Britain has an ethnic problem: the English
theglobeandmail.com
theglobeandmail.com
But why does criticism of minorities tend to be sometimes unfair in the first place (not that all criticism is unfair)? I think it is because deep down, most people don't want multiculturalism, or even multiracial/ethnic societies.
I think it's time we stopped forcing immigration on people who don't want it. I'll finish with a quote from a prime minister of a particular country, on asylum seekers. As an experiment, I've modified the quote by changing the country in question, though of course the original quote is easy to look up:
"If we don't stop their entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000 could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence as an [English] and democratic state. This phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social fabric of society, our national security and our national identity."
I do hope that eventually, over a few hundred years, the human race has mixed enough so that we all sort of have the same skin color and appearance. Is that plausible genetically? It's be interesting. Although I'm sure people would find other minor things to quibble about ("those blue eyed people are taking our jobs!")
What you characterize as an irrational fear, I would say is an desire to preserve unique aspects of one's culture, and possible genetics. Unfortunately, this viewpoint has been associated, often unfairly, with taking an extreme approach where this desire is held above all other considerations.
If you ask people if they think that they themselves should be denied the right to travel for extended periods and work abroad you will find very few who agree, even if they hold that view about people from abroad coming to work in their country.
Beyond that, I think that people are not so much morally wrong, but just plain stupid to oppose migration on principle. Populations rarely prosper without trade and trade does not prosper without migration.
As far as the 'preserving genetics' argument, that just isn't the way evolution works. The environment is always in flux and in general it is a bad idea to assume that a particular makeup should be kept static, as it is then doomed to be an evolutionary backwater while the growth is being done by those who are freely mixing.
---
edit - @yetanotherphd, it isn't letting me reply directly to your post below at the moment, so I have posted my reply here:
It's like saying that we should cut all social services because everyone thinks they should be paying less tax.
It isn't like that at all. In that metaphor it is like asking both questions and pointing out that if you don't want tax then you can't have state services.
the most valuable trade is within Europe and East Asia, and yet East Asian immigration is relatively small.
That trade was built up over centuries and involved European empires all over the far east.
How can you explain the success of the very un-diverse Scandinavia?
The Vikings travelled most of the known world and shagged around a hell of a lot. Scandinavian DNA has genes from all over the place.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/dna-shows-genetic...
If you want to base your claim on some general theory, what about how plant and animal breeders maintain specific breeds instead of mixing them all together?
Go look up the genetic diseases of purebred dogs.
"Current genetic evidence refutes the theory of inbreeding for typological traits to achieve breed purity (18,19). Population genetics is the tool that exposes the fallacy of purebred dogs and, hopefully, it can also be the tool with which the canine species is revitalized. Population genetics is used to calculate gene frequencies, and the frequencies of alternative alleles within genes, both of which are integral to assessing the health of a species.
An individual canine’s genotype will dictate the production of specific structural and functional proteins, and in combination with environmental influences, result in individual phenotypes, or visible outcomes (1,20). If both parents supply the same allele for a particular gene, then the offspring is regarded as homozygous for a specific trait. If the alleles supplied by each parent are different, then the offspring is heterozygous for that trait. Heterozygosity is an important occurrence for species’ fortitude and survival (1). The Hardy-Weinberg Principle describes how a natural balance, in most species, maintains a high degree of genotypic heterozygosity in order to preserve genetic fitness and, hence, species’ health (2,4,18,19). High rates of homozygosity can occur in nature due to “bottleneck situations,” such as a limited gene pool in island populations, but in canines, homozygosity is deliberately accomplished by people trying to achieve specific breed standards. Many desired breed traits are recessive, rather than dominant, and require that both copies of the inherited alleles be the same for the trait to be expressed phenotypically. Individuals selected for consistent expression of alleles specific to desired physical traits results in offspring that are homozygous.
Breed purity and genotypic homozygosity is harmful to canine health because it requires inbreeding and results in an abnormally high occurrence of inherited diseases. Unfortunately, when breeders selectively “double up” on desired traits for physical conformation, they also double up on genes that can result in decreased fitness and increased disease."
On trade, the most valuable trade is within Europe and East Asia, and yet East Asian immigration is relatively small. The amount of immigration that is truly needed for trade is very small.
On genetics, I never claimed that it is objectively better to preserve particular ethnic groups. In fact, I don't think evolution implies anything about how things should be. However, your claim about how important genetic diversity is for overall success, strikes me as either untestable or wrong. How can you explain the success of the very un-diverse Scandinavia? Or if you can explain this away, how is your claim testable, and therefore backed up by fact. If you want to base your claim on some general theory, what about how plant and animal breeders maintain specific breeds instead of mixing them all together?
EDIT: there is a time limit placed on replies, to slow the discussion down the deeper the thread gets. This is intended to cool the tone of the discussion and prevent flame wars. If you repost your edit as a reply, I will reply to it when I can.
The original opinion piece paints too simplistic a picture of Britain - it's not quite as insular as it sounds. For example, the 2011 Census for England & Wales showed that there were 1.2 million Britons of mixed ethnicity (mixed race). It would be interesting to know if there are comparable figures for other European countries.
The countries from which most foreign-born residents come are (in order of population size in England and Wales): 1. India, 2. Poland, 3. Pakistan, 4. Republic of Ireland, 5. Germany, 6. Bangladesh
The British really like migration, we travel and work around the world in great numbers and consider it normal that we are allowed to do so. In fact there are more British working abroad than there are immigrants working in the UK so blocking immigration is one of the stupidest things the UK could possibly do, as the resulting visa tit-for-tat would see a lot of people with excellent experience abroad returning home. The people who want to see restrictions imposed on immigration so that British jobs go to the British might be quite upset by the amount of British people coming back to the country to look for work.
Second, jobs are a side issue. People latch on to jobs because they are the only non-"racist" reason for opposing immigration. But politics are quickly changing, and I think people are feeling more empowered to speak their mind on preserving their own ethnicity and culture. Part of this change comes from online comments, where people are able to speak freely without fear of social or legal repercussions.
Reporters, being the morally superior people they always are, do their best with 3rd-rate satire to illustrate to nativists how evil and stupid such complaints are.