Thats the thing with people always critiscising immigrants for not integrating. When integration happens then the host society naturally gets a responsibility to consider the minority communities who have embedded and embraced themselves with you in your culture. It could be argued that the white community has a responsibility to consider things of a historical sensitivity to minority communities like this Colston statue without the affected community needing to take to the streets.
You could also argue that the immigrant communities came to live here with all the history and baggage and should just put up with it , statue , gollywogs the lot.
Thats why i think if immigrant communties choose not to integrate its a good thing , some of their behaviours may not impress white people and vice versa so it makes sense to keep some degree of separation and respect each other communities right to be different. If your an immigrant living in your own community your less likely to give a shit about some obscure perceived act of offensiveness , so long as it happens outside your own area. Basically you get neighbouring communities living in harmony for the most part , both being a bit critical of the other but live and let live. I doubt you find many people of asian heritage getting upset about it aint half hot mum , citizen knan or someone involved in the cotton trade. Other than that young asian girl sjw that nik refers to , but shes the exception probably because she integrated too much.
Immigrant communities choose not to integrate, and the host nation allows or encourages that? That is doomed to failure. You simply cannot have what would almost be a separate country within a country. What would be the logical conclusion of all that? Well schools would teach only what the locals wanted to teach. That wouldn't include an appreciation of the host country, certainly not a full idea. What about policing? If a community kept to itself and was in effect insular, why would they put up with police from 'outside' telling them what to do? Separate police force. What about laws? Perhaps Sharia law? Or at least a version of, with bits tacked on to suit the locals. The natural corollary of that is your own laws. And what if there were problems within that community? Poverty, infighting, any kind of unrest. Would the host nation simply say 'well that's what you wanted, sort yourself out'? The list goes on. The divide would naturally get bigger and bigger. It would end in disaster. I'm amazed you think it would be a good idea.
Of course the indigenous, majority White community has a responsibility to consider things of a historical sensitivity to minority communities. What that doesn't mean though is that individual communities are always 'right' and always get what they want. Having large immigrant communities with their own histories, their own histories with the host nation, their own religions, their own 'ways' makes things complicated. They all want slightly different things from the govt, both local and national, or they'll in some way want 'special treatment' or a course of action specific to them (I don't mean that's necessarily motivated by selfishness).
Not everyone can have their way, some of it
will be selfish bollocks, it's natural for every community to want what it sees as the best for its own, and that includes the indigenous population. What there does need to be of course is some mechanism for communities to be able to make their feelings known. I can't believe that doesn't exist today already. But what doesn't seem to exist is some way of dealing with everything openly, and to properly hear both sides, both at a local and at a national level. There are always two sides. Race is such a sensitive issue, it lives at the very root of who we are. There'll often be deeply held hurt which can straightforwardly be dealt with and it's no big deal. But equally, sometimes you just need to get over yourself because what's done is done and you need to just bloody well get on with it, because in reality, no-one can sort it out but yourself.
If we really were able to speak openly about this stuff and have a proper dialogue, some things would change, some things wouldn't. But at the moment all we hear is one voice, the voice of the 'dissenter', those that feel downtrodden. And what that means is that the feeling of hurt or 'hard done by' is never properly looked at or challenged. It also gives the impression that the dissenter is always right and they feel vindicated all the time, and that perpetuates the sense of being downtrodden.
