why did the west commit to multiculturalism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Multiculturalism: where other, non indigenous people have come and transplanted all their own culture along with them, not to meld with the native culture, but to be a separate entity.

In its most extreme form different clothing, different language, no desire to intermarry and whose descendants do not view themselves as from the country they were born in either.

A simple example. I am English. Is that Viking, Saxon, Celt, Roman, French, Danish or one of possibly a dozen others? I neither know nor care. A colleague of mine defines herself as Tamil. Born in Slough. She has certainly integrated to a degree but she refuses to describe herself as English even though she is as English as I am, as we were both born here.

When she has spoken of finding a husband she would either look to other Tamils in the UK or go back to Sri Lanka (go back? She never lived there!) to find one.

It is this outlook that I am opposed to.

~:smoking:

---

good description of the problem; are you my familiy, with a commitment to me and mine, whom i can rely upon to act in a predictable and acceptable way in times of hardship? if "yes", it is worth my while extending the same commitment to you!

A quarter of the population in my neighbourhood is Indian or Sri Lankan (roughly 20% & 5% respectively). A lot of the guys I work with in IT are also Indian/Sri Lankan/Pakistani/Fijian Indian. Quite a few still marry in arranged marriages particularly if they are their parents immigrated here. My guess is that the second and third generation will be a lot more intermingled. Mind you I think if I was a short vegan who belived in mythical powers I'd need my parents to help me score a girl too...

I also know walking around the city that there are a mixed couples with an Indian partner. Strangely enough it seems a higher percentage of these are the tall, muscular Indian guys.

I think a lot of it comes down to girls will only go out with a taller partner... not racism, heightism.

Oh, I'm sure they'll enjoy snacking on white meat, but will they marry them?

~:smoking:

@ Adrian II; I'm not sure about commitment, she sounds like she should be committed. Ten years looking for a partner to marry! Jeez loads of people have married, had kids, got divorced and married again in less time than that. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So just getting some of the fact sorted out. Slavery did exist post Roman Empire in Europe: Check.

Slavery in Europe was dieing out in the 15th Century in favour of serfdom (economic not iron clad slavery).
Some of the Nation States profited from slavery on and off right up to the mid 19th century. Check.

---

Owning someone's life is different to owning someone's body, in medieval Europe slavery and Serfdom could mean the same thing, English slaves prior to the Conquest probably had more rights than English peasents thereafter. My point was, and remains, that the "slavery" practiced from antiquity onwards was completely different from the racial slavery blacks were subjected to in the following centuries. In America you could point at a Black man and say "he's mine" and he was your slave, he had no rights.

That's true for the menfolk but given Fragony's definition of slavery:
"If you want it to be, 19th century serfdom in Russia was basically the last of what is close to slavery in Europe. Poor working conditions, all times. But not real slavery, where someone is your property by law "

Quote:

---

When did the women cease being the property of their fathers/brothers/husbands?

---

Really early in Iceland, really late in Britian, somewhere in the middle in the Netherlands. We're talking a 1,000 year bracket here. Still, men never "owned" their wives, they simply controlled their assetts. Under Roman Law women had assetts of their own, under Christian Law husband and wife "owned" each other in perpetuity, just like a feudal land grant, and the husband just had all the control.

Not saying it was great being a woman then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Oh, I'm sure they'll enjoy snacking on white meat, but will they marry them?

~:smoking:

---

Actually I was thinking of the couples with kids... and most of them had asian wives (chinese)...except for the really tall indian guys... which was my point about heightism not racism being more prevalent... a lot of our prejudices are when looked into not as simple as skin colour.

For instance alliteration is common in naming kids. It's also more common for partners to marry someone with a similar sounding name/syllables then just chance would indicate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Multiculturalism = xenophilae

---

Xenophiloi would be the correct spelling, or Xenophiles if you want it part English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Really early in Iceland, really late in Britian, somewhere in the middle in the Netherlands. We're talking a 1,000 year bracket here. Still, men never "owned" their wives, they simply controlled their assetts. Under Roman Law women had assetts of their own, under Christian Law husband and wife "owned" each other in perpetuity, just like a feudal land grant, and the husband just had all the control.

Not saying it was great being a woman then.

---

Also one of those blurry issues. I would say that the last remanant is when marital rape became a formal crime (were the Soviets were early to do interestingly enough), starting in the 1960-ties outside the communist block.

Widows had considerble power of their own and the grip on unmarried women started to be loosened during the industrialism, that indirectly caused marriage age to go up -> They started to be able to work and support themselves.

Men stopped owning their women when our women left the kitchen and entered the workforce.

So, 1968.

Women had left for the workforce in certainly WW2 if not WW1.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Women had left for the workforce in certainly WW2 if not WW1.

~:smoking:

---

The majority of women were still housewives in the 50's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Multiculturalism: where other, non indigenous people have come and transplanted all their own culture along with them, not to meld with the native culture, but to be a separate entity.

---

Ok, sure. I'm going to a pain in the arse, and ask you to be a bit more specific; how do you define "separate entity"? Is it on a group or an individual basis? Are, say, the British Chinese who live in various Chinatowns, despite identifying as British, examples of this? If so, why does this arrangement constitute a problem?

Quote:

---

In its most extreme form different clothing, different language, no desire to intermarry and whose descendants do not view themselves as from the country they were born in either.

---

This is something which will change with time, I think and assume. If you look at the USA, throughout the late 19th and early 20th century, there are plenty of examples of nativist Americans who dissaproved of the Irish, Germans, Italians, Japanese etc. all bringing those traits over to the United States. Gradually, those differences have blurred and faded to the point where "hyphenated-American" is for the vast majority of Americans now a mere semantic expression.

The one thing which they did adopt was the United State's citizenship, as it was so easy to acquire. This helped speed assimilation and integration, and is why I think a tolerant approach would be more successful than any attempts at forced integration.

Quote:

---

A simple example. I am English. Is that Viking, Saxon, Celt, Roman, French, Danish or one of possibly a dozen others? I neither know nor care. A colleague of mine defines herself as Tamil. Born in Slough. She has certainly integrated to a degree but she refuses to describe herself as English even though she is as English as I am, as we were both born here.

When she has spoken of finding a husband she would either look to other Tamils in the UK or go back to Sri Lanka (go back? She never lived there!) to find one.

---

Tamils are a special case, given that their sense of nationhood is particularly sensitive, occasionally to the extent of rather unforgivable apologism for the LTTE. Depending on the sensitivity of the person in question, prodding them about it can be a fun game. That said, I get your point. Modern technology helps keep those ties stronger, for better or worse. However, these differences will fade with time. I would be genuinely surprised if her kids, who would presumably grow up in the UK will feel the same way. After all, we've seen the same arguments used towards various immigrants to this country - Jews from Eastern Europe, Huguenots, Irish, German Lutherans, Africans, African-Caribbean etc. All have effectively assimilated into a British society that has changed to accommodate them.

Yes, you are right. Chinatown is probably an aberration as they were the first group to keep completely separate. But they do view themselves as British and obey British laws. Most of those who went to the USA wanted to be Americans, and tried to fit in.

England is a mongrel nation. English is a mongrel language. A melting pot where peoples have come and dissolved in to make a stronger alloy. The most important fact is coming to be included.

Big blobs that do not dissolve are not wanted (please, if there any material scientists out there, spare us the importance of variable crystal sizes in preventing sheer fractures in ceramics...).

Historically there was probably one influx in at the most a decade. Ties to the "homeland" would be tenuous and so assimilation was pretty guaranteed. Now fluxes are that much quicker and ties (if wanted) to the "homeland" are vastly stronger. I was at a registry office with a Pakistani and his bride fresh from the Homeland. he was told that he had to leave a notice for a number of days before he could get married. He was quite upset that this couldn't be skipped - he did not appear to be one to let English Law to interfere - yet he's apparently integrated enough to have a Passport; at the ceremony to get one's British passport a decent number of the persons couldn't speak enough to get through the ceremony!

~:smoking:

'Ok, sure. I'm going to a pain in the arse, and ask you to be a bit more specific; how do you define "separate entity"? Is it on a group or an individual basis? Are, say, the British Chinese who live in various Chinatowns, despite identifying as British, examples of this? If so, why does this arrangement constitute a problem?'

Are there already 'you are entering a budhist area' posters there. Chinese just live here, I once heard they are from China, can anyone comfirm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Are there already 'you are entering a budhist area' posters there.

---

Um, Chinese would probably install a daoist area. With signs like 'Caution, non-violent guards' and 'All gets done by doing nothing'.

And imagine the food, man, imagine the godly food.

AII

And the opiates. Sherlock's dream.

Yes but still. I think it's all pretty simple, the islam just proves that multiculture is a flawed concept. Unacceptable to the babyboomer generation, their parents could hardly read so they aren't used to not-so-stupid people disagreeing. Ever met a anthropologist who is not an anthropologist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Um, Chinese would probably install a daoist area. With signs like 'Caution, non-violent guards' and 'All gets done by doing nothing'.

And imagine the food, man, imagine the godly food.

AII

---

This all depends. Are we dealing with good Atheist Chinese who love big brother?

Taoism is on the decline in China and more and more people (who are actually religious) are becoming Buddhist's. Mostly Mahayana.

Have you ever been to a Chinatown? Not friendly places to giant white Dutchmen like yourself and most certainly not peaceful places. :clown:

I'm only 1.84 Asians are just small. And a bit girly I might add

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

This all depends. Are we dealing with good Atheist Chinese who love big brother?

---

We are dealing with my attempt at a joke. Nothing more.

I have been to a few Chinatowns. San Francisco was nice, XIII in Paris too. Had no problem at all, and I'm quite a tall Dutchman.

AII

And I was joking as well. Chinatown's and in fact most ethnic neighborhoods are a nightmare to investigate a crime in. Try living in one. It wouldn't be the most welcoming of environments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

And I was joking as well. Chinatown's and in fact most ethnic neighborhoods are a nightmare to investigate a crime in. Try living in one. It wouldn't be the most welcoming of environments.

---

What makes you assume there aren't any here, you will find Chinese quarters in evey western-europian city. Crime, not noticed any

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I'm only 1.84 Asians are just small. And a bit girly I might add

---

Same, and yes in general... particularly some of the Thai ones.generally the Thai girls are quite pretty... just be careful around the very pretty ones. :kiss2: :creep: She walks like a women... :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What makes you assume there aren't any here, you will find Chinese quarters in evey western-europian city. Crime, not noticed any

---

Where did I say western Europe didn't have china towns :rolleyes: i am tired of things being pulled out of thin air.

Gangs and human trafficking are bad in Chinatowns and people often tend not to talk to those from "outside"

Quote:

---

What makes you assume there aren't any here, you will find Chinese quarters in evey western-europian city. Crime, not noticed any

---

Bull. Two seconds of Google.

In fact, recently I read Rob Wijnberg's book "Nietzsche en Kant lezen de krant". He also pointed out the presence of illegal casinos in most Chinese restaurants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Bull. Two seconds of Google.

In fact, recently I read Rob Wijnberg's book "Nietzsche en Kant lezen de krant". He also pointed out the presence of illegal casinos in most Chinese restaurants.

---

Thank you Hax.

Eh, at least I chose the academic way. Could have picked the musician's way:

"Criminal activity in Chinatown? It is a tale, best explained in song!"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLRTcoJMKBE

I witnessed a huge gang fight in a Chinatown neighborhood. It got broken up by these three guys with big hats, but my truck got stolen. You wouldn't believe the hell I had to go through to get it back.

I never claimed any of what is being attributed to me. I simply call it like I see it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I witnessed a huge gang fight in a Chinatown neighborhood. It got broken up by these three guys with big hats, but my truck got stolen. You wouldn't believe the hell I had to go through to get it back.

---

Man, sounds like you were in big trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I never claimed any of what is being attributed to me. I simply call it like I see it

---

B..but you were right. Europeans really are all creepy little fascists, endlessly obsessing about the racial make-up of their own and of their neighbours.

I wish I would've come up with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

B..but you were right. Europeans really are all creepy little fascists, endlessly obsessing about the racial make-up of their own and of their neighbours.

I wish I would've come up with it.

---

At least somebody got the reference LOL

I will be a good boy I will be a good boy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Depends on what you mean by European. Most immigrants are still European after all. But if you narrow Europe a bit so that for example former Jugoslavia ends up as not European, then you're correct. So there's less than 90% of a western European population yes. (Swedish data is 14% foreign born, of those are 60% European. The group born with 2 immigrant parents makes this larger, but I'm not finding the data for that one. It exists but isn't at the same location).

---

Anything south of Rome and Valencia is Africa, anything east of Vienna is Asia. :book:

Only 14% may be foreign born, but most non-whites in Europe are European born. Percentage foreign born is not the same as percentage of non-whites, which is often what is meant meant when people speak of immigrants.
Immigrants usually immigrate at child-bearing age. Then they all breed like rabb Non-European immigrants of low social status commonly have high to very high birth rates. Two foreign born immigrants who arrived in 1971 may have spawned five, ten, twenty European born non-whites. The more, the lower the percentage of foreign born in that country will be.

There is an odd mechaniosm in Paris. Some of the wealthier areas have a very high percentage foreign born. These are mostly from the EU / highly educated / urban professionals / temporary inhabitants ranging from students to expats. Overwhelmingly upper class and white. Then there are areas where nearly everybody is French born. But the locals consist of low class natives and Africans, mostly third and fourth generation. A complete ghetto. Overwhelmingly lower class and Black / Beur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian

XIII

---

Try the XX for a fun race war between the East Asians and the Africans. Waging as we speak. The latter discovered the Asians carry lots of cash, because of their many dealings at the periphery of the law.
Unlike whites, the Chinese don't stand for mass racist plunder. They fight back. Stories abound of Arabs running to the police station with stolen goods, begging to be taken into custody, they're that afraid of the Chinese. Awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Bull. Two seconds of Google.

In fact, recently I read Rob Wijnberg's book "Nietzsche en Kant lezen de krant". He also pointed out the presence of illegal casinos in most Chinese restaurants.

---

All Chinese restaurants get shaken down by Chinese mafia, there is crime but it is among themselves, Chinese prefer to be unnoticed. You are perfectly safe in Chinese area's

@Centurion, misunderstood you, wasn't trying to put words in your mouth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I witnessed a huge gang fight in a Chinatown neighborhood. It got broken up by these three guys with big hats, but my truck got stolen. You wouldn't believe the hell I had to go through to get it back.

---

good job you have a granite jaw, it's tough down there in little china!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Anything south of Rome and Valencia is Africa, anything east of Vienna is Asia. :book:

Only 14% may be foreign born, but most non-whites in Europe are European born. Percentage foreign born is not the same as percentage of non-whites, which is often what is meant meant when people speak of immigrants.
Immigrants usually immigrate at child-bearing age. Then they all breed like rabb Non-European immigrants of low social status commonly have high to very high birth rates. Two foreign born immigrants who arrived in 1971 may have spawned five, ten, twenty European born non-whites. The more, the lower the percentage of foreign born in that country will be.

There is an odd mechaniosm in Paris. Some of the wealthier areas have a very high percentage foreign born. These are mostly from the EU / highly educated / urban professionals / temporary inhabitants ranging from students to expats. Overwhelmingly upper class and white. Then there are areas where nearly everybody is French born. But the locals consist of low class natives and Africans, mostly third and fourth generation. A complete ghetto. Overwhelmingly lower class and Black / Beur.

---

How does Poland count? :book:

Can't speak for Europe, but at least in Sweden the second generation is clearly integrating on average. That includes less children.

But you're right that they increase the number by around 40% in Stockholm (using the old definition of being second generation immigrant if one parent is an to immigrant) to around 37% (Stockholm is above average). I think total number is about 21% for "Swedes with foreign backround" that category. Debatable source, but I don't think they felt need to lie about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Anything south of Rome and Valencia is Africa, anything east of Vienna Bonn is Asia. :book:

---

Had to fix that.

Quote:

---

Unlike whites, the Chinese don't stand for mass racist plunder. They fight back. Stories abound of Arabs running to the police station with stolen goods, begging to be taken into custody, they're that afraid of the Chinese. Awesome.

---

It's the same in Russian enclaves. And Russkis are white. Anyhoo, I guess I should do the XX one of these years.

AII

Depends on the Russian, surely. Some are Black Slavs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Try the XX for a fun race war between the East Asians and the Africans. Waging as we speak. The latter discovered the Asians carry lots of cash, because of their many dealings at the periphery of the law.
Unlike whites, the Chinese don't stand for mass racist plunder. They fight back. Stories abound of Arabs running to the police station with stolen goods, begging to be taken into custody, they're that afraid of the Chinese. Awesome.

---

Bah it only takes a bit of back bone Louis, I remember back when Nigerian illegal immigration started to Ireland they thought they would own the place in a week, god help them but they were clueless the poor dears.

They soon had sore heads from been thrown through shop windows on Moore street, crime in Ireland is white an regulated by the RA, with plenty of white ghetto underclasses in Limerick and Crumlin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

They soon had sore heads from been thrown through shop windows on Moore street, crime in Ireland is white an regulated by the RA, with plenty of white ghetto underclasses in Limerick and Crumlin.

---

I can believe it. I've was visiting family over in Belfast for the last few days. Spent most of it in/around the Newtonards Road, and was in the Tigers Bay earlier today. You don't have to have brown people (TM) to have a ghetto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

They soon had sore heads from been thrown through shop windows on Moore street, crime in Ireland is white an regulated by the RA, with plenty of white ghetto underclasses in Limerick and Crumlin.

---

Irish "jobs" for Irish criminals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I think it had mostly to do with economics. Immigration tends to be heralded by the elite who prefer more people to rule over, cheaper goods and services domestically to compete with wages globally.. Certain nations were seeing major growth levels and most of those levels were from population booms. Most things are desired for financial gains and then sold to the public in ways that they will understand - guilt, new foods, new and better beard designs, etc.It was always funny have the first American states to allow women to vote, did so to fluff up their populations in congress. Other states saw this benefit and sold it to their people. Of course, there are already people who strongly believe in certain things and popular swells, but quite a bit of that is a new thing; things happening because people actually want it on their own.Look at nations who refuse to accept immigration- the ones who are seeing growth are the ones who have an invisible population that are now becoming visible, a simulated rural to urban immigration. The ones who are struggling have hit a wall where the entire population is now visible and dwindling.Mobile typing is a great excuse for poor paragraph form

---

I have a history of disagreeing with TuffStuffMcGruff, but I think he hit the nail on the head here. I think the primary driving factor for allowing immigration is because it allows a cheap labor supply to whatever industry needs it in the host country-- agriculture, low end service, whatever else. As to the 'policy rationalizations' for immigration, I doubt very much that politicians are sitting around hashing out the finer points of multiculturalism or the imperialist legacy of the west-- I'm sorry but the first two posters in this thread assigned WAY too high an assumption of education and IQ to the typical politician, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Irish "jobs" for Irish criminals?

---

indeed :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I have a history of disagreeing with TuffStuffMcGruff, but I think he hit the nail on the head here. I think the primary driving factor for allowing immigration is because it allows a cheap labor supply to whatever industry needs it in the host country-- agriculture, low end service, whatever else. As to the 'policy rationalizations' for immigration, I doubt very much that politicians are sitting around hashing out the finer points of multiculturalism or the imperialist legacy of the west-- I'm sorry but the first two posters in this thread assigned WAY too high an assumption of education and IQ to the typical politician, lol.

---

We've been waiting for you

Heya Strike! I still have some friendly Pm's from you saved in my inbox after all these years. ;) Been a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Irish "jobs" for Irish criminals?

---

The Quarians are coming to take our jobs!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

How does Poland count? :book:

Can't speak for Europe, but at least in Sweden the second generation is clearly integrating on average. That includes less children.

But you're right that they increase the number by around 40% in Stockholm (using the old definition of being second generation immigrant if one parent is an to immigrant) to around 37% (Stockholm is above average). I think total number is about 21% for "Swedes with foreign backround" that category. Debatable source, but I don't think they felt need to lie about that.

---

Are Swedish Finns counted on those numbers?

The sociological average of immigrant communities entering a host countries that applies across all groups is:

1) First generation NEVER loses their original tongue as a primary first language, and it is most usually the only language they speak in the home and with fellow community members.

2) Second generation is usually bilingual and often acts as translators for the first generation or grandparents or relatives.

3) Third generation has typically lost the original language and their strongest ties to the original culture of origin is food.

That's across all groups. There's of course going to be exceptions and outliers or cases where one community holds onto customs/language a bit longer or a bit shorter than average, but in the big general picture, that's the sociological fact when it comes to immigrant groups entering a larger host mainstream culture.

Whenever people talk about something like "oh but this group is different, they don't WANT to adapt", it's usually just prejudice dolled up as something else. First generation immigrants of any sort rarely WANT to lose their culture or language, however much there are instances of "well my grandaddy came here and learned English right away and refused to speak German" or whatever else, those were usually coping mechanisms for dealing with periods of time where there was a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment or whatever else, moreso than someone actually desperately wanting to shed their own background and heritage. But you can find groups of EVERY background bemoaning the loss of language and culture in their 2nd and 3rd generations after being in a new country... it's pretty much just an unavoidable happening.

These kinds of criticisms about "not wanting to adapt/learn our language/assimilate" are ALWAYS directed against the newest, least popular group. In Europe it's the Muslims, in the U.S. it's Spanish speakers. But I took Spanish classes in high school with *plenty* of 2nd and 3rd generation or even 1.5 generation Latino kids who could not fully speak or fully read and write their own "original language" outside of minor round-the-dinner-table conversational Spanish with mom and dad.

Why do "they don't WANT to adapt" arguments superficially appear to be valid? Because they're nearly always directed against new groups that are primarily first generation or the 2nd generation is fresh/kid/school age. But almost invariably the 2nd generation will have the host country language as their first language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Are Swedish Finns counted on those numbers?

---

You're a separate country are you not? Yes, it's the largest group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

The sociological average of immigrant communities entering a host countries that applies across all groups is:

1) First generation NEVER loses their original tongue as a primary first language, and it is most usually the only language they speak in the home and with fellow community members.

2) Second generation is usually bilingual and often acts as translators for the first generation or grandparents or relatives.

3) Third generation has typically lost the original language and their strongest ties to the original culture of origin is food.

---

Except that the current "Second Generation" Muslims in Britain and elsewhere are less integrated and appreciative of their host country than their parents. They are reactionary, in many cases very deeply, in a few murderously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Except that the current "Second Generation" Muslims in Britain and elsewhere are less integrated and appreciative of their host country than their parents. They are reactionary, in many cases very deeply, in a few murderously.

---

I think to greater or lesser degrees you could make virtually the same claim about any sizable ethnic enclave or group in a new host country, especially if looking over the worst elements or examples. People in the U.S. said exactly the same thing about ties to the mother country and the U.S. being ruled from Rome when the big recent groups were the Irish and Italians and both groups were rife with gang and mafia activity. Fast forward a few generations and the idea that they were regressive people who'd never blend into the mainstream is kinda silly.

But in specific you say they're less integrated. Are you seriously saying they speak less English than their parents' generation? Are less connected with English or British culture, despite growing up in it and going to British schools? That seems rather far fetched.

I think the reason is the first migrants were pure economic migrants who want the jobs, security but not the country as such.

America, probably because of its heritage, is very big on drumming into everyone they are Americans. Salute the flag, morning statement at school and also when becoming a citizen. Here there is none of that. America us undoubtedly changing with influxes of new people, but these are adding to the core rather than choosing enclaves.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I think the reason is the first migrants were pure economic migrants who want the jobs, security but not the country as such.

America, probably because of its heritage, is very big on drumming into everyone they are Americans. Salute the flag, morning statement at school and also when becoming a citizen. Here there is none of that. America us undoubtedly changing with influxes of new people, but these are adding to the core rather than choosing enclaves.

~:smoking:

---

With regards to the first generation that is quite correct I believe and one of the great myths in the U.S. is that people believe the "old immigrants", the "good ones" came here with awe on their faces wanting so much to be Americans. They came here as economic immigrants by a huge margin, just like today.