1237480

In your opinion, should the Europeans who came to America to escape oppression have gone back and fought for their European countries?

You mean the Europeans who nearly annihilated the indigenous populations, and overwrote untold generations of cultural tradition?

I don't necessarily agree that we should be throwing refugees back into the meat grinder, but considering how these incoming refugees have in many cases shown a blatant disregard for their host countries peoples and cultural/social values and their status as guests, it's understandable that some would be reluctant to accept their refugee status.

Yeah, I agree that that stuff is bad. I'm only wondering whether people who think Syrian refugees are cowards for escaping oppression also think that the European refugees who escaped oppression are also cowards.

no need to force anyone to get into the fight

Agreed. It just seemed to me that The_Papal_Pilot was trying to shame you for coming to the America from Syria, even though America as we know it has been formed by different groups of people trying to escape unfavorable conditions in a previous homeland. That and their ancestors. The only exception I know of are the slaves who were brought here against their will.

Okay, I would admit that staying in your country if its invaded by a foreign power is the less cowardly option, assuming that atleast your fellow countrymen don't think you're trash. But if it's your own people abusing you and trying to keep you oppressed, which might have been the case with this IAmA and with the Europeans who ended up at Plymouth Rock, it makes more sense to just show them the finger and leave.

The Euro-Americans in WWI and WWII had much more of a fighting chance at peace than the average Syrian immigrant today. Do you think the average French-American during WWII would have traveled back to France to join the resistance if there was no US support?