> However, London is not just a capital city of England and the United Kingdom. It is a global city. It is the historical heart of the British Empire and the British commonwealth of 56 nations. [..] And because of all this, it is one of the most diverse cities in the world.
Edit as reply because apparently 4 posts in 2 hours is "posting too fast":
> I don’t see a contradiction, causal impact can unfold over decades.
The British Empire was considerable as early as 1815, so it's more like centuries.
In any case, it was the author that made a claim that runs counter to the evidence - the more the British Empire shrunk, the more diverse London became. The only justification he gave was "because of all this". It seems to me those four words are carrying a lot of weight, and need some elaboration.
For example, what, exactly, is the causality here, and why does it lag so much? What is it that makes it impossible for England to say no to immigration now, but it was able to say no for the preceding ~200 years when its empire was at its peak?
Thanks to the 1948 British Nationality Act anyone from the Commonwealth, such as India or Pakistan, could migrate without visa. This caused the first wave of migrants as a response for the huge demand of doctors, nureses and workers (as in other European countries). Now, to explain the delayed effect, chain migration is the factor, the first generation brings their wifes and children, building communities, attracting the next generation to move abroad, and so on, taking place over decades. I've seen it with Turkish communities in Germany, the first generation came for the same reasons as in the UK, now they constitute 3% of the German population, but they deeply assimilated into German culture.
> However, London is not just a capital city of England and the United Kingdom. It is a global city. It is the historical heart of the British Empire and the British commonwealth of 56 nations. [..] And because of all this, it is one of the most diverse cities in the world.
All those things (except the last) were true for London in 1961, when it was 97.7% white: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_London#Ethnici...
Edit as reply because apparently 4 posts in 2 hours is "posting too fast":
> I don’t see a contradiction, causal impact can unfold over decades.
The British Empire was considerable as early as 1815, so it's more like centuries.
In any case, it was the author that made a claim that runs counter to the evidence - the more the British Empire shrunk, the more diverse London became. The only justification he gave was "because of all this". It seems to me those four words are carrying a lot of weight, and need some elaboration.
For example, what, exactly, is the causality here, and why does it lag so much? What is it that makes it impossible for England to say no to immigration now, but it was able to say no for the preceding ~200 years when its empire was at its peak?
Thanks to the 1948 British Nationality Act anyone from the Commonwealth, such as India or Pakistan, could migrate without visa. This caused the first wave of migrants as a response for the huge demand of doctors, nureses and workers (as in other European countries). Now, to explain the delayed effect, chain migration is the factor, the first generation brings their wifes and children, building communities, attracting the next generation to move abroad, and so on, taking place over decades. I've seen it with Turkish communities in Germany, the first generation came for the same reasons as in the UK, now they constitute 3% of the German population, but they deeply assimilated into German culture.
I don’t see a contradiction, causal impact can unfold over decades.