Far Too Little, and Far Too Late
Among Left-leaning ‘Hampstead’ liberals like me, there has long been what you might call a ‘discrimination assumption’ when it comes to the highly charged issue of immigration.
Our instinctive reaction has been that Britain is a relentlessly racist country bent on thwarting the lives of ethnic minorities, that the only decent policy is to throw open our doors to all and that those with doubts about how we run our multi-racial society are guilty of prejudice.
And that view — echoed in Whitehall, Westminster and town halls around the country — has been the prevailing ideology, setting the tone for the immigration debate...
In many places immigration is working as the textbooks say it should with a degree of harmony, with minorities upwardly mobile and creating interesting new hybrid identities in mixed suburbs.
But it has also resulted in too many areas in which ethnic minorities lead almost segregated lives — notably in the northern ‘mill towns’ and other declining industrial regions, which in the Sixties and Seventies attracted one of the most clannish minorities of modern times, rural Kashmiri Pakistanis.
In Leicester and Bradford, almost half of the ethnic population live in what are technically ghettos (defined as areas where minorities form more than two-thirds of the population). Meanwhile, parts of white working-class Britain have been left feeling neither valued nor useful, believing that they have been displaced by newcomers not only in the job market but also in the national story itself.
Those in the race lobby have been slow to recognise that strong collective identities are legitimate for majorities as well as minorities, for white as well as for black people.This is perhaps a perfect demonstration of the reason why certain denizens of the Manosphere, such as Anonymous Conservative, regard liberalism as literally a mental disorder. (I do not quite go that far, at least not yet; I tend to view liberals as well-meaning but irrational in the extreme, which I suppose is not that far removed from AC's definition...)
In order to believe the standard liberal tropes about multiculturalism, you literally have to ignore the accumulated weight of 7,000 years' worth of evidence telling you otherwise. It says something about the astonishing willful blindness of these people that they honestly didn't think that the white majority would not offer up some sort of backlash.
It gets better. Here's one of the funniest bits of the entire essay:
Like most white British people of my generation, I am happy living in a multi-racial society. I relish the fact that the immigration-related changes of the past few decades have been overwhelmingly accepted and even celebrated by white Britain.
Caribbean and Chinese men and women ‘marry out’ in large numbers, and there are many places where a cross-ethnic common life is the norm, especially among younger people.
But one of the challenges is how to allow older and poorer white people a safe space in which to express a sense of loss and homesickness for the past, without this mood spilling over into racism.
If that is not something approaching barking madness, I do not know what is. The idea that the vast majority of white Britons would be happy to have their ancestral homeland invaded by races and cultures that, for better or worse (often better, as it happens) were subjugated under the British Empire, is really quite hilarious.What, for example, do we say to the elderly white people of the Pollards Hill estate in Merton, in South-West London — which I visited on my travels — many of whom feel displaced and disrupted by the arrival of a large Ghanaian population in recent years?
Good luck trying to trot out the raciss card with me, by the way. I am of mixed race and ethnicity myself. I am a foreigner living in a country that I love, whatever its myriad faults, among a people that simultaneously amuse, infuriate, and amaze me. I am always conscious of the fact that I am a guest in this land, and I have no intention whatsoever to settle down here. The same cannot be said of most immigrants, who bring with them an attitude that their new country is now their home- but who do not abandon their own cultural assumptions and ideas when they come over. How can they? To do so is humanly impossible. And to expect the natives of another land to be comfortable with having their own land invaded by an alien culture is really a bit much.
One final thought on the subject of multiculturalism: liberal one-world types love to proclaim how wonderful it is that foreign invaders can bring their cultures to their new homes, and practise their customs alongside those of the natives. Perhaps the best answer I have ever seen to this particular brand of stupidity came from General Sir Charles Napier. When told of the Indian custom of sati (widow-burning), General Napier responded thusly:
This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.It seems safe to say that few, if any, widow-burnings ever took place during the time of Napier's rule in India.