Quote:
Originally Posted by GySgt  Europe's history is not one of tolerance and civilized behavior in times of trouble. |
Be fair, most nations do not historically exhibit this either, including the U.S, and that's because we're talking about the same animals, humans.
I think your point that Britain may need to actually face this problem in a way they haven't typically faced such problems before, is probably accurate.
We had the same issues in the U.S. We ethnically cleansed the dirty natives from our god given land so we could spread freedom. We then kept Africans as slaves and segregated them, then fought a war against ourslelves to integrate them. We left the natives segregated and they didn't fare so well did they. Jews we left segregated and they remain the most powerful minority, probably ever. Segreation, integration, ethnic cleansing, all just tools, everyone uses them or has historically.
The questions are:
1. Do the British believe segregation will work in the long run, or cause more pain, hardship, problems, etc. down the line, and eventually be violent as a result?
2. Do the British believe the clash of integration will be the better long-term solution, despite the significant shor-term pain both peoples will experience as a result?
3. Do the British believe they can get away with ethnic cleansing?
That's up to them, and their government, to decide. None are magically better or more historically associated with good or bad nations. It's human nature. I doubt they could get away with #3. So their choice becomes 1 or 2. Both are in use in the U.S. also. Both have met with success and failures.
-Mach