Jacob Martin
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2015
- Messages
- 1,453
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
Does anyone seriously believe that taking in a couple of hundred thousand people from Syria will fundamentally change the demographics of Germany, which has a population of 81 million?
The question of who Germany/Europe should take in is a tricky one. How do you profile as to who has first claim over asylum? As you obviously know, the majority of asylum seekers are in fact economic migrants simply (ab)using the window of opportunity that the Syrian crisis had opened up.
Even among the Syrians, the Yazidis and other vulnerable demographics should have priority, but that is obviously not at all being reflected in the statistics as the whetting process is not understood, at least not by me.
Personally speaking, I do not know the solution, but what I do know is that woolly-headed notions of liberal conscience and guilt over imperialism are not the solution. It is statistically inevitable that many, if not most of these new migrants have never been exposed to notions of secularism, civil rights and free speech. They will oppose these at the first opportunity that presents itself and Europe will pay the price.
Compare the Islamic conquest with that of European conquest of ME.
What do you want to compare? Who will decide the rules of comparison? European atrocities are chronicled by European historians and anthropologists themselves so these accounts are readily available. However, every account of murder and destruction that took place on account of Islamic invasion is contested.
So if I told you about the number of Hindus who were slaughtered during the Islamic invasion of India, you will have a different version ready. If I tell you about the destruction of the Catholic Kingdom of Visigoths, there will be more obscurantism. If I tell you about the relentless campaign and culture of slavery inflicted by the Ottoman Empire, no doubt there will be an explanation for that as well.
Tell me - how does one debate those who simply hold themselves to a different moral, evidentiary and epistemological standard?
One picture speaks a thousand words.
If one could present a snapshot of Imperialism through one quotation, then your's serves the purpose. However, what you are really doing is saying that one form of Imperialism was better than another. That is wrong and morally unconscionable.