SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Is multiculturalism still working in London?

27K views 466 replies 57 participants last post by  Rain Drops 
#1 · (Edited)
I'll put my cards on the table. I am a big supporter of immigration. Economically and demographically we need it and by and large one of the best qualities of London is its healthy mixture of different people and cultures. I am married to once such immigrant and am raising a son to appreciate both his parents cultures.

However, the article below shook me because although my initial reaction was to consider it a racist rant, I can't help think that there is a genuine issue here. Is the melting pot turning into a mosaic? It is hard not to notice that different communities are becoming increasingly entrenched.

If it is a problem of perception we need to deal with it. If people wrongly feel they are being driven out of their homes we need to find a way of stopping them feeling that way. Just calling them a racist wont help at all. On the other hand, if we are seeing an entrenchment into ethnic ghettos we need to prevent that too. What we shouldn't do is simply throw the doors shut. We need immigration and we need it to work.

Just interested to hear what people living here think. Is it an issue at all? If so what should we do? Or are the people like the writer below simply xenophobic racists who are unable to adapt to a changing world?

'I feel like a stranger where I live’

As new figures show 'white flight' from cities is rising, one Londoner writes a provocative personal piece about how immigration has drastically changed the borough where she has lived for 17 years

"When you go swimming, it’s much healthier to keep your whole body completely covered, you know.” The Muslim lady behind the counter in my local pharmacy has recently started giving me advice like this. It’s kindly meant and I’m always glad to hear her views because she is one of the few people in west London where I live who talks to me.

The streets around Acton, which has been my home since 1996, have taken on a new identity. Most of the shops are now owned by Muslims and even the fish and chip shop and Indian takeaway are Halal. It seems that almost overnight it’s changed from Acton Vale into Acton Veil.

Of the 8.17 million people in London, one million are Muslim, with the majority of them young families. That is not, in reality, a great number. But because so many Muslims increasingly insist on emphasising their separateness, it feels as if they have taken over; my female neighbours flap past in full niqab, some so heavily veiled that I can’t see their eyes. I’ve made an effort to communicate by smiling deliberately at the ones I thought I was seeing out and about regularly, but this didn’t lead to conversation because they never look me in the face.

I recently went to the plainly named “Curtain Shop” and asked if they would put some up for me. Inside were a lot of elderly Muslim men. I was told that they don’t do that kind of work, and was back on the pavement within a few moments. I felt sure I had suffered discrimination and was bewildered as I had been there previously when the Muslim owners had been very friendly. Things have changed. I am living in a place where I am a stranger.

I was brought up in a village in Staffordshire, and although I have been in London for a quarter of a century I have kept the habit of chatting to shopkeepers and neighbours, despite it not being the done thing in metropolitan life. Nowadays, though, most of the tills in my local shops are manned by young Muslim men who mutter into their mobiles as they are serving. They have no interest in talking to me and rarely meet my gaze. I find this situation dismal. I miss banter, the hail fellow, well met chat about the weather, or what was on TV last night.

More worryingly, I feel that public spaces are becoming contested. One food store has recently installed a sign banning alcohol on the premises. Fair enough. But it also says: “No alcohol allowed on the streets near this shop.” I am no fan of street drinking, and rowdy behaviour and loutish individuals are an aspect of modern British ''culture’’ I hate. But I feel uneasy that this shopkeeper wants to control the streets outside his shop. I asked him what he meant by his notice but he just smiled at me wistfully.

Perhaps he and his fellow Muslims want to turn the area into another Tower Hamlets, the east London borough where ''suggestive’’ advertising is banned and last year a woman was refused a job in a pharmacy because she wasn’t veiled.

On the other hand, maybe I should be grateful. At least in Acton there is just a sign in a shop. Since the start of the year there have been several reports from around London of a more aggressive approach. Television news footage last week showed incidents filmed on a mobile phone on a Saturday night, in the borough of Waltham Forest, of men shouting “This is a Muslim area” at white Britons.

The video commentary stated: “From women walking the street dressed like complete naked animals with no self-respect, to drunk people carrying alcohol, we try our best to capture and forbid it all.”

Another scene showed hooded youths forcing a man to drop his can of lager, telling him they were the “Muslim patrol” and that alcohol is a “forbidden evil”. The gang then approached a group of white girls enjoying a good night out, telling them to “forbid themselves from dressing like this and exposing themselves outside the mosque”.

Worse, though, is film footage from last week, thought to have been taken in Commercial Street, Whitechapel, which showed members of a group who also called themselves a “Muslim patrol” harassing a man who appeared to be wearing make‑up, calling him a “bloody ***”. In the video posted on YouTube last week, the passer-by is told he is “walking through a Muslim area dressed like a ***” and ordered to get out. Last Thursday, police were reported to have arrested five “vigilantes” suspected of homophobic abuse.

There are, of course, other Europeans in my area who may share my feelings but I’m not able to talk to them easily about this situation as they are mostly immigrants, too. At Christmas I spoke to an elderly white woman about the lack of parsnips in the local greengrocer, but she turned out to have no English and I was left grumbling to myself.

Poles have settled in Ealing since the Second World War and are well assimilated, but since 2004 about 370,000 east Europeans have arrived in London. Almost half the populations of nearby Ealing and Hammersmith were born outside the UK. Not surprisingly, at my bus stop I rarely hear English spoken. I realise that we can’t return to the time when buses were mainly occupied by white ladies in their best hats and gloves going shopping, but I do feel nostalgic for the days when a journey on public transport didn’t leave me feeling as if I have only just arrived in a strange country myself.

There are other “cultural differences” that bother me, too. Over the past year I have been involved in rescuing a dog that was kept in a freezing shed for months. The owners spoke no English. A Somali neighbour kept a dog that he told me he was training to fight, before it was stolen by other dog fighters. I have tried to re-home several cats owned by a family who refuse to neuter their animals, because of their religion.

In the Nineties, when I arrived, this part of Acton was a traditional working-class area. Now there is no trace of any kind of community – that word so cherished by the Left. Instead it has been transformed into a giant transit camp and is home to no one. The scale of immigration over recent years has created communities throughout London that never need to – or want to – interact with outsiders.

It wasn’t always the case: since the 1890s thousands of Jewish, Irish, Afro-Caribbean, Asian and Chinese workers, among others, have arrived in the capital, often displacing the indigenous population. Yes, there was hateful overt racism and discrimination, I’m not denying that. But, over time, I believe we settled down into a happy mix of incorporation and shared aspiration, with disparate peoples walking the same pavements but returning to very different homes – something the Americans call “sundown segregation”.

But now, despite the wishful thinking of multiculturalists, wilful segregation by immigrants is increasingly echoed by the white population – the rate of white flight from our cities is soaring. According to the Office for National Statistics, 600,000 white Britons have left London in the past 10 years. The latest census data shows the breakdown in telling detail: some London boroughs have lost a quarter of their population of white, British people. The number in Redbridge, north London, for example, has fallen by 40,844 (to 96,253) in this period, while the total population has risen by more than 40,335 to 278,970. It isn’t only London boroughs. The market town of Wokingham in Berkshire has lost nearly 5 per cent of its white British population.

I suspect that many white people in London and the Home Counties now move house on the basis of ethnicity, especially if they have children. Estate agents don’t advertise this self-segregation, of course. Instead there are polite codes for that kind of thing, such as the mention of “a good school”, which I believe is code for “mainly white English”. Not surprising when you learn that nearly one million pupils do not have English as a first language.

I, too, have decided to leave my area, following in the footsteps of so many of my neighbours. I don’t really want to go. I worked long and hard to get to London, to find a good job and buy a home and I’d like to stay here. But I’m a stranger on these streets and all the “good” areas, with safe streets, nice housing and pleasant cafés, are beyond my reach. I see London turning into a place almost exclusively for poor immigrants and the very rich.

It’s sad that I am moving not for a positive reason, but to escape something. I wonder whether I’ll tell the truth, if I’m asked. I can’t pretend that I’m worried about local schools, so perhaps I’ll say it’s for the chance of a conversation over the garden fence. But really I no longer need an excuse: mass immigration is making reluctant racists of us all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9831912/I-feel-like-a-stranger-where-I-live.html
 
See less See more
#251 ·
I definitely think that genocide rambling stuff is out of line BUT I have to admit I'm at a sort of halfway point between him and a much more moderate/in the middle viewpoint.

I used to be relatively positive about immigrants but my then-rosy viewpoint (in like, the 90s) has soured considerably. It's got more to do with cultural differences than skin color however, with increased crime, corruption and violence adding in on the negative side. Plus the impact on cohesion in local communities.

And another thing, here in Norway we can more easily remember the times when things were different, in 1980 less than 4% of the population (don't remember exact number) had a foreign origin, today around 15% do (1st and 2nd generation). Of course concentrated the most in the bigger cities.

By the way, in my city Oslo in 2012 I believe it was 40.7% of children school's pupils were of foreign origin, 1st and 2nd gen (3rd gen is not counted as of foreign origin). So we do know one thing or two about stuff, don't claim I live in some countryside with no experience or anything. However, here the change has gone even more quicker than in the UK, which has been more international for a longer period of time.

It's not so much about race as about culture + less safety and more crime. Simple and plain. As well as all the billions wasted to try and integrate, of which a lot of those programs has not been working or effective, HOWEVER I'm not saying there aren't integrated immigrants, but I don't think it's got as much to do with all the wasted integration money, as with their own person-to-person/individual will to try and mix with the rest of us.
 
#252 · (Edited)
I draw the line at immigrants committing crimes (if its a repeat offender)

Every society has its share of crooks and criminals. No society wants it and we have our laws to prevent it. Why on earth would we want to import more criminals? We need good hard working citizens. Lets cut to the chase. When you apply to live in another country you are vetted. You are expected to be tolerant of all the types found existing in that society. As a secular state, we do not accept applications from those who attempt to impose their beliefs on others (left ambiguous intentionally) Woman's rights are a hard fought for values we cherish. We do not allow them to be compromised by men or other women! We do not accept people that will not respect the freedom of their children to choose their cultural mixture. It is the law here ,so why not demand it?! Why do we not demand these things of people?

If I should choose to live and work in Saudi Arabia? Quote: !The public practice of any form of religion other than Islam is illegal; Islamic codes of behaviour and dress are also rigorously enforced. You should respect them fully. Women should wear conservative, loose-fitting clothes as well as a full length cloak (an abaya) and a headscarf. Men should not wear shorts in public. Homosexual behaviour and adultery are illegal and can carry the death penalty.

The penalties for the possession of, or trade in, alcohol are severe. Both result in prison sentences. The punishment for importing drugs includes the death penalty. You should not arrive in Saudi Arabia under the influence of alcohol: the consequences could be serious. You should carry with you a doctor’s prescription for any medication you have with you. The importation of pork products is also forbidden. The possession of pornographic material, or of illustrations of scantily dressed people, especially women, is prohibited.!
etc etc and more and more....

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and...country/middle-east-north-africa/saudi-arabia
 
#253 ·
I draw the line at immigrants committing crimes (if its a repeat offender)

Every society has its share of crooks and criminals. No society wants it and we have our laws to prevent it. Why on earth would we want to import more criminals? We need good hard working citizens. Lets cut to the chase. When you apply to live in another country you are vetted. You are expected to be tolerant of all the types found existing in that society. As a secular state, we do not accept applications from those who attempt to impose their beliefs on others (left ambiguous intentionally) Woman's rights are a hard fought for values we cherish. We do not allow them to be compromised by men or other women! We do not accept people that will not respect the freedom of their children to choose their cultural mixture. It is the law here ,so why not demand it?! Why do we not demand these things of people?

If I should choose to live and work in Saudi Arabia? Quote: !The public practice of any form of religion other than Islam is illegal; Islamic codes of behaviour and dress are also rigorously enforced. You should respect them fully. Women should wear conservative, loose-fitting clothes as well as a full length cloak (an abaya) and a headscarf. Men should not wear shorts in public. Homosexual behaviour and adultery are illegal and can carry the death penalty.

The penalties for the possession of, or trade in, alcohol are severe. Both result in prison sentences. The punishment for importing drugs includes the death penalty. You should not arrive in Saudi Arabia under the influence of alcohol: the consequences could be serious. You should carry with you a doctor’s prescription for any medication you have with you. The importation of pork products is also forbidden. The possession of pornographic material, or of illustrations of scantily dressed people, especially women, is prohibited.!
etc etc and more and more....

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and...country/middle-east-north-africa/saudi-arabia
I don't know if this is what you are implying, but just because Saudi Arabia has such strict and frankly oppressive laws, doesn't mean we should to. I like the fact that in this country you are more freedoms and you can be who you want to be, of course some want to impose their views on others and this should be curbed somewhat, they have the right to say this stupid things, but they do not have the right to impose them on me. I believe the basis of all our laws and freedoms should be based on equal human rights, you can do whatever you want, be whoever you wish, but you do not have the right to infringe other people's rights, simply put: you are free do to whatever without damaging others' freedoms.
 
#256 ·
Oh believe me. All my life I have trusted in humans to be good and fair and kind and to care about others. Even as I child I could not understand how someone could be cruel and wicked. Its taken me a long time to grow up and accept that my ideals are just that....mine. If everyone thought they way I do we would be in a state of nirvana ;)

I guess another name for it is insurance. A Horrible thing, but very necessary if you are realistic.
 
#258 ·
lol yep!
 
#267 ·
To address some of the concerns raised so far:

1. The historical arguments against religion raised so far rely upon a form of naive historical comparatism, wherein one condenses hundreds of years of atrocities committed under religious precepts, or at least quasi-religious claims, and juxtaposes them with a selective view of more recent history.

What is ironic is that, even given this asymmetry of comparison, nothing in history of humanity comes close to the scale of brutality, oppression and murder as that committed under the precepts of state atheism, or the multitude of secular geopolitical enterprises that have marred the past century. The comparison is out by orders of magnitude, even after correcting for an increasing global population.

2. Moral objections to religion, as expressed in this thread so far, are weak and unsubstantive; reducing to a simple disagreement with the moral precepts of a certain religion in favour of idiosyncratic value systems, or moral precepts that are espoused by a value system separate to that religion in question.

In that case, how do you defend the value of the moral system that you espouse, as opposed to the moral system maintained by that religion? Note that this capacity is one of the recognised weaknesses of moral subjectivism.

3. The point regarding secularism as a cultural vacuum pertains, at least partly, to the inability for a secular value system to provide an objective/philosophically realistic basis for moral truths. Thus, it isn't about one faith "attracting" another, but the absence of substantive moral foundations in one culture allowing an alternative, objectively-undergirded moral cultural system to displace its value systems.
 
#269 ·
How many people did Stalin kill? Maybe 20-40 million depending estimates. Mao? Maybe 30-70 million would be the general view...not to mention the untold millions who were persecuted and oppressed. As I seem to recall, neither were very keen on this religion thing-- even to the extent of forbidding it politically. Two of the worst examples of mass murder in history and the two protagonists just happen to be atheists... That puts a pall over any claim that religion is responsible for the worst atrocities in history. How many were killed by the inquisitions? Several thousand? (Please correct me where I'm wrong on this) And the crusades? Maybe tens of thousands... In the same ballpark as the number of british soldiers that died in the first day of the somme. We are living in the most pervasively brutal, violent and morally perverse time in the annals of recorded history...just as it appears that christianity is on the decline in the west.
 
#271 ·
I've been brought up with a liberal background, and though there are many things about islam that I definitely disagree with, I'm sympathetic to some of their traditional tendencies. To quote someone over at the cd forums-- foreign cultures regard the manner, behavior and dress of modern western women to be akin to lying spread eagled in a park bench in public exposing their intimates for all the world to enjoy. Outrage to such things I can certainly understand, given that they're not too far off from the values we as a culture had when we were more prudish. I guess I'm just an incorrigble traditionalist... Such that I find things like this very pleasing:



 
#274 · (Edited)
Why would I, as a christian, disagree with the fact that religion is responsible for atrocities throughout history? I believe that there are harmful and atrocious religions because I'm a christian. Note that scripture itself makes a clear typological point about the antichrist system being a quasi christian religion in and of itself. And that the eschatological church would be apostate and riddled with sin. I was simply answering the objection that religion is to blame for the worst atrocities in history. That is evidently false, even if you factor in the ongoing religious atrocities to this day. How many died in all the religious wars throughout the ages then? Do they even begin to compare in scale to those murdered by non religious political machinations and democide within the relatively smaller window of the 20th century? I doubt it.

Edit: If you don't mind my asking, what are your "christian based" beliefs, specifically? I recall reading elsewhere that you were gay, so does this relate to your rejection of orthodox christianity?
 
#275 ·
Why would I, as a christian, disagree with the fact that religion is NOT responsible for atrocities throughout history? I believe that there are harmful and atrocious religions because I'm a christian. Note that scripture itself makes a clear typological point about the antichrist system being a quasi christian religion in and of itself. And that the eschatological church would be apostate and riddled with sin. I was simply answering the objection that christianity is to blame for the worst atrocities in history. That is evidently false, even if you factor in the ongoing religious atrocities to this day.

If you don't mind my asking, what are your "christian based" beliefs, specifically? I recall reading elsewhere that you were gay, so does this relate to your rejection of orthodox christianity?
My view of Christianity is very much like that of Desmond Tutu, the actions and teachings of Christ himself. As a sinner I am not permitted to judge anyone else - I am USELESS at it! :) The only person Christ ever showed anger against were money lenders lol Still, back to the topic - which is relevant in terms of 'multiculturalism'

I still suspect that if you add up all the deaths over Christian matters for 2000 years you are looking at many many millions. It was estimated that between 7 and 11 million women were burned in Europe for witchcraft alone (although this is open to great academic dispute) http://www.holocaust-history.org/~rjg/witches.shtml

Hitler used his Christian beliefs for his ends :" In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches he often made statements that affirmed a belief in Christianity.[2][3] Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted "positive Christianity", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
 
#277 · (Edited)
^^^ Yes re Witches. I picked the first Google result that came up. It does attempt to debunk the figures I had previously heard, but it seemed fairly balanced so I used it.

I guess taking this full circle, nobody really want to go back to a time of Religious zealots with the power of life and death over us. Re multiculturalism, there is a great fear that Islam could replace the 'old ways' we have through evolution ridden ourselves of in this country. The majority of Muslim countries give us cause for concern. Turkey, however, is a shining example of a good balance of Islam and state IMO.
 
#278 ·
Exercise and abuse of authority will never go away, for so long as humans are in positions of power over other humans. I find this to be a religiously neutral rule. Such a rule obviously held true in the past when people exercised political control under a facade of religiosity. If anything one may argue that it has become considerably more subtle and sinister in this day and age than in the past, and not in any way diminished in potency and malignancy.

BTW the website seems to have some truly excellent resources in addressing holocaust denial, so this is a great find. More than enough ammo to deal with the standard jew hating harangue that one commonly encounters in social media.
 
#281 · (Edited)
So the scale of a mass murder event can only be ascribed significance in the context of the size of the local population? I'm not sure I agree with your contorted reasoning here even if it is true that broader statistical and trend comparisons of this kind should accommodate for regional population data.

What are your sources for those killed in the crusades and spanish inquisition BTW?
 
#284 ·
So the scale of a mass murder can only be ascribed significance in the context of the baseline of the local population? I'm not sure I agree with your contorted reasoning here even if it is true that macro statistical comparisons of this kind should accommodate for broader regional populations.

What are your sources for those killed in the crusades BTW?
http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#Crusades
 
#289 ·
As a lot have already said, it's mainly Muslims that don't and won't integrate. They wear their pillar box outfits which are unfriendly and scare the elderly. Every immigrate came here because they thought the UK was better and could give them a better life, so why bring all your trouble with you? Why not integrate, why try and change things to where you came from?

It's time this was all discussed openly and sorted out, and immigration was dramatically reduced for non EU countries. No more segregation and multiculturalism but one UK shared culture.
 
#291 ·
Any group that believes law which comes from a Holy book ursurps that which comes from government will always be on the margins of society - and in increased numbers a threat to to it.

People come here mostly for economic reasons not because they are drawn to our culture and way of life.

If they do not wish to asimilate they will probably face discrimination or suspicion which in turn will make them feel defensive and increasingly confrontational - it is a vicious circle.

Religion belongs at the fringes of law making - not the heart.
 
#296 ·
@MovingBeyond

Re. The "Cultural Vacuum" theory of secular morality.

Can you expound on this idea more clearly? I have a rough idea of what you're trying to describe, but the entailment from moral antirealism to cultural vacuum isn't clearly justified. If you go over it in some more detail it would also avoid the need to constantly respond to clumsy straw-man arguments like the post just above. Would it not be reasonable to argue that secular values such as humanism and feminism, if implemented coherently, would form some kind of substantive moral basis for a culture? (Not that I am defending either ideology in any meaningful way.
This is not a theory or thesis per se; more a passing muse that's managed to provoke one or two objections here that I've enjoyed reading. It will be interesting to see if it stands up to more robust scrutiny in the long term.

I would argue that the weaknesses of the humanist system (if you can call it that) follow necessarily from the absence of a morally realistic basis. It is poorly-defined, unparsimonious and often self-referentially incoherent; all features commonly associated with anti-realism. In purely epistemic terms, a collective of loosely interconnected idiosyncratic beliefs is a feeble basis on which to criticise monolithic traditions such as Islam.

Secular positions against Islam have actually been far more effective when appealing to the more clearly defined criterion system of epistemological naturalism. A crude, but glaring, example of this would be the anti-theistic rhetoric of the 'enfants terribles' of New Atheism, such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers.

Unfortunately, naturalised epistemology is in poor shape following the collapse of Verificationism seventy years ago, and is now generally disregarded, even at the fringes of academia. Dawkins and his ilk obviously failed to read the memo on this.
 
#301 · (Edited)
Open discussion in terms relative to 'normal' people here please or there is no point at all - its just a show. Why do you need to impress in a room filled with strawmen? this is a forum for open discussion - please don't try and close it.
LOL at overreactions. :)

The kalam cosmological argument is a BIG thing in christian apologetics so if you're uncomfortable reading about it here I'm afraid you're in for a world of hurt when it goes mainstream.

I say read up on it now or watch some basic videos on it and get the pain over and done with....
 
#310 ·
BTW given that we're discussing secularism in terms of its merits and weaknesses WRT multiculturalism....as an agnostic you cannot make ANY claim to the effect that "secularism is true" or "secularism is more likely to be true than belief in God" because as soon as you do that, you are effectively making an atheist truth claim. That includes claims made through implication and subtext, even mockery of faith beliefs as "superstition".
 
#324 · (Edited)
Well, the Catholic Church openly promotes celibacy
I'm not a catholic and I have many problems with its doctrines. But still -- defining celibacy as a perversion seems to me like quite a stretch. It may be against some views of what natural behavior should be... but can it really be placed down there alongside the paraphilias? I'm not really convinced by this.

I can't seem to figure out what point you were making with your second paragraph. Is it like the argument from religious pluralism the guy below is making? ....

 
#336 ·
Hi. This only applies within the copenhagen interpretation and only to certain logical laws ....there are other interpretations which do not violate logic. none of these are yet known to be true.

Even assuming the ci, I doubt you'd find many who would claim that quantum mechanics defies logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_logic_empirical?

.... something to do with the pointlessness of using logic to refute logic (which logically amounts to saying nothing at all) :D

 
#338 ·
So you'd agree that the universe has a cause, but that that cause may not necessarily be God --- I don't think this is an unreasonable claim in the strictest sense, but there are proofs based on the "action theory" of philosophy and the philosophy of mind that argue why such a cause must be a personal being

I've been posting videos of bill craig all day so why not continue the trend :) ....





I think I'll have to end our discussion here.... It's been wonderful chatting but we've veered o/t a bit too much. You can post rebuttals here or post them to my inbox. My regards.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top