Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    There is a prevailing concept in British political culture that takes the idea of "indigenous" and applies rights accordingly. In particular - it states that lands have populations that are indigenous to them which have been affected by later populations acting as "waves" of invaders. This idea backdates to the popularisation of Victorian historical romanticism.

    We often hear of how British people emigrating abroad was considered to be one of these "waves" of invaders and is hence termed as colonization. This is viewed as an aberration and that the "indigenous" people of these lands were entitled to independence from these "invaders". In particular there were mass-expulsions of whites along with the collapse of the British Empire. However when the mass immigration into England and other nations of the UK is questioned I sometimes come across this idea that the British are not indigenous - that the English in particular are nothing more then colonizers in England and hence that there is no cultural extermination of English people but rather a multi-culturalism. To me this double standard is deeply racist. I would like to provide the quote below to demonstrate why this attitude is wrong.

    However, the main distinction is between groups that developed in situ and groups that arrived from elsewhere. The English are descended from a bunch of different sets of people, but as a people they developed in the country that came to be known as England.

    In that sense the English are indigenous to England, not because their genes didn't arrive from elsewhere (they did), but in the sense that they became a people in the land itself. Different people were grafted onto the English over time, but they became English in an ethnic sense by being grafted onto them, and not by simply co-existing with them while retaining their own identity.


    This makes a lot more sense then the absurd indigenous theory (taken to its extreme, we're all indigenous to a small patch of eastern Africa). However, we have also recognised the rights of societies in their own lands through the precedent of de-colonization. Clearly as we have demonstrated that the British cultures are indigenous to these islands in terms of arising here as a force in their own right - then British people should be accorded to the same rights they bestowed upon their former empire. In particular - the right to culture.

    Multi-culturalism does not exist in harmony with the concept of a democracy. Democracies are there to represent peoples views, however by definition - a multi-cultural society has several different view-sets, cultures - this means that as immigrants come into this country British culture has a smaller and smaller say in the running of the nation and therefore democracy for British people is being eroded. I would also suggest that multi-culturalism in a democracy is equivalent to colonization through a tyranny. In particular political power is amassed by foreigners and used to their own ends which are separate to those of the indigenous culture.

    I therefore put forward for discussion the idea that British people should expel foreign cultures in order to reassert their rights to live in a nation of their own culture and to have a British democracy for a state that represents the unique views of their own culture.

    The racial debate is separate to a cultural one and this is not the place for it. Before replying - please recognise the difference between culture and race and between religion and race.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Expel ? No. Regulate? Yes.

    Should I go to live in a predominantly Muslim/Buddhist/etc country I would like to think I could still practice my faith in my own way, I would not however expect the whole country to adapt just because I have different beliefs. I certainly wouldn't expect to get a job as minority to fit with statistical requrements.

    I love other cultures, I feel that they can greatly enrich our lives, but first and foremost the laws and culture of the country in question should come first.

    The Chinese have their own area in Liverpool and have never been any bother. They have never asked for special treatment and have greatly enriched our culture, if only all races were as realistic and able to integrate as well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting. I agree mostly, except I don't like the idea of expelling all foreign cultures. Those cultures can't be expelled without expelling the people, and a lot of those people have begun the process of being "grafted" (as the quote puts it) onto British culture themselves. The fact is, you can't have immigration without there being some change in the cultural makeup of a country, and Britain has never been an exception to this.

    Now I do agree that much of British society and their democracy is being eroded, but I think the issue is much more complex, and expelling other cultures would not be the right answer. Cutting down on letting foreign cultures come in? That would be a much better idea. But not kicking them out once they're already here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Excellent post OP, you've articulated something I've been thinking about for a long time.

    (Original post by Liverpool's Number 9)
    Expel ? No. Regulate? Yes.

    Should I go to live in a predominantly Muslim/Buddhist/etc country I would like to think I could still practice my faith in my own way, I would not however expect the whole country to adapt just because I have different beliefs. I certainly wouldn't expect to get a job as minority to fit with statistical requrements.

    I love other cultures, I feel that they can greatly enrich our lives, but first and foremost the laws and culture of the country in question should come first.

    The Chinese have their own area in Liverpool and have never been any bother. They have never asked for special treatment and have greatly enriched our culture, if only all races were as realistic and able to integrate as well.
    Whilst I agree with you, we should be careful to recognise that not everything about privately-practiced culture is good. For example, I wouldn't allow a family living in the UK to carry out female circumcision no matter how important it was to their culture. You start to get a bit of a slippery slope here as we move away from obviously violent examples like the one I just mentioned, to things such as 'the practice of a belief system which ignores gender equality', and other more palatable but still contradictory values to our own.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good Apollo)
    We should be careful to recognise that not everything about privately-practiced culture is good. For example, I wouldn't allow a family living in the UK to carry out female circumcision no matter how important it was to their culture. You start to get a bit of a slippery slope here as we move away from obviously violent examples like the one I just mentioned, to things such as 'the practice of a belief system which ignores gender equality', and other more palatable but still contradictory values to our own.
    Totally agree with that.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think being indigenous is special or that it gives you a right to a country. I don't think forcibly colonising a place is wrong just because the people who are living there are indigenous.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Is there a word for indigenous to the society of that country? So indigenous not to the land itself but to the civilisation that created a society on it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    I don't think being indigenous is special or that it gives you a right to a country. I don't think forcibly colonising a place is wrong just because the people who are living there are indigenous.
    Are there any grounds you would say it is wrong?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Broderss)
    Is there a word for indigenous to the society of that country? So indigenous not to the land itself but to the civilisation that created a society on it?
    Everybody is only indigenous to a small patch of east-Africa. Or if we really want to be purists in this train of thought, to the first patch of land the first amoeba lay on. Why stop at claims for being indigenous at the transition to being human?

    This is the issue with the BNP. It formulates its rhetoric in the same Victorian intellectual tradition as its rivals. It lays claim on the basis of genetically "being there first". This is absurd, as the above paragraph demonstrates for you. The reason that debates between the BNP and the main political parties are such a farce is that they are arguing over an arbitrary decision. How far back genetically before you are indigenous?

    All assertions of being indigenous should ultimately resolve to whether a culture itself developed from the people of a land or whether it is a foreign artifice. In that respect, the answer to your question would be yes. We are recognising the possession of discrete geographical entities not by genetical lineages but rather by the societies that have arisen from these places.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Are you talking about england or britain?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    All assertions of being indigenous should ultimately resolve to whether a culture itself developed from the people of a land or whether it is a foreign artifice. In that respect, the answer to your question would be yes. We are recognising the possession of discrete geographical entities not by genetical lineages but rather by the societies that have arisen from these places.
    So continuing with this; me being white British I am indigenous to the UK?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Broderss)
    So continuing with this; me being white British I am indigenous to the UK?
    Not necessarily. I would not call Muslims indigenous to the UK - even the white British converts. We live in an organic society where people serve as nodes for a higher, cultural existence much in the same way that neurons serve to allow the development of a higher, human intelligence.

    Societies and cultures are living creatures, as much as we are as human beings. Ideas and even physical conditions travel through social networks and as a culture we are the ultimate superset of social networks. Obesity travels through social networks, how is that any different to a disease travelling through a human being? both are interconnected systems that express a unique identity.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    Are there any grounds you would say it is wrong?
    I think it's quite obviously wrong, but it'd be just as wrong if the group of people living there had only been there a few generations.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't read it thoroughly, but sense I disagree...England had roman, and viking invasions, celtic tribes etc. It's always been mixed and anyone who's lived in another white country and is white will tell you that culture supercedes race in importance. We need genetic diversity and no group has an innate claim to the island, if someone wants to be here and is tied to the country and is black, I'd rather have them than an unpatriotic white. Yes the white population throws up great figures, some very mediocre people en masse too, and diversity in the true sense of the word, so long as we are not all one ethnic tribe is good.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good Apollo)
    Whilst I agree with you, we should be careful to recognise that not everything about privately-practiced culture is good. For example, I wouldn't allow a family living in the UK to carry out female circumcision no matter how important it was to their culture. You start to get a bit of a slippery slope here as we move away from obviously violent examples like the one I just mentioned, to things such as 'the practice of a belief system which ignores gender equality', and other more palatable but still contradictory values to our own.
    It sounds to me that you're saying that the basis for tolerance between cultures should be constructed on the degree of tolerance within a culture ?

    To limits of foreign-cultural practice should not exceed the limits we place on the extremes of British culture? We would not tolerate British people doing female circumcision but we wouldn't specifically outlaw private beliefs??

    In that sense we can consider a culture to have explicit components (go to church on Sunday) and implicit components (cooking with Indian spices for example). Whilst we can define our culture on the basis of explicit components - your point essentially appears to be that the implicit parts of British culture should be allowed to manifest themselves through other cultures?

    Of course, it will still be a noticeably "British" culture in the sense of the demarcation of culture extremes [which is done with reference to explicit parts of culture]. However I cannot help but feel that these implicit aspects that you would tolerate being manifested by other cultures in the UK (see your slippery slope argument); would in time become explicit and in doing so would re-organise our own perceptions of British culture by changing the demarcations we place on behaviour.

    In essence, it would be a slow dilution of British culture as it first adjusts to what it would tolerate - then the boundaries of its tolerance are itself redefined by the prior process.

    To me this is multi-culturalism through cultural hegemony. Powerful cultures assert themselves with a distinct identity that itself becomes multi-cultural. I am not sure I agree with this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronar)
    Are you talking about england or britain?
    My points can be applied for any British home nation but I wanted to avoid controversy by being as strict as I can about the boundaries of identity. It is equally applicable to the individual experiences of Welsh, Scots, Irish or if you prefer to the British.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    Multi-culturalism does not exist in harmony with the concept of a democracy. Democracies are there to represent peoples views, however by definition - a multi-cultural society has several different view-sets, cultures - this means that as immigrants come into this country British culture has a smaller and smaller say in the running of the nation and therefore democracy for British people is being eroded. I would also suggest that multi-culturalism in a democracy is equivalent to colonization through a tyranny. In particular political power is amassed by foreigners and used to their own ends which are separate to those of the indigenous culture.

    I therefore put forward for discussion the idea that British people should expel foreign cultures in order to reassert their rights to live in a nation of their own culture and to have a British democracy for a state that represents the unique views of their own culture.
    Most nations in the world are multicultural and have been for a long time. 'Cultures' are the collective sets of behaviours practised by an individual, which themselves may change over that individual's life. Different preferences in attitude to education, to sport, religious affiliation, family setup, relationship preferences, work/life balance, dress sense, entertainment preference, culinary preferences etc. mean that the UK has been a very, very multicultural society for a long, long time. In any liberal democratic society, pluralisms of cultures may exist provided they do not contravene the law. 'Cultures' themselves are never really mutually exclusive anyway, so it is very difficult to define what is 'British' culture and what isn't. If you think that's hard, imagine how multicultural larger nations like China, Russia, India, and the USA must be.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.