Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Feb 5, 2011.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
BBC News - State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron
Completely ignoring the fact that Britain has always been a multicultural state, since before there was a concept of a united 'Britain' in fact.
please, expand your opinion, elaborate it.
There was nothing 'multiculural' about Britain historically in the modern sense. You were expected to be 'British' and adopt accepted 'British' norms of behaviour.
'Multiculturalism' is yet another left wing idea who's purpose is to impose a tyranny of the minority on the majority like the failed theory of 'Socialism' before it.
Britain was historically a place where you could go 10 miles down the road and run into a completely different dialect and way of doing things. Do you seriously want to argue that your culture is the same as Gaelic-speaking Outer Hebrideans, the Welsh or the Cornish? Mine certainly isn't.
We're a mish-mash, a hotch-potch and to me the best thing about our 'native culture' was the cult of minding our own business. Shame we've forgotten that particular facet of 'Britishness' in the rush to impose something wholly artificial and mainly imaginary on anyone who looks a bit funny.
Multiculturism is a dismal failure, while most cultures have made themselves open to integration within our society, others avoid it at all costs, and now expect the majority to accept their way of life.
Rubbish, you all obeyed the same laws, Christianity was the de facto god bothering and the Queen/King was the head honcho.
Trying to nitpick miniscule REGIONAL rather than racial or religious differences in the population of the UK in the past is not going to fly. And bollox did we 'mind our own business' in the past and let everyone get on with it. If Muhammed Al Jihad and his mates had gone for a quick bit of death to all infidels protesting at troops in Luton in 1880, the results would have been terminally bad for them - if they hadn't been lynched by the locals, the Judge would have given them a very long holiday with hard labour.
My bold. Wrong on both counts. Scots Law is distinct and unique to Scotland while HMTQ is a member of the Church of Scotland, not its head. The Church of Ireland is legally distinct from the Church of England and the less said about Wales the better (although thats a good general rule at any time).
Yet, despite the lack of homogenous law and religion across the nation, we managed to rub along well, multiculturally, for the last few centuries.
Not regional, cultural. You dont celebrate Burns Night and I dont go Morris Dancing, because those are not parts of our respective cultures. Since were both Brits, that rather means Britain is ****-cultural (complete the blanks or blankety-blanks).
People can have a whole host of identities, often at the same time. Theyre not always exclusive and IMO focussing on culture at the expense of identity is a populist flaw.
They would have been prosecuted under the prevailing law. Nobody would have felt the need to go inventing new laws just to get them. If theyd been doing nothing illegal then their private habits would have remained private and not the subject of anyone elses lawful interest.
Did the Muslim protesters at Luton break the law or even represent a majority of inhabitants ?
I know lots of people from all over the UK who couldnt give a toss about soldiers or Islam or the Gvmt.
I think it depends what part of history you're talking about, bearing in mind that we've been invaded by the French, Italians, Germans, Scandinavians and God knows who else over the years.
You also have to be careful to indicate the difference between 'race' and 'culture' with regards to this subject. Trying to determine someone's identity with race is a somewhat superfluous exercise due to the inevitable mixture in breeding. Everyone is related at some point and the only real discrepancies you could make are; caucasian, indian, asian, african or mixed race. You can't really pin someone down as being ethnically Egyptian, Russian or British because these are man made cultural identities. The idea of a modern nation state is also a relatively new concept. England only came into being 1000 years ago and Britain has only been about since 1707, this is really quite an insignificant time period in the greater scheme of things. A few hundred years pass and the next thing you know everyone's sipping tea and talking about the weather when essentially the whole sense of national identity is really just a tribal philosophy.
At the end of the day it is pointless trying to defend a national indentity because it will change. 20,000 years ago the earth was unrecognisable compared to today and 20,000 years in the future countries of today probably won't even exist. In reality we are all part of the human race, a product of energy and the strange fluctuations of atomic matter, living on an insignificant rock in an obscure galaxy in a mysterious universe which as far as we can tell has no particular purpose. Because that's the way it really is.
The problem arises when new cultures enter our sphere and we have to decide which one should adapt to fit the other and whether it's really that important anyway. For me the Western philosophy, the freedom of religion, the rights of man and equality in law and democracy are the important parts. Whether we can protect this in the face of mass immigration and religious differences is less certain.
just seen this on the news and the showed clips from the EDL protest in london and somone in the protest was wearing a para reg beret and cap badge , is this a real para ? or just an EDL para walt
I'm reminded of one of Bernard Cornwall's books...
"Alfred wanted peace, but the Danes came. And the Norse. And so Alfred had to fight, and peace fled from him.
And when Alfred was dead and England was powerful, still more Danes came, and more Norse. And the Britons marched out of Wales. And the Scots howled down from the North and what can a man do but fight? For his family, his land, himself.
And so I know this: as long as there are people on this wind-swept island, there will be war."
I see where you are coming from Carrots, but if you don't mind I will challenge you on the definition of "Multicultural"..
You are quite right in your contention that we have many cultures in these islands, however to suggest that this was never a problem is clearly wrong. From your last post you appear to be a wog of the porridge tribe..? I would therefore ask you to to consider the goings on of 1745 et al!
The solution was the invention of "British" culture, which was basically "We will allow you all to have another culture, however we are all allowed to take the piss, because at the end of the day we are all British". Now I know the Irish did not play this one with a straight bat, however it was a formula that generally worked... But not without a considerable letting of blood over many years..
This is NOT what the New Labour version of "Multicultural Society" was about. This was a reversal of the above in that "You are all British, however nobody seriously believes in this anymore, so you can continue to consider your old culture as the governing one and ignore the fact you are a citizen of another country, including following any laws you do not agree with."
A whole generation of politicians and bureocrats have lived on the back of this principle, giving themselves huge power and influence at the cost of the countries long term stability. What we do not have is integration, "Modern Multiculturalism" is about pandering to pressure groups and handing out political backhanders. Different cultures CAN get along, provided you do not empower groups of "cultural spokesmen" who then emphasise differences rather than common values..
It is stupid, short term political expediency like this that led to the extermination of Jews in Europe, Croats in Bosnia, Ibos in Nigeria and almost every other mixed society punchup you can name.
DON'T get me started on the Scottish Parliament...
I never suggested that it had never been a problem, just that it wasn't a new problem. Hell, even mass immigration isn't a new problem - not even mass peaceful immigration as aside from on the coat-tails of an invasion. The Jews and Hugenots are just two examples of wholesale immigration that spring to mind.
We've found a solution to these same problems in the past (please, nobody make with the Godwinesque allusions) and it was largely founded on getting on with our own business and letting others do the same. I don't see the sense in pretending we're facing some new and apocalyptic threat from a few nutters who don't even have the support of their own.
Forgive me for pointing out that in the past we haven't been attacked by suicidal mass murderers while using the public transport system of our capital city, neither did we have someone who would visit a scandinavian country and blow himself up in order to reflect his disattisfaction with how his religion is treated in that country. NB all these people were members of one type of religious community, and were extremists to the certain knowledge of their religioous peers, who singularly failed to identify the extremism in their community to the forces of law and order.
Separate names with a comma.