Yes, I know. That is probably an unnecessarily provocative title. Still, it is a provocative issue I am about to broach. Dave Sidhu at DNSI highlights a new report by UK Migration Watch (which seems like a conservative independent think tank) that more politely asks the same question as the title of this post. Here are the first two points from their summary:
1. International arranged marriages are a major factor in the formation of ghettoes in Britain. Even in the second generation, a high proportion of immigrants from certain countries enter arranged marriages with spouses from their county of origin. This sets back integration by a generation. The flow of spouses and fiancé(e)s from the Indian Sub Continent (ISC) doubled between 1996 and 2001. Now nearly half of ethnic Indian and three quarters of ethnic Pakistani and Bangladeshi children aged 0-4 have a mother born in her country of origin. 30% of all children born in Bradford are born to foreign mothers; in Tower Hamlets the figure is 68%. And the Pakistani population of Manchester, Birmingham and Bradford increased by about 50% between 1991 and 2001.2. It is now essential that immigration policy should discourage international arranged marriage which has become a means of immigration. The present regulations should be tightened and a “family connection test” should be introduced, similar to that in force in Denmark. Where a UK resident wishes to marry a spouse from the country in which he or she (or either parent) was born, entry clearance to Britain should not be granted until both parties have reached the age of 24. The test would not apply to citizens of the EU who have a treaty right of entry nor to citizens of countries whose primary official language is English and thus do not pose an integration problem.
<
p>An article from the Sept. 25th edition of the Times which summarized the report seems to more narrowly classify the “arranged marriages” in the report as “forced” arranged marriages (as opposed to voluntary). Nowhere in the report however, do I find UK Migration Watch specifically referring to “forced” marriages. I wonder if this is a bit of editorializing by the Times since I can’t think of why the findings of the study wouldn’t be equally applicable to arranged marriages of choice??
The report reveals that the number of spouses and fiancés from the Indian subcontinent doubled between 1996 and 2001, when 22,000 were granted entry into Britain.
It is estimated that 60% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi marriages in Bradford in 2001 involved a spouse from the subcontinent. Almost a third of all children born in Bradford now have foreign mothers. In the London borough of Tower Hamlets the figure is 68%.
Last week Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, warned of “walls going up” around some Asian and black communities living in ghettos, which he defined as districts where two-thirds of residents belong to a single ethnic minority.
Phillips said the number of people of Pakistani origin living in ghettos had trebled between 1991 and 2001. [Link]
<
p>The report also points to Denmark as an example of proactive immigration policy that will help break the chain that leads to ethnic ghettoes (and by inference terrorism):
18. Denmark and the Netherlands have already recognised the problems caused by chain migration through marriage and have taken effective steps to restrict migration by this route. In Denmark “the proportion of newly wed immigrants and descendants from non- Western countries who have married a person living abroad has declined significantly in connection with the tighter rules of the Aliens Act.” (It fell from 62.7% in 2001 to 43.2% in 2003.)
I reflexively question any findings about immigration by a conservative group and yet I find myself agreeing with many of their conclusions. If you leave your country to make a better life for yourself in another, the statistics shouldn’t so strongly indicate that you are trying to pull your entire old society with you. Of course, this happened in the late 1800s and 1900s in America, but the difference there was that there was a wide open expanse of land waiting to be explored and settled to the west. In many cases this incentivized the break-up of concentrated ethnic communities as they moved to pursue better opportunities. Such an open frontier no longer exists in the world, and there is thus no place to drain or means to dilute ethnic ghettoes. Perhaps the time has come for harsher steps through tougher immigration policy.
Hammer and sickel: I see what you’re saying; my own view is that the RELIGIOSITY os Indian Muslims is not a good indicator of the ANTI-INDIAN or separatist tendencies among Indian Muslims:
http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2005/08/on-historical-relationship-between.html
I too have heard of some Muslims celebrating pakistan’s victories; I have also heard of Muslims in Baroda pelted with stones when they were celebrating INDIA’S victory (they were taunted and told to support Pakistan), and have heard of people saying that when Muslims in Bombay and Calcutta prayed at stadiums with Indian flags, that they were only pretending to do so, and that “really” these people were “of course” praying for a Pakistani victory.
I didn’t take offense, dialogue and discussion are necessary (since I hope I don’t believe that only I have access to “truth” and everyone else has no basis for their views).
“parties are in the race of telling the minorities that they, and nobody else, are their protectors. This communalism is being practised openly and blatantly in the name of secularism.”
I agree completely.
i’m late to the party, and i don’t have much to say aside from this
1) good for you abhi for looking at the content of ideas rather than the source.
2) note that there was a 40 year “pause” in american immigration (relative to the base native population at least) between 1925 and 1965. this was the period when catholic and jewish ethnics became “american.”
3) different communities have different dynamics. in the USA the ‘ghetto’ or ‘ethnic neighborhood’ was destroyed by suburbanization in the 1950s and 1960s. jewish intermarriage rates started increasing a lot around 1965, going from 10% to 40% (being conservative) in 40 years. jews were already rather prosperous by 1950.
4) terrorist issues aside, i think a culture of arranged marriages is shitty for the people within those marriages. in this thread there is a focus on the relationship of ethnic minorities to the surrounding population, but myself, one big concern i have is that boys, and more likely, girls, will be pressured by their social milieu which is perpetually metastable as an ‘immigrant’ community that is in the nation but not of the nation.
5) canada and europe and can do multiculturalism all they want. i don’t give a fuck anymore, but when it comes to the USofA i am a proud conservative who wishes to maintain the civil rights consensus of 1965, after civil rights legislation and roll back of state mandated segregation, but before the rise of powerful identity politics and an ssertion that group affinity must by its nature trump individual preference. even if it is a vain and lost cause, at least we go down with a fight.
People, sorry for the OT comment because I am just coming here after a long layoff on SM, and having read the entire Ramzaan thread and I think I have some value to add. (To Ed: why do you guys close comments to old post? – feel free to remove this comment and put it back in the Ramzaan thread with a pointer here).
So, here we go: First up, excellent post Abhi. However, there is no starting age of 12. You can regularly see, children as young as of age 5 fasting(yes, the whole 30 days). But it varies. Parents usually encourage their children to start fasting as early as possible so that they don’t resist it later on. Some start with 2-3 fasts and graduate slowly, and some go the whole month in first attempt. Mileage varies from family to family.
All that switching to Mecca timings is news for me. Though I do wonder what Finnish/Norwegian Muslims do where they have 6months of night and 6months of day. Surely, there should be a reasonable way out. Secondly, though fasting is one of the obligatory rituals, nothing in Islam, and I mean NOTHING is mandated to the point where it hurts your health. So to answer Bongbreaker, if someone is medically advised to not fast, then he can stay away. Infact it’s mandated that he should not fast. Same goes with pregnant women(baby needs nutrition). And till date I haven’t heard of someone dying of fasting. If anyone has any such story, pls point it out.
Yoginder Sikand is neither a Sufi nor Sikh, though he did mention that he comes from a mixed background(Sufi+Hindu parents, IIRC) hence his interest in inter-faith dialogue and Islam. He calls himself agnostic. I’ve met him and interacted with him quite a few times in Bangalore. Gem of a person, and can beat many modern-day aalims in Islamic theology hands down.
I am from Bombay, and mutton always meant goat and lamb=sheep. After moving to Bangalore, someone told me, in expensive restaurants in India when they say lamb it means goat, and nobody serves sheep. So I am now thoroughly confused.(btw, any places here in the US which serve goat/sheep? ofcourse except for the desi halaal-meat store). Though poor people do eat beef more, even rich people eat beef. Beef is more suitable for kebabs et al, and mutton for curries etc. Then again tastes vary. Most Muslims in Bombay who belong from UP/Bihar(I am not) have a strong liking to beef over mutton. I think it’s a regional thing.
Done with Ramzaan..onto this thread. Have they looked into the new love-cum-arranged marriages phenonmenon? I call bullshit on this report without reading it in detail. They somehow assume, all marriages that are not arranged, are more likely to be inter-[religious/sect/cultural] and even white-brown pairs.
I claim that anyone who marries into a family of chilli-spice-curry family is more likely to turn into a terrorist. You see: chilli+spices = hot = hot-headed = loses his cool .. ergo terrorist.
They somehow assume, all marriages that are not arranged, are more likely to be inter-[religious/sect/cultural] and even white-brown pairs.
well duh. what parents wants their son/daughter to marry a muslim/hindu/sikh/black/white/etc. etc. can’t we just stipulate obvious realities? the p value of you marrying someone of background x is due to a lot of factors, arranged marriages where there is a go-between tends to impose high selection criteria. “love” marriages impose different selection criteria, often more expansive ones (i would argue that a ph.d. brown hindu dude has more stringent educational selection critera than his extended family might have, but in other areas like religion, caste, SES and so on he might be laxer).
“i think a culture of arranged marriages is shitty for the people within those marriages”
Razib: I think that’s a sweeping generalization. There are plenty of people who prefer arranged or semi-arranged marriages, who would be quite surprised by your characterization of their life-choices as shitty.
Razib: I think that’s a sweeping generalization. There are plenty of people who prefer arranged or semi-arranged marriages, who would be quite surprised by your characterization of their life-choices as shitty.
of course. i’m talking general expectations here. on the balance, i think for a liberal democratic society to prosper in congruence with a mass consumer culture one must have strong non-kin attachments and individual preference and self-actualization must take priority.
if you want me to be honest, i know a fat shy dude who really enjoys his non-english speaking bangladeshi import. arranged marriage has been a real good deal for him. and aside from the manic depression and social isolation that said important feels living in western massachuttes, i’m sure she’s happy being in the first world.
if want to take sweeping generalizations off the playing field, well, we can’t talk about anything except for art where all standards for systematic discursion seem to be nullified. i mean, if want me to talk in terms of exceptation, medians, variances, standard deviations and what not, i will. i’d have to make up some numerative proxies (ie; utility bundle, i don’t know), but i’ll do it.
There are plenty of people who prefer arranged or semi-arranged marriages, who would be quite surprised by your characterization of their life-choices as shitty.
and let me be clear in that there isn’t a dichotomy here. there is semi-arranged marriage. there is conventional western marriage before 1900 where sexual enjoyment was frowned upon. there are lots of variations. mormons in the USA take a different attitude toward marriage that most americans. i’m not denying diversity, but the way extended families manipulate or control spouse choice in many “traditional” societies, or the neo-traditional diaspora societies, is a particular cultural motif that i think is wrong for a variety of reasons. those reasons are framed by the norms and values that i think promote the ‘good life’ and ‘good society.’ i will make them explicit if you really want, but my negative attitude toward arranged marriage is party motivated by those larger considerations.
for example, in marriage, a history by stephanie coontz, she reports on psychological literature which points out that north indian men often have a distant and cool relationship to their wives in comparison to that with their mothers and brothers. that is not a pattern that i think is ideal to recapitulate in a liberal democratic society where gender equalitarianism is expected and promoted.
“if you want me to be honest, i know a fat shy dude who really enjoys his non-english speaking bangladeshi import. arranged marriage has been a real good deal for him. and aside from the manic depression and social isolation that said important feels living in western massachuttes, i’m sure she’s happy being in the first world.”
The “if you want me to be honest” that begins this sentence is a giveaway: the generalization I was objecting to is precisely your insinuation that arranged marriages are only good deals for fat, shy dudes, i.e. that arranged marriages are only good deals for those who can’t hack it in the social scene. If that’s your view fine, however, if you want ME to be honest, I know tons of people to whom that description does not apply. I am not suggesting that the arranged marriage ethic is utterly non-problematic, but neither is its liberal Western counterpart.
You also said: “i think for a liberal democratic society to prosper in congruence with a mass consumer culture one must have strong non-kin attachments and individual preference and self-actualization must take priority.”
I do agree with this statement (though I do not share the implicit assumption of this statement, at least as I read it, that the only “good” polity is one that may be defined as a “liberal democratic society” focused on “individual preference and self-actualization”, or that this is the summa of human achievement).
Razib, though I broadly agree that love marriages have more chances of mixing than arranged, but the numbers are not too high. From what I’ve seen, people will still tend to prefer partners of similar religious/cultural background and that’s not necessarily a bad thing, if that is what they want.
Arranged marriages no more mean, those days of 70s when the bride and groom see each other for the first time on their first night, and then live through the horror rest of their lives. Nowadays, it mostly means, parents search for a ‘suitable’ family, and both boy and girl have a choice to ‘evaluate’ out each other and opt out if it doesn’t suit their tastes. I don’t see anything wrong in that.
At the same time, as much as we like to believe, I see little correlation between inter-[whatever] marriages and education. Just take a trip down south India (you’ll get doctors, engineers, PhDs dime a dozen) and you can see most of them are still marrying not just in the same religion, but same sect, sub-sect, nakshatra, gothra what not. Now, I don’t have any objection to that. To each his own. I am just saying there is little relation between these statistics and shingdang think-tanks coming out with such ‘policy reports’. One might as well propose a legislation, where all browns are forced to marry caucasians, so that all of us can become one cool beige. Saves money on tanning, eh? 🙂
“i’m not denying diversity…”
I’m glad you say that, because one of the socially interesting things (or at least that I find intriguing) about contemporary arranged marriages– especially in the trans-national context– is the extent to which arranged marriage structures have morphed and mutated rather than withered away, as many had expected. It is not uncommon for me to come across (for instance) independent career-oriented desi women in both the sub-continent and in the USA who consider the arranged marriage structure–on their terms– to be preferable to the liberal Western ideal, and what they see as the manufacture of anxiety (and obligations, different in kind from the obligations associated with “traditional” structures, but pervasive nonetheless) associated with that ideal. As long as “self-actualization” might mean different things to different people in the same culture, and different things across different cultures, such generalizations are not so much an aid to analysis so much as a regurgitation of unexamined biases.
From what I’ve seen, people will still tend to prefer partners of similar religious/cultural background and that’s not necessarily a bad thing, if that is what they want.
you are quantitizing anything though. of course people still prefer “their own kind,” all things being equal. jews prefer to marry other jews in the USA, there is about a 1 out of 2 shot that an american jew will marry another jew, but if you constrain that to say, a hasidic jew, there is a 99 out of 100 shot they will marry another jew (or a 999 out of 1000). that’s a big difference. jews are 2.5% of the american population, so back-of-the-envelope a 50% inmarriage rate is 800X what you would expect from random mating (that is, 2.5%X2.5%). but 50% outmarriage rate is also pretty high.
so yeah, it might be a ‘sweeping generalization’ that non-arranged marriages increase the p value of ‘outmarriage,’ but it also happens to be true from all i can see. sometimes you can’t help who you fall in love with, but momma & auntie don’t really give a shit 🙂
consider a community with a 10% outmarriage rate vs. one with a 1% outmarriage rate. you might think on an absolute level that the different is minimal, but that’s 10X the possibility that a cousin, sister, brother, or friend you meet at temple, is married out of the community. that’s 10X the number out-community social links created with the outside society.
sometimes you can’t help who you fall in love with I thought it was more like ‘always’ 🙂
but momma & auntie don’t really give a shit 🙂 They do.. atleast in cities, most of em do..(lest if their sweetoo decides to elope with the girl :)) Jokes aside, that’s where the love-cum-arrange setup comes into picture. Parents nowadays are increasingly becoming pretty cool to this idea.
Guys,
The primary reason of the discussion/ post was not about “love” vs. “arranged” marriages, “in” vs. “out” marriages. On these issues, I tend to be “to each its own” and would have not commented at all. Please do not digress.
It was about link between arranged marraiges, ghettoization, terrorism, and immigration policies. Moreover, a campaign for imposing selective policies over certain section of minority – that is absolutely detestable.
Let’s stay on the topic.
Moreover, a campaign for imposing selective policies over certain section of minority – that is absolutely detestable.
but the danish policy doesn’t due that. the motivation was due to the rise of cousin marriages between kurds “back home” and those born in denmark, but the effect has been on all people. there was an NPR story about a senagalese woman who had to live in malmo in sweden because of the new law, as she couldn’t marry her danish boyfriend because of the age related issues. that sucks, but if as a byproduct it breaks up the recapitulation of muslim kurdish clan culture in denmark, i’m all for it.
I recall that a few Jewish kids at my HS complained about having to go to all-Jewish functions and being “set-up” w/ boys by family members/community. The adults expected these teens to get to know each other and maybe even date and marry later on. I have never seen people in ANY Muslim community doing such a thing, and I sorta envied those kids who got to meet a lot of people from their background. I have never met any Muslim desis who were cool with the Western style of dating, even if it was with a desi of similar background/religion. They (the older gen) don’t seem to care that most of the young ppl are not religious and don’t care about national origin. In college, there were MANY desis, but there were divisions as well by, mainly by looks and money. This is so shallow and old-fashioned, and as a result of this CRAP a lotta desis don’t know how to talk/relate to someone from the opposite gender! Things really have to change (even my traditional, practicing Muslim dad agrees)!!!
Sorry, but had to vent.
Sure… this is just a Muslim problem… at least until the Sangh Parivar radicals finally roll out a serious international terrorist campaign… then the real fun starts…
In my previous post, I mean to say that a lotta young desis don’t know how to talk to/approach other desis.
I don’t think that’s strictly accurate. As far as I know, the proposed policy is a blanket UK-wide restriction and, in content, not specifically targetted at any particular minority community (ie. no “names” are mentioned). However, since by far the majority of British citizens who have arranged marriages happen to be of South Asian origin, they’re the ones who’ll be impacted the most by all this. And although the catalyst is events concerning the Muslim population, the rest of us would also be affected by this too.
Something which must be mentioned is that the ‘salad bowl’ version of multiculturalism (in the same mould as the US or India) was a concept which in recent years the British populace and government were quite happy to live with — “diversity enriches our society”, and so on. However, the issue of UK-based support for jihad on the part of some of the Muslim population — especially after 7/7 — is what has triggered the turnaround and re-thinking of the whole nature of “British identity”, integration, assimilation, and so on. Most people weren’t excessively bothered about non-indigenous communities practising certain cultural beliefs and traditions amongst themselves as long as it didn’t negatively impact the rest of society. Unfortunately, in recent times this has changed with:
a) extreme groups openly campaigning on TV and in central London for the overthrowing of British government, culture and society and for the imposition of Shariah Law, along with support for the global jihad (imagine if groups with similar views were behaving the same way in the middle of Times Square in New York, and you’ll get the idea),
b) Large numbers of British-born Muslims (mostly of South Asian origin) apparently having visited terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, including some who have participated in warfare over there against British and American soldiers (possibly treasonous behaviour),
c) 7/7 and the small-but-significant tacit and explicit support for the bombers and the global jihad that seems to be present. Along with the fact that Muslims are the biggest minority religious group in the UK (because the numbers are Pakistanis and Bangladeshis combined with others from the Middle East and Africa), remember that geographically the UK is much smaller than the US — it’s much more crowded, so large numbers of ethnic communities do have a greater impact here, especially if they’re predominantly “aloof” in their lifestyles and attitudes from the rest of the country.
I’m beginning to get a very strong impression that there is a marked difference in attitudes and levels of integration/assimilation between the British South Asian Muslim community and its counterpart in the US. I have no idea what the population breakdown is in the States, but over here most South Asian Muslims are actually from Pakistan rather than India, with a smaller percentage originally from Bangladesh.
On another related thread a few weeks ago, Punjabi Boy — and, to a lesser extent, myself — gave quite a detailed summary about events during the last 15 years here which appears to have encouraged an anti-Western radicalised mentality. To give you an example, when I was at college about a decade ago, plenty of British Muslim students did have a “South Asian unity” mindset, but unfortunately there were also significant numbers who did not, and even then it was common to hear people quite openly talking about “the future Islamic revolution”, “one day the whole world will be united under Islam”, “one day Britain itself will be Islamic, and believe me it will happen”, “the aim is to reach the top of our respective professions and then impose Islam from the top down”, and so on.
The rest of us usually jokingly dismissed such aspirations as harmless fantasising — pipe-dreams, basically. “Let them dream — it’s never going to happen, and they’ll find the ‘real world’ is a very different place once they graduate and start having to work.”
Unfortunately, with the rise of certain radical mosques and clerics here in the UK, it appears that quite a few wannabe jihadists with a hero-complex have subsequently decided to turn their fairytale ideas into reality. Especially when individuals like OBL kick things into higher gear by openly declaring war on the West (and everyone else) — of course people with a change-the-world jihadist attitude (which would previously have been relatively impotent) are going to find an added impetus to put plans into motion if they see that there really is an organised, worldwide movement to attack the West (and everything it symbolises). It’s an apocalyptic dream-come-true.
From what I can tell, the most influential and radical mullahs seem to be relatively recent arrivals from the Middle East, rather than from Pakistan, although the majority of their “disciples” do seem to be of Pakistani origin. (There are other smaller numbers of extremists from Africa along with converts of Caribbean origin).
I’ve already mentioned the “reverse racism” factor in another recent SM discussion (as referenced by Kush Tandon near the top of this thread), but it would certainly help to have some input from those of you based in the US as to the general attitude and mentality of the American-based South Asian Muslim population with regards to the majority Caucasian community (along with American society and culture as a whole). If there is not such a great degree if antagonism towards American Caucasians then perhaps there are some different dynamics at work in the UK compared with the US. To paraphrase what I’ve already said in another thread — I’ve wondered if there is an element of (metaphorical) schizophrenia involved; think about it — from the point of view of many older-generation South Asians, migrating to the UK (the very country which ruled and, in the minds of many, tyrannised, humiliated and abused so many of one’s countrymen for so long) would be like large numbers of Israeli Jewish people migrating to Germany, just for financial reasons, despite what “they” did to “us”. There could be all kinds of guilt-ridden and possibly xenophobic* factors at work here, if certain sections of the immigrant population view the term “British” to be referring to past colonial groups (and their descendents) rather than merely describing everyone who happens to be a citizen of the UK (including themselves) — and if this worldview is encouraged amongst UK-born 2nd-Generationers by their parents. This doesn’t necessarily explain the rising Islamist extremist on mainland Europe, of course, but it could well be something pertinent to the UK. Just an idea.
Someone on this thread mentioned the higher degree of integration/assimilation by British Hindus and Sikhs compared with Muslims; this is correct — broadly-speaking — but bear in mind that both Hinduism and Sikhism are more liberal and flexible than Islam (apart from the Sufi variety), so there is greater leeway for them to be more “Westernised” in their attitudes and behaviour without any excessive incompatibility with their respective faiths. Islam, however, is very conservative about certain non-negotiable things; hence there can be less flexibility and subsequently less scope for its stricter adherents to “dive into” — or condone/accept –some of the more liberal norms of Western life — so of course they will feel more alienated from mainstream Western society and culture.
While we’re on this topic, I should also comment that the rationale of poverty apparently being a factor in triggering/promoting terrorism isn’t something I agree with — if that were true, sub-Saharan Africans should have been waging guerrilla war against the rest of the world for a long time. Which obviously isn’t the case.
** By no means am I saying that Israeli Jews have a xenophobic attitude towards present-day Germans. Again, this is just an example.
so whats all so great in “integration”? Christopher Columbus didn’t bother integrating, and america turned out pretty decent.
Jai,
Quite well written. The Economist has also been for nearly four years raising alarm on openly radicalized Islamists have become in UK.
Regarding reverse racism in US, I am not the right person to comment. Other than sepia mutiny, my contacts with South Asian community are minimal, and sometimes for years non-existent. Somebody else, could comment in a more educated manner.
It is not the poverty – it is the poverty sitting next to wealth that causes violence. It is not the only reason – cultural trapping play a role too. There has been no fatwa on children being killed by Islamic terrorists in Iraq but there were fatwas on Sania Mirza [Paraphrasing Tom Friedman from NYT].
However, the solution is isolating the disease rather than demonizing the community as a whole.
Of course, this happened in the late 1800s and 1900s in America, but the difference there was that there was a wide open expanse of land waiting to be explored and settled to the west. In many cases this incentivized the break-up of concentrated ethnic communities as they moved to pursue better opportunities
Yep the American indians who called that vast expance a home don’t matter right? After all it was their land. Census shows there were over a million of them living there and about two million caucasians living in the east. I don’t belive interracial marriage there was any more common amongst whites and American indians. So why should we? After all we all came here for the same reason regardless of area of origin. If they are allowed to keep their tradition and heretage why now us?
Great post, Jai Singh! I am also in the same situation as Kush Tandon- not an expert on desis/Muslims/South Asians. I am trying to learn though… Jai, you said that Islam is less flexible than Hinduism and Sikhism. I would agree to this if I was younger, but I know NOW that it all depends on interpretation! However, there is not a movement I know of (of any large scale) to have a more “liberal” view of Islam. Any suggestions on how we can bring this about? Or am I being too naive?
If the old society you are trying to pull has enough cash and can create jobs in the new country, they are welcomed with open arms and all these statistics mean nothing.
Kush,
Absolutely correct. I certainly don’t believe in the concept of “group guilt/collective blame”.
Amplifiar,
Our parents (and recent desi arrivals) did NOT come here for the same reason. The average early European settler in America was not living there as a citizen of one of the indigenous Native American nations. South Asians are mostly economic migrants and have moved to established, industrialised nation-states. They did not migrate to the West in order to “take those countries over” as “new” colonies. To a lesser or greater extent, you’re basically living in someone else’s country — certainly with regards to the UK, if not necessarily the US where everyone is an immigrant (or descended from one) apart from the Native Americans.
Emma,
You’re right, as far as I know there is not any global, organised Islamic reformation movement at present. There are, however, apparently local efforts in various Islamic countries. The irony is that there is already a more liberal interpretation of Islam, one which developed centuries ago, especially in the Indian subcontinent — Sufism. Unfortunately, it currently seems to be rejected by many Muslims in favour of more orthodox and conservative versions of the faith.
As non-Muslims, “we” can do relatively little. The change has to come from within the global Islamic community.
IMO, reason that US muslim population especially from South Asia is not ghetto-ised is because they tend to more educated.
Due to the immigration policy of US only highly educated people (if they are browns from South Asia) were allowed. (A fuckwit from Europe would be just fine for the immigration policy.
As a result the south asian muslim population in the US is on average has higher education and is more affluent, which explains why US south asian MUSLIMS are not terrorists (although even they’ve had arranged marraiges 🙂 )
South Asians are mostly economic migrants and have moved to established, industrialised nation-states. They did not migrate to the West in order to “take those countries over” as “new” colonies. To a lesser or greater extent, you’re basically living in someone else’s country — certainly with regards to the UK, if not necessarily the US where everyone is an immigrant (or descended from one) apart from the Native American
Jai some great points. But immigrants who come here and “form ghetto’s” often try the same trick with less success than the whites did in america. Remember america was a land full of indians(the red variety). The initial whites were given land and refuge by the indians(hence the reason for thanks giving day here). Once the whites gained enough numbers, they snatched the land from the less numbered indians. The europeans came here for economic reasons also, depending on the part of europe we are talking about. We SE asians have migrated for economic reasons, not to become white. The point is to have a “better” live, not necessarily a different one. The goal is to practice your religion and preserve your culture and maintain it, while being able to live without worrying about food and shelter. That in a nutshell is the goal of a typical SE asian immigrant. And i personaly don’t think its an unreasonable one.
In a globalized world, one can make the point that having one parent from india and another from uk/canada/us/australia is not really such a stretch
every other person in some districts in india knows someone who’s living in the uk/canada/us/australia….it can be as different as someone from alabama marrying someone from NYC
of course, not always
Amplifiar,
You’re correct, but read my post number 69 again. Most of the indigenous people here in the UK didn’t really care what ethnic groups did amongst themselves either, and although people weren’t necessarily thrilled about the tendency of some South Asians to live aloof from the mainstream society, it wasn’t regarded as a threat to national security and to the cohesion of the country as a whole.
The problems arise when some of the culture and values practised by enough members of the minority groups are hostile to the surrounding majority society and nation — especially if it’s to the degree of wanting to overthrow the present democratic political system (or tacitly supporting this aim, even if one doesn’t necessarily do anything directly), supporting the actions of overseas terrorist groups who are waging war against the West as a whole, or deciding to “bring the war home” by blowing up one’s fellow citizens on the trains and buses in London.
With all due respect, the term “we” is a misnomer. This certainly applies to recent arrivals in the West and of course to the 1st-Generation — but it doesn’t apply to the children of South Asian immigrants who have been born in, and have grown up in, the West. I can’t speak for the US, but here in the UK the majority of South Asians have been born here. (I’m talking pure numbers — there are significantly more 2nd-Generationers than 1st-Generationers).
UK’s immigration system needs to be overhauled thats for sure.
“International arranged marriages are a major factor in the formation of ghettoes in Britain.”
Rubbish!
what kind of numbers are we talking about here, seems to me there are significantly less Muslims actively supporting ‘terror’ (who’s scared ?) by percentage of UK muslim population than there were irish catholics supporting terror by percentage of UK catholic population . UK Immigrants of whatever generation should remember that the british state has fought before against internal subversion and this subversion has arisen as a consequence of imperialism as much as any ghettoising.
“International arranged marriages are a major factor in the formation of ghettoes in Britain.”
wats all dis bwt???????? I agree with FK
This is dumb. The British are the most racist people ever. Basically anything can lead to terrorism if thats how you put it. No one looks at the dumb blondes in britian who never amount to anything in this line of poverty. Its people likes those who write an article like this that get laughed at from future generations.