Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Tourist to be banned.
23 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/6xhk2zt
So the tourists are to be banned from an Amazon village by indigenous people,
Could this be construed as being racist, or even Xenophobic?
So the tourists are to be banned from an Amazon village by indigenous people,
Could this be construed as being racist, or even Xenophobic?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I would say neither.
I cannot imagine the locals had racism or xenophobia in mind when they imposed their ban. They have identified a clear problem which the large influx of visitors is causing and are simply exercising their right to keep tourists out. You have to bear in mind that people such as these are not quite as gullible as, say, Europeans are. When they see a problem that they believe is caused by outsiders they are not hidebound by laws which reinforce the “rights” of outsiders to alter their way of life against their wishes. They simply do what they think is best for them and their community.
A pity, in some respects, that similar action is not taken elsewhere.
I cannot imagine the locals had racism or xenophobia in mind when they imposed their ban. They have identified a clear problem which the large influx of visitors is causing and are simply exercising their right to keep tourists out. You have to bear in mind that people such as these are not quite as gullible as, say, Europeans are. When they see a problem that they believe is caused by outsiders they are not hidebound by laws which reinforce the “rights” of outsiders to alter their way of life against their wishes. They simply do what they think is best for them and their community.
A pity, in some respects, that similar action is not taken elsewhere.
No. Neither.
The vilage people are not refusing entry to people on the basis of their ethnicity - which would be racist , or their country of origin - which would be xenophobic.
The reasons for refusal are based on the detrimental effect that large numbers of visitors are having, on the habbitat, and the people themselves, so they have rejected all visitors, except those who have specific invitations, so no, they are not being racist or xenophobic.
The only logical way such a question would even be considered, much less asked, would be if anyone saw the whole world in terms of ethnicity, which fortunately, the whole world does not.
Only some people, and they know who they are, and they provide evidence their narrow-minded and obsessive approach on a regular basis.
The vilage people are not refusing entry to people on the basis of their ethnicity - which would be racist , or their country of origin - which would be xenophobic.
The reasons for refusal are based on the detrimental effect that large numbers of visitors are having, on the habbitat, and the people themselves, so they have rejected all visitors, except those who have specific invitations, so no, they are not being racist or xenophobic.
The only logical way such a question would even be considered, much less asked, would be if anyone saw the whole world in terms of ethnicity, which fortunately, the whole world does not.
Only some people, and they know who they are, and they provide evidence their narrow-minded and obsessive approach on a regular basis.
-- answer removed --
Now see how this would go down (with my substitutions in brackets):
Tourists have been banned from visiting a village in the Colombian Amazon (Buckinghamshire) after a meeting of the indigenous population. But the 800 inhabitants of the village, close to the Amazon river (Chiltern Railways Station) and a 20-minute boatride (busride) from the nearest larger town, are fed up with the tourist (immigrant) influx. "Now the tourists (immigrants) can't just come as they please. They need the permission of the assembly (local council)."
There are also concerns that indigenous children may forget the customs of their ancestors as they copy the speech and dress of western (foreign) visitors.
Tourists have been banned from visiting a village in the Colombian Amazon (Buckinghamshire) after a meeting of the indigenous population. But the 800 inhabitants of the village, close to the Amazon river (Chiltern Railways Station) and a 20-minute boatride (busride) from the nearest larger town, are fed up with the tourist (immigrant) influx. "Now the tourists (immigrants) can't just come as they please. They need the permission of the assembly (local council)."
There are also concerns that indigenous children may forget the customs of their ancestors as they copy the speech and dress of western (foreign) visitors.
Perhaps they should ask Brian True-May to stand as their mayor?
New Judge's comparisons rely on the assumption that everywhere is the same and that tourism equates to immigration.
A deceptive and mischievous blurring of two completely different things.
Immigrants are NOT tourists.
Ridiculous, insulting and...typical.
Immigrants are people who clean up after the elderly who have been thrown into old people's homes because their families don't want to take them.
They are the ones who care for them in hospitals as doctors, nurses and porters.
They're the ones who take up the slack in the poorest paid jobs.
They are not in any sense, tourists - who enter a country for a brief period of fun.
Such a weird and silly comparison.
New Judge's comparisons rely on the assumption that everywhere is the same and that tourism equates to immigration.
A deceptive and mischievous blurring of two completely different things.
Immigrants are NOT tourists.
Ridiculous, insulting and...typical.
Immigrants are people who clean up after the elderly who have been thrown into old people's homes because their families don't want to take them.
They are the ones who care for them in hospitals as doctors, nurses and porters.
They're the ones who take up the slack in the poorest paid jobs.
They are not in any sense, tourists - who enter a country for a brief period of fun.
Such a weird and silly comparison.
New Judge - I am surprised at your comparison, which clearly will not stand up to logical analysis.
As sp1814 points out, the stretch from tourist to immigrant is simply not viable, you cannot compare tourists gawping at a primitive people and upsetting the very foundation of their habbitat and daily lives, to say nothing of their future and that of their children, to a few visitors to a town in the UK.
I am perfeclty capable of using logic - where it fits, but in this case, I believe that your logic is flawed, although thus far, you are not the only one.
As sp1814 points out, the stretch from tourist to immigrant is simply not viable, you cannot compare tourists gawping at a primitive people and upsetting the very foundation of their habbitat and daily lives, to say nothing of their future and that of their children, to a few visitors to a town in the UK.
I am perfeclty capable of using logic - where it fits, but in this case, I believe that your logic is flawed, although thus far, you are not the only one.
How's this for a comparison between tourists and immigrants, then?
Shall we bar all African, Indian or any other nationalities tourists from entering England, because they may turn from tourists to immigrants as soon as they set foot on our shores.
Would that be racist or xenophobic to deny certain groups from entering our lands?
Shall we bar all African, Indian or any other nationalities tourists from entering England, because they may turn from tourists to immigrants as soon as they set foot on our shores.
Would that be racist or xenophobic to deny certain groups from entering our lands?
I don’t expect my somewhat flippant comparison to stand up to logic, Andy. What is worthy of comparison is the relative reactions of the two lots of authorities. The tribesmen clearly see their responsibilities as being primarily towards their constituents. Unfortunately the government and local councils in the UK often do not. There are quite a few people in this country who have had “..the very foundation of their habbitat and daily lives, to say nothing of their future and that of their children...” jeopardised by the influx of newcomers but their needs and requirements are overridden by those of the new wave.
You’re quite right, sp, tourism does not equate to immigration (certainly not in the UK, anyway). Immigration here has a far more profound and long lasting effect on the nation than have a few Americans roaming round Buckingham Palace in the summer. As you rightly point out, huge numbers of immigrants undertake important jobs in the UK (most of which the indigenous population “will not” do as they are too nicely cosseted by benefits). But there are a large number that do not, and it is these who many of the settled population see as a threat to their habitat, daily lives and future.
Like it or not the sort of “silly, mischievous, deceptive and weird” comparisons which you attach to mine are the very sort of comparisons that many people make seriously. They are entitled to have their points of view heard and their wishes (however unpalatable they might seem) reflected by their elected leaders. Those leaders are elected to listen to and represent their constituents’ wishes, not to preach the latest gospel to them and tell them what they ought to think.
You’re quite right, sp, tourism does not equate to immigration (certainly not in the UK, anyway). Immigration here has a far more profound and long lasting effect on the nation than have a few Americans roaming round Buckingham Palace in the summer. As you rightly point out, huge numbers of immigrants undertake important jobs in the UK (most of which the indigenous population “will not” do as they are too nicely cosseted by benefits). But there are a large number that do not, and it is these who many of the settled population see as a threat to their habitat, daily lives and future.
Like it or not the sort of “silly, mischievous, deceptive and weird” comparisons which you attach to mine are the very sort of comparisons that many people make seriously. They are entitled to have their points of view heard and their wishes (however unpalatable they might seem) reflected by their elected leaders. Those leaders are elected to listen to and represent their constituents’ wishes, not to preach the latest gospel to them and tell them what they ought to think.
AOG
Your comparison still doesn't make any sense. Are these villagers preventing any non-Amazonian from entering or just those of a certain race?
If they only banned White visitors, then they would be exercising racism.
But they're not.
Still a ridiculous argument, based on a nonsense sense of skewed injustice.
Playing the race card once again. Shoulder chip time.
Your comparison still doesn't make any sense. Are these villagers preventing any non-Amazonian from entering or just those of a certain race?
If they only banned White visitors, then they would be exercising racism.
But they're not.
Still a ridiculous argument, based on a nonsense sense of skewed injustice.
Playing the race card once again. Shoulder chip time.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
New Judge
"Like it or not the sort of “silly, mischievous, deceptive and weird” comparisons which you attach to mine are the very sort of comparisons that many people make seriously"
Then let them vote for the BNP.
The major parties cannot accommodate EVERY wish of every person in the country...that's why the BNP and EDL exist. If people are so very concerned with immigration, then we live in a democracy, and they are free to vote for parties that reflect their views.
You should ask yourself why, if immigration is such a huge concern, did the BNP singularly fail to win a single seat at the general election?
Why? Because immigration doesn't even compare to the economy, housing, the NHS and unemployment when people put their crosses on ballot forms.
"Like it or not the sort of “silly, mischievous, deceptive and weird” comparisons which you attach to mine are the very sort of comparisons that many people make seriously"
Then let them vote for the BNP.
The major parties cannot accommodate EVERY wish of every person in the country...that's why the BNP and EDL exist. If people are so very concerned with immigration, then we live in a democracy, and they are free to vote for parties that reflect their views.
You should ask yourself why, if immigration is such a huge concern, did the BNP singularly fail to win a single seat at the general election?
Why? Because immigration doesn't even compare to the economy, housing, the NHS and unemployment when people put their crosses on ballot forms.
Your point is well argued New Judge - as usual - but i atill find your premise to be on shakey ground.
There is no comparison between as isloated village, to whom prolonged and extensive exposure to the civilised world could have catastrophic results for the present incumbents, and their decendents, and any western nation, with a massive infrastructure perfectly able to assimilate large numbers of people from other coultures with little discerable effect in terms of long-term negative changes. Those who fear imigrants may try and argue against my point, but that is to stray away from the original Question.
The point that some visitors may turn from tourists to imigrants is again utterly irrelavent to this Question. How many visitors to this village are going to decide to adopt a virtual Stone Age existence miles from civilsation/ It is simply not believeable, nor does it stand up to comparison with the situation pointed to in the original Question.
Hopefully - as the majority have done - the minority can manage to stay on track, and not try and turn this into another (yawn) imigration rant. We can live in hope.
There is no comparison between as isloated village, to whom prolonged and extensive exposure to the civilised world could have catastrophic results for the present incumbents, and their decendents, and any western nation, with a massive infrastructure perfectly able to assimilate large numbers of people from other coultures with little discerable effect in terms of long-term negative changes. Those who fear imigrants may try and argue against my point, but that is to stray away from the original Question.
The point that some visitors may turn from tourists to imigrants is again utterly irrelavent to this Question. How many visitors to this village are going to decide to adopt a virtual Stone Age existence miles from civilsation/ It is simply not believeable, nor does it stand up to comparison with the situation pointed to in the original Question.
Hopefully - as the majority have done - the minority can manage to stay on track, and not try and turn this into another (yawn) imigration rant. We can live in hope.
Nonsensical comparison.
So far as we know, in recent years, no area in middle england has had large numbers of people slaughtered by incomers, had all of their property stolen, ravaged and destroyed, or been wiped out by the import of easily transmitted diseases for which they have no immunity.
This has happened within a lifetime, and still is happening to the indigenous people of the Amazon basin so extract head from bottom and give these people a break.
.
So far as we know, in recent years, no area in middle england has had large numbers of people slaughtered by incomers, had all of their property stolen, ravaged and destroyed, or been wiped out by the import of easily transmitted diseases for which they have no immunity.
This has happened within a lifetime, and still is happening to the indigenous people of the Amazon basin so extract head from bottom and give these people a break.
.
The damage does not have to be quite so devastating as you describe, Zheul. Because the damage is not life threatening does not mean it does not cause concern.
Unfortunately, sp, the two major parties (which are the only two with any chance of forming a government) have not seen immigration as a particularly important issue. Many of the electorate do, however, but have no realistic chance of having their concerns even aired, let alone addressed. Voting for a single issue party as you suggest,such as the BNP, is not a viable alternative because, as you rightly point out, there are other issues to consider which parties such as the BNP do not address. The main parties have begun to take note, however, that the electorate is not prepared to endure the unfettered immigration they have witnessed particularly over the last decade. And that does not make the parties or the electorate racist.
Unfortunately, sp, the two major parties (which are the only two with any chance of forming a government) have not seen immigration as a particularly important issue. Many of the electorate do, however, but have no realistic chance of having their concerns even aired, let alone addressed. Voting for a single issue party as you suggest,such as the BNP, is not a viable alternative because, as you rightly point out, there are other issues to consider which parties such as the BNP do not address. The main parties have begun to take note, however, that the electorate is not prepared to endure the unfettered immigration they have witnessed particularly over the last decade. And that does not make the parties or the electorate racist.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank11 mins ago
I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics12 mins ago
Film, Media & TV14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
