I don’t think we will all be holding hands together nor that the white man is evil. I just choose to educate myself on what has actually happened in history from both sides rather than delude myself that the country that I just happened to be born in has done no wrong.

But the future is intrinsically linked to the past. You can’t just forget about and ignore all what went before when it comes to the make up of this country.
When it comes to immigration into this country you want to ignore the fact that half the world speaks English because we used to own it and many refugees want to come here because we played a big part in them having to flee their own country because it’s gone tits up and they feel like we’re on their side.

Edited by DanH (11 Sep 2021 10.49am)

What DanH outlines is correct. If you look at the migration into France as an example, it comes in the main from the old French colonies in West Africa - similar in Belgium.

Re the UK, it is easy to forget that it was London Transport - back in the day, who actively went out to the WI and recruited people to deal with the labour shortages in the UK at that time - 1960's.

But the future is intrinsically linked to the past. You can’t just forget about and ignore all what went before when it comes to the make up of this country.

When it comes to immigration into this country you want to ignore the fact that half the world speaks English because we used to own it and many refugees want to come here because we played a big part in them having to flee their own country because it’s gone tits up and they feel like we’re on their side.

Edited by DanH (11 Sep 2021 10.49am)

There are 6 threads football related:
Palace Talk
Ticket Talk
Transfer Talk
Nostalgia
Away Fans (little used) and the more general,
Football Talk

The other 3 are non football, so it's pretty much a Palace/football site.

Pays your money and takes your choice, as it were

Nail struck squarely on the head sir.

More accurately Hrolf missed the nail and hit his thumb.

The fall of the Roman Empire came about for many reasons, immigration was absolutely not one of them. In fact, the reverse was the case. Rome was always a relatively open culture as regards immigration and assimilation. Gibbson placed a significant proportion of the blame on the influence of Christianity, inequality and general fecklessness. Climate change has also been cited as an important factor. The barbarian invasions exploited weaknesses that originated within the empire.

History shows us that invasion and mass immigration has been constant throughout time. These invasions generally tend to be good for the invader and poor for the current inhabitants. Britain has seen successive waves of immigration by Romans, Dans, Saxons, Angles, Normans, etc Each group have brought something new and enriched the culture.

I think that you are mistaken to claim that the left alone make such claims. When there was mass immigration of Europeans into North America, South America, etc in the 18th and 19th century the right thought that it was a great idea. They said that Western civilisation would benefit the indigenous population.

It's amusing that you think the causes for the fall of the Roman empire are obvious when the diversity of the causes and the range of opinions on which should be considered primary and which secondary is what makes it so fascinating.

As I wrote before it is widely agreed that excess immigration was definitely not a factor. (I would be interested to know which historian of this period has put forward this idea). The Roman Empire suffered from a constant shortage of labour. In general, this was solved through slavery, but when the shortages occurred in leadership and management this was not a solution. They, therefore, made large numbers of slaves citizens but by then it was too late.

I cannot see why you see my observations about immigration by ‘Europeans’ as absurdist just because these emigrates came in the wake of military conquest. Twas ever thus.

I have read extensively on this subject. In the late 18th century Gibbon does not identify this as a reason for the fall. Over the following 300 years historians have questioned many of his conclusions but I am not aware of any that place immigration at the centre or even the periphery.

Gibbon was not remotely liberal. Although he suggested that Christianity was the primary causation he did not hold that this was a bad thing, just that that was what happened. One of the main criticisms of Gibbon as a historian is that he was far too neutral. This is not fashionable new thinking it's an established interpretation that holds the consensus.

"It was always widely accepted that Rome disintegrated because most people in Roman were no longer Roman".

Widely accepted by whom?

The larger question that your statement raises is who was Roman and who was not. If by Roman you mean Citizens of Roma then yes Citizens were from the earliest times from diverse backgrounds, The Romans ceased to be the majority or even the controlling political force in the Roman Empire in the late 4th century BC.