Indians are being hated in Canada, who is at fault ?

[r3alist]

What?! That was the very reason why immigration was so eagerly done by the UK after the great wars. The UK lost a lot of men in the great wars and slavery was abolished, so they felt they needed to remedy this with post-slavery migrants. Despite the fact they still had their women and a large portion of their men still available, and were financially very affluent. They didnt need such an influx of migrants, except for having them as kinds of slaves. Now, It's not the migrants fault if they played by the rules and outdid the natives in certain areas. Sitting on your backside drinking 4 packs of carling complaining about migrants is 100% a choice.

That was a reality over half a century ago, it's not really applicable for immigration of the last 30 years

The constant influx has created policies and downward pressures that you could argue privilege a new migrant

For example, when companies can always find cheaper staff from abroad over local people who they choose not to invest and train, that takes away opportunities from the natives.

The people that come start families, education, health care... This keeps happening then yes the downward pressure adds up.

Then you have the societal shift, demographic shift

 

[halupridol]

Lol,who is even surprised?I'm not.
By Indians,I'm pretty sure they mean bhayyas(brown North Indians/eastern Pakistanis/bdians of all shade).
The point to ponder in my opinion is,why is it that always in almost every place they go,bhayyas end up being hated??

 

[halupridol]

Be it Canada,usa,UK,Europe,Nepal,bangledash,even inside there own countries,ie India n Pakistan. I mean these bhayyas are disliked by there own bhayya biradars and everyone else, irrespective of there faith.
Is it always everyone else's fault.lolz

 

[Tehrani021]

That was a reality over half a century ago, it's not really applicable for immigration of the last 30 years

The constant influx has created policies and downward pressures that you could argue privilege a new migrant

For example, when companies can always find cheaper staff from abroad over local people who they choose not to invest and train, that takes away opportunities from the natives.

The people that come start families, education, health care... This keeps happening then yes the downward pressure adds up.

Then you have the societal shift, demographic shift

No it's the capitalist desire to focus on bottom line which is what has kept immigration alive, not the other way around, which is why I said immigrants are innocent in this. Also what happened 50 years ago still applies today in that the west became comfortable with the idea of having cheap labour. So it all stems from their own greed and capitalistic endeavours. I also still don't see why someone's skin colour stops them for working for the same amount as migrants. Having an affluent life and wanting to work for more is a choice. Migrants also live in the same society and live with the same pressures such as cost of living. The difference is the migrants chooses to be more frugal and to work more. I don't see why a white person can't do the same unless they suffer from entitlement. Again all of which is their choice and can't scapegoat anyone else for that.

 

[r3alist]

No it's the capitalist desire to focus on bottom line which is what has kept immigration alive, not the other way around, which is why I said immigrants are innocent in this. Also what happened 50 years ago still applies today in that the west became comfortable with the idea of having cheap labour. So it all stems from their own greed and capitalistic endeavours. I also still don't see why someone's skin colour stops them for working for the same amount as migrants. Having an affluent life and wanting to work for more is a choice. Migrants also live in the same society and live with the same pressures such as cost of living. The difference is the migrants chooses to be more frugal and to work more. I don't see why a white person can't do the same unless they suffer from entitlement. Again all of which is their choice and can't scapegoat anyone else for that.

Not every white person is benefitting and plugged into the capitalist system as you call it, most are not

So, by the logic of globalism the cheap labour who feeds the system is privileged over the native who does not, you need to protect movement of capital and people

The net winners are those who benefit from cheaper cost base and a having a job

The majority do not benefit, over time they continue to lose out economically and socially, let me repeat, economically and socially, if you are being honest

 

[Tehrani021]

Not every white person is benefitting and plugged into the capitalist system as you call it, most are not

So, by the logic of globalism the cheap labour who feeds the system is privileged over the native who does not, you need to protect movement of capital and people

The net winners are those who benefit from cheaper cost base and a having a job

The majority do not benefit, over time they continue to lose out economically and socially, let me repeat, economically and socially, if you are being honest

It's still a western system which they themselves created, not the migrants.

The buck doesnt stop with globalism, because it is western capitalism which fuels globalism. You really need to look a bit more deeply into the subject.

And at no point does someones skin colour or place of birth determine the willingness to live cheaper lives and try to be more employable. That's a non-sequitur.

Again, this is the fault of capitalism. Even if you get rid of migrants, the focus on bottom line will hit the natives still and many companies simply won't operate in that market.

 

[r3alist]

It's still a western system which they themselves created, not the migrants.

The buck doesnt stop with globalism, because it is western capitalism which fuels globalism. You really need to look a bit more deeply into the subject.

And at no point does someones skin colour or place of birth determine the willingness to live cheaper lives and try to be more employable. That's a non-sequitur.

Again, this is the fault of capitalism. Even if you get rid of migrants, the focus on bottom line will hit the natives still and many companies simply won't operate in that market.

So what if it's a western derived system, that does not mean it's for the benefit of the western people in totality.
When theory meets reality why is it you have a problem? Because one is something that's in your head, the other reality is objectively out there.

Globalism to this scale is a new experiment to humanity, it's never happened like this, if you tell people who feel the friction of this they have no right to then good luck!

 

[Tehrani021]

So what if it's a western derived system, that does not mean it's for the benefit of the western people in totality.
When theory meets reality why is it you have a problem? Because one is something that's in your head, the other reality is objectively out there.

Globalism to this scale is a new experiment to humanity, it's never happened like this, if you tell people who feel the friction of this they have no right to then good luck!

So what? It means that migrants ought not to be scapegoated because of a mess that white people chose to undertake as the core foundation of their civilisation. It is reality that capitalism is western, and it's reality that western natives chose to live expensive lives and don't want to work hard.

Nonesense, humans have been migrating enmass for our entire history. Their friction may be valid but it is misplaced.

 

[vsdoc]

Nonesense, humans have been migrating enmass for our entire history. Their friction may be valid but it is misplaced.

No mass migration is free from violence and bloodshed. Throughout history.

Either the resident group dies. Or the migrating group.

Or is assimilated, losing its previous identity.

There is no coexistence.

Look at Israel and Palestine.

The same will happen in the west. There will be no assimilation. And no coexistence.

Cheers, Doc

 

[r3alist]

So what? It means that migrants ought not to be scapegoated because of a mess that white people chose to undertake as the core foundation of their civilisation. It is reality that capitalism is western, and it's reality that western natives chose to live expensive lives and don't want to work hard.

Nonesense, humans have been migrating enmass for our entire history. Their friction may be valid but it is misplaced.

The white people you have in your head who are making the system are no more than a fraction of one percent.

The next layer is a privileged managerial class, a few more percent.

The rest have to find a spot.

You need to understand the concept of a vanguard, every group works with a vanguard tip who should represent the entire group.

when the vanguard of a group acts against the interests of lower and middle ranks that's it, they are no longer a vanguard, they may well be hostile

So that's my basic original point, you cannot sensibly say it's white people problems self created etc

No one voted on globalism

 

[Tehrani021]

No mass migration is free from violence and bloodshed. Throughout history.

Either the resident group dies. Or the migrating group.

Or is assimilated, losing its previous identity.

There is no coexistence.

Look at Israel and Palestine.

The same will happen in the west. There will be no assimilation. And no coexistence.

Cheers, Doc

The difference here is that it's legal (largely) and the rules of the state are being followed. No neither has to die, they just mingle into the gene pool over time, like the Iranians did in Elamite lands as an example. Plenty are either assimilating and coexisting, it's just those who have nothing else to blame other than race for their laziness are the one's causing a fuss.

 

[Tehrani021]

The white people you have in your head who are making the system are no more than a fraction of one percent.

The next layer is a privileged managerial class, a few more percent.

The rest have to find a spot.

You need to understand the concept of a vanguard, every group works with a vanguard tip who should represent the entire group.

when the vanguard of a group acts against the interests of lower and middle ranks that's it, they are no longer a vanguard, they may well be hostile

So that's my basic original point, you cannot sensibly say it's white people problems self created etc

No one voted on globalism

That's irrelevant. Theyre still white, western and they boast that it is the bedrock of their civilisation. And majority of society agree with them because they live peacefully and obediently in that system. This is their system which they chose to live by, and is a system that migrants have to live within as well. It is not the migrants fault that the white working class want more for less. It's pretty easy to understand and I feel a large amount of bigotry is stopping you from seeing this.

That vanguard you speak of are the 1% who are mostly white and follow a western way of life. So it is still a white people problem regardless of it being voted for or enforced.

 

[vsdoc]

The difference here is that it's legal (largely) and the rules of the state are being followed. No neither has to die, they just mingle into the gene pool over time, like the Iranians did in Elamite lands as an example. Plenty are either assimilating and coexisting, it's just those who have nothing else to blame other than race for their laziness are the one's causing a fuss.

No. The legalities, as @r3alist is trying (unsuccessfully) to explain to you, are made by people of a small minority who are largely working to an agenda and in a microcosm divorced from much of the lay public.

The friction and then the bloodletting happens at the level of the public.

No army in the world can stand up to its people.

Or will.

Look at Egypt. Look at Bangladesh.

Cheers, Doc

 

[r3alist]

No mass migration is free from violence and bloodshed. Throughout history.

Either the resident group dies. Or the migrating group.

Or is assimilated, losing its previous identity.

There is no coexistence.

Look at Israel and Palestine.

The same will happen in the west. There will be no assimilation. And no coexistence.

Cheers, Doc

Assimilation has happened in history throughout time,

That's irrelevant. Theyre still white, western and they boast that it is the bedrock of their civilisation. And majority of society agree with them because they live peacefully and obediently in that system. This is their system which they chose to live by, and is a system that migrants have to live within as well. It is not the migrants fault that the white working class want more for less. It's pretty easy to understand and I feel a large amount of bigotry is stopping you from seeing this.

That vanguard you speak of are the 1% who are mostly white and follow a western way of life. So it is still a white people problem regardless of it being voted for or enforced.

Try saying "this is your system" to the people in the West who despise it, you won't get very far.

You are therefore left with unresolved anger and resentment.

That's also not good for legal migrants.

 

[Tehrani021]

No. The legalities, as @r3alist is trying (unsuccessfully) to explain to you, are made by people of a small minority who are largely working to an agenda and in a microcosm divorced from much of the lay public.

The friction and then the bloodletting happens at the level of the public.

No army in the world can stand up to its people.

Or will.

Look at Egypt. Look at Bangladesh.

Cheers, Doc

All you and your buddy are doing is avoiding the fact that it is still a white western system, but you side step this by philibustering, namely bore me to death by describing the system to me. The army stood up to the people of Egypt and reinstalled the western puppet Sisi, Cromwell used the military to enforce the Commonwealth on Parliament. So it isn't as black and white as you paint it. It seems you want bloodshed more than have a sensible reason or justification for why it should happen.