Later that day, after the soldiers’ parade had dispersed, Kier was walking across St George’s Square in his England shirt — “Eng-er-land! Eng-er-land! Eng-er-land!” the crowd had been chanting at the protesters. Kier was still feeling wound up by what he had just witnessed back by the Arndale. He had a cousin in the army, a family friend who had been killed in action. Bloody Muslim extremists, Kier was thinking to himself. How dare they!In a very long article, it looks like the aforementioned Kier is the only one who gets called "ignorant", because he couldn't apparently distinguish between a Sikh and a Muslim. It would be interesting to discover how many Muslims in Britain could distinguish a Welshman from an Englishman, say, or a Catholic from a Protestant. Not too many, one would imagine.
Then he saw the mayor crossing the square, walking high and proud in his robe and chains. He was Asian. So far as Kier was concerned, he was a Muslim too, and it was all his fault. He was the head of the council; the council had given permission for the extremists to make their protest. F*** it, Kier thought. Kier ran up to him and fly-kicked him in the back. Councillor Lakhbir Singh, the mayor of Luton, a Sikh by faith, not in fact a Muslim at all, stumbled and fell forward, putting out his hands to stop himself falling. Kier turned around and, before the police could do anything, he ran through them and was away.
It would be farcical if it were not so sad and unpleasant, that brief moment in the life of modern, multicultural Britain. A Sikh in a turban had been mistaken for a Muslim by a white youth too ignorant to know any better, and apparently too angry to express himself other than with a kick.
The larger point: does it matter? Sikhs, Muslims, they are all cultural aliens who, at best, don't fit in with Britain and refuse to assimilate, and at worst, support terrorism. So Mr. Kier's "fly kick" (must be a soccer term), while deplorable, is merely an expression of anger at the takeover of his country by those cultural aliens, it matters not whether Sikh, Muslim, or Hindu. And, while deplorable, it hardly rises to the level of blowing up the tube.
Sikhs used to commit terrorism in India and I think some did in Canada a while back, but in England neither they nor Hindus seem to cause problems. It really is all the Muslims' fault there.
ReplyDeleteDoes David James Smith, the journalist who wrote this utterly predictable article, who sneers at working class whites and insists that only a teeny tiny proportion of muslims are militant, does he ever think about what his white child or grandchild will have to face? Frankly, I gave up trying to figure out what goes on in the minds of the David James Smiths decades ago. The degree of self-alienation is unfathomable to me. So much of the world of the official people is incomprehensible and unfathomable. A wall. I'm stopped by it.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to discover how many Muslims in Britain could distinguish a Welshman from an Englishman,
Hmmm, until they opened their mouths I suspect I could not tell a Welshman from an Englishman, nor a Catholic from a Protestant, but I am pretty sure I can tell a Sikh male from a Muslim male ...
Actually, Catholic from a CofEr would probably be the more natural distinction in Britain.
Maybe the Directorate of Multiculturism (or whatever it is called in the UK) should encourage the various confessions and ethnic communities to adopt distinctive modes of dress(like the Sikhs) so that the public in general would be able to sort out who is who.
ReplyDeleteTotally voluntary, of course-not like the yellow star.
"So Mr. Kier's "fly kick" (must be a soccer term), while deplorable, is merely an expression of anger at the takeover of his country by those cultural aliens".
ReplyDeleteMaybe the Anglo-Sikh's decision to not fully assimilate is merely an expression of defiance prompted by the colonization of the land of his birth by "cultural aliens" such as Mr. Kier's ancestors?
Britain colonized broad swaths of the world (including of course South Asia), economically integrated with those lands via mercantilism, and subsequently welcomed most of its former colonies into the British Commonwealth. Given that history, it seems a little odd to lament the presence of the descendants of Britain's colonial subjects, calling them "cultural aliens". Perhaps they are, but it's Britain that built the metaphorical bridge to South Asia in the first place. Brits shouldn't be surprised that the traffic on that bridge goes both ways. Unless, of course, they are ignorant of history, as Mr. Kier appears to be. Otherwise, he'd know a Sikh from Muslim, considering that India was the British Empire's most important possession for so many years.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the Anglo-Sikh's decision to not fully assimilate is merely an expression of defiance prompted by the colonization of the land of his birth by "cultural aliens" such as Mr. Kier's ancestors?
Anglo-Sikh mayor (you must be the first using this PC term) can decide many things, I'm not really interested. What is interesting to me is why UK decided they must have a ton of alienated, resentful and probably non-assimilable foreigners in their midst?
Does elites hate their working class folks so much so that they want to replace them?
Britain colonized broad swaths of the world ... and subsequently welcomed most of its former colonies into the British Commonwealth. Given that history, it seems a little odd to lament the presence of the descendants of Britain's colonial subjects.
How economic links necessitate having folks from colonies moving in huge numbers into UK? One does not follow another. Unless evil elites decide to import foreigners to replace their proles.
Most of Asians came to UK after UK retreated from the colonies. UK trades much more with Germany than all Commonwealth combined.
If one follows your "logic", UK should see invasion of Germans.
The larger point: does it matter? Sikhs, Muslims, they are all cultural aliens who, at best, don't fit in with Britain and refuse to assimilate, and at worst, support terrorism.
ReplyDeleteThis was my thought as well. I remember that in The Camp of the Saints the Indians were no less invaders for being unarmed. Their numbers were their weapon, and more effective than a Kalashnikov when the invaded country refused to defend itself.
Maybe the Anglo-Sikh's decision to not fully assimilate is merely an expression of defiance prompted by the colonization of the land of his birth by "cultural aliens" such as Mr. Kier's ancestors?
And is Britain now allowed to accept that colonialism was a mistake, and that it's time to reverse the tide of 3rd-world immigrants? Or must Britain drown in this tide in order to assuage its guilt?
The "colonialism" argument is no longer relevant. Western nations are in the process of being colonized and their native peoples displaced. They have the right to continue to exist, the precious feelings of the Sikhs and others notwithstanding.
DaveinHackensack presents the usual inane liberal argument that owing to past colonialism, Europeans today have no right to object to themselves being colonized.
ReplyDeleteYAWWWWWWWN.
The vast majority of people in Britain today were not even alive when India was a British colony. Through what crazy leap of logic should they be punished for "past wrongs" that they had nothing to do with and derived no benefit from?
If it was wrong for Britain to colonize India and Pakistan, why is it not wrong for India and Pakistan to colonize Britain?
It astonishes me that anyone could have any doubt at all that Indians and Pakistanis are culturally alien to Britain.
I like Dave's comment, but it reminds me of Theodore Dalrymple's practice of asking the brutish young men he treated in the hospital and in prison to give him the dates of the Second World War. None of them could answer and when one said, "In the eighteenth century," Dalrymple wanted to give him partial credit because he had at least heard of the eighteenth century. This seems very odd to the sort of Americans who would be in a discussion like this because the British shows we see on PBS seem to be about little else other than WWII.
ReplyDelete"Someone got out onto the roof of the Arndale above the protesters and emptied a pack of bacon rashers over them. A highly offensive act. The police would like to prosecute whoever did that, but have been unable to identify them on CCTV footage. "
ReplyDeleteHow is this a crime exactly?
"who sneers at working class whites and insists that only a teeny tiny proportion of muslims are militant, does he ever think about what his white child or grandchild will have to face? Frankly, I gave up trying to figure out what goes on in the minds of the David James Smiths decades ago."
ReplyDeleteSame here. Is it possible these people actually believe their own tripe? Liberal delusion is so rampant and virulent that I wouldn't be surprised.
On the telly the other evening an Iranian comedienne made a joke involving a piggy bank. She was subject to a teasing enquiry "You're a Muslim; were you allowed a piggy bank?". I may be wrong, but I suspect that she had to restrain herself from a reply along the lines of "Not all Muslims are ignorant fanatics like those people from.....". But it's the ignorant fanatics who set the pace.
ReplyDeleteAnon says:
ReplyDeleteDaveinHackensack presents the usual inane liberal argument that owing to past colonialism
I think your irony filter needs adjusting, or maybe you need to look the word up in the dictionary. It does not refer to the "ironness" of iron objects.
OneSTDV says:
ReplyDeleteSame here. Is it possible these people actually believe their own tripe? Liberal delusion is so rampant and virulent that I wouldn't be surprised.
It really does not matter whether they believe their tripe or not. It is a collective behavior phenomenon and a group identification phenomenon.
Above all else, people are very good at absorbing and then parroting the culture they were born into. They have to for the survival of their genes. Only a small number are capable of creating culture and providing it with direction.
Things will change when this recession/depression squeezes the fat out of the system.
Britain colonized broad swaths of the world (including of course South Asia), economically integrated with those lands via mercantilism, and subsequently welcomed most of its former colonies into the British Commonwealth. Given that history, it seems a little odd to lament the presence of the descendants of Britain's colonial subjects, calling them "cultural aliens". Perhaps they are, but it's Britain that built the metaphorical bridge to South Asia in the first place. Brits shouldn't be surprised that the traffic on that bridge goes both ways. Unless, of course, they are ignorant of history, as Mr. Kier appears to be. Otherwise, he'd know a Sikh from Muslim, considering that India was the British Empire's most important possession for so many years.
ReplyDeleteYes, colonization explains the large number of Indians in the United States and Canada, the presence of Turks in Germany, Moroccans in the Netherlands, and Somalis in Sweden . If Americans hadn't colonized India, Germans Turkey, the Dutch Morocco, and the Scandis Somalia, this wouldn't be a problem so stop your whining.
...and please stop calling them cultural aliens, Dennis. You act as though Europeans have cultures. OK, maybe they do, but it isn't as if these cultures were in any way vibrant or colorful. The demise of these not-so-fascinating-or-exotic cultures will be no great loss to the world.
Are any of you British? To say that a people who served, died, and won military combat honors in the British Army to the degree the Sikhs have "are cultural aliens" who don't fit in with British culture and "refuse to assimilate" is just freaking unbelievably stupid. Enough Sikhs have certainly died in the service of the British crown to count as defenders of British culture. As to the implication that Sikhs and Muslims comprise a unified "they" which shares anything in common [the remainder of this sentence has been self-censored by the author, who realizes that calling someone names, while sometimes appropriate, is not the best way to convince them to spend 5 minutes on Wikipedia reading about what a "Sikh" actually is.]
ReplyDeleteAppalled as I am at the ignorance of history evidenced by this post and the comments to it, it is a great example of how the apathetic ignorance of Westerners has destroyed Western culture. It is not the fault of the immigrant hordes that they are taking over your countries. They are just doing what is natural.
Please keep up the good work, Mr. Mangan. But for Pete's sake, don't be an ignorant doofus dingbat.
I'm perfectly aware of who the Sikhs are and what sort of military background they have, and nothing in my post would lead one, except someone deliberately misreading it like yourself, to believe that I don't. The British also fought a number of wars *against* them. Or are you too lazy to look up the Anglo-Sikh wars?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Sikhs don't count as "defenders of British culture" any more than Hindus or Indian Muslims; if you'll recall, all of these groups wanted the British *out* of their country, and they were successful. Furthermore, the argument that because some Sikhs fought as mercenaries for the British doesn't give any one of them, especially one who did not so fight, the moral right to live in Britain, just as the fact that India was a British colony has no ramifications whatsoever for British residency or citizenship.
So don't come around here calling anyone ignorant when it's obvious that you don't know an argument from your ass.
Over on Volokh some crazy Russian seems to be of the mistaken believe that objective testing protects all minorities:
ReplyDeleteObjective written tests protect minorities, while subjective oral tests provide vehicles to engage in invidious discrimination against them. The behavior of Steklov Institute in the USSR provides an almost pure example of how oral tests can be used against minorities.
In the USSR Jews were an official minority, and the internal passports everyone was required to carry identified them as such. To get a PhD in mathematics one had to submit to an oral exam given by a member of Steklov. To keep them from getting their degrees, many members of the Institute would ask Jews research level questions in mathematics.
Ohhh, the irony.
Yes Virginia, the utility of objective tests in discriminating against minorities depends on the average IQ of those minority groups.
in the British Army to the degree the Sikhs have "are cultural aliens" who don't fit in with British culture and "refuse to assimilate" is just freaking unbelievably stupid. Enough Sikhs have certainly died in the service of the British crown to count as defenders of British culture.
ReplyDeleteUh, not quite.
The British were famous for pitting the 'martial races', including Sikhs and Gurkhas, against ... well, the less martial ones. That is, Sikhs were used as de facto mercenaries, and were neither expected nor encouraged to adopt -- let alone defend -- British culture. They were expected to defend the British state's interests in Indian and elsewhere east of Suez. They were in a very real sense the Hessians of India. Whatever merit they may have gained in the role has long been repaid by the UK's liberal immigration policies in the post-War era.
Interestingly, as near as I can figure, it was the Sikhs who first pressed the 'multicultural' claims, not Muslims. For instance, already in the mid-1960s, Sikh bus drivers were demanding the right to wear their turban, rather than the cap that all other bus drivers were required to wear. Sikhs policemen are exempt from the headgear rule that all others are expected to conform to. In a word, they were the thin edge of the wedge.
And no, I am not British, but have lived in Blighty, for a long while, indeed mostly in heavily 'enriched' London areas, including just a few blocks from where Ben Kinsella was killed.
Um, who is the kid who came up with the $20 cancer blood test?
ReplyDeleteUm, who is the kid who came up with the $20 cancer blood test?
ReplyDeleteSomeone who took a place in university away from a native-born American.
But I'm sure that he could have invented it just as easily in Calcutta.
ReplyDelete"If it was wrong for Britain to colonize India and Pakistan, why is it not wrong for India and Pakistan to colonize Britain?"
ReplyDeleteWhere did I say it was wrong for Britain to colonize India? Sometimes history makes more sense if you think of it in Spinozistic or Newtonian terms, rather than through the prism of morality. Actions have reactions, and the presence of South Asians in Britain today is the backwash of empire.
"Yes, colonization explains the large number of Indians in the United States..."
You built that straw man, so I'll let you play with it.
"The British were famous for pitting the 'martial races', including Sikhs and Gurkhas, against ... well, the less martial ones."
There was an interesting series of letters to the FT recently, about whether Gurkha veterans ought to be given residency in Britain. One of the arguments against it, was that it would deny Gurkha communities in Nepal some of their most capable citizens.
"That is, Sikhs were used as de facto mercenaries, and were neither expected nor encouraged to adopt -- let alone defend -- British culture."
This isn't entirely true of the Gurkhas, who, although they could be called mercenaries, have had for generations an apparent pride and attachment to the British Crown that goes beyond their paychecks*, and of course have had the honor of serving as part of the royal guard in Britain.
*Some of you may remember that the term "mercenaries" was used to deride the professional soldiers of Britain's expeditionary force in World War I, and prompted A.E. Houseman to write the poem Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries in response.
Where I live there has been a large influx of Sikhs; there is even a large Sikh temple in the area. Funny that I don't feel the place developing any kind of English flavor. Maybe it's all the Ukranians here offsetting the Sikh influence.
ReplyDelete"TGGP said...
ReplyDeleteSikhs used to commit terrorism in India and I think some did in Canada a while back,..."
Sikh terrorists blew up an Air India Jet (flying out of Canada) over the Atlantic in 1985, in retalliation for Indira Ghandi's supression of Sikh separatists (including a raid of their Golden temple in Amritsar). Presumably there were at least a few Canadians on that flight. There may have even been a few Sikhs (eggs...omelets, etc.). So clearly not every Sikh abroad is a model citizen.
"DaveinHackensack said...
Britain colonized broad swaths of the world (including of course South Asia), economically integrated with those lands via mercantilism, and subsequently welcomed most of its former colonies into the British Commonwealth. Given that history, it seems a little odd to lament the presence of the descendants of Britain's colonial subjects, calling them "cultural aliens". Perhaps they are, but it's Britain that built the metaphorical bridge to South Asia in the first place. Brits shouldn't be surprised that the traffic on that bridge goes both ways. Unless, of course, they are ignorant of history, as Mr. Kier appears to be. Otherwise, he'd know a Sikh from Muslim, considering that India was the British Empire's most important possession for so many years."
It already has gone both ways. The India of today has a parliament, a prime minister, a rail system, hospitals, universities, and a (heavily) english-influenced system of jurisprudence. They got all of this from Britain. If they deemed it to be such an oppresive intrusion into their own culture, they would have been free to cast it all off after 1948. They didn't.
One way or another however, the influx of foreigners into Britain was a consequence of their imperialism. Just as our empire is bringing us an influx of Iraqis, Somalis, etc. (Hey, just wait till the Pashtun get here!) There is no better lesson in the perils of Empire. I wish it was a lesson the U.S. would learn.
As to the implication that Sikhs and Muslims comprise a unified "they" which shares anything in common...
ReplyDeleteRegardless of whether Sikhs and Muslims have much in common culturally or historically, they do in a profound way represent the same side in the Western culture vs. mass immigration predicament we're in. Just like here in the U.S., where minorities of all colors and leftists of all degrees, and gays, lesbians, feminists, transgenders, etc, although not having much in common, form in reality a more-or-less united front against the dominant culture. One reason this happens is that cooperation between the groups makes it a lot easier for them to get what they want than to work separately. Blacks REALLY don't care much about things gays care about, and vice versa, for example, but the two sides nevertheless form an alliance in their battle against their common enemy. On their own, they're just minority groups, but with a little quid quo pro, they're a new majority, however ragtag.
The second is that the more the majority culture is chipped away at by the different groups, the easier it is for all to get the chips and pieces they want from their weakened foe. A similar mechanism is behind the large rise in illegal immigration after the 1965 Immigration Act. The 1965 law didn't make it easier per se for illegals to come here or stay, but it eroded the unity of the host country such that it became much easier for them to do so. What's another five Salvadorans down the street when there are already people from the Philippines, Mexico and India in the neighborhood? Hey, we're a nation of immigrants - and I'm a nice guy. And, after all, they'll do my lawn for just 15 bucks, so I shouldn't make a fuss and upset anybody. Next thing you know, there are a million illegals waving foreign flags downtown, and Congress is stacked with people more than happy to give them everything they want.
Jaz, you sound like you live in Calgary. I'm in Vancouver, and let me tell you, Sikhs are incompatible with a first world country.
ReplyDeleteUm, who is the kid who came up with the $20 cancer blood test?
ReplyDeleteThis is the first I've heard of this test. I did a little Googling and could only find a few non-technical PR-type pages about it. That and the fact that it was published in the journal Electrophoresis (impact factor 3.6). Is there any reason to believe this is anything more than the usual science-by-press-release, we-cured-cancer/AIDS/obesity/balding/Alzheimers/atherosclerosis/aging kind of hype you see every single week in the non-science media?
To say that a people who served, died, and won military combat honors in the British Army to the degree the Sikhs have "are cultural aliens" who don't fit in with British culture and "refuse to assimilate" is just freaking unbelievably stupid.
ReplyDeleteBeing a mercenary or the descendant of a mercenary or the descendant of a third cousin removed of a mercenary now makes you a bona fide bearer of the culture of any nation for which you or your ancestor or your ancestor's cousin once fought?
You built that straw man, so I'll let you play with it.
Explain the reluctance of Third World immigrants to assimilate to any European culture regardless of that nation's historical ties or lack thereof. Why should a Sikh or Muslim be reluctant to assimilate into German or Norwegian culture given your theory?
Maybe the Anglo-Sikh's decision to not fully assimilate is merely an expression of defiance prompted by the colonization of the land of his birth by "cultural aliens" such as Mr. Kier's ancestors?
Maybe Sikhs hold the ridiculous mentality you attribute to them, but I suspect the motives of most Third World immigrants are both more practical and more mundane.
Actions have reactions, and the presence of South Asians in Britain today is the backwash of empire.
The presence of South Asians anywhere in Europe is first and foremost the product of the cultural and economic failures of South Asians contrasted with the successes of Europeans.
Even then it wasn't unavoidable. The proponents of the sort of cosmic shame expressed in the DaveinHackensack's comments long insisted upon the duty of colonizing powers to accept the decolonized. They assured the natives that the newcomers would integrate in due time. Once the newcomers had arrived, these cosmic hand wringers decided the presence of unassimilated aliens was actually the inevitable result of history and not a consequence of a policy they once supported.
Chalking bad decisions up to an inescapable history is a common tactic among leftists.
---How is this a crime exactly?---
ReplyDeleteLittering.
Actions have reactions, and the presence of South Asians in Britain today is the backwash of empire.
ReplyDeleteThe presence of South Asians anywhere in Europe is first and foremost the product of the cultural and economic failures of South Asians contrasted with the successes of Europeans.
you two would better realyze that BOTH statements are true.
ReplyDeleteExplain the reluctance of Third World immigrants to assimilate to any European culture regardless of that nation's historical ties or lack thereof. Why should a Sikh or Muslim be reluctant to assimilate into German or Norwegian culture given your theory?
I have observed that Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, as well as Filipino/as assimilate after one or two generations.
So, my theory is: The more intelligent the immigrant the more likely their descendants are to assimilate.
Just want to add to Martin B.'s comment that, in retaliation for the Indira Gandhi crackdown, they not only blew up an Air India jet out of Canada, but they murdered Indira Gandhi herself. She was machine-gunned by two Sikhs who were members of her personal bodyguard.
ReplyDelete"So Mr. Kier's "fly kick" (must be a soccer term), while deplorable, is merely an expression of anger at the takeover of his country by those cultural aliens, it matters not whether Sikh, Muslim, or Hindu. And, while deplorable, it hardly rises to the level of blowing up the tube.
ReplyDeleteI guess this is where I think you cross into vdare territory.
I don't like people kicking others at all because they look different.
Why don't responsible people organize en masse and speak up, in a responsible way.
Maybe this exemplifies why you defended vdare while half sigma criticized it.
ReplyDeletethe influx of foreigners into Britain was a consequence of their imperialism
Kindly explain how influx of Pollacks and Ukrainians is consequence of British imperialism?
Also, If UK in 1959 decreed that it will accept 200 immigrants per year, would they have non-assimilated minorities today regardless of they imperialistic past?
you two would better realyze that BOTH statements are true.
ReplyDeleteNo, I would argue that DaveinHackensack's statement isn't entirely true. If immigration was the inevitable product of a nation's imperialism, then Belgium would be full of Congolese immigrants rather than Moroccans. Third World immigration is a product of policy made by fools, not an inescapable consequence of history.
So, my theory is: The more intelligent the immigrant the more likely their descendants are to assimilate.
I'm a race realist and I would agree with that. I don't buy the argument that Indians and Pakistanis don't assimilate because they are seeking revenge against the British. They don't assimilate culturally because they don't want to and no one is going to force assimilation upon them. They don't assimilate economically because they often cannot assimilate.
"as said...
ReplyDeleteI guess this is where I think you cross into vdare territory.
I don't like people kicking others at all because they look different.
Why don't responsible people organize en masse and speak up, in a responsible way."
I don't either. But ignorant yobs acting out still isn't as bad - not by a long-shot - as muslims who blow up subways and crash airplanes into buildings, or for that matter, as Sikhs who contribute to the undermining of our civilization by refusing to assimilate.
And what's wrong with Vdare? Vdare IS responsible people organizing and speaking out responsibly.
Don't think that by taking sides with cultural aliens against the more obstreperous elements on your own side that you will gain some advantage. You'll only alienate your allies, and your enemies will still hate you.
DaveinHackensack, How many Whites from Britain are there in India? Britain ruled India, but it did not import millions of its White subjects there.
ReplyDeleteTommy,
ReplyDelete"Explain the reluctance of Third World immigrants to assimilate to any European culture regardless of that nation's historical ties or lack thereof."
The straw man I referred to initially was your sarcastic claim that because the presence of one group of minorities in one country is a consequence of colonialism/empire that this is true of the presence of all minorities in all countries. As you know, this is false. Here in the U.S. the presence of some minority groups (e.g., Filipinos, Pacific Islanders, Puerto Ricans) is the backwash of empire, and some (e.g., South Asians) is simply due to our liberal post-1965 immigration policies.
As for assimilation, I'd second the observation of a previous commenter that most members of high-achieving minority groups seem to assimilate fairly well here after a generation or two.
"Maybe Sikhs hold the ridiculous mentality you attribute to them, but I suspect the motives of most Third World immigrants are both more practical and more mundane."
I was being facetious about that.
"The proponents of the sort of cosmic shame expressed in the DaveinHackensack's comments..."
Where did I say anything about "cosmic shame"? On the contrary, I explicitly warned about the challenge of trying to explain history in moral terms.
"Chalking bad decisions up to an inescapable history is a common tactic among leftists."
You've got me nailed there. As anyone who has read my blog or my comments on other folks' blogs knows, I am a leftist.
"I don't buy the argument that Indians and Pakistanis don't assimilate because they are seeking revenge against the British. They don't assimilate culturally because they don't want to and no one is going to force assimilation upon them. They don't assimilate economically because they often cannot assimilate."
That's painting with a little bit of a broad brush, isn't it? Britain may have, on the whole, less-talented South Asians than we do, but it's easy to find counter-examples to your statements, both here and in the U.K. If South Asians were so impervious to cultural assimilation, so many of them wouldn't have embraced a British sport, cricket, or a British art form, the English novel. Indians, in particular, have excelled at both of these. As for South Asians being unable to economically assimilate, this may be true to some extent of Pakistanis, but Indian-Americans are the highest-earning minority group in the United States, and have succeeded economically in other parts of the world as well.
Ronduck,
"DaveinHackensack, How many Whites from Britain are there in India?"
I have no idea.
"Britain ruled India, but it did not import millions of its White subjects there."
OK. Your point is what, exactly? That Britain was more concerned with the cultural sensibilities of Indians than Indians are of Brits?
I have observed that Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, as well as Filipino/as assimilate after one or two generations.
ReplyDeleteSo, my theory is: The more intelligent the immigrant the more likely their descendants are to assimilate.
Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and Filipinos are generally law-abiding, educated, and economically successful. But does that mean they are "assimilated"? Do they regard themselves as culturally and politically American first and not merely "Asians who live in America"?
Dave wrote: You've got me nailed there. As anyone who has read my blog or my comments on other folks' blogs knows, I am a leftist.
ReplyDeleteDave, in an unpublished remark, our friend John K. made the same argument, though with his added abuse his comment could regretfully not be published. Anyway, you may not be aware that a fairly common trope, and a true one IMO, among the paleo right is that many "conservatives" have many underlying assumptions that are in reality quite liberal. Among these is the idea that people are basically all the same and have identical desires, such as for "democracy", and that anyone or any population can assimilate to Western culture. People with these views are sometimes known as "right liberals", those who hold that the right of individuals is paramount. So being rightist or conservative in matters such as favoring a free market or small government doesn't mean that one has genuine conservative assumptions. Not casting aspersions, just saying.
Do they regard themselves as culturally and politically American first and not merely "Asians who live in America"?
My vote goes on the latter, in most cases.
Dennis,
ReplyDeleteFair enough, but I don't believe that everyone has the same desires or is equally capable of assimilating economically. That's why I think immigration ought to be limited to individuals with high levels of human capital (and, in periods of high unemployment such as today, further limited to entrepreneurs with the resources and intent to start businesses and create jobs for Americans). As for democracy allegedly being an universal desire, I'd venture that it's not even really a universal desire among Americans. If it were, we'd hear a lot more uproar about undemocratic aspects of our system, such as gerrymandering. Most people, I think, want to see policies they support implemented, and favor democracy insofar as it will advance their cause.
"She was machine-gunned by two Sikhs who were members of her personal bodyguard."
ReplyDeleteHow's that assimilation process working out in India?
Where did I say anything about "cosmic shame"? On the contrary, I explicitly warned about the challenge of trying to explain history in moral terms.
ReplyDeleteI think what you judge to be natural in history is colored by a certain moral vision of the world.
Anon says:
ReplyDelete"She was machine-gunned by two Sikhs who were members of her personal bodyguard."
How's that assimilation process working out in India?
That demonstrates a certain ignorance of India. Sikhs, along with Muslims, are Indians. They are simply different religious groups, and minorities compared to Hindus.
The Sikh religion was formed to fight the Muslim invaders of India, I believe.
"That demonstrates a certain ignorance of India. Sikhs, along with Muslims, are Indians. They are simply different religious groups, and minorities compared to Hindus."
ReplyDeleteI think it's a little more complicated than that. What would assimilation even mean in the context of India, a country of a billion people with multiple religions, languages, castes, etc.? It's essentially multiculturalism on steroids, and democracy demands that no group gets all the spoils.
It's worth noting though, re the Sikhs (who represent a tiny minority of Indians) that the current prime minister of India happens to be a Sikh, who is also a Ph.D. economist. It's also interesting to note that the head of his political party isn't even Indian ethnically -- she is the Italian-born widow of a former prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, who was the son of Indira Gandhi, the prime minister who was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards. Rajiv Gandhi was also assassinated (by Tamil Tigers, in his case).
---That demonstrates a certain ignorance of India. Sikhs, along with Muslims, are Indians. They are simply different religious groups, and minorities compared to Hindus.
ReplyDeleteThe Sikh religion was formed to fight the Muslim invaders of India, I believe---
As I said, how's that working out? Ignorant mouth-breather that I am and all.
Race replacement enthusiasts come up with all kinds of "arguments" that are basically demands that the Native English commit racial suicide. Well, there are no arguments for doing this. I do not care about the "Englands colonial past "argument"". I oppose race replacement. If the Sihks don't like...leave England.. Go back to India.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that millions of Sihks living in India demand that the Native English commit race suicide is no argument for doing it.
The non-muslim asians in England are hostile to the Native English also. If it were up to them, all of Englands physicians and Engineers would be Hindu. They are waging an aggresive race war against the Native English also.
If the Sihks and non-muslim Asians do not like the fact that the Native Englaish are the majority racial group in England they should pack up and go back to India.
ReplyDeleteThe Native English are under no obligation to commit racial suicide to make the Sihks and Hindus in England and India happy.
There are no arguments for race-replacement. The "arguements" for racial suicide are in reality a demand that the Native English commit racial suicide. Why should they do this?
ReplyDeleteAs I said, how's that working out? Ignorant mouth-breather that I am and all.
I don't know you so I will have to take your word on that.
It is worth while knowing your subject if you want to offer prescriptions for change or improvement.
The change in the direction of the Sikh movement since the destruction of Muslim rule in India is a fairly standard result, and India is not the US or Britain, as another commenter pointed out.
Furthermore, these immigrant groups are simply taking advantage of a situation put in place by the elites in each of those countries. It is they you should be thinking of doing something about.
Dennis
ReplyDeleteOutside of a small number-one thousand a year as an upper bound- of elite scientists it would be be a very bad policy to let in a large number of skilled immigrants.
If there was a massive reduction in the number of skilled immigrants comming into the US there would be tremendous pressure to develope native-White youth specifically-talent. And lets be honest, after immigration was almost completetly shut down from 1930 all the way through 1965,the United States managed very well without the mass importation of skilled Asian immigrants.
Skilled Asian immigrants who have accumulated vast fortunes have used their wealth to buy traitor in the Congress their intent is to increase racial-ethnic tribe at the expense of Euro-American population. For this reason alone, skilled Asian immigration should be very low or zero.
I am advocating a policy of near total Labor self-sufficiency. Why not?
These comments apply to Europe also.
At 6/17/2009 08:01:00 AM, Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteChange or improvement in India? I could care less...And I'll ask it again: How's is that assimilation process working out in India? As for the rest of your comment, tell us something we don't already know.
Patrick Thompson: I agree entirely. The highly-skilled/high IQ immigration scheme that almost everyone feels necessary to support has just the consequences you say. Native talent is quashed and undeveloped and frustrated when faced with cheap foreign competition. If we were talking the truly elite, like Einstein, fine, but there aren't many Einsteins.
ReplyDeleteDennis
ReplyDeleteHere is a thought experiment that you and everyone else can do:
Suppose all of a sudden skilled asian just stopped comming to the United States. Suppose also that skilled Asians living in the United States made a mass exodus back to Asia. Suppose also that this became a permanent state of affairs. These three things could happen.
What would be the real world consequences of this for US? Immigration enthusiasts would predict terrible things would happen...like:where will America's scientific,tech workers amd medical doctors come from? Well, there was a time when it was quite normal for America to produce her own scientists,tech workers and medical workers. So if hisory is a guide, the immigration enthusists are pushing a verey big lie.
But let's suppose that the mass exodus of Asian skilled workers causes a shock to a degree. Would this be such a terrible thing? If it caused a shock and if it was known also that the Asians were never comming back-you can take the following statement to the bank-there would be enormous pressure to do the right thing which is invest and develope Euro-America youth for careers in science tehnology and medicine,for the failure to do so would have very serious consequences for American society.
Ok, I can go into more detail with this thought experiment. The point of the thought experiment is to expose just how massive the immigration enthusaists lies are.
"And lets be honest, after immigration was almost completetly shut down from 1930 all the way through 1965,the United States managed very well without the mass importation of skilled Asian immigrants."
ReplyDeleteThe United States wouldn't have developed the atomic bomb without Jewish scientists (none of whose ancestors came here on the Mayflower), and it wouldn't have put a man on the moon without German immigrant rocket scientists. It also wouldn't be a world leader in technology today without immigrants from Asia, especially Indians, who have founded or co-founded a third of the firms in Silicon Valley. If you want to live in an all white country without Asians or Jews, move to Poland.
The United States wouldn't have developed the atomic bomb without Jewish scientists (none of whose ancestors came here on the Mayflower), and it wouldn't have put a man on the moon without German immigrant rocket scientists.
ReplyDeleteAbsolute nonsense. The US would certainly have done both of these things without immigrant help. Might have done them differently and taken longer, but they would have been done nonetheless.
If you want to live in an all white country without Asians or Jews, move to Poland.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I have to decline your proposal. I'd rather see you and yours run out and either my nation restored or a new nation rise up in its place.
And if I feel the survival of my people is threatened, there are very few methods I will not be willing to use against those who threaten them.
jews and germans are, well, you know, kind of white. there is even a story about a headless horseman, proving that krauts fought in the American independence war
ReplyDeletethose wonderful industries in the silicon valley, they are not exactly big contributions. They are like the house boom. False wealth created by bad policies. also, those vibrant asians tend to vote for socialist policies, that kill inovation through taxes
so the overall contribution of asians in the sillicon valley is the following. They only created an industry through a bubble, an industry that was pretty much wiped out by the 2000 & 2008 bubble busts, and they voted massively for socialistic policies that will kill inovation in California
it is hard to believe that asians were a positive force in California. better than hispanics doesn't translate as "good", only as "less bad"
Reijo
ReplyDeleteI only made the case for a small number of elite scientists when there was a legitimate need for them.
America was a technological giant before the foodgates were opened to Asian immigration. If the Indians and Chinese were not here, a White American would have made the technological breakthroughs that were made in Silicon Valley. Most of the major technological breakthroughs in Silicon Valley and America in general were made by White Males-and there is a very long history of this.
One of the very destructive aspects of the importation of of asian immigration is it destroys and enormous amount of White American engineering experience and undermines the developement of Native White Engineering talent.
It is outrageous that you a foriegner should demand that I and millions of other White Americans leave America our homeland. White Americans-the majority racial group in America -are under no obligation to commit racial suicide to make a bunch of predatory foriegners from India happy. Your last sentence reeks of hostile towards White Americans. So you shouldn't be shicked that there is a growing population of White Americans who wouuld like tio see Asian immigration completly shut down.
To state the obvious:White Americans are a much better judge of their self-interest than Indians,Chinese and Sihks in Silicon Valley. White Americans managed to do quite well before the colonization of Silicon Valley by Asians.
The fundamental issue is this:Asians in America are for the race-replacement of White Americans in America; a growing majority of White Americans are opposed to their race-replacement.
If you do not like White Americans go back to Inida,China or wherever you came from.
It must really bother Hindus,Sihks and Chinese in America that White Amerians managed to put a total of 12 White Alpha Males on the moon-without any help from Hindu,Sihk and Chinese engineers and scientists.
ReplyDeleteHere is soomething to think about. Reijo's post as I mentioned reek of hostility towards the White Americans. This hostilty towards White Americans is quite widespread and deeply enthrenched in among Asians in America. What would happen to White Americans if they became a racial minority within America? Well, it is kind if obvious. Vicious discrimination at the hands of Asians. This is already happening in Silicon Valley. It will eventually happen in the Raliegh Triangle area also.
"And if I feel the survival of my people is threatened, there are very few methods I will not be willing to use against those who threaten them."
ReplyDeleteYou must be the descendant of Viking stock, or some other noble warrior race, given the courage with which you make an implicit threat on the internet.
"False wealth created by bad policies. also, those vibrant asians tend to vote for socialist policies, that kill inovation through taxes"
Is our correspondence false? It was facilitated by the innovations and achievements of those Asian immigrants in Silicon Valley. As for Asians voting for "socialist policies", it's more accurate to say that they vote for Democrats, which is against their economic interests. Why do they vote for Democrats? Because, for all their faults, Democrats are the party of pluralism and inclusion, and Asian Americans feel threatened by the hostility exhibited by people such as yourself.
"One of the very destructive aspects of the importation of of asian immigration is it destroys and enormous amount of White American engineering experience and undermines the developement of Native White Engineering talent."
Please. Brilliant white engineers and scientists aren't intimidated by the competition from smart Asians, and these whites continue to succeed in technology in the U.S. Any whites who are intimidated from entering the field because of competition from other smart people probably aren't talented enough to be missed.
Moreover, this strategy of excluding members of a smarter group to boost the self-esteem and participation of a less-intelligent (on average) group is explicitly rejected by most whites when the more intelligent group in question is whites and the less-intelligent group is blacks. What you are advocating is basically affirmative action for white engineers.
In any population there is always a mix of those who are happy to suck down government largess (ie, sponge off of other people) and those who go out and get things done for themselves and their relatives.
ReplyDeleteThe US has shifted massively towards the former group over the last 50 years (I wonder why), AFAICS, so the competent and capable are probably going to move to greener pastures.
No one is advocating "affirmative action for white engineers". What is being advocated is America for Americans.
ReplyDeletePeople don't go into certain lines of work just because they might be smart or because they like it. They do so to earn a living, and Reijo's analysis completely omits economics. No one will work for free, and people are less likely to enter a line of work that requires many years of study when the remuneration is pitiful. Relentless competition from foreign computer engineers has left many Americans unemployed or unwilling to enter a field that requires so much education when H1-B visas threaten at any time to replace them with a cheap foreigner. Scientists have an abysmal unemployment rate and many labor for years at low-paying postdoc positions paying $30K a year, after spending a decade or more at university. There are too many scientists in this country, yet reijo and many others want to bring in an unlimited supply on the grounds that it would be good for us. It wouldn't.
More to the point, why would a young white American who is smart enough to become an engineer or scientist care about how great Asians allegedly? What he wants is a chance to earn a decent living and have a family, the chances of which are steadily diminishing all the time.
What he means by affirmative action for White Engineers is that America should have an antiprotectionist labor policy for White American Engineers. A White American Engineer-one born and raised in America and a member of the majority racial group in America should be forced to compete with a Hindu for a job in America. People who advocate this all very well aware that the law of supply and demand operates in labor markets. This precisely why they support globalized labor markets through either "free" trade or a highly open immigration policy. Or to put it another way, for these characters greed is a much higher "vitue" than commnity.
ReplyDeleteThen there are the charcters-Hindu,Sihk and Chinese immigrants-who demand that White Americans commit race-suicide within America. They use economic arguments to justfy the mass replacement io White Americans. Of course, this doesn't apply to their nations-India and China-of origin. Race-replacement is the fundamental issue.
In effect, Asian,Hindu and Sihk immigrants in America are making a case the mass race-replacement of White Americans. This is really outrageous.
It wasn't a threat. It was a warning, to you and anyone else who seeks to displace us, that the process will eventually go hard for you. In fact, it's in your own best interest not even to try.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats are the party of pluralism and inclusion
ReplyDeletetrue. but understand that there is a conflict between both. The more "pluralism" we get, the less room for "inclusion" we have