Queen Bee – This is dementia and mental decrepitude, exagerration, irresponsible misrepresentation. Amir, you shoot yourself in the foot when you speak in these terms of idiocy.

Abuse, abuse, abuse, abuse… How, or in what respect, am I being ‘irresponsible’ or mentally decrepit? Ms. Bee, your bark is louder than your bite. I don’t like you because you’re a hot, blustering bully. To throw the feelings of many millions of people in their faces, calling them ‘discriminatory,’ ‘exclusionary,’ ‘prejudiced,’ and worse, is an easy politics, but not one truly committed to resolution. People’s anxieties and concerns about multiculturalism should not be dismissed out of hand, nor can they be effectively treated by labelling them ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’. This, I am afraid, is a sneaky language-game. Richard Rorty would be proud of you!

Sunny – I think Amir swallowed Londonistan and the poor boy hasn’t recovered yet.

I haven’t read Londonistan and never will. I’m not a fan of Melanie Philips – she’s a boring and hackneyed polemicist. Her contempt for the plight of the Palestinians coupled with her simplistic diatribes against Islam in Britain (or Canada or Germany or Timbuktu), make her, in my opinion, an unreliable source of information and insight. I’d describe her as a right-wing equivalent to Maddy Bunting, Gary Younge, Seamus Milne and Ken Livingstone. Be that as it may, this is an exercise in logic not guilt by association. I have defended Mrs. Philips on a previous thread because I agree with her views on multiculturalism and I also admire her patriotism – as I admire Jai, El-Cid, Jay Singh, Ravi Naik, TFI and Shariq for their patriotism.

Sunny – Or maybe he doesn’t know its a disease.

Now, this is just plain wrong. Like Queen Bee, you’re using the tropes of mental illness and disease to de-legitimise my contributions and daub my name. It’s a dirty, insidious, and cowardly tactic. During my spare time, I happen to teach handicapped kids and adolescents with learning disabilities, so I hope you don’t mind if I tell you to ‘get stuffed’. To equate a handicap, illness or mental condition to obloquy is a most despicable and ugly thing. Richard Littlejohn, for example, uses the dementia trope to promote bigotry against gays and the animal/cancer trope to de-humanise asylum seekers and immigrants. I, myself, happen to agree with the Daily Mail on asylum… but I’d never refer to asylum seekers in such a vile way.

Sunny – I hadn’t realised going to the London Mela was a new form of colonialism but now that I think about it.

You’re putting words into my mouth and drawing inferences from them. I used ‘colonialist’ to describe New Labour’s policy of supporting non-British cultures like an endangered species. Multiculturalism, as such, is a form of diaspora nationalism (or, as Benedict Anderson terms it, ‘long-distance nationalism’), which, by its very nature, is colonialist: a ‘phantom bedrock’ for people who want to transplant their indigenous culture (unfettered) to a different country. Faisal Bodi, for instance, is an unapologetic colonialist.

Amir

(I) Been overdosing on Melanie Phillips again poor boy? Who said anything about Indian law? I don’t want archaic Indian law here.

Well, I’m glad to hear it. The reference to Indian law and culture and tradition was an allusion to a previous thread on forced marriages. Anthony Blair’s multicultural policies are one of the chief reasons why it has yet to be stamped out or de-legitimised in the politically-correct media. Laws exist to uphold rights and freedoms: allowing some groups to avoid such rules is to give up one of the basic tenets of liberty. And by the way, this anal retentive obsession of yours with Melanie Philips has nothing to do with me.

(II) I’m looking at how Asians live now whereas you’re regurgitating Melanie Phillips.

What… do you use a pair of binoculars and a tape recorder to ‘analyse’ your Asian friends or somethin’? Are you – Mr. Hundal – India’s answer to David Attenborough? I, by the way, am as streetwise as they come. Unlike your dear self, I don’t have enough money or prestige to flutter at cocktail parties, hobnobbing with pretentious journalists and ‘influential’ Londoners. To make matters worse, you’re bombastic enough to speculate about my reading habits. A bit of humility wouldn’t go amiss, eh? Do you honestly think that I’d spend my precious free time reading Melanie Phillips? What a joke. My views are reinforced and un-enforced (a bit of cognitive dissonance never hurt anyone) by the scholarship of talented academics and free-thinkers. That butterfly brain of yours is too ideologically entrenched to understand the real meaning of ‘independence’ and ‘humility’.

(III) Amir your problem is that you see any sort of difference as problematic and leading to terrorism. It’s rubbish.

No I don’t. Where do I mention terrorism, Sunny? The terms of our debate are very simple: there is an inherent conflict between cultural diversity and social solidarity. The cult of multiculturalism puts too much emphasis on the former to the neglect of the latter. The unity of which I speak is not imposed by government orders or regulations, not to mention by police agents, but one that grows out of civic education, commitment to the common good, the nation’s history, shared values, common experiences, robust public institutions, and dialogues about the commonalties and requirements of a people living together and facing the same challenges.

(IV) It already does, polo players get funding for their activities etc.

Yes, the national polo team does receive taxpayers’ money – or, more specifically, the British polo team receives a stipend. A working-class bloke such as myself, however, could never afford to play polo because it’s too expensive and there’s no state subsidy for the likes of me. Thus, the problem remains…. If we’re going to subsidise ethnic/religious minorities with expensive tastes/holidays, why not subsidise the ‘identity claims’ of a Star Trek geek, the tennis fan, the working-class polo player, or the butterfly collector?

I don’t really want to get into that debate because I anticipate the simplicity of your argument in advance. In fact it is extraneous to this debate entirely. No need to thank me.

I’m going to try and weigh in on the ongoing sunny/amir saga later.

QueenBee – I think Amir swallowed Londonistan and the poor boy hasn’t recovered yet. Or maybe he doesn’t know its a disease.

I hadn’t realised going to the London Mela was a new form of colonialism but now that I think about it…. I think I’ll try and get even more of my mates to come with me this year!

I am beginning to wonder what we are debating here – or why.

And having seen the paltry sums involved – I would say to MCB – what the hell you playing at. Govt. funded consultants command £000’s a day – stop selling your expertise short.

This is dementia and mental decrepitude, exagerration, irresponsible misrepresentation. Amir, you shoot yourself in the foot when you speak in these terms of idiocy.

decent truth-seeking Muslims know this, thats why us truth-seekers persist for justice and inquiries into terror attacks such as 9-11/77 that are blamed directly on Muslims

Should the State, in your opinion, be forced to compensate for their tastes too? It’s a slippery slope.
It already does, polo players get funding for their activities etc.

But asking British taxpayers to fork out money for, say, religious holidays other than Christmas is wrong.
And asking Asian taxpayers to pay taxes and get nothing in return is also wrong.
I’m not even really that bothered about govt funding. In most cases the Asian community has used the private sector to fund their own events and TV channels and radio stations etc. You don’t realise that the latter is more corrosive. If the govt does not cough up then the free market delivers and leads to more segregation.

But to empty the public coffers in order to impose Indian law and Indian tradition and Indian culture on this country is a form of colonialism.

Been overdosing on Melanie Phillips again poor boy? Who said anything about Indian law? I don’t want archaic Indian law here. But I want Indian culture to be part of my life if and when I choose it. As I said above if the govt doesn’t provide then the free market will. And in the latter case Asian taxpayers would be justified in asking why the hell they’re contributing towards the public purse and not getting any recognition for their own way of life.

My understanding of it, in stark contrast to yours, is real – not imaginary.

Not really… I’m looking at how Asians live now whereas you’re regurgitating Melanie Phillips.

(I) There are three quick issues to address: your textbook understanding of multi-cultralism compared to how others see it. Presumably we are talking about two different things and hence go round and round in circles.

There’s nothing ‘textbook’ about my understanding or use of multiculturalism. My understanding of it, in stark contrast to yours, is real – not imaginary. Multiculturalism is a policy that allows immigrants and other minority groups to preserve their indigenous culture (inter-pollination may or may not occur). Today, this is the official policy of Canada, Australia and the UK. Multiculturalism has been described as preserving a ‘cultural mosaic’ of separate ethnic groups (often referred to as a ‘salad bowl’), and is contrasted to a ‘melting pot’ that mixes them. Ken Livingstone et al. typically support loose immigration controls and programs such as bilingual education and affirmative action (or positive discrimination), which offer certain privileges to minority and/or immigrant groups.

(II) This is our country too, we pay the fucking taxes – hence if the gvt is allocating money towards culture, it should be inclusive (though not in exclusive events that are limited to specific groups).

What about the Star Trek geek? Or the tennis fan? Or the polo player? Or the butterfly collector? Or the man who likes driving very expensive cars? Should the State, in your opinion, be forced to compensate for their tastes too? It’s a slippery slope. Total ‘inclusiveness’ is a myth and a utopian ideal. It will never happen. And it’s naïve to think otherwise.

(III) We pay the BBC license fees, hence I also want programming on what British Asians re doing in this country. It is precisely because the Beeb has not done that, that Zee Tv etc has flourished. That leads to even more segregation.

There’s nothing wrong with publicly-funded Asian programmes or music stations so long as they’re not detached from a British context (i.e. language and personalities). I, for one, am a big fan of Asian music. But asking British taxpayers to fork out money for, say, religious holidays other than Christmas is wrong. To think otherwise is to think like a colonialist – simple as. Inter-pollination occurs slowly. You, on the other hand, want the whole ‘shebang’ in one fell swoop. And now, you’re talking about segregation! That’s funny Sunny. Multiculturalism – which entails giving up the concept of shared values, loyalties, and identity in order to privilege ethnic and religious differences, presuming that nations can be replaced by a large number of diverse minorities – is intrinsically divisive. It is likely to evoke undemocratic backlashes, ranging from support for extremist, rightwing parties and populist leaders to anti-minority policies. It is normatively unjustified because it fails to recognize the values and institutions undergirded by the society at large, such as those that protect women’s and gay rights.

(IV) This is our country too

Yes it is. And, as a result, you should respect our law, history and traditions. There is no compulsion to abide by these traditions or to learn about the origins of this country – I agree. But to empty the public coffers in order to impose Indian law and Indian tradition and Indian culture on this country is a form of colonialism. India will/is having a massive impact on the UK – and, as a result, it will benefit our cuisine, music, entertainment, clothing, literature, and even language (?). But you can’t enforce these things through ‘special’ recognition, ‘special’ cultural rights, or ‘special’ state funding. Inter-pollination doesn’t work like that. Colonialism does.

we pay the fucking taxes – hence if the gvt is allocating money towards culture, it should be inclusive

I disagree. Public money should, in my opinion, be spent exclusively on British culture (although Sonia is correct to point out that Britishness changes over time). The ideal society is a bit like a sponge: it absorbs other traditions, music, art, clothing, architecture, film, literature etc. over time, and turns them into ‘Britishness’. Trying to impose these things on other people (or protecting them like endangered species) is a form of colonialism. And it’s counterproductive.

Secondly, many of your comments still carry a “us and them” narrative.

So do yours.

Sonia – fundamentally a lot of people can’t seem to accept ‘national’ identity as multi-faceted and basically – inclusive and heterogenous NOt homogenous. Cultures have never been homogenous, only rhetoric.

This is misleading. I believe in ‘diversity within unity’. Britain should, in my view, promote a homogenous culture which is tolerant of other cultures (enabling inter-pollinate). It presumes that all members of a given society will fully respect and adhere to those basic values and institutions that are considered part of the basic shared framework of the society. At the same time, every group in society is free to maintain its distinct subculture – those policies, habits, and institutions that do not conflict with the shared core – and a strong measure of loyalty to its country of origin, as long as this does not trump loyalty to the society in which it lives if these loyalties come into conflict.

Amir

Looks like I hit a raw nerve, eh? One minute you praise me because you like what I say and the next you are wetting your pants and making silly demands of me to reply to you? How farcical. Grow up. I have said what I said and I certainly dont have to give an account of what I ‘believe in’ to one as arrogant as you.

=>”Interestingly, what’s all this talk of ‘brown people’ or ‘brownies’ etc? Why the sudden infatuation with skin colour?”

Sunny, you’ve been spending too much time on Sepia Mutiny

As a sidenote, it’s interesting that our desi cousins over there have taken to referring to themselves as “brown people” in the sense of a racial/ethnic group — as a slang term — presumably in response to the established terms “white” and “black” respectively*. It is a little curious how self-idenfication via skin colour has developed there amongst Asians, unlike here in the UK where the terms we use for ourselves are more to do with subcontinental geographical origin. Also, as far as I know, American-Chinese/Japanese/Korean etc people and Native Americans do not identify themselves via their colour either.

*I wonder if this also has something to do with the fact that, unlike the desi population in the UK, the American-South Asian population is not disproportionately North Indian/Pakistani, with a correspondingly higher rate of much lighter-skinned people (especially amongst some of the women — I know you know what I’m talking about ).

Anyway, apologies for going off-topic, but this was just something I noticed.

*stretches*

*opens front*

“Damn its bright out here.”

There are three quick issues to address: your textbook understanding of multi-cultralism compared to how others see it. Presumably we are talking about two different things and hence go round and round in circles. My article and comments already make it clear what I mean by it. Next time we have a relevant discussion you define it and we can go from there.

Secondly, many of your comments still carry a “us and them” narrative.

Like for example:
If you want public money to be spent on Asian culture then go back to India. That’s not me being racist, or cruel, or disrespectful.
It’s just being downright idiotic. Those are religious festivals and non-white Britons have as much right to practice them as part of this country. The govt gives money to events such as the Notting Hill Carnival, the London Mela is simply another example. This is our country too, we pay the fucking taxes – hence if the gvt is allocating money towards culture, it should be inclusive (though not in exclusive events that are limited to specific groups).
We pay the BBC license fees, hence I also want programming on what British Asians re doing in this country. It is precisely because the Beeb has not done that, that Zee Tv etc has flourished. That leads to even more segregation.

And lastly – whether the Christian right is against stem-cell/abortions etc because they think its wrong, or the MCB gets money because it exists, the point still remains – they are identities and community blocks that are exploited by politicians for votes and political support. The reasoning may be different but the end result is the same. Pedantry will get you nowhere.

(I) Because, as you said in your post, it is pandering to identity politics. Going for the Christian right vote is similar to the appeasing the MCB. Talking about abortion and stem-cell research is explicitly going for the Catholic and Evangelical vote.

You’re confusing identity politics with identities. The Christian right do not argue against abortion on account that they’re ‘good Christians’ or that Congress should respect their religious orientation. They argue against abortion, stem-cell research, and euthanasia because they think it is wrong – they believe it is equivalent to murder (and this ethical statement can be refuted regardless of whether they’re Christians or Zoroastrians or atheists). Identity claims, on the other hand, are analogous to saying: ‘I want X because I am Y’. The MCB have a nice pay-packet on account that they’re a Moslem organisation. That’s it.

(II) If the government is giving money to say modern contemporary art or some celebration of a specific event… it has to take into account the taste of all its citizens, incl the brown ones.

Rubbish! If you want public money to be spent on Asian culture then go back to India. That’s not me being racist, or cruel, or disrespectful. That’s common sense. To expect British taxpayers to dish out their hard-earned cash for Diwali/Eid/Vaisakhi is asking the nation-state to promote a non-British culture. The multiculturalists wrongly assume that you are treated unfairly or disrespectfully if the state promotes cultural festivities other than your own. But why should this be so? The state could still be liberal (i.e. grant everyone the same package of rights and freedoms) while at the same time promoting a particular cultural/religious/linguistic way of life. To me, this makes perfect sense. There is an internal relationship between a nation’s culture and its physical shape – its public and religious buildings, the way its towns and villages are laid out, the pattern of the landscape, and so forth. People feel at home in their country partly because they can see that their surroundings bear the imprint of past generations whose values were recognisably their own.

[Interestingly, what’s all this talk of ‘brown people’ or ‘brownies’ etc? Why the sudden infatuation with skin colour? At the moment, one of the biggest critics of multiculturalism is a black man – Hugh Trevor Philips. Many immigrants, on the other hand, have pale skin or totally white pigment, especially those from Eastern Europe and Australia. My guess is that certain people are pandering to the ‘race card’ [surprise, surprise] in the hope that they win the hearts and minds of PP readers. Pathetic.]

(III) I believe it should not be giving money to religious groups anyway. Any religious group, including the Church of England.

But didn’t you say (above) that the state must take into account the taste of all its citizens? What about the Church of England and its members?

Amir