PDA

View Full Version : Tory leadership candidate: "Multiculturalism is outdated"


fp
03-08-2005, 07:41:13
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4740633.stm

They can talk all they want about how they want the party to evolve and modernise, but it's nice to see that every once in a while they show their true colours.

Allowing people of different cultures to settle without integrating let the "perverted values of suicide bombers" take root, he told the Daily Telegraph.

Mr Davis, favourite to become the next Tory leader, urged the government to "build a single nation" and demand "respect for the British way of life".

"We must speak openly of what we expect of those who settle here," he said.

:gasmaske:

"Searching questions now have to be asked about what has been happening inside Britain's Muslim communities.

"The authorities have seemed more concerned with encouraging distinctive identities than with promoting common cultural values of nationhood."

Yeah, how dare those heathen darkies retain an individual, distinctive identity! :hmm: :rolleyes:

Gary
03-08-2005, 08:49:23
All sounds very French :)

Kitsuki
03-08-2005, 09:47:47
Go on - tell me really why that is a problem...?

Surely if people come to this country they should be expected to integrate to a certain extent. That doesnt mean they need give up their religion or beliefs, but it does mean they have to respect the British mainstream.

Are you really contesting : "Searching questions now have to be asked about what has been happening inside Britain's Muslim communities."

Of course we have to!

I get the impression that if a Labour politician had said that you wouldn't have batted an eyelid.

King_Ghidra
03-08-2005, 10:10:51
the bit you quote is not that contentious, kitsuki, i would agree

but what the fuck does

demand "respect for the British way of life".

mean?!

if someone could please define that in a non-humorous way i will be very fucking impressed

Kitsuki
03-08-2005, 10:19:16
Freedom of the individual - liberal democracy - a live and let live approach to life.

Kitsuki
03-08-2005, 10:20:43
Yeah, how dare those heathen darkies retain an individual, distinctive identity! :hmm: :rolleyes: [/B]

Its not about skin colour either. Richard Reid (the shoebomber) was white. This about an isolated radical streak of a religion. Couldn't care if the extremists were white/black/pink with yellow spots.

Funko
03-08-2005, 10:22:09
I think it means you have to enjoy a good curry.


ie. I have no idea how to define it non humourously.

Kitsuki
03-08-2005, 10:25:03
Honestly, it is freedom of the individual, and perhaps also the welfare state.

Even if you disagree with it, or think you cant definite it - its certainly not racist or anything else fp is getting at.

Funko
03-08-2005, 10:26:19
Originally posted by Kitsuki
Freedom of the individual - liberal democracy - a live and let live approach to life.

So David Davis is being anti-British by suggesting people need to conform to it?

:confused:

Kitsuki
03-08-2005, 10:32:24
No - the problem with the extremists is that they aren't displaying tolerance for other's religion, race and lifestyle. If indiginous (I use this work for lack of a better term really) people are to be tolerant of immigrant's lifestyles, then it must operate the other way round also.

Blowing yourself up on a bus/on the tube, or preaching hatred of the west ala Abu Hamza is biting the hand that feeds and should be stopped. Thankfully it is but a small part of the muslim population that is engaging in this untolerant attitude. Same can be said for white people (most are tolerant of immigrants.)

Kitsuki
03-08-2005, 10:36:43
Oh, and on selected quotes fp - how about things you missed such as -

"Mr Davis said he agreed with Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, who last year said multiculturalism belonged to a different era."

And -

In an article for the Daily Telegraph, he said non-Muslims had obligations to work for equal opportunities, accept the mainstream version of Islam as part of society, and reject racism.

So dont even try to paint him, or us, as racist. Its very tiring, its unjustified, and it makes you sound like a twat (which you arent.)

Funko
03-08-2005, 10:43:38
Originally posted by Kitsuki
No - the problem with the extremists is that they aren't displaying tolerance for other's religion, race and lifestyle. If indiginous (I use this work for lack of a better term really) people are to be tolerant of immigrant's lifestyles, then it must operate the other way round also.

Blowing yourself up on a bus/on the tube, or preaching hatred of the west ala Abu Hamza is biting the hand that feeds and should be stopped. Thankfully it is but a small part of the muslim population that is engaging in this untolerant attitude. Same can be said for white people (most are tolerant of immigrants.)

All that is already illegal.

What is he proposing then?

Nills Lagerbaak
03-08-2005, 10:44:44
Originally posted by Kitsuki
No - the problem with the extremists is that they aren't displaying tolerance for other's religion, race and lifestyle. If indiginous (I use this work for lack of a better term really) people are to be tolerant of immigrant's lifestyles, then it must operate the other way round also.

Blowing yourself up on a bus/on the tube, or preaching hatred of the west ala Abu Hamza is biting the hand that feeds and should be stopped. Thankfully it is but a small part of the muslim population that is engaging in this untolerant attitude. Same can be said for white people (most are tolerant of immigrants.)


The poeple who blew themselves up did it because they have no say in the political process.

Britain has a large population of muslims, do you really think we'd go to war with Iraq if they were properly represented in the political process.

It's easy saying they should respect the British mainstream without making provision for political representation. Without that provision it sounds like, do as we tell you.

Kitsuki
03-08-2005, 10:46:18
Encouraging cultural and community integration so that everyone in this country feels British and proud to be so, whilst being able to retain their own religions and their freedom to do as they wish.

I really don't see what is so controversial about this - personally I think its fairly bland and presented with the article without names you would struggle to pin it to Labour or the Tories.

Im looking forward to fp responding to this though - what he was suggesting is quite clearly bollocks.

Nills Lagerbaak
03-08-2005, 10:48:14
How can you feel proud of being a british muslim if you had no influence about going to war in Iraq??


(Just one example)

Kitsuki
03-08-2005, 10:48:35
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
The poeple who blew themselves up did it because they have no say in the political process.

Britain has a large population of muslims, do you really think we'd go to war with Iraq if they were properly represented in the political process.

It's easy saying they should respect the British mainstream without making provision for political representation. Without that provision it sounds like, do as we tell you.

Britain doesnt have that large a muslim population, but nonetheless, your MP is supposed to represent you regardless of what you are. The last two MPs I have had, one was gay and one is female - does that mean they cant represent me as a straight male...? Bollocks it does.

I also doubt that this was to with Iraq. And if it was, you have to use political means.

Kitsuki
03-08-2005, 10:50:19
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
How can you feel proud of being a british muslim if you had no influence about going to war in Iraq??


(Just one example)

Its a poor example - the majority of muslims voted for Jack Straw, foreign secretary, to be re-elected... They could have done otherwise, but they didn't. (There was an excellent channel 4 documentary about the Muslim Political Affairs Committee trying to get muslim voters to not vote for Straw, and coming up against a brick wall.)

Nills Lagerbaak
03-08-2005, 10:51:52
Well, I won't even argue with you about it being to do with Iraq.

Political means?! We have been rudely shown that Countries can apply illegal unilateral activities at the whim of a hat. How can you argue with that in a political arena??

Funko
03-08-2005, 10:55:33
Funny, for such a liberal it really sounds like you basically don't believe in democracy and think people should use violence do get their goals.

Nills Lagerbaak
03-08-2005, 10:59:36
I have to admit, the idea of "Western Democracy" doesn't mean a great deal to me any more.


EDIT: Idea is fine, but the reality of it stinks so much I can't agree with the actions of our Goverments anymore than those of the "Terrorists"

Dyl Ulenspiegel
03-08-2005, 11:01:18
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
The poeple who blew themselves up did it because they have no say in the political process.


I think that is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense.

As citizens they have a right to vote; as non-citizens, they have a chance to become citizens. And they have to accept the rules - if you are not represented by a majority in the legislature, you will disagree with most political decisions. I'm extremely annoyed by fanatical groups who get into a hissy fit and demand permanent appeasement.

The problem is an islamism that blends religion with western style ideology. There is no point in concessions or understanding.

Social ills and criminal wars in muslim countries help that ideology spread, but those infected by it will not be impressed or appeased.

King_Ghidra
03-08-2005, 11:03:34
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
The poeple who blew themselves up did it because they have no say in the political process.

Britain has a large population of muslims, do you really think we'd go to war with Iraq if they were properly represented in the political process.

It's easy saying they should respect the British mainstream without making provision for political representation. Without that provision it sounds like, do as we tell you.

nikhil your first point is absolute nonsense, where do you get a crazy idea like that from? Have al-qaeda and its various arms ever been reprsented as a political movement campaigning for more representation??!! wtf?! do you really think that is there aim?!

on your second point, even if every british muslim was against the war (a massively debateable idea in itself), they are still a tiny minority and would not be able to swing such an issue on their own.

the more you speak the more obvious it becomes that you are living in a fantasy land

Fistandantilus
03-08-2005, 11:03:42
There are too many politics threads - FACT

And the british way of life consists in having no sex at all, it is well known. You guys should really show more respect to that, expecially KG.

Funko
03-08-2005, 11:03:45
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
I have to admit, the idea of "Western Democracy" doesn't mean a great deal to me any more.


EDIT: Idea is fine, but the reality of it stinks so much I can't agree with the actions of our Goverments anymore than those of the "Terrorists"

That's pretty arrogant really, people didn't share your views enough to vote the way you thought they should so the principle of democracy is wong.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
03-08-2005, 11:04:47
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak

Political means?! We have been rudely shown that Countries can apply illegal unilateral activities at the whim of a hat. How can you argue with that in a political arena??

Well that has to do with the disfunctional state of democracy in America and the UK's imagined dependency on America (as well as Blair's ability to deny reaility). But that is the political establishment that about 70 % of the people still vote for. When the issue gets important enough, another party will take over, or the establishment changes.

maroule
03-08-2005, 11:29:48
Originally posted by Kitsuki
or preaching hatred of the west ala Abu Hamza is biting the hand that feeds


you have to admit he started by chewing his own hand in a very comprehensive way

Funko
03-08-2005, 11:29:59
:lol:

King_Ghidra
03-08-2005, 12:04:55
:D

Drekkus
03-08-2005, 12:30:51
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
The poeple who blew themselves up did it because they have no say in the political process.
:eek: Next thing you're going to say is that in order to win a voice, bad things have to be done, right?

Funko
03-08-2005, 12:32:28
:lol:

fp
03-08-2005, 12:42:55
:lol:

Kitsuki
03-08-2005, 12:45:46
Come on fp, reply defending your suggestion Davis is racist (the above quotes now on the thread) or take it back. Cant post bile like that and then not respond to a reasoned response.

fp
03-08-2005, 12:46:38
Originally posted by Kitsuki
Its very tiring, its unjustified, and it makes you sound like a twat (which you arent.)

Oh yes I am. I'd hardly post here if I weren't. ;)

Btw, I would have reacted the same way if a Labour politician had said this. Don't assume that just because I dislike the Tory party I must therefore be a Blair-loving Labour voter.

fp
03-08-2005, 12:47:34
Originally posted by Kitsuki
Come on fp, reply defending your suggestion Davis is racist (the above quotes now on the thread) or take it back. Cant post bile like that and then not respond to a reasoned response.

Give me a chance, for fuck's sake. Can't a guy eat his sandwich and chat to some cowies during his lunch break as well as posting on message boards? I'm getting to it.....

Kitsuki
03-08-2005, 12:47:50
Well, tell me why he is racist then in light of -

"In an article for the Daily Telegraph, he said non-Muslims had obligations to work for equal opportunities, accept the mainstream version of Islam as part of society, and reject racism. "

Kitsuki
03-08-2005, 12:48:26
Posted that after your first reply - sorry... :)

fp
03-08-2005, 13:22:58
OK. I'd like to start by saying that I'm not seriously suggesting that Davis or the Tory party in general are racist - certainly not in the usual BNP/KKK use of the term. If that implication came off stronger than I really intended it then I apologise, but I genuinely believe that Davis’ and the Tories’ views on this subject are misguided. The first post was a little trollish to provoke debate, and seems to have worked, so now we can actually discuss the issues.

I have a deep distrust of anyone who claims to know what "Britishness" or "the British way of life" is. I think if you asked 100 people what they thought that meant you'd get 100 different answers. Some incredibly general things such as "personal freedoms", "democracy", etc are pretty much a given - but the terms are very imprecise and mean different things to everybody. If the terms can not be defined to a mutually acceptable degree then they cease to have any relevant meaning.

Similarly I dislike any form of overt patriotism. I think it's often used very devisively and helps nobody. Patriotism is just the socially acceptable face of xenophobia. There is an implicit attitude that one’s country is better than others, and by extension that those who live in that country are better than people who live elsewhere. That’s an attitude which I refuse to accept.

I don’t understand what people can be mean when people say that immigrants “should integrate into our society”. The only things I can identify and agree with are that they should obey our laws and try to learn English (although the latter should not be a legal requirement). But surely more must be meant than that?

Are they saying that immigrants should not be allowed to practice their own religion, or wear whatever clothes they deem appropriate? I can’t see how that is a defensible point of view and I don’t believe it’s being seriously suggested. Are we saying that they should not live in enclosed communities of their own with little contact with white and/or Christian people? Ideally that would be nice, of course, but this can not (nor should be) enforced in any way – it’s about personal freedoms after all.

Mr Davis said he agreed with Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, who last year said multiculturalism belonged to a different era.
Mr Phillips said all citizens should "assert a core of Britishness".


In that case I disagree with the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality too. I defy him to explain what he means by “a core of Britishness”. If all he means is that people should respect the views of others and obey the law then that is such a bland and obvious statement that is a waste of time making it. Furthermore I don’t see why those things are innately “British” in any way. I seem to recall that at certain stages of our history the British were not being very tolerant or respectful of certain groups of people. Additionally, those values are hardly unique to the people of Britain so it seems very strange to me to identify them as such.

Obviously cultures evolve over time, and what is acceptable today is different to what was acceptable 200 years ago. Given that this is the case though, I still can’t see how anybody could possible have a “core of Britishness”. Once again I come back to my main point – what on earth is that supposed to mean?!?

I’m genuinely swamped with stuff at work today and can’t post any more. I’ve already spent more time on this than I should have done…
I’ll try to make further replies tonight.

fp
03-08-2005, 13:23:29
Holy shit, Dorkstar alert there. Sorry. :nervous:

Funko
03-08-2005, 13:24:25
Good response.

Resource Consumer
03-08-2005, 13:40:43
Originally posted by fp


I defy him to explain what he means by “a core of Britishness”. If all he means is that people should respect the views of others and obey the law then that is such a bland and obvious statement that is a waste of time making it.

I agree with most of your above post. However, it is worth pointing out that some do not respect the views of others and do not obey the law. In that case, it probably is worth reminding people of this.

Funko
03-08-2005, 13:42:38
People should be free to disrespect other peoples views. Why not?

They shouldn't be able to break laws.

Eklektikos
03-08-2005, 13:53:46
Agreed.

Respect for the right of others to hold those views does, however, seem like something which ought to be universal.

fp
03-08-2005, 14:02:36
Originally posted by Resource Consumer
I agree with most of your above post. However, it is worth pointing out that some do not respect the views of others and do not obey the law. In that case, it probably is worth reminding people of this.

I agree. However, lack of respect for other is by no means an issue unique to immigrant populations.

King_Ghidra
03-08-2005, 14:05:28
fp is absolutely spot on, and since i made my first post challenging someone to come up with a good definition of the british way of life no-one has managed to do it, certainly not kitsuki's crap effort

this concept is a sham, it is totally empty and every time somone tries to articulate it they say nothing more, as funko pointed out, than various principles already enshrined in UK law

i would absolutely love to see the politician who could find a way of making people respect other's opinions and not act against them in ways that contrevene the law, becase whoever achieves this will surely seal world peace and cure cancer the following week

we have experienced an extreme set of acts lately by an extreme set of individuals, but implying that this somehow negates the multi cultural society which we are all currently living in is knee jerkism of the most typical kind

fp
03-08-2005, 15:47:16
:beer:

Originally posted by King_Ghidra
knee jerkism

Coming to a dictionary near you soon.... :D

Funko
03-08-2005, 15:52:34
Mmmm. Beef Jerkism

Fistandantilus
03-08-2005, 17:52:19
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
... to come up with a good definition of the british way of life no-one has managed to do it...

I did! :mad:

Gary
03-08-2005, 18:19:06
It order to define the British way of life you need to do a massive comparison with other nations noting differences and similarities and pulling it all together to defines core things, and things in common with others, etc. etc. etc..

Is it any wonder no one has answered the question well then, given the amount of work involved ? And for what ? To satisfy a CG poster ? * shrug *

No, unless anyone here wants to fund it, it remains under the heading of, "I may not be in a position to define it, but I think I can identify it when I see it". And for sure there's going to be disagreement anyway from different folk thinking different things are important anyway.

No, I think what's being said here is that anything that proves to be divisive in the community is not a good thing. And that enclaves of one nationality / culture having been introduced from elsewhere hold the risk of creating such, "them and us", type environments, and have possibly shown not to be as good a idea in practice as it seemed in theory.

In these situations a balance needs to be struck between the comfort of the immigrant, for whom wholesale adoption of something they find alien is going to be unpalatable and stressful, and of the native who sees what they hold as important as being rejected by those who have been 'welcomed' into the country, and of their culture being gradually elbowed aside by what they see as alien culture influences.

I think there are responsibilities on both sides. The newcomer needs to accept that it is only polite, having chosen to become a part of a different nationality, to accept the culture that goes with it. And the native has to understand that anyone who has cut their roots with another part of the world is still going to feel the need to hold on to what they know, to an extent. Integration, tolerance, subtly goes a long way.

Spartak
03-08-2005, 18:19:58
Originally posted by Funko
People should be free to disrespect other peoples views. sig material!

Gary
03-08-2005, 18:20:50
What sort of daft suggestion is that ! :tizzy:

fp
03-08-2005, 18:34:16
And that enclaves of one nationality / culture having been introduced from elsewhere hold the risk of creating such, "them and us", type environments, and have possibly shown not to be as good a idea in practice as it seemed in theory.

It is not necessarily the fault of the Muslim communities that they are marginalised.

Furthermore, all the communities need to become integrated is time, and freedom from prejudice and persecution simply because they are a minority community. "They" will adapt to "us" and "we" will adapt to "them" and there will be a meeting in the middle.

Perhaps that ethereal creature that is "Britishness" in 2005 doesn't have long to live. But why should that be a bad thing? It's not as though it hasn't already died and been reborn dozens of times over the past two thousand years.

and of the native who sees what they hold as important as being rejected by those who have been 'welcomed' into the country


I don't have any stats on it, but I would wager that a significant percentage (probably a majority) of the British Muslim community were born in this country. That makes them as native as you or I.

I question what on earth a "native" is supposed to be, anyway. Most of us are somehow descended from Saxon or Norman invaders anyway. National, cultural and racial identity is constantly in flux. Trying to identify what constitutes "British" today and attempting to prevent it from ever evolving is absurd.

fp
03-08-2005, 18:41:07
Originally posted by Gary

No, unless anyone here wants to fund it, it remains under the heading of, "I may not be in a position to define it, but I think I can identify it when I see it".

That's a cop out and does nothing to strengthen the argument. You don't even know what it is you're arguing in defense of, so I can't see how you can expect anyone else to be persuaded. What are they supposed to agree with?

fp
03-08-2005, 18:41:47
Sorry, I didn't mean for that last post to be so confrontational. I'm not trying to start a fight here. :)

fp
03-08-2005, 18:49:12
Originally posted by Gary
[B][FONT=times new roman][SIZE=3]
Is it any wonder no one has answered the question well then, given the amount of work involved ?


And yet the chairman for the Commission for Racial Equality, and someone who could potentially be our next PM, seem to think they know what it is.

Have they done a study like you describe? Will they do one in future? I suspect not.

I wish they'd tell us what "Britishness" is, though, 'cos they seem to be the only ones who know...

Provost Harrison
03-08-2005, 19:42:26
My input to this thread is:

What a twat!

Thankyou...

Gary
03-08-2005, 20:24:53
I don't have any stats on it, but I would wager that a significant percentage (probably a majority) of the British Muslim community were born in this country. That makes them as native as you or I.

Hardly a relevant point if all generations since the original incomer have kept themselves immersed in their original culture rather than integrated, For all practical purposes they are still from a foreign culture as far as the natives are concerned.

That's a cop out and does nothing to strengthen the argument.

Describe it as you will, it remains the case.

Caligastia
03-08-2005, 20:25:59
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
We have been rudely shown that Countries can apply illegal unilateral activities at the whim of a hat.

That must be one powerful hat.

Lazarus and the Gimp
03-08-2005, 20:26:45
The British way of life is for the English rulers to invade their neighbours, attempt to brutally suppress rival cultures in order to assert their own, and attempt to pass it off as "one glorious nation!" nonsense.

Mr Davis is clearly well in tune with such values. I hope I never will be.

Walrus Feeder
03-08-2005, 20:36:36
I don't think that there is much of a problem with different ethnic communities getting on badly anyway. We all generally get along, even if there are 'ghetto' areas.
I think if anyone went to move to a different city they would want to live in an area of a similar race of culture. Just as if a guy in his mid-twenties like myself went to live in Brighton for example, I would want to live in a predomanently young trendy area, not an area where there are tonnes of old pensioners about.

Lazarus and the Gimp
03-08-2005, 20:49:18
The way to let cultures live together is to let them just get on with it. Yes-it'll be slow. Yes- there will be friction. Yes- sometimes there will be backward step.

However the changes will come organically, and will be accompanied by the sighting of more brown babies on the streets. That's the way to do it. Anyone thinking a good old-fashioned dose of Government-sponsored repression is the answer needs their head examining.

Caligastia
03-08-2005, 20:58:07
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
However the changes will come organically, and will be accompanied by the sighting of more brown babies on the streets. That's the way to do it.

Not doing much to help in that department are you?

Lazarus and the Gimp
03-08-2005, 21:00:04
I'm not 100% Caucasian, Cal. So Mrs Gimp is.

Caligastia
03-08-2005, 21:01:12
Ah, so not being 100% caucasian helps then?

Funko
03-08-2005, 21:03:11
Hard to make brown babies if you are 100% caucasion?

Anyway this is a ridiculous point. Laz said this will happen naturally over time, which it is at the moment. He's not saying everyone has to reproduce with a different race immediately.

Lazarus and the Gimp
03-08-2005, 21:04:48
In one respect, it does. It means I can take on 100% Aryan white supremacists in discussions, and leave them in the knowledge that they've just had their arses kicked by the racially impure.

Caligastia
03-08-2005, 21:05:55
If it happens so naturally, then why do different racial groups tend to prefer the company of their own kind? Ever heard of "white flight"?

Lazarus and the Gimp
03-08-2005, 21:07:29
Originally posted by Caligastia
If it happens so naturally, then why do different racial groups tend to prefer the company of their own kind? Ever heard of "white flight"?

Yes, and I don't think it's quite hysterically sensationalist enough. Can we rename it "Onslaught of the nignogs!!!!!!!"?

Caligastia
03-08-2005, 21:07:48
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
In one respect, it does. It means I can take on 100% Aryan white supremacists in discussions, and leave them in the knowledge that they've just had their arses kicked by the racially impure.

:lol:
You crack me up. Don't ever change Laz, stay as crazy as you are.:smoke:

Lazarus and the Gimp
03-08-2005, 21:08:56
I will, providing you stay thick and complacent.

Funko
03-08-2005, 21:11:25
Cali don't you live in New York? ie. one of the most culturally diverse and integrated cities in the world?

Japher
03-08-2005, 21:18:39
It's only "culturally diverse" because of all the Puerto Ricans.

fp
03-08-2005, 21:29:43
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Yes, and I don't think it's quite hysterically sensationalist enough. Can we rename it "Onslaught of the nignogs!!!!!!!"?

:lol:

Walrus Feeder
03-08-2005, 22:35:15
"However the changes will come organically, and will be accompanied by the sighting of more brown babies on the streets."

This happens quite a lot already, with babies born of black and white parents. However, I cannot see this happening with White and most practising Muslims partners. Why? The nature of the Muslim religion. I know of someone myself who really likes a British born girl of Pakistani background but he knows he could never end up being able marry her because her parents wouldn't tolerate her marrying a Non-Muslim. That's one example of Multiculturalism not working and it really stinks!

Caligastia
03-08-2005, 22:45:36
Originally posted by Funko
Cali don't you live in New York? ie. one of the most culturally diverse and integrated cities in the world?

You can't have cultural diversity and integration at the same time.

Provost Harrison
03-08-2005, 22:54:14
Originally posted by Caligastia
If it happens so naturally, then why do different racial groups tend to prefer the company of their own kind? Ever heard of "white flight"?

:rolleyes:

You know I was thinking. My workplace is full of people of all sorts of ethnicities and nationalities. And do you know what that means?

Fuck all. It makes no difference whatsoever. There is only a problem because people focus on these aspects. But needless to say it's moved me further away from racism than I already was, and I was never particularly close.

There are isolated cases of problems, but on the whole racially things are pretty harmonious (I can vouch for London but a lot of other British towns and cities are a bit more tense, and it is one of the great plus features of London - Hull looks so pale in comparison :lol: )

So Cali, take a look around you. You notice the difference because you are focussing on them. If you just think that negros just have slightly different levels of pigmentation and superficially different physical features you can put things right back in perspective.

Caligastia
04-08-2005, 01:08:43
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

However the changes will come organically, and will be accompanied by the sighting of more brown babies on the streets. That's the way to do it.

You prefer brown babies? If everyone started having brown babies would you see it as a good thing?

fp
04-08-2005, 06:50:58
Yeah, Cal, because the world would be such a bad place if everyone had the same colour skin.:lol:

Gary
04-08-2005, 08:55:56
Originally posted by Caligastia
You can't have cultural diversity and integration at the same time. But you can have a balance, the cultural diversity adding a 'flavour', for want of a better word, to part of a community that is basically an integrated one.

This wanting to be different and yet the same is not uncommon. It occurs on an individual basis too when we want to think of ourselves as individuals, but at the same time not an outsider compared to others.

Funko
04-08-2005, 09:12:28
Originally posted by Caligastia
You can't have cultural diversity and integration at the same time.

Of course you can. Integration doesn't mean uniformity of culture.

Dictionary.com says:

" 2. The bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into unrestricted and equal association, as in society or an organization; desegregation. "

King_Ghidra
04-08-2005, 09:23:13
Originally posted by Fistandantilus
I did! :mad:

:D yes you did, apologies

*End Is Forever*
04-08-2005, 10:32:59
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
You know I was thinking. My workplace is full of people of all sorts of ethnicities and nationalities. And do you know what that means?

Fuck all. It makes no difference whatsoever. There is only a problem because people focus on these aspects. But needless to say it's moved me further away from racism than I already was, and I was never particularly close.

...and that's exactly how it should be. That's integration - multiculturalism in a good way, with no regard paid to someone's race, religion, sexuality, or any other differences.

Unfortunately that isn't always the case. I largely agree with Gary's post - the problem comes when there is a "them" and "us" situation. In many of our northern urban areas towns are divided along ethnic or religious lines, and not just between "white" and "Asian" as you might think. "Us" could be white, it could be Irish, it could be Pakistani-origin, it could be Bangladeshi-origin, it could be Afro-Caribbean, it could be east Asian, and the same goes for "them". Having a "them" - whoever it is - creates fear, division, and isolation on both sides, especially when a large dose of poverty is added. It is a breeding-ground for extremism, be that white-supremacism, Islamic fundamentalism or whatever else crops up.

As long as one community sees another as "not one of us" - whether that is vile white racists or radical Muslims - there will be tension. These communities need something in common - which is where the "sense of British life" argument comes in. As has been rightly pointed out, it is almost impossible to define... but what's the alternative? Let the separation that already exists in northern towns become unofficial segregation?

Rich is absolutely right about his workmates, and that is the situation he, I and David Davis I'm sure all agree is where we want to be. Unfortunately in some areas you have Asian communities who do not share workplaces, social spaces, or the streets with their neighbours, and white neighbours who do likewise and are equally culpable. That's the "multiculturalism" that needs looking at. I'm not seeing anyone who disagrees with that mount any argument other that calling people names.

Kitsuki
04-08-2005, 12:05:38
Linders has it spot on as per...

The ghetto like non-integration, particularly obvious in northern England, is a mess. Being multi-cultural and integrated *is* very possible, and I for one thinks it a wonderful thing.

This "Britishness" doesn't particularly need to be any one thing, or easily tangible, or definable, its about people feeling British as well as any other things they feel, be that muslim, christian, scottish, or whatever.

There is also a huge difference between patriotism and nationalism. I don't accept that being proud of your own country somehow makes you a bigot, or look down on other countries. It means having civic pride in your society and wanting to play an active role within it.

Funko
04-08-2005, 12:11:52
You can't force that to change though.

Kitsuki
04-08-2005, 12:17:19
You can certainly take measures to encourage it to change though.

Funko
04-08-2005, 12:21:41
Not a bad idea in principle depending on how you do it.

On the other hand if you are David Davis you could just make a sensationalist reactionary speech slagging off the government and various minorities in a ploy to get support from the right wing of your party in the upcoming leadership election.

This was my favourite bit of that article:

Mr Bunglawala said being a good Muslim was complementary to being a good British citizen.

The MCB supported integration but it should come in all sectors of life, he said, challenging Mr Davis to set an example by ensuring the Conservatives had a Muslim MP.

He added: "Mainstream Muslim scholars in the UK have been teaching the true interpretation of Islam and combating extremist views and interpretations.

"However, their task has not been helped by some of our government's actions.

"The war against Iraq, which David Davis and the Conservatives strongly supported, has undoubtedly helped make the extremist message more palatable to some Muslim youths."


:)

*End Is Forever*
04-08-2005, 12:53:36
We had a number of Muslim candidates in key target seats, unfortunately it is easier to ensure diversity amongst MPs when you have nearly 400 seats as opposed to nearly 200.

By the same token, the Liberal Democrats do not have any ethnic minority MPs, never mind Muslim ones.

Funko
04-08-2005, 12:59:09
It's easier to ensure diversity amongst your mps if you have 200 seats as opposed to 62.

But yes you are right, it's a valid criticism of the LibDems too.

*End Is Forever*
04-08-2005, 13:09:11
It's not really a valid criticism of either party.

Until this year's election the Conservatives had barely gained anything since 1987 - we lost seats in 1992, dropped by the bucketload in 1997 and made no progress in 2001. Almost all of the changes to the Parliamentary Party have come through retirements, and it is difficult to make a sea-change in the make-up of your MPs when you are only replacing in dribs-and-drabs.

Even this year the capacity for change has been small, but we are moving in the right direction - two new ethnic minority MPs and a strong influx of new, able female parliamentarians.

It is exactly the same (but even harder) for the Liberal Democrats.

Changes to the make-up of a Parliamentary Party will always be incremental unless there is a major electoral upheaval. Remember that the Parliamentary Labour Party only became so diverse (certainly in terms of female representation) following a stonking landslide victory. A Tory (or, for that matter, LibDem) landslide would no doubt have a similar effect.

Funko
04-08-2005, 13:11:55
Damn, that's reasonable.

*End Is Forever*
04-08-2005, 13:40:18
It is interesting how the insult-throwers have disappeared.

Funko
04-08-2005, 13:42:17
They haven't posted at all today.

Funko
04-08-2005, 13:48:48
Anyway, you and Kitsuki being reasonable doesn't mean Davis's speech was reasonable.

I don't recall calls for the Northern Irish to be "more british" and integrate phrased in those kinds of terms.

Fergus & The Brazen Car
04-08-2005, 14:19:12
Originally posted by Funko
Cali don't you live in New York? ie. one of the most culturally diverse and integrated cities in the world?


Thta's what you get for misinterpreting what White Plains N.Y. means.

And now he has the HONKY tonk blues after having had to dance the black bottom so often.

Still, he can always perform the masochism tango.

Gary
04-08-2005, 16:42:59
I don't recall calls for the Northern Irish to be "more british" and integrate

I don't think you can apply this to Northern Ireland. The populations there didn't emigrate to these islands with their own culture, their ancestors were already here. So by definition they are already as British as they can be, albiet their own personal 'flavour'.

I accept the example can be used to blur the distinction though. But no more than suggesting that the English should be more British, or the Welsh, or the Scots.

Funko
04-08-2005, 16:47:32
The point seems to be about communities that keep themselves seperate, clear examples of that in NI but when they were blowing us up that wasn't the solution...

Lazarus and the Gimp
04-08-2005, 18:36:39
Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
It is interesting how the insult-throwers have disappeared.

Who are they?

Lazarus and the Gimp
04-08-2005, 19:54:05
Originally posted by Caligastia
You prefer brown babies? If everyone started having brown babies would you see it as a good thing?

In a number of ways, yes. I'm not about to suggest that it needs promotional campaigns in favour of it, but it strikes me as being a healthy sign. People are just people, after all.

Lazarus and the Gimp
04-08-2005, 19:58:46
Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
.Unfortunately in some areas you have Asian communities who do not share workplaces, social spaces, or the streets with their neighbours, and white neighbours who do likewise and are equally culpable. That's the "multiculturalism" that needs looking at. I'm not seeing anyone who disagrees with that mount any argument other that calling people names.

Re-read my posts, in that case.

What the situation does not need is opportunistic MP's on the right wing of a right-wing party using vaguely inflammatory sound-bites about multiculturalism in order to boost their leadership bids. Davis is either being cynical or naive.

Caligastia
04-08-2005, 21:05:53
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
In a number of ways, yes. I'm not about to suggest that it needs promotional campaigns in favour of it, but it strikes me as being a healthy sign. People are just people, after all.

Why do you see it as being a healthy sign? Are same-race pairings unhealthy, or less healthy?

Lazarus and the Gimp
04-08-2005, 21:53:14
I see it as being a healthy sign because it means that people are able to see beyond racial divisions and love each other as people.

Same-race pairings are only really unhealthy where a desire to preserve racial purity is a factor, as far as I can see. Unless, of course, we become as inbred as pedigree dogs with all the negative traits that entails. Mongrels thrive.

Provost Harrison
04-08-2005, 23:26:25
Originally posted by Caligastia
Why do you see it as being a healthy sign? Are same-race pairings unhealthy, or less healthy?

From a genetics perspective same-race pairing, in fact, would produce less healthy offspring than interracial pairing. As both individuals are further separated and thus probably descend from differing gene pools this recombination will generally result in healthier offspring. It is why the mongrel is generally healthier and longer-lived than the pedigree...

Oerdin
05-08-2005, 01:54:58
I doubt that's true. The average white couple are sufficiently far enough apart where you're not going to have inbreeding as a fear.

protein
05-08-2005, 02:02:49
Hmm, I'm pretty sure there's a benefit to banging exotic chicks.

Oerdin
05-08-2005, 02:09:56
There is always a benefit to banging hot women.

Seamus
05-08-2005, 02:11:58
Hopefully syphilis isn’t one of them.

Fergus & The Brazen Car
05-08-2005, 09:49:51
Originally posted by Caligastia
Why do you see it as being a healthy sign? Are same-race pairings unhealthy, or less healthy?


Depends if you're Habsburgs, hillbillies or the Bush family.