Suella Braverman - sacked as Home Secretary (p394)

[Vic]

What is this talk of "threat"?

Inadvertently you're using the language of Braverman, the language of swamping, the language of Farage, and why? Because you're a racist? No, you're not a racist, you're using that language because it's the the only one available to you, and why is that? Because we've left the field to them, to the racists, so anyone who disagrees with you, and you're not a racist, must be like Braverman and Farage, a racist.

Besides, if there's no such thing as British culture, why does Spain have one? If we're all cosmopolitans in the UK, as Prestwich Blue would have us believe, why would Spain be any different, and if it isn't different, and we're all cosmopolitans, then there's nothing to "threaten"

Oh, and by the way, with you're talk of Scottish-Ecuadorians and Korean-Americans, you've conflated multi-ethnic with multicultural, and why might that be? Because that's what racists do, they believe ethnicity dictates culture, as in "all black are" etc, etc, but ethnicity doesn't dictate culture, as anyone who's spent time with Nigerians, Ghanaians and Jamaicans will tell you. Their cultures are distinctly different, in the same way British culture is distinct from French culture and Italian culture. Except I'm forgetting that the British don't have a culture, so one can only assume neither do the French or the Italians or the Nigerians or the Ghanaians for that matter, or maybe Nigerians and Ghanaians are not cosmopolitans like we are, besides aren't they just tribes huddled together in countries the British empire arbitrarily created? So what the fuck are we talking about?

It's all so difficult isn't it? Talking about a topic where the language is dictated by racists and why might that be? Because we've left the field to them, preferring not to talk about it at all. Besides, don't anti-racists believe talk of culture is nothing more than thinly veiled racism? That must be the reason for all the shit I'm getting in here.

As for colonialism, it's part of our history and therefore part of our culture, well it's part of our culture for those who believe we have one.

Tosh. Lengthy tosh.

 

[The perfect fumble]

You must be on the wind up. Last post on this. Yes we are a ‘world culture’. Not a single country is not a mishmash of different peoples. Not USA not France not Spain etc. All have had significant immigration since ancient times all bringing in their different ideas and being assimilated. If you think differently then you should go back to primary school.

I don't think the Romans or the Normans were big on multiculturalism.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Tosh. Lengthy tosh.

Tosh. Short tosh.

 

[BrianW]

The danger (or one of the dangers) of nationalism is that it leads people to emphasise the differences between us rather than the common values. Culture wars are part of this. We effectively say: To be British/English you must believe in (whatever). This is inherently oppressive. It also ignores a multitude of sub-cultures. Football support is one such sub-culture. You might argue that as a football fan, we have more in common with an Italian or Spanish football fan than we do with an English person who hates football.

Another example is regional subcultures. The Welsh and Scots are British, but they have subcultures which make them quite distinct from the English. In the case of Wales, a strong love of traditional music and poetry, both of which link to their language. (You don't get the equivalent of Eisteddfodau in Colne.) Moreover, I would argue that regional English cultures are very different. Lancashire is a very different place to Sussex, for example. As is Lancashire from Yorkshire, although for my money the northern tribes are more similar to one another than they sometimes pretend, and definitely different to southerners in general.

Any attempt to distil this incredibly complex structure into a simple definition of 'British culture' is bound to fail, unless one resorts to banal commonplaces about 'fair play' and so on.

 

[The perfect fumble]

The danger (or one of the dangers) of nationalism is that it leads people to emphasise the differences between us rather than the common values. Culture wars are part of this. We effectively say: To be British/English you must believe in (whatever). This is inherently oppressive. It also ignores a multitude of sub-cultures. Football support is one such sub-culture. You might argue that as a football fan, we have more in common with an Italian or Spanish football fan than we do with an English person who hates football.

Another example is regional subcultures. The Welsh and Scots are British, but they have subcultures which make them quite distinct from the English. In the case of Wales, a strong love of traditional music and poetry, both of which link to their language. (You don't get the equivalent of Eisteddfodau in Colne.) Moreover, I would argue that regional English cultures are very different. Lancashire is a very different place to Sussex, for example. As is Lancashire from Yorkshire, although for my money the northern tribes are more similar to one another than they sometimes pretend, and definitely different to southerners in general.

Any attempt to distil this incredibly complex structure into a simple definition of 'British culture' is bound to fail, unless one resorts to banal commonplaces about 'fair play' and so on.

I'm not arguing against the existence of difference in British society, nor am I denying that Britain contains many diverse cultures, that would be ludicrous, I am not making that case, and I'm definitely not making a case for nationalism....

A simple definition of nationalism.

1. : loyalty and devotion to a nation. especially : a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.

I'm making the case for something, regardless of ones race or religion, that we all share as Brits, irrespective of our differences, something around which we can coalesce, a shared commonality, because without it we cease to function as a harmonious society.

Without that glue of common culture, without some small overlap between the way you see the world and the way the man next to you sees the world, then we descend into tribalism.

Countries like Yugoslavia fold when there's nothing to hold them together, or begin to fracture, like the USA is in danger of doing.

My argument against multiculturalism is not a denial of the multiple cultures that exist in the UK, nor an argument that they should be treated differently from each other, it is that multiculturalism emphasises our differences over the things we have in common.

They say unity is strength, so if we want a strong resilient country at ease with itself, we must find those things that unite us, regardless of our differences, because if we can't find those things around which we can all unite we're not a United Kingdom.

 

[BrianW]

Let's be honest, we aren't a united country, are we? I have spent 70 years of my life in the UK and I have never, in all that time, known it so divided. Indeed, the division has been used as a political tool on an increasing basis.

You cannot somehow mould people into something abstract that you desire but they reject. If you want national unity, the first step is a Government that constantly seeks to bring the community together instead of finding 'wedges' and fighting culture wars. Populism is an incredibly destructive force and I for one want to see the back of it, forever.

 

[WRicko]

Capital cities like London and Paris and major cities like New York and even Manchester, are by their history and their economies more cosmopolitan than the countries they are in, they are, as you say, a melting pot.

A “melting pot” is a society in which multiple cultures mix freely, borrow from each other, and gradually blend together.

This is Domalino's post where he gives two definitions of multiculturalism....



All perfectly fine, but clearly from these definitions multiculturalism is not the same as melting pot, in fact melting pot, with its emphasis on blending undermines the cultural uniqueness of "different cultural groups in society". The critics of melting pot see it not as integration (there's nothing to integrate with) but assimilation, the destruction of ones distinct cultural identity.

So many things muddy this debate, the polarisation of racism as black versus white, I don't need to tell you what a misrepresentation that is, as Diane Abbott has found to her cost. And that Britain has no culture to call her own, that we are all citizens of the world now, that history, tradition, values, institutions, national identity, its all in flux in one enormous cosmopolitan flurry.

So how is multiculturalism different to melting pot

 

[remember arthur mann]

So how is multiculturalism different to melting pot

One's a ism, the other is a big metal pot you put over a fire.

 

[threespires]

Hadn't realised the Marsh family had joined Carol Vorderman in the official opposition. Say what you like about the liberal elites but they do work on their harmonies.

 

[remember arthur mann]

Hadn't realised the Marsh family had joined Carol Vorderman in the official opposition. Say what you like about the liberal elites but they do work on their harmonies.

Very good. The New Seeker's.