- This topic has 48 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Some interesting points being made. "Culture" can embody all parts of society, from historical and intellectual culture to the sort of modern British popular culture I can’t stand i.e sodding Big Brother, celebrity magazines, trashy soaps featuring the daily lives of chavs who can’t speak proper English etc… (don’t get me started!) :biggrin:
Personally I think British culture now is dumbed-down, hedonistic and superficial, encompassing all the bad points of a consumerist postmodern society. Apart from the likes of Wayne Rooney being role models, we live in an age of outrageous political correctness and reverse logic (but that’s another story altogether).
I live near the horrific dive of a town that is called Newquay in Cornwall, and thankfully not in it. Somehow for six weeks of the summer it is impossible to even get past the queues of traffic to go into town (if you dare) because it’s so popular. But all it seems to resemble is popular British youth culture nowadays (at it’s worst I’ll admit) – the litter, spit, vomit, used condoms in the street, endless rows of bars and clubs full of underage kids getting blind drunk and the shops are as cheap and tacky as you could get in any Chav-town.
Most of the people my age who live here exist on mindless dead end jobs, with mindless interests (i.e TV and celebrity gossip). I swear half the people down here haven’t even had an education as they can’t speak or spell properly, and wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between Shakespeare and Nelson (that is, if they’ve heard of them).
Unfortunately I doubt things will get any better, as the possibly the biggest influence of British culture – the television, is filled end to end with mind numbing crap, which appeals to the lowest common denominator, and those who only use 0.1% of their brains.
I don’t persoanlly agree with that Mesh .. as an older person. There was no culture when I was growing up. I think laws in this country have been passed that make it easier for people to be more immoral. For example, if an un-married woman has a child, it isn’t forcibly removed from her and adopted at birth. A woman isn’t punished for the crime of having a child out of wed-lock. On the rights front, women also get paid the same wages as a man now for doing the same job now, which wasn’t true back then either. And then talking to my Grand Parents, who were around in the 30’s .. about the good old days when they were all half starved and freezing cold. There was no utopia in the good old days, it was more or less the same as it is now, only they all had nothing. The traffic that we all complain about, is actually a good thing. I think everyone should have a car, not just the rich and famous. And if everyone shouldn’t have a car, then who doesn’t get one ?
Modern Pop culture is actually quite funny, it doesn’t exist away from the telly, you don’t have to watch it. And even then reality horrible creeps in. Who would ever have thought that ethnic minority ladyboy Kemal would have been voted out of BB before the bird with the £1M boob job … :biggrin: even you must see the irony in that, surely?
I do think that a country should continually change and move with the times and attempt to be inclusive of all of the people who live in it. I wouldn’t want to live in a place like Saudi Arabia, for example, which has the same types of laws that Edward I would be proud of. In the same way I wouldn’t want to live in the Bible Belt in the USA, for obvious reasons. In fact, if I found myself living in a country like that I would leave. The first post on here, was about the ‘Right to Leave’.
Anyway, the biggest change I have seen, in my life time is the rise of intolerance and the noseparkering into what other people think and believe. The average man in the street, after the London Bombings wants to see all Muslims put to the sword. On here, we’ve got two opposing views, on one hand Mesh .. who would probably want me put to the sword because I can’t speak proper English, even though I’ve a reasonable education, my accent would have me down for the chop. And then Non Vintage, who has me down as a rascist, which is also punishable by death. You both have more in common with one another than you would care to believe.
I have never actually said that you are racist Dave, just that the content of the original posting on here was, and I suspect you were aware of that when you posted it. (In fact, you almost said as much.)
I am fairly sure that there is no such thing as ‘the average man on the street’, so that is just nonsense to start with, and whilst I’m sure some of them might feel like putting all Muslims to the sword, I reckon you’ve made that up off the top of your head.
I make no apologies for being a tolerant liberal. A lack of tolerance and understanding of others does not seem like a good thing for me. For others, it may work fine.
As for your morality call, beyond certain basic principals, morals are a personal thing. If I don’t like how you live your life, fine, but unless it really ***** me up on a regular basis, I don’t really care.
The whole Daily-Mail-Speaketh-For-The-World attitude, preaching Conservatism and holier-than-thou standpoints doesn’t do much for me, but probably makes some people with some views feel a bit better about themselves.
I am fairly sure that there is no such thing as ‘the average man on the street’, so that is just nonsense to start with, and whilst I’m sure some of them might feel like putting all Muslims to the sword, I reckon you’ve made that up off the top of your head.
Not at all, it’s what I hear everyday at work old chum.
And you don’t feel the need to challenge those making the comments?
In most civilised, ethical workplaces that would be a disciplinary offence, mate!
:)
I don’t see anything wrong with a newspaper preaching Conservatism, and on the contrary, one preaching new age Marxism. At least we live in a free society where we can choose what to read on the basis of our own personal beliefs. It goes back to what dave jay said about some countries having outdated laws…it’s great that this country is modern and changing with the times. Although going back to my original post, some things change for the worse – however DJ pointed out some of the things that have changed for the better. Yet I still stand by what I originally said, even if it was a bit cynical!
Agreed, Mesh! I never said it (The Daily Mail) shouldn’t be allowed, just that it wasn’t ‘me’.
Dave did point out some of the positive changes which have occurred but also stated that he thought "laws in this country have been passed that make it easier for people to be more immoral."
This is a subjective statement, inferring that he views certain changes negatively. He goes on to give examples relating to women ("For example, if an un-married woman has a child, it isn’t forcibly removed from her and adopted at birth. A woman isn’t punished for the crime of having a child out of wed-lock.") which he seems to believe are good examples of immorality.
I don’t personally support this. That’s all.
Change and modernisation of laws and attitudes and culture are necessary and for the most part essential, even if some view things nowadays as too lax.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>I have never actually said that you are racist Dave, just that the content of the original posting on here was……….
I make no apologies for being a tolerant liberal……….
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
NV, if you want to be a "tolerant liberal",  then I fear the world has moved on from under you – your fellow liberals in fact did a volte face on multiculturalism about a year ago, since when it has no longer been "racist" to oppose it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,36 … 61,00.html
<br>If it was yesterday the liberal position to say:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>"If I don’t like how you live your life, fine, but unless it really ***** me up on a regular basis, I don’t really care. <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
this is now reclassified as "I’m alright Jack"-ism –  the liberal position today is that active steps must be taken to avoid ghetto-isation and to inculcate certain indigenous core cultural values among immigrants to the UK and their offspring.
Chief among these is that, say what you like about British culture – and folk have on this thread –  historically it doesn’t do bombings and assassinations.
That unfortunately cannot be said of the cultures being imported from places like Pakistan, Somalia, etc, where violence within the community is endemic as a way to seek to promote political and religious objectives.
<br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>"The right to leave" must be a new concept…..<br>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ACR1, that right  wasn’t enjoyed by those behind the Berlin Wall / Iron Curtain, and isn’t enjoyed  today in those countries where you still need a visa to exit (China, Saudi Arabia, etc)  –  somehow I doubt many of those folk would be too impressed to be told the right to leave is a new concept in rights.
best regards
wit<br>
The average man in the street, after the London Bombings wants to see all Muslims put to the sword
None of the people I work with, my family, friends or acquaintances with whom I have discussed this matter have expressed such a view or anything like it. I can only suggest that the street from which you drew your average man was hosting a BNP march at the time.
This thread seems to have wondered a little from the point. I have no problem with popular culture per se, I simply asked the question : what aspects of our culture do we expect immigrants to embrace. Are we really saying that, alongside English lessons, all immigrants should be forced to watch Big Brother whilst eating fish and chips? Or do we mean that they should be expected to obey British laws. I have heard white British people complain that ‘their’ culture is being diluted/eroded by immigration and that immigrants make no effort to fit in with ‘our’ culture. I am simply trying to get to the bottom of what people mean when they make statements like that. <br>
Wit,
It is nothing to do with me being alright, just that there are a lot of things which other people do or believe which I disagree with on a personal basis but which don’t unduly bother me.
I probably didn’t explain my position very well. I genuinely didn’t mean only things which affect me directly, but also things which affect those that I know and wider ‘communities’ which I am or feel a part of.
The article you linked to is an interesting piece, but, just like my views and those of others on here, is an opinion.
The idea of some happy-clappy multicultural oneness is laudable but ridiculous in practical terms, but if you are trying to tell me that I am wrong to be tolerant of others, and wrong to have a generally liberal outlook in life, then I disagree.
NV
The question is what being tolerant of others actually means in this context to someone of your declared liberal persuasion.
For example, within the expanded definition of liberalism to "things which affect those that I know and wider  ‘communities’ which I am or feel a part of",  where would the following fit in:
–  honour killings / rapes<br>-  female circumcision<br>-  forced marriages
–  the fatwa on Salman Rushdie
–  ritual slaughter of animals
–  the concentration of immigrant children within a few schools
–   the curriculum and the attendance at such schools left to the immigrant culture, including what is taught as the mother language?
<br>As regards the last two, you may recall the Bradford headmaster Ray Honeyford, who in 1983 wrote a series of articles for the right-leaning Salisbury Review attacking the multicultural policy Bradford had adopted in response to Muslim demands. ÂÂÂ
He objected to the way children were withdrawn from school for long holidays "at home", and also to the Council ending a bussing policy that distributed Muslim children equally around the city’s schools.
After a wave of protests by Muslim parents he was forced to take early retirement.
There’s an analysis from 2003 of what happened in the subsequent 20 years at:
http://www.thisisbradford.co.uk/bradfor … -lang.html
<br>Is this a satisfactory situation from your liberal standpoint, and if not would you insist on a more assimilationist culture ?
When the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality does a 180 degree turn from multiculturalism being inviolable to multiculturalism being dead, and is supported in that change of mind by other liberals,  sure its a change of opinion by some individuals –  but I suggest it’s a change that’s likely to have more impact than you or me changing our opinion. ÂÂÂ
best regards
wit<br>
Wit
An interesting posting.
Honour killings/rapes, female circumcision and forced marriages are illegal and rightly to be condemned and rooted out.  Whilst I myself am not a liberal, it is surely not a liberal position to tolerate these illegal acts that cause so much suffering to our fellow citizens.
The fatwa on Salman Rushdie was issued by the Ayatollah, as far as I am aware. Had it been issued in the first instance by a British subject, that subject should be prosecuted for inciting others to kill.
The two examples you chose that were most thought-provoking and in my opinion made your point most strongly were ritual slaughter and the schools issue.
On the subject of schools, it is perhaps understandable that an immigrant community should live together (as most immigrant communities do the world over) and the inevitable result of that is that their children will all tned go to the same school(s). But I do agree that the curriculum should be the same curriculum that children all over the country should follow and that children should be expected to attend school unless there is a very good reason why not. There are laws in place to ensure that parents send their children to school. These laws should be enforced.
I think there is a sensible line to follow here, which is that immigrants should be expected to obey the laws of the land. Rather than talking about ‘culture’, our guiding principle should be law. Aspects of an immigrant community’s culture which contravene our laws should be addressed and those who break British law prosecuted. Anything that is not illegal should not be a problem. This may not be a perfect solution but it is at least consistent and gets us away from the integration/multicultural debate which is interesting enough but seems not to lead to any consensus or workable solution.
In any case, our ‘culture’ is most concretely expressed in our law. Rather than vague ideas about popular culture, national food, costume and pastimes, the law represents the settled opinions of the British on the whold range of important subjects.
To sum up, I think that we should expect two things from immigrants. 1. That they should make an attempt to learn English. 2. That they should obey British laws, even if those laws run contrary to their cultural beliefs or practices.
(Edited by Aranalde at 10:02 am on Aug. 1, 2005)<br>
(Edited by Aranalde at 10:03 am on Aug. 1, 2005)
Hi Aranalde
Very sensible approach – to those with traditional British values.
The only problem is that Islam is quite unlike a religion like, say, Christianity, in that Islam admits of nothing "to render unto Caesar".
The Shari’a is the sole and unified body of commandments – religious, legal, moral, social., all rolled-up – given by God to mankind through the Prophet Mohammed.  It as much governs the terms on which you do business, as how you behave in marriage and in respect of your family, as how you deal with non-believers, as how you should pray.
If the law isn’t in the Qur’an, its in what the Prophet said and did (hadith), or in consensus of opinion the community (ijma), or analogical reasoning (qiyas).  ÂÂÂ
Since only about 80 verses of the Qur’an deal with legal topics regarding secular matters, and even fewer give specific legal precepts (eg fulfil your contracts), and since the world of Mohammed was somewhat different from today’s world, in practice Shari’a is determined by consensus of the community, as informed by clerics explaining the Qur’an and the hadith.  (I say that having spent much of the past 20 years trying legally to bridge that world with the world of English law).
When it comes to God-given law (albeit interpreted and expanded by man) vs man-made law, there’s no contest for the devout Muslim, so it becomes crucial as to what extent British man-made law is accepted as the consensus of the particular community.
Which goes back to the understanding of, and perspective given on British culture. ÂÂÂ
Education is vital to that process and I suggest the way things have gone under UK multiculturalism as practised to date has resulted in a disaffected youth which has lost the culture of their parents, but not actually taken up the British culture of a particular type of constitutional monarchy (yup, that’s our political classification). ÂÂÂ
So they look to assert a distinctive character by identifying with the umma, the worldwide Muslim community, which is a politically unachievable dream of extremists rather than anything real.
best regards
wit<br>
Wit
Interesting stuff. But I don’t think our laws represent a culture about which immigrants need to be educated. The concept is much simpler one, which no-one can refute. Obey the laws of the country you are in. It is far easier, in my opinion to ask people to obey a set of rules that are written down for all to see, than it is to ask them to ‘behave British’ as it were.
It may well be that the more devout the muslim, the harder it is to conform to British law. It may well be that this is an issue for the Muslim community to address. I, of course, would defer to your knowledge of Islam, but I would assume that, as in any religion, there are different strands of Muslim thought.
Multiculturalism does not, to the best of my knowledge, advocate that certain groups need not obey the law. If and wherever an authority does that in the name of multiculturalism, then they are wrong.
Every immigrant group, indeed, every minority group in the country at some point may well find they come up against a law which contradicts their beliefs. They then have to choose whether to obey the law or their beliefs. <br>They don’t have to like the laws and they don’t have to agree with them.
British laws may well have come out of British beliefs and represent our culture. But it seems to me far easier to explain to people, ‘These are the laws of the country and you should obey them’, than to try to create a sense of ‘Britishness’ in them, so that they will then agree with the laws and feel happy with them. The law is there to be obeyed. How individual minority groups accomodate themselves to that law is a matter for them. I just think that, so long as they obey the law, how they choose to dress, what food they eat, what music they listen to and what cricket team they support is up to them.
My version of multiculturalism is to see it as a positive that many people of different backgrounds live in this country. As long as they obey the laws of the land, then I don’t see a problem.
I would have no objection to law being taught in schools, preferably primary schools, at a basic level, along with ‘citizenship’ lessons.
I think sometimes supporters of multiculturalism just get it wrong. For example, it would be wrong for children not to be allowed to celebrate Christmas for fear it might offend those of other faiths. That to me is not multiculturalism. My definition of multiculturalism would be for a school to ‘celebrate’ all of the faiths of the children in the school on certain days such as Diwali, Christmas etc. But the basis of schooling should be secular.
Apologies for the somewhat rambling nature of this posting – I haven’t had time to edit it.
Regards<br>
Good posts all around ..
My views on morality and the examples I gave in an earlier post are quite relevant to me personally, as both of my children were born out of wedlock. One can only imagine the grief people like us would have gone through years ago, to satisfy the morality of others.
I tend to agree with Aranalde’s view on the ‘Laws of the Land’ .. I think that’s about right. Everyone should obey the law and not seek to change it in order to seek special treatment. The woman in Australia who had her driving licence photo taken with her burqa on, should in reality have had a boot up the ar$e. Or the law changed for everybody in the country.
I tend to agree about morality, Dave. To simply take Christianity, it is remarkable the number of Christians who skip over the not-judging part and get straight to the thou shalt nots.
The instance you cite was another example of well-meaning but misguided multiculturalism. The multicultural thing to do would be to allow the lady in question to wear her burka in the street, at work, in the home, wherever she liked, but not in official photographs. With all these examples, there is usually a common sense solution.
And following the laws of the land seems to me the only solution. We can all argue about integration or multiculturalism but it never really leads to any concrete proposals.
When the same driving licence issue came up in Florida in 2003, the veiled one lost.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/freeman/v … l_ctv.html
although a non-factor in the case, the following was an interesting bit of side information :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ms Freeman told the court that she permitted no photos in her house, and that she coloured over pictures of people on cereal boxes with a felt-tip pen.
"Wearing a religious veil is a peaceful, modest act; I am not a threat to public safety because of practising Islam," she said in a statement.
However, she admitted she was photographed without a veil in 1998 when she received a suspended sentence for battering two girls in her care.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international … 11,00.html
<br>best regards
wit
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.