Quackers
The Frog
The mistake you're making is that an immigrant from the same cultural background, with the same language is an equal challenge to intergrating somebody completely different.
Italian to Argentina? Easy.
Italian to Afghanistan, hard.
British Multiculturalism
- Thread starter Quackers
- Start date
- Status
The mistake you're making is that an immigrant from the same cultural background, with the same language is an equal challenge to intergrating somebody completely different.
Italian to Argentina? Easy.
Italian to Afghanistan, hard.
Actually, only about 20% of Australia's foreign-born population is from the UK.
I guess that's why all the Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese and so forth are having such a hard time here.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
And another 10% of them are from New Zealand. How much is from the US and EU countries?
Another 9% from New Zealand, then China, India, Italy, Vietnam, Philippines, South Africa, Malaysia, Germany fill out the top ten with at least 2% each, leaving another 40% from elsewhere.
Edit: The United States is pretty small, about 77000 total or about 0.4%. About double the Iran-born, the same number as South Korean-born and a bit less than Sri Lankan-born.
Edit edit: Basically Australia's foreign-born rpopulation breaks down to 20% UK, 9% NZ, 6% China, 6% India, 4% Italy, 4% Vietnam, 3% Philippines, 2% Malaysia, 2% Germany and then the other 40% is a long tail made up of people born in dozens of other countries (from every continent, but light on for Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America aside from South Africa, Sudan, Chile and El Salvador).
Edit: The United States is pretty small, about 77000 total or about 0.4%. About double the Iran-born, the same number as South Korean-born and a bit less than Sri Lankan-born.
Edit edit: Basically Australia's foreign-born rpopulation breaks down to 20% UK, 9% NZ, 6% China, 6% India, 4% Italy, 4% Vietnam, 3% Philippines, 2% Malaysia, 2% Germany and then the other 40% is a long tail made up of people born in dozens of other countries (from every continent, but light on for Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America aside from South Africa, Sudan, Chile and El Salvador).
Mise
isle of lucy
Honestly, someone who thinks that "the white working classes have fled from the East End", or that "the afro-caribeans are in Brixton" isn't going to be convinced by any of this. Both of those statements are so utterly laughable, they're beyond parody. Seriously, I'm convinced now that this is all just coming from a position of wilful ignorance.
You seem to be implying that there can only be multiculturalism if people's skin is different? For a long time Australian multiculturalism (and associated tensions) revolved around the post-WWII Greek & Italian influx. I don't know what sort of meaningful point you're trying to make in relation to this? Particularly when Arwon's link that you quoted specifically mentions that the two major sources of that 13% are Poland and Ireland, if you were seeking to suggest that the 30% number for Australia is misleading compared to 13% for the UK.
And before that pretty much the organising principle of our political system was Irish Catholics vs English Protestants.
And plenty of New Zealand-born Australians aren't White either (see: Masada)
(Fun fact: so many Maoris live in Australia that a separate seat in New Zealand's parliament for Maori Australians was seriously suggested)
(Fun fact: so many Maoris live in Australia that a separate seat in New Zealand's parliament for Maori Australians was seriously suggested)
Actually I *think* the 30% foreign born isn't strictly comparable to the 13% in England and Wales. I think 30% in the Census quickstats must be total people in Australia because other Census articles report Australia's population is reported as 26% born overseas, the rest must be non-residents... short term workers and students and the like.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
So perhaps race isn't my only consideration.
Australia has always had a large foreign born population. In this day and age does any country have a problem with Greek and Italian immigrants?
From 2001-2011 Australia's foreign born population grew by 14%. The UK's foreign born during that time grew by almost 50%.
http://devpolicy.org/wp-content/upl...ign-born-population-between-2001-and-2011.png
They had to catch up eventually I suppose.
Well, no, that's rather the point isn't it.
Well, no, that's rather the point isn't it.
Although given the chance many of us would immediately apply for citizenship and start contributing more to the country's welfare system than we take out like British immigrants.
If that's a response to my post about 30% total vs 26% resident population, that just counts people who lived here for the last year (or 12 months out of the last 16, I think). Citizenship doesn't make a difference to the census. You can actually look up what percentage of people born in each country are citizens. For example, 54% of people born in the US are Australian citizens, compared to 61% of Afghanistan-born, 80% Italy, 96% Greece, 18% of Japan, 80% of Hong Kong or 33% of New Zealand born etc etc etc.
Okay, but that's a different point to the one you seemed to be making (whatever that point actually was).
Now I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say through this point. You might be saying that the UK is experiencing problems that Australia isn't because of rapid social change rather than the total amount of foreigners, and that therefore (undefined) 'problems' associated with multiculturalism don't actually have anything to do with the multiness of the cultures, but rather with how much the status quo is being upset?
maybe people in england are just cranky
Depends on time. before 19th century it was more than 40% and and in some areas(centre) were even Czechs minority. Prague was multicultural (bicultural?) city for centuries. For me is something like natural migration (for example Scots, Irish to England, English to Scotland, Ireland) and unnatural migration, signing 20th century multiculturalism.
Unfortunately you're not helping with the "Greens screaming rasism at every opportunity" stereotype
What exactly makes 20th century migration unnatural? What's unnatural migration anyway? I can think of the slave trade and forced political expulsions which might qualify but that's about it.
Hang on a second I just thought about this. The reason the UK percentage growth is so much higher is likely to be the smaller base figure. If it's only 13% in England and Wales now, it won't have been very big a decade ago.
(Also isn't it mostly Europeans in the last decade migrating to the UK? Weren't you implying to me earlier that this wasn't real multiculturalism or whatever?)
Edit: did the figures wrong.
- Status
Similar threads
