A recent post by William McGimpsey reflects a deeply flawed (applaud me for not using skin-deep), ahistorical, and culturally superficial understanding of social cohesion and immigration.
McGimpsey seems to argue that racial similarity (specifically being “white British”) guarantees social cohesion. But this claim crumbles under even cursory historical scrutiny. If social cohesion truly followed pigmentation, how do we explain the catastrophic internal conflicts that plagued Europe for centuries?
The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), largely fought among white European Christians, decimated central Europe and killed millions. World War I and II, arguably the most devastating conflicts in human history, were fought almost entirely between European nations with nearly indistinguishable “pigmentation.” And then we have the Irish-British conflict, the Spanish Civil War, the Balkan wars, even the internal divisions within Germany (Protestants vs. Catholics, East vs. West), which all show that cultural, religious, and political differences among Europeans were often more decisive than any shared racial identity. European history is not one of cohesion, either between nations or internally.
But let’s focus on just the British: Would this model citizen exclude the Irish, and Scots, and why not the Welsh, or even the Cornish? How is this group defined? Would an English Lord and a factory worker from Sheffield be closer in cultural complexion than a dirt-poor Pom would be to a dirt-poor Fijian? And are we to be sold that the British, even at their most homogeneous, never suffered economic catastrophe and a lack of cohesion? The Elizabethan era was one of the worst in England’s history for murder rates, and the Poms never avoided multiple, bloody civil wars. What made far-off colonies like New Zealand so attractive to so many in the first place?
McGimpsey’s analysis of “Asians” lumps Chinese and Indians together, despite their radically different languages, religions, philosophies, social norms, and even immigration patterns. His conflation of ethnicity with culture reveals a simplistic worldview.
Never do we get any engagement with the cultural practices, values, or integration patterns of the groups he criticises. This omission suggests not only a lack of understanding but also an unwillingness to examine culture as a fluid, evolving, and multifaceted phenomenon. He treats it instead as fixed and inherently incompatible with New Zealand’s, while not ever specifying what this home culture actually is.
And what suggests a German is closer in cultural worldview to an Englishman and not an Asian, such as a Japanese or South Korean person? On certain metrics, like hierarchical workplace norms, education values, or even punctuality, the answer might surprise McGimpsey. Cultural “distance” cannot be mapped onto race.
McGimpsey claims that increased immigration from South and East Asia has not improved productivity because these immigrants become “chefs, nurses or builders.” Beyond the classist sneer, this critique misses the point that productivity is not merely a function of immigrant skill but also of the broader economy’s capacity to absorb and utilise talent.
Blaming immigrants for working in jobs where demand exists, like healthcare and construction, is dishonest. These are essential services. In fact, in countries like Canada and Australia, immigrant nurses and builders are credited with sustaining public infrastructure and healthcare systems. Why would New Zealand be different?
McGimpsey never defines what he means by “social cohesion.” Is it a shared language? Voting patterns? Is it measured by trust in institutions? Rates of intermarriage? Crime?
South Asians, particularly Indians, often score well on indicators of educational attainment, entrepreneurship, and home ownership in Western democracies. In the U.S. and the UK, they are among the most socioeconomically successful immigrant communities. This report on the contribution of Indians to the New Zealand economy is a sound refutation of McGimpsey’s evidence-free proclamations:
https://www.hciwellington.gov.in/content/WIA-A4-Magazine-Full.pdf
And so, where is the evidence that these communities are damaging social cohesion in New Zealand? Can McGimpsey point to actual crime statistics, trust metrics, civic engagement levels, or interethnic cooperation failures that support his sweeping claim?
Finally, his conclusion, that we should encourage these populations to “go home again”, veers into ethically indefensible territory. Many of these people were born in New Zealand, contribute to its economy, and consider it their only home. To suggest they are unwelcome purely based on ethnicity or ancestral origin is both illiberal and unworkable.
McGimpsey will often claim that the woke Right label is a cynical attempt to dismiss useful solutions from the furthest edges of the Right, but what we get in this post is a perfect mirroring of the woke Left – the idea that a shared worldview defines the European (a white voice) and that our failed societies demand a new hieratical system that would necessitate the ignoring of democratic and liberal norms. Sound familiar?
Immigration policies should be based on skills, integration potential, humanitarian needs, and shared civic values, not on some mythical racial uniformity that simply never existed, even in New Zealand’s most Eurocentric past. Why were we more cohesive back then, William? We were all working and purchasing houses for only twice our annual income. Your answer to cohesion rests in economics, not in our sharing the same eye colour.
