Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone else feel like wringing their own neck when they hear this phrase. To me multiculturalism and subsequently multi-racialism is just one of the natural consequences of history. Its not a question of If races merge, but rather when. Any attempt to delay such a process indefinitely just seems incredibly futile and short sighted (BNP) and will likely be a minor blip in the history of the UK. In a globablised world with sufficient technology to facialitate mass movement how long do people think they're going to be able to ring fence people in their "homeland" exclusively mating with "indiginous folks" set against a backdrop of globalism, ridiculous.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bluelight)
    Does anyone else feel like wringing their own neck when they hear this phrase. To me multiculturalism and subsequently multi-racialism is just one of the natural consequences of history. Its not a question of If races merge, but rather when. Any attempt to delay such a process indefinitely just seems incredibly futile and short sighted (BNP) and will likely be a minor blip in the history of the UK. In a globablised world with sufficient technology to facialitate mass movement how long do people think they're going to be able to ring fence people in their "homeland" exclusively mating with "indiginous folks" set against a backdrop of globalism, ridiculous.
    then why are we the only ones who do it? most other places dont allow people to come here and not integrate the way we do, so why should we be the guinea pig for this? if everyone was doing it i would agree with you though
    Offline

    20
    Yes.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    If I understand correctly multiculturalism is having another cultures rules imposed even if the law of the state is slightly different?
    As opposed to cultures meeting under the laws of the state.
    Is that what you mean?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1721)
    then why are we the only ones who do it? most other places dont allow people to come here and not integrate the way we do, so why should we be the guinea pig for this? if everyone was doing it i would agree with you though
    just for the record, im very much for immigration being limited by a considerably greater amount than it is now, but not for the reasons the BNP'ites cite.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    If I understand correctly multiculturalism is having another cultures rules imposed even if the law of the state is slightly different?
    As opposed to cultures meeting under the laws of the state.
    Is that what you mean?
    I mean the latter different cultures uniting under a common law.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OK multiculturalism has failed, lets sent them packing to where they came from. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bluelight)
    I mean the latter different cultures uniting under a common law.
    I just can't see that as a problem.
    The former I can but not the latter.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I just can't see that as a problem.
    The former I can but not the latter.
    Yes, I agree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I just can't see that as a problem.
    The former I can but not the latter.
    You can't see any problems with different people (culturally) uniting under a common law? other than it would be virtually impossible? which is why most multiethnic countries (USA, Britain, etc) have distinct laws which apply only to minority groups?

    dunno why I put so many (?) :p:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bluelight)
    Yes, I agree.
    The former is where there are huge problems, and I think this is what people are against, but with two definitions of the term it's fairly confusing.

    I doubt I need to point out the issues with the former.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loafer)
    we are not. australia, USA, germant, spain, pretty much every developed nation is 'multicultural'. france is probably the only one moving away from it.

    we are not a guinea pig

    especially spain. think of the millions of brits that go out there, dont learn the language, many are pensioners so dont contribute anything to the economy, dont abide by spanish customs, dominate some regions, dont assimilate, have english food places selling english reakfasts everywhere and marmite, have english speaking schools, protestant churches in the catholic country ....
    since when has the usa and australia been easy to emmigrate to?

    also where in my post did you see me advocating the english in spain?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunOfABeach)
    You can't see any problems with different people (culturally) uniting under a common law? other than it would be virtually impossible? which is why most multiethnic countries (USA, Britain, etc) have distinct laws which apply only to minority groups?
    If a set of people start imposing their own law or there are state laws only applying to people of another culture then I can see problems. If not then no I can't see a problem.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I dont see it as failing. In mya area, people of many cultures get on very well, theres a greater choice of goods people can choose from, and people of all races seem to generally get on OK. I went to a pub a few months back, and even though in my culture alcohol is prohibited, I still felt welcome in there.

    There are obvious problems when you have a community within a certain area, which is evident in birmingham and london which i feel are the 'side effects' of such an experiment. In this case i do agree that the government need to do something about this, especially as the papers like to exemplify this over many positives of multi culturalism.

    On the whole, at least in my area and from my epxerience, I think it went alright.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    If a set of people start imposing their own law or there are state laws only applying to people of another culture then I can see problems. If not then no I can't see a problem.
    Well, can multiculturalism exist without the state "protecting" minorities? i.e. without state laws only applying to people of certain cultures/ethnicities?(usually the non-dominant/minority cultures/ethnicities ofc)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Every god damn thread here is of the BNP. Ordinarily I wouldn't mind but they're always by people who have no clues of the BNP and always saying "Golly isn't that there BNP party racist. They're all idiots and no use to this country" when in fact they are about the nation not the race.

    Incidentally I hate all people not white (especially Muslims) but with the exception of course of my good friend Polarity here. Everyone else can go be slaves again or die.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunOfABeach)
    Well, can multiculturalism exist without the state "protecting" minorities? i.e. without state laws only applying to people of certain cultures/ethnicities?(usually the non-dominant/minority cultures/ethnicities ofc)
    Don't get me wrong I feel that the state should protect all minorities, but you made it look as if certain laws should only be applicable to certain people.
    If we're talking "men should be allowed abortions" in the name of equality I can see what you mean but with regards to minorities I can't see why this would be the case or how it would be applied.

    The reason the minorities need to be protected within the state's control is liberalism. Which aims to protect all individuals within the state's control.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loafer)
    i destroyed your claim so you are chatting irrelevant crap.

    you said that we are the ONLY MULTICULTURAL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. which i pointed out to be completely wrong.

    nothing to do with how easy it is to enter a country.

    are you too thick to see that the english are making spain multicultural as we refuse to assimilate with local communities.
    terrible sorry to dissapoint you but i said we were the only ones who let people not integrate fair enough we do the same to spain but they arent happy about it.
    america/france/italy/every other country on ******* earth dont let people go there and not assimilate happily, are we supposed to be any different?

    also i dont give a **** about english in spain, stop bringing it up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Don't get me wrong I feel that the state should protect all minorities, but you made it look as if certain laws should only be applicable to certain people.
    If we're talking "men should be allowed abortions" in the name of equality I can see what you mean but with regards to minorities I can't see why this would be the case or how it would be applied.

    The reason the minorities need to be protected within the state's control is liberalism. Which aims to protect all individuals within the state's control.
    Look, take say America. America is NOT a multicultural nation. There are 1,000,000,000 different ethnicities there but there's one single dominant culture -- the American culture. Therefore, what you have is cultural "melting"/social integration and not multicuturalism. Those different ethnicities coexist (for the most part peacefully) because they all strive to integrate into one single dominant culture. Those who fail to do so, often have trouble (which is why I said that for the most part, these ethnicities coexist peacefully) and will need to have special laws which will only apply to themselves. Which in turn will mean that the whole notion of "equality under the law" goes out the window. Nevertheless they, like most western countries, have tried to adopt multicultural policies over the years but I'm talking about the general historical picture.

    So I believe that without having the state granting special "priviledges" to those who can't integrate into the society, you can't have multiculturalism. Instead, you'll usually have social integration + high levels of crime :o:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bluelight)
    Does anyone else feel like wringing their own neck when they hear this phrase. To me multiculturalism and subsequently multi-racialism is just one of the natural consequences of history. Its not a question of If races merge, but rather when.
    You've lumped multiculturalism and miscegenation together when they are completely different things. Multiculturalism has nothing to do with races or colour, so any attempt at justifying it on the basis of race is invalid.

    Any attempt to delay such a process indefinitely just seems incredibly futile and short sighted (BNP) and will likely be a minor blip in the history of the UK.
    I hate this defeatist attitude. It's like be saying "we shouldn't really bother with disarmament, because it's just delaying the process in which one country starts a nuclear war at some point in the future".

    In a globablised[sic] world with sufficient technology to facialitate[sic] mass movement how long do people think they're going to be able to ring fence people in their "homeland" exclusively mating with "indigenous[sic] folks" set against a backdrop of globalism[sic], ridiculous.
    Sexual selection has been successful for thousands of years - look at the Jews (and also the Kurds). Both have historically been split up and spread far across the world, but they retained their racial identity with ease - they just mostly bred with other Jews (or Kurds). Again, it's this defeatist attitude that you hold, like you think miscegenation is a completely unstoppable force, even in the face on contradictory evidence.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.