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 ✨

British or not????

1246

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    no, but to kill one person to protect the lives of 10000's is
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Territt wrote: »
    no, but to kill one person to protect the lives of 10000's is

    How is shooting someone as opposed to locking them up going to save lives?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hate to divert the thread, but if this is what it means to be British, then I don't want to be British anymore.

    I'm with Austin Mitchell on this one- that is disgusting. Those people have more right to be here than the faceless cunts who deported them in handcuffs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    How is shooting someone as opposed to locking them up going to save lives?

    because some of these people wont ever be safe to releases into the public, so why waste money looking after, feeding, clothing somebody that just wants to harm you?

    also what about escapes? prisions arnt 100%, what if one was to escape and paint a bomb in a school? or hospital?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Territt wrote: »
    because some of these people wont ever be safe to releases into the public,

    You sure about that? What about former IRA members who are now committed to peace?
    Territt wrote: »
    so why waste money looking after, feeding, clothing somebody that just wants to harm you?

    If its wrong for them to kill for their beliefs, why is it right for the state to do so?
    Territt wrote: »
    also what about escapes? prisions arnt 100%, what if one was to escape and paint a bomb in a school? or hospital?

    The phrase "clutching at straws" comes to mind.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    The phrase "clutching at straws" comes to mind.

    i dont think so, the point here is that fact if they dont like the UK, then leave.

    and i think Briton has the right to say if you attack us using force, then we will use force
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Territt wrote: »
    i dont think so, the point here is that fact if they dont like the UK, then leave.

    There are aspects of the UK I don't like. Should I leave too?
    Territt wrote: »
    and i think Briton has the right to say if you attack us using force, then we will use force

    What do you mean by "Briton"? Do you mean our government?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Hate to divert the thread, but if this is what it means to be British, then I don't want to be British anymore.

    I'm with Austin Mitchell on this one- that is disgusting. Those people have more right to be here than the faceless cunts who deported them in handcuffs.

    Agree that this MP says the right things but surely if he is that pissed off and ashamed by the government chosen from within his political party then he shoyuld leave that party?

    If he left the Labour party over this then I would have a lot of respect for they guy.......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If a given person is living as part of a community, there would be expectations on their behaviour to give something of value to said community. If it is the evidence of any given person's behaviour, that they hate almost everything about that community (the word hate is deliberate, and almost everything is also deliberate) it would not be unreasonable for the other members of the community to question said given person's motives for staying. If furthermore, the evidence of this given person is that said given person is staying for the perks of the community, it would not be unreasonable for the other members of the community to be upset, or aggravated and expect some sort of explaination. Said given person can reasonably expect some sort of exclusion from said community because of said given person's behaviour.

    Example 1: A group of 6 friends take advantage of a deal at a local tasty restaurant, "buy five dinners and the sixth is free". If it is the evidence of the behaviour of one of these "friends" that given "friend" not only detest the other 5 but are also only hanging around with them for cheap food it would be expected for the other 5 to start taking someone else out to lunch.

    Example 2: A sports team where of the team one is a qualified physio and the other a doctor, the other members are just standard members of the public and any professional qualifications are irrelevant. If a given person joined that team, but only showed up to training when given person wanted the physio or doctor to check them out. It would not be unreasonable for the captain/coach/rest of the team to demand that given person either start training for real, or stop coming altogether.

    Example 3: A given person moves to quebec in Canada. This given person make no attempt to learn french, it would not be unexpected or unreasonable that the other members of the community would eventually lose patience and said given person would be ostracised.

    Now, if you will, scale this up to a country, without there being any definition of what it is to be british, (because essentially it doesn't actually matter) if any given person is disenchanted with what is the current culture of the united kingdom (whether given person was born here or not, no matter where their heritage is rooted) it is not unreasonable for other people living in the United Kingdom to question the motives of a current resident for whom the evidence of said person's behaviour is such that said person apparently hates almost everything about the UK. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that said person move to somewhere where the culture suits said person's personal ideals better.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I understand what you're saying, but you're completely ignoring issues of power. People with power (whether that be economic or political or cultural) have more say over whatever "Britishness" means than do people with less power. We are not all on a level playing field.

    I'm not defending Islamist terrorism btw, just expanding the terms of the debate a little.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, we are not, I have already said in the thread, and say again, that Muslims living in britain probably in general feel got at. There is not a level playing field, saying that the majority of Muslims living in britian are making the effort to influence british culture (that many-faceted wonder) in their own small way, even if it is only to work hard and pay taxes, or encourage their children to do their homework, or any other small tiny yet normal thing.

    What causes the problem specifically with islamic relations is that small minority who do nothing but say how much they hate everything about the UK but would still use the NHS if they were sick. Now I personally wouldn't begrudge anyone treatment, generally, there may be exceptions. But it does beg the question, if you hate it here so much, why do you stay?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Now, if you will, scale this up to a country, .

    This where you have a problem.

    A large and populous country such as the Uk is so diverse that any attempt to talk about 'the culture of Britian' and 'what it means to be British' are utterly absurd.

    I don't really see what the point of this debate is anyway, some people don't like what some other people do, its hardly anything new and there is nothing you can do about it.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    But it does beg the question, if you hate it here so much, why do you stay?

    Because its comfy, because there is the NHS, because there is running water and electric, and they wont get tortured by the security services for speaking out....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    British?
    CrumbleAndCustard.jpg
    WinstonChurchill.jpg
    FabFour.jpg
    HarryPotter.jpg
    BuckinghamPalace.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote: »
    This where you have a problem.

    No, not quite, see no-one is ever really part of a country, the country is made up of lots of little communities that approximate to having the same values.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    British?


    But is that 'culture'? :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    No, not quite, see no-one is ever really part of a country, the country is made up of lots of little communities that approximate to having the same values.


    Depends what you mean by a community. If you mean a geographical association then no, because certainly in urban areas most people would not count the people they live near as the same people they have social relations with in the main.

    What you just said surely reinforces the opposite point though that you can have seperate islamic communities for example with their own values.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    British?
    <snip>


    Yes, but also

    betterdead.gif

    rotten.gif

    218717.jpg

    body_balti.jpg

    dreadbeat.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    No, not quite, see no-one is ever really part of a country, the country is made up of lots of little communities that approximate to having the same values.

    No, not really. The country is also made up of the state, parliament, the interests of capital, landed gentry etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just to respond to some of the issues raised in this debate, I think there's a number of things people want to consider. Talking about British Muslims and then saying they should 'go home' is racist - it obviously assumes because someone isn't Christian or white that they in some way aren't British and don't belong in Britian enless they can match a certain standard set by other members of society to prove they belong. Essentially, because of their colour or religion they aren't allowed to the same assumption of belonging that would be given to others.

    Talking about the requires to be part of a community is different from that, as long as those arguements don't use this as simply cover for the previous arguement (not that I think that's what people are necessarily doing here). Whilst I personally don't believe the state should have any fucking right to tell someone what to believe or tell them how to dress or how to speak I can understand the arguement. I'd say that the possible benefits of having people swearing aligence to the flag each morning at school are more than outweighed by the dangers of forced submission to a countries leaders, as seen in the worst horrors in the history of humanity in the middle of the last century. But I can understand it's an issue people draw a line in the sand on and we certainly wouldn't consider it inhierently racist.

    I also think people need to remember that the issues being discussed here are hugely emotive and difficult to express in ways that other's might not take the wrong way from what was intended.

    In particular the use of the term Muslim is not acceptable short-hand for Muslim extremists. Adding one extra word makes a huge difference, and there is no time limit on posting a reply. It does a massive diservice to the Muslim community and to the poster themselves to simply type Muslim if they are actually talking about Muslim extremists.

    The majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland are law abiding, peaceful and would never consider commiting a terrorist act. The majority of active IRA members during the troubles were also Catholics. I don't think anyone would accept a debate were people said because of the Canary Wharf bombings all Irish or all Catholics should fuck off out of the country. On the other hand, saying members and supporters of the IRA should leave would be a topic that could be debated, if not agreed to by all.

    Most hooligans went to football matches, but I don't think people would accept the idea that we should just talk about 'football fans' in a debate on hooligans.

    It may seem really irritating, it may seem like some of form of political correctness, but it isn't. It's about representing your views in a way that properly reflects how you feel, and it's worth spending that extra minute when debating around topics that are so heartfelt to consider what is being said, and to consider if what you've typed when read by someone else properly reflects your views.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote: »
    Actually, you may be right. Thanks for that Lickalotapuss. I've been thinking for a while about leaving this place for good, and I think this thread might just have encouraged me to do so. I'm off, I'll leave you to get back to bashing those evil nasty Muslims.
    You'll be missed :(
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    No, not really. The country is also made up of the state, parliament, the interests of capital, landed gentry etc.
    It's like a venn diagram though, Toadborg, this is your point too, I'm part of a small community on campus, and people from those communities that I'm involved with are involved with other communities. There are lots and lots of little overlapping parts, and in that there are the representitives, councillors etc, are part of communities and so are MPs.

    So while there can be Muslim communities, and I respect that totally, those communities will overlap in some ways with other parts of society. Like keep fit classes, or if you always have the same hairdresser, or go to the same coffee place or something. It all overlaps in little ways.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No. What I mean is that it is not a simple additive thing like you make out. There are massive differentials in power. People with economic, political, cultural power have much more say in determing what "Britishness" is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually, I'm going to disagree, I think culture can also equally be very much determined by popular opinion, that is the majority of people not just the rich can control the way culture is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Actually, I'm going to disagree, I think culture can also equally be very much determined by popular opinion, that is the majority of people not just the rich can control the way culture is.

    Are you familiar with the term "cultural capital"?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, actually, I'm going to admit ignorance. but at a guess I'm going to say that if you've got the capital you can control culture?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No. Its a concept that looks at how much cultural knowledge, control or influence people have. Originally used to look at educational outcomes in France. For example, middle class people tend to (yes, this is a generalisation) place more value on the arts, learning for learning's sake etc. Working class people tend to (again, generalising) value vocational education etc.

    The middle classes tend to have more influence over what is deemed to be "acceptable" or "worthwhile" culture. Whereas, for example, when looking at youth cultures or sub-cultures, working class and/or Afro-Carribean people tend to have more cultural capital, i.e. be seen as being more authentic. However, for these sub-cultures to cross-over into the mainstream, or "acceptable" culture, usually requires the intervention of the middle classes, in the guise of cultural commentators, critics, record executives, radio playlist controllers etc.

    I've probably garbled that a bit, but there's plenty on the web about it. Cultural studies is a fascinating subject.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think i understand what you're driving at. But still stand of the opinion that the culture in general of working class does impact and affect culture in general, even without the intervention of the middle class. I do agree that middle class intervention make a big difference. The way Radio 1's playlist has changed is not just a generation thing, for example.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    No. What I mean is that it is not a simple additive thing like you make out. There are massive differentials in power. People with economic, political, cultural power have much more say in determing what "Britishness" is.

    True, British "culture" today is a by-product of a general European wide consensus on matters of life, economy, state. Goes back to Westphalia.

    The term British is so vague. English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish culture is much more easy to define.

    Look at morris dancing, or Irish dancing. These things represent culture outside their governments and have been around through many forms of government.

    Does anyone think it's wrong to be proud to be British?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    From Wikipedia
    Cultural Capital comprises three subtypes: embodied, objectified and institutionalised (Bourdieu, 1986:47). Bourdieu distinguishes between these three types of capital:

    an embodied state. This is where cultural capital is embodied in the individual. It is both the inherited and acquired properties one’s self. Inherited not in the genetic sense, but more in the sense of time, cultural, and traditions bestow elements of the embodied state to another usually by the family through socialisation. It is not transmittable instantaneously like a gift. It is strongly linked to one's habitus - a person's character and way of thinking.
    Linguistic capital, defined as the mastery of and relation to language (Bourdieu, 1990:114), in the sense that it represents ways of speaking, can be understood as a form of embodied cultural capital.
    an objectified state. Things which are owned, such as scientific instruments or works of art. These cultural goods can be transmitted physically (sold) as an exercise of economic capital, and “symbolically” as cultural capital. However, while one can possess objectified cultural capital by owning a painting, they can only "consume" the painting (understand its cultural meaning) if they have the correct type of embodied cultural capital (which may or may not be transmitted during the selling of the painting).
    an institutionalized state. This is institutional recognition of the cultural capital held by an individual, most often understood as academic credentials or qualifications. This is mainly understood in relation to the labour market. It allows easier conversion of cultural capital to economic capital by guaranteeing a certain monetary value for a certain institutional level of achievement

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_capital
Sign In or Register to comment.