What's your thoughts on asylum seekers?

Some roads and other basics like medicine, hygiene, laws yeah...

Do you think they are forever in temporary accommodation years after moving here? The main reason house prices and rent are overinflated is because our population is increasing at an unnatural rate due to uncontrolled immigration. Being in a hotel or something similar is the initial accommodation before they are allocated housing.

a) I don't agree and b) I really don't get your point.

It was said, quite clearly, that one of the the legacies of colonisation was Civil War.

It would be nice if the poster that said that could give some examples of this, as I was as a loss to find any.

You're being a bit ridiculous. We don't need to have invented it, to have, in some cases, caused it.

loads of posters are dog whistling trans stuff into any old argument these days - I think they genuinely believe that people will see it and think, ‘ah! This poster is anti-trans so they must also be sensible and right about any other topic they discuss’.

I mean, I guess it worked for some of the more abhorrent politicians, so might work here?

@User32459 "Now you're saying that every single conflict in history must be the result of colonisation..."

Where did I say that?🤔

@User32459 I was talking about the effects of colonisation and you seem to be trying to be clever.

No, I'm engaging the discussion you started.

So I repeat - "Civil War - I am curious to know who were the 'Colonisers' during the English Civil War, the American Civil War, the Finnish Civil War, Russian Civil War, Greek Civil war etc etc ?"

@Dontletthebedbugsbite2

I can well imagine being put out if I'm working, contributing to the system and then a family arrives and is given a full health check & a nice home.

This does not happen. Accommodation given to asylum seekers in temporary in nature, often a room in a hotel or some other communal type situation.

They are not getting houses or homes. They have no security of tenure and can and are moved around with little notice.

The counterfactual is "what if the British hadn't set foot in that country" and in very many places, the answer isn't "everyone was living in the garden of Eden and everything was wonderful".

Fair to discuss specific policies of British colonial administration in specific places and time periods (it varied quite a bit!) with respect to the prevailing conditions when the British arrived but this broad-brush "colonialism is the root of all evil" argument is tedious.

@username299 The Brits didn't pay reparations to the victims though, just the owners.

They set the slaves free, and started a movement in the western world that other countries followed. Do you not agree with that?

I guess that means it's ok. The Brits didn't pay reparations to the victims though, just the owners.

Yes, it was the bank bailout of its day in that regard.

So are you saying that the British should not have banned Sati and infanticide?

I gather you aren't a supporter of women's rights then?

I guess that means it's ok. The Brits didn't pay reparations to the victims though, just the owners.

It's a really tough topic I think. As a decent person I would say we should welcome asylum seekers & help them feel safe in our country. I think the issues stem from the amount it costs us, as a country & the decline in the general standard of living in the UK. If everyone is already struggling & fighting over resources I.e. social housing, NHS appointments then it can be easy to point fingers at people arriving & being given access to these things. This is a problem caused by the government & not by the individuals arriving. Certainly in my area social housing wait lists are decades long & I can well imagine being put out if I'm working, contributing to the system and then a family arrives and is given a full health check & a nice home. On the flip side, if I had to flee to safety with my children I would move heaven & earth to do so. I would like for people arriving to be integrated into society better, to be provided with jobs/training & not to be put with other people newly arrived & left to thier own devices all day- preventing them from mixing outwith their own groups.

I was talking about the effects of colonisation and you seem to be trying to be clever. For example, you're saying that slavery existed before the British Empire as though that somehow negates it. Two things can exist at the same time 1. Slavery existed before the British Empire 2. Slavery was industrialised during the British Empire.

Slavery was also ended by Britain. Took the UK till I think 2014 to pay off that particular bill.

I was talking about the effects of colonisation and you seem to be trying to be clever. For example, you're saying that slavery existed before the British Empire as though that somehow negates it. Two things can exist at the same time 1. Slavery existed before the British Empire 2. Slavery was industrialised during the British Empire.

Scholars have a very clear understanding of what ethnic cleansing is and it's defined under international law. International law is a modern invention but that doesn't negate the fact that ethnic cleansing took place before the law

Genocide existed before the Holocaust, there wasn't an international law defining it until afterwards. That doesn't mean it didn't exist. If you don't think the Rwandan genocide wasn't caused by colonisation, I don't know what to tell you. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Now you're saying that every single conflict in history must be the result of colonisation...

Slavery, ethnic cleansing, genocide, mass murder, torture and civil war are the legacy of colonisation.

This really isn't true, you know. It will remain untrue no matter how many people confidently assert it on tiktok.

There's a reason we no longer share Earth with Neanderthal humans, for instance. Yes, many humans have some residual DNA, so there was some inbreeding, but mostly we wiped them out.

Slaves built the pyramids.

Plenty of evidence of torture as an instrument of social control that pre-dates colonialism, or has nothing to do with it, eg the Spanish Inquisition, and it was standard in England at the time as well.

Civil war, I mean there have been plenty of civil wars in England alone that pre-date colonialism.

There's a current trend of thinking white Western cultures are the root of all evil but it's nonsense. It's actually a deeply racist way of thinking, assuming that non-Western cultures are childlike beings with no agency of their own.

These events were not necessarily the result of colonisation.

Slavery ; The oldest known slave society was the Mesopotamian and Sumerian civilisations located in the Iran/Iraq region between 6000-2000BCE. Can you say who the 'colonisers' were?

Ethnic Cleansing - Although scholars do not agree on which events constitute ethnic cleansing.The term was first used to describe Albanian Nationalist treatment of the Kosovan Serbs in the 1980's.

Genocide was a term first used to describe the Holocaust 1941-45 which was not a result of 'colonisation'. Neither was the Rwandan Genocide1994, the Armenian Genocide 1915-16, The Cambodian Genocide 1975-1979, or the Guatomalian Genocide 1978-1983.

Mass murder and torture- see above ^

Civil War - I am curious to know who were the 'Colonisers' during the English Civil War, the American Civil War, the Finnish Civil War, Russian Civil War, Greek Civil war etc etc ?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The British colonised a lot of the globe and were very cruel. To suggest that colonisation only brought good things when for many it had devastating consequences, is plain ignorance.

Why you're wittering on about two sexes is anyone's guess.

Not at all. It happened before and after, all over the world

Oh yup, those things famously never happened until the British invented them.

Is this like how the British also invented the concept of having two sexes?

More tongue in cheek I assume?? If not I suggest YOU do some proper research about British rule in India.

Slavery, ethnic cleansing, genocide, mass murder, torture and civil war are the legacy of colonisation.

My post was rather toungue-in-cheek.

The British left many of their colonies in a better state than when they arrived.

In India, for example, in December 1829, Lord William Bentinck, the first governor general of British-ruled India, banned sati, the ancient Hindu practice of a widow being required to throw herself on her husband's funeral pyre to burn to death.

The British also banned the sacrifice of new-born babies to the goddess Kali.

In addition they built schools, roads, railways and introduced law & order and medicine.

In the 6 months to June of last year Vietamese made up the largest % of small boat arrivals to UK. Vietnam is not and never has been a British Colony. It became a French colony in 1858.
So go figure that one out.

You should do your some research before you post such uninformed material.

If by "better" you mean - took anything of any value, dismantled any existing power and leadership structures, then fucked off and left a few nice buildings and roads behind. Then sure. "Better".