There is a sort of hypocrisy in somone like John Cleese, currently resident in the USA and speaking in Australia, complaining about how London is no longer English. That's because those countries are among a host of examples of the 'beneficial' effects of European mass migration. So-called multiracialism is the ******* child of imperialism/colonialism.
An early venture in mass migration in modern imperial history was, of course, slavery. Plantation owners in the Americas needed cheap labour so they imported African slaves — you can't get much cheaper than that — until, that is, slave labour was no longer morally sustainable. Later, particularly in North America, governments encouraged mass migration from Europe to work their growing industries. This pattern was followed over much of the British, French and Spanish Empires, driven partly by the desire to take possession of these colonial territories demographically, and partly by the labour requirements needed to make them economically viable. And what of the indigenous peoples of these territories? Ah well, they were quietly shuffled off the board, exterminated, marginalised or shunted into reservations. It's a pity there wasn't an Aborigine present at the Cleese interview who could have given his views on how 'natively aboriginal' he feels Australia is after 200 years of mass migration.
What I'd dearly like like to hear is the views of, say, native Americans, or South American Indios, Aborigines, Maoris about the 'multicultural enrichment' their societies underwent as a result of mass migration. Anyone know a Palestinian Arab who can come on here and tell us about the 'cultural enrichment' his country enjoyed as a result of the mass migration of European and American Jews to Palestine before and after WWII? Or, closer to home, why not ask a native Irishman how beneficial the migration of English and Scottish 'planters' to Ulster was for Ireland. The real history of mass migration isn't about 'cultural enrichment', it's about dispossession of the native peoples of their territories.
There was someone on here a few weeks ago banging on about how modern mass migration to the UK is just a continuation of a long process of cultural enrichment running through migrations of Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Norsemen and Normans etc. We're always been multicultural, right? So, we must meakly bow our heads and go quietly go into the night in the face of this latest instalment of historic inevitability. Of course, what's been carefully left out of this sanitised account of our history is the butcher's bill that had to be paid along the way. The Anglo-Saxons ethnically cleansed the Celts from most of England to the fringes of Britain. The Norsemen carved out their slice of Britain, the Danegeld, with god knows what body count over many generations. Then came the Normans whose depredations depopulated northern England for generations and who pitched the English people into a feudal slavery from which only the Black Death released them three centuries later. These migrations weren't processes of cultural enrichment, they were holocausts from the point of view of the indigenous peoples that suffered them.
Look around you, the world's littered with the pathetic casualties of mass migration, particularly from imperial times. Our tragedy is that we've let our political establishment turn our country into a latterday colony for Third World and EU labour, to be exploited with all the cynicism of the old imperialists. Multiracialism is imperialism re-branded.
