[Know It All]

[quote=" There are neighborhoods where you can find a concentration of restaurants and grocery stores catering to a given ethnic group, but the actual residents of the area are usually pretty thoroughly mixed. Vancouver is very multicultural -- more than Toronto -- and it works fine. Singapore is another example of a multicultural city that works.[/quote]

You see, this is where we differ. What you describe is very much the same in the UK. Liberals think this is all very lovely and kid themselves it works beautifully, but the majority of indigenous people absolutely hate it. Just in case you didn't know, the real reason we voted for Brexit was because of immigration issues, and the real reason the U.S voted Trump was for the exact same reason. Honestly, it's no good fooling yourself that multiculturalism and integration are one and the same thing, because all diversity does is cause animosity amongst the majority

[anarchist23]

It's just a matter of time before we're all integrated. Time is a great healer. There was a time in Britain when the population was regional, a few years hundred years later we are all British, no matter whether you come from the north or the south of Britain. This process is accelerated by increased communication and ease of travel. One day we'll all be one, no nations.

[jakell]

This thread title is a good question to ask, apart from the focus on liberals which narrows it down too much.

I live in the UK and hadn't really heard of the word multiculturalism until the late 90's and a few years later it was all the rage.
Until then the only concept we had was of integration it was that or nothing. It's clear looking back, and at the present, that groups are/were staying apart and were not likely to integrate (fully), in fact it's in their interest not to.. they are not stupid. I think that the advent of the word 'multiculturalism' was an acceptance of failure on the part of TPTB and that a new concept had to be found, one that enabled groups to retain language, culture and traditions whilst living alongside each other.

IMO this was a finger-crossing exercise, wishful thinking. For this to work one needs an overriding culture that has the respect the other ones, and this culture was not allowed to express and maintain itself, in fact it was expected to die off (which it more or less has done). What we have now is the result of this wishful thinking, which is increasing tribalism.

[Know It All]

This thread title is a good question to ask, apart from the focus on liberals which narrows it down too much.

I live in the UK and hadn't really heard of the word multiculturalism until the late 90's and a few years later it was all the rage.
Until then the only concept we had was of integration it was that or nothing. It's clear looking back, and at the present, that groups are/were staying apart and were not likely to integrate (fully), in fact it's in their interest not to.. they are not stupid. I think that the advent of the word 'multiculturalism' was an acceptance of failure on the part of TPTB and that a new concept had to be found, one that enabled groups to retain language, culture and traditions whilst living alongside each other.

IMO this was a finger-crossing exercise, wishful thinking. For this to work one needs an overriding culture that has the respect the other ones, and this culture was not allowed to express and maintain itself, in fact it was expected to die off (which it more or less has done). What we have now is the result of this wishful thinking, which is increasing tribalism.

Well put, and very true. Of course, it's quite irreversible now, albeit I suppose it can be slowed down by policy. In short, countries like the U.K were destroyed by repeated governments who wanted to grow the economy more quickly than our population could grow naturally. These governments really do have a lot to answer for.

[Know It All]

It's just a matter of time before we're all integrated. Time is a great healer. There was a time in Britain when the population was regional, a few years hundred years later we are all British, no matter whether you come from the north or the south of Britain. This process is accelerated by increased communication and ease of travel. One day we'll all be one, no nations.

It's a good theory, but it won't happen. In the past we had we welcomed immigrants from countries who were prepared to accept our culture, integrate, and even cross bread. Unfortunately cultures such as Islam prevent your theory from happening. At very best the western world will eventually be divided into two, Muslim and non Muslim. Your theory that we will all end up in a great big melting pot may make great song lyrics, but that's about it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Immigration from the developing world will continue for the foreseeable future. Ethnic diversity will increase as a result. If enough immigrants from a certain culture congregate in one place and develop their own mini-economy, then multiculturalism will also increase.

All the whining and complaining by right wingers and conservatives will not change that.

On an amusing note, immigration to the UK was (and perhaps still is) a product of their colonial and imperial past. The chickens coming home to roost, as it were.

[h3s]

Immigration from the developing world will continue for the foreseeable future. Ethnic diversity will increase as a result. If enough immigrants from a certain culture congregate in one place and develop their own mini-economy, then multiculturalism will also increase.

All the whining and complaining by right wingers and conservatives will not change that.

On an amusing note, immigration to the UK was (and perhaps still is) a product of their colonial and imperial past. The chickens coming home to roost, as it were.

Assuming that we will allow it, or will be "forced" to allow it, because you know, being a part of the common market means that you also have to take in all the refugees.

Has the whining by all the left wingers pushed for the "sexual liberation" and the liberation of women in general?

I think so.

Again, poor analogy. The British, and Germans after colonizing the Africa and Southern Asia realised that these people were fundamentally different and wanted to overpower them in order to get their resources due to the expanding markets, and the expanding middle class at home. Their relationship was never based on equality, but dominance. It was their politicians who thought that they "owe them a favor" and hence allowed them to comet to their countries.

What a weird way to look at history through the lens of egalitarianism

[Pants-of-dog]

Assuming that we will allow it, or will be "forced" to allow it, because you know, being a part of the common market means that you also have to take in all the refugees.

Do you think global economics will magically change just because you stamp your foot? Lol.

Has the whining by all the left wingers pushed for the "sexual liberation" and the liberation of women in general?

I think so.

This has nothing to do with immigration.

Again, poor analogy. The British, and Germans after colonizing the Africa and Southern Asia realised that these people were fundamentally different and wanted to overpower them in order to get their resources due to the expanding markets, and the expanding middle class at home. Their relationship was never based on equality, but dominance. It was their politicians who thought that they "owe them a favor" and hence allowed them to comet to their countries.

This does not contradict anything I have claimed.

What a weird way to look at history through the lens of egalitarianism

Good thing I did not.

By the way, I thought you did not talk to Marxists.

[h3s]

By the way, I thought you did not talk to Marxists.

Ohh, It all makes sense now, apologies.

[Pants-of-dog]

Ohh, It all makes sense now, apologies.

It's cool. You were not contradicting me anyway.

[jakell]

Immigration from the developing world will continue for the foreseeable future. Ethnic diversity will increase as a result. If enough immigrants from a certain culture congregate in one place and develop their own mini-economy, then multiculturalism will also increase.

All the whining and complaining by right wingers and conservatives will not change that.

On an amusing note, immigration to the UK was (and perhaps still is) a product of their colonial and imperial past. The chickens coming home to roost, as it were.

It's apt that you include a 'perhaps' here.

A large number of pro-immigration arguments tend to conflate the sustainable immigration of the 50's-80's with the mass immigration/migration we (in the UK) have seen over the last decade or so. Sometimes I think this is done carelessly (and innocently), but at other times it seems like it is purposefully disingenuous. I think that no-one capable of judging the situation objectively would regard them as similar.

It seems that you perceive this difference too.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have never had anyone define "mass immigration" in an effective manner.

At this point, I am still uncertain as to what that means.

The difference in immigration patterns between the cold war period and now is that now it is based on neo-imperialism, while before it was plain old imperialism.

[Clangeddin]

I'm not sure if I can define myself a liberal, but for sure I'm a libertine ( )
I personally never cared for "integration" or "multiculturalism", all I'm interested in is that people respect the law, that the process of forming laws is democratic, and that the ratio behind every law approved is "don't do to others what you wouldn't do to yourself" and "as long as the action of one or more adult and consensual individuals do not interfere with the sphere of liberty of any other individual outside of the agreeing parties, it should be allowed". If that holds, then I'm good and they can do whatever they want...

[jakell]

A large number of pro-immigration arguments tend to conflate the sustainable immigration of the 50's-80's with the mass immigration/migration we (in the UK) have seen over the last decade or so. Sometimes I think this is done carelessly (and innocently), but at other times it seems like it is purposefully disingenuous. I think that no-one capable of judging the situation objectively would regard them as similar.

I have never had anyone define "mass immigration" in an effective manner.

At this point, I am still uncertain as to what that means.

The difference in immigration patterns between the cold war period and now is that now it is based on neo-imperialism, while before it was plain old imperialism.

Well.. you certainly bolted for the 'definition door' very quickly there.

I suppose I would 'define' it as the point past which a society/culture becomes unsustainable if immigration/migration continues at that rate. You could then ask me to explain unsustainable, and round and around we go.
It all rests upon whether one values that society/culture in the first place, and many don't and wish for change at any cost.

The phrase 'Cultural Marxism' has become a jokey Right Wing conspiracy meme, which is a perfect smokescreen for something that actually appears to be in play.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well.. you certainly bolted for the 'definition door' very quickly there.

I suppose I would 'define' it as the point past which a society/culture becomes unsustainable if immigration/migration continues at that rate.

So when you say that modern immigration is mass migration, you are arguing that immigration over the last decade has made UK society and culture unsustainable.

I do not see that.

[Know It All]

I have never had anyone define "mass immigration" in an effective manner.

At this point, I am still uncertain as to what that means.

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

It means a lot of people from another country come to live in your country. SIMPLES

[Pants-of-dog]

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

It means a lot of people from another country come to live in your country. SIMPLES

So, does five people count? 72? 9384755? Or does it only count if they are non-white?

[Know It All]

So, does five people count? 72? 9384755? Or does it only count if they are non-white?

5

[jakell]

So, does five people count? 72? 9384755? Or does it only count if they are non-white?

Well well... there you were, supposedly rising above Besoeker's anality (you've already tried the 'definition' one), and here you are using the same techniques. Quite blatantly too.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well well... there you were, supposedly rising above Besoeker's anality (you've already tried the 'definition' one), and here you are using the same techniques. Quite blatantly too.

You did not reply to my previous post:

So when you say that modern immigration is mass migration, you are arguing that immigration over the last decade has made UK society and culture unsustainable.

I do not see that.

It seems to me that when people use the phrase "mass immigration" it is merely a placeholder for some sort of bad immigration that is responsible for wrongness and badness, instead of an actual thing that can be analysed rationally.