Myanmar and Hungary leaders ''agree'' on ''Muslim population challenge''

Jun 2012
7,276
Malaysia
#51
Hungary and Myanmar are not immigrant based countries like USA. They want to retain their character and progress. Its leaders are concerned about the safety, security and welfare of the people. They believe that illegal migrants pose a threat. Most countries are like that. It doesn't have anything to do with nationalism.
Myanmar not an immigrant based country? Then what are the Bhama/Mranma doing in Arakan state? They are not indigenous to that place at all. Even to the rest of Burma/Mranma, which was territory of the Mon & the Pyu people up to early 11th century.

The Bhama/Mranma only appeared in large numbers around early 11th century.
 
Likes: songtsen
Oct 2013
14,293
Europix
#52
Immigration from disparate peoples always was a problem for any society that faced it; more than one country had collapsed because of it (Western Roman Empire dissolved due to barbarian immigration in 4th to 5th centuries, and ERE lost the entirety of Anatolia thanks to Seljuk Turk immigration in 11th century).
I never cease to be astonished on how creative we can be, we, humans!

What was called just a couple of decades ago "barbarian migrations" now it's "barbarian immigration". What was called just a couple of decades ago "Seljuk Turk conquests" now it's "Seljuk Turk immigration".


Hey, Nao, Lins, it seems that You guys when You built Your colonial empire You didn't built a colonial empire, but You "immigrated". Maribat, You didn't liberated Rus from Tartars, You didn't conquered Siberia, but You "immigrated"! At Each Kilometer, You didn't conquered the south of Danube, not created a state, but "immigrated" ...

Geez ...
 
Last edited:
Likes: ksk
Oct 2013
14,293
Europix
#53
Myanmar not an immigrant based country? Then what are the Bhama/Mranma doing in Arakan state? They are not indigenous to that place at all. Even to the rest of Burma/Mranma, which was territory of the Mon & the Pyu people up to early 11th century.

The Bhama/Mranma only appeared in large numbers around early 11th century.
11th c is more or less the apparition of the Hungarian state on the European map.

Just saying
 
Likes: Iraq Bruin
Sep 2012
3,783
Bulgaria
#54
I never cease to be astonished on how creative we can be, we, humans!

What was called just a couple of decades ago "barbarian migrations" now it's "barbarian immigration". What was called just a couple of decades ago "Seljuk Turk conquests" now it's "Seljuk Turk immigration".


Hey, Nao, Lins, it seems that You guys when You built Your colonial empire You didn't built a colonial empire, but You "immigrated". Maribat, You didn't liberated Rus from Tartars, You didn't conquered Siberia, but You "immigrated"! At Each Kilometer, You didn't conquered the south of Danube, not created a state, but "immigrated" ...

Geez ...
Picard's analogy is interesting and indeed as you wrote Bulgars 'migrated' south of Danube river in the late 7th century, ancestors of the south Slavs even earlier, but this is ancient history. Most of the people living on this continent worry about recent migrations, the assimilation of the newcomers into the local culture and how they gonna contribute to the host society & state. Apparently lots of people do not accept the idea of multiculturalism.
 
Aug 2010
16,179
Welsh Marches
#55
I never cease to be astonished on how creative we can be, we, humans!

What was called just a couple of decades ago "barbarian migrations" now it's "barbarian immigration". What was called just a couple of decades ago "Seljuk Turk conquests" now it's "Seljuk Turk immigration".


Hey, Nao, Lins, it seems that You guys when You built Your colonial empire You didn't built a colonial empire, but You "immigrated". Maribat, You didn't liberated Rus from Tartars, You didn't conquered Siberia, but You "immigrated"! At Each Kilometer, You didn't conquered the south of Danube, not created a state, but "immigrated" ...

Geez ...
paleskins.jpg
 
Oct 2013
14,293
Europix
#56
Picard's analogy is interesting
I think I've heard somewhere of some famous immigrants (I remember only a couple of them: Attila, Subotai, Alaric) that entered illegally in Europe and instead of asking for asylum got implicated in some criminal activities.

I suppose it's these kind of illegal inmigrants that made Basil II, in charge with the immigration policy, to systematically reject entering visas and systematically deporting illegal Bulgarian immigrants. He became so famous with his anti-immigration political platform that it was surnamed the Bulgaroktonos...

Seriously! Is it really necessary to project everything on history, to adapt it, twist it, every decade, to fit what we're living today?

People make words when there is a need of words. Words do not appear, are not invented for things, concepts, actions that doesn't exist, or will exist in some hundreds or thousand of years later.

The word "immigration" didn't existed before 18th century (*). For a reason.



______
It's first known usage is in the 1770's, in the "Ephémérides du Citoyen ou Bibliothèque raisonnée des Sciences morales et politiques".
 
Aug 2010
16,179
Welsh Marches
#57
One should always remember the Goths and Vandals, they were allowed into the Empire as immigrants and took over the shop; that is what is known as learning from history.
:) Otherwise history is an utterly useless subject, it's all about dead people.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
33,734
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#59
One should always remember the Goths and Vandals, they were allowed into the Empire as immigrants and took over the shop; that is what is known as learning from history.
:) Otherwise history is an utterly useless subject, it's all about dead people.
It's just like forensic pathology.
 
Oct 2011
201
Croatia
#60
I never cease to be astonished on how creative we can be, we, humans!

What was called just a couple of decades ago "barbarian migrations" now it's "barbarian immigration". What was called just a couple of decades ago "Seljuk Turk conquests" now it's "Seljuk Turk immigration".


Hey, Nao, Lins, it seems that You guys when You built Your colonial empire You didn't built a colonial empire, but You "immigrated". Maribat, You didn't liberated Rus from Tartars, You didn't conquered Siberia, but You "immigrated"! At Each Kilometer, You didn't conquered the south of Danube, not created a state, but "immigrated" ...

Geez ...
Conquest is not necessarily immigration, but mass immigration is necessarily conquest. Seljuk Turks did indeed migrate into Anatolia, just like Europeans did to America. And barbarians who created their kingdoms in the Western Empire were, for the most part, allowed to settle there.
 

Similar History Discussions