MoonlitSunshine

If that were the case, surely the mistrust etc. should have virtually disappeared during the economic boom? To me, there has to be more to it than simply a sense of scapegoatism.

__________________
"I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?"

- Arthur Dent

Unknown Soldier

There hasn't been enough time to fully eliminate this mistrust from society, mass immigration into the UK only started with the need for labour after WWII and was fully underway by the 1950s. In the last 60 years, leaps and bound have been made in most areas and stagnated in others, but I would say about 50 to 100 years should be the norm for a modern educated society to eliminate most of these prejudices, but of course these time-scales have been thrown awry by the current economic crisis which arrived almost unforseen, current generations have never experienced such hardship in the UK (unless of course you were affected by the Thatcher years and you lived up north in the 1980s)

hip hop bunny hop

erm, this point is acutally addressed in this study:

link

:p

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

Unknown Soldier

I've read through most of the article and it does correspond with most of what I've put forward above, but what it does say and what any person with an anti-immigration stance may jump upon, are the short term problems of immigration and ethnic diversity to the local community. It mentions in one stance that immigrants seek out their own ethnic group, well Immigrants normally have it hard anyway coming into a new cultural environment and are normally starting at the bottom of economic ladder, so its normal that they would seek out their own racial group initially. They may even come into conflict with other immigrants and the local native community as well (this has often happened in both the UK and USA). But these are short term issues that often on average last the current generation, as its normally the children of the immigrants that will go onto benefit long term (that's not to say that the immigrant himself/herself will also not greatly benefit as well) Immigration is like any relationship and it takes time to work.

The article also accepts that immigration and ethnic diversity are irreversable factors in the modern world and as long as the world is faced with economic imbalances that will remain so. Probably 75% of all those that emigrate do so for economic reasons and not for because they hate their homeland (unless they are facing war or persecution) which then comes under refugee or PA emigration.

Just remember HHBH your ancestors were once immigrants and probably stuck with their own as well and probably would've had it hard, unless of course you are from native American stock.

Salami

I'd probably be better off saying right now that I really don't want to give that impression in the slightest: it would be naive to assume that completely opposite cultures could just settle down and get on perfectly if the society they were in was wealthy.
All I'm opposing here is racism, and trying to say that a multicultural society can exist if given the proper attention and imput.

Now, since I've recently discovered that sex is far more fun that this thread, I'll leave Unknown Soldier and MoonlitSunshine to do all the talking - they know what they're talking about a lot more than me and what they say is a lot more worth reading than mine.

MoonlitSunshine

Psh, that's not a good attitude! The more voices the better, especially in a debate where it can seem that there are two sides, when in fact there are many. For example, A government or local council could give more attention to integrating a community than anything else, and they would still fail if the constituent groups didn't want to integrate. We're all opposed to the concept of Racism - that is, discrimination against a race or group of people based on their colour or creed - but is it racism to be angry with or discriminate against a group because as a group they have acted against the building of a community in your area? I'm not saying that this happens, I'm just saying that the "racism" card is played far too early for my liking in many areas of society, often in an attempt to gain something that one would otherwise not be eligible for.

I'm sure we've all heard stories of the black person skipping a cue and shouting racism when someone tells them to get in line. I know of a Kenyan national who served in the british army, who was assaulted by a group of asian immigrants, with multiple independent witnesses, who was told by the police that it wasn't a racial incident because no white person had been involved. Call me conservative, hell, call me racist if you want, but there are some serious problems with definitions in the world at the moment, and a lot of **** that needs to be sorted out before I'm willing to accept that more than the barest majority of cases of racism are actually racist.

__________________
"I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?"

- Arthur Dent

Janszoon

HHBH isn't opposed to racism.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

MoonlitSunshine

Not necessarily true. If he is against multi-culturalism because he doesn't want any whites/blacks/jews/muslims/etc. in his country because he doesn't like that they are whites/blacks/ etc. etc., then yes, he isn't opposed to racism. If he is entirely against immigration because diversity causes social problems and he feels that they inhibit his ability to live his life the way he wants to, that's not necessarily racism. It's still not (necessarily) RIGHT, but he may be taking issue with them over their actions, rather than their race or creed.

To give you an example, I do some community management for a german games company, and every single community manager working for them groans whenever a romanian player is involved in something they are trying to sort out, because they are almost without fail knowingly cheating, and then proceed to lie, or pretend not to understand, and are perfectly happy to do unto others what they will instantly cry about someone else doing to them. Is that racism? Not by my book, because it's not because they're romanian that we don't like them, but because virtually every romanian we come across is a bloody annoying whiny bitch. I'm sure there are many great romanians out there, but it doesn't stop me from applying a general rule based on my own experiences.

__________________
"I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?"

- Arthur Dent

Janszoon

I'm not talking arguments he's made in this particular thread, I'm saying generally speaking he's a flaming racist and proud of it. I thought that was common knowledge to be honest.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Unknown Soldier

I agree the racism card is played too quickly too often and can often cause racism where it really doesn't exist, as always a degree of common sense is always needed. As you know the ocurrences with Liverpool FC have been so blown out of proportion and a good example.

Both the points you've raised above are actually the same thing, how do you actually differentiate between the two? The whole argument of a racist is usually based on how different ethnic groups inhibit is way of life. Its normally all racist goes on about!

It is common knowledge, but he tends to play the economics card to try and throw people off.