Telegraph has an article about an official parliamentary report that notes that Holland’s 30-year experiment in trying to create a tolerant, multicultural society has failed and led to ethnic ghettos and sink schools.
Between 70 and 80 per cent of Dutch-born members of immigrant families import their spouse from their “home” country, mostly Turkey or Morocco, perpetuating a fast-growing Muslim subculture in large cities.
While the report praised most immigrants for assimilating and for doing well at school, it attacked successive governments for stoking ethnic separatism. The worst mistake was to encourage children to speak Turkish, Arabic or Berber in primary schools rather than Dutch. The report concluded that Holland’s 850,000 Muslims must become Dutch if the country was to hold together. It proposes cheap housing in the leafy suburbs to help ethnic groups assimilate with the rest of the 16 million population.
The major parties in the centre-Right government dismissed such solutions as insufficient. Maxime Verhagen, the Christian Democrat leader in parliament, said one had to be “either naive or ignorant” not to understand that the policy had led the country into a cul-de-sac.
Immigrants in the Netherlands top the ‘wrong’ lists – disability benefit, unemployment assistance, domestic violence, criminality statistics and school and learning difficulties.
Holland used to be an example of multi-ethnic tolerance, spending large amounts of funding to welcome immigrants and running ‘ethnic diversity projects’ that included 700 Islamic clubs that are often run by hard-line clerics.
Two years ago, Pim Fortuyn voiced the resentment that had been building up behind the ‘multi-culti’ facade. The European Union’s Racism and Xenophobia Monitoring Centre has catalogued a rash of anti-Muslim attacks, leaving girls too frightened to go out wearing head scarves. The violence has been on the increase since the September 11 attacks. The Dutch intelligence service, AIVD, has warned that the al-Qa’eda network is stealthily taking root in Dutch society by preying on disaffected Muslim youth with Jihad video cassettes circulating in mosques, cafes and prisons.
This is what happens when the state interferes with natural social processes, such assimilation. The example of the US shows that the melting pot approach works just. It is only when the state decides to promote one group or another the social sets in. As always, the state is not your friend.
Keep in mind that this same process, and problems, are happening everywhere in the EU to some degree or another. As native population levels decline, due to population implosion, then the needed workers must be acquired through immigration.
Perhaps what’s needed is selective, actually restrictive, immigration reform. Something that the very liberal EU could never possibly implement without having gone over the line in a facist sort of way.
The melting pot is really the only way to go in a multi-ethnic society.
It is under attack in the US as well by the “multi-culturalists” who teach our children that the melting pot is “wrong.”
PS — Human history has already seen “multiculturalism” before, just under another name. It was called “tribalism.”
It may be a bad day for multi-culturalism, but once again, the scumsucking leftist/statist/multiculti assholes have had another of their pet projects fail utterly (we already knew this–I’m just reiterating). Of course, who pays when the really bad day comes? Everyone else.
They are truly the parasite class in so many ways. And what do you do with parasites?
The time for multiculturalism appears to be drawing to a close all over Europe. By default, therefore, assimilation will be increasingly commended. However, it is worth considering what assimilation will mean and whether it is any more attainable than a society of equal cultures.
In theory at least, if immigrants are expected to become, essentially, just like us there is little purpose in the excessive tolerance demanded by multi-culturalism. The balance must shift from cultural equality towards an acknowled pre-eminence for western culture. The group victimology and hegemonic identity politics sustained by multiculturalism will be challenged by something more individualistic. These are substantial gains in prospect and would, amongst otherr things, force the liberal-left to re-evaluate its ideology.
For all its drawbacks, though, multiculturalism brought two blessings that have gone unacknowledged in public debate. First, the distinction of cultures helped to maintain the distinction of races (phenotypes, if you want to be picky). In their enthusiasm for a world of sovereign individuals free of claim from without, many libertarians refuse to acknowledge the well of meaning that is race. I want to avoid another argument along those lines. Suffice it to say that the people who are being asked to assimilate are not libertarians. They are as fiercely proud of and loyal to their lineage as any white European.
Second, there is a cost to, in effect, losing ones’ culture. This is paid at an individual level and is to be seen at its most tragic among the near-derelict aboriginal societies that generally survive, just, alongside dominant, imported cultures. Nothing so dramatic would apply in the cultural renounciation required of immigrants here. Those who have a higher-IQ and better education will manage perfectly well. The bulk of the Bell Curve, however, may not. De-cultured peoples lose a great wealth, the surest proof of which is to be found in the meagre cultural (not political) attainments of America.
Finally, for the true English or Dutch or French the meaning of assimilation will depend upon its success. The more successful it is, the more deracination will accelerate. Unimpeded, it will eventually reach a certain tipping point whereby a native reaction becomes impossible. However, native ire will itself be provoked along the way and may reach its own tipping point into civil conflict first. In the event of such conflict assimilation offers less prospect of a clean resolution than multiculturalism. Still, que sera.
It was but for a brief, glorious moment that I thought guessedworker had written a comment that I could agree with… first paragraph… hmmm, sort of… second paragraph… absolutely! third paragraph… alas, cruel Hope, with what casual disdain you dash sweet Charity on the rocks of reality: he is back to the same old phrenology of race, the same irrationalist drone that flies in the face of the reality of the high street, filled with utterly British black and brown faces. Oh well.
Perry, after reading your comment re Guessed Worker’s piece, I wonder what the heck you will say about my comment…..
When multicuturalists put forward the reason for immigration, as being a need for workers to do the low paid and menial jobs that the incumbent population will not do, I cannot help thinking that this is the exact same reason that the slave-owners of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries might have used as an excuse for using the many unwilling immigrants at that time. Then, they were ‘owned’ by individuals, now they are as good as owned by the State. Morally there is little difference, except for the degree of hypocrisy involved today.
Slavery was wrong then, and is just as wrong now, changing the job description fron ‘slave’ to ‘immigrant’, doesn’t make it better.
The only real difference is the degree of coercion, then it was a whip, now it is bribery in the form of welfare state freebies. Ultimately the effect is the same, the creation of a large underclass of citizen, living in ghettoes and not even attempting to assimilate, or in extreme cases not even learning the language. All the while breeding a feeling of resentment from both the host and the immigrant. A serious problem by any standards, and one not easily solved, especially when assimilation has not been achieved by the second or third generation of ‘incomers’.
As the item points out, assimilation works when the government doesn’t interfere with it’s knee-jerk, narrow- minded legislation. “Melting pot’ policies work when time is allowed for them to work.
That these sort of ideas (problems), are foisted on citizens by government degree, and when they ultimately fail, the citizens are the ones who have to solve the problem or have to live with it. shows just how irresponsible and incompetent our modern Western European leaders really are.
There are no winners in this game, the incomers are disappointed and become resentful, the hosts are appalled at the primitive lifestyles of the newcomers, especially when there is no attempt at assimilaton, and also become resentful of the sacrifices that have to be made in the name of multi-culturalism.
Government is not just nobodies friend, they are a total and utter screw-up, without exception.
Does this mean that Enoch Powell was basically correct all those years ago when he gave his famous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech? I have no doubt that EP was personally dismissive of immigrants – which is bigoted but also irrelevant. His main point was that a country can accept immigration and benefit from it greatly – but only so long as the rate of change is kept within a manageable limit. He foresaw problems from the dramatic rise in numbers coming from ex-colonial lands after the Second World War.
It seems in the UK we have a mixed story to tell. In many parts the 2nd generation immigrants are basically no different culturally from anyone else. You might sit next to a Rajiv or a Denzel at work but they share a common perspective. This is a good thing. We also have a parallel world where racial ghettoes have come to be (Bradford, parts of Oldham, etc) as a result of accelerated immigration where brides, friends and personal networks are not sought locally but from the mother country – with dire social consequences.
My guess is that immigration has no inherent drawbacks- probably quite the opposite – as long as it proceeds at a digestible pace.
“[The] meagre cultural (not political) attainments of America.”
hahahahahahahahahahaha! meagre cultural attainments.
yeah right.
May a Dutch-born reader chime in?
30-40 years ago, when the Dutch began thier grand experiment with multi-culturalism, they modelled it on the watchword of their social welfare system – ‘Het Moet Kunnen’, a phrase which has two meanings – ‘It Must Be Possible’ and “It Will Be Made Possible’.
The Dutch are a remarkably tolerant and inclusive people – you have to be nice when all you have is sand and tulips – which may explain why their effort has not quite degenerated into the criminal sinks of the ‘cites’ of France. The other thing which may explain it is that they addressed the problems by simply turning a fire-hose of money onto them, essentially buying the complaisance of the immigrant population with a standard of living which would have made the Sun King blink in amazement.
But that appreasement led where appeasement always led. Assimilation decreased instead in increasing, Turks and Molluccans retreated into sullen, deprived ghettoes and shored up their cultures instead of acquiring the larger culture, and they became ever more strident in their demands from a society which was apparently quite ready to give them whatever they wanted in the name of multiculturalism.
Several incidents have brought this to a head. Apart from the fact that the drain on the economy was getting tougher and tougher to carry. Pim Fortuyn was an obvious example, although what happened to him was not a direct outcome of this situation. Just last week, a Turkish schoolboy shot a teacher dead after he felt that his honour had been affronted by the teacher’s correction.
The immigrant community did not learn well enough that while the Dutch are marvellously generous in what they think is a good cause, the people are still infused with a Calvinist and missionary mindset straight out of the 19th century – namely, that those less fortunate, who take their help, should be properly grateful and should show a decent regard for the larger social goal of assimilation. I detect a tide of change in the populace, which sees their money thrown at minorities who will never assimilate and have no intention of doing so.
llamas humble prediction – in less than 5 years, significant reductions in social welfare for immigrants, significant restrictions on family-related immigrations, incuding such things as ‘anchor babies’ and imported spouses, and significant deportations. The Dutch have had enough.
llater,
llamas
Australia has been pretty smart about its migrant intake, accepting a small percentage of many cultures so that most cultures had to avoid the ghetto mindset – until PC got in the way and slowed down the process.
To the left, all non Western cultures are in touch with themselves, each other, the planet, – the universe even. But poor old whitey’s culture (male, that is) is just SINFULL. Never matter that they were all living off whitey culture.
Tragically, the only immigrant culture that actually bought this crap in Australia was the Muslim culture, not because it actually analysed anything, but because this culture seems to have the most difficulty releasing the trappings of the past.
But I am still optomistic. You can always rely on sexual attraction to cross the cultural divide, however slowly.
Llamas: Thank you for a very informative comment.
Yes. Llamas
Very informative.
Patrick W,
Just a small point, Enoch Powell was a very highly intellectual man and a scholar of some repute, and like so many of his ilk in Academia, he had a dismissive attitude to everyone and anyone not on the same intellectual plane as himself, and not just to immigrants. Unfortunately, this trait frequently comes across as arrogance, when the intention was anything but.
This characteristic left him wide open to personal attacks from the media and others, who were only too happy to cry ‘racist’, which, incidentally, seems to be the standard cry when any discussion of this sensitive matter is attempted.
Ernest Young,
Excellent point. I also agree fullheartedly that it is almost impossible in the UK to have a meaningful discussion or express anything other than a cliched PC opinion on matters of race and immigration without things rapidly descending into a slanging match with the inevitable accusations of ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ or ‘Hitler’ appearing after about 3 nanoseconds.
Llamas, Ernest:
Thanks for those informative, well-written posts. Race, religion, and language are fault lines in any society. Put too much stress on any one of them and the society may fracture, with some ugly consequences attendant. Non-assimilating Muslim immigrants…major source of stress.
In the spirit of Ambrose Bierce, I’d like to offer a 21st Century definition of the word “racist.” Racist (n): a person of conservative/libertarian views who is winning an argument with a person of liberal/socialist views. See also bigot.
Chuckle, Dan…
Assimilation starts with language, and is mostly language. I hope the Dutch focus on schools, in Dutch (and English? OR English?), and speaking Dutch as a pre-requisite for immigrating, and for getting benefits.
National work schemes as a duty for those who receive benefits might be good, too.
Big ghettos are terrible, but small communities needed, since friendly support is so effective in the West. And it will be very interesting, in the budget crunching coming, to see how the Dutch react to the fact that coercion is usually much cheaper than bribes.
Hmmm.
I’d have to say that I agree with GuessedWorker to a point. However that statement “De-cultured peoples lose a great wealth, the surest proof of which is to be found in the meagre cultural (not political) attainments of America.” is frankly entirely untrue. I won’t bother listing all of the cultural “attainments” of America as it would list longer than anyone would care to read. The fact is that aboriginal cultures are far too often viewed in overly romantic terms. What is generally forgotten, in the inevitable rush to condemn, is that the aboriginal culture is often extremely unpleasant and usually brutal.
Here in America there are many people who wax eloquent about the Native Americans. All the while ignoring the robbery, rape, murder, genocide, lack of decent sanitation, starvation, famine and slavery. All of which were in evidence long before any colonists arrived on these shores. Fact is that those aboriginals who successfully assimilate have lives far better than those that do not. Additionally it is not that difficult to assimilate and still maintain a sense of culture and self along with the myriad customs and tribalisms. Only those that actually violate statutes or break the law are unacceptable.
Aside from that I agree that there are only a few specific paths available to Europe.
1. Specifically import immigrants who will assimilate to offset those that simply won’t.
2. Halt all immigration.
2.a. Impose a “Singles” tax on those native citizens that aren’t married.
2.b. Impose a “Childless” tax on those native citizens married but without children.
2.c. Provide tax relief for those native citizens, married or not, who do have children.
3. Force assimilation on an unwilling immigrant population.
3.a. Impose an official national language and restrict all other languages to religious observances only.
3.b. Impose tax burdens on areas identified as immigrant “ghettos” to force the immigrants to migrate and spread out.
3.c. Impose tax burdens on immigrants who have more than 3 children.
Frankly none of them are attractive and inevitably it would lead to civil war or mass revokation of citizenship and deportations. Even then I’m not at all certain that any of #2 could be done at all.
*shrug* it is quite a problem.
Tom Grey wrote:
‘I hope the Dutch focus on schools, in Dutch (and English? OR English?), and speaking Dutch as a pre-requisite for immigrating, and for getting benefits.’
In the words of the old saw – your honour has the right to hope. But it would be in vain. In the Netherlands, multiculturalism is as entwined with bi-lingual education as it is in the US.
‘National work schemes as a duty for those who receive benefits might be good, too.’
I seem to recall that this was an integral part of the immigration scheme that Australia put in place to handle penniless DP’s after WW2. I think it was called the ‘New Australian” program – 2 years of directed labour. Perhaps some upside-down person can enlighten . . .
llater,
llamas
ed proposes (quick version):
“…impose…tax…”
Hmm, no. I rate this solution as “shitty”.
I think the sad truth is that any meaningful solution will be painful–quite painful. As I said before, the leftist/statist/multiculti scum love to do their experiments, even if everybody has to pay later. And never, ever think they will learn from their mistakes. That’s what makes them so supremely dangerous.
The Dutch have had enough.
llamas, one can only hope that this is true.
My gut feeling, though, is that the political classes, academia and Press haven’t yet had enough.
We have the same problem here in the U.S., and it’s only because we have more than sand and tulips that the problem hasn’t become as apparent.
P.S. You forgot beer. Never forget the beer.
Good luck.
Two further thoughts on the prospects for assimilation in Europe.
First, Europe’s third-world immigrants did not come for a piece of our culture but for a piece of our prosperity. This is not so with the classical immigrant to the US who accepts Americanisation pretty wholeheartedly, respects the flag, sings the anthem with his hand on heart etc. That is what assimilation means, and I can’t see much likelihood of it in Europe.
Anyway, the decades of multiculturalism bestowed a certain settlement upon immigrant populations. They have felt perfectly entitled to maintain their own mores and language. Assimilation must imply an end to that entitlement or it is nothing. I agree, therefore, with the commenters above about the necessity for a carrot or a stick to induce change here. Whether any carrot or stick can, in fact, do so is another matter.
Second, in what condition will political correctness survive the death of multiculturalism and identity politics. If it doesn’t or if it is substantially weakened (which seems the most likely) native European peoples wil surely be able to think, speak and act a little more freely. What does this portend?
Well, hang on to your keyboard, Perry, and remember that this is nothing to do with the tenets of libertarianism.
No European people asked to share its country with foreigners from right across the globe. Force equal to the task of making them do so has had to be applied by the ruling liberal elites.
Consider the motion of a pendulum. The central point is the broad racial singularity that one has associated with Europe for centuries. The aforementioned application of force has swung the pendulum away towards racial admixture. If the force wavers the future direction of swing is at best questionable. A free(er) people, indeed, may yearn for it to swing back because that is the gravitational direction. If this yearing is denied it is even possible – I think probable – that a few people in some countries will be able to apply force to the pendulum and swing it far into the other direction.
Overall, the risks of assimilation are no less than those of multiculturalism. Both come down to changing the racial basis of Europe’s population.
A couple of years ago I read a really interesting article in a Polish newspaper on some of the problems of Dutch immigration.
One argument put forward by a Dutch official was that the Dutch have sort of a national inferiority complex which has tended to prevent them from encouraging (must less insisting) that immigrants assimilate or accomodate Dutch language or culture. They think of themselves as a small unimportant country with an unimportant language, who are _they_ to tell immigrants how to behave?
There’s more immigration to Poland (where I live) than you might expect partly from the ex-USSR, partly from Vietnam and partly from the Moslem world (more or less equally divided between Turks and Arabs). Fortunately the lack of social services tends to mean that immigrants are mostly small-scale business people for whom non-assimilation is not an option. Assimilation is too strong a word, maybe accomodation would be more fitting.
Guesedworker: “Overall, the risks of assimilation are no less than those of multiculturalism. Both come down to changing the racial basis of Europe’s population.”
Uh? Racial danger?
I can readily accept that culture can be dangerous. However, foreign ways aren’t per se much more than picturesque. One needs a specific problem to worry about.
It seems however a very strange idea to me that people who look a bit different but think and behave much as I do present any danger.
You could plausibly claim that, because of the way they are handled nowadays, newcomers will tend to be assimilated into the welfarist culture and reinforce its hegemony. That they can be turned into a client class of the state. It is true that socialist strategists have long tried to do precisely that. But that’s a contingent cultural danger of both assimilation and multiculturalism.
You never explain why you think what people look like matters.
Guy,
Nice to hear from you. You are right, of course, that I never cover the whole picture. I have said here and elsewhere that it isn’t my purpose to give too much but what I hope will be just enough.
To be blunt, blog-hoppers like us, be they left or right, are pretty well-educated and informed, seemingly middle-class, good communicators (a tad argumentative, perhaps, but for the most part entertainingly so) and, I like to think, welcome company over a pint. My assumption is that we can all think through these things for ourselves.
However, I estimate that we are fairly representative of only around 15% of the population. The other 85% we all know about but don’t necessarily know. That doesn’t matter in the slightest when one is railing against government waste, the sins of marxism or the demise of civil liberties. It matters much more on matters of race, since it is not really immigration policy but the slow and ineluctable dispossession and deracination of that 85% that is at issue. If you take Perry’s view that a brown England one hundred years from now is just a change in what people look like, you are demonstrating a profound disconnection from your people.
You might, therefore, answer your own question by asking the 85% whether they wish to see their children and their children’s children increasingly dispossessed and deracinated. They will not reply – as I would – that phenotype is an accurate indicator of human bio-diversity, and that h-bd has concrete, sociobiological implications for the future course of western civilisation. I hope that some, though, might ask why Europe’s peoples have to be sacrificed in this way. They might point out that if Chinese, Indians, Africans etc aren’t volunteering to share their genepools and their homelands with the rest of the world, why should we?
I hope I am being faithful to my own people, Guy. If someone can prove otherwise I will stand down. Until then I’ll keep blasting away and watching for signs that a few more of us chatterers are picking up the clues.
Kim du Toit – while I appreciate your words of personal encouragement, they are not required – I may not be the shiniest apple on the tree, but even I could see the way the wind was blowing, more than 20 years ago now, and I left the Dutch and the Brits to their immigration issues and became part of the US immigration ‘problem’. I now observe from a safe distance and by visiting, always with an iron grip on the return portion of my plane ticket.
Michael Farris wrote:
‘One argument put forward by a Dutch official was that the Dutch have sort of a national inferiority complex which has tended to prevent them from encouraging (must less insisting) that immigrants assimilate or accomodate Dutch language or culture. They think of themselves as a small unimportant country with an unimportant language, who are _they_ to tell immigrants how to behave?’
and I think there’s a lot to that. Not so much of an inferiority complex, perhaps, as a 500-year history of accepting and welcoming strangers and newcomers. Once again, when you make your living by trading rather than by natural resources and the like, you have to be able to deal with anyone and make it pay.
The language thing is a big part of it. Because nobody speaks Dutch but the Dutch – and even what Kim du Toit can speak is quite aways away from Dutch – we’ve always had to be polyglot. It’s a very strange Dutchman who can’t get along very well in at least one other language, with English being far and away the most common. A schoolkid who speaks grammatically perfect English (albeit with an accent) is unremarkable in NL. For that reason, although there’s a strong culture of literature in the native tongue, there’s never been a culture of exclusivity about it. Railway station bookstalls stock the latest English paperback novels right alongside the Dutch books – a thing one will seldom see in any other nation.
Interesting – keep talking.
llater,
llamas
llamas: “and I think there’s a lot to that. Not so much of an inferiority complex, perhaps, as a 500-year history of accepting and welcoming strangers and newcomers. Once again, when you make your living by trading rather than by natural resources and the like, you have to be able to deal with anyone and make it pay.”
Right, people who have to live by their wits learn quickly to not be too assertive or overbearing.
I was writing from memory and maybe ‘inferiority complex’ isn’t the right expression. (I can’t remember the exact words of the original article).
llamas :”The language thing is a big part of it. Because nobody speaks Dutch but the Dutch”
Well no other colonial power seemed to be as utterly indifferent about the idea of spreading their native language than the Dutch.
Dutch might not be a widespread language, but I think it’s high time that the Dutch government decided that long time residents in the Netherlands need to be able to speak, read and write it.
Finally, I tend to blame the ‘multicultural’ strawman less than others here. I think one thing that happened is that the Dutch just weren’t used to thinking of their country as an immigration destination and didn’t _really_ think of the new arrivals as permanent, so they treated them the way they’d always treated guests, by being accomodating. Hopefully it’s sunk in now that many of these people aren’t leaving and they need to be accomodating too.
I think one thing that happened is that the Dutch just weren’t used to thinking of their country as an immigration destination
Ditto for the English, never could understand anyone who would give up a warm congenial climate to come and live in the abominal, dingy, grey, rainy and utterly depressing English climate.
It’s gotta be the handouts….:-)
Europeans are far too sentimental (and patronizing) in their attitudes toward immigrants. They look at them and go, “Oh, those poor Third World people, we must help them in every way we can.” Which just infantilizes them.
Americans tend not to be very sentimental about immigrants. Start talking about special programs and accommodations for immigrants and you’ll get a rash of people saying, “My grandfather came here in 1890 from Poland and he didn’t speak a word of English. He lived in a slum and worked 18 hours a day and then went to school at night to learn English on top of that. If my grandfather can do that why can’t these people?”
The other side of that is the American is almost always willing to welcome a new immigrant as being as ‘American” as himself. “My grandfather came here in 1890 from Poland for a better life, who am I to look down on somebody else coming here for a better life?”
Europe looks at the US and dimly perceives that the immigrant culture is an integral part of its success, but doesn’t get quite why that is. It tries to copy the US as an immigrant culture but never seems to get it quite right. Being an immigrant culture is a lot more than simply opening the floodgates and letting a bunch of people in, willy nilly.
It also makes quite a bit of difference that in the USA they are not trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot.
In the UK, most of the immigration problems arise from overcrowding.
e.g.
England is 50,332 sq.miles, with approx. 58,000,000 pop.
Florida is 58,560 sq.miles, with 18,000,000 pop.
Georgia is 59,441 sq.miles, with 8,500,000 pop,
Most of the USA has similar density levels.
The UK is overcrowded, in spite of the opinion of some Samizdatistas that it is not. To force people to live in such close proximity is bound to cause upsets, disagreements, confloptions, and every other sort of aggravation that you can think of.
As the indigenous UK population got to approximately 50,000,000 the birthrate started to fall, as a natural result of the environment being ‘full’. These things have a way of happening in nature…
Our government, in it’s infinite wisdom, decided that this was a bad thing, and opened the doors to all and sundry, thereby exacerbating the overcrowding problem, which was the original problem to start with.
Talk about finding wrong answers to problems, this one surely takes the biscuit..
It always amazes me how political dogma will always win over common sense. No mistake is too large for our Leaders to deny it’s very existence, and to heap further error upon error, in the search for a ‘solution’, until the problem is so large that there can be no equitable answer.
And they call this a democracy….
Ernest,
Nice point about Nature and the limits of population.
Small correction, however, on the original motive for opening the flood gates. After WW2 the Soviet Army sat 1,000,000+ strong on the borders of the free world. Bernard Montgomery argued that we needed a standing army of 500,00 men, hence conscription, hence no low-grade workforce. So our beloved rulers put us, essentially, into the present-day mess because they were – or felt themselves to be – forced by external threat. As is the way of the world, the external threat went away, if it ever existed in the sense that post-war governments feared. Meanwhile we face a far more serious internal threat as a direct result – a threat championed, of course, by transnational progressivism.
GuessedWorker,
Re conscription, I thought that all medically qualifying males had to do their stint. Therefore the lack of a ‘low grade’ workforce really does not apply, as young men of all grades of skill were involved, – not that there were jobs for all of them. I always felt that NS was kept going, to prevent masses of unemployed youths from roaming the streets and causing mayhem, as is the case now, although I am not advocating conscription as an answer to the ‘yob’ problem.
The effect of National Service was more one of completing the education of a large number of naive and callow youths, and turning them into self-reliant, independent minded individuals,
They were not prepared to return to the ways of pre-war society in Great Britain. They had peeked through the curtain, and they liked what they saw…
Two years of National Service was better than a university education, you got the confidence, without the ego trip and delusions of self importance.
Conscription was ended in 1957 by the Eden government.
The first government sponsored immigration was from the West Indies, and was purportedly, to supplement staffing the London Transport system, which at that time was suffering badly from communist led strikes, which paralysed London far too frequently.
Their real purpose was to act as ‘strike breakers’, and, as I remember it, it was a Tory government that implemented the scheme in the early fifties.
Sorry to be so pedantic, but this is my lifetime we are talking about here, and the memories are still very vivid.
Hello Ernest,
Conscription was ended in 1919 and begun again in 1939, in response to the imminence of war. So the idea of it being basically a means of giving over-active young men something comnstructive and character-forming to do is a falsehood. The Attlee government was in no ways militaristic (for example it refused to grant Bomber Command aircrew a Campaign Medal). It had no interest in conscription as such. But Montgomery’s analysis of the communist threat left it NO choice. After the unpreparedness of the pre-war years no British government could again open itself up to allegations of complacency. If a 500,000-strong standing army was required, then so be it.
Just to clean up the immigration side of the debate, the Windrush docked at Tilbury on June 22nd 1948, firmly in the Labour period. That date, incidentally, was just two days before Stalin precipitated the Berlin Airlift so east-west the tension was at its hieght.
I think the ticket-collector image of early West Indian employment here might have been a bit of government spin. Your suggestion of Tory strike-breaking methods in the fifties has the ring of truth to it. I don’t doubt that this happened. But the immigration process was already well underway so strike-breaking would seem unlikely to have been causative. I really think Monty and the Russians is a better bet.
“Europe looks at the US and dimly perceives that the immigrant culture is an integral part of its success, but doesn’t get quite why that is. It tries to copy the US as an immigrant culture but never seems to get it quite right. Being an immigrant culture is a lot more than simply opening the floodgates and letting a bunch of people in, willy nilly. ”
One of the big “secrets” of successful 19th Century American immigration is that we “opened the floodgates” but didn’t give the newcomers any “help” when they got here. It was sink or swim, and the ones that couldn’t cut it went home or never showed up in the first place. Of course, we also didn’t forbid the construction of cheap housing, overtax them or their employers, impose a minimum wage, overtime pay, or benefits, or otherwise interfere with their plans to work and buy things as they saw fit.
If we returned to that model, I think we could let in a lot more people without breaking a sweat, and also wind up with most of our immigrants supporting themselves and contributing to our society.