A problem of aspirations
Zia Haider Rahman has written a very interesting article for CIF today around the recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report linking race and poverty.
So what does all this history mean? The first point is that we are dealing here with immigrants who are more likely to urge their sons to go into a restaurant job at 16 than carry on in school and widen their horizons.
…
It is not enough to make education available to our immigrants, as if the newcomers are poised like coiled springs to jump at the opportunities offered to them. …we must be prepared to contemplate how we go about encouraging others to take that view also, even where experience suggests that our audience place decidedly less of a cultural premium on education.
I think he makes a good point - many reports these days around poverty and exclusion of ethnic minorities focus a bit too much on what the government should be doing. Of course, their aim in many cases may be to influence public policy. But that paints minorities as victims who cannot help themselves, and making the assumption that their own cultural practices may be irrelevant. The report for example shows that that Pakistani and Bangladeshi women are much less likely to work, have more kids and are more likely to be not working because of illness. All these also have a huge impact on family income and how much money there is to go around.
Alot of truth there. Although I have to say, most Indians push their kids hard. If anything Indian youth moan that their parents are too ambitious and push them into professions and business and have a hyperactive culture of chasing success. That’s the way it was with my family, and all the other Indians I know.
Interesting article. Totally agree - it’s all about class. A lot of work in the developing countries focuses on raising education demand from families and children - as well as supplying education so it might make good sense here to boost demand-side asks as well as invest in education training and learning.
Good to point out the baseline from which many UK Bangladeshis start - very low, but also good to point out that Tower Hamlets education has had the most improved outcomes for some years now, and well, with people like Zia coming up the system, I think the picture is slowly changing. The low educational base has to do witht he relativeness of the British Bangladeshis as an immigration group maybe - stll newer than Pakistanis to this country.
The restaurent trade, though, while not everyone’s cup of tea for social mobility, has acted as a coping strategy for many Bangladeshi men and as an initial stepping stone might still be helpful. The white working classes for example don’t have a trade to fall back on and this is causing lots of social issues.
Where I might part company is with the focus on culture - as soon as authorities start playing with culture, they end up imposing another one. See parallel debates on governance culture in international aid giving at the moment.
What has been a surprise in the results of research over the last few years is the differences between different Asian groups, i.e Chinese, Sikh, Hindu, Pakistani, Bangladeshi. Why is it that the first three do much better in terms of education, employment, affluence than the other two. Also while the other two groups are both Muslim Bangladeshis fair worse than Pakistani Muslims. Also why the difference between Black people and Asians and also Africans and Carribeans.
Black people started arriving in the UK in larger numbers before Asians therefore it can’t just be connected with length of residence. If it is connected with family/social expectations then how do they arise and how can they be changed. This seems a bit of a puzzle. But something should be done.
With Indians, the immigrant mentality, and desire to make the family proud, is a great driver for educational, professional and business success. It can be a good thing, in fact I think it is, because it has inspired my family to do well, but for some types, the ones who want to be poets or just lazy, its tough, because you get pressured into doing things that you might not otherwise want to do ie: being a doctor or lawyer over being an actor or something stupid like that.
Although that is changing and the next generation you will see more poets and sportsmen and lazy ones as their parents (ie my generation) cut them a break to a certain extent and dont make them go into non traditional fields like scuba diving instructors or whatever that bunch of coconuts wants to do. Although as long as my kids dont just go into ‘I.T, innit’, I’ll be happy, as long as they dont become bums and drop outs.
True , not all linked to length of residence. Perhaps as Zia points out, it’s the skills-set immgrants bring with them. It needs linking back to socio-economic status from countries people are migrating from. This I think was the point Zia was making - many British Bangladeshis migrated from remote villages in Bangladesh, might’ve attended schools but might’ve dropped out early and their parents literacy skills in Bengali would be low. This is a generalisation but some trends can be gleaned.
On Why Afro-Caribbeans mighr fair worse, is an interesting point.
Actually a lot of research says that Asians of all kinds - whatever their material background, are born with educational values more akin to the middle classes - in that they push hard for the kids to do well at school.
The Runnymede Trust has done from interesting work in the intra-group differences - but lone-parent households often equate with stress and lack of educational motivation. Lone-parents have to juggle jobs, with less time to read to kids, combined with the fact that minorities face disporpotionate discrimination in the labour market, it is easy to see why kids might fall between the seams.
Put simply, the difference between different groups of people from the sub-continent - Sikh, Hindu, Pakistani, Bangladeshi - is that the latter two are Muslims.
I cannot speak for Hindus, but Sikhism and Sikh culture emphasises a strong work ethic; much like the Presbyterian work ethic. This is in addition to encouraging education and learning.
With Muslims it is different. Education is seen as necessary only up to a point because, apparently, all knowledge is to be found in the Quran. So non-Islamic education isn’t given priority; Muslim parents preferring to send their children to learn Arabic and chant incomprehensibly.
The same goes for work ethic - Muhammad himself never held down a job (apart from being a warlord and working as his wife’s dogs body for a bit). And Muhammad is ‘the’ example for Muslims to follow. And my, aren’t Pakistanis and Bangladeshis following it.
Sub-continental Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims come from near identical places in the world - the only thing differentiating them is religion. You do the math.
Naxal 1849
Why then do studies show that Muslims from India, especially Gujaratis, Ismailis, Bohras, perform to a comparable level as Hindus and Sikhs and much better than their Pakistani and Bangladeshi counterparts?
Naxal, why do you have to bring Muhammad into the question? You’re just a troll and a provocateur, trying to start a religious mud slinging match.
Naxal
You arguments assume that these nationalities put their religious identities first - I don’t know that the scriptures in any of our faiths prevent us from learning. In fact don’t they encourage us all to verse ourselves in truth and knowledge? Truth and knowledge might mean different things to us all, but the scriptures tell us to equip ourselves with knowledge skills.
The Bangladeshis, although Muslim, have a very secular tradition ( had a war with Pakistan to prove this point during indepdendence).
Going back to India, isn’t there that ancient saying whatever happens in Bengal will happen in India tomorrow? i.e. The Bengalis are the intellectual hotpots in India and pehraps give India its intellectual genes. Calcutta is living proof of this tradition. True, Bengalis might not to well on business, but this is different to saying they don’t value education. This might be their problem - they value it too much and can’t see why anyone might want to be a gymnast.
Reducing things down to religion doesn’t work. Look at the middle income countries in the Middle East - with the exception of the Yemen which has low literacy rates, the region isn’t doing so badly in comparable international education standards. There’s something to be said for economics here.
Judging from the outside all immigrants have strong wotk ethics otherwise we can’t survive, and our immigrant legacy, at least for our parents, was the strongest driver for mobility, not religion.
Religion by itself never explains anything.
It’s true about the work ethic in Sikhism. However as regard education in Islam then what went wrong as there has been historically a respect and aspiration for learning within Islam at least in medieval times with the establishment of many Universities etc. There were also many advances in maths and science, medicine, Physics, geography, architecture, art, history. This was not just learning about the Qoran etc. Also they played a part in the revival of Greek knowledge with the translation of many works of Aristotle etc. In fact the seeking of knowledge was seen as part of being a Muslim in order to discover “Gods Universe”.
Also does not Iran have a highly educated population.
That’s exactly what I was thinking - doesn’t Iran have a high record of sending out doctors to the rest of the world?
I don’t know about the situation with Bangladeshis, but the problem with British Pakistanis is less about religion than it is about the geographical origins of the immigrants. Majority of the UK Pakistani population hails from Kashmir/Mirpur, which is a relatively poor and underdeveloped part of Pakistan with a low educational base. There is a significant Pakistani middle class in the UK which is successful and well-educated, but these tend to be people who came from the larger, more developed provinces such as Punjab or Sind, and had a better educational background. It’s worth noting that there are Pakistani communities in other countries such as Canada who are doing much better than British Pakistanis.
I cannot speak for Hindus, but Sikhism and Sikh culture emphasises a strong work ethic; much like the Presbyterian work ethic. This is in addition to encouraging education and learning.
Yeah this really works in places like Vancouver, where Sikhs have become a joke for geting involved in drugs, gang violence and basically being useless. It’s the village mentality, whether here, in Vancouver or on the internet. But hey, Naxal only comes to make broad generalisations without any basis. Try using the grey matter occasionally.
Naxal..
With Muslims it is different. Education is seen as necessary only up to a point because, apparently, all knowledge is to be found in the Quran. So non-Islamic education isn’t given priority; Muslim parents preferring to send their children to learn Arabic and chant incomprehensibly.
The same goes for work ethic - Muhammad himself never held down a job (apart from being a warlord and working as his wife’s dogs body for a bit). And Muhammad is ‘the’ example for Muslims to follow. And my, aren’t Pakistanis and Bangladeshis following it.
Reading a book will help your pea-sized brain to grow you know.
Just been watching Utd get slaughtered by Milan. Brilliant.
I’ll try to answer all points raised:
Jagdeep - try not to let your emotions get the better of you, it makes you look rather pathetic. Most Muslims from India, especially ones who have been through the Indian education system, have had the Islam bashed out of them - they are taught to be nationalists (see cricketers/bollywood actors/businessmen) and Islam becomes a private affair no longer dominating every sphere of their lives.
Halima - Let’s not get bogged down with ‘truth’, it’s pointless. As for the pursuit of ‘knowledge’, how can a religion which dictates that all knowledge is contained in a little green book then at the same time encourage further learning. It is simple logic. the Bangladesh War of Independence was fought on the platform of Bengali Nationalism, not secularism. The saying you referred to applies to West Bengal, not many Muslims left there.
As for the Middle East you omit the most important thing: oil. This is sustaining all Western-friendly governments at the moment; let’s see what happens when it dries up.
As for your laughable assertion that all immigrants have strong work ethics you again fail to understand the implications of a welfare state. Reflect on that and then get back to me.
William - the advances you talk of happened in-spite of Islam, not because of it. Don’t forget that when the armies of Islam captured Constantinople in 1453, the first thing they did was burn the great libraries.
Most Iranians, of whom 70% are under thirty, are anti-Islam.
Raz - A poor effort form you. Sikhs are from the same places Pakistanis are from. Don’t try to use geography as an excuse.
Sunny - All of a sudden we are in Canada? How about we just stick to the UK.
‘Most Iranians, of whom 70% are under thirty, are anti-Islam.’
Presumably, a similar proportion to the number of Israelis who are antisemitic.
I am convinced that 30% of all the world’s problems could be solved simply by more careful use of words, and in particular avoiding the silliness that results when political enemies adopt each others misuse of language.
If you want to go around saying that the muslims in India and Iran are not ‘Islamic’, don’t you think your idea would be better communicated by using some word that matches your intent, that means what you think it does?
“Sikhs are from the same places Pakistanis are from”
Bullshit. Why do Pakistanis in Canada/USA do so much better than Pakistanis in the UK? Why is there such a big disparity betwen the achievements of British Pakistanis from villages in Kashmir and those from cities like Lahore and Karachi? Use some common sense man.
“Sunny - All of a sudden we are in Canada? How about we just stick to the UK.”
Because it destroys your bigoted generalisations about religion. And believe me, Canadians know all about the “enlightened” nature of Khalistanis like you:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/airindia/victims.html
Presbyterian work ethic? I thought it was the protestant work ethic.
“doesn’t Iran have a high record of sending out doctors to the rest of the world?”
Yeah I believe this is true of Pakistan as well, one study found that Pakistan is the third highest source of International Medical Graduates to affluent countries.
Naxal, don’t try the pompous patronising shtick with me you fanatical buffoon. The only person who is looking pathetic and emotional here is you. Ismailis, Gujju Muslims and Bohras are just as religious as everyone else. Your blockheaded generalisations seem like the result of an over emotional simpleton and chauvinist, and I’m enjoying watching you dig yourself deeper into your hole.
Jagdeep,
Just for fun, here’s some more stuff to get naxal’s anti-Muslim blood boiling:
Sikh traffic warden becomes celebrity in Pakistan
“Since yesterday, I have been hearing different greetings, such as sat sari kaal, jo bolay so nihal and ballay ballay from car and bus drivers, motorcyclists and children. Lahoris are really very loving people and these are unforgettable moments for me,” remarked Dr Gulab Singh
Pakistan to build Sikh university at Nankana Sahib
Pakistan government plans to set up a university on Sikh religion and culture at Nankana Sahib, the birth place of Guru Nanak.
The international Guru Nanak University being planned at Nankana Sahib would have the best architecture, curricula and research centre on Sikh religion and culture, Chairman of Pakistan’s Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB), Gen (Retd)
Zulfikar Ali Khan, said.
All of a sudden we are in Canada? How about we just stick to the UK.
Oh I’m sorry, I had this bizarre feeling you were making generalisations about people working harder because they belong to a specific religion. I didn’t realise this discussion was only limited to the UK given, you know, you’re the one who started talking about India, Iran etc.
You’re wasting our time with these pathetic attempts to sound intelligent… yet again. Just don’t do it.
—–
Anyway, moving on from pathetic trolls, this interesting comment was posted on Zia’s article, also worth reading.
PeterKenway:
As the co-author of one of the reports published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on Monday, I agree with Zia Haider Rahman�s attempt to extend the argument to factors endogenous to the communities themselves � provided it not taken by others as an excuse to think that that is where all the answer lies.
Take an example thrown up here already: Bulbosaur and others asked how much difference do low work rates, especially among women, make to the Bangladeshi poverty rates? The answer in our report is that about half the difference between the overall UK poverty rate of about 20 per cent and the Bangladeshi poverty rate of 65 per cent is due to fewer Bangladeshi households having work, or having full-time work.
Half the difference is a lot and it prompts more questions. Why so few Bangladeshi women work - and why, too, do so few report that they want paid work? These are surely questions that for the Bangladeshi community to ask itself.
But there are questions for society as a whole too, especially to do with who is employed, in what jobs and under what terms and conditions. Why for example, as one of the other JRF studies shows, is it that even after controlling for all other factors including education, Bangladeshi men in professional occupations earn only three quarters of what white people earn? I cannot see how that is anything to do with Bangladeshi people themselves.
Also remember this: while it is understandable to focus on the Bangladeshi community who have highest measured poverty rate, poverty rates for EVERY minority ethnic group in the Britain that we can measure substantially exceed the White British rate. No doubt some specific factors can be found in most cases � but this should do nothing quiten the suspicion that something general is going wrong with the way that society as whole treats people from minorities � and that high poverty rates in part reflect that.
from here.
Good stuff raz
Sylhetis aren’t even ethnically Bengali and are not regarded as culturally of a piece with the rest of Bangladesh in the imagination of some Bangladeshis, who appear to regard Sylhetis as material for crass jokes. Young British Sylhetis themselves do not appear to have very much of a nuanced take on their own history: it comes as something of a surprise to many young Sylhetis to learn that the Sylheti language has its own script, though little is written in this language today.
I appreciate Zia’s starting premise, which from my understanding is saying that in order to understand the cause of the underachievement of Bangladeshis in England is to understand the role of Sylhety people and where they are in the context of the place Sylhety culture occupies in the various streams of Bengali culture as a whole. I agree with explanation that internal cultural factors of class hierarchy mixed with deep-seated rural value system have impeded Bangladeshis here.
Unfortunately half way through, I think Zia over-eggs the “downtrodden Sylhety” narrative a little too much. It reads like a moving Bengali melodrama of victimhood. When reading some passages, like the one above, I swear I could hear violins playing in the background.
Anyone reading Zia’s article would think that Sylheties are ritually taunted and abused by their non-Sylhety countrymen. That they are the only Bangladeshis that hail from rural, agrarian backgrounds and the rest of Bangladesh is studded with modern, urbanised metropoli. That an elaborate class hierarchy does not exist within the Sylhety community itself, endogenously, complete with elites and pond-life. That Sylheties are not equally adept at sizing up and regarding non-Sylheties with the kind of disdain that they bitterly claim they’re the victims of.
I agree that Sylheties have not done well in the UK because of a set of parameters that are exclusive to the Sylhety immigrant narrative. But I don’t buy the over-simplification that Sylheties are victims of class hierarchy from non-Sylheties which has not reached closure. That’s a cop out. I do agree when he says that Sylheties are distinct and different to mainstream Bengali culture as a whole, but he misses out that fact that the Sylhety community are massive consumers of and contributors to home-grown Bangladeshi pop and high culture, more so sometimes, than the non-Sylhety community.
Some big holes, Zia bhai, but the good thing is that I learnt a new word: endogenous.
‘deep-seated rural value system’
The word ‘peasant’ doesn’t get used much these days, at least outside Marxist circles, but it is a very useful one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant
In particular, if you use it, you don’t end up getting confused by identity games: ‘he/she is a successful middle class professional, therefor not a sylheti’.
Some interesting comments, many of which are pretty close to the mark but without broadening out to encompass a wider picture - if I may say, what many of you are doing is accurately diagnosing the symptoms without spotting the cause.
Question: What do migrant communities who thrive have that those who struggle don’t?
Answer: Their own corner shops.
Or to be more accurate, they have a strong trading/mercantile culture that generates wealth and encourages aspiration and a desire to get on.
Take the Chinese - no soon as a small Chinese community forms in an area, it begins to trade. They open shops that - to begin with - sell traditional foodstuffs, etc. to their own community, which enables wealth to circulate and accumulate within the community. These shops then bring in trade from other communities, which adds to the wealth circulating around the community.
Wealth, once it enters the community, stay there and this net inflow of capital is then used to develop the community’s infrastructure, which supports its social and culture development and promotes education and aspiration.
The community thrives.
This - if not interfered with by external forces - holds true for every successful migrant community, from Jews to Hugenots to Chinese to Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims (some of whom have done well) provided that their background and culture is one in which trade has played a significant role.
In Britain, today, the South Asian communities that struggle to get on are those whose background is predominantly agrarian rather than mercantile - what’s been referred to here as ‘villagism’.
In the main, people from this kind of background come to the UK to work and not trade. The wealth they generate by way of their surplus labour value leaves their community either as profit for their employer or because when they spend their money, its spent in shops that do not belong to or feed wealth back into their own community.
As a result these communities do not accumulate wealth and, therefore, cannot effectively build up the support infrastructure that other communities - who do thrive - construct in order to facilitate their aspirations.
What tends to blind many to this, which should be fairly obvious, is that while this fits nicely when on looks at Mirpuris, Sylhetis, Kashmiris, etc., African Caribbean communities don’t quite seem to fit the same pattern - they have all the same symptoms, but not necessarily the same agrarian background.
This is where the legacy of slavery and colonialism does have a lasting effect - African Caribbean communities lack a strong trading culture because trade to and from Africa and the Caribbean was overwhelming under the control of outsiders - Europeans, Arabs, etc for several centuries.
That’s the basic mechanics - you can tell pretty quickly whether a new migrant community will take-off and thrive simply by looking for how quickly they start to trade and generate wealth.
Religion, ethnicity and such like are a factor, but only insofar as they either exert an influence over the scope and strength of the trading culture of a particularity and, on the other side of equation, provide a repository for the accumulation of wealth and its use to develop that community’s support infrastructure.
I agree with much of the article and the subsequent comments, especially Sid’s (although this Naxal person I’m going to ignore because arguing with raving lunatics is fruitless). It seems true that the geographical origins of both Bangladeshis (and Sylhetis are most definitely considered Bangladeshis although many themselves refer to non-Sylhetis as Bengalis) and Pakistanis as well as the socio-economic factors that accompany those origins play a major part in their attitudes and development. The “victimisation” of Sylhetis is overdone though and by no means Sylheti-specific. Ask the Noakhaillas.
The Rowntree report is no doubt on the money. However, there are wheels within wheels, and living as one does in the heart of the East End, one can describe a few of the wheels in motion.
1) It is fundamentally about the background of immigrants. Bangladeshi immigrants to USA, Canada, Australia are mostly from a well-educated, professional, urban background. Why? Because this was a matter of POLICY in the host countries - only accept people who have already reached a certain level of education, etc. (See the Aussie points system or Canadian points system for details.)
2) This helps the first generation integrate into the economic life of their adopted nations. See the armies of Bengali and Pakistani IT professionals, engineers, doctors etc. This background also supports the second-generation children - who more often than not grow up in suburban affluence and comfort - in their own lives, in terms of academic achievement, professional success etc etc. There’s no counting the number of Asian kids who go the elite schools in the USA.
3) This pattern is largely absent in the UK or even Europe as a whole. The UK brought illiterate peasants from Pakistan’s Mirpur and Kashmir. Also illiterate peasants from Sylhet. France has brought in the same from North Africa. Germany has very likely done the same for Turkey. Troubled communities that lack the necessary mental/intellectual tools to prosper or integrate into the host communities. The host’s lack of foresight is as much to blame as the immigrant’s lack of desire to integrate into the new land.
4) The situation will take time to remedy, but it is happening slowly and not without its costs. I’m struck in particular by the changing role of girls and women in the East End. As a rule, the educational achievement of second-generation Bengali girls has outstripped that of the boys. A rough summary - the girls go to school, apply themselves, often go to university and the careers, even if it is a job in the local council or a primary school teacher job. Some go on to greater things.
The boys OTOH are in a worse situation. Many drop out too early, without qualifications or prospects, and are stuck with low-skilled, dead-end jobs, possibly for life. That’s if they get to the job market in the first place. Many others are into gangs, drugs, dissolution, aimless frustration, etc and turn to religion as a refuge.
5) This disparity causes stresses within the deeply traditional society too. Girls of a marriageable age who are educated and working find it increasingly difficult to marry someone at their “level” - that is, a boy with similar qualifications. There are armies of Bengali women now in their late 20s and early 30s who are single because of a lack of choice of decent partners. It is a source of great frustration to their parents and themselves. The boys can always go back and marry another peasant girl and bring her over on a petticoat visa.
6) As time goes by, the uneducated will form an economic underclass that are stuck with Tesco and takeaway and taxi jobs. Those that climbed the job ladder will do much better. Hopefully the importance of education will eventually percolate through into the 2nd or 3rd generations, but the process is not going to be quick and will cause micro-level and macro-level hurt to many. The government can do little here except stress the value of education, publicize role models, encourage parents. The one thing that they SHOULD do is try and stop the importing of more and more rural cousins and nephews and nieces who only inhibit and slow down further the already painful and slow process of assimilation.
yep. that is the crucial point to make i would say. that explains how 2 families of immigrants from the same village in india can come and live in the Uk with the same structural situation - and one lot encourage their kids to go to uni and become ‘doctor or lawyer! or engineer!) and the other lot are like work for my restaurant - its your turn. Then one generation later you can have the grandkids of first family wanting to be investment bankers and the grandkids of the other lot wanting to carry on the restaurant business without going to uni. etc. and they will be just as likely to not want their daughters to go to uni either. and so on and so forth..
in fact i have to say what surprised me about so many British Asians here is how they were not taking advantage of free university education! that seems crazy for someone actually from the indian subcontinent - every one knows the value of education ‘back home’ - we indians are crazy about it and pushing the kids and everyone’s saving pennies to send their kid to ‘harvard’. okay so they go to georgia tech instead..but you get the picture. and that’s serious amount of money - international student fees. i find it strange that people who moved here in the 60s wouldn’t send their kids to uni just cos it was free! what else did they move to the UK for>?
Agree with Unity on the “Villagism” point. And XX is spot on.
I would go further and say that the idea of notional Sylhety-ness is a set of self-propagating beliefs that are peculiar to Sylheties living in the UK. This is in line with raz’s comment in #13, that Pakistanis in North America are well-adjusted, well-assimilated and successfull groups that out-peform their UK cousins on almost every aspect. The same applies to Sylheties in the UK compared to the newer crop in USA or Canada.
Professional Sylhety friends who visit UK from Bangladesh never fail to remark on the “bubble” that British Sylheties have constructed around themselves in the 60 years (!) that they have been in this country as an immigrant group, which has prevented their adaptability to changes in their surroundings.
See the same fossilised religious conservatism and the arch-patriarchalism which keeps girls at home as soon as they hit puberty.
This characteristic can’t be observed, as a rule, with Sylehties living outside of the UK, either in the West or in Bangladesh.
What are the factors that have encouraged the Sylhety community to live in a “land that time forgot” scenario, right here in East London, for the last 3 generations? And what dynamics have they been subjected to by the British social services that encourage them to perceive themselves as a victimised group?
You’ve hit the nail on the head. For poorer groups it’s not just enough to say the UK has ‘free’ish health service so they will use the health services more, we know that the middle classes can utilise free services much better because they know how to demand more, expect more from tax payers money etc, and demand more accountability for their taxes etc.
Similarly in education poorer groups can’t afford the opportunity cost or at least don’t see the future and dividends in the same way. There are also hidden opportunity costs - parents wouldn’t mind an extra bit of cash to supplement their social services money.
This is the same in India, Bangladesh, the UK, or anywhere else. But I suspect the Indians in India who are saving for an international universaity aren’t poor by the same definition. They might already be displaying a lot of social and cultural capital to know how to apply to a foreign university. Poor groups here don’t have te same confidence - I know some people, white, asian and black, that won’t go anywhere near a university because they lack the confidence to even think it’s for them. That would be a lot of people in this country whatever ethnicity.
This is what I was saying somewhere earlier that you have to raise poor people’s ability to demand more from basic health, ed services in this country. Simple supply-side issues don’t work with poorer and less empowered groups. I hope I’m making sense, I fear I am jargoning off again.
This is why I guess we have parallel work underway in the UK to encourage poor groups to look after their health etc. Maybe we can do the same for education? Maybe we are , maybe this is what lifelong learning is about.
Halima, yeah there is increasing work done in education now on ethnicity… although I get annoyed that many campaigners make it all about ethnicity and not enough about class structures.
Anyway, good points made by S, XX, Sid and Halima.
Oh and sonia too
thanks sunny..
yeah, thanks munda!
yeah the whole ethnicity and education thing - people don’t see the big extremes involved. from kids with only gcse’s to all the way to university students from india who’ve worked really really hard to get here and not all of them are from ‘privileged’ backgrounds - i mean it is a big financial effort on the part of many middle class indian families. any glimpse inside a phd or engineering dept. is enough to work this out..
i’ve just been reading zia’s article - it’s interesting how he points to the ‘bengali-sylheti’ divide that seems to have constructed itself here. ( the first i ever heard of it was when i went to uni here..) of course it’s just as well he’s sylheti otherwise he’d be in big trouble for saying what he’s saying..
Thanks Sunny - just attended a review of what Govt Nepal is doing in education in Kathmandu ( here issues around social exclusion of ethnic groups and dalits) and so have been feeling inspired that the new govt with Maoist coalition here is doing it’s very best to make education work in order to stop any more violence from breaking out, so very pleased to see we’re discussing education in the UK - as you say, it’s all about poverty/class and then other things.
Zia,
If this article were written by anyone by a Sylheti I would take exception to it, before agreeing with large parts of it. You have lifted the lid on many of the sociological problems that our community faces, which are not dealt with because it’s nuances are beyond the grasp of the policy makers. The current culture of liberal, white, middle class Britain that does not question for fear of offending is frustrating. Articles such as your’s, whilst difficult to digest on account on criticising my community, are a breath of fresh air.
Whilst I do not question your reference to “poverty”, I would urge you to refine this concept. As Hawkmoon269 mentioned in his comment, UK Bangladeshis are not experiencing poverty in the true sense of the word. They are experiencing a “relative poverty”. So perhaps if we took a middle class affluence to be the norm, or even a “white poverty rate” as Peter Kenway does, then in comparison the UK Bangladeshis you speak of are suffering from poverty.
You are right that much of our community is more likely to encourage their children into trade over education. However this may be less pronounced than it used to be? I don’t know for sure. Sometimes I think that we have reached a point where people have realised that their children need to be educated, and encourage it. Then I meet people who have been through college and university, but still act and think like their parents. At times like this I think that there must be a huge difference between being “educated” versus having an “education”. We seem to place emphasis on the latter, and not the former to the detriment of our community.
To start addressing some of the issues that you’ve highlighted, I’d want to explore further why it is that UK Sylhetis don’t always grasp the opportunities that they are presented with. I have a sociological interest in Jewish people. There is a good book which summaries a number of findings of deeper sociological tracts of scholars such as Marshall Sklare. There is a discussion how immigrant Jewish families displayed amazing levels of social and educational mobility. For instance, if someone within a group of Jewish families knew a smattering of English, they would set up impromptu English classes for the rest of the group weekly around a kitchen table. The children of working class parents would inevitably enter the professions in much higher proportions. Whilst much of this is due to expansionist educational policies (rather than the discriminatory policies which we are typically told about in the popular press) the Jewish working class certainly did punch above their weight. Why don’t we work together like this, instead of working against one another?
Indians are another community that display similar tendencies. I know that our community tends to belittle the achievements of the Indian community by saying that they were more educated to begin with, and the multiplier effects magnified their attainments. Deeper analysis though shows an in-built sense of personal development that is lacking in our community. For instance, the original founder of the Birla dynasty was an unlettered man. However he spent his twenties engaged in business, but also self-education. He spent the early mornings and evenings broadening his mind. Does this have something to do with greater exposure to urban environments? Has the overwhelming elements of an agrarian society made us the “village idiot”?
You are right to say that the story is one of class and not race. However I would say that East End Jewish diaspora is very interesting, and of particular relevance to us. The Jews of the East End, being Ashkenazi were much poorer and less educated than their Sephardim brothers. Therefore they shared much in common with Sylhetis that replaced them. As an interesting aside, one that might shed some more light on the problems that we face, researchers do not study the Hassidic Jews of North London. I am sure (!!) that they have a higher poverty rate than we do. The studies that I have read show that they often 2 families live in 2 bedroom flats, the men do not always work as Talmudic study is more highly respected, etc. Opening the lid on Stamford Hill might completely change the results of the JRF study….
I don’t know that there is a Bengali/Sylheti divide.
There is one about educated Bangladeshis versus those aren’t educated, and I guess for a long time in Bangladeshi traditionally Sylhetis didn’t do education (just set up businesses or waited for a ticket to London) and then were looked down by educated folks. But that would be true of other regional groups with lower levels of education I guess so don’t like to plead guilty of Sylheti victimhood - though many do!
But what’s now changed matters is that the less education Sylhetis bring remittance money into Bangladesh, so although they are from village backgrounds, they’ve upset the old caste/class structures in Bangladesh which itself is interesting, though I think that’s a great force for social change in Bangladesh - itself so hierarchical. So like in the UK, new money from the working classes sends off the middle classes into an insecure predicament. The rich, the same everywhere, don’t care about any of these slight changes, as we know , to them all is blebs so its the workign classes and the middle classes that fight the terrain out so says Kate what’s her name in Watching the English. Regressed into class in UK again..
On parallels with Jewish East End, I once asked a Jewish frind why this was so and she gave a reasonble explanation that went like this:
Jewish people when they arrive as immigrants don’t take the actions of the host country lightly - they are far more appreciative having come from a background of not having a ‘country’ to begin with, not to mention the horros of the Holocust - although this itself can’t explain all, because Jewish immigration in the East End predated WW2.
Dunno if this concurs with other Jewish people is is just my mate’s view.
2nd and 3rd generationers seem to want to perpetuate the culture of yesteryear, but I see the idolisation of that culture subsisting, in part, due to the rejection of ‘decadent’ western values/culture, a notion which has to be challenged, and in fact, isn’t subscribed in substance by 1st generationers but forms part of the rhetoric by which 1st generationers use to prevent the perceived dilution of their cultural values. One has to bear in mind that immigrants from the subcontinent came over here primarily for economic reasons, not forever, and were completely disinterested in cultural aspects of Britain. From the initial perspective of returning to the motherland one day in the not so far off future to accepting the notion of their descendants being based here with no firm grip on what identity such descendants may have, is a change which has taken time and perhaps explains the lack of desire to assimilate/integrate/exploit opportunities.
Eremos draws an interesting distinction between becoming educated and getting an education, the former, if i may paraphrase, bearing a sense of character-development, the latter more in the nature of list-ticking material acquisitiveness.
It seems a shame but perhaps unsurprising that attitudes take so long to change and persist, if attenuated, across generations.
Azad highlights a troubling gap that’s opening up, where the older generation appears in denial about, oblivious to or unable to confront the identity ‘deficits’ in the new generation.
Lots of interesting comments, much wisdom on this page.
Naxal. Oh well.
Sid, your use of ‘Zia bhai’, I found touching. I mean it. Haven’t heard that in goodness knows how long. Very nice. Always the small things.
good point Azad. and the religious fervour i.e. we must preserve religion as we know it and not embrace any change at all ( because that would be anti-traditionalist) is complicated by the diasporic angle.
“I don’t know that there is a Bengali/Sylheti divide.”
well there appears to be a perceived divide, in the minds of some people.
True, it’s a perceived one. In bangladesh it might be about Sylheti exceptionalism.
But here it’s just the Sylhetis ‘feeling’ that educated Bangladeshis look down on them. I take the view that Sylhetis shouldn’t get s bogged down by what others think. Education isn’t the dividing line anymore, so the differences should blur in time.
Sid, your use of ‘Zia bhai’, I found touching. I mean it. Haven’t heard that in goodness knows how long. Very nice. Always the small things.
Ah well, it’s a term of endearment applicable to many many other bhai’s, here on PP: Don bhai, Sunny bhai, el Cid bhai, ZinZin bhai, bananabrain bhai, Jagdeep bhai, soru bhai and so on.
In bangladesh it might be about Sylheti exceptionalism.
The Bengali-Sylhety divide is more pronounced in the UK than anywhere else where “Bengali” and “Sylhety” share space. What’s Sylheti ‘exceptionalism’?
Unity, you said: ‘Religion, ethnicity and such like are a factor, but only insofar as they either exert an influence over the scope and strength of the trading culture of a particularity and, on the other side of equation, provide a repository for the accumulation of wealth and its use to develop that community’s support infrastructure.’
Well, this is effectively arguing my case for me on a theoretical level; Islam is anti-capitalist (because usury is outlawed).
And again Sonia said: ‘and the religious fervour i.e. we must preserve religion as we know it and not embrace any change at all’
Once more she echoes my sentiment that religion (in this case Islam) is stifling economic advancement in the said communities.
Naxal:
Capitalism and Trade are not synonymous.
People have traded and generated wealth from trade for most of human history. Capitalism has existed as a meaningful concept for a matter of 250 years.
Nor does Islam stifle trade - in fact the truth is quite the opposite, as should be obvious to anyone whose ever been to places like Marrakesh or Istanbul, which are absolutely alive with trade and business activity - I love both cities, BTW, they have a ‘buzz’ to them, a subliminal hum all of their own and as a city boy that kind of thing is what makes me feel comfortable and at home.
The prohibition on usury is not a barrier to trade nor has it prevented Islamic cultures and societies in North Africa and the Middle East from developing their own sophisticated banking systems that meet, in full, the strictures of Islamic law. This certainly enabled the Arabs to develop one of great historical trading cultures of the world until it was overtaken by European colonialism.
It’s too sweeping a generalisation to talk in terms of Islam as barrier to economic advancement.
Islam is by no means as homogeneous a concept or social force as is often, and mistakenly, presented and the very idea of the Umma as a uniform one-size-fits-all culture, as opposed to many cultures with a common religion, is a very modern one that has been shaped as much by ideas of nationalism derived from European thought as it has from Islamic traditions.
What may well be stifling aspiration in certain Islamic societies is the confluence of and interaction between Islam and other indigenous cultural factors in which each serves to reinforce and support reactionary tendencies/conservative tendencies in the other.
Its rather like the practice of sartorial hijab.
The Qu’ran specifies modesty in fairly broad terms but make no specific injunctions as to the precise nature and design of the garments that should be worn, hence the wide variation one finds in the precise interpretation of sartorial hijab in different parts of the Islamic world.
These interpretations are culturally and practically derived at the outset but then adopted and reinforced by Islam, which in turn reinforces prevailing cultural mores, creating a feedback loop which cements a particular interpretation as the social norm within a particular society. The burkha, for example, is a very practical garment if one lives in a hot, dry desert/desertified region and almost certainly has its origins in practical considerations which were then reinforced and built upon by Islam until the original reasons for the adoption of the garment were lost to history and it became a purely religious/cultural artifact.
The same is undoubtedly true of traditional Islamic funerary practices. In a hot climate, putrifaction sets in rapidly, which is not only unpleasant but a potential source of disease. It only makes sense therefore that one should bury the departed as quickly as practicality allows. Such practices were almost certainly the norm before the emergence of Islam, were adopted by Islam - where is the sense in altering a practice that works - and over time became known only as a religious precept as the original rationale for these practices was supplanted by a rationale rooted in religion.
You’re on the right lines, Naxal, but need a slightly more nuanced appreciation of the complex manner in which social and cultural forces both shape and are shaped by the societies in which they operate in order to develop your ideas more fully - nothing you can’t acquire readily from a decent primer in social anthropology.
Sid
By exceptionalism I meant that I’ve come across Sylhetis in Bangladesh who’ve geniuinely argued for formalising Sylheti language/dialect as a written script and have developed work on this, and they argue they have loads in common with the Indians…Till then I very ignorantly didn’t encounter such difference between us…. But that might be my own limitation as I live in my own bubble most of the time.
I guess it depends where you share space. I shared space with other Bengalis in Bangladesh in Dhaka where I met them in the strange worlds of NGOs and donors which employ more educated Bengalis than the private sector or civil service does…Coming to work in Dhaka from the UK was an odd thing for other Bengalis to encounter, can remember being at dinner parties where my white friend in Gulshan said to me across a dinner table, ‘Oh so if you’re British Bangladeshi you must be a peasent from the backwaters of Sunamganj…)’. I was stunned - he’d obviously picked up on prejudice somewhere in his Gulshan and Dhanmondi circles… I replied, ‘Yes, had to swim a long way to get the priviledge of sitting at the same table as you all…’. Otherwise when I’ve met other Bengalis in London we’ve just been Bengalis - I guess being minorities first in UK takes the edge away from any internal differences - or perhaps these diffrences are more pronounced here because of the insecurities of being minorities, I dunno.
Unity
The first half of your rather laborious diatribe was completely unnecessary and wholly useless: mercantile capitalism (or ‘trade’ as you call it) died in the eighteenth century with the advent of means of production commodity based capitalism. Please read Adam Smith for details.
All countries in the Western and Islamic world run on a capitalist economic model, so why you are banging on about ‘trade’ I do not know.
You said: ‘[Islam] has been shaped as much by ideas of nationalism derived from European thought as it has from Islamic traditions.’
While this is an utterly stupid comment, I think I know what you’re trying to get at: Islam has changed and adapted to suit certain global circumstances, namely the advent of capitalism. You are, as ever, incorrect. Muslim societies, such as Turkey, have wholly embraced the capitalist model, but Islam remains the same: stagnant and unable to offer a viable economic model (shariah economics are laughable).
You, my boy, are on the right lines when you begin to detail the link between certain cultures and Islam.
Islam readily complements the culture of violence, stagnation and misogyny that exist in the feudal backwaters of Bangladesh and the rural ruins of Pakistan.
That is why the ‘poor little Mirpuri’ and the ‘disenfranchised Pakistani Punjabi’ that liberals on this forum constantly witter on about are content to drive cabs, work in take-aways, marry their cousins and breed…and breed…and breed.
The first half of your rather laborious diatribe was completely unnecessary and wholly useless
Or in other words you can’t fathom the point he was getting at.
but Islam remains the same: stagnant and unable to offer a viable economic model (shariah economics are laughable).
Religions in themselves don’t offer economic models; if your knowledge was good enough you’d get the utter stupidity of your own point. That’s like saying Sikhism doesn’t offer a viable economic model.
the culture of violence, stagnation and misogyny that exist in the feudal backwaters of Bangladesh and the rural ruins of Pakistan.
Yeah, because rural India or Thailand are such a great centres of creativity, innovation and development.
If you’re going to pretend as if you’re a good thinker then at least try not making wholly idiotic and generalised statements that apply to others too.
This rather explains why earlier you tried that whole ‘Sunny’s head-is-colonised-by-white-man rubbish’. You’re trying hard to justify your prejudice through grand statements that don’t stand up. When someone else cusses Sikh groups or equates them with Muslim groups, you start shreiking and desperately trying to fling mud at others. Except you sound no different to the brainless HuT drones we get around here telling us how superior they are.
and breed…and breed…and breed.
fuck off.
Sunny
I know your knowledge outside of liberal-dom is limited but most people with an ounce of intelligence know that Sikhism doesn’t even pretend to offer an economic system. Islam does. That’s the difference. Get it?
However, if you want to look at philosophic and ideological principles, then Sikhism would probably agree with most of what Marx had to say (minus the whole God thing of course). Absolute egalitarianism is the basis of Marxism and Sikhism - which is probably why they are both unworkable in their purist forms politically.
‘Yeah, because rural India or Thailand are such a great centres of creativity, innovation and development.’
‘India’, that great fictional colonial entity, is caste-ridden, which makes social mobility near impossible.
Rural Punjab was, in the 60s and 70s, a capitalist success story. But, for various reasons, it has now hit a slide. But the point is that it was very successful and can be again with the right policy implementation.
I think you have had rather too much shandy tonight Sunny; I have never had a conversation with anyone on this forum regarding ‘cussing Sikh groups’ or equating them with Muslim ones. The only reference I have made to Sikh groups is the Akali Dal, which I myself ‘cussed’.
When did I say I am superior to anyone?
There is no excuse for rudeness Sunny. You are giving Asians a bad name. Tut tut.
Halima
So by exceptionalism you mean the Sylheti breakaway tendency. Yeah, I’ve seen loads of that from Sylheti friends. I’ve heard the calls for an Independent Sylhet, but everyone knows it’s more hyperbole and good humoured bullcrappery than anything concrete.
I guess this tendency exists because Sylhet and Assam was joined into a single provice by the Raj in the 1830s and the histories of Assam and Sylhet are closely intertwined from way before. I’ve spoken to many uncle-ji types who consider Assam to be more culturally and racially integral to Bangladesh than it is to anything in India and there are close ties, as you know, between the ULF of Assam and Dhaka, much to the chagrin of Delhi. But that’s another story.
I thought it unfair that you assumed the white weirdo’s prejudice was picked up from Bengalis he associated with. I know loads Dhaka Gulshan-Banani elites who are Sylhetis. That’s a slick piece of stereotyping you’ve just pulled off there, as good as anything by Zia Haider Rahman
Ok - nice to have stereotypes smashed then!
Cheers for explaining - I don’t get exceptionalism of any kind, really, maps never made much sense to me, but it is the way of the world..
can remember being at dinner parties where my white friend in Gulshan said to me across a dinner table, ‘Oh so if you’re British Bangladeshi you must be a peasent from the backwaters of Sunamgan
see, there they were making an elementary mistake: anyone you meet at a dinner party is middle class.
There is no excuse for rudeness Sunny.
There is for naked bigotry similar to the BNP narrative. I don’t like white bigots… and I hate brown bigots even more. Geddit?
And spare me the rest of your pseudo-historical-intellectual garbage.
‘India’, that great fictional colonial entity, is caste-ridden,
As are most Sikhs.
Anyway, we used to have an inbred here quite regularly going on about the demographic problem posed by Muslims… how much they breed etc. He wasn’t racist you know, but could understand why people voted for the BNP. Presumably you don’t hate Muslims but you can understand why the BNP hate them so much. Either way, just to make it clear so you don’t shriek about it later, I have a no toleration policy for bigots. People are encouraged to express contrarian opinions and have a vigorous debate. But we hate the stench of people who spoil conversations with their incessant trolling and lofty delusions of being able to intellectually justify their bigotry. I don’t bother debating with them for long, I just ban them. Just so you know
True - I was assuming by default most Syheltis aren’t middle class and middle class folks in Dhaka doing dinner parties would be middle class (though most Sylhetis in UK are working class) , fact this group might’ve been more than middle class - property prices in Gulshan are so expensive you can’t afford them by being middle class.
Sunny
When you throw around childish insults like ‘you are disagreeing with me hence you must be a BNP supporter’ it not only makes you look like a dunce but it lowers the tone of debate.
If you cannot engage with the points raised then just admit it, there is no shame in not being up to it.
When you froth at the mouth and rant and rave it’s embarrassing.
I never said that the Muslim high birth-rate was a ‘demographic problem’, all I said is that they have a high birth-rate.
As for your random supposition that I ‘understand’ why people vote BNP I’d like to ask what this opinion is based on? Simply because I have mentioned a few things about Islam does this mean that I love the BNP? Can’t you view my comments in isolation without jumping to ludicrous sensationalist conclusions? Get a grip, for all our sake’s.
‘ I don’t bother debating with them for long, I just ban them.’
Well, I have yet to see you debate anything on this forum; all I have seen is you throwing insults such as ‘you are an inbred’ and ‘fuck off’. High-brow stuff indeed.
RE: your threat to ban me. Is that how liberals operate? Sounds a bit totalitarian to me. You don’t agree with me so you’re going to get banned…now who does that remind me of….?
It confirms my suspicions: you would much prefer to surround yourself with sycophants than actually be challenged.
Naxal 1849 was right about your use of language Sunny. His/her arguments (and grasp of history) are flimsy enough to be easily disproved without ever having to get abusive. It does you no credit, and you should be setting an example.
Rumbold
Why don’t you disprove my ‘flimsy’ arguments then? What exactly are you waiting for? It shouldn’t take you too long considering that you are an intellectual juggernaut.
Something that no one talks about when discussing Sylhetis in the UK is that there is a small middle class that did come over, and got on with things.
There are doctors, economists, engineers, businessmen who are of Sylheti origin who came to the UK, but now feel that they have little in common with many of their country fellows. Many of these people move their ancestral home from Sylhet to Dhaka, and become part of the Gulshan, Banani, Baridhara groups.
Naxal 1849 is what you get when you’re raised on a diet of Naipaul burgers and shoulder chips.
Sid
That’s really clever. I accuse Sunny of being a poor man’s VS Naipaul and then you call me VS Naipaul back. At least try to be original.
another problem is thinking ‘immigration’ as one thing which was the same thing for everyone. there is a big difference between different types of ‘immigration’ i.e. people in the 60s who came from rural parts of South Asia who thought of themselves as ‘immigrating’…all the way to various individuals who may be of South Asian origin who happened to be in the UK for employment ( it could have been anywhere else) and then stayed. naturally it all gets lumped as ‘immigration’ and this is part of the problem - doesn’t recognise the complexity and diversity.
The Rowntree report is interesting. However there are a few additional points (to family size, starting educational status, expectations, and low economic activity of women already mentioned) I think are questionable.
1. How many bangladeshis are working in the black economy claiming benefits and not properly recording their real income? I would guess that in areas of the East End and other large cities there is a much larger black economy than in other parts of the country.
2. Comparing relative poverty in the past to the present is fraught as it is a moving target. There is some justification for saying poverty should be relative as the poor are disenfranchised by having to compete with others for items such as housing. However even earnings at the bottom have greatly outstripped inflation– with cars, clothes, electrical goods, food all being cheaper now than in previous decades. Even with the large tax changes of the past ten years benfiting the poorest in absolute terms– relative poverty has stood still as the wealthy soar away.
3. It seems that few people are saying “sod this I was much better in Bangladesh, maybe I could marry a girl there go and live in a village and grow rice”
Naxal, it’s clear we have very different views as to the nature of Islam.
What you see is a body of thought and philosophy that is uniform, rigid and monolithic - you’re perception is Islam is that of a fundamentalist in the sense that you’ve bought into the fundamentalist ‘myth’ of what Islam should be, which, ironically, is both a relatively modern invention and the product of syncretic fusion of Islamic conservativism and Western European nationalism.
The same, I should add, is also true of modern Christian Evangelism and even Hinduism, as promoted by the RSS, BJP and its offshoots.
What I see, as no more than an outsider with an appreciation of history and social anthropology, is complex body of thought, philosophy and that has evolved over some 1400 years or so and, which, free from malign influences of politically driven fundamentalism, will continue to evolve.
Shariah economics was no barrier to mercantilism - the term mercantile capitalism is a nonsense as the very concept of capitalism did not exist at the time and I’m well aware of Smith’s work, thank you - because to that point Islam adapted to the necessities of trade and trade to Islam.
How?
Because the real genius - in the broad sense of the term - of Islam rests in its jurisprudential system, which is analogous to Britain’s common law tradition and provides a basis for adaptation and evolution over time.
There are two great myths regarding Islam and its relationship with modern Western culture than need to be examined and deconstructed.
One is that it needs to ‘Westernise’ - this is anything but true as what animates modern Islamic fundamentalism are ideas drawn into Islam from Western culture - postivism and nationalism.
The second is that what’s needed is an Islamic ‘reformation’ similar to that which took place with Christianity - again this is untrue.
It is untrue, first, because Islam is structurally different to Christianity. Islam has no central monolithic authority that serves the function of the Church of Rome and, therefore, nothing for such a ‘reformation’ to attack and break down.
Secularism, which is what Islam is told it should be moving towards is not the end-product of the reformation - as some seem to think, but a by-product and one that could not arise within Islamic society because its structural and political differences with Christianity.
The other reason why Islam does not need a reformation is because its already happening. The protestant reformation was a fundamentalist ‘movement’ much as is Wahabbism within Islam.
What Islam actually needs is to be much less Western and move towards what it was as the zenith of Islamic culture, the Golden Age of the Abbasid period.
What Islam needs is to become, again, the Islam that preserved and built on the knowledge of the Greco-Roman world and spawned mathematicians, astronomers, scientists, philosophers and poets - all of which it managed without any particular Western involvement or influence, and all because of the structural and philosophical adapability is possessed at the time.
When you froth at the mouth and rant and rave it’s embarrassing.
that’s funny, I don’t feel embarassed. No one is ranting or raving, just letting you know with the smile I don’t tolerate bigots
RE: your threat to ban me. Is that how liberals operate? Sounds a bit totalitarian to me.
You poor thing, are you feeling oppressed? That’s a shame isn’t it.
f you cannot engage with the points raised then just admit it,
If you had any, I’d bother. But we destroyed your arguments in the previous thread, and here all you can shreik about is “breeding… and breeding… and breeding”. Guess that, Sikhs breed too! Now go forth and multiply.
another problem is thinking ‘immigration’ as one thing which was the same thing for everyone. there is a big difference between different types of ‘immigration’ i.e
Sonia, this is a huge issue. And i’d also differentiate ‘old migrants’ from ‘new migrants’. Someone recently pointed out to me in a debate that we have an issue where the new migrants can trvel back to their home of origin with so much ease (especially in the case of Polish), that they would feel even less afinity with this country and not bother putting their roots down here. That is a fundamental issue.
By the way, that email Leon sent around from the group Involve (about public participation)… you should try coming to the next event. The last one was quite good I thought.
Unity
I know where you’re coming from and I understand why you think that I am as dogmatic as Islamic fundamentalists in interpreting Islam.
But you fail to understand why this interpretation is relevant to this thread.
The strict, rigid Islamic ‘invention’ is indeed a relatively recent concept. The very creation of Pakistan was a by-product of neo-Islamic puritanism; the desire not to be ruled by, or live alongside, the infidel.
And it is a further by-product of this version of Islam that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are huge failures in all spheres of Western life.
Please don’t forget why we are discussing Islam in the first place and try not to regurgitate a Romanticised polemic that depicts early Islam as the best thing since sliced pork.
In doing so, YOU are buying into the liberal myth of how great Islam was before the West touched it.
Also, please stop confusing Muslims with Islam. Simply because a Muslim happens to be an excellent astronomer/scientist/philosopher, it does not automatically equate to ‘Islam is great’.
Some perspective, please.
very #nice sounding# unity - somewhat idealised? don’t we “continuous improvement” e.g. say regularly having human rights updates? - i.e. see what it is ( if there is anything..) that people think were ‘regulated’ in the past - the glorious ‘pinnacle’ past - that might be something that makes us cringe todaY? i mean in the ’spirit’ of the thing of course - moral standards ‘evolve’ do they not? perhaps even just a ’symbolic’ acknowledgement of that? for example - would we consider concubinage morally acceptable now ( in theory - obviously it isn’t ‘coming back’.)
Bit like a comparison of democracy, the Ancient Greeks and their slaves..you know what i mean?
i meant..don’t we ‘want’ continuous improvement - i.e. when we’re constantly harking back to the past, sometimes we easily lose that..
“Please don’t forget why we are discussing Islam in the first place and try not to regurgitate a Romanticised polemic that depicts early Islam as the best thing since sliced pork.
In doing so, YOU are buying into the liberal myth of how great Islam was before the West touched it.”
interesting that..
“Because the real genius - in the broad sense of the term - of Islam rests in its jurisprudential system, which is analogous to Britain’s common law tradition and provides a basis for adaptation and evolution over time.”
Ahem.
“In bangladesh it might be about Sylheti exceptionalism.”
there is no sylheti/bangladeshi divide in bangladesh - it’s a purely British Diaspora thing! I’ve never seen it or heard it anywhere amongst bengali expat groups in other countries around the world - or in Bangladesh itself. it seems to be very much part and parcel of the immigrant experience here -for whatever reason.
Dear Naxal
I have been following the discussion with some interest. You will forgive me if I don’t engage your points but I would rather ask you the question that has been troubling me somewhat.
Why are you participating in this discussion? This should not be taken as a rhetorical question, since it is not intended as such. So, to paraphrase, what motivates you to take part here, what do you hope to achieve?
Zia
prob. just cos it happens to be mostly sylhetis here together. usually there’s more of a mix. i bet if it were mostly noakhalis here there might be a similar constructed divide or comilla or chittagong or whatever.
there’s a hierarchy of course of each region - which is no different to gujratis and bengalis and punjabis etc. having digs at each other.
heh.
it’s silly how whenever i meet British Bengalis here the dichotomy is well you[’re not sylheti you must be from dhaka. { subtle hint: you probably look down upon us, you dhakaiyas..) well actually im neither - i’m from jessore { you never seem to find any people from jessore outside jessore!} isn’t it a bit of a bipolar assumption to make that because im not sylheti i must be one of those stuck up dhakaiyas? I always thought so!
Zia
Imagine if I didn’t contribute? You would all go merrily along patting each other on the back and high-fiving each other with boundless glee.
Although you don’t agree with me, at least I am putting an idea forward as to the possible reasons for the appalling level of underachievement by Bangladeshis and Pakistanis in the UK.
Do you have a problem with me contributing?
Slightly unfair to Naxal ? what are any of us trying to achieve - on a friday afternoon to boot!
I think Unity has a very nicey-nice idealized vision of islamic history and Naxal had some pertinent criticism of that.
Dear Naxal
Thank you for your response, which seems to disclose two intentions. One, to see that discussants not settle comfortably into mutual appreciation. And two, simply to advance such ideas as you do.
The latter might be an end in itself. That is to say you might, if I have understood correctly, be motivated to put abroad notions which you feel need ventilating, simply for that reason, without regard for the impact of your contributions, or their persuasive effect. The former, however, suggests that you are concerned about the impact of your contributions and have some interest in seeing that they influence thinking.
Is that right?
Zia
Just to clarify, what I’m not suggesting is that Islam’s way forward is a reversion to the 8th Century AD or buying into liberal myths about Islam’s past.
What I am saying is, first, that Islam has to find its own answers to the demands and challenges of the 21st Century from within - its needs Islamic solutions, not the imposition of Western solutions from the outside.
Our respective cultural histories are too different simply to map values from one to another and have them retain meaning.
My second point is simply that Islam’s past does show historical precedent for its capacity to adapt and sustain what, for want of a better word, we might call an enlightened culture. It is possible and being possible our approach to Islam, in the West, has to be to encourage and support those whose efforts take Islam in that direction.
The problem with all golden age myths is that they’re both ahistorical and no less fixed in their perspective that religious literalism/fundamentalism.
Islam cannot go back, but it can rediscover and revive its own cultural ingenuity and capacity for change and innovation, and its that that needs to be encouraged and, equally, appreciated.
Naxal 1849.
You wrote: “please stop confusing Muslims with Islam. Simply because a Muslim happens to be an excellent astronomer/scientist/philosopher, it does not automatically equate to ‘Islam is great’.”
I wonder if you also subscribe to the idea that simply because a Muslim happens to be unschooled/relatively poor/outside the formal labour market, it does not automatically equate to ‘Islam is the problem’?
You seem to find a correlation in the UK, but others here say that this doesn’t imply causation, because the correlation doesn’t hold in North America. But you also identify some causes - for example in Islamic economic theories, in your interpretation of the example of the Prophet, in your view of where Muslims believe knowledge resides. These don’t seem likely explanations to me, because there are very common interpretations which oppose those currents of thinking.
But if you want to make your argument persuasive (that Islam is the main explanation for people’s economic, cultural or other achievements), then you would need to explain why people in thrall to Islam can simultaneously be “an excellent astronomer/scientist/philosopher”. Do you believe they have a more enlightened form of Islam, or that Islam only has negative effects in particular contexts which exist in the UK and India but not necessarily elsewhere?
“The very creation of Pakistan was a by-product of neo-Islamic puritanism”
Wrong, in fact most of the hardline Islamist parties were always the biggest opponents of creation of Pakistan, in fact even today they insult Quaid-E-Azam (note how they refer to him as Jinnah):
“http://pakistaniat.com/2007/02/09/jinnah-maulana-fazlur-rehman-jui-freedom-fighter/”
“that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are huge failures in all spheres of Western life.”
Again you completely ignore the fact that this is not supported by the evidence of North America (which is most certainly a part of the West).
Imagine if I didn’t contribute? You would all go merrily along patting each other on the back and high-fiving each other with boundless glee.
No, we could then have a sensible discussion taking apart some of the assumptions. Your brain doesn’t seem to have comprehended that this article, and the one by Zia, was actually trying to bring other factors into play that we felt the JRF did not cover adequately.
We don’t need people who want to disrupt a discussion just for its own sake with pretensions of intellectual analysis. Your arguments are not dissimilar to the piss-poor BNP analysis that the religion is to blame without looking at factors properly.
When someone refutes your bad arguments, you move on to something… while at the same time trying to play the role of the brave contrarian who makes a point that these liberals are over-looking. We have another disagreement and debate here without needing trolls pretending they are adding to the debate.
“Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are huge failures in all spheres of Western life.”
I dislike all people who make broad, sweeping generalisations.
Sunny, you want Naxal to breed?!!! Why bother with him/her/it? Hate-filled, disrespectful garbarge, no matter how eloquently put, is still hate-filled, disrespectful garbage.
Arif
You have failed to read the argument. If you have two groups of people from virtually identical backgrounds, with the only exception being religion, and one group is successful and the other an abysmal failure, what conclusions can you draw from that?
In the modern context, only one Muslim has one the Nobel prize, he was an Ahmadiya/Mirzaya. There are over a billion of you; where, today, are the intellectuals?
As for the Muslim thinkers, intellectuals and astronomers of old they were able to flourish because Islam had, and could, not become dominant as an ideology. The Islamic rulers were more concerned with waging war on other peoples and didn’t have time to measure girl’s hem lines, or make sure that Mushtaq was at prayer rather than in the science lab.
Raz
Are you the board’s resident school kid? Don’t be ashamed, every board has one.
You are right in thinking that Islamic puritans were against partition (even Maudodi) but as soon as it happened they towed the line.
Sunny, you want Naxal to breed?!!! Why bother with him/her/it? Hate-filled, disrespectful garbarge, no matter how eloquently put, is still hate-filled, disrespectful garbage.
Heh, well you know what ‘go forth and multiply’ implies don’t you?
Naxal: If you have two groups of people from virtually identical backgrounds, with the only exception being religion, and one group is successful and the other an abysmal failure, what conclusions can you draw from that?
You mean without taking into account class, the area where they moved to, where they came from, local govt policies, national govt policies, the time that they came over and the state of the country when they came over??
Yeah, real intelligent analysis there Naxal. Tell me, where you born this obtuse or have you suddenly found this blog or thought I’m going to use some of their big words to regurgitate my foolish theories? Or maybe you want to make out that most Sikhs are as idiotic as you are.
I quoted this earlier:
Seems like you’ve decided to take on the relative success of Sikhs in London (not in places like Birmingham mind you, where there’s lots of poverty, or in Vancouver) and decided that suddenly Sikhs are great and its the Muslims who are stupid. And yet… you sound strangely similar to Gummer above.
I think I’m quite justified in calling you a brown version of a BNP troll. And now I’m closing this thread because too much time has been wasted debating you and not enough on useful things.