Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Royals Rendezvous Statement
Royals Rendezvous has moved to a new location, please go to royalsrendezvous.co.uk to continue the discussion.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Enoch Powell
Topic Started: 8 Mar 2016, 09:48 PM (225 Views)
daib0
Member Avatar
Inter-Forum Gamemaster!

Posted Image


Was he right? Half Right?
Was he deluded, derided?

Is globalization amongst peoples and cultures inevitable?

How does one evaluate this man, this character, now well into the 21st century?





Royals Rendezvous - a specialist and friendly Reading FC fan forum
Cello man... VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEVmGOEMJLE&t=12s Please share !
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SuffolkRoyal
Member Avatar

Many things he said about uncontrolled immigration have happened, so he must have been right.

And check out some of the things he said about the EU, he got that bang on as well.

Some people still just think of him as a racist politician, but so much of what he warned us about has come to fruition.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Owlish52
Member Avatar
RR Foreign Legion - Across the Pond - View from Texas
One of the problems of having a decent nation with somewhat reasonable policies is that you attract immigrants. The ability of the country to assimilate them, and of the immigrants to strive to be assimilated becomes the key then. In the United States, the immigrants in the 1800s and even most of the 1900s were successfully assimilated. By and large, that was (IMO) because they were essentially required to assimilate - English was the language, and there was little accommodation outside the immediate neighborhood. And the fact of the matter was that the immigrants were largely motivated to assimilate - if not the immigrants themselves, the first US-born generation were.

But now, political correctness drives a high degree of accommodation for new immigrants. Add in that the social backgrounds are significantly different for many of the more recent immigrants, so their assimilation is more challenging. With the degree of accommodations available and the ability of groups to move together into mutually-supporting areas where assimilation was not as critical, or even important, social assimilation became something that could be resisted effectively, especially by invoking a need for diversity.

IMO (and here comes the heresy to Political Correctness), some social groups strongly resist assimilation. Social and religious beliefs and traditions not consistent with the majority are again defended by 'diversity', until they hit outright violations of established majority laws (honor killings, caste discrimination, etc) which can not be accepted by the majority, even allowing for 'diversity'. And like a puppy who has never been disciplined for messing on the carpet, the transition from 'Well, that's just diversity...' to 'No, that is illegal and it's off to prison with you...' seems too abrupt and extreme. It is not always that the immigrant has been coddled, but they have been trained that assimilation is not really necessary. And with the current situations, where migrations are essentially forced, some of the migrants have no real intention to assimilate, and many of the issues that drove them from their homes are packed safely in their baggage, to re-emerge in their new locales. Resentment against those who drove them out can easily become transferred to those who have taken them in, but not 'made them at home' in every way.

I think this is an international issue, and the solution is, IMO, less tolerance of 'diversity' and more official and outright pressure to assimilate. Requirements for clearly demonstrated English proficiency to receive assistance, for acceptance of job training and trainee positions and for progress in main-stream education by the immigrant children, not allowing the sequestration of the children in Charter Schools where the Old Ways can be perpetuated. This is 'tough love', but no nation can really endure becoming divided into antagonistic religious, social and ethnic blocks. The frictions are too great, and the potential for explosions too severe. It will, in itself, lead to a degree of friction and some explosions, but better IMO to have them earlier than later.
"It could have been worse with Hillary..." - Owlish52
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zip
Member Avatar

Why is immigration a problem Bill? Our ever ageing and growing elderly population is going to need a large enough workforce paying into the system to fund their pensions. If we don't have immigration we are screwed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Owlish52
Member Avatar
RR Foreign Legion - Across the Pond - View from Texas
Zip
8 Mar 2016, 10:45 PM
Why is immigration a problem Bill? Our ever ageing and growing elderly population is going to need a large enough workforce paying into the system to fund their pensions. If we don't have immigration we are screwed.
Immigration isn't necessarily a problem; assimilation is. Immigration can be a stupendous boost to a nation (see the USA, 1800-1960 or so), when it is accompanied by a high degree of assimilation. I'm in the middle of an area that has already converted from majority Anglo to majority Hispanic, and the vast majority of the Hispanic immigrants have assimilated to a high degree. While these days, I hear more Spanish in the stores and restaurants than English (not so even 10 years ago), the population still shares core values. As those core values deviate. trouble brews. Political power has moved from the Anglo to the Hispanic community, but it has moved smoothly and in an orderly manner.

By and large, the Hispanic community (which gets blasted by Trump, very unfairly IMO) has very similar core beliefs to the Anglo community - some of the traditions are a bit different, but nothing of substance. After all, we have been living together or in close proximity for a hundred-plus years. If that transition had been to say Islamic or even Hindu communities, it might well not have been as smooth. The growing militancy and intolerance of several of the political parties in India is a major concern to me - I see that intolerance as a reaction to the intolerance of large segments of the Islamic communities in Pakistan. Just like Europe of the 1920s and '30s, where 'strong governments' (read 'totalitarian governments') seemed necessary, intolerance seems to be the Order of the Day in many parts of the world.

Turkey is another example of 'strong government' picking up religion and intolerance as a key part of their desire for strength. There is always a pendulum in society, and the general direction seems to be strongly toward intolerance, with religion often used as a core for that intolerance. The West has adapted a high degree of religious tolerance (some in the name of diversity, the new Secular Religion), and in some ways, this is perceived as a weakness of the West. I think it can be a strength, but it certainly seems to be an arena where the answer will be determined by at least a degree of conflict, not cool, rational thought.

There is always a Dark Age waiting for humanity, given all the foibles and failures we are prone to. Unfortunately, we now have even better tools to make any new Dark Age deeper and darker than ever before. Here's hoping we don't go down that path just yet. ^o)
Edited by Owlish52, 8 Mar 2016, 11:20 PM.
"It could have been worse with Hillary..." - Owlish52
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Owlish52
Member Avatar
RR Foreign Legion - Across the Pond - View from Texas
I came across a blog post by one of my favorite science fiction authors (she also happens to be a Rice graduate with a degree in History, like me) on this general subject, and I'll steal from it (after attribution; link: http://e-moon60.livejournal.com/335480.html#cutid1 ), by Elizabeth Moon:
Quote:
 
...We have always had trouble with immigrants (the native peoples had the most troubles with immigrants!) Every new group that landed on the shore was greeted with distrust (and often responded badly) until it showed that it was willing and able to contribute something those already here wanted. The most successful, in terms of acceptance, endured decades of distrust and discrimination and then turned on newer immigrants the same attitudes that had so angered them. (Last fall I talked with a man on the train whose parents had been Italian immigrants...he was vehemently denouncing Hispanic immigrants using exactly the same complaints that were used against Italians earlier: dirty, lazy, violent, etc.)

Public schooling was viewed as a way to educate immigrant children into the existing American culture--to break down their "native" culture and avoid the kind of culture clashes (between religions and national origins) people brought with them from the old country. Refusal to send children to public schools was once considered a refusal of the duties of citizenship (this changed in the '60s/'70s, with the white flight from public schools as an attempt was made to create racial balance.) English-language-only instruction was one method used--there was to be one language all citizens understood, so that anyone from any background could communicate with anyone else...to avoid the tight little enclaves that people naturally retreat to because it's more comfortable. Was this ideal? No, but in a couple of generations, nearly all immigrants' grandchildren were able to speak English, even if their kids dropped out of school.

The point here is that in order to accept large numbers of immigrants, and maintain any social cohesion, acceptance by the receiving population is not the only requirement: immigrants must be willing and able to change, to merge with the receiving population. The new place isn't the old place; the new customs aren't the old customs. "Acceptance" is a multi-directional communications grid. Groups that self-isolate, that determinedly distinguish themselves by location, by language, by dress, will not be accepted as readily as those that plunge into the mainstream. This is not just an American problem--this is human nature, the tribalism that underlies all societies and must be constantly curtailed if larger groups are to co-exist. It is natural to want to be around those who talk like you, eat the familiar foods, wear the familiar clothes, have the familiar cultural references. But in a multicultural society like ours--and it has been multi-cultural from its inception--citizens need to go beyond nature. That includes those who by their history find it least comfortable.

Whether a group changes its core behaviors and values after immigration or not, it must--to be assimilated later--come to understand the culture into which it has moved. To get along, it must try not to do those things which will, sure as eggs is eggs, create friction, distrust, and dislike. Is this a limitation on its freedom? Yes. It is also a limitation on the freedom of the existing culture into which it moves...it's a compromise. A compromise isn't entirely comfortable to either side, and either side may misjudge how uncomfortable a compromise is to the other side--it is wise to grant that what you're asking the other guy to do may be quite uncomfortable to him/her. A group must grasp that if its non-immigrant members somewhere else are causing people a lot of grief (hijacking planes and cruise ships, blowing up embassies, etc.) it is going to have a harder row to hoe for awhile, and it would be prudent (another citizenly virtue) to a) speak out against such things without making excuses for them and b) otherwise avoid doing those things likely to cause offence.

When an Islamic group decided to build a memorial center at/near the site of the 9/11 attack, they should have been able to predict that this would upset a lot of people. Not only were the attackers Islamic--and not only did the Islamic world in general show indecent glee about the attack, but this was only the last of many attacks on citizens and installations of this country which Islamic groups proudly claimed credit for. That some Muslims died in the attacks is immaterial--does not wipe out the long, long chain of Islamic hostility. It would have been one thing to have the Muslim victims' names placed with the others, and identified there as Muslims--but to use that site to proselytize for the religion that lies behind so many attacks on the innocent (I cannot forget the Jewish man in a wheelchair pushed over the side of the ship to drown, or Maj. Nadal's attack on soldiers at Fort Hood) was bound to raise a stink. It is hard to believe that those making the application did not know that--did not anticipate it--and were not, in a way, probing to see if they could start a controversy. If they did not know, then they did not know enough about the culture into which they had moved. Though I am not angry about it, and have not spoken out in opposition, I do think it was a rude and tactless thing to propose (and, if carried out, to do.)

I know--I do not dispute--that many Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks, did not approve of them, would have stopped them if they could. I do not dispute that there are moderate, even liberal, Muslims, that many Muslims have all the virtues of civilized persons and are admirable in all those ways. I am totally, 100%, appalled at those who want to burn the Koran (which, by the way, I have read in English translation, with the same attention I've given to other holy books) or throw paint on mosques or beat up Muslims. But Muslims fail to recognize how much forbearance they've had. Schools in my area held consciousness-raising sessions for kids about not teasing children in Muslim-defined clothing...but not about not teasing Jewish children or racial minorities. More law enforcement was dedicated to protecting mosques than synagogues--and synagogues are still targeted for vandalism. What I heard, in my area, after 9/11, was not condemnation by local mosques of the attack--but an immediate cry for protection even before anything happened. Our church, and many others (not, obviously all) already had in place a "peace and reconciliation" program that urged us to understand, forgive, pray for, not just innocent Muslims but the attackers themselves. It sponsored a talk by a Muslim from a local mosque--but the talk was all about how wonderful Islam was--totally ignoring the historical roots of Islamic violence.

I can easily imagine how Muslims would react to my excusing the Crusades on the basis of Islamic aggression from 600 to 1000 C.E....(for instance, excusing the building of a church on the site of a mosque in Cordoba after the Reconquista by reminding them of the mosque built on the site of an important early Christian church in Antioch.) So I don't give that lecture to the innocent Muslims I come in contact with. I would appreciate the same courtesy in return (and don't get it.) The same with other points of Islam that I find appalling (especially as a free woman) and totally against those basic principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution...I feel that I personally (and many others) lean over backwards to put up with these things, to let Muslims believe stuff that unfits them for citizenship, on the grounds of their personal freedom. It would be helpful to have them understand what they're demanding of me and others--how much more they're asking than giving. It would be helpful for them to show more understanding of the responsibilities of citizenship in a non-Muslim country. (And the same is true for many others, of course. Libertarians, survivalists, Tea-Partyers, fundamentalist Christians, anyone else whose goals benefit only their own group. There's been a huge decline in the understanding of good citizenship overall.)

But I don't expect this to happen. And on this anniversary of 9/11, all I can do is hope that no bombs are thrown, no Korans burned, no innocents killed... by anyone.

She is much better with words than I. And for what it's worth, this blog entry about assimilation was "perceived by many as derogatory toward Muslims and immigrants". Because it "dismayed, angered and offended" the co-chairs and other people associated with WisCon 35, a feminist science fiction convention to be held in May 2011, her invitation to be a guest of honor was rescinded by WisCon's parent body. I always find it touchingly naive that liberal groups demand the right to express their beliefs in whatever forum they choose and shout "Censorship! Infringement of Free Speech Rights!" if in any way hindered, but are quick to seek to restrict or eliminate speech that does not agree with their positions wherever possible.
Edited by Owlish52, 10 Mar 2016, 09:48 PM.
"It could have been worse with Hillary..." - Owlish52
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bahamoth

Assimilation is a natural process, like evolution, that is not visible by a single generation. Each generation can claim that it doesn't happen because, in their lifetime, they don't see it, but they are not in a position to judge. Assimilation rates vary for different reasons, with accommodation being a reason it improves, not destroys assimilation rates. Ghettos form naturally but grow in strength when the community around it, or the society it lies within, fails to welcome it. Objection to a group increases solidarity.

Take New York as an example. I recently read how the deli scene is dying there. Deli owners are dying out with no one to replace them. Is this because they have no children to take over? No. They don't want their children running restaurants. They want them to do better than they and so they want them to be doctors or lawyers etc. this is assimilation. This is how it happens. It mint take a generation or two, but eventually, the parents want the children to be more a part of the society they are in (indirectly).

To the observer trapped in time, unable to view the span of ages, this is not apparent. But it happens, with or without you being nice to them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · News & Current/Past Events · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Royals Rendezvous - 2013-16