Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Multiculturalism: here we go again

SystemSystem Posts: 8,653 Staff Team
Multiculturalism in the UK has left a "terrible" legacy, creating a vacuum that has been filled by extremists from across the political spectrum, the shadow home secretary, Dominic Grieve, warns today.

In an interview with the Guardian on the eve of the Conservative party conference, Grieve says that "long-term inhabitants" have been left fearful, while second- and third- generation immigrants have felt alienated and unsure what British values stand for. He also warns against downplaying Britain's Christian heritage.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/27/polls.conservatives1

Fucking hell... :rolleyes:

Am I alone in thinking that nobody actually cares or is worried about any alleged negative aspects of multiculturalism so long as politicians don't bother us all with the issue?

Just when everyone bar the BNP brigade had given it a rest and ignored it for the non-issue it is, here comes the Conservative Party to the rescue.

Same old fucking Tories :mad: :rolleyes:
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have no problem with getting rid of all this bollocks about distinct cultures, just not replacing it with some fictional, one size fits all concept of "Britishness" that we are all supposed to adhere to. Just let everyone be individually responsible for their actions instead. There's no such thing as culture, just behaviour. As long as this behaviour fits within the framework of the law, then people can do whatever the hell they want.

    But equally, "culture" should never be used as an argument to change a law, an excuse for special treatment, or anything else. But if I were to put my guesstimating hat on, I suspect "Britishness" has been used in this way far more than any other cultural background. Indeed, most arguments against percieved multiculturalism tend to come from the equally ridiculous and irrational concept of "Britishness." There are legitimate areas where cultural practices may cross the line, and the common law should intervene with no comeback available on the basis of culture (the recent case of a bloke who encouraged self-flagellation among teenage boys deemed too young to make a decision to take part in such a ceremony, for example). But the vast majority of news stories and idiots like this speaking out are pathetic things which essentially boil down to "well they're not harming anyone, and are abiding by the law, but they're not behaving the way my culture dictates, and they should be forced to, or leave the country [that they were usually born in]."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Any politician talking about multiculturalism will find a definition of the term to suit their agenda..

    Grieve makes some worthwhile points however.
    He also raises fears that "fundamental Islam" is restricting debate.

    Fundamental Islam through its rejection of gay rights, women's rights and free speech has no place in modern society. (And the same can be said of Christian fundamentalism through its rejection of basic scientific reason). Labour has actively promoted both of these two examples of dangerous organised religion through pushing religious schools... a terrible mistake. Bizarre religious fairytales should be pushed into obscurity - instead religious superstition is setting the agenda. Unfortunately, Grieve in bringing up 'the role of Christianity' would not agree that progress would be moving towards a secular society.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But the vast majority of news stories and idiots like this speaking out are pathetic things which essentially boil down to "well they're not harming anyone, and are abiding by the law, but they're not behaving the way my culture dictates, and they should be forced to, or leave the country [that they were usually born in]."

    Not that Grieve actually says this or anything like this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not that Grieve actually says this or anything like this.

    Well yes, I was referring more to the tabloids in that particular section. Sorry for lumping him in with them. He's certainly the moderate end. I agree with some of his points, even if a lot of his others are pretty vague, cliched and lacked any substance in terms of examples. But I suspect from his tone that he does believe in principle that Britishness should always come ahead of other cultures, which like I said, to me is simply a more moderate, politics-friendly version of the reactionary position of the BNP and certain tabloids. He essentially argues that we should be promoting a watered-down version of what the BNP promotes, in order to stop people turning to more extremist versions of the same thing. To me that's ridiculous. He also says we should "recognise" Christianity's role in this country. What does that even mean? And if it doesn't mean any specific action based on Christian teachings, then why say it? The thrust of his argument is that we should be promoting Britishness more to give people a sense of identity. Personally, I see plenty of promotion of Britishness. My complaint with multi-culturalism is with culturalism in general, British or otherwise.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can't escape 'culturalism' (though I may be defining it differently from you). By living in a society there is going to be a prevailing culture which you live and breathe so much you don't know its there. the only way to escape is to become a monk (preferably in a silent order where you're the only member).

    If there is society, society will have it mores, do you say 'please', how do you queue, how close do you stand next to people, is it alright to kiss a girl you've just met on her cheeks, do you shake hands, what language is acceptable in different situations. You can have a lot of room to live within that culture, but if people start having totally different views of what is and ins't acceptable it tends to lead to bloody violence. Tolerance is a great theory - but only Budda (the Indian not the poster) has ultimately managed it.

    Now that's not to say we should go the French way and smother everyone individual culture under the guise of citzenship, but the American way of diverse groups who don't interact hasn't been a great success either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can't escape 'culturalism' (though I may be defining it differently from you). By living in a society there is going to be a prevailing culture which you live and breathe so much you don't know its there. the only way to escape is to become a monk (preferably in a silent order where you're the only member).
    Of course you can't. That doesn't mean that you have to promote it, or recognise it legally. Exactly the same way that a secular country would deal with religion. Don't try and snuff it out, just don't afford it any privileges, or use public money to promote it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fundamental Islam through its rejection of gay rights, women's rights and free speech has no place in modern society.


    I think a big part of the problem is as much an issue of racism and ignorance of minority issues from mainstream society, as it is of minority cultures themselves. If people really cared about women and gay people who live in Muslim communities, they would be listening to them, helping to support groups like Southall Black Sisters and LGBT groups, rather than talking about how oh so bad Islam is.

    I also really hate it how so many polititians are happy to rub shoulds with far right religious folk.

    I agree with Disillusioned, that religious schools are not healthy. I am certainly not happy to have my taxes go towards segregation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Any politician talking about multiculturalism will find a definition of the term to suit their agenda.
    I think people posting in this thread will have different definitions of multiculturalism too.

    Lemme ask the thread starter...

    What is your definition of multiculturalism Aladdin?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's my home constituency MP... Thank God I moved to London...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Am I alone in thinking that nobody actually cares... about any alleged negative aspects of multiculturalism?
    What the hell were you smoking when you wrote this, Aladdin? Seriously, it's been a while since I read such tripe on this board and there's usually no shortage of competition.

    What is wrong with pointing out that multi-culturalism has its downsides? It's stating the obvious. Comments such as yours simply play into the hands of goofballs and social retards from the BNP.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    What the hell were you smoking when you wrote this, Aladdin? Seriously, it's been a while since I read such tripe on this board and there's usually no shortage of competition.

    What is wrong with pointing out that multi-culturalism has its downsides? It's stating the obvious. Comments such as yours simply play into the hands of goofballs and social retards from the BNP.
    I stand corrected. There is one.

    What downsides would that be? That not everybody is Christian? That not everybody likes tea? What exactly is 'at risk' from people from other cultures having their own identity and roots?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I stand corrected. There is one.

    What downsides would that be? That not everybody is Christian? That not everybody likes tea? What exactly is 'at risk' from people from other cultures having their own identity and roots?

    enniskillen1987_162430t.jpg

    mn_srebrenica105.jpg

    rwandabodies2.jpg

    Pictures from places where people had their own identity and roots at the expense of integration
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd say the problem there lies with intolerance and nationalism.

    That is what should be fought.

    In any case, the comparison is rather off the mark and hyperbolistic, don't you think? Or are you expecting civil war and ethnic cleansing on the streets of Britain any time soon?

    Only intolerant nationalistic idiots (or racists/xenophobes, as the majority of such people turn out to be) could have a problem with some people following different religions and having their own customs, traditions, festivities or cuisine, so long as it is not imposed on the rest of us.

    There is a limit of course, and human rights should not come second anyone's 'traditions'. But most rational people can draw a clear line between harmless cultural traditions and wrong uns'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I'd say the problem there lies with intolerance and nationalism.

    That is what should be fought.

    In any case, the comparison is rather off the mark and hyperbolistic, don't you think? Or are you expecting civil war and ethnic cleansing on the streets of Britain any time soon?

    Only intolerant nationalistic idiots (or racists/xenophobes, as the majority of such people turn out to be) could have a problem with some people following different religions and having their own customs, traditions, festivities or cuisine, so long as it is not imposed on the rest of us.

    There is a limit of course, and human rights should not come second anyone's 'traditions'. But most rational people can draw a clear line between harmless cultural traditions and wrong uns'.

    Again it comes down to what you mean by multiculturalism...

    But I was brought up in one of those societies and spent a fair amount of time wandering round another, trying unsuccessfully to stop people killing each other.

    Without a common cultural thread groups look in on themselves and in the long term that leads to trouble. That's not to say that within this common cultural thread you can't have a lot of leaway, but it's got to be there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are plenty of examples throughout history of completely different communities, often traditional enemies, living in peace and harmony for long periods.

    During the Arab rule in Andalucia, Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in perfect harmony for hundreds of years while keeping their cultural traditions and respecting the others doing so (this was eventually brought to an abrupt end by Catholic Monarchs' Reconquista of Spain, and subsequent kicking out of all non-Christians).

    Many other similar examples are to be found over the centuries, when on the whole the world was a far, far less civilised place than there is today. So if there are any potential problems with multiculturalism, they are caused by certain nationalistic elements shit-stirring and promoting discontent and intolerance, rather than a general incompatibility of the peoples to live together in peace.

    That is why, unless someone actually comes with a real reason of why multiculturalism is in any way bad, those complaining about it should faced up to like the intolerant bigots most of them are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Multiculturalism is only a problem when the state starts trying to please them all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    So if there are any potential problems with multiculturalism, they are caused by certain nationalistic elements shit-stirring and promoting discontent and intolerance, rather than a general incompatibility of the peoples to live together in peace.

    That is why, unless someone actually comes with a real reason of why multiculturalism is in any way bad, those complaining about it should faced up to like the intolerant bigots most of them are.

    You've just come up with a real reason why multiculturalism is bad yourself. If it means that every culture is equal, and that there is no overarching culture/value system which is placed above them all, and which everybody has to sign up to, then what's to stop one or more of those cultural groups 'shit-stirring and promoting discontent and intolerance'? What's to stop England going back to the Heptarchy?

    All Grieve was saying is that there has to be that overarching British culture, which draws lines that everybody agrees not to cross, that way everybody can enjoy their different traditions and cultural practices in peace.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    There are plenty of examples throughout history of completely different communities, often traditional enemies, living in peace and harmony for long periods.

    During the Arab rule in Andalucia, Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in perfect harmony for hundreds of years while keeping their cultural traditions and respecting the others doing so (this was eventually brought to an abrupt end by Catholic Monarchs' Reconquista of Spain, and subsequent kicking out of all non-Christians).

    Many other similar examples are to be found over the centuries, when on the whole the world was a far, far less civilised place than there is today. So if there are any potential problems with multiculturalism, they are caused by certain nationalistic elements shit-stirring and promoting discontent and intolerance, rather than a general incompatibility of the peoples to live together in peace.

    That is why, unless someone actually comes with a real reason of why multiculturalism is in any way bad, those complaining about it should faced up to like the intolerant bigots most of them are.

    I think when someone's way of life is or has been threatend like it often was in the past people just want to live their way and be left in peace, so they'll happily give that right to others. In the situations you're talking about people had to accept other religions, because if they didn't conflict would destroy all of their lives. I'm not saying multiculturalism can't work, but I agree that it becomes a problem when the government try to keep everyone happy, instead of enforcing the law and leaving people who don't hurt anyone to live their own lives.
    There will always be divisions in a society, even if everyone is the same race and religion, but very few people fit completely into the groups they're put into. I think the problem is society's ability to divide itself rather than multiculturalism, but I also think dividing society into the tolerant and intolerant is as dangerous as dividing society into the christians and muslims.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    There are plenty of examples throughout history of completely different communities, often traditional enemies, living in peace and harmony for long periods.

    During the Arab rule in Andalucia, Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in perfect harmony for hundreds of years while keeping their cultural traditions and respecting the others doing so (this was eventually brought to an abrupt end by Catholic Monarchs' Reconquista of Spain, and subsequent kicking out of all non-Christians).

    Many other similar examples are to be found over the centuries, when on the whole the world was a far, far less civilised place than there is today. So if there are any potential problems with multiculturalism, they are caused by certain nationalistic elements shit-stirring and promoting discontent and intolerance, rather than a general incompatibility of the peoples to live together in peace.

    That is why, unless someone actually comes with a real reason of why multiculturalism is in any way bad, those complaining about it should faced up to like the intolerant bigots most of them are.

    I don't know enough about medieval Spanish history to say, but would that be like the British tribes living nicely when Roman Legions kept Pax Romana.

    It would be the exception that prooves the rule, if not. The only time different cultures are able to live in peace is a) one has dominant military power or b) they agree some common cultural/nationalistic traditions c) one is small and downtrodden and at the margins of the national territory.

    Now you may be right, it would be nice if we could all naturally live together. We can't however, so it may be best to work on a practical basis on what we can do to help integration rather than close our eyes and dream.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think when someone's way of life is or has been threatend like it often was in the past people just want to live their way and be left in peace, so they'll happily give that right to others. In the situations you're talking about people had to accept other religions, because if they didn't conflict would destroy all of their lives. I'm not saying multiculturalism can't work, but I agree that it becomes a problem when the government try to keep everyone happy, instead of enforcing the law and leaving people who don't hurt anyone to live their own lives.
    Sure, but have there been any examples of this actually ocurring?

    I'm the first one to say we mustn't accept unnaceptable actions in the name of multiculturalism. Female circumcision or forced marriage are simply not acceptable. And while the perpetrators might complain about it, the immense majority of the population from all sides and cultures will be on agreement that such things must not be allowed to take place.

    As it happens, we already try to stop them from happening so there is no instances of multiculturalism translating in unacceptable practices being sanctioned by law or tolerated. All the 'evidence' I've ever seen of multiculturalism having a negative impact is bullshit headlines from the Daily Express that are invariably lies and distorted stories anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    You've just come up with a real reason why multiculturalism is bad yourself. If it means that every culture is equal, and that there is no overarching culture/value system which is placed above them all, and which everybody has to sign up to, then what's to stop one or more of those cultural groups 'shit-stirring and promoting discontent and intolerance'? What's to stop England going back to the Heptarchy?
    Well for starters British culture (whatever that might be- I still wait to see a definite definition of what exactly and fully it consists of) has always liked to include tolerance amongst its qualities. So those who are shit-stirring and being intolerant towards others are spitting on British culture just as much as the people and culture they see as so much of a threat to Britishness.
    All Grieve was saying is that there has to be that overarching British culture, which draws lines that everybody agrees not to cross, that way everybody can enjoy their different traditions and cultural practices in peace.
    Isn't that the case today though?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Well for starters British culture (whatever that might be- I still wait to see a definite definition of what exactly and fully it consists of) has always liked to include tolerance amongst its qualities. So those who are shit-stirring and being intolerant towards others are spitting on British culture just as much as the people and culture they see as so much of a threat to Britishness.

    Well I certainly agree with you that tolerance is one of those values. But to have an overarching idea of Britishness you do have to be intolerant to a certain extent, because practices that are in conflict with British values will have to give way. If they don't give way then you have no overarching culture.
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Isn't that the case today though?

    He obviously thinks it is ill-defined, and I agree. It is made apparent by the fact that, as you have noted, nobody here can define 'Britishness'.

    I personally think it has its basis in the values of Christianity and the Enlightenment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sanitize wrote: »
    I think people posting in this thread will have different definitions of multiculturalism too.

    Lemme ask the thread starter...

    What is your definition of multiculturalism Aladdin?
    Did Aladdin answer my question? :confused:

    How would you define 'multiculturalism' exactly?

    One the one hand, it merely refers to a society which has a racial and ethnic diversity (with little emphasis on cultural behaviour, religious beliefs, etc).

    On the other hand, a hardcore believer in multiculturalism will believe that all cultures, cultural practises and religions are somehow equal and worthy of respect. An extremely naive view imo.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think that 'British Culture' is being fucked up most by British people who eat at Macdonalds, drink at Starbucks and buy all their furnature at Ikea.

    I mean seriously, what better way to ruin smaller businesses, which could potentially bring together communities?
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,193 Skive's The Limit
    Namaste wrote: »
    I mean seriously, what better way to ruin smaller businesses, which could potentially bring together communities?

    People liek to know what they're getting and the smaller businesses arn't competative. You can hardly blame them.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry sanitize, I missed your question.

    What is my defintiion of it? Probably 'none'. Multiculturalism has always been around, though until recently no nation or group of people have found it necessary to invent words to describe it or discuss its apparent importance or influence. It's a non-issue, or at least it should be.

    I find the notion of ''one culture fits all'' rather disturbing, if the truth be told. There are myriads of different cultures, groups, beliefs, traditions and customs. And for the most part they're compatible with each other- certainly in any society that wants to call itself civilised.

    'Multiculturalism' is a new word for something that has existed for millennia. And many if not most of the people who insist on going on about it and discussing it appear to have issues with the concept. Everyone else just gets on with life.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    People liek to know what they're getting and the smaller businesses arn't competative. You can hardly blame them.

    Yeah, people know exactly what they're getting from McDonalds and co...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    People liek to know what they're getting and the smaller businesses arn't competative. You can hardly blame them.
    And?

    They are still ruining 'British culture' and our high streets.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    I think that 'British Culture' is being fucked up most by British people who eat at Macdonalds, drink at Starbucks and buy all their furnature at Ikea.

    I mean seriously, what better way to ruin smaller businesses, which could potentially bring together communities?

    What are you gabbling about? I mean I thought I was right wing, but fuck even I don't go for this mystical green fields and volk crap...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    People liek to know what they're getting and the smaller businesses arn't competative. You can hardly blame them.

    There's a reason they aren't competitive though, besides simply issues of scale. If I go to Tesco, I can always get a parking space, I can browse, I don't have to worry about what time my ticket runs out. My town has plenty of independent bakers and sandwich shops that do quite well alongside the likes of McDonalds and Subway, but it's very difficult to run a decent cafe, because you don't get the turnover of shoppers. My council has built 1 supermarket, let one extend massively, built 3 new superstore parks, all with free parking, and have effectively built an entire new road system around these parks. They've drawn all of the bigger businesses out of the centre of town, which would attract people to the town centre, and benefit all of the businesses rather than just the one you plan to go to. Meanwhile, they've "regenerated" two areas of the town centre, which has basically amounted to making it a bit prettier, and have just open one small new car park, which again, costs around £1 an hour to use. I dread to think the prices they charge for a lease. And now they're surprised that their regenerated areas are still empty.
Sign In or Register to comment.