Heartland

@ Francis - The Marshall Plan was also part of creating a bulwark against Communism. Post 1945 the USA couldn't risk getting involved into a further war with the USSR but feared the spread of communism.

The prospect of economic struggle in Western Europe, alongside a powerfully state-financed industrialisation of the east could have created a position where the Soviets felt it possible to invade the west and expand their sphere of influence to the point where the US was under greater pressure than ever to act against Moscow. A strong Western Europe was a good insurance policy, with the spin-off of creating trading partners.

I don't see a similar issue to drive US/EU policy towards Africa. Moreover, US policy in the developing world is built far more around dishing out the medicine.

@ Pikkrong - thanks for the update on the Baltics. I was aware of the inter-war independence, but knew little of what had happened in that time.

@ Boudicca - fair point re the Stans, but what about Belarus? Also in the loving bosom of democratic Europe, but not exactly keeping up with the neighbours. And Ukraine? Have an election, and repeat until you get the result you like. Moldova? Not sure what their system is, but half of the country wants to sucede into an independent, Moscow-friendly Trans-Nistria. Russia? A fine example of a one-party democracy.

As for tribal/national divisions (is this what the term Balkanisation was coined for?), the Russian influence on the rest of the ex-USSR has been huge. I seem to recall that post-Soviet Estonia went through a long period of not selecting ethnic Russians in their sporting teams. There may even have been a language element to claiming Estonian citizenship (Pikkrong? Any clues? I could have this entirely wrong. I'm going largely on what an ethnically-Russian friend of mine told me before he moved away from Tallinn). Why is it that Estonia managed to do this peacefully, while Bosnia couldn't? More pertinently, why did Slovenia get away with fewer of the problems that beset Serbia, Croatia etc? I'm not sure that being in the warm embrace of Euro-democracy is the defining factor here.

andymackem wrote: I seem to recall that post-Soviet Estonia went through a long period of not selecting ethnic Russians in their sporting teams. There may even have been a language element to claiming Estonian citizenship

Sorry, really don't know about sporting teams (I'm really ignorant about sports). What I have noticed is that there have always been sportsmen (i. e. mean and women) with Russian names in local sport news. And among them there have been some medal winners of the Olympic Games.
Yes, understanding Estonian is one of the precondition to get Estonian citizenship. Is it different in the UK? Could I get British citizenship without understanding English? For me it seems strange that it's a problem for some local ethnically Russians because Estonian language is one subjects in local Russian schools.
And the things became more weird for me if I read comments of some local Russian young people about other nations (in a local gothic / industrial forum). If one Russian guy said that "negroes and other colourful mammals" would come to Estonia when Estonia would decide to join the EU (it was before it). When I asked "Am I the only non-rascist here?" he answered something like: "I'm not a rascist, but I have heard people from Asia and Africa doesn't care about local traditions, culture and language in European countries." Well, and it was said by a guy who had refused talk Estonian each time we had met in reality. And I have to say before it our relationships had seemed to be friendly for me.
It made me think what is going on in his head, or what is going on in his family - why he thinks ethnically Turks in Sweden should be able to talk in the local language if he doesn't give a sh*t about the local language here. I've got Russian blood myself, my wife has even more of it in her veins, since my childhood I have had very friendly feelings about local non-Estonians but this made me think that actually I don't know what's their real attitude or opinion about Estonia, isn't Estonain indipendence oe existence of local culture temporary nonsences for them?

Thanks for that, Pikkrong. I may have had the wrong end of the stick about the sporting teams. I thought it was something to do with the Estonian football team /shrug/.

As far as I know any language requirement for would-be British residents is a fairly new development. Maybe 18 months ago there was a move to introduce English-language testing for refugees and asylum seekers, which was attacked in some quarters as a threat to civil liberties. It was supported by others as part of integration, though. Of course, there is a difference between residence and citizenship, so there may be a language test there. I wonder what would happen if you applied for British citizenship as a fluent Welsh or Gaelic speaker, but spoke no English?

As for your other acquaintance, I'm sure people are generally coherent about race. They tend to believe the last thing they heard, without trying to join the dots and form any sort of pattern.

And I'm curious as to how his 'colourful mammals' can be expected to join in with local culture and traditions when (some of) the locals have a nasty habit of excluding them. But that's another argument.

On a related note: 27 posts from Africa to Baltic Europe. Does that suggest we're a tad Euro-centric in our deliberations, and unable to focus on problems which seem a long way from home?

andymackem wrote:Maybe 18 months ago there was a move to introduce English-language testing for refugees and asylum seekers, which was attacked in some quarters as a threat to civil liberties.

Yeah, that was me. Really pissed me off I have to say. Less to do with civil liberties, more that it was just another worrying example of the rising tide of immigration hysteria in this country ATM.

andymackem wrote: I wonder what would happen if you applied for British citizenship as a fluent Welsh or Gaelic speaker, but spoke no English?

Interesting thought, but what are the chances of there being a single human being on the planet in that situation?

andymackem wrote: On a related note: 27 posts from Africa to Baltic Europe. Does that suggest we're a tad Euro-centric in our deliberations, and unable to focus on problems which seem a long way from home?

You started it!

And yet we're quick to sneer at 'thick' English footballers who think they can play for European teams without learning the local language? Consistency, please!

Patagonia: a large Welsh-speaking enclave in Spanish-speaking Argentina. I think it has more Welsh speakers than Wales, though I stand to be corrected (in my orthopaedic shoes). I'm sure one of them might fit my bill.

And at least I've stopped being Euro-centric and dragged a whole new continent into the game

andymackem wrote:And yet we're quick to sneer at 'thick' English footballers who think they can play for European teams without learning the local language? Consistency, please!

I think it's the difference between being some big jessie with highlights in his hair who gets paid £20,000 a week for working 90 minutes at the most not bothering to buy himself a Berlitz Learn Italian book to read in his jacuzzi...

...and people who have been driven out of their homes by war, hunger or if they're lucky bastards, grinding poverty (best case scenario, we all know "economic migrants" are just out to bleed us all dry and take our jobs ), doing the same.

andymackem wrote: though I stand to be corrected (in my orthopaedic shoes). I'm sure one of them might fit my bill.

Tell me you got that out of Partridge!

andymackem wrote:Thanks for that, Pikkrong. I may have had the wrong end of the stick about the sporting teams. I thought it was something to do with the Estonian football team /shrug/.

As far as I know any language requirement for would-be British residents is a fairly new development. Maybe 18 months ago there was a move to introduce English-language testing for refugees and asylum seekers, which was attacked in some quarters as a threat to civil liberties. It was supported by others as part of integration, though. Of course, there is a difference between residence and citizenship, so there may be a language test there.

There's really a big difference between residence and citizenship. I'm far from being satisfied by all the politics of Estonian recent governments but at least one thing I can say - there hasn't been any kind of national oppression here. No one has forced local non-Estonians (there are also other national groups in addition to Russians) to speak any language they don't want to nor force them to leave the country. But as far as I understand - correct me if I'm too primitive - citizenship means special realtionship between a person and a state, it (citizenship) gives you some rights and duties. And those particular rights and duties are fixed in laws. Of course most of normal people don't know all the laws by heart but they still have to understand the language in which all those rights and duties are fixed. There are some thing you come across regularly (paying taxes etc) and some special cases (legal, criminal etc cases).
If at least on of your parents is a citizen of Estonian Republic you get citizenship automatically. But there's one thing very hard to understand for me: Why some local ethnically non-Estonians who have successfully finished schools here, say they can't understand Estonian language. All local schools - both Estonian and Russian - are supported by the state and there's Estonian language as one of the subjects in local Russian schools. Yes, I know, Estonian language isn't the easiest but I still believe everyone who hasn't any special problem with health could understand the language after finishing the school at least as much to get involved in a conversation and not to fail in language test.
Well, football clubs - that's something I really don't know much about (I meant at least one famous wrestler, some female swimmers etc). But as far as I know - but I may be mistaken, excuse me - local football clubs and the scene around them isn't the helthiest part of our society, it seems to me there are more conflicts and aggressiveness than in the society in general.

Actually... maybe I even understand those local Russian-speakers who avoid to use the language local and make their own life more complicated this way. It's not a secret that Russian propaganda works 7 days 24 hours to provoke ethnically Russians in the Baltic states. And according to that propaganda those people don't have to care about Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian citizenship because sooner or later those lands would be part of Russian empire.
I don't know about the other Baltic states but talking about Estonia we have to distinguish at least 2 different Russian-speaking communities. The first of them are descendants of those people who escaped from Russia due to a religious split, so-called old-believers (maybe there's a better word in English for them) who were persecuted. That (not so big but very interesting) group lives in rural areas of East-Estonia by the lake Peipsi. When I was a child my parents worked there and I have the best memories from that time. By the way, those people have no problems with local language or citizenship.
Far more people came from different territories of the USSR due to Soviet politics to assimilate Baltic (so-called) republics with Russian-speaking inhabitants. Big enterprises of heavy industry were built which were absolutely useless for the local countries. Heavy industry have never fit in our infrastructure - all the raw materials were brought from other places, the same about workers, production went back away from here and the profit also - those enterprises belonged directly to competence of Moscow, not to local governments. When the USSR collapsed most of the workers lost their job because indipendent states didn't need those enterprises. That's why there's big unemployment in some places in North-East of Estonia which are populated mostly by Russain-speaking people. And it is a problem. Not an ethnical but social problem. There are more problems with alcoholism, criminality and drug addiction. It's not a secret that most of prostitutes in Tallinn are (ethnically non-Estonian) girls coming from North-East Estonia. So the problem is caused mainly by Soviet colonialism.
All this doesn't mean that social politics of our very right-wing governments has always been the best. By my opinion their ignorance, arrogance and orientation only to the market has gone too far. We need far more effective social guarantees, both ethnically Estonians and everyone else here - but it's another topic.

boudicca wrote:I think it's the difference between being some big jessie with highlights in his hair who gets paid £20,000 a week for working 90 minutes at the most not bothering to buy himself a Berlitz Learn Italian book to read in his jacuzzi...

...and people who have been driven out of their homes by war, hunger or if they're lucky bastards, grinding poverty (best case scenario, we all know "economic migrants" are just out to bleed us all dry and take our jobs ), doing the same.

Although, if you're earning £20k/week (at least double that figure for the types you're thinking of, btw, and remember that there are no Brits currently playing top flight football in Italy ) arguably you have less need to talk to the locals. You can employ translators; you will be playing at a multinational club where the dressing-room lingua franca may not even be the native language; your celebrity can carry you through some of those sticky social moments.

None of that is available to a war-ravaged Kosovan (for sake of argument) trying to get a McJob on a trading estate in Staines.

A sub-point: aside from Beckham and Owen, the overwhelming majority of British footballers playing outside the UK will be scratching out a living at low-quality clubs in places like Iceland or Latvia (can't be arsed to research current examples, so trust me for once). They will be earning a fairly ordinary salary, some may even be part-time footballers in conjunction with a 'proper' job. It could be the other job that forces them to learn the local language, rather than the football, which would back up my earlier point.

boudicca wrote:

andymackem wrote: though I stand to be corrected (in my orthopaedic shoes). I'm sure one of them might fit my bill.

Tell me you got that out of Partridge!

It's a third-hand borrowing, I fear. Adapted from a sig on a different message board. No idea where he got it from, but Partridge could well be responsible. I liked it, anyway. Glad you did too

I'll take your word for it on all the football business, Andy.

You know I'm not choosing it as my specialist subject on Mastermind anytime soon!

andymackem wrote:
A sub-point: aside from Beckham and Owen, the overwhelming majority of British footballers playing outside the UK will be scratching out a living at low-quality clubs in places like Iceland or Latvia (can't be arsed to research current examples, so trust me for once). They will be earning a fairly ordinary salary, some may even be part-time footballers in conjunction with a 'proper' job. It could be the other job that forces them to learn the local language, rather than the football, which would back up my earlier point.

I'm sorry but I can't see how is it related to citizenship.

andymackem wrote:
Why is it that Estonia managed to do this peacefully, while Bosnia couldn't?

Unfortunately can't say there haven't been provocations in the Baltic states. So far Latvia has been the main target of actions of Limonow's so-called national-bolshevist paramilitary organisation.

(I wanted to add a picture but then I realized it's not a good idea to give a direct link from H-land to that site. Once we already were hacked. If you are still interested, you could copy and paste at first:
www.agentura
and then:
.ru/timeline/2001/limonov/limonov.jpg
by the way, the flag is red - so in reality or on colourful pictures it resembles to another flag from 1930s-1940s )

boudicca wrote:

andymackem wrote:Maybe 18 months ago there was a move to introduce English-language testing for refugees and asylum seekers, which was attacked in some quarters as a threat to civil liberties.

Yeah, that was me. Really pissed me off I have to say.

Surely learning the host language is fundamental to integration, and integration is fundamental to acceptance. Of course I understand all the reasons why asylum seekers/ economic migrants want the security and support of their own communities at first. But if you're not willing to integrate and accept the language and culture of your chosen destination, then you can't blame the locals for assuming you're only in it for the money. And that's bound to p!ss them off eventually. It's just basic human nature.

Francis wrote:Surely learning the host language is fundamental to integration, and integration is fundamental to acceptance. Of course I understand all the reasons why asylum seekers/ economic migrants want the security and support of their own communities at first. But if you're not willing to integrate and accept the language and culture of your chosen destination, then you can't blame the locals for assuming you're only in it for the money. And that's bound to p!ss them off eventually. It's just basic human nature.

I think they should learn English... but in the fullness of time...
Some of us natives haven't even got a grasp of it yet.

Also, in the case of our war-torn Kosovan non-English speaker, why come to Britain?

To get here you would have to cross most of western Europe. If you want to come because you have some grasp (however limited) of English and will find it easier to settle in, that makes some sense to me.

If not, Austria looks much closer. Learning German from scratch shouldn't be any harder than learning English (or French, Italian, Greek etc) from scratch.

A refugee, logically, is trying to get away and worrying about the desination later. Look at people desperately trying to get into Kyrgystan from Uzbekistan recently - that's simply seeking the first relatively safe haven.

There aren't many people who can claim the UK as their nearest safe haven. There are plenty who could claim a knowledge of English makes it an appropriate destination compared to other European states, but in those circumstances surely we reserve the right to assess fluency in the language.

andymackem wrote:Also, in the case of our war-torn Kosovan non-English speaker, why come to Britain?

To get here you would have to cross most of western Europe. If you want to come because you have some grasp (however limited) of English and will find it easier to settle in, that makes some sense to me.

Ahhh, that old chestnut - "Why don't they stop at the first country they come to?"
Well, many of them do. In recent years Greece, Spain and Italy have experienced an influx of refugees. It could be unreliable, but I seem to recall hearing somewhere that Greece had the highest level of immigration in Europe. That could of course be bull s**t but Southern Europe does take a large percentage of INCOMERS .

andymackem wrote: If not, Austria looks much closer.

Two words. Jorg Haider.
I'll soon travel to Austria for the 20th time - I've spent nearly a year of my life there in total, and in recent years I have noticed not only the number of people from the former Yugoslavia, but also the hostile attitude towards them. There seems to be an alarming animosity, given the situation they were fleeing from, I'm not entirely sure why...

OK, I'm being a bit glib about Herr Haider, but unfortunately the far right seems to be quite strong in the majority of Central and Western European countries, with Britain an exception (although I fear we're rapidly losing that status, thank you BNP and desperate Tories).
Our Nazis aren't quite so mainstream. Yet.

andymackem wrote: A refugee, logically, is trying to get away and worrying about the desination later. Look at people desperately trying to get into Kyrgystan from Uzbekistan recently - that's simply seeking the first relatively safe haven.

"Relatively" being the operative word!

Maybe it's the price we have to pay for centuries of cultural dominance and empire. We are seen as the land of milk and honey (although you and I know it's more like the land of beer and Kilroy) in some quarters.
Rightly or wrongly - but I think understandably.

And we can't ignore the fact that we are major players in many of the wars that drive these people out of their countries in the first place. It is no coincidence that Afghanistan and Iraq are the two greatest sources of immigrants at the moment. What makes us think that we can wash our hands of the consequences of our government's policy?

And the vast majority of immigrants do have some rudimentary English at least. I agree, those with none at all should learn. But I think most of them would wish to - this image that the Daily Mail would paint of all these people refusing point blank to do anything to integrate is a fallacy, I think.

I'd read that Germany was Europe's leading 'host' for refugees, with Pakistan being the world leader. That may be out of date, though.

But as for 'when don't they stop at the first one', surely it _is_ a relevant question. These people are not, by and large, wealthy. Even if they were wealthy at the time of departure, the circumstances in which they felt it appropriate to flee their homes usually result in much of their wealth being lost.

Travel is expensive - and the more desperate the need, the greater the cost. The further one travels, the more one pays. That's a pressing economic reason for stopping as soon as you're over the border. I don't imagine the people-trafficking industries offer air-miles or frequent fliers.

European right-wing policies: do you think that life in Britain doesn't involve a measure of hostility towards incomers? Maybe not in Bearsden, but it's certainly true in some areas of Southend, much of the Thames Estuary (Thurrock returned a BNP councillor last time out) and East London. Then you go into rural England: I went to Salisbury with a Jamaican girlfriend, and we stayed at a B&B in a small village nearby. People weren't hostile as such, but it was fairly clear that she was the first black person they'd seen for some time. Maybe this is just how people actually feel, rightly or wrongly. Is this democracy?

Responsibility: weren't there large numbers of Iraqis and Afghans feeling Saddam or the Taliban? Weren't we acting at least partly on their behalf? Would an Afghan patriot driven out by the Taliban not now be planning to return and rebuild his nation's fledgling democracy? Maybe we can do a swap! (not a serious suggestion, obviously).

I'd probably agree that many immigrants are keen to integrate, though simply saying 'the vast majority' without back-up is veering into Daily Mail territory. Either viewpoint is based on a supposition rather than any kind of verifiable research.

We also know that there is a vocal minority of (mainly Islamic) groups in this country who are happy to stir up problems. Even if Abu Hamza is a lone nutcase with a small and isolated group of foreigners, he makes detailed public pronouncements about the evil of the west.

It's partly a question of news values: man says 'smash the system' is a better story than man says ' try to fit in'. But a lot of the immigrant communities are (perhaps understandably) suspicious of officialdom, the media (at least in my experience) and don't do well to put out an alternative message.

The trouble with immigration is that the issue can only be tackled by intelligent debate with all sectors of society. At the moment that seems to be impossible, probably because people don't want to be told anything contrary to what they 'know' about foreigners. It really needs an international approach, going beyond what the UNHCR can achieve, but it's hard to see how that can happen in the first instance.

andymackem wrote: European right-wing policies: do you think that life in Britain doesn't involve a measure of hostility towards incomers?

As I said, I think we are losing some of our tolerance as a nation - I've felt it in the past 5 years particularly. I personally (and I seem to be alone in this) blame it on William Hague's leadership of a floundering Tory party which was desperately trying to squeeze as many populist votes as possible out of the electorate.

andymackem wrote: Maybe not in Bearsden,

You've never been here have you? This is uber-Tory, Blue Rinse Brigade country!
Really though... I can't remember the last time I saw an obviously foreign face in this town. And I don't think the little old ladies from the bridge club would take too kindly to it.

andymackem wrote: I'd probably agree that many immigrants are keen to integrate, though simply saying 'the vast majority' without back-up is veering into Daily Mail territory. Either viewpoint is based on a supposition rather than any kind of verifiable research.

Far be it from me to stray into Daily Mail territory.
I said that the vast majority probably had a grasp of very basic English. Because they live on this planet.
It's the closest thing to an international language (unless you count Esperanto, which I don't).

andymackem wrote: We also know that there is a vocal minority of (mainly Islamic) groups in this country who are happy to stir up problems. Even if Abu Hamza is a lone nutcase with a small and isolated group of foreigners, he makes detailed public pronouncements about the evil of the west.

And I would not disagree that the man is a fuckwit, who I would happily see removed from this planet, never mind this country.

Did you hear about that woman who fell in love with him in his prison cell? Because, quoth she, "I like big men".

boudicca wrote:As I said, I think we are losing some of our tolerance as a nation - I've felt it in the past 5 years particularly. I personally (and I seem to be alone in this) blame it on William Hague's leadership of a floundering Tory party which was desperately trying to squeeze as many populist votes as possible out of the electorate.

Not a rising tide of 'political correctness', allied to a liberal thought police which prompts an inevitable backlash from people unwilling to keep being told what to think?

boudicca wrote: You've never been [to Bearsden] have you? This is uber-Tory, Blue Rinse Brigade country!
Really though... I can't remember the last time I saw an obviously foreign face in this town. And I don't think the little old ladies from the bridge club would take too kindly to it.

Once. For a party. But it's hard to be actively hostile to somebody you never, ever see. I'd guess your little old ladies don't venture into Glasgow much, and especially not after dark.

boudicca wrote: Far be it from me to stray into Daily Mail territory.
I said that the vast majority probably had a grasp of very basic English. Because they live on this planet.
It's the closest thing to an international language (unless you count Esperanto, which I don't).

How basic is basic? I have quite an extensive vocabulary in German, but little or none of it is useful (a few old war movies, a smattering of Allo Allo, 'zwei weltkrieg und ein weltklasse (doo-dah)', 'Ich bin hier allein' and a spot of Schiller to be precise). I couldn't, for example, buy a train ticket in German. I'd struggle to order dinner. I don't think that 'OK', 'Coca-cola' and 'Hit me Baby one more time' really counts for a non-English speaker either.

Also, while English (perhaps more precisely American) is undoubtedly the lingua franca of the developed world, does that apply elsewhere? In Russia, for example, German is more widely spoken as a second language (which is so helpful for me, see above!). Outside of Europe, North America and Japan (not areas noted for producing large numbers of refugees), is it such a powerhouse?

A recent example: I was in a Ukrainian club in London recently and the TV was showing Kiev's answer to News 24. The scrollbar along the bottom (the only bit I could read) was full of headlines from unlikely places like Moldova, Romania, Georgia, Russia etc and made little or no mention of USA, UK or EU events. Not everyone shares our world view.

boudicca wrote:And I would not disagree that the man [Abu Hamza] is a fuckwit, who I would happily see removed from this planet, never mind this country.

Did you hear about that woman who fell in love with him in his prison cell? Because, quoth she, "I like big men".

Any 'celeb' will attract a devoted lover. You could put me on TV and I'd get fan mail. Heartbreaking, really.

andymackem wrote:
Not a rising tide of 'political correctness', allied to a liberal thought police which prompts an inevitable backlash from people unwilling to keep being told what to think?

There's an element of that, I don't doubt. But I think it was bubbling under the surface before the post-1997-election Tories started trying to find "issues" on which they'd be popular.
Immigration is an "issue" any country has to deal with, and has to be able to talk about without descending into either xenophobic hysteria or politically correct Thought Policing. I just think it's a sad day when you can take a vox pops of Middle EnglandTM and you will find a lot of people who see it as THE most important issue facing Britain today.

andymackem wrote:

boudicca wrote: I said that the vast majority probably had a grasp of very basic English.

I don't think that 'OK', 'Coca-cola' and 'Hit me Baby one more time' really counts for a non-English speaker either.

It so does!

andymackem wrote: Also, while English (perhaps more precisely American) is undoubtedly the lingua franca of the developed world, does that apply elsewhere? In Russia, for example, German is more widely spoken as a second language (which is so helpful for me, see above!). Outside of Europe, North America and Japan (not areas noted for producing large numbers of refugees), is it such a powerhouse?

A recent example: I was in a Ukrainian club in London recently and the TV was showing Kiev's answer to News 24. The scrollbar along the bottom (the only bit I could read) was full of headlines from unlikely places like Moldova, Romania, Georgia, Russia etc and made little or no mention of USA, UK or EU events. Not everyone shares our world view.

If you had been watching BBC News 24, you may have found that all the stories there were from the same places. The Ukranians have had plenty going on at home recently! The Orange Revolution - world news - it was all over the Beeb.
As have the Georgians. And the Russians are always interesting.
OK, why anyone cares what is going on in Moldova is beyond me...

As far as English as a lingua fraca outside the developed (or as George Bush would no doubt say, "civilised") world...
India, Pakistan - good old Zimbabwe... we've left our mark on many countries in the "undeveloped" world thanks to empire.

andymackem wrote: Any 'celeb' will attract a devoted lover. You could put me on TV and I'd get fan mail.

YOU RECKON!?

Allright, now I've got the time to get into this discussion to
Lets get started

dead stars wrote:Nowadays people are coming everyday to Portugal, either as refugees or as immigrants. The other day I was thinking how do they distinguish from both situations because refugees also seek work in the country and don't mean to go back.
It is so intense that I went to Spain and wondered "what have you done to all the black people?". "We don't have them", I was answered, but instead I'd never seen so many Latin Americans from ex-Spanish colonies.

In no way am I advocating colonialism, merely providing food for thought.
But my personal opinion is that (especially in the case of ex-Portuguese colonies) they are a lot, but a lot, worse than before.

What I've been thinking for years: Why not give some sort of special status to immigrants from ex-colonies? It would be not a bad idea, I guess, since, we've got a whole lot of profit out of them, they gave us the possibility for the Industrial Revolution and all that, so wouldn't it be fair they could get a bit of profit out of us too, just a thought though...

BTW: Perhaps this is a reason why all of them come to Britain, since you were about the biggest empire back in the days

Also, I've heard colonies that have not yet become independent, don't want to become independent, like Suriname (or was it Aruba?, anyway, doesn't make much difference), which is desperate to remain a part of the Dutch 'empire', because: they get money, they do not get some dictator to rule their country and whatever else...
Of couse this is just what I've been hearing, which could be slightly wrong...

andymackem wrote:@ Francis - The Marshall Plan was also part of creating a bulwark against Communism. Post 1945 the USA couldn't risk getting involved into a further war with the USSR but feared the spread of communism.

I'm affraid this is wrong... I think I pointed this out in the Europe-thread too, but Marshall help was initially meant for the whole of Europe, to make profit out of the new economies that would rise (which of course would be some sort of 'security' against communism too)...
It was offered to Warsaw-pact countries too, but they would not accept it, actually they were much more like not allowed to accept it, but anyway...
Also, there were rather strict rules on what you could do with it, eg. Belgium was obliged to build new harbour docks in Antwerp with it, for some reason... Afterwards this seems to have been quite a good investment, but don't know what people felt like about it back then, plus in modern 'media society', you would not be able anymore to let people do with aid only what you'd like them to do with it...

Obviousman wrote:
What I've been thinking for years: Why not give some sort of special status to immigrants from ex-colonies? It would be not a bad idea, I guess, since, we've got a whole lot of profit out of them, they gave us the possibility for the Industrial Revolution and all that, so wouldn't it be fair they could get a bit of profit out of us too, just a thought though...

BTW: Perhaps this is a reason why all of them come to Britain, since you were about the biggest empire back in the days

Indeed.

I wouldn't say they ought to be given special status LEGALLY, but I don't think it should surprise us in the least that they do choose Britain over "the first country they come to".

@ Obviousman - you don't think the money was offered to the fledgling Warsaw Pact in a bid to try and offer an alternative to Communism, then?

A US-backed, wealthier economy in Czechoslovakia might have been better able to resist Stalinism.

Of course, it was too late by then and the USSR's grip was already too strong. But Tito took the money and managed (just about) to play east and west against one another in Yugoslavia.

So we have two views of US foreign policy: one suggests enlightened self-interest to help other nations develop, the other is a means of protecting national security and economic power by letting other people do the dying. Which do you think is the more plausible explanation, based on America's usual approach to dealing with the rest of the world.

@ Boudicca - so after that long and often turbulent struggle for independence, they choose to come to the home of their hated ex-colonial masters?

Shades of Turkeys voting for Christmas, no?

andymackem wrote: @ Boudicca - so after that long and often turbulent struggle for independence, they choose to come to the home of their hated ex-colonial masters?

Shades of Turkeys voting for Christmas, no?

There's nowt as queer as folk...

andymackem wrote:@ Obviousman - you don't think the money was offered to the fledgling Warsaw Pact in a bid to try and offer an alternative to Communism, then?

A US-backed, wealthier economy in Czechoslovakia might have been better able to resist Stalinism.

Of course, it was too late by then and the USSR's grip was already too strong. But Tito took the money and managed (just about) to play east and west against one another in Yugoslavia.

So we have two views of US foreign policy: one suggests enlightened self-interest to help other nations develop, the other is a means of protecting national security and economic power by letting other people do the dying. Which do you think is the more plausible explanation, based on America's usual approach to dealing with the rest of the world.

Of course you're right the money was meant to give them an alternative to communism, but what I understood from reading the post that specific sentence/alinea was an answer to, that you tried to put it more like the iron curtain was already around, and the US did not even bother to offer aid to Warsaw Pact-Europe...

On Tito, do not forget, in the end, he was a communist, or at least governed his country much more Marx-inspired than capitalism-inspired... Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he more or less break out of the Warsaw pact afer X years, and went more or less his own way?

On the US's foreign policy, do not forget, back then, they were still close to the Truman doctrine, which implied more or less they would notget involved if their own country was not involved, so back then, I think it was mainly enlightened self-interest, but nowadays, I'm affraid it's just self-interest without the enlightened left...