"British culture": destroyed by immigrants? Watch

cheesecakebobby
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#21
Report 12 years ago
#21
Hi AO. You focus attention on a clash of agendas, ideologies and that is perfectly fine. But that makes me think, is 'culture' being treated as a list of moral values held by a society? We shouldn't want to define 'society' as a cultural unit identified as a group of shared values for everything we say thenceforth would be mere tautology. On the one hand, we seem to be happily rejecting a relativist position (quite rightly), but on the other, nationalists appear to be saying that we are obliged to stop the decline of 'British' society - for surely it is not enough for LA and his ilk that Britain is overrun by foreigners who agree to live by British tradition (it is one thing to insist they learn English, but I'm sure the BNP wouldn't be too happy to wake up and find a Moroccan running the fish and chips shop, let alone a Nigerian as a High Court Judge, a Pakistani as the Prime Minister or even a Greek-Armenian as a BNP candidate). So if what is required for British society to continue is for British people to retain their culture, which is at least in part if not fully a list of shared values, we are merely saying "a group with shared values needs to retain the shared values of the group to survive" and can make no argument.
0
reply
ArthurOliver
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#22
Report 12 years ago
#22
(Original post by Johnny)
Wow, yet another emotinally charged buzz-phrase; I didn't think it possible.

Just what is "old Britain" precisely?

You're so full of rhetoric and joke phrases.
Old Britain is the national identity, sense of self and history and continuity, which is rejected by the New ultra-self-consciously multiculti Britain, without a rooted sense of self, or history and which violently rejects the wish for ethnic-national continuity common and natural to all peoples.

If there's emtion in the words that's fine, you yourself are very expressive of your disgust for the Old Britain and the people who love it. But I'm positively emotional about something which is ancient and still exists, while you are negatively emotional about an existing national group you dislike, and positive about one which might never be. You are welcome to the gamble, but you should not be allowed to risk my nation for your selfish gain.
0
reply
ArthurOliver
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#23
Report 12 years ago
#23
(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
Hi AO. You focus attention on a clash of agendas, ideologies and that is perfectly fine. But that makes me think, is 'culture' being treated as a list of moral values held by a society? We shouldn't want to define 'society' as a cultural unit identified as a group of shared values for everything we say thenceforth would be mere tautology. On the one hand, we seem to be happily rejecting a relativist position (quite rightly), but on the other, nationalists appear to be saying that we are obliged to stop the decline of 'British' society - for surely it is not enough for LA and his ilk that Britain is overrun by foreigners who agree to live by British tradition (it is one thing to insist they learn English, but I'm sure the BNP wouldn't be too happy to wake up and find a Moroccan running the fish and chips shop, let alone a Nigerian as a High Court Judge, a Pakistani as the Prime Minister or even a Greek-Armenian as a BNP candidate). So if what is required for British society to continue is for British people to retain their culture, which is at least in part if not fully a list of shared values, we are merely saying "a group with shared values needs to retain the shared values of the group to survive" and can make no argument.
I can't speak for other nationalists, but "culture" in the commonest sense has little relevance to nationalism for me.
Society though is something which is much more particularist. It grows gradually among a certain people in a certain place, the rules and shared values which mark each society gardually shift and change too, but what doesn't change is the sense of "us". I don't feel that sense of "us" at any level suitable to make for a stable, gradually assimilating unified nation with the New British peoples: the Pak/Bangi Muslims; the A-Caribbeans; the new Black fashion, Nigerians; and whatever homilies about uniting under a British flag, and being united by absract political theories Blair and co spout, I know that they do not feel it in any measure for me either. We're a multi-society society, ie. not a society at all.
0
reply
Johnny
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#24
(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
Hi AO. You focus attention on a clash of agendas, ideologies and that is perfectly fine. But that makes me think, is 'culture' being treated as a list of moral values held by a society? We shouldn't want to define 'society' as a cultural unit identified as a group of shared values for everything we say thenceforth would be mere tautology. On the one hand, we seem to be happily rejecting a relativist position (quite rightly), but on the other, nationalists appear to be saying that we are obliged to stop the decline of 'British' society - for surely it is not enough for LA and his ilk that Britain is overrun by foreigners who agree to live by British tradition (it is one thing to insist they learn English, but I'm sure the BNP wouldn't be too happy to wake up and find a Moroccan running the fish and chips shop, let alone a Nigerian as a High Court Judge, a Pakistani as the Prime Minister or even a Greek-Armenian as a BNP candidate). So if what is required for British society to continue is for British people to retain their culture, which is at least in part if not fully a list of shared values, we are merely saying "a group with shared values needs to retain the shared values of the group to survive" and can make no argument.
But it is better to have shared values, and therefore a more cohesive society as a result, than to have drastic ghetto-isation because cultures are not allowed to mix. This would ultimately lead to the downfall of Britain as a society.
0
reply
cheesecakebobby
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report 12 years ago
#25
I know Johnny, my point there is that we must avoid saying "We ought to preserve our shared values because it is necessary for the survival of British society" whilst claiming "British society is defined by our shared values". Instead someone needs to demonstrate why preserving our shared values is beneficial to society defined otherwise, and in this case how immigration poses a threat to those shared values. It is a shame however that nobody has come along to define this 'culture' with which you were originally concerned and shown why we need to preserve that and why it is under pressure from immigrants. I'm still struggling to understand how something defined other than in terms of moral values can carry moral duties - what feature of 'culture' makes it something I ought to preserve?
0
reply
ArthurOliver
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#26
Report 12 years ago
#26
(Original post by Johnny)
But it is better to have shared values, and therefore a more cohesive society as a result, than to have drastic ghetto-isation because cultures are not allowed to mix. This would ultimately lead to the downfall of Britain as a society.
Large scale social cohesion in a population builds form the ground up, over time, and with mutual needs.

It cannot be imposed from above, by compulsion, within a generation (or even ten), and when the only threat is each opposing group.
0
reply
ArthurOliver
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#27
Report 12 years ago
#27
(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
It is a shame however that nobody has come along to define this 'culture' with which you were originally concerned and shown why we need to preserve that and why it is under pressure from immigrants.
The more appropriate need ccb, given the way the wind is blowing, is for someone to define the aspirant, future British culture, and explain why we need to adopt it, and what is wrong with the easy and unexamined sense of national identity that the Old Britain and it's peoples had.

The burden of proof is on the revolutionaries, not on those who have a very nice country and culture and community and wish to maintain it.
0
reply
Johnny
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#28
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#28
(Original post by ArthurOliver)
Old Britain is the national identity, sense of self and history and continuity, which is rejected by the New ultra-self-consciously multiculti Britain, without a rooted sense of self, or history and which violently rejects the wish for ethnic-national continuity common and natural to all peoples.

If there's emtion in the words that's fine, you yourself are very expressive of your disgust for the Old Britain and the people who love it. But I'm positively emotional about something which is ancient and still exists, while you are negatively emotional about an existing national group you dislike, and positive about one which might never be. You are welcome to the gamble, but you should not be allowed to risk my nation for your selfish gain.
Your knee-jerk responses are frankly risible. You claim that I judge you, yet you hold me out to be "negatively emotional about an existing national group"? Purrlease.

If "old Britain" goes hand in hand with blatant prejudices, then you can bet your top hat that I'm going to be very expressive in my disgust for it.

No. You're positively emotional about faux-glory history (which I love your rose-tinted verison of, by the way). I'm emotionally positive about the future and building a strong Britain, something you are dead set against because you're stuck in a time-warp.

This is the 21st century. Walling people out of our country because Britons such as yourself suffer from insecurity about the loss of "British culture" from "old Britain" will not produce a stronger and more dynamic society in the long-run. And what's more, although multiculturalism is already here, you continue to reject it. And if you want to get personal then I think that by supporting segregation and racial seperation, you are gambling with my modern multicultural Britain, in the hope that you can return Britain to how it used to be in the god old days: somehow perfect.

It is people like you, clinging to your "old Britain" that cause problems for a multicultural society. You see the decline of British industry, the decline of the British Empire, the decline of British culture even (in your eyes) and you attribute it to immigration. How pathetic. You need to move on from mercantilism, lose your outdated racialist views and accept that people are people everywhere you go, and in reality, almost everyone regardless of race or ethnicity or whatever wants to lead a better life and leave a better world to their children. Your irrational fears that immigrants want to destroy Britain are unfounded and incorrect, but above all reactionary. You feel that Britain has declined in the same period as immigration has increased, and assume that the two must be connected. So with a few links at the bottom of your signature in an internet chat-room you feel that you have found the answer to all of societies problems and that everyone else is just too stupid to see it.

I would laugh, were it not so desperately sad.
0
reply
cheesecakebobby
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#29
Report 12 years ago
#29
When I say define culture I don't mean list what is peculiar to British culture but to define what features of a society make up what we call culture. Nobody can describe a future culture until they know what exactly they are supposed be defining. If we are concerned with non-moral considerations then it must be demonstrated why maintaining the current state is preferable over allowing immigration to continue (and why the two cannot coexist); if we are concerned with a threat to values, which does not seem the case from the comments described by Johnny in his first point, then we have another more interesting situation in which we can debate which values are to be held above others and so forth.
0
reply
cheesecakebobby
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report 12 years ago
#30
To be fair Johnny, you seem to be regarding Arthur as a spokesperson for all the nationalists and BNPers you have encountered. Be careful not to attribute attitudes to him which he has not conveyed here but which you assume he must have based on prior experiences with other people.
0
reply
Johnny
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#31
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#31
(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
When I say define culture I don't mean list what is peculiar to British culture but to define what features of a society make up what we call culture. Nobody can describe a future culture until they know what exactly they are supposed be defining. If we are concerned with non-moral considerations then it must be demonstrated why maintaining the current state is preferable over allowing immigration to continue (and why the two cannot coexist); if we are concerned with a threat to values, which does not seem the case from the comments described by Johnny in his first point, then we have another more interesting situation in which we can debate which values are to be held above others and so forth.
Brilliant.

I feel that values such as our civil liberties are more important than those of having a local butcher and village church (to use Flux's example).

The BNP believe otherwise for they would deprive others of their civil liberties in the mistaken belief that it would bring back a by-gone Britain with village churches and local butchers.

I can only conclude that they are aiming for the wrong "values" at the expense of fundamental human rights. Not only that, but they are going the wrong way about it by using immigration as a scapegoat.
0
reply
Johnny
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#32
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#32
(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
To be fair Johnny, you seem to be regarding Arthur as a spokesperson for all the nationalists and BNPers you have encountered. Be careful not to attribute attitudes to him which he has not conveyed here but which you assume he must have based on prior experiences with other people.
I know. But his stance makes me so pissed off that I tend to get carried away, at the expense of weakening my own arguments.
0
reply
ArthurOliver
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#33
Report 12 years ago
#33
(Original post by Johnny)
Your knee-jerk responses are frankly risible. You claim that I judge you, yet you hold me out to be "negatively emotional about an existing national group"? Purrlease.

If "old Britain" goes hand in hand with blatant prejudices, then you can bet your top hat that I'm going to be very expressive in my disgust for it.

No. You're positively emotional about faux-glory history (which I love your rose-tinted verison of, by the way). I'm emotionally positive about the future and building a strong Britain, something you are dead set against because you're stuck in a time-warp.

This is the 21st century. Walling people out of our country because Britons such as yourself suffer from insecurity about the loss of "British culture" from "old Britain" will not produce a stronger and more dynamic society in the long-run. And what's more, although multiculturalism is already here, you continue to reject it. And if you want to get personal then I think that by supporting segregation and racial seperation, you are gambling with my modern multicultural Britain, in the hope that you can return Britain to how it used to be in the god old days: somehow perfect.

It is people like you, clinging to your "old Britain" that cause problems for a multicultural society. You see the decline of British industry, the decline of the British Empire, the decline of British culture even (in your eyes) and you attribute it to immigration. How pathetic. You need to move on from mercantilism, lose your outdated racialist views and accept that people are people everywhere you go, and in reality, almost everyone regardless of race or ethnicity or whatever wants to lead a better life and leave a better world to their children. Your irrational fears that immigrants want to destroy Britain are unfounded and incorrect, but above all reactionary. You feel that Britain has declined in the same period as immigration has increased, and assume that the two must be connected. So with a few links at the bottom of your signature in an internet chat-room you feel that you have found the answer to all of societies problems and that everyone else is just too stupid to see it.

I would laugh, were it not so desperately sad.
I'm not much of a one for national glory, or even group pride, and I certainly don't blame immigrants for coming here and making the best lives for themselves that they can. You're arguing against the pahantom stereotype that multicultis have created to rationalise an aggressive agenda, and which too many mationalists play up to.

I'm not offering answers to societies problems Johnny, I'm arguing that existing societies shouldn't be replaced by faux societies against their wishes and interests. I offer absolutely no advice for you about how you should manage your polyglot, multi-religios, multi-society society. I just ask that those who wish not to sign up do not have it imposed on them.
0
reply
SolInvictus
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#34
Report 12 years ago
#34
(Original post by ArthurOliver)
Thanks for the feedback ccb.

Auster is absolutely solid in his faith and in his political conviction, and in his rejection of the extreme liberal programme. And there are millions like him across America , and Europe too, who aren't with the programme.

There are also millions of Muslims in the West now, equally steadfast in their rejection of the transnational progressive agenda, and the havoc it wreaks on traditional cultures, and further, equally hostile to the Western tradition which Auster and millions and millions of others would preserve and cherish.

As I say, a conservative wouldn't have created this mess, but as mess there is, there has to be a reckoning.

Laika, chemistboy, Sol, others...the British are an especially open minded people who enjoy learning and adopting new mores, memes and manners form other peoples. Mass immigration and rejection and replacement of the old Britain and it's national stock and identity need not be a part of that. When you force these things on a people - reactionary and violent responses are to be expected.
I don't think anyone would want that to happen. That is just common sense.
0
reply
Andronicus Comnenus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 12 years ago
#35
Food for thought:

Can anyone think of a successful society which did not have a dominant culture? Can anyone think of an example where different groups have managed to live together, on equal footing, whilst retaining their different religions, languages, and cultural traditions?
0
reply
ArthurOliver
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#36
Report 12 years ago
#36
(Original post by Johnny)
The BNP believe otherwise for they would deprive others of their civil liberties in the mistaken belief that it would bring back a by-gone Britain with village churches and local butchers.

I can only conclude that they are aiming for the wrong "values" at the expense of fundamental human rights. Not only that, but they are going the wrong way about it by using immigration as a scapegoat.
I do not believe the BNP propose a two-tier solution, I could argue that we currentluy have one, certainly many multi-ethnic/racial/religios states do - it's the norm, and America is notable as an example we twend to follow.

Immigration dilutes national identity and coupled with aggressive cultural marxist political scriptwriting of the the debate makes it near impossible for the native peoples to enjoy the same sense of pride and self-expression as the immigrant groups. No national group wants immigration of other peoples. The Arabs rely on immigrant workers to run their oil trade and do menial work, but none, not even Muslims from Pakistan and Indonesia who clean their toilets are given citizenship. The Arabs want their lands to remain Arabian. Natural and not vil at all. Same goes for the BNP.
0
reply
Johnny
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#37
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#37
(Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
Food for thought:

Can anyone think of a successful society which did not have a dominant culture? Can anyone think of an example where different groups have managed to live together, on equal footing, whilst retaining their different religions, languages, and cultural traditions?
Switzerland, the Spanish Netherlands in the 16th century. There are tonnes.
0
reply
ArthurOliver
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#38
Report 12 years ago
#38
(Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
Food for thought:

Can anyone think of a successful society which did not have a dominant culture? Can anyone think of an example where different groups have managed to live together, on equal footing, whilst retaining their different religions, languages, and cultural traditions?
Never as political equals. I think it's impossible to sustain such a state for any period of time, and the price of short period peace is too much -- in the modern era that means affirmative action, tiers of citizenship, guestworker programmes, votes denied to some, racial gerrymandering, regional (read racial) work and investment schemes, self-ruling cantons and districts...

What was wrong with the Old Britain?
0
reply
SolInvictus
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#39
Report 12 years ago
#39
(Original post by Johnny)
Switzerland, the Spanish Netherlands in the 16th century. There are tonnes.
Let us not forget Rome, Great Britain, Germany and many others.
0
reply
Johnny
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#40
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#40
(Original post by SolInvincitus)
Let us not forget Rome, Great Britain, Germany and many others.
I know, my examples were just two in about ten seconds.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1114)
78.9%
Leave (298)
21.1%

Watched Threads

View All