British Multiculturalism

[Domen]

Britain was so much more well-off in times before the age of British multiculturalism.

I don't understand why they got bored with those Tube Sickles and decided to adopt also things from other, non-British cultures.

Oh wait, they did not decide anything. Others came and imposed those things on them.

First Celts, then Romans, then Jutes (and Anglo-Saxons), then Vikings, then French and Normans, then Polish plumbers.

 

[NovaKart]

"If you want change don't draw attention to it" line of thinking, I guess. How very Tao.

Yes, don't muddy the waters, let it fall into place.

 

[Traitorfish]

That assumes the absence of reactionary opinion, which as Quackers has demonstrated, is unlikely to be the rarely the case. It's not as if multicultural policies are developed in a political vacuum.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Multiculturalism is bourgeois!!!1!

 

[Kyriakos]

The English sailed in large numbers, following Hastings, to the Byzantine Empire at 1066, and quickly became the largest ethnic group of the Varangian guard (before that it was Scandinavian).

Also worth noting that in the same year one of the most famous Varangians was killed, in England, following his invasion against Harold. King of Norway Harald Sigurdsonn (the so-called "Hardrada")

 

[Traitorfish]

Multiculturalism is bourgeois!!!1!

Pretty bourgeois; Aufheben had a good (although long-winded) piece about it a few years back.

The trick is, when reactionaries say "multiculturalism", they're usually meaning in a very general sense of "having to treat people who aren't entirely like me as something approaching human", and that's something which can be opposed from many positions.

 

[Domen]

I've noticed that WASPs are once again minority in Londinium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London#Ethnic_breakdown

 

[Traitorfish]

It's probably been the case for longer than anyone realises. "White British" is a somewhat obfuscating category, because it includes by default anyone who is both white and British-born, regardless of actual ethnic background. A lot of "White Britons" in London will be ethnically Irish, for example, but will not be included under the category "White Irish" because that refers only to the Irish-born. Likewise British-born Jews, Italians, Greeks, Poles, Turks, etc., tend to appear as "White British" in censuses, but are unlikely to feel entirely comfortable at an EDL rally. And, of course, there's a good number of white British people who just happen to be Welsh, Scots or Northern Irish.

All in all, the "Anglo-Saxon" of nationalist myth probably doesn't represent more than a third of London, let alone the 44% attributed to "White British".

 

[Kyriakos]

All in all, the "Anglo-Saxon" of nationalist myth probably doesn't represent more than a third of London, let alone the 44% attributed to "White British".

So around 10% of any London south of the Thames? :O

 

[Quackers]

I'm just going to assume Dachs' missus hacked his account and started posting. So I will ignore that. Does Dachs have any material he can link me which i can read? I wonder if the political science world is brave enough to look into this without Traitorfish-level smearing.

Putnam was brave enough to do an experiment. Here is the abstract:

Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.

If the US is our future than we can expect these wonderful benefits of multiculturalism...Thanks...Blair..

 

[Traitorfish]

I am proud to be cited as an exemplar of Judeo-Bolshevik perfidy.

 

[Quackers]

Well, every other post is basically an insinuation of racism.
Come to think of it, that is true for many other far-left posters on this forum.

You cannot trust a marxist to debate on the issues. It's all about your race and the race about the people you're talking about. If that is different, well obviously you're racist.

 

[Domen]

Ethnic Americans (do not confuse with Native Americans) are only 6,75% of entire population of the USA (20,9 million):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ethnicity

They live mostly in the former CSA (Southern United States). So it seems that Real Ethnic Americans = Rednecks ???

 

[Tahuti]

I'm just going to assume Dachs' missus hacked his account and started posting. So I will ignore that. Does Dachs have any material he can link me which i can read? I wonder if the political science world is brave enough to look into this without Traitorfish-level smearing.

Putnam was brave enough to do an experiment. Here is the abstract:

If the US is our future than we can expect these wonderful benefits of multiculturalism...Thanks...Blair..

The problem is the result may actually be caused because people think too much like you and thus distrust ethnic minorities.

 

[NovaKart]

That assumes the absence of reactionary opinion, which as Quackers has demonstrated, is unlikely to be the rarely the case. It's not as if multicultural policies are developed in a political vacuum.

Actually my previous post was not entirely serious but I was just going along with Kanguru's post which kind of exaggerated my post. I don't like multicultural promotion policies because for one thing I don't think they're very effective. There's inner-city busing, that's actually more integration than multicultural, anyway I don't think that helped very much. A lot of diversity is really just for show, like people will try to get ethnically diverse students on a student council or something like that so the school looks good and progressive. This often has the effect of choosing a few of the higher achievers among ethnic minorities and then ignores the larger minority student body, at least blacks and latinos, who often have a lower academic record.

Some of the multicultural ideas are a bit silly as well. Like, I remember the multicultural PC math textbooks we had. In case any minority students were not feeling represented in word problems, they could now see people like them in word problems. Of course there's nothing wrong with having diversity included in a math textbook but it was just so obviously crammed in there only for the sake of inclusiveness and going out of their way to put diversity in there at every opportunity. Recently I saw a spelling textbook that had a section on proper plural endings in English for Indian food. I had to wonder if there even is a standardized spelling for the plural endings of Indian dishes. I'm fully supportive of gay rights but I would probably laugh if I saw a word problem about the guests at Jim and Allan's commitment ceremony. We haven't really got there yet with including gay people in diversity and it's less obvious so we probably won't.

Some of these policies really have more to do with integration than multiculturalism but they're all part of diversity initiatives, at least how it's done in the US. True multiculturalism can often exist even in a racist or hostile environment because it's often inevitable unless there's a policy to actively suppress the culture, like in some fascist regimes. If someone tries to ban certain things to do with the culture and deny their existence, like Turkey's policy with Kurds, or in the US when American Indian children were sent to boarding schools, then that would definitely hurt multiculturalism but I think in a more neutral environment it's bound to happen.

We could argue about how much those cultures are represented, in media and in education which I think what the argument here is really about, though I think with Quakers it's more about the fear of certain ethnic groups coming to dominate British culture in the future. So, I'm not against representing different cultures but I think the way it's done is shallow, silly, and sometimes obsessive and has to do with a trend across the Anglosphere (if I can use that word, I don't know a good alternative) to obsess over race without really doing much to help it. I think that it can develop more naturally as immigrant communities join mainstream society. This may involve them giving up some of their native culture but I think they will also add aspects of their culture to the host country.

 

[Angst]

In our age of moral relativism we are too wimpy to assert anything.

Seriously who talks like that. 'Wimpy' is not a very good explanation of the developments within

You have to understand that what appears as 'moral relativism' is moreso serious development within the humanities, specifically modern anthropology and psychology. It seeks to understand how humans act and function rather than how they should act and function. When a social scientist shows up in the newspapers and explains that someone considers it 'vice' to drink alcohol, it is not an ethical statement. It is not abandonment of ethics, not a decline of staunch morality. It is merely giving more screen time to the social sciences and less so to the imperialistic rationally formulated moralist doctrines that, incidentally, is not a great foundation for a stable government. For the ethics department still exist today; they simply do not undermine the understanding and appreciation of the Other.

 

[Mise]

It benefits Britain for the same reason that all trade benefits Britain. Moving capital, goods, services and labour from where they are less productive to where they are most productive is the cornerstone of the capitalist economy. It's the invisible hand, as applied to labour. It really is as basic and obvious as that. Talk about staring you in the face...

Oruc is right, Quackers. If you want to oppose multiculturalism, you have to oppose economic liberalism; you have to oppose free trade; you have to believe that, when people are free to move wherever they want and take up employment wherever they want, that this somehow harms the economy. You can talk about the social impacts all you want, but the economic impacts are clear. That's why business leaders are opposed to any plans to withdraw from the EU or make it harder for workers to get visas. You have to be an isolationist, you have to oppose globalisation, you have to oppose free trade and the free market. Because the free market depends on the free movement of labour, and if you restrict the latter, then you restrict the former as well.

 

[Quackers]

It benefits Britain for the same reason that all trade benefits Britain. Moving capital, goods, services and labour from where they are less productive to where they are most productive is the cornerstone of the capitalist economy. It's the invisible hand, as applied to labour. It really is as basic and obvious as that. Talk about staring you in the face...

Oruc is right, Quackers. If you want to oppose multiculturalism, you have to oppose economic liberalism; you have to oppose free trade; you have to believe that, when people are free to move wherever they want and take up employment wherever they want, that this somehow harms the economy. You can talk about the social impacts all you want, but the economic impacts are clear. That's why business leaders are opposed to any plans to withdraw from the EU or make it harder for workers to get visas. You have to be an isolationist, you have to oppose globalisation, you have to oppose free trade and the free market. Because the free market depends on the free movement of labour, and if you restrict the latter, then you restrict the former as well.

That is true. I don't deny these benefits. I'm happy to forgo them.
I just think the other negatives of multiculturalism are greater than the economic benefits. Our country isn't just a business.

 

[Tahuti]

That is true. I don't deny these benefits. I'm happy to forgo them.
I just think the other negatives of multiculturalism are greater than the economic benefits. Our country isn't just a business.

So... you're a paleoconservative?

(if you are, I'm not going to lash out against you since there are plenty of aspects I'm sympathetic to, but it wouldn't my pick for the full 100%)

 

[Lone Wolf]

Oruc is right, Quackers. If you want to oppose multiculturalism, you have to oppose economic liberalism.

I think Oruc meant primarily political, not economic liberalism.

Anyway, an all-White Britain looks attractive indeed: