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

    1
    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.
    Historically most nation-states have or have wished to have a dominant culture.

    Empires were truly multicultural.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    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?

    Its not an experiment because there was no hypothesis to be proved or disproved....

    immigrants aren't let into britain to 'see what happens', they are let in because the government considers them to be of a net benefit to the country
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    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.
    im in complete agreeance with everything you say however... I think multiculturalism as a world is deliberately vague and misused. Its a covert way of saying we don't want any wogs in our country, some people geniunely think pure multiculturalism is a bad idea, whilst others use multiculturalism to oppose multiracialism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Historically most nation-states have or have wished to have a dominant culture.

    Empires were truly multicultural.

    I take your point.

    Whilst you may be able to call the Czech Republic a 'nation-state' I don't think you can refer to nations such as Russia, India or China as naiton states. The former and latter were essentially empires, and India would be more appropriately referred to as the 'Indian Union' (a political unit) rather than one where there is a dominant 'culture'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Its not an experiment because there was no hypothesis to be proved or disproved....

    immigrants aren't let into britain to 'see what happens', they are let in because the government considers them to be of a net benefit to the country
    The policy was not simply mass immigration, that was a related policy, but multiculturalism was about all the other things I have already outlined in posts in this thread. State sponsored multiculturalism hypothesised that these other policies, rather than say the policies of integration carried out in the US and Australia, would be good for immigrants and good for inter-community relations. As it turned out they proved to be more damaging than posative for immigrants.

    Experiment conducted, hypothesis disproved, consequences serious.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by effofex)
    I take your point.

    Whilst you may be able to call the Czech Republic a 'nation-state' I don't think you can refer to nations such as Russia, India or China as naiton states. The former and latter were essentially empires, and India would be more appropriately referred to as the 'Indian Union' (a political unit) rather than one where there is a dominant 'culture'.
    Exactly, and when India was moving towards independence minority anxiety about the consequences of living under a 'Hindu Raj' led to the creation of Pakistan and to constitutional safeguards for minorities who remained within India.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    The policy was not simply mass immigration, that was a related policy, but multiculturalism was about all the other things I have already outlined in posts in this thread. State sponsored multiculturalism hypothesised that these other policies, rather than say the policies of integration carried out in the US and Australia, would be good for immigrants and good for inter-community relations. As it turned out they proved to be more damaging than posative for immigrants.

    Experiment conducted, hypothesis disproved, consequences serious.

    i think it all depends how you view multiculturalism itself......i see it as a symptom of immigraton, whereas you appear to see it the other way around, that immigration is the result of an attempt to make britain multicultural
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    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.
    Look, forget UCAS. There are interviews as well. And university people do not want details from your personal life. Just the general picture. You're OVERanalysing something that is already happening.

    And the edit part, I didn't get. Yes he can do that. He can do that now and he will be able to do that no matter what regulations you have or no matter how much force the state commands. He can always reject a candidate for his colour and then cite another reason for rejecting him. You can't stop people from discriminating by using force. You can't force equality. Especially within university people. They can discriminate as they wish and the real question here is, do you want them to tell the truth or do you want them to lie?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    guinea pig
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunOfABeach)
    Look, forget UCAS. There are interviews as well. And university people do not want details from your personal life. Just the general picture. You're OVERanalysing something that is already happening.

    And the edit part, I didn't get. Yes he can do that. He can do that now and he will be able to do that no matter what regulations you have or no matter how much force the state commands. He can always reject a candidate for his colour and then cite another reason for rejecting him. You can't stop people from discriminating by using force. You can't force equality. Especially within university people. They can discriminate as they wish and the real question here is, do you want them to tell the truth or do you want them to lie?
    So you don't believe that equality should be enforced, businesses should be able to be racist, sexist, so on so forth?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    i think it all depends how you view multiculturalism itself......i see it as a symptom of immigraton, whereas you appear to see it the other way around, that immigration is the result of an attempt to make britain multicultural
    "The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

    He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

    As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants...

    Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

    Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

    He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

    He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

    He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

    "I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

    The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

    Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...r-adviser.html

    We know that mass immigration was a deliberate policy to foster multiculturalism.

    But immigration itself is not the policy of multiculturalism, I described those policies previously on this thread:

    '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'.

    Multiculturalism as a New Labour ideology and policy agenda is different to multiculturalism as an observation that there are people who have different cultures in the UK - I have made this point repeatedly but you seem to be overlooking it. My criticisms are directed towards the state-sponsored policies of multiculturalism, not the fact that there are many cultures present in the UK. Do you understand?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bluelight)
    im in complete agreeance with everything you say however... I think multiculturalism as a world is deliberately vague and misused. Its a covert way of saying we don't want any wogs in our country, some people geniunely think pure multiculturalism is a bad idea, whilst others use multiculturalism to oppose multiracialism.
    The way to combat the racists who shield their secret agenda under the guise of legitimate criticism of religious ideology (Islam, more accurately Islamism but they don't make the distinction) and of state-sponsored multiculturalism, which are concerns widely shared by sensible members of the British public is to abandon the experiment as a failure, restrict immigration to sensible levels, work to integrate Britain's diverse communities, promote learning English and continue to combat real racism whenever it rears its ugly head.

    Lets promote multiracialism socially (in our media etc.), and work on social cohesion and integration at the same time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    So you don't believe that equality should be enforced, businesses should be able to be racist, sexist, so on so forth?
    Yes.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunOfABeach)
    Yes.
    I guess these are fundamental differences in our lines of thinking?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Lets promote multiracialism socially (in our media etc.), and work on social cohesion and integration at the same time.
    Ironic isn't it?

    You're promoting a specific race or group of thereof to live in the UK. No different to white supremacism. If you don't want to be racist on this issue, the logical conclusion is to completely ignore it. Neither promote it nor attempt to prevent it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    Ironic isn't it?

    You're promoting a specific race or group of thereof to live in the UK. No different to white supremacism. If you don't want to be racist on this issue, the logical conclusion is to completely ignore it. Neither promote it nor attempt to prevent it.
    No. He mentioned multiracialism. That means numerous (and what I would say - EVERY racial group).

    Not one racial group over another racial grouping. That's the difference between multiracialism and black/brown/white supremacism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by effofex)
    No. He mentioned multiracialism. That means numerous (and what I would say - EVERY racial group).

    Not one racial group over another racial grouping. That's the difference between multiracialism and black/brown/white supremacism.
    Pro actively promoting multi racialism in places it does not already exist is by definition an attack on the existing racial structure of a place. It is racist to do such an activity.

    If you don't want to be racist, you do not "see" race at all. Multi racialism should not be something to be promoted. Non-racists ignore race. People who try to enforce a racial structure on a place are by definition racists. Whether this race is the chosen master race, or a mix of every race in the world - it is a racist assault upon the people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    Ironic isn't it?

    You're promoting a specific race or group of thereof to live in the UK. No different to white supremacism. If you don't want to be racist on this issue, the logical conclusion is to completely ignore it. Neither promote it nor attempt to prevent it.
    People in the media ought to depict a multi-racial Britain as it currently exists (not as they would like it to be) rather than only showing white people on TV; that is fine, its not like multiculturalism. I didn't say the government ought to treat people differently, but obviously they should be anti-racist rather than racist.

    I'm not promoting any racial group, but to speak of race doesn't make one a racist - plenty of people opposed to racism think it an important issue to discuss.

    If the government were to treat people differently, which I have not advocated, it would not be racism like the BNP, it would be what is known as 'affirmative action' in the US or 'posative discrimination' in the UK. While this would be a controversial policy its not as deplorable as you suggest if designed as a finite means of redressing inequalities and existing prejudice - its like all women short-lists trying to make Parliament more balanced in its gender intake. Controversial, but well meaning.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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.