"'He and his followers wanted not one thing except unmolested elbow room.'"
-Poul Anderson, The People Of The Wind IN Anderson, Rise Of The Terran Empire (Riverdale, NY, March 2011), pp. 437-662 AT VI, p. 501.
Regarding diversity, first there is the diversity provided by two intelligent species, human beings and Ythrians. Secondly, we are given to understand that the Ythrian social organizations, the choths, can be even more diverse than they are shown to be in this narrative. Thirdly, an individual of either species is free to adopt the lifestyle of the other. Human beings can "go bird." Ythrians can become "Walkers." There is a Parliament of Man, a political arrangement with which we are familiar. However, every member of a choth, whether Ythrian or human, can vote in a Khruath. Ythrians and human beings who learn from them are able to make this work.
Avalonians fight to remain in the looser Domain of Ythri rather than to be incorporated into the larger Terran Empire. One of their fears is that the Empire would allow unrestricted immigration and that immigrants might simply outvote the established Avalonian way of life. I believe in freedom of movement on a planetary surface but would have to consider whether that should be extended to faster than light movement between planetary systems which is a completely different scenario. No vote in the Parliament of Man would be able to interfere in the internal affairs of any choth. Each choth is sovereign and governs itself by custom, not by coercion. In Flandry's time, we understand, Avalonian human beings have shed the habit of government so that there would then no longer be any question of a way of life being outvoted in Parliament. Human beings would have learned the Ythrian way of living in self-governing communities and I question whether, in those circumstances, the number of immigrants would remain contentious. With forcible annexation into an Empire no longer an issue, anything else would become locally negotiable.
31 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
We never see any "Walkers" in THE PEOPLE OF THE WIND, and I got the hinted impression from Ferune that he regarded them with distaste.
Ad astra! Sean
Human beings are instinctually tribal and territorial. Attempts to allow unlimited migration are producing to-be-expected countermovements, with drastic consequences. Those who attempted to tear down borders have nobody but themselves to blame.
Are any governments trying to allow unlimited migration? They place all sorts of restrictions on it.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: And that is exactly what happened when that bungling dotard "Josip" and his leftist puppet masters virtually abandoned the borders of the US to allow millions of illegal invaders/"immigrants" to swarm in--with the all too predictable political and societal chaos.
Paul: The basic issue remains this, all sovereign have the absolute right and duty for setting the terms and conditions for allowing immigrants in. And it's also a fact that many in the UK believes neither of the two major parties are satisfactorily defending British sovereignty. And some results of their anger has been the rise of new parties and protest movements demanding a reversal of that laxity.
Ad astra! Sean
Correction: I meant to write "...all sovereign nations have the..."
Sean
Sean,
The basic issue is the state of the world. People flee from wars, persecution and famine. Large numbers are desperate enough the risk drowning in the Mediterranean and the English Channel. This global human problem cannot be solved simply by each nation closing its borders.
When I asked recently what is to be done about the state of the world, that was a genuine question, not a rhetorical question really meaning that "leftist" solutions were the only answer. I do not know what the answer is.
Paul.
(I have said before that I believe that absolute rights reside in individual human beings, not in institutions like nations, but we can swap absolutist claims indefinitely.)
A government is bound to consider its own citizens' interests first.
Some of us argue that those interests are served by welcoming immigrants who contribute economically, socially and culturally. Britain is enriched by African National Health Service staff, Indian, Chinese, Italian and numerous other foreign restaurants, Black musicians and footballers, Polish factory workers learning English in evening classes, Asian newsagents and corner shop proprietors etc. The country would be unthinkable without all these inputs. We have now had a Hindu British Prime Minister and a Muslim Scottish First Minister and a black woman currently leads the Conservative Party.
I attended a service for peace at Lancaster Catholic Cathedral where there were readings from the Veda, the Torah, the Koran and John's Gospel, only the last in English translation.
There is also a duty of sanctuary to refugees. Many British citizens take this seriously, like my friend, Kevin's, church building a house for an immigrant family.
We can turn the tide on this issue, preferably with a lot more material support and encouragement from government.
Kaor, Paul!
I refuse your arguments, the first duty of any nation has to be the interests and security of its own citizens. The stubborn refusal of people who think as you do to address the most legitimate concerns of those who oppose unrestricted immigration is a huge factor driving the rise of new political parties.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I refuse your arguments. We do not stubbornly refuse. We disagree.
There are two issues here. On the one hand, yes, I, like some others, oppose all immigration controls. But we are a voice in the wilderness, a minority view. The generally accepted "common sense" is that there have to be immigration controls. It is not currently necessary for anyone to oppose unrestricted immigration because there is no unrestricted immigration. So it is currently unnecessary to discuss that issue in terms of immediate practical politics. The British government is not currently allowing or encouraging unrestricted immigration. It is doing the exact opposite. It is tightening the controls, making it more difficult for people to come with their families and to stay here. The government assures the public that its priority is to stop the boats of refugees coming across the Channel. Meanwhile the boats continue to come because there continues to be a human need for asylum and refuge. That has to be addressed. "Feed the hungry."
There are many people who oppose all immigrants on the basis of prejudice, misinformation and racism. Politicians call prejudice a "legitimate concern" because they do not want to lose votes. Principled politicians oppose prejudice.
Believe me. I see and hear this hate all the time. I went all the way to London to counter-demonstrate against it yesterday.
Nearly a million people have signed up to the idea of a new party that will oppose all that. Times are bad but we have to choose our side.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then people who think as you do will have no one to blame except themselves if both the Conservatives and Labour are eventually crushed in General Elections.
Choosing sides? For me it will not be yours!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Choosing sides? For me it will not be yours! (I echo your language but I would prefer to discuss these issues more urbanely.) You do not choose the side of opposition to prejudice and racism?
What is wrong with crushing Conservatives and Labour and ending this Tweedledum-Tweedledee, Lion and the Unicorn, two party system? A consummation devoutly to be wished!
Don't predict (what you see as) bad outcomes, then blame those outcomes entirely on your opponents. Whatever is the outcome, I do not think that it is going to result entirely from the actions of one faction on one side of a conflict.
But, yes, we are each responsible for the consequences of our own actions. I have been one small part of previous campaigns that have driven back Nazi-led racist movements: National Front, British National Party and English Defense League. Unfortunately, the seeds of racism are inherent in present social divisions and conflicts so we have to mobilize to do the job yet again - until we really do have a better society.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't think you are making sense. If we want a "democracy," then factional and partisan disagreements are inevitable. And democracies will only work as long as all political parties agree to accept the results of elections, whether they win or lose.
We already know what happens from unrestricted immigration, and the results were very bad! In both the US and UK. And you have neo-Nazis because people who think as you do refuse to make concessions to the most reasonable concerns of those who oppose unrestricted immigration, driving them to extremists.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't think you are making sense. Whatever I say, you seem to read other meanings into my words. I do want "democracy," which does involve disagreements. When I wrote "social divisions and conflicts," I referred not to such partisan disagreements but to the kinds of social deprivations and dissatisfactions which cause people to seek scapegoats, to blame poverty on Jews or immigrants instead of on those who really do wield economic and state power.
I say again that, although we can, if we want to, discuss the rights or wrongs of the abstract concept of unrestricted immigration, that is not what is happening now. If anyone is now protesting about unrestricted immigration, then they need to be told (or reminded) that currently immigration is very restricted indeed. Unrestricted immigration is simply not the current issue. The government that they are protesting against fully agrees with them in wanting to place more and more restrictions on immigration and it keeps trying to reassure them of that all the time.
We have neo-Nazis because of people like me? An absurd insinuation. I have opposed them on the streets. One accused me of having "read your Jew papers" when I told him that, if he works for a living, then he should seek common cause with his fellow workers, whatever their race or religion. Those who think as I do do not currently hold power. Current power holders do not refuse to make concessions. They do nothing but make concessions on the immigration issue all the time. This encourages the extremists to demand more.
I feel that we are floundering in a morass of misunderstandings and wild accusations. As I have said before, I would like to get out of this morass and just discuss the issues straightforwardly. I should not have to keep saying, "No, I did not say that!"
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I was discussing the issue straightforwardly, the most important point being that sovereign nations have the absolute right to set the terms and conditions for allowing foreigners to immigrate. The next most important point being that outsiders do not have the right to move to other nations against the will of those countries.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I was also accused of being responsible for neo-Nazis and, implicitly, of opposing "democracy"! We are still in the morass of misunderstanding, not out of it.
You keep stating that nations have an absolute right. Why? That is a mere dogmatic statement. I think that it makes more sense to say that rights reside in individuals.
But why should it be against our will for others to come here, especially when they are refugees needing sanctuary like Jews from Nazi Germany? You never address this latter point. I think that the Nativity story in Matthew's Gospel is legendary but, for what it is worth, it shows Joseph, Mary and their son fleeing from persecution in one country and taking refuge in another. The point of the Book of Ruth is that King David was descended from a foreign immigrant.
Also, Matthew 25:40.
Paul.
Paul: some argue that, yes. Most don't, as the recent rally in London shows.
Theoretically, British governments limit immigration: in practice, those limits aren't enforced.
And if they aren't enforced, then radicalization takes place spontaneously. The oldest human reflex -- predating our human-ness -- is "no stranger on my tribe's land without our leave".
Robinson's rally is said to have been 110,000! Our counter-demo was 20,000. We have a lot of work to do to catch up - although we have been through all this before and we will now be re-mobilizing in the trade unions, other campaign groups etc.
I think that we do have more people but it is a matter of mobilizing them. I also see people's behaviour as motivated more by current social alienation than by primordial instincts.
Paul: well, opinion polls don't support your position. And primordial instincts -interact- with social conditions; the primordial instincts govern how the social conditions play out.
I don't take much stock in opinion polls because public attitudes change and can change quickly in some circumstances - like nowadays, I think, when a lot of things are changing anyway.
Right now in Britain, many people are dissatisfied with their circumstances. It is easy for politicians like Farage to stir up xenophobia. Immigrants are easy targets and scapegoats but hostility to them will not solve the problems causing the dissatisfaction so there is a job of explanation to be done by an alternative movement that can address more deep-rooted problems. Such a movement is just possibly getting under way.
Kaor, Paul
And I think you are underestimating the anger many for out of control illegal immigration. The Democrats sure did and it cost them badly in the US. And demonizing critics of illegal immigration will only make them even more angry--another blunder of the Democrats.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not underestimate anger. I confront it.
Demonizing critics of illegal immigration? SOME of them are indeed human demons, hard core Nazis:
"He who rides with the Klan
"He's a monster, not a man
"Because beneath that white disguise
"I have looked into his eyes."
Our "Stand Up To Racism" campaign tackles the claim of "legitimate concerns" head on. We always try to separate the Nazi hard core from the larger numbers that have been drawn into anti-immigrant agitation and we have succeeded more than once before but we have an even bigger task now. Our Prime Minister made a speech encouraging xenophobia. We are against him on this as on much else.
Paul.
It was actually about 150,000, IIRC.
150,000! There can be wide variations in estimates. Certainly the biggest such rally ever.
Since that big rally, our side has consistently outnumbered the other side on demos and counter-demos outside refugee hotels.
Kaor, Paul!
And you are supporting the wrong side and a bad cause.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am opposing racism.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't care about racism, you are denying the right of sovereign nations to set the terms and conditions for immigrating. That is what matters!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You really do not care that racial hatred is rampant? As you know, a Muslim killed a man in a synagogue in Manchester. There has also been more than one attempt to burn down hotels with refugees in! A member of a white gang that kicked a black youth to death has been imprisoned but refuses to name his accomplices. You really do not care that this hatred exists, is being publicly encouraged and is intensifying?
You think that it matters more that I deny the right of governments to restrict the movements of individuals and particularly the rights of those who flee here from war and persecution? I do not agree that that is what matters!
Paul.
Post a Comment