It is another way of species strengthening itself by acquiring or losing genetic attributes for survival. Isolated ppl will not have much immunity to diseases/defects that are present in other parts of the world.
That can be done through trade and low-level migration however.
Mass migration
also reduces fitness of species for survival because it erases typological differences.
Second thing is that mass immigration by nature is a normal thing. It has taken place for thousands of years. Without migration or intermingling most of the human population would have got wiped out. Culture , nation, territory these are all modern day notions that we have created in last 5000 years. When spanish arrived in south america the locals had no immunity to small pox, if they had been in touch with the rest of the world they would have had better chance of survival.
Sorry, literally every sentence of that is wrong.
1) Mass migration is
not normal thing. In fact, up until 20th century, 90% of European populations drew most of their genome from neolithic settlers. Hence why until recently you could, in fact, tell different European ethnicities apart basically by just looking at them. There was
some migration and intermingling, yes, but nowhere near the scale of what we are seeing today. As doctors say, dose makes the poison. What can be good in small doses becomes devastating when it becomes too large.
2) Culture, nation and territory have existed since before humans have become humans. Chimpanzees
have territories and
fight human-like wars. Wolf packs have
extremely strictly delineated territories. Orcas with different hunting habits have remained separate for so long that they have
become separate species. Humans have in fact merely continued chimpanzee tradition of living in tribes. Everything you have mentioned - culture, nation, territory - is a natural extension of being a social animal.
3) Yes, locals had no immunity to small pox. But here is the thing - you gain immunity by exposure, not necessarily by population transfer. Europeans had had long-time exposure to such diseases simply through trade routes that had covered the entire Eurasian continent from Iberia to China, and the fact that southern Europe had long been a urbanized continent with extensive farming and cattle raising - in other words, a laboratory for diseases. We will have had massive immunity advantage over Native Americans even had Europe had absolutely zero migration. It is not as if Native Americans didn't get their own shots in - syphilis (or great pox) killed some five million people once it arrived to Europe. And it wasn't just a matter of biology either. Europe had long had experiences with infectious diseases, especially the Black Death - quarantene, travel restrictions and embargoes were normal procedure by the 16th century (the oldest quarantene in the world was established in 1377 in Dubrovnik - the "Lazareti"). By contrast, native American civilizations had no knowledge of such measures - they would continue to visit the sick relatives and spread diseases. Even assuming equal immunological fitness - equal immunity to each other's diseases - Native Americans will have still suffered far more than Europeans because they had absolutely no cultural or procedural answer to such a situation.
God! I now have to teach English to someone who... should be knowing the language.
Okay. Lets see.
India + Pakistan + Bangladesh were British colonies (
British colonialism in India - The British Empire - KS3 History - homework help for year 7, 8 and 9. - BBC Bitesize). There was no mass migration of British to India. None!!
Hong Kong was a British colony. There was no mass migration of British in Hong Kong!
Yet British did acts that were genocidal in nature in India. Among them were mass killing like Jaliyan Wala Bagh incidence or mass starvation of Indians in Bengal famine which was result of British policies.
So please learn what these phrases in English mean because they are NOT same.
Mass Migration is NOT always Colonial in nature!
Rather than learning language you don't understand even now, you should be learning history.
"ancient Roman settlement outside Italy," from Latin colonia "settled land, farm, landed… See origin and meaning of colony.
www.etymonline.com
late 14c., "ancient Roman settlement outside Italy," from Latin colonia "settled land, farm, landed estate," from colonus "husbandman, tenant farmer, settler in new land," from colere "to cultivate, to till; to inhabit; to frequent, practice, respect; tend, guard," from PIE root
*kwel- (1) "revolve, move round; sojourn, dwell" (source also of Latin -cola "inhabitant"). Also used by the Romans to translate Greek apoikia "people from home."
In reference to modern situations, "company or body of people who migrate from their native country to cultivate and inhabit a new place while remaining subject to the mother country," attested from 1540s. Meaning "a country or district colonized" is by 1610s.
"Colony" means literally "settlement". Indian subcontinent was never colonized by the British, you were merely conquered.
Fact that the English are too lazy / dumb to adapt their own language to situation does not change the fundamental fact that you never were a colony in the real sense of the word.
Good God!
There are many countries which are highly right wing but have seen same phenomenon. Singapore and UAE come to mind. While it is true that the countries with more female liberties have more uptake of contraceptives and lesser fertility rate, it is a misrepresentation to say that there is some leftist conspiracy to replace you folks with migrants!
Its actually much simpler. You have a country which has business friendly rules (most of developed world). You have women who now have access to contraceptives. You have women who are either in workforce or preparing to go into workforce. You have low fertility rate. You have to get migrant workers because your population is too old to work or to have babies.
No evil left wing conspiracy required!
No need for "evil left wing conspiracy". Everything you have noted is basically leftist in nature... essentially, leftism / modernism doesn't need to
try to be genocidal to end up being genocidal.
But to say that they are not doing their best would be wrong.
