POLL: 95 Percent of BBC Viewers Think Multiculturaism Has Failed

The British are still evenly divided on multiculturalism despite the shock online poll by the morning show. According to the most recent survey of 1,578 people conducted by YouGov in July 2015, 38% of them think multiculturalism makes the country worse, while 37% of Britons believe multiculturalism makes it a better place to live in.



More people in Britain believe that multiculturalism makes the country worse than those who believe it makes the country better, according to a new survey. The survey by YouGov, commissioned by the Huffington Post, demonstrates a large decrease in the proportion of the population who believe that multiculturalism benefits the country. The latest figures, polled for the anniversary of the 7/7 bombings in London, show the changing views of the country - the proportion of people who felt that Islam, as distinct from Islamic fundamentalist groups, poses a major threat to Western liberal democracy jumped from one in ten in 2001, to 27 per cent.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/7kjmsq2f6j/HuffingtonPostResults_150624_British_Muslims_W.pdf

 

The fact that you are offended seems to indicate you do not think racism is a good thing.

I never get offended when people call me a neocon. I think neocon ideology is a good thing.

Well, that is what self-described racists have done in the past. Thats why those implications exist.

That is not what the actual word means though.

I did not write the definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/racism

While the definitions emphasize that racism often involves the belief of superiority of one over another, it's not a requirement. Most racists that have been on this forum before have expressed a belief that one race is better than another. If you really don't believe that, then you are the exception, not the rule.

I want to secure the borders for national security reasons. A desire to secure the borders does not necessarily involve race at all.

 

America is more of a superpower now. Now that it is 62% white.

We are far superior to the America of the 60s. In every way that matters.

 

lol, preaching to our children how evil our ancestors were, because they owned slaves, or conquered land. It was a different world, with different values. That doesnt make them evil, and it should not be portrayed in that light. They were pioneers, adventurers, conquerors, entrepreneurs, and scholars, overcoming adversity at every turn. But, now in school it is always taught how evil people were for owning slaves, or how evil people were for taking land from native americans, etc etc etc. there are a million examples. Then the is the whole confederate flag issue. It is portrayed as nothing but an evil symbol of racism. anyways, there are a million and one examples.

 

Then why are these countries filling up with immigrants?

We became a superpower when we were accepting white Europeans as our preferred immigrant. The US was a superpower before we began accepting the current crop of immigrants en masse.

 

It depends how the word racist is used, in which he or she used it negatively.

But sometimes people say neocon disparagingly and with underlying hatred.

That is not fair to say anyone who wants to preserve their heritage will end up murdering or oppressing Jews, blacks, gypsies etc. That is a logical fallacy.

Yes.

Me too. That is one reason but my main reason is to preserve my heritage and economic lifestyle.

 

If bankrupt social programs and skyrocketing debt is your metric for measuring a superpower, I agree with you.

 

Because technology advanced, by whites. Bill Gates is a white man. Silicon Valley is overwhelmingly white.

 

wow i just checked i didnt know the Hispanic population in the us early 1960s was on 3.6% http://www.washington.edu/diversity/files/2013/05/HouseDemsSlidesFinalD_2.14.07.pdf

 

hmmmmmmm, I wonder why it has increased so much, lol. That is crazy though.

 

lol the good ole days.

I hate that people believe third world Hispanics are indispensable to our country, when in reality the opposite is true.

 

asians to in high percentages http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=4800787
there good at number crunching

 

Still no difference. Asians are an educated, advanced race. You wont see blacks and Hispanics there making all of the breakthroughs.

 

Yeah, thanks to strong family values and lots of discipline instilled by their culture. Something that seems to be lacking in certain other cultures.

 

Well, you said it. "You do not know what is". Not sure where you learned about racism, perhaps in the modern day US school system which is so (*)(*)(*)(*)ed-up by liberals. You should look it up. There is nothing racist to want to preserve one's heritage. Nothing racist to want to keep America based in primarily Northern European culture.

It is so pathetic with the liberals now. Everything is "racist". Clueless, and getting worse. As Reagan said, "It is not that our liberal friends are ignorant. They just know so much that isn't so."

 

As long as everyone recognizes they're American;Absolutely!
.and feel free to retain your ethnical heritage..Yes!
Irish..Spanish..whatever..this is Embrace the idea or why are you here?
Oh,you're here to do harm to all the Kafir? well..guess what? You're in the wrong place for that.
We are the Kafir.
Our religion started 600 years before yours.
We eat baby back ribs here.
Embrace the ideas of the country you came to or get out.
Do them Muslims really think they can have much influence here?
It's not going to happen.
I know the current president would like that.
But it is just not so.
We eat pork.
And believe in God..not Allah,who came along 600 yrs later.
For the next Muslim that asks some American to bend to their religious will when they're in the US?
No sir.Get out.

 

So what? They are expressing opinions. Just like you are.

That is such a weak excuse. Yes, I can judge people from the past who had inferior moral values. There were people of that time who knew slavery was wrong.

Evil is not a static definition. The victors get to define evil. By modern definition, those people were all evil.

Of course it makes them evil. Just because it was the norm does not mean it was not evil.

...and they were evil. Lots of evil people have excelled in those areas. Being brave or smart or courageous does not necessarily mean you are not also evil...the terms are not mutually exclusive.

Thats what it is. It's the flag of a nation that explicitly embraced slavery as a core part of it's culture. That explicitly embraced racist ideology.

 

where did Mexico and Latin America go wrong here? appears to be lack of independence.of the .mind
humm http://www.livescience.com/38647-mexican-culture.html

 

Why are they letting them in if they don't want them?

Europeans do not think through the consequences of their actions. This is why socialism and free speech restrictions are so rampant there as well.

Our superpower status is greater now than it was at that time. Economically, Technologically, and militarily, we are stronger than we have ever been.

 

It should not matter. If someone sneered at you while calling you "intelligent", as if it was a bad thing, would you still take offense? Or would you just laugh at them?

The same thing is true of racism. Other racists probably don't use the term disparagingly and with underlying hatred.

Past events have shown racists to be prone to this type of behavior. Thats why there is a stereotype involved with it.

You yourself have stereotyped people before. So I am not sure why you're objecting to others doing the same thing.

 

This is absurd beyond belief. That the 'flag of a nation embraced slavery". Virtually every flag embraced slavery at one time. Virtually every culture embraced slavery. The massive elephant in the room is that slavery existed in Africa long before it did here, and long after. The slave trade began with Africa. Blacks that were sold out of Africa into slavery were sold by other blacks. To define world-wide values of yesteryear as "evil" is the stuff of willful ignorance.

 

and a straitjacket on the troops makes them a huge the paper tiger..

economics? where making Mexico richer and china each passing year and our standard of living buying power has decreased dramatically since the 1960s in the us

 

Uh huh. So you think all of our founding fathers are evil. You are exactly the kind of person I am talking about that is trying to change and erase our culture. I guess you think all of the vikings, romans, greeks, egyptians, aztecs, chinese, mongols, zulus, persians, arabs, etc etc etc were all evil too. Sorry, but slavery has been the norm, except in the last 150 years. It wouldbe like if 100 years from now, if everyone thought abortion was wrong, that everyone who ever had an abortion was a twisted evil freak. Personally, I hate abortion, but I also recognize that that does not make a person evil. There are plenty of other things that people who had an abortion could do that would make them great people. Anyways, same idea.

 

Stupid ones, yes.

You claim it's not a static definition but still use it as one. By PETA's defintion anyone who eats at McDonald's is the same as Jeffery Dahmer. Therefore if PETA's views were accepted by society 100 years from now, you and 99% of the population would be "evil" as well.

Plus by no modern definition are any of these individual people "evil" in any educated circles - the opinion of some some fringe Marxist group doesn't speak for anyone but them and their ignorance.

Actually it does - "if by evil" you mean antisocial, then yes according to psychology the degree of deviation from the social norm plays a factor in determining how antisocial the act is, not the simple result of the action itself. So owning a slave in a culture in which slavery is acceptable would be less "evil" than owning one in a culture where it isn't, regardless of the objective harm caused by the act.

Incorrect - "people" can't be evil, only individual actions can. And from an evolutionary POV based a person or animal's overall social worth is determined by how much they've produced vs how much they've consumed or contributed negatively.

For example, I would personally find a murderer or a rapist who made other positive contributions (while at the same time, I'd be fine with society dealing the person deserved justice), more admirable than someone who committed lesser crimes but made few to no positive social contributions, since with actions tallied up, society still benefited more on the whole from person A's actions than person B's.

They are actually, since positive social contributions balance out negative ones - a person who's a pioneer or entrepreneur's positive social contributions for example may leave a net benefit on society in the long run, even if their negative contributions are subtracted.

Your uneducated understanding of the subject sounds like it would fit the mentality of devout Catholics and their concept of "mortal sin" far more than any reason-based moral philosophy.

 

Those things don't seem to have halted our economic influence. Our GDP dwarfs every other power in the history of the human race by a wide margin. China has five times our labor pool and barely half our GDP.

- - - Updated - - -

Where are the silicon valley's in France and Germany and Britain? They have higher concentrations of white people...why are they not ahead of us? Why is it our less-white culture that is producing people like Bill Gates?