• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Multiculturalism: is it possible to have a sensible debate?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
Once again the columnist Janet Albrechtsen has hit the nail squarely on the head. In her latest piece written for The Australian newspaper, she (in my opinion, that is) has faced up to the questions that we need to ask ourselves if we are to become a cohesive society. Here is a short copy/paste from it that gives the gist:

‘Recognising human nature means that multiculturalism, though a fine sentiment, can only work if we unite behind a core set of values. Unfortunately though, that policy has become a licence for rampant cultural relativism. We are loath to criticise any aspects of cultures (except our own) for fear of sounding terribly judgmental and unfashionably un-multicultural.’

The full article can be found at
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17559578%5E32522,00.html

Although it’s written against the backdrop of the Cronulla riots in Sydney, it also makes reference to the UK. Its sentiments can certainly be applied here.

To my knowledge this is the first time anyone has expressed such a thoughtful and level-headed attitude on a growing problem.

My own view is this: the overly PC element have claimed the moral high ground and in doing so, have prevented sensible debate and made a difficult situation worse. What do you think?
 
#2
It's funny how everyone has such varying views on what racism is and yet without truly knowing what their talking about many feel strongly about this issue. Racism has existed since the 19th century (and known but less acknowledged before that) it was used to categorise and label beings into their suggested place in society (mainly by the 'elite'). While the word has changed meanings slightly, I feel it's roots are still remembered and used through racists to try and maintain an ever diminishing power struggle over 'who's better'. With so much media coverage and focus on this is it any wonder people assume racism is growing?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=267

and yet if this is true why are the number of racist related crimes falling? Maybe we should be concentrating more on cultural and ethnical issues which would more accurately describe theses issues today and stop trying to relate modern society with historical ignorance.
 
#3
If only the question was just of cultures living alongside one another in harmony. Unfortunately, cultures almost inevitably include religions, which are the least tolerant of any human organisations and often encourage the rampant intolerance that has manifested in race riots across the world.

In the end, if nobody had a supreme being to peddle, racism would be much easier to deal with. The worst of this, of course, is when the discriminator and discriminated against worship the same so-called God. Hasten the day that the human race accepts that it is on its own!
 
#4
There's a problem here between differentiating culture and religion. Religion is just a belief framework, that's all; just a definition of the way you/I/they talk to what is percieved to be a God. It's through our social interactions and social expression that we define our culture. That's how (for example) we can have many different forms of Roman Catholicism in the world, to the near orthodoxy experienced in parts of Europe, to the virtual idolatry of the S. American version. Hence the many difference version of Islam (from the female Chinese Imams to Shia Law).

I think it may be best to first clarify and distinguish these two antropological aspects before we start navel gazing and shifting our feet.

(my GOD! do I come out with bollox).
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#5
Religion is merely a form of political control and has been used throughout history to justify the most appalling evils. The Koran is nothing more than a handbook for the subjugation of all other religion and cultures and by its very nature is therefore incompatable with freedom of speech, democracy and all the other freedoms we used to take for granted but which are now being steadily eroded in the name of "tolerance". Any attempt to debate or criticise is met with insult or more usually these days prosecution, the police are no longer dealing with crime but are being used to enforce a failing political agenda. The media is used to distort the truth about the real victims of racism in this country namely the English. Ironically, the more the PC brigade bleat, change our laws to prevent us from protesting and tell us that there is no such race as the English, the more the English people desire to re-assert their identity and culture and throw off the shackles of political correctness. To answer the question, it is not possible to have a sensible debate on multi culturalism, just like its not possible to have a sensible debate on immigration etc because those who are imposing their views on the majority would lose the argument. They cannot tolerate the truth, they cannot tolerate the idea that they may be wrong, they cannot tolerate the fact that some cultures are built on an idealogy of evil and should not have been allowed to take root in our nation. After all, we were never asked!
 
#7
tigerbaby said:
It's funny how everyone has such varying views on what racism is and yet without truly knowing what their talking about many feel strongly about this issue. Racism has existed since the 19th century (and known but less acknowledged before that) it was used to categorise and label beings into their suggested place in society (mainly by the 'elite'). While the word has changed meanings slightly, I feel it's roots are still remembered and used through racists to try and maintain an ever diminishing power struggle over 'who's better'. With so much media coverage and focus on this is it any wonder people assume racism is growing?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=267

and yet if this is true why are the number of racist related crimes falling? Maybe we should be concentrating more on cultural and ethnical issues which would more accurately describe theses issues today and stop trying to relate modern society with historical ignorance.
I've understood for a long time (from various pop science articles) that 'racism' is nothing more than that which has been noted in the referred article: any person naturally feels more close to his or her 'own kind', in a progressive sequence; Family> tribe> nation/language> region, or whatever the progression is. Furthermore, conflict between differing groups on those levels has been going on for a lot longer than the last couple of hundred years! The Neanderthals were quite possibly wiped out by the Hom Saps. It was the big noses, apparently.
In any case, legislating to make the sentiment vanish is ludicrous. You might as well legislate to make bonds between all strangers as close as all family attachments, with graduated penalties for failing to respeck yer neighbours usw. You can bet that someone's working on that, though. I'm glad I'm old.
 
#9
I thought it was becoming sensible, and by my post had achieved good solid soles and leather uppers.
A subjective view, you understand. Wholly unprejudiced. :)
 
#10
I wish someone would define exactly what British or English culture actually is.

Iv a feeling that your average Brit on the street would have to indulge in a bit of head-scratching himself if asked.

Therein lies the problem.
 
#11
Agent_Smith said:
Thats a fantastic article, and is summed up concisely in the following quote

"To put it bluntly - most of us prefer our own kind."
Hence why multiculturalism is doomed to fail
It hardly matters, because it is the survival of the fittest, or the largest quantities, that will prevail.

I can think of plenty of 'Anglo-Saxons' or 'Celts', who I am embarrassed to regard as fellow citizens.

In a similar vein, I know negroes who are more civilised and pleasant to be with, than the average 'brit'.

However, we ARE different races, and negroes presently harbour deseases that are potentially fatal to Northern Europeans, and vice versa.

You only need to glance at the World Health Organisation statistics, to see the obvious.

However, it is not 'politically correct' to understand these statistics, so we will suffer 'multiculturalism', until a majority prevails.

That majority is unlikeley to be 'British', as we know it.

Yippee, perhaps.

--
batty.
 
#12
batty said:
It hardly matters, because it is the survival of the fittest, or the largest quantities, that will prevail.

I can think of plenty of 'Anglo-Saxons' or 'Celts', who I am embarrassed to regard as fellow citizens.

In a similar vein, I know negroes who are more civilised and pleasant to be with, than the average 'brit'.

However, we ARE different races, and negroes presently harbour deseases that are potentially fatal to Northern Europeans, and vice versa.

You only need to glance at the World Health Organisation statistics, to see the obvious.

However, it is not 'politically correct' to understand these statistics, so we will suffer 'multiculturalism', until a majority prevails.

That majority is unlikeley to be 'British', as we know it.

Yippee, perhaps.

--
batty.
WTF are you on about?

Negroes? FFS

What is by your definition a "Brit"

Give me the biological definition of "race"

Please do explain to me the WHO statistics and show how "race" is relevant.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#13
Race can be defined by commonality of DNA, culture can be defined by commonality of values and beliefs. Most indiginous "Brits" have a common ancestry narrowed down to around 7 "Mother" females as proved by viral RNA within the mitochondrial DNA. There are hundreds of genetic differences between different races and therefore race is a cold biological reality. A small difference in the genome can have massive effect on the behaviour and charactersitic of the individual. We accept that East Africans have a genetic pre disposition towards distance running so why is it considered racist to believe that there are also behavioural differences between the races? To claim that one race is superior over another is to be racist, to say that their are racial differences is not. Also to claim that your own country and culture is superior over another culture and set of beliefs is not racist and in fact probably defines what it is to be patriotic. We English football fans believe our team to be superior to all other teams (Regardless of skin colour of the respective team members) (And regardless of the reality of certain results!) and this group ideal continues in all aspects of our life. We prefer those that share common values with us, simple as that and no amount of legislation or thought policing will alter that.
As for defining what it is to be English, some people scratch their heads because there has been a deliberate policy to destroy the idea of Englishness. Multi Culturism is actually part of that policy, tolerance and diversity does not extend towards the culture and beliefs of the majority in this country. You just have to look at some of the "Winter Lights" fiascos to see the insidious erosion of our culture. Under pending legislation Monty Pythons "The Life of Brian" could not be filmed. One of the most important aspects of our culture is it's ability to use humour to make incisive political points, that is also being destroyed. Freedom of speech and expression is also being outlawed, just look at the farce at the cenotaph when that peacenik read out the names of the Iraq dead, I may not agree with her but I find it appalling that she should be criminalised for her beliefs. You cannot have freedom and democracy without allowing peaceful protest. Multi Culturalism by it's nature is an attack on freedom because it only works through the imposition of alien values on the majority, without the consent of that majority. Some of us however, are willing to stand up and be counted... Are you?
 
#14
Taz_786 said:
I wish someone would define exactly what British or English culture actually is.

Iv a feeling that your average Brit on the street would have to indulge in a bit of head-scratching himself if asked.

Therein lies the problem.
Ok, 'British Culture' as defined by me (and this is not defnitive or exhaustive)

A family-centred culture, based on the rule of law, tolerance, equal rights, freedom of speech and democracy.

I realise that applies to a lot of other countries/cultures, but most of them being of anglo-saxon descent.

A_S
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#16
The Secret People

Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget,
For we are the people of England, that never has spoken yet.
There is many a fat farmer that drinks less cheerfully,
There is many a free French peasant who is richer and sadder than we.
There are no folk in the whole world so helpless or so wise.
There is hunger in our bellies, there is laughter in our eyes;
You laugh at us and love us, both mugs and eyes are wet:
Only you do not know us. For we have not spoken yet.

The fine French kings came over in a flutter of flags and dames.
We liked their smiles and battles, but we never could say their names.
The blood ran red to Bosworth and the high French lords went down;
There was naught but a naked people under a naked crown.
And the eyes of the King's Servants turned terribly every way,
And the gold of the King's Servants rose higher every day.
They burnt the homes of the shaven men, that had been quaint and kind,
Till there was no bed in a monk's house, nor food that man could find.
The inns of God where no man paid, that were the wall of the weak,
The King's Servants ate them all. And still we did not speak.

And the face of the King's Servants grew greater than the King:
He tricked them, and they trapped him, and stood round him in a ring.
The new grave lords closed round him, that had eaten the abbey's fruits,
And the men of the new religion, with their Bibles in their boots,
We saw their shoulders moving, to menace or discuss,
And some were pure and some were vile; but none took heed of us.
We saw the King as they killed him, and his face was proud and pale;
And a few men talked of freedom, while England talked of ale.

A war that we understood not came over the world and woke
Americans, Frenchmen, Irish; but we knew not the things they spoke.
They talked about rights and nature and peace and the people's reign:
And the squires, our masters, bade us fight; and never scorned us again.
Weak if we be for ever, could none condemn us then;
Men called us serfs and drudges; men knew that we were men.
In foam and flame at Trafalgar, on Albuera plains,
We did and died like lions, to keep ourselves in chains,
We lay in living ruins; firing and fearing not
The strange fierce face of the Frenchman who knew for what he fought,
And the man who seemed to be more than man we strained against and broke;
And we broke our own rights with him. And still we never spoke.

Our path of glory ended; we never heard guns again.
But the squire seemed struck in the saddle; he was foolish, as if in pain.
He leaned on a staggering lawyer, he clutched a cringing Jew,
He was stricken; it may be, after all, he was stricken at Waterloo.
Or perhaps the shades of the shaven men, whose spoil is in his house,
Come back in shining shapes at last to spoil his last carouse:
We only know the last sad squires ride slowly towards the sea,
And a new people takes the land: and still it is not we.

They have given us into the hands of the new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evenings; and they know no songs.

We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,
Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.

G.K. CHESTERTON
 
#17
Race can be defined by commonality of DNA,
Problem is where do you draw the line? The term race is such a wishy washy outdated (most biologists have regected it as a method of classification) that it is wide open to abuse (see 30s and 40s Germany)

Most indiginous "Brits"
Give me a link that I would love to read.

There are hundreds of genetic differences between different races and therefore race is a cold biological reality. A small difference in the genome can have massive effect on the behaviour and charactersitic of the individual. We accept that East Africans have a genetic pre disposition towards distance running so why is it considered racist to believe that there are also behavioural differences between the races?
No, there are often differences between geographically seperated POPULATIONS of the same SPECIES due to the adaptation to different environments (see Darwin's work in the Galapagos Islands), there are very good theories why a certain East African tribe has a large percentage of good runners and your point here is?

To claim that one race is superior over another is to be racist, to say that their are racial differences is not.
No and yes what you are talking about here are populations as soon as you start classifying people according to "race" then you are skating on thin ice both scientifically and morally.

Also to claim that your own country and culture is superior over another culture and set of beliefs is not racist and in fact probably defines what it is to be patriotic.
I'd say that was nationalistic not patriotic

We prefer those that share common values with us, simple as that and no amount of legislation or thought policing will alter that.
Some others may say variety is the spice of life but that's your personal choice

As for defining what it is to be English, some people scratch their heads because there has been a deliberate policy to destroy the idea of Englishness.
Well tell us what it is and we'll set up a charity to preserve it, Britain has been settled by many various groups of people over the millenia that is why I would be interested in this "indiginous Brit" information you quoted.

Multi Culturism etc
you're dragging diffuse arguments in on this now stick to one point at a time.

Some of us however, are willing to stand up and be counted... Are you?
please expand on this, how are you going to "stand up and be counted"?

Edit: spelling
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#18
I happen to be proud of what my "Race" has achieved in the fields of medicine, arts, technology, literature, military conquest etc, amazing what environment can do isn't it?
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#19
Languid_Doc said:
If only the question was just of cultures living alongside one another in harmony. Unfortunately, cultures almost inevitably include religions, which are the least tolerant of any human organisations and often encourage the rampant intolerance that has manifested in race riots across the world.

In the end, if nobody had a supreme being to peddle, racism would be much easier to deal with. The worst of this, of course, is when the discriminator and discriminated against worship the same so-called God. Hasten the day that the human race accepts that it is on its own!
Which religion did Hitler follow again?
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#20
Their was a mix of Christian Pagan tradition in Hitlers idealogy, however, the SS did wear belts with "Gott Mit Uns" (God is with us) on the buckle. Religion being used to justify genocide again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads