Couldn't get the link to work. I think that
this is the correct link.

Posted by Robert Alderson at August 17, 2005 01:00 AM

Certainly I have always found it curious how, at least in my experience, race relations in Britain have been (generally) far better compared to the USA...

Perry, you've been had. The reason that you have that impression is that we've been facing our problem and trying to deal with it, which means it hits the newspapers a lot.

You see news reports about racial problems because we know it's a problem and are working to fix it. And since I was a kid (1950's) it's improved one hell of a lot.

You're mistaking news coverage for reality. (As someone else put it one time, "the chart is not the patient.") And you're assuming that European news sources are covering the US fairly. It isn't true.

Let's try another one: Who is more likely to be a victim of armed robbery or burglary, someone who lives in London or someone who lives in NYC? Virtually everyone in Europe has the impression that America is a hotbed of violent crime, but the reality is that right now London is a lot more dangerous than any American city which isn't a slum (e.g. East St. Louis, IL).

In the last couple of years a lot of us over here in America are increasingly becoming aware that Europeans have an extraordinary misconception of what things are actually like here. IIRC you were actually born in the US and are a citizen. Have you considered coming home to live for a couple of years? I think you might find it an eye-opening experience.

Posted by Steven Den Beste at August 17, 2005 01:10 AM

On the history of US race relations, you may want to check out what Stanley Crouch has to say about the 1965 Watts Riots in "The Birth of the Hustle". He does not let anyone, black or white off the hook.

www.nydailynews.com

Posted by Taylor at August 17, 2005 01:59 AM

Steven - Your comments are well taken, but nevertheless I think Bose had some fair points. When the W Indians and the Indians came to Britain, they were already long familiar with our culture, and we were familiar with theirs and where they fitted into our own history. And we owed them a debt of settlement because many of their countrymen and members of their families had a history in their countries' militaries which sent troops to help us during two world wars.

And the first (after Rome) and sanest multiculturalist entity was the British Empire. They carried British passports.

American immigrants did not have that - advantage. So it's chalk and cheese.

It is the "multicultural" meme which is at fault, not our attitude to immigration. The entire British Empire was multicultural in that all were British subjects (now citizens). No one thought of miniaturizing it to importing masses of cultures and hammering them into Britain against the will of the indigenes. This was done viciously and destructively and it will fail. If not soon, then disastrously later.

The only way, Steven, that I think it has to do with crime levels in the streets and cities is, "multiculturalism" has destroyed the cohesiveness of British society (which includes many waves of immigrants who integrated and prospered) - as it was intended to do. I think this is a temporary situation. I hope I'm right.

Posted by Verity at August 17, 2005 02:01 AM

As someone who has come from the UK to live in America, I can tell you that Steven has hit the nail on the head. From what I've seen, America is much safer and more peaceful on average than Britain. Passing street-corners full of threatening, hooded teens smoking dope on the sidewalks of London has become the norm, and feeling powerless/frightened (as many do) by such experiences has, unfortunately, also. As part of my job in local media, I review police arrest reports.... my estimation is that 90% of those arrests are made for non-violent crimes (such as Failure to Appear, DUI or Possession of Drug Paraphenalia). I haven't seen any similar figures in Britain, but I'd put money on the result.

Posted by John Wright at August 17, 2005 02:32 AM

America can impose a coherent historical narrative on immigrants because the countries they come from had no previous involvement with America. Settlers are able and encouraged to discard their native histories and accept the American version.

The vast majority of "immigrants" (they're mostly illegal aliens) these days come from Mexico or other Central American countries. They weren't colonies of the US but they've had plenty of experience with their northern neighbour. Needless to say most Mexicans are very anti-Gringo. Many other nationalities well represented in the immigrant stats (eg Filippinos) have had historical experiences with the Americans.

Posted by Matra at August 17, 2005 02:39 AM

Perry, you've been had. The reason that you have that impression is that we've been facing our problem and trying to deal with it, which means it hits the newspapers a lot.

Rubbish. The US press goes to extraordinary lengths to shield Americans from information regarding black on white crime. Even when they do mention racial violence it's entirely one-sided: the poor black man or immigrant lashing out at his big bad racist capitalist oppresser. The US may not have the oppressive hate speech laws that Europe has but there is a lot more self-censorship in the "Land of the Free".

Posted by Matra at August 17, 2005 02:52 AM

Taylor;

John McWhorter has thoughts on the same subject in this Washington Post op-ed.

Posted by Nathan at August 17, 2005 03:05 AM

Oops.. I should say this editorial (the previous was a link to an online discussion with McWhorter)

Posted by Nathan at August 17, 2005 03:15 AM

I can't speak knowledgeably to any of Mihir Bose's statements or opinions of Britain's history with immigrants.

I can deeply disagree with both his facts and interpretations regarding United States history. I will try to avoid doing a fisking.

Mr Bose says “Unlike America, Britain is not a country that has tended to import people “ and "The Americans had a racial wall, first erected by the US constitution...".

At that point in our history, we had been condemned to our troubled future by the "execrable commerce" of slavery that was rammed down our gullets by every ploy a tyrannical king and an apathetic parliament could employ. If you want to know more about this seldom discussed piece of history, read Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence. The United States Library of Congress has it available at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

Look through the litany of grievances. Look at the one he saved for last, for the linch pin. It was that "assemblage of horrors" - slavery. By then it was too successfully embedded into the southern economy and that core statement was removed from the final draft to keep the slave states with the rebellion. We have lived with the heritage of this curse ever since.

/rant=off

That said, I also disagree with his interpretation of assimilation in America. While my mother's ancestors started arriving in the colonies in the 1620s, my father's parents immigrated and were married here. They arrived with a determination to assimilate already in place. Occasionally, they would speak their native language at home when they did not want my then 2 or 3 year old dad to understand them. When he once made a comment in that language, they quit speaking it entirely.

But in spite of his family's total assimilation, my dad and all of us (grand) children have thoroughly enjoyed and celebrated our ancestry.

What the Mr Bose doesn't understand is that in the US, we retain and celebrate all of our diverse heritages for as many generations as we can remember them. In Chicago, where I was born, on St. Patrick's day, they have a big parade and dye the Chicago River green. For one day, Everyone is Irish.

So what is it that is going wrong now after centuries of immigrating people being fully "American" by the 2nd and 3rd generations?

Language. Language is the warp of our societal fabric, The weft is our agreement to a common set of laws. We retain all of the myriad colors of our heritages but we are woven tightly into the tapestry founded on laws and language.

This is now breaking down in the US. We have begun to teach school, hold court hearings, print public announcements, and post signs, etc in multiple languages, primarily Spanish. I receive several pieces of Spanish language junk mail a week because my last name can also be a Spanish name.

If you live in a cultural and linguistic ghetto, you will always be a 2nd class citizen. If you are a 2nd class citizen, you will always be disaffected. A fraction of disaffected citizens will always attack the "1st class" society. We are learning this is the US, you in Britain are also learning this.

Mr. Bose asserts that immigrants arrive in the US tabla rasta. It's difficult to imagine any country of origin for the last hundred years that didn't have interactions and opinions of the United States. And almost certainly, anyone who decides to transplant themselves and their families to a foreign country will have very clear opinions and beliefs about that country before packing up and leaving home. In almost every case, those expectations will need to adjust to reality after arrival.

An exception to our history of assimilation has been with the descendants of the involuntary immigrants. I frequent a major university campus and have noticed a clear pattern. Africans and West Indians and Central Americans of African ancestry fit in well with everyone. American Blacks relate differently. Regrettably, even after one hundred and forty years, we are still to some degree, two nations in one country. I agree with Steven Den Beste that things have gotten much better but there is frequently, still, a subterranean tension in many interactions between American Whites and Blacks.

I don't think these problems are cultural. I don't think they're linguistic. I don't think they are fundamentally racist. I think they are the memory of violation of one people by another. The theft was not just of their life and liberty, but of their very history and heritage itself. The memory of this is not going away with generations. Regardless of liberal claims, no “just” solution is possible. In this matter, full peace will only come when our government can successfully enforce true equality of treatment under the law, and the aggrieved are then willing and able to let the past go.

I'll stop now. My apologies for the long post.

Posted by Midwesterner at August 17, 2005 03:24 AM

Midwestern reports with apparent pride: "For one day a year, everyone is Irish." How ghastly.

That is not what immigration and assimilation are about. And nor does it have a thing to do with the shared histories of immigrants, which is what Bose is discussing and what was posted here at Samizdata.

I did pick out of Midwestern's endless post this: "Language. Language is the warp of our societal fabric, The weft is our agreement to a common set of laws. We retain all of the myriad colors of our heritages but we are woven tightly into the tapestry founded on laws and language."

Quite.

What Mr Bose was saying - before everyone ran off yapping and barking about crime statistics - is, most immigrants to Britain were already fluent in our language and fluent in our culture.

Most.

Posted by Verity at August 17, 2005 03:46 AM

USA = a majority of immigrants willing and eager to integrate. The whole forming a colourful, vibrant tapestry. If they don't, they fail...

UK = a majority of immigrants reluctant and unwillng to integrate. The whole forming a shredded, worthless rag. If they don't, who cares? there's always the Welfare...

Simplistic and probably a trifle unfair, but largely true...

Posted by ernest young at August 17, 2005 03:53 AM

Midwestern reports with apparent pride: "For one day a year, everyone is Irish." How ghastly.

Verity,

Our nation was not founded on genetic or culteral "purity". We are founded on fair laws, fairly applied.

With our 230? million people and 230 year history we've had our failures, but for the most part, we arrive here, are accepted, and accept others. You are even welcome here, Verity. In spite of your George III's appalling vandalism of us.

Come here. Accept and be accepted. If you won't, then leave.

That said, I do enjoy your posts. I kind of thought you might be the first reply.

Posted by Midwesterner at August 17, 2005 03:59 AM

Part of the reason that immigrants do not integrate as easily into the UK as they do into the US is the lack of a clear, defined path to integration. Being an American, at least according to the official version given to new immigrants like me, is about being patriotic, participating in civic life, learning about and respecting the constitution. It's all set out in a guide made available to all new permanent residents (Green Card holders.) People given Permanent Residence in the UK get a stamp in their passports and nothing else. The US is a country which was established on the basis of a strong founding ideology which was untainted by ideas of sectarian, ethnic or linguistic identity. You become an American by being law abiding, waiting your time and accepting that ideology. What it means to be the citizen of a European country is harder to pin down since European states were generally founded on the basis of ethnic, linguistic or sectarian differences.

Posted by Robert Alderson at August 17, 2005 05:19 AM

race relations in Britain have been (generally) far better compared to the USA (and I only speak from my personal observations) and with far less government intervention forcing that state of affairs to be the norm, at least until quite recently

Well, there was no large-scale immigration to the UK for about a thousand years prior to the 1950s, so the recent experience counts most - especially the very recent. The choice of Muslims in Britain to elect men like George Galloway and the revelation that the terrorist attacks of July were all the work of British Muslims rather embarrasses the claim you have made so often here that Islamic extremism is going to fade like dust in the face of the awesome persuasive power of Western hedonism and internet porn.

Posted by Peter at August 17, 2005 05:19 AM

How much of "Britishness" is stamped on Britain? I'm not sure most British citizens really know what being British is, in contrast to the United States where being 'American' is something very distinctive, something that everyone wants to get behind, something that everyone knows the benefit of and is thankful for. I find that most Americans are markedly more grateful for the fact that they are American (an aspect of US culture that, viewed from the other side of the pond, I always found slightly hokey).

But when people from other cultures immigrate to the United States, they do so largely in order to replace those cultures with and embrace the culture and ideaology of America. In the UK, I'm not sure that's the case.

Posted by John at August 17, 2005 05:58 AM

A puzzling argument. If America has a tradition of integration and Britain not, howcome there's so much more de facto racial and religious segregation in domestic life there than here?

At the end of the Thanksgiving-set movie What's Cooking? the camera pulls back to reveal that the four ethnically diverse families live on the four corners of the same suburban intersection, transforming it from plausible drama into a heavy-handed allegory in a few seconds. The American friend I saw it with turned to me and said, "You know that could never happen, right?" But set in London it would not be so implausible; it would just be a dramatic flourish to tie the thing together. The writer/director is a Kenyan-born Englishwoman, Gurinder Chadha, whose previous work has been largely about the rapid hybridisation of Indian cultures in Britain.

It's 3 generations since FDR declared, in a neat encapsulation of the melting-pot ideal, "Let us have no more hyphenated Americans", but hyphenation seems to have become more popular than ever, as PC reinforces the desire to categorise and self-categorise.

Posted by guy herbert at August 17, 2005 06:12 AM

The choice of Muslims in Britain to elect men like George Galloway and the revelation that the terrorist attacks of July were all the work of British Muslims rather embarrasses [...]

No it doesn't. They are essentially trivial incidents.

"Muslims" have not elected "men like George Galloway". There is only one George Galloway, and he took advantage of a very peculiar situation in a very odd place. George Galloway benefited as much from the disciplined support of the Trotskyist SWP organisation getting out a white socialist vote, and the delight of non-left voters in getting rid of a New Labour placewoman as from purloining part of the Muslim vote. Even though I find his opponent Oona King personally more attractive (and politically no less), I would have been mighty tempted to vote for him myself, just to put Tony's nose out of joint.

That a handful of disaffected young men decided to try to demonstrate their own significance by mass murder, tells one no more about the trend among British Muslims than Timothy McVey's example tells one about right-wing Americans.

Something rather more serious would still not necessarily betoken much. The Gordon Riots were not followed by pogroms, but a century of steadily increasing toleration of Catholics in mainland Britain, to the point where virtually no-one cares, or is much interested in everyday life, what brand of Christian you are, or whether you are a Christian at all. (Tony Blair, in another contrast with US culture, is regarded with some suspicion by a lot of nominally Christian Brits--never mind our largest religious group, the atheists--because he makes a fuss about being a Christian.)

Posted by guy herbert at August 17, 2005 06:39 AM

Steven: I don't think I have been 'had' as I have spent more than 1/3rd of my life in the USA. My mother was American. My notions of America are not the product of what the media feeds me.

Whilst I agree that Britain is a place you are far more likely to get mugged in than the USA on balance, I stand by my statement that race relations here are better than in the USA and have been for a long time.

I also base my views on what people really say about each other, not in the media, but in private conversations everyday. I would argue that the racial attitudes that Hollywood would have think is the norm is not at all the case. I base it on the fact miscegination is visibly far more common in the UK. Although I do not doubt things have changed somewhat, at least in public and at least amongst the educated middle classes, I was shocked at how otherwise decent people I knew would react (privately) to seeing a mixed race couple on the street.

Don't get me wrong, I do not think race relations in the USA are poisonous or for that matter doing anything less than improving, but as the article says, Britain's experience is different and in some ways better.

No, I don't think I have been had at all.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at August 17, 2005 10:08 AM

UK = a majority of immigrants reluctant and unwillng to integrate. The whole forming a shredded, worthless rag.

Except that is utterly untrue. The majority have integrated just fine and are running corner shops and working in offices and have done so for quite some time.

A muslim minority of immigrants are in stark contrast to most other immigrants.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at August 17, 2005 10:14 AM

To the extent that the USA has worse race relations than Britain, it reinforces Bose's point.
The USA absorbs immigrants better than Britain. However, it has serious race-relations problems with the large black minority. After all, if the descendants of British colonial subjects have a separate version of a shared history, how much more so would the descendants of imported slaves?

Posted by Andrew McGuinness at August 17, 2005 11:19 AM

" we had been condemned to our troubled future by the "execrable commerce" of slavery that was rammed down our gullets by every ploy a tyrannical king and an apathetic parliament could employ." No doubt every nation needs a foundation myth, but that one seems batty to me. 'Buy a slave, Sirrah, or I'll bash your head in.' Please.

Posted by dearieme at August 17, 2005 11:45 AM

"Let's try another one: Who is more likely to be a victim of armed robbery or burglary, someone who lives in London or someone who lives in NYC? Virtually everyone in Europe has the impression that America is a hotbed of violent crime, but the reality is that right now London is a lot more dangerous than any American city which isn't a slum (e.g. East St. Louis, IL)."

The price paid for greater public order in the US is that around 1% of their adult population is in prison, roughly five times the British rate, and hardly something of which libertarians can approve. I'm not saying that America is necessarily "wrong", or that Britain is, just that both countries have made defensible tradeoffs.

The relevant comparator for public order in Great Britain today is not its kindred nation to the west, but public order in Britain forty years ago, or even ten years ago. And on that, Bliar and his "tough on crime, tough on the causes ..." stand condemned.

Posted by PJ at August 17, 2005 01:00 PM

First generation black and brown immigrants were indeed proBritish.

However, (as I think Bose would admit) the modern "education" system and the broadcasting media (with their endless output of antiBritish disinformation), mean that the young tend to be antiBritish - full of ideas that all interactions between the British and their own ancestors were one long list of British crimes.

This is not the fault of the young (or anything to do with their having black or brown skin), it is just the ways things are.

Posted by Paul Marks at August 17, 2005 01:01 PM

I was under the impression that the integration of Latino comunities (originating from Mexico and Central America) in California, is going into reverse.

Without doubt, language remains the largest barrier to integration. The UK must encourage immigrants to learn the local language, namely by only communicating in English. The trade-off could be free English lessons for recent immigrants.

Posted by pommygranate at August 17, 2005 01:10 PM

No doubt every nation needs a foundation myth, but that one seems batty to me. 'Buy a slave, Sirrah, or I'll bash your head in.' Please.

Dearieme, did you read Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Indendence? Do you doubt it? Is there other history you find uncomfortable and choose not to believe?

To all the British on this thread, you may want to copy it, make a few changes, and mail it to Downing Street.

The United States Library of Congress has it available at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

Posted by Midwesterner at August 17, 2005 01:15 PM

Pommygranate, you are exactly right. It has gone into reverse. Language is the biggest barrier to integration. Followed closely by different laws (or enforcement) for different communities.

English lessons, yes. But also, conducting all government in english and making translators available, instead of making other language units of government available. Can you imagine the nightmare of trying to reconsile different language versions of a law in a court of law?

Posted by Midwesterner at August 17, 2005 01:25 PM

MidWesterner, the accusations Jefferson levelled against George III included henious acts like allowing the Catholic Church to operate too freely.

You should read the opening to P. J. O'Rourke's 'Parliament of Whores'. He goes through the Declaration of Independence line by line and examines how much better each accusation of expanding state power and loss of freedoms applies to every modern President than to the King they were levelled against.

Back on topic, I don't think either Britain or the US can claim superiority in integration and race relations. Insofar as mass immigration has passed off peacefully, it has been in the face of silent opposition from the great majority in both societies (check any opinion poll). In that sense, this whole debate is about how well food agrees with the stomach of two men who had no appetite anyway. The question of whether it's wise to go on force-feeding either of them matters far more than which one has coped better.

Posted by Peter at August 17, 2005 01:33 PM

America is an idea. It has had the luxury of creating itself pretty much from scratch, from a rump of fairly homogenous people who generally spoke English.
Britain, on the other hand, is an evolution. We've been working on it since before the Romans arrived, and we're still working on it.
The glue that holds The idea together are all the things that we Britons have been systematically taught to sneer at (in my opinion by socialism, which teaches allegiance to a "Class" not a country). Things like flying the flag , The oath of allegiance , pride in their country.You try flying a Union Jack outside you house or business in Britain and see how fast the council comes round and tells you to take it down in case you offend forigners. Fly a Welsh, Scottish, hell even a PLO flag and they wont bat an eyelid.
I agree with Perry, from having not been asked whether we wanted any immigration at all (we the people that is) I think we have coped pretty well.
The main fly in the ointment is the Muslim community.I have travelled quite extensively over the years and It's just not in Britain, Islam always isolates itself if it cannot take over entirely.

Posted by RAB at August 17, 2005 01:40 PM

Peter, I found no reference to "Catholic" anywhere in the draft thought there may have been an oblique reference I didn't get. The reference to slavery emphatic and unmistakable.

You said "the Declaration of Independence ... applies to every modern President than to the King they were levelled against.

Totally true. I think that every day. We seem to have seem to have slipped our moorings.

On topic, every new mass immigration is the outsider until the next one comes along or several generations have passed. As long as we were tied together by language and equal enforcement of laws, we integrate. Abandoning those, we form ghettos and hostilities grow rather than wither.

Posted by Midwesterner at August 17, 2005 01:50 PM

I think you can't compare race relations in Britain and the US at all. In Britain, balck and brown skinned people immigrated quite recently, from the colonies, fully aquainted with British language and customs, and coming mostly from the upper classes of their native societies.
In the US, the slaves and their descendants are an entirely different class of people, and their initial relation with the local people (slavery) was entirely different. Race relations are much more affected by the experience of slavery that that of immigration.
So, it's comparing apples and stones.

Posted by Jacob at August 17, 2005 01:56 PM

Midwesterner: I did glance at Jefferson's ranting but I'd put no weight on it. He was a slave-owner, who did not even free his slaves when he died, remember. What a prize ass he was. The Constitution is a fine document, no doubt partly because the prize ass was away in Paris when it was written. The Constitution is a serious business plan: the Declaration is a salesman's pitch; to treat it as historical evidence is silly.

Posted by dearieme at August 17, 2005 02:42 PM

Like Guy Herbert, I too found presenting the election of "people like George Galloway" self-defeating. There are some unscrupulous, disloyal creatures in Parliament, but none of them is cut from the same cloth as George Galloway. And I too deduced from everything I read, that the electorate had a high degree of of interest in getting rid of lazy,slef-promoting NuLabour placewoman Oona King. (Did you know her father was an American Viet Nam deserter, by the way? He fled to Britain.)

Peter and several others have made the point that the British were a cohesive society with no need of immigration. America, of course, could not have become America without the immigration of tens of millions. That said, the earlier immigrants from the Empire/Commonwealth were imbued with Britishness when they arrived. They were fluent, as I said above, in not just our language, but our culture and our history (of which they were an honourable part). They were accepted, after some initial fuss, because they were not, other than their skin colour, too alien.

Like other countries around the world, we hit the wall when we started letting Islamics in. They are deeply alien, hostile and expectant of being treated with special consideration from the start, in every country in which they have been allowed in. My heart goes out to the British and Europeans who are forced by their economic circumstances, to live in their ghettoes.

Posted by Verity at August 17, 2005 02:56 PM

Dearieme -

“I did glance at Jefferson's ranting but I'd put no weight on it.” “... the Declaration is a salesman's pitch; to treat it as historical evidence is silly.”

I can't think of any answer to this. No one will ever understand America without understand the foundry it came from.

Yes, Jefferson did everything he could to bring down an institution he profited from. No, he did not unilaterally withdraw from that institution or the economy it was founded on. Doing so would have certainly meant immediate bankruptcy so there was probably a financial motive.

So your reaction to this is that the Declaration of Independence is historically irrelevant, Jefferson was a “prize ass” and therefore also historically irrelevant, the constitution is a “fine document” apparently in spite of Jefferson's remotely based campaign to get the Bill of Rights incorporated into it.

I also have no answer for your characterization of the Constitution as a mere “business plan”. It is a binding contract on all citizens and even the government itself. It is the highest law of the land. While it found it's roots in English precedent, it was a novel and unprecedented concept that all branches of government could be held to a set of written rules.

Reminder, this thread is a discussion of British v American assimilation of immigrants based on the original article by Mihir Bose. Why the slaves arrived and how both the slaves, and the people who were compelled to accept that institution of slavery, felt about it is relevant. Maybe you should have done more than glance.

Posted by Midwesterner at August 17, 2005 03:33 PM

Can any of the Americans reading this thread offer any suggestions as to why the Muslim community in the US has integrated with its host country far better than its European counterpart?

Are there any lessons for Europe?

Posted by pommygranate at August 17, 2005 03:37 PM

Pommygranate,

I'm not sure that we have. While we have our successes, I'm sure Britain does, to. If there is a difference it is probably because we, as a rule treat any act of Sharia to be a criminal act. I know of a Muslim girl who got pregnant out of wedlock in her teens.

Her treatment was bad but any attempt at Sharia law would have put the practioners in prison in a state with a death penalty. The family ended up shunning her and everyone who helped her. She is probably fairly well assimilated by this time ~10 years later.

A Sharia murder was recorded live on a 911 police call some years ago. The girl was pleading for her life but was killed anyway. It was broadcast on the news and rather reduced our tolerance.

Posted by Midwesterner at August 17, 2005 03:53 PM

Midwesterner's mythology is so egregiously preposterous that I did not think anyone would feel it worth commenting on. But they have.
King George gave his royal assent to an act abolishing the slave trade just after the turn of the century. It took the Americans another 75 years to get there presumably because of the weight of opinion of midwesterners, Ku Klux Klansmen, holy rolling southern baptists, segregationists, lynch mobs and other rednecks to stop it. It certainly was not King George whose Royal Navy was ordered to stop the trade and made a good fist of doing so.
Does midwesterner think that prolonging slavery so long, the tens of thousands of lynchings continuing until quite recently, the apartheid - up to the 1960s - the intimidation to prevent voting rights being exercised etc etc had no effect on the relationship between whites and black Americans. Or were the Klan and all those others just agents of King George and his successors??
The first significant black immigration to Britain was from the Caribbean which is where virtually all slaves in the British Empire were used. (None were ever allowed in the UK itself). These people integrated very easily with none of the smouldering resentment you find in the similar relationship in America. It seems clear to me that the difference is in the treatment these people had compared with their brothers in independent America in the 200 years since King George abolished the trade.
The rest of midwesterners post seems concerned only with European immigrants. I really don't want to get started on the treatment of Mexican and Oriental immigrants particularly to the west coast who suffered the most appalling abuse of human rights. They were treated as sub human right up to quite recent times.

Posted by John Rippengal at August 17, 2005 04:07 PM

Pommygranate asks: "Can any of the Americans reading this thread offer any suggestions as to why the Muslim community in the US has integrated with its host country far better than its European counterpart?"

Yes. It's been addressed many times before. The crucial point is, most of the people from the Middle East who immigrated to the US are not Muslim. They are Christian and were only too glad to get out.

Lately, there has been an "influx" - meaning around 2m in a country of 300m - and they are already making trouble, with CAIR as their spokesorganisation. In Deareborne, MI, where they have mainly congregated, they have managed to get an ordinance allowing them to broadcast their "call to prayers" (what's wrong with an alarm clock?) five times a day in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity". The ones gathered in upstate - I think it's MA, but it may be NH - the Somalis, are already causing problems.

The Christians integrated. The Islamics behaved with typical arrogance, dull ignorance and lack of gratitude for being allowed in. They are, as ever, determined to subvert the host society to changing its mores to become more Islamic.

Posted by Verity at August 17, 2005 04:30 PM

Oh John, John, John... I give ya books, I give ya books and all ya do is chew the pages.

By your own arithmatic it took King George another 25 years to abolish slavery in his remaining colonies. It took us the deadliest civil war in history, second deadliest of all time (after WWII) to excise this disease we could have removed with much less damage and pain if he would have consented to let us do it 35 or forty years sooner than he finally allowed the rest of the empire to ban it.

You said “the Caribbean which is where virtually all slaves in the British Empire were used. (None were ever allowed in the UK itself)”

Not dirty you own bed? Apparently GIII & Co. didn't want the good people of England to understand where a substantial portion of their wealth and comfort came from.

In any case, it is nice that about forty years into his reign he saw fit to change his mind and allow the abolishment of slavery.

The rest of your tirade appears to be an “everybody in one box” rant without enough facts to even dispute.

Verity, I think your assessment is correct. I fear if we go down the multi-culti path rather than one language-one law, we will have substantial trouble. As long as fundamentalist Christians insist on governmentalizing fundamentalist Christianity, Muslim fundamentalists will be able to do the same thing. Very dangerous.

Posted by Midwesterner at August 17, 2005 04:45 PM

The slave trade abolition and later the act forcing of slave owners to free their slaves were of course acts of parliament which KG had no option but to sign.
Either America was independent and democratic from 1776 or it wasn't. I suspect midwesterner thinks it was in which case the entire responsiblity resides with the American people and its representatives.
The 'Land of the Free' is in fact a gross lie.
The prevention of slavery in the UK was nothing to do with the executive but was by the judiciary. When someone imported a slave to Britain someone applied for a writ of 'habeas corpus' which the judge granted.
The ideas of justice and freedom by and large worked in Britain but although the idea of the Land of the Free was constantly trumpeted about America it in fact signally failed to live up to the high ideals formulated by the Englishmen who drafted its constitution.

Midwesterner do you deny the thousands of lynchings or the existence of the KKK? Why do you need chapter and verse about this? Isn't it a fact that a president as recent as Lyndon Johnson had to enforce desegregation? Don't these things have ANY bearing on race relations.

Posted by John Rippengal at August 17, 2005 05:13 PM

It took us the deadliest civil war in history

Oh, I did not realise you were Chinese. The T'ai-P'ing rebellion... that was the bloodiest civil war in history :-)

Posted by Snide at August 17, 2005 05:26 PM

John. Slavery was embedded like a spear in our society. Unlike your judges, ours we're prohibited from banning it and it existed a long time before we won our independence. GIII & Co greatly forcibly increased it in the years prior to 1776 for mercantile reasons.

And yes, just like any reallocation of wealth, whether that wealth is one's property or one's person, profiteers were unwilling to let it go. Being a disgusting sort of person in the first place, they resorted to any violence or terror to try and preserve their privilege. They and their legacy still exist. We try and mostly succeed in suppressing them. What do you expect us to do? Assign death squads to find and kill racists?

Strict and fair applications of the law are all that will work. We are endeavoring. When necessary, we even send federal troops to over rule state decisions.

We are taught in America to believe it was George III who was the villain. Would you rather we thought that our English cousins did this personally? I've seen nothing to support a verdict of any more than inattentiveness. Something we here certainly can't fault anyone for. We've mastered that trait. I often think that our own George II (W.) and his associates may be very much like your George III and his.

Posted by Midwesterner at August 17, 2005 05:49 PM

Midwesterner-

Yes, I have always been astounded that fundamentalist christians do not realise that the powers they wish to give government to legislate christian ideals may someday be used against them by a future muslim (or whatever) majority. Its why LIBERTY is the only basis of law - not that poisonous, destructive idea called "multiculturalism".

Posted by John at August 17, 2005 05:52 PM

Snide,

You may be right. I was in school during the height of China's isolationism and consequently we weren't taught much of China's history.

I apologise if I said something untrue.

Posted by Medwesterner at August 17, 2005 05:52 PM

Woops. I just realized, W. is our George III not II. I think.

Posted by Midwesterner at August 17, 2005 06:18 PM

Midwesterner says "We were taught to believe that it was George 111 that was the villain"

Then it is about time you woke up and admitted the facts and accepted some responsibility. The idea that all that is great and good is American and all the faults and problems were King Georges is infantile.

Democracy was working in Britain even in the 18th/19th century. According to Midwesterner it did not work in the US the 'Land of the Free'.
Slave owners including that arch phoney Thomas Jefferson just controlled the system too tightly.

Nothing still about the lynchings and KKK, segregation.
No responsibility again I suppose.

Posted by John Rippengal at August 17, 2005 06:40 PM

New post and I promise not to dignify Midwesterner with any more rejoinders.

One rather amusing and quite telling sign of complete integration was on the BBC World Sat TV.
Every week there is a discussion program of journalists like (say) Melanie Phillips and others, about 6 in all. One of them is frequently a BBC staffer from
the African service. He comes from Zimbabwe. The program took place just after 7/7. The Zimbabwean speaks cultured English with a local accent. He recounted how he received a phone call from his Indian friend just after the news of the bombings. The Indian friend said "It was the f***ing Pakis what done it". When you think about it there could be no greater sign of total integration on many planes.

Posted by John Rippengal at August 17, 2005 06:54 PM

As one of the Indian diapsora living in the US, I've heard conflicting reports from Indian-Americans and British-Indians about who treats whom better, although as a child growing up in the states my parents always taught me that the British were more racist to South Asians than Americans were. Dunno if that's true.

Posted by MD at August 17, 2005 07:59 PM

Oh, and for some reason this post make me think of another anecdote: I have a friend who was born in Italy, raised in Belgium, and now living in the states. He said what he liked about the states was that you didn't have to have your parents or their parents or their parents be American to feel that you are one. He said in Belgium he would never really be considered a native, even though he grew up there.

Yes, I know we are talking about Britain and not Belgium. My British-Indian friends seem very at home in Britain (well, they should) and British first and foremost, so perhaps we are more similar than than different.

Posted by MD at August 17, 2005 08:14 PM

MD - your second post highlights the points made by Mr Bose in his article. Indians would feel alien in Belgium, but in Britain, there is a familial sense.

Posted by Verity at August 17, 2005 08:33 PM

I really don't want to get started on the treatment of Mexican and Oriental immigrants particularly to the west coast who suffered the most appalling abuse of human rights. They were treated as sub human right up to quite recent times.

Strange then that they kept going to the US despite this supposedly poor treatment!

BTW there were not "tens of thousands of lynchings" of blacks in the US. If I'm not mistaken there were three and a half thousand lynchings of blacks. There were also numerous black on black and even black on white lynching in the Old South - many of which resulted in acquittals by all white juries.

America is an idea

The Founding Fathers would be surprised to learn that the US is merely an idea. So would virtually every generation of Americans up until half way through the last century. In those pre-multicultural days it was taken for granted that the US was a product of its British founders. The "proposition nation" is just more politically correct nonsense from the left and the neocon imperialists. It's moronic to think that parts of America made up of non-Europeans will adhere to the British and European values of those who built the country as the proposition nation crowd believes. They seem to think the Chinese, Africans, Mexicans and others bring no identity or values with them or that they are just dying to give up these things to worship the now largely symbolic US Constitution!

Those who want to understand why the US developed as it did should forget the mythology and read Albion's Seed by David Hackett Fischer. It was the folk cultures of several British subgroups in pre-Revolutionary War America that gave the US its identity, including its political culture. Even the mostly non-British European immigrants of the late 19th century radically changed the US political culture (particularly in the cities) even though the ethnic British hegemony remained. With that hegemony pretty much gone it's ludicrous to expect a full-fledged multicultural America to have more than a passing resemblance to the original nation. With new ethnic majorities forming at local, and soon regional, levels, new mythologies will be pushed into the political realm and the proposition nation myth will be a thing of the past.

Posted by Matra at August 17, 2005 09:07 PM

Verity - thanks.

And how embarrassing - pretty clear I didn't read the linked to article. Oops.

Posted by MD at August 17, 2005 09:09 PM

I did not expect to find revisionist history on Samizdata. Hopefully it's just things people didn't know or didn't remember.

John is right about King George signing acts of Parliament. There was no USA prior to July 4, 1776. We were indeed in an awful mess already at that point. What John is denying is that we were subjects of a King AND parliament of which we were denied any part. Remember the Boston Tea Party slogan “No taxation without representation.”

We were subject to parliaments rule but denied any participation in that body. Further, all of our efforts to set up any form of our own government under the crown were vigorously prevented. Our history prior to 1776 is a shared one with the caveat that we had no vote and no voice. All control was held by and from Great Britain.

We are alone accountable for our history since that time but not prior. Can anyone name any entitlement program the size of slavery in the southern economy that was ever ended, peacefully or otherwise, without a complete change of the system of government.

Slavery was one of the most extreme forms of redistribution of wealth conceivable. It took the intentional destruction all of the governments of the southern states and the unintentional destruction of all of the remaining state governments when we replaced our federation of states into one nation. We still, 140 years later, live with the consequences both of slavery and of what it took to end it.

I don't deny any of our very large history in this area. Please don't deny the role of parliament and the crown.

I don't know how it is now, but back when I was in grade school and high school our US history started in 1066 and spent an inordinate amount of time on the magna charta. There was only about one hundred years (~1815 to ~1915) of English history missing from our own history. While our dna may come from all corners of the world, our government and your's are one almost continuous thread still woven more closely than any others. Even our present paths to probable failure are in close step.

When Mr. Bose makes the claim that this black/white racial wall suddenly materialized at the time of our constitution, his base facts are already wrong. When John R. states that the former slaves from the Imperial East Indies arrived in UK without resentment right from the very start, I'll have to trust his veracity. I do, however find that particular piece of history remarkable to say the least.

Who was it that said “those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it?”

Posted by Midwesterner at August 17, 2005 10:00 PM

Midwesterner. It was Santayana. Incessantly.

Posted by Verity at August 17, 2005 10:08 PM

Darn. Maybe this time I'll remember.

Thanks.

Posted by Midwesterner at August 17, 2005 10:20 PM

I think this debate isn't complete without French and Lebanese comments : ie practice. France, with its 10% official Muslim population (and maybe one third of the birth, but racial and religious statistics are illegal here) could give other countries good predictions about their future, if French news were not made by the AFP (Agence France Presse, thanks for last week's very good post about it). The second "Muslim rate" in Europe is less than half of that.
For the moment, let's just watch forests and cars burn in France, canadair pilots and firemen dying, with their "badly maintained" vehicles. Enquiries have only just begun.
I wish the Dissident Frogman had time to comment on this question.
Like many visitors, I think the States are safe, in 2005, thanks to its active policemen, employees and armed military men everywhere giving orders, and because the population is very outspoken and is openly defending its Occidental way of life, no matter how "small" the question (small habit or small theft). I wish American people to enjoy their lifestyle for a long time and to be proud of it, even if they are still reaching for improvements. I wish them not to waste their energy on justifications towards newcomers or foreigners as the Europeans do.

Posted by Alice at August 17, 2005 10:35 PM

Alice - I for one am delighted to hear from you - and would love to hear from the Diss as well - but that is not to take away from your interesting post.

You have hit the nail on the head: what on earth are Europeans and Brits doing trying to justify their nations to people from extremely inferior cultures? Their opinions about things they don't understand (enlightened Western culture) are irrelevant. Alice, when I lived in France, it was outstanding how everyone loathed the Muslim immigrants, especially the Algerians, yet the government imposed its agenda regardless of the French electorate. Les deux rives de la Mediterranée crap.

The question, as always, has to be, what are the British and European lawmakers getting out of this? It just doesn't jibe. What is Chirac getting out of it? De Villepin? Blair? What are your thoughts, Alice?

Posted by Verity at August 18, 2005 12:43 AM

No Matra I didn't mean that America was "merely" an Idea. It is a country and a continuance, which, like everywhere else, changes.What I meant was,

It was the idea of a new start that attracted everyone in the first place Whatever you were before, your an American now, with clear rules as to what that is. I worry that if the glue that I talked about earlier begins to loosen, the whole world will be the sorrier for it.

Posted by RAB at August 18, 2005 01:51 AM

Running a corner shop, or being a clerk in a government office is not a sign of integration, indeed, in the light of recent events, it would seem to be an excellent cover for all sorts of mayhem.

To see, so-called integration, I would suggest a visit to the western suburbs of London. Places such as Ealing, Hounslow, Feltham, Uxbridge, and others, not forgetting that model of racial harmony - Wembley, the place resembles downtown Calcutta.

To be sure, you do not get much of an idea of just what the new concept of integration really entails, when travelling between Belgravia and Heathrow.

Posted by ernest young at August 18, 2005 03:44 AM

John Rippengal;

the Englishmen who drafted its [America's] constitution.

You idiot.

Posted by A.J.A. at August 18, 2005 07:14 AM

A.J.A doesn't really deserve to be dignified with any response but ....
Of course they were Englishmen living in America importing the ideas of political freedom developed in Britain including those of Locke. Hume, Adam Smith, etc. You don't think the themes of the constitution were dreamt up in a vacuum do you.

They were rife in English political and judicial circles too and what's more were also implemented with much greater success than in America where it took over 200 years after independence to get any semblance of equal treatment for non white citizens. As for the poor native Americans unfortunately most did not survive the genocide. In most of the Empire native people populations increased greatly under colonial rule. In America once free of the restraint of central government the natives were virtually wiped out.

Posted by John Rippengal at August 18, 2005 09:11 AM

Britons, John, Britons. Midwesterner, you should recall that the Boston Tea Party was staged by the tea smugglers, enraged that a reduction in duty resulted in licit imports undercutting their prices. Try http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/MilSci/BTSI/abs_bostea.html, which is a little mealy-mouthed but doesn't try to hide the truth. You really should put your elementary school indoctrination behind you; American history is far more interesting than the myths.

Posted by dearieme at August 18, 2005 12:23 PM

ernest young: [...] - Wembley, the place resembles downtown Calcutta.

And assuming that were true--having never been to Calcutta, it is hard for me to tell, though I'd be surprised if, for example, such a large and obvious majority of its inhabitants were white--why would that be such a bad thing?

(Wasn't Calcutta founded by an Englishman in any case? I'm sure the Mughals regarded it as an untidy place full of barbarous immigrants.)

Posted by Guy Herbert at August 18, 2005 01:09 PM

As an American living in a few foreign countries I sum it all up with this: In other countries I could dream of what I wanted to achieve, in American I could live my dream.
We dont not give up our heritage once immigrate, however, we do speak English as our first language. Imperative. We celebrate our heritage with the idea that this is what made American great. Immigrants.

I resided in the UK at one point and time. The biggest issue I see now, in regards to dealing with immigrants is not allowing this segregation to begin. Isolated immigrants, are in essence still residents of another country. So, they are in your country to gain benifits not available back home, yet show no love or appreciation for your graciousness.

If one can reap all the benefits of the country you choose to live in, then one must also show an allegience to the said country. Be grateful to the country for opening their doors. Do not bash it, but integrate into it, for by bashing it, one would presume you love your former country enough to return to it.

Ditto for the religions. Practice yours, however do not expect special favours, or try to drown others in your beliefs.

My grandparents on both sides spoke to us in English, using their native language for themselves. Why should a country translate one languge into 15 to appease you?

For the one who inquired as to why the US has integrated so well (and we need more, actually) is our firm belief that we have a right to display our flag, a right to speak of liberty for all, and you, the visitor, or new Citizen has the right to go home anytime these beliefs do not coincide with yours!

This is our country, love it or leave it. We call it tough love.

:)

Posted by Divine Mercy at August 18, 2005 01:16 PM

I must stick up for John here too.
I was taught that the only reason that America was being taxed at all, was to help pay their bit towards the cost of defeating the French in Canada which secured America's border and saved them from French invasion. George Washington didn't come out of that conflict covered in glory did he?
Plus the fact that many colonists wanted to push west and the British Govt wouldn't let them, out of respect for native american tribes, many of whom had fought alongside the British against the French.

Posted by RAB at August 18, 2005 01:20 PM

Midwesterner:

Agree with you here 100%.

It has gone into reverse. Language is the biggest barrier to integration. Followed closely by different laws (or enforcement) for different communities.

Verity:

Yes. It's been addressed many times before. The crucial point is, most of the people from the Middle East who immigrated to the US are not Muslim. They are Christian and were only too glad to get out.

A good question posted, and I'm not positive on Christian Vs Muslim immigration facts, but that aside, why are the Muslims in the UK in the UK? One would have to assume for a better life.

Which leads me to MidW's post. Learn the language, accept the culture, and expect the same laws to apply to you.

Assimilate.

Posted by Divine Mercy at August 18, 2005 01:43 PM

Divine Mercy - Your contribution has completely missed the entire point about the Islamics in Britain: The fellow travelling British left. There are other agendas in European countries. For example, France's dream of the glory of les deux rives de la Méditerranée. But by far the most dangerous and destructive is Britain's fellow travellers.

Posted by Verity at August 18, 2005 02:44 PM

Dearieme, Thank you for the excellent link(s). I'll link them again to make them easier to read. While brief, they contained some useful facts. http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/MilSci/BTSI/abs_bostea.html(Link)
Once again, it's the small business people leading the attack against government intervention and manipulation in the marketplace.

Your page also contain a link relevant to RAB's interesting comments. RAB, you said “I was taught that the only reason that America was being taxed at all, was to help pay their bit towards the cost of defeating the French in Canada which secured America's border and saved them from French invasion.” I wonder how the Quebec Act of 1774 bears on that. Link courtesy Dearieme's link http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/MilSci/BTSI/abs_coer.html(Link)

I admit it's not something I'm familiar with. I was taught something not incompatible with what you were taught. The colonies argument was not with taxing for defense. It was with tax and law manipulation for the benefit of quasi-government agencies like East India & Hudson's Bay and especially about the denial of any representation to colonial citizens. We were being run as a corporation with the directors all in Great Britain. Anything in the interest of EI & HB got taken care of immediately, everything else of importance to the safety and wellbeing of the colonies was neglected of prevented. There is no way the colonies were consuming all of the products of the slaves plantations. They were necessary for Imperial trade.

Also, RAB, regarding the move west, we do have an undeniably messy history of western annexation. Remember, though, Canada does reach the Pacific and does give allegiance to the Crown.

My speculation about the relative difference of Native Americans fates in Canada and the US does not attribute it to any unilateral benevolence and altruism on the part of the English in Canada v the former English in the US but rather that Canada was geographically far less suitable for farming and ranching. My guess is that wherever in Canada significant natural resources are found, particularly farmland, you will find a dearth of Native Americans owning any of it. Maybe some of our Canadian participants have facts on this demographic.

Posted by Midwesterner at August 18, 2005 03:20 PM

Guy Herbert,

From your comment - I would also doubt that you have ever been to Wembley. Here are a few more West London, names to delight you integrationists - Hanwell, Southall, (now there's a wonderful area), Uxbridge and High Wycombe.

Your chance to try the Bangladesh experience - without leaving the UK!

If the problem is the lack of integration by immigrants, with the indigenous population, then surely there is the other side of the coin, where the indigenes do not wish to integrate with the immigrants.

Visit any of the areas I have named, and many other 'immigrant' areas such as Bradford, and then, with hand on heart, say that you would not object to, and would feel comfortable, living there.

Visiting some of the hinterland of Hounslow, etc. would put paid to all the nonsense about immigrants being from the better levels of their 'home' society. To be sure, a minority are 'professionals', but they are just that - a minority.

Posted by ernest young at August 18, 2005 04:04 PM

Midwesterner "Once again, it's the small business people leading the attack against government intervention and manipulation in the marketplace."
Touche.

Posted by dearieme at August 18, 2005 04:07 PM

Perry, Adriana, & Dale (& Dearieme)

I love this forum. So many times in the months that I've lurked this site I've seen facts that I thought couldn't be. Scurried off to Google and come back enlightened and with many new things to think about. It appears others have done that with my posts. Whatever you're doing, please continue.

You've assembled a community of people whose first loyalty is to truth of fact and truth of interpretation. As a by product of the debates here I've realized that we products of the English history of laws have more in common than even the most philic of us realize.

I hope to learn much more in the future and maybe not wait until my safety valve is whistling to work up nerve to post.

Posted by Midwesterner at August 18, 2005 05:13 PM

I'm all tingly now that Rippengal has chosen to dignify my undeserving self.

Of course they were Englishmen living in America

Of course you're wrong, and making yourself look even more like an idiot.

This expresses one of two stupid ideas: they were English, even though they had specifically separated themselves from Britain and the British government had officially accepted the separation in 1782 (IIRC) when the war ended, but only while doing good things, becoming Americans whenever they did bad things like own slaves; or that we commissioned resident aliens who were Crown subjects to write our Constitution for us.

importing the ideas of political freedom developed in Britain including those of Locke. Hume, Adam Smith, etc. You don't think the themes of the constitution were dreamt up in a vacuum do you.

You've let me down. I expected this, of course, but I expected a stronger version to get to knock down. So let me make an observation in your favor you failed to: the United States government bears a strong resemblance to the British government of the day. And the answer: it bears an even stronger resemblance to the state governments of the day.

But what's this "ideas of political freedom" mean? The Bill of Rights? States already had bills of rights. The most proximate British model was way back in the Glorious Revolution. North America itself was no vacuum -- the people were already political enough to make a revolution.

They were rife in English political and judicial circles too and what's more were also implemented with much greater success than in America where it took over 200 years after independence to get any semblance of equal treatment for non white citizens. As for the poor native Americans unfortunately most did not survive the genocide. In most of the Empire native people populations increased greatly under colonial rule. In America once free of the restraint of central government the natives were virtually wiped out.

Because, of course, the people who did the exact same thing to the Australian natives were Australians rather than English even though they actually were still Crown subjects (unlike James Madison), unless they happened to be setting up political institutions you would approve of. Then they were English.

Posted by A.J.A. at August 18, 2005 06:18 PM

Speaking of Rippingal, did anyone else have a moment of incredulity when he made this statement.

The Indian friend said "It was the f***ing Pakis what done it". When you think about it there could be no greater sign of total integration on many planes.

John, it was Saudi financed, Saudi led, and predominately Saudi staffed. And you see this East Indians knee jerk blaming of Pakistan as positive proof that he's left his old culture and joined the English one? Someone should explain to you some South Asia politics. Perhaps you propose the Indian/Pakistan conflict should be imported to Britain.

Posted by Midwesterner at August 18, 2005 06:46 PM

Verity:

Perhaps I did miss the point. I do that occasionally.

I believe the UK and Europe have an "unspoken" tolerance with Islamists trusting their passive silence will protect them from any actual physical crimes of these extremists. They assumed wrong.

Surely those who spew this rhetoric are not speaking in jest, or why don't the countries they originate from take them back? Some do want them, for crimes in their respective countries. Their words are not taken lightly back home, or tolerated.

It's wonderful to be tolerant, however when this tolerance leads to the death of others you need to consider the collective whole.

It's time for all of our countries to decipher from the moderate Muslim (and their are many) and the extreme Islamists who bask in the glory of our freedoms, whilst preaching the utopia lifestyle of living in a country based on their religion. Once we decipher, we act accordingly, and responsibly.

I pray the UK takes this more seriously now. Collective opinion and protection overides the entire issue, since silence has obviously not worked.

See todays court verdict in Germany. Deportation, or leave voluntarily by choice. They have until Sept. Quick and decisive move. For the record, they did not act on the hate filled ideology. For those who will shout about their rights to freedom of speech--it's called preventative medicine.

Posted by Divine Mercy at August 18, 2005 07:44 PM

ernest young:

It's not colour, language, or cooking taste. I wouldn't want to live in Basildon or Leigh-on-Sea or Telford either. (Southall would be vastly better than any of them, especially for food.) Frankly, tube zone 2 is a bit grubby and suburban, though I've lived in and visited many different parts of the country without great discomfort.

But I am perfectly happy for other people to live as they choose, and a bit of variety ensures that should my tastes change I can change my environment with ease. Integration and assimilation mean to me that any individual can choose how to live within a common public tradition: that the culture of their childhood home need not limit them, still less the colour of their skin. But I'm not about to tell them what to do, any more than I'd accept them doing it to me.

You see, though I'm not insulted to be thought one, I'm not an "integrationist" any more than I am a multiculturalist. I'm a pluralist. I'm really not threatened by people from abroad being a bit foreign. I don't think foreign habits are intrinsically virtuous because they are foreign, but neither do I think they are necessarily bad.

Cultural differences can be interesting or amusing, on occasion. They might conceivably be annoying or problematic on others. But really cultural mixture is not that big a deal.

The exchange of culture and people, like the exchange of goods and services, is a big deal. And a Good Thing. It's a common feature of civilization throughout the ages. The high metropolis was always a cosmopolis.

Posted by guy herbert at August 18, 2005 07:46 PM

This is an interesting topic which, unsurprisingly, turned into a "Britain is Better than US" and a "No, US is better than Britain" discussion. Sometimes I like following those type of debates just for fun. They always end up with one side "reminding" the other about the "genocide" of the Native Americans and slavery and the other cursing King George and reliving the Boston Tea Party!

I enjoy studying history. I love discussing history, especially with someone more knowledgable. It's fascinating and I always learn something new. I understand the relevence of history when discussing modern problems. However, I don't see how slavery (a shameful part of American history) has anything to do with modern race relations and the assimilation of immigrants unless we are discussing reparations. Usually it's brought up in debate simply to make the other person feel uncomfortable. What does it have to do with modern problems concerning immigration? What ON EARTH can a modern American (like me) do about black slavery that has been dealt with over 100 years ago?

Maybe it does have something to do with this topic as the blacks were "forced" to assimilate. No nation or society is pure. The US isn't the only country that is guilty of bad behavior in the past and there's not a lot we can do about it now. There, i got that off my chest. my chest. (I hate cheap shots)

The article and main topic of discussion was the differences in race relations and immigration assimilation between our two countries. The basic question was, "Why doesn't America have problems with "home grown" terrorists like we do when we are far more tolerant of other people than Americans?"

I don't know if we don't have problems with this. You never know what's going to get blown up tomorrow or next month. If we don't have the same problems as the Brits, its only a matter of time. Sooner or later we will. Our societies have become infected with a sickness called "Political Correctness". Immigrants are no longer urged to assimilate. Our permissive and generous societies welcome immigrants with little or no requirements to become a contributing members. One can come to America (or Britain) and enjoy the quality of life made possible by Western Civilation while at the same time hating it. Our elites and government types (while basking in the benefits of Western Civ) constantly remind us of how evil it is and strive to reconstruct it.

Governments have adopted this politically correct attitude in which we must all comply for fear of being accused of (God forbid) RACISM.

Look, it's not difficult to adapt and assimilate into a "host" society without losing your cultural identity and there's always going to be biggoted jerks, that's part of life.

Western civilization is "supreme" over other civilizations, even with all its faults and yes, it could use some improvement. This IS NOT white supremacy. It's a success story. People used to immigrate to our society because of the opportunities and freedom offered. It was natural (and expected) for them to assimilate, make something of themselves and most importantly to become an Americans (or British).

Now we have a huge influx of people that disdain our way of life and hate our society. They wall themselves up in ghettos and do little to become part of the host country. Instead of learning our language, we have to adapt to their language...make everything from school to street signs bilingual. Our children require "reprogramming" in school so that they can be more tolerant. Police have to be reprogrammed so they don't accidently upset the criminal they're after by going into a religious building incorrectly. And, after all this effort of tolerance and acceptance they still want to blow us up. Go figure.

Sorry for going on and on. I rarely comment because sooner or later someone says it for me. Also, I'm a bit shy as there are a lot of bright people that comment on this blog (I could never come up with the word "philic"??). I hope someone understood what I was trying to say!

Cheers :)

Posted by KCB at August 18, 2005 08:26 PM

As a British Indian I'm not certain at all about the idea that it's because there my parents came from a former colony that helped them to integrate.
I think it's because they came as part of a defined need. I.e. My parents were , in effect, asked to come to the UK to help fill a shortage of doctors.

Once here they quickly became part of a greater community of Britain whilst retaining their essential Indianness. This I think was largely because
a) it was too difficult to do otherwise in the 60's when they came here &
b) they felt it was the right thing to do.

Personally I think the problem today is not people who are immigrants or children of immigrants who tend to socially be closer to other immigrants;
( i.e it's not a problem if a group of Indians would rather celebrate diwali than Christmas)... the problem is those who have thoughout their life been brought up to belive that the UK is bad because of it's colonial past instead of appreciating the country as a whole (mostly good but with some bad aspects).

The main blame for this , in my opinion, lies with the British who have been unable to show pride in their country & history & thus have allowed this other narrative to flourish.

This is probably all been off topic but I've had it in my head for a while so here it is

Posted by Rajesh at August 18, 2005 08:47 PM

Since you are British, Rajesh, has it crossed your mind that it is you, amongst others, who should be supplying the alternative narrative?

Posted by Chris Goodman at August 18, 2005 11:45 PM

I am afraid Matra is right.

Re blacks: I see that the main and most crucial difference is that the UK slaves were employed as such in their native countries, and they willingly immigrated only after their slavery was abolished, while the US slaves were forcibly brought in, and only later their slavery was abolished.

Posted by Alisa at August 19, 2005 01:06 AM