New homes block is for 'Asians only'
 

If this was sanctioned by the government then people would be all up in arms, but when it's the communities doing it then it's okay, they are just "feeling their roots" and such.

Bullshit. It's still wrong. The more we stay apart and separate from each other the more miscommunication and misunderstanding happen.

I've never understood voluntary ghettoization. But it does seem to be a fairly popular lifestyle option.

what's ghetto about it?

it is fucked up though. if a bunch of white people got together to live in a little community, others would say it was a supremecist group.

It's religious group of old people.

In effect, a retirement village.

Excuse me, but, aren't there a _lot_ of single religion/culture retirement homes around?

Just a quick cycle down this list seems to point to a few on your side of the pond...

AAHSA

I see absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to spend, and the community as a whole providing for, your remaining years in a micro-community tending exclusively to the needs of your particular cultural niche.

ghet·to ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gt)
n. pl. ghet·tos or ghet·toes
* A section of a city occupied by a minority group who live there especially because of social, economic, or legal pressure.
* An often walled quarter in a European city to which Jews were restricted beginning in the Middle Ages.
* Something that resembles the restriction or isolation of a city ghetto: “trapped in ethnic or pink-collar managerial job ghettoes” (Diane Weathers).

Having recently looked for Assisted living homes for the past few years, no there is not a "single religion/culture retirement" place that I have found.

tisonlyi that's a pretty vague link, if you want a religious community that's fine, but I think that it's pretty fair to say that a Methodist, Christian or a Southern Baptist Community could be all races and colors.
show me one that says you have to be a certain race.

thanks for the definition, Cynthetic, i guess i had the idea that a ghettto had to be poor.

I'm a WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant), so I guess it would be ok to build a gated community and only let other WASPs in?

No, of course not.

I'm sorry, but I can't see this as anything other than racism.

Hey, the article only says 40 muslim elders.

that could be black, white, brown or yellow and possibly white.

Asian muslims do come in all shades.

Also:

"Three other new sheltered housing blocks in the borough are not earmarked just for Asians. "

So, the development isn't _ENTIRELY_ for asians.

And:

"a recent council report admitted that the level of need among elderly Bangladeshis was "a hidden need". "

There is an officially recognised gap between provision and demand for services to specific segments of the asian community in that locale. What is the major problem in servicing that need?

Read that article without the spin.

There's a need for asian specific retirement facilities in this locale. A development is being prepared to service that particular need, as well as the needs of the community as a whole (the three blocks which not earmarked).

Now, sans hype, whats wrong with it?

Read the article again.

YOU ARE WRONG.

Well, in the society i live in, these things DO exist.

For example, A Roman Catholic home is only obliged to take in a very few residents who are non-RC. This obligation is more than met in this potential development, it seems to me.

I read it three times, and each time, this is what stood out:

So please explain how I "AM WRONG".

This is how you are wrong:

It's not gated (at least i've never come across any inner city retirement village in the uk that is u.s.-style gated). It's not a monoculture*, there are 40 places reserved for supply to a segment of the asian community in that area who have been officially marked out as uncatered for.

there are _3 unreserved blocks on the same development_, whose places are up for general consideration.

I'm really, really sick of my fellow WASPs (I was christened and raised in church of orange, no less) kneejerking themselves into a tailspin as soon as any non-white minority dares to suggest that it have facilities which cater to it, in a very small way, as though it were the majority.

These people have cultural requirements that are markedly different to us nice white folks, why shouldn't they be catered for as they would like to be?

The lib dem says the first thing they should do is make sure they aren't breaking any laws. well, isnt that the first thing every authority should be doing? and, we only get one little comment from mr lib dem, knowing lib dems in this country, i'm damn sure he had more to say than that.

You're swallowing a sensationalist line from a non-story cooked up on a slow news day.

*though i'd have no troubles in allowing moncultures in specific circumstances for tiny minorities with cultures very different to that which surrounds them every day. (Why should a muslim live in a home where he or she watches others eating pork, wondering if his food is being polluted?)

I dont know what to think of this.

I don't see any problem with them catering to a certain cultural or ethnic group. I see no problem with them offering prayer rooms and foods for a certain religious group. What I see as the problem is they intend to refuse residence to other ethnic, cultural, and religious groups. More than likely they would not have many other groups wanting to move into a housing development that isn't designed to cater to them. Also those who are already prejudice against the group they are catering to will probably not want to even seek residence there.

All they have to do is allow other's to live there as well. Build it to cater to whomever they want to. We have a Catholic nursing home with catholic prayer rooms and nuns who work there with the residents. They don't refuse those of a different faith to be admitted there. They just don't draw many who are of a different faith.

They are just asking to be picked on and make an issue out of it by stating that they want to exclude others. Go ahead - tell your kid he can't have a cookie when he's not even thinking about it - all of a sudden he wants one. I personally see this as them Asking for trouble.

Just the odd prayer room will do?

Myself, i don't think so.

Preparing halal food, prayer rooms, staff with knowledge of their particular cultural sensitivities and a critical mass of other residents with a similar culture and faith in order that they feel comfortable, not just 'a minority that must be catered too' and then you're going some way towards proper facilities...

Hey, doesn't this sound like what they're planning?

Like you say, not many people of other faiths want to be in this RC home you're talking about - and the cultural and religious differences between different creeds of christianity (which i assume are the majority of inter-faith residents there's be there) aren't that great.

The differences between branches of christianity are nothing in comparison to the differences between christianity and islam to begin with, blend in all the other elements of language (media, entertainments, announcements, etc), food, history, culture, etc...

See where I'm going?

Why should they constantly be a minority which has to be catered for within a nice, white, anglo saxon establishment?

They've worked their whole lives, mostly at nice white people's command and all they want is to be comfortable in their waining years, but thats too much to ask apparently.

Maybe certain elements will be incensed by it, but I doubt any more white sheets will be mutilated than would have been already.

Oh.

So discrimination is ok so long as it is only a little?

And as to seeing others eating pork; please give me a break. I can't speak for England, but in America, you don't have the right not to be offended (at least theoretically).

All I can see is that you are defending the concept of legalized segregation.

Growing up with both feet in both doors, being raised american by a filipino father and mother, I will tell you now that my cousins who were EQUAL in schooling etc. but were not encouraged to have diverse friends all have issues now with socializing with "the white man"

my parents have all but shed their national heritages to be american.

Now as far as the brits are concerned, well they always leave a territory in flux, Pakistan/India, So Africa, etc.

I'm waiting to see what a brit like Strange Famous has to say about such a thing.

Well, there we go. Defeated on your arguement, you move on to pastures new.

I'm not defending legalized segregation, I'm defending the right of people to live in a segment of the community that they can feel comfortable in and be catered for _on their own terms_.

Not as a burden, not as a single item 'menu option' but wholly and completely catered for.

There is a difference between segregation via dogs, guns and "WHITES ONLY" signs and voluntary retreat into sanctuaries of shared belief, culture and lifestyle - which, as pointed out, are not complete monocultures.

And the pork thing.... *sniffs bait, turns away*

:eek:

Nice generalization there.

I'll restrain myself from replying with vitriol to such a cursory, ill informed remark.

??

I seem to be on the same subject, namely, state sponsored discrimination, specially, housing.

Maybe you need to go read that article again.

The housing is TAX-PAYER SUBSIDIZED.

If people want to segregate themselves, I support their right to do so, but not on the taxpayer dime.

I have no clue what this sentence means.

As I stated above, this "sanctuary" is being built on the tax-payer's dime, which is the source of my complaint.

How can you turn away when you brought up pork?


I would suggest if you don't like getting called on things, don't bring them into an argument.

i am with lebell all the way... no matter how much you argue it, this is still being paid for by tax payers. i am pretty sure that everyone pays taxes, not just that minority...

it isn't a generalization. It's historical fact. Look at all the colonies that Great Britain setup for trade etc. and then left.

Pakistan India - left the Kashmir region up for dispute.

I don't have my history notes handy but I know that this is something that they have done in the past on more than several occasions.

both sides of this debate have a point, Sure, it would be great for the elders to have that type of place to live, but it shouldn't be 'asians only', if my white grandpa wants to live there he should be able to live there. what about African muslims?, American muslims?, all muslims? I know "asian" covers all types of races that live in Asia.

I cant see the problem at all, it is a religious home, it isnt segregated by race, but religion. I cant see how it is any different or any more offensive than a Catholic school.

are catholic schools paid for with tax dollars?

All religious schools are private. They recieve absolutely NO state funding, therefore, they can do whatever the hell they want. Public schools are not allowed to even recite our own countries' pledge of allegiance, I dont see how this community could even be considered "OK". Except that its in the UK, and I dont know Jack Shit about laws, customs, and cultures in the UK, so feel free to disregard anything I said that dosent apply to the UK.

Faith based schools can be publicly funded, at least in part, within the uk education system.

I'm not defending or promoting that.

And in the UK, we don't spend Dollars, regardless of what you may think.

Also, I will not enter into a debate on the governmentally disjointed landmass of india - ruled under a myriad of princedoms - which became India through the ruthless rule of the raj, it's bribery and it's rail network, which became india and pakistan, which later became india, pakistan and bangladesh, save to say that the prefered option for the british was for India to remain as one whole nation they congealed, not for partition.

Partition happened, from my learning and reading, entirely down to the fact that the Congress party (Nehru in particular) decided that there should be no special governmental arrangements for the areas that were overwhelmingly muslim.

Jinnah, Mountbatten and pretty much all others involved were forced down the road to partition through the intransigence and arrogance of the Congress Party, believing that it alone could speak for all hindus, muslims and sikhs.

If you want to trade history, or irrelevant insults about our respective nations histories, we can do that elsewhere.

Thankfully, we dont have any jingoistic notions such as "The Pledge Of Allegiance", but we do respect that a community funded education system should, at least in part, respect that community in all of its many shades.

This a scheme partially funded by local government, reflecting the particular needs of that, local, community in a part of a city over here in the UK.

It just so happens that there's a recognised need for residential care facilities for a number of elderly Bangladeshi Muslims.

The facility, I repeat, is _not_ entirely Muslim. It is _not_ entirely asian.

There are three unreserved blocks of accomodation.

I'm done with this.

It's a non-story, and if people want to read reverse racism into this, then fine.

In _my_ reality, it simply isnt there.

Your reality is up to you.

God Save the Queen :D

I fail to see the jingoism.

Maybe if you'd gone for land of hope and glory...

*random irrelevance*

But then, our parliament doesnt go around making additions and potential subtractions from such things...

Oh no, they're far too busy shouting at each other and wavng order papers....

*waves order papers*

Nyer, nyer, nyer!

Interesting article, but the contributions and comments are even more interesting.

If I may put in my two cents worth:

I'm from Australia where I think the privately run Catholic schools do receive some government funding (simply because education in any means or form is a public good). Please correct me if I am wrong about that fact.

Having said that I don't think there's much criterion to be accepted into a catholic school other than to have been baptised. Now, don't automatically assume that baptism has much value. I am myself a Christian so baptism has a LOT of value and meaning to me, but I know many people who are in (or have been in) catholic schools (and been baptised) who don't place any value in baptism or in the religious aspect of the Catholic schools.

In fact, many Chinese parents (I am myself a Chinese so please let me diss my own race) are quite, ahem, tight with money so they allow their kids to be "baptised" (even though they are from Buddhist background) just so that they can send their children to a "cheaper" school (Catholic schools have very good education but are less pricey than private schools). My own parents wanted to do that with me (years before I became a Christian).

What's my point? I think it's OK to use public money to meet the needs of a particular race/culture, that's not necessarily discrimination. However, I would like to see the "ban" lifted so that, if a non asian muslim wants to live there and be a "minority", he should be allowed to. ALthough honestly, I don't think that will happen anyway. But for the sake of avoiding any resentment, it'll be advisable to lift the ban.

The example I gave illiustrates the point; the Catholic schools only required people to "participate" in their religious eduaction but there is NO requirement that they had to believe or that they would be practicing Catholic outside the school.

OK, so it's not the most foolproof argument, but it's just my 2 cents.