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

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunOfABeach)
    Again, they can see your background -- simply being rich does not put you at odds. And I don't understand why they can't choose their candidates based on their virtues. A person who had to overcome all sorts of problems in their life may be a more suitable candidate for their university. Her determination may be of great importance to the tutors.

    It is the same for some rich kids who are able to get summer jobs at prestigious places, travel around the world and generally have all sorts of extracurricular activities because of their inherited advantage.

    Neither of these things are "arbitrary" conditions -- at least I don't think so. Both candidates have something to offer to the university - something different. And I think tutors know best what is it that their university needs. They will be able to choose which. And this is why I favour freedom in this domain. No two universities need the exact same things.
    My main issue with this is:
    "Again, they can see your background -- simply being rich does not put you at odds. And I don't understand why they can't choose their candidates based on their virtues. A person who had to overcome all sorts of problems in their life may be a more suitable candidate for their university. Her determination may be of great importance to the tutors. "
    I generally prefer to keep my private life private a lot of the time and if there's been a personal struggle for whatever reason I may not wish to put this on my ucas form.
    What virtues a candidate does or doesn't have often isn't put on the ucas form.

    Edit:
    A tutor my have the view of black people being less able at university based on the number of black people who graduate in certain unversities. And if they know you're black, surely they could descriminate against you on that point.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Every country is multicultural.

    Especially larger ones like Russia, China, India, the USA etc.

    The UK has been a multicultural place since well, over 2000 years ago.

    A culture is an aggregate set of behaviours unique to one individual.

    This talk of 'failed multicultural experiment' is rubbish bandied about by the right-wing press in the UK who haven't really got much of a clue what they're talking about - were they talking about a 'failed multicultural experiment' when Mods & Rockers were going at each other throughout the 70s?

    We don't seem to see too much violence between people with different cultural mores - e.g. goths, chavs, emos, greebos and many are able to cooperate in the workplace, even though they may dress, speak, socialize and behave differently outside the workplace.

    I can't see what all the fuss is about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    what goes around comes around i guess
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chronic_fatigue)
    OP can I just say you are FIT!!:coma:
    On a more serious note, I agree. We can now travel anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours, whereas back in the day it took months to travel from A to B. We will mix eventually mix and the people whining about white people becoming extinct, look at Brazil. Everyone in Brazil is mixed you even have people who appear white that have more African ancestry than someone who appears black. If we all mix we won't all be the same colour, I'm mostly Ghanaian and 1/8 Scottish and my skin is about the same colour as Mariah Carey's.
    lol thanks! back to your point thats the thing these people don't understand that race mixing can have wildly unpredictable aesthetic results. Mariah Carey is another one looks like a white person but is actually half white/ half black.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Multiculturalism and multiracialism are two very different things.

    I am all for multiracialism and racial mixing, my father is mixed race.

    Multiculturalism is a fact in the sense that we have more than one cultural group here and as a result we have a variety of great food.

    But what people mean when they say 'multiculturalism' is generally the state-sponsored doctrine and policy of multiculturalism which promotes cultural and moral relativism by saying that all cultures and all cultural practices are equal.

    To start with its disingenuous because few people arguing that all cultures are equally valid actually think that all cultural practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM or female 'circumcision'), human sacrifice, cannibalism, polygamy, forms of slavery, exorcism of child 'witches' etc. are actually equal to individual rights and the protection of children and women from harm. Yet essentially people go around pretending that they do and think its virtuous to make PC statements that uphold the core values of multicultural moral relativism. It is also disingenuous because its supporters often don't really believe that other cultures are equal, they simply think they ought to be safeguarded and protected from Eurocentric prejudice because they aren't developed enough to be measured up against Western values or subjected to full blown scrutiny - underlying this is the belief that they are less civilised but need to be respected and allowed to develop - essentially that we should hold people from other cultures to lower standards of behaviour and critical judgement, which is actually quite patronising to these people (if in a well-meaning sort of way).

    Secondly it is a failed policy in the sense that New Labour has deliberately enacted policies of state-sponsored multiculturalism which have increased divisions within our society. It used to be the case that British Asians felt solidarity as British Asians, but multicultural funding for faith groups has fostered divisions and antagonistic competition within the British Asian community so that now the British Muslim community, the British Sikhs and the British Hindus are more sharply divided than ever. A lack of focus on integration and genuine social cohesion which has accompanied official multiculturalism has created ghettoisation to an extent that we have nearly created aparthied like conditions in some Northern English towns and cities.

    The policy of multiculturalism has been hugely damaging to immigrant communities even while purporting to be for their benefit, it has served to create lasting and difficult to repair divisions, increase tensions and strengthen Islamists and far right facists who seek to exploit these circumstances to grow in strength and make matters even worse.

    The racist BNP and Islamist groups are the chief beneficiaries of multiculturalism, immigrants themselves have been its chief victims, and therefore it deserves to be condemned as a short-sighted, illogical and ultimately amoral policy even if it was devised with good intentions. It has comprehensively failed and not acknowledging this will only strengthen the likes of the BNP as sensible non-racist mainstream parties fail to deal with the failures of multiculturalism as state-backed doctrine and policy.
    Offline

    1
    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.
    haha never really thought about that but you make a good point, and to those people who ask why are we the only ones, this is not true at all.

    Many, infact all i beleive, heavily capitalist countries have a large percentage of ethnic minorities.

    Look at dubai, a muslim emirate, yet since its capitalist inspired boom, look how many westerners have emigrated or frequently visited there?
    Offline

    1
    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 ....
    Within the EU there is free migration, but Europeans are not that different from each other culturally relative to the differences between Europeans, Africans, South Asians and East Asians.

    The US and Australia are not in favour of the doctrine and government policy of state-sponsored multiculturalism, they believe in integrating immigrants to the culture of the US and Australia - if we adopted their approach we could be far more multiracial and more socially cohesive at the same time.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Within the EU there is free migration, but Europeans are not that different from each other culturally relative to the differences between Europeans, Africans, South Asians and East Asians.

    The US and Australia are not in favour of the doctrine and government policy of state-sponsored multiculturalism, they believe in integrating immigrants to the culture of the US and Australia - if we adopted their approach we could be far more multiracial and more socially cohesive at the same time.
    Are you sure about this? In what way? Surely this is more dependent on social-class?

    I don't think we've seen many 'culture-clashes' since the 1960s in the UK - much of it is overhyped.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bluelight)
    Sexual selection has been succesful for thousands of years in a world which did not have the relevant technology to support the distribution of peoples, nor a global media, nor a suitably advanced scientific backdrop. If we are going on the assumption that democracy and freedom are the cornerstones of western civilisation then it logically follows that people should mate with whoever they chose and be able to move freely (within reason and not at the cost of the stability of a country). One in two "black" children in Britain now has a white parent. This is what about a mere forty years since the American civil rights movement. All attempts at retaining racial purity look pretty futile to me, and to think so is not defeatist but progressive. Racial purists and are going to be looked upon by history in a similar fashion to how slave owners are looked upon now.
    Racists and multiculturalists will both be considered idiotic and misguided by history.

    Lets have multiracialism, lots of racial mixing and one single legal and political system with a single dominant culture (that of liberal, democratic, individual rights based progressivism) that treats everyone equally.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by effofex)
    Are you sure about this? In what way? Surely this is more dependent on social-class?

    I don't think we've seen many 'culture-clashes' since the 1960s in the UK - much of it is overhyped.
    Yes, I grew up in Asia, East Asians, South Asians, Africans and Europeans are all very distinct culturally speaking.

    The pertinent issue for the UK is how keen a culture is on democracy, individual liberties and women's rights.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Racists and multiculturalists will both be considered idiotic and misguided by history.

    Lets have multiracialism, lots of racial mixing and one single legal and political system with a single dominant culture (that of liberal, democratic, individual rights based progressivism) that treats everyone equally.
    I agree with you 100%, but don't see anything ridiculous with letting people practice different religions and customs so long as they are law abiding.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    You are right, multiculturalism is a lie. Firstly, it is contradictory; how can one/a country have a culture but then have multiple cultures?
    Secondly we don't all live together in harmony, we simply co-exsist like birds in a garden (Clarkson wrote a good collumn on this in 2003)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    indeed, and whether multiculturalism is good or bad, its just utterly ridiculous to brand it as an 'experiment'....
    The state sponsored ideological policy programme of multiculturalism alongside mass immigration is one of the biggest social experiments in history, give New Labour their due, it was entirely deliberate.

    As J. C. Bennett put it “democracy, immigration, multiculturalism… pick any two”.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    The state sponsored ideological policy programme of multiculturalism alongside mass immigration is one of the biggest social experiments in history, give New Labour their due, it was entirely deliberate.

    As J. C. Bennett put it “democracy, immigration, multiculturalism… pick any two”.


    how is it an experiment though?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    You are right, multiculturalism is a lie. Firstly, it is contradictory; how can one/a country have a culture but then have multiple cultures?
    Secondly we don't all live together in harmony, we simply co-exsist like birds in a garden (Clarkson wrote a good collumn on this in 2003)
    But the overwhelming majority of countries in the world have multiple cultures within them. Obviously all residents usually need to subscribe to ONE set of national laws, but especially in liberal democratic nations (e.g. the UK) that are notorious for their pluralistic cultures - there are MANY cultures within that nation.

    Imagine the HUGE diversity we have in the UK in terms of people's accents, dress, housing set ups, attitudes towards education, sporting preferences, relationship setups, religious affiliations (or lack of), attitudes to childcare, etc, etc.

    Most nations are multicultural.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by effofex)
    But the overwhelming majority of countries in the world have multiple cultures within them. Obviously all residents usually need to subscribe to ONE set of national laws, but especially in liberal democratic nations (e.g. the UK) that are notorious for their pluralistic cultures - there are MANY cultures within that nation.

    Imagine the HUGE diversity we have in the UK in terms of people's accents, dress, housing set ups, attitudes towards education, sporting preferences, relationship setups, religious affiliations (or lack of), attitudes to childcare, etc, etc.

    Most nations are multicultural.
    Your obsession with class culture is misguided. There is a degree of cultural stratification within nations by class but this is deeply insignificant to cultural differences across nations.

    By nations, I do mean in the true sense of the phrase, not as a synonym for country or state. I think you are using it as a way to undermine the cohesion and solidarity of British people. I have more in common with the David Cameron's of this world, then I do with working class people from south Asia or Africa.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    Your obsession with class culture is misguided. There is a degree of cultural stratification within nations by class but this is deeply insignificant to cultural differences across nations.

    By nations, I do mean in the true sense of the phrase, not as a synonym for country or state. I think you are using it as a way to undermine the cohesion and solidarity of British people. I have more in common with the David Cameron's of this world, then I do with working class people from south Asia or Africa.
    a) Why? There are substantial differences in culture (i.e. dress, educational attainment, attitude towards family setup, spending power, priorities, etiquette, lifestyle, entertainment) between an upper-middle 30 yr old male Oxbridge-educated British lawyer working at a corporate law firm....and a working class 30 yr old single mother living in Macclesfield with 2 children who left school at 16 and who works 8 hours per week at Tescos.

    Surely in large nations (esp. India, China, Russia, the USA) there really isn't a single 'dominant' cultural phenotype? For example, India is multiethnic, multireligious, multilingual, heavily stratified according to class and therefore EXCEPTIONALLY multicultural.

    b) An upper class person in south Asia/Africa will most probably have more in common with David Cameron than with working class people from South Asia/Africa.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bluelight)
    I agree with you 100%, but don't see anything ridiculous with letting people practice different religions and customs so long as they are law abiding.
    Understand that multiculturalism as mere observation, i.e.:

    'there are many cultural groups in the UK who are free to do whatever they like within the framework of our single legal system'

    and multiculturalism as state policy so that:

    'we will promote diversity, the notion that all cultures are equal, and fund religious and cultural organisations of minority groups but not of the majority or the traditional cultural and religious groups of the country; will interface with minorities not as individual equal citizens of the state, but as faith and community groups represented by unelected, self-appointed community (read male, usually elderly and religious) leaders whom we will expect to speak on behalf of their communities (like the tribal chiefs we used to delegate authority to in the days of Empire), and will consider exempting them from laws made by the state on matters like bigamy and taking girls out of school, and allow them to practice religious family arbitration based upon principles prejudicial to women'.

    are two very different things.

    It must be recognised that multiculturalism under New Labour has not been a simple observation, but a policy agenda considered to be virtuous and progressive but which comprehensively failed to benefit those it was designed to benefit.

    Of course people should be able to practice their religion and cultural practices within reasonable bounds in accordance with the law and with some sensible social censure from wider society. This is what would have happened anyway without a disastrous state-backed policy like the one that has been implemented.

    If we looked after the rights of all citizens before the single law as individuals though, we would not allow communities to carry out cultural practices which violated the individual rights of women or children, even on religious grounds. We should also though have been encouraging social integration, the speaking of English and the embrace of our democratic, legal and civil institutions and respect of the kinds of individual rights (such as freedom of speech) that they enshrine.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    how is it an experiment though?
    It was wide ranging a set of policies, designed to completely social re-engineer the country, deliberately enacted over many years by government with predicted but unforeseen consequences - how is that not an experiment?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well said Bluelight.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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.