PDA

View Full Version : The Value of Colonialism/New World Migration & Establishment



Bridie
Monday, April 10th, 2006, 02:20 AM
I'm wondering how other Europoids feel about our peoples' past and current migration from Europe to live in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Sth Africa etc etc???

Do you think that this was a good move for our people? Good for our race/s? Good for individual European cultures?

I always get a vague, (perhaps even somewhat romanitcised,) feeling when I hear of, or see, non-Europoid people living in Europe that these people who have no right (just my opinion! :D ) to be there are taking the place of those of us who are of pure Europoid blood. Almost like we've been turfed out only to be replaced with those who don't belong there, and who will most likely in the far future serve to dilute Europoid bloodlines and see the extinction of our race/s. (Of course, I know that many Europeans emigrated voluntarily!) Europoids have been spread out across the earth, and our homelands have been "invaded" by strangers (romantic terminology - not to be taken literally! ;) ) and the consequences of this has been to fragment our people, of course.

And we all know, a fragmented population is a weak population.

So what's your opinion?

Ĉmeric
Monday, April 10th, 2006, 03:13 AM
It was good in the case of North America, Australia & New Zealand. It expanded the living space & influence of Europoids. Britain in particular benefited from the establishment of these neo-Anglo societies. What is bad is allowing non-Europoids into these areas & into Europe. South Africa is another story. North America & Australasia were relatively unpopulated at the onset of European settlement & Europoids quickly became the majority. But Whites were never the majority in South Africa & that demographic fact has pretty much doomed that nations White minority.

Bridie
Monday, April 10th, 2006, 04:01 AM
Britain in particular benefited from the establishment of these neo-Anglo societies. I'm sure they did.... economically. I wonder sometimes now though if the world figures that what with the cruelty and viciousness that the British govt often inflicted on many areas of the world in the past, its pay-back time.... could this be in part why England feels so obligated to take in so many refugees, and why no one seems to give a crap that its desroying Britain? Do some English themselves feel guilt over the atrocities committed in the past in the name of expanding the British empire, and as such feel reluctant to speak out against the atrocities now occurring in their homeland?? I often wonder this.....


My opinion is that it would make more sense, if Europeans need more living space (which of course they will do, assuming prosperity) that Europoids stay in Eruope and then expand occupation of the land from there.... pushing back people in the occupied neighbouring areas, so as to not allow inter-racial mixing. This way it seems more of a gentle evolution (well, I'm sure there would be plenty of blood spilt too)... and probably more acceptable in the eyes of many. And this way too, fragmentation will be seriously minimised. A united force is a strong one.

Rhydderch
Monday, April 10th, 2006, 06:18 AM
I see it as a good thing, at least (as Anglo-Hoosier said) in the then sparsely populated lands like Australia, America and New Zealand. In fact the low population is the reason they were utilised in this way really.


I'm sure they did.... economically. I wonder sometimes now though if the world figures that what with the cruelty and viciousness that the British govt often inflicted on many areas of the world in the past, its pay-back time....While there were cases of cruelty on the part of British representatives, the British Empire was built with a surprising lack of bloodshed, as Empires go. What specific instances of cruelty do you have in mind?

Rune Caster
Monday, April 10th, 2006, 06:59 AM
The bigger question I always wonder is whether European countries would swap their degenerate immigrants for people that have pre-existing racial, linguistic and ethnic ties to the country of their origin, but have emigrated?

Britain, for example, seems more willing to admit non-european refugees from former colonies that have gone to shit than it is to even offer the same entry to Australians (of the same racial and linguistic stock) as they do to member nations of the EU at immigration at Heathrow :)

Glynd Eastŵd
Monday, April 10th, 2006, 07:40 AM
I'm sure they did.... economically. I wonder sometimes now though if the world figures that what with the cruelty and viciousness that the British govt often inflicted on many areas of the world in the past, its pay-back time.... could this be in part why England feels so obligated to take in so many refugees, and why no one seems to give a crap that its desroying Britain? Do some Brits themselves feel guilt over the atrocities committed in the past in the name of expanding the British empire, and as such feel reluctant to speak out against the atrocities now occurring in their homeland?? I often wonder this.....

Brits shouldn't have to feel sorry for themselves. It was by in large the English who had been committing atrocities and 'jingoism'. But yes, I'd say part of the reason England and Wales are populated by so many immigrants is because of our imperialist past.

Bridie
Monday, April 10th, 2006, 08:01 AM
I see it as a good thing, at least (as Anglo-Hoosier said) in the then sparsely populated lands like Australia, America and New Zealand. In fact the low population is the reason they were utilised in this way really.Does it make it okay to invade and conquer an inhabited land just because it is sparsely populated? Strange idea there. Australia, amoung other lands, were targeted for colonisation due to being strategically adventageous and some were used in trade etc... the fact that the UK was largely impoverished due to a population explosion at the time (and a resultant over-crowding of jails due to escalating social problems) made penal colonies convenient. They were not utilised in this way mostly due to being sparsely populated as you've suggested.... this was in all probability, just icing on the cake.



While there were cases of cruelty on the part of British representatives, the British Empire was built with a surprising lack of bloodshed, as Empires go. What specific instances of cruelty do you have in mind?:-O :-O Which empires are you comparing them to?? Well, maybe you mean that the Brits met little resistance due to the primitiveness of the people they were conquering?

As far as specific cases of cruelty go, there are obviously too many to state.... many anecdotal anyway. I mean come on, you've heard the stories and seen the pictures too, I'm sure. Rape, murder, paedophilia, torture, detention for not adhering to laws that aboriginals didn't understand, disease, ethnic cleansing....

Here's some text that I believe sums things up nicely in a simplistic way.... source is dubious, but nonetheless, I think its a pretty objective, unemotive interpretation....
http://www.globalvolunteers.org/1main/australia/australiahistory.htm


But this is somewhat off track now anyway. I mostly just wanted to see what others thought about Europoids emigrating to new lands from Europe. You think its a good thing, okay :) , and I appreciate your input. :thumbup Ta!

Bridie
Monday, April 10th, 2006, 08:07 AM
Brits shouldn't have to feel sorry for themselves. It was by in large the English who had been committing atrocities and 'jingoism'.Sorry about that! :-O I shouldn't have said "Brits" in that context.... it was the English govt. (Not the English people in general either.... most would have been completely unaware of what the govt was up to.)

And to be honest I don't think that even the English should feel guilty. Not at all. None of us can live in the past.

Rhydderch
Monday, April 10th, 2006, 09:15 AM
Does it make it okay to invade and conquer an inhabited land just because it is sparsely populated?It means that extensive colonisation could take place without killing people and driving them off their land. Obviously murders did take place, but there was plenty of land, and no need to drive anyone off.


Strange idea there. Australia, amoung other lands, were targeted for colonisation due to being strategically adventageous and some were used in trade etc... the fact that the UK was largely impoverished due to a population explosion at the time (and a resultant over-crowding of jails due to escalating social problems) made penal colonies convenient. They were not utilised in this way mostly due to being sparsely populated as you've suggested.... this was in all probability, just icing on the cake.Clearly there were other reasons why a colony was needed, but put it this way, if Australia had been populated like Papua New Guinea, it simply wouldn't have been colonised in the way it was.



:-O :-O Which empires are you comparing them to?? Well, maybe you mean that the Brits met little resistance due to the primitiveness of the people they were conquering?

As far as specific cases of cruelty go, there are obviously too many to state.... many anecdotal anyway. I mean come on, you've heard the stories and seen the pictures too, I'm sure. Rape, murder, paedophilia, torture, detention for not adhering to laws that aboriginals didn't understand, disease, ethnic cleansing....Since it's off-topic, I won't start a discussion about it, but I'll just say that our liberal/leftist friends are teaching the young this sort of anti-British stuff in an effort to poison their minds against their heritage. Much of it is just plain rubbish, invented stories, and certainly while such things did occur in some cases, it was basically colonial criminals who were responsible, hardly the British government. This is the case in Australia at any rate, and there are many instances of colonists and explorers being taken to trial for such actions.

I can only say, the people with these stories can rarely back them up with solid evidence. They're manipulating history, which is their usual habit.

Bridie
Monday, April 10th, 2006, 01:48 PM
It means that extensive colonisation could take place without killing people and driving them off their land.You already are fully aware I'm sure that the VAST majority of Austalian land is uninhabitable, infertile and harsh (particularly harsh when you're fair complected). To get the same yield from a crop grown in Australia you need FAR MORE land than is needed in the UK and Ireland. Likewise, for more land is needed for grazing too. There never was an over-abundance of uninhabited land in Australia that was both fertile and habitable.(!)

Of course many abo's were driven off of their ancestral lands.



but I'll just say that our liberal/leftist friends are teaching the young this sort of anti-British stuff in an effort to poison their minds against their heritage. Much of it is just plain rubbish, invented stories, and certainly while such things did occur in some cases, it was basically colonial criminals who were responsible, hardly the British government. This is the case in Australia at any rate, and there are many instances of colonists and explorers being taken to trial for such actions.

I can only say, the people with these stories can rarely back them up with solid evidence. They're manipulating history, which is their usual habit.I'd like to hear your views on this.... I'll start another thread in the Australians and NewZealanders sub-forum. :) (Tommorrow ;) - too tired tonight. :) )

Rhydderch
Monday, April 10th, 2006, 03:06 PM
You already are fully aware I'm sure that the VAST majority of Austalian land is uninhabitable, infertile and harsh (particularly harsh when you're fair complected). To get the same yield from a crop grown in Australia you need FAR MORE land than is needed in the UK and Ireland. Likewise, for more land is needed for grazing too. There never was an over-abundance of uninhabited land in Australia that was both fertile and habitable.(!)It depends on the region, and Australia is a huge continent; my point remains that, relatively speaking, there was plenty of land without needing to kill and drive out Aborigines. Much of Victoria is pretty fertile, and early estimates of the Aboriginal population here vary between 1000 and 6000; either way, that's a tiny population.


Of course many abo's were driven off of their ancestral lands.No, because the aborigines were nomadic, meant that settlers took up the free land, no-one needed to be driven from it. Obviously it was their hunting grounds, but each group had a huge ranging area. By and large, they remained in their regions, but eventually with little land to hunt on; later a lot of them went on to reserves.

Ĉmeric
Monday, April 10th, 2006, 10:54 PM
My opinion is that it would make more sense, if Europeans need more living space (which of course they will do, assuming prosperity) that Europoids stay in Eruope and then expand occupation of the land from there.... pushing back people in the occupied neighbouring areas, so as to not allow inter-racial mixing. This way it seems more of a gentle evolution (well, I'm sure there would be plenty of blood spilt too)... and probably more acceptable in the eyes of many. And this way too, fragmentation will be seriously minimised. A united force is a strong one.

The British tried that in Ireland in the 17th century. It did'nt work because Ireland was a settled country & the British were never a majority & Britain & Ireland are still dealing with the consequences.

The Russians conquered neighboring areas and had a compact empire but again it did'nt do them any good because they were a minority in large parts of the empire which are now independent republics. Of course they still have Siberia but it is underpopulated & borders China. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

France conquered Algeria & colonized it but Europeans were never more then 10% of the population. That ended badly. However the Algerians seem to be having more success at colonizing France.

ChaosLord
Monday, April 10th, 2006, 11:50 PM
I believe that the Europoid emigration to the U.S.A. was a good idea. It gave influence and wealth to the newcomers by making opportunity in this country as well as balance out overpopulated areas of Europe. The only problem now isn't the Europoids who colonized the country, it's our corporate and government structure. Back then, the "melting pot" was meant for those of Indo-European heritage to mingle and share ideals, because they all shared a common ground of belief and heritage. Now the country is ruled by economics and the value of heritage and cultural tradition has steeped to a low level. We let anybody in this country because we supposedly "need them" and those of European ancestry are to be phased out by the process of "ethnic diversity". Jobs are being outsourced, suburban sprawl is everywhere, illegals are swarming the cities, and our government is too scared to say/do anything.

Bridie
Tuesday, April 11th, 2006, 02:54 AM
No, because the aborigines were nomadic, meant that settlers took up the free land, no-one needed to be driven from it. Obviously it was their hunting grounds, but each group had a huge ranging area.That's a load of rot. In order to live a nomadic lifestyle, a population needs a large amount of land to hunt on... otherwise its just not sustainable. Also, they had their spiritual "special" places (I can't think off-hand what the hell the proper terminology is! :D ), and they were stationary.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not all in for the abo's claiming "sacred" bloody land all the time (which always just "happens" to be very valuable land...:| ...), but it doesn't take a genius to see that the claiming of Australia as land of their own by the British govt of the day was wrong. Nothing we can do about it now though.... its not as if I want to give it back or anything. :-O Hehehe We need some petrol left for powering vehicles after all... :-O :rotfl


Anglo-Man.... that's true. :)


Oh well, I seem to be the only one that thinks that Europoid emigration from Europe was/is a bad thing. Thems the breaks I guess. ;)

Rhydderch
Tuesday, April 11th, 2006, 05:13 AM
That's a load of rot. In order to live a nomadic lifestyle, a population needs a large amount of land to hunt on... otherwise its just not sustainable. Also, they had their spiritual "special" places (I can't think off-hand what the hell the proper terminology is! :D ), and they were stationary.Exactly. They need a large amount of land to hunt on, which is why there was plenty of it when the British arrived.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not all in for the abo's claiming "sacred" bloody land all the time (which always just "happens" to be very valuable land...:| ...), but it doesn't take a genius to see that the claiming of Australia as land of their own by the British govt of the day was wrong.We're not discussing whether this was wrong, that's another issue. You were saying that the British government massacred and drove away the aborigines in order to take over their land; this wasn't even necessary. There were large amounts of what was effectively unoccupied land, even though it was all claimed as hunting grounds by various tribes.

Nothing we can do about it now though.... its not as if I want to give it back or anything. :-O :thumbup


Hehehe We need some petrol left for powering vehicles after all... :-O :rotflCareful what you say!:-O

Bridie
Tuesday, April 11th, 2006, 06:26 AM
Exactly. They need a large amount of land to hunt on, which is why there was plenty of it when the British arrived.Oh mate.... why is it that you're not getting what I'm trying to say here?.... haven't been getting the old nostrils stuck into a petrol tin have ya?? :lmfao: (God, I crack myself up! :D ) You know, they needed that land to sustain their nomadic lifestyle, so without it, they had their way of life, culture and self-esteem destroyed. They still have not recovered, we all know its true.



We're not discussing whether this was wrong, that's another issue.Hard to discuss such topics without at some stage stating whether or not it was justifiable. But you're right, lets to my facts.... oops, sorry I meant "the facts". :D



You were saying that the British government massacred and drove away the aborigines in order to take over their land; this wasn't even necessary. I didn't actually say "massacred", but yes they did. However, larger numbers were killed off via the introduction of "European" diseases.

Look, as far as I can see, you are in complete denial that the British govt at the time of colonisation in Australia was cruel and underhanded.... you should study the facts. I've studied Australian history at uni level, and so have seen various sources of info that were not tampered with by the subjective interpretations of historians.... it was pretty clear to me the true horror of the situation. However, you might not think it was so bad... depending on how sensitive you are I suppose.

You and I will most likely never see eye-to-eye on this matter, since I'm assuming you are a monarchist/royalist, and I am most definately a republican.

Nevermind! :D :dance

Rhydderch
Tuesday, April 11th, 2006, 02:21 PM
Oh mate.... why is it that you're not getting what I'm trying to say here?.... haven't been getting the old nostrils stuck into a petrol tin have ya?? :lmfao: (God, I crack myself up! :D )Aboriginal blood!? No, not me :-O :D
You know, they needed that land to sustain their nomadic lifestyle, so without it, they had their way of life, culture and self-esteem destroyed. They still have not recovered, we all know its true.True, I agree with that although their lifestyle and culture wasn't so much destroyed by having land settled on per se. But I'm objecting to the idea that the British elite deliberately practised ethnic cleansing and running Aborigines off their land. By and large, the British elite were fairer on them than a lot of colonists, from whom they had to be protected in many cases. However, their nomadic hunter gatherer lifestyle really depended on the availability of the various animals they hunted, and this continued well after their lands had been settled by white men.

They rapidly declined mainly due to introduction of diseases (which often weren't fatal to Europeans) and alcohol, the latter given to them by lawless colonists. Of course, there were also conflicts between settlers and natives.


Hard to discuss such topics without at some stage stating whether or not it was justifiable.Yes, it's just that the point I was making wasn't related to the question of being justifiable.


I didn't actually say "massacred", but yes they did.Do you have any specific instances? I'm not trying to be nit-picky, and I know it's not always possible to remember a particular example, but I need something I can look into and see just what they're saying, and whether it's supported by real evidence. It would help to know where you're coming from.


Look, as far as I can see, you are in complete denial that the British govt at the time of colonisation in Australia was cruel and underhanded....I'm not suggesting they were a bunch of angels, but by and large, they were nothing like the monsters they're made out to be by modern revisionists.


you should study the facts. I've studied Australian history at uni level, and so have seen various sources of info that were not tampered with by the subjective interpretations of historians....Believe me, a university is just the sort of place I would expect to find such distortions of our history. These people have effectively hijacked the education system. You may have heard that the Prime Minister has suggested something should be done about the way history is taught here. One must look a little deeper to find out the true situation; a great deal of misrepresentation is going on. Try reading some older books, and there is also at least one modern historian (Keith Windschuttle) I can think of who sometimes takes the trouble to refute the claims that do the rounds. And a few years ago I saw a "meet the press" (ABC tv) session whose guests were a historian and his former history professor. This professor had, according to the historian, taught him a highly distorted version of the facts, and he was angry that the professor had misled him.

In any case, the picture is quite different if you look at the other side of the story, you'll find it's not accepted fact by all; these revisionist ideas aren't the "common knowledge" they're claimed to be.


it was pretty clear to me the true horror of the situation. However, you might not think it was so bad... depending on how sensitive you are I suppose.I'm sure some horrible things occured, but this idea of the British government (or even colonists in general) engaging in ethnic cleansing and brutality simply isn't realistic.


You and I will most likely never see eye-to-eye on this matter, since I'm assuming you are a monarchist/royalist,Yep :thumbup And until our education system was taken over by Socialists, I think there weren't too many Republicans around


and I am most definately a republican.I figured that :D

Bridie
Tuesday, April 11th, 2006, 02:53 PM
Do you have any specific instances? I'm not trying to be nit-picky, and I know it's not always possible to remember a particular example, but I need something I can look into and see just what they're saying, and whether it's supported by real evidence. It would help to know where you're coming from.
Hmmmm.... I'll have to get back to you on this one. How many will have to have been killed for it to be considered a massacre?? You know.... you could probably Google it and find some massacres.... a bit of light entertainment before bed. :roll (Hey, we all need a hobby! :rotfl )



Believe me, a university is just the sort of place I would expect to find such distortions of our history. These people have effectively hijacked the education system. You may have heard that the Prime Minister has suggested something should be done about the way history is taught here. Wasn't little Johnny talking about history at high school level though? At uni level its not so much about learning events, dates etc by reading other historians accounts of it.... its about learning how to source and analyse the info/primary sources for oneself. Sometimes though, various historians interpretations are studied to compare and contrast. Uni students are given the tools to discriminate and analyse. I don't think its what you think it is.

What the hell do you want to hang onto Pommie Land for? Okay, I will start another thread on this one. Sooner or later. :)

Cole Nidray
Tuesday, April 11th, 2006, 04:54 PM
But Whites were never the majority in South Africa & that demographic fact has pretty much doomed that nations White minority.

When Jan van Riebeeck arrived in SA on April 6th, 1652 there we no Negroes for more than one thousand miles. In the 1820's when the Groot Trek was undertaken by the Boer people, there still werent any Negroes for more than 500 miles.

Europeans were a majority in South Africa until massive Bantu immigration.

Ĉmeric
Tuesday, April 11th, 2006, 05:02 PM
When Jan van Riebeeck arrived in SA on April 6th, 1652 there we no Negroes for more than one thousand miles. In the 1820's when the Groot Trek was undertaken by the Boer people, there still werent any Negroes for more than 500 miles.

Europeans were a majority in South Africa until massive Bantu immigration.
But was'nt there a Capoid/Bushmen population in the area. And the Dutch had a large number of slaves from India & Java that I believe outnumbered the free White population. Beside the Dutch never made much of an effort to colonize the Cape. There was only about 25,000 White settlers at the Cape when the British took possession.

Europeans were never the majority in South Africa. There was Always the colored servant population which was greater then the European population during Dutch rule. And the Bantu's were in Natal, Orange Free State & Transvaal before the Boers arrived there. Their numbers were small but the number of Boers were less. The Boers could have driven off the Bantu's but let them stay in the area as a source of cheap labor. The dependence on cheap non-White labor is what doomed the Whites of South Africa.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006, 12:42 AM
Hmmmm.... I'll have to get back to you on this one. How many will have to have been killed for it to be considered a massacre?? You know.... you could probably Google it and find some massacres.... a bit of light entertainment before bed. :roll (Hey, we all need a hobby! :rotfl )And of course I mean massacres for which you say the British government was responsible.


Wasn't little Johnny talking about history at high school level though?He probably was referring to that in particular but it effects all areas of education.


At uni level its not so much about learning events, dates etc by reading other historians accounts of it.... its about learning how to source and analyse the info/primary sources for oneself. Sometimes though, various historians interpretations are studied to compare and contrast. Uni students are given the tools to discriminate and analyse. I don't think its what you think it is.They don't need to have historians accounts in order to distort the picture. It's worth noting too that these socialists are desperate to put people through university, it's a vital part of their indoctrination process.


What the hell do you want to hang onto Pommie Land for?Another thing worth noting, is that the politicians most desperate for a Republic are the ones pushing multiculturalism and the "Australia is part of Asia" mentality. Don't let them con you :D

As for "hanging on to Pommy land", why throw away our traditional ties? Try analysing the people who push this idea, and look at the ideology behind it. In Britain, the people with the same views are trying to chop Britain up and make it dominated by Europe (besides flooding it with "tolerant, diverse and peaceful" immigrants).

Bridie
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006, 03:13 AM
Okay.... "monarchism v's republicanism"....

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=410018#post410018