Multiculturalism: is it possible to have a sensible debate?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Lucky_Jim, Dec 15, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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,5744,17559578%255E32522,00.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?

    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).
  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!
  6. Thats a fantastic article, and is summed up concisely in the following quote

    Hence why multiculturalism is doomed to fail
  7. 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.
  8. No, probably not.
  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. 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.

  12. 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.
  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. 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.

  15. Multi culturalism can be defined as "Always winter but never Christmas"
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.