Is it possible you can provide us with policies and practices where you feel a multicultural approach is incorrect and your possible alternatives?

Thanks

Melanie Phillips has latched onto the Inayat Bunglawala / Little Green Footballs controversy in her usual way, with a reference to “the truly demented ‘Zionist conspiracy’ theory emanating from Londonistan (Charles isn’t even a Jew)”. Talking o…

IanLondon – “And where they endeavour for their culture to become dominant, be it in a local area or nationally, that is called colonialism, and this will ultimately inspire “native” movements to protect their identity under the banner of nationalism !”

“immigrants who set about changing or undermining the law in order to impose their oppressive and intolerant views should be “re-educated”.””

It depends on HOW we immigrants “endeavour for their culture to become dominant” or “set about changing … the law”. If it’s by repressive, illegal, anti-democratic means (or by “undermining the law”) then the Govt, legal institutions and all decent liberals should fight it. If it’s through using the legal mechanisms of British democratic politics, then that’s our/their right as citizens of these Isles. If certain individuals or groups of individuals try to enact changes which others disagree with, then those who disagree should get off their backsides and ENGAGE in that same political process, instead of confining their expressions of unease to anonymous posts on the interweb. That ability to mediate peaceful compromise (most of the time anyway) between those with different visions of the future of the UK, enabling society to evolve and change as a result, is one of the key strengths of British culture and society and is firmly rooted in British history. (And can produce quick as well as slow changes to UK culture – the reform acts of 1832, 1867 changed British political culture almost overnight.)

Amir – you’re fighting the same “straw man” multiculturalism that Robert describes. Most of us decent liberals who believe that multiculturalism has made a positive contribution (helping members of immigrant communities construct a workable balance between their own and British cultures) would not deny that it can have downsides (excessive communalism, cult of victimhood etc). I can think of very few things which are unambiguously good or bad.

I agree with you about the need to teach the history of the British Empire – the UK school system should do more of it. But that’s not all the fault of multiculturalism. I did most of my schooling before multiculturalism had fully taken off, and yet was taught almost nothing about the British Empire (a bit about the US war of independence, nothing about the Raj) and its impact on modern day Britain including through immigration. Problem is it’s a complex, politicized, divisive subject to teach – no easy narrative as in the old days of teaching kids to glory in the fact that a quarter of the earth’s surface was British Empire red – so the school system seems to avoid it. (Are schools trying to teach it now? My kids aren’t old enough for me to know.)

One of the biggest problems I have with Melanie Phillips and those like her is that they by implication paint multiculturalism (or at least its problems) as this enormous and unique existential threat to British society, culture etc. But this is nonsense. WWI, WWII, the Cold War, the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (even arguably the IRA campaign) – all represented a much bigger threat to the UK than the downsides of multiculturalism. None of them had anything to do with multiculturalism. (unless you count Hitler’s and the IRA’s attempts to impose monoculturalism in “their” bits of the world as somehow the fault of multiculturalism.)

Ravi

Again: you’re putting words into MP’s mouth. She is not saying that we introduce a ‘Culture Police’ with an unchecked right to come into our homes and ‘force’ us to be British by replacing our Naan bread with fish & chips or changing the channel from Zee TV to Coronation Street.

No .. but she does very well with playing to an audience of people who feel outraged by any change and vaguely feel that ’something should be done about it’. It’s fairly typical backlash politics, of the sort used by the American Right – and playing into the same LGF crowd.

She takes existing problems and adds her own political cast to them – she never once speaks of remedies except in the broadest and most vague terms – to address specifics in a rational manner would alienate her from her core audience.

Try reading her blog – the lack of editing tends to emphasise the true nature of her punditry. In flavour not unlike that of Michelle Malkin.

Thing is, there were/are two opposing sets of terrorist groups in Northern Ireland, Republicans and Loyalists, who were divided by cultural identity (British versus Irish).

It really wasn’t about politics as such. Over time Sinn Fein had members all across the political spectrum, from romantic Catholic nationalists to card-carrying infiltrated-on-U-Boat Nazis to revolutionary communists to liberal democrats. No matter what they were, the Loyalists were against them.

‘And all against british occupation in some country’

A declaration of support for one particular cultural view does not negate the existence of the other side. You might as well say ‘it is not a cultural issue, it is just that the other lot are all decadent alcohol-swilling hedonists/primitive headchoppers, so their views obviously don’t deserve to be counted’.

Gimme some examples Ian.

However, many people also take this to be the true definition, and assume they can practice their culture in the same way they did in the country of their ancestors.

And where they endeavour for their culture to become dominant, be it in a local area or nationally, that is called colonialism, and this will ultimately inspire “native” movements to protect their identity under the banner of nationalism !

Immigrants have to follow the law of the land – there is no doubt about that.

But is that not what MP is saying ? Her perceived theme is that immigrants who set about changing or undermining the law in order to impose their oppressive and intolerant views should be “re-educated”. Is that not what her book is all about ?

Would you not be inclined to agree with that view ?

Are you honestly stating that her ire in “Londonistan” is about immigrants who are content to follow their adopted country’s laws, contain their culture to their own home and allow their children to integrate ? I rather think they are the “type” immigrant she is not that too overly concerned about.

Yes, MP is promoting intolerance, but it is the same intolerance you’d expect from any decent liberal.

There is a big argument over definitions here. For many (including, I assume, Melanie Phillips), multiculturalism means allowing importing of other cultures wholesale, and then allowing them to live side-by-side without any kind of exchange. Persoanlly, I think this definition of multiculturalism a straw man, ripe for beating.

However, many people also take this to be the true definition, and assume they can practice their culture in the same way they did in the country of their ancestors. Conflict arises.

I reject the notion that cultures are fixed things at all. I reject that a ‘culture’ can be described in a way that it encompasses everyone within it. There are certain shared values, for sure, but people are not a homogenous mass, and cultures change on an individual level. An obvious example is the difference between generations, and how a young British-Asian will have a different culture to their parents. And yet they will all be lumped into the same mass.

So I have a problem with the defintiond of ‘culture’ and ‘multiculturalism’, and the negative debates these definitions poduce. The language of ‘mass’, ‘clash’ and ‘erosion’ implies a grinding conflict. A more accurate defintion of cultures – one that describes them in terms of fluidity, diveristy, and change – results in a different definition of multiculturalism.

This new analysis, with ideas of evolution and change at its heart, implies ideas of integration as a given, something that cannot be avoided in this global era. This analysis assumes that the culture of immigrants will change by the very fact of their being here.

But – crucially – the same definition of multiculturalism means that the majority culture will inevitably change too! Not only is this certain to happen, but it is desirable. Purity is incestuous. When Melanie Phillips talks of ‘integration’ she is speaking a trivial truth. Her implication that the majority do not need to do some of this integrating is where we part company.

Immigrants have to follow the law of the land – there is no doubt about that.

But take another example. In America the conservatives are trying to overturn Roe vs Wade, with the implication that as societies change then supposedly “liberal values” can also be reversed. It works like a pendelum.

As a liberal I will not accept oppressive practices, agreed. And if they contravene the law I will oppose them. But can I stop people from holding such opinions? In that case, why is the BNP not banned yet along with National Front and other people?

(I.) This is flagrant rubbish. For a start a how does one go on to define British identity and ‘majority values’?

Sunny, it’s not a case of ‘defining’ national identity or ‘defining’ every value: that would be a futile enterprise, counterproductive, and eerily Utopian. No one is advocating such a position, let alone Mrs. Philips. But still, she (like many others) is in favour of some minimal position: a few values, a few shared cultural practices. You don’t need a degree in rocket science to see where she’s coming from: The teaching of British history, for example, and in particular the history of the empire and of subsequent immigration into Britain, should be a central part of the school curriculum. At the same time, immigrants should be encouraged to become part of the British ‘we’, even while bringing their own very different perspective on its formation. To achieve this, however, we need to create some common ground: language, shared public spaces, historical narratives and a shared political lexicon. Etc.

(II.) The contradiction is that she says Britain is largely a liberal and tolerant society (agreed) but then goes on to advocate intolerant stances.

How, may I ask, is Melanie Philips being intolerant? Is she advocating a system whereby ethnic minorities are compelled to wear special uniforms with special badges? Does she, like the BNP, support a referendum on Islam, extending it to Hinduism and Sikhism? No, of course not. In truth, this so-called ‘intolerant’ position of hers is in fact a very sensible proposition: MP, like myself, argues that the state should favour its national culture. That sounds a bit creepy, a bit totalitarian eh? Well no, it isn’t. Here’s a well-known example: Christmas. It’s a national holiday. It’s a cultural bias. But is it intolerant? No: the state is not forcing people to worship Christ, or buy a Christmas Tree, or even lie to their kids about the non-existence of Santa Claus. But it is a national holiday. And ethnic minorities can take it or leave it – or arrive at some compromise.

(III.) There has never been a government policy forcing immigrants into something officially sanctioned as ‘British National Identity’.

Yes, precisely… the camaraderie, the language, the culture was always a ‘given’ – there was no need for a government policy to assimilate immigrants (apart from the odd linguistic exception). Today, however, it’s all changed: affluence, mobility, value diversity and (in some areas) immigration have loosened the ties of a common culture. And that’s not necessarily a good thing. [At any rate, Mrs. Philips was referring to ‘British National Identity’ in a anthropological sense – not as a legal axiom.]

(IV.) Leaving everyone to themselves is referred to as living in a open, democratic society where the government has no business in taking over people’s lives and telling them how to live it.

Again: you’re putting words into MP’s mouth. She is not saying that we introduce a ‘Culture Police’ with an unchecked right to come into our homes and ‘force’ us to be British by replacing our Naan bread with fish & chips or changing the channel from Zee TV to Coronation Street. What a silly idea!! In a liberal democracy, there is no compulsion for anyone to ‘feel’ British or ‘act’ British or dangle a Union Jack from their window. Nevertheless, I do believe it is in everyone’s interests that there exists an institutional bias in favour of the national culture – our history, our politics, our language, our literature, our national holidays, etc. You can take it or leave it. The ‘hope is’ that enough people will take it, and, in the process, feel more British. If minority groups (Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs) can introduce a few of their own beautiful traditions to our British way-of-life (a process of inter-pollination), it will enrich and diversify and spice up our culture. But – and I repeat ‘but’ – it has to occur slowly and within a British context. A failure to do so, however, will only alienate Middle England patriots and white-working class voters. It’s human nature.

(IV(b)) Leaving everyone to themselves…

This, in itself, is a fabrication. A lie. And a myth. There is no such thing as ‘leaving’ sub-cultures to their own devices (or what political philosophers refer to as a policy of ‘benign neglect’). It’s never happened. And never will. The state (i.e. government and its apparatus) is compelled to make fundamental decisions about culture. In the Houses of Commons, for example, the democratic conversation is conducted in the English language. That’s a cultural choice. Our primary national holiday is Christmas – not Ramadan. That’s a cultural choice. And so forth.

(V.) It is undoubtedly true that radical Islamists play the victim card, but this is true of many terror movements… That is how they defend their worldview, but that is not a fault of multi-culturalism any more than any difference of opinion is the fault of multi-culturalism.

Complaining and moaning and feeling sorry for oneself are part of human nature. So in that respect, you are correct. And yet, paradoxically, multiculturalism is the reason why the victim mentality is now spiralling out of control. Why? Because it encourages human beings to look at ‘Others’ as homogeneous entities or community drones, not as an individual British citizens. If you don’t understand this, then you don’t understand human nature. Without patriotism and without a strong cultural glue to bind us together, ethnic minorities (and majorities) start retreating into their own enclaves if/when they feel threatened. The cultural/religious/racial/linguistic cleavages can only ever be pacified by actively promoting identities that we share in common. To see this in an Indian context, let me refer you to the following book.

(VI.) On the other hand Melanie Phillips talks of Britain’s liberal and tolerant culture while similarly saying I cannot have multi-faceted identities and must fit into her worldview of how to behave. I cannot think of anything more intolerant than that.

Where, oh where, does she say this? I mean,… this is just bullshit. MP isn’t saying that ethnic minorities are ‘prohibited’ from having multiple identities or from practising their own religion, etc. Middle England patriots and public school boys have ‘multiple identities’. White working-class voters and Scottish rugby players have ‘multiple identities’. I’m sure that dolphins and elephants and chimpanzees have multiple identities. An anti-multiculuralist is not against multiple identities. An anti-multiculturalist is in favour of a shared identity which does not encroach (too much) on other identities. Take, for instance, the Asian boxer Amir Khan. The young whippersnapper has a panoply of identities: (a) living in Bolton; (b) living in the North of England (which he shares with non-Boltonians); (c) being a Moslem; (d) boxing on a world-class stage; and,…and (e) feeling proud to be British (which, of course, he shares with many other people: North or South, Bolton or Barnsley, boxer or croquet player, Moslem or Jew). You have failed to appreciate this subtle difference: shared identities, not singular identities.

Okay, now I really, really need to get back to work: my next shift starts soon.

Amir

No it does not, because it will not incorporate attitudes that endorse limits on liberal views and promote intolerance, being liberal does not imply you are prepared to accept oppressive politics.

Take the simple issue of gender equality, which is a cornerstone of liberal society, are you claiming that the same liberal society will happily accept an attitude that oppresses women ? Of course it wouldn’t, and in doing so it is not considered “intolerant”, there is no contradiction.

I don’t think that argument is bizarre, and I think that is the argument MP is precisely trying to project.

What about the British whites who define themselves as conservative and traditionalist? Are they to be chucked out of the country? Or forced to adopt liberal values?

Well, they _are_ being forced to adopt liberal values, aren’t they ? Surely that’s MPs point, and she obviously thinks it needs to apply to immigrants too, why should they be exempt ?

yep – that’s the underlying assumption – the oft-quoted clash of civilizations thesis.

Why not the Scots and English have been for over a thousand years!:P

IanLondon I find this argument bizarre. Any liberal and tolerant society, by definition, incorporprates a whole range of opinions and ideas.

What about the British whites who define themselves as conservative and traditionalist? Are they to be chucked out of the country? Or forced to adopt liberal values?