The level of nonbias is strong with this one

What I want to do is turn the table on the debate on global migration. Most of the debate is told from the point of view of the rich countries. They’re asking how many migrants should we let in, should they be skilled or unskilled. What I want to ask is why are people moving in the first place? It’s not because they hate their homes or their language or their food or their people, but it’s because the rich countries stole the future of poor countries through colonialism, war, inequality, and climate change. They are coming here because we, the rich countries, were there first.

The bit that’s being missed is that everywhere was $2 a day poor. That some places became non-$2 a day poor wasn’t stealing anything from anyone…..

35 comments on “The level of nonbias is strong with this one

  1. This is just typical fallacious lefty thinking. It isn’t the fault of wealthy countries that poor countries are poor. Were these countries any less poor when every other country was poor as well? Including climate change in the argument is evidence of being an ignoramus.

  2. Its just the Leftist Scrooge McDuck Theory of Wealth at work again. Wealth comprises a big pile of gold coins that the plutocrats keep locked up in vaults, and the only way they can have acquired it is by taking it from someone else, who thus cannot ever have it again.

  3. I wonder why a guy called Suketu Mehta thinks Indians have some sort of Vishnu-given right to move to other people’s countries tho. A mystery for the ages, to be sure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  4. BTW “the rich countries stole the future of poor countries through colonialism”

    Indians honestly believe that the reason Britain is rich is because we pinched all their stuff while oppressing them into building railways and not burning widows and whatnot.

    Might even be true – they do have a suspicious shortage of toilets over there.

  5. My impression of the East India company is that it bought stuff from Rajahs. At the right price, locally. If there were massive profits to be had, you had to take risks to get them. Now, I’m not a Company fan. Woe betide the Rajah who didn’t cooperate. It was also a state-supported monopoly with combat forces. But it wasn’t stealing stuff from ordinary Indians. The Rajahs did that if anyone did.

    Anyhow, some ex-colonies make out like gangbusters, others less so and it is not from favouritism by the colonising power.

  6. ‘why Western nations must grapple with the legacy of colonialism’

    You, sir, don’t set our agenda. We do.

    I have never engaged in colonialism. No one I know has, either. Some acts generations ago might be considered colonialist. I am not responsible for the sins of my great grandfather, IF they were in fact sins.

    Sir, if you wish to stay in Britain and act like a British citizen, the rank criticism has to stop. If it’s as bad as you say, why are you here? Indeed, you SHOULD GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM.

    I can’t help but think of the damn Yankees, or even worse – southern Californians, who move here and tell us we should do things like their dear home states . . . which they fled.

    ‘Right, and there is a big drive against legal immigrants.’

    IT’S NOT BIG ENOUGH, ***HOLE! Preventing invasion is government’s prime duty. All other activities should be subordinated to getting the illegals.

    I will restate the Gamecock Solution: “Make illegal immigration illegal.”

    Well, duh.

    First offense, 6 months in jail. Second offense, a felony and two years in prison. 3rd, 5 years in prison. Do allow offenders to be paroled back to their home countries, for BIG BUCKS. Many thousands of dollars.

    We don’t have to deport many. Making illegal immigration illegal will result in the illegal immigrants finding their own way back home. Why should we pay for it?

    There should be significant negative consequences for entering the country illegally, or overstaying after legal entry.

    Seriously, government, it’s your damn job; it’s why you exist.

  7. But they ara right about Libya, Iraq and Sirya.
    Yes, they has/d horrendous ditatorships. But they was invaded by us…

  8. Alex N

    Libya Iraq and Syria were invaded by Turkey. We liberated the resulting mess. And after 50+ years of local rule, how much further forward are they?

  9. It appears – to everyone’s surprise, I’m sure – that the view that the British destroyed the richest (more or less) nation in the world, reducing it to current penury through outrageous colonialism, is without merit.

    The Wikipedia article:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India

    Has a table which shows that the GDP per capita for India was static, at about 550 1990 British Pounds throughout all its history, from the first year estimate up through 1870. It began rising around then.

    This is, of course, what we’d expect from a medieval society with no useful technology. But it flatly contradicts the pervasive Indian mythology of colonial looting.

    But did India have useful technology? Consult:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_the_Indian_subcontinent

    This says that they had some pretty good mathematicians, and could use the lost-wax process to cast seamless globes, and could build dams. But the major technological breakthrough was the war rocket.

    They never developed nor looked to develop ‘Industrial Revolution’ machinery, which so vastly reduced the need for individuals to slave over stuff (indeed, one of the whines is that the Evil Brits invented the Industrial Revolution, and then impoverished India by buying raw materials from them (instead of finished goods), shipping it to the dark satanic mills and then shipping stuff back which was of higher quality and lower price than the handmade stuff prevalent in India. )

    Nor did they have ships worthy of the name, nor any power-generation (steam engines etc). Nor anything, actually.

    The usual, albeit tragic, “we shoulda been the winnas but you looted all our wealth and screwed us over” worldview…

  10. India wasn’t a colony, it was a possession. Who the hell uprooted their family, and took them to Indian to plant them there, farm the land, build a family and a society, and create descendents also planting themselves there, building themselves up and creating decendants?
    Australia, New Zealand, Canada, America, Kenya, *they* were colonies. Only the deliberately blind would call places like India colonies.

  11. The Indian “Dave Spart”. If Private Eye was still a satirical magazine, and not a Remainer rag less funny than the Independent, they could lampoon this.

  12. Someone tell this fvcking wog to piss off back to India and try to get a job as a punkah wallah, because he’s a shit journalist.

  13. So his parents packed up the coal-fired wogmobile and drove across the ocean to ‘Merica because of colonialism, war, inequality, and climate change?

    Really?

    Does anyone really think Mom and Dad Wog sat him down and said, “Guess what? Tomorrow we’re moving half way across the world because of colonialism, war, inequality and climate change. Go pack your stuff.”?

  14. Brave Fart, +1

    As my Malaysian lady friend says, “well you guys put up with it. It’s your country.

    She might not be altogether unbiased, tho. She does not like Indians. Or Sri Lankans. Nor does she care much for Thais. Occasionally, philipinos get it in the neck, too.

  15. Evidently the history of India prior to the British doing the whole empire thingy was “Everything was all shits and giggles”. And for thousands of years!

  16. Quite a lot of India is still “all shits”. Not sure how much they are giggling about it.

  17. “I must have missed the British invasion of “Sirya” within the past 10 years”

    Indeed. Parliament voted against us sending troops

  18. Bloke in North Dorsey: O. K. No invasion in Siria. What about Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan? And the 1.500.000.000 dollars the C. I. A. wasted in the “freedom fighters”?

  19. What about Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan? And the 1.500.000.000 dollars the C. I. A. wasted in the “freedom fighters”?

    We didn’t invade Libya. Afghanistan was a response to their regime supporting a terrorist organisation that murdered thousands of our allies. Iraq, well, you can make a case there, no real national interest for us; Blair (Labour, just in case anyone forgets) can answer for that one.

    The CIA is not British. No idea why some wealthy Indian would want to blame us for them, apart from blatant ideology and bad faith, of course.

  20. “the view that the British destroyed the richest (more or less) nation in the world, reducing it to current penury through outrageous colonialism, is without merit”

    Ah, yes, the perpetual Leftie assertion that the rich got rich by taking from the poor.

    Logic not being their strength. The poor, of course, HAVE NOTHING TO TAKE. THAT’S WHY THEY ARE FVCKING POOR!

  21. I have an Indian neighbor whose former home base was Delhi. Once I asked what India was really like. His answer: Drive half an hour out of any major city and you’re in the Stone Age.

  22. “…freedom of movement across borders has been a phenomenon since the beginning of our species.”

    Erm, I think borders came after humans evolved. Quite a long time after in fact. Hominids might have roamed freely across the Savannah six million years ago, but there weren’t any borders to cross.

  23. @Denis

    If you want a real history laugh check out the left’s view of the UK prior to Mrs Thatcher.

    Greed didn’t exist, workers and bosses lived in harmony, cheerful flat capped working class heroes whistled on their way to an honest day’s work at the factory and ended the day sat around fires discussing Marx while the factory owner handed around cups of cocoa. Every citizen had his or her own NHS nurse, trains ran every 5 minutes and dropped you off outside your front door …..

    20 year old leftards will tell you this. People born years after Mrs T resigned know everything about the UK’s history before and during her period in office.

    Fuckwits.

  24. A lot of Latin Americans, believe that they’re poor because the Spanish stole their gold. They don’t think this in Costa Rica, because there never was any. It it also one of the richest Latin American countries.

  25. The reason that mass migration is increasing is that the poor are getting less so.
    A century ago only the richest could afford to move countries, or even had any i idea that other.places were richer.
    Nowadays middle earners in poor countries can fund the migration, and know where to go. Rich people in poor countries are Ok where they are. The poorest still can ‘t fund the trip.

  26. Jonathan: Hold on, Mr Mehta is claiming that *America* – the ur-example of a country created by being colonised by immigrants – should let him in because his source country was *also* colonised*?

    *Which it wasn’t, by the way. It was a possession, not a colony, see comments passim. Where are the millions of Europeans who abandoned their homeland and carved out a life for themselves and their descendants *in* *India*?

  27. The idea that whites deserve to have immigration inflicted upon them because of the ancestral sins of their caste is the ultimate in Hindu thinking. This guy would be the first one to lead a mob to string you up if you drank from the wrong village well.

  28. If you want a real history laugh check out the left’s view of the UK prior to Mrs Thatcher.

    Since their views will have been formed by the BBC (motto: Fatcha is the source of all evil in the world), that isn’t surprising.

  29. @ Chris Miller
    Those of us born before 1948 are aware that there was medicine in the UK before the NHS was created. Youngsters like you only spot the lies that relate to things in your lifetime.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.