Is Multi-culturism Good For A Country?

[sanmiguellight]

I haven't been back for extended time in years. But I'll give you one example - the NHS - it simply wouldn't have worked without imported foreign labour.

You mean the foreign doctors that are needed in far more in 3rd world countries, im sure if there was a thought out education and training program in place it would work just fine.... furthermore you are aware that many recently trained UK nurses have to move to new regions to find work as there are so many foreign nurses at their local hospital.

What ammuses me is the same people complaining about their visa regulations living in Thailand and in the next breath complaining that there home country is letting too many foriegners in.

Well in comparison to Thailand Britain does let in a lot of foreigners, but many who complain about Thai visa regulation often have a Thai wife and children, im sure even Alf Garnett would accept that spouses should be allowed to stay in the UK.

[carlosacao]

Well after living in the US (california) for 12 years I can attest to the fact that multiculturalism appears to be a failure here. The U.S. was originally designed to be a melting pot where everyone would become "American" first and speak a common language. There are many Latinos here who simply don't want to make the effort to learn english and reside in Spanish speaking communities. They also pledge allegiance to Mexico first and the U.S. second. In fact when the Mexican national soccer team played the U.S. at the Colisseum most Latinos were cheering for the Mexican team and urine bags, bottles, etc. were thrown at the U.S. team. Rather ironic how people leave their country because it is not desirable to stay then support it instead of the country that has brought them opportunity and rights. This is true for many other minorities. Not taking a swipe at anyone just the facts.

Right on, that's the reality on the ground, not the idealistic myth of MC which doesn't hold ground in practical terms and it's only practiced by westerners. I lived in Los Angeles for 25 years and I've seen what you described, I've also seen it in Spain with the recent wave of immigration and I pretty much see the same thing all over western europe.

The melting pot concept in the US worked when the immigrants were of similar cultural identity such as the european waves of immigrants that went to the US, they integrated quickly without much problems, then US immigration policy switched the priority to third world countries and that was the end of the melting pot; in europe the problem it's mainly the muslims, for the most part they just don't want to integrate, islam is their way of life and it's either their way or no way; the open, progressive, liberal western europeans opened the doors to these people with the best of intentions and in the end it will be our doom.

[IanForbes]

But I do strongly believe that by creating isolated (and sometimes gettoes) communities of immigrants, will do no good for a country.

My point exactly. It is understandable that immigrants will seek out their own people and form small communities in any place they settle. But there is a huge difference between a ghetto and an integrated group of people of the same ethnic background. You will find a nice mix of cultures in a city like Chiang Mai. There is a Muslim area, but it tends to blend in. The Chinese market area is more Thai than Chinese. The tourist areas tend to be mostly Brits and Aussies with a mix of other groups, but for the most part it is Thai Buddhists. Any slums will be Thai nationals.

My main objection with pandering to a multi=culturism concept is the rigid communities of foreigners who have no intention of EVER integrating, and want their own laws written into the constitution of the foreign country they've chosen to live in.

Just a few examples of what I mean. Indo-Canadian communities refuse to let their daughters mix or marry caucasians, and the penalty for doing so is often death. The same is true for Islamic communities. Female circumcision is a horrific practise that still goes on today in many countries, and yet the people who practise it still want that right when they move to a more civilized country.

[Gaccha]

Is multi-culturism good for a country and can it actually work? I don't see too much of it in Thailand because most of the country is Buddhist, and other cultures seem to be scattered in tiny groups.

555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555+

There are at least 5 million Burmese, most of whom are registered (and you can't make this sort of thing up) as "Legal illegal residents". They are required to possess an id card, which their employers keep. They cannot change jobs without these cards and the employer may seize the card from them. They are required to live in certain areas. A quick visit to the border city of Mae Sot and the vast Burmese factory ghettos may enlighten you to the reality of multi-cultaralism in this land of smiles. The consequence is utter wage slavery. They do anything wrong, such as ask for their wages to be paid, their card is taken and they fall into destitution.

On your trip to Mae Sot lookout for the police checkpoints in the middle of Thailand designed to prevent the Burmese from travelling around the country.

The future is interesting: a Chula Professor told me last week he thought the population would reach 20 million with massive inter-marriage with Thais.

Also, look at the hill tribe girls selling their wares on Khao San Road. The Thai state requires they remain in certain localities. They may not move around freely. So these girls cannot return to their homes. Nice, eh?

On a further note in regard to multi-culturalism, there are 16 cultural groups that must self-identify themselves on their id cards in Thailand including, and again you can't make this sort of thing up, "Former Communists". Beautiful.

From your privileged perch at the top of the capitalist success story I can understand you can't see the quagmire of muck of serfdom, and pernicious evil in Thailand's system of control of various minorities. I suggest you read more.

[IanForbes]

Thank you for that information, Gaccha. I was only slightly aware that there was such a nasty problem. It is hard for a non-Thai speaking foreigner to get the real truth what goes on behind closed doors in any country. Your informative post is just another reason why I started the thread in the first place and hoped it wouldn't get into a bickering debate.

[smokie36]

Is multi-culturism good for a country and can it actually work? I don't see too much of it in Thailand because most of the country is Buddhist, and other cultures seem to be scattered in tiny groups.

555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555+

There are at least 5 million Burmese, most of whom are registered (and you can't make this sort of thing up) as "Legal illegal residents". They are required to possess an id card, which their employers keep. They cannot change jobs without these cards and the employer may seize the card from them. They are required to live in certain areas. A quick visit to the border city of Mae Sot and the vast Burmese factory ghettos may enlighten you to the reality of multi-cultaralism in this land of smiles. The consequence is utter wage slavery. They do anything wrong, such as ask for their wages to be paid, their card is taken and they fall into destitution.

On your trip to Mae Sot lookout for the police checkpoints in the middle of Thailand designed to prevent the Burmese from travelling around the country.

The future is interesting: a Chula Professor told me last week he thought the population would reach 20 million with massive inter-marriage with Thais.

Also, look at the hill tribe girls selling their wares on Khao San Road. The Thai state requires they remain in certain localities. They may not move around freely. So these girls cannot return to their homes. Nice, eh?

On a further note in regard to multi-culturalism, there are 16 cultural groups that must self-identify themselves on their id cards in Thailand including, and again you can't make this sort of thing up, "Former Communists". Beautiful.

From your privileged perch at the top of the capitalist success story I can understand you can't see the quagmire of muck of serfdom, and pernicious evil in Thailand's system of control of various minorities. I suggest you read more.

Thanks again for this informative post.

I wondered why the local bus I travelled from Ranong was stopped four times by the thai military.

Layers within layers in thai society it seems.

Edited July 30, 2009 by smokie36

[endure]

MC is great for a country - the diversity of thought and approach can lead to intelligent solutions of problems.

Australia is a country of migrants, our aborigines would have preferred that there had been no migrants.

The first white settlers had a policy of excluding people of colour (any colour including white ffrom the wrong country!) via the white Australia policy, then we let in Italians and Greeks.

I lived in OZ as a kid in the early 60s and I can still remember Aussie citizens moaning that the Italians and the Greeks were taking the place over and ought to be kicked out

[endure]

Unlimited immigration of low and unskilled people from Africa, Carribbean, and India/Pakistan over the last 50 years has proven to have been an absolute disaster for England hence why many are looking to leave, as a white male it is not safe for me to go to so many areas even during daylight hours where certain races have congregated.

And anyone who says the 3 million generally hardworking East Europeans and Polish who have come to the UK in the last 8/9 years is beneficial to the average Brit is not even worth reasoning with, this quite clearly has brought down wages of Brits, and taken away jobs we have always filled and as there was already a housing shortage has meant a further squeeze on the available property hence further price rises.

However immigration of wealthy folk willing to invest in businesses and highly skilled workers is a good thing for any country aswell as immigration of Spouses IMHO.

Id be sure if there was ever a referendum on immigration the people would vote for the latter and against the former types of immigration ive described.

Good to see the PC crowd playing the racism card, as predictable as ever ...... can you honestly say Multiculturism is working in the UK? And give some examples instead of the usual youre racist drivel.

My job takes me into corner shops and Post Offices every day. I was in a sub Post Office a few weeks ago where the wife of the Sikh owner apologised that hubby wasn't there as he was taking their son to private maths lessons after school. On the other side of the counter was the usual collection of blank-eyed, slack-mouthed bovine white slappers with a sprog or two hanging off their hips waiting to collect their weekly 'social' paid partly out of the taxes that those 'unskilled' Indians paid. Oh, and I got a cuppa too. I invariably do when I visit an Asian-run shop whther the owners are Sikh, Hindu or Muslim. I often do when I visit white-run shops, just not every time.

[Harcourt]

Unlimited immigration of low and unskilled people from Africa, Carribbean, and India/Pakistan over the last 50 years has proven to have been an absolute disaster for England hence why many are looking to leave, as a white male it is not safe for me to go to so many areas even during daylight hours where certain races have congregated.

And anyone who says the 3 million generally hardworking East Europeans and Polish who have come to the UK in the last 8/9 years is beneficial to the average Brit is not even worth reasoning with, this quite clearly has brought down wages of Brits, and taken away jobs we have always filled and as there was already a housing shortage has meant a further squeeze on the available property hence further price rises.

However immigration of wealthy folk willing to invest in businesses and highly skilled workers is a good thing for any country aswell as immigration of Spouses IMHO.

Id be sure if there was ever a referendum on immigration the people would vote for the latter and against the former types of immigration ive described.

Good to see the PC crowd playing the racism card, as predictable as ever ...... can you honestly say Multiculturism is working in the UK? And give some examples instead of the usual youre racist drivel.

The picture of racial disharmony in the UK is partly because of the low-educated immigrants, certainly, but what you would choose to ignore is that the main places that have the disharmony were (edit) places to start with...East End, Blackpool..... You wont have a perfect painting if you start out with a low quality canvas.

Had there not been the immigration that you talk about, as a any-colour male you STILL would not be able to go to those places because they were ALWAYS "low rent" areas.

But of course, don't blame your own white low class....it's more convenient to blame the foreign low classes.

[Harcourt]

"Is multiculturalism a good thing?"

Wrong question. In a globalizing world with income and skills disparities, colonial vestiges, easy and cheap travel and a host of other trends, multiculturalism is inevitable. The real question is: how do we make it work?

It's fine and even good if new immigrants want to retain their culture, and, in any case, it's their inalienable right if that's what they want. Things go wrong when trying to retain one's culture is done through blind exclusion of other cultures from one's lives. That's why the term coined was "multiculturalism" and not "Cultural Ghettoism". Things also go wrong when immigrants are in any way forced or hurried or harried into integrating.

Transporting culture is a tricky business. Immigrants practice culture and tradition that is frozen in time. I've met Kenyan Indians whose 'Indian' way of life is far removed from their counterparts in the 'home' communities in India. In India, the practices grew, mutated, evolved and changed. The cousins in Kenya were still practicing what their ancestors had brought to Kenya generations ago. Inflexibility will eventually lead to atrophy, but in the meantime could do damage.

Excellent points. But it's not the wrong question because the inevitability of it could come too late. It IS desirable, therefore we should remove the barriers to it...and we can't remove the barriers until the opponants of it see reason.

Deal with the philosophies of the xenophobes by asking the question.

.......

I have no argument with you on whether multiculturalism is a good thing. But I think that debating the point gives legitimacy to xenophobes, just as debating 'intelligent design' gives proponents of that silliness the veneer of scientific legitimacy. I have grown up dealing with xenophobes. They don't care whether multiculturalism is a good thing or not; they don't care whether immigrants contribute to society; they don't care that homogeneity, even if it were possible, would impoverish their own lives and the lives of their children. Such people will always find something to hate. Debating them assumes they have a philosophy worthy of debate. All they have is hate of the other, any 'other' will do.

By the way, I think that both immigrants as well as their hosts have a lot of issues to work through.

I take your point. Face the inevitability.

But it's because "...both immigrants as well as their hosts have a lot of issues to work through.." that the subject should be debated. Point out the holes in the xenophobes arguments, point out that they are perpetuating the problem with their biases, point out that they are hitting their heads against a brick wall..... point out the futility of their stance.

[yabaaaa]

Is multi-culturism good for a country and can it actually work? I don't see too much of it in Thailand because most of the country is Buddhist, and other cultures seem to be scattered in tiny groups. There are certainly lots of Europeans, Aussies and North Americans who take Thai national spouses, but they just sort of blend in wherever they locate. About the only hotspot in Thailand is in the very southern end of the penninsula with the turmoil between the Islamic groups and either Christians or Thai Buddhists.

I know in Canada we are supposed to be a multi-culture country with an English speaking bias, but what I see more of is little groups all keeping separate from each other. My sister in London tells me it's the same in England. Depending on the location I can be a foreigner in my own country. I see bigotry and bias everywhere, but it's more the "New Canadiens" that perpetrate it. Many French speaking Canadians REALLY don't like the English speaking Canadians and that goes back to the 1700s, The Japanese Canadians don't integrate with the Chinese Canadians, Muslims and people from India won't integrate with any other group no matter how long they stay in Canada or how many generations pass, and First Nations people keep entirely to themselves. It's quite noticeable in Islamic communities within our cities as well.

It reminds me of that old Chad Mitchel Trio song

The whole world is festering with unhappy souls

The French hate the Germans, and the Germans hate the Poles.

Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch

And I don't like anybody very much...

Since when religion = culture?

Take for example, Muslims around the world, they have different culture based on the country they live in. Thailand is truly a multi-cultural society, however, people are not completely become part of culture, due to a vast difference in living styles, such as food etc.

However, Chinese, by all means, are those who become part of Thailand very well. Indians (mostly Sikhs who migrated from the area which is now Pakistan) did not mix so well. This goes back to the religion and not to the culture.

If you look at various countries, migrants, generally, are well off and doing good. Before the so called "war of terrorism", everything was fine, however, things changed, since dubya started a useless war against the largest religion, i.e. Islam (Catholic, being the second largest). Had this war never happened, world would have been much peaceful. I know some people would defend US, but it is a pure mistake on both sides, i.e. USA and other sides. Iraq is a classic example

Largest religion is Muslim?? Most vociferous maybe

[sanmiguellight]

The picture of racial disharmony in the UK is partly because of the low-educated immigrants, certainly, but what you would choose to ignore is that the main places that have the disharmony were (edit) places to start with...East End, Blackpool..... You wont have a perfect painting if you start out with a low quality canvas.

The East End of London which im presuming you refer to was always working class, now it is full of the underclass, and Blackpools problems are nothing to do with immigration more that people prefer to go to Spain for a holiday.

Had there not been the immigration that you talk about, as a any-colour male you STILL would not be able to go to those places because they were ALWAYS "low rent" areas.

Low rent areas were council estates where working class families lived and as most worked they may have appeared tough to a poncy liberal but they were safe to walk around, but there are many of these estates throughout the country where i cant go due to being white. ITS A FACT But maybe its because whitey is racist he cant go there!

But of course, don't blame your own white low class....it's more convenient to blame the foreign low classes.

I dont blame the immigrants theyre doing what is in their best interest, i blame 50 years of Labour and Conservative governments .......... And im not low class you liberal apologist Kiwi fool, i was raised in a working class environment with a mother and father who both worked and we owned our house.

But please inform me of your wonderful education and great wealth if it makes you feel enlightened.

[davejonesbkk]

I am free of all prejudice - I hate everyone equally

\hahahaha brilliant answer....and so true...... they are all b*stards, the lot of them....

[davejonesbkk]

dam_n it....sometimes its so hard being male, middle class and white....

[Datsun240Z]

If you want to see " Multi cultural " look to my country: The Netherlands -> Newspapers stated lately 50% is foreigner. I see all kinds of nationalities here:

- African

- Middle East

- Turkey

- Marokkan

- Chinese

etc etc

[wamberal]

The supreme irony is that humankind originated in Africa, and people migrated gradually to all corners of the globe. Without migration none of us would be living in the countries where we are now, outside Africa.

And without cultural adaption and change (at times including huge amounts of what we now call multi-culturalism) we would all be the same. Boring, wouldn't it be?

[Datsun240Z]

multiculturalism is good for human beings in general, so is good for countries by default.

Why is that?

I dont say that you are wrong, but I wonder why you just establish the fact that it is good for human beings in general.

Smaller countries like, Norway, Finland, etc, have not exactly been over run with immigrants in the past.

I cant say these countries have suffered or lost out because of this.

I think "travel2003" got a good point here, it makes people more understand other cultures, and this also could make it easier for Thais to reside in other cultures, and both learn to accept their culture is not perfect: learn from each other.

[Harcourt]

The picture of racial disharmony in the UK is partly because of the low-educated immigrants, certainly, but what you would choose to ignore is that the main places that have the disharmony were (edit) places to start with...East End, Blackpool..... You wont have a perfect painting if you start out with a low quality canvas.

The East End of London which im presuming you refer to was always working class, now it is full of the underclass, and Blackpools problems are nothing to do with immigration more that people prefer to go to Spain for a holiday.

Had there not been the immigration that you talk about, as a any-colour male you STILL would not be able to go to those places because they were ALWAYS "low rent" areas.

Low rent areas were council estates where working class families lived and as most worked they may have appeared tough to a poncy liberal but they were safe to walk around, but there are many of these estates throughout the country where i cant go due to being white. ITS A FACT But maybe its because whitey is racist he cant go there!

But of course, don't blame your own white low class....it's more convenient to blame the foreign low classes.

I dont blame the immigrants theyre doing what is in their best interest, i blame 50 years of Labour and Conservative governments .......... And im not low class you liberal apologist Kiwi fool, i was raised in a working class environment with a mother and father who both worked and we owned our house.

But please inform me of your wonderful education and great wealth if it makes you feel enlightened.

'Ere, wotcha Guv. Wots yor problem then, eh? I fink yoo don't know wot yor torking abaht. I sed nuffink abaht yoo personally being low class... 'ave a butchers agin at wot I rote, open them mince pies, me old china. It's them toffs in Notting 'Ill that says them kinda fings....why are yoo so sensitive then eh? born near Bow Bells then woz ya? Unlike them Pakis dahn the frog and toad.

[zzaa09]

The supreme irony is that humankind originated in Africa, and people migrated gradually to all corners of the globe. Without migration none of us would be living in the countries where we are now, outside Africa.

And without cultural adaption and change (at times including huge amounts of what we now call multi-culturalism) we would all be the same. Boring, wouldn't it be?

An update on your 'Out of Africa' theories - found recently, was the oldest human/hominid remains. Burma.

[davejonesbkk]

The supreme irony is that humankind originated in Africa, and people migrated gradually to all corners of the globe. Without migration none of us would be living in the countries where we are now, outside Africa.

And without cultural adaption and change (at times including huge amounts of what we now call multi-culturalism) we would all be the same. Boring, wouldn't it be?

Why is it that we always hark back to that btw? If we get really technical then 'Africa' didnt exist back then...in fact none of the recognized countrys or continents that we know these days did....if we want to get specific about where 'we' came from then we need to go back millions of years.....and let me also add that scientists still do not have an answer for where the explosion of life came from that occurred several hundreds of millions of years ago.....

[zzaa09]

I am free of all prejudice - I hate everyone equally

\hahahaha brilliant answer....and so true...... they are all b*stards, the lot of them....

Misanthropy is making a strong comeback....

[zzaa09]

If you want to see " Multi cultural " look to my country: The Netherlands -> Newspapers stated lately 50% is foreigner. I see all kinds of nationalities here:

- African

- Middle East

- Turkey

- Marokkan

- Chinese

etc etc

...and what are the thoughts of Dutch Nationalists {if such a body exists}??

[Harcourt]

The supreme irony is that humankind originated in Africa, and people migrated gradually to all corners of the globe. Without migration none of us would be living in the countries where we are now, outside Africa.

And without cultural adaption and change (at times including huge amounts of what we now call multi-culturalism) we would all be the same. Boring, wouldn't it be?

An update on your 'Out of Africa' theories - found recently, was the oldest human/hominid remains. Burma.

I'd be interested to read that...do you have a link, please?

[losworld]

Multiculturalism is a disadvantage to a developed nation and only provides benefits to a developing nation welcoming wealthy foreigners in small numbers. As evidenced by California and soon the rest of America wages are driven down, illegal workers, increased crime, language barriers, cultural barriers, increased welfare and education costs, displaced workers. Bottom line is why do you think the rest of the world outside of the Western nations do not adopt multiculturalism? Because it is not to their advantage. They want to preserve their jobs, their culture and their way of life. They want to have a voting majority.

Sadly people in the West have been hoodwinked by the ruling elite that has figured out the effectiveness of "divide and conquer". No one is a clear majority so no one is able to provide a singular powerful voice. Simply play one group against the next based on race, culture, sex, etc. and the western nations are going down the tubes because of it.

It is ironic that we in the west allow everyone in legal or illegal with open arms while few if any nations reciprocate. I challenge anyone to compare California even 20 years ago much less 30 or 40 and tell me it is better off today.

Multiculturalism is fine if in the best interests of everyone involved but is it?

Edited July 30, 2009 by losworld

[zzaa09]

The supreme irony is that humankind originated in Africa, and people migrated gradually to all corners of the globe. Without migration none of us would be living in the countries where we are now, outside Africa.

And without cultural adaption and change (at times including huge amounts of what we now call multi-culturalism) we would all be the same. Boring, wouldn't it be?

An update on your 'Out of Africa' theories - found recently, was the oldest human/hominid remains. Burma.

I'd be interested to read that...do you have a link, please?

Sorry, I don't mate. Caught it about a month ago on another forum. Real and legitimate scientific news story. Amazing that it didn't get much coverage, as it has set {or reset} the social science world on it's heels. I suppose one could do an intensive search and find it.

[IanForbes]

An update on your 'Out of Africa' theories - found recently, was the oldest human/hominid remains. Burma.

And I do believe that a direct descendent of that Burmese hominid is alive and presently running that country, without having evolved much in the past hundred miiion years or so.

[Harcourt]

Multiculturalism is a disadvantage to a developed nation and only provides benefits to a developing nation welcoming wealthy foreigners in small numbers. As evidenced by California and soon the rest of America wages are driven down, illegal workers, increased crime, language barriers, cultural barriers, increased welfare and education costs, displaced workers. Bottom line is why do you think the rest of the world outside of the Western nations do not adopt multiculturalism? Because it is not to their advantage. They want to preserve their jobs, their culture and their way of life. They want to have a voting majority.

Sadly people in the West have been hoodwinked by the ruling elite that has figured out the effectiveness of "divide and conquer". No one is a clear majority so no one is able to provide a singular powerful voice. Simply play one group against the next based on race, culture, sex, etc. and the western nations are going down the tubes because of it.

It is ironic that we in the west allow everyone in legal or illegal with open arms while few if any nations reciprocate. I challenge anyone to compare California even 20 years ago much less 30 or 40 and tell me it is better off today.

Multiculturalism is fine if in the best interests of everyone involved but is it?

How many of those Californians are happy to pay below minimum wage to have their pools and toilets cleaned by immigrants?....but that's beside the point....

What's the advantage of a singular powerful voice....unless YOU yourself are part of that singular voice?

Why isn't MC in the best interests of everyone? Why can't it be?

It's when the power shift comes that the racial elitists panic and point out all the terrible things those immigrants do....but the power shift is what democracy is all about, isn't it?

(Not that I'm neccessarily a proponant of democracy.....but democracy is the way the people have voted, it's the system we have, so I live with it.)

[zzaa09]

An update on your 'Out of Africa' theories - found recently, was the oldest human/hominid remains. Burma.

And I do believe that a direct descendent of that Burmese hominid is alive and presently running that country, without having evolved much in the past hundred miiion years or so.

Ah, yes. I do recall the British were there.

[wamberal]

The supreme irony is that humankind originated in Africa, and people migrated gradually to all corners of the globe. Without migration none of us would be living in the countries where we are now, outside Africa.

And without cultural adaption and change (at times including huge amounts of what we now call multi-culturalism) we would all be the same. Boring, wouldn't it be?

Why is it that we always hark back to that btw? If we get really technical then 'Africa' didnt exist back then...in fact none of the recognized countrys or continents that we know these days did....if we want to get specific about where 'we' came from then we need to go back millions of years.....and let me also add that scientists still do not have an answer for where the explosion of life came from that occurred several hundreds of millions of years ago.....

My understanding of the current consensus is that homo sapiens emerged around 150,000 years ago, in Africa. Why hark back to that? Because it makes the point that we all have common origins, in Africa. And if there had been no migration, we (many fewer of us, of course) would still be there. All looking and sounding the same, presumably.

Sorry, I do not know what the first homo sapiens called the place where they live, but we call it "Africa".

As for the Burma theory, if it is proven, it is certainly being kept very, very quiet.

[zzaa09]

The supreme irony is that humankind originated in Africa, and people migrated gradually to all corners of the globe. Without migration none of us would be living in the countries where we are now, outside Africa.

And without cultural adaption and change (at times including huge amounts of what we now call multi-culturalism) we would all be the same. Boring, wouldn't it be?

Why is it that we always hark back to that btw? If we get really technical then 'Africa' didnt exist back then...in fact none of the recognized countrys or continents that we know these days did....if we want to get specific about where 'we' came from then we need to go back millions of years.....and let me also add that scientists still do not have an answer for where the explosion of life came from that occurred several hundreds of millions of years ago.....

My understanding of the current consensus is that homo sapiens emerged around 150,000 years ago, in Africa. Why hark back to that? Because it makes the point that we all have common origins, in Africa. And if there had been no migration, we (many fewer of us, of course) would still be there. All looking and sounding the same, presumably.

Sorry, I do not know what the first homo sapiens called the place where they live, but we call it "Africa".

As for the Burma theory, if it is proven, it is certainly being kept very, very quiet.

Yes, it surely has. Quite surprised actually.