>>"White, Bill" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
This thread is reminiscent of part of the British National Party website
(though I hasten to say that I am not impugning John Wood for raising it). In its
inaccurate, biased and idiosyncratic view of British history the BNP eschews the
'conflict' part in the arrival of the Angles, Jutes and Saxons in Britain.
Just to make it clear I am not a member of the BNP and certainly do not advocate their views in any sense.
>>Stiof MacAmhalghaidh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
That aside, the focus seemed to me to be on whether the current rise
in numbers of Eastern Europeans outside their homelands will lead at some future
time to conflict.
I think the gist of my original statement referred the fact that little conflict is apparent and questioned whether future conflict might occur as the true impact of the Eastern European migrations may not have yet been felt.
I have to say it my greatest of hopes that no conflict will arise by these latest migrations!
Though and the bottomline of my comparison with the past is that if no conflict does occur won't it be the first time, in the recorded history of mankind, that mass migrations haven't caused some conflict? So it would be interesting to see the difference and perhaps again raide the question that perhaps not all migrations really do cause conflicts as they apparently do in some form or other.
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.