Permabanned
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 186
The stat doesn't apply to Tokyo, Beijing and Seoul. All capital cities that have absolutely no trouble being 'global' either.
Poll: which party are you going to vote in up coming elections?
- Thread starter badcompany
- Start date
- Status
Disastrous day for Labour = good day for the country.
No, but they are large cities that are seen as vibrant and thriving, New York is considered the London of the US.
But lets look at Washingotn DC then, where only 38.5% of the population is white.
You have to keep in mind that English as a language is often a deciding factor for immigration, which would explain why, say, Amsterdam has a roughly 50% split between natives and immigrants.
See my above post about primary language. Most people have a tenuous grasp of English, you'd be hard pressed to find many Afro-caribbeans who can speak Mandarin.
It's an unprecedented shift in modern politics, even with the three parties, student unions, twitter-sphere and the old media all speaking out against UKIP in unison they've made profound gains from relatively nowhere.
Hopefully the Westminster aristocrats, student politics and old media will begin to wake-up to why UKIP have had such success and it's not because millions of White, Black, Asian, Jewish people are 'fruitcakes and closet racists'. It's because the aristocrats want to continue the status-quo and UKIP are a potential breaker for this process.
I think the problem is that the different races within the US cities generally are at least a few generations old, and so are seen as much more 'american' regardless or their colour or race. A lot of the immigration into London is relatively new, so you have a lot non-native English speakers and lots of bigger cultural differences
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,371
- Location
- Northumberland
You mean LA which is in California that used to belong to Mexico. Miami on the southern coast of Florida getting most of the population of Puerto Rico and a significant number of cubans on it's shores. New York the biggest immigrant city in the world. Your argument is invalid comparing them to London.
Which would have been the case for the US cities at some point too, everyone has to start somewhere.
People tend have problems with first gen immigrants, by 3rd gen they tend to have adopted the majority of the culture of where-ever they have settled.
Even Sydney (cultural capital of Oz?), only has 27% of it's population being Oz born, 25% were born in England, and the rest other parts of the world.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
How is it invalid? London is pretty close to europe you know...
I don't see how showing that large cities with high percentages of non-native population can be fine, makes my agrument invalid.
London is our capital of Government, Finance, Technology and Engineering which I don't think is replicated by any other major Western or Eastern country. Germany has Berlin for it's Government, Munich for its Engineering and Frankfurt for its Finance. America has Washington DC, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. China has Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong.
London is a magnet for skill, money and labour. It's caused suffrage for both London and non-London inhabitants by not offering a reason for people to change this status quo of simply being in London. In doing so it has created some desperate cesspits of existence as we saw over flowing in the London riots which are parked right next to areas of excessive global wealth that's been attracted at an increasing rate since the global economic criss. I don't see London as a particularly good example of a City and an increased migration from London into other areas of the UK would do wonders for congestion and costs for everybody involved.
Last edited:
Distance between London and Warsaw: 1011 miles
Distance between Miami and San Juan: 1033 miles
Just sayin'
Well the fact that London is far more tolerant of immigrants than other UK cities might explain why that doesn't happen. Where is the incentive for immigrants to move up north if they are far more likely to face prejudice and issues?
That's because you don't understand that foreigners are inherently suspicious and don't belong on the homeland.
They also steal jerbs!
I agree, but the difference is that after a certain point it became much harder to get into America and so these cultures had chance to integrate. Without toughening up on the numbers of people coming in you will always have these fresh un-integrated masses of immigrants. That's why we need need to toughen up now, we've had a lot of immigration in a quite short amount of time. Now we need to slow this right down so that everyone already here has chance to properly mix in and become 'british'
How are you defining tolerance?
- Status