The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Teutonic
If all religion didn't exist, multiculturalism would work.


Nothing to do with religeon and more to do with tribalism. Other tribes in the UK include the class system, football clubs, race, political persuasion, you name it. All at various times in history have been violent towards other tribes. This is no different.
Original post by ByEeek
Nothing to do with religeon and more to do with tribalism. Other tribes in the UK include the class system, football clubs, race, political persuasion, you name it. All at various times in history have been violent towards other tribes. This is no different.


These can be easily be erased throgh various methods.
But if you get a Muslim from the middle east, he'll most likely want to behead you and create a Shariah law here.
Original post by mariachi
there is no law prescribing that the UK should be a multicultural country

in my view, the multicultural model has failed, and more and more people are realising that


Bit of a generalised statement though, multicultural societies have worked and continue to work all over the world, the problem is that there are specific groups it doesn't work for.

Do we scrap the model entirely or simply restrict which groups can or can't come in?
The question is, what kind of Brexit do you want? A Brexit that consists of a Merkult multikulti probiotic and a pain au Macron or a hard English Brexit with nothing but beautiful British sourced Bacon and Eggs?
(edited 6 years ago)
Multiculturalism is fantastic and is a vital part of having a truly fufilling life. That's why you see videos of racists in their 80s/90s saying that after they accepted people of other races they were much happier.
If you want the correct answer to this topic just watch the rivers of blood speech which was at least 45 years ahead of it's time.

Back in those days mass immigration was considered to be net 50,000 this has gone up 6/7 fold, watch the speech a lot of it was very accurate as a general consensus.
Multiculturalism does work, you just don'y want it to work as it doesn't fit with your racist narrative.
Original post by Teutonic
These can be easily be erased throgh various methods.
But if you get a Muslim from the middle east, he'll most likely want to behead you and create a Shariah law here.


lol? i think someones been watching a bit too much tommy robinson...
Original post by truthteller0110
Multiculturalism does work, you just don'y want it to work as it doesn't fit with your racist narrative.


This right here is the bottom line. If you are someone who loves other cultures/races it will work, if you're not then of course it won't.
Original post by theoneandonlybob
lol? i think someones been watching a bit too much tommy robinson...


Nah, I'm just saying that Islam needs to be reformed.
If the Muslim population increases here too quickly, a civil war will break out.
This is coming from a Muslim himself.
Original post by StrawbAri
I made this thread a while ago so my opinions have shifted from my OP.
I agree with both of you.
And I'll add:
A multi ethnic society where everyone shares the good aspects of their cultures and integrates with the culture of the host nation is ideal but not often the reality because certain groups may suffer from cultural superiority and have a hard time integrating.


How does one decide which aspects of a culture are good? To me this would seem to be defined by the majority. Essentially, "you may practice the aspects of your culture we approve of only." But I think this is a rather illiberal stance. A more liberal stance in my opinion would be to allow cultural practices which might not be approved of, but which do not cause harm to people.

To take as an example the hijab. The hijab is quite a controversial garment that many people disapprove of. But if a woman chooses freely on her own will to wear a hijab, and is at no stage forced to do wear it, then her wearing of the hijab causes nobody harm. In which case, it would strike me as highly illiberal to ban the hijab in this instance.

Also cultural clashes are not always a matter of different ethnic groups, but can also be apparent in generational divisions. Take the hippie culture for example. Many young people in America in teh sixties embraced the hippie culture. However, many elder people looked down upon the hippie culture and disaproved of the way they dressed. Even in the most homogenous of societies there exist different cultures that are based on generational divisions or class divisions.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by DanielCollins31
Multiculturalism is fantastic and is a vital part of having a truly fufilling life. That's why you see videos of racists in their 80s/90s saying that after they accepted people of other races they were much happier.


Err. No

Just take a little bit of a interest in what is happening in the news if you import certain belief systems in mass numbers you get the very worst aspects from that belief system look at Islam and Jihadism I'm not going as far as stating they are one and the same thing but you can not say Islam is a religion which does not have the most problems at this moment in time. If we look at th-e Islam population of Britain when we was at our best in the 1960's there was around 50,000 muslims, in 2014 It was projected there is now over 3 million muslims within the UK. The left see this as great but never justify why. We have seen a 60 fold increase in the islamic population since 1960 and inviting more will just make the events of Monday night more common, various intelligence services estimate the radical proportion of muslims to be between 15-25%- I'm not saying that all of them would attack us but there is a massive potential army to be fighting against if they did become terrorists at the lower boundary there is a potential for an army of radicals if they decide to attack us of around 450,000- to put that into perspective that means that the army of potential jihadists could be nearly 5 times the size of the British army. Cultural enrichment has stung us twice in the last 3 months or so in the London Bridge attack and the Manchester Arena Attack, with the Manchester terror attacker had parents who was born in Libya and came here as refugees- we give them refuge they give us a terrorist in return - is this a fair deal? The whole family have been arrested in relation to terror offences so cultural enrichment has been a resounding failure for us. The times yesterday reported that their is 23,000 people who MI5 think are Jihadhis central government always understate the figures to reduce tension- with 3000 of the 23,000 are watched by intelligence services 24/7. IF cultural enrichment was a success we would not see these figures we will see like with the majority of muslims we Import people who want to live in peace but the risks and threats it too much of a burden for us- we need to stop mass immigration of muslims on possibly a temporary basis until we have killed or deported the current terrorists we have who want to attack us- we then need extreme vetting of people who come in to the UK in general not just muslims, but I say kill rather than imprison the suspects if we find them guilty because putting them in jail will give a greater threat of radicalisation in our prisons- for gods sake the London bridge attacker was radicalised in jail- stop that happening if they are sentenced to the death penalty. Absolute trash skidmarks on the pants of society.
Original post by Butt-hurt
Err. No

Just take a little bit of a interest in what is happening in the news if you import certain belief systems in mass numbers you get the very worst aspects from that belief system look at Islam and Jihadism I'm not going as far as stating they are one and the same thing but you can not say Islam is a religion which does not have the most problems at this moment in time. If we look at th-e Islam population of Britain when we was at our best in the 1960's there was around 50,000 muslims, in 2014 It was projected there is now over 3 million muslims within the UK. The left see this as great but never justify why. We have seen a 60 fold increase in the islamic population since 1960 and inviting more will just make the events of Monday night more common, various intelligence services estimate the radical proportion of muslims to be between 15-25%- I'm not saying that all of them would attack us but there is a massive potential army to be fighting against if they did become terrorists at the lower boundary there is a potential for an army of radicals if they decide to attack us of around 450,000- to put that into perspective that means that the army of potential jihadists could be nearly 5 times the size of the British army. Cultural enrichment has stung us twice in the last 3 months or so in the London Bridge attack and the Manchester Arena Attack, with the Manchester terror attacker had parents who was born in Libya and came here as refugees- we give them refuge they give us a terrorist in return - is this a fair deal? The whole family have been arrested in relation to terror offences so cultural enrichment has been a resounding failure for us. The times yesterday reported that their is 23,000 people who MI5 think are Jihadhis central government always understate the figures to reduce tension- with 3000 of the 23,000 are watched by intelligence services 24/7. IF cultural enrichment was a success we would not see these figures we will see like with the majority of muslims we Import people who want to live in peace but the risks and threats it too much of a burden for us- we need to stop mass immigration of muslims on possibly a temporary basis until we have killed or deported the current terrorists we have who want to attack us- we then need extreme vetting of people who come in to the UK in general not just muslims, but I say kill rather than imprison the suspects if we find them guilty because putting them in jail will give a greater threat of radicalisation in our prisons- for gods sake the London bridge attacker was radicalised in jail- stop that happening if they are sentenced to the death penalty. Absolute trash skidmarks on the pants of society.


Chucking statistics at me that fit your anti-Islamic view isn't going to change my view on multiculturalism.
Original post by DanielCollins31
Chucking statistics at me that fit your anti-Islamic view isn't going to change my view on multiculturalism.


Go and bury your head in the sand then. Thats your choice. Its not even that anti islamic. The press like to perceive them as darlings when they are far from perfect
Reply 94
Original post by DanielCollins31
This right here is the bottom line. If you are someone who loves other cultures/races it will work, if you're not then of course it won't.


I love and appreciate many aspects of other races and cultures, but that doesn't mean I need nor want to live amongst them. I ultimately want to be with my own people and my own culture, customs, traditions, etc.
Original post by Teutonic
These can be easily be erased throgh various methods.
But if you get a Muslim from the middle east, he'll most likely want to behead you and create a Shariah law here.


And by the same token of sweeping statements, every Englishman that goes abroad sees the country he is visiting as a future colony of the Great Empire!

Idiot!
Original post by truthteller0110
Multiculturalism does work, you just don'y want it to work as it doesn't fit with your racist narrative.


yes, the african girl is racist and doesn't like foreigners in europe :facepalm:
Original post by ByEeek
And by the same token of sweeping statements, every Englishman that goes abroad sees the country he is visiting as a future colony of the Great Empire!

Idiot!


Good goy.
Reply 98
Original post by The Epicurean
How does one decide which aspects of a culture are good? To me this would seem to be defined by the majority. Essentially, "you may practice the aspects of your culture we approve of only." But I think this is a rather illiberal stance. A more liberal stance in my opinion would be to allow cultural practices which might not be approved of, but which do not cause harm to people.

To take as an example the hijab. The hijab is quite a controversial garment that many people disapprove of. But if a woman chooses freely on her own will to wear a hijab, and is at no stage forced to do wear it, then her wearing of the hijab causes nobody harm. In which case, it would strike me as highly illiberal to ban the hijab in this instance.

Also cultural clashes are not always a matter of different ethnic groups, but can also be apparent in generational divisions. Take the hippie culture for example. Many young people in America in teh sixties embraced the hippie culture. However, many elder people looked down upon the hippie culture and disaproved of the way they dressed. Even in the most homogenous of societies there exist different cultures that are based on generational divisions or class divisions.


I think good wasn't the right word to use.
I was referring to 'bad' as in cultural practices that are harmful such as FGM. The hijab wouldn't fall into this category.

And yes I agree with that. In the end there's always something people will find to create division no matter how homogenous the society is.


Original post by truthteller0110
Multiculturalism does work, you just don'y want it to work as it doesn't fit with your racist narrative.


:lol: oh dear.
Seeing as Im going to be a foreigner in Europe I'm not sure how that makes me racist.

I actually made this thread in Feb 2016 because I was frustrated at how high ethno religious tensions in my country were at the time and decided to draw parallels with the situation in Europe. I wasn't saying people of different ethnicities can't live together. There will have to be compromises though.
Original post by Dinasaurus
I don't agree with you at all, it's too much of a broad thing to be able to say it simply doesn't work. There's thousands of cultures in the world, most modern cultures are mixtures of older cultural groups. Just because group A doesn't seem to be working with group B right now, doesn't mean that group A doesn't work fine with group D, group E and group F.

Most of the time multiculturalism works and nobody notices, it's only when there's a problem that you make a problem about it. The country I am from is by definition multicultural, we don't have a 'host' culture yet we don't have any major racial hatred issues or people not integrating. When I moved from that country to Britain, I didn't need to integrate. I already did 90% of things the same, changing the little things were probably pointless.


To clarify exactly why "multiculturalism" does not now, nor has it ever, worked in those countries, cities, etc., where it has become "policy," in that, simply put, it was not designed nor was it ever intended to ever work in the way you and millions of other young people were told it is/was suppose to, in that:
I. The Mitroikhin Archives, smuggled out of the old Soviet Union by a former KGB General (tens of thousands of secret KGB documents many of which are yet to be translated) repeatedly makes it clear that the entire "civil rights movement" was invented by, paid for and run by the KGB. It's goal was obviously "The Archives" state quite clearly, to create a program that would sufficiently harm the US, their chief adversary at the time, and bring it to it's knees by the simple expedient of manufacturing an unwinnable system where black Americans were sold on the idea that whites had victimized blacks for centuries (an invented history that never happened in any way so described by the Soviet Propaganda) and to uses black violence and, what they thought to be a low grade IQ, to create havoc and to so enrage whites by way of black violence and black (forced, I might add) co-mingling so as to "deliver them [democracy] to our cause."
II. This program was a deliberate plan of attack with specific goals and was, by no means, a spur of the moment plan as you will see once you have read the founding author's outline for a plan of attack, i.e., the original author Israel Cohen, 1915, made the following hypothesis, not actually put into effect until Joseph Stalin was able to solidify his rise to power in the late 1920's, to wit:
"'A Racial Program for the 20th Century'
We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause."
Israel Cohen, A Racial Program for the 20th Century,' 1915.
NB
The left has, for years, argued that the Israel Cohen referred to as the author (who purportedly was a British author, and Communist Philosopher, was not the Israel Cohen who's works now reside in perpetuity at the Humanities Library,
Israel Cohen Library at Stanford University--an argument which distracts, quite effectively, from the central issue which is that the blueprint outlined in the 'A Racial Program for the 20th Century' is, in fact, an exact outline (or a near miraculous prediction if you prefer) of the succeeding actions carried out by the KGB, et al, starting in the late 1920's and which flourished so well and which was so effective beginning in the late 1950's and early 1960's in the US and elsewhere.
In summary, there is no city, state or country where this plan has been in effect that the principles outlined in 'A Racial Program for the 20th Century' cannot be seen in current practice and where young people, the easiest victims with which to inflict this very long term propaganda, where each principle as invented by Israel Cohen in 1915 has not become an unshakable "truth" which it's adherents cling to despite it's shockingly clear faults and which they espouse with Lemming-like virtuosity, i.e., one form or another of "we only have a little racial hatred" and it's pathological blindness to the obvious non sequiturs which come part in parcel with a intentionally fabricated "program" who's actual destructive intent and purpose cannot be denied.
One Final Note:
Despite the multitudinous reasons for failure noted above, there is one further barrier to the success of the non sequitur that is "multiculturalism," i.e., in no case will the minorities to whom the "benefit" of multiculturalism are purportedly intended espouse a willingness to be included in the social structure of the host culture (even the term "host culture" is an oxymoron in that the rejection by the minority community of any "benefit" of that culture negates it's seeming social advantage).

Latest

Trending

Trending