Why do so many immigrants come to the US if it's racist?

Post Reply New Topic

Australia was a British colony...basically until the mid Twentieth century.

The convicts were from the British Isles. They did the work of building the country and etc. So they were Brits. Not every single migrant was a convict. But the place was a dumping ground for convicts. The convicts were part of the British invasion. So they fit right into what Cyberdad is talking about.

In contrast ...someone like Australian singer Natalie Imbruglia'a parents were later migrants from Italy. So benefited (in Cyber's black humor spoof of the British Commonwealth history) from the earlier Brit's having subdued Australia and its indigenious population.

I don't know much of south American history. My only guess is that they probably enslaved and/or killed the natives (don't know which one). But I am not sure how that would contribute to the current poverty of those countries.

Yes I knew that the criminals were British. The question though is why didn't those British -- who happened to have criminal tendeny -- raise their kinds to be equally criminally-minded?

Maybe the answer to my question is in the following that you wrote:



I guess I used to assume every single one of them was convict. But if you say that wasn't the case, then how can Australia be a punishment then? I thought Australia was like an island-wide prison. In prison every single person is a convict. So in order for Australia to play the same role, then every single person in Australia should be a convict too. If that is not the case, then Australia no longer plays a role of a prison.

Or could it be that they sent convicts to a certain *part* of Australia, while everyone else went to other parts?



Okay, could it be that the reason Australia isn't criminal as of now is because of those later immigrants from other countries you just mentioned?



But cyberdad seems to be saying that only the descendents of those immigrants from other countries are complaining, while the descendants from original settlers are not. So I wanted to see if that is indeed the case.

The US analogy of this would be saying that descendants from Mayflower are republican while the democrats are the descendants of subsequent immigration later on. And again thats a good question of whether that is the case. One of my ex-s is a descendant from Mayflower and her family is conservative Republican for sure. But that is just one data point. So I was just curious if that is a part of a bigger pattern.

I don't see how Australia was just simply a dumping ground for convicts. You don't make trips halfway around the world back then f it's just for prison transfers.

Yeah, that's a good question too. Yet fact remains that I heard it. So what was actually the case? In what ways was it a dumping ground and in what ways it wasn't?

Maybe they went to Australia for another reason and the prisoners were just a bonus to transfer? I'm not sure.

Why would someone who turns to criminality out of desperation raise their kids to be criminals? People who are coerced by difficult circumstances have no reason to raise their kids to choose to be involved in illicit activity.



It's well-documented if you research it. Transportation was a common method of punishing poor petty criminals. It was beneficial because those sentenced were typically made into indentured servants and their costs were subsidized by the purchaser. Further, the vessel would return with whatever resources made the colony worthwhile in the first place.

Thats exactly why they did it. Send the scum of society as far way as you can. And...beef up the population of a faraway territory where its hard to get folks to settle. A win win. Makes sense to me.

The US (particularly Georgia) WAS that dumping ground for Britain until we broke away.

The Czars, and later the Soviets, used Siberia as their "Australia" to dump both common criminals and political prisoners.

Nations may use Mars for convicts in the future.

Not just Siberia, they used all of the land that was formerly independent from Russia as colonies in the same way that the British and French etc used the New World. Non-Russian dissidents were moved around the Empire to break them up and homogenize them over time. Attempts were made to gradually (and often forcefully) assimilate non-Russian areas into Russian culture.

There was an overall pattern of Russians being the ones who benefited from this system while the locals generally saw less benefits. Whether it was land being used to grow food to send west to Russia proper, resources being exported with Russians reaping the profits, education emphasized the Russian language, etc.

In a lot of ways what we think of as Russia's Far East are actually conquered states that all had their own independent history and unique (generally non-Slavic) cultures prior to Russian conquest.

Watch this, it explains it pretty well. They basically are still enslaved.

Last edited by Cornflake on 20 Mar 2021, 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.: Fixed YouTube video display

That's partially true, they'd bring stuff back from Australia on the return trip. Both directions of the journey earned revenue.

Yes, the famous British explorer Captain Cook reported back to British crown that Australia was "terra nullius" (literally empty land) meaning two things. There were no civilised humans and the land was ripe for the taking. Both of which were a lie.

But in the US/Canada when I referred to the British I was referring to their descendants (obvious why English is the "lingua franca" of the US) who finished the job of clearing the land of indians. The 19th century was a process of mopping up and interning the last surviving natives into "reservations".
The millions of black slaves cleared/toiled to make the land arable for agriculture.

So by the time immigrant settlers came from other lands quite literally all the hard work was done by the Brits and their descendants and the Germans, Italians, poles, Jews and other immigrants got their little parcel of land.

Thanks for your questions, Even Australians are unaware of their own history.
1. The majority of British who came to Australia were free settlers not convicts.
2. You are correct here. The convicts were bought to Australia and put to work before free settlement, However 99% of the work they were tasked with was breaking/quarrying stone, rock and coral and building docks, harbours and government buildings in the early settlements.
3. Of the convicts bought to Australia about 10% were hardened criminals (murderers/violent etc). These were men and they were sent to the most remote outposts like Port Arthur in Tasmania. Almost all of these men never saw the light of day again and spent their remaining days quarrying stone behind prison walls,
4, The remaining 90% of convicts were made up equally of men and women caught in Britain for stealing a loaf of bread to feed their families or pick pocketing the wealthy (a passtime common in among the masses of poor in Britain at the time). Among the convicts there were also a mix of political dissidents (free ireland movement) and people who fell foul of the constabulary for not paying bills or other minor offences. Most of these who survived the long journey to Australia (many died at sea) and didn't pick up a disease when they landed in Australia were put to work. They were eventually freed and formed some of the earliest settlers in Australia. Many of the unmarried women became pregnant on board the ships (often at the hands of the sailors) before they landed. Their offspring were automatically freemen.

So hardly what you would call criminals, more representative of the poor of Britain.



A little known fact overseas but Australians have what's known as a "larrikan" spirit which we attribute to our convict past. Many Australians are proud to have convict ancestors. The 90% who survived to have children and settle the land were actually quite brave, tenacious and hardworking people. They felt liberated to be free of the grey skies, soot and poverty in Britain and breath the fresh air and blue skies of freedom in Australia.

But I'm not a Pollyana either. I acknowledge the same people decimated the aboriginal population in spreading out taking their lands and killing most of them. The aboriginal people of Tasmania were a unique race who were completely wiped out. Not one left.

Oh and BTW crime in Australia is relatively low so can't pin that one on us

So am I understanding correctly that free settlers came to Australia first, then they made some prisons there, and then they were placing convicts into those prisons? Because you mentioned how various groups of convicts were forced to do certain thing. The only way to force them to do something is if there are enough free people to keep them in certain location where they can watch them. So does it mean that free people came to Australia first and prisoners came later? How did the free people survive without the prisoners there to do the labor?



What is the origin of the word "larrikan" and what is its meaning?

That is pretty interesting what you just said, albeit not surprising (or maybe surprisingly-not-surprising I must say). Interestingly enough I sort of thinking that "who knows, maybe" they are proud -- as illogical as it would be.

So what are some of the reasons of their pride?



I actually would have felt that too. Like with my career in theoretical physics not working out, I keep wishing I could find some third world country to go to where I can be a theoretical physics professor. Well, those people were pretty much granted my wish, or so it seems. I actually envy them!



What is Pollyana?



Yeah that is something that I never understood. What is the point of killing off natives? I mean natives don't have the powerful arms that they do, so they can't really stop them anyway. So why not just take all the territories and let them live?

In case of America its even more interesting. They went all the way to Africa to get slaves, when it would have been a lot easier to enslave the natives if they didn't kill them off.

I am not saying that would have been the right thing or anything like that. Rather I am saying that even from a completely selfish point of view, they weren't being very logical.



Yeah, interestingly enough, I assumed thats the case. But that is a huge accomplishment to turn criminals into civilized people. I guess your answer is that they weren't really criminally-minded its just poverty made them do crime. Thats a surprising observation about human nature.

Actually the convicts had to build their own prisons. I grew up next door to Fremantle prison in Perth, the prison was built by the prisoners who would be housed there. The convicts were policed by officers from her majesty's British crown. Any attempt to escape was usually met with getting shot or put in isolation. Many of those who escaped into the bush died because they had no idea how to survive in a foreign land.

As I said the free settlers came later after land was cleared. Not only was there free settlers who chose to migrate to escape poverty but many of the convicts were freed after doing "their time". The women were the first to get freed as they simply nabbed an English officer and the local military chaplain married them off.


Many of the first convicts came from the working class from the industrial cities of Liverpool, Manchester and London. These men and women called themselves cockneys and its where we get our Australian accent from. The term larrikan was used to describe somebody who was mischevious, or devious (but mean't to be accompanied with a smile and wink). Among the folk in working class Britain at the time there were many Irishmen and its possible it comes from the Irish would for scoundrel. It's kind of a play on words much like the n-word is used by African Americans among themsleves. Kind of an "up yours" to the upper class British who looked down upon all Australians


What is Pollyana? [/quote]
it's derived from an Eleanor Porter novel of the same name, The main character (a young girl) was forever optimistic and cheerful of the world despite horrible things happening around her. In modern English it denotes somebody who only sees good things and ignore bad stuff (I dated a girl like this and she was damn annoying)


I think the same principle applied in the US that settlers were at risk of getting speared by natives but the real reason was that wealthy landholders were losing stock animals to aborigines and preferred to kill natives than lose profits.


The natives in these countries didn't survive the toil they were forced to endure. So Africans were preferred. The only other group who were successfully indentured were Indian people. However Indians in ex-colonies rarely make much noise over getting enslaved.



If we can do anybody can

I'm talking about a situation where people only see the name, not the face. If you send a job application without a photo and your name is "Maija Korhonen" then it is extremely unlikely people will assume you're black 'cause extreme majority of Finns aren't and that's very Finnish name. If the one hiring is racist, a name like that won't give away enough that the person's race would stop them from getting a job interview.



The problems Finland's Swedes or Swedes face here aren't usually about genetics, just about language and culture.

Thats interesting. In English-speaking sites, hardly anyone ever writes things with their own name. I mean for example here on wrongplanet, most people's user names are not their own names. Are you saying in Finnland its different and they like to put their real names as their user names?

I mean mainstream social media, like facebook, instagram etc.



I heard about it here in WP. In Finland, the words used are "mustalaiset" or "romanit."



The later; followed them from few meters away the entire time they were at the store.



He had to pay fines for discrimination.



This actually only happened in the special school; there were only whites in the normal school (it was a small school in the countryside. Had one black kid at one point that I remember, but he was moved to the special school since he couldn't keep up with his poor language skills.) The bullying as a whole was still far less severe in the special school.



Hmm I see... but I do find it interesting that you make a negative opinion about people who look dirty, yet it didn't occur to you until recently that looking messy can also give a negative impression the same way... or are these people really dirty? 'Cause just a little messiness can give some people the same impression as being really dirty gives to you.