"This House will not fight for King and Country"

[Skyliner]

 

'This house will not fight for King or Country' - The words to that affect as declared in 1933 by an Oxford Students Union debating panel.

If one today were of military enlistment age - and taking into account the change imposed upon our nation by our overlords through ever lasting mass immigration resulting in what some may

see as placing GB firmly on the path to what eventually through time seems likely to result in the demise - or even death of a nation - Then can it be assumed there will be far less numbers

having any patriotic fervour willing to enlist if a need should arise comparable to the patriotic mood of the nation in 1939 ?

 

...

[George Collings]

The patriotic rush to the colours seen in 1914 had possibly already been somewhat tempered by the experiences related by their fathers by 1939. By then I believe it was more a matterof figting to stop facism as much as pure patroitism that was the major motivation.

 

A check on the colour of the faces of those taking part in current military parade would seem to indicate a willingness to serve from representitive cross section of the population.

[CliveH]

Agree George.

 

Wide range of nationalities in our armed forces and excellent that is.

 

I think the VC awarded for the stupendous bravery of Johnson Beharry indicates in spades that some who want to make out that the young of any national background are somehow incapable of having certain "values" are very wrong indeed.

 

""Private Beharry carried out two individual acts of great heroism by which he saved the lives of his comrades. Both were in direct face of the enemy, under intense fire, at great personal risk to himself (one leading to him sustaining very serious injuries). ... Beharry displayed repeated extreme gallantry and unquestioned valour, despite intense direct attacks, personal injury and damage to his vehicle in the face of relentless enemy action."

 

He then refused to shake Gordon Browns hand after being appalled at Browns inattention during the two min silence which whilst not in the same order of bravery certainly maid Johnson Beharry a hero of mine.

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Skyliner - 2012-12-28 5:11 PM

 

 

'This house will not fight for King or Country' - The words to that affect as declared in 1933 by an Oxford Students Union debating panel.

If one today were of military enlistment age - and taking into account the change imposed upon our nation by our overlords through ever lasting mass immigration resulting in what some may

see as placing GB firmly on the path to what eventually through time seems likely to result in the demise - or even death of a nation - Then can it be assumed there will be far less numbers

having any patriotic fervour willing to enlist if a need should arise comparable to the patriotic mood of the nation in 1939 ?

 

...

Don't much like the drift of this post, which seems to me somewhat bigoted. However, just a question. Can skyliner please clarify when the thinks immigration started, and state why he has chosen that period?

[CliveH]

I agree Brian.

[BGD]

Like Brian, I'm intrigued...

 

Could "Skyliner" please explain for me the difference between "demise" and " death"?

 

I am also unclear on exactly what is meant by a "nation". Perhaps a definition could be penned?

 

Additionally, I'm a tad uncertain as to why anyone at all might fight for "King" now anyway, as so far as I am aware there isn't one at present in the UK.

 

 

 

 

 

In short, the OP's "question" seems utterly redundant; simply an attempt to stir up gratuitous race hatred...................................but maybe I'm wrong........?

 

 

[Skyliner]

 

As expected this topic has ruffled a few feathers and produced a nit picker or two. Since the bravery loyalty and heroism of our armed forces is not and never has been in question - requires no reply. As does the references to bigotry - A term once applied to any one attempting to remark on one of any but of white skin - liable to be cut off in mid sentence before passing what would have been a complimentary remark - but thats bigotry for you !

 

Incidentally immigration alone was not in question - neither denying a safe haven to the 'genuinly oppressed and persecuted - but was an observation on everlasting 'mass' immigration into one of the worlds smallest countries - where the subject of world over population and UK over poputation is apparantly a subject never to be raised. But if everlasting mass immigration is something so desireable and welcome then could it be explained why a Govt minister found it necessary to lie to this nation that only a mere 30,000 East Europeans would be arriving - while fully aware through warnings from her own embassy staff that some 500,000 - 700,000 intended immigrants were about to enter the UK . In addtion to being backed by the PM this minister also sought to have her staff gagged and sacked. But for those who will not have a word raised on immigration there is good news for you in the pipeline - However her lies became public knowledge and she was forced to resign.

 

With Govt dishonesty and false promises over mass immigration - Committing our loyal armed forces into wars that history have shown time after time are unwinnable - Our troops said to be inadequately armoured against mines resulting in the sad and pitiful sight of so many returning as amputees - and over 400 dead - and so many other failings of this and the previous Govt

that there is not sufficient time to go into - I for one would be amongst those who would not be rushing to enlist second time around - while ruled by the present Westminster collective that seem to lack those qualities expected of a Government of any worth.

 

 

[Robinhood]

Nurse!...........NURSE!

 

Another one's escaped!

 

 

:-S

[CliveH]

I take it he was in the bed next to you Robin?

 

 

[antony1969]

Skyliner , unfortunately rather than having an informed discussion on the subject it would seem it's easier and definitely more predictable to shout bigot etc and suggest your a nutter , something a bit like the last labour government would do to anyone who dared criticize there mass immigration policy . The same policy there now leader admitted was wrong a few weeks ago .

[CliveH]

Well I for one am confused as to exactly what is being inferred by Skyliner by way of reference to that particular Oxford Union debate.

 

I think Winston Churchill's comments sum up my thoughts on what happened back then:-

 

" My mind turns across the narrow waters of Channel and the North Sea, where great nations stand determined to defend their national glories or national existence with their lives. I think of Germany, with its splendid clear-eyed youths marching forward on all the roads of the Reich singing their ancient songs, demanding to be conscripted into an army; eagerly seeking the most terrible weapons of war; burning to suffer and die for their fatherland. I think of Italy, with her ardent Fascisti, her renowned Chief, and stern sense of national duty. I think of France, anxious, peace-loving, pacifist to the core, but armed to the teeth and determined to survive as a great nation in the world. One can almost feel the curl of contempt upon the lips of the manhood of all these people when they read this message sent out by Oxford University in the name of young England.”

 

But how on earth can what happened back then, on pretty much the eve of WW2 and in living memory of the carnage of WW1, can less than 300 students, doing what students of any era like to do! - i.e. rebel against the then “establishment” - have any sort of resonance as to where we as a “Nation” stand today?

 

If the point is immigration then by all means let us debate that because I do believe there is an issue there.

 

But the OP here in my view has made an inference too far. If you visit the superb Tank Museum in Northern France near Cherbourg, they have the uniforms of all the Nations who fought on French soil on D-Day and beyond.

 

The result is both startling and moving.

 

As someone who did this with his kids after several Eurocamp holidays whilst waiting for the Ferry and subsequently getting very interested in the REAL story of that conflict and who came to “our” aid, rather than the Hollywood or Shepperton film versions, I would strongly suggest that linking current immigration to the reality of WW2 and its build up is borderline stupid.

 

If it were not for “immigrants” fighting alongside us in WW2 I doubt that we would be able to sit here today debating as we are. The world would be a very different place but for those non-UK Nationals who, sometimes as volunteers, signed up.

 

 

[CliveH]

Anyone interested in the Tank Museum at Saumur France - the link is here.

 

http://www.euro-t-guide.com/See_Coun/France/F_C/F_See_Tank_Museum_Saumur_1-1.htm

 

Well worth a visit.

 

 

[Skyliner]

It was interesting to note how the odd poster or three can twist or distort words and thoughts of the original post.. - Especially those who use the tragic carnage of allied forces of 'all nations' involved in the two world wars in a cheap effort to ridicule the question posed regarding enistment into the armed forces today

 

There is little comparison with the nation we were in 1914 and 1939 including other nationals

that came to our aid in our time of need that can can hardly be compared with what today comprises the change that uncontrolled mass immigration produces upon a country.

.

 

The original post attempted to raise a discussion on the possibiity of enlistment should threat of war arise - Considering the great change of what now comprises our population - with uncontrolled mass immigration threatening to swamp what remains of our national identity as our feckless politicians keep our borders open wide to what in a few weeks will be virtually unrestricted entry into the Uk from a further 2 nations - nearing almost 30 soon to be qualified to settle here. Instead the race card has been dealt by some - Such as one choosing also to nit pick on grammar and spelling with apparantly nothing to say on a Govt that has to resort to lies or gives false figures to justify mass immigration Such deriliction of Govt duty should be filed under the heading -

Madness Fiasco and Mass Immigration.

 

.

 

 

[CliveH]

Skyliner - 2012-12-29 2:36 PM

 

 

 

There is little comparison with the nation we were in 1914 and 1939 including other nationals

that came to our aid in our time of need that can can hardly be compared with what today comprises the change that uncontrolled mass immigration produces upon a country.

.

 

 

 

.

 

 

If this is true mate - then why on earth did you cite an event that happened in 1933 and link that to how we as a nation would react today?

 

Not sure it is anyone else but you that is distorting or twisting things now.

 

As for the armed forces - as many others have pointed out - the ethnic mix of our armed forces is pretty broad. At least that is what i see and indeed confirm as someone who lives near Salisbury and is therefore surrounded by military personnel.

 

If you have problems with this and the last governments immigration policy the say so. Be honest about it.

 

To refer back to something that happened in 1933 to try to infer that due to immigration some would not fight for monarch and country is disingenuous.

 

As is trying to infer that those that point this fact out to you are the ones that twist or distort.

 

 

 

 

[Skyliner]

 

Welcome to the fray cliveH - Ref your para 1 - Explanation should not be necessary.

 

your para 3 - scroll to 29Dec 1242 para 1

your para 4 - Govt and Honesty scroll to 29Dec 1242 paras 2 and 3

 

If still confused over British Labour Govt Lies regarding mass immigration then look up Hansard 2002 - 2004 - Beverley Hughes.

 

BTW - I'm not your mate- but thanks for the offer

 

[Brian Kirby]

Well, OK skyliner, we have all sadly misjudged you from your own choice of words and question. Our fault, no doubt.

 

So what is your point? Is it that none of the "immigrants" would fight for Britain in some future war, because it is not their country, or that none of the rest of us would fight, because we'd only be defending the immigrants?

 

Or have I misunderstood yet again? If I have, please explain exactly what you mean, as clearly as possible, for a "bear of very little brain".

 

BTW, I did not call you a bigot, I said the post seemed to me somewhat bigoted. That was to give you a chance to clarify. I still await that clarification.

[Guest pelmetman]

I have not read all the thread but taking it on face value...............then No I would not fight for our "politicians"...........as I'm not so gullible now ;-)..................that's why they like them young *-)...............old cannon fodder know when to keep their heads down :-(

 

I speak as someone who served but managed to get sent to the Caribbean instead of the Falklands B-)

[Skyliner]

On reflection I guess it was inviting trouble to quote the 1933 Oxford declaration for comparison with the situation in GB today 2012 but hadnt expected such a torrent of abuse under what is now obviously the mistaken assumption that we were all sufficiently grown up to discuss everlasting mass immigration without risking liberal use of the racist tar brush.

 

I have untill now held back from mentioning that I was among the many that emailed and backed

Joanna Lumbley in her support for the Gurka - Had the honour to serve alongside Gurkas' in

the Malayan conflict - together with Indian Australian Malay and Fijian troops - and had one of the finest engineers - a UK Sikh service our aircraft.

 

Apologies for any grammar and spelling mistakes -

and if you have - then thanks for reading this.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Skyliner - 2012-12-29 9:59 PM

 

On reflection I guess it was inviting trouble to quote the 1933 Oxford declaration for comparison with the situation in GB today 2012 but hadnt expected such a torrent of abuse under what is now obviously the mistaken assumption that we were all sufficiently grown up to discuss everlasting mass immigration without risking liberal use of the racist tar brush.

 

I have untill now held back from mentioning that I was among the many that emailed and backed

Joanna Lumbley in her support for the Gurka - Had the honour to serve alongside Gurkas' in

the Malayan conflict - together with Indian Australian Malay and Fijian troops - and had one of the finest engineers - a UK Sikh service our aircraft.

 

Apologies for any grammar and spelling mistakes -

and if you have - then thanks for reading this.

 

 

So what was you saying? :-S ............as the world has moved on and our past conflicts and our loses tend to hold us back :-|..................The problem is as I see it now day's.............is that those in charge who are happy to sacrifice the lives of others >:-(............ only ever seem to suffer from the filth of lucre of high office *-).........

 

Edit .........to say I am now p*ssed as a *art and have to find my way up the ladder somehow to bed :-S

 

PS.......what was I saying 8-)

[CliveH]

Skyliner - 2012-12-29 9:59 PM

 

On reflection I guess it was inviting trouble to quote the 1933 Oxford declaration for comparison with the situation in GB today 2012 but hadnt expected such a torrent of abuse under what is now obviously the mistaken assumption that we were all sufficiently grown up to discuss everlasting mass immigration without risking liberal use of the racist tar brush.

 

I have untill now held back from mentioning that I was among the many that emailed and backed

Joanna Lumbley in her support for the Gurka - Had the honour to serve alongside Gurkas' in

the Malayan conflict - together with Indian Australian Malay and Fijian troops - and had one of the finest engineers - a UK Sikh service our aircraft.

 

Apologies for any grammar and spelling mistakes -

and if you have - then thanks for reading this.

 

 

I agree you were mistaken in trying to infer that what is going on in 2012/13 somehow has resonance with the Oxford Union debate in 1933.

 

But I do not see any "torrent of abuse" - quite the opposite!

 

And then you just have to bring in the "Racist Tarbrush" - when it is clear as a bell that not one poster on here has said anything of the sort.

 

Brian indicated (I think) that he thought your post was some sort of "set up with an agenda" (my words and interpretation Brian - feel free to set the record straight if I am incorrect in this) and on the basis of my interpretation - I agreed.

 

As I say - a debate on immigration would be fine - there are some issues.

 

But the original post was an inference too far.

 

The subsequent racist accusation is just silly.

 

And the term "mate" was used generically - so again your inference is way off mark.

 

Anyway - off to celebrate NY with a mate (specific reference) who is a Falklands veteran and who served in Belize as well. Now he tells some tales....................

 

 

[Mel B]

Skyliner - 2012-12-28 5:11 PM

 

'This house will not fight for King or Country' - The words to that affect as declared in 1933 by an Oxford Students Union debating panel.

 

If one today were of military enlistment age - WHICH I ASSUME YOU'RE NOT

.... taking into account ... the ever lasting mass immigration - IN YOUR VIEW

.... resulting in what some may see - THAT INCLUDES YOU?

.... as placing GB firmly on the path to what ... seems likely to result in the demise - or even death of a nation - WHY JUST 'BLAME' MASS IMMIGRATION?

 

.... Then can it be assumed there will be far less numbers having any patriotic fervour willing to enlist if a need should arise comparable to the patriotic mood of the nation in 1939?

 

...

 

Basically to me it appears you're trying to say in a very long winded way:

 

If we needed new recruits (to defend GB in a war for example), would the mass immigration of peoples to GB make 'GB natives/GB nationals' (?) reluctant to enlist to defend GB?

 

IMV the answer is NO.

 

If we had the same situation now as happened then, with the mass invasion of other countries, the horrendous attrocities being carried out, and possible invasion of GB, I have no doubt that those of a suitable age WOULD still enlist. The world has changed a lot and, whereas in 1939 the country was only aware of what it was 'told' was happening by government as it felt appropriate, nowadays people could easily find out for themselves what was be happening. Today people are generally more able to express and act upon their feelings/sense of 'right and wrong', and along with that are likely to want to be more involved in ensuring that such attrocities etc are stopped/prevented - people generally get involved much more than they used to with the "I'm alright Jack" attitude that some had (although I know that still persists today!).

 

When GB went to war we were defending other countries as well as our own and, from my minute knowledge of what the 1939-45 war entailed, didn't we get involved because other countries WERE invaded and not ours? So what if we do have more immigrants from other countries in GB now? I still don't think it would stop GB natives/GB nationals from enlisting - as that is a separate thing altogether - they would be enlisting to fight for the COUNTRY as a whole.

 

From your posting IMV you are doing the citizens of GB a great disservice by implying they would be BIGOTTED enough NOT to want to protect their own country .... :-|

[Brian Kirby]

To Clive, Dave, and Mel, yes. I agree. But lets "cut to the chase" ('orrible phrase!), skyliner said "If one today were of military enlistment age - and taking into account the change imposed upon our nation by our overlords through ever lasting mass immigration resulting in what some may see as placing GB firmly on the path to what eventually through time seems likely to result in the demise - or even death of a nation - Then can it be assumed there will be far less numbers having any patriotic fervour willing to enlist if a need should arise comparable to the patriotic mood of the nation in 1939 ?"

 

Taking this piece by piece, "If one today were of military enlistment age" IMO invites too much conjecture for the reply to be valid. One is not now of that age, so one sees life differently. Where one of that age now, one would be of a different generation, so would see life differently. So, to me, all the question really asks is, "knowing what you now know, would you still do as you did in your youth?" Answer, for those of us blessed with any wisdom whatever, must surely be no. Otherwise, what is the value of a lifetime's (give or take! :-)) experience?

 

So, moving on - "and taking into account the change imposed upon our nation by our overlords through ever lasting mass immigration resulting in what some may see as placing GB firmly on the path to what eventually through time seems likely to result in the demise - or even death of a nation" - we come to the nub of the argument. Boiled down to its essentials, this seems to me to argue that "we have had too many immigrants, too quickly". But, too quickly for what? Where is the linkage between cause and effect? How is this influx of foreigners "likely to result in the demise - or even death of a nation". That is why I invited skyliner to state when he thinks the "everlasting mass immigration" began. So far, he has declined.

 

Sorry, but I'm going to post some links for light reading! :-) All Wiki, so the usual cautions apply. :-) However, they are the nearest thing to summarised facts that I can readily access. First, on immigration since 1922: http://tinyurl.com/2ec79sa Next, historical immigration: http://tinyurl.com/ae2xvwa And finally, on the foreign born population of the UK: http://tinyurl.com/3csk5pg

 

The latter is the most revealing, because these are the true immigrants, having been born outside the UK. Don't know where skyliner would place the children of earlier immigrants, because he didn't say. An interesting question, perhaps? Looking at the number of countries from which folk have immigrated to UK, do we get a clue?

 

The Wiki article states "In 2001, the five most common foreign countries of birth were the Republic of Ireland, India, Pakistan, Germany and the United States respectively. In 2010, the most common foreign countries of birth were India, Poland (up from 18th in 2001), Pakistan, the Republic of Ireland and Germany respectively. The United States dropped to eighth place behind South Africa and Bangladesh, despite growth in the size of the US-born population.

 

The period between 2001 and 2010 saw significant change in the UK's foreign-born population. In particular, the 2004 and 2007 enlargements of the European Union have led to mass migration from the likes of Bulgaria, Latvia, Roumania, Poland, Slovakia and Lithuania. The number of Polish-born people resident in the UK increased from 60,711 in 2001 to an estimated 532,000 in the year to December 2010, whilst the Lithuanian-born population increased from 4,363 to an estimated 87,000. The most significant decrease in a foreign-born population resident in the UK between 2001 and 2010 is in the number of those originating from the Republic of Ireland. Whereas in 2001, 533,901 people born in the Republic of Ireland were resident in the UK, this is estimated to have declined to 405,000 by 2010."

 

It is an amazing list, and it is difficult to imagine that they can all be "likely to result in the demise - or even death of a nation", as skyliner states. Perhaps it is those who arrived between 2001 and 2010 (estimated) that has caused his anxiety? Those mainly from Bulgaria, Latvia, Roumania, Poland, Slovakia and Lithuania? Mainly young men who come to work, and to earn more than their home economies can pay them. Many doing work for which they are grossly over-qualified, others just willing to graft for their pay. Mostly, they are well educated, quiet, polite, and respectful. Inevitably, some are not, and some are criminals. Equally, some are here illegally. Our employers seem generally happy enough to take them on, and quite a few are studying at our universities.

 

So, what harm, in general, are they doing us, or might they do us? Of the Poles, there were already a substantial number in UK following the immigrations that resulted from WW2 and the creation of the Eastern Block. No doubt this eased access for others. They pick our fruit, till our fields, man our bars, and fix our computers. They multi-occupy flats and houses to save money, so that they can send more home. So did I once, though not to send money home, but just so that I could afford to live in London, where I was studying. Ditto my daughter some years ago in Glasgow. The Poles now get criticised for living in what sounds to me like a fairly normal student flat. It is OK for UK students, but not OK for working Poles. Why? Because they are working, or because they are Poles?

 

Ultimately, many will drift back whence they came, once their own economies provide them the opportunities they seek. Of those who stay, most will presumably do so because they like it here, and have developed careers here. Most will marry, and have families, and simply merge into the background of the UK population, just as countless generations of immigrants have before them. I have worked with many such children of immigrants, or those who married such children, or who were themselves immigrants. Almost all were highly competent, and made valuable contributions to the projects they were engaged upon. No more, and no less, than those of more "native" descent. It is the individual we should judge, not their ancestry, or their country of origin. Now look at this further Wiki link, http://tinyurl.com/29ftyp and see who really qualifies as British, English, Welsh, Scots, or Irish.

 

In the final analysis, we are all immigrants, it is just that some got here before others, and now some of them want to pull up the drawbridge!

 

There are, of course, practical issues that need to be managed, but that has never been attempted hitherto, though some attempt is now being made. Too many, too fast, creates frictions, especially if the migrants group together, instead of dispersing. Most do, while they get their bearings, but then move on and out. East London has long been the melting pot from which waves of immigrants have dispersed around the country. Parts of London seem no more than a kaleidoscope of humanity, but they generally learn to tolerate each other - which we tend to laud as a "British" trait - and to settle into their new environment. Others have gone to other towns and cities, many in and around the English midlands, and have remained relatively isolated from their host community. They were actively recruited by British industrialists to work their factories, so came at our invitation. Perhaps we should have had better foresight. Their children are gradually assimilating so, given a couple more generations, they too will move from their bases and spread and integrate as the rest of us have done. It just takes time: the greater the cultural difference, the longer it is likely to take.

 

Maybe skyliner lives in an area that is particularly affected by immigration, so is especially sensitive to the changes they bring, and is depressed by what he sees and hears. I can only try to reassure him that all is not lost: that there are many towns and villages around the UK where folk scarcely see a foreign face, or hear a foreign accent. It is the large towns and cities that are the draw, and where the frictions arise. It is our economy, and the myths and tales of our Empire, that draw them in. In that respect, they are the by-product of success, not failure.

 

But, he should be equally clear that immigration was our origin as a people, that it is what has made us what we are, and that it will continue, as it has over the past 15,000 years, and that Britain will change and adapt in response just as it always has. Modern English is a very different language from the Old English of the middle ages, which was the first settled language of (broadly :-)) England. It came in with the Anglo-Saxons from what is now north west Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark. Both its origins, and its subsequent changes, also tell a tale of immigration. So you see, there is hope, and no great need for fear or xenophobia. Just get around more.

 

Sorry, in retrospect, this is rather long, but it is a complex subject for just two paragraphs.

[Skyliner]

 

At last a response from one who seems to have correctly interpreted in the OP just what was being asked - ie What kind of response could be expected from the UKs mixed population if the call went out to defend this country. There are also signs of backpedalling from those bringing in the terms of bigotry - and race hatred.

 

Hopefully we shall never be called upon to test the enistment theory now we learn there are a

further 29-million soon to become eligable for entry - plus a further 77-million Turks also qualifying (not suggesting all will come) - For those apparantly in favour of continued mass immigration this will be good news - especially as thanks to the EU we are no longer allowed to control our own borders where Europe is involved.

 

 

[George Collings]

Just a little more regarding the assimilation of immigrants.

 

Amongst my wifes family photos is one of a direct ancestor taken in 1860of the Tower Hamlets Volunteer Rifles ( as in Tower of London) This led me to take in interest in the THVR. They with many other such groups nationally were raised due to fears of a French invasion and eventually formed the basis of the Territorial Army by the end of the 19th Century. One battalion was raised from the East Ends large Jewish community.

 

After the end of WW2 a large number of Polish were settled in South Devon and a few that had suffered terribly during the war are still being cared for here. The vast majority just got stuck into life often maried local partners and apart from family memories and obviously Polish names are now just part of the population.

 

I am not sure of what drove goverment policy on immigration immediately after ww2 but it might well have been in gratitude for the volunteers that served from all over the Empire. There were one million from India alone.

 

The biggest single mistake in absorbing immigrants over the last few decades has been the free provision of translation services making it uneccessary to learn English to get by.

 

.

 

 

 

.

[antony1969]

I dont think anybody has a problem with Poles etc that came here after the war or Hungarians that came in the 50's . They came settled into communities and integrated nicely as did the Italians etc etc . Indians too who are decent family orientated folk .

The problem is with the Pakistani's that came and still come here who do not want to integrate and do not want anything to do with the British way of life . To say the fit in with our way of life is nothing other than a lie and places like London , Leeds and countless other cities and towns are proof of this .

It's alright preaching tolerance and living in harmony with these people when you live somewhere these people are not .