[Archived] Extra ! Extra ! Read All About It !

[Paul]

I'm sure you're not the only one Tom. My neighbour came round about 5.00pm yesterday and said she was worried about taking her daughter to Royal Preston Hospital because of the bombs. I knew nothing about it at that stage and she gave me her version of events. I half expected Preston to be in bits!!.

Two interesting points here; my neighbour's summary bore little resemblance to the BBC Northwest report an hour later showing how quickly rumour spreads.

The second point, and I was very surprised by this coming from a friend of 30 years +, said "I know we shouldn't say it but there's a lot of Asians in Preston."

The manner in which parts of our media demonise Asians, and other immigrants, strongly influences a, regrettably increasing, section of society and is clearly demonstrated in that simple sentence.

The other related point is that as it apparently becomes more and more acceptable to classify migrants in this way, and publicly express it without challenge, widens the divisions which already exist here and throughout the western world.

There have been plenty of white terrorists in my time; Baader Meinhoff, The IRA, Timothy McVeigh, ETA, Red Brigade, INLA, UVF, Michael Page, Eric Rudolph to name a few.

[Pedro]

Probably a hover board going up in flames

😅

[yoda]

I'm sure you're not the only one Tom. My neighbour came round about 5.00pm yesterday and said she was worried about taking her daughter to Royal Preston Hospital because of the bombs. I knew nothing about it at that stage and she gave me her version of events. I half expected Preston to be in bits!!.

Two interesting points here; my neighbour's summary bore little resemblance to the BBC Northwest report an hour later showing how quickly rumour spreads.

The second point, and I was very surprised by this coming from a friend of 30 years +, said "I know we shouldn't say it but there's a lot of Asians in Preston."

The manner in which parts of our media demonise Asians, and other immigrants, strongly influences a, regrettably increasing, section of society and is clearly demonstrated in that simple sentence.

The other related point is that as it apparently becomes more and more acceptable to classify migrants in this way, and publicly express it without challenge, widens the divisions which already exist here and throughout the western world.

There have been plenty of white terrorists in my time; Baader Meinhoff, The IRA, Timothy McVeigh, ETA, Red Brigade, INLA, UVF, Michael Page, Eric Rudolph to name a few.

Non with the same mind set as IS though

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

The manner in which parts of our media demonise Asians, and other immigrants, strongly influences a, regrettably increasing, section of society and is clearly demonstrated in that simple sentence.

The other related point is that as it apparently becomes more and more acceptable to classify migrants in this way, and publicly express it without challenge, widens the divisions which already exist here and throughout the western world.

Large sections of the English public have wanted immigration to be tightly controlled for decades, and have always been more vociferous in talking to each other about it than the media tend to be. Its commonplace to blame the media for creating any unpalatable phenomena in society but in the case of immigration, the media represent a watered down version of fundamental opinions of many of the public. However I think you've lost a bit of perspective if you think the issue is getting worse. Look at the Burnley/Oldham riots for what was going on 15 years ago.

In my opinion, xenophobia is an evolutionary trait associated with the pre-historic security benefits of organising into family/tribal groups, that humans still haven't shaken off. You criticised the western world, but overall western societies and people are among the least racist on the planet. Africa has numerous ethnic and religious conflicts, minorities in India are being attacked by politically powerful focus right-wing Hindu groups, in most Islamic countries its illegal for immigrants to practice many of their own customs, xenophobic attacks in South Africa have increased since the ending of apartheid (now overwhelmingly by blacks on immigrants and whites).

Suppose what I'm getting at is the big picture here isn't as bad as it sometimes appears in a microcosm and is certainly nowhere near as bad as it could be. Of course that isn't to say there isn't room for improvement, but in my opinion the increasingly fast shift in the demographics of the country will achieve that naturally anyway. Xenophobia is the lazy option because as I said I think its evolutionarily hardwired into us, but in our society its fast approaching the point where its not the easy option. As a general rule, only small minorities in any group are targeted, large minorities are left alone. Look at how much the stigma of being fat or wearing glasses has decreased in recent years, and how much the stigma of having ginger hair or being Jewish has increased. That's simply down to the shifting percentage in society, 2 have increased out of the target zone, 2 have decreased into it.

In 2001 non-white people in Britain made up 8% of the population, in 2011 it was 13%. In just England it was 15% and the percentage of primary school pupils was 25%. With record immigration year on year and significantly higher birth rates amongst ethnic minorities, its not unreasonable to assume the figure is now at about 18% and will continue to accelerate until (in England at least) its at 25-30% within a couple of decades or less. At that point I don't see ethnic discrimination being an issue, I expect it will only rear its head again when white people drop to a small enough minority due to their declining birth rates.

[K-Hod]

Must admit, that's a very good post. ^^

[Steve Moss]

Large sections of the English public have wanted immigration to be tightly controlled for decades, and have always been more vociferous in talking to each other about it than the media tend to be. . . . .

In my opinion, xenophobia is an evolutionary trait associated with the pre-historic security benefits of organising into family/tribal groups, that humans still haven't shaken off.

. . .

In 2001 non-white people in Britain made up 8% of the population, in 2011 it was 13%. In just England it was 15% and the percentage of primary school pupils was 25%. With record immigration year on year and significantly higher birth rates amongst ethnic minorities, its not unreasonable to assume the figure is now at about 18% and will continue to accelerate until (in England at least) its at 25-30% within a couple of decades or less. At that point I don't see ethnic discrimination being an issue, I expect it will only rear its head again when white people drop to a small enough minority due to their declining birth rates.

First, I want you to know that I agree with K-Hod. That was a very good post.

Second, however, I want to play Devil's Advocate on 2 points you raised:

1. Xenophobia as an evolutionary trait. Under the survival of the fitness theory, doesn't that mean there are good, sound reasons for people being xenophobic? What has happened that supports disregarding our alleged xenophobia when it comes to immigration?

2. The rate of immigration, assuming your numbers are right, seems to be greatly accelerating. Why is this a good thing? Are the immigrants moving in to become British, or are they seeking benefits or safety? If a significant percentage are seeking benefits or safety, and don't necessarily want to become "British", doesn't that raise the possibility that whatever problems they are fleeing are at significant risk of being recreated in portions of England, if they become upwards of 30% of the population?

Personally, I think immigration is a healthy thing for society, if the immigrants desire to assimilate and the original inhabitants are willing to accept that assimilation. The more the merrier. But if one or the other group opposes assimilation, and immigrants arrive in sufficient numbers, then I suspect society will suffer.

Also, I suspect that our alleged xenophobia is less a problem than you might think. Even before mass immigration, tribes, etc., raided, traded, etc. That involved a mingling of bloodlines, which is a plus from an evolutionary standpoint (as it reduced the risk of inbreeding). What I suspect is going on is not a genetic based xenophobia but a resistance to shifting cultural norms (which can cut both ways, both in regards to the immigrants and the native inhabitants both being culturally xenophobic). The tribe is, in my opinion, less about the bloodline and more about behavioral patterns.

By way of example, an older generation is frequently dismissive of the habits and behaviors of a younger generation, even if they share the same DNA. The young male, who presents as the All American Boy, whether black or white, will quickly gain acceptance amongst his seniors as compared to the young male who presents as a "Gangsta".

Another example is my military service. We literally had every religion and skin color and ethnicity. It wasn't a problem despite the extremely high percentage of testosterone filled young males as the Marine Corps imposed it's culture on those young recruits (there was no black or white, only light green and dark green Marines, etc). There was one cultural norm and that was the USMC's, all others were to be disregarded. By contrast, civil society has no method of imposing a standard cultural norm so there is conflict.

Just a theory.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Agree with most of that, I don't think xenophobia as just an isolated concept is advantageous or even required in evolution. As you say, survival of the fittest requires a diverse genetic make-up in a species to adapt to a change in environment. The xenophobic element is (in my opinion) an unfortunate by-product of the huge evolutionary benefits of existing within a tribe, where adults could look after each other's children, hunt in parties etc. Regardless, evolution has halted now in all first and second world societies, people don't die before reaching reproductive age because they have asthma or bad eyesight or whatever, so the behaviours we needed to evolve (such as traditional gender roles), we don't need anymore. You may be right about the cultural hostility playing more of a role, but personally no idea what's driving that.

As for your other question. No I don't think mass immigration is a good thing. I think some erosion of western values and the re-introduction of a less tolerant, more religiously conservative society is virtually inevitable because of it. And the overpopulation that will also result will reduce everyone's standard of living. On principle, I'm not especially comfortable with having the view that my standard of living is more important than a migrant's, but at least I can admit that to me that's the case. I think a lot of those who loudly support the current (or increased) levels of immigration either aren't logical/pragmatic enough to even realise their standard of living will drop, or aren't willing to admit that it would bother them because they're pretty sure it'll never be put to the test.

Bob Geldof is a perfect example of that last point. The government should have turned up on his doorstep with 4 migrant families within an hour of him making the comment he would be happy to take some. They should have said, "here you go Bob, these people and their descendants may well live in your house for generations to come and you will be responsible for financially supporting them until they decide they don't want you to anymore". If his answer would have been anything other than an unqualified yes, then he's one of the many hypocritical mud-slingers on the issue that personally I can't stand.

[Baz]

Agree with most of that, I don't think xenophobia as just an isolated concept is advantageous or even required in evolution. As you say, survival of the fittest requires a diverse genetic make-up in a species to adapt to a change in environment. The xenophobic element is (in my opinion) an unfortunate by-product of the huge evolutionary benefits of existing within a tribe, where adults could look after each other's children, hunt in parties etc. Regardless, evolution has halted now in all first and second world societies, people don't die before reaching reproductive age because they have asthma or bad eyesight or whatever, so the behaviours we needed to evolve (such as traditional gender roles), we don't need anymore. You may be right about the cultural hostility playing more of a role, but personally no idea what's driving that.

As for your other question. No I don't think mass immigration is a good thing. I think some erosion of western values and the re-introduction of a less tolerant, more religiously conservative society is virtually inevitable because of it. And the overpopulation that will also result will reduce everyone's standard of living. On principle, I'm not especially comfortable with having the view that my standard of living is more important than a migrant's, but at least I can admit that to me that's the case. I think a lot of those who loudly support the current (or increased) levels of immigration either aren't logical/pragmatic enough to even realise their standard of living will drop, or aren't willing to admit that it would bother them because they're pretty sure it'll never be put to the test.

Bob Geldof is a perfect example of that last point. The government should have turned up on his doorstep with 4 migrant families within an hour of him making the comment he would be happy to take some. They should have said, "here you go Bob, these people and their descendants may well live in your house for generations to come and you will be responsible for financially supporting them until they decide they don't want you to anymore". If his answer would have been anything other than an unqualified yes, then he's one of the many hypocritical mud-slingers on the issue that personally I can't stand.

Without immigration, then the population would shrink, and you would have an aging population with less people to support it, so standards of living would be worse.

[Steve Moss]

Without immigration, then the population would shrink, and you would have an aging population with less people to support it, so standards of living would be worse.

I'm not sure this is true. It is true based on current trends, but the thing about trends is that they change.

I'm the eldest of 7. I have 2 children. Each of my siblings had between 0-4 kids. I've noticed with the next generation coming up, that they voice a preference for larger families. My children and my nieces and nephews all appear to want 3-5 kids. I don't think they're alone.

From my limited anecdotal experience, the younger generation appears to like the concept of larger sibling groups that they see in their parents. Whether that results in actual children, though, remains to be seen both specific to the example I gave and as a societal standard.

But I think SKHT has a point. Larger migrations mean working wages drop. Which means the native blue collar workers are incentivized to have fewer children. Which in turn creates the need for more migrant workers.

My opinion is that if society wants more children, empower the existing natives to have more children via the tax and other codes. For a variety of other reasons, we should, however, take migrants if they truly want to join that society and become productive members, but not otherwise.

[Baz]

I'm not sure this is true. It is true based on current trends, but the thing about trends is that they change.

I'm the eldest of 7. I have 2 children. Each of my siblings had between 0-4 kids. I've noticed with the next generation coming up, that they voice a preference for larger families. My children and my nieces and nephews all appear to want 3-5 kids. I don't think they're alone.

From my limited anecdotal experience, the younger generation appears to like the concept of larger sibling groups that they see in their parents. Whether that results in actual children, though, remains to be seen both specific to the example I gave and as a societal standard.

But I think SKHT has a point. Larger migrations mean working wages drop. Which means the native blue collar workers are incentivized to have fewer children. Which in turn creates the need for more migrant workers.

My opinion is that if society wants more children, empower the existing natives to have more children via the tax and other codes. For a variety of other reasons, we should, however, take migrants if they truly want to join that society and become productive members, but not otherwise.

Declining birth rate is definitely true in most of Western Europe, I couldn't say about the US. I understand your point about putting downward pressure on wages, but in most cases immigrants take jobs at the lower end of the scale which in this country tend to be service sector, and in a way therefore keep prices for goods from spiralling.

In terms of tax breaks, the UK had family tax credit for this reason, but it was increasingly expensive and the current government are trying hard to get rid of it.

I'd agree more needs to be done in terms of blending immigrants into British society, but I think in a lot of ways they do, its just me the media that pick up the extreme examples where it doesn't happen, and make it seem like that is the case in far greater percentages than is true.

[ABBEY]

Without immigration, then the population would shrink, and you would have an aging population with less people to support it, so standards of living would be worse.

I'd rather be supported by no one than some sponging coward that has left his family in Syria or some filthy asylum seeker that has no concept of our way of life .

[Baz]

I'd rather be supported by no one than some sponging coward that has left his family in Syria or some filthy asylum seeker that has no concept of our way of life .

That's your choice Abbey, but as a nation historically it's what we do, and what built our country.

That coward who fled from IS in Syria, do you still want to drop a nuke on his country?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

How many on here can say they definitely aren't descended from immigrants ? I'm pretty sure my distant ancestors came from Ireland.

I had a programme on TV a while ago about DNA profiles. They had several people on to analyse their DNA make up. One guy was a right wing nut job who was a real BNP type. His analysis showed he had a massive amount of African DNA. When they told him his face was a picture. Having said that just looking at him I could have told him he was less than pure white shall we say.

[Steve Moss]

How many on here can say they definitely aren't descended from immigrants ? I'm pretty sure my distant ancestors came from Ireland.

I had a programme on TV a while ago about DNA profiles. They had several people on to analyse their DNA make up. One guy was a right wing nut job who was a real BNP type. His analysis showed he had a massive amount of African DNA. When they told him his face was a picture. Having said that just looking at him I could have told him he was less than pure white shall we say.

Good examples. But the your family and the BNP person's family both obviously assimilated, to the point that past ancestry was a vague memory if anything.

Are the current batch becoming British, or are they setting up distinct enclaves within Britian?

[Norbert Rassragr]

You mean like the first colonies in what's now the USA?

Just being mischievous.

[Steve Moss]

You mean like the first colonies in what's now the USA?

Just being mischievous.

No need to be concerned. It's a good example.

The original inhabitants live separate and apart, on reservations.

The Africans are somewhat assimilated and somewhat segregated into inner cities.

The Europeans and Asians have largely assimilated. I believe the Hispanics are also largely assimilated, though there are enclaves which I think will breakdown over the years.

So we have a problem fully assimilating the Native Americans (who were unable to assimilate us- joke) and some of the descendants of Africans. These are problems which have existed for centuries. I think it can be done, but a lot more needs to be if we're to be successful.

How many centuries do you think it will take to assimilate the current immigrant groups? And at what cost?

[Paul]

My wife is first generation British with migrant parents, my children are therefore second generation. Very proud of them all and Rovers everyone.

Introduced me to a whole world I might never have come in to contact with if I'd never met my wife.

[Paul]

SKH - a great post. Thanks. Two points I'd pick up on. The first being I do feel things have altered in my life time. At 61 I recall when I was much younger language and attitudes society finds unacceptable today was quite widespread; this declined over the years and we entered what I feel was a far more accepting period with greater tolerance shown by all. Today I feel tensions between what I'll term the "native" population and groups identified either by ethnicity or religion are increasing significantly and the "natives" are showing less acceptance than in the previous 20-30 years.

I do sometimes feel the native population almost needs a group to complain about; Poles, Rumanians, Pakistanis spring immediately to mind.

I wasn't intending to criticise the west and agree we are probably the least racist peoples on the planet. Certainly in comparison to countries across the world which I've visited the west is way ahead in this area. What I wanted to convey is my concern tolerance is declining across the west and people are becoming increasingly comfortable expressing opinions which might have gone unspoken until recently. I do feel the media stokes up this "fear."

[yoda]

SKH - a great post. Thanks. Two points I'd pick up on. The first being I do feel things have altered in my life time. At 61 I recall when I was much younger language and attitudes society finds unacceptable today was quite widespread; this declined over the years and we entered what I feel was a far more accepting period with greater tolerance shown by all. Today I feel tensions between what I'll term the "native" population and groups identified either by ethnicity or religion are increasing significantly and the "natives" are showing less acceptance than in the previous 20-30 years.

I do sometimes feel the native population almost needs a group to complain about; Poles, Rumanians, Pakistanis spring immediately to mind.

I wasn't intending to criticise the west and agree we are probably the least racist peoples on the planet. Certainly in comparison to countries across the world which I've visited the west is way ahead in this area. What I wanted to convey is my concern tolerance is declining across the west and people are becoming increasingly comfortable expressing opinions which might have gone unspoken until recently. I do feel the media stokes up this "fear."

Interesting you didn't mention Indians or Chinese in your list, you are spot on about us being the least racist nation on the planet, my view on that has been formed as you by travel and also living in different countries.

[Paul]

The list was quite a spontaneous one thinking of Eastern Europeans recently and in my childhood Pakistanis. I don't think I've been aware of intolerance towards the Chinese or Indians though I've a vague memory about antipathy towards Sikhs?

Some of the attitudes one encounters across the world are quite astonishing.

In complete reverse in 2014 I met a young Australian couple in Greece, they would have been early mid 30s. I forget now but they described themselves as either Slovak Australians or Moldovan. They told me it is very common to describe oneself as xxxxx Australian and ethnicity is celebrated by their generation. I don't know how true this is but I see no reason why they should lie.

[yoda]

The list was quite a spontaneous one thinking of Eastern Europeans recently and in my childhood Pakistanis. I don't think I've been aware of intolerance towards the Chinese or Indians though I've a vague memory about antipathy towards Sikhs?

Some of the attitudes one encounters across the world are quite astonishing.

In complete reverse in 2014 I met a young Australian couple in Greece, they would have been early mid 30s. I forget now but they described themselves as either Slovak Australians or Moldovan. They told me it is very common to describe oneself as xxxxx Australian and ethnicity is celebrated by their generation. I don't know how true this is but I see no reason why they should lie.

In general the Indians and Chinese don't go to different countries and play the hard done by martyrs, they just get on with it and blend in.

While still in engineering we had some engineers and buyers over from a company in the group from Hungary, the buyers had a meeting with our buyer on the 1st day in the plant ,who was/is Indian, one of the buyers just came right out and said why are you employing him in a senior position ! later the engineers started asking the same question. Plant manager had to take them to one side and threatened to send them home. They got some stick during the rest of their visit by all and sundry in the factory.

Apparently it was just the norm where they came from.

While I was working in India for the company, never got any problems at all from anyone.

In fact the it was like a northern welcome I got and on one trip was introduced to a Mr Roy who was CEO of a fastening company who spent 10 years living across from the Golden Cup pub! Took me to one of the "meets" in the hills around Pune, there is some serious money there.

[ABBEY]

.

[Audax]

Sharing one picture of the day, oversized photos:

See link for others:

http://www.voanews.com/media/photogallery/day-in-photos-december-18-2015/3109017.html

4

Miners leave after working the final shift at Kellingley Colliery on its last day of operation in north Yorkshire, England. Kellingley is the last deep coal mine to close in England, bringing to an end centuries of coal mining in Britain.

[ABBEY]

THATCHERS LEGACY NOW COMPLETE

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

SKH - a great post. Thanks. Two points I'd pick up on. The first being I do feel things have altered in my life time. At 61 I recall when I was much younger language and attitudes society finds unacceptable today was quite widespread; this declined over the years and we entered what I feel was a far more accepting period with greater tolerance shown by all. Today I feel tensions between what I'll term the "native" population and groups identified either by ethnicity or religion are increasing significantly and the "natives" are showing less acceptance than in the previous 20-30 years.

I do sometimes feel the native population almost needs a group to complain about; Poles, Rumanians, Pakistanis spring immediately to mind.

I wasn't intending to criticise the west and agree we are probably the least racist peoples on the planet. Certainly in comparison to countries across the world which I've visited the west is way ahead in this area. What I wanted to convey is my concern tolerance is declining across the west and people are becoming increasingly comfortable expressing opinions which might have gone unspoken until recently. I do feel the media stokes up this "fear."

Cheers and no problem You might be right, its hard to tell really. In any case I do think the shifting demographics of the country will improve matters on that issue. Take Trump for example, he wouldn't dare attack the Latinos or black people the way he has been doing Muslims, because there numbers are far greater. Although it is possible there could be trouble again in the next 10 years before it gets to that point, I think the public reaction to the next terror attack in this country could really go either way.