Setanta wrote:There's an awful lot of bullshit being slung around here. As Steve points out, the name Mohammed is popular, but that popularity says absolutely nothing about the degree of putative assimilation of those who bear the name. In Canada, the number two most common family name is Singh. That arises, of course, because there are a lot of Punjabis in Canada. However, all Sikh males take Singh as their "family name," so the prevalence of the name Singh is not indicative of any threat that Punjabis will submerge the previously dominant cultures.
As well, a good look needs to be taken at this "issue" of assimilation. You refer to Norwegian ancestors. As recently as the early 1970s, i knew people in the army from Norwegian-speaking areas of North Dakota who did not hear English spoken from one day to the next, except on the radio, until they attended in school. But whether or not Norwegian were spoken in the home, just how much assimilation do you allege took place? Did they learn the language and culture of the aboriginal inhabitants? Did they adopt the animist religion of the aboriginal inhabitants? In fact, did they not move from a European nation, in which an Indo-European langauge was spoken, and in which Christianity was the nearly exclusive religion, and in which western European Christian culture was dominant? Did they not then arrive in a nation in which the dominant language was an Indo-European language, in which the population was overwhelmingly Christian, and in which western European Christian culture was dominant? Did they not, in learning their new language, learn a language with a familiar syntax and grammar, with many vocabulary cognates, and which employed the same Roman alphabet as that with which they were familiar? In fact, assimilation wasn't much of a trick on their part.
The only way you can establish this ridiculous argument is to assert, and provide some evidence for, a contention that south Asians, and southwest Asians in England willfully avoid assimilation. In doing so, you'll need to ignore that many of them speak a language which is not of Indo-European origin (Arabic, spoken by Muslims the world over, and functioning as Latin did in Europe of the middle ages), employing an alien alphabet and orthography, and practicing a different religion than that which was dominant for centuries in England. Can they only become good British subjects by abandoning the religion of their fathers, and naming their sons Jack or Tom?
Stupid, stupid, stupid thread.
Pooch, Pooch, you really should consider Acepromazine.
You are arguing against an argument I've not made.
The only thing we can conclude with certainty about the naming trend is that the name "Mohammed" in all its variations has become very popular in the UK.
However, we can safely assume that immigration of relatively recent vintage is responsible and not a sudden and massive wave of nostalgia for a recent great American heavyweight boxer.
You are distorting my posts to fashion an argument against which you want to rant.If you wish to make the credible point that this trend is not definitive proof of one degree or another of assimilation by Southern Asians in the UK, be my guest. Forgive me though for pointing out that you are merely indulging your personal animosity for me to suggest that I have drawn any conclusions about the trend other than it is a reflection of the influence of immigration on the UK.
When the number one name in the UK changes from Jack to Mohammed, only the willfully ignorant will suggest it is not only not of import, but not of interest
Contrex responded to the original question "What do we make of this?" Without something to the effect of Brits should be proud of their tolerance. (BTW, your comments about Contrex at least reveal you to be an equal opportunity ankle biter).
My ensuing questions were intended to find out if there are limits to his tolerance. You may or may not agree, but I consider this an interesting and important question: How truly tolerant re the self-proclaimed Tolerant?
Immigration with assimilation is a boon, immigration without assimilation is a virus. Whether South Asian immigration is a boon or a virus for the UK is a question I am interested in having answered---particlarly by Brits. I am also interested in comments on the validity of this stated premise.
If honestly examined,the bullshit slung around this thread concerns assumptions about my intent, and you my Pooch are the super-slinger.
I once adopted an adult Belgian Sheperd that had a pathologically violent reaction to African-Americans. I suppose if we traced the poor dog's life back far enough we might have found an explanation, but regardless, when he savaged a visiting black friend, we had to put him down.
Dogs are funny that way.
