Multiculturalism - has it failed?

I think it's wrong to portray the general western population as being some sort of beneficiary when it comes to these wars. Even when we oppose these declarations of war (the millions in London) our leaders ignore us. You could say we voted for these leaders but bombing foreign countries never seems to be on any of their manifestos. Our leaders have failed us in this respect, but I think it's something a lot more ulterior than that.

I think there's only one beneficiary in all of this, the destablisation in the Middle East, chaos in Europe as a consequence, and the vice like constriction our foreign policy puts us under when we're reminded what "our" countries are doing abroad, and what we should passively accept as a consequence. They drive the narrative on the media, they fund these wars and they have a plan much greater than all of us.

 

Many of those countries were colonised and subsequently left in economic ruin

 

95% of Beijing is ethnic Chinese and 92% of Hong Kong is ethnic Chinese according to wiki...

 

A lot of it is to do with how welcome they are made to feel when they arrive here.

The Irish have done very well for themselves around the world but it wasn't always like that. They generally had their own communities, still do in parts of Scotland and the US.

Even Pakistanis in this country, although they don't integrate in the sense that they go out partying with Scots and socialising with other people en masse, they have still carved out a niche for themselves and are some of the hardest working people you will meet. It wasn't always like that. They encountered horrendous racism when they came over here.

 

I guess our definitions of "civilised and democratic" are quite different then. I don't consider a nation that doesn't have civil rights legislation which enforces or penalises discrimination and that basically bans foreigners from certain areas to be civilised or democratic.

To each their own I guess.

 

Some were yes, most gained their independence 50/60 years ago. How long does it take to get your act together?

How ruinous would their economies now be if it weren't for foreign aid?

 

Japan rates high on the Democracy Index, just below the USA and Italy, higher than Belgium and France.

Think you're splitting hairs here mate.

 

The problem between the Irish and Scots was always a religious one, not that I'd called the Orange Order such an instrumental piece of Scottish culture or tradition anyway. Right now, the Orange Order claim 50,000 members, and even if you believe them numbers, that's still only 1% of the Scottish population. If you walked into an "Irish" area in Scotland, would you be able to tell, outwith Irish flags being more prevalent?

 

So it's skin colour that bothers you?

That seems to be what it all boils down to.

 

Its so * up here in Sweden that you cant even imagine. That i can confirm.


Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk

 

Generally when a group comes over and encounters racism/bigotry the logical step is to stick together.

It takes generations to break that down.

 

What is the 'socio-ethnic' norm of the UK (or as you label it 'Do as the Romans Do')? White and Anglican Church?

We don't need to go back century's to see the positive influence of multiculturalism. First hand, I am in the 16-24 age group and I can see integration happening in front of me. My friendship group is diverse and all are very successful and doing well at university/school. All have high aspirations which is human nature. What I will say is that integration is more difficult for first generation. But, just like I am a descendant of Irish Catholic immigration, I certainly feel integrated. My grandparents were not fully integrated and what you seen is that Irish were kept together - a lot in the south side especially Govanhill.

Govanhill then became the initial location for Asian Muslims. You can see firsthand how they are now living in the leafy suburbs of Newton Mearns and Giffnock.

Multiculturalism works, especially in the medium to long term. It has worked in Glasgow.

It must be more of an emotive issue for you because the societal and economic advantages surely can't be understated.

The UK's identity has not exactly faultered in the wake of it either. As I speak I am watching the Queen - the symbol of traditional UK culture. Mind you, even the symbol of traditional UK culture is the one who formed the Commonwealth and still ultimately advocates it!!!

 

Hong Kong and Beijing attract people from all over China. China is not just one culture - there are several ethnic groups from a country. In fact 56 from a quick Wikisearch.

All with different cultures; languages; religions. The culture of the Investment Banker in Hong Kong may be different to the ones who have moved to Hong Kong from South rural China. This is all caused by rural push and urban pull factors.

 

It's more to do with culture in my opinion. We all know about the years and years of immigration from both nations back and forth, genetically and culturally they're referred to as "Celts." The word Scot, or Scotti was used to refer to invading Irish clans. I've spoken about how it was the Irish who essentially established Scotland in another thread.

One interesting thing to note is that during my school days groups of friends were most typically divided by race, outwith some token Asians who weren't as religiously invested as most, choosing to hang around with white groups. The first friend I made at high school was Asian, and I'm still friends with him now, and he used to face a form of bullying from the Asian groups because of who he hanged around with. They called him a "GNT", which phonetically sounded like Gora Na Tata, albeit that isn't how it's spelled, and it roughly translated to "white boy bummer" or something similar, and was used by Asians to refer to other Asians who deviated from the norm. After schools, when we used to play football in what typically was an Asian area of our town, they would take him round the corner to intimidate him and even beat him, punching his torso and so on. From their perspective, intermingling was a form of social Seppuku and thus shouldn't be encouraged.

But I think the reason he was our friend was because he adopted to our culture and lived a way of life similar to ours. I'm not disputing that cultures can coexist together alongside each community as far as day to day life goes. But divided towns, different communities with different cultural values living adjacent to each other, with different morals and interests generally leads to problems. I know it's some * Britain First are known for, but Sharia zones are maybe a good example of not it always being the host country being intolerant to other peoples way of lives, but just different communities protecting their own interests. In 2005, there were a series of riots in Paris because youths, who were the children of Muslim African immigrants, culturally felt different from the native population because of their strong affinities to Islam.

 

Not even racism or bigotry, it's just sometimes a few generations before people finally start to call their new country home and find their feet.

As pointed out in the Swedish stats, in the early 2000's the immigrant population wasn't integrating as well and faced barriers due to education and suchlike.

Nowadays though? They're finding employment in the professional sectors and are displaying income growth similar to the native population.

It'll have progressed even further in another 10-15 years.

 

For Britain, the 1948 Nationality Act is when things began to turn. The Labour government at that time fronted by Clement Atlee believed that the merging of the races would mean no more war, inspired by anti-colonial groups of the 20's and 30's such as the Indian National Congress. Instead what we seen is group dynamics which were once nation state orientated, meaning they're divided by nations, were now internal. These divisions ceased to be between different societies, but instead inside them.

This coincided with the creation of the welfare state, which the 1942 Beveridge report spelled out. Although content with keeping a population of natives on welfare in a post-war society, as they started to regroup and rebuild, they would have to look elsewhere for welfare recipients..

 

Not surprising given the immigration policies.

 

Hong Kong might be but China as a whole is not particularly diverse. Ninety-two percent of the population is Han.

http://www1.chinaculture.org/library/2008-02/05/content_23849.htm

Xinjiang/East Turkestan (depending on your point of view) is quite ethnically diverse too but the the Uyghurs and the Han Chinese don't exactly get along.

 

The question I would ask those who are anti-immigration and who are mentioning countries such as China is, do you hold these types of nations as something to aspire to?

 

Japan is a great argument why homogeneity can work, but not nations like China and so on I'm not sure why anyone would call that a success as they are brutal with anyone that is not what they think the "Communist" way is. Going around measuring Muslim beards, smashing up churches and generally be aggressive to outsiders.