In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Book Publishing Advice | Main | Self-Painted Pole »

December 13, 2006

British Frankness

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Tony Blair announces that multiculturalism is finito in Britain. Why are the British elites so much faster and franker than we are in acknowledging what a big issue the combo of high immigration rates and obsessive multiculturalism has become?



posted by Michael at December 13, 2006


Oh it's Blair, so it'll prove to be just talk.

Posted by: dearieme on December 13, 2006 1:57 PM

Labour is losing the working classes to the BNP, that's all. Immigrants are still streaming in, aren't they?

Posted by: SJ on December 13, 2006 2:09 PM

dearieme is exactly right. What'll he do about it? Exactly nothing.

Posted by: ricpic on December 13, 2006 3:39 PM

This would be analogous to a speech in Bill Clinton's early campaign for president when he declared, "the era of big government is over."

Yea, right.

Posted by: Bob Grier on December 13, 2006 5:17 PM

The issue with Islamic extremism in Britain has less to do with immigrants themselves, and more to do with their children. Typically, the Muslim immigrants are stereotypically meek and short Bangladeshis and to less meek ones from Pakistan/India. Their children grow up to become tall and thuggish extremists. According to the law of the land, they are Britons, not immigrants.

Posted by: JM on December 13, 2006 6:27 PM

The era of multiculturalism being over is over.

I think this declaration is just an excuse for making hate speech laws even more draconian by saying "Look, we apply them to both sides!"

F'rinstance, Blair says:

"We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed."

Uh huh. More intervention, less free speech, methinks. Maybe one or two Muslims will be hit by this new policy; the rest will be evil engine-revving honkies.

Posted by: Brian on December 13, 2006 7:41 PM

They're franker because they can no longer ignore it. Immigration and multicultralism are bigger issues Over There because of the spectacularly inability they've had to absorb their immigrants. What Europe offered the fresh-off-the-boaters came with little in the way of decent economic prospects, and sprinkled heavily with nativist bigotry. The most shamefull aspect is that the Arabs who first moved into France were firmly committed to France's notion of secularism and the social contract. France then emasculated the the immigrants and now their kids have a chip on their shoulder. Way to go...

In the US, they get absorbed better. So it's more likely to work.

Posted by: omri on December 13, 2006 9:27 PM

I know this is heresy, omri, but shouldn't European counties remain European? After all, if diversity is all that important, don't we want Europe preserved? Shouldn't a majority of people in a nation state decide who should be allowed in? Why is it incumbent upon Europeans to even engage in this "experiment"? Unemployment has averaged 10 percent over there for 20 years. They don't need the labor. What is the point?

Posted by: Bob Grier on December 13, 2006 11:04 PM

I didn't think the British were frank...aren't they were anglo-saxon or celtic? SO-RRY!

Anyway, I think our Hispanics absorb pretty well culturally and economically. We just let in too many, too fast, and we are creating a level of population growth that is having and will have all kinds of negative impacts economically, environmentally, and in terms of quality of life.

Posted by: MQ on December 13, 2006 11:13 PM

(As a Brit in Texas) I think it's quite simple; they have a very visible Muslim presence, mostly from Pakistan which Britain used to own, and they had a bad terrorist attack not very long ago on the public transport system, which is still in people's minds- nothing has changed, and another one can happen any time (the IRA bombed us for years, Britain has been terrorist-aware for a long time now).

Posted by: Alice Bachini on December 13, 2006 11:29 PM

Only white countries are supposed to fill their territory to the rafters with non-white immigrants. No other non-white country is ever criticized for a strict immigration (or non-immigration) policy. That's kind of a curious thing, isn't it? Why shouldn't there be all white countries, just like there are all black countries, all asian countries, etc.? Even indian reservations are just for indians. I wonder why that is?

As far as hispanic assimilation, I think that's kind of funny. Every hispanic person I've met with kids (I've met many parents too) , even if he/she speaks english perfectly, teaches his/her kids to speak spanish. I've never seen this with whites. Maybe its to give their kids an "advantage"--if so, why not chinese instead of spanish? No, then that would give the lie to "assimilation" propaganda. They are trying to preserve their hispanic culture as separate thing from american-english culture. I've seen this also with indians (from India) who teach their kids hindi even though they have become american citizens. They also don't celebrate Thanksgiving or other american holidays. You can call that whatever you want, but its not assimilation. They are just here for the money (and race-related welfare and handouts) . Its foolish to think otherwise. And they will also try to displace white americans politically, with the power to tax. Look at California. Many whites are fleeing the welfare state that panders to the illegal population. This trend will spread. But where do you run to? Eventually there will be a fight.

Nah, were cooking up a huge problem here. I guess its not much of a problem if you've basically abandoned christianity, feel ashamed of and have no pride in european or american-english history or culture, or don't wish to remain the majority which determines the direction of the country and controls the police and tax dollars. But those of us who still care see correctly that these so-called "assimilated immigrants" will rise up to try to displace our cluture and we as people eventually. All history of such similar situations says so. Its just a matter of time.

Blair is a liar. Trust nothing he says. When he takes concrete steps to end the problem (crisis, really), then you can believe him.

Posted by: BIOH on December 14, 2006 1:43 AM

I think the previous commentators are mistaken if they dismiss this speech of Tony Blair's as meaningless, or regard it as merely a cynical ploy.

My sense is that this really was a water-shed speech, the ground for which has been prepared over several months by several other government ministers. In my judgment this really is the beginning of the end for 'multi-culturalism' and the start of a new era of integration.

BTW this is entirely compatible with (indeed I would say essential-to) high levels of (legal) immigration.

I personally favour integration (not multi-culturalism) and I also favour allowing high levels of UK immigration.

Posted by: Bruce G Charlton on December 14, 2006 11:16 AM

Labour has been making anti-multi-culturalism noises for some time now. It's a definite sea change. The old British values are reasserting themselves, belatedly as usual, now that everyone has had enough time trying to be nice to realise lines need to be drawn. Question is, where.

Posted by: Alice Bachini on December 14, 2006 12:03 PM

"I also favour allowing high levels of UK immigration." Whence?

Posted by: dearieme on December 14, 2006 1:52 PM

What a heartening display of anti-politician cynicism from such a smart crowd!

I just, y'know, feel good that official-type people in Britain are actually saying some of these things (as opposed to 99% of our public denial-specialists). It's a sign that the topic is becoming respectable. Or so I hope. But maybe I'm being naive?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on December 14, 2006 2:13 PM

Maybe you're not being naive, Michael. You make a good point about this topic becoming respectable.

I grew up in EE during communism, and the prevalent feeling during the 60s was that communism was never going away. At least not in another hundred years. Yet the whole edifice sterted cracking and then it collapsed. I'm confident it will be the same with the multiculti regimes. They're smarter and more relsilient than the old commie system, but just as humiliating and unnatural.

Posted by: PA on December 14, 2006 3:15 PM

Reminds one of Pres. Clinton's "mend it, don't end it" spiel on affirmative action back in the 90s. Just words, but it opens the gate for other "respectable" leaders and pundits to move the issue forward.

Posted by: James M on December 15, 2006 1:23 PM

I see that be good or be bad, both of these roles have their own problems to overcome. But the choice remains with each one of us. Ok,ok, I know, we sometimes don’t know what’s good and what’s bad anymore.

Just one thing, don’t try to be god.

look fr studio LDA

Posted by: look on December 22, 2006 12:55 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?