http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_Rights_and_Freedoms

for Paul, this:

Aha, Paul, are you paying attention to events in Bulgaria?

Are you aware that Ahmed Dogan’s party ‘The Movement for Rights and Freedoms’ is widely believed to be bankrolled by Ankara and that it engages in electoral jiggery-pokery that would make a Midlands Labour councillor cringe in embarrassed shame?

Bulgarians are under no obligation to cater to the whims of a Fifth Column living within Bulgaria’s frontiers, any more than are the people of Israel or Northern Ireland.

The light-hearted comment made by the leader of ATAKA that every Bulgarian Turk should be provided with a suitcase and a bus ticket to Istanbul is one which a great many Bulgarians find perfectly reasonable.

A 1% tax rise doesn’t have implicit within it a plan to nationalise the last few private restaurants and then liquidate the kulaks. A 1% drop doesn’t logically imply the next step is turning the Scot’s Guards into a mercenary corporation to guard the gated condos where the last few middle class people live. Cleaner power generation doesn’t mean living in caves, and so on: you’d struggle to find some idea that couldn’t be taken too far.

Can’t say I particularly trust the Tories to carry out even sensible ideas in a way that stops them being at least mildly unpleasant, if probably not the apocalyptic stuff you talk about.

That doesn’t mean sensible idea is not sensible.

“The ultimate goal is of the nationalist project is a homogenous population, where all individuals hold identical fundamental values, share a single monolingual culture, and share a preference for all that is national”

A horrific level of repression would be required to achieve that level of homogeneity, in Britain or anywhere else. It goes far beyond a general preference for UK newspapers. There are enough historic examples: for instance Nazi German policies in territories they considered ‘Germanisable’, or the Bulgarian policies against the ethnic-Turkish minority a few decades ago. Just think of what would be needed to ensure that everyone in Britain has an English surname, for instance: the Bulgarian government forced everyone with a Turkish-sounding name to change theirs.

And as far as the media are concerned, total-integration policies in the UK would mean for instance, closure of newspapers and magazines that sympathise with the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and Sinn Fein, and a ban on all ‘ethnic’ media. That is the logic of homogenisation, which is not to say it will happen tomorrow.

The politics are ultimately simple: given that the population does not consist of patriotic nationalist clones, all those who want more ‘integration’ inevitably want more repression.

“Cherishing” Heritage for the sake of heritage (and because its ‘yours’ and your ancestors – is not without its problems – its what underlies the problems of exclusivity, racism, many other forms of social discrimination. It justified empire. What’s a ‘strong’ society anyway? One where health and education are not top priorities but war is? One which can impose its will on other societies?

Many Indians and other ‘heritage’ obsessed countries are always having a go at the ‘West’ for not having strong societies in terms of heritage obsessed people.

she says she is strong because of her faith – great, so what. she may well be (how are we to tell, or ‘judge’) but no reason why we should believe her just because she says so! faith is an entirely personal individual matter – it is hardly going to be ‘good’ for everyone or ‘bad’ for everyone. and religious communities are people so they should be ‘valued’ for whatever contribution they make, not ‘reduced’ to what god they believe in. (or don’t)!

Everyone ought to recognise that it would take a horrific level of repression to achieve that perfect homogeneity,

What are the actual figures for the market share in the UK of:

1. newspapers
2. books
3. magazines
4. TV programs
6. music
7. films

Pretty sure that you will find that all except the last are heavily British-majority (though less so than 50 years ago).

I think you’d have to have a very loose definition of ‘horrific level of repression’ to say that the existing institutions that maintain that status quo (notably the BBC) qualify as such.

what a lot of people mean when they object to ‘state’ multiculturalism is when they think the state is giving away special favours to groups (i.e. leaders of groups) who demand some special place (for their ‘members’) on the basis of being from another culture.

now whether the state is really doing that or not – is another question.

but there is no room for cultural and moral relativism and the Guardian needs to stop asking inflammatory questions about Western Feminists and Muslim Women.

multiculturalism is simple (and desirable) when its understood on the level of individuals in a country.

multiculturalism on the level of group – is more problematic- when defined as a ‘culture’ which may demand/receive its individuals are treated differently to other individuals because they are in this ‘culture;.

every individual has the right to define as part of many groups, networks and identities. and it should be recognised that the great thing about the UK is it is full of such individuals.

what we don’t want is communalism in the way we see it in India. different ‘communities’ jostling for power and the right to control the individuals within that community.

political correctness which fails to teach our children British history in case it offends
translating documents into a multitude of languages instead of actually teaching people English.
“State multiculturalism is not integration, is not unifying
not the British way.
“Strong societies are built on cherishing their heritage.
“We need to mend the broken ties that should bind us.
“End the politics of us and them.
“Put integration at the heart of our policy.
“And proudly, once more, make the case for today’s Britain.”

One typical proposal is missing, however: an official list of ‘national values’, such as that proposed in the UK by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

The correct term for the ideology on display here is ‘nationalism’, and I would recommend reading a history of nationalism in Europe, to put the policy in its place. The ultimate goal is of the nationalist project is a homogenous population, where all individuals hold identical fundamental values, share a single monolingual culture, and share a preference for all that is national. So in Britain they would preferably (if not always) read British books, watch British television and films, listen to British music, eat British food, and so on.

Everyone ought to recognise that it would take a horrific level of repression to achieve that perfect homogeneity, certainly in a state with an uncertain identity, such as the UK. Nevertheless, a large part of the elite is still committed to this historical project – not only in Britain, but in most other European states.

As to the other campaigns cited by Jai: North Africa is not in Europe, East Africa is not in Europe, the Western Desert is in North Africa anyway, the Middle East is not in Europe, the African theatre is not in Europe. Iraq is not in Europe, neither is Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Somaliland, Eritrea or Abyssinia.

Remember that ‘Baroness’ Warsi claimed that her grandfathers had helped “defeat fascism in Europe”, a feat which was she attributes entirely to “British and Commonwealth” forces. In reality, the Second World War in Europe was decided on the Eastern Front, and almost every soldier who fought there was born between the Rhine and the Amur. Neither British nor British-Indian troops played anything but a marginal role there.

Of course I realise that I can’t stop people from believing distorted or entirely false versions of history, but it is interesting to see the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party on public show. Their interest in the Commonwealth is primarily because it is an alternative to a ‘European’ alignment in British policy, or worse, a partly ‘European’ national identity. But … all their respect for, and identification with, the Commonwealth terminates abruptly, when non-white Commonwealth citizens show up at a UK airport as immigrants.

Nobody with a brain imagines for a moment that any British politicians actually build schools or level playing fields in the Balkans any more than they think Chairman Mao actually engaged in hard physical labour for more than a minute or two or that the Queen actually goes around the world really planting trees or laying foundation stones.

Sure, BiH is an artifician entity but so is Malaysia. In fact, quite a lot of post-colonial entities are invented states; Vietnam, Laos, India, Burma, Indonesia, the Philippines and – preposterously – Papua New Guinea.

Thanks for posting that so I didn’t have to. Paul only rewrites history in a way that suits Pauls, err, ‘vision’. All the allies worked very hard to defeat fascism, especially the communists. Just throwing that in there to see how it falls…

Equally certain is that these colonial troops made no significant contribution, to the “defeat of fascism” in Europe…..Troops from India would have played a more significant role in the Asian theatre, but then that is not in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_in_World_War_II

“The Army of India was one of the largest Allied forces contingents which took part in the North and East African Campaign, Western Desert Campaign and the Italian Campaign….

…The Middle East and African theatre

Main articles: Western Desert Campaign, Anglo-Iraqi War, Syria-Lebanon Campaign, East African Campaign (World War II), and Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran

The British government meanwhile sent Indian troops to fight in West Asia and northern Africa against the Axis. India also geared up to produce essential goods such as food and uniforms. Pre-Independence India provided the largest volunteer force (2.5 million) of any nation during World War II.

The 4th, 5th and 8th Indian Divisions took part in the North African theatre against Rommel’s Afrika Korps. Furthermore, the 4th and 5th Indian Divisions took part in the East African campaign against the Italians in Somaliland, Eritrea and Abyssinia.

In the Battle of Bir Hacheim, Indian gunners played an important role by using guns in the anti tank role and destroying tanks of Rommel’s panzer divisions. Maj PPK Kumaramangalam was the battery commander of 41 Field Regiment which was deployed in the anti tank role. He was awarded the DSO for his act of bravery. Later he became the Chief of Army Staff of independent India in 1967.

….The invasion of Italy

Indian forces played a significant part in liberating Italy from fascism. The British Army of India contributed the 3rd largest Allied contingent in the Italian campaign after the US and British forces. The 4th, 8th and 10th Infantry Divisions and 43rd Gurkha mechanised Infantry Brigade were involved, notably the former two at the famous Battle of Monte Cassino and all of them in the torrid fighting on the Gothic Line in late 1944 and 1945.”

Here’s the group after “building the football pitch” on a propaganda image hosted at Flickr. Note that they managed to build an entire football pitch without getting any dirt on their t-shirts. ‘Baroness’ Warsi is in the middle.

Note also that while the Conservative tour group is wearing “I love BiH” t-shirts, none of the locals is. Not surprising since it is not their country, but a 100% artificial entity created by the NATO as part of the peace settlement, and the flag on the t-shirt was invented by the NATO-installed governor Westendorp.

“Conference, during the Second World War, British and Commonwealth soldiers, including my two grandfathers, fought side by side to defeat fascism in Europe.”

The British Commonwealth had 3 members which fought in WWII: the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Union of South Africa. The the Dominion of New Zealand was not a member until 1947, and the Irish Free State was neutral in the war. The Dominion of Newfoundland never officially joined, before it was absorbed by Canada. The current British Commonwealth did not fight as a unit in in any war, ever. Obviously no ‘Pakistani’ soldiers fought in WWII, and those born in British India did not fight “alongside” British troops, but as subordinate colonial forces under them.

Equally certain is that these colonial troops made no significant contribution, to the “defeat of fascism” in Europe. The implied claim, that Britain defeated fascism, is nonsense. The war in Europe was decided on the eastern front, and Britain was never in a position to inflict a defeat on its enemies, without allies. Troops from India would have played a more significant role in the Asian theatre, but then that is not in Europe. And Britain did not fight to ‘defeat fascism’ anyway, even if the British left saw it that way. The British state fought for geostrategic reasons, essentially because it was threatened in its own existence.

This is how nationalists make up the myth, which they teach in the schools as ‘history’. Elements are selected out of context, or simply invented, to fit into the current idea of the nation. Yes, all the others do it too, but that does not confer any legitimacy on it.

Note also that the Conservative Party’s gratitude, to those whose grandfathers fought for Britain, does not extend to letting the grandchildren freely migrate to Britain. Nor does it extend to back-paying the pensions the grandfathers would have got, if they had been white and born in Britain itself. For a comparison, see the issue of pensions for WWII French-colonial troops.