Multicullturism for UK - Was it right?

13567

Comments

  • towerstowers Posts: 12,183
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jjwales wrote: »
    I'm not sure how he thinks we could have stopped immigrants "establishing completely separate communities in our cities", given that we pride ourselves on having a free society.

    This is the biggest problem with some immigration.

    One of the finalists of Great British Bake-Off has Spanish parents / grandparents and one of the semi-finalists came from India just ten years ago but both of them were very much British in the way they came across. Unfortunately, some Muslims are creating communities that are almost cut off from the British way of life. Will a Muslim girl growing up in a heavily Muslim community have the same opportunities in life as her 'more British' counterparts?
  • The_OneThe_One Posts: 2,402
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Great post but I want to single out the BIB, if I may.

    I couldn't agree more. Far too many people think integration is a one way street and that immigrants should make all the effort to integrate. This is bunk. Why would an immigrant try to integrate if they were not made to feel welcome? Why would they try to integrate if they are targeted by uneducated, knuckle dragging thugs painting "go home" type slogans on their gable walls?

    A lot of people need to grow up and stop blaming immigrants for their own failings in life.

    I would just like to finish by sharing 9 reasons to want immigration as put forward by the Adam Smith Institute

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/asi/9-reasons-to-want-a-lot-more-immigration-110du
    You move to another country for a new or better way of life.
    By taking aspects of your previous culture/country with you doesn't make much sense.

    Not feeling welcome? at the bare minimum you're given shelter and perhaps some small benefits, and maybe a low paid job to get you on the ladder - because after all you came to the UK with basically nothing. Have you seen the requirements to get into Australia? - think about it.
    Those low paid jobs are the jobs the poor people could have, you know those uneducated knuckle dragging types who have no chance of getting a job, despite what the "educated analysis" folks say about the poor who simply don't want low paid jobs.

    If you move to another country you try all you can to integrate. If you're poor then its obvious you're going to be targeted by other poor people as you are seen as taking up housing, benefits and jobs that could have been for them - the peoples born here, who's parents and grandparents have struggled all their lives to make a living to support their families. Their voices are ignored due to their methods of angst - can you blame them if they have had little education or incentive there of? They have no chance of better themselves as the poor jobs simply are not there.

    Multiculturalism does not work when you increase the amount of poor and uneducated people flooding into the country which already hasn't enough low paid jobs for its own people.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    towers wrote: »
    This is the biggest problem with some immigration.

    One of the finalists of Great British Bake-Off has Spanish parents / grandparents and one of the semi-finalists came from India just ten years ago but both of them were very much British in the way they came across. Unfortunately, some Muslims are creating communities that are almost cut off from the British way of life. Will a Muslim girl growing up in a heavily Muslim community have the same opportunities in life as her 'more British' counterparts?

    I think there are two quite major issues regarding education, which should be a vital tool in broadening peoples' horizons. The first - and not at all easy to address - is 'white flight'. I live in an area much more demographically mixed than, say, parts of Bradford or East London, and to represent the actual local demographics, the schools should be a harmonious mix of white British, East European, Hindus and Sikhs of Indian or African origin, South Asian Muslims , North African Muslims, West Indians, filipinos, Sri Lankans, Afghani people and numerous others. (A local church has a sign outside saying its members are from 70 nations.) But it doesn't always work like that. One secular high school has almost no white pupils; as soon as the non-white pupils reached a critical number, white parents simply stopped choosing it.

    The other problem, dammit, is the expansion of single religion schools. We have a Hindu high school nearby, a number of Christian high schools and a Saudi funded Muslim school a bit further away. In Northern Ireland, I always thought the sharp division (with very few exceptions) into Catholic schools and Protestant schools was disastrous: there is nothing like growing up alongside other, different children to make children grow up tolerant and inclusive. My children's high school WAS extremely mixed, and racist bullying was pretty well non-existent; who would bully whom? White pupils were in a (large) minority, but every ethnicity was in a minority so it really wasn't an issue. Some of the pupils went to Muslim prayers, for example, and it was no more of an issue than if they had gone to chess club, which they probably did as well. My heart really sank when the Hindu high school opened, because it seemed to me that the system was working so well: why start building in divisions?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The_One wrote: »
    If you're poor then its obvious you're going to be targeted by other poor people as you are seen as taking up housing, benefits and jobs that could have been for them - the peoples born here, who's parents and grandparents have struggled all their lives to make a living to support their families. Their voices are ignored due to their methods of angst - can you blame them if they have had little education or incentive there of? They have no chance of better themselves as the poor jobs simply are not there.

    Multiculturalism does not work when you increase the amount of poor and uneducated people flooding into the country which already hasn't enough low paid jobs for its own people.

    You are trying to make an incredibly complicated calculation into a simple sum. The number of jobs is not static: it depends partly on the size of the population, as most of our jobs are in the service sector. Everyone living here, whether born here or arriving later, helps to generate jobs. They buy stuff that has to be warehoused, transported, marketed and retailed, they send their children to schools that have to be staffed, they employ builders and window cleaners and carers and gardeners, they use petrol stations and pubs, cafes and day nurseries and dentists. Depopulating areas, like some rural areas, tend to suffer catastrophic levels of unemployment as services like transport, medical facilities and shops simply move out. As people in depressed rural areas so often say, "there's nothing for the younger people round here": no jobs and no self-employment opportunities either.

    People often single out pressure on school places, and as someone who lives in one of the wards with the highest levels of immigration in Britain, it is true: my children's primary school now has 750 children, and has had to build on most of its outside space to accommodate them. But the truth is that schools can manage with any number of pupils, large or small: it is CHANGE that causes problems, and that works both ways. If a school suddenly has to grow, it starts to feel very big and crowded, but since funding follows the pupil, it should be able to recruit extra staff to address the greater numbers, and economies of scale mean that they can often afford to splash out a bit more on things like classroom assistants or music lessons or some such. If a school starts to shrink, it has the horrible job of having to get rid of staff, and in many cases the classes may actually get larger as three classes become two, and so on. What you actually want for a school is stable numbers, but there are many causes for instability - big employers close or move location all the time, new estates are built, a small school is closed and all the pupils suddenly have to go elsewhere.
  • The_OneThe_One Posts: 2,402
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You are trying to make an incredibly complicated calculation into a simple sum. The number of jobs is not static: it depends partly on the size of the population, as most of our jobs are in the service sector. Everyone living here, whether born here or arriving later, helps to generate jobs. They buy stuff that has to be warehoused, transported, marketed and retailed, they send their children to schools that have to be staffed, they employ builders and window cleaners and carers and gardeners, they use petrol stations and pubs, cafes and day nurseries and dentists. Depopulating areas, like some rural areas, tend to suffer catastrophic levels of unemployment as services like transport, medical facilities and shops simply move out. As people in depressed rural areas so often say, "there's nothing for the younger people round here": no jobs and no self-employment opportunities either.
    Well, yes exactly...
    If you allow only middle-class or higher to come live in our country then they would immediately be able to contribute towards all of what you've mentioned. A poor foreign family can't. The poor people here would have more job prospects, to then encourage their friends/youngsters to do better in school, afford novelties like computers, get them off the streets, less crime, insurance premiums reduced, less prison space needed, we pay less tax.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    Takae wrote: »
    Says the person who's using a German word, a Latin quote and a French idiom. ^_^

    Obviously, for me, it's the other way round. Or rather, I accept it as part of life since the dawn of mankind.

    Why 'for you'? Care to elucidate with some details?
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    Let's face the facts: not a single population on the entire planet has ever been jubilant at the prospect of their own culture, society, 'tribe', etc. being replaced with one from outside.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Let's face the facts: not a single population on the entire planet has ever been jubilant at the prospect of their own culture, society, 'tribe', etc. being replaced with one from outside.

    I don't know. I remember in my youth reading a book on the topic - I mean a kind of global historical overview, not something about the Ugandan Asians landing at Heathrow - and there was quite a complicated process of acceptance. The general thesis was that young women were often the first to accept the newcomers because they are biologically programmed to look for someone to mix the gene pool up. And obviously there are variations, but if we look at the longer established immigrant groups, like the West Indians who arrived in the 50s and 60's, there HAS been an awful lot of gene pool mixing, and my impression is that Fwhite Mblack relationships were at least initially more common. Are British women beginning to marry Polish men now? I have no idea.
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Why 'for you'? Care to elucidate with some details?

    Before the 1900s, the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Scandinavians via Scotland, Indians, Pakistani, West Indians, Franks, Germans, French, Polish, Africans, Danish, Chinese, Greek Cypriots, Spaniards, etc. introduced bits from their cultures, skills, languages and such to this country. We can still see their influences in architecture, masonry, language, music, photography, food, the arts, technology, road system, cinema and many more today. Hence, my comment.
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    Takae wrote: »
    Before the 1900s, the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Scandinavians via Scotland, Indians, Pakistani, West Indians, Franks, Germans, French, Polish, Africans, Danish, Chinese, Greek Cypriots, Spaniards, etc. introduced bits from their cultures, skills, languages and such to this country. We can still see their influences in architecture, masonry, language, music, photography, food, the arts, technology, road system, cinema and many more today. Hence, my comment.

    That wasn't really what I was getting at. You said 'for me'. I asked 'why for you?' and you came back with a load of stuff about Germans. What relevance does that have for the way you personally view multiculturalism?
  • KapellmeisterKapellmeister Posts: 41,322
    Forum Member
    I don't know. I remember in my youth reading a book on the topic - I mean a kind of global historical overview, not something about the Ugandan Asians landing at Heathrow - and there was quite a complicated process of acceptance. The general thesis was that young women were often the first to accept the newcomers because they are biologically programmed to look for someone to mix the gene pool up. And obviously there are variations, but if we look at the longer established immigrant groups, like the West Indians who arrived in the 50s and 60's, there HAS been an awful lot of gene pool mixing, and my impression is that Fwhite Mblack relationships were at least initially more common. Are British women beginning to marry Polish men now? I have no idea.

    Oh I do. No indigenous population has ever liked being ousted by another incoming, foreign population especially if that population has a culture that is radically different to their own.
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    That wasn't really what I was getting at. You said 'for me'. I asked 'why for you?' and you came back with a load of stuff about Germans. What relevance does that have for the way you personally view multiculturalism?

    It's just a variant of 'in my opinion'.
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Multiculturalism is great, just ask anybody who grew up with it

    It's mostly people who didn't grow up with it and usually still don't experience it that are always complaining, which is odd

    I am not complaining. I just don't see any advantages.
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,546
    Forum Member
    The_One wrote: »
    Multiculturalism does not work when you increase the amount of poor and uneducated people flooding into the country which already hasn't enough low paid jobs for its own people.
    That is surely an argument about immigration rather than multiculturalism.
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,546
    Forum Member
    Oh I do. No indigenous population has ever liked being ousted by another incoming, foreign population especially if that population has a culture that is radically different to their own.

    Is this relevant to the UK though? The indigenous population here is not actually being "ousted" by immigrants.
  • cessnacessna Posts: 6,747
    Forum Member
    SULLA wrote: »
    I am not complaining. I just don't see any advantages.

    Many seem to overlook the fact that the British people were never asked if they were willing or wished to see the English Scots Welsh and N.Irish population diluted to becoming the minority in their own land because our overlords in Parliament looked upon their mass immigration policy they had enforced upon the people of GB for their own selfish political power reasons as a means of gaining extra votes, with Labour leading the field in their immigration greed, closely followed by the two other traitorous parties.
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,546
    Forum Member
    cessna wrote: »
    Many seem to overlook the fact that the British people were never asked if they were willing or wished to see the English Scots Welsh and N.Irish population diluted to becoming the minority in their own land
    That's hardly surprising. Why should the British people have been asked for their opinion on something that's never likely to happen?
    because our overlords in Parliament looked upon their mass immigration policy they had enforced upon the people of GB for their own selfish political power reasons as a means of gaining extra votes, with Labour leading the field in their immigration greed, closely followed by the two other traitorous parties.
    An interesting theory, but there's no evidence for what you claim, and I don't believe it for a second.
  • Eater SundaeEater Sundae Posts: 10,000
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't know. I remember in my youth reading a book on the topic - I mean a kind of global historical overview, not something about the Ugandan Asians landing at Heathrow - and there was quite a complicated process of acceptance. The general thesis was that young women were often the first to accept the newcomers because they are biologically programmed to look for someone to mix the gene pool up. And obviously there are variations, but if we look at the longer established immigrant groups, like the West Indians who arrived in the 50s and 60's, there HAS been an awful lot of gene pool mixing, and my impression is that Fwhite Mblack relationships were at least initially more common. Are British women beginning to marry Polish men now? I have no idea.

    Isn't it more likely that the first of a particular group of foreigners to arrive in Britain tended to be men, and therefore they would, on the whole, tend to seek out local women?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    cessna wrote: »
    Many seem to overlook the fact that the British people were never asked if they were willing or wished to see the English Scots Welsh and N.Irish population diluted to becoming the minority in their own land because our overlords in Parliament looked upon their mass immigration policy they had enforced upon the people of GB for their own selfish political power reasons as a means of gaining extra votes, with Labour leading the field in their immigration greed, closely followed by the two other traitorous parties.
    Nothing sounds right about this. In what imaginable circumstances would 'English Scots Welsh and N Irish population' become a minority? And where are the extra votes for 'traitorous' parties going to come from? From the immigrants themselves, many of whom do not have votes, who are concentrated in a small number of constituencies, and who don't all vote the same way? To whose advantage is that? Or from the non-immigrants, who are so pleased at the arrival of immigrants that they immediately change their vote to the party in power?

    It's just silly. Immigration is always a vote LOSER, not winner. The conservatives promised to slash it, found that they couldn't, and started tinkering round looking for easy targets in a way that was neither effective nor humane. If they could stand up during the pre-election campaigns and say, "Look, we reduced immigration to zero!" they would love it.
    Isn't it more likely that the first of a particular group of foreigners to arrive in Britain tended to be men, and therefore they would, on the whole, tend to seek out local women?

    Yes, fair point, and not just Britain of course. Throughout history, men have tended to roam and re-settle, and women have embraced them, often to the disgust of their parents.
  • rupert_pupkinrupert_pupkin Posts: 3,975
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    I am not complaining. I just don't see any advantages.

    I don't see any disadvantages.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    Multicultural - Yes. Multireligion - No.

    We should have worked at becoming a country of atheists.
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    plymgary wrote: »
    Multiculturalism - yes. Multireligion - No.

    We should have worked at becoming a country of atheists.

    Removing the right of people to choose for themselves?

    I am no fan of organised religion but to remove the choice of the individual to join a religion is far too authoritarian.
  • scottie2121scottie2121 Posts: 11,284
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    cessna wrote: »
    Many seem to overlook the fact that the British people were never asked if they were willing or wished to see the English Scots Welsh and N.Irish population diluted to becoming the minority in their own land because our overlords in Parliament looked upon their mass immigration policy they had enforced upon the people of GB for their own selfish political power reasons as a means of gaining extra votes, with Labour leading the field in their immigration greed, closely followed by the two other traitorous parties.

    Obvious rubbish.

    Are you even suggesting that immigrants are in the majority or is this a paranoid fear for the future?

    Some interesting stats:

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-and-quick-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-the-united-kingdom---part-1/stb-key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-the-uk.html#tab-Ethnicity-and-country-of-birth




    And what 'selfish political power reasons' are there? Please let's have some details.
  • AneechikAneechik Posts: 20,208
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't see any disadvantages.

    Just when we'd thrown off the shackles of Christianity, opening the door to something even worse could be called a disadvantage.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    Removing the right of people to choose for themselves?

    I am no fan of organised religion but to remove the choice of the individual to join a religion is far too authoritarian.

    People can believe what they want. But, in my world (which admittedly most would :o at!) I wouldn't have permitted the building of any religious structures in these 'enlightened/scientific' ages. They're great buildings so wouldn't exactly knock them down either, I just wouldn't want any more to be built.
Sign In or Register to comment.