England population transformed

Splinter, gotta say I'm disappointed in your last post. Very high ratio of adjectives to facts.

I understand that you dislike the tenor of Carlos' post, I'm not at all clear how much of it you actually dispute.

For example: "slants completely against" - yes, but is it incorrect? What pertinent facts are omitted?

Same for "not fair", and "isn't a fair representation of the diversity" (what does that last one even mean?), and "dubious list", and the bit about the intent of the author; precious little regarding the facts stated, and the implications that arise.

The point made is that a disproportionate amount of recent immigrants are in positions of power, and/or mooching off the state. You can argue that isn't factually correct, you can argue that it is correct and there's nothing wrong with that, you can argue that the list isn't representative, whatever. But you're not really arguing anything, except that the post is bad. Because reasons.

And your last sentence - that "the cultural roots of Great Britain remain intact", and "What has changed is that we are a more diverse population, like it or not" - seems a contradiction in terms. Diversity is dilution. It's change. Maybe that's a good thing! - and maybe it isn't. But by your own admission, the culture is changing, "like it or not". Criticizing the one who points it out, without a clear argument, seems wrong.

What am I missing?

I am with Splinter on this one .

As far as I know there are no Muslim no go areas anywhere in the UK.

There are undoubtedly several areas in the larger cities where many streets and suburbs will have a large Asian population but I don't think these can be called no-go areas.

Scotland has a different racial mix from other parts of the UK and immigration has not taken the same form as in London , Birmingham and Manchester for example.

The Indians and Pakistanis who came in the late fifties and early sixties and were well accepted as they came to work , taking jobs in public transport and in the hospitals that no one else wanted ; Later they established family run restaurants which were the only ones that the normal working man could afford to eat in .

Many Asians live for example in the Pollokshields area of Glasgow , a leafy middle class suburb in the south side of the city. When you drive through that part of town , you will see good housing and very nice cars parked in the drive ways . Property values remain high and certainly not a no go area.

I lived in London for a short time in the mid eighties and can only say that Hammersmith where I lived was a very diverse suburb.

What is happening now ? A few immigrants ( Asian , European , African and a a large representation of the worlds nations ) certainly will try and take advantage of the benefit system. But my gut feeling is that the percentages quoted above are slightly exaggerated.

Quote from Splinter

The point about Carlos's post is that it's been copied and pasted from some BNP website probably and not simply sent to him by some American friend, who in turn probably copied and pasted it himself.

I happen to like adjectives which I use in lieu of facts when those facts aren't available, but being British, this is a subject that riles and has riled many of us over the years, but not to the extent of losing sleep over.

So Ben, instead taking my post to pieces, why not take the OP to pieces instead?

It's not a disproportionate amount of immigrants at all when viewed as the big picture. Neither is Halal meat compulsory in all schools.

There are no Muslim no-go areas in the UK as far as I know and the rest of the so-called statistics have no source to prove them either way, but I doubt they are true and simply plucked out of the air to provoke a reaction...just like your post in fact.

I therefore challenge you to tear apart Carlos's post in the manner by which we have been accustomed to seeing you do. I'd be disappointed if you didn't.

Display More

Re Carlos' post - I share your dislike of the tone. Not because of its being anti-Muslim, but because it doesn't pass the "smell test" - it sounds like it was simply cherry-picked for maximum effect. The "no-go" bit is probably also bullshit, the US ambassador to the Netherlands got himself into quite an absurd situation that arose from his making such a claim regarding that country.

BUT - to take it apart, I would need to know more about the situation in the UK. I don't, so beyond generalities I am unable to speak coherently. I'd love to see a coherent takedown from someone who knows what he's talking about, but it'd have to be someone else.

As well, most all demographic studies point to a Muslim majority in all of Europe within an astoundingly short amount of time. Whether you are comfortable with that or not, I suspect may depend on how cognizant you are of that actually happening. Again, maybe it's a good thing! - and maybe not. But no point shooting the messenger, or tarring and feathering him for that matter. Be it the OP or whoever he's quoting.

Look - I'm Jewish. Millions of my people were killed because when before the Holocaust, Hitler checked to find out if anyone was interested in taking the Jews, the response was so overwhelmingly negative that he determined that he could get away with killing them with impunity. (A representative quote from the Australian representative: "as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one"). I am the last person to say that people should suffer on account of their beliefs. (Subject to one crucial caveat, which I will discuss in a separate post).

That said, people should at least acknowledge the reality: absent a very drastic change, Europe will, in short order, be incorporated into the Islamic world. We can argue over the timeline, we can argue whether or not that is a good thing. But the wind is blowing, and it is quite clear in which direction.

Quote from Splinter

I don't buy that Ben and can only see that if the extremists win their war. Even if it is true that Muslims do appear to receive a somewhat skewed beneficial treatment at times because of a sense of weird, reverse racism.

Never mind the extremists and the war. It's a simple fact of demographic trends.

Between the difference in fertility rates (generally non-Muslim Europeans' fertility rate is negative) and continued immigration, Muslims are projected to comprise between 15 and 20% of the UK's total population by 2050. And presumably, a much higher percentage of the age 20-60 bracket. By that time, a lot of the discussions we are having now will seem quaint.

Here is the Pew Research Center's projection.

Quote from Splinter

I also think it's a bit rich that this thread was started by an Argentine who, as a people cannot be described as the most racially tolerant people by a long shot.

Perhaps. Perhaps more so than perhaps. That makes the issue no less valid.

Quote from Carlos

I would like to say that Argentina is not particularly racist, compared with other countries.

1. The first different people who came in the 1820 until 1840, were Scots, English and later Irish.

None of them were excluded, on the contrary, they were well accepted and even not discriminated by religious reasons.

2. Then came the Italians, from 1850 onwards, and specially from 1890 to 1930. At first they were discriminated not because race, but because they were poor and perhaps uneducated. But from the 1930´s they could overcome this issue.

3. Then came the Spaniards, and were particularly considered uncultured and rough, and also poor, but not for race, as the main establishment had ancient Spanish roots.

4. Then, from 1890 onwards, came the Jews. They were discriminated a bit, but after 1950 they were integrated into the main stream with a growing tolerance. That was partly racism and was partly religious.

5. Then came the Near East people form Syria, Lebanon and also (not really from the near east), the Armenians. The were only discriminated because they were poor, and performed humble jobs.

6. German, Austrians, Slavs and Scandinavians were not discriminated, because they were skilled and had strong work ethics.

7. During the 1940 until 1950 came the argentineans of the provinces, who had some mixture of indian blood mixed with old Spanish stock. They were socially discirminated because at that time Buenos Aires was a "white city", very rare compared with others provincial towns.

8. From 1980 until now, came a lot of Bolivians, Peruvians and Paraguayans who gradually were integrated to the main stream. However, its indian features still conveys a certain discrimination, but the main alleged blame is that they came recently and they are receiving subisdies and poor people plans due to the demagogy of our politicians, denied to others argentineans.

8, In the last years we allowed to stay many africans from Senegal. They are not specially skilled but I do not see any attack or mistreatment of these really stranger people.

In short, we never made a pogrom to those supposed people which could generate discrimination, neither kristallnachts nor Ku klux Klan.

But it is natural to understand that an argentine of three generations or more could not see with pleasure the newcomers, as they change the ethnical landscape in some way abruptly. People likes stability. And it seems a rule common in all countries.

Time is the key to integrate the newcomers. I think that these features are common in most of the countries. But I insist, we are not, roughly speaking, a racist country.

Display More

If the measure of a racist country is pogroms and Kristallnacht, you are absolutely correct.

In our modern world, though, the measuring stick of racism has shrunk significantly.

By the PC standards most of the world employs these days, Argentina falls way short in terms of racism, sexism, and civil behaviour in general. In some ways that's a good thing, in some ways it definitely isn't.

Anti-semitism, while latent, is definitely present here. And both on the right and on the left. In the demonstrations riots at the Congress of a few weeks ago, there was a video going around in which you could see and hear a group of thugs torching a car, then yelling, "vamos, vamos a un banco, o a la embajada de Israel!"

I find Argentina the most casually racist country I have ever visited.

Regarding the OP, these are some facts that show the situation is certainly complex. However, I would say Muslim communities are accused of segregating themselves, while the wider cities and towns (including the people) are accused of segregating Muslims. This has been a long time complaint from both sides. If that's true, how can the largely segregated Muslim community be removing what it means to be British from the British people the community only peripherally interacts with?

The data in the OP was a viral poster that was spread last summer and was quickly adopted by the right wing (Carlos' friend it seems). This poster was put through the test at FullFact and was found to be wildly inaccurate. You can check it out below.

https://fullfact.org/news/musl…viral-poster-factchecked/

Here is some additoonal data on the situation, I will let people make their own conclusions.

There are not no-go areas in the UK. This is something the Trump government has pushed before and also about other countries and it is simply not true. There are around 3 million Muslims in the UK, less than 5% of the population. Around 8% of school age children are Muslin, which suggests the percentage of Muslims will continue to rise in the future. However, while I would be happy to argue there is a clear upwards trend that could be concerning, the UK has hardly been overrun to the point Britishness (whatever that is, btw) has been removed.

http://www.mcb.org.uk/muslimstatistics/

I am only focusing on Muslims because the OP clearly was pushing an agenda. If we take immigration as a whole, 9.1 million people in the UK were not born in the country. That's around 15% or around one in 7 people. Again, I don't think its enough to suggest the country is overrun. 3.5 million of these immigrants are from EU nations. Of course, immigration to the UK has been happening for decades, but those born in the UK should have "Britishness". For example, the Mayor of London who is both British and Muslim... maybe it's OK to be both?

By the way the number roughly match the 13.5% of US population made of immigrants, and is not too far off other countries like France and Germany. Ben makes a salient point that the shift is already underway and many not be slowing any time soon. It is worth noting the four countries mentioned have traditionally been the most open to immigration historically. I don't think those countries have lost their traditional values any more than the world in general has changed.

28% of the Muslim population is in social housing (this does not mean all are on benefits), or 840,000 people in England, Scotland and Wales. There are 4.1 million people in social housing in England and Wales, added unknown data for Scotland and it shows Muslims alone are not the main problem. The 63% figure in the OP seems to be wrong.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.o…-population-country-birth

There is some disparity between Muslim workers and other groups:

"29% of Muslim women between the ages of 16 and 24 are in employment, compared to approximately half the general population. For the ages group 25 - 49 the numbers show 57% of Muslim women in employment compared with 80% of women overall. This raises a number of questions that were posed at the report's launch as areas that need extra exploration - why are educated Muslim woman not carrying on into employment? Possible reasons cited being cultural influences encouraging them to have a family and stay at home, racism and prejudice in the workplace and/or their qualifications not being from institutions of a high enough standard to appeal to employers."

However, the figures presented in the OP about Muslims in the workplace are not accurate. By the way, UKIP and the OP would like to present this situation as coming from inherent Muslim laziness or culture. Perhaps, but there is evidence to suggest Muslims are being hampered by several factors, such as discrimination.

Regarding benefits. 46% of Muslims live in the lowest 10% of the poorest places to live in the UK. There should be a debate about why this is, but I would guess many of them don't want to live in near poverty.

https://www.theguardian.com/so…-in-workplace-study-finds

NOTE: This is not a defence of Muslim culture or immigration, but just a presentation of some data. I could write plenty about my feelings on mass immigration, Islam, and religion as a whole, but this is not the topic. I just wanted to show some interesting evidence to show the OP may be incorrect. I would love to see some counter data (there always is some) and to debate it where necessary.

Quote from Carlos

In my first post I referred to an information sent by an American lady who likes Trump´s policies.

My intention was to know what was really going on in the UK, which I naturally do not know as I am a foreigner.

Your statement about that "I find Argentina the most casually racist country I have ever visited", obviously I do not agree. But perhaps you are able to quote facts that I cannot see. Please explain yourself about this issue.

I understood your first point. OP in my post was in reference to original post, not original poster. I know you was just passing on information from someone else.

Regarding your second point. I am not sure if you are telling me to explain myself or asking, but I am going for the latter.

That said, any facts I have are purely anecdotal or personal experience. I did say causal racism, so it would be unlikely that there would be much factual documentation of casual racism. That's why I purposely worded my statement to make it obvious it was my opinion. However, the way the word negro is used would be an obvious example. I have written before about the treatment and perception of Bolivians in this country, which extends to Paraguayans and Peruvians too.

I am just about old enough to remember the 80s and 90s in the UK where casual racism was still more or less the norm. Let's go to the "Paki" shop for example. My perception was it filtered out and got better as the millennium passed and people became more aware. Maybe it was just the people I spent time with or knew changed as I moved through university etc. Either way, Argentina now reminds me of the UK then, albeit slightly more aware.

I could be wrong, I may be right. It's just what I see and hear.

Worth remembering I said it was the most casually racist country I have visited. Of course, I have not visited them all so who knows, perhaps others here could shed some light on worse places.

The quote thing, it is unnecessary. It is easy to find something that someone said that makes a point for you, but I will take the bait. Or should I say I will take the bait from Voltaire as I seem to be debating with him now?

I did define my terms:

Said I see a lot of casual racism here.

It's not some deep seated activist racism that can be easily defined or evidenced.

Clearly stated it was a personal opinion, which would mean from personal experience. I don't presume to have a blanket of facts on this. This also means your perspective is probably different from mine (it obviously is).

Offered a comparison as to how I viewed Argentina compared to the UK.

Kept all my answers on this subject brief (including my initial statement on the matter) because it is not the topic of the thread.

Explained how I see the way negro is used, which you misinterpreted.

That all said, you make an excellent point because the class system has a massive divide here and there is a class problem in this country. You admit that class resentment exists and can sometimes be racially defined.

"No surprise if I relate these features with the racial origin where they have."

Indeed, and you honestly don't think that class resentment bleeds into casual racism, when as you put it, there is no surprise if there is a relation? What you wrote above seems to almost admit that it can and does... I am not saying it is the case for you, I don't know you.

I want to touch on the word negro again... you said:
"You make a point saying that we are racist because we use the word “negro”

However, I did not say the problem is using the word negro, my t-shirt is negro. I said the way it is used is the problem, or more accurately can be the problem.

Quick example because you want to see evidence, even if I already said it would only be anecdotal. My son plays rugby for middle to high class club which is made up predominantly of people of European descent. The team (coaches, parents, kids) got together to watch Argentina vs. New Zealand when they last played. 80% of the people watching (there were around 40 people in total) were strangers to me, some I knew. There were numerous smatterings of wondering why New Zealand had so many black people, which the team actually does not have a lot of. Additionally on-the-line comments were made when the All Blacks scored, or did something good. Plenty of derogatory comments flew around that day.

It is not the only example I have, but I don't feel like going through my life story here. Although, I will say again, Bolivians are treated poorly here, but I can concede that this could be something to do with class. And yes, there are negroes here, but in my experience black people in Argentina are shadows, living on the edge of society. I don't see them as integrated sorry. I absolutely agree with you about what you wrote on class, but I don't think the two things are exclusive.

OK this is going to be a short point written in a long way, with an even longer intro. Let's start some shit.

I don't follow the situation in the UK all that closely - having been there a handful of times in my life, I'm just not familiar enough - but I follow the US debate much more closely.

Among the very few items on Donald Trump's agenda that he has been consistent about, is his alarm over specifically Muslim immigration. The Muslim ban was pretty much the first thing he did (or attempted to do) as president, and he has pretty much never backed down from that. The elephant in the room, of course, is terrorism. The contention is that Muslims are not content to assimilate into American life like everyone else, but dream of imposing their ideas and way of life on the totality of America. And the fact that quite a few fairly spectacular acts of terror/crime in the recent past have been accompanied by cries of "Allahu Akbar!", including the Boston Marathon bombing, San Bernardino shooting, the NYC truck mayhem, the Fort Hood shooting, and a lot more - including, of course, the obliteration of a nice little piece of the Manhattan skyline - gives some urgency to this alarm.

One of the main arguments offered in opposition, particularly recently, is that a lot of the acts of terror were committed many years after the perpetrators had immigrated to the United States, indeed they had only become radicalized only after much time already in the US. The inference being that it is impossible to screen out people with bad intentions, because those intentions are not there yet - unless you ban all Muslims. And surely nobody would dare suggest that, right?

And Trump's main crime is in daring to question that sacrosanct declaration. Instead of horrifiedly saying "right, right, of course!", he says "Wrong!" Or at least - "Says who?"

====================

I am not out to try to answer any questions, but merely - after this long introduction - to offer up a simple point for thought.

One of the US's cornerstone principles are embodied in the First Amendment. Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of association. What is rarely touched upon are the assumptions that must be made for these rights/freedoms to work.

For these freedoms are not absolute. They are not workable unless some assumptions are made. For example, as regards free speech, that this speech not be harmful - not merely offensive, but actually harmful - to others. That is why despite free speech being nearly sacrosanct, there are still prohibitions on libel; child pornography; intellectual property; incitement to violence; false advertising; etc.

Regarding freedom of religion, the basic assumption made is that free exercise of that religion will not result in civil war. If what is said in church on Sunday results in Protestants and Catholics beginning to shoot at each other as soon as they emerge from the church to the street, freedom of religion quickly becomes unworkable. If I represent a religion that says that people who work on Sunday must be killed, and you represent a religion that says that people who interfere with work on Sunday must die, we will be in some trouble.

The basic assumption made is that I can go to my synagogue, you can go to your church, and then we can meet in the town square and conduct productive business together, under a common framework - the rule of law - to which we can both appeal. That we can debate, and disagree on issues, but agree on a common framework to resolve them. Otherwise, things fall quickly apart.

The Westboro Baptist Church made (or still makes?) their claim to fame by picketing funerals with signs bearing slogans like "G-d hates fags" and "Thank G-d for dead troops" etc. You had better believe that they know the line between being deeply offensive and somehow related to violence. And that they know that if they dare cross that line, they will be gone.

Which brings us to the question: what happens when a clear nexus can be drawn between a particular religion and violence? What happens when a religion, the free exercise of which we hold to be sacrosanct, takes on political and quasi-military overtones? Where it appears to leave room (or make room) for violence, both against others, and against their own? I don't know what to do, but I do know that, such a case would all but knock down the assumptions that make workable the ideas that the First Amendment embodies.

====================

Every Western religion has some political elements. Each and every Western religions looks forward to an End of Days when the truth will be revealed and non-believers will disappear/repent/be slaghtered, as the case may be. The difference is in degree.

The Pilgrims who arrived here were fleeing religious violence, and thus for the most part supported free exercise of religions, even those different from theirs. They were not looking for a new place where everyone would worship as they do, but to establish a new paradigm. The Jews who arrived, were most certainly not seeking to impose their way of life on others, but simply to go unmolested in theirs. And some Muslims - notably, the Salafists - have a political ideology strikingly similar. Leave the End-of-Days part to G-d to do in good time, meanwhile we will be good patriotic citizens.

But it is undeniable that thanks to many factors, including the work done by Saudi authorities for their own political ends, there are strains of Islam that are widespread and spreading yet wider, that know no such subtleties. They are prevalent enough to make ignoring them a foolish proposition. And they threaten to make the basic assumption underlying freedom of religion - that we can worship differently, and yet all get along - obsolete.

Ben, for the most part I agree with everything you said. However, I am not sure how it ties to the topic of the thread and is not just you getting something off your chest. Yes, it's related and I'll give you the thread is already on a wider tangent far beyond the original point. Help me out, are you just making a wider point about Muslim immigration and the religon's unwillingness to assimilate, or are you linking it to the UK/US and saying any Muslim immigration is wrong, and as such the UK and US are already lost because the mass immigration is in full swing?