So all gangs in this country come from immigrants and non-anglo racial groups? Imagine that!

Since mu gets it, let's have more Muslims here to liven things up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEeRY_07EzY

Just a little perception adjustment, if I may.

>>If we were all crowded in together like they are in London, the Cronulla riots would be an annual event.<<

I take it from this, grn, that you expect London to be a seething mass of perpetual rioting? Think again.

Yes, it is crowded. And yes, there have been, and will continue to be, outbreaks of dissent, frustration and violence on London streets. But they are far fewer than you seem to imagine, and tend to die down fairly quickly. They are a feature of inner-city living.

Notting Hill was famous for its riot back in the late fifties.

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/nottinghillcarnival2002/story/0,12331,780023,00.html

It is now most notable for being the home of upwardly-mobile Tories.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4314926.stm

Brixton was a classic example in the early eighties.

http://www.urban75.org/brixton/history/riot1.html

Look at it now, through the eyes of a travel journalist:

http://www.victorborg.com/html/bohemian_brixton.html

Brick Lane used to be a byword for inner-city poverty. I used to drive past it on my way to work, thirty years ago, and can testify to its squalor. Here it is today:

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10024877

It's worth extracting a couple of phrases from the Economist article:

"Brick Lane itself is a monument to multicultural tolerance of the most photogenic sort: Bengali curry houses compete with beigel bakeries; a Church of England school sits opposite the Bangla City supermarket, where restaurateurs heave away jumbo frozen fish. Up the road, snowboard shops and art galleries announce the invasion of cool-seeking yuppies."

And:

"The Jamme mosque on the corner of Fournier Street and Brick Lane is a symbol of the area's history as an immigrant launch-pad. Before 1976 it was a synagogue; before that a Methodist chapel; and earlier still a church for French Huguenots."

To misquote Mick Dundee, "That's not multiculturalism. THAT's multiculturalism".

It's perfectly fine to be against multicuturalism, that's your choice. But it doesn't bring with it all the ills of the world, as you like to suggest.

Pericles, that's cheating though, you're talking about Indians, and everybody knows they have high IQs, therefore of course they do well.

And if you agree this is a silly conclusion, go and tell redneck that in the "Privileged whites" thread.

BTW, not 100% relevant, but an equally interesting Economist article on racial differences in Britain is here: http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8089315. Unfortunately it's been recently changed to subscriber-only content, but it essentially shows that not only has recent focus on assisting struggling cultural groups been successful, it's actually left the "whites" behind.

By Michael Jonas | August 5, 2007

IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

The study comes at a time when the future of the American melting pot is the focus of intense political debate, from immigration to race-based admissions to schools, and it poses challenges to advocates on all sides of the issues. The study is already being cited by some conservatives as proof of the harm large-scale immigration causes to the nation's social fabric. But with demographic trends already pushing the nation inexorably toward greater diversity, the real question may yet lie ahead: how to handle the unsettling social changes that Putnam's research predicts.

"We can't ignore the findings," says Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. "The big question we have to ask ourselves is, what do we do about it; what are the next steps?"

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/rambr

So you can believe the ramblings of a silly old fool like Peter Gibilisco or read the rest of this study and be enlightened by the truth.

There is plethora of evidence that shows MC destorys the fabric of society!!

EasyTimes, America is not Australia, and America has never been all that great at multiculturalism.

Your link doesn't work, BTW, looks like it's truncated.