotten and the last time some men carried out terror activities in support of Khalistan were rejected by the community and they fled to Pakistan. That literally sums up everything. Now if your friend and like 5 other people want the government of India to consider then I don't know really because if India starts doing that then it'll seperate into 100 countries, literally. The last time I remember there WERE polls in Sikkim and Kashmir for opting independence or union with India and they did choose India so .. Don't compare the situation of Britain and Scotland with India because it's absurd

None of this tackles the fact that India is very intolerant of the notion that seperate parts of the country and seperate cultures may want to be independent - rather, India has the nerve in the post-colonial era to send tanks in to put down any unrest that may threaten the territory Indian state.

The annexation of Hydrabad and other independent territories is a modern-day disgrace and you can't escape it. In simple terms (as we'll discuss below) - Britain colonised the likes of India and on the whole made them more prosperous whereas India has colonised parts of the subcontinent and has made them economically worse off than they were before .... including India herself.

If anything, I should be demanding India apologise for it's piss-poor economic management of millions of people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

Was China colonized? No. Did China need to start over? No. Is China a whole different country with different economic system and different type of government? Yes.

Wow you really don't know your history. China wasn't colonised officially, but unoffically was. Indeed, China is one of the few examples I can think of where the imperial era probably did more damage than good to the colonised country. The Qing dynasty fell and China faced years of the warlord era before the Communists reunified the country in the 1950s.

India had the infrastructure and made a mess of it (until the 1990s) whereas China had virtually nothing and made a mess of it (until the 1980s). Today, India is still making a mess of it (due to it's state socialist model) whereas China is making amazing headway.

That's the economic reality. The failure of India since independence has nothing to do with Britain. If you really think it does, then you're your on the same wavelength as Robert Mugabe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

I couldn't find the source. Care to provide?

It's on Wikipedia, bring up the url and click on the go to page. Or alternatively watch this educated response to the kind of rubbish you are putting forth concerning the concept that all the Third World are poor because of colonialism - it's completely wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xeebU8VhmY

From 5:00 onwards for the part on the colonies (and he mentions India too).

"...the people of India have been worse off under non-colonial rule than they had been before."

Quote:

Originally Posted by karter

Aah Yes. Self determination to Pakistan's arm supply which was at war with India at that time. Yet when Hyderabad was occupied, Razakars were allowed to return to Yemen, Pakistan, Arabia whatever they chose. However most chose to stay and Hyderabad still has a distinct Muslim culture with 40%+ population (15% at the time of occupation). And no demands of seperating from India.

So what? Why should they have had to return home just because India wasn't happy with an independent state in the middle of the subcontinent. The subcontinent does not belong exclusively to India and if India wishes to be taken like a progressive state in the modern world, it should cease acting like a third-rate colonial power.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page