AH Challenge: Modern Day Barbarians

[DominusNovus]

Its been about 8 centuries or so since there have been barbarians hordes that overwhelmed civilization. So, how do we get a modern day (19th century or more recent) barbarian horde that can threaten civilization. Requirements for the barbarian horde are that they are a primarily militaristic and nomadic society that is not out to establish a ordered civilized (urban based) nation (though that can happen eventually, but it can't be their intent). The barbarians must provide a large scale viable threat to one or more major centers of civilization (basicly, the US, EU, or China).

The closest thing we've got in OTL is Al Queda (sic), but they don't quite meet the cut.

[NapoleonXIV]

One of the more popular, and more difficult, ATL is the rise of a Genghis among the Native Americans of the 19thc. Population is the problem here, as the Amerind culture made recovery from the great plagues very difficult while the European cultures emphasized population increase.

If the numbers had been more even it is doubtful if even the most advanced troops of the 19thc could have prevailed against them. Other barbarians, as in Africa, had already demonstrated the alarming facility of primitive peoples to adapt advanced weaponry to their tactics.

[Flocculencio]

"If the numbers had been more even it is doubtful if even the most advanced troops of the 19thc could have prevailed against them. Other barbarians, as in Africa, had already demonstrated the alarming facility of primitive peoples to adapt advanced weaponry to their tactics"

I think the trouble here is not adapting advanced weaponry but having a nomadic, militaristic culture that still posesses the industrial base to maintain and manufacture that advanced weaponry.

Perhaps we could have the trekboers becoming a semi nomadic ranching culture rather than sedentary frontier farmers. We could then have the Germans supply them with weapons ala the Boer war. I still don't see any way to make them a threat to the centres of world civilisation though.

[DuQuense]

There is a famous Quote by some one
"We are only one generation from savagery and two from Barbarianism."

I think about this when ever I turn on the Idiot Box and the News caster talks about the lastest antics of our Urban tribes, [Bloods, Crisps, Angels, ect.]
Remember- Attilla never looted Rome, when the Pope took the Army [police] out of the city to protect the loot used to bribe Attilla not to attack. The Germanic tribes living in the city, Rioted and burned it down [think LA Riot here]. The tribes were living in the Roman cities but still speaking their own language, and following their own Cheiftain three & four generations after moving there [does this sound today Faimiliar]. Socialization requires Force,
Rome lost It's will to use the nessacary force, ?Are we following suit? Will our Barbarians be home grown inside the cities they will destroy.

OTOH to get some kind of Barbarian Wandering like destroyed The Empire or China, You need Russia to melt down for several generations, without outside, interference, The Steppes would then be able to whirl of another wave. I don't see anyplace eles.

central Africa-not north [desert]- South theres nothing there but SAU, and you wouldn't need a horde for that. Mid East- maybe- but they didn't accually get all that far last time. South america Andes vs Pampas--NOT
North america, We already have the Mexican hordes flooding across the Border and we seen to be OK for now.

[Brilliantlight]

Its been about 8 centuries or so since there have been barbarians hordes that overwhelmed civilization. So, how do we get a modern day (19th century or more recent) barbarian horde that can threaten civilization. Requirements for the barbarian horde are that they are a primarily militaristic and nomadic society that is not out to establish a ordered civilized (urban based) nation (though that can happen eventually, but it can't be their intent). The barbarians must provide a large scale viable threat to one or more major centers of civilization (basicly, the US, EU, or China).

The closest thing we've got in OTL is Al Queda (sic), but they don't quite meet the cut.

The reason is probably technological in nature and it would take ASBs to change. It gets worse and worse for barbarians to try and become a threat to civilized areas. Once real industrialization comes in it is all over. Industrial powers just have way too many advantages over rural, nomadic barbarians to lose to them.

[tom]

Yes. Notice that the last Barbarian Horde was shortly before gunpowder came on the scene. Coincidence?

[MerryPrankster]

In the future, large-scale refugee movements (armed with weapons looted from failed states) could count as "barbarians." An armed group of Hutu refugees in Zaire established a de facto state and sparked the rebellion that toppled Mobutu and ultimately led to the Congo War in the mid-1990s where 3+ million people died. See "In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz: Living on the Brink of Disaster in Mobutu's Congo."

Hmmm...perhaps a new Congo War could spark refugee movements northward, pushing a large # of North Africans (armed with weaponry from collapsed states) into attempting to cross the Mediterranean into Sicily and Italy. Will the "tolerant" EU (that needs lots of new workers to sustain pension plans for the current generation) have the intestinal fortitude or (assuming they can summon the will) even the military strength to stop them?

OR the Islamists get decisively spanked in the wars in post-USSR Central Asia and flee en masse into Pakistan and India. It's just a replay of Tamerlane.

Does either scenario sound workable? I plan on developing the first (and maybe the second) into a novel.

However, if the initial "shock" of their incursion can be beaten back, these groups will probably lose. They lack the industrial base and populace to maintain the weapons they've gotten hold of and to sustain the war. They'd need to win FAST or set off events that would proceed independently (like the Hutus in Zaire).

[DominusNovus]

In the future, large-scale refugee movements (armed with weapons looted from failed states) could count as "barbarians." An armed group of Hutu refugees in Zaire established a de facto state and sparked the rebellion that toppled Mobutu and ultimately led to the Congo War in the mid-1990s where 3+ million people died. See "In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz: Living on the Brink of Disaster in Mobutu's Congo."

Hmmm...perhaps a new Congo War could spark refugee movements northward, pushing a large # of North Africans (armed with weaponry from collapsed states) into attempting to cross the Mediterranean into Sicily and Italy. Will the "tolerant" EU (that needs lots of new workers to sustain pension plans for the current generation) have the intestinal fortitude or (assuming they can summon the will) even the military strength to stop them?

OR the Islamists get decisively spanked in the wars in post-USSR Central Asia and flee en masse into Pakistan and India. It's just a replay of Tamerlane.

Does either scenario sound workable? I plan on developing the first (and maybe the second) into a novel.

However, if the initial "shock" of their incursion can be beaten back, these groups will probably lose. They lack the industrial base and populace to maintain the weapons they've gotten hold of and to sustain the war. They'd need to win FAST or set off events that would proceed independently (like the Hutus in Zaire).

Sounds like the best starting point so far. Really, if they create enough chaos (esp. politically), or screw the infrasctructure up enough, they could do some real damage.

[MerryPrankster]

"Sounds like the best starting point so far."

Thank you. :)

Hmm...

Here's another scenario that could be worked into my "New Age of Migrations" idea. The global repercussions of the North African situation could cause economic chaos and a civil war in Mexico. Mass refugee movement across the border. The US gov't, with a situation that drastic, might act; however, I'd expect "Derechos Humanos" (their logo includes pre-1848 Mexico) and others to try to politically-stymie a reaction. The www.ranchrescue.com types are overrun by sheer #s or by military units among the refugees.

Various "Aztlan" (www.aztlan.net) type states are proclaimed on former US soil. Perhaps the US could employ some Mexican arrivals as "federati" against the later ones.

[Brilliantlight]

"Sounds like the best starting point so far."

Thank you. :)

Hmm...

Here's another scenario that could be worked into my "New Age of Migrations" idea. The global repercussions of the North African situation could cause economic chaos and a civil war in Mexico. Mass refugee movement across the border. The US gov't, with a situation that drastic, might act; however, I'd expect "Derechos Humanos" (their logo includes pre-1848 Mexico) and others to try to politically-stymie a reaction. The www.ranchrescue.com types are overrun by sheer #s or by military units among the refugees.

Various "Aztlan" (www.aztlan.net) type states are proclaimed on former US soil. Perhaps the US could employ some Mexican arrivals as "federati" against the later ones.


Long before that happens the US gets serious and sends troops down to the border.

[panzerjay]

If am right barbarians are people of similar nature who have either rejected the concept of an nation state or simply ignores it. The mentality is home is where am at. They won’t come as some mad max reject but as poor devils that use empathy as a weapon.

Modern day barbarism brings to my mind the book Camp of the Saints. it seems that Pakistan, India and Bangladesh either went though a social, economic, or natural occurring disaster. The refugees of this dystopia get their hands on a fleet of super oil tankers and set sail for parts unknown. The author goes into detail of how the stench of the ships stretch for hundreds of miles. Every country turns them away til they get to the coast of France. The tankers are going for broke and dare the French to fire on their ships.

The author as with all authors have an agenda. This one had an racist one but the book does make one think how far an civilization should go to protect itself and remain empathic at the same time.

[DuQuense]

Savages are People with no conection to any social Structure. Barbarians are savages who have Built a Structure of their own.

----------------------------------------------------------------
nine out of ten people like chocolate; the tenth is a liar

[Melvin Loh]

What about some sorta equivalent of the Somali militiamen in their Technicals as a new barbarian horde about to overrun contemporary (1980s/1990s) civilisation ?

[MerryPrankster]

Melvin,

The "armed refugee movements" would probably have few tanks, aircraft, etc, but I'd bet they'd have a collosal # of jury-rigged armed vehicles such as the "technicals." If their commanders are very clever, guerrilla-style use of smaller and more-agile vehicles could frustrate a "heavy metal" type military like the US; instead of fighting full-on, they'd run circles around them.

Though a modern-day "barbarian horde" defeating the US w/ "technicals" and suchlike is very unlikely, many of the European countries' militaries are underfunded and underequipped (Germany had to rent transports from Ukraine to send troops to Afghanistan) and have internal issues (in Belgium, I'd read about how a massive % of its army is non-combat stuff like chefs or haircutters and "soldiers unions" are opposing attempts to fix that). Such a military might have trouble with a well-led "barbarian horde."

Stefano can enlighten us about the state of Italy's military for my "North African invasion" scenario.

[DuQuense]

Europe has another Problem, in the late 60's the Baby Boom Burst, and the fertility rate for Europe & the US/Canada started down. 2.1 = ZPG. In the Early 70's this was reached and the Demographers looked for it to Stabilize. To their Astonishment and Shock, it continued down, The DGs having overlooked the fact that there was no Stabilazation mechimism. By the Late 70's the TFR was hovering around 1.2 [Italy]~ 1.4 [Germany] 1.1 = half size generations.
So After 20~30 Years of this Europe just doen't have the young people needed to Form large Armies, [19-20 cent mass Armies].

[RatCatcher]

Well, men, barbarians do exist now, there are even barbarians states, like Chechnya or Albania in Europe (US is more laky, they do not experience such problems). Also, illigal immigrants in Europe, people who are absolutely out of Europe mentality, are potential barbarians too. That is the problem. One day they will show what they really can do. :mad:

[DominusNovus]

Well, men, barbarians do exist now, there are even barbarians states, like Chechnya or Albania in Europe (US is more laky, they do not experience such problems). Also, illigal immigrants in Europe, people who are absolutely out of Europe mentality, are potential barbarians too. That is the problem. One day they will show what they really can do. :mad:
You know, that sounds silly at first, but then I think about what the Romans must have thought of the Goths, Vandals, Franks, etc.

[RatCatcher]

You know, that sounds silly at first, but then I think about what the Romans must have thought of the Goths, Vandals, Franks, etc.

Aha, especially Romans in time of imperor Trayan - who could imagine that impire will be destroyed by Germans?

[MerryPrankster]

How exactly do Chechnya and Albania count as "barbarians"? In the case of Chechnya, they're indigenous to the region and are trying to free themselves from rule by outsiders (Russia).

Albanians are indigenous too, though their presence in Kosovo is actually fairly recent (1600s-1700s). Is your reason for counting the Albanians as "barbarians" their demographic expansionism, not only into Kosovo, but also into Macedonia, Montenegro, and other parts of Serbia?

[basileus]

Melvin,

The "armed refugee movements" would probably have few tanks, aircraft, etc, but I'd bet they'd have a collosal # of jury-rigged armed vehicles such as the "technicals." If their commanders are very clever, guerrilla-style use of smaller and more-agile vehicles could frustrate a "heavy metal" type military like the US; instead of fighting full-on, they'd run circles around them.

Though a modern-day "barbarian horde" defeating the US w/ "technicals" and suchlike is very unlikely, many of the European countries' militaries are underfunded and underequipped (Germany had to rent transports from Ukraine to send troops to Afghanistan) and have internal issues (in Belgium, I'd read about how a massive % of its army is non-combat stuff like chefs or haircutters and "soldiers unions" are opposing attempts to fix that). Such a military might have trouble with a well-led "barbarian horde."

Stefano can enlighten us about the state of Italy's military for my "North African invasion" scenario.

The Italian army is generally laughed at, but I think it's an error. In such a scenario, I believe it could prove a stabilizing and viable force. Don't think the Italians lack ferocity when needed (the long series of atrocious war crimes from The Horn of Africa to the Balkans in WWII, and the tortures to prisoners in Somalia 1992-1994 cry loud we're no "brava gente"/"nice people" in arms after all). Though I personally would leave Sicily and parts of the Spouth to an Arab horde (it would change little, IMHO:D ), I still have a certain trust in our modest military might. We have one of the most sizable arms industries in the world (exp. small arms, destroyers, frigates, fighter-bombers and helicopters), and though having little will to fight as to the whole of the populace, we have plenty of violent people to employ in such a massacre.

[MerryPrankster]

Stefano,

Thanks for the info. Does Italy produce the Milan anti-tank missiles, or are they made somewhere else?

"I personally would leave Sicily and parts of the Spouth to an Arab horde (it would change little, IMHO"

Is that a little regional ribbing :) or is the situation in southern Italy today pertinent to the discussion?

I heard that in Italy, there was a move to expel illegal immigrants, but people wanted an exemption for caregivers to the elderly ("baby bust" type stuff). If that situation continues in Italy, things might get desperate.

During the late Roman period, Germanic slaves opened the gates of Rome to the Vandals (or was it Visigoths?). I figure if there's an exploited illegal immigrant underclass from Muslim states, they might not mind 100,000 or so of their distant relations showing up and laying the proverbial smackdown.

[basileus]

Stefano,

Thanks for the info. Does Italy produce the Milan anti-tank missiles, or are they made somewhere else?

"I personally would leave Sicily and parts of the Spouth to an Arab horde (it would change little, IMHO"

Is that a little regional ribbing :) or is the situation in southern Italy today pertinent to the discussion?

I heard that in Italy, there was a move to expel illegal immigrants, but people wanted an exemption for caregivers to the elderly ("baby bust" type stuff). If that situation continues in Italy, things might get desperate.

During the late Roman period, Germanic slaves opened the gates of Rome to the Vandals (or was it Visigoths?). I figure if there's an exploited illegal immigrant underclass from Muslim states, they might not mind 100,000 or so of their distant relations showing up and laying the proverbial smackdown.

The MILAN AT have no relation whatsoever with the city of Milano... I think they're British stuff.
As for the Arabs invading South, yes, it's pure regionalistic nastiness. :D
And yes, Italians do make too few children, for what it may seem unbelievable to those who knew our Southerners :D but even here families were large till few decades ago, then came after the Seventies a tragic demographic disaster. Simply, the young are not enough to help and sustain the old, so entire generations, including mine, are doomed to die alone and in misery b/c no one would care for them and no state pension will be likely given in the future.
My Euronationalism derives also from such considerations. A better administration, not the corrupt mafiocracy we have, would sweaten the pill. In Sweden the demographic breakdown has been fought off and won with cautious but successful policies of help to mothers. Here in Italy you simply can't afford a child today. The ypung don't work in a fixed place till 30 and beynd, so they have no own home, no income, and if they have raising a child is terribly costly (the little boy or girl is bombed with tv ads all day long and you can't say no to all), and besides this 1) men and women more and more have difficult tastes on the other sex and don't content any more with what they have ("aut Caesar aut nihil", my position) 2) everyone (me first) has become an egoist incapable of the slightest sacrifice and the liberation of women seems to have been a disaster for maintaining the demographic balance. The immigrants are a hope for tomorrow, the problem is integratingn them, and most of them (exp. North Africans) show no signs of possible integration; religion IS a major problem, nor can we limit immigration to Christians only. Surely there' illegality in immigration and in its exploitation. "Balck work" has ever been a stain of the country, but now is an everyday emergency despite some good laws for regularizing workers during the center-left administration. I tremble at the idea of a future general union of, say, all Muslim immigrant workers under the flag of Integralism instead of Socialism. The only thing capable of preventing this seems to be the great difference of national groups here in Italy; we have mostly Egyptians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Albanians, Romanians and then Filipinos (all of whom Catholic), Senegalese, Nigerians, southern Chinese (mostly Fujianese), many Latinos from different countries (exp. Andeans and Caribbeans), some Sikhs who work in the farms.

[MerryPrankster]

Thanks for the info.

[MerryPrankster]

"I tremble at the idea of a future general union of, say, all Muslim immigrant workers under the flag of Integralism instead of Socialism"

What's integralism? I remember "Islamic Integralism" being counted in a poll on "evil ideologies" alongside Nazism and Communism--is "Integralism" bin-Ladenism or attempts to establish/expand an Islamic theocratic state?

[Melvin Loh]

Just had another idea- what about modern-day barbarians of whatever ethnicity or race, and who may be in any major Western city, who basically embrace the African-American inner city 'Homey G' ideal, are just as heavily armed as these urban gangs, and take their turfwars and grievances outside into the wider world, in a larger scale version of the LA riots 1992 ?

[basileus]

"I tremble at the idea of a future general union of, say, all Muslim immigrant workers under the flag of Integralism instead of Socialism"

What's integralism? I remember "Islamic Integralism" being counted in a poll on "evil ideologies" alongside Nazism and Communism--is "Integralism" bin-Ladenism or attempts to establish/expand an Islamic theocratic state?

"Integralismo" is the Italian definition of Khomeinist or Bin-Ladenist stances.
It is also used for other religions' fanaticism, so there can be a Catholic integralism. E.g., the Pilgrim Fathers can be considered Protestant Integralists.

[wkwillis]

Civilisations are expensive to maintain. You need social structures that enforce social norms. Not the Old Testament social norms that are appropriate to a world without medical technology, but the Protestant Reformation social norms that enforce contracts and discourage looting.
Our government in the US is presently controlled by Old Testament Socialists and we are in big trouble. We are not investing enough in children because the middle class is overtaxed by the upperclass and is not reproducing. We are pricing housing permits so high that you can either retire or have children, but not both. It's not as bad as in Europe or Japan, but close. Sure, houses are cheaper than ever, and agricultural productivity has trashed the price of land, but the damn building permits and zoning permits are causing all the middle class families out there to need two incomes.
If there is a nuke winter war, we could go under. Our technology is vulnerable to network disconnections, our population is old, our genetic base is vulnerable to global warming diseases like malaria, etc.
Say our population declines by 90%, as does the third world's population. India with 100 million people has all the resource base it needs to make it more powerfull than America with 30 million people. Africa is about the same, China, Indonesia, etc.
We really could be defeated and occupied.

[basileus]

Civilisations are expensive to maintain. You need social structures that enforce social norms. Not the Old Testament social norms that are appropriate to a world without medical technology, but the Protestant Reformation social norms that enforce contracts and discourage looting.
Our government in the US is presently controlled by Old Testament Socialists and we are in big trouble. We are not investing enough in children because the middle class is overtaxed by the upperclass and is not reproducing. We are pricing housing permits so high that you can either retire or have children, but not both. It's not as bad as in Europe or Japan, but close. Sure, houses are cheaper than ever, and agricultural productivity has trashed the price of land, but the damn building permits and zoning permits are causing all the middle class families out there to need two incomes.
If there is a nuke winter war, we could go under. Our technology is vulnerable to network disconnections, our population is old, our genetic base is vulnerable to global warming diseases like malaria, etc.
Say our population declines by 90%, as does the third world's population. India with 100 million people has all the resource base it needs to make it more powerfull than America with 30 million people. Africa is about the same, China, Indonesia, etc.
We really could be defeated and occupied.

That's paranoid!

[DominusNovus]

That's paranoid!
You know, I thought there was something not quite sane about that post...

[MerryPrankster]

It's not necessarily paranoid.

The US's vaunted high-tech is VERY vulnerable to losses of electricity.

For example, a power-line collapse in California left most gas stations in the state unable to pump gas (there are few manual pumps left these days). Within hours, there were thousands of stranded, helpless motorists all over California.

Thus, a nuke exchange that takes out most of the US's electricity grid could, within a few days, leave us without cars, tractors, aircraft, etc. The military might have stockpiles, but most civilians don't. THEN you get hunger, disease, large-scale refugee movements, etc.

Also, how many Americans' "job skills" are useful in a real "Mad Max" type environment? A lot of lawyers and accountants and journalists are in real trouble; maybe even engineers too. In the event of, say, my college campus falling into anarchy, all I've got is

1) Some karate training
2) A pocketknife
3) The stuff I've learned in Scouts (first aid, orienteering, some other things)

I'm probably screwed, and most people, who lack even that, are even MORE screwed.

If there's a general collapse of order, the "criminal element" (and there are some parts of my college town that are very dangerous at night for lone people, esp. girls and pizza delivery people) will probably band together and rampage. They're armed (albeit with cheap illegal handguns and knives) and more skilled; the gun store nearby, in the event it's not overrun before the employees can get their act together, will probably not be accepting $$ and thus a bunch of terrified students and local people (most of whom are unarmed due to the "Safe Schools Law") will have problems getting the means they'll need to stand off the trouble-makers.

I imagine military vets, survivalists, people who have guns and know how to use 'em, etc. might be able to survive, but most Americans, who are used to peace, prosperity, etc. are in very deep trouble. Thus, WK's scenario could very well happen.

[MerryPrankster]

Plus WK's description of the "baby bust" in the developed West and Japan means that when (if) the chaos ends and some flavor of order is restored, the survivors might not have the #s to defeat a large # of would-be settlers from more-populated areas that, even with the radiation, anarchy, etc. would still outnumber the formerly-developed areas.

The US still has the two huge oceans that'll probably keep post-war India and China (the latter has more civil defense and thus could probably remain together and capable of continued fighting) from coming here; however, vast refugee movements out of Mexico could occupy sizable portions of US territory. Europe might get the Arabs and Turks, while Chinese could migrate in large #s into what used to be Russia and Central Asia.

I have a similar scenario for one of my "unfinished novels" (I'm on #4 or #5 right now); think of the Germans settling in a population-deprived Rome.

[MerryPrankster]

And for the record, I'm not paranoid; I'm just a bit prone to worrying and wondering about the long-term consequences of everything.

[basileus]

And for the record, I'm not paranoid; I'm just a bit prone to worrying and wondering about the long-term consequences of everything.
And so do I; do you think my portrait of Italy was optimistic?

[MerryPrankster]

"And so do I; do you think my portrait of Italy was optimistic?"

Definitely not the South :), though your denunciation of the Italian gov't as a "mafia-ocracy" surely applies to the whole country.

[MerryPrankster]

Hmmm...it seems folks have lost interest in the thread.

Oh well. Thanks, Stefano, for the Italian info.

[DuQuense]

Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they arn'tr out to get you.

I once figured out a plan where 600 well trained special forces types could destroy the US/Canada.

There is a Bank Check processing facility in San Deigo. If it stops working one day it affects south california, two days-west Coast, three- all west of Missi, four-all US, Five-whole worlds ecomony. So think of the reprocustions if the whole US ecomony shut down completly as of tomorrow Morning,

I'm not sure but it may be possible to do something simple to shut down Europe [all or major part], Japan, Ect.. The world wide effects may be enuff to allow Your Hordes to start moving.

[Sir Isaac Brock]

Many people have been trying to draw a connection between some modern-day group and the Barbarian Hordes that overwhelmed the Romans in the First Millennium.

What do we know about these original Barbarians? They were originally small hunter-gatherer tribes occupying small territories in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. By 1 AD most had begun to adopt farming and domestication of animals. Soon their populations boomed. The tiny pieces land they occupied could no longer contain their swelling numbers. They looked to the rich but corrupt Roman Empire as a new source of land, resources, wealth, and technology. They began to spill over into their neighbour's' lands, starting a chain reaction of invasions and retreats.

The Romans didn't consider Barbarians a threat and more always more concerned with competing Empires, the Greeks, the Carthaginians, Persians, the Parthians, etc. They were concerned with other wealthy, educated people, not unwashed masses. The Romans has been able to crush the Barbarians at any time previous to this because of superior numbers and technologies. However, the population boom and adopting of new technologies (like metal working) by the barbarians left the Romans outnumbered and without any advantage.

Soon masses of hungry and desperate Barbarians were pillaging the Roman provinces as the decadent Romans watched on in horror.

Fast forward the end of the Second Millennium AD (1900-1990). Once again "civilised" nations rule through superior numbers and technologies. But starting in the 1940s, a curious thing happens. The massively swelling population of the Indian sub-continent throws out its Western masters in a senario to be replayed over and over again for the next 50 years.

By 2001, The "civilised" West makes up only 1 of the 6 billion people on Earth. The major threat to Western dominance seem to be China, which is on pace to become the world's largest economy by 2012. While Americans and Europeans watch the stock market, wash the Mercedes, and listen to the Top of the Pops, 19 (mostly wealthy, educated) Arab men plan an attack on the power of the West.

Meanwhile throughout Latin America and Africa landless peasants swell the population of already crowded cities.

So:

The question that logically follows is, who is most likely to
challenge Western powers as the "new" Barbarians?

- The success of Chinese and Asians Tiger economies?

- The anger of the Arab street?

- Or "the tired, the poor... the masses yearning to be free"?

My money is on the last one. Nations and economies come and go, China way well overtake the US as economic leader be that does not imply the end of Western Civilisation's leading role.

Arabs and Muslims in general are only realising now how far they have fallen in the "status" chart of civilisations. They are in a kind of limbo state, not forming successful nations and economies like Asia, but not quite desperate enough reject their existing society and go in for mass migration.

However in places in Africa and Latin America the fate the West is being determined. The demographic swells in these areas will produce desperate generations. In Africa AIDS and warfare add another dimension, killing off many parents leaving scores of orphans.

One of two things can happen. Either the West decides to help these people and avert disaster. Or we continue to stand by as they suffer until they rise in righteous anger.

A pleasant thought, eh?

[MerryPrankster]

Canucklehead/Sir Isaac,

The US is beginning to receive large-scale migration from Latin America; fortunately, they're assimilating (so far). However, current US policies make that more difficult than in the past (bilingual education, plus, in one case, ethnic separatism brought on by putting blacks in African history and Latinos in Latino history led to riots in Arizona) and loony-tunes like MEChA (www.aztlan.net and others) could pray on this.

Europe is beginning to receive large-scale immigration from Africa (as well as the Middle East), and they have a much smaller tradition of assimilating new arrivals than the US. Plus, Africa is MUCH more unstable than Latin America; my scenario of an invasion from Africa is probably more realistic than extremist Latinos attempting to rejoin the SW US to Mexico.

"Arabs and Muslims in general are only realising now how far they have fallen in the "status" chart of civilisations. They are in a kind of limbo state, not forming successful nations and economies like Asia, but not quite desperate enough reject their existing society and go in for mass migration."

Don't write off the Middle East yet. Here's a link...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=485405

Things might get VERY interesting over there. If the House of Saud is threatened and gets the US to intervene on its behalf by proclaiming that the rebels are al-Qaeda, it could plunge the entire Middle East into war. That'll probably provoke large-scale refugee movements; we might yet have a migration.

[Sir Isaac Brock]

Canucklehead/Sir Isaac,

The US is beginning to receive large-scale migration from Latin America; fortunately, they're assimilating (so far). However, current US policies make that more difficult than in the past (bilingual education, plus, in one case, ethnic separatism brought on by putting blacks in African history and Latinos in Latino history led to riots in Arizona) and loony-tunes like MEChA (
www.aztlan.net and others) could pray on this.

Well I'm not an expert on US race relations, but I seem to disagree with you on the best way to assimilate immigrants. I generally support minority language education, and a non-Eurocentric view of history. Though segregation (of any kind) I have a problem with. More important that that however is ability of new immigrants to escape ghetto type situations and go on to college, have professional careers, and advance in society. An ability US Latinos don't seem to have, either because of their own attitudes, or more likely because of flaws in the US social structure.

Europe is beginning to receive large-scale immigration from Africa (as well as the Middle East), and they have a much smaller tradition of assimilating new arrivals than the US. Plus, Africa is MUCH more unstable than Latin America; my scenario of an invasion from Africa is probably more realistic than extremist Latinos attempting to rejoin the SW US to Mexico.I agree race relations in France I don't think are particularly good, which is what led to the near-election of Jean-Marie LePen. The same in Austria with Jorge Hider, and the Netherlands with Pym Fortune (am I spelling these names right?). Point is, Europe has a lot to learn.


Don't write off the Middle East yet. Here's a link...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=485405

Things might get VERY interesting over there. If the House of Saud is threatened and gets the US to intervene on its behalf by proclaiming that the rebels are al-Qaeda, it could plunge the entire Middle East into war. That'll probably provoke large-scale refugee movements; we might yet have a migration.
Which illustrates my point exactly. If we help fix the problems at the source, by not allowing failed states, civil wars, and general tragedy to force people from their homes, we will be able to control and direct migrations, rather than being the victims of circumstance.