Western multiculturalism in crisis

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Greetings, my favestest selfish hedonistic Westerners tolerant and civilized peeps from the better part of the world! See, today's Google picture for the Google.bg version commemorates 150 years since the birth of Aleko Konstantinov, a Bulgarian journalist and writer who invented the Bay Ganyo character. Bay Ganyo was the epitome of Balkanness: a retrograde, brutish, Oriental, uncultured, provincial simpleton who was just beginning to discover the benefits of Western democracy in the years after the national liberation from Ottoman rule. The cultural shock at the time was huge, and it gave rise to such phenomena in our society as "The Phoney Civilization". Read: a blind adherence to Western-looking cultural fashions and automatic parroting of civilizational examples without necessarily understanding them; and all that, in the conditions of a stagnated, culturally oppressed society dominated by a foreign imperial power that was totally alien in all respects. After the Liberation, this gave rise to a sudden period of chaotic free-for-all Wild-Wild-West style thug-o-cracy which eventually claimed the lives of many of its own intellectuals, Aleko included. In a sense, Aleko was killed by his own creation Bay Ganyo, in an ironic Frankenstein sort of way.

But I digress. Straight to the point: now, returning to our modern time, we Balkan people and East Europeans in more general, are experiencing another shock... The shock from the clash between our long-kept dream of an exemplary Western society that we had strived to emulate for such a long time during the years of Soviet rule - and the reality of a bitter, alienated, intolerant West that's gradually rearing its ugly face from underneath that idealized image. And you might understand that many of us are now again stuck at a crossroads, wondering where do we go from here, now that our bright idol has been so badly tarnished.

Let's see how a far-right party in UK views immigration, and make a conclusion about the general trend in the development of this phenomenon. Let's pay attention to their arguments, their data, and the things they consider a matter of concern. See, one of EU's fundamental principles is the free movement of people. And it pains me to say, but that freedom is being perceived by more and more people as a threat to their well-being, and even to the EU's integrity, rather than an asset.

The West likes to preach so much to us East Europeans about minority rights, but once France got several thousand extra Roma immigrants on their hands, they instantly played the "do as I say, not as I do" game and kindly asked us to "take all those Gypsies back" (Sarkozy's words). Indeed, the problem with the illegal Roma ghettos is nothing new in France, and now Hollande's government is being the umpteenth one to get serious criticism for the way it's handling the issue. Here the discrepancy is obvious, and the Roma themselves (unemployed, with no documents, having settled illegally in a foreign country without even speaking the language) were hardly the prototype that inspired the "free movement of people" principle at the time the "united Europe" concept was being forged.

Maybe many had underestimated the potential downsides of multiculturalism at the time the Maastricht Treaty was being signed, or maybe they believed that the mixing of various civilization platforms would only lead to mutual enrichment. But the growing inter-cultural intolerance in many EU countries is a poke in the eye of that belief. What's more alarming, in many ways the far-right and their supporters might have a point. What they severely lack is the constructive approach to the problem. What they're offering essentially leads to a downward spiral toward more inter-cultural tension, with unpredictable consequences.

But let's look at the analysis of the British National Party and decide for ourselves about the validity of their arguments. And for a Bulgarian like me, somehow the parallel to our own history (especially its Ottoman period) somehow emerges naturally on its own.

I'll make an exception from my usual pattern, and paste the entire article here, and bold some parts that I consider essential, then I'll explain what I mean. (Feel free to skip the text in italics if you don't feel like reading a BNP "manifesto")...

======================================================
Much has been said about the advantages of immigration and not much said about the disadvantges of it.

At this particular time, Britain and Europe are, and have been, experiencing a surge of immigration that is unparalleled in their respective histories.

Never in history have such a diverse and sometimes alien cultures migrated into other civilizations in such a way and this without the consent or even sometimes knowledge of the peoples of those benighted nations.

In this short article I intend to dispel the Multicultural myth that immigration brings benefits to the peoples of various nations and instead intend to concentrate on the facts around immigration in the UK, though the overall analysis could well apply to any European nation experiencing high levels of immigration – this means all of them.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has recently announced that “Higher levels of immigration over the next 50 years would spare taxpayers from the need to endure much greater austerity”

They base this on the fact that we have an ageing population, and that old canard that these immigrants will pay for our pensions due to their supposed productivity and the fact they are younger.

The government has promised to cut immigration to the tens of thousands whilst the OBR wants immigration of around 140,000 per year, net cut of 110,000 from the present figure of 250,000 that we know about.

The OBR projects that the population of the UK would rise to 85.5 million by 2060 if present trends continue but would be only 77.6 million by 2060 if immigration could be cut to 140,000.

When the census results for Northern Ireland and an estimate for Scotland are taken into account the UK population stands at around 63.1 million, up four million in the past decade; almost equivalent to adding the entire city of Manchester each year.

This does not include illegal immigration that according to Migration Watch is put between 500,000 and 900,000.

More than half the population growth has been driven by immigration, with two thirds of immigrants coming from non-EU countries.

The official figures also show: England is now the third most densely populated country in the EU, behind only Malta and the Netherlands.

In London, population density levels are 16 times higher than in the rest of the country.
In 20 years the population of our Island will be 70 million.
Now what is wrong with this picture?

The OBR is equating higher immigration with higher growth and productivity, but is this true?
Let us look briefly at one example that of Muslim immigration though I am not claiming this is representative of all immigrants.

The ‘total lifetime’ cost of a 25 year old immigrant who works for the minimum wage, marries, has two children, does not have a pension and therefore in retirement receives Pension Credit, and lives throughout in private rented housing.

The evaluations in this paper take the costs from the date of marriage at aged 25 through 40 years of work to retirement at 65 years of age and then 15 years of retirement.

"For example, compared with the UK average of 22% of the working age population being economically inactive, Somali, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Iranian immigrants are likely to be 81%, 56%, 55% and 48% economically inactive respectively”

In the UK only 47% of Muslim men and 24% of Muslim women are employed.

Muslims were also found to have the highest disability rates - with 24 per cent of men and 21 per cent of women claiming a disability - while the cable also cited statistics claiming Muslims were also the most likely group to be unavailable for work or not actively seeking employment due to illness, their studies or family commitments. And a part of this tendency towards Disability is the fact of genetic malformations due to Cousin Marriage.

Finally: OBR also overlooks the fact that Muslims get old as well and will require the same benefits as anyone else.
Then of course we have the very real problem that not all immigrants are willing to integrate into society, this results in the following;
All over Europe, Islamic parallel societies are developing.

Many of them seem to move towards becoming Gaza-like areas, characterized by overpopulation, a low level of education, high crime rates, racism against Jews and other non-Muslim groups, an Islamic political and economic infrastructure, and a general hateful and often violent attitude against non-Islamic authorities and the surrounding non-Islamic areas.

This is the five-step evolution model of how European areas develop into violent areas violently fighting for autonomy and secession. Each step naturally leads to and supports the next.

1) Social housing areas. Low income and the natural wish to live with people of same faith and culture lead Muslims to move together into areas with cheap apartments. Social housing areas thus develop into Muslim areas.

2) Muslim areas. Muslim culture and religion become dominant in the areas, which allow Islamic values to take root. Muslim areas develop into Islamic areas

3) Islamic areas. Homemade Sharia courts, police-like groups of adult men, imams, and Islamic havala banking appear. An unofficial political and economic Islamic infrastructure is in place, and its political identity and influence grows.

4) Political areas. Demands for official recognition of the unofficial religious infrastructure appear. Islamic areas develop into political forces that are steering towards conflict with secular laws.

5) Violent areas. Religious fanatics see it as their religious right to use threats and violence in order to get their demands fulfilled. They are born and raised in the country, they have citizenship, and they feel they have just as much right to live as they wish to as democratic-minded citizens feel.

Besides: According to the Quran, it is a sin to submit to secular law and non-Islamic authorities. Islamic politics has developed into a continuous conflict that often erupts into violence.

Examples
Islamic areas in China, Thailand, Russia, the Balkans and Africa already reached step five many years ago.

Dozens of countries surrounding the birthplace of the Muslims' prophet were once Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist etc. -- but have now reached step 6: Severe lack of human rights especially for women, no free speech, no real democracy, no scientific development etc. In short: they have become Islamic countries.

In Europe, thousands of cities already have Muslim areas. Hundreds of European cities have Islamic areas. Islamic organisations already made political demands that a handful of European areas should receive autonomy under Sharia law.

A scenario in which Islamic supremacists will forget about their demands and not use undemocratic methods in order to reach their goal is unlikely.

The fact of the matter is that the OBR is using a social model to make these calculations that is blatantly fictitious; not all people are the same, nor are all cultures.

They have deliberately left out all the component areas that could be used in order to calculate a proper cost/benefit analysis.

They are thoroughly wedded to the Multicultural mode and assumptions and therefore, their analysis – such as it is, is riddled with bias.

The basic question to ask is this "Can our country remain British with so many different people in it?”

Can our national identity survive being submerged under an immigrant tide and can our economy and physical infrastructure cope with so many people who are dependent upon it but contribute nothing towards it?

Can we avoid a clash of civilisations and possible civil war?
======================================================

First of all, sorry for the length. But it's kind of curious, isn't it? In Britain, xenophobia is obviously gaining momentum, and fast. This, by the way, could be expected in some sense, given the high levels of immigration. After all, without immigration, there'd hardly be any xenophobia to talk about (although cultural self-isolation and hatin' on the continental neighbors hasn't been news for Britain through the ages, even without all those foreigners in place). But what's more interesting is that the whole situation with the Muslim immigrants in Europe reminds me of something. It reminds me in many ways of the way our history books describe the centuries-long struggle of the Balkan peoples to preserve their identity within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire. And without that identity, we're being taught over and over again, our independence as a nation would've been pointless. Bulgarians and other peoples have fought for their right to build Christian churches, to practice their faith and their traditions freely, to speak and write in their own language, to maintain their communities and keep the memory of their historical past. All in all, to preserve their national identity. In this case we're speaking of a period between 14-19th century, while the article above refers to our present time.

The difference in the two perceptions of multiculturalism, in the levels of tolerance to other religions and customs, should be enormous, shouldn't it? Well, actually it's not. And we could say there are some objective factors for this difference being so small. The EU could be viewed as an empire of some sorts, in a way. But it's been created by a voluntary principle. And the Western cultural model undoubtedly dominates its paradigm. So the partial parallel between the Balkan past within the Ottoman Empire and the attitude to Muslim immigrants in the EU, is inevitable.

On the other hand, we could hardly argue that Europeans have zero reasons to be wary of the constant immigrant waves coming to their societies. Between the two situations I'm trying to compare, there are some key differences. For instance, the biggest difference between Bulgaria's Ottoman case and that of the Muslims within EU is that the former joined the Empire forcefully, while the latter have immigrated to the Union voluntarily. The other big difference is that in the latter case we're talking of a policy and a set of views professed by the far-right parties in Europe (i.e. it's still a fringe view), while in the former, that was the state policy of the Great Porte, full-stop.

But these two differences could be (at least partially) debunked as well, to some extent. As for the first difference, many could say that in today's globalized world, where economic disparity is simultaneously the root cause and a main consequence of globalization, migration to the wealthier societies is inevitable, and in a sense it's not exactly voluntary, at least not absolutely voluntary. As for the second difference, many could argue that the popularity of the xenophobic far-right parties is increasing more and more (Holland, Belgium, France, Austria, even Germany), and it's a matter of time until they become mainstream. Even a state policy (hints of that are regularly and amply provided in Britain even from mainstream politicians: whenever elections approach, the Tories start playing the old card of the "Eastern menace" in order to score political points - and that trick always works).

There are elements in the far-right rhetoric that hint about a desire for a cultural assimilation and forceful integration. Hints that, from a Balkan point of view, are disturbing, to put it mildly. What's more, we Balkanites, who for a long time have been under the boot of an empire that was totally alien to us culturally and politically (and still survived), would probably cringe and puke on hearing this sort of sentiment being expressed.

Well, the fact is, this phenomenon has now become a reality. And what's disturbing, it has happened in those societies which for a long time have been considered the very peak of civilizational evolution, and beacons of enlightenment, and paragon examples we in the East have always strived to emulate. We've been seeing the West as that example of elevated tolerance, and we've always been jealous of this bright cultural model.

Now these same societies have changed the tune, their face has undergone grotesque transformations, and they look like the stringent (but just?) Minerva McGonagall, the Deputy Headmistress of Hogwarts: always waving a finger and frowning in all directions. Those same Western paragons of virtue are now preaching to the Eastern, younger EU members, about the way we should have integrated our minorities, and other things they pretend to know so much about. But we ain't stupid. We know the face of hypocricy and tendentiousness, because we've been living face to face with it for many centuries. And it hurts to know that, at the end of the day, there's really nothing new and useful that we could learn from the West in this respect...

The integration of minorities with a generally lower economic and living standard through social (in the economic sense) methods at the expense of the economically active and productive groups of society, leads to much more tension between these two groups, which are unequal mostly in the economic sense. And in such situations, the far-right populists would always be sure to pop up like mushrooms after rain, and manipulate the public by pushing forward the cultural, ethnic and religious aspect of the issue. And the danger here is that this often grows into a self-fulfilling prophecy, unless the very economic and social roots of the problem are tackled in a meaningful way. But that won't happen through surrounding ourselves with a fence and pointing fingers at those who are coming from outside and who are different from us.

Comments

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

In all fairness, I don't think that you can blame the West for human nature. I don't think anyone in the U.S. or Western Europe was encouraging the Serbs to murder thousands of Muslims back in the 90s. I'm pretty sure that tribal warfare in Africa predates the formation of every modern Western nation there is. And I'm reasonably certain that the war between Iraq and Iran was only exacerbated by Western meddling, but not started by it.

Human beings are rotten everywhere.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Being human is not what I'm accusing anyone of (if I'm accusing anyone of anything, in any case). But the one thing I can't stand, is hypocrisy. It drives me mad.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Ah. Now I will admit that the U.S. has the market cornered on hypocrisy.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

AMERICA FUCK YEAH!

But the US has some pretty tough challengers on that front.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Hypocrites. We has dem.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Tribal warfare, certainly, but not genocide. That was a Western innovation.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Doesn't genocide mean that one group is trying to wipe out another group? What would you call the slaughter of entire villages, then?

Don't tell me- the noble savages of days past learned that behavior from the European conquerors?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'd call it genocide. In the old days African leaders *didn't* slaughter entire villages because they needed at least some survivors to pay tribute. This is how it worked all over the world, Europe and the Middle East included. Genocide is a modern innovation, a byproduct of our technologically advanced modern era that can do away with the masses inhabiting a state altogether.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

This may well be true in the modern era. There is, of course, the Neanderthal extinction theory, and various South American civilisations which could be categorised as genocide.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Point taken about the Americas, but the Neanderthal extinction is no more genocide than wolves eating coyotes is a wolf genocide of coyotes. One species supplanting another is how evolution works.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

So is genocide a modern innovation that the Africans adopted for tribal warfare? And what does that say for the various shenanigans the ancient Hebrews got into?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The Bible itself notes that they *didn't* carry out genocide and blamed their problems on their inability to do so. And yes, genocide is a modern innovation Africans adopted, along with the assault rifles, bombers, and the like that they have used. The machete, for that matter, was not a native African tool either.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I guess Cameron's recent statements about the impending Eastern menace might be dictated by the fact that he seldom leaves #10 these days. It's expectable to imagine foreign invaders trotting on the beautiful British shores and shitting all around the swan-infested ponds in Regent's Park, when you're living in a capital city where every third Londoner can trace their roots to some place beyond the Channel. It can create a sense of being foreign in your own land, you know, and a sort of permanent cultural shock from the constant encounter with so many different people that look strange and talk funny.

I understand Mr Cameron's woes, I really do. He must be genuinely scared! His little poor soul deserves some consolation - not all those shouts and slams on the wooden banks in the hall of Parliament. Maybe a teddy bear too, just to have something to hug, and cling to. A British-made teddy bear of course. After all, Britain deserves (and seems to want) nothing better.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Well, the Camerons are originally Scots...the other thing being that Cameron was schooled with the royalty and nobility of almost every nation on earth: Eton, for the last few decades, has been a most cosmopolitan school (with occasional bouts of anti-semitism, true) educating heirs to African princes and Russian oligarchs, as well as nurturing Nepalese mass-murderers.

I suppose if Romanian millionaires were queuing up to move to the UK Cameron's rhetoric would be different: the thing about London, like Ankh-Morpork, is if you have money you're welcome with open arms, if you're poor however, you are a drain on our resources, with all that implies.

But come on, if there's one city in the world where multiculturalism has worked meaningfully, it's London. (The shires are, of course, a different matter.)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Eton sounds fascinatingly similar to the so called School of the Americas.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Well, if the School of the Americas had produced 19 presidents, as well as numerous Heads of States, exiled Royals, writers, poets, and artists in a five hundred year history, I suppose they could be similar. Eton takes pupils from 13 to 18, whereupon they go to university, or the outside world.

And just to overemphasise the point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Old_Etonians_born_before_the_18th_century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Old_Etonians_born_before_the_18th_century)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_Old_Etonians_born_in_the_18th_century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_Old_Etonians_born_in_the_18th_century)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Old_Etonians_born_in_the_19th_century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Old_Etonians_born_in_the_19th_century)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_Old_Etonians_born_in_the_20th_century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_Old_Etonians_born_in_the_20th_century)

The list from the C20th starts, amusingly, with Leopold III, King of the Belgians. In earlier times the school was slightly more parochial. :)

(SWMBO won't consider Eton for the son-and-heir as she doesn't approve of boarding. I'm sure he'll do just fine at Dulwich College.)

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I think we always end up seeing tension between well-meaning policy and the inevitable street interactions when it comes to issues like immigration.

And as the first commenter said, human beings are rotten everywhere. We'll come up with whatever excuse is convenient to justify treating others poorly.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I doubt that one can assume the rantings of the BNP as being a realistic indicator of general UK opinion.

The far right in the UK has no members of parliament, unlike, let's say, Poland, France, or Greece. In fact the BNP has very few local councillors.

Nevertheless, you have a point: the rhetoric of the far right is becoming commonplace in what used to be the "near" right, and even what was once the "left". Then again, the whole world lurched right some years ago, and the movement right wards has continued apace, and not only in economic ways.

What is also apparent in the BNP diatribe is that it has to conform to present cultural requirements: ergo, analysing Muslim opinions in terms of women's rights, anti-semitism, degrees of consanguinity, etc. Not exactly kinder, kuche, kirche: and not like the far right in France or Poland, for example.

The BNP is apparently in favour of gay rights too. What has happened to our fascists in Britain these days? Such a politically correct lot.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

> I doubt that one can assume the rantings of the BNP as being a realistic indicator of general UK opinion

I don't know. As I don't have personal observations on this, I opted to do a short research some more on the issue before pronouncing an opinion. And look what I've got:


http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-concern
Figure 4. Opposition to immigration: UK vs. comparable countries, 2011
Too many immigrants? 57% say yes.
Immigration 'more problem than opportunity'? 68% say yes.

Almost two-thirds of white Britons think immigration has been bad for the UK, according to a survey which anti-racism campaigners called a "disturbing picture" of society's attitudes.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/immigration-poll-disturbing-say-antiracism-campaigners-2227052.html

'There ARE too many immigrants in the UK', say seven in 10 Britons
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022432/There-ARE-immigrants-UK-say-seven-10-Britons.html

Britons have become “increasingly negative” about the impact of mass immigration on society and the economy over the past decade, research shows.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9546301/Britons-increasingly-negative-about-impact-of-immigration.html

Two surveys of UK attitudes to immigration suggest that UK attitudes to immigration are hardening.
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2012-09-19/surveys-show-uk-antipathy-towards-immigration-is-growing


I don't know what to make of all this. Would you like to help me interpret it?

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Now I think this has to be contextualised.

The first reference you give from the Migration Observatory is pretty interesting, and I would say, within its own frame of reference, valid; notwithstanding exact definitions of "migrant"; and the possibility of conflating immigration issues with racism. The UK is essentially a bunch of small islands and is, as the BNP puts it, the third most densely populated nation in Europe.
One interesting quote from this study is: "Even among foreign-born UK residents responding to the Citizenship Survey, 49% express a preference for reductions and only 15% advocate an increase. Dividing the sample into white and non-white sub-groups yields similar results to the UK-born/foreign-born split, with about half of British minority ethnic respondents favouring reduced migration." This seems to indicate that it is not just native Anglo-Saxon and Celtic types who feel that immigration is a problem, and that population pressures cross racial boundaries. Ergo, not simple racism or fascism, but indicative of population and concomitant economic pressures felt across the board. (Anecdotally, I have heard of many "commonwealth" (ie sub-continental Asian) immigrants complaining of Eastern European immigrants: Polish and Romanian workers coming in for a lot of stick.) So I'd suggest it isn't simple and obvious.
There seems to be a lot of anger at EU immigration, which the UK can do nothing about, being a paid-up member of the EU. The average persons in the UK are constantly being informed by the media that differences in welfare and healthcare across the EU can make the UK an attractive place for some folk, and the UK taxpayer is rather reluctant at present to pay for folk who would not receive the same benefits in their home countries. These "welfare immigrants" are, if you like, the main thrust of the average persons dislike of immigration: hence we get this from the MO report: "Despite the clear opposition to overall immigration, more specific polling questions reveal that attitudes depend on the type of immigrant in question. A 2010 survey found that 72% supported admitting more doctors and nurses from other countries to cope with increasing health care demands, while 51% supported admitting more care workers to help the burdens of an aging population (Transatlantic Trends 2010). In a 2001 ICM Research Guardian poll, 67% supported allowing entry to those even without needed skills if they can provide for their own financial support by themselves or via a family member. And a 2009 Ipsos-MORI poll found relatively less opposition to admitting people who are at risk of being tortured in their home country, who bring needed skills, or who come to the UK to study."
Fairly important caveats, I'm sure you will agree.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

> population pressures cross racial boundaries

Of course it does. Once they've established a life in UK and have become British, many of those former immigrants tend to start looking from the other side of the "barricade". "Now that we're here, why should we let these other newcomers in?"

I don't think anyone has argued about racism or fascism here.

Thanks for the context.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

So your headline about Western multiculturalism being in crisis has nothing to do with racism? Or even multiculturalism, merely conflating immigration with multiculturalists failure?

Hmm. Time for me to stop here.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm sure that in some circles it has everything to do with racism. But we've been trying to establish whether this is the predominant way multiculturalism is being tackled, or the bulk of the criticism to multiculturalism is rather coming from social and economic standpoint. I mean, what's the bottom line of people not wanting more immigrants in their country? Is it a bigoted belief that "group X" is inferior to theirs (aka racism), or is it the selfish desire to keep their country to themselves? I'd rather prefer to believe that it's the latter, because the former would be impossible to deal with, whereas the latter could have some solutions.

Am I making at least a little sense here?

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

That the immigration question straddles the various subcultures in the UK indicates that it is more the latter than the former. The notion of welfare immigration, though seemingly ridiculous, may be a significant driver of anti-immigration sentiment, though anti-Muslim feelings may have helped to give the most ridiculous election of British history, where a Sikh man campaigned for the BNP.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/20/sikh-man-bnp-member (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/20/sikh-man-bnp-member)

Which leads us to the real failure of multiculturalism in the UK. The anti-Muslim feelings in the UK seem predicated on other prejudices and experiences. Some large-ish proportion of Muslims, unlike Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, or even Catholics, seem to have rubbed British folk up the wrong way. And here, I have to admit, British multiculturalism and militant Islam have parted company. Bound to be our fault, and all that, but for some reason or other, even when we have been prepared to support the likes of Abu Hamza and his family on welfare for a decade or so, he just didn't get invited to the best sort of parties. In fact we let the Yanks have him as a guest in their country. Prejudicial, I know, but there you go.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Welfare immigration is a big problem, and I can attest that my country has been among the main sources of that. There's a whole segment of immigrants whose sole purpose is to suck on some other government's teet, admittedly. Simply because our government's teet has run kind of dry.

Those people aren't necessarily Muslim. Although a disproportionately large share of them are indeed Roma (many of whom are Muslim). But that has its deeper reasons too, and they have nothing to do with their religious affiliations, and everything to do with their social and economic status in their country of origin. Be they Romanian, Bulgarian, Polish, Hungarian, or otherwise.

Probably that's why I'm still struggling to find a proper explanation for me why "bad immigrant" is being equated to "Muslim" in Britain. But that's mostly a cultural comprehension problem of mine, and not anybody else's fault.

Ps. Glad you didn't decide to "stop here" like you said a couple of comments above. ;-)
I've been reading stuff around your media, but that cannot compare to having some insights from an actual Briton.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I have not been clear, my bad.

I think the immigration issue and multiculturalism are different things. The British anti-Muslim thing is separate from the EU immigration thing. The EU welfare immigration thing in a time of economic crisis leads naturally to ordinary taxpayers getting irate, just as Starbucks not paying corporation tax leads to folk protesting about multinational coffee shop chains. The Muslim stuff is a genuine failure of multiculturalism: but I am uncertain on which side to apportion most of the blame.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

So let me see if I'm getting the mindset of the anti-immigration "concerned citizens" right, and please correct me where I'm wrong. So when Britain started bringing all those people from around the Commonwealth to help them drive the British economy into growth, it was all OK. They kept doing some dirty work around, and for a fraction of the payment a British would have (in case any British would dare to touch that job anyway). But now that an economic crisis has struck, suddenly a certain arbitrary no-crossing point of over-saturation has been reached, and the gates have to be shut to the newcomers. Certain types of newcomers, by the way. First there was the Polish menace, now there's the Romanian and Bulgarian menace. And that's the official (i.e. mainstream) policy that Cameron wants to set. As if there are so many Bulgarians left in Bulgaria, and somehow most of them would want to come to Britain - at a time of crisis? But never mind. Not that the British would want to work all those menial jobs for a ridiculous pay, anyway. But there must be a scapegoat remaining hidden somewhere, to be pulled out of the sleeve to scare the public once more, especially at times of economic crisis. And who's the easiest and most readily available target? You guessed right. Immigrants!

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

See, I work with lots of British customers who come here to buy property at our resorts. Some have even come to settle in some of our villages, buying old houses and living alongside our locals. They love the place, the food, the culture, and the easy-going, slower pace of life.

You know what one of them once told me? "You have a beautiful country. Tell your people to stay here. We don't need them over there".

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Oh, I accept that the commonwealth folk experienced a lot of unfounded prejudice from the 50's onwards.

The way the media frames the present Eastern European problem isn't about folk who work in the UK, but about folk who don't work, and who are in receipt of benefits. This skews the debate. It ain't about hard working Poles, so much as scrounging Romanians collecting more welfare here than they would get at home, and that is how the goalposts of the debate have been shifted: and that is why even hard-working immigrant taxpayers are prepared to talk of limiting immigration. They feel their pockets are being picked by European scroungers taking advantage of the UK's welfare state. However, as htcpl's cited report shows, folk are happy for immigrants to come over to work where skills are needed, or if they are in danger of torture, or if they are studying.

Nuanced, but in a manipulated way.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

That's indeed an important distinction, but I'm not sure most people are able to make such a sober assessment, especially after being constantly being bombarded with alarmist rhetoric from both the media and politicians, and subsequently, their peers. Especially before elections.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Cameron has to play to the shires. As is, his economic gamble appears to have failed, and Osborne's austerity policies have rendered the Conservatives close to un-re-electable, if you will excuse the neologism. So he is reduced to playing the anti-European card, with help from the media. Despite this, he seems to be trying to move ahead with a policy of Gay marriage, which doesn't play too well with the Tory hinterland.

Austerity policies mean that the Health Service and Welfare State will be underfunded from here on in, perhaps eventually bringing the UK into line with the less wealthy European nations: this will mean that the UK won't have to put up with welfare immigrants, and maybe even lead to the UK exporting a few of its impoverished underclasses abroad to other parts of Europe in a sort of time-delayed "tit-for-tat" manoeuvre. The losers will be, as always, the poor benighted proles of all nations: but that's Western democratic capitalism for you. And given that Western capitalists still have control over the money markets and ratings agencies, and set the borrowing costs for economies, it isn't going to change any day soon. So we'll turn the UK into a less welcoming place for economic migrants, and a less home-like place for our own poor, as we become more and more like a pre-Dickensian society: just not as racist or sexist version thereof.

And it's not as if the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is going to come to the aid of the international proletariat by influencing the markets, either. Let's face facts, the underclasses of most nations are screwed unless they actually engage in revolution: and we have allowed this to happen, and have connived in the polarisation between the have and have-nots in the extravagant feathering of our own nests. And I'm not a fan of revolution, so that puts me on the side, however reluctantly, of the Bourgeois Establishment trying to keep a lid on the powder-keg by using propaganda and scapegoats. Still, it doesn't prevent me from trying to understand what's going on or telling it as I see it.

Multiculturalism is another beautiful opiate, but this time directed at the intelligentsia, and the relatively wealthy, and those trying to be fair. We must be good because some of our best friends are Black, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever. And like all opiates, it has succeeded in removing the pain of most of these ethnic prejudices in a specific and limited way. But the fundamental wealth inequalities in our society are still the driving points of revolution, and these we can only address by accepting the fact that we are our brother's keepers, and that such costs money and a certain sacrifice from each and every one of us. And that ain't gonna happen soon, now, is it?

I suppose it'll all end in tears, but hopefully not mine. Which is always the cynic's mantra.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Gotta be something else being told your culture isn't cool enough from the rest of Europe, sounds a bit like snobbery to me.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The simplest refutation of the ideal of cultural purity as a good one is to note that North Korea is the closest thing to a cultural/ethnic hermetic seal that exists in the modern world. And anyone who calls it a paradise is either a nightmare fetishist or simply outright stupid. The other irony is that the UK, founded by multiple waves of illegal immigrants, and which exported its culture by fire and sword has a disturbing predilection to xenophobia whenever it has to put its money where its mouth is. You also raise a very good point that it's much easier to use populist rhetoric to stir up trouble about issues as opposed to tackling their multiple underlying causes. As these issues never *have* a single cause to begin with, addressing their existence would by itself be a complicated, difficult process that would take both time and having simultaneously the will and the power to address the issues. Both of these are far too often sadly lacking even when their necessity is clear, present, and obvious.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/13/cabinet-housing-eu-migrants

And the debate rages on...

[flcadam.livejournal.com]

This is an interesting post. I live in the U.S., and my mom is an immigrant, so I'm interested in the social chaos that seems to be surrounding multiculturalism.

I agree that people who've pushed multiculturalism have been incompetent. It seems that most multiculturalists have an ideological ax to grind, and they really don't care about reality. They essentially seem to believe that anyone who has problems with diversity is a racist, and thus their complaints should not be taken seriously. They also seem to believe that the majority group must bend over to accommodate any arriving minority group, and that if you just throw a bunch of people in a city together, they'll find that they're all just the same and live together in harmony. We're finding, of course, that this isn't happening. But rather than accepting the truth that it's very hard to make immigration work without assimilation on the part of the new arrivals, multiculturalists just continue to demonize people who are bitter about immigration. It's like they do just the right things to make sure that people from different cultural backgrounds won't end up getting along.

We actually know what works when it comes to lessening the gap between different cultural groups. The U.S. military actively breaks down the potential for racial division within its ranks, and as a result, U.S. soldiers have better attitudes about race than people in the civilian population. One thing the U.S. military found was that lecturing soldiers on the historical roots of racial inequality just isn't very effective in motivating people to get along. Yet this is exactly the kind of activity you get from multiculturalists in the civilian world. Also, having the common bond of being a soldier breaks down racial differences between soldiers. Yet multiculturalists don't encourage assimilation for immigrants, and they promote a cultural relativity that prevents people from forging strong common bonds.

Unlike in the military, we can't force people to adhere to uniform standards. But society can promote strong social norms that influence individual behavior. But today, multiculturalists have pretty much attacked our ability to set standards in anything. But what can you do about it? The left has a lot of social influence, and I don't see them modifying their ideology and at least admitting that their approach to multiculturalism isn't working. Even if you do eventually have a civil war, the blame will be placed on the dominant culture for not being more "tolerant," despite the fact that it's the leftie politicians who are throwing different groups of people together and not properly preparing them to get along.

I fear that this is a lost cause. Few people are brave like Chancellor Merkel to publicly state that multiculturalism hasn't been working. And if you do it, at least here in the U.S., people automatically jump to call you a racist. Until that stops, there can't be a serious effort to solve this problem.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The US Military does that now, but it was also one of the first leaders in US culture in terms of segregation, and it took sustained pressure and the difficulty of sustaining separate bureaucracies for segregated troops in WWII to start collapsing the system and Korea to kill it permanently.

[flcadam.livejournal.com]

I think you're missing my main point. My point isn't that the military is morally superior. My point is that they're much better at integrating troops from different backgrounds and getting them to chuck aside their differences than civilian leaders are at promoting multiculturalism in our urban centers.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And my point is that the context for all that is rather less benevolent than you're making it out to be. The Army was ordered to be integrated and the soldiers did not like it and did not want it. This despite the long and distinguished combat traditions of black soldiers.