Lets look at the situation here in the UK with the current Muslim issues as if it were back in history, maybe 500 years ago.

Would a Village (Tribe) let in large numbers of the next Village (Tribe) to settle among themselves and strive to have equal rights?

Is this a wise move for any Tribe/Village/Country? Are there examples of it working out? Are there example of it going wrong?

Or most importantly could the Tribe next door ever be trusted to not rebel against you whilst settled amongst you? Could it be that all mixed cultures could be ticking time bombs if the circumstances are right?

Please could we keep the debate on subject with no personal attacks, these are just questions for debate!

Lets look at the situation here in the UK with the current Muslim issues as if it were back in history, maybe 500 years ago.

Since I'm not from the UK, I'll use the Indian example.


Would a Village (Tribe) let in large numbers of the next Village (Tribe) to settle among themselves and strive to have equal rights?

The Persians came to India 1200 years ago, the Jews 2000 years ago, the Syrian Christians in the 4th century AD. They maintained their separate customs and religious affiliations, were never persecuted or differentiated against and have equal rights as the rest of the Indians.

Moreover we still have refugees from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and China.



Is this a wise move for any Tribe/Village/Country? Are there examples of it working out?

All of the above.
An interesting story to illustrate.


There is an interesting story of the first batch of Parsi immigrants mentioned earlier came from Persia to India 1200 years ago. Their leader was brought before the Indian king who asked how it could be assured that the immigrants would not create problems in India. The Parsi leader requested for a glass of milk and some sugar. When that was brought, he put the sugar into the milk, stirred it, and asked the Indian king to taste some of the milk. The king found it sweet. The Parsi leader then said: “Your Majesty, far from creating problems for your people we will be like that sugar. The sugar has disappeared, but it has sweetened the milk. Similarly, we will get assimilated into your country, and make it more prosperous.”


Are there example of it going wrong?

Not in India, unless you count the rising ambitions of the British merchants, which ended in 200 years of occupation.



Or most importantly could the Tribe next door ever be trusted to not rebel against you whilst settled amongst you? Could it be that all mixed cultures could be ticking time bombs if the circumstances are right?

Yes but this depends on how you view them, the economic conditions within the country and the definition of freedom. Poverty and unemployment can make the most stable societies unstable.


Please could we keep the debate on subject with no personal attacks, these are just questions for debate!

Is this alright?

In the 1800's there was a huge immigration of people from all over Eurpoe to the United States. The Irish potato blight was a large cause, but there were also masses of people coming from Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and a lot of the other eastern countries. At the time of WWII, there were more people of German decent in the US than any other origin. So yes, it has worked out that we can allow immigration.

The problem is that we're letting people in who's countries we've had power over for a long time. Western culture has been shitting on the middle east since the crusades, over 1200 years. So the problem is letting people settle in our 'tribe' that hate us.

With muslims and Africans becoming Europe's largest minority and plummeting native birth rates it seems the colonized, exploited and mistreated 3rd World is coming back to haunt the offspring of the generations of white christian European slavemasters and oppressors. Payback is a bitch. A similar phenom is happening in the US with Latin Americans, Mexicans flooding in and replacing Blacks as our largest minority. 200 years of US exploitation of our neighbors to the south is coming back to haunt us as well as they become the majority within 25 years. Their home countries kept poor by the proxy battles in the Cold War, foreign dominance of local politics to keep wages low and dictatorships crushing dissent and lack of education causing religious fundamentalist groups to swell in numbers is birthing consequences for the "Haves" of the world. The whole face of the planet will be very different very soon, I think.

Lets look at the situation here in the UK with the current Muslim issues as if it were back in history, maybe 500 years ago. Would a Village (Tribe) let in large numbers of the next Village (Tribe) to settle among themselves and strive to have equal rights? Is this a wise move for any Tribe/Village/Country? Are there examples of it working out? Are there example of it going wrong? Or most importantly could the Tribe next door ever be trusted to not rebel against you whilst settled amongst you? Could it be that all mixed cultures could be ticking time bombs if the circumstances are right? Please could we keep the debate on subject with no personal attacks, these are just questions for debate!Your sense of history is right but your history itself is wrong. You have to go back about ten thousand years, before civilization. In that era (the Neolithic) people really did live in tribes--groups of a couple hundred, all of whom knew each other personally and almost all of whom were blood relatives. And they lived in villages, supported by farming or fishing. The next tribe down the river really was "those other people" and they would never think of moving into each other's territory. Maybe a big summer festival in a neutral territory where all the tribes got together and swapped DNA to keep the species healthy, the rest of the time they observed their boundaries.

Eventually they started trading with each other, and eventually they experimented with more than one tribe living together in larger villages called "cities."

It was a fabulously successful experiment, as I have detailed in several other threads. Larger communities bring economy of scale and division of labor, so there is a surplus that can be used to create greater prosperity as well as art and more hedonistic recreation. Life is no longer obsessed with survival.

The price of living in cities is... well, the price is that they are cities, which by definition are composed of multiple "tribes" living together in peace. It is the basic law of civilization that if you choose to live within the civilization, you agree to abide peacefully with all of your fellow "citizens," whether or not you like them, approve of their religion, enjoy the sound of their language or appreciate the smell of their cooking.

When the first cities were built, the differences among the various tribes were obvious. Eventually, after so much intermarriage, the tribes blended and became larger. But every time a genuinely foreign tribe came to the city, everyone had to abide by the same rules: Make nice or it's not a city any more.

There have always been exceptions and the road to civilization has had its potholes. But history records that cities got larger and became nations, nations became countries, and some countries formed the EU. Tribes keep finding ways to get along with each other and share the same space.

Five hundred years ago was a pretty dark period in European history. It was the abysmal end of the Dark Ages and the beginning of what is, with the same metaphor, called the Enlightenment. Hatred was exacerbated by the repulsive religion of the era. But go back to Roman times, and you'll see an ancient era in which tribes really did move in together peacefully. It was called the Pax Romana. You could walk from Greece to Holland, through the homelands of a hundred different tribes, and be accepted as just another citizen of the Empire everywhere.

If we want civilization to succeed, in a world grown increasingly smaller due to transportation and communication technology, we have to indeed allow other tribes to settle among us. It's the only way.

Thank you, to all those who have posted here, they have all been very interesting. It would be good to hear some other views as this subject is of increasing importance.

You might complain about any form of immigration but in the town where I came from, it use to be a haven for Crackheads. Over the years the government decided there wasn't enough enthic diversity to the local area so started sending immigrants into the town, they've pretty much taken over the place and the crackheads obviously couldn't take it.

I'd rather live in a town filled full of immigrants than one filled with crackheads.

You might complain about any form of immigration but in the town where I came from, it use to be a haven for Crackheads. Over the years the government decided there wasn't enough enthic diversity to the local area so started sending immigrants into the town, they've pretty much taken over the place and the crackheads obviously couldn't take it.

I'd rather live in a town filled full of immigrants than one filled with crackheads.
My sentiments as well. In Kansas City the west downtown area was a violent Black ghetto for decades. Battered and burned out storefronts, no businesses except liquor stores and payday loanshark stores, 25 murders per year (just in that area of downtown) prostitution, drugs and over 75% unemployment made the area a literal war zone that cops even hestitated to enter for years. Then, in the mid-90's Mexicans and Central Americans moved into the area. KC was experiencing it's 1st significant immigration wave. Today the area is full of Hispanic businesses, fresh coats of paint give new life to shattered old buildings, restaurants, festivals and families sitting together on the sidewalks and in parks, kids flying kites and converging on the ice cream truck, ranchero music blares from passing cars and storefronts replacing violent rap filled with filthy hate lyrics. The area is vibrant, safe and a draw for those in love with real Mexican, Colombian, Guatemalan and Salvadoran food. I say bring on the immigrants.

Here is an interesting study of the Amish and Hutterites. Its very conclusive that the more closed the community the more sucessful they are. It's very long but interesting if you have time to read it and give your comments.

http://jsaw.lib.lehigh.edu/viewarticle.php?id=332&layout=html