egafd.com

Cameron goes his merry way, inviting more Asians to live in Britain, while
suggesting he will make it tougher for Poles and other hard-working East
Europeans....I can`t make the man out ? Then he is off proclaiming same-
sex marriages and splitting the Tory Party.
Yesterday he visited the Golden Temple at Amristsar, paid his respects to the
Sikh religion - and apologised for the 1919 Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre. This
is all good...
Except that General Dyer, who was trying to resore order in a crazed city
out of control in 1919 did not use ANY British troops. He even refused to have
British commanders with him. It was only asians who fired on other asians -
to be precise, a unit of the 1/9th Gurkhas and detachments of Baluchis and
the 54th Sikhs. That`s right ! Sikhs !
History - its so easy to muck it up.

I always find it odd when politicians apologise for things that happened so many years earlier. I mean, why now, when so many other politicians over the years have not. I also find it perculiar how so many of Britain's colonial subjects wanted Britain to leave, yet when Britain did leave so many wanted to come and live in Britain. Kind of suggests they liked the British administration and the British way of life after all.

"I also find it perculiar how so many of Britain's colonial subjects wanted Britain to leave, yet when Britain did leave so many wanted to come and live in Britain"

Not peculiar at all. You just need an understanding of British history, Max!

1. The standard of living was higher in the UK. That is the overwhelming motive for immigration in general.

2. In many cases immigration from the former Empire countries was invited and welcomed by British governments.

For example
"Manual workers, mainly from Pakistan, were recruited to fulfill the labour shortage that resulted from World War II. These included Anglo-Indians who were recruited to work on the railways as they had done in India.
Workers mainly from the Punjab region of India and some from Pakistan arrived in the late 1950s and 1960s. Many worked in the foundries of the English Midlands and a large number worked at Heathrow Airport in west London.

During the same time, medical staff from the Indian subcontinent were recruited for the newly formed National Health Service. These people were targeted as the British had established medical schools in the Indian subcontinent which conformed to the British standards of medical training.

I know quite a lot about British history, although I doubt you will ever be convinced of that.

What you've pointed out are reasons for immigration in the early years of when it was happening, in the 50s and 60s. I am aware of labour shortages in the post-war years and how people were encouraged to come. However we are now into the 3rd generation of people in the former colonies who either only lived part of their lives under a British administration or none of their lives, and yet still vast numbers from the former colonies want to come. There is no labour shortage in Britain today as there are vast numbers of economically inactive people in Britain.

Britain couldn't afford it's colonies anymore following World War 2 and this was the main reason for dismantling the Empire. The Mau Mau revolt in Kenya, and the deployment of many British troops to there and the cost of the whole thing, was one of the last straws. The tiny Empire Britain now has, which is basically a small number of islands here and there, probably have a better standard of life and are probably better run than they would be if Britain was to leave. I think the majority of the inhabitants would agree.

If Britain was hugely wealthier and could afford to have retained the entire Empire of old, I think the people in those large countries would be having a better time of it there too. The fact so many people from those places still want to move here kind of suggests they have this view too. They are acknowledging, in a round about way, that to be under Britain is preferable. Your comment just now of "The standard of living was higher in the UK. That is the overwhelming motive for immigration in general" seems to confirm that. I genuinely do wonder why there was such a push from within in so many of these place for independence years ago when you look at the view so many hold today.

"What you've pointed out are reasons for immigration in the early years of when it was happening, in the 50s and 60s. "

Yes I know, Max. The reason I did that was because you stated the following:

"I also find it perculiar how so many of Britain's colonial subjects wanted Britain to leave, yet when Britain did leave so many wanted to come and live in Britain."

and I answered your point.

As for why people from wherever should want to come to Britain, France, Germany etc etc from former colonial empires decades after the imperial powers left, read point 1 again in my previous post about a much higher standard of living.

"The fact so many people from those places still want to move here kind of suggests they have this view too. They are acknowledging, in a round about way, that to be under Britain is preferable".

No they are not Max. What they are acknowledging is that if they had been a colonial subject in India they had a much, much, much, much, much, much lower standard of living than if they were living under a British government in Southall.

Got it?

Can India apologize for all the muzak they torture us with when we frequent their eateries??

"As for why people from wherever should want to come to Britain, France, Germany etc etc from former colonial empires decades after the imperial powers left, read point 1 again in my previous post about a much higher standard of living."

Do you not think a better standard of living may have been enjoyed in these countries had Britain stayed and worked to bring these places up to the same level as Britain itself, if Britain could have afforded to do had it not been for the financial issues concerning Britain post World War 2? The ideal of Britishness seems to be one these people are keen to embrace. The huge desire to move here then, and now, seems to prove that.

"No they are not Max. What they are acknowledging is that if they had been a colonial subject in India they had a much, much, much, much, much, much lower standard of living than if they were living under a British government in Southall."

Lower standard of living? Yes, but had Britain never got involved in these places the standard of living there would be low now like it was prior to colonisation, so any 'better standard of living' is only being gauged by those who compare the life in these places to western standards.

"Got it?"

I think I had it already.

"Do you not think a better standard of living may have been enjoyed in these countries had Britain stayed and worked to bring these places up to the same level as Britain itself,"

No.

"The ideal of Britishness seems to be one these people are keen to embrace. The huge desire to move here then, and now, seems to prove that"

Quite, I love to see those Indians doing the Lambeth Walk and wearing pearly king and queen jackets in Southall.

Bit of a turnaround in your views Maximilian given that you spend most of your time banging on about how much these immigrants from Asia do not integrate into the British way of life and completely reject "our" way of life.

"Yes, but had Britain never got involved in these places the standard of living there would be low now like it was prior to colonisation"

Your concept of the benefits of colonisation by the British is na?ve, stupid and hilarious. How did an insignificant island off the North West coast of Europe become the most powerful and rich country in the world? By conquest and exploitation rather than concentrating on increasing the income of the millions of their subjects.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I mean the British ideal in the sense of the life to be enjoyed here, or under a British administration internationally (if the place is run well), in so far as more affluence, longer life, and an all-round better existence. You are conflating two issues if you think I meant these people were/are keen to be British culturally, loyalty-wise and so on. I stand by what I've said numerous times on this Forum about how a lot of people who come here don't have loyalty to this country and don't respect it's traditions - but certainly do like the positives of being here (a better life affluence-wise, free healthcare, subsidised housing, Benefits, a better education, etc.)

"You don't seem to understand what I'm saying."

Yes, it can be difficult given that you don't seem to understand what you are saying yourself most of the time.

I will leave you to argue with yourself. Let me know how you get on.