ED is becoming less diverse as a result of recent Demog. changes (Lounged)

[Alan Dale]

AnotherPaul Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Weirdly enough if anyone makes a joke

> involvin 'ethnic cleansing' or 'genocide' it

> doesn't make me roar with laughter whatever the

> context.

I don't believe you.

Monty Python? Fawlty Towers? Allo' Allo'? Blackadder goes Forth? Roy Chubby Brown?

It's all about context.

[ibo]

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Really, all this talk of 'ethnic cleansing' and

> 'genocide' is offensive.

>

> And moving to Croydon would be shit but it would

> not be like being gassed.

>

> Ok Paul, here's the deal. A few of us are taking

> the piss out of the ludicrous assertations made

> earlier in the thread comparing migration due to

> rising housing costs with ethnic cleansing. I

> thought that was fairly obvious. For the record I

> do not think that moving to Croydon would be worse

> than being gassed, not even Sth Croydon, but my

> comment was never meant to be taken seriously, it

> was meant (in a jokey way) to highlight how silly

> the original comment was.

> Its quite a hard forum to joke around on isn't it,

> you literally have to explain every post.

Are you saying that S.Croydon is civilized and can be compared to the wonderful community we have here in E.D.?

On my to Brighton roadworks caused me to end up in West Purley , part of boring S.Croydon . The streets/roads/avenues were all empty except for the dog walkers , no prams and the people must be very poor as there hardly any cars parked on the roads. The detached houses all looked pretty but soulless , whereas in ED we have wonderful damp ridden terraced properties which force us to speak to each other.God only knows if they have anything like LL, though they do have big golf courses where the blokes go to drink and fart . No gastro pubs for miles .It must be hell living in the leafy parts of S.Croydon

[mockney piers]

I was forced to spend a night out in Waddon, just off the Purley Way the other night. Believe you me I wouldn't be swapping this area for that, not for all the tea in China.

[*Bob*]

I'm well acquainted with 'leafy south Croydon'. It's shit.

[AnotherPaul]

I was carrying annoyed thoughts about another thread over to this one and in doing so proved that context is vital for humour (and the loss of it). The gag wasn't to my fickle taste but sorry for seeming to impose that on others.

(shuffles off)

ap

[ibo]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm well acquainted with 'leafy south Croydon'.

> It's shit.

Do you have a description of the shit in question?

[*Bob*]

ibo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Do you have a description of the shit in

> question?

Let's hear from some South Croydon residents, bigging it up on 'Find A Property':

"Believe me you can do a lot worse"

"The house prices are almost reasonable. Also great for Gatwick Airport (10 minutes) and not bad for Luton either."

"Croydon gets a bad name, it isn't perfect and the centre of town on a weekend evening can be treacherous due to excesssive drinking, testosterone and bad parenting - but if you know when and where to be - life can be pleasant enough and you can afford a bit more than a shoebox! Mark - South Croydon Resident for 5 years."

"Croydon is good for shopping and IKEA is on your doorstep."

So - pleasant enough, good links to Gatwick and Ikea on your doorstep. A tick in every box.

[ibo]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ibo Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > Do you have a description of the shit in

> > question?

>

>

> Let's hear from some South Croydon residents,

> bigging it up on 'Find A Property':

>

>

> "Believe me you can do a lot worse"

>

> "The house prices are almost reasonable. Also

> great for Gatwick Airport (10 minutes) and not bad

> for Luton either."

>

> "Croydon gets a bad name, it isn't perfect and the

> centre of town on a weekend evening can be

> treacherous due to excesssive drinking,

> testosterone and bad parenting - but if you know

> when and where to be - life can be pleasant enough

> and you can afford a bit more than a shoebox! Mark

> - South Croydon Resident for 5 years."

>

> "Croydon is good for shopping and IKEA is on your

> doorstep."

>

> So - pleasant enough, good links to Gatwick and

> Ikea on your doorstep. A tick in every box.

I am not so sure about IKEA and the adjoining area. Last time I was there the wind was blowing the wrong way from the local sewage works . Now , that was some shitty smell.However , the comparison between Croydon and ED is not quite fair as we are comparing a large multicultural London Borough to a small , white , middle-class dominated area inside Southwark .

[*Bob*]

I wasn't comparing it.. just childishly slagging it off, to be honest.

[Michael Palaeologus]

I have been avoiding this tread as I posted it in my "too worthy" box and thought it would be full of the usual class based rock throwing and psuedo-intellectual old wank.

Having nothing better to do, I have scanned through the past 4 pages and I was correct in my assumption.

How do you know ED is less diverse? It seems to be based on "My neighbours have changed colour" or "there are more cheese shops on the Lane" or "its not like it was in the good old days". To describe this as "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" is at best crass and at worst shows a breath taking ignorance of history that you should be ashamed of. We are talking about the natural population churn of an insignificant suburb of South London NOT the mass slaughter, raping and maiming of whole populations. Dulwich Park is not the killing fields, Peckham Rye is not the site of a concentration camp.

ED is diverse, as diverse as any other part of London. What that diversity looks like changes year by year as the demographics of the city change; and of course you cannot measure diversity by what it "looks" like. Your new Polish neighbours are just as diverse as the West Indian neighbours that used to live there. ED is currently quite affluent, a few years ago it wasnt, at some time in the future it might be on its arse again.

For some perspective reas Peter Akroyds "London the Biography" - it describes how the woes of London's chattering classes are the same now as they have been for many hundreds of years - the weather, the drains, immigration, lawlessness, London dirt, traffic, noise, the plague and drunkeness.

Well, perhaps the plague isnt a big issue at the moment...

[ibo]

Michael , you seem to be making a lot of "psuedo-intellectual old wank" about the meaning of ethnic cleansing. ED is certainly changing ethnically if one looks at the movement between black and white people in the area. Virtually all the prams how wide occupants who are in the main British. The term "economic ethnic cleansing" does not imply any sort of criticism towards the new people . The movement of peoples is being carried out on a voluntary basis where those selling are quite happy to take the money that is being thrown around ED. Nevertheless , it is ethnic cleansing.

[mockney piers]

*sighs* glad to see you're ignoring masny well made points regards this and continue to, frankly, make an arse of yourself.

[Maurice]

When it happened the other way round (mostly people of colour displacing the whiter shade) did that also constitute ethnic cleansing?

[ibo]

By definition it was ethnic cleansing. It seems that most people are treating the change in the demographic make-up of ED as being of a negative nature just because the words "ethnic cleansing" are used.

[Maurice]

I think I consider 'ethnic cleansing' an act where the primary driver is ethnicity and changing it. It think here the ethnic change is an indirect result, not the primary driver.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

For once Maurice has said something sensible.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Ergo there is no ethnic cleansing merely the change of the ethnic make-up of the area. As has gone on - forever, with no Moriarty-like mastermind behind it.

[*Bob*]

Ibo, I don't know why you're clinging to this ill-judged opinion, but you're way off the mark.

The main thing about 'ethnic cleansing' is the cleansing element.

It doesn't mean a change in demographic. It doesn't just mean that Mr Khan moves out and Mr Smith moves in. What it means is that when Mr Khan moves out and Mr Smith moves in, the area is all the better for it. It is cleaner. Do you not see the inference in the term?

Incidentally, the latest family to moves in round our way is an Asian family. Because they wanted to move here - and because they could afford it. And that's IT.

[ibo]

Not so Bob . Cleansing can also said to mean a change , which can be for the better or otherwise.

[lozzyloz]

Ahem! On the subject of demographic changes. I was talking to the actress who played the Canteen Lady in Londons Burning. She said that her mother was born in Northcross Rd and in those days Forest Hill was very posh and you never admitted that you had relatives in East Dulwich! How times have changed and I believe it was 99.9% white then.

[SeanMacGabhann]

by who???

and when???

Ibo - please...just stop with this "reasoning"

[*Bob*]

Perhaps in the same way that 'chalk' can also be said to mean 'cheese'?

(ie never, by no-one)

[ibo]

Ok Sean , I accept that you cannot bring yourself to understand the term "economic ethnic cleansing" .If you have time read the following

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell080602.asp

[*Bob*]

Ibo, I did have have time so have just read the article. It's very poorly written and the author makes absolutely no attempt to explain why he's attached the term 'ethnic cleansing' to gentrification. He just 'says it'. And just 'saying it' doesn't make it true.

I borrowed a couple of other quotes from the net which help explain the obvious points I can't be bovvered to write nicely myself:

"Gentrification is driven by money. Plain and simple. It?s a result of economics - capital flows to its most efficient use - always, without respect to a person?s race, gender, religion, culture, etc. In the case of gentrification, capital flows into underpriced neighborhoods where it can be used more efficiently, ie., create more value than simply staying in places already overpriced. People who claim that gentrification targets ethnic minorities don?t understand this relatively simple concept, or don?t want to. Instead they become angry at the new residents of the neighborhood and lament that their culture is changing."

"To call gentrification ?ethnic cleansing? is, ironically, racist. It implies that the only people who have money and can live in these areas are from only one bland race, and neither ?one? nor ?bland? is true"

[mockney piers]

ibo, cleansing can't be taken to be meant as a change, that's just attaching a new definition to a word.

And the Smith and Khan example earlier can only be taken to mean ethnic cleansing If Mr Smith shoots Mr Khan's neighbour, Mr Hussein, and rapes Mr Khan's daughter, then politely suggests they all move or he'll come back and kill them all.

That's the reality of the term ethnic cleansing, and that's why you're upsetting people by insisting your definition is correct just because you like using it.