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

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,147
Portugal
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.
We can also recall the Celts (known as Britons in the Isles), the Romans (from different corners of the Empire), the Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Danish, Normans... that moved to the British Isles... and I forgot a few. Human history is full of migrations.

Conquest is not necessarily immigration, but mass immigration is necessarily conquest.
Millions of Europeans migrated to America (the Continent) after the independence of the countries and yet they didn’t conquer (or reconquer) it. So immigration isn’t necessarily conquest.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,662
Europix
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.

1. "Immigration" remains a modern concept (see my previous post on it), and it's also a different concept and a different phenomenon from "migration".


2. Europeans didn't migrated/immigrated to America. British moved into a British colony, French moved into a French colony, Spanish moved into a Spanish colony.

The Turks migrating in Anatolia were allowed/given/settling a region that Byzantine themselves took from somebody elae.

The barbarians allowed in the Western Roman Empire were allowed by Romans in a region that Romans themselves conquered and migrated into.

Generally speaking, I always found a bit odd the argument of barbarian immigration destroying Rome. Nobody seems to remember that Rome conquered, massacred, displaced, eliminated a lot of previous populations that inhabited those regions before Romans came.


Just saying
 
Last edited:

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,220
Welsh Marches
In case it needs saying, I wasn't being entirely serious; I keep telling myself that I must be more serious, but it never does any good.

“You are a philosopher, Dr. Johnson. I have tried too in my time to be a philosopher; but, I don’t know how, cheerfulness was always breaking in.”
 
Oct 2011
515
Croatia
1. "Immigration" remains a modern concept (see my previous post on it), and it's also a different concept and a different phenomenon from "migration".


2. Europeans didn't migrated/immigrated to America. British moved into a British colony, French moved into a French colony, Spanish moved into a Spanish colony.

The Turks migrating in Anatolia were allowed/given/settling a region that Byzantine themselves took from somebody elae.

The barbarians allowed in the Western Roman Empire were allowed by Romans in a region that Romans themselves conquered and migrated into.

Generally speaking, I always found a bit odd the argument of barbarian immigration destroying Rome. Nobody seems to remember that Rome conquered, massacred, displaced, eliminated a lot of previous populations that inhabited those regions before Romans came.


Just saying
And (terminology aside) how does that change anything I wrote? Two wrongs do not make a right.

Millions of Europeans migrated to America (the Continent) after the independence of the countries and yet they didn’t conquer (or reconquer) it. So immigration isn’t necessarily conquest.
Only if people migrating are of the same stock as people already living in the place they are migrating to.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,147
Portugal
Only if people migrating are of the same stock as people already living in the place they are migrating to.
So, with that “Only” you are establishing an exception to a law in an academic discipline (I am avoiding calling it Human and Social Science) that doesn’t establish laws.

Assuming that what you wrote is correct, what is “stock” when talking about people? According to that definition are the Germans, Protestants, British, Portuguese, Spanish, Polish, Jews, Italians, Catholics, French, Swedish, etc. all of the same “stock”? Your post surely seemed to imply that.
 
Oct 2011
515
Croatia
Meaning what?
Doesn't really matter, as long as groups can be differentiated. But regardless of how you define groups - be it by culture or origin (ethnicity) - when one group immigrates en masse to another group's territory, it irrevocably changes, and possibly erases, second group. Ergo, conquest.