If only our government was as honest

Angilion said:
I'll try again to get my point across.

Scenario 1:

Some people migrate from one country to another. They change to fit the country they move to, including but not limited to learning the language, using it as their primary language and teaching it to their children.

Scenario 2:

Some people migrate from one country to another. They change the country to fit their pre-existing culture, gradually gathering more power through numbers and politics, always retaining a seperate identity on the basis of their original nationality and.or culture and passing that on to their descendents, often including but not limited to language.

It could be said that both are immigration and settlement, but it could not be said that they are the same thing. The former is simply immigration, the latter is cultural conquest.
Click to expand...


That is not relevant to UK immigration however. We are not subject to a widespread organised attempt at cultural conquest as you put it. It bears no relation to the mass migrations such as European settlement of the Americas or Jewish Settlement of Israel for example.

It is simply economic immigration that for whatever reason has created a division especially in our inner cities. Anything else is simply conspiracy claptrap.

Most first generation immigrants retain their native language and culture, it is over several generations is when the prevalent culture and language begin to take precedence. We have seen a large influx of uncontrolled immigration, not because of any preconceived invasion, but through Governmental mistakes and inadequacy to address the very real problems that this creates.

I agree with your statement on it not being about racism however, just not your assessment of UK immigration.
 
Last edited:
sanaxe1 said:
To be honest i blame the government and the media. Since 9/11 we have been bombarded with stories against Muslims and terrorism to help shift papers and get support for the wars. Now it may have been effective for the short term goals of the government but that much propaganda was always going to have a negative change in attitudes of the British people.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that 'propaganda' so much as standard human sense of proportion is the problem. For example, at my school I'd estimate about 15% of the population are muslims of Pakistani origin (i.e. born there or clear family links, go and visit every holiday). There a plenty of friendly, 'normal' muslims, but there are also the hardcore ones (around 6 in my year) who sit around away from the non muslims talking in Urdu or whatever. They are generally rude and threatening. Those are the ones people remember, not the other 10 who are perfectly nice, and 'integrated'. As far as I can tell a lot of prejudice is based on that group of 'differentiated' muslims who are the ones people remember best.

Another example would be driving - my driving instructor is always telling me about these bloody immigrants not being safe road users - and I'd say a very large proportion of the dangerous, irresponsible driving I've come across has been committed by people he would regard as 'immigrants', however, there are also those 'immigrants' who are generally good drivers, and DO actually check the road is clear before pulling out.

I think it's misleading to say that the multicultural society has failed, it's just not passed very well - I'd give it a D grade. Just remember that many of those who might criticise a 'multicultural' proponent have had personal experience to draw from, which does indeed reinforce their viewpoint, but they are forgetting that for every negative experience with 'immigrants' there are plenty of positive ones. The issue of integration is not a simple yes/no - there are those who do integrate, and those who don't, and those who are half integrated, half differentiated.
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
I'll try again to get my point across.

Scenario 1:

Some people migrate from one country to another. They change to fit the country they move to, including but not limited to learning the language, using it as their primary language and teaching it to their children.
Click to expand...
Absolutely ridiculous. Are you saying every family that emigrates here, even short term (say less than five or ten years) should immediately start speaking English at home?

I'm obviously biased in this respect but I think even you have to accept this is a ludicrous thing to expect :/
 
I think one problem is the expectation immigrants seem to have, from an outsiders perspective that is. It's like they expect it all to be the same at home, without the things they don't like and then some.

Multiculturism sure, but don't be a **** about it and expect it all your way, If you you move to a country you sould try to at least understand the people you live, work and socialise around. You should expect to give up some things.

I want to emmigrate and understand where I want to go won't be like home, nor would I expect to. But I hate racism and know I'll get a bit of it.
 
Killerkebab said:
Absolutely ridiculous. Are you saying every family that emigrates here, even short term (say less than five or ten years) should immediately start speaking English at home?

I'm obviously biased in this respect but I think even you have to accept this is a ludicrous thing to expect :/
Click to expand...

My siblings and I are the first generation of my family who learnt English as their native language. However, my parents and grandparents had the advantage in this context of speaking English as a second language before coming here. They spoke English as their first language as soon as they entered the country.

I also explicitly excluded people who are not staying permanently. I'm talking about emigration, not visiting. Even if the visit is for five years.

Obviously I don't expect people to learn a new language immediately. That would be ridiculous. It takes time to learn a new language.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom