According to macrosociology researcher Jan Delhey at Otto von Geuricke University in Magdeburg, Germany—Protestantism and low ethnic diversity—are the top two criteria. Setting aside the part about Protestantism, low ethnic diversity as a single factor fits Denmark, Japan and Hungary quite well. Social trust is unsurprisingly, relatively high in all.
But not all those countries are Protestant. There are other factors at work here. Studies by researchers Hooghe, Reeskens and Stolle in a paper indicate that ethnic diversity in and of itself is not inherently destabilizing, at a national level. A country can indeed have multiple ethnicities and still have high social trust.
But there is a catch. This accounts for why people segregate themselves into ethnic enclaves. People like to be around others that are the same as them. We trust those we assume are like us. Those overwhelmed by newcomers that are not like themselves, lose trust, and soon move out. This is quite a paradox.
Diversity at a national level does not necessarily erode trust but at the neighbourhood level it does. How can this be? Switzerland is a good example of this paradox in action. With four recognized ethnicities—German, French, Italian, and Romansh—they also have high levels of social trust. But how? Each ethnicity has its own geography and government.
It does not mix ethnicities, nor does one try to control the others. This may work out fine in the long run as it has in Switzerland. Or it may turn into a bloody mess as it repeatedly does in the Balkans. The other option is low diversity. Denmark had the latter. It worked well.
- What is Kobo Super Points?!
- Criticism of multiculturalism - Wikipedia!
- Lawn Gone!: Low-Maintenance, Sustainable, Attractive Alternatives for Your Yard?
Now, it wants it back again and that will require its immigrants to integrate. The short answer is, absolutely. The long and more reasonable answer is, if you do let people into your country then make sure they hold similar values— compatibility. Make sure they want to fit into your society fully and completely— cohesion. With these two requirements satisfied, and with a sprinkle of Protestantism, the country will be well on its way to generating high levels of social trust.
Can Canada learn from Denmark? The jury is still out. But the minimum requirement by all accounts is that we must say goodbye to diversity, tolerance and inclusion , if we wish to be a society that can rebuild the trust we used to have in one another and start accepting a new norm— compatibility, cohesion, and social trust. The media outrage for a day or two after that weekend your article showed up in the newspaper was unsurprisingly overblown. He was not banned or censored, in fact, the book gave rise to a lot of discussion.
Dear Mark Hecht, please, do not be upset by the negative and indignant remarks of the dogmatics. In a way their indignation made you famous: Giordano Bruno of political science Heretics are precious, and they say one day heresy becomes dogma. Who knows? Take care. And what else can they do? The majority has to defend dogma, However, due to their indignation, and condemnation you became famous worldwide. It is pretty worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all website owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the internet will be much more useful than ever before.
Ahaa, its nice dialogue concerning this article here at this web site, I have read all that, so now me also commenting at this place. Maybe you can write next articles referring to this article. I wish to read even more things about it! You actually make it seem really easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be really something which I feel I might never understand.
It sort of feels too complex and very huge for me. I am looking forward on your subsequent post, I will try to get the grasp of it! Hello Mark. I remember taking a class with you several years ago. Your calm demeanour and patient attitude despite my initial disorganization within the course continues to hold my lasting impression on your character.
Time to talk about incomers
View all copies of this ISBN edition:. Synopsis About this title Why are the British so opposed to immigration? Review : 'A powerful new book. Buy New Learn more about this copy. About AbeBooks. Customers who bought this item also bought. Stock Image. Published by Gibson Square Books Ltd.
New Paperback Quantity Available: 2. Britain was also a multicultural nation of immigrants, or so we were taught. Asians and blacks played an important part in British history, although until the racial enlightenment prejudice had held them back. Like America, Britain had embarked on a journey from driver of slaves to cultural imperialists to a society of racial equality. The final part of this journey was its invitation to Commonwealth citizens to settle here, and its eventual acceptance of a multi-racial society, beginning with the sailing of the Empire Windrush in The British establishment had long ago disregarded the Whig theory of history, which saw our island story as a steady journey from Popish tyranny through to Parliamentary democracy, as too triumphalist; they replaced it with an anti-racist reinterpretation of the story.
England had been a dull, drab, repressed place before the arrival of the Windrush , which heralded a more exciting, vibrant, diverse society enriched beyond measure, as immigrants brought new sounds, flavours and influences. Britain had become the chicken tikka masala society, after the name of the popular dish invented in Birmingham by South Asian immigrants.
Anyone who disagreed was considered to be a moral degenerate, viewed in the same way that Victorians saw the highly sexed, and indeed many of the most vocal opponents, from Oswald Mosley to John Tyndall, were sinister and strange, and their followers the ill-educated and socially inadequate rabble from the depths of the British gene pool. After all, Britain has always been a nation of immigrants; mass immigration brings great economic benefits; diversity leads to dynamism and cross-fertilises cultural development; communities blend together and segregation declines over time; and besides which, those differences between groups enrich our lives, making people more civilised and better behaved; while opponents of such diversity are motivated by deep psychological flaws or irrational hatred.
This is the consensus we grew up with, and it has gone almost unchallenged in the media for over four decades, accepted by the most articulate and educated and nicest members of society. And yet all these assumptions about cultural and ethnic diversity are unproven at best, and have only become orthodoxy because of the huge taboo that has grown up around this subject. In fact, Britain has historically had little large-scale immigration, and recent changes are unprecedented; the economic benefits are small and short term; diversity leads to illiberalism and reaction, atomisation, inequality and crime; and British segregation is drifting towards American levels as its demography emulates that of the United States.
Mass immigration in England happened largely by accident.
The initial benefit from the British point of view was economic, immigrants filling gaps in the labour market, but as this argument faded, and as the British wished to avoid unkindness towards their new compatriots, a largely unpopular change was justified through a rationale of the cultural and moral benefits of ethnic, religious and racial diversity.
Diversity became not just the side effect of immigration policy but an official good in itself. Every state department and quango, every charity and NGO, every local government body and major company in the country touts diversity not as a possible marginal benefit or just a quirk, but as a morally positive end in itself. As time has gone by, the British people have come to accept these changes, assured that to do otherwise is morally repugnant.
And mass immigration, as an overarching change, has indeed been welcomed by many people, while less so by others, with most having mixed feelings. Yet it is hard to acceptably articulate any scepticism, and because it has become unsayable, the argument against mass immigration has been abandoned by the political mainstream, both Left and Right.
Browse more videos
It is perfectly consistent to believe in the sovereignty of nations and the legitimacy of national identity, even to the extent of not wishing to alter its fundamental nature through massive demographic change, while feeling comfortable with intermarriage and multiple loyalties. But this process can only work organically, over a very long time, and between countries of relatively equal development, not brought about by social engineering.
The rate of change in British society has been astonishing. In 25 per cent of births in England and Wales were to foreign-born mothers. By over 22 per cent of secondary school pupils were from ethnic minorities, and According to the census white Britons now constitute a minority in Greater London, and only 16 per cent in the borough of Newham, while in neighbouring Barking and Dagenham a third of the white British population had left the borough in the previous 10 years.
Across Britain there are now 7. This is neither cosmopolitanism, nor organic immigration as the country has witnessed before — it is a sweeping change unseen in modern history. To even question whether this is either ethically right or beneficial to society is viewed as immoral, and yet no one would argue that the peoples of Uganda, Iraq or Sri Lanka should become an ethnic minority in their capital cities or countries.
If that were to happen, as a result of European immigration, Englishmen and women who loved those countries and their people would be horrified by the unsettling changes inflicted on them, while still finding some of the more zealot nationalists unpleasant. Why is it different for England?
Diversity has indeed brought many benefits.
Download The Diversity Illusion What We Got Wrong About Immigration How To Set It Right
Many people who experience the downsides of diversity — in frightening neighbourhoods marred by crime, isolation and even communal tension — simply do not understand why they should be forced to live in alien surroundings as part of some grand social experiment in which they had no say; nor why they are condemned for not possessing the saintly qualities required to withstand it.
Mass immigration began in when a few hundred Jamaicans landed in Tilbury. It was not expected that many would follow, nor even that those who came would stay. The year the Windrush arrived, London hosted the Olympics for the second time. In it did so once again, a sporting event designed, as the Olympics always are, to showcase a particular idea of a society. Enjoyable though the event was, is the Britain of a happier, more pleasant or even more progressive nation than the one that hosted the Austerity Olympics of ?
Many people are not so sure. The latest projections suggest that white Britons will become a minority sometime around ,4 in a population of 80 million, which means that within little over a century Britain will have gone from an almost entirely homogenous society to one where the native ethnic group is a minority. That is, historically, an astonishing transformation.