Multiculturalism v Uniculturalism? THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

UKIP asserts that it believes in civic nationalism. UKIP "opposes multiculturalism and political correctness but rejects "blood and soil" ethnic nationalism. UKIP promotes uni-culturalism, a single British culture embracing all races, religions and colours". It states that Britishness can be defined in terms of belief in democracy, fair play and freedom.

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality has called for multiculturalism to be scrapped.

VS

Professor Sir Benard Crick:

"I see no incompatibility with between multiculturalism and britishness. Britishness must be part of multiculturalism. In the report I chaired advocating language and citizenship education for immigrants, The New and the Old (2003), we said:

"Who are we British? For a long time the UK has been a multicultural state composed of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and also a multicultural society... made up of a diverse range of cultures and identities, and one that emphasises the need for a continuous process of mutual engagement and learning about each other with respect, understanding and tolerance."

In other words, dual identities have been common, even before large scale immigration.

We further wrote: "To be British means that we respect the laws, the parliamentary and democratic political structures, traditional values of mutual tolerance, respect for equal rights..."

But Britishness does not mean a single culture. Integration is the co-existence of communities and unimpeded movement between them, it is not assimilation.

Britishness is a strong concept but not all embracing.

BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK?

I support multiculturalism in the genuine sense, a tableau culture. Our Britishness is never going to leave and be supplanted since it's so ingrained in our national psyche, it's an unconscious feeling rather than a philosophy, so I don't see the great problem with the integration of other cultural aspects. As a result of immigration and cultural integration has Shakespeare been replaced with Achebe, has Hitchcock been replaced by Satyajit Ray, have gothic churches been replaced by gurdwaras, the Grey Lady by Anansi, sunday roast by rice and peas? No, and yet we have seen British cultural developments which could not have existed outside of multicultural Britain, like bhangra or jungle, tikka masala and kedgeree, John Agard and Linton Kwesi Johnson, the Kew Gardens pagoda (which is centuries old and shows an old British tradition of enthusiasm about other cultures which dogmatic right-wingers are betraying). Plenty of cultural developments which are definitively British, not a great deal of losses. Multiculturalism > assimilation

Britishness is unionism. Some people think it's just everything English but Britishness is unionism while Englishness is the culture of most of the UK.

can you elaborate on this

Personally, I am opposed to multiculturalism (on some level). I think that the more cultures you try and put into one society, especially if they are from far ends of the world and are very different, the harder it is for people to agree on things. It just makes things more complicated - more norms and values have to be accounted for, more exceptions have to be made, etc etc. Social policy becomes more difficult.

'British culture' is any culture that originated on the British Isles (at least to me that's what it means). Britain is 'multicultural' in a sense that there are English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish cultures, which can be further subdivided. However, these cultures are all British, hence they are all British culture, therefore Britain is not multicultural in that sense. They are also fairly similar, in that Scottish and Welsh culture are more compatible than Scottish and Iranian, for example (in terms of norms and values). I think it is therefore easier to live with our native cultures than have to account for numerous foreign cultures in our social policy and behavior.

This is of course just my opinion, and I am open to new thoughts and ideas.

That sounds a little prescriptive. Descriptively 'British culture' is whatever cultural life happens to exist among people living in Britain even though some culture exists in greater frequency and having had greater longevity and is thus more familiar as 'British'. Besides most of what 'counts' for British culture has 'foreign' origins, whether we're talking about the English language, Punch and Judy or Christianity (and a thousand things besides).

In the end this issue is about freedom. I'm British by birth but I won't easily be told what kinds of clothes I should wear, what kinds of food I should prefer, what gods I should worship, what music I should like or what social or political values I should carry.

I'm afraid I don't agree with that definition. If, for example, a foreign culture is brought to Britain, then it's still foreign. However, if this culture were to evolve to the point where it has become different to it's native source, i.e. it has changed enough to be unique to the UK so to speak, it is then a British culture. Just 'being here' doesn't necessarily make something inherently British, the same we me moving to Germany doesn't make me inherently German.

Boundaries are of course blurred as 'culture' is always a hard-to-define subject.

My primary objection to 'multiculturalism' is it being forced on us or made out to be some sort of necessity, with objections to it being called racism, 'Insert religion here'aphobia, bigotry, etc etc. Multiculturalism may ironically infringe on our freedoms if we find ourselves in a situation where we are having to constantly allow or change for foreign ideologies and cultural practices. Don't get me wrong, I love and admire many foreign cultures, I just think there are limits as to what we can practically integrate with.

*Sigh* I am completely aware of our past. However, as I was arguing, these cultures evolved to become part of Britain, hence why British, French and German cultures are not the same - even though they stemmed from the same sources, they continued to evolve in each respective country in different ways, forming unique cultures in each nation.

The cultures arriving on our doorstep now are from much different societies from entirely different regions of the globe. Things have 'settled' since the last major cultural invasions, hence why the sudden increased immigration of wholly different cultures into Britain from outside of Europe is problematic from a social policy perspective.

I'm afraid I don't agree with that definition. If, for example, a foreign culture is brought to Britain, then it's still foreign. However, if this culture were to evolve to the point where it has become different to it's native source, i.e. it has changed enough to be unique to the UK so to speak, it is then a British culture...

Then you go for a prescriptive approach and I go for a descripitive one. In the end people will adopty whatever cultural life that appeals to them, providing people like you don't get to control their freedom in the matter, and which is why plenty of 'white' 'native' Brits enjoy an Indian or Chinese takeaway.

Personally, I am opposed to multiculturalism (on some level). I think that the more cultures you try and put into one society, especially if they are from far ends of the world and are very different, the harder it is for people to agree on things. It just makes things more complicated - more norms and values have to be accounted for, more exceptions have to be made, etc etc. Social policy becomes more difficult.

'British culture' is any culture that originated on the British Isles (at least to me that's what it means). Britain is 'multicultural' in a sense that there are English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish cultures, which can be further subdivided. However, these cultures are all British, hence they are all British culture, therefore Britain is not multicultural in that sense. They are also fairly similar, in that Scottish and Welsh culture are more compatible than Scottish and Iranian, for example (in terms of norms and values). I think it is therefore easier to live with our native cultures than have to account for numerous foreign cultures in our social policy and behavior.

This is of course just my opinion, and I am open to new thoughts and ideas.

Chinese and Indian takeaways aren't social practices or cultural norms that are going to interfere with social policy.

"Provided people like you don't get to control their freedom in the matter..." I do not want to control people's freedoms. What I want is no authoritative body attempting to actively promote 'multiculturalism' or vilify those who happen to disagree with it.

Social policy? Are you serious? You think British culture should be reducable to whatever government policies dictate. You're in danger of identifying yourself as a cultural fascist.

Personally, I am opposed to multiculturalism (on some level). I think that the more cultures you try and put into one society, especially if they are from far ends of the world and are very different, the harder it is for people to agree on things. It just makes things more complicated - more norms and values have to be accounted for, more exceptions have to be made, etc etc. Social policy becomes more difficult.