Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: English canards, in reply to Ieuan,
The thing is, when English says, “won’t somebody think of the poor rich people” (oxymoron alert!) he’s using that as an excuse not to attempt any kind of social policy aimed at inequality reduction – such as a universal guaranteed income, for example. Calling him out on his lies is not only (or even mostly) about tax restructuring per se.
-
or, putting it another way,
understanding true levels of taxation
is just too ’canard
so it's understandable
if print journalists
duck all responsibility
for correcting
the English errors. -
Speaker: A Disorderly Brexit, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Why is nobody demanding a free vote in the Commons on Brexit?
Like David Lammy, for example?
-
Speaker: A Disorderly Brexit, in reply to Sacha,
-
There are several factors that might reasonably be expected to correlate with a “Remain” vote: perceived benefits from continued access to Europe are predictably greater for more educated, more multilingual individuals, with better job opportunities, and with more positive exposure to other cultures (most likely in larger cities, especially London). Access to Europe also clearly more immediately offers perceived benefits to Scotland and Northern Ireland (the former because of issues already brought into public awareness during the independence referendum, the latter because of the border with Eire).
By contrast, there is no one unified cluster of “Leave” voters: it’s “everybody else” – either those who do not perceive any increased opportunities for themselves from continued access to Europe (beneficiaries and lower-income groups), or isolationists with less positive exposure to other cultures (primarily rural/ small-town England), with a large side order of anti-establishment (and/or simply anti-Cameron) protest vote.
-
Speaker: A Disorderly Brexit, in reply to Dennis Frank,
there’s no book yet published that explains identity politics
In much the same way as there’s no book yet published that explains gender politics. Oh, wait, no, there’s hundreds.
This very site still hosts a series of posts written by Che Tibby 10 years ago about identity politics and nation-building, under the heading of “Metics” – though at present, you have to know they’re there in order to find them. For example: Metics 1; Metics 2; Metics 3; Metics 4; Metics 5 …
We are walking portfolios of multiple identities
Indeed – which means it’s not really a matter of “assimilation” at all, but more accurately “integration”: ways of building social networks bridging cultural/ ethnic divides, and thereby adding other layers of belongingness to those concerning cultural and ethnic identity.
And you know this, and yet still you choose to use the loaded word.
Naughty boy, -
Speaker: A Disorderly Brexit, in reply to Sacha,
The answer's in the question:
support our fellow New Zealanders
... and see immigrants as being "fellow New Zealanders" from the outset.
-
Speaker: A Disorderly Brexit, in reply to Dennis Frank,
I’m old enough to remember when the assimilation of immigrants was normal….
Let’s unpack the assumptions in your argument:
(i) “assimilation” was once “normal”;
(ii) “assimilation” is no longer “normal” ;
(iii) this is due to increased volume of immigration, and/or increased concentration of immigrant groups in enclaves.This is at best an overly simplistic comparison, and a false causal conclusion (the volume of immigration into Britain has not increased that much in recent years, though the perception of it has due to Daily Mail fear-mongering; and I invite you to name a Polish immigrant enclave, for example).
Firstly, what counts as “assimilation”, anyway? “Fitting in” should never have to entail the total loss of ethnic or cultural identity – especially in a supposedly democratic nation.
Secondly, some ethnic/ cultural/ linguistic groups are less easily “assimilated” than others, in that their identity signifiers – including e.g. religious practices, clothing styles, and language use – are (i) more noticeable to outsiders, and/or (ii) more centrally bound to their identity – and as a result also (iii) cause more resistance from outsiders, so that it is harder for them to be allowed to “fit in”.
When you compare past groups of immigrants with present groups of immigrants, you are not comparing like with like, either in terms of the cultural traits central to identity, or in terms of the majority’s level of tolerance for difference. (By and large, I would hope the mainstream is now more liberal than it once was, in terms of encouraging and respecting ethnic/ cultural/ linguistic diversity.)
Finally, residential “enclaves”, where they exist, do not necessarily indicate a desire for separatism. More often, they reflect a practical economic reality (e.g. poor immigrants have limited choice of residential areas, especially when jobs are mostly available in larger cities with higher land prices). Again, this is partly a function of whether the mainstream allows the minority to fit in.
I’m old enough to remember the racist jokes made in the 1970s about Samoan chain migration to Auckland. Perpetuation of those attitudes does not make me laugh.
-
Reckon we should just send Matthew over there to solve it, eh.
Coupla seminars, that sort of thing. Shouldn't take long :-P -
Speaker: Are we seeing the end of MSM,…, in reply to Sacha,
the media is the massage.