SterlingMNO t1_iue2oic wrote

You should've just taken my advice and read the article.

The remains Zimbabwe are after are from 1890. No known ancestors.

I appreciate your lesson on DNA extraction and study, it's genuinely interesting, but it's not relevant. This repatriation with Zimbabwe has been ongoing for almost a decade, the first iteration was just like this, Natural History Museum saying "we have some remains from digs", and Zimbabwe saying "We have found Nehanda!". Zimbabwe can't confirm who the remains belong to so they will just assume, as they already have.


SterlingMNO t1_iublavw wrote

> In doing a search of its archive, the Natural History Museum did uncover 11 remains "that appear to be originally from Zimbabwe" - but its records do not connect them with Nehanda. These include three skulls taken in 1893, thought to be from Zimbabwe's second city, Bulawayo, as well as remains uncovered in mineshafts and archaeological digs and later donated.

Only states they have remains connected to Zimbabwe, mostly through archeological digs, and some stuff that has no records because of how old it is and likely just used in the study of phrenology. Not the remains Zimbabwe are specifically asking for.

Still a win for Zimbabwe I guess, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say even if the NHM says "These skulls are not the ones you're looking for", Zimbabwe officials are still just gonna declare they've recovered the remains of Nehanda as a political win, which is fine I guess. I can't imagine anyone protesting to human remains being returned, short of a Pharoah himself.


SterlingMNO t1_iubkbrq wrote

Probably, find it really unlikely they'll be found though, I think they'd be long gone, or kept as private tropphies until eventually disappearing into the void of time. Even today if you took a wartime trophy, you're not heading home to take it to the authorities, your ancestors might donate it but as a skull rather than "skull of xyz", in which case most museums probably wouldn't want it.


SterlingMNO t1_iubjtyc wrote

You may as well list most of Europe in there really.

And true, but also pretty unlikely any trophies ended up in the museum and if they did, basically impossible to prove, as the article says as much. Seems they have some remains and it sounds like the only ones that have records are ones that are from archeological digs.

Likely any trophies were studied biologically/medically and there's no revereance attached to the remains for them to be held and considered as historic pieces, at least not enough to be labeled, probably not kept either.


SterlingMNO t1_itlfjgv wrote

Same policies as the rest of them, but has financial chops, however his running of the economy has been horrific up till now, whether it's the endless tax hikes (more hikes in 2 years than brown did in a decade), whether it's his 'eat out to help out' scheme which was absoltuely moronic during covid. Whether it was the money he paid companies (lets face it, probably ran by his friends) during covid to deliver services they never did, writing off billions of pounds of tax payer money.

Then there's the scandals and things that generally just stink like shit.

  • He held a US green card, classing himself as a permanent resident of the US while in government.
  • He's also married to a billionaire who's been dodging tax for YEARS.
  • He openly admitted to funnelling government money away from deprived working class areas to prop up the budgets of upper-class wealthy areas, because let's face it, that's who his core supporters are.
  • He likes to do photo shoots in little cars pretending it's his own, but actually borrowed from a Sainsbury's worker who probably lives paycheck to paycheck because of his policies.
  • He owns 5 cars at different homes. Land Rovers and the like.
  • He calls himself 'a northerner like you', even though he was raised in SOUTHampton. The clue is in the name.
  • He was raised by a wealthy family and went to a prestigious private boarding school, and he's now worth about £1billion, but somehow likes to act like he had humble beginnings and is just a working class bloke! Until he's infront of his cronies, and then he's full greedy goldman sachs banker mode.

He will be no different then Boris, or Truss. Potentially worse because of his absolute arrogance and the gall of him to have the track record he does and still run for PM, but it makes little to no difference, it's all public perception, the reality is that he too, is a complete cunt, and he too, will continue to degrade the economy, the NHS, and strip away benefits.

The only guy in that party that I wanted to be PM is Ben Wallace, and he openly said he didn't want the job. Another reason why he's the only person I want to have the job.


SterlingMNO t1_ir6xp5g wrote

> Nowhere did I say that "every illegal immigrant speaks fluent English." Or anything remotely similar.

But that's your only fucking argument that you keep bringing up even after I agreed. If an asylum seeker already has family in the UK and speaks English, I have no problem with their settled status being preferential to the UK rather than them being sent to Finland. But it doesn't matter that I say this because next comment you'll repeat yourself.

> If you want to know if thats what I'm assuming, ask. Don't just attribute things to me that I haven't written.

It's too late for that after the "But 100 million people could move to france tomorrow legally" comment, you don't know what you're talking about.

  • You don't know the difference between an asylum seeker and a working migrant.
  • You don't know that asylum seekers cannot work and are state-sponsored.
  • You don't know the rules of the EU.
  • You don't know that a large number of illegal immigrants across the channel are economic migrants not asylum seekers that left their families back home where they can't return because "they'll be killed" so they can make better money in the UK.
  • You don't recognise that asylum seekers can't work
  • You repeat the "BUT WHAT IF THEY SPEAK ENGLISH" line literally 4 times with the same answer each time
  • You don't understand the need for limits on immigration because EU freedom of movement exists, in the EU, which is largely made up of wealthy countries with similar cultures.

Like I said, if you can find a place for them to live, money to support them, then go and make your case to the government to set up a ferry from Calais. Until then, that's the reason why the number of asylum seekers any country takes in is limited, France included.


SterlingMNO t1_ir6u5g1 wrote

> Israel blocks out 5 months of daily language studying for people who just moved there. They still do manual labor, but they're not going to get an office job until they understand the language. So hey, maybe tell Israel that they're doing it wrong, lol.

That's fine because most asylum seekers aren't getting office jobs even if they already learn English. That's the fact of it. We've seen that historically first generation largely end up in blue collar work. Asylum seekers generally aren't also classed as skilled workers. That's why they're claiming asylum, not for a work visa.

Asylum seekers do not have the right to work, and Asylum applications even once in-country often take over a year. So that's over a year where you're being supported by the state, given a place to live, money for food, clothes, and opportunities such as language courses. So it really doesn't matter whether they speak English or not.

> Quotas defeat the entire purpose of asylum. In 2020, you would have had virtually no asylum seekers from Ukraine. Today you have millions. A quota makes no sense.

It does, because if we didn't have quotas and just said "come one come all!" our culture, society, public services would look very different right now, and we wouldn't have space for anyone from Ukraine either.

> Or whatever country works best for them. I see no benefit in making them stay in places where they can't be productive and where they have no family.

Okay but what's the point here? You're making the assumption that every illegal immigrant speaks fluent English and nothing else, and has family in the UK, which isn't true. So why are you so bent out of shape? You've beaten this horse enough, in your fairy land where everyone only speaks English and already has family in the UK it makes sense, in reality it doesn't.

> France lets anyone from the EU move there without permission

Well.. Yes.. That is what the EU is, and what every country in the EU has to do.. Notice how Afghanistan, Iraq, Burkina Faso, Somalia are not members of the EU..... Kind of important tidbit.

We already went through this with Polish and Lithuanian immigrants when we had such a large influx. A lot were great, but a lot are still working at car washes cash in hand and equally unproductive/unuseful jobs that benefits no one. The rate of migration from eastern europe was arguably more damaging to eastern europe than it was us. My hometown had Polish ambassadors come over on 3 different occasions to try to tempt Poles back to Poland because they had such a workforce deficit. Not many returned yet there were still 2 bed homes being lived in by 10+ working age eastern europeans doing construction. Clearly there just wasn't, and isn't the space for the same rate of immigration then, let alone now.

You also just can't be an EU citizen, move to France, and say "Benefits, please". You're expected to work, and you can't receive state benefits until you're a worker. If 100 million people moved to France tomorrow, 97 million of them wouldn't find work, and wouldn't be entitled to state benefits, and would have to leave.

If the UK let in 5 million asylum seekers tomorrow, they have no right to work and are state-sponsored from the moment their application is in, meaning they have to be provided a place to live, and money for every day living. After they're granted asylum, whether they can get a job or not, they still receive state benefits.

It's extremely fucking different and it's embarrassing that I've spent this long replying to you and only now realising you don't even understand the basics.

> who can't go home because they'll be killed.

I think you have rosetinted glasses on. This isn't the case for a lot of immigrants, especially ones crossing the channel. There's a difference between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants. There's a reason why immigrants from some countries are largely adult men.

The UK already takes on a lot of immigrants, a bigger burden than most EU countries actually. Especially when you factor in that the UK has generally taken a larger percentage of elderly immigrants and child immigrants than the rest of the EU.

If you can't go home because "you'll be killed" - but you make it across the entirety of Europe illegally, to finally get to the English channel, and you then risk the lives of your family to cross the channel because you've deemed it too difficult to learn another language despite your kids likely not speaking English anyway, you lose a lot of sympathy.

You want ALL the migrants to be let into the UK - that's fine. Good luck finding somewhere for them to live, finding the billions to fund their support. The UK really isn't that bad when it comes to asylum seekers (asylum seekers, not immigrants, they're different things), or immigrants, and have taken in a large amount historically too, including when we were in the EU.

I just think you lack any understanding whatsoever of how immigration works and your whole "But 100 million people could move to france tomorrow!" thing really showed it off. It's the same level of ignorance as saying you have a "50/50 chance of winning the lottery, you win or you lose". On the surface it sounds like there's a sliver of truth to it but kick up one grain of sand and you expose the absolute fuckery of it.


SterlingMNO t1_ir6qxu1 wrote

> But in time and effort required? Language learning takes years. During those years, you can't contribute productively in most jobs.

It doesn't take years, especially when you're already multilingual. That's a lie English speakers tell ourselves because we're largely monolingual.

> But let's take family -- if someone has family in the UK and speaks English, wouldn't it be much easier to resettle them there than in Greece or Turkey? Particularly if they have no family in those places and don't speak the language.

Sure, depending on just how close their familial ties are and what the immigration quota is.

> These asylum seekers don't speak Czech or Finnish. They likely speak Arabic, English and/or French. Why not let them go to safe countries where they can fit in and be productive rather than trapping them in whatever country they touch first?

So your argument is essentially then that all immigrants to Europe go to the UK or France? Purely out of the convenience of language? Do you realise how many immigrants there are coming to Europe?

Language really is a non-factor. Sweden has taken in A LOT of immigrants from the middle east. Guess what? They pretty much all speak Swedish now. Learning a language is not "years of non-productivity". Learning a language is relatively fast when you're surrounded by it and it's your lifeline to prosperity, and when you already know the 3 official languages from your home country..

There are immigrants here since the 70's that still don't speak English, and it's not because it's too hard, it's because they don't want to. There are immigrants here that a year ago didn't speak English, and now they do.


SterlingMNO t1_ir6ojzz wrote

Getting over the PTSD of the war/famine you just came from, the dealings with traffickers, the tent cities in Calais, the crossing in a shitty raft across the channel...

The not having your family with you because half of them are back home, the obvious lack of your own culture and customs..

Like I said, learning a new language really isn't some mammoth task, especially when you already speak 3 or 4, which is a large amount of migrants. And this is all working off of your wonky assumption that they all speak English, which they don't. Just as many speak French or German, french especially for a lot of African migrants.


SterlingMNO t1_ir4r6qc wrote

Learning a new language really isn't some huge task in the scope of restarting your life.

A lot of immigrants crossing the channel that speak English will also already speak some French, some German. And plenty do not speak English anyway.

The UK isn't picked because "But I speak English so I'm going to the UK", it's picked because it has a preferable welfare system and has generally been harder to be removed from compared to most EU countries.