What is the population of Poland's non-european minority?

What is the population of polands non-european minority?

it is negligible for now.

It's not big enough. Poland definitely needs more multiculturalism from non-European nations.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_Poland

Poland has always been a multicultural society. It's highly insulting of you to downplay the centuries long presence and contributions of these minority groups as well as Poland's admirable track record of integrating them.

Judging from this and your many other posts on this topic you really do seem hell bent on wanting to change completely the current racial and ethnic makeup of Poland just to satisfy your own personal whimsy - or more to the point your own obvious bias and prejudices. You consistently fail to provide a logical justification as to what the beneficial outcome would be for Poland itself by increasing its minority population when it already has nearly 40,000,000 citizens.

You'll have to agree that there are many nations on Earth that have racially homogenous populations. Especially so in Africa where the entire continent has an absolute black majority.

Ah, I can hear you protest in dismay: "But this is a forum about "Poland" not Africa!"

No problem.

Rather than insisting Poland needs to change by having more inward migration of non-white Europeans all you need to do instead is start promoting Polish migration to places like Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe and South Africa. All of these countries and dozens more have great weather, abundant natural resources, and vast swathes of land as far as the eye can see to sustain millions of Poles moving in. Plenty of opportunities for Poles to business with China and other countries from there too.

There is simply no denying that every single African country is in dire need of having their demographics changed permanently. Africa is ripe for change!

Don't imply questions you should already know the answers to. Only racists fail to mention that multiculturalism is good and that's certainly the impression I'm getting from you.

Why don't you want to see more multiculturalism in Africa with Poles moving there instead? It's a simple question. Answer it.

Did I ever say I don't want to see more multiculturalism in Africa? I want multiculturalism everywhere.

Great. So lets start changing Africa first. It's the motherland after all. Time for everybody to go back home. You can lead the charge.

We can encourage multiculturalism everywhere at the same time. Poland shouldn't miss out since many Polish women love black men.

People should lead by example. And there is no better place to set that example than by using the entire continent of Africa. And since you claim that many Polish women love black men then they can go to Africa to be with them. They will be spoiled for choice and the result will be a win-win for you.

fairly small to my knowledge.

Hi Zdzisław,
I will explain it to you.Do you know how America was formed?Do you know the history?Red Indians were the native of america.some Euro-peons left homes(They migrated) to find land and they reached America(U.S) and attacked red Indians.

Africans were brought to America by europeans on the terms for better life.They were Made SLAVES BY THEM.
You know why America have the largest economy because its a nation of migrants.Its the only nation that do not have specific race.Migration have been a part of history.Most of south americans have actually migrated from asia 1000's years ago.

FROM ALL THIS ABOVE European also migrated(Are they criminals)Or only europeans have right to migrate?

SEcondly,South africa and Zimbabwe have a huge population of Indians,africans and europeans. More than half of the south african cricket team are white.

[b]I THINK I HAVE ANSWERED WHY PEOPLE DONT MIGRATE TO SOUTH AFRICA.CHECK THE LIST OF CRICKET PLAYERS [/b]
Zimbabwe too but now blacks are more in the team but before whites were more.
Rest of the countries do not have (Even zimbabwe now) good economy and even civil war is going on in some of them.So why would anyone migrate to nigeria?

Thirdly,Do you know that Indo-polish government had a agreement couple of years ago to have around 17000 employees indian to built stadium for euro 2012 and for related work.It was through government not private?

This happened because MANY POLISH HAVE MIGRATED TO UK,U.S FOR BETTER LIFE OR PLACE OR FOOD WHATEVER.Poland dont have even enough workers to sustain.

Migration is a part of history.ANYONE REGARDLESS OF RACE,COLOUR AND RELIGION WANTS TO HAVE BETTER LIFE AND SOME WANTS TO EXPLORE THE WORLD.

DO NOT ANSWER ME WITH RUBBISH.NO COUNTRY IS PERFECT.
YOU GOT LITTLE KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS DANGEROUS.
Do you know UK is conducting meetings,Education fairs every month is asian countries.Because it helps their economy.If Asian students stop going to UK for studies.I wonder on whose shoulders they gonna cry.

So its always 2 WAYS BUSINESS.And About migration i think i have answered.Do think and you can write me back.Think global not local.You just catn change what have been the reality of mankind MIGRATION .for 50000 years.

May be your ancestor were not polish(I mean 100's year ago) and it can be same for everybody.

NOTE:WHOEVER USED THIS WORD MINORITY OR MAJORITY IS A LOW IQ PERSON.YOU CANt HAVE 10CHRISTIAN,10BUDDHIST,10HINDUS.NONSENSE.
Its only human who divides.rubbish

Hi Em_Wave,

You been asking really rubbish questions.
Love doesnt see colour,race,religion(which is man made).It can be between any age ,religion,colour. Dont exploit it.Because of dummies like you Today people are divided in this world.

Religion was made to make people closer to god not to divide and fight like dogs.

Stop using minority and majority words.

You identify yourself as Michael Jackson? That's an odd moniker for someone purporting to be from India. You obviously don't mind that the deceased singer Michael Jackson always had the seedy reputation of being a suspected paedophile haunting him wherever he went.


Yes. Everyone with a decent education knows it was done through millions of years of plate tectonics as well as erosion of the land from wind and water.


Modern research suggests you are wrong. You need to get more education. The world isn't necessarily what you think (or hope) it is:

"Radical theory of first Americans places Stone Age Europeans there 20,000 years ago. Archaeologists have long held that North America remained unpopulated until about 15,000 years ago, when Siberian people walked or boated into Alaska and then moved down the West Coast."

Source: washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/radical-theory-of-first-ame ricans-places-stone-age-europeans-in-delmarva-20000-years-ago/2012/02/ 28/gIQA4mriiR_story.html

Actually, the only radical part of this theory is the timeline which predates so-called "native Indians". For years there has been archeological signs that even the Vikings may have reached North America prior to Christopher Columbus and even the appearance of of so-called native Indians. There has even been suggestions that the reason these non-Indian groups didn't leave behind any significant artifacts is because they were decimated by the later arrival of red Indians.


Not so. You need to watch less Hollywood movies and do some real research on this subject before you start making comments. Here is a start for you:

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties#U.S._Native_Ameri can_treaties

You also need to learn and then admit that many "red Indians" belonged to tribes that were regularly at war with each other. The practice of mutilation and human sacrifices was ingrained in the culture of many ancient Indian tribes throughout the Americas. And it was not uncommon for Indians to help early European settlers in order to take advantage of other Indians from enemy tribes.


You really like to distort facts. Promises of a better life may be the bait used in modern day human trafficking but evidence of the horrendous conditions found on slave transport ships bound from Africa to the Americas disproves your notion. It is a fact that slaves were sold in Africa by their fellow Africans to white slave traders just like any other commodity. You try to make it sound like the Africans from the slave era willingly boarded luxury cruise liners and only got their rude awaking once they land on the shores of America. It's also known that Indian tribes in America owned slaves either from other tribes or the black slaves that were being brought to the Western Hemisphere. Blacks in America today often have white DNA. Many assume this was done when white slave owners raped their black female slaves and they became pregnant. What isn't widely reported is that blacks in America also have DNA attributed to Indians. You shouldn't believe for a moment that this always came about because of mutual love for one another. Even today there is racist views held by Indians against Indians with black DNA:

"Black Cherokees fight for identity after tribe strips citizenship…After 145 years, the Cherokee Nation, the second largest tribe in America, has stripped citizenship from the 2,800 descendents of black slaves once owned by their tribe."

Source: smileyandwest.ning.com/forum/topics/black-cherokees-fight-for-identity -after-tribe-strips-citizensh-1


First you condemn whites for coming to America and supposedly attacking red Indians while they dragged black slaves behind them. But now you suddenly say that migrants made America have the largest economy which obviously is a beneficial thing for any country to have. You aren't aware that America has vast natural resources as well enforceable laws that make it an ideal place to do commerce unlike many of the countries where any migrants may have come from. Migration was only one factor and it was only required in order to satisfy the demand for physical labour needed by the market place in past centuries. This is no longer needed because America, like many counterparts in Europe and Asia, is a post-agrarian and post-industrial economy.


This is not true at all. America's history of racial composition is no different from what occurred in places like Canada, Brazil or Australia.

Even India once had an aboriginal presence. They migrated from Africa to Australia via the Middle East and India thousands of years ago. This has been confirmed through DNA testing of the population in India particularly in the extreme south of the country where some Indians still carry aboriginal genes. But in India itself these aboriginals didn't survive as a distinct group as a result of successive waves of migrants who make up India's population today who pushed the aboriginals out or had interracial children with them. The only place under Indian territorial control where aboriginals still exist separately is in the Andaman Islands where Indians today treat them as if they were animals:

"Human Zoos Still in Existence, Jarawa Women Filmed Dancing For Food"

Source: indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/01/11/human-zoos-still-in-exis tence-jarawa-women-filmed-dancing-for-food-71754


I already proved that migration has always been occurring. However, unlike centuries ago, we now live in a modern world with common regards for territorial boundaries and the need to respect the rule of law. In a world of 7 billion people it is absurd to think people should still roam about wherever they want and whenever they want with the only thing mattering is an individual's self-serving interests in doing so. Unregulated immigration controls with such large numbers of people could and would strain any society today, rich or poor, as well as its local environment when it suddenly becomes the focus of significant inward migration. Even Mexico, a land known for its outward migration, is only now discovering this for itself:

"Mexico's migrants return as the American dream fades…'The sad situation is that we are not prepared to welcome so many migrants. It is worrying, there will be chaos if they start returning en masse, there's not much we can offer them here,' Mayor Ramos tells the BBC.'"

Source: bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-17190679


Of course they have a huge population of Africans but only those who are black. However, both South Africa and Zimbabwe (like the rest of Africa) have absolutely paltry numbers of Indians, Europeans and other mixed groups. They simply don't have and never have had the diversity that people like you hypocritically accuse European and other Western countries of not having.

1) Demographics of Zimbabwe:

Population (2009, World Health Organization): 12.5 million. Ethnic groups: Shona 71%, Ndebele 16%, other African 11%, white 1%, mixed and Asian 1%.

Source: state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5479.htm

2) Demographics of South Africa:

Population (2011): 50.59 million. Composition--black 79.5%; white 9%; colored 9%; Asian (Indian) 2.5%.

Source: state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2898.htm


This doesn't prove your false claim that the overall representation of non-blacks in South Africa is considerable. It would only serve to demonstrate that despite their very small numbers in South African society whites possess better skills when it comes to playing cricket than the majority population which is black.


You haven't answered anything. Non-blacks don't migrate to South Africa because it is not a stable country. Violence and corruption are rife at every level of society.


Your focus on cricket teams to somehow prove the diversity of these African countries is really laughable. Whites may have once had more presence on Zimbabwe's cricket team due to the policies in place during colonial rule which gave privileges to whites. Then the deranged thug Robert Mugabe seized control of the country and enacted institutionalized reverse discrimination against whites.


Indeed. Why are these African countries so unstable? It is because the corrupt tin pot rulers who are in charge of them are simply representative of the majority who live there. This being the case then why should European or other Western countries bring into their own societies the failed beliefs and corrupt practices of people who cannot make their own home countries a safe and successful place to live in?


You mention all this but don't provide any supporting references. Is this the stadium that the Indians built in Poland that you are referring to:

"Head of Poland's National Sports Centre (NSC) has resigned following delays and shortcomings in the construction of the National Stadium in Warsaw."

Source: thenews.pl/1/5/Artykul/90083,Polands-National-Sports-Centre-chief-resi gns-after-stadium-debacle

Anyway, the EU allows free movement of people between member states. Poles not taking construction jobs for a stadium being built in Poland suggests fair wages are not being offered in the construction sector there so much so that even legal citizens from other EU countries won't come in and accept them either. That's an indictment of the employers and government for failing to ensure that Poles are given fair opportunities and living wages in their own country.


I've already explained this to you. It doesn't matter about migration in the past. There were fewer people around and growing economies required a lot of physical labour. Not so anymore due to advances in computing and robotics and the drive for other efficiencies. What benefit is there to have migrants in a new country if they can't even make their own home countries livable? Exploring the world means one thing if it is tourism. It is quite another when visitors outstay their welcome.


And now the insults start because you know you haven't put forward a defendable position. No country is perfect because no one person is perfect. That's why if a country needs immigrants then it must be based on quality and not quantity. But countries should be doing everything they can to make their current citizens benefit from cradle to grave. Countries should not be engaging in a race to the bottom so only a select few with no long term interest in a country can make a quick profit for themselves.


And your insults continue. I've done more than enough to show that your knowledge of the world is severely lacking. You may breathe the same air as the rest of us but you don't know what is going on around you. But this is your own personal problem that you have such a stunted understanding of the world. You also don't realize that it is quite arrogant of you to expect other societies to accommodate the selfish desires you have for yourself and others like you. You are quite the fool if you think no one can see you for what you really are!


The UK has proven to be a very dynamic and sustainable country over the centuries. Britain has no need to cry on anyone's shoulder. If Asian students stop going to the UK the only affect it would have would be to help stop the chain migration of sham marriages and other forms of illegal immigration that inevitably occur when a student visa expires. Besides, if Asian students prefer to study in Britain what does this say about the quality of education in Asian countries? If the schools in Asia aren't good and their native populations would rather live elsewhere then there is no benefit to be gained in Western countries by accepting them. They are simply economic migrants who are playing a game of chance but the cost is born by the countries they settle in and not the countries they leave. Clearly there is no brain drain happening in developing countries when any of its citizens leave for good.


No it isn't. A two way business should be mutually beneficial. You assume incorrectly that all countries can only benefit from inward migration. That is simply not the case otherwise all countries would be clamoring to have it especially the homogenous countries in Africa and in Asia; particularly in India too with its caste ridden society based on racist beliefs which favor those with the slightest appearance of a lighter skin tone. You never see any of these African, Asian or Latin American countries breaking down their own barriers to let foreigners in.


You only gave your opinion not answer. And what you said was easy to disprove.


I just did. It took no effort at all to expose the errors in your thinking.


Your idea of global is a one way street that goes from the developing world to the First World. The only thing going back are remittances (why bother re-investing in your new country eh?) and many phone calls encouraging more family and friends to follow in your footsteps.


Yes you can. It's called enforcing border controls and acting on 21st century knowledge that the world needs stability in order to conserve resources.


Not everyone is Polish nor can everyone be Polish. Certainly not just by moving there.


Terms like minority and majority are used to explain the reality of a situation. The words are used by everybody and found in every language spoken. It is profoundly ignorant of you to pretend that there are no differences between people.


And that is why you find majorities and minorities in all countries and always will. No society can or should be changed simply to make an even distribution among different groups. So when people claim Poland needs more non-whites they are literally saying that white Poles need to disappear simply so non-whites can replace them. This is the mentality of a racist and is often rooted in their own personal failure to integrate into a foreign culture that they were desperate to get into. Such embittered racists want to impose their extremist views on the host society that they were never invited to come to in the first place. Because they have failed they blame the majority rather than themselves. This hatred spurs their foolish belief that if they can change the majority into a becoming more of minority then they will have a better chance of fitting in and there will then be less need for themselves to change and adapt. These sort of racists smile through their clenched teeth as they stand behind the banner of multiculturalism. Yet you never hear them advocating for their own homogenous home countries to change. Oh no! They only want change in the new countries they have settled in to exploit but are finding it much more difficult than they had anticipated.


Humans are part of Nature. Nature wants diversity and that is why diversity is found in all living organism all over the planet. In humans diversity this is achieved by having large majorities that are different from each other both physically, linguistically and culturally. Once large disparate groups get together and begin to merge they eventually cease to become diverse. Over time they cease to have the characteristics that made their ancestors so appealing to each other in the first place. Responsible minorities in a host country know this. They value and respect the differences between themselves and the majority and have no desire to upset the balance.

Then stop migration.Stop your children.you should have taken birth instead fo your ancestors.
You need proof.Crappy head.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5273356.stm 62% are polish.
Yes 21st century.We are so civilized that we have created global warming.We are so civilized that our planet is dying.We are so civilized that WE HAVE ENOUGH RACIST IN THIS WORLD LIKE YOU.

I got this from WIKI
(From the 16th through the 19th centuries, the population of Native Americans declined in the following ways: epidemic diseases brought from Europe; genocide and warfare[37] at the hands of European explorers and colonists, as well as between tribes; displacement from their lands; internal warfare,[38] enslavement; and a high rate of intermarriage)

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5273356.stm

I CAN PASTE 100 LINKS CONTRADICTING YOUR IMAGINARY THEORIES BUT I WONT.IF 7%=10000000 people % may sound less but this percentage is more than what your civilized country can manage.

WE HAVE BORDER TO SAVE NATURAL RESOURCE.BULLSHIT THATS A GREAT JOKE.I MUST SAY THAT HITLER WAS MORE CIVILIZED BECAUSE HE WAS WHITE.
YOUR THEORIES JUSTIFY WHAT HITLER DID TO YOU.
I THINK YOU MORE WOULD PREFER GERMANS,YOUR BROTHERS
YOU CAN TOLERATE A DOG IN YOUR COUNTRY BUT NOT A DARK HUMAN(WE ARE SO FUKIN CIVILIZED).
About Michael jackson.You are childish,or may be you are a son of some newspaper editor.No he wasn't.

WE NEED GLOBAL LAWS 1)FOR SLOWING DOWN POPULATION 2)LIMITED INDUSTRIAL GROWTH 3)ALL THE COUNTRIES SHOULD WITHDRAW NUCLEAR WEAPON(YOU DONT NEED NUCLEAR BOMB TO WIN A WAR)

OTHERWISE SOON OUR SO CALLED CIVILIZATION WILL DESTROY THIS PLANET.
Remember All flora and fauna takes care of our planet as one its only Humans who divide it.Borders are necessary but they have also created wars.

I dont say i am right all the time or i will support any bullshit no matter what the world say.I am completely against the illegal immigrants who are trying various ways to get into countries.Because of them many genuine people possibly face opinions from people who like to generalize like you.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

These lines Have been taken from this link.Enjoy.
(From the 16th through the 19th centuries, the population of Native Americans declined in the following ways: epidemic diseases brought from Europe; genocide and warfare[37] at the hands of European explorers and colonists, as well as between tribes; displacement from their lands; internal warfare,[38] enslavement; and a high rate of intermarriage)

P.S YOU LINK (/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties#U.S._Native_American_treaties) DOESNT DEFINE YOUR ANSWER.

Please explain why.

You're arguing like a twelve-year old. Actually, real empiral studies (as opposed to airheaded fantasies) show that multiculturalism has a serious negative effect on social cohesion and social capital, look up a guy named Putnam (who was so upset by his results that he sat on them without publishing them for 10 years).

Traditionally stable multiculturalism (that is w/o a large amount of immigration) works best when there are boundaries between social groups that are comparatively impermeable so you can't easily marry across them and you can't easily have access to different economic/political/social opportunities than your ancestors in your particular group did. A government with no interest in educating you or concern about how you might vote is also a plus.

On a purely practical level, when you start importing people you're also importing their values. That is, some immigrants bring more value with them others. For Poland Vietnamese immigrants carry their own weight economically (and then some) and show high levels of education and other kinds of social capital. Ukrainians and ther ex-Soviets quickly assimilate as well. On the other hand, Muslim (and Sub-Saharan African) immigration tends to not work so well in Europe. Individually, many or most Muslims (and Africans) might be wonderful people, but the more of them you import the more they tend to recreate their home conditions in their new country (with bad results for them and their hosts).

The moment you put a peoples' value, or their culture, on a scale, that's the moment you drop the ball, empirically-speaking.

How so? Can you find counter-examples of large groups of Somali or Congolese immigrants improving the social capital of their new country? I'm not talking about isolated individuals, but enough in one place so that you can talk about "The X community". How many times do people say: "That area is really safe, it's full of Somali immigrants!" or "Yeah, you can trust that company, they're Nigerian!"

For a not rich country, there's no place for feel good policies concerning immigration, if you want immigrants at all, you want ones that won't increase the crime rate or riot and who will assimilate. Those who are very well off financially can insulate themselves from the bad effects of indiscriminately bringing in immigrants who don't value work or education and who have no shame about accepting welfare. Everyday people aren't so lucky.

You're putting subjective value on what "assimilation" actually means. An impoverished person is as likely to be a victim as a perpetrator, and as likely to work harder than a non-impoverished person. There's an objective long-view that's missing from your analysis. Sociologically speaking, there's more "harm" to come from an unwilling host than from an over-willing immigrant.

Yes, i think the more that immigrants accept the values of their new country and the more they try to be economically productive adults and improve the education of their children the better things will work out.

Once again, can you find counter examples?


If you mean the victim of another impoverished person then I agree.


Apart from not understanding what you mean by "over-willing immigrant" I think that if the hosts are unwilling to have a bunch of impoverished people dumped into their society then maybe alternate solutions to whatever problems immigration is supposed to fix should be looked for.

You don't seem to understand, in a civilized society, "assimilation" is what everybody must do, immigrant and host alike. If you're suggesting that the onus is on the immigrant, because that's more "fair", then I'm speaking anthropologically, and you're obviously invested emotionally.

@
mafketis.

I agree with you that some immigrants forced their own rules which can be irritating..
Like once i Saw on tv one muslim living in UK said that all world should convert to islam.Ridiculous.

But at the same time we cannot generalize the opinion about all the immigrants.
This bloody Zdzisław says that minority and majority is the way to explain.Dump ass.Even religion is to make people closer to god not fight like pigs.

Its all on us how we use the words.
GOOD THAT MOON IS FAR OTHERWISE WE HUMANS(CIVILIZED RACE) WOULD HAVE TORE IT APART AND I THINK YOU ALL WILL AGREE TO THIS UNLESS YOUR EGO STOPS YOU.

This is nonsense. Assimilate to what? Define your terms please.

Mine: The onus is on immigrants to respect the values already existing in their new countries and to become economically and socially productive. If they can't respect them they should not stay. This includes:

a) learning the local language (and making sure their children learn it as well) maintenance of the native language is nice, but can't be the priority.

b) not expecting the host society to rearrange itelf for the immigrant's holidays or religious practices

c) fitting into the local working culture (including encouraging wives and daughters to work if that's the local custom)

d) if handouts from the local government are necessary the immigrant should be grateful and do everything they (legally!) can to not need them.

e) remember that no one invited them

This doesn't mean they have to accept everything uncriticially, but they need to negotiate for the changes on the inside instead of making demands from the outside.

The hosts should do what is possible to help this process along and if they can't then immigration to that society is probably not an option worth pursuing.

ABSOLUTELY RUBBISH!
Please take your anti-Polish sentiments elsewhere. It's awesome that Poland is so Polish!


Define "over-willing." Define "under-willing"
This is the problem with the humanities- their terms are non-quantifiable or are simply never fully defined when people want to "measure" or compare different social phenomenon. Nothing is defined and everything is interpretation and it's mostly all a load of horse-sh*t.

Multiculturalism always enriches and Poland has a long history of it - the current cultural homogeneity is a recent thing.

Examples of said enrichment, s'il vous plaît ?

Or just admit you are spouting nonsense.

One or the other.

Or better still, an example of it not.

Though we know you're spouting the usual trash.

^Actually you've made his task too easy:

If multiculturalism "always enriches" you simply have to find one example in which multiculturalism has worsened a relationship, neighborhood, community or nation. History and the present day is rife with instances of multiculturalism damaging, his statement on this matter is worthless in that it is completely and inarguably false.

Now you wouldn't be confusing multiculturalism with anything else, would you...