0
Nataly

What would the world look like if...?

Recommended Posts

What would the world look like if people had total freedom of movement? For the sake of argument, policy-making organisation(s) and law enforcement would have to cooperate on at least some kind of basic agreed-upon set of universal laws...

Personally, I don't think chaos would ensue... My only basis for this argument is to look at any country where people do have freedom of movement within that country... Take the US, for example... I think we can all agree that some areas are impoverished and some are far more affluent and yet people who grow up in the "shitty" US neighbourhoods don't ALL flock to the nicer US neighbourhoods and invade/ruin the place despite theoretically being able to just up and move...

So if your answer is "chaos" then please follow this with why you think this would be the case.


***DISCLAIMER***
PLEASE TRY TO KEEP THIS OUT OF THE SC... IT SO QUICKLY DEGENERATES THERE :(
"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At first I wasn't sure I understood your question. Total freedom of movement would almost imply that you could just snap your fingers and teleport. So if you mean abolishing immigration law, I don't think it would be that much different then what we see now. That's mainly because the laws are not the most powerful or at least not the only barer to movement. A lot of it is economic and opportunity. Home prices keep the riffraff out of the nicer neighborhoods. People live in slums because that's what they can afford. When some one comes in and upgrades to better housing with the enviable increases in cost they complain. Not because they want to live in a dump but because they can't afford the nicer housing. Some how this is seen as unfair to them and gentrification is seen as some how unjust bordering on a crime. The truth is that there is a natural balance between the haves and have not's. It really only becomes a problem when people try to tamper with that balance. There is a certain spread of jobs across the income strata. If left alone a population will ebb and flow to accommodate that. Things become out of whack when people try to tamper with that natural process. Examples... And I'm not being cruel here I'm just pointing things out.

A company wants cheep labor so they pass out pamphlets across the country advertising work. People flow in and the excess labor pool drops the cost when the area is flooded by the unemployed. See the 1930's.

Laws, building codes, zoning, prevent affordable/slum housing from being build. Property values go up but labor cost rise do to the cost of living even for menial jobs. See San Francisco.

Section 8 housing, forced renting to essentially homeless individuals, is mandated in an area by progressives wishing diversify the community. The influx of poor triggers a crime wave dropping property values and causing a economic decline in the area.

Charity organizations, WHO, the UN, church groups, etc. decide to be benevolent and cure the ills in a country. They introduce basic health care, vaccines, basic sanitation, clean water, etc. Populations explode as the rate of child mortality drops leading to over population for the environment. Over grazing, desertification, drought famine, all from the best of intentions. See Africa.

War, famine, economy, drive a natural migration from one area to another. "Refugee immigrants" flood into a prosperous country. Some will integrate into the economy but most will not be able to adjust lacking basic necessary skills to survive in this culture, ex. speaking the language. Historically a certain percentage would starve on the streets and the immigration would slow or stop. A problem arises when a social support structure interferes with this natural balance and a large group of dispossessed persons not integrated into the society is allowed to build up with in a country. Cultural clashes follow. See Europe.

So I kind of see this as a self correcting problem. I think a lot of the issues result from our own interference. For example, not letting people starve. On the surface all of these things seem like good and moral actions but they put things out of whack, some times not for the best or at least promoting oscillation, some times violent ones, in the society. It's a long view, big picture kind of thing. And yes, I'm a bit of a dick but there is truth in this.

Lee

By the way, what is "sc..."?

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I'm on my soap box so I'll go a little further.

What does a society look like? If we look at it on a graph of wealth vs population. Poor at one end, rich at the other, it can take different shapes. A bell curve with a large middle class. A big U sloped to one side with a large poor and a very few rich with almost no middle class. A lot of this seem to relate to the technological level in the society. When there is nothing but human mussel power you wind up with a big U. think slave societies, Egypt, Middle ages Europe, the pre civil war south. When man is the draft animal you need slaves to support your civilization. For a while we had a bell with a growing middle class. Now the scale on the graph is becoming stretched to the right so far that when you integrate under to curve you find that that little tip under the end of the graph contains so much wealth that it out weighs all of the rest of the graph combined. To the point that it's devaluing the wealth of the bell of the middle class and the inflation is almost returning them to the poor in of the scale.

People talk about the shape of this graph as if there is a right or wrong to it. Like there is a shape that we should strive for. That a bell curve is the ideal. I'm not convinced that a society can ever have a stable shape to that curve. I think that trying to force it into your ideal shape through manipulation of the economy is self defeating. I have a suspicion that it will ebb and flow with time pushed by large macro economic events and that our manipulations are damaging to it. Big pushers like shifts in the world economy, and waves through the population curve I think are the real drivers. If you want to influence it in a real way you have to look beyond the quarter or year end. You have to influence it's growth on a generational pattern. If you could improve education and influence population growth based on socioeconomic placement you might be able to exorcise some real control. And yes, I mean things like telling a poor woman that she doesn't have enough money to to have a baby. Think China with it's brutal one child policy. Or think Japan trying to promote child birth to fend off a population decline.

The world economy is a shifting thing. It's hard to stay on top. and if the hill gets too high then it collapses when every one else is too poor for you to sell to. It's interesting. Looking back to when England was the economic ruler of the world but then was almost bankrupted by china in it's one sided trade in tea. China demanded hard payment and England resorted to smuggling opium into the country to balance the trade in silver. Or how America prospered after WWII when it's economy expanded into the vacuum left by the countries shattered by the war. It was one of the few industrial powers remaining. And how it was driven by the wave that ran through it's population following the war. As we ran out of natural resources industries shifted to other areas of the world. There is no more iron easily mined in the US. It and all associated industries have moved to other countries. We try to pretend that it doesn't matter but it's a net flow of wealth out of the country. We've run out of "tea" to sell and now we are having to buy it from other countries.

My point in all this is that I think economies and societies are inherently unstable. It you try to keep it in stasis you are going to lose. If you want to prosper, I'm talking long term multi generation ally, you have to take a longer view and act aggressively to put your self in a long term dominant position. I think we need to think more about the global flow of wealth and learn to act more in our own best interest. We have to find the next "tea" and not buy opium with silver. I think the key to success, I'm speaking as an american, is to pay more attention to global trade balances. This is one of the reasons that I voted for Trump.

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Freedom (and ability) to go anywhere? It would all start to look like Southern California.



Could you elaborate? Some people hold up Southern California as a near utopia, others as a dreaded hellscape. I'm sure you're somewhere in the middle.

And why anyone would want to live in a Southern California desert when they could move to the rolling green hills of Virginia is beyond me.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Could you elaborate?

It has a large population of immigrants working under the table. This would become almost universal, since anyone, no matter how poor or remote, could now look for work anywhere.

There's a lot of land and it's easy to build on; that's why there is so much sprawl. And if everyone had the freedom and ability to go wherever you want there would be a LOT of sprawl, because the barriers to travel that make big cities desirable places to live (and difficult to leave) would be gone. Likewise, people living without access to services they want would move to places that had those services.

It's very diverse in terms of culture. You get little Chinatowns and barrios, clusters of Filipino food and Italian businesses. The dominant language might change three times in two miles. You'd see even more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

Freedom (and ability) to go anywhere? It would all start to look like Southern California.



Could you elaborate? Some people hold up Southern California as a near utopia, others as a dreaded hellscape. I'm sure you're somewhere in the middle.

And why anyone would want to live in a Southern California desert when they could move to the rolling green hills of Virginia is beyond me.



I would suspect he means that it would become a hodgepodge of different cultures. A vast range of socio-economic strata.
Some mixing, but far more 'enclaves'. Both cultural and socio-economic. KoreaTown and Little Saigon, along with Bel Aire/Beverly Hills and Watts/East LA.
Both the good and bad of all of it too.

Depending on the level of 'rule of law' and social 'safety nets', it could be anywhere from actual SoCal to someplace like Rio di Janeiro, where the slums are real shitholes where the gangs rule and cops don't go.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Some mixing, but far more 'enclaves'. Both cultural and socio-economic. KoreaTown and Little Saigon, along with Bel Aire/Beverly Hills and Watts/East LA.
Both the good and bad of all of it too.



I think over time (multiple generations) the enclaves would be more socio-economic than cultural. Eventually the cultural differences would start to smooth out. It'll happen first with food, because food is a universal language. Then it will happen with actual language and biological differences. Eventually everyone will look like Beyonce and Obama, speak an evolved version of English, eat some really good fusion food, and hopefully not have as much racial/cultural animus as we do now. There will still be tension, but it will be economic with less of a racial undertone.

Or we could all become food for our robot/alien overlords.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

Some mixing, but far more 'enclaves'. Both cultural and socio-economic. KoreaTown and Little Saigon, along with Bel Aire/Beverly Hills and Watts/East LA.
Both the good and bad of all of it too.



I think over time (multiple generations) the enclaves would be more socio-economic than cultural. Eventually the cultural differences would start to smooth out. It'll happen first with food, because food is a universal language. Then it will happen with actual language and biological differences. Eventually everyone will look like Beyonce and Obama, speak an evolved version of English, eat some really good fusion food, and hopefully not have as much racial/cultural animus as we do now. There will still be tension, but it will be economic with less of a racial undertone.

Or we could all become food for our robot/alien overlords.



Maybe. In an ideal world, sure.

But, unfortunately, humans are still human. And xenophobia/tribalism/nationalism is a huge part of that.

I'm afraid that the enclaves would more likely become more and more isolated and insulated. Crossover would still happen, but it would be the exception more than the rule (Romeo & Juliet anyone?).

I doubt we'd become food for the robot overlords. Robots don't require protein (unless they are some form of cyborg - living tissue and robot combined).
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Maybe. In an ideal world, sure.

But, unfortunately, humans are still human. And xenophobia/tribalism/nationalism is a huge part of that.

I'm afraid that the enclaves would more likely become more and more isolated and insulated. Crossover would still happen, but it would be the exception more than the rule (Romeo & Juliet anyone?).

I doubt we'd become food for the robot overlords. Robots don't require protein (unless they are some form of cyborg - living tissue and robot combined).



You're right. It'll probably be a mix. Some areas will become more integrated, some will become more segregated. Some people will make an effort, some will dig in.

And robots don't need protein, but they are clearly after our precious essential fluids.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tribalism is a reaction to the huge scary world out there. To avoid being swindled, people tend to divide the world into groups of associates and only the inner-most group are allowed close contact. Typical groupings include: nuclear family, blood relatives, relatives by marriage, sports team members, other teams, co-workers, management, frequent customers, parishioners from your church, parisheners from a similar church in a neighbouring town, drug dealers, scary soldiers from another country, etc.

Since a few of those strangers are going to rape/beat/kill/ steal, etc. we only interact freely with close family members. Outsiders are treated with increasing skepticism the farther they are from blood relatives.

Tribalism started as a healthy defence mechanism, but some tribes take tribalism too far when they automatically hate play one from an outsid tribe and kill them at any opportunity.

Finally, all the raping/looting/pillaging/arson/murdering that Europeans abhor in Third World countries was standard practice in Europe 500 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
riggerrob

...Finally, all the raping/looting/pillaging/arson/murdering that Europeans abhor in Third World countries was standard practice in Europe 500 years ago.



Actually, it was "standard practice" not too long ago.

Some people have very long memories. Given what was done to their ancestors, I'm not entirely sure I blame them.

Look at the Armenian genocide in the early 1900s. Wholesale slaughter.

Even more recently was Yugoslavia. The different ethnic groups were forcibly mixed together, and made to "play nice" by their Soviet overlords. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, it only took a few years for the animosities to rear up and once more...

Wholesale slaughter.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

***...Finally, all the raping/looting/pillaging/arson/murdering that Europeans abhor in Third World countries was standard practice in Europe 500 years ago.



Actually, it was "standard practice" not too long ago.

Some people have very long memories. Given what was done to their ancestors, I'm not entirely sure I blame them.

Look at the Armenian genocide in the early 1900s. Wholesale slaughter.

Even more recently was Yugoslavia. The different ethnic groups were forcibly mixed together, and made to "play nice" by their Soviet overlords. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, it only took a few years for the animosities to rear up and once more...

Wholesale slaughter.

Not to split hairs but both examples are countries who are not part of Europe - they have agreements with Europe and the EU... Not the same thing... In the same way that Mexico is part of NORTH America but is NOT American... :D:D:P

To answer my own question, I suspect that total freedom of movement would result in overall advances in civilisation (ie: increased understanding of the "other" and better sharing of intelligence/assets/information/technology). Of course it would not be without conflict... Not some fantastic utopia - not even close... But also not the disaster that some people would like to have us think.

I do believe that our *instincts* lead us to mistrust what we don't know/understand (ie: racism/sexism/homophobia etc). And that *civilisation* is all about rising above our base instincts and realising that there is something to be gained OVERALL by considering/understanding/including/embracing difference. Not ALL difference... Obviously, civilisation also means moving away from bad customs/ideas/traditions/practices... The idea/goal is to gradually move toward improvement.
"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kinda depends on how you define "Europe". As a geographic landmass, both are in it. Yugoslavia completely, Turkey partly (eastern half in Europe, western in Asia).

Sadly, I think it would be more xenophobic and tribalistic than homogeneous.

Look at the situation with the refugees from Syria. How much has that contributed to the rise of bigotry, hatred and 'nationalism' in Europe?

Look at Trump in the US (I know it's not fun, but do it anyway). The majority of his campaign was based on bigotry and hatred. And it worked.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

Kinda depends on how you define "Europe". As a geographic landmass, both are in it. Yugoslavia completely, Turkey partly (eastern half in Europe, western in Asia).

Sadly, I think it would be more xenophobic and tribalistic than homogeneous.

Look at the situation with the refugees from Syria. How much has that contributed to the rise of bigotry, hatred and 'nationalism' in Europe?

Look at Trump in the US (I know it's not fun, but do it anyway). The majority of his campaign was based on bigotry and hatred. And it worked.




Well, sometimes when your best-friend-who-lives-half-way-across-the-world posts the same meme on their FB wall as what your colleague (who is NOT a friend) just emailed you, it makes you want to believe the whole 6 degrees of separation theory... That we are all connected, bla di bla di bla... It's so easy to forget how limited our world view is and how hard it is for people to change/accept different points of view... To be honest, I think homogenisation is neither possible, nor desirable. And even if it were possible, it would take a loooooooooooooong time.

Abolishing slavery hasn't fixed the racism problem... It took away a lot of comfort for some very privileged few... And improved the situation of many... But there is still a looooong way to go. Allowing women to work and to vote hasn't fixed gender unfairnesses... But slowly slowly there is some progress. And I would like to think that allowing freedom of movement would be a similar thing... Slowly slowly slowly, having access to different places would result in progress. Not without some conflict/difficulty along the way... But also not COMPLETE CHAOS as some would have you believe. Sorry to get back to this but fear of the other is precisely what some people are trying to propagate in order to further limit freedom of movement...
"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BillyVance

Actually, Mexico is part of Central America. Only the United States and Canada make up North America. ;)



Nope. Mexico is part of North America.
"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nataly

***Actually, Mexico is part of Central America. Only the United States and Canada make up North America. ;)



Nope. Mexico is part of North America.

I stand corrected. Should have googled it to verify.

Though I consider it part of Central America since most of the countries in C.A. are sort of shit holes. :P
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BillyVance

******Actually, Mexico is part of Central America. Only the United States and Canada make up North America. ;)



Nope. Mexico is part of North America.

I stand corrected. Should have googled it to verify.

Though I consider it part of Central America since most of the countries in C.A. are sort of shit holes. :P

Lol! It's a common mistake. I was surprised when I found this out many many years ago... It was a Mexican who told me and I *still* didn't believe her - boy did I feel dumb when I realised...

ETA - I am not saying you should feel dumb...!!! Just I had reaaaally insisted... So yeah... Live and learn...!
"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As to mexico, I don't see it as a geographic question so much as a cultural one. Mexico and many of the central and south american countries were founded by Spain. It's an interesting case study. There was a time when Mexico was the cultural center of north america. The US were just some up start colonies with delusions of grandeur. Mexico was civilization. In every measurable way mexico was far ahead of the US. It's not really disadvantaged even today. It has substantial natural resources, oil, mineral, etc. It has every thing it ever needed to become the dominant north american power and it had a head start on the colonies and Canada. The difference was in the culture. Spain brought the Spanish court with them and all the corruption that it entails. It is so ingrained in the culture of these countries that they have never recovered from it. Where as the US and Canada were founded on much different principles. English law. The idea that all men are created equal. So even though we started the race from well behind, look who landed a man on the moon. Where as the corruption in mexico has boiled over till it's basically a failed state.

Another example is India. I'm speaking in the larger since to include India, Pakistan, and... Burma? What's that little chunk that got shaved off the east end. The point is that it was all one country. Totally even playing field. They were granted independence and imeadeantly started a civil war. Which didn't end till the British told all the muslems and Hindus to go to there own corners, "and stop touching each other." "Do not make me pull this country over again or you will regret it!" Now look at them. One a growing international power in IT and manufacturing. The other a shit hole.

So I say that the US and Canada are north america. Mexico is part of central.
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nataly



Well, sometimes when your best-friend-who-lives-half-way-across-the-world posts the same meme on their FB wall as what your colleague (who is NOT a friend) just emailed you, it makes you want to believe the whole 6 degrees of separation theory... That we are all connected, bla di bla di bla... It's so easy to forget how limited our world view is and how hard it is for people to change/accept different points of view... To be honest, I think homogenisation is neither possible, nor desirable. And even if it were possible, it would take a loooooooooooooong time.

Abolishing slavery hasn't fixed the racism problem... It took away a lot of comfort for some very privileged few... And improved the situation of many... But there is still a looooong way to go. Allowing women to work and to vote hasn't fixed gender unfairnesses... But slowly slowly there is some progress. And I would like to think that allowing freedom of movement would be a similar thing... Slowly slowly slowly, having access to different places would result in progress. Not without some conflict/difficulty along the way... But also not COMPLETE CHAOS as some would have you believe. Sorry to get back to this but fear of the other is precisely what some people are trying to propagate in order to further limit freedom of movement...



Very good points.

Although the xenophobes generally push the fear of the other cultures "taking over", as opposed to complete chaos. Look at the fear of "Sharia Law" in some places here in the US. They've even passed laws banning it. The really funny (ironic funny, not humorous funny) part of that is those are often places where the Christian version of "sharia law" is strongly entrenched (stuff like alcohol sales prohibited on Sunday, for example).
So those people don't really have fear of religious laws, they just fear laws of a religion different from their own.

And
RiggerLee

Another example is India. I'm speaking in the larger since to include India, Pakistan, and... Burma? What's that little chunk that got shaved off the east end.



Bangladesh.

And just like Yugoslavia (and much of the Middle East & Africa), the boundaries of old "India" didn't follow any of the historic, tribal, or cultural divides. Just lines some bureaucrat a zillion miles away drew on a map.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe



Although the xenophobes generally push the fear of the other cultures "taking over", as opposed to complete chaos.



True.

Quote


So those people don't really have fear of religious laws, they just fear laws of a religion different from their own.



Yep.

As for RiggerLee on North America... Canada and the US were not "founded on English Law"... Out of the people who came over from Europe and massacred the natives and took over the land (I am over simplifying, but you started), a form of English law prevailed in the US... As for Canada, English Law in most of the land, but French Law in Quebec. Also, let's not paint over our ancestors' genocide past and pretend Canada and the US are somehow better and/or more alike and thus arbitrarily place Mexico in Central America because somehow through your twisted logic Mexico is based/founded on a "more corrupt" system/laws/culture and doesn't belong with Canada and the US. Mexico. Is. In. North. America. Not that any of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread... Just let's try not to lump together a bunch of over simplified and unrelated ideas to fit our own misinformed world view. Let's especially not do that just to make some completely irrelevant/false point. Same goes for India/Pakistan/Burma...

As for wolfriverjoe on "lines drawn on a map" not necessarily reflecting clean/clear cultural differences from one country to another - I agree to a certain extent. I would simply add that artificial boundaries on a map and/or physical boundaries like the Berlin Wall nevertheless end up creating and/or enhancing real differences from one place to another. And even if these divisions are artificial in the beginning, there is no question that over time, the experience of being on one side of the line/wall will be very different compared to being on the other. And this goes back to my idea that INCREASING freedom of movement should gradually reduce some of these "artificially created" differences, thereby resulting in an overall improvement of the human condition (through increased sharing of knowledge/resources, progress, greater tolerance/acceptance, et cetera).

But yeah... I certainly don't think everyone would end up equal and/or the same... Not even in the very distant future... Because in the same way that "drawing lines on a map" doesn't erase years and years of cultural similarities, "erasing lines on a map" will not magically remove years and years of cultural divide/oppression...
"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry if I get long winded. I'm ether super busy here or totally board. They really don't have enough work to keep me busy full time.

I'm not very good at it but I was really trying to be coherent.

Base question: would the removal of immigration law law cause total chaos.

My response:

No because it's not the main impediment.

My arguments:

Financial ability, opportunity, the ability to survive once there play a bigger part.

Migration, regardless of the scale, be it by neighborhood or country, is self balancing and the ebb and flow of economy/environment will self correct any imbalance.

Human interference in this based on our misconceptions or less then honorable intentions leads to the most vilant oscillation and unrest in society.

Cultures are not all equal. Some are more aggressive then others. Some more robust, better suited to survive. Some more suited to progress and others prone to stagnation. It is not surprising that when two meet that one will dominate, supplant the other.

This is all part of why populations move and what happens when they collide with each other. I don't think any of this is irrelevant.


As to the fate of the aboriginal native american Indianans. It's real simple. They lost. It's not some thing any of us should feel bad about. It's just what happened. And it really wasn't any thing we did, at least not intentionally. The seeds of those events had been building up for thousands of years. There are several interesting books on the subject of the collapse of the native american cultures. There are a lot of reasons why they basically went extinct. Estimates range from a die off of 85% to 95% of the population of the new world. A restricted almost inbred genetic pool. A high degree of isolation. Limited immunity to disease. Limitations on technical development due to limited availability of suitable animals for domestication. Basically they ran into a much more aggressive culture. We grew up in a very competitive environment. Then some one coughed and it was all over. Thing is 95% of the people we "slaughtered" in our "Genocide" of the aboriginal Americans never met a white man. In fact their deaths ran ahead of European expansion by... 150 to 200 years. By the time we reached them the great nations in america were already long gone. The tribes we met were just the remnants left over generations after the apocalypses. The Sue were not some noble race. They were the left overs. They were like the gangs wondering the waist lands of their fallen civilization like in the old post apocalyptic movies that were big back in the 80's. The Apaches were road warriors. Think Mad Max. We just expanded into the void that they left behind. The Indian wars were just us pushing the last few survivors out of our way. If we'd met them in their prime... I'm not sure we would have won. We had technological advantages but not that great. Muzzle loaders aren't that much better then a bow. At least the British had metallic cartridges when they faced the Zulu and even then it was touch and go. My point is don't feel bad about your ancestry or the fact that you are descended from the winners in the conflict.

Law. Quebec, well those people are just weird. French men that never went home. An isolated pocket of subculture. We actually have some thing similar here. Louisiana is basically the same. French heritage. The state law is actually derived from french law. It's unlike any thing else in the country.

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RiggerLee

Sorry if I get long winded. I'm ether super busy here or totally board. They really don't have enough work to keep me busy full time.

I'm not very good at it but I was really trying to be coherent.

Base question: would the removal of immigration law law cause total chaos.

My response:

No because it's not the main impediment.

My arguments:

Financial ability, opportunity, the ability to survive once there play a bigger part.

Migration, regardless of the scale, be it by neighborhood or country, is self balancing and the ebb and flow of economy/environment will self correct any imbalance.

Human interference in this based on our misconceptions or less then honorable intentions leads to the most vilant oscillation and unrest in society.

Cultures are not all equal. Some are more aggressive then others. Some more robust, better suited to survive. Some more suited to progress and others prone to stagnation. It is not surprising that when two meet that one will dominate, supplant the other.

This is all part of why populations move and what happens when they collide with each other. I don't think any of this is irrelevant.


As to the fate of the aboriginal native american Indianans. It's real simple. They lost. It's not some thing any of us should feel bad about. It's just what happened. And it really wasn't any thing we did, at least not intentionally. The seeds of those events had been building up for thousands of years. There are several interesting books on the subject of the collapse of the native american cultures. There are a lot of reasons why they basically went extinct. Estimates range from a die off of 85% to 95% of the population of the new world. A restricted almost inbred genetic pool. A high degree of isolation. Limited immunity to disease. Limitations on technical development due to limited availability of suitable animals for domestication. Basically they ran into a much more aggressive culture. We grew up in a very competitive environment. Then some one coughed and it was all over. Thing is 95% of the people we "slaughtered" in our "Genocide" of the aboriginal Americans never met a white man. In fact their deaths ran ahead of European expansion by... 150 to 200 years. By the time we reached them the great nations in america were already long gone. The tribes we met were just the remnants left over generations after the apocalypses. The Sue were not some noble race. They were the left overs. They were like the gangs wondering the waist lands of their fallen civilization like in the old post apocalyptic movies that were big back in the 80's. The Apaches were road warriors. Think Mad Max. We just expanded into the void that they left behind. The Indian wars were just us pushing the last few survivors out of our way. If we'd met them in their prime... I'm not sure we would have won. We had technological advantages but not that great. Muzzle loaders aren't that much better then a bow. At least the British had metallic cartridges when they faced the Zulu and even then it was touch and go. My point is don't feel bad about your ancestry or the fact that you are descended from the winners in the conflict.

Law. Quebec, well those people are just weird. French men that never went home. An isolated pocket of subculture. We actually have some thing similar here. Louisiana is basically the same. French heritage. The state law is actually derived from french law. It's unlike any thing else in the country.

Lee



Indeed. They use "parish" instead of "county" for one example, but yes, they have a culture all their own that's almost foreign to the rest of the US.
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They do, but one of the results of increasingly pervasive mass communication is the homogenization of much of society.
Everyone knows what McDonald's is. Nearly everyone who's urbanized or in a western culture wants to wear the clothing they see advertised, hear the cool new songs, share the latest internet memes (or whatever the new-tech equivalent is), etc.

I grew up in the early 1960's in southern Brazil. At that time, it was still common for cowboys to ride horses, wear the "traditional" gaucho wear, for children to learn the traditional folk songs, and entertainment at many events could easily be regionally-dressed Brazilian equivalents of cowboys and cowgirls singing and dancing. Not as a throwback, but as an integrated part of culture.

Even 20 years ago that wasn't the case any more. Everyone had TV, everyone had a phone, and all that stuff was part of the quaint past, not part of the present. There are people who want it to remain part of the present, but it takes work, and more people just want to do what's easier.

I'm not sure what it means for where everyone would live, but mass media (including the internet)has transformed the world incredibly quickly, by making so many things desirable, and making so many others less exotic, than they used to be.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0