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.

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.

“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.

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?

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.

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.

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” ?

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.”

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.