Multiculturalism will fail: Tarek Fatah

[Sukerkin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12381027

There is another article I read on the BBC just last week that addresses a couple of EH's questions ... but I'm darned if I can find it so I shall have to pull some stats out of my ... erm ... rear . What this piece I am referring too noted was that Britain in particular has a very, very high percentage of it's indigs who rate uncontrolled immigration and cultural seperatism as the number one problem the country faces - it was something astronomical like 75% of people from all segments and sectors of the population. We are more concerned about that than we are about the blatant con-trick the banks have pulled on us.

Now I know that EH means well and is speaking from his heart but there comes a time when, in terms of societal health, being overly accomodating just gets your culture killed. That is why we 'fear' the immigrant tide - not the individual members of it but the flow itself - the problem is exacerbated because those who do have their roots here (but have the means and the wherewithal to do so) are leaving in droves i.e. the British are becoming an immigrant tide for someone else.

Now, just to be clear, I am not tied to a mast with a sign on it that proclaims I am 'For Freedom' above all else. I am not. I a monarchist for one thing (until such time as the Royal family goes bad again at any rate). Freedom has to have limits for it to have meaning. As British subjects we accept that the rule of law has given us the stable society we have. Because people have a tendency to do what they want without responsibility, we accept that bounds and limits need to be applied to make sure we retain that highly valued stability (it can be taken as read that I understand the inherent dangers of creeping totalitarianism such a policy can give rise to).

The feeling that is growing is that the 'rules' only apply to 'us' and that the more recent immigrants are merely sponging off our taxes whilst thumbing their noses at our country. Note that the 'us' here does not mean just the White Indigenous Population - there are shops owned and run by Pakistani's in Stoke that have signs in their windows prohibiting cutomers in 'traditional dress' and insisting that English is spoken. The Political Correctness Nazi's see to it that proper voice is not given to feelings and fears, without the social suicide of being labelled a racist and that simply ups the pressure in the pot. The BNP have been having a field day with these conditions, especially in Stoke where the immigrant percentage is acutely high. It won't take many more 'Honour Killings' and other flagrant disregards for British mores and codes for the more violent (and truly racist) people to seize on that as an excuse.

Now I believe that we are dealing more with a perception than a reality in these matters but that is almost irrelevant - for sociological phenomenon are nearly always where perception becomes reality.

As to why this is a concern to me as an individual, well, I happen to be rather a fan-boy of the ideals that Englishness came to stand for during the past couple of centuries (leaving aside the wars, concentration camps, exploitation of the less powerful etc that now embarass us so ). That safe, stable society that I grew up in is no longer there or at least it is in danger of not being. The well-to-do la-de-da's in their ivory towers might not see the problem because they make darned sure none of those 'immigrant types' get any where near them (other than as domestics perhaps) but the ordinary working class people feel marginalised in their own towns and that is a dangerous state of affairs for all.

Slow the process down, give the different elements time to adjust and we'll pull through - at least we always have before.

 

[Empty Hands]

What this piece I am referring too noted was that Britain in particular has a very, very high percentage of it's indigs who rate uncontrolled immigration and cultural seperatism as the number one problem the country faces - it was something astronomical like 75% of people from all segments and sectors of the population. We are more concerned about that than we are about the blatant con-trick the banks have pulled on us.

I have no doubt that lots of people are concerned about the problem, but that doesn't mean it's a real problem. By comparison, a large percentage of Americans think that crime is rising - it has been falling for more than 20 years. You would need to actually look at how many immigrants espouse separatist positions, and so forth, and even more important you would have to show that their children and grandchildren are absorbing those positions for it to be meaningful.

Now I know that EH means well and is speaking from his heart but there comes a time when, in terms of societal health, being overly accomodating just gets your culture killed.

Evidence? By comparison, the United States has been and still remains one of the most accommodating nations to immigration in the world. Is our culture disintegrating around us? We have lots of problems, but they don't stem from a tide of immigrants.

This is why I think I'm the one speaking from the head, not the heart. I'm repeatedly asking for numbers and evidence here, because it seems like this problem is mainly one of false perception and a lack of historical perspective.

The feeling that is growing is that the 'rules' only apply to 'us' and that the more recent immigrants are merely sponging off our taxes whilst thumbing their noses at our country.

But is that actually true? Perhaps we should find out before we decide the fates of millions of people based on a "feeling."

Now I believe that we are dealing more with a perception than a reality in these matters but that is almost irrelevant - for sociological phenomenon are nearly always where perception becomes reality.

So even if most immigrants are hard working and are doing what you want, the subjective and incorrect perceptions of the majority justify taking action against them? Also, no matter what the perception, the immigrants will be who they are - perception won't make them all UK hating freeloaders who honor kill their female relations. It behooves any rational thinking person to align their perceptions with their reality, not the other way around, especially when the fate of so many is at stake.

As to why this is a concern to me as an individual, well, I happen to be rather a fan-boy of the ideals that Englishness came to stand for during the past couple of centuries (leaving aside the wars, concentration camps, exploitation of the less powerful etc that now embarass us so ).

How is that vision compromised by immigrants? Are not the immigrants just as capable of displaying the same values and traits you admire? Or is "Englishness" simply cultural imperialism, where all must look and act a certain way, values be damned?

ETA: I think the other "charter members" of the UK might also take issue with your use of "Englishness" to define the attitudes of an entire country filled with Welsh, Scots, Irish and other non-English types.

 

[Sukerkin]

I don't do Bullet Point Wars, EH. My apologies but it's a form of argumentation that does just that ... causes arguments. It stops my interest in a conversation stone dead when people quote selective bits of what I write and don't take the supporting text into account.

You want me to say that there is nothing wrong with the state of affairs as they are - well I shall not because that is not the case.

The reverse of that is that neither will I be able to convince you that, in these days of mass transport and high freedom of movement, the stability of cultures is threatened by population transfer.

I think you are wrong not to see that inertia causes frictional damage to a society when changes are too rapid. You think I am wrong because I do not accept that cultures will adapt and improve no matter how hot you stoke the furnace and how many more elements are thrown into the pot. Both views are valid and both can co-exist as neither of us needs to convince the other for time will tell.

Not a lot of use in flogging the poor horse any more than that. The medium just does not allow for sophisticated debate as it is suited to Sound Bites rather than evidential essays. Tho' I suppose linking to external documents is a way around that ... hmmm ... something to ponder.

 

[Empty Hands]

You want me to say that there is nothing wrong with the state of affairs as they are - well I shall not because that is not the case.

No, what I want you to do is to support your point with evidence. Maybe there really is a problem here, I certainly haven't researched it. I can't know that though until someone provides something concrete.

You are an economist, so consider how you would view a paper I've written that makes economic claims with no data or models.

Same here. If immigration really is a problem, you should be able to prove it. I can think of many counterexamples from our national history and other histories (i.e. Roman empire) so I would need to see evidence in this case to convince me otherwise.

Otherwise it does come off as feelings-based and not objective. It doesn't help when your examples of the supposed problems include going into an immigrant neighborhood and not having it look like it did in the past, or extolling the virtues of "Englishness" without defining them. After a point, it does start to look like xenophobia and not a rational analysis of the situation.

 

[Sukerkin]

Ah, I did indeed misread your tone - my apologies. I thought you were just looking for an argument rather than actually being interested in looking into the subject :bows:.

 

[K-man]

I see no difference other than perhaps numerical, so this isn't me nitpicking you. I see no qualitative difference. As I obliquely mentioned from our immigrant history, we have had very large populations living separately, so even the numerical differences don't always hold up. None has proven a danger to our society by their existence.

We certainly don't get wound up about the Orthodox Jews or the Amish, so I'm not sure why we should with the Pakistanis, the Indians, Muslims generally, or whomever else.

It is not the Pakistanis, Indians or ordinary Muslims that are the problem.

IMO, anyone from any country is welcome to come to make Australia their new home as long as certain conditions are met.

Those conditions are not onerous. They must appreciate the lifestyle that is in place and they must respect the laws of the land. They must be willing to work and pay their way like everyone else. They are quite welcome to honour their culture and they are free to practise their religeon. What really pisses me off are the radical Islamists who now want their own separate state and Shariah law, within OUR country. No other wave of refugees has gone anywhere in the world with those expectations. What has changed now?

As to the danger element. Most countries with radical elements have exposed terror cells so to say there is no danger is real ostrich stuff. I believe the current wave of immigration from the middle east is the biggest threat to the western way of life that we have seen. Unfortunately with the current environment of political correctness, no-one is willing to say to these radicals, "if you don't like it, Piss Off!"

 

[Sukerkin]

Needless to say, I agree, K-man - sadly I could not Rep you privately for those sentiments so it is the embarassment of public recognition for you .

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the tenor of the original post is correct.

The solution is what, exactly?

Having defined the problem, I would like to know what the proposed solution might be.

The author of the original piece had some ideas. Let's see...

Canada has been too tolerant in allowing Muslim immigrants to settle into closed communities, some of which preach Islamic values and a hatred toward the West.

If this is true, what is the solution? And I will apply this to the USA, since I don't live in Canada.

We in the USA allow people who are here legally to live wherever they please. Am I to understand that the solution is for the government to dictate where legal immigrants may live?

We have freedom of religion here. Am I to understand that we are supposed to outlaw the preaching of "Islamic values" in the USA? Please someone explain to me under what Constitutional theory this can be done legally.

We have freedom of speech and freedom of conscience here as well. Am I to understand that we must outlaw 'hatred of America'? So it will be illegal to speak ill of the USA or to live in this country and hate it?

All I am asking is this - if the things that the author mentioned are true, what is the solution? He said that there was a problem with allowing certain groups to live together. So we change the laws to not allow certain groups to live together? He said they preach "Islamic values." So we do away with freedom of religion? He said they practice hatred of the country they live in. So we require what, loyalty oaths or outlaw hate speech or outlaw the feelings a person harbors in their own minds?

Someone explain to me what it is we're supposed to do here. Assuming the argument is true, that is.

 

[Empty Hands]

It is not the Pakistanis, Indians or ordinary Muslims that are the problem....What really pisses me off are the radical Islamists who now want their own separate state and Shariah law, within OUR country. No other wave of refugees has gone anywhere in the world with those expectations. What has changed now?

You say that "ordinary Muslims" are not the problem, but then go on to conflate the entire wave of immigration with radical Islamists. This is false.

How many radical Islamists are in your country? What percentage of the immigrant populace do they make up? It seems like that would be a good thing to know prior to deciding that all Middle Eastern immigrants (most Muslims in the world are not Middle Eastern, btw.) are a danger to your way of life.

As to the danger element. Most countries with radical elements have exposed terror cells so to say there is no danger is real ostrich stuff.

We were discussing the survival of a culture and country, not terrorism. There is no danger of your or my country dissolving from Muslim immigration. There is some danger from acts of terror, but that is a separate discussion.

I believe the current wave of immigration from the middle east is the biggest threat to the western way of life that we have seen.

In what way? From radical Islam? Again, wouldn't it be useful to know how many of these immigrants are Islamists before you make this decision?

Unfortunately with the current environment of political correctness, no-one is willing to say to these radicals, "if you don't like it, Piss Off!"

Oh please. No one defends radical Islamists, that's just silly. What does annoy some people is when you conflate radical Islamists with the entire "wave" as you have done.

 

[Empty Hands]

If this is true, what is the solution?

Get rid of them. You know, "them". Or at least make them wear an identifying mark so we know who is a dangerous immigrant. Perhaps some sort of symbol on the sleeve...

 

[Sukerkin]

Interesting boundary test conditions there, Bill.

I do think that you have to be aware of certain 'givens' when extrapolating ideas of national identity and cultural cohesion in the thought experiment that is America. I mean no insult when I say that it is a nation that is not really a nation at all in the accepted sense, being far too new and far too full of a raging mix of creeds and ethnicities.

Immigration and the conflicts it brings are the natural state of being in America, where it seems that everyone is from somewhere else in the world. It is rather different in somewhere like England where you have people like me whose family have lived in the same town for a thousand years - and I'm not kidding or exaggerating.

The pace of change must perforce be slower in the Old World for,as this thread proves, we will not accept it any other way.

 

[billc]

this might be a small, teeny, tiny sign that there is a small problem in Britain and its ability to assimilate the influx of muslims from around the world:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/mohammed-becomes-most-popular-baby-boy-name-in-britain/

this is from (prepare for the audible gasp) Glen Becks website, a little list of the most popular boys and girls names in Britain. You can get the list elsewhere if you don't trust Beck.

World Mohammed Becomes ‘Most Popular’ Boy Name in Britain

• Posted on October 28, 2010 at 7:56pm by
  
  Meredith Jessup
• Print »
• Email »

The name Mohammed has officially become the most popular name for newborn boys in Britain. According to the UK’s Mail Online, Mohammed replaces Jack, which had topped the list for the last 14 years.

A to

A total of 7,549 newborns were given 12 variations of the Islamic prophet Mohammed’s name last year, such as Muhammad and Mohammad.
The name Mohammed first debuted on the top 100 in 1944 when it ranked 87th. By 1964 it had risen to 73rd. But since 1999, the Mail Online reports the name’s frequency has increased by more than 50%.
The upsurge in the name’s frequency likely mirrors a growing population of Muslims residing in the UK. Just last week, the Telegraph ran an expose on one London borough populated nearly entirely by Muslims, dubbed “Britain’s Islamic Republic.”

With Prince William getting married, will his name move up on the list?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Interesting boundary test conditions there, Bill.

I do think that you have to be aware of certain 'givens' when extrapolating ideas of national identity and cultural cohesion in the thought experiment that is America. I mean no insult when I say that it is a nation that is not really a nation at all in the accepted sense, being far too new and far too full of a raging mix of creeds and ethnicities.

Immigration and the conflicts it brings are the natural state of being in America, where it seems that everyone is from somewhere else in the world. It is rather different in somewhere like England where you have people like me whose family have lived in the same town for a thousand years - and I'm not kidding or exaggerating.

The pace of change must perforce be slower in the Old World for,as this thread proves, we will not accept it any other way.

Fair enough.

But you will note that no one is answering the question. If the problem is as described, then what is to be done about it?

Please tell me what liberties are to be sacrificed to obtain this remission of the evil of non-assimilation. Which liberties? For all or just for some? Shall we limit freedom of religion, speech, or conscience for all or just for the dangerous ones? How shall we identify who is dangerous and must have their freedom of movement, association, speech, religion, and though curtailed and who is safe and may enjoy freedom instead?

Someone kindly answer me. If this is indeed the problem, please explain what the solution is.

That's all I'm asking. Someone answer me.

 

[Archangel M]

Better immigration screening and standards.

 

[K-man]

You say that "ordinary Muslims" are not the problem, but then go on to conflate the entire wave of immigration with radical Islamists. This is false.

In no way did I 'conflate' the entire migrant community. Sad but it IS true that the population includes radical extremists.

How many radical Islamists are in your country? What percentage of the immigrant populace do they make up? It seems like that would be a good thing to know prior to deciding that all Middle Eastern immigrants (most Muslims in the world are not Middle Eastern, btw.) are a danger to your way of life.

Between 2,000 and 3,000 youths, or about 1 percent of Sydney's 200,000-strong Muslim population, had already been targeted by radical Islamic teachers, with some at risk of making the jump to militancy, the research said.

And BTW, most of OUR muslems do come from the Middle East, and most due to these stupid f....n wars that have been waged there in recent years.

We were discussing the survival of a culture and country, not terrorism. There is no danger of your or my country dissolving from Muslim immigration. There is some danger from acts of terror, but that is a separate discussion.

Where did I say there was?

In what way? From radical Islam? Again, wouldn't it be useful to know how many of these immigrants are Islamists before you make this decision?

Mostly Muslem, some Christian but how many are radical, who would know? The fact is the radical element come out of the woodwork later as is now happening particularly in Sydney.

Oh please. No one defends radical Islamists, that's just silly. What does annoy some people is when you conflate radical Islamists with the entire "wave" as you have done.

I haven't "conflated" anything. Perhaps re-read the post. "It is not the Pakistanis, Indians or ordinary Muslims that are the problem." Most Muslems like any other religeous group are fine. It is the radical element that I find worrying. I am saying I don't want radical Islamists and unless I am mistaken, you have agreed.

Australia a home for radical Islam: report


(Reuters) - Australia has a bigger portion of Muslim youths at risk of turning to radical Islam than any other Western nation, with up to 3,000 in "ideological sleeper cells" in Sydney alone, a government-backed study said on Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/07/02/us-australia-islam-idUSSYD24882220070702

Kamal Mousselmani, head of the Supreme Islamic Shia Council of Australia, prompted more outrage with his declaration of support for militant group Hizbollah.

Funny, I thought that the US wasn't all that keen on Hezbollah either!

What is Hezbollah? Hezbollah is a Shiite Muslim political group with a militant wing the United States defines as a terrorist organization. The group, which is active in Lebanon, is a major provider of social services, operating schools, hospitals, and agricultural services for thousands of Lebanese Shiites. Hezbollah's political standing was bolstered after a wave of violence in May 2008 prompted Lebanon's lawmakers to compromise with the group. In August 2008, the country's parliament approved a national unity cabinet, giving Hezbollah and its allies veto power with eleven of thirty cabinet seats. In the June 2009 parliamentary elections, Hezbollah lost to Lebanon's ruling (VOA), pro-Western "March 14" coalition, reflected in the reduction of its cabinet seats; it retained only two. Hezbollah also operates the al-Manar satellite television (PDF) channel and broadcast station, which the United States regards as a terrorist entity. Iran-funded Hezbollah backs al-Manar politically and financially so it can continue to broadcast Hezbollah's anti-Western agendas (MiddleEastQuarterly).

I'm really glad to have you tell me there is no problem.

 

[Big Don]

Fair enough.

But you will note that no one is answering the question. If the problem is as described, then what is to be done about it?

I don't know that any outside influence can force or even encourage people to assimilate.
K-man mentioned that the conditions for legal immigration are not onerous, I applaud the use of that word, because onerous, contains ONE and US, if you are coming here legally, be One of US. We don't ask this to diminish where you came from, but, American culture, such as it is, evolved by taking the best aspects, and sadly, some of the not so good aspects of thousands of cultures.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Better immigration screening and standards.

Kindly explain how that will affect those born here, those already here, and how it will stop people once they make it in from behaving as you wish they would?

Still looking for an answer...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't know that any outside influence can force or even encourage people to assimilate.
K-man mentioned that the conditions for legal immigration are not onerous, I applaud the use of that word, because onerous, contains ONE and US, if you are coming here legally, be One of US. We don't ask this to diminish where you came from, but, American culture, such as it is, evolved by taking the best aspects, and sadly, some of the not so good aspects of thousands of cultures.

So what you're saying is...uh, what? People should want to assimilate, but if they don't want to, we can't make them? Sounds like a problem with no solution, then. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Blade96]

Our country's people has has its share of squabbles about being multicultural but I dont necessarily think it failed.

 

[Big Don]

So what you're saying is...uh, what? People should want to assimilate, but if they don't want to, we can't make them? Sounds like a problem with no solution, then. Is that what you're saying?

Assimilation makes us all better, but, yeah, how do you force it?