Daily Mail echoes BNP propaganda


by Sunny
26th February, 2009 at 2:38 am    

Thanks to Sunder for highlighting this. An article in the Daily Mail says:

However although the figures from the Government’s Office for National Statistics show an increase in numbers of foreign born people they still fail to record the true impact of immigration because they record their children as British rather than second or third generation immigrants.

Emphasis mine. One of the journalists who’s written the article, James Slack, in fact has a long history of anti-immigration hysteria and pushing BNP talking points. This is no different.

In an earlier lifetime, when I used to run British Asian messageboards, we regularly got invaded by BNP and National Front trolls who just wanted to tell us to “go back to your own country“. When we retorted that we were born here and had as much right to call ourselves British, their retort almost inevitably was: “Just because a dog is born in a stable doesn’t make it a horse.”

The Daily Mail is now echoing the same rhetoric – that people with ancestors not born here aren’t really British and can never be. They can only be sons and daughters of immigrants. This is fucking outrageous for a national newspaper to say.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Media,Race politics






50 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Third-Generation Immigrants Cause Cancer « Embololalia

    [...] links for 2009-02-25 Third-Generation Immigrants Cause Cancer February 26, 2009 Wow. Just…wow. We all know the unholy Mail/Express duo are filled with scum-sucking racists who can’t make [...]


  2. links for 2009-02-26 « Embololalia

    [...] Pickled Politics » Daily Mail echoes BNP propaganda The Daily Mail is now echoing the same rhetoric – that people with ancestors not born here aren’t really British and can never be. They can only be sons and daughters of immigrants. This is fucking outrageous for a national newspaper to say. (tags: bnp nationalism race migration dailymail uk) [...]


  3. Baby name meaning and origin for Calais - baby boy name Calais

    [...] Pickled Politics ” Daily Mail echoes BNP propaganda [...]


  4. Changing Race in the UK | Lola Adesioye

    [...] can’t even decide whether or not black people are still fully fledged citizens or just the children of immigrants who they have been forced to [...]


  5. YourLocalGP

    @tabloidwatch And the Daily Mail echoed BNP Propaganda like this a year ago: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/3381


  6. Mark Byrne

    @tomdoorley Maybe Sarah was right! http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/3381




  1. Kulvinder — on 26th February, 2009 at 3:38 am  
  2. Adnan Y. — on 26th February, 2009 at 5:04 am  

    “because they record their children as British rather than second or third generation immigrants.”

    *facepalm*

    This just reaffirms my conviction that the Daily Mail is really an elaborate multi-generational bit of satirical theatre that the rest of us don’t know about.

    I’ve a cousin who gets that “go back to where you came from” shtick all the time. His paternal side of the family is Punjabi-Canadian and has been in Canada since 1900, so it makes it amusing.

    “Go back to where you came from.”

    “What, Vancouver?”

    “No! Where your parents are from!”

    “Oh. Toronto?”

    “No! Where their parents are from!!!”

    “Oh, I see. Calgary and Toronto?”

    What can I say? It’s fun winding up bigots. :)

  3. Golam Murtaza — on 26th February, 2009 at 6:20 am  

    Cheers for that Adnan Y. Nice one.

    I suspect the BNP-types secretly realise time is against them. They know that the longer non-white Britons remain here, the more absurd their anti immigrant rhetoric starts to sound. We already have a large generation of Black and Asian kids growing up who were not only born in Britain themselves but their parents were born here also.

  4. Bert Rustle — on 26th February, 2009 at 7:05 am  

    Are the first and second generation Han Chinese in Tibet immigrants?

    When large waves of people from mainland Britain displaced much of the population of Ireland, were they immigrants then? Are said people immigrants now?

    Who are the immigrants in Southern Africa? Are the Boers immigrants? Are the Bantu immigrants?

  5. chairwoman — on 26th February, 2009 at 7:51 am  

    “that people with ancestors not born here aren’t really British and can never be. They can only be sons and daughters of immigrants.”

    Have I not been telling you this for the past three years?

    Oh, this doesn’t, of course, apply to the majority of central/eastern Europeans. Only those of us with darker skins or (presumed to have) even darker souls!

  6. Cabalamat — on 26th February, 2009 at 9:14 am  

    @4 bert Rustle: When large waves of people from mainland Britain displaced much of the population of Ireland, were they immigrants then? Are said people immigrants now?

    Actaully, they can’t be. The Ulster Scots came from Scotland, and the Scots originally came from Ireland, so
    they’re back in their country of origin :-)

  7. Trofim — on 26th February, 2009 at 9:20 am  

    And it follows, of course, that most Israelis are Palestinians. It just needs to be said.

  8. Cabalamat — on 26th February, 2009 at 9:22 am  

    The Daily Mail is now echoing the same rhetoric – that people with ancestors not born here aren’t really British and can never be. They can only be sons and daughters of immigrants. This is fucking outrageous for a national newspaper to say.

    Not only outrageous, totally out of touch. When I lived in London, the proportion of my friends who had all their parents and grandparents born in Britain was a small minority. OK, London has always been more cosmopolitan than the country as a whole, but not enormously so.

    @3 Golam Murtaza: I suspect the BNP-types secretly realise time is against them.

    I think you’re right. I bet Nick Griffin would like to drop most of the openly racist parts of his party’s platform — like expelling all non-whites from the country — and re-purpose the BNP as standing for European/Western values against militant Islam. The only reason Griffin hasn’t done this is he would have difficulty taking the more Neandertal of his followers with him.

  9. platinum786 — on 26th February, 2009 at 9:24 am  

    Don’t worry about it, the far right is simply ranting, I don’t think it will haev a major consequence in the polls. The far right is well aware that the white population in Britain is decreasing and the Black/Asian population is rising. Couple that with immigration and the uncontrolled flow of eastern europeans and their birth rate, all in all, the anglo-saxon population is disappearing, which really annoys the right wing.

    Within the next 30 years Luton, London, Birmingham, Bradford, Oldham, Leicster, will be white minority cities. Some estimates put London even earlier than that.

    White people are set to become a minority in the US by 2042. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/15/population.race

    Russia is supposed to be majority Muslim within the next 30 years, the same is said of France. The same is being said of other European countries.

    Obviously some of these figures are sensationalised, maybe you should add another 10-20 years onto them, maybe more, but by the next century, you can be pretty sure that the “western world” will be full of “eastern” people, there will be a major shift in demographics, that is upsetting some people.

  10. Dave S — on 26th February, 2009 at 9:56 am  

    This kind of crap comes as no surprise from the only British paper to openly support Hitler and the Nazis in WWII.

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Inter-war_period

    That would be the same British paper who openly supported Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists as well.

    Not much changes, eh?

    Hardly reassuring that the Daily Mail and General Trust / Northcliffe group owns so many of the “local” newspapers in the country.

    Despite not being as openly fascist as their national counterpart, all those that I’ve seen (Leicester Mercury, Nottingham Evening Post, Lincolnshire Echo, Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph) seem to give plenty of column space to fearmongering reactionary bilge and unchallenged borderline xenophobia.

    I hope I live long enough to see the fall of the mainstream media into irrelevance. I’m not counting my chickens for some time, but the writing is at least on the wall.

    Even the Guardian and Independent (who are supposedly a bit nearer to where I am politically) print utter bollocks these days. I wouldn’t miss any of them.

    I utterly detest the idea of news as a marketable commodity – that’s where it all went wrong. Thank goodness the blogosphere is picking up where the town criers of yesteryear left off!

  11. dave bones — on 26th February, 2009 at 10:17 am  

    Right. Half of me is staying here, the other half is going back to Hungary. I will have to learn the language though. Have you ever seen that woman called Diane at Speakers Corner? Talks about Gods races vs The Mongrels all the time? Says that Adolf Hitler will be judging all of us? You should go down she is there all the time she is hilarious.

  12. 5cc — on 26th February, 2009 at 10:31 am  

    Hi Sunny. Cheers for the link.

    I suspect this line has developed from the rhetoric of MigrationWatch, who both Slack and Doughty like to quote as a matter of course.

    An early MigrationWatch briefing paper (here it is) attempted to correct official statistics that include the children of immigrant parents as immigrants (to calculate contribution to the economy) by adding children of mixed parents as half an immigrant. They don’t say whether they should be split lengthwise or widthwise. This kind of stuff comes out of MigrationWatch pretty regularly.

    The Mail seems to be creeping ever rightwards with this kind of thing casually bunged into another anti-immigrant rant, outrage at an episode of Eastenders that only featured black characters, the coverage of the ethnicity of people involved in knife crime, not bothering to correct the print version of the paper’s coverage of Nilanthan Murrdi’s murder, defending Carol Thatcher, and last summer’s explicit worrying about the number of white people leaving the country.

    Anyway – Sunder’s letter is the best thing I’ve read in ages.

  13. Rumbold — on 26th February, 2009 at 10:36 am  

    The Daily Telegraph covered this as well, sadly.

  14. damon — on 26th February, 2009 at 10:49 am  

    I think that what was actually said in that Daily Mail article is being misinturpreted. I think that the quote from it Sunny made, and the line he highlighted were innocent enough. Although I can see how that inference could easilly be taken. (And maybe it WAS intended that way).
    It’s talking about numbers isn’t it? I presume that’s what he’s saying when he talks of ”impact”.
    Talking about the ”impact of immigration” is not in itself racist. Being the Daily Mail, it may also have a racist edge to it, but immigration and (emigration) do have certain impacts. Here, I think they were talking about the population of Britain rising – which is surely a legitimate point of discussion.

    That foriegn born people have children who are added to the overall population is fair enough to mention I’d have thought.
    I don’t care for Migration Watch, but I don’t think they should be hounded as ”racists” when they talk numbers. It’s co-founder (professor of demography) David Coleman was the target of some students at Oxford University who objected to his employment there.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/mar/08/highereducation.news
    Unless I’ve missed something quite terrible that he has said or written, I feel that a campaign to get him sacked from his employment, to be more sinister than anything the Daily Mail’s favourite ”think tank” might have said.

  15. sonia — on 26th February, 2009 at 11:26 am  

    the bnp and other parts of the world all seem to think along these lines and a lot of nation-states actually embody it in their citizenship laws. crazy isn’t it.

    luckily here its not like that ….which is prob. why the daily mail is annoyed. but they are the daily mail..just tell ‘em to go back to germany or normandy or viking land or summat. (if they can work out what proportion should go back where!)

    Ho

  16. Kulvinder — on 26th February, 2009 at 11:44 am  

    Are the first and second generation Han Chinese in Tibet immigrants?… Are the Boers immigrants? Are the Bantu immigrants?

    Ask them.

    I certainly wouldn’t presume to tell them whether their sense of identity was ‘wrong’ based on prejudices or misconceptions i had.

  17. Cyburn — on 26th February, 2009 at 12:39 pm  

    The BNP and the Daily Mail tend to think that all non-white ethnics will booming birth rates, but probably most British born ethnics probably have the same or slightly higher birth rate than the white indigenous Britons, so the ethnic population increase could slow down or even for some groups slightly decrease.

  18. sonia — on 26th February, 2009 at 12:44 pm  

    as kulvinder says.

  19. Jai — on 26th February, 2009 at 12:48 pm  

    “Just because a dog is born in a stable doesn’t make it a horse.”

    Yeah well…..Just because a jackal decides to wear a crown, it doesn’t actually make it king of the jungle.

  20. Sid — on 26th February, 2009 at 1:00 pm  

    When large waves of people from mainland Britain displaced much of the population of Ireland, were they immigrants then? Are said people immigrants now?

    Who are the immigrants in Southern Africa? Are the Boers immigrants? Are the Bantu immigrants?

    Your argument and the logic you’re constructing with these rhetorical questions contradict the Daily Mail’s assertion that immigrants cannot be British.

    Is that your intention?

  21. sonia — on 26th February, 2009 at 1:23 pm  

    this is all an unwinnable argument anyway, as identity is constructed, and all sorts of ‘oldies’ will apply the term ‘immigrant’ to any newbies. everyone’s an immigrant really,just depends on how far you want to go back.

    i blame this idea of permanent settlement anyway, for all this fighting about who’s an immigrant and who’s not. why should we give a damn really?

  22. Jai — on 26th February, 2009 at 1:36 pm  

    Oh, this doesn’t, of course, apply to the majority of central/eastern Europeans. Only those of us with darker skins or (presumed to have) even darker souls!

    I think this really is the fundamental problem, and it also applies to attitudes to white people from outside Europe too, eg. North America, Australia, South Africa etc.

    Taking this further, I’ve actually been a direct witness to multiple incidents where some clearly racist white Brits ostentatiously tell white people who migrated to the UK from other countries less than a decade ago that “you’re English now” (or, at least, repeatedly & pointedly making it obvious that they regard them as “one of their own”) whilst simultaneously making it very clear indeed that they view any Asians nearby as unwanted “immigrants” and “foreigners” even though the latter were actually born in the UK.

  23. Shamit — on 26th February, 2009 at 2:11 pm  

    Jai

    Spot on — I have had similar experiences at the work place.

    There are people who thought & still think its beneath themselves to report to someone with a brown skin — whom they have a hard time accepting as equal let alone superior. I hear gresham Street still has those problems sometimes but its much less now. But you would know better.

    I loved how Sunder highlighted the Royal family. Queen is German and our next Monarch would be a Greco-German mix. So basically when this idiot Dail Mail racist bigot says immigrant he means those with darker skins. Well done to Sunder and Sunny for highlighting it.

  24. Ravi Naik — on 26th February, 2009 at 2:33 pm  

    So basically when this idiot Dail Mail racist bigot says immigrant he means those with darker skins.

    And they cover their racists arses by placing a picture of Poles. You can’t get more cynical than that. It should fool no one that the BNP and these racist tabloids use the word ‘immigrant’ for dark skinned people.

  25. Amrit — on 26th February, 2009 at 3:55 pm  

    ‘just tell ‘em to go back to germany or normandy or viking land or summat. (if they can work out what proportion should go back where!)’

    Damn sonia, you beat me to it. :-D

  26. Jai — on 26th February, 2009 at 5:13 pm  

    Shamit,

    There are people who thought & still think its beneath themselves to report to someone with a brown skin — whom they have a hard time accepting as equal let alone superior.

    Exactly. They’re fine dealing with Asians they perceive to be in some kind of position of subordination or inferiority (either personally or professionally), but God forbid if you’re a threat to their egos, their assumptions and/or their ideas of their (or your) station in life in any way.

    I hear gresham Street still has those problems sometimes but its much less now.

    Depends on which organisation and which business area you work in. I used to work in the consulting sector and, with hindsight, there were definitely less rednecks to deal with (internally; the same didn’t necessarily apply to client firms) at both peer and management levels compared to the banking sector, apart from the occasional rare problematic individual.

    Anecdotally, it seems to be more of an issue amongst the 40+ generation (who are from a time when most brown faces really were “immigrants”), although there are of course still numerous younger people who’ve inherited those bigotted attitudes. I think it also depends on how much direct, amicable exposure the person concerned has had to Asians, especially the younger majority who have grown up in the UK; if this hasn’t occurred then it leaves far too much room for stereotypes, misinformed assumptions, huge generalisations, and (in the worst cases) demonisations and dehumanisations.

    And like I keep saying, groups such as the Islam4UK crew really don’t help matters at all, as they just perpetuate the worst stereotypes that many people already have about Asians in general and Muslims specifically. Personally, and in the absence of any equivalents of Goodness Gracious Me these days, I’m much rather prefer the “public face” of Asians to be people like Dev Patel rather than Anjem “Call me Aurangzeb” Choudary.

  27. Rumbold — on 26th February, 2009 at 5:17 pm  

    I think that Jai is right. While there are still racists amongst the younger generations, I don’t think that there is the same level of surprise amongst those who have an Asian boss. People of a certain age and younger wouldn’t see it as abnormal, which I think helps a lot.

  28. Dave S — on 26th February, 2009 at 5:25 pm  

    sonia: “i blame this idea of permanent settlement anyway, for all this fighting about who’s an immigrant and who’s not. why should we give a damn really?”

    Yes!! I go even further and long for the day when nation states and borders will no longer exist, and then we humans can return to our nomadic roots.

  29. Rumbold — on 26th February, 2009 at 5:34 pm  

    Dave S:

    Actually, returning to our nomadic roots would probably make us more insular and tribal than presently, as most nomads were simply tribes who tended to be actively hostile to other tribes, whom they saw as competitors.

  30. Bert Rustle — on 26th February, 2009 at 5:42 pm  

    cabalmat 6 wrote … The Ulster Scots came from Scotland, and the Scots originally came from Ireland …

    Do you have a reference or tribe names? Where did the Irish arrive from?

    Sid 20 wrote … Your argument and the logic you’re constructing with these rhetorical questions contradict the Daily Mail’s assertion that immigrants cannot be British.

    Is that your intention? …

    I chose non-UK examples for clarity, on the baseless assumption that most PP commenters are UK Residents or Subjects. I desired specific responses to my questions.

    Their has been a post WW2 movement of Han Chinese into Tibet, without the consent of the indigenous Tibetan population. Are these Han Chinese Tibetan or immigrants? Are the offspring of these Han Chinese Tibetan or immigrants?

    According to “The African Experience” ISBN 0-297-64366-5, by Roland Oliver, several hundred years ago, their was a movement of Bantu and Boers into Southern Africa. The pre-existing population were displaced and their remnants now largely reside in the Kalahari. Are these Boers and Bantu South African or immigrants? Are these Boers and Bantu indigenous or immigrants?

    More generally, why is the replacement of the indigenous UK population by a large number of disparate groups deemed desirable when the empirical data demonstrates that Diverse societies worldwide are almost always a failure?

    A qualitative description of how Multi-ethnic societies are a failure worldwide is given by Professor Tutu Vanhanen in his book “Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism”. ISBN 0762305835 . An illuminating review by Johan M.G. van der Dennen, Center for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Groningen, the Netherlands can be found at http://rint.rechten.rug.nl/rth/dennen/vanhanen.htm. The review is well worth the time it takes to read it. A synopsis is … Vanhanen’s macroquantitative research on ethnic conflicts, a life-work spanning several decades, is an important contributing factor in this tide-turning process.

    Conflicts are common in all countries of the world where people are divided into separate groups on the basis of racial, ethnic, national, linguistic, tribal, religious, caste, or other differences. … explained by our evolved predisposition to ethnic nepotism, which is regarded as an extended form of kin nepotism. Evolutionary theories of inclusive fitness and kin selection … explain the evolutionary origin and universality of nepotism. …, (1) significant ethnic divisions tend to lead to ethnic interest conflicts in all societies and (2) the more a society is ethnically divided, the more political and other interest conflicts tend to become canalized along ethnic lines. These two hypotheses are tested by empirical evidence covering 148 contemporary states … the degree of ethnic conflict is indeed strongly related to the degree of ethnic divisions. [emphasis added]… What the cultural theorists have in common … is a reluctance of acknowledging the existence of ethnic conflicts … Ethnic groups can thus be perceived as extended kin groups. … People belonging to the same ethnic group tend to support each other in conflict situations. … Our tendency to favor kin over nonkin has extended to include large linguistic, national, racial, religious, and other ethnic groups. … Ethnic divisions seem to have produced ethnic conflicts in practically all countries of the world. Vanhanen notes that cultural theories are hardly able to explain the universality of ethnic conflicts. … etc.

  31. Don — on 26th February, 2009 at 5:42 pm  

    Rumbold,

    True. We have also managed to reduce the bio-diversity of much of the planet to the point where returning to hunter gathering would be problematic, even if we accept that 90% of the population would have to die.

  32. Jai — on 26th February, 2009 at 5:58 pm  

    More generally, why is the replacement of the indigenous UK population by a large number of disparate groups deemed desirable when the empirical data demonstrates that Diverse societies worldwide are almost always a failure?

    India is a diverse society and so is the United States. Neither can be termed “failures” by any means; on the contrary, in fact.

  33. The Queen of Fiddlesticks — on 26th February, 2009 at 7:50 pm  

    Actually, returning to our nomadic roots would probably make us more insular and tribal than presently, as most nomads were simply tribes who tended to be actively hostile to other tribes, whom they saw as competitors.

    LOL! way to spoil all the fun there Rumbold!
    I would love to be free and adventurous in a nomadic Hemingway (maybe) style … but right now I can only dream in pictures and look through the eyes of others :( sigh
    maybe even way back then – SOME people were as you say but not all …. There were many who loved the world and everything in it, no matter what others were doing.
    We only have to look at art , literature and other things they left us, even through things as silly now as the Ripley’s museums …
    Citizens of the world … that what we all already are, all our histories are already entwined …
    anyone here familiar with the works of Joseph Campbell? I agree the younger generation sees things different .. that too is spread mainly through art in all it’s various forms.
    I can’t say I care about what colour the people are in any future year … it’s all part of evolution. here in the US, those talking of all the south americans as a race do so out of nothing but ignorance. South of us is still “American” and they are just as culturally diverse, and “European” as we are in the united states. What I do worry about are ideas and beliefs …
    So for people to say the “west” will be full of eastern – what ever was said above … I know for a fact the “east” is receiving it’s fair share of “westernization”
    to me that would bring balance …
    really for Europeans … when you think about it what is race? First it was clans, then kingdoms, then countries … all saw themselves as “races” … you are all mixed. Through genetics they claim to trace the once “missing link” to red heads … who now is concerned for or even remembers the plight of Neanderthal man?
    Over crowding on the other hand is a very big issue, which is why I have questioned any governmental attempts to inspire reproduction of it’s native population? Like in France?

  34. So Much For Subtlety — on 27th February, 2009 at 9:27 am  

    Jai — “India is a diverse society and so is the United States. Neither can be termed “failures” by any means; on the contrary, in fact.”

    The United States is not such a diverse country as all that. It remained solidly Anglo until very recently with massive efforts at assimilating immigrants and exclusion policies aimed at non-Whites. Those policies did not end until the 1960s when America by most measures ceased to be such a successful country (law and order for instance).

    Where it was diverse, African-Americans, Native Americans and Asian-Americans, it is noted for its failures. No one is holding up the treatment of any of these as role models I assume?

    As for India, by any definition it is a failure. It is wracked by corruption, incompetence, violence, separatism. All it has managed to do is remain a democracy with something resembling the rule of law.

    The Right is probably right to be concerned about immigration. I would guess most immigrants find it hard to identify with political traditions that have a strong racial taint. Washington owning slaves. The Empire. Enough immigration and the Tories will die. But I think that part of those political traditions are worth saving – because with them will die British Liberalism. What we will probably have instead is post-Marxism and Sectarian parties. Unless, of course, the Conservatives can escape their past.

  35. damon — on 27th February, 2009 at 10:32 am  

    If James Slack really is a race baiter like has been suggested, then I will condem him too. I’d never heard of him (by name) before.

    Regarding the words that Sunny quoted from him at the beginning; – they CAN be taken as meaning that the children of immigrants are not really British. It seems that most people on here have gone with that view. But they could too, just be talking about numbers.
    I dislike the Daily Mail also, and suspect it of having a racist agenda.
    But on the other hand, I do try to look at what they often write and ask if there is anything in the story.

    For example: can it not be expected that European media sources would sensationalise stories like this one about asylum seekers in Paris?:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzpJdgQ6F0s
    The things I have read about ”the impact” of African people landing on the shores of the Italian island of Lampedusa in leaky boats are not to be dismissed.

    The British media reported on the Sangatte camp on the French coast at Calais, in a variety of ways.
    Some of them were alarmist. But it was quite an ”alarming” situation, wasn’t it?
    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=active&ei=a72nSYCaA4SJjAf3yZXgDw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=sangatte+calais+asylum&spell=1

    Even the Independent was at it (in december 2005):

    “There are 400 to 500 people here at any one time, compared to 200 last year,” said Jean-Claude Lenoir, one of the chief organisers of the Salam support group, which provides the nightly warm meal beside the Calais lighthouse. “They are living in the most indescribable and inhuman conditions, on the street, in the woods, in empty containers. They come mostly from hot countries and this is evidently going to be a very hard winter. We fear that some of them will die of hypothermia unless the authorities relent and allow some kind of shelter. We don’t mean a Sangatte II, but just an emergency place where they can go when it freezes.”

  36. Jai — on 27th February, 2009 at 11:10 am  

    SMFS,

    The United States is not such a diverse country as all that. It remained solidly Anglo until very recently with massive efforts at assimilating immigrants and exclusion policies aimed at non-Whites. Those policies did not end until the 1960s when America by most measures ceased to be such a successful country (law and order for instance).

    Where it was diverse, African-Americans, Native Americans and Asian-Americans, it is noted for its failures. No one is holding up the treatment of any of these as role models I assume?

    As for India, by any definition it is a failure. It is wracked by corruption, incompetence, violence, separatism. All it has managed to do is remain a democracy with something resembling the rule of law.

    Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to suggest countries which you feel have been more successful, due to their internal diversity (or lack of it, as the case may be).

    The Right is probably right to be concerned about immigration. I would guess most immigrants find it hard to identify with political traditions that have a strong racial taint. Washington owning slaves. The Empire. Enough immigration and the Tories will die. But I think that part of those political traditions are worth saving – because with them will die British Liberalism. What we will probably have instead is post-Marxism and Sectarian parties. Unless, of course, the Conservatives can escape their past.

    I think this needs to be clarified. By “most immigrants”, do you really mean precisely that, or do you actually mean “most non-white immigrants” ?

  37. Shamit — on 27th February, 2009 at 11:20 am  

    SMFS

    What about Singapore?

    It has one of the most diverse population in the world albeit much smaller and all the criteria you have suggested to determine success — they seemed to have covered it very well.

    Also your point about Asian-Americans is completely bonkers — look at some statistics and you would find Asian Americans (including orientals) are the most successful immigrant group in the US.

    Do you by any chance belong to the BNP? just asking because it seems you have a problem with non whites as I inferred from your statement regarding the US.

  38. Me — on 27th February, 2009 at 9:24 pm  

    platinum786 : Do u really think that the White People of Britain are going 2 let that happen? You’re dreaming mate…and i’m telling u now that your days in Britain are numbered. People are voting BNP more and more by the day. Remember noone in Germany ever imagined that the Nationlist Socialist Party would get into power, and we all know what happended there. I am someone who has more non white friends than i have White, and my family has afghan, jamaican and chinese in it, but even i am getting sick and tired of immigration. I never thought that i would take the time to vote, but i am registering this year soley so i can vote BNP. They are increasingly becoming the only option for a lot of people in this country-even Labour is shitting their pants about the rise of the BNP because they know that the tide is turning. Remember that u read this comment, and in a few years when the inevitable expulsion of all Muslims from England occurs-remember i told u first.

  39. Trofim — on 27th February, 2009 at 10:34 pm  

    Successful diverse societies? Depends what you mean by successful.

    http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2008/02/06/singapore-the-authoritarian-state-human-rights-watch-report.html

    Singapore remains an authoritarian state with strict curbs on freedom of expression, assembly, and association. All political activities are tightly controlled.

    You can’t allow untrammelled free expression of national or ethnic preferences in a place where so many different ones are rubbing against each other, particularly somewhere as crowded as Singapore.

    Look at the USSR, where any nationalist, ethnic or religious stirrings were stifled. With well over a hundred nationalities, there was no ethnic or national group who wouldn’t be at another one’s throat if they were given free rein. That’s one reason the existence of the USSR became untenable.

  40. So Much For Subtlety — on 28th February, 2009 at 5:21 am  

    Jai – “Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to suggest countries which you feel have been more successful, due to their internal diversity (or lack of it, as the case may be).”

    I don’t know what causes countries to be successful. But there is no doubting Singapore, Japan and South Korea have been since 1960 or so. I notice that the last two are not noted for their ethnic diversity. Nor, on the other hand, is North Korea which has not been a success. Most of northern Europe was successful from 1945 to 1972 or so. Again the period of large scale immigration comes when economies and societies start to break down.

    That is not to say the immigration is causal. It might be a coincidence. But I think most people would agree that America does not have a strong socialist tradition because of race. Europe is probably going to go the same way.

    “I think this needs to be clarified. By “most immigrants”, do you really mean precisely that, or do you actually mean “most non-white immigrants” ?”

    Well you would have to define White for me. The Right in most of Europe has been shaped by religion and in some parts race. That religion has often been anti-Semitic as has the right wing tradition in many countries. Now Eastern European Jews may be White, but is it any surprise that until recently they tended to be on the Left of politics when politically active? Can anyone really see that many Jews being comfortable in, say, Bavaria’s Christian Socialist Party? The Tory Party has an ambiguous relationship with the Empire. How many Afro-Caribbean people feel happy with that? I would think that the further you are from the racial and religious traditions of Europe’s right, the harder it is to identify with them. That would not be hard for a Norwegian, say, or a German, it would be harder for a Russian Jew, it would be very hard for an Indian. Is it any surprise that the Islamists find friends with the Hard Left even though they have more in common with values of the Tories? Or that Black Americans are more socially conservative than White Americans but vote to the Left?

  41. So Much For Subtlety — on 28th February, 2009 at 5:27 am  

    Shamit – “What about Singapore?”

    “It has one of the most diverse population in the world albeit much smaller and all the criteria you have suggested to determine success — they seemed to have covered it very well.”

    Singapore has done very well – economically. It is also quite diverse – 75% of the population is Chinese. But it is also a repressive one-party state which routinely punishes any signs of dissent and criminalises a whole range of political expression. I guess it depends how you measure success.

    “Also your point about Asian-Americans is completely bonkers — look at some statistics and you would find Asian Americans (including orientals) are the most successful immigrant group in the US.”

    Well now they are. But America’s history, from the Chinese Exclusion Acts, to the internment of the Nisei, has not been a good one where Asian-Americans are concerned. They do well despite that past. Or to put it another way, would you like British Asians to be treated the same way?

    “Do you by any chance belong to the BNP? just asking because it seems you have a problem with non whites as I inferred from your statement regarding the US.”

    Infer away. I think that says more about you than about me.

  42. Bert Rustle — on 28th February, 2009 at 8:34 am  

    Jai 33, Shamit 39, many of the points you raise are addressed in the reference and abstract given in Bert Rustle 31, in the paragraph beginning … A qualitative description of how Multi-ethnic societies are a failure worldwide is given by Professor Tutu Vanhanen in his book “Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism”. …

  43. The Queen of Fiddlesticks — on 28th February, 2009 at 3:44 pm  

    Talking about immigration and over crowding is one thing, race is another, culture too.
    Reading this blog I know I have comment before how very British it is no matter what the people on it want to label themselves.
    What is the point of how is this being discussed here? adding things as reference in a thats just how it is way ? .. and again bringing up history to prove something.
    That essay clip uses the phrase “evolved predispostion to to ethnic nepotism”
    ?

    things change, or they can, so I don’t know how anyone can say it’s a “predisposition” … it is taught! and what about immigrants who enter a country and refuse to be part of it?

    I love this person and her work!
    http://tinyurl.com/ysl46u

    I used to get sad over thinking about kids raised in day care … but I wonder now, how it may have a positive effect on future generations.

  44. Jai — on 2nd March, 2009 at 12:10 pm  

    SMFS,

    I don’t know what causes countries to be successful.

    It’s generally a good idea for one to have criteria for the definition of a ‘successful country’, if one is also going to have criteria for a country being a ‘failure by any definition’ as per post #36.

    Well you would have to define White for me.

    The simple answer, factoring in your comments about religion, is ‘a Christian person (nominally or actively practising) of European extraction’. Therefore, this includes people not only from Europe (both the UK and the mainland) but also from North America, Australia, South Africa etc.

    ************************

    Shamit,

    Also your point about Asian-Americans is completely bonkers — look at some statistics and you would find Asian Americans (including orientals) are the most successful immigrant group in the US

    Taking this further, South Asians in the United States (ie. our counterparts) are amongst the most successful groups in the entire country, in terms of academic qualifications, professional backgrounds and wealth. Disproportionately so, considering their numbers in relation to the overall American population.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.