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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Ok, but you're now talking about laws relating to racism, not culture as such. I'm not denying that governments involve themselves in such things as 'culture' and 'heritage', both on the left and the right as it happens, and I'd even agree that it's dangerous territory. But I would defend 'racial hatred' laws because I think it is behaviour which causes real harm to innocent parties. The liberty of a Jew not to have to endure Nazi chanting outside their synagogue is more important to me than the liberty of the neo-Nazi to do the chanting, if this has me at odds with right-libertarians then so be it, I won't lose any sleep over that.
    But the Government has made laws that criminalize anti religious chanting. The Government is forcing people to embrace diverse cultures. This is what I dislike about Multiculturalism.

    Karl Marx criticised religion as a tool to control citizens. Yet today he would be at risk of a criminal offence were he to stage an anti Muslim rally.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul_r)
    Stop patronising "inferior" cultures, they're not all run by blood thirsty tyrants. I've accepted that where there is extreme poverty, Rwanda or Zimbabwae then it would be great to establish some form of industry protected by a constitutional government...
    I didn't say they were, but in the West we have -- or are supposed to have -- a Government of Laws, not a Government of men. The latter are prone to tyranny.

    Do you know anything about the history of Zimbabwe? The people of Rhodesia were the richest in Africa until Mugabe took over... after the West forced out the first democratically elected non-communist black leader.

    (Original post by Paul_r)
    But you can't market this as a blanket solution, as I say there are places in this world where people don't need Coca cola, Perez Hilton and internet cafe's, essentially the byproducts of westernised culture.
    Stop patronising them and telling them what they do and don't need. OFFER it to them and if they want it, they will take it... if they don't, fair enough.

    (Original post by Paul_r)
    I'm not averse to the idea of a take it or leave approach in theory, but in practice we know that its not the CHOICE of the grass roots of a culture. Its doesn't take many businesseman to transform the landscape of the society.
    That, primarily, is because of colonialism and mercantilism in the pre-industrial era, but if a Government of Laws (I.e. a Western invention) exists it can resist economic change that the people don't want. Of course, without the idea of the Rule of Law and Democracy, you are totally open to corruption.

    (Original post by Paul_r)
    Look at China, ofcourse what they have now is not necessarily worse than Maoism but I don't necessarily believe the children working 15 hour days in sweat shops are that grateful for our westernised models...
    What makes you think that;
    a. China follows a Western model?
    b. Children weren't working 15 hour days in sweat shops in the days of Mao?
    c. Any vast amount of Chinese children work 15 hour days in sweatshops? Many of them are in education.

    (Original post by Paul_r)
    I wonder is it a huge improvement on the Traditional Chinese way of life of centuries ago?
    Abject poverty compared to what they have now, you mean?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Anony mouse)
    But the Government has made laws that criminalize anti religious chanting. The Government is forcing people to embrace diverse cultures. This is what I dislike about Multiculturalism.

    Karl Marx criticised religion as a tool to control citizens. Yet today he would be at risk of a criminal offence were he to stage an anti Muslim rally.
    Obviously there's a difficult area between freedom of expression and licence to intimidate, I wouldn't deny that, even if some libertarians like everything to be in black and white. In the absence of more details about what such laws are aimed at addressing I'm inclined to suspect that the 'chanting' (hardly reasoned criticism) is only superficially anti religion and is more a likely cover for racial or anti-Semitic attack. In any event prohibiting anti religious chanting is hardly forcing people to 'embrace' culture. Interesting that you say 'anti Muslim' rally and not 'anti Islam' rally.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    I didn't say they were, but in the West we have -- or are supposed to have -- a Government of Laws, not a Government of men. The latter are prone to tyranny.

    Do you know anything about the history of Zimbabwe? The people of Rhodesia were the richest in Africa until Mugabe took over... after the West forced out the first democratically elected non-communist black leader.

    Stop patronising them and telling them what they do and don't need. OFFER it to them and if they want it, they will take it... if they don't, fair enough.

    That, primarily, is because of colonialism and mercantilism in the pre-industrial era, but if a Government of Laws (I.e. a Western invention) exists it can resist economic change that the people don't want. Of course, without the idea of the Rule of Law and Democracy, you are totally open to corruption.

    What makes you think that;
    a. China follows a Western model?
    b. Children weren't working 15 hour days in sweat shops in the days of Mao?
    c. Any vast amount of Chinese children work 15 hour days in sweatshops? Many of them are in education.

    Abject poverty compared to what they have now, you mean?
    I think this arguments becoming convoluted and is certainly tangental from the original debate.

    As I understand it you are in favour of facilitating the internationalisation of liberal democratic systems. Almost neo-conservative in that sense, although I don't suppose you'd embrace that description? Conversely you are against state enforced attempts to preserve more traditional forms of culture as you deem this prohibitive?

    I don't think we are as diametrically opposed as you may think, I agree that government of laws is a good thing, certainly preferable to Mugabe style ragimes. I also would commend western intervention in places like Iran where a suppressive autocrat has denied a widespread desire for political freedom, were it not for the very dangerous ramifications.

    I think where I differ is that I worry that western culture can be a very dominant force, I believe that unless restraints are placed upon it then it could deny less potent cultures, who are unable to resist it (even if a majority wish to). Westernised systems are great in many ways but they are far from perfect, and while I don't think the West should keep them "under wraps, hidden away" I do warn against the homogenisation, and cultural hegemony of one strain of thought.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul_r)
    I think this arguments becoming convoluted and is certainly tangental from the original debate.

    As I understand it you are in favour of facilitating the internationalisation of liberal democratic systems. Almost neo-conservative in that sense, although I don't suppose you'd embrace that description? Conversely you are against state enforced attempts to preserve more traditional forms of culture as you deem this prohibitive?

    I don't think we are as diametrically opposed as you may think, I agree that government of laws is a good thing, certainly preferable to Mugabe style ragimes. I also would commend western intervention in places like Iran where a suppressive autocrat has denied a widespread desire for political freedom, were it not for the very dangerous ramifications.

    I think where I differ is that I worry that western culture can be a very dominant force, I believe that unless restraints are placed upon it then it could deny less potent cultures, who are unable to resist it (even if a majority wish to). Westernised systems are great in many ways but they are far from perfect, and while I don't think the West should keep them "under wraps, hidden away" I do warn against the homogenisation, and cultural hegemony of one strain of thought.
    Basically in my opinion, a Western system of the Rule of Law, Tenure of the Judiciary (especially as my dad was a magistrate forced out of office by the Government for ruling against them in a 2nd world country) and a good system of Democracy would allow these people to choose what they want in their lives, and at the same time would guarantee them what, in my opinion, are universal freedoms.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Bagration)
    No, I don't. What I do oppose is the Government making policy, policy proposals, and initiatives, regarding culture. You can go and pray in a Mosque and wear a Burqa, that's your right. And I can think badly of it, and thats' my right too. As long as no laws are made concerning their right to practice their culture or my right to disrespect their culture, then I'm fine. But I don't think thats multiculturalism. To me, multiculturalism means state forced acceptance of foreign cultures at the expense of the native culture.
    It seems there are two forms of what people call multiculturalism: the form that enforces acceptance of other cultures, and the form that involves not enforcing a monoculture. It seems important to distinguish between the two. Sometimes those who want to enforce a monoculture (perhaps deliberately) confuse the two in an attempt to make their argument appear stronger, which makes emphasizing the difference all the more important.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    I've always said this about the left, they shout from the roof tops about multi-culturalism but will fight for the right of some Amazonian tribe to keep there identity and independence. Hypocrisy at its highest
    Mmmm, not quite.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul_r)
    Then maybe don't read them.

    Your not obliged to spend your whole life reading every TSR thread.
    That's just the point, I don't have to go looking for them - by six o'clock there's at least three on the main page.

    Ever thought of using the 'search' function? There hasn't been an original thread made for months. It crossed the line into spam a long time ago.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sparta)
    Mmmm, not quite.
    Hmmm quite
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i don't think the BNP wants to force a monoculture on britain, that is just as bad as enforcing a multiculture. They just want to give british people the means to ensure their survivial as a ethnic and cultural entity. Means that are denied to british and especially english people but are allowed and encouraged for minority groups.

    Specifically the BNP want to bring back true freedom of speech by getting rid of these 'hate' and 'thought crime' laws that mean that people find it difficult or even illegal to say what they think about islam, immigrant groups etc. Even if such discussions aren't completely banned they are right on the edge of legality and thus people are scared to talk about it, the effect is the same.

    Secondly, the BNP want to get rid of the double standard that the OP noticed. That is that minority groups are allowed to celebrate their culture and indeed get taxpayers assistance in doing so, yet the majority group in this country is forbidden to do so (english charity is illegal for example). This is the enforced multiculturalism which is decreasing social cohesion (or increasing 'diversity' as they like to call it.

    This issue also manifests itself in the obsession public bodies have for 'embracing diversity' which they do by collecting figures of ethnic and religious background etc and there is now legislation in place that allows employers to discriminate in favour of minority groups for 'reasons of diversity' in the jobs market. This law never works in reverse though, you don't find your local councillors complaining that the taxi industry is totally asian dominated.... issues like that don't matter to them, only the persecution of the majority group. The double standard comes into play.

    I think alot of people in britain do not want to live in a forced multiculture and the BNP is the only party that really addresses this issue head on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    Hmmm quite
    No, really. You cite hypocrisy in the BNP fighting for the right of some tribe to maintain their identity and independence. This is the complete opposite of multi-culturalism. So it's not really 'Hmmm quite' is it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The conservative party must be hiding those politicians in their party who care about the immigration levels because I haven't seen any. The only reason anyone has been voting for the BNP is because the main political parties have been forced to leave immigration off the policy list since the rivers of blood speech, which strangely enough became true. I am happy to be multi-cultural with countries who are multi-cultural with us; europe, america, canada, australia etc. but when it's a one way street and the immigrants get to keep their culture whilst systematically destroying ours, that's when I get annoyed.
    My friend, you just hit the nail on on the head.

    Or, as the far left cronies of this forum would put it - "This is something that can't be emphasised enough." oooooh, don't I sound like a second-rate wannabe academic?
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by john1987)
    My friend, you just hit the nail on on the head.

    Or, as the far left cronies of this forum would put it - "This is something that can't be emphasised enough." oooooh, don't I sound like a second-rate wannabe academic trying to compensate on the internet?
    You do realise you're left-wing if you support the BNP? Either that or you're incapable of matching the party you support to your economic ideology ...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    You do realise you're left-wing if you support the BNP? Either that or you're incapable of matching the party you support to your economic ideology ...
    I'm not a member of the BNP, but I can sympathise with a lot of their policies.

    There's a difference between nation-based socialism and the kind of Marxist/communist ideas advocated by the people who would be traditionally defined as the far left. That's how I see it.

    Thanks for the question.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by john1987)
    I'm not a member of the BNP and sinking peoples' boats is a worrying prospect. Nevertheless I can sympathise with a lot of their policies.

    There's a difference between nation-based socialism and the kind of Marxist/communist ideas advocated by the people who would be traditionally defined as the far left. That's how I see it.

    Thanks for the question.
    Do you consider yourself left-wing economically, though? Just because you're not a liberal leftie doesn't mean you're not a leftie - socialist and authoritarian is a legitimate position to be. In my mind it actually makes perfect consistent sense to be that combination ...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    the only thing that is 'left' about BNP eonomic policy is that they don't always support the free market and they don't agree with currentbanking system (and diddn't BEFORE the credit crunch either!)

    I'd say they were much more central economically, they are far from socialist or communist ideas as they firmly support private property. people that call them left wing tend to be those that are enthusiastic about the present system and think for some reason that they represent the centre ground. When in truth it would be hard to go much further to the right than the west currently is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Do you consider yourself left-wing economically, though? Just because you're not a liberal leftie doesn't mean you're not a leftie - socialist and authoritarian is a legitimate position to be. In my mind it actually makes perfect consistent sense to be that combination ...
    I was aware of that, but thanks for the info.

    I have no reason to start defining myself for anyone on this forum - don't take it personally.

    Thanks again.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Arminius)
    the only thing that is 'left' about BNP eonomic policy is that they don't always support the free market and they don't agree with currentbanking system (and diddn't BEFORE the credit crunch either!)

    I'd say they were much more central economically, they are far from socialist or communist ideas. They firmly support private property.
    Well they wish to nationalise transport as well, and are very in favour of protectionism in trade. While they're not communists, they're not central either, their economic policy has a consistent leftist vibe to it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sparta)
    No, really. You cite hypocrisy in the BNP fighting for the right of some tribe to maintain their identity and independence. This is the complete opposite of multi-culturalism. So it's not really 'Hmmm quite' is it?
    No, I was talking about the hypocrisy of the left who will fight for the culture of some Amazonian tribe yet they encourage the demise of our own culture through enforced multiculturalism.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Renner)
    No, I was talking about the hypocrisy of the left who will fight for the culture of some Amazonian tribe yet they encourage the demise of our own culture through enforced multiculturalism.
    The two things don't stand a reasonable comparison however. Amazonian Indians are having the lands they live in physically destroyed, they aren't really being given choices. We in modern Britain, however, are not in any sense being 'forced' to abandon, say, morris-dancing (never that popular anyway) or fish and chips, or whatever you think is suffering demise in 'our own culture', we're opting for new and diverse culture, and mixing it up, because, whether you like it or not, we're choosing to.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 21, 2009
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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

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