Time to cut down immigration?

[Smallc]

Well, historically, Immigration has helped Canada. I see no evidence that such a trend won't continue.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Preposterous nonsense. Had we left them alone they would still be living in mud huts and hide tents, freezing in the dark and dying young while worshipping the sun god.

There are certain elements required for the development and sustenance of a real and lasting civilization which were not present in pre-Columbus America. One of those elements is a proper labour assisting animal. Another is a proper food animal which can be domesticated. Those were not present in the Americas. Without them, people had to work hard, all day, every day, just to feed, clothe and shelter themselves. That sort of society leaves precious little time for dreamers, no time for experimenters, no time to develop sciences and technology. Every hand must work all the time. That is why no advances of any sort were made in America. The natives of the seventeenth century lived the same as they did in the tenth century, the same as they did in the sixth century, the same as they did in all the years prior to that.

Beast of burden = Buffalo. Food animal = Buffalo. Many of the societies had Ariculture and many of the crops they grew are important to use today. They lived to be fairly old that's why most tribes had elders who were 60 or 70. First Nations life expectancy has dropped a lot since europeans arrived. People will always find time to think up new inventions some of the best ones are thought up while working because someone saw a way to make something easier or faster. Looking at the life-stlyes they had I would pick that in a second over the horrible conditions the Europeans lived in.

Also what does there deity have to do with anything it's a hell of a lot better than the jewish zombie most people worship.

[Argus]

Well, historically, Immigration has helped Canada. I see no evidence that such a trend won't continue.

Well, historically, we imported vast numbers of uneducated illiterates and this wasn't a big problem. Are you suggesting this is evidence we should continue on with that?

[Argus]

Beast of burden = Buffalo. Food animal = Buffalo

The buffalo is not a beast of burden. It cannot be ridden, and it will not pull a wagon. Nor can it be domesticated. It is an extremely dangerous animal. Which is why the natives never domesticated them. People have been domestiating cattle for thousands of years, but nobody domesticated the bison.

Many of the societies had Ariculture and many of the crops they grew are important to use today.

That is the third requirement for civilization - a good food crop, ie one which grows easily, in great abundance, and produces alot of nutrients. But that is the only one the natives had. Without the other two, they were doomed to live as they were.

Have you never wondered why people in some parts of the world became "civilized" and in others they didn't? Examine the animals available, and the food crops. That generally tells you why. It isn't that Europeans were genetically smarter than Americans, it's that they had horses, cattle, sheep, chickens and several good food crops.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The buffalo is not a beast of burden. It cannot be ridden, and it will not pull a wagon. Nor can it be domesticated. It is an extremely dangerous animal. Which is why the natives never domesticated them. People have been domestiating cattle for thousands of years, but nobody domesticated the bison.

The American Bison is actually very easy to tame. Much easier than the Aurochs from which cows were domesticated. You do know there are Buffalo farms right?

That is the third requirement for civilization - a good food crop, ie one which grows easily, in great abundance, and produces alot of nutrients. But that is the only one the natives had. Without the other two, they were doomed to live as they were.

What exactly was wrong with the way they lived?

Have you never wondered why people in some parts of the world became "civilized" and in others they didn't? Examine the animals available, and the food crops. That generally tells you why. It isn't that Europeans were genetically smarter than Americans, it's that they had horses, cattle, sheep, chickens and several good food crops.

No I haven't because "civilizied" is a relative term. In my view many of the the First Nations tribes were more civilized than the Europeans ever were.

Edited October 13, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Smallc]

Well, historically, we imported vast numbers of uneducated illiterates and this wasn't a big problem. Are you suggesting this is evidence we should continue on with that?

Except that immigrants to Canada today aren't uneducated and that's already been shown.

[Argus]

The American Bison is actually very easy to tame. Much easier than the Aurochs from which cows were domesticated.

They cannot be tamed. They cannot be ridden. They cannot be domesticated.

Some of them are on large, sprawling ranches, yes. That's far from the same thing as being kept on farms. They roam freely, and while they can be herded it's a very difficult task, as is handling them. And we have much better resources for doing so now than natives did.

Bison are much smarter and more interesting than cattle. They are not domesticated† animals, but wild animals that can’t be tamed. As a result, they are harder to handle and more powerful than cattle. In spite of all their shoulder bulk, they are surprisingly nimble, and have been accorded the agility of goats. Bison can jump fences that would contain most cattle, and, when startled, can jump over another bison to make their getaway

NA Bison

What exactly was wrong with the way they lived?

They were savages. I prefer civilization.

No I haven't because "civilizied" is a relative term.

True enough. Compared to cavemen, the natives were civilzed. Compared to us they were barbarians.

[in my view many of the the First Nations tribes were more civilized than the Europeans ever were.

Your view is bizarre, to say the least.

[Argus]

Except that immigrants to Canada today aren't uneducated and that's already been shown.

That isn't the point. You seem to believe that if a program worked well fifty years ago there's no reason to change it. I'm asking what evidence you have the program works well today.

[Guest TrueMetis]

They cannot be tamed. They cannot be ridden. They cannot be domesticated.

Some of them are on large, sprawling ranches, yes. That's far from the same thing as being kept on farms. They roam freely, and while they can be herded it's a very difficult task, as is handling them. And we have much better resources for doing so now than natives did.

Bison are much smarter and more interesting than cattle. They are not domesticated† animals, but wild animals that can’t be tamed. As a result, they are harder to handle and more powerful than cattle. In spite of all their shoulder bulk, they are surprisingly nimble, and have been accorded the agility of goats. Bison can jump fences that would contain most cattle, and, when startled, can jump over another bison to make their getaway

NA Bison

Well according to the National Bison Association

Q: Can you tame bison?

A: Just as lions and tigers can be tamed by professional animal trainers, bison can also be trained. However, bison are not domestic animals.

Give it some time for selective breeding and you've got a domesticated animal. Hell even wild bison are more tame than the Aurochs and they managed to turn that into a cow. Considering how fast they can run you could probably breed them into beast of burden, rideable, and food varieties.

They were savages. I prefer civilization.

Savages to you but then I don't expect you to be the most nature loving person in the world.

True enough. Compared to cavemen, the natives were civilzed. Compared to us they were barbarians.

"Barbarians" tend to win.

Your view is bizarre, to say the least.

To your view.

Edited October 13, 2009 by TrueMetis

[Smallc]

That isn't the point. You seem to believe that if a program worked well fifty years ago there's no reason to change it. I'm asking what evidence you have the program works well today.

I don't think that's what I said at all. We can make changes to the program, but we can't limit immigration numbers in any big way. We need the population to maintain our workforce and our growth whether or not you think so or like it.

[Machjo]

Preposterous nonsense. Had we left them alone they would still be living in mud huts and hide tents, freezing in the dark and dying young while worshipping the sun god.

There are certain elements required for the development and sustenance of a real and lasting civilization which were not present in pre-Columbus America. One of those elements is a proper labour assisting animal. Another is a proper food animal which can be domesticated. Those were not present in the Americas. Without them, people had to work hard, all day, every day, just to feed, clothe and shelter themselves. That sort of society leaves precious little time for dreamers, no time for experimenters, no time to develop sciences and technology. Every hand must work all the time. That is why no advances of any sort were made in America. The natives of the seventeenth century lived the same as they did in the tenth century, the same as they did in the sixth century, the same as they did in all the years prior to that.

By leave them alone, I did not mean isolationism but rather international relations on an equal footing, whereby they would have maintained self-governance and traded with Europe. They certainly would have been thirsty for our knowledge, but woudl have adapted it to their culture.

[Wild Bill]

By leave them alone, I did not mean isolationism but rather international relations on an equal footing, whereby they would have maintained self-governance and traded with Europe. They certainly would have been thirsty for our knowledge, but woudl have adapted it to their culture.

Isn't that the point? Does a progressive culture generate knowledge or merely adapt and borrow from others higher up the ladder?

Any culture does SOME borrowing but many seem to do little or nothing else! Take fundamentalist Islam, for instance. It seems that so much of the progressive generation of the knowledge of mankind stopped dead in its tracks when that culture became firmly established. One or two individual exceptions but nothing like beforehand, when arabic culture seemed generations ahead of the Europeans and British.

We don't see the Taliban inventing new cures for cancer, after all!

Although I would expect that aboriginals who left the reserve and integrated into our mainstream have contributed as much as any others who joined our common culture, what has come from the reserves? Surely the reserves is where we find their original culture. Are you saying that somehow if they had have treated differently they spontaneously would have put a man on the moon or invented the surgery of my own quadruple heart bypass?

From my observations I don't believe that it would've happened that way! Not because of any imaginary difference in intelligence due to race. On average I don't believe there's any significant difference. CULTURE is everything and the native culture doesn't appear to be a positive one for generating new knowledge and technology! That all springs from educating the young in scientific thinking. Britain and Europe were among the first to do that in a big way. Other cultures still don't and are condemned to a parasitical role, being able to fire an AK-47 but unable to ever invent one. Certainly, they could never develop a fetal heart monitor to save more babies!

Edited October 13, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Argus]

I don't think that's what I said at all. We can make changes to the program, but we can't limit immigration numbers in any big way. We need the population to maintain our workforce and our growth whether or not you think so or like it.

What evidence do you have to support this view? I have posted expert commentary which says otherwise earlier in this thread. Did you read it?

[ToadBrother]

From my observations I don't believe that it would've happened that way! Not because of any imaginary difference in intelligence due to race. On average I don't believe there's any significant difference. CULTURE is everything and the native culture doesn't appear to be a positive one for generating new knowledge and technology! That all springs from educating the young in scientific thinking. Britain and Europe were among the first to do that in a big way. Other cultures still don't and are condemned to a parasitical role, being able to fire an AK-47 but unable to ever invent one. Certainly, they could never develop a fetal heart monitor to save more babies!

I think that's a rather suspect notion. Culture certainly plays a part, to be sure, but surely there are a whole host of factors, such as population density, geography, arability and so forth. Europeans transplanted 8,000 years worth of farming expertise in the New World, allowing them to utilize land that for people of far lower population densities simply wasn't possible. Where agriculture was relatively easy to develop, such as in Peru and Mexico, we see indigenous civilizations

In the Old World, just about every key development in the formulation of civilization was developed outside of Europe. The key grain crops were developed in Mesopotomia and Iran. Domestication of key livestock (cows, chickens, pigs, goats, sheep) all occurred either in Central Asia or China. Writing was developed in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Urbanization developed in Mesopotomia and Asia Minor.

The key factor for Europe seems to have been the good fortune of being a largely mountain-locked peninsula far more difficult to invade than India, China and Asia Minor. While some of the major movements in the Asian Steppe kicked Europe in the balls in the late Roman period, Europe was saved from the devastation of the Turkic and Mongol invaders, whereas Islamic civilization, in particular, was laid waste. The last bastions of advanced Islamic civilization were cut to pieces by the far less technically developed Spaniards, who then set about throwing out every educated Moor and Jew they could find

In short, Europe got lucky. Geography and climate made it one of the most amenable regions to agriculture on the planet. Its occupants were far more insulated from major migrations and the massive dislocations they caused than the other major centers of civilization in the old world.

[M.Dancer]

Europe was saved from the devastation of the Turkic and Mongol invaders, whereas Islamic civilization, in particular, was laid waste. The last bastions of advanced Islamic civilization were cut to pieces by the far less technically developed Spaniards, who then set about throwing out every educated Moor and Jew they could find

That's correct if we place Poland, Russia, Hungary and the Balkans in Asia and not Europe.

[ToadBrother]

That's correct if we place Poland, Russia, Hungary and the Balkans in Asia and not Europe.

Point taken. Still, Western Europe was largely protected, though in Eastern Europe it did require a considerable amount of effort (the Austrians, Hungarians and various other kingdoms and principalities spilled no small amount of blood battling the Turks, and many of the Slavic peoples had been conquered by the Tatars). But Central and Western Europe were largely protected from all of this. The key Renaissance and Enlightenment players; England, France and Italy rose as much of the rest of Eurasia was being overrun. Even more importantly, the collapse of a major bastion of Christendom; Byzantium, probably was the big kicker for the major advances in the 16th century, as Byzantine scholars fled to Italy, bringing with them the bulk of what had survived of Classical learnings, as well as a helluva lot of Arab medicine and mathematics.

[M.Dancer]

Even more importantly, the collapse of a major bastion of Christendom; Byzantium, probably was the big kicker for the major advances in the 16th century, as Byzantine scholars fled to Italy, bringing with them the bulk of what had survived of Classical learnings, as well as a helluva lot of Arab medicine and mathematics.

I believe the fall of constantinople is often used as the starting point of the Renaissance.

[M.Dancer]

Point taken. Still, Western Europe was largely protected, though in Eastern Europe it did require a considerable amount of effort (the Austrians, Hungarians and various other kingdoms and principalities spilled no small amount of blood battling the Turks,

I was actually alluding to the Mongols invading Eastern Europe

[Michael Hardner]

Have you never wondered why people in some parts of the world became "civilized" and in others they didn't? Examine the animals available, and the food crops. That generally tells you why. It isn't that Europeans were genetically smarter than Americans, it's that they had horses, cattle, sheep, chickens and several good food crops.

Argus,

Some of this is covered in 'Guns, Germs and Steel' by Jared Diamond.

The fertile crescent also provided a crossroads and an environment wherein trade could happen and eventually codified money and banking could begin, creating huge surplus and cities akin to large cities of today.

[Oleg Bach]

We should increase our immigration - except ALL American war resisters automatically as Canadian citizens...that way would would have a nice healthy mix of good old fashioned anglo genetics with a bit of what ever tossed in for good measure - After all back in 1776 - the American revolution was not based on democracy and freedom...It was one set of plundering pirates breaking away from the established crooks in Britain....a nation based on setting up your own plunder buisness - the founding fathers are exactly the same as their founding sons....crooks..in high positions - LET - civilized Americans have safe haven from that crimminal enterprise called America - let them come here and build up a GOOD nation.

[Oleg Bach]

We should increase our immigration - except ALL American war resisters automatically as Canadian citizens...that way would would have a nice healthy mix of good old fashioned anglo genetics with a bit of what ever tossed in for good measure - After all back in 1776 - the American revolution was not based on democracy and freedom...It was one set of plundering pirates breaking away from the established crooks in Britain....a nation based on setting up your own plunder buisness - the founding fathers are exactly the same as their founding sons....crooks..in high positions - LET - civilized Americans have safe haven from that crimminal enterprise called America - let them come here and build up a GOOD nation.

I should look over my posts for mistakes. I meant eccept all war resisters. Come to think of what the American empire really is and has become - It is exactly what Britian was during it's imperial era. The American empire stretches far and wide - From Iraq to the pacific rim - to Alaska and other out posts -Israel included. What the American founding fathers really wanted was to go into buisness for themselves. The British and Americans were like too biker gangs..that split..now one dominates...getting back to immigration - let those who morally dispise the American way of life defect and come back to Britian via the Canadian experience...why do we send war resisters back to the states? Cos' we are chicken shits!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Canada needs to grow up. Canadians need to grow up. This world is becoming far too serious for children to play at politics, lives are being lost.

[Oleg Bach]

Anybody that would send an 18 year old boy or girl to die for a cause that only lines the pockets of a few parasistes is a parasite not fit to influence society let alone rule it. It's a disgrace to hold human life so cheaply that killing for fun and profit though warfare is eccepted as normal...I don't care how long this crap has being going on ---- it is simply wrong...and YES Canada has to grow up and become the protective father it was meant to be - If a person from any nation is going to be abuse by the rich and cruel that is their status quo...THEN we as a mature and protective nation should offer sanctuary to any human being being disrespected or coerced to serve evil.

[Griz]

Canada needs to grow up. Canadians need to grow up. This world is becoming far too serious for children to play at politics, lives are being lost.

Hear Hear! Especially the right-wing element! They're all worse then a bunch of little kids, snot hanging down their noses jumpin' up and down like some spoiled kid who didn't get his way in a candy store. All you have to do is read some of the posts on forums like these.

[blueblood]

Hear Hear! Especially the right-wing element! They're all worse then a bunch of little kids, snot hanging down their noses jumpin' up and down like some spoiled kid who didn't get his way in a candy store. All you have to do is read some of the posts on forums like these.

Pot meet Kettle