Reflections on FOSDEM [LWN.net]

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 11, 2017 2:13 UTC (Sat) by excors (subscriber, #95769) [Link] (8 responses)

But one person in three isn't a foreigner. About one in eight are foreign-born, and one in twelve have non-British nationality. (source)

(Also the population isn't going to grow by 30% in 10 years, the projection is more like 15% over 25 years. And the UK is 8th out of 28 in land area, so not really one of the smaller countries either.)

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 11, 2017 10:06 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (7 responses)

"British born" and "British" aren't the same thing, not when you're talking ethnic nationality. I have a British passport, but I consider myself Scottish/German (despite my father considering himself English/Irish!).

Plus your source is current, and will those people coming in consider themselves British, or emigre East Europeans, even if they're born here!

So we're 8th in land area? Behind Finland, Germany, France, Spain, who else? We're certainly not one of the big boys like them. How does the smallest of them compare with us? (Just checked, Germany is half as big again, smaller than I thought. France and Spain are a lot bigger.)

But have you not heard of "the long tail"? I guess those 7 countries bigger than us probably have over half the EU land area - that does make us one of the smaller countries. Just like a minority of people have most of the wealth - a minority of countries have most of the land (although I'll admit much of it is in Scandinavia, not a place that would support a dense population).

Anyway, I think we're throwing figures at each other without examining them deeply (or actually understanding what the other person is trying to say :-) Dealing with emotions is a tricky thing, and comparing figures that aren't like-for-like is asking for trouble - trouble is, finding like-for-like!

Cheers,
Wol

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 11, 2017 10:50 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (6 responses)

Oh god, you need to go read up on your history. All those countries where they speak english (or mixes of), you think they had no language before the English arrived? All those countries with arbitrary borders (often including lots of suspiciously straight sections), that lump together various different people - sometimes linguistically and culturally very different (e.g. look at Nigeria) - many (most?) of them involved an Englishman sitting down with another white European man with a pen and ruler and a map, of land far away - both in terms of physical distance, usually, and understanding, certainly.

Shall we talk about how the British empire violently suppressed any dissent from the locals at its rape of the local resources? From India to Ireland, there are memorials to massacres of unarmed civilians gunned down by British forces. From India to Ireland, England was responsible for genocides, by taking the food while the locals were literally starving to death (Churchill blamed the Indians for their mass famine, for breeding like rabbits - while raping the land of food for the WWI war effort).

You don't even need to go far. Just start with the history of Scotland and Ireland - which you are clearly unaware of.

Both Scotland and Ireland are relatively sparsely populated countries today. Those were more densely populated countries in the past. Ireland only just got back to *HALF* of the population it had over 150 years ago about ten years ago, with its boom. Scotland's near-empty Highlands have ruins of old stone cottages dotted all about the place - where people lived before the rich land-owners cleared the land for sheep, and country estates to go grouse shooting. The roads of Ireland were littered with starving and dead people during the famine, even as the rich Anglo-Irish landowners exported more than enough wheat to feed the country. Go to Croke Park in Dublin, where British Auxiliaries opened fire with machine guns on crowds of people who were there to watch a GAA match (in India they killed hundred+ in something similar). That was just one incident in a long campaign of terrorising the locals with murderous para-militaries.

You appear know nothing about what your country has done to others.

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 11, 2017 16:04 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (2 responses)

> Both Scotland and Ireland are relatively sparsely populated countries today. Those were more densely populated countries in the past. Ireland only just got back to *HALF* of the population it had over 150 years ago about ten years ago, with its boom. Scotland's near-empty Highlands have ruins of old stone cottages dotted all about the place - where people lived before the rich land-owners cleared the land for sheep, and country estates to go grouse shooting.

And how many of those rich landowners were Scots? Most of them? My Scots ancestry is MacGregor. Just look at the history of that clan (Rob Roy etc). How much of what you're blaming on the English was actually just the English taking advantage of internecine Scottish infighting? My family was probably one of those driven off the land ...

> The roads of Ireland were littered with starving and dead people during the famine, even as the rich Anglo-Irish landowners exported more than enough wheat to feed the country. Go to Croke Park in Dublin, where British Auxiliaries opened fire with machine guns on crowds of people who were there to watch a GAA match (in India they killed hundred+ in something similar). That was just one incident in a long campaign of terrorising the locals with murderous para-militaries.

I know less about Ireland. What I do know is that reality, and popular belief, often bear little relationship to each other. The Irish famine was economic - subsistence farming failed (potato blight), and wheat was worth much more abroad than the locals could afford to pay. The Bengal famine was pretty much the same. And the rape you're describing is carrying on today - money talks, and if the poor can't afford to buy food they starve. The West is still doing that today. Do you expect farmers to sell their produce in the market, at market prices, or do you expect them to sell it AT A LOSS to the locals, so that everybody (including the farmers) starves?

Compare that to the famine in Ukraine. THAT was a political famine. Stalin taxed the country in food, and he demanded pretty much all they could produce, leaving nothing behind.

> You appear know nothing about what your country has done to others.

Which country? Germany? Scotland?

I think a lot of what Britain has done is idiotic. I also think a lot of other countries have been equally stupid. You know what - in 1776 the MAJORITY of Americans were very opposed to independence. You know what - 1916 the MAJORITY of Irish were opposed to independence. I've never actually heard of Croke Park, but yes, it was idiocies like that that cost us most of our Empire.

You know what - if France and America hadn't been pig-headed and stupid, demanding a scape-goat in Germany, we would never have had the Second World War. Britain wanted something similar to South Africa at the end of Apartheid.

And my fear at the moment is that the leadership of the EU is engaging in behaviour equally as idiotic ...

What's the saying? "Those who refuse to study history are condemned to repeat it"? And as I say, what ACTUALLY happened often bears little resemblance to what the victors wrote in the history books.

Cheers,
Wol

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 12, 2017 8:58 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (1 responses)

The landownders who were in that position by virtue of having been "Scottish" clan leaders were - by that time - not normalish, local Scots, but part of the Anglo-Caledonian, land-owning elite establishment. They lived in large castles or very large country houses. Their kids went (go) to the elite private schools of the English establishment ("public schools" as they're perversely called there). Often - due to that schooling and the circles they move in after - they often speak with upper-class _english_ accents.

Same thing in Ireland. The Anglo-Irish land-owning class often had Irish roots. Some even were descended from the Chieftains who fought Elizabeth I dominisation of Ireland, and who later acquiesced. Again though, they had been fully integrated into the English establishment by the 1800s. This was part of how the English empire ruled its colonies. That was a lesson learned by Elizabeth in fighting said Irish chieftains; and later again in the mid 1700s, when the Irish protestant upper-middle classes were disquieted at English rule: to rule, you must rule _with_ the existing power structures, so you must integrate their nobles and their upper-middle classes into yours - so they become part of you. Look up, e.g., "The Ascendency" in Ireland.

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 14, 2017 14:02 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> The landownders who were in that position by virtue of having been "Scottish" clan leaders were - by that time - not normalish, local Scots, but part of the Anglo-Caledonian, land-owning elite establishment. They lived in large castles or very large country houses. Their kids went (go) to the elite private schools of the English establishment ("public schools" as they're perversely called there). Often - due to that schooling and the circles they move in after - they often speak with upper-class _english_ accents.

So, to put it bluntly, you don't believe in personal responsibility. At the end of the day, it was the SCOTS ruling class who "sold Scotland down the river" as you would no doubt like to put it. But you're determined to blame anyone else rather than the people who actually did it. (And the irony, of course, is that true Scots have been a minority in their own country from the day it was created! They were the ruling class in a country that consisted mostly of non-Scots! :-)

> Same thing in Ireland. The Anglo-Irish land-owning class often had Irish roots. Some even were descended from the Chieftains who fought Elizabeth I dominisation of Ireland, and who later acquiesced. Again though, they had been fully integrated into the English establishment by the 1800s. This was part of how the English empire ruled its colonies. That was a lesson learned by Elizabeth in fighting said Irish chieftains; and later again in the mid 1700s, when the Irish protestant upper-middle classes were disquieted at English rule: to rule, you must rule _with_ the existing power structures, so you must integrate their nobles and their upper-middle classes into yours - so they become part of you. Look up, e.g., "The Ascendency" in Ireland.

And that is just people being people. And it is the mark of a successful empire. The Romans did it, the British did it, you keep the little people quiet by not up-ending their lives. Empires that grow by military conquest are usually short-lived, or they have to wipe out the original inhabitants to replace them (which is what they did in North America, isn't it?).

At the end of the day, I haven't got a clue what nationality you are. And is that the one on your passport or the one you give yourself? The diffference is very important. And I get the impression you're very jealous that my forbears ran an Empire that subjects were PROUD to be a part of. Too jealous to see beyond the propaganda that blames the British for the fact that all those countries WANTED to be part of the Empire (and don't say that was because the rulers were British - a lot of them were, a lot of them WEREN'T).

And you seem to have completely lost sight of my original moan - which was that while I *want* European Union, you can't do it by trampling over "the little people" - once again the political leadership are selling the little guy down the river, which is why there is such a rise of nationalism in Europe - they're saying "trust me, we know what's good for you" and aren't listening to the pain on the ground. But when was that ever news?

You can't blame "everybody else" for the ills of today. You have to look at the realities of the moment. I think a superstate of Europe is inevitable, and to be welcomed. But DON'T drive it through trampling over anyone who gets in the way. Let people see the advantages and want to be part of it. Which is why, over the referendum, my head said "It's going to self-destruct. Get out before it takes us with it!".

Cheers,
Wol

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 11, 2017 16:45 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (2 responses)

> You don't even need to go far. Just start with the history of Scotland and Ireland - which you are clearly unaware of.

Who's armies was it who wreaked revenge in the late 1740s for Bonnie Prince Charlie? I think you will find it was pretty much all SCOTS.

Cheers,
Wol

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 12, 2017 16:32 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (1 responses)

FWIW, you need to understand that Scotland wasn't (and still is not today) a relatively unitary cultural nation - somewhat unlike Ireland. The english speaking lowland Scots had much longer history of alignment and integration with England, compared to the Gaelic speaking highlanders and Western Islanders (where Gaelic still survives as a living language in parts).

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 13, 2017 11:15 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

For much of the time since the Renaissance, Scotland played host to both incredibly remote backwaters and the heights of European intellectual culture. You get both the likes of David Hume and Adam Smith, and uncouth Gaelic-speaking highlanders who nobody in polite company would want to be seen dead with, and everything in between. The important thing was that, once the hereditary clan chiefs had figured out that they didn't need to sit around peat fires wearing rough-spun plaid blankets, and especially after the takeover of Scotland by the English in the early 18th century through the Union of Parliaments, they were out to prove that they were really just as good Englishmen as the English (if not better). The next step was to decide that sheep were more profitable to have on one's ancestral lands than small-time farmers and fishermen, so the people were “encouraged” to go elsewhere (e.g., America).

In particular, people need to remember that the Jacobite uprisings of the 1740s (and earlier) weren't “freedom-loving Scots vs. oppressive English” (even though this is the popular perception, fueled by books, movies, and TV). In fact they were more along the lines of “Catholics vs. Protestants” and who got to sit on the British (not Scottish) throne. There were more Scots fighting against the Jacobites than for them, and there were many Jacobite (Catholic/Scottish king James and his progeny, vs. Protestant/German king George and his progeny) supporters in England who when the time came to fight for their cause decided they weren't going to have anything to do with the whole thing after all. The whole thing was a massive demonstration of how not to conduct armed insurgency.

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 11, 2017 2:32 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

> I don't think we trampled wholesale over everybody else's traditions and stuff

You have *got* to be kidding me.

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 11, 2017 9:52 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

I think you'll find that with most empires the ruling class was replaced. The little people carried on much as before. And even within the British Empire that was mostly the case. I think the only country where the British seriously (as a matter of policy) upset the apple-cart is Australia, which we used as a convicts dumping ground.

Then there's America, where a lot of the little people emigrated to, and yes they also made quite a mess of the place, but that wasn't government policy. (Plus a lot of that was Independent America welcoming Europeans (yes I know it was a "European" government that did it).

The BIG difference, as I and many other people see it, is there is a limit to how much migration can be absorbed without triggering a massive backlash. That was BrExit. With the native British population about 60M (maybe less), and total population forcast to grow to 80M within a generation or so, that is too much. (I'll add, at 1.8 children per family, that "native population" is shrinking so the growth is all immigration and more!).

Cheers,
Wol

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 11, 2017 18:39 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

This is not the place to have this conversation, but: you're not even wrong. You're way beyond that. We have an entire land border that exists because we relocated a bunch of Scots to displace the existing population and their culture. You don't even need to leave the country to find a counterexample to your claim. British colonialism may not have been massively different to any other colonial European entity in this respect, but pretending that it was respectful of existing culture for any reason other than coopting it for greater control of the population is ridiculous.

> at 1.8 children per family, that "native population" is shrinking so the growth is all immigration and more!

The population will start shrinking once death rate is greater than birth rate. That is not currently the case.

(Not replying any further)

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 11, 2017 15:51 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (7 responses)

One person in one in England is a foreigner. There are really very few (read: no) pureblooded Picts and Celts left.

The only question is how far back you go. (In my case, to WWII and the last Kindertransport, so I'm kinda sensitive to rising racist nationalism :( )

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 11, 2017 16:08 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (5 responses)

Likewise. My family were lucky. Doktor Albrecht Paetz was very famous (look him up on the web, I was shocked at how many references I could find) and we were distant enough to avoid being classified as Jewish.

Cheers,
Wol

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 11, 2017 16:24 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (4 responses)

Replying to myself - if Poles and Romanians and all the others want to come to Britain, and assimilate, and learn to play Rugby and Cricket and all that (I'm currently watching the Six Nations, we're 15-0 down right now :-(, I have no problem with that at all. Britain has always welcomed European refugees, and if they want to assimilate then that's fine.

What I do NOT want is people coming here, keeping their own ethnicity, and destroying my country in front of my own eyes. You can't stop change, but if it happens too fast you will get a backlash, that's what nix fears, and that's what I fear.

I think it was Michael Portillo (his family were refugees from the Spanish Civil War) who coined "the cricket test". And he could, because they were refugees.

At the end of the day, I want people who are patriotic, who believe in their own country. What I don't want is people who are nationalists - "my country is better than yours". And current international politics - both European and American (and yes, the description of Britain as "America's poodle" has been much too accurate for my liking in recent years) are doing their best to create nationalists of all colours.

Cheers,
Wol

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 12, 2017 16:08 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

You realise that the "ethnicity" you are referring to is entirely cultural, and has changed radically virtually every century for the past half millennium or more? Rugby and cricket are less than 200 years old and most English play neither on a regular basis and don't even watch it much (football is the thing: India and Pakistan are the beating heart of cricketing life these days). 500 years ago we were burning people for being the wrong religion (and changing our minds about what religion that was every so often); five years ago we were burning people for running the wrong text editor (oh wait). This stuff changes all the time. Trying to keep it like it was when you were young is a strong sign that you have become an inflexible old fart, but not diagnostic of anything actually useful. It's certainly not a sign that your country is being destroyed: stagnation will destroy a polity far more certainly than ongoing change will.

Also, you're cherry-picking, unless you also want to bring back terrible food, post-war rationing, and workhouses, which were part of English culture for far longer than, say, the NHS ever was. What about wife auctions (legendarily used as a workaround for divorce being illegal, oh, we should ban that again too, it was illegal in England for far longer than it was ever legal so it must be right). These things were all part of the culture you aspire to, but apparently you don't want those bits.

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 13, 2017 9:43 UTC (Mon) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link]

all the others want to come to Britain, and assimilate

You have to go back in history only 60 years. 200000+ Hungarians left for the West after the failed revolution in 1956, they assimilated without barely leaving a trace. For example my wife's uncle left at that time, none of his children speaks Hungarian. The welcoming country should make sure that the immigrants are not staying at the same place, in blocks, so they assimilate better, but that's all it takes. Remember, those people not only go to Britain, they also escape their own country (and sometimes traditions). Many of them leaving not only for financial reasons, but for "cultural" reasons.

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 14, 2017 11:45 UTC (Tue) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] (1 responses)

By the way, if I were you, I wouldn't worry about the Poles and Romanians. They mostly have fair skin, their second generation will blend in nicely with the natives (some family names will be strange, but that's all). I would rather worry about the immigrants arriving from parts of the world that used to be under British rule. They might have very different skin color even in their second generation which might cause conscious or subconscious prejudices in school (they'll get lower grades) and in the job market (they'll get bad jobs or not at all) and that leads to problems like the shooting at Bataclan. BrExit doesn't solve this problem, but might make it worse if you have to hire Yemeni bus drivers instead of Polish.

We're not talking about FOSDEM anymore

Posted Mar 14, 2017 13:45 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

This discussion, too, has reached it expiration date, I think; these are not issues that can be worked out on LWN.

Reflections on FOSDEM

Posted Mar 13, 2017 12:19 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

Even the royal family is mostly of German extraction these days (and has been for a while). Remember that they had to have themselves renamed to “Windsor” in 1917 because “Saxe-Coburg-Gotha” didn't have the proper patriotic ring to it if you were currently fighting a war against the actual Germans, whose emperor also happened to be a cousin of the reigning king.