To not want to be the minority where I live?

[Charlottehines]

It really saddens me that in parks and soft plays with my children, that I am in the minority and my children can't play with other children there as they all play together and obviously can't speak English.
I'm in no way racist, my husband is of mixed origin but I do find it incredibly sad that my children are growing up the minority especially when these other groups make no effort to integrate with other mums or the children.
Am I completely unreasonable to feel sad about this?

No, yet again you either fail to understand or deliberately misrepresent what I said.

First of all Robert Putnam's article E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the 21st century deals with the impact of immigratin and diversity -not just diversity - on social solidarity and social capital. So if you are going to use - or misuse - Putnam's findings you need to be clear what he was actually researching in the first place, which was the impact of immigration and diversity on social solidarity and social capital.

Secondly if you look at the factors which researchers use to define and examine the activity spheres of social cohesion they are economic, political and socio-cultural. So when I gave you multiple research links (including some of those used by Putnam in his article i.e. the research he based his long term findings on) I was indeed providing you with research on some of the indidviudal factors (such as economic) that go towards demonstrating high or low social cohesion. (Social cohesion is measured by multiple factors many of which have nothing to do with diversity, such as family stability, economic opportunity, crime, participation in illegal activities, confidence in political authorities etc. There is overlap between some of these factors and factors used to measure, for example, social capital.) Thus when I provided you with links to research which found for example that creativity (in business, education, science etc) is higher in multicultural (i.e. diverse) societies or that immigration benefits economies or that contact theory shows that the higher our levels of interaction between diverse social groups the higher the trust etc. I did in fact provide you with the evidence that diversity and immigration lead to higher levels of social cohesion in the long term. You apparently either chose to ignore, or did not uderstand this. However there is also a subtle difference between measuring social cohesion (e.g. whether people feel they get on well with, and have meaningful interactions with people of different backgrounds in their locality, whether they feel they can influence decision making, and whether they feel they belong in their local area) and measuring both social solidarity and social captial. Whilst there are overlapping factors there are also distinct factors to both social solidarity and social capital, which is actually what Putnam was reseraching. You cannot therefore take only a segment of his short term research findings and use that as some kind of 'proof' that social cohesion is permanently or disasterously damaged by diversity because his research, in simple terms, does not support that assertion.

Thirdly I have not exclusively picked sources which disagree with you. I have pointed out that research partially agrees with what you assert (and which Putnam's research found); that in the short term diversity and immigration cause higher levels of mistrust, isolation etc. Of course what I also did was challenge you - repeatedly - for the way in which you have tried to state that these were his only research findings and anything he said about long term benefits of diversity and immigration were a result of his 'personal bias' and mere subjective 'opinion'. So in fact I have given you research links which agree with some of what you say (which disproves you allegation I have cherry picked or only provided links to research which agree with my personal opinion), whilst you have sought repeatedly to dismiss or diminish research which contradicts your world view. So one of us is being intellectually honest, and it isn't you.

Fourthly you accuse me of cherry picking, yet you selectively quote material related to migration from established EU states and then suggest I have ignored immigration from Eastern Europe. I have also given you links to multiple pieces of research on migration from central and eastern europe (the NS-8 group) which clearly and categorcially proves the economic benefit to the UK of migration from these areas. Again you are being either deliberately selective, rather stupid or simply cannot read, if you cannot understand this information and seek to deny its existance.

Stating you have not been given the information when you have reflects on your abilities to properly understand the information given. And nothing else.

Fifth - you say 'as for belligerance, I have taken more than I dished out'. Well that isn't really strictly speaking true is it, considering the very first sentence of your very first post on this thread started as an address to 'the self righteous arseholes on this thread'. So you hadn't been on the receiving end of any abuse or belligerance when you first posted, although you actually adopted from the start a confrontational and abusive tone. You sought to turn a discussion into an emotive slanging match because the research - and the overwhelming opinion on this thread - disagree strongly with your own world view.

If immigration were to cease tomorrow - which it won't - our societies would still continue to grow more diverse due to natural population increases. Thus British society will continue to grow more multicultural and diverse. There have not been 'rivers of blood' running in our streets due to immigration, despite the hyperbole of Enoch Powell's speech nearly 50 years ago. I haven't become a 'stranger in my own country' as Powell claimed I would be due to immigration. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. Britain has always been diverse. We were diverse when we founded an empire and diverse when we called upon that empire to fight and die for us in two world wars. We were diverse when we asked people of the Commonwealth to come to Britain to do the jobs we could not fill. We were diverse when we ourselves went to work abroad and when we recruited students from foreign countries to come and pay huge tuition fees to study here. As a society we benefit from that diversity, from the new perspectives, skills and ideas brought. We benefit from having a more linguistically skilled labour force. We benefit from our children growing up having more understanding of the cultures and beliefs that lie outside their own front door.

Agreeing with others. OP you started off being slightly racist and quickly progressed to incredibly racist. Irrespective of the colour of your husband's skin, you are making generalisations about entire groups of people based on their race or nationality.

And by the way, who cares if you're a minority? Plenty of people are. The only people treating minority groups badly are idiots like you.

Gosh adoptmama, you have been amazingly patient. Good post.

My sister's DC go to a school which has a proportion of Muslim Indian children and has had for about 15 years. It's taken this long for the families to begin to integrate. My nephew made friends with a little boy and his parents would never let him go to play at my nephews...then the teacher spoke to the boy's parents...told them all about what the lad would gain...friendship and learning about British culture...he also told the parents that my sister and her DH are a very good family...very good examples to offer...and the boy;s mum and dad bless them, they decided to listen to the teacher and allowed the boy to visit my nephew's house and my nephew to visit theirs.

It has worked beautifully and as the teacher said, is the first example of true integration in the village for the 15 years since the INdian families first arrived here...it takes time and guidance as sometimes cultural differences, language problems and old fashioned fear make things unworkable.

A few people on this post have said the OP should learn some of the other peoples' language and how indigenous British people would get along so much better if we had the language skills that the immigrants need to acquire.
I've never understood this. The immigrant families need to learn one language, English. In London, there are over 100 different languages.
Do people really think anyone should learn even a smattering of so many languages?
English is known as the second language worldwide and this means that worldwide, most people only have to learn the one extra language.
we are just lucky that we already speak it. Immigrant families are aware that English is spoken here and are mostly happy and willing to learn it. They do not expect to arrive in the country and find that people can speak Somali, Polish, Urdu etc.

:) it really isn't a matter of patience Daisy :)

If you leave posters like leftwing with the last word, when that last word is using lies, misinformation and bigotry dressed up as 'truth' you leave the impression to others who may bimble along later that their prejudicial opinion is factual, because it hasn't been refuted.

Thus, whilst you will never convince those with entrenched or bigoted views that they are wrong, you do have the opportunity to at least challenge their views and provide the actual evidence which disproves much of what they are claiming is truth. That has been demonstrated on this thread where some people have come to agree that their actions or attitudes may have been based on fear and prejudice. They have said they will relfect upon this. That is positive. That is how change happens.

I am a very firm believer that bigotry, racism, prejudice and stereotypes must be challenged. Edmund Burke spoke truly when he said 'all that requres evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.' We all have the right to live free from fear, harrassment and prejudice. We all have a duty to help challenge these things when they occur.

Racism, whether thoughtless and unintentional or deliberate and calculated is an absolute wrong. Bias and prejudice which limits the human and legal rights of people is wrong. Spreading lies and half truths to justify racist thinking is wrong. We do not, and most likely never will, live in a perfect world. By speaking out and challenging racism however we can each do our bit to make that world a little bit better for all of our children. Accepting diversity, embracing diversity and seeing the positive contributions we can all make to our society - whether we are white, black, brown, pink or green - is what will lead to a strong community and society. Retreating into an 'us or them' metality based on the 'false evidence' that multiculturalism and diversity and damaging creates physical and mental barriers and segregated fearful societies which benefit no-one.

Leftwing, what is the reason behind your nickname out of interest? You seem neither economically nor socially left wing.

Adopt I think I love you!

Leftwing, I just want to clarify something, out of curiosity.

Is your "ideal Britain" one where everyone is white and 'pure' British? One where the 'horrors' of diversity and integration never occurred? One where you could walk down the street in your own country and not have to witness people from other ethnicities, and speaking different languages?

@Ihaveafithsense, personally, I think we would be far better off had we never pursued the policy of mass immigration that we have in the post war period. Economically, the body of evidence indicates that the benefits are trivial at best, and socially, it has been disastrous. More racial and cultural diversity has in created division and segregation which would not otherwise exist.

And yes, I would rather walk down the streets of England and not hear people who live hear speaking languages other than English. Being a temporary visitor is one thing, but if you live in a land, it is incumbent on you to adopt the language.

And I have no problem with integration in of itself. I have a problem with the fact that A) that an enormous challenge has been created in this regard completely unnecessarily, and B) the process of integration has been largely unsuccessful. We dont have a particularly well integrated society. We have substantial levels of segregation.

So, in a word, yes?

I would rather walk down the streets of England and not hear people who live hear (sic) speaking languages other than English

That is racist and your justifications do not make it any less so. We all knew that though, didn't we.

Fair enough, leftwingecho, but only so long as you'd also believe it's also incumbent upon British expats to learn the local language of the countries they choose to live in - e.g Cantonese, Spanish, French etc. Some do of course but many don't. Weirdly enough, they like hanging around with and living close to other English speaking people - eg Discovery Bay in HK.

My apologies for the double also's .

I wonder how Leftwing would have felt were he/she to have been living when the Vikings, Romans, Saxons... arrived. Speaking their languages and changing all that was good and British. Good job they didn't destroy our language like the current immigrants are, eh!

Oh, wait...

What about the Normans eh? My family still have lingering resentments of that bunch of forrin speaking bastards... .

@Adoptmama,

I am not misunderstanding or misrepresenting you. You accused me of misrepresenting Robert Putnam's findings about diversity on social capital. Having repeatedly asked you to provide some actual evidence to support a conclusion contrary to the finding that diversity has a negative impact on social capital, and you having failed to do so every time, you have instead redirected the discussion to talking about not the impact of diversity on social capital, but rather, the impact of immigration on the economy.

The paper in question makes the obviously true point that immigration is increasing diversity, but the paper is none the less about diversity in general, not specifically about immigration. It looks at diversity amongst long established groups like Europeans, Native Americans and Africans, not just recent immigrants. And it certainly is not a paper about the economic impact of immigration.

So I will repeat the point: you still have provided no EVIDENCE that is contrary the evidence I presented on the matter of diversity. Nor have you justified your claim that I misrepresented the findings of the paper. I didnt: the findings are what they are, and I represented them accurately. Putnam's opinions about those findings are another issue entirely, but I made no claims about Putnam's opinions, so I cannot have misrepresented him.

You claim you werent cherry picking because you picked sources which partly agreed with what I said. However, I said you were cherry picking sources with respect to the economic impact of immigration, as you know perfectly well, and there you did indeed consistently pick sources which showed it to be beneficial. So yes, you cherry picked.

The source I presented looked at the overall trends found by multiple studies on the subject, and concluded that the net impact of immigration on GDP is very small, and not necessarily positive. Even the most optimistic sources you have presented demonstrate only small benefits.

My point about the economic impact of immigration still stands: It is too small to justify radical demographic transformation. So if you want to argue in favour of demographic transformation, you either need to demonstrate much more substantial economic benefits, or social benefits which offset the social costs that we both agree exist, although that you claim, without supporting evidence, are only temporary.

As for belligerence, I notice you ignore the point that the self righteous aresholes remark referred to a much more specific group than anyone who disagreed with the OP. I quoted examples of the posts I was referring to, which were inflammatory and emotive BEFORE I had posted anything at all.

Also, even if I had "started it" (I didnt), it does not logically follow, as you claim, that I therefore doled out more abuse than I received. You can still receive more abuse than you yourself give, even if you start it.

And no, the research doesnt "overwhelmingly" disagree with my opinions. I repeat again, you have provided ZERO evidence to suggest that diversity is either beneficial or even merely neutral in its social impact. So before declaring that the evidence overwhelmingly disagrees with me, you might want to try providing any evidence at all.

As for what you asserted without evidence: you claim we benefit from a more linguistically diverse labour force. Really? Even when a significant amount of this linguistic diversity includes people who dont speak the native tongue? Thats a good thing? As for new perspectives, I havent seen much appreciation of a diversity of perspectives from you or anyone else on this forum. And some of those different perspectives represent stark incompatibilities. The 7/7 bombers certainly had different perspectives from the native population. I am not altogether sure this is of substantial benefit to the nation however. And how do our children benefit from having a greater understanding of other cultures, they would never interact with these other cultures were it not for mass immigration, so how would they be disadvantaged exactly?

And to justify immigration by saying there would be some diversity without further immigration anyway is a pretty lousy argument. Thats like arguing against giving up smoking because you have done some damage already. Its true, but that doesnt change the fact that not causing further damage is still a good idea.

Oh and "Rivers of blood" (a phrase he didnt actually use anyway) was an allusion to Virgil, it obviously wasnt meant to be understood literally. And good for you if you dont feel like a stranger in your own country, but many do. A clear majority are, and always have, been opposed to present levels of immigration. Are their opinions less valid than your own?

@mish, I think expats should learn the language yes. But ultimately, its for other nations to decide if they want unassimilated British migrants or not. If they choose to have them, that is their business. I dont see it as being relevant to our own immigration policies.

@Ihaveafithsense, I imagine that I would probably have strongly resented the violent invasions you refer to. Are you suggesting that this would be unreasonable?

And how is that an argument against anything I have said exactly?

Bless you, you went and got help. It still isn't really working for you though, is it.

I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with blood. So no, not literally, but again, we knew that, too.

Can't understand the attraction of everyone speaking the same language.
Buy a good news paper or use ear phones of its a problem.
Your children might benifit from you showing them howto integrate in social situations.

Life shrinks considerably if you think you are an insider.

Out sider

Out sider