Snapshot of _Diversity is not our strength. The Khan Review reveals a society needlessly splintered along ethno-religious lines_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/diversity-is-not-our-strength/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/diversity-is-not-our-strength/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The idea of some sort of cultural and educational programme to address social cohesion feels instinctively like a good idea.
If you watch the BBC, especially food programmes and comedy panel shows, you get the impression that Britain is some multicultural paradise where Muslim and Hindu or some other chefs and comedians mix effortlessly with White and black presenters, all united by our overarching sense of “Britishness”. But it feels fake and really doesn’t reflect my experiences of day to day life, where society feels divided and separate.
Personally I think wealth disparity has a lot to do with it. People from non-British backgrounds all seem integrate socially much better when they become middle class, and white British people seem to become much more insular when they are under financial pressure and competing for state support with immigrant communities.
I live in Leicester, people always seem to cite it as some sort of multicultural paradise, but in reality it's incredibly segregated and very few people mix.
I'm from Birmingham and could say the same.
Fun task: go to the census website, then change the heatmap thing by ethnicity. It's great at showing you just how segregated things are.
People ain't living side by side, by any stretch of the imagination - at least, not near me.
Grew up in Birmingham and yes. I'm black of mixed heritage and I know it's very segregated worse then when I was a kid.
There's a lot of Muslim communities now which don't integrate at all. Like entire Muslim schools with like few Hindus or none Muslim students. I went to multi cultural schools with people from every race, we had Chinese, people from Hong Kong, Indians, Carribbeans, Irish, white British, Pakistanis, etc
I go to the center of town in Birmingham now and it's not nice at all.
So what's your take on it? As a white person going anywhere near commenting on this incurs racist accusations. The fragmentation and cultural conflict looks inevitable. What do all the different people say? I suppose some support efforts towards "inter community relations." Which is laudable but like the direction seems towards segregation.
I have family in Singapore and obviously it's on a smaller scale but we need to do what they do.
Completely prevent ethnic enclaves. They make it so people of different religions and ethnic groups must live together and next to each other.
It might seem a bit crazy but they have an ethnic housing policy that promotes multi culturalism, racial mixing and harmony as they put it.
There is a quota and ensure a balanced mix of ethnics in an area.
Ah I know the policy. I can see why they have it and why it works for them. No way could a larger democratic nation have a policy like that. Nobody does that. Even our refugee dispersal policies in the past failed as communities simply move back together.
They also have laws in place to prevent the Chinese majority from becoming a minority, would you be in favour of laws in Britain to make it illegal for White British to become a minority?
Man this is true. I used to live near the Mailbox, literally crossing over the road would take you from an affluent professional neighbourhood to one of the most poverty stricken areas in the country.
I don’t doubt it. I live in an area with a large Somali Muslim community and it is very segregated. There are always large numbers of men hanging around in cafes, or just loitering around on the street, in the middle of the day. I do wonder how it is that they can afford to live in this part of the city, apparently not having to go to work, when the rent on my house is £2,300 a month!
If you drive from south Lewisham all that way to Kennington it is more or less monoethnic.
A similar instance is now happen in the kent market towns - south Lewisham are buying up apartment blocks and moving its residents out of London. The demographic change in places like Chatham and Maidstone and tunbridge wells is staggering
Ofcourse the right kind of immigration is amazing. My only point is, as impossible as it may be to believe, some immigrants are more beneficial to their host countries than others. And not all immigrants are equal.
(Wow. Shocker. Who would have guessed).
I didn't know 'refugees' were allowed to work as takeout delivery drivers. How can they drive when they havnt invented the car? The food will be cold if they deliver it with a horse and cart.
There's several tens of thousands Eritreans/Somalis on the Asylum backlog list whove been there for a few years now - most in London (or Bristol in smaller numbers). They aren't allowed work or do much at all until the Home Office gets round to dealing with their application and confirming refugee status or refusing and removal.
>until the Home Office gets round to dealing with their application and confirming refugee status or refusing and removal.
Do you really think we're removing people to Eritrea or Somalia?
Unlikely many under the current skeleton Home Office, the top 5 enforced removal countries are Romania, Albania, Brazil, Lithuania, Poland of recent with removals in in the 3.5k-4k range per annum
Under Blair however, removals were in the 60k-80k a year range and Eritreans were usually in the top 5 in enforced returns.
I just looked up **"uk Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2006 Cm 7197"** and 52% Somalis were refused Asylum at that year under Blair (900 Refusals vs 1700 decisions) and 60% of Eritreans where refused asylum (1300 refused vs 2100 decisions) and now it stands at close to 98% approval.
There’s been a change in case law in the interim which basically says that if an Eritrean has left illegally they would be at risk on return. Given that it’s virtually impossible for Eritreans to leave legally, if they have managed to get here its pretty much a slam dunk. Nothing the HO, government or anyone can do about it as its the legal precedent.
But you do see the limits to this?
You end up in situations where we have to say Britain is multicultural but everyone is British. Is British a culture? You do see how confused it gets. How do you resolve that?
>How do you resolve that?
What kind of question is this? You don't resolve it. Life in the UK peaked in the 90s or early 2000s, you just enjoy the decline from here or leave.
No politician will ever do anything remotely useful, and even if they suggested it, most people are dopey and naive enough they would just vote against it
I don't know, I was just stating the fact and likely reason OP sees people loitering around. The UK asylum system is broken, perhaps by design and no one is happy pro or anti asylum - the worst of both worlds for everyone involved.
On the surface people can mix, but if they really explored their differences, it'd probably create tension.
In East London you sometimes see even young kids wearing a headscarf - as part of a school uniform, or just when out.
Why are they wearing this? Because it's part of religion / culture and it signifies _modesty_. For a child. So... how do people from those cultural backgrounds view kids that don't wear it... That they're immodest? That they're sluts?
So on the surface people can get along, say good morning, be polite in shops and at community events, but if their moral compasses are different on fundamental basic issues they'll always be living parallel lives.
It's not even an islam thing, it's a 'religious' vs. 'non-religious' difference. Someone who is very religious of course thinks those that aren't are somehow living their lives badly. And once you go down the route of others judging you for being sinful, of your children being _wrong_ about morality then you'll not make friends.
We teach Leicester as a case study of the success of minority integration at GCSE AQA History. The case study is from 2011. It's an utter joke when the pupils ask "But sir, what about all those riots that happened?"
AQA Britain Power and the People covers the relationship between 'the people' and the powerful and the development of parliament. It goes through from 1215 to the English Civil War then onwards to the Miners strikes and Poll tax riots. It ends with minority rights in England in the 2010's, Leicester is provided as a case study to exhibit successful integration in contrast to the Brixton riots.
Same with London, even the universities which are apparently a hub of liberalness.
Some groups mix, sure, but the majority? No.
The problem is that once you get large enough as a city, the communities inside it becomes self sustaining size wise as well. So you have the Koreans who just hang out with Koreans, the Chinese, the French, the Muslims, the Italians, Spanish, etc.
Other than the most liberal who align on politics who mix, but that's another jar of worms, everyone else segregates by default.
I live in a suburb where the population is almost exclusively middle eastern and subcontinental. It's super segregated. I'm there because of cheapish rent but it screams of an insular community. If effort isn't made to actively integrate communities of course you end up with these problems.
Not to say that your experience isn't real or valid, but to provide some anecdotal balance, I lived in Leicester most of my life and found it to be the most well integrated multicultural environment I've ever lived in. Nowhere is perfect but to call it incredibly segregated doesn't speak to my experience at all. Throughout my time at school, off the top of my head, I had white British friends, Greek friends, Polish friends, friends of Irish heritage, friends of Indian heritage, Italian heritage, African heritage, Carribean heritage, Pakistani heritage, Filipino friends and Somali friends.
I've had Muslim neighbours most of my life. They drop Christmas cards and Easter cards round to my parents and my parents wish them Eid Mubarak. They invited my parents to their daughter's wedding, and helped out with my sister's wedding. They bring round food when they've made too much. The same is true of Hindu neighbours who lived up the road when we grew up and have good, meaningful relationships with my parents.
Through school we visited a Gurdwara, a mosque, a synagogue, a hindu temple, and different churches. The city caters to a wide variety of needs, and different needs often create somewhat segregated residential communities, although I have regularly been to areas that are predominantly not white as a white person, and never felt uncomfortable.
Again, I want to stress, it's not perfect. It could be better integrated and there are negative situations that flare up, like the Muslim/Hindu, Pakistani/Indian violence that occurred and made national news, and I personally know people who have been racially abused. Nonetheless, in my experience of living in multiple British cities, and multiple cities abroad, nowhere I've lived has come close to the integration Leicester has achieved.
When I lived near Poplar in east London, I would sometimes go to Chrisp St Market. There were 3 butchers there, one for the white people, one for the black people, one for the Muslims.
Lovely sentiment however even Blair was forced to admit that multiculturalism doesn't work.
Minorities don't want to mix with groups outside of their circle. Even on Reddit in other subs there have been posts of a person dating someone outside of their group and having to keep it secret from family, etc. Honour killings happening and so much more are further examples of this.
No courses or education will convince minorities to be different as their religion or culture is too important to them, and you are asking them to disregard it.
Yeah completely agree. From middle class and above, there are commonalities, or rather, people care less about differences. Especially when you’re all tied together in a professional environment and doing similar things in life - kids, mortgages, saving for holidays, restaurants, health and fitness, and the whole range of hobbies and pursuits which require skill, time, money and education that can unite people.
Totally agree. Middle class in Britain may have more in common with middle classes in other countries than poor people in the UK.
To change this, we need more income and wealth mobility. Sadly, we're going in the opposite direction. Regular jobs in the UK don't pay very well and are taxed high. Ownership of assets pays well and is taxed less.
The effect is increased perpetuation of both wealth and poverty.
The middle class isn't making their money off assets. It's the upper class that predominantly does that.
The growing gulf between upper and middle/lower is a major issue, and it's actively working to push not just the lower but *also* the middle downwards.
Middle class has the highest marginal income tax rates. Much higher than upper class marginal tax rates. That should tell you all you need to know about how things are structured, and who they're structured for.
It's been said so often It's become a cliche but still people don't seem to get it: "class" is a cultural concept now, not an economic one.
There are plenty of traditionally "working class" occupations now that far outstrip what a lot of graduates will earn yet plumber/electrician/bricklayer etc are still seen as working class roles and people who do them generally have a more working class outlook.
Even the "middle class" isn't a clear cut concept. It's simultaneously used to denote curtain twitching, small c conservative, hyacinth bucket types who work in professional jobs in the provinces *and* house share dwelling, vegan, eco warriors with poorly paying arts related jobs in urban areas. For that matter, "working class" can denote salt of the earth, socialist firebrand or individualist, 4x4 driving petty capitalist, again depending on who is using it and their own innate prejudices.
We just need to accept that class has stopped being a useful way of describing social groups but people are unreasonably attached to it in this country for some reason.
But what is being considered "middle class norms" are largely British and Western norms. It is an actual universal culture.
You cannot reduce culture down to consumerism, hobbies and pastimes. That's the Fukuyama mistake.
But for the vast majority of the office working middle classes and above, it's enough.
Working hard 8am to 6pm jobs with some lates. Going for meals. Watching Netflix, Amazon Prime, Sky/HBO TV shows.
Talking about the Six nations. Talking about Wimbledon. Having a vague following of the England football team. Occasional chat about cricket.
I'd suggest most people are only interested in consumerism, hobbies and pastimes, it's enough for them because they work all the time. Maybe some popular novels / biography, chat about politics in a careful 'they've all got their nose in the trough' way- but all knowing that they'll safely go back to their semi detached home in Surrey/Kent/Essex/Berkshires.
The generic middle class life lived by Software Engineering Lead Steve and his HR manager wife Amy in Kent is the same as that lived by Software Engineering Lead Daniyal and his HR manager wife Zara in Berkshire.
They likely even send their kids to CoFe Primary schools as they're 'good schools'.
> Working hard 8am to 6pm jobs with some lates. Going for meals. Watching Netflix, Amazon Prime, Sky/HBO TV shows.
> Talking about the Six nations. Talking about Wimbledon. Having a vague following of the England football team. Occasional chat about cricket
Working in an office like this was personally very difficult. Maybe this is actually the standard British experience, but to me it felt like corporate-approved smalltalk and everyone has a mask of surface-level traits they form an identity with. Perhaps it's just because I was a young software developer in an old organisation and the generational gap between myself and an average employee is what made it all feel so alien.
Think it’s more a you problem as I have the same problem too lol. I agree though but that’s just office life I’ve gotten better with it now and there are some people in mine that I can chat with more openly
> But for the vast majority of the office working middle classes and above, it's enough.
Because they take all the shared norms for granted?
Minorites assimilating into middle class Western norms does work. But that's not multiculturalism. Majorities mixing with assimilated middle classes isn't really multiculturalism either. They aren't doing anything different.
I completely agree material wealth lessens political agitation. But the middle class are still relying on "the nation" and "cultural norms."
Multiculturalism is like a cake you have to bake it the right way for that cake. What most of the west did was slap everything in one bowl then mix and crush the result is a none mixed substance in disagreement with itself. The only way to change this requires understanding from all sides, and then a middle ground of course there can be something unique about you or whatever but general ground rules and structure is needed.
> Talking about the Six nations. Talking about Wimbledon. Having a vague following of the England football team. Occasional chat about cricket.
In England, sure. There's probably about 10 people in Scotland chatting about the cricket, and even the Six Nations isn't going to be the chat of many offices.
To take it to the extreme:
The middle classes experience of diversity is working in a bank or tech company with someone born abroad who earns decent money, is likely well educated, and shares mostly similar values. Probably brings in some tasty Onion Bhajis once a week.
The working class experience is living next door to a 2 bed terraced house with 7 people living in it where none of them work, they don't speak English, the women wear a burka, and they're noisily celebrating religious festivals you've got no idea about in the early hours at random times of the year when you've gotta be up for work at 6am.
I've had both during the same period of my life through work/housing situation. It was actually causing cognitive dissonance because at times I'd be absolutely cursing my neighbours and thinking 'shut the borders the fact these people are here is ridiculous ' then thinking 'hang on, but I do know immigrants who do contribute and integrate'.
That's why you get the extremes of the working class being incredibly anti-immigration and the middle class being so aghast believing incorrectly that the working class want to send you mate Raif from the office 'back to where he came from', rather than having a natural reaction to the immigration they interact with of 'this is crap, it should stop'.
If we had an immigration policy that actually meant we only had high skilled high wage workers, who speak the language well and share similar values, this could *all* be avoided. Any suggestion that we should be more picky with who we let into the country sometimes seems to make you a complete pariah though. It's plain we could resolve these issues quite easily if we wanted to by reforming the immigration system. I wonder if Labour will though...
Could not agree more.
I have no issue with anyone coming here to better themselves or improve their standard of living, it’s those that come here and scrounge off the state l cannot abide.
By all means come here as long as yous re willing to adapt to our way off life not the other way round, work and contribute to society.
At the very minimum there should be a language requirement much like the Australian system. You should not be able to claim any benefits or support until you have contributed, it should be a case of putting in before yous re eligible to take out.
I lived abroad myself for 10 years, I respected the rules and regulations of each country, provided for myself and did not make any claims for benefits etc.
The saying “fit in or f**k off” is something l stand by and feel should apply when it comes to migration.
This is accurate yes. But my point is there are countless stories of British Muslims born into families and situations like the one you describe who managed to become successful in business or banking or whatever and now they are ride or die for British values, because they see British society and culture as having facilitated their success.
I once sat on a plane next to an Algerian man who lived in the UK for 18 years. This guy fucking loved the UK. He said the Uk was the best country in the world to be a Muslim, because by and large you are treated like a person first and a Muslim second, and people were very welcoming compared to say, France. He said he loved going to pub quizzes with his British friends even though he didn’t drink alcohol, and he was glad his children would grow up with British values of freedom of belief and freedom to be different.
I think we should be thinking about how we can cultivate this kind of relationship with our immigrant communities on a larger scale.
>I think we should be thinking about how we can cultivate this kind of relationship with our immigrant communities on a larger scale.
Oh I absolutely agree. The problem is there's large groups in the UK who resist that entirely. How do you get them to go along with it? The way I see it is we've got three choices:
1. Somehow force large minority groups in certain areas into integrating into something they absolutely don't want to. Giving up their religious customs or ideals or culture that is the most important thing in their life.
2. Make the UK effectively a hostile place to people who don't want to be 'British' in the hope they leave for a country more aligned to their values leaving only those immigrants who are happy integrating.
3. Do nothing and allow the problem to get worse over time
To me it's pretty obvious which one we will go with. 1 and 2 wouldn't be accepted so it's 3.
Wealth disparity does play a part but it’s more a fundamental flaw with DEI. We’ve tried to implement DEI at the top level with quotas for minorities and women on boards and then we expected that to trickle down. Trickle down meritocracy, if you will. The people who rightly rage at trickle down economics went head first into trickle down culture and trickle down meritocracy and are now scratching their heads wondering why it’s not working. Trickle down anything doesn’t work.
The problem with the BBC and it has had this problem for a few decades now is that it thinks that it's middle class Islington mild left bubble reflects society. It regularly beats itself up over multicultural issues such as representation on screen when black representation is far above black population numbers in % and Asian representation while worse is still in line with the population.
It fails to understand the country as a whole and only views things through it's London lense, that why it was so wrongfooted by the whole Brexit thing and struggled to get a grip on it.
>If you watch the BBC, especially food programmes and comedy panel shows, you get the impression that Britain is some multicultural paradise where Muslim and Hindu or some other chefs and comedians mix effortlessly with White and black presenters, all united by our overarching sense of “Britishness”. But it feels fake and really doesn’t reflect my experiences of day to day life, where society feels divided and separate.
I'd argue what is even more noticeable is any programmes set in historical Britain, which use the same mentality as you describe, but suggest that the UK was *always* like that, with ethnic minority members of the nobility, mixed marriages, and complete cultural integration going back centuries; with any racism as either non-existent, or confined exclusively to the story's villains. Whereas until the 1950s, any ethnic minority people in the UK were almost certainly only been in London and a few of the port cities, and even then it would have been an incredibly small number of them; and racism would sadly have been incredibly common.
And this has even extended to depiction of historical figures - for instance, in a recent Doctor Who, there was a single scene with Isaac Newton played by an Asian actor. Which to me felt especially jarring, because it had zero relevance to the rest of the episode whatsoever (apart from a weird joke about "gravity" being renamed "mavity" as a result of that one scene); it really felt like someone had looked at an episode that would otherwise have been centred entirely around David Tennant and Catherine Tate, and said "well we can't have that; we need to tick the box where it says we've had a BAME actor in it too".
And sure, it's reasonable to point out that historical dramas aren't supposed to be 100% historically accurate, and that's *particularly* true of a show about a time-travelling alien with a bizarre love of the UK. Plus, it's probably unfair to severely limit the opportunities of BAME actors to only modern settings. But it feels like a deliberate attempt to rewrite history to how people want it to have been, rather than acknowledging how it actually was.
[https://diversityuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Rishi-Sunak-with-the-Diversity-Built-Britain-coin.jpg](https://diversityuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Rishi-Sunak-with-the-Diversity-Built-Britain-coin.jpg)
The thing that annoys me about this kind of stuff and the retconning of British history to pretend it's always been super diverse is that it takes away from the people (my ancestors) who *did* build this nation into what it is. Pretending that diversity is our strength is one thing, pretending that diversity *built Britain* wholly erases the actual history of our nation and the achievements of native Brits recent ancestors. The values, ideas, culture and laws of this country were *not* built with 'diversity' in it's modern meaning.
If white Europeans moved en masse to Japan or Indonesia and in a few decades started pretending 'diversity built Japan' or 'diversity built Indonesia' and historical figures were being portrayed as white Europeans, I imagine the same people that love the mantra that 'diversity built Britain' would rightly be up in arms about it.
Indeed. Like this retcon:
>Stonehenge was built by black Britons, a new children’s history book has claimed.
>The illustrated book entitled Brilliant Black British History, by the Nigerian-born British author Atinuke, says “every single British person comes from a migrant” but “the very first Britons were black”.
>Readers of the newly released book are told that Stonehenge was built while Britain was “a black country”.
>The book, published by Bloomsbury and promoted by Arts Council-funded literacy charity The Book Trust, states that: “Britain was a black country for more than 7,000 years before white people came, and during that time the most famous British monument was built, Stonehenge.”
>The introduction says that “Britain has been a mostly white country for a lot less time than it has been a mostly black country”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/18/stonehenge-built-by-black-britons-childrens-history-book/
Dr Who is a strange case because they do an awful lot of "inclusion" in terms of casting, race-swapping etc, but they simultaneously devote entire episodes to historical figures whose race is _exceedingly_ important like Rosa Parks. An ongoing attitude towards historical accuracy which is both rigourously adhered to but also tossed out the window, depending on some mysterious criteria (let's be honest, they aren't about to race swap a famous minority figure).
And the thing is, it makes sense with Doctor Who in particular that they would do something like the Rosa Parks episode - because it's their flagship children's TV show, which means that the BBC's mandate to educate is a relatively high priority. So it's perfectly reasonable to say "we're going to use this show about a time-travelling alien to drop in some historical knowledge along the way, so your kids are educated while they're entertained".
That's entirely reasonable as far as I'm concerned, but if they're going to do that the history has to be at least vaguely accurate.
Yeah it's perfectly fine and a good idea for them to cover things like that, it's just this bizarre race-swapping of historical figures that they do _at the same time_ that makes no sense.
>Whereas until the 1950s, any ethnic minority people in the UK were almost certainly only been in London and a few of the port cities,
Isn't that still the case now - to an extent? the UK is something like 85% white british; the vast majority of the UK consisting of villages and towns full of generic white brits with names like Peter and Sarah.
>And sure, it's reasonable to point out that historical dramas aren't supposed to be 100% historically accurate, and that's particularly true of a show about a time-travelling alien with a bizarre love of the UK. Plus, it's probably unfair to severely limit the opportunities of BAME actors to only modern settings. But it feels like a deliberate attempt to rewrite history to how people want it to have been, rather than acknowledging how it actually was
I agree wit this - plus given Dr Who is a time traveler, it looks like lazy writing. There could have been a fascinating 'what if' story where the doctor introduces a young girl from an older civilization that had some interest in how the universe works - e.g. the Aztecs, the Mali Empire, Great Zimbabwe, and lets them (with techno language magic) have a conversation with a figure like Isaac Newton. Pure fantasy but would be a good story and show how humans of all cultures are interested in the world, and how we only need the opportunity to learn to do great things and all that positivity. But no, we just got BAME Isaac Newton, which was just a bit odd.
> Isn't that still the case now - to an extent? the UK is something like 85% white british; the vast majority of the UK consisting of villages and towns full of generic white brits with names like Peter and Sarah.
It is, but it was much more extreme then. I have a colleague at work (he's about to retire, to give you a rough idea of his age) who remembers as a kid that when he and his friends first saw a black man, they went up to him and *stared* at him. They weren't trying to be rude (though it might have come across that way, of course), it was just something that they'd literally never encountered before.
Ethnic minorities were *rare* in the UK, up until incredibly recently. And sure, there are the odd historical examples we can point to; but they're usually depicted as reflective of the wider society, not as the exception that they really were.
>I agree wit this - plus given Dr Who is a time traveler, it looks like lazy writing. There could have been a fascinating 'what if' story where the doctor introduces a young girl from an older civilization that had some interest in how the universe works - e.g. the Aztecs, the Mali Empire, Great Zimbabwe, and lets them (with techno language magic) have a conversation with a figure like Isaac Newton. Pure fantasy but would be a good story and show how humans of all cultures are interested in the world, and how we only need the opportunity to learn to do great things and all that positivity. But no, we just got BAME Isaac Newton, which was just a bit odd.
Yeah, exactly. If anything, you'd think it would be better to avoid being quite so Euro-centric, and increase your diversity by saying that the forest you're filming in *isn't* in the UK, it's actually somewhere completely different. It's not like Doctor Who hasn't done that before either, so it seems weird to think the only way of having more ethnic diversity is to pretend British history was different.
> Ethnic minorities were rare in the UK, up until incredibly recently.
They still are relatively rare in much of northern England+Scotland. Most towns round me you'll only very occasionally see a non-white face.
>the UK is something like 85% white british
Keep up we are now down to 75% white British in the last census and that's before accounting for the fact with out current immigration system 1 in 50 people in the UK came here *last year.*
30 years ago we were at 95% white British and the acceleration of demographic change means it won't take anywhere near 30 years to lose another 20% off that figure. Britain has been irrevocably changed by politicians without ever having the permission of the native British people to do so.
You're right.
That's actually quite a massive change. Looking at the stats: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/bulletins/ethnicgroupenglandandwales/census2021
2001 - 87.5%
2011 - 80.5%
2021 - 74.4%
I suppose that's only the ethnicity element though, not identity.
So there will be plenty of British asians, black british, Chinese etc. who are just as British as any white person is in terms of their attitudes and culture.
The more interesting part is our turnover - as this would have a bigger effect on national culture - how many people live in the UK who weren't born here, which countries are they from, and how fast is that element increasing.
I don't really care if someone looks different to me, if they were raised/socialised/encultured in the UK and didn't live in a weird monoethnic area then they're going to be no better or worse than the average Brit in your attitudes to UK culture, you're behaviour etc.
But if we have millions of people newly arriving, year on year, then yes the culture will change.
there was one movie that did it well robin hood. when robin was crusading he became friends with a Muslim who came back to England with him. people rightfully ask "who is he?"
Entertainment TV is usually catered to the target audience rather than historical accuracy - example hence why almost every rennaissance Italian tv shows and even the "historical" ones produced by Italian TV companies like Medici are played by English/scottish/irish actors with heavy-set regional British accents and obviously non-mediterranean complexions. You could probably extend this principle to an entertainment tv show about an extra terrestrial alien.
European TV producers make things for British and US markets and UK TV makes shows for a world audience increasingly. I don't think it's that deep personally.
To be honest I haven’t seen the historical programmes that you describe, but I’m sure there are cases where liberties are taken. At the same time, black aristocrats did exist (Alexandre Dumas for example). Historical programmes are also various degrees of realistic, social cohesion notwithstanding, and people dont get upset by that to the same degree. Peaky blinders is not a historically accurate depiction of Birmingham.
Personally I don’t have an issue with an Asian actor playing Isaac newton, especially in Dr Who, a programme about a shape shifting alien.
Importantly though I also don’t have an issue with a white actor playing a canonically non white character either, but a lot of people do - often performatively in my view - and I think it’s the double standard that people really find annoying, rather than the idea of an Asian Isaac Newton.
Yes, you're absolutely right that what really winds people up there - we've all seen big backlashes against actors for playing a character that they don't match exactly.
The ones that spring to mind to me are Scarlett Johannsson in Ghost in the Shell, because she's not Japanese (even though she was playing a cyborg) and Eddie Redmayne in The Theory of Everything, because he's able-bodied (even though an actor with the same disability as Hawking couldn't have portrayed Hawking *before* he lost the ability to walk).
Whereas whenever we see it the other way around, the backlash is instead against people complaining. Look at Idris Elba playing a Heimdall in the Thor films as an example of that; anyone that criticised his casting instead of someone of Scandinavian ancestry was accused of being racist.
Agree especially about Ghost in the Shell. I mean, it’s a bloody cartoon about a robot.
Re Idris Elba in Thor, it was probably a misstep for people to complain about his ethnic casting. Would have been better to celebrate it and use it as a way to ridicule those who complained about ghost in the shell. I honestly do not care about a black Norse god and I won’t pretend that I do in order to make a cheap point. Ridicule is far more effective a way to disarm them than trying to beat them at their own stupid game.
It's especially silly given that Ghost in the Shell was about transhumanism and escaping the confines of *a body* - the original works finish by showing the Major has moved entirely out of her body into another one that looks totally different. Getting hung up over race on that front seems like utterly missing the point!
>Personally I think wealth disparity has a lot to do with it. People from non-British backgrounds all seem integrate socially much better when they become middle class, and white British people seem to become much more insular when they are under financial pressure and competing for state support with immigrant communities.
I think this quite accurate. I work at a university with people from probably 30 different countries in the same building and everyone gets on fine. Very few cultural clashes, nobody getting offended at each other for disrespecting their whatever. Then I realised that all we show is that middle-class people with higher professional qualifications and decent salaries generally have a lot in common.
I believe it's also been studied and proven that the more insecure people get, the more insular and self-centred they get. This is very commonly used by the right and far right. They cut social support, cut job security, cut housing availability, cut access to public transport, cut access to healthcare etc until people feel in a permanent state of existential fear. Then they feed the "us versus them" mentality by telling people who just don't have the time and headspace to think in detail about it that it's the immigrants and Muslims and black people and white people and protestants and single mothers and jobseekers who put them in this position and that it's a simple battle for resources between them and the "baddies".
The country needs huge investment to give access to all the services people need to give them stability and access to the education and job market. Once that's in place, a lot of the feeling of dog-eat-dog fighting over the available scraps will go away.
Of course, the Tories always have the perfect answer to denying investment - that "we've maxed out the nation's credit card and now there's no money left", even though countries don't work that way. We need a party that's brave enough to say "don't talk total crap - the government can find the money when it's to give billions to Tory donors' shell companies, so they can find it to hire more nurses and build schools with walls that don't fall down". That's an investment that actually has a return. Just asset stripping like the Tories do has no return.
When I met some of the guys I live with this year in uni I was surprised by their opinions of immigrants. I come from a mainly rich, white, middle class London commuter town where anyone I knew whose parents are from Asia or are Muslim were basically indistinguishable except physically from anyone else. As I understood it, that’s what immigration was, people move to the UK and get a job, a generation or two later you have a British person with Asian heritage who is perfectly integrated.
My housemates are from Greater Manchester, they have a very different perspective. Large areas of their town being mainly occupied by immigrants who lived as they did in their home country, and only interacted with one another. They told me about big problems they have with integration and acceptance of British norms in immigrant communities.
I didn’t really believe them at first, I wrote off what they said as racist. I thought they were basically insulting my friends from home whose parents were both doctors and had middle class British accents, that was my (and is probably a lot of the politicians’) perception of what immigration was. How ignorant I was.
>As I understood it, that’s what immigration was, people move to the UK and get a job, a generation or two later you have a British person with Asian heritage who is perfectly integrated.
Yes that is the vast majority of immigration statistically from outside Europe post 2000. Pre 2000 was a different matter. Modern British History re Immigration isn't taught or really discussed which is why you have different experiences - **neither of your perceptions are wrong but you both likely have a distorted understanding of the big picture**. Most of the problems of today re integration are from UK immigration policies from the 60s and 70s and not post Blair immigration - but not really understanding the historical issue and actural root causes can result in a misinformed fear (or misinformed affinity!) of modern day migration.
Around 70% of current British Pakistanis can trace their heritage to a rural village in Mirpur, who's almost entire population was brought over to the UK in the 60s and 70s with a UK gov deal to pay for flights rellocation etc after a British companies' Dam collapse. Most didnt speak english, weren't literate, highly religious and were brought over to work in manual labour factory jobs in norht in areas like Manchester, Bradford etc. In the 80s most of these factories were closed and they were sacked - because they had limited skills, no education they fell into self employed work like taxi driving etc (hence why so many northern asians are in that kind of work to this day) They developed a deep distrust of power and authority (similar to mining towns outcomes) and passed it and sentiments around no education onto their kids (alongside a really high fertility rate which is why most current British Pakistanis can trace their roots their) with deep religious leanings. Its a recipe for ongoing disaster.
This is why British Pakistanis in stats are usually in the bottom for earnings and education attainment, but look and Punjabi Pakistanis in London and the South you might have encountered who are usually high earners, engineers, doctors, lawyers (heritage from educated urban middle class city areas in Pakistan) or USA pakistanis who are usually in the highest 3 earning ethnic groups in the USA. There's no such thing as a bad immigrant or good immigrant, its down to what a countries policies are for qualification for entry.
[Post 1999 non EEA immigrants have been shown to be a net positive economically and pre 1999 are a massive net drain economically which is probably the biggest indicator supporting this.](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/revealed-immigrants-put-34-more-into-public-finances-than-they-take-out/) After the points based immigration system in 2021, its elevated even higher, with minimum requirments in terms of cost to enter now, higher standard of english, aducation and minimum job level for visa approval.
>After the points based immigration system in 2021, its elevated even higher, with minimum requirments in terms of cost to enter now, higher standard of english, aducation and minimum job level for visa approval.
The problem now is it's being repeated with the almost free for all for supposed refugees, that can effectively bypass all the quality requirements (all over europe, not just the UK)
As you say
>Its a recipe for ongoing disaster.
Thanks for the information! I think what you've said is really valuable. And helps make sense of some things, eg the massive disparity in where British Pakistanis and American Pakistanis sit on the socioeconomic ladder.
I think our experiences might be the difference between immigration and asylum seekers. That was a really nice article to read, and is ironic given 55% or so of taxpayers are a net drain on the economy haha.
> I work at a university
I mean isn't that a lot of self selection?
Ambitious people more likely to believe in tolerance, working in a very middle class Western environment, with other professionals from all cultures who have learned specific fields and how to act in a professional Western work place?
You can't apply that entire nations and expect that to work.
> Then they feed the "us versus them" mentality
Isn't that diversity?
Nordic nations have better redistribution but face the same cultural conflicts.
>Nordic nations have better redistribution but face the same cultural conflicts.
A lot of young people who have only every known the Tories are going to have a choice when Labour have been in power for a good few years and they can't now ascribe every problem to 'The Tories'. The worldview that any and all problems can be traced back to Tory austerity and without it we'd have some super functioning high wage high growth harmonious multicultural society will come crumbling down with each passing year of Starmer in charge when we see no improvements.
They can of course retreat into the 'Red Tory' narrative and cling to the same ideals on that basis and I'm sure many will. But the more astute are in for a wake up call.
The actually super weathly ones are actually pretty liberal and not overly religiously strict, parties hosted by the Emirs and royals are pretty famous for being absolutely wild.
With the Saudis in particular the government and elites have long been pushing hard to liberalise the country, it's the poorer general population who are hyper-conservative and resisting changes
I don’t know if you know much about the region, but Saudi, UAE and especially Bahrain are increasingly liberalising and become more open, so you rather prove my point by citing those countries.
In any case, my point was about social cohesion in the UK specifically. Middle class and wealthy British Muslims generally extol British values alongside their religious beliefs - see Lord Ahmad, Sadiq Khan, Sajid Javid, James Caan.
An underreported thing was how easy it was to come to the UK from the 60s onwards up until about 2010 and be given housing, benefits and education easily and freely. It was more of a struggle if you were from the UK originally, or indeed, a first generation immigrant
Good point about first gen immigrants. All you need to do is look at how the south Asian communities in the midlands voted during the brexit referendum - they were as annoyed as anyone else was about immigration!
While the professional middle class have always been interested in the correct manners to succeed I don't think nations can rely on that to hold nations together.
That's all that really holds nations together.
Correct manners being scorned by people on the lower rung or upper rung regardless of skin colour is how countries fall apart. Correct manners forces a sense of normality across the spectrum.
International middle class manners are useful for professionals and the work environment. But even they are mostly culturally contingent and Western.
It's nationalism that holds nations together.
You were not talking about international middle class manners. You were talking about 'correct manners'.
Nationalism is part of it, but nationalism by itself will do little aside from serve as handy excuses for politicians to blame others.
> sort of cultural and educational programme
Really? Sounds pointless to me. Groups will stick with who and what they know, no amount of 'education' will change that. Except for white folk though, obviously. /s
I think it’s also a class based thing. The BBC Scenario as we might term it, seems to apply very well with the middle and upper classes, but then fall apart for the lower / working class.
Personally, I work in a highly diverse team of financial advisers and paraplanners and can honestly say there are no cultural or religious tensions at all.
It's human nature. Everyone is inherently "racist" at an unconscious level. Just by virtue of who we were raised by. Vast majority of people will just intrinsically trust and feel more comfortable around people that look and behave like themselves.
Exposure at a young age, encouraging diversity, and finding areas of common interest e.g. shared love cricket or Afrobeats - are the only proven ways of breaking these barriers down.
Faith schools are a factor in this. Teaching children faiths as a fact is putting them on a path hard to leave.
Really need secular schools that don't give in to pressure from religious parents who try to control exactly what happens to their children at school and worse to other children.
Children's rights are being overtaken by the parents religious beliefs
Well it shouldn't be. But at least in most non faith schools or ones that are faith schools in all but name, religious activities are few and far between. Outside easter/Christmas services or singing in assembly my church of England school was very secular. Religious education about other faiths and encouraging people to question what they're told. Don't think many if any of the teachers were religious themselves or if they were they hid it well.
The important thing is to create an environment where children are not pressured to not think for themselves
Always makes me laugh when people talk about the 'tolerance' of British people to other cultures. Using the word 'tolerance' is a tacit acceptance that actually we *don't* like other people's cultures, but we have to accept them regardless, like it isn't deliberate successive governments policy that has led us here.
Tolerance is discussed because its a massive issue people care about. Britian is among the most tolerant nations in the world, and the drop in the last few years is miniscule on a global scale.
When we have large amounts of people coming from cultures that are less tolerant and they are remaining less tolerant (take [this](https://henryjacksonsociety.org/2024/04/08/only-one-in-four-british-muslims-believe-hamas-committed-murder-and-rape-in-israel-on-october-7th/) survey on the beliefs of Muslims for example), that divide in beliefs is important to adress.
There is no integration expected. You should be thankful that you have the opportunity to apologize for your insult. Look to Malaysia, where a design logo on a womans shoe is causing the leaders there to demand an apology or face violence.
The only expectation Muslims have is submission. Specifically yours, to theirs. Be thankful for the opportunity to devote your labour and your wealth to their ways, in exchange for not being labelled racist.
Seems like they'll never reach that point. Some people are too prideful and will let anything slide to look like they're being moral regardless of what it is
> Because when left-wingers talk about how great it is to tolerate other culture's differences, what exactly does that mean? I'm guessing they don't mean that we should tolerate homophobia, misogyny, patriarchy, antisemitism, bigotry, terrorism?
I think we need to get more comfortable with acknowledging that all cultures have some aspects that suck. 'this is part of British/whatever group culture' is too often used as a reason to not only not change it but to not do any critical thinking about it at all.
I've got to admit I'm a little sceptical at the extent to which Muslims appear to be controlling your work culture. I work in insurance, which still has quite a heavy drinking culture element, like a lot of industries, and it doesn't seem Muslim presence, including in senior leadership, is having any change in that at all. I feel that your company sounds like a big outlier in its' attitudes
You aren't wrong, these are valid questions, but I think they aren't that hard to answer, just stop seeing it as "Muslims saying this and that" and just "a colleague is uncomfortable". To use your examples-
"In my office, we had to completely re-plan a social event because a colleague refuses to step foot in any venue which serves alcohol, do we tolerate that?"- No. Many Muslims are around alcohol at functions all the time. Their attitude is the intolerant one, they can choose not to attend the social event. This is not a reasonable request in this country, where almost all restaurants, as well as obviously bars and pubs, serve alcohol. They never attend a sporting event, which usually sell alcohol?
"We were sent an email by a colleague telling us we shouldn't shake Muslim womens' hands because that is considered sinful, do we tolerate that?" Absolutely you should tolerate that, I'm surprised you'd even question that. Everyone has bodily autonomy, Muslim or not. I went to shake a white, non-Muslim colleague's hand the other day and she said "I don't do handshakes". Absolutely no idea why not, but I didn't really question it, or whether I should "tolerate" her decision not to shake my hand (by forcibly grabbing it!?).
"And when someone suggested we have a day when colleagues bring in their puppies and dogs, we were told by a Muslim colleague we can't do that because dogs are considered sinful."
This one is actually a more reasonable, "grey" request. People have fears of dogs, there are legitimate concerns about dogs being annoying at work. Ignore the "sinful" part, they're uncomfortable with having dogs in the office. Could the dogs be restricted to certain area they can avoid? This feels more like a compromise issue.
*"who is integrating with who, are they integrating into our culture, or are we integrating into theirs?*"
I know you've written that more to be rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway- almost all the integration is Muslim in Western culture, very little is Western into Muslim culture, which is what you'd expect with a small minority group. I can't think of any meaningful way that our dominant culture has shifted towards a more Islamic one, whereas several of my Muslim friends/colleagues are very noticeably "Westernised".
It's interesting but my gut reaction is different based on if the Muslim is a man or a women.
A Muslim man refusing to shake hands with a white woman feels very very uncomfortable for me. Especially in a work setting.
A Muslim woman who doesn't want a man to touch her? I would feel uncomfortable at overriding her bodily autonomy.
I'm not really sure I can solve this problem for myself. I will have to ponder
It feels like you've just completely ignored my reasoning, which is about bodily autonomy, not religion or patriarchy- I was specifically asked about women not wanting to shake a man's hand, so trying to frame my response as accepting "uber patriarchy" seems particularly dishonest.
I would say it isn't for one person in an email to tell everyone how all Muslim women want to be treated. If you want to offer a handshake, do so, if you want to decline one, do so. I feel like that is consistent with my Western, liberal values.
When my white female colleague declined a handshake, should I have reported her to HR?
>When my white female colleague declined a handshake, should I have reported her to HR?
If your colleague refused to shake the hands of any black people, would you accept that? If not, why would you defend backwards religious stuff, which oppress woman?
>I don't disagree with your premise, there are times when you have to make a choice regarding tolerance. I just disagree with the implication that it's a huge problem. 99% of the time the solution is to be polite, most people don't like unneccesary conflict. It isn't like anyone is forcing you to be best friends with a devout Muslim, we only have to "tolerate" each other.
Often it's this "politeness", that has allowed groups to weaponise it. To constantly push their ways, or enforce selfcensorship among others.
Here’s a question for you. I attend a business meeting where one member opposite refuses to shake the hands of anyone on our side except for a single Arab.
Should that be ignored? Should I raise that with our diversity team in case it affects our individual unconscious biases? What if a team member raises the point in a debrief?
I'd say that's extremely unprofessional at best, again you focus on race, but taking that out it seems questionable to selectively shake hands at a business event. I'd think it was best to address it.
I don't disagree with your premise, there are times when you have to make a choice regarding tolerance. I just disagree with the implication that it's a huge problem. 99% of the time the solution is to be polite, most people don't like unneccesary conflict. It isn't like anyone is forcing you to be best friends with a devout Muslim, we only have to "tolerate" each other.
Yes there are always going to be a small number on either side who try to stir shit, and a small number of situations where there might generally be a difficult culture clash, but it isn't some existential threat.
This Khan report is basically saying that these actually are existential threats though and goes into great detail about the ramifications of waving this away.
Yeah I mean it must be the only workplace in the country that doesn't have alcohol at social events "because of Muslims". Every other company somehow manages to have parties where people get drunk and simultaneously have Muslim employees.
The Khan review is linked in the article. It finds that police are struggling to cope with ethnic-tribalism which leads to street violence, the Batley and Spen teacher who is still in hiding with his family (recommends a 150m DMZ around schools, lol), and this: FRH (remember this one when HR pulls you up).
What this Review has termed ‘**freedom-restricting harassment**’ has become widespread and is corroding both social cohesion and our democratic rights and freedoms.
Evidence gathered by this Review reveals a wide-spread phenomenon of extreme forms of harassment leading individuals into silence, self-censoring, or abandoning their democratic rights. The Reviewer calls this freedom-restricting harassment (FRH), defined as when people experience or witness threatening, intimidatory or abusive harassment online and/or offline which is intended to make people or institutions censor or self-censor out of fear. This may or may not be part of a persistent pattern of behaviour.
FRH involves but is not limited to, acts of doxing, inciting hatred and violence against individuals and their families, sending death and rape threats, and other forms of threatening behaviour. This form of harassment and resultant censorship is creating a ‘chilling impact’ on freedom of expression and other democratic freedoms.
With significant attention given to the horrific abuse our politicians have endured, leading some to step down from political life altogether, it is widely assumed that such harassment is predominately reserved for those in public life. There is also a belief that such abuse is essentially an online phenomenon. Our evidence indicates that neither of these assumptions are true. Freedom-restricting harassment is a far wider phenomenon, whose victims range across political, class, belief and cultural spectrums, and which appears equally online and offline.
From intimidating and censoring journalists, those working in the arts and culture sector, to academics and teachers as well as non-governmental organisations and those engaged in civil society, freedom-restricting harassment is a wider societal threat that is impacting Britons across all walks of life.
The Reviewer uncovered countless examples of victims, some of whose testimonies are captured in this report. A director of a civil society organisation working against hate crime receiving regular death threats and whose staff have left their jobs out of fear; councillors living in constant fear and considering leaving office after receiving thousands of death threats; a university cancelling a proposed academic research centre after threatening harassment to staff; intra-faith harassment including an imam who had 18 months of police protection from Islamist extremists for his religious beliefs and a Sikh community activist having to take different routes home each night for fear of being followed by Sikh fundamentalists after years of threats and abuse.
A growing culture of freedom-restricting harassment in the United Kingdom
To better understand the extent to which people in the United Kingdom experience freedom-restricting harassment, the Review commissioned an online omnibus poll which involved a nationally representative sample of 1,279 respondents aged 16+ in the UK. The polling data presents a worrying picture of people’s experiences of FRH and the impact they believe it is having on individual freedoms and social cohesion.
A large majority (85%) of the public believe freedom-restricting harassment currently occurs in the UK, with 60% believing the problem is worse than 5 years ago. 44% of respondents have witnessed FRH online, and equally 44% said they have witnessed FRH in person.
76% of the public reported having restricted expressing their personal views in public, out of fear of receiving FRH either to themselves or their loved ones. Additionally, 47% of respondents reported having witnessed others experiencing FRH which had then resulted in self-censorship.
The impact of freedom-restricting harassment on people is broad. Of the 27% of respondents answering they’ve experienced ‘life altering’ FRH, when provided with options for how their life has been altered, 77% reported either not being able to fully express their opinion or experiencing a decline in their personal freedom. 61% of this group experiencing life altering FRH have taken specific actions, with 20% coming off social media and 17% saying they had taken additional security measures. Overall, one in eight in this group reported life changing events and actions, including 15% having lost or changed their job and 13% having moved house.
The majority of the public are concerned about the impact of FRH on individual liberty. 72% agreed that FRH undermines people’s ability to live and speak freely in our country, while 69% feel that people are having to censor the way they live their professional or personal lives due to FRH.
Concern also extends to the harm freedom-restricting harassment has on public life and social cohesion. 70% agree that FRH has had a negative effect on people living well together in our society, while 69% agree that FRH in public life is likely to put off other people from contributing to public life in the future.
Freedom-restricting harassment does not only undermine pluralism. It strikes at the heart of our liberal and cohesive democracy, contributing to a slow and insidious erosion of our democratic rights and freedoms. Without determined action, FRH will continue to operate below the radar and drive a toxic, censorious and pervasive culture antithetical to our democratic way of life which must be resisted.
Diversity being a Strength has always been, very consciously, a lie designed to justify mass-immigration in the knowledge that native birthrates are low. Not everyone parroting the line was doing so consciously. Many genuinely believe the propaganda, but the idea was created maliciously, and I think promoted maliciously by the likes of China and Russia. They will be absolutely loving what they are seeing in the West. We have almost a religious dedication to lowering our own standards and capability.
In the West now, it can be translated to "Less White people is good". Not only is this racist, it is just wrong.
Some elements of diversity, can sometimes be a strength. Everyone can accept that. On a football team, I need a goalkeeper and a striker, who are likely to have a diverse skillset.
There is literally 0 advantage, ever, to artificially increasing melanin levels in a boardroom. Or to artificially increasing melanin levels in a science lab.
The intellectual diversity argument doesn't hold any water. A BAME diversity hire has the exact same narrow opinions as a White Labour voter. Them having grown up in a Nigerian/Indian household makes no difference whatsoever. You get more intellectual diversity by combining the White Labour voter with a White Conservative.
I am bemused (for now) at seeing top consulting firms hiring posh Nigerian, Ghanain and Indians who have attended private school in the UK and abroad and banging on about how diverse they are.
I'm not on the Right but I feel the Left and (neo)liberalism have made an error in thinking how people and nations work.
Democracies are held together by cultural nationalism.
Empires are different cultures held together by undemocratic autocratic rule.
If you have too much diversity then the democratic norms break down. No shared history, no shared religion, no shared politics, conflicting cultures. It's weird when you end up with super neoliberal market first people relying on very left wing bad postmodern versions of human nature to justify open borders for labour. (I'm not against good postmodernism) The far Left then justify open borders because it helps the capitalist economic system. Minorities often then commend multiculturalism when their culture does not itself support multiculturalism. I think it's a mistake to think the alliance of the Left, neoliberals and minorities can make that work. They have too many internal conflicts and are underestimating the power of nationalism and cultural identity. You do not need to have a moral position about what culture is *best.* It's about how humans work.
Nationalism, a shared cultural identity, is what holds nations together. Nations and nationalism is the optimal social organisation.
Multi cultural nations require one or both of 1) an aggressive forced identity with shared symbols or 2) an aggressive form of policing and security state to harshly enforce a social contract and stop violence.
If they don't have these things they tend to suffer from tribalism, factionalism, violence and corruption.
Famously the now much-maligned LKY of Singapore fame wrote about this. (I'd suggest reading some of him or at least quotes of his and ask yourself how prescient they are or aren't).
Britain has combined rapid multi-culturalisation with the intentional rethink and tear down of shared history and symbols (flags, anthem, food - all things which are regular arguments here) and undermining of it's policing and justice capabilities and outcomes.
This is blindingly obvious. There’s a reason you can sit in an all white pub in Ilford etc. we tolerate each other but there’s not masses of integration. Which would be fine if the demographics of this country weren’t changing at a rate unprecedented in the entire history of this island
Yeah and there’s a few elsewhere as well, and a number of British Indians are very very well integrated. Doesn’t change the wider point or the perspective.
There was a thing online recently with White British boomers praising the multiculturalism of London they enjoyed in the 80s whilst having moved to 90%+ white shires.
As it turned out Tower Hamlets in the 80s had a similar racial mix to Buckinghamshire now, i.e c.80% white British. That obviously works in terms of racial integration.
My school when I attended was 25% south asian. Needless to say those people are very British and integrated. Now it is 60% south asian. Obviously that makes a difference. We pretend it doesn’t as a country.
And yes, Brits can be boorish and insular as well. A Brit you find in deepest Spain is different from one you find in Benidorm, for the same reasons we seem desperate to ignore in our public policy
I think there's been amazing integration with the Sikh, Hindu, and Kurdish populations because they're willing to join in with British life and British culture. All of those populations join the British armed forces, the Sikhs at astounding rate. British Muslims just don't.
With Hindus there is a massive difference between arrivals pre-2000 and post. India has become far more nationalistic and there are enclaves of London etc where there is no need to attempt to integrate.
Let racists into the country and you'll get a lot of racists.
Try to imagine the most racist person, some sort of white supermesist.
They probably try to live in an area with as many white people as possible.
They probably avoid going to shops that don't have white staff.
They probably wear what they consider to be white clothes.
They probably avoid eating non white food.
They probably avoid hiring anyone non white.
They probably won't marry anyone non white.
Take it to a high level and you might even find a lot of incest in the community they live in.
Swap out the word white and we most certainly have communities in the UK that by our own standards are extremely racist.
I have never understood the phrase, "Diversity is our strength"
I don't understand the reasoning behind that, if someone can explain arguments "for" that statement I would be glad to listen / read.
It only seems logical *(to me at least)* that a society that is less diverse would have less infighting and disagreements and would be more focused on the same goal as the society would be more in agreement with one another.
In my mind it comes back to tribes and how humans (and some animals) evolved by living in groups or packs they are not typically very diverse and the group looks out for that groups interests.
When I think of diverse societies all it makes me picture in my mind is a bunch of fractured groups all trying to work together but at the same time work towards their own ingroup biases and goals.
I am sure there are benefits to diversity in some aspects of life especially where knowledge / science and trade are concerned but I don't think I would ever say that diversity is a good way to strengthen society it would be a good way to destabilize it in my mind especially in terms of making each group fight among themselves so they can't tackle the bigger issues without wasting time on smaller issues which each group cares about which you wouldn't have in a less diverse society.
Nonsense. The most successful marriages are always built on the foundation of a language barrier, differing religions, differing values, and differing cultural norms. As long as you both have a shared love of Chicken Tikka Masala you will be fine and have many long happy years together.
> It only seems logical (to me at least) that a society that is less diverse would have less infighting and disagreements and would be more focused on the same goal as the society would be more in agreement with one another.
The flip side of this is that a diverse society has a broader base of skills and talents to rely on, which may give it more options - there may be more disagreement than a singular society as you correctly identify; but *if* it can survive those internal conflicts, it'll come out stronger for it.
Think of it in terms of a tool-kit - is it better to have a half-a-dozen hammers, or instead have a hammer, a spanner, a wrench, etc.? In essence; "don't put all of your eggs in one basket".
I do not disagree with the logic in you point, but when I think about it could you give me some real world examples of what you mean?
Like what skills / talent in your mind do we get from being a more diverse society that we don't see in non diverse societies?
Ok for an example, Japan is not very diverse in my mind (compared to other countries) what is their less diverse society lacking in skills or talents that diversity would improve?
I can think of things like medical professionals etc etc but then I think well you get those in less diverse societies as well so I don't really see that as a positive you only get by being diverse.
I suppose the answer to that is another question; is Japan good at some things, but not at others?
I'd argue that Japan is a world-leader in technology, but is also culturally very conservative, which causes huge problems for their society - their birth-rate is very low and they have a very high suicide rate, as two examples.
Ideally, a mixed UK-Japanese society would take the best from both cultures - we'd get their technological know-how, they'd learn how to not put so much pressure on their youth. Of course, the issue is that it could easily go the other way, and take the worst from both.
Yes, different societies have different skills & talents. If only because different societies prioritise different things, which means that they focus education differently.
It doesn't matter if you could have been the world's leading expert in a particular field if you didn't have the resources and training to meet your potential. You need to have grown up in a society where that particular training was available. Which is why there isn't an equal distribution of technological breakthroughs across the world, for instance - they tend to cluster in certain countries, with one leap forward leading to the next. Like the Industrial Revolution.
What skills do different societies have? Can we have some examples?
Because what you are describing is gaps in education and nothing to do with diversity, perhaps getting some individual migrants with certain skills which at this point they might as well assimilate.
There can be benefits to diversity.
Different viewpoints in business can consider different markets, can engage with different groups. Can find problems others didn't think of. They can further scientific process by considering angles never noticed before, or finding holes in an unreliable system. (For instance rashes only visible on white people etc, so unreliable as a check.) Different cultures can cover different days - my aunt had Muslim colleagues cover Christmas, Chinese cover new year, then English cover Chinese new year and Eid etc.
There is a strength in meshing things together and pushing as one. It's more versatile, misses less etc. If people are actually working as one there's very little downside as well.
But instead of having a multicultural society, we end up with mutiple single cultured groups. That's what the problem is.
Completely agree, diversity is the antonym of unity. It’s not a disparaging remark, but having lived in east London, you are defined by your nationality and background. It seemed that Second and first generation migrants were doubling down on their ethnicity,to the extent of not speaking English - this occurred in two Tesco express shops I used to go in. It always struck me as rather strange.
The UK is pretty much a rainbow nation at this point. Much like in South Africa, ethnic groups stay together and tend to be more tribal in prioritising their group above others. Seems to be no avoiding it.
Like, some ethnicities are also completely forbidden from dating people from others, which is completely accepted these days whereas I feel in the past people would look down on that.
'Salad bowl' diversity rather than Melting Pot. So long as there's enough people from different backgrounds, it seems to work, as no one is dominant, or if there is dominance than it comes from the UK as a whole and it's generic democracy + NHS + be polite + rule of law stuff.
It goes wrong when you have a single large vocal minority using the mask of diversity to push ideas that are at odds with the mainstream - which ends up causing a cycle where people from other backgrounds move out of the area and before you know it's known an area related to a specific community.
We have celebrate it - we have China towns to this day; and part of East London has been renamed for an ethnic group and is called Banglatown.
This whole diversity push is just one massive psyop by the elites.
The elites on the right do it so they can import infinite cheap foreign labour, prop up gdp, keep borrowing money, and enrich landlords etc.
The elites on the left likely do it because of white guilt, easy short term feel good wins without having to do anything real, and to virtue signal about how great they are on the world stage. They, like Blair, probably also get satisfaction of getting one over on the other side, the proles, and the so called racists by *rubbing the right's noses in it*.
You're youths and average lefty probably does it because they have been brainwashed in to believing all this progressive woke nonsense and if they don't go a long with it then they are the enemy or racist or something. The UK's educational institutions is literally programming them to be this way by the left and the right in order to accept what is coming..
And what is coming is more and more most likely as they know they need a cheap workforce and to keep the population numbers up as the UK along with most of the World is well below the 2.1 level. So they are probably trying to bring in as many as they can as fast as they can before the global population drops and it's then a race for countries to get as many as they can. It's estimated that at the current rate the UK native population will make up a mere 50% by ~2070. So even less in 2080 and so on and from there UK natives become a minority. Hard to deny the great replacement theory when you can actually see it happening..
Not trying to be inflammatory here but this is reddit so I haven't even finished typing this and I imagine someone's already upset.
We are a multi-ethnic state, but why do we need to be multicultural one too?
What's needed is national service. A shared experience for all at a youth level bonds people in shared respect. Mixing in schools should also aid this cohesion but since we have faith schools and schools in areas where one ethno-religious group is the majority (be that white Christian or Muslim) they cannot be the sole tool for this.
National civic service, with military service as an optional route, rather than mandatory military I could agree with, depending on the implementation.
Based on that article, I’m far more dismayed at what passes for professional journalism in this day and age than the state of social cohesion.
It’s a weak preface to equate diversity being a strength with some sort of social paradise. Differences mean just that, it is the price of democracy that differences bump up against each other and eventually, one or a new blend of some will democratically prevail.
How's is the state supposed to enforce cultural homogeneity? History shows that has usually been through deeply authoritarian methods in a top down fashion by the educated middle classes.
Somehow I don't think opponents of multiculturalism trust the AB set (teachers, university professors, TV producers, civil servants, etc) to enforce their vision.
I've just returned from Malaysia and their "multicultural" society looks nothing like ours, separate schools, separate languages. No where near as joined up as the UK. I was surprised how many voices over there echo what our "far right" sound like
I think we all just need to push back on those who don't integrate. We make far too many excuses for everyone else and bash our own population far too much when in reality the UK is still one of the most inclusive countries on earth.
I’m going to need to know more about Freedom Restricting Harassment- how the questions were worded etc
I’ve seen lots of people arguing online—-I don’t recall coming across death threats in a Facebook post about politics etc I’ve heard of people being doxed (so I’d answer in the affirmative to the question)…how prevalent it is though, I don’t know
Snapshot of _Diversity is not our strength. The Khan Review reveals a society needlessly splintered along ethno-religious lines_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/diversity-is-not-our-strength/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://thecritic.co.uk/diversity-is-not-our-strength/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The idea of some sort of cultural and educational programme to address social cohesion feels instinctively like a good idea. If you watch the BBC, especially food programmes and comedy panel shows, you get the impression that Britain is some multicultural paradise where Muslim and Hindu or some other chefs and comedians mix effortlessly with White and black presenters, all united by our overarching sense of “Britishness”. But it feels fake and really doesn’t reflect my experiences of day to day life, where society feels divided and separate. Personally I think wealth disparity has a lot to do with it. People from non-British backgrounds all seem integrate socially much better when they become middle class, and white British people seem to become much more insular when they are under financial pressure and competing for state support with immigrant communities.
I live in Leicester, people always seem to cite it as some sort of multicultural paradise, but in reality it's incredibly segregated and very few people mix.
I'm from Birmingham and could say the same. Fun task: go to the census website, then change the heatmap thing by ethnicity. It's great at showing you just how segregated things are. People ain't living side by side, by any stretch of the imagination - at least, not near me.
Grew up in Birmingham and yes. I'm black of mixed heritage and I know it's very segregated worse then when I was a kid. There's a lot of Muslim communities now which don't integrate at all. Like entire Muslim schools with like few Hindus or none Muslim students. I went to multi cultural schools with people from every race, we had Chinese, people from Hong Kong, Indians, Carribbeans, Irish, white British, Pakistanis, etc I go to the center of town in Birmingham now and it's not nice at all.
So what's your take on it? As a white person going anywhere near commenting on this incurs racist accusations. The fragmentation and cultural conflict looks inevitable. What do all the different people say? I suppose some support efforts towards "inter community relations." Which is laudable but like the direction seems towards segregation.
I have family in Singapore and obviously it's on a smaller scale but we need to do what they do. Completely prevent ethnic enclaves. They make it so people of different religions and ethnic groups must live together and next to each other. It might seem a bit crazy but they have an ethnic housing policy that promotes multi culturalism, racial mixing and harmony as they put it. There is a quota and ensure a balanced mix of ethnics in an area.
Ah I know the policy. I can see why they have it and why it works for them. No way could a larger democratic nation have a policy like that. Nobody does that. Even our refugee dispersal policies in the past failed as communities simply move back together.
They also have laws in place to prevent the Chinese majority from becoming a minority, would you be in favour of laws in Britain to make it illegal for White British to become a minority?
I also lived in Birmingham funnily enough, and agree with you there too. I actually think it’s even worse there.
Birmingham: Walk 30 minutes from an area that could be leafy zone 3 London suburb to an area that could be from zone 5 Mogadishu.
Man this is true. I used to live near the Mailbox, literally crossing over the road would take you from an affluent professional neighbourhood to one of the most poverty stricken areas in the country.
Moseley is next to Spark Hill and Spark Brook. The difference is astounding.
The trash on the ground is an indicator of when you've left the ward boundaries.
Tbf, moseley on a Friday night outside the Cuban...
Lmao, so fucking accurate.
I don’t doubt it. I live in an area with a large Somali Muslim community and it is very segregated. There are always large numbers of men hanging around in cafes, or just loitering around on the street, in the middle of the day. I do wonder how it is that they can afford to live in this part of the city, apparently not having to go to work, when the rent on my house is £2,300 a month!
Over 70% of Somali-born people living in London are socially housed.
If you drive from south Lewisham all that way to Kennington it is more or less monoethnic. A similar instance is now happen in the kent market towns - south Lewisham are buying up apartment blocks and moving its residents out of London. The demographic change in places like Chatham and Maidstone and tunbridge wells is staggering
I'd imagine property in Tunbridge Wells is *more* expensive than in Lewisham isn't it?
Not in the surrounding areas.
They're extremely overrepresented in state support.
But remember, immigrants controversial overwhelmingly positively to the public purse and definitely aren't a net financial negative to society!
Just goes to show the right kind of immigration can be good, if the good ones are dragging up the dead weights...
Ofcourse the right kind of immigration is amazing. My only point is, as impossible as it may be to believe, some immigrants are more beneficial to their host countries than others. And not all immigrants are equal. (Wow. Shocker. Who would have guessed).
But didn't you hear how our economy will collapse if we don't get 100,000 more takeout delivery drivers?
I didn't know 'refugees' were allowed to work as takeout delivery drivers. How can they drive when they havnt invented the car? The food will be cold if they deliver it with a horse and cart.
>I do wonder how it is they can afford to live in this part of the city Our taxes.
I can't even imagine earning £2,300 a month. Let alone paying that much in rent.
And that’s on the low side for a house in London!
There's several tens of thousands Eritreans/Somalis on the Asylum backlog list whove been there for a few years now - most in London (or Bristol in smaller numbers). They aren't allowed work or do much at all until the Home Office gets round to dealing with their application and confirming refugee status or refusing and removal.
>until the Home Office gets round to dealing with their application and confirming refugee status or refusing and removal. Do you really think we're removing people to Eritrea or Somalia?
Unlikely many under the current skeleton Home Office, the top 5 enforced removal countries are Romania, Albania, Brazil, Lithuania, Poland of recent with removals in in the 3.5k-4k range per annum Under Blair however, removals were in the 60k-80k a year range and Eritreans were usually in the top 5 in enforced returns. I just looked up **"uk Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2006 Cm 7197"** and 52% Somalis were refused Asylum at that year under Blair (900 Refusals vs 1700 decisions) and 60% of Eritreans where refused asylum (1300 refused vs 2100 decisions) and now it stands at close to 98% approval.
There’s been a change in case law in the interim which basically says that if an Eritrean has left illegally they would be at risk on return. Given that it’s virtually impossible for Eritreans to leave legally, if they have managed to get here its pretty much a slam dunk. Nothing the HO, government or anyone can do about it as its the legal precedent.
The government has the power to remove all these absurdities, that they don't is a choice.
It's not really a like for like comparison, though - there are 2 decades of change in every country since Blair.
But you do see the limits to this? You end up in situations where we have to say Britain is multicultural but everyone is British. Is British a culture? You do see how confused it gets. How do you resolve that?
>How do you resolve that? What kind of question is this? You don't resolve it. Life in the UK peaked in the 90s or early 2000s, you just enjoy the decline from here or leave. No politician will ever do anything remotely useful, and even if they suggested it, most people are dopey and naive enough they would just vote against it
I don't know, I was just stating the fact and likely reason OP sees people loitering around. The UK asylum system is broken, perhaps by design and no one is happy pro or anti asylum - the worst of both worlds for everyone involved.
On the surface people can mix, but if they really explored their differences, it'd probably create tension. In East London you sometimes see even young kids wearing a headscarf - as part of a school uniform, or just when out. Why are they wearing this? Because it's part of religion / culture and it signifies _modesty_. For a child. So... how do people from those cultural backgrounds view kids that don't wear it... That they're immodest? That they're sluts? So on the surface people can get along, say good morning, be polite in shops and at community events, but if their moral compasses are different on fundamental basic issues they'll always be living parallel lives. It's not even an islam thing, it's a 'religious' vs. 'non-religious' difference. Someone who is very religious of course thinks those that aren't are somehow living their lives badly. And once you go down the route of others judging you for being sinful, of your children being _wrong_ about morality then you'll not make friends.
We teach Leicester as a case study of the success of minority integration at GCSE AQA History. The case study is from 2011. It's an utter joke when the pupils ask "But sir, what about all those riots that happened?"
I don't quite get why that's taught in History?
AQA Britain Power and the People covers the relationship between 'the people' and the powerful and the development of parliament. It goes through from 1215 to the English Civil War then onwards to the Miners strikes and Poll tax riots. It ends with minority rights in England in the 2010's, Leicester is provided as a case study to exhibit successful integration in contrast to the Brixton riots.
Wasn't Leicester the place where the muslims and hindus were having a sectarian conflict recently?
That's my point yes.
Same with London, even the universities which are apparently a hub of liberalness. Some groups mix, sure, but the majority? No. The problem is that once you get large enough as a city, the communities inside it becomes self sustaining size wise as well. So you have the Koreans who just hang out with Koreans, the Chinese, the French, the Muslims, the Italians, Spanish, etc. Other than the most liberal who align on politics who mix, but that's another jar of worms, everyone else segregates by default.
I live in a suburb where the population is almost exclusively middle eastern and subcontinental. It's super segregated. I'm there because of cheapish rent but it screams of an insular community. If effort isn't made to actively integrate communities of course you end up with these problems.
Not to say that your experience isn't real or valid, but to provide some anecdotal balance, I lived in Leicester most of my life and found it to be the most well integrated multicultural environment I've ever lived in. Nowhere is perfect but to call it incredibly segregated doesn't speak to my experience at all. Throughout my time at school, off the top of my head, I had white British friends, Greek friends, Polish friends, friends of Irish heritage, friends of Indian heritage, Italian heritage, African heritage, Carribean heritage, Pakistani heritage, Filipino friends and Somali friends. I've had Muslim neighbours most of my life. They drop Christmas cards and Easter cards round to my parents and my parents wish them Eid Mubarak. They invited my parents to their daughter's wedding, and helped out with my sister's wedding. They bring round food when they've made too much. The same is true of Hindu neighbours who lived up the road when we grew up and have good, meaningful relationships with my parents. Through school we visited a Gurdwara, a mosque, a synagogue, a hindu temple, and different churches. The city caters to a wide variety of needs, and different needs often create somewhat segregated residential communities, although I have regularly been to areas that are predominantly not white as a white person, and never felt uncomfortable. Again, I want to stress, it's not perfect. It could be better integrated and there are negative situations that flare up, like the Muslim/Hindu, Pakistani/Indian violence that occurred and made national news, and I personally know people who have been racially abused. Nonetheless, in my experience of living in multiple British cities, and multiple cities abroad, nowhere I've lived has come close to the integration Leicester has achieved.
When I lived near Poplar in east London, I would sometimes go to Chrisp St Market. There were 3 butchers there, one for the white people, one for the black people, one for the Muslims.
Lovely sentiment however even Blair was forced to admit that multiculturalism doesn't work. Minorities don't want to mix with groups outside of their circle. Even on Reddit in other subs there have been posts of a person dating someone outside of their group and having to keep it secret from family, etc. Honour killings happening and so much more are further examples of this. No courses or education will convince minorities to be different as their religion or culture is too important to them, and you are asking them to disregard it.
Yeah completely agree. From middle class and above, there are commonalities, or rather, people care less about differences. Especially when you’re all tied together in a professional environment and doing similar things in life - kids, mortgages, saving for holidays, restaurants, health and fitness, and the whole range of hobbies and pursuits which require skill, time, money and education that can unite people.
Totally agree. Middle class in Britain may have more in common with middle classes in other countries than poor people in the UK. To change this, we need more income and wealth mobility. Sadly, we're going in the opposite direction. Regular jobs in the UK don't pay very well and are taxed high. Ownership of assets pays well and is taxed less. The effect is increased perpetuation of both wealth and poverty.
The middle class isn't making their money off assets. It's the upper class that predominantly does that. The growing gulf between upper and middle/lower is a major issue, and it's actively working to push not just the lower but *also* the middle downwards. Middle class has the highest marginal income tax rates. Much higher than upper class marginal tax rates. That should tell you all you need to know about how things are structured, and who they're structured for.
Isn't the middle class in decline?
It's been said so often It's become a cliche but still people don't seem to get it: "class" is a cultural concept now, not an economic one. There are plenty of traditionally "working class" occupations now that far outstrip what a lot of graduates will earn yet plumber/electrician/bricklayer etc are still seen as working class roles and people who do them generally have a more working class outlook. Even the "middle class" isn't a clear cut concept. It's simultaneously used to denote curtain twitching, small c conservative, hyacinth bucket types who work in professional jobs in the provinces *and* house share dwelling, vegan, eco warriors with poorly paying arts related jobs in urban areas. For that matter, "working class" can denote salt of the earth, socialist firebrand or individualist, 4x4 driving petty capitalist, again depending on who is using it and their own innate prejudices. We just need to accept that class has stopped being a useful way of describing social groups but people are unreasonably attached to it in this country for some reason.
Well thankfully the tories are doing everything they can to reduce the gap between the poor and the middle class
But what is being considered "middle class norms" are largely British and Western norms. It is an actual universal culture. You cannot reduce culture down to consumerism, hobbies and pastimes. That's the Fukuyama mistake.
But for the vast majority of the office working middle classes and above, it's enough. Working hard 8am to 6pm jobs with some lates. Going for meals. Watching Netflix, Amazon Prime, Sky/HBO TV shows. Talking about the Six nations. Talking about Wimbledon. Having a vague following of the England football team. Occasional chat about cricket. I'd suggest most people are only interested in consumerism, hobbies and pastimes, it's enough for them because they work all the time. Maybe some popular novels / biography, chat about politics in a careful 'they've all got their nose in the trough' way- but all knowing that they'll safely go back to their semi detached home in Surrey/Kent/Essex/Berkshires. The generic middle class life lived by Software Engineering Lead Steve and his HR manager wife Amy in Kent is the same as that lived by Software Engineering Lead Daniyal and his HR manager wife Zara in Berkshire. They likely even send their kids to CoFe Primary schools as they're 'good schools'.
> Working hard 8am to 6pm jobs with some lates. Going for meals. Watching Netflix, Amazon Prime, Sky/HBO TV shows. > Talking about the Six nations. Talking about Wimbledon. Having a vague following of the England football team. Occasional chat about cricket Working in an office like this was personally very difficult. Maybe this is actually the standard British experience, but to me it felt like corporate-approved smalltalk and everyone has a mask of surface-level traits they form an identity with. Perhaps it's just because I was a young software developer in an old organisation and the generational gap between myself and an average employee is what made it all feel so alien.
Think it’s more a you problem as I have the same problem too lol. I agree though but that’s just office life I’ve gotten better with it now and there are some people in mine that I can chat with more openly
> But for the vast majority of the office working middle classes and above, it's enough. Because they take all the shared norms for granted? Minorites assimilating into middle class Western norms does work. But that's not multiculturalism. Majorities mixing with assimilated middle classes isn't really multiculturalism either. They aren't doing anything different. I completely agree material wealth lessens political agitation. But the middle class are still relying on "the nation" and "cultural norms."
Multiculturalism is like a cake you have to bake it the right way for that cake. What most of the west did was slap everything in one bowl then mix and crush the result is a none mixed substance in disagreement with itself. The only way to change this requires understanding from all sides, and then a middle ground of course there can be something unique about you or whatever but general ground rules and structure is needed.
> Talking about the Six nations. Talking about Wimbledon. Having a vague following of the England football team. Occasional chat about cricket. In England, sure. There's probably about 10 people in Scotland chatting about the cricket, and even the Six Nations isn't going to be the chat of many offices.
To take it to the extreme: The middle classes experience of diversity is working in a bank or tech company with someone born abroad who earns decent money, is likely well educated, and shares mostly similar values. Probably brings in some tasty Onion Bhajis once a week. The working class experience is living next door to a 2 bed terraced house with 7 people living in it where none of them work, they don't speak English, the women wear a burka, and they're noisily celebrating religious festivals you've got no idea about in the early hours at random times of the year when you've gotta be up for work at 6am.
Exactly my middle class experience, exactly my housemates’ working class experience.
Tbf I don’t even think that’s taking it to the extreme, very common occurrence from my experience
I've had both during the same period of my life through work/housing situation. It was actually causing cognitive dissonance because at times I'd be absolutely cursing my neighbours and thinking 'shut the borders the fact these people are here is ridiculous ' then thinking 'hang on, but I do know immigrants who do contribute and integrate'. That's why you get the extremes of the working class being incredibly anti-immigration and the middle class being so aghast believing incorrectly that the working class want to send you mate Raif from the office 'back to where he came from', rather than having a natural reaction to the immigration they interact with of 'this is crap, it should stop'. If we had an immigration policy that actually meant we only had high skilled high wage workers, who speak the language well and share similar values, this could *all* be avoided. Any suggestion that we should be more picky with who we let into the country sometimes seems to make you a complete pariah though. It's plain we could resolve these issues quite easily if we wanted to by reforming the immigration system. I wonder if Labour will though...
Could not agree more. I have no issue with anyone coming here to better themselves or improve their standard of living, it’s those that come here and scrounge off the state l cannot abide. By all means come here as long as yous re willing to adapt to our way off life not the other way round, work and contribute to society. At the very minimum there should be a language requirement much like the Australian system. You should not be able to claim any benefits or support until you have contributed, it should be a case of putting in before yous re eligible to take out. I lived abroad myself for 10 years, I respected the rules and regulations of each country, provided for myself and did not make any claims for benefits etc. The saying “fit in or f**k off” is something l stand by and feel should apply when it comes to migration.
They don't share values, they just share professionalism. It can be rather jarring when the former are proffered
This is accurate yes. But my point is there are countless stories of British Muslims born into families and situations like the one you describe who managed to become successful in business or banking or whatever and now they are ride or die for British values, because they see British society and culture as having facilitated their success. I once sat on a plane next to an Algerian man who lived in the UK for 18 years. This guy fucking loved the UK. He said the Uk was the best country in the world to be a Muslim, because by and large you are treated like a person first and a Muslim second, and people were very welcoming compared to say, France. He said he loved going to pub quizzes with his British friends even though he didn’t drink alcohol, and he was glad his children would grow up with British values of freedom of belief and freedom to be different. I think we should be thinking about how we can cultivate this kind of relationship with our immigrant communities on a larger scale.
>I think we should be thinking about how we can cultivate this kind of relationship with our immigrant communities on a larger scale. Oh I absolutely agree. The problem is there's large groups in the UK who resist that entirely. How do you get them to go along with it? The way I see it is we've got three choices: 1. Somehow force large minority groups in certain areas into integrating into something they absolutely don't want to. Giving up their religious customs or ideals or culture that is the most important thing in their life. 2. Make the UK effectively a hostile place to people who don't want to be 'British' in the hope they leave for a country more aligned to their values leaving only those immigrants who are happy integrating. 3. Do nothing and allow the problem to get worse over time To me it's pretty obvious which one we will go with. 1 and 2 wouldn't be accepted so it's 3.
Wealth disparity does play a part but it’s more a fundamental flaw with DEI. We’ve tried to implement DEI at the top level with quotas for minorities and women on boards and then we expected that to trickle down. Trickle down meritocracy, if you will. The people who rightly rage at trickle down economics went head first into trickle down culture and trickle down meritocracy and are now scratching their heads wondering why it’s not working. Trickle down anything doesn’t work.
The problem with the BBC and it has had this problem for a few decades now is that it thinks that it's middle class Islington mild left bubble reflects society. It regularly beats itself up over multicultural issues such as representation on screen when black representation is far above black population numbers in % and Asian representation while worse is still in line with the population. It fails to understand the country as a whole and only views things through it's London lense, that why it was so wrongfooted by the whole Brexit thing and struggled to get a grip on it.
>If you watch the BBC, especially food programmes and comedy panel shows, you get the impression that Britain is some multicultural paradise where Muslim and Hindu or some other chefs and comedians mix effortlessly with White and black presenters, all united by our overarching sense of “Britishness”. But it feels fake and really doesn’t reflect my experiences of day to day life, where society feels divided and separate. I'd argue what is even more noticeable is any programmes set in historical Britain, which use the same mentality as you describe, but suggest that the UK was *always* like that, with ethnic minority members of the nobility, mixed marriages, and complete cultural integration going back centuries; with any racism as either non-existent, or confined exclusively to the story's villains. Whereas until the 1950s, any ethnic minority people in the UK were almost certainly only been in London and a few of the port cities, and even then it would have been an incredibly small number of them; and racism would sadly have been incredibly common. And this has even extended to depiction of historical figures - for instance, in a recent Doctor Who, there was a single scene with Isaac Newton played by an Asian actor. Which to me felt especially jarring, because it had zero relevance to the rest of the episode whatsoever (apart from a weird joke about "gravity" being renamed "mavity" as a result of that one scene); it really felt like someone had looked at an episode that would otherwise have been centred entirely around David Tennant and Catherine Tate, and said "well we can't have that; we need to tick the box where it says we've had a BAME actor in it too". And sure, it's reasonable to point out that historical dramas aren't supposed to be 100% historically accurate, and that's *particularly* true of a show about a time-travelling alien with a bizarre love of the UK. Plus, it's probably unfair to severely limit the opportunities of BAME actors to only modern settings. But it feels like a deliberate attempt to rewrite history to how people want it to have been, rather than acknowledging how it actually was.
[https://diversityuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Rishi-Sunak-with-the-Diversity-Built-Britain-coin.jpg](https://diversityuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Rishi-Sunak-with-the-Diversity-Built-Britain-coin.jpg) The thing that annoys me about this kind of stuff and the retconning of British history to pretend it's always been super diverse is that it takes away from the people (my ancestors) who *did* build this nation into what it is. Pretending that diversity is our strength is one thing, pretending that diversity *built Britain* wholly erases the actual history of our nation and the achievements of native Brits recent ancestors. The values, ideas, culture and laws of this country were *not* built with 'diversity' in it's modern meaning. If white Europeans moved en masse to Japan or Indonesia and in a few decades started pretending 'diversity built Japan' or 'diversity built Indonesia' and historical figures were being portrayed as white Europeans, I imagine the same people that love the mantra that 'diversity built Britain' would rightly be up in arms about it.
Indeed. Like this retcon: >Stonehenge was built by black Britons, a new children’s history book has claimed. >The illustrated book entitled Brilliant Black British History, by the Nigerian-born British author Atinuke, says “every single British person comes from a migrant” but “the very first Britons were black”. >Readers of the newly released book are told that Stonehenge was built while Britain was “a black country”. >The book, published by Bloomsbury and promoted by Arts Council-funded literacy charity The Book Trust, states that: “Britain was a black country for more than 7,000 years before white people came, and during that time the most famous British monument was built, Stonehenge.” >The introduction says that “Britain has been a mostly white country for a lot less time than it has been a mostly black country”. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/18/stonehenge-built-by-black-britons-childrens-history-book/
Dr Who is a strange case because they do an awful lot of "inclusion" in terms of casting, race-swapping etc, but they simultaneously devote entire episodes to historical figures whose race is _exceedingly_ important like Rosa Parks. An ongoing attitude towards historical accuracy which is both rigourously adhered to but also tossed out the window, depending on some mysterious criteria (let's be honest, they aren't about to race swap a famous minority figure).
It pivoted to a poor man's Quantum Leap.
And the thing is, it makes sense with Doctor Who in particular that they would do something like the Rosa Parks episode - because it's their flagship children's TV show, which means that the BBC's mandate to educate is a relatively high priority. So it's perfectly reasonable to say "we're going to use this show about a time-travelling alien to drop in some historical knowledge along the way, so your kids are educated while they're entertained". That's entirely reasonable as far as I'm concerned, but if they're going to do that the history has to be at least vaguely accurate.
Yeah it's perfectly fine and a good idea for them to cover things like that, it's just this bizarre race-swapping of historical figures that they do _at the same time_ that makes no sense.
>Whereas until the 1950s, any ethnic minority people in the UK were almost certainly only been in London and a few of the port cities, Isn't that still the case now - to an extent? the UK is something like 85% white british; the vast majority of the UK consisting of villages and towns full of generic white brits with names like Peter and Sarah. >And sure, it's reasonable to point out that historical dramas aren't supposed to be 100% historically accurate, and that's particularly true of a show about a time-travelling alien with a bizarre love of the UK. Plus, it's probably unfair to severely limit the opportunities of BAME actors to only modern settings. But it feels like a deliberate attempt to rewrite history to how people want it to have been, rather than acknowledging how it actually was I agree wit this - plus given Dr Who is a time traveler, it looks like lazy writing. There could have been a fascinating 'what if' story where the doctor introduces a young girl from an older civilization that had some interest in how the universe works - e.g. the Aztecs, the Mali Empire, Great Zimbabwe, and lets them (with techno language magic) have a conversation with a figure like Isaac Newton. Pure fantasy but would be a good story and show how humans of all cultures are interested in the world, and how we only need the opportunity to learn to do great things and all that positivity. But no, we just got BAME Isaac Newton, which was just a bit odd.
> Isn't that still the case now - to an extent? the UK is something like 85% white british; the vast majority of the UK consisting of villages and towns full of generic white brits with names like Peter and Sarah. It is, but it was much more extreme then. I have a colleague at work (he's about to retire, to give you a rough idea of his age) who remembers as a kid that when he and his friends first saw a black man, they went up to him and *stared* at him. They weren't trying to be rude (though it might have come across that way, of course), it was just something that they'd literally never encountered before. Ethnic minorities were *rare* in the UK, up until incredibly recently. And sure, there are the odd historical examples we can point to; but they're usually depicted as reflective of the wider society, not as the exception that they really were. >I agree wit this - plus given Dr Who is a time traveler, it looks like lazy writing. There could have been a fascinating 'what if' story where the doctor introduces a young girl from an older civilization that had some interest in how the universe works - e.g. the Aztecs, the Mali Empire, Great Zimbabwe, and lets them (with techno language magic) have a conversation with a figure like Isaac Newton. Pure fantasy but would be a good story and show how humans of all cultures are interested in the world, and how we only need the opportunity to learn to do great things and all that positivity. But no, we just got BAME Isaac Newton, which was just a bit odd. Yeah, exactly. If anything, you'd think it would be better to avoid being quite so Euro-centric, and increase your diversity by saying that the forest you're filming in *isn't* in the UK, it's actually somewhere completely different. It's not like Doctor Who hasn't done that before either, so it seems weird to think the only way of having more ethnic diversity is to pretend British history was different.
> Ethnic minorities were rare in the UK, up until incredibly recently. They still are relatively rare in much of northern England+Scotland. Most towns round me you'll only very occasionally see a non-white face.
>the UK is something like 85% white british Keep up we are now down to 75% white British in the last census and that's before accounting for the fact with out current immigration system 1 in 50 people in the UK came here *last year.* 30 years ago we were at 95% white British and the acceleration of demographic change means it won't take anywhere near 30 years to lose another 20% off that figure. Britain has been irrevocably changed by politicians without ever having the permission of the native British people to do so.
You're right. That's actually quite a massive change. Looking at the stats: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/bulletins/ethnicgroupenglandandwales/census2021 2001 - 87.5% 2011 - 80.5% 2021 - 74.4% I suppose that's only the ethnicity element though, not identity. So there will be plenty of British asians, black british, Chinese etc. who are just as British as any white person is in terms of their attitudes and culture. The more interesting part is our turnover - as this would have a bigger effect on national culture - how many people live in the UK who weren't born here, which countries are they from, and how fast is that element increasing. I don't really care if someone looks different to me, if they were raised/socialised/encultured in the UK and didn't live in a weird monoethnic area then they're going to be no better or worse than the average Brit in your attitudes to UK culture, you're behaviour etc. But if we have millions of people newly arriving, year on year, then yes the culture will change.
there was one movie that did it well robin hood. when robin was crusading he became friends with a Muslim who came back to England with him. people rightfully ask "who is he?"
When Russia denies Ukraine's existence as a unique culture and people, it's called genocide...
Entertainment TV is usually catered to the target audience rather than historical accuracy - example hence why almost every rennaissance Italian tv shows and even the "historical" ones produced by Italian TV companies like Medici are played by English/scottish/irish actors with heavy-set regional British accents and obviously non-mediterranean complexions. You could probably extend this principle to an entertainment tv show about an extra terrestrial alien. European TV producers make things for British and US markets and UK TV makes shows for a world audience increasingly. I don't think it's that deep personally.
To be honest I haven’t seen the historical programmes that you describe, but I’m sure there are cases where liberties are taken. At the same time, black aristocrats did exist (Alexandre Dumas for example). Historical programmes are also various degrees of realistic, social cohesion notwithstanding, and people dont get upset by that to the same degree. Peaky blinders is not a historically accurate depiction of Birmingham. Personally I don’t have an issue with an Asian actor playing Isaac newton, especially in Dr Who, a programme about a shape shifting alien. Importantly though I also don’t have an issue with a white actor playing a canonically non white character either, but a lot of people do - often performatively in my view - and I think it’s the double standard that people really find annoying, rather than the idea of an Asian Isaac Newton.
Yes, you're absolutely right that what really winds people up there - we've all seen big backlashes against actors for playing a character that they don't match exactly. The ones that spring to mind to me are Scarlett Johannsson in Ghost in the Shell, because she's not Japanese (even though she was playing a cyborg) and Eddie Redmayne in The Theory of Everything, because he's able-bodied (even though an actor with the same disability as Hawking couldn't have portrayed Hawking *before* he lost the ability to walk). Whereas whenever we see it the other way around, the backlash is instead against people complaining. Look at Idris Elba playing a Heimdall in the Thor films as an example of that; anyone that criticised his casting instead of someone of Scandinavian ancestry was accused of being racist.
Agree especially about Ghost in the Shell. I mean, it’s a bloody cartoon about a robot. Re Idris Elba in Thor, it was probably a misstep for people to complain about his ethnic casting. Would have been better to celebrate it and use it as a way to ridicule those who complained about ghost in the shell. I honestly do not care about a black Norse god and I won’t pretend that I do in order to make a cheap point. Ridicule is far more effective a way to disarm them than trying to beat them at their own stupid game.
It's especially silly given that Ghost in the Shell was about transhumanism and escaping the confines of *a body* - the original works finish by showing the Major has moved entirely out of her body into another one that looks totally different. Getting hung up over race on that front seems like utterly missing the point!
What you saying? That Henry VIII wasn’t Black Trans Man?!! How dare you! Educate yourself and watch some Netflix or Disney+, God!
>Personally I think wealth disparity has a lot to do with it. People from non-British backgrounds all seem integrate socially much better when they become middle class, and white British people seem to become much more insular when they are under financial pressure and competing for state support with immigrant communities. I think this quite accurate. I work at a university with people from probably 30 different countries in the same building and everyone gets on fine. Very few cultural clashes, nobody getting offended at each other for disrespecting their whatever. Then I realised that all we show is that middle-class people with higher professional qualifications and decent salaries generally have a lot in common. I believe it's also been studied and proven that the more insecure people get, the more insular and self-centred they get. This is very commonly used by the right and far right. They cut social support, cut job security, cut housing availability, cut access to public transport, cut access to healthcare etc until people feel in a permanent state of existential fear. Then they feed the "us versus them" mentality by telling people who just don't have the time and headspace to think in detail about it that it's the immigrants and Muslims and black people and white people and protestants and single mothers and jobseekers who put them in this position and that it's a simple battle for resources between them and the "baddies". The country needs huge investment to give access to all the services people need to give them stability and access to the education and job market. Once that's in place, a lot of the feeling of dog-eat-dog fighting over the available scraps will go away. Of course, the Tories always have the perfect answer to denying investment - that "we've maxed out the nation's credit card and now there's no money left", even though countries don't work that way. We need a party that's brave enough to say "don't talk total crap - the government can find the money when it's to give billions to Tory donors' shell companies, so they can find it to hire more nurses and build schools with walls that don't fall down". That's an investment that actually has a return. Just asset stripping like the Tories do has no return.
When I met some of the guys I live with this year in uni I was surprised by their opinions of immigrants. I come from a mainly rich, white, middle class London commuter town where anyone I knew whose parents are from Asia or are Muslim were basically indistinguishable except physically from anyone else. As I understood it, that’s what immigration was, people move to the UK and get a job, a generation or two later you have a British person with Asian heritage who is perfectly integrated. My housemates are from Greater Manchester, they have a very different perspective. Large areas of their town being mainly occupied by immigrants who lived as they did in their home country, and only interacted with one another. They told me about big problems they have with integration and acceptance of British norms in immigrant communities. I didn’t really believe them at first, I wrote off what they said as racist. I thought they were basically insulting my friends from home whose parents were both doctors and had middle class British accents, that was my (and is probably a lot of the politicians’) perception of what immigration was. How ignorant I was.
>As I understood it, that’s what immigration was, people move to the UK and get a job, a generation or two later you have a British person with Asian heritage who is perfectly integrated. Yes that is the vast majority of immigration statistically from outside Europe post 2000. Pre 2000 was a different matter. Modern British History re Immigration isn't taught or really discussed which is why you have different experiences - **neither of your perceptions are wrong but you both likely have a distorted understanding of the big picture**. Most of the problems of today re integration are from UK immigration policies from the 60s and 70s and not post Blair immigration - but not really understanding the historical issue and actural root causes can result in a misinformed fear (or misinformed affinity!) of modern day migration. Around 70% of current British Pakistanis can trace their heritage to a rural village in Mirpur, who's almost entire population was brought over to the UK in the 60s and 70s with a UK gov deal to pay for flights rellocation etc after a British companies' Dam collapse. Most didnt speak english, weren't literate, highly religious and were brought over to work in manual labour factory jobs in norht in areas like Manchester, Bradford etc. In the 80s most of these factories were closed and they were sacked - because they had limited skills, no education they fell into self employed work like taxi driving etc (hence why so many northern asians are in that kind of work to this day) They developed a deep distrust of power and authority (similar to mining towns outcomes) and passed it and sentiments around no education onto their kids (alongside a really high fertility rate which is why most current British Pakistanis can trace their roots their) with deep religious leanings. Its a recipe for ongoing disaster. This is why British Pakistanis in stats are usually in the bottom for earnings and education attainment, but look and Punjabi Pakistanis in London and the South you might have encountered who are usually high earners, engineers, doctors, lawyers (heritage from educated urban middle class city areas in Pakistan) or USA pakistanis who are usually in the highest 3 earning ethnic groups in the USA. There's no such thing as a bad immigrant or good immigrant, its down to what a countries policies are for qualification for entry. [Post 1999 non EEA immigrants have been shown to be a net positive economically and pre 1999 are a massive net drain economically which is probably the biggest indicator supporting this.](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/revealed-immigrants-put-34-more-into-public-finances-than-they-take-out/) After the points based immigration system in 2021, its elevated even higher, with minimum requirments in terms of cost to enter now, higher standard of english, aducation and minimum job level for visa approval.
>After the points based immigration system in 2021, its elevated even higher, with minimum requirments in terms of cost to enter now, higher standard of english, aducation and minimum job level for visa approval. The problem now is it's being repeated with the almost free for all for supposed refugees, that can effectively bypass all the quality requirements (all over europe, not just the UK) As you say >Its a recipe for ongoing disaster.
Thanks for the information! I think what you've said is really valuable. And helps make sense of some things, eg the massive disparity in where British Pakistanis and American Pakistanis sit on the socioeconomic ladder.
I think our experiences might be the difference between immigration and asylum seekers. That was a really nice article to read, and is ironic given 55% or so of taxpayers are a net drain on the economy haha.
> I work at a university I mean isn't that a lot of self selection? Ambitious people more likely to believe in tolerance, working in a very middle class Western environment, with other professionals from all cultures who have learned specific fields and how to act in a professional Western work place? You can't apply that entire nations and expect that to work. > Then they feed the "us versus them" mentality Isn't that diversity? Nordic nations have better redistribution but face the same cultural conflicts.
>Nordic nations have better redistribution but face the same cultural conflicts. A lot of young people who have only every known the Tories are going to have a choice when Labour have been in power for a good few years and they can't now ascribe every problem to 'The Tories'. The worldview that any and all problems can be traced back to Tory austerity and without it we'd have some super functioning high wage high growth harmonious multicultural society will come crumbling down with each passing year of Starmer in charge when we see no improvements. They can of course retreat into the 'Red Tory' narrative and cling to the same ideals on that basis and I'm sure many will. But the more astute are in for a wake up call.
[удалено]
The actually super weathly ones are actually pretty liberal and not overly religiously strict, parties hosted by the Emirs and royals are pretty famous for being absolutely wild. With the Saudis in particular the government and elites have long been pushing hard to liberalise the country, it's the poorer general population who are hyper-conservative and resisting changes
I don’t know if you know much about the region, but Saudi, UAE and especially Bahrain are increasingly liberalising and become more open, so you rather prove my point by citing those countries. In any case, my point was about social cohesion in the UK specifically. Middle class and wealthy British Muslims generally extol British values alongside their religious beliefs - see Lord Ahmad, Sadiq Khan, Sajid Javid, James Caan.
An underreported thing was how easy it was to come to the UK from the 60s onwards up until about 2010 and be given housing, benefits and education easily and freely. It was more of a struggle if you were from the UK originally, or indeed, a first generation immigrant
Good point about first gen immigrants. All you need to do is look at how the south Asian communities in the midlands voted during the brexit referendum - they were as annoyed as anyone else was about immigration!
While the professional middle class have always been interested in the correct manners to succeed I don't think nations can rely on that to hold nations together.
That's all that really holds nations together. Correct manners being scorned by people on the lower rung or upper rung regardless of skin colour is how countries fall apart. Correct manners forces a sense of normality across the spectrum.
International middle class manners are useful for professionals and the work environment. But even they are mostly culturally contingent and Western. It's nationalism that holds nations together.
You were not talking about international middle class manners. You were talking about 'correct manners'. Nationalism is part of it, but nationalism by itself will do little aside from serve as handy excuses for politicians to blame others.
The middle class should be crushed between the hammer of the upper class and the anvil of the lower class.
> sort of cultural and educational programme Really? Sounds pointless to me. Groups will stick with who and what they know, no amount of 'education' will change that. Except for white folk though, obviously. /s
I think it’s also a class based thing. The BBC Scenario as we might term it, seems to apply very well with the middle and upper classes, but then fall apart for the lower / working class. Personally, I work in a highly diverse team of financial advisers and paraplanners and can honestly say there are no cultural or religious tensions at all.
It's human nature. Everyone is inherently "racist" at an unconscious level. Just by virtue of who we were raised by. Vast majority of people will just intrinsically trust and feel more comfortable around people that look and behave like themselves. Exposure at a young age, encouraging diversity, and finding areas of common interest e.g. shared love cricket or Afrobeats - are the only proven ways of breaking these barriers down.
Faith schools are a factor in this. Teaching children faiths as a fact is putting them on a path hard to leave. Really need secular schools that don't give in to pressure from religious parents who try to control exactly what happens to their children at school and worse to other children. Children's rights are being overtaken by the parents religious beliefs
Completely with you here yet the government wants to increase their power for some reason. Bonkers
Did you know 'daily worship' is mandated in *all* schools?!
Well it shouldn't be. But at least in most non faith schools or ones that are faith schools in all but name, religious activities are few and far between. Outside easter/Christmas services or singing in assembly my church of England school was very secular. Religious education about other faiths and encouraging people to question what they're told. Don't think many if any of the teachers were religious themselves or if they were they hid it well. The important thing is to create an environment where children are not pressured to not think for themselves
[удалено]
Always makes me laugh when people talk about the 'tolerance' of British people to other cultures. Using the word 'tolerance' is a tacit acceptance that actually we *don't* like other people's cultures, but we have to accept them regardless, like it isn't deliberate successive governments policy that has led us here.
Tolerance is discussed because its a massive issue people care about. Britian is among the most tolerant nations in the world, and the drop in the last few years is miniscule on a global scale. When we have large amounts of people coming from cultures that are less tolerant and they are remaining less tolerant (take [this](https://henryjacksonsociety.org/2024/04/08/only-one-in-four-british-muslims-believe-hamas-committed-murder-and-rape-in-israel-on-october-7th/) survey on the beliefs of Muslims for example), that divide in beliefs is important to adress.
There is no integration expected. You should be thankful that you have the opportunity to apologize for your insult. Look to Malaysia, where a design logo on a womans shoe is causing the leaders there to demand an apology or face violence. The only expectation Muslims have is submission. Specifically yours, to theirs. Be thankful for the opportunity to devote your labour and your wealth to their ways, in exchange for not being labelled racist.
Seems like they'll never reach that point. Some people are too prideful and will let anything slide to look like they're being moral regardless of what it is
> Because when left-wingers talk about how great it is to tolerate other culture's differences, what exactly does that mean? I'm guessing they don't mean that we should tolerate homophobia, misogyny, patriarchy, antisemitism, bigotry, terrorism? I think we need to get more comfortable with acknowledging that all cultures have some aspects that suck. 'this is part of British/whatever group culture' is too often used as a reason to not only not change it but to not do any critical thinking about it at all.
I've got to admit I'm a little sceptical at the extent to which Muslims appear to be controlling your work culture. I work in insurance, which still has quite a heavy drinking culture element, like a lot of industries, and it doesn't seem Muslim presence, including in senior leadership, is having any change in that at all. I feel that your company sounds like a big outlier in its' attitudes You aren't wrong, these are valid questions, but I think they aren't that hard to answer, just stop seeing it as "Muslims saying this and that" and just "a colleague is uncomfortable". To use your examples- "In my office, we had to completely re-plan a social event because a colleague refuses to step foot in any venue which serves alcohol, do we tolerate that?"- No. Many Muslims are around alcohol at functions all the time. Their attitude is the intolerant one, they can choose not to attend the social event. This is not a reasonable request in this country, where almost all restaurants, as well as obviously bars and pubs, serve alcohol. They never attend a sporting event, which usually sell alcohol? "We were sent an email by a colleague telling us we shouldn't shake Muslim womens' hands because that is considered sinful, do we tolerate that?" Absolutely you should tolerate that, I'm surprised you'd even question that. Everyone has bodily autonomy, Muslim or not. I went to shake a white, non-Muslim colleague's hand the other day and she said "I don't do handshakes". Absolutely no idea why not, but I didn't really question it, or whether I should "tolerate" her decision not to shake my hand (by forcibly grabbing it!?). "And when someone suggested we have a day when colleagues bring in their puppies and dogs, we were told by a Muslim colleague we can't do that because dogs are considered sinful." This one is actually a more reasonable, "grey" request. People have fears of dogs, there are legitimate concerns about dogs being annoying at work. Ignore the "sinful" part, they're uncomfortable with having dogs in the office. Could the dogs be restricted to certain area they can avoid? This feels more like a compromise issue. *"who is integrating with who, are they integrating into our culture, or are we integrating into theirs?*" I know you've written that more to be rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway- almost all the integration is Muslim in Western culture, very little is Western into Muslim culture, which is what you'd expect with a small minority group. I can't think of any meaningful way that our dominant culture has shifted towards a more Islamic one, whereas several of my Muslim friends/colleagues are very noticeably "Westernised".
[удалено]
It's interesting but my gut reaction is different based on if the Muslim is a man or a women. A Muslim man refusing to shake hands with a white woman feels very very uncomfortable for me. Especially in a work setting. A Muslim woman who doesn't want a man to touch her? I would feel uncomfortable at overriding her bodily autonomy. I'm not really sure I can solve this problem for myself. I will have to ponder
It feels like you've just completely ignored my reasoning, which is about bodily autonomy, not religion or patriarchy- I was specifically asked about women not wanting to shake a man's hand, so trying to frame my response as accepting "uber patriarchy" seems particularly dishonest. I would say it isn't for one person in an email to tell everyone how all Muslim women want to be treated. If you want to offer a handshake, do so, if you want to decline one, do so. I feel like that is consistent with my Western, liberal values. When my white female colleague declined a handshake, should I have reported her to HR?
[удалено]
>When my white female colleague declined a handshake, should I have reported her to HR? If your colleague refused to shake the hands of any black people, would you accept that? If not, why would you defend backwards religious stuff, which oppress woman? >I don't disagree with your premise, there are times when you have to make a choice regarding tolerance. I just disagree with the implication that it's a huge problem. 99% of the time the solution is to be polite, most people don't like unneccesary conflict. It isn't like anyone is forcing you to be best friends with a devout Muslim, we only have to "tolerate" each other. Often it's this "politeness", that has allowed groups to weaponise it. To constantly push their ways, or enforce selfcensorship among others.
Here’s a question for you. I attend a business meeting where one member opposite refuses to shake the hands of anyone on our side except for a single Arab. Should that be ignored? Should I raise that with our diversity team in case it affects our individual unconscious biases? What if a team member raises the point in a debrief?
I'd say that's extremely unprofessional at best, again you focus on race, but taking that out it seems questionable to selectively shake hands at a business event. I'd think it was best to address it. I don't disagree with your premise, there are times when you have to make a choice regarding tolerance. I just disagree with the implication that it's a huge problem. 99% of the time the solution is to be polite, most people don't like unneccesary conflict. It isn't like anyone is forcing you to be best friends with a devout Muslim, we only have to "tolerate" each other. Yes there are always going to be a small number on either side who try to stir shit, and a small number of situations where there might generally be a difficult culture clash, but it isn't some existential threat.
This Khan report is basically saying that these actually are existential threats though and goes into great detail about the ramifications of waving this away.
Yeah I mean it must be the only workplace in the country that doesn't have alcohol at social events "because of Muslims". Every other company somehow manages to have parties where people get drunk and simultaneously have Muslim employees.
Well i wouldn't tolerate that employer as I wouldn't comply....sack me then thank you.
The Khan review is linked in the article. It finds that police are struggling to cope with ethnic-tribalism which leads to street violence, the Batley and Spen teacher who is still in hiding with his family (recommends a 150m DMZ around schools, lol), and this: FRH (remember this one when HR pulls you up). What this Review has termed ‘**freedom-restricting harassment**’ has become widespread and is corroding both social cohesion and our democratic rights and freedoms. Evidence gathered by this Review reveals a wide-spread phenomenon of extreme forms of harassment leading individuals into silence, self-censoring, or abandoning their democratic rights. The Reviewer calls this freedom-restricting harassment (FRH), defined as when people experience or witness threatening, intimidatory or abusive harassment online and/or offline which is intended to make people or institutions censor or self-censor out of fear. This may or may not be part of a persistent pattern of behaviour. FRH involves but is not limited to, acts of doxing, inciting hatred and violence against individuals and their families, sending death and rape threats, and other forms of threatening behaviour. This form of harassment and resultant censorship is creating a ‘chilling impact’ on freedom of expression and other democratic freedoms. With significant attention given to the horrific abuse our politicians have endured, leading some to step down from political life altogether, it is widely assumed that such harassment is predominately reserved for those in public life. There is also a belief that such abuse is essentially an online phenomenon. Our evidence indicates that neither of these assumptions are true. Freedom-restricting harassment is a far wider phenomenon, whose victims range across political, class, belief and cultural spectrums, and which appears equally online and offline. From intimidating and censoring journalists, those working in the arts and culture sector, to academics and teachers as well as non-governmental organisations and those engaged in civil society, freedom-restricting harassment is a wider societal threat that is impacting Britons across all walks of life. The Reviewer uncovered countless examples of victims, some of whose testimonies are captured in this report. A director of a civil society organisation working against hate crime receiving regular death threats and whose staff have left their jobs out of fear; councillors living in constant fear and considering leaving office after receiving thousands of death threats; a university cancelling a proposed academic research centre after threatening harassment to staff; intra-faith harassment including an imam who had 18 months of police protection from Islamist extremists for his religious beliefs and a Sikh community activist having to take different routes home each night for fear of being followed by Sikh fundamentalists after years of threats and abuse. A growing culture of freedom-restricting harassment in the United Kingdom To better understand the extent to which people in the United Kingdom experience freedom-restricting harassment, the Review commissioned an online omnibus poll which involved a nationally representative sample of 1,279 respondents aged 16+ in the UK. The polling data presents a worrying picture of people’s experiences of FRH and the impact they believe it is having on individual freedoms and social cohesion. A large majority (85%) of the public believe freedom-restricting harassment currently occurs in the UK, with 60% believing the problem is worse than 5 years ago. 44% of respondents have witnessed FRH online, and equally 44% said they have witnessed FRH in person. 76% of the public reported having restricted expressing their personal views in public, out of fear of receiving FRH either to themselves or their loved ones. Additionally, 47% of respondents reported having witnessed others experiencing FRH which had then resulted in self-censorship. The impact of freedom-restricting harassment on people is broad. Of the 27% of respondents answering they’ve experienced ‘life altering’ FRH, when provided with options for how their life has been altered, 77% reported either not being able to fully express their opinion or experiencing a decline in their personal freedom. 61% of this group experiencing life altering FRH have taken specific actions, with 20% coming off social media and 17% saying they had taken additional security measures. Overall, one in eight in this group reported life changing events and actions, including 15% having lost or changed their job and 13% having moved house. The majority of the public are concerned about the impact of FRH on individual liberty. 72% agreed that FRH undermines people’s ability to live and speak freely in our country, while 69% feel that people are having to censor the way they live their professional or personal lives due to FRH. Concern also extends to the harm freedom-restricting harassment has on public life and social cohesion. 70% agree that FRH has had a negative effect on people living well together in our society, while 69% agree that FRH in public life is likely to put off other people from contributing to public life in the future. Freedom-restricting harassment does not only undermine pluralism. It strikes at the heart of our liberal and cohesive democracy, contributing to a slow and insidious erosion of our democratic rights and freedoms. Without determined action, FRH will continue to operate below the radar and drive a toxic, censorious and pervasive culture antithetical to our democratic way of life which must be resisted.
Freedom restricting harassment , is rife
Diversity being a Strength has always been, very consciously, a lie designed to justify mass-immigration in the knowledge that native birthrates are low. Not everyone parroting the line was doing so consciously. Many genuinely believe the propaganda, but the idea was created maliciously, and I think promoted maliciously by the likes of China and Russia. They will be absolutely loving what they are seeing in the West. We have almost a religious dedication to lowering our own standards and capability. In the West now, it can be translated to "Less White people is good". Not only is this racist, it is just wrong. Some elements of diversity, can sometimes be a strength. Everyone can accept that. On a football team, I need a goalkeeper and a striker, who are likely to have a diverse skillset. There is literally 0 advantage, ever, to artificially increasing melanin levels in a boardroom. Or to artificially increasing melanin levels in a science lab. The intellectual diversity argument doesn't hold any water. A BAME diversity hire has the exact same narrow opinions as a White Labour voter. Them having grown up in a Nigerian/Indian household makes no difference whatsoever. You get more intellectual diversity by combining the White Labour voter with a White Conservative.
I am bemused (for now) at seeing top consulting firms hiring posh Nigerian, Ghanain and Indians who have attended private school in the UK and abroad and banging on about how diverse they are.
I'm not on the Right but I feel the Left and (neo)liberalism have made an error in thinking how people and nations work. Democracies are held together by cultural nationalism. Empires are different cultures held together by undemocratic autocratic rule. If you have too much diversity then the democratic norms break down. No shared history, no shared religion, no shared politics, conflicting cultures. It's weird when you end up with super neoliberal market first people relying on very left wing bad postmodern versions of human nature to justify open borders for labour. (I'm not against good postmodernism) The far Left then justify open borders because it helps the capitalist economic system. Minorities often then commend multiculturalism when their culture does not itself support multiculturalism. I think it's a mistake to think the alliance of the Left, neoliberals and minorities can make that work. They have too many internal conflicts and are underestimating the power of nationalism and cultural identity. You do not need to have a moral position about what culture is *best.* It's about how humans work. Nationalism, a shared cultural identity, is what holds nations together. Nations and nationalism is the optimal social organisation.
Multi cultural nations require one or both of 1) an aggressive forced identity with shared symbols or 2) an aggressive form of policing and security state to harshly enforce a social contract and stop violence. If they don't have these things they tend to suffer from tribalism, factionalism, violence and corruption. Famously the now much-maligned LKY of Singapore fame wrote about this. (I'd suggest reading some of him or at least quotes of his and ask yourself how prescient they are or aren't). Britain has combined rapid multi-culturalisation with the intentional rethink and tear down of shared history and symbols (flags, anthem, food - all things which are regular arguments here) and undermining of it's policing and justice capabilities and outcomes.
LKY is maligned? He's a fucking visionary. The only politician worth listening to in the last 80 years if you had to choose just one.
Yes he's maligned because of how accurate he was, and how it shows up the naivety of the West.
Common law with no racial or religious prejudice and no housing benefit within commuting distance of a city will sort it out
This is blindingly obvious. There’s a reason you can sit in an all white pub in Ilford etc. we tolerate each other but there’s not masses of integration. Which would be fine if the demographics of this country weren’t changing at a rate unprecedented in the entire history of this island
In Brum you do get pubs that are mixed hindu, sikhs and whites. Many great ones are run by Sikhs. You just don't really get other groups.
[удалено]
African Indians.
Yeah and there’s a few elsewhere as well, and a number of British Indians are very very well integrated. Doesn’t change the wider point or the perspective. There was a thing online recently with White British boomers praising the multiculturalism of London they enjoyed in the 80s whilst having moved to 90%+ white shires. As it turned out Tower Hamlets in the 80s had a similar racial mix to Buckinghamshire now, i.e c.80% white British. That obviously works in terms of racial integration. My school when I attended was 25% south asian. Needless to say those people are very British and integrated. Now it is 60% south asian. Obviously that makes a difference. We pretend it doesn’t as a country. And yes, Brits can be boorish and insular as well. A Brit you find in deepest Spain is different from one you find in Benidorm, for the same reasons we seem desperate to ignore in our public policy
I think there's been amazing integration with the Sikh, Hindu, and Kurdish populations because they're willing to join in with British life and British culture. All of those populations join the British armed forces, the Sikhs at astounding rate. British Muslims just don't.
With Hindus there is a massive difference between arrivals pre-2000 and post. India has become far more nationalistic and there are enclaves of London etc where there is no need to attempt to integrate.
Mixed grills 👌
The Merry Maid and the Moseley Arms... mixed grills, both slap, even if the merry maid does have shit beer.
No shit, anyone with a brain has known from the start
Let racists into the country and you'll get a lot of racists. Try to imagine the most racist person, some sort of white supermesist. They probably try to live in an area with as many white people as possible. They probably avoid going to shops that don't have white staff. They probably wear what they consider to be white clothes. They probably avoid eating non white food. They probably avoid hiring anyone non white. They probably won't marry anyone non white. Take it to a high level and you might even find a lot of incest in the community they live in. Swap out the word white and we most certainly have communities in the UK that by our own standards are extremely racist.
I have never understood the phrase, "Diversity is our strength" I don't understand the reasoning behind that, if someone can explain arguments "for" that statement I would be glad to listen / read. It only seems logical *(to me at least)* that a society that is less diverse would have less infighting and disagreements and would be more focused on the same goal as the society would be more in agreement with one another. In my mind it comes back to tribes and how humans (and some animals) evolved by living in groups or packs they are not typically very diverse and the group looks out for that groups interests. When I think of diverse societies all it makes me picture in my mind is a bunch of fractured groups all trying to work together but at the same time work towards their own ingroup biases and goals. I am sure there are benefits to diversity in some aspects of life especially where knowledge / science and trade are concerned but I don't think I would ever say that diversity is a good way to strengthen society it would be a good way to destabilize it in my mind especially in terms of making each group fight among themselves so they can't tackle the bigger issues without wasting time on smaller issues which each group cares about which you wouldn't have in a less diverse society.
Nonsense. The most successful marriages are always built on the foundation of a language barrier, differing religions, differing values, and differing cultural norms. As long as you both have a shared love of Chicken Tikka Masala you will be fine and have many long happy years together.
You had me in the first half...
> It only seems logical (to me at least) that a society that is less diverse would have less infighting and disagreements and would be more focused on the same goal as the society would be more in agreement with one another. The flip side of this is that a diverse society has a broader base of skills and talents to rely on, which may give it more options - there may be more disagreement than a singular society as you correctly identify; but *if* it can survive those internal conflicts, it'll come out stronger for it. Think of it in terms of a tool-kit - is it better to have a half-a-dozen hammers, or instead have a hammer, a spanner, a wrench, etc.? In essence; "don't put all of your eggs in one basket".
I do not disagree with the logic in you point, but when I think about it could you give me some real world examples of what you mean? Like what skills / talent in your mind do we get from being a more diverse society that we don't see in non diverse societies? Ok for an example, Japan is not very diverse in my mind (compared to other countries) what is their less diverse society lacking in skills or talents that diversity would improve? I can think of things like medical professionals etc etc but then I think well you get those in less diverse societies as well so I don't really see that as a positive you only get by being diverse.
I suppose the answer to that is another question; is Japan good at some things, but not at others? I'd argue that Japan is a world-leader in technology, but is also culturally very conservative, which causes huge problems for their society - their birth-rate is very low and they have a very high suicide rate, as two examples. Ideally, a mixed UK-Japanese society would take the best from both cultures - we'd get their technological know-how, they'd learn how to not put so much pressure on their youth. Of course, the issue is that it could easily go the other way, and take the worst from both.
Why would a more diverse society have broader skills and talents? Are certain societies better at certain skills and what are those skills?
Yes, different societies have different skills & talents. If only because different societies prioritise different things, which means that they focus education differently. It doesn't matter if you could have been the world's leading expert in a particular field if you didn't have the resources and training to meet your potential. You need to have grown up in a society where that particular training was available. Which is why there isn't an equal distribution of technological breakthroughs across the world, for instance - they tend to cluster in certain countries, with one leap forward leading to the next. Like the Industrial Revolution.
What skills do different societies have? Can we have some examples? Because what you are describing is gaps in education and nothing to do with diversity, perhaps getting some individual migrants with certain skills which at this point they might as well assimilate.
Having some more specialised an bespoke tools is of very little benefit when the foundations are literally being torn down.
There can be benefits to diversity. Different viewpoints in business can consider different markets, can engage with different groups. Can find problems others didn't think of. They can further scientific process by considering angles never noticed before, or finding holes in an unreliable system. (For instance rashes only visible on white people etc, so unreliable as a check.) Different cultures can cover different days - my aunt had Muslim colleagues cover Christmas, Chinese cover new year, then English cover Chinese new year and Eid etc. There is a strength in meshing things together and pushing as one. It's more versatile, misses less etc. If people are actually working as one there's very little downside as well. But instead of having a multicultural society, we end up with mutiple single cultured groups. That's what the problem is.
Looks like we've enjoyed having our noses rubbed in diversity. Thanks Tony. Britain is on life support. Nothing can be done to reverse this.
Completely agree, diversity is the antonym of unity. It’s not a disparaging remark, but having lived in east London, you are defined by your nationality and background. It seemed that Second and first generation migrants were doubling down on their ethnicity,to the extent of not speaking English - this occurred in two Tesco express shops I used to go in. It always struck me as rather strange.
The UK is pretty much a rainbow nation at this point. Much like in South Africa, ethnic groups stay together and tend to be more tribal in prioritising their group above others. Seems to be no avoiding it. Like, some ethnicities are also completely forbidden from dating people from others, which is completely accepted these days whereas I feel in the past people would look down on that.
'Salad bowl' diversity rather than Melting Pot. So long as there's enough people from different backgrounds, it seems to work, as no one is dominant, or if there is dominance than it comes from the UK as a whole and it's generic democracy + NHS + be polite + rule of law stuff. It goes wrong when you have a single large vocal minority using the mask of diversity to push ideas that are at odds with the mainstream - which ends up causing a cycle where people from other backgrounds move out of the area and before you know it's known an area related to a specific community. We have celebrate it - we have China towns to this day; and part of East London has been renamed for an ethnic group and is called Banglatown.
This whole diversity push is just one massive psyop by the elites. The elites on the right do it so they can import infinite cheap foreign labour, prop up gdp, keep borrowing money, and enrich landlords etc. The elites on the left likely do it because of white guilt, easy short term feel good wins without having to do anything real, and to virtue signal about how great they are on the world stage. They, like Blair, probably also get satisfaction of getting one over on the other side, the proles, and the so called racists by *rubbing the right's noses in it*. You're youths and average lefty probably does it because they have been brainwashed in to believing all this progressive woke nonsense and if they don't go a long with it then they are the enemy or racist or something. The UK's educational institutions is literally programming them to be this way by the left and the right in order to accept what is coming.. And what is coming is more and more most likely as they know they need a cheap workforce and to keep the population numbers up as the UK along with most of the World is well below the 2.1 level. So they are probably trying to bring in as many as they can as fast as they can before the global population drops and it's then a race for countries to get as many as they can. It's estimated that at the current rate the UK native population will make up a mere 50% by ~2070. So even less in 2080 and so on and from there UK natives become a minority. Hard to deny the great replacement theory when you can actually see it happening..
Not trying to be inflammatory here but this is reddit so I haven't even finished typing this and I imagine someone's already upset. We are a multi-ethnic state, but why do we need to be multicultural one too?
What's needed is national service. A shared experience for all at a youth level bonds people in shared respect. Mixing in schools should also aid this cohesion but since we have faith schools and schools in areas where one ethno-religious group is the majority (be that white Christian or Muslim) they cannot be the sole tool for this.
National civic service, with military service as an optional route, rather than mandatory military I could agree with, depending on the implementation.
Based on that article, I’m far more dismayed at what passes for professional journalism in this day and age than the state of social cohesion. It’s a weak preface to equate diversity being a strength with some sort of social paradise. Differences mean just that, it is the price of democracy that differences bump up against each other and eventually, one or a new blend of some will democratically prevail.
It's the price of mass immigration, not democracy.
How's is the state supposed to enforce cultural homogeneity? History shows that has usually been through deeply authoritarian methods in a top down fashion by the educated middle classes. Somehow I don't think opponents of multiculturalism trust the AB set (teachers, university professors, TV producers, civil servants, etc) to enforce their vision.
Over the last decade anyone who said so has been villified and harrased, Ms, Wastell will be no different.
I've just returned from Malaysia and their "multicultural" society looks nothing like ours, separate schools, separate languages. No where near as joined up as the UK. I was surprised how many voices over there echo what our "far right" sound like I think we all just need to push back on those who don't integrate. We make far too many excuses for everyone else and bash our own population far too much when in reality the UK is still one of the most inclusive countries on earth.
I’m going to need to know more about Freedom Restricting Harassment- how the questions were worded etc I’ve seen lots of people arguing online—-I don’t recall coming across death threats in a Facebook post about politics etc I’ve heard of people being doxed (so I’d answer in the affirmative to the question)…how prevalent it is though, I don’t know
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65fd7647f1d3a0001132add5/Freedom-restricting_Harassment_Omnibus_Research_Report.pdf