Multiculturalism - a failed ideal?

Bertie Woot

If you've been in England and visited the cities of Manchester, Birmingham and London ..among many others, you can't help but notice that multiculturalism has gone into overdrive, with the traditional pre-1948 cultural character of England having been transformed. If you comment on the fact that there are a phenomenal number of Black people, Asians, Middle Easterners, Polish et al. about the place, you are immediately branded as a "racist" by the PC brigade, and subjected to the metaphorical sword.

Despite recent financial problems, Ireland too is becoming an increasingly multicultural nation. In the past, Ireland was a nation of emigration, with many young Irish people emigrating to the UK and further afield in pursuit of education and careers. But many returned, and with increasingly high numbers of foreign immigrants entering both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, Ireland as an island, and despite a population of approximately 5 million, looks set to become just as multicultural in nature as Great Britain.

The ideological drive of multiculturalists was to create a pluralist society with a rich and diverse mix of ethnicities, where people of different race, nationality, religion and culture could live as equals , and in peace and harmony. Regrettably, some groups consider themselves to be more equal than others, with Islam having gained an unenviable reputation for religious supremacism and intolerance.

In light of the fact that London, Leicester, Luton and Slough are now minorty indigenous white cities, with Birmingham soon set to follow, and the recent Islamic killing of a British soldier in Woolwich, and with literally thousands of Islamic terror videos on the internet urging British Muslims to maim and kill, should the ROI not reconsider going down the same multicultural road as Britian?

hyperborean

Religion is more at fault for divisions in society than multiculturalism,

who the fug

All the types of people don't cause me a problem in London, and as a Paddy would a bit kettle calling pot to complain about nutjobs killing. (Mind you the, French are annoying London is overrun with them or I have I been assimilated)

Cody Pomeray

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If you've been in England and visited the cities of Manchester, Birmingham and London ..among many others, you can't help but notice that multiculturalism has gone into overdrive, with the traditional pre-1948 cultural character of England having been transformed.

What's that got to do with multiculturalism?

This is most common pitfall when discussing multiculturalism. YES multiculturalism is a failed idea. Multiculturalism is about as intellectually attractive as moral relativism. However, the problem is not that the 'mother culture' is no longer adequately dominant, the problem is that no single cultural template is adequately dominant.

I don't care if the British all get behind marmite, Britpop and Arthurian legends, or whether they all get behind saris, yoga, and Bollywood. That's not relevant, the point is that there must be some single unifying force, whatever its genesis.

SupaNova2

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I don't care if the British all get behind marmite, Britpop and Arthurian legends, or whether they all get behind saris, yoga, and Bollywood. That's not relevant, the point is that there must be some single unifying force, whatever its genesis.

How about Sharia Law and Islam spread by the sword being the unifying force, would you care then?

Cody Pomeray

SupaNova2 wrote: »

How about Sharia Law and Islam spread by the sword being the unifying force, would you care then?

I made an example of yoga, not Sharia Law.

That Sharia Law would be an unattractive prospect is true from an international, or European, standpoint, but that has nothing to do with multiculturalism and domestic cultural integration. You're mixing up two different questions there.

SupaNova2

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I made an example of yoga, not Sharia Law.

I know you did but britpop or bollywood wouldn't be the most pressing concern of those worried about multi-culturism, Islamic extremists however.

That Sharia Law would be an unattractive prospect is true from an international, or European, standpoint, but that has nothing to do with multiculturalism and domestic cultural integration. You're mixing up two different questions there.

I'm not mixing questions, I only asked one to see if your attitude was as nonchalant towards Islam in its extremes.

Cody Pomeray

SupaNova2 wrote: »

I'm not mixing questions, I only asked one to see if your attitude was as nonchalant towards Islam in its extremes.

To be clear, I am saying that in the first degree it is important that society looks to one reasonably unambiguous source of moral authority.

I am not being 'nonchalant' towards anything, I equated multiculturalism to moral relativism, so obviously I have my own preferences in terms of whence society seeks moral answers.

But that question is one of preferences. Even mediocre moral strictures can safeguard social cohesion and prevent anarchy, such as we saw in Syria from time to time, before the uprising. The question you are putting about Sharia isn't relevant to the question "is multiculturalism a failed ideal?", which is an altogether more fundamental, basic question.

That is to say, to ask "is multiculturalism a failed ideal" is not the same as asking "do non Anglo-Saxon moral strictures fail". These are two markedly different questions.

SupaNova2

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I am saying that in the first degree it is important that society looks to one reasonably unambiguous source of moral authority.
[...]
"is multiculturalism a failed ideal?", which is an altogether more fundamental, basic question.

So even in your view, religion, being a source of moral authority would be of far more importance than britpop or bollywood?

Bertie Woot

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What's that got to do with multiculturalism?

This is most common pitfall when discussing multiculturalism. YES multiculturalism is a failed idea. Multiculturalism is about as intellectually attractive as moral relativism. However, the problem is not that the 'mother culture' is no longer adequately dominant, the problem is that no single cultural template is adequately dominant.

I don't care if the British all get behind marmite, Britpop and Arthurian legends, or whether they all get behind saris, yoga, and Bollywood. That's not relevant, the point is that there must be some single unifying force, whatever its genesis.

Britain's traditional cultural erosion has got everything to do with multiculturalism; an ideology promoted by those in favour of mass immigration. If you believe in a "single unifying force", was there anything wrong with the unified traditional cultural character of Britain pre-1948? Or is it now politically incorrect and thus socially unacceptable to want to preserve and sustain a nation's traditional unifying culture?

And how is multiculturalism "unattractive" and a "failed idea" in your eyes?

Cody Pomeray

SupaNova2 wrote: »

So even in your view, religion, being a source of moral authority would be of far more importance than britpop or bollywood?

No I don't know where you're getting that idea from... if anything pop music and the more penetrative forms of culture, like cinema (Bollywood) are just as, if not more, important than religion.

In relation to multiculturalism, it is important that society chooses one specific source of moral authority. Moral authority can come from more than a Church, it can come from a whole range of cultural institutions and media, which are usually mutually reinforcing.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If you believe in a "single unifying force", was there anything wrong with the unified traditional cultural character of Britain pre-1948?

Personally speaking? Absolutely. It seems like an absolutely horrible place to have lived. Seemingly relentless Victorian attitudes to morality, paranoia against social justice, conscription and limited access to healthcare... these are the moral components of life in the first half of the 20th century that were deemed morally acceptable. I can't imagine what it must have been like . Horrible I suppose.

And how is multiculturalism "unattractive" and a "failed idea" in your eyes?

I've already said I think it important for there to be a reasonably unambigous source of moral authority, which promotes social cohesion and therefore prevents 'competing' cultural paradigms from clashing with one another.

Bertie Woot

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Personally speaking? Absolutely. It seems like an absolutely horrible place to have lived. Seemingly relentless Victorian attitudes to morality, paranoia against social justice, conscription and limited access to healthcare... these are the moral components of life in the first half of the 20th century that were deemed morally acceptable. I can't imagine what it must have been like . Horrible I suppose.

Paranoia against social justice? Can you elaborate? Was conscription a bad thing in view of the fact that Britain was at war? Did the post war Labour government not deliver the NHS and thus free national healthcare? Was the Rep of Ireland any better up to this period?

I've already said I think it important for there to be a reasonably unambigous source of moral authority, which promotes social cohesion and therefore prevents 'competing' cultural paradigms from clashing with one another.

This "unambiguous source of moral authority"; does it have to be religious in nature? Or can it be secular in nature, as in coming from traditional and long held national values which "promoted social cohesion"? In other words, is it wrong to be a traditionalist and a Nationalist and to seek a return to a monocultural nation devoid of all the complexities and difficulties associated with multiculturalism?

SupaNova2

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

In relation to multiculturalism, it is important that society chooses one specific source of moral authority. Moral authority can come from more than a Church, it can come from a whole range of cultural institutions and media, which are usually mutually reinforcing.

Race, Religion and differences in values are the driving forces of cultural conflict, media can reflect those values and stoke the flames. Bollywood may be as important as Religion to some but we have yet to see people go to war because of difference is music and cinematic taste.

Cody Pomeray

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Paranoia against social justice? Can you elaborate?

I'm talking about archaic notions of "the deserving poor" in early 20th century Britain, an irrational fear of Communism, and a pre-occupation with layabouts that persists to to this day.

In other words, is it wrong to be a traditionalist and a Nationalist and to seek a return to a monocultural nation devoid of all the complexities and difficulties associated with multiculturalism?

You're making the same mistake as the other poster and mixing up two different questions. Asking 'is it wrong to return to a monocultural nation' is not the same question as 'is it wrong to be a traditionalist and a Nationalist'? Although having one dominant culture is desirable, you're presuming that valid culture should be National traditionalism. I disagree.

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Race, Religion and differences in values are the driving forces of cultural conflict, media can reflect those values and stoke the flames. Bollywood may be as important as Religion to some but we have yet to see people go to war because of difference is music and cinematic taste.

I'm talking about cinema as a disseminator of ideas, whose value as a cultural institution was most famously highlighted by Josef Goebbels. Cinema, like religion, is just another highly fanciful, elaborately played artform designed to publish and promote cultural ideas.

Nodin

Bertie Woot wrote: »

The ideological drive of multiculturalists was to create a pluralist society with a rich and diverse mix of ethnicities, where people of different race, nationality, religion and culture could live as equals , and in peace and harmony. Regrettably, some groups consider themselves to be more equal than others, with Islam having gained an unenviable reputation for religious supremacism and intolerance.

In light of the fact that London, Leicester, Luton and Slough are now minorty indigenous white cities, with Birmingham soon set to follow, and the recent Islamic killing of a British soldier in Woolwich, and with literally thousands of Islamic terror videos on the internet urging British Muslims to maim and kill, should the ROI not reconsider going down the same multicultural road as Britian?

Multiculturalism as an ideology -
http://books.google.ie/books?id=R-cRCD-QBVYC&pg=PA272&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

You seem to be confusing it with having large immigrant populations.

johnnyskeleton

"If it wasn't for dem furrigners we'd all be happy wearing our Aran sweaters watching comely maidens dancing at the crossroads etc"

Rubbish. American tv has probably changed Irish and English culture more than immigrants, maybe we should ban that? But even then, do you really think that there was some idealized culture that is somehow being eroded? You seem to think this was 1940s/1950s England, which is a pretty poor era to hold up as better than the present.

If what you're saying is true, than far from being a failure, multiculturalism is in fact a roaring success. We have massive varieties of food, music, literature etc. we are no longer beholden to the Catholic Church, and an international perspective has, if not actually cleaned up politics, it has at least made us aware of what is wrong with our system.

In

woodoo

I don't see its advantage at all. Yes some people from other cultures enrich a country. But not so many that the entire country or continent changes. When the native people become a minority in major cities then it has gone way too far. It shouldn't have been let get anywhere near that level in Europe. Just why are we doing it? Who is driving it? Whats it all for?

I favour a small number of immigrants who Europe needs and that is it. We don't owe anyone a new home.

charlemont

Bertie Woot wrote: »

If you've been in England and visited the cities of Manchester, Birmingham and London ..among many others, you can't help but notice that multiculturalism has gone into overdrive, with the traditional pre-1948 cultural character of England having been transformed. If you comment on the fact that there are a phenomenal number of Black people, Asians, Middle Easterners, Polish et al. about the place, you are immediately branded as a "racist" by the PC brigade, and subjected to the metaphorical sword.

Despite recent financial problems, Ireland too is becoming an increasingly multicultural nation. In the past, Ireland was a nation of emigration, with many young Irish people emigrating to the UK and further afield in pursuit of education and careers. But many returned, and with increasingly high numbers of foreign immigrants entering both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, Ireland as an island, and despite a population of approximately 5 million, looks set to become just as multicultural in nature as Great Britain.

The ideological drive of multiculturalists was to create a pluralist society with a rich and diverse mix of ethnicities, where people of different race, nationality, religion and culture could live as equals , and in peace and harmony. Regrettably, some groups consider themselves to be more equal than others, with Islam having gained an unenviable reputation for religious supremacism and intolerance.

In light of the fact that London, Leicester, Luton and Slough are now minorty indigenous white cities, with Birmingham soon set to follow, and the recent Islamic killing of a British soldier in Woolwich, and with literally thousands of Islamic terror videos on the internet urging British Muslims to maim and kill, should the ROI not reconsider going down the same multicultural road as Britian?

Ireland has over 6 million people by the way.
Ireland will be extremely multicultural quickly because of its small population, Ireland is virtually empty anyway especially by European standards. And most of the youth with skills emigrate anyway so I'v no problem with people coming here to settle, Use it or lose it as I say..

Bertie Woot

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I'm talking about archaic notions of "the deserving poor" in early 20th century Britain, an irrational fear of Communism, and a pre-occupation with layabouts that persists to to this day.

But is it wrong to take a view on the "poor"? In light of what Stalin did (murdered approximately 20 million of his own people) and the enormous influence Soviet Communism had on other nations, was a fear of Communism really irrational? And is it wrong to be concerned about the ever increasing numbers of Romanian gypsy beggars and pickpockets on the UK's and Ireland's streets lining their pockets with indigenous people's hard earned cash?

You're making the same mistake as the other poster and mixing up two different questions. Asking 'is it wrong to return to a monocultural nation' is not the same question as 'is it wrong to be a traditionalist and a Nationalist'? Although having one dominant culture is desirable, you're presuming that valid culture should be National traditionalism. I disagree.

What would you suggest? That we adopt Polish national culture or all convert to Islam?

Nodin wrote: »

Multiculturalism as an ideology -
http://books.google.ie/books?id=R-cRCD-QBVYC&pg=PA272&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

You seem to be confusing it with having large immigrant populations.

Did Tony Blair and New Labour not create a multicultural society with an open door immigration policy which seen the importation of large immigrant populations?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

"If it wasn't for dem furrigners we'd all be happy wearing our Aran sweaters watching comely maidens dancing at the crossroads etc"

Rubbish. American tv has probably changed Irish and English culture more than immigrants, maybe we should ban that? But even then, do you really think that there was some idealized culture that is somehow being eroded? You seem to think this was 1940s/1950s England, which is a pretty poor era to hold up as better than the present.

I spent two years on a British forum and all they did was complain about immigration, multiculturalism and Islam. They yearned for a return to the pre-1948 era, before immigration into the UK became an issue. Most indigenous English people hate present day England because they have seen undemocratic and unrequested mass immigration erode the traditional culture and ethnic make-up of their country and transform it into "a foreign land" where they no longer feel at home. Not my words, theirs.

If what you're saying is true, than far from being a failure, multiculturalism is in fact a roaring success. We have massive varieties of food, music, literature etc. we are no longer beholden to the Catholic Church, and an international perspective has, if not actually cleaned up politics, it has at least made us aware of what is wrong with our system.

The British people were not asked by referendum if they would like to live in a multicultural society, this is something which was imposed upon them by lofty political idealists with an agenda within New Labour. It is not a success, because most of the British people are now turning to UKIP to end their membership of the EU and get out of coercive EU immigration policy which they feel is transforming their country in undesirable ways, and which they object to.

Roman Catholic Church dominated insular Ireland has certainly benefited with a little multiculturalism, for sure. But should the Irish not be viewing further multicultural 'enrichment' with wariness when we see how the English have been reacting to mass immigration? And yes, it has been the mass immigration project which has caused increased multiculturalism, as that is what New Labour wanted to do - transform Britain.

Nodin

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Did Tony Blair and New Labour not create a multicultural society with an open door immigration policy which seen the importation of large immigrant populations? .

...no....? The vast majority of immigrants were from the EU free movement area. The muslim population is there from long before "new labour".

It would help this discussion run more smoothly if you were clear about whether you were talking about a policy of multiculturalism, or immigration policy. Thus far, it seems immigration is more what you're talking about than anything else.

Bertie Woot wrote:

Most indigenous English people hate present day England because they have seen
undemocratic and unrequested mass immigration erode the traditional culture and
ethnic make-up of their country and transform it into "a foreign land" where
they no longer feel at home.

This is news to me.

How do you define an "indigenous" English person btw?

Bertie Woot

Nodin wrote: »

...no....? The vast majority of immigrants were from the EU free movement area. The muslim population is there from long before "new labour".

EU immigrants are still immigrants, and the Muslim population greatly multiplied under New Labour, as did other religions and ethnicities.

It would help this discussion run more smoothly if you were clear about whether you were talking about a policy of multiculturalism, or immigration policy. Thus far, it seems immigration is more what you're talking about than anything else.

Immigration and multiculturalism are interrelated, with mass immigration having been responsible for multiculturalism. You cannot separate and isolate the two, as they are correlated.

This is news to me.

Perhaps because you haven't spent a number of years on a British forum, have never lived in England, and/or don't read British newspapers?

How do you define an "indigenous" English person btw?

There is no single official definition of indigenous, but in the same way as I would define an indigenous Irish person; someone with historical ethnic roots going back centuries and who is native to this island.

Alternatively and succinctly: People who have originated from a certain area of land ie. country over many generations

Other people might choose to define 'indigenous' differently.

Yiddish

OP, you share the belief that multiculturalism is a failed ideology with many prominent politicians worldwide such as France's Sarkozy, Britain's Cameron and Germany's Merkel. It seems to be only in Ireland where we have ex-commie gombeens like Gilmore using our flag as a welcome mat for hordes of non-white, third world immigrants. Thankfully his party will go the way of the dodo after the next election if current polls are to be believed. I guess Ireland will have to make it's own mistakes with race riots and Islamic terrorism before we learn.

BluntGuy

Yiddish wrote: »

It seems to be only in Ireland where we have ex-commie gombeens like Gilmore using our flag as a welcome mat for hordes...

"Hordes", you say.

of non-white, third world immigrants.

Why's this relevant?

I guess Ireland will have to make it's own mistakes with race riots and Islamic terrorism before we learn.

Learn what?

Bertie Woot wrote:

Perhaps because you haven't spent a number of years on a British forum, have never lived in England, and/or don't read British newspapers?

I used to live in East London and am moving back to the UK this year. My version of England doesn't correlate with the one you describe below:

Most indigenous English people hate present day England because they have seen undemocratic and unrequested mass immigration erode the traditional culture and ethnic make-up of their country and transform it into "a foreign land" where they no longer feel at home.

Perhaps some evidence to substantiate this rather enormous claim that most English people hate England for that reason. Thanks.

johnnyskeleton

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I spent two years on a British forum and all they did was complain about immigration, multiculturalism and Islam. They yearned for a return to the pre-1948 era, before immigration into the UK became an issue. Most indigenous English people hate present day England because they have seen undemocratic and unrequested mass immigration erode the traditional culture and ethnic make-up of their country and transform it into "a foreign land" where they no longer feel at home. Not my words, theirs.

I think that speaks more to that particular forum than to multiculturalism. My point is that even without immigration England would still be very different today than it was in 1948.

The British people were not asked by referendum if they would like to live in a multicultural society,

Most big decisions are made by representative legislators. If people were really unhappy with a multicultural society they could have voted for one of the many parties that were opposed to same. The union movement for one. If people felt in any way strongly about monoculturalism you would think Mosley would have come to power, even as a junior coalition partner.

this is something which was imposed upon them by lofty political idealists with an agenda within New Labour.

Wait, what? Your version of history is that multiculturalism started with new labour in 1997, and people wish for the better times pre 1948. So in those intervening 50 years there was no multiculturalism?

Ok, let's take this as true for the moment - didn't the people democratically vote for new labour knowing that this was one of their policies? Didn't they vote them back in? Twice?

It is not a success, because most of the British people are now turning to UKIP to end their membership of the EU and get out of coercive EU immigration policy which they feel is transforming their country in undesirable ways, and which they object to.

There are so many things wrong with this statement. Define success? If it is pure popularity, then every political theory is doomed to failure, just as monoculturalism failed when multiculturalism came into vogue.

While you are right to point to ukip having large gains in the polls, up to 20%, that is not "most of the British people". That is roughly the same % as the support for SF in current Roi polls. You even point out yourself that ukip are gaining popularity because farange is focussing more on anti-eu rhetoric which is popular, vs anti-immigrant rhetoric which is, IMO, not.

But should the Irish not be viewing further multicultural 'enrichment' with wariness when we see how the English have been reacting to mass immigration?

No because we are different. Whether it is because we are more tolerant or because we have a stronger sense of cultural identity, or maybe because we don't ghettoise immigrants near the extent that has happened in England over the centuries, I don't see the Irish losing their identity any time soon.

And yes, it has been the mass immigration project which has caused increased multiculturalism, as that is what New Labour wanted to do - transform Britain

To be honest, this sounds a lot like conspiracy theory stuff. New Labour want to transform Great Britain into....? And why?

Nodin

Bertie Woot wrote: »

EU immigrants are still immigrants, and the Muslim population greatly multiplied under New Labour, as did other religions and ethnicities..

...as they had under previous administrations. All this predates new labour.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Immigration and multiculturalism are interrelated, with mass immigration having been responsible for multiculturalism. You cannot separate and isolate the two, as they are correlated...

...and this is what makes such discussions so difficult. Yes you can seperate the two. France has had immigration yet does not practice "multiculturalism". A society with many cultures in it may practice multiculuralism or it may not. Thus far, you're referring, inso much as I can gather, to immigration exclusively.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Perhaps because you haven't spent a number of years on a British forum, have never lived in England, and/or don't read British newspapers?...

Perhaps I have? And given that the only British party that proposes something akin to this pre-1948 halycon era (via repatriation) is the BNP, their electoral position gives my view rather more weight that yours.

Bertie Woot wrote: »

There is no single official definition of indigenous, but in the same way as I would define an indigenous Irish person; someone with historical ethnic roots going back centuries and who is native to this island.

Alternatively and succinctly: People who have originated from a certain area of land ie. country over many generations?...

So do you think Ian Wright is english?

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Other people might choose to define 'indigenous' differently.

I'll worry about them if and when they show.

Yiddish wrote:

It seems to be only in Ireland where we have ex-commie gombeens like Gilmore
using our flag as a welcome mat for hordes of non-white, third world immigrants.

Why is skin colour an issue?

This country does not receive any sort of numbers from outside the EU that could - even with exaggeration - be referred to as a "horde".

hfallada

I think multiculturalism is great and adds diversity. I think a lot of things that is said about islams is mirrored with extremely conservative Jews in Brooklyn. Attacking women for not dressing modestly.

Being raised a catholic and therefore a Christian. I have an issue with immigrats raised with church of Jesus and best friend john type of christian church's. I think a lot of those Christians are brain washed and will be a bigger issue than any race issue in years to come.

[Jackass]

Multiculturalism hasn't failed and is a natural cycle of life, the problem has always been governance, or lack there of, and social isolation of new cultures, forming ghettos.

Visit Toronto, where more than 50% of the population was born outside of Canada and what a clean, diverse, socially inclusive city it is with virtually no social or crime problems.

Multiculturalism works, in the vast majority of cases though, the is no forward planning or proper integration strategy in place.

Cody Pomeray

Bertie Woot wrote: »

And is it wrong to be concerned about the ever increasing numbers of Romanian gypsy beggars and pickpockets on the UK's and Ireland's streets lining their pockets with indigenous people's hard earned cash?

Lol... thanks Bertie. I'm going to file that in my brain under 'perfect examples of begging the question'.

[Jackass] wrote: »

Multiculturalism works, in the vast majority of cases though, the is no forward planning or proper integration strategy in place.

It depends what you mean by multiculturalism.

One version of multiculturalism would reject the notion of any forward planning or proper integration strategy because it would see any attempt at cultural integration as ethnic hatred or cultural paternalism.

I suspect the OP hasn't set a very calm or convincing foundation for it, but I do think it's time we started to ask what our responsibilities to new members of our community might be, and what their responsibilities to those of us who already live here might be.

Bertie Woot

Yiddish wrote: »

OP, you share the belief that multiculturalism is a failed ideology with many prominent politicians worldwide such as France's Sarkozy, Britain's Cameron and Germany's Merkel. It seems to be only in Ireland where we have ex-commie gombeens like Gilmore using our flag as a welcome mat for hordes of non-white, third world immigrants. Thankfully his party will go the way of the dodo after the next election if current polls are to be believed. I guess Ireland will have to make it's own mistakes with race riots and Islamic terrorism before we learn.

Exactly.

Bertie Woot

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think that speaks more to that particular forum than to multiculturalism. My point is that even without immigration England would still be very different today than it was in 1948.

There were thousands of people on that forum, and most opposed the unrequested and undemocratic imposition of multiculturalism on their country. That speaks of dissatisfaction with multiculturalism.

And how would Britain have been transformed without mass immigration?

Most big decisions are made by representative legislators. If people were really unhappy with a multicultural society they could have voted for one of the many parties that were opposed to same. The union movement for one. If people felt in any way strongly about monoculturalism you would think Mosley would have come to power, even as a junior coalition partner.

Mosley's Union of Fascists put him outside the sensibilities of most British people, just as the BNP and other far right groups have experienced similar for themselves. The British like moderate politics, not radical, and even if those radical parties are highlighting real domestic problems and some home truths.

Wait, what? Your version of history is that multiculturalism started with new labour in 1997, and people wish for the better times pre 1948. So in those intervening 50 years there was no multiculturalism?

No, that's what you're saying, and foolishly. There was immigration from 1948 onward, but it greatly increased with new Labour's immigration policy.

Ok, let's take this as true for the moment - didn't the people democratically vote for new labour knowing that this was one of their policies? Didn't they vote them back in? Twice?

Didn't Americans vote George Dubya back in twice, and even though he cheated his way into power the first time by rigging elections and preventing large sections of the American electorate from voting, then sent American troops into Iraq to murder approximately 100 000 civilians on false pretence? Are you going to tell me that electorates are rational?

There are so many things wrong with this statement. Define success? If it is pure popularity, then every political theory is doomed to failure, just as monoculturalism failed when multiculturalism came into vogue.

You should define success, as it was you who labeled multiculturalism as 'successful', not me. And how did monoculturalism fail exactly?

While you are right to point to ukip having large gains in the polls, up to 20%, that is not "most of the British people". That is roughly the same % as the support for SF in current Roi polls. You even point out yourself that ukip are gaining popularity because farange is focussing more on anti-eu rhetoric which is popular, vs anti-immigrant rhetoric which is, IMO, not.

UKIP's popularity is soaring because the coalition under Clegg and Cameron are not properly addressing the British people's grievances on continued EU membership, Tory-Libdem immigration policy, and the anticipated arrival of thousands of Bulgarians and Romanians into the UK beginning December of this year. They see multiculturalism via immigration going into overdrive, and think it has gone too far. Many immigrants themselves are of a similar opinion.

No because we are different. Whether it is because we are more tolerant or because we have a stronger sense of cultural identity, or maybe because we don't ghettoise immigrants near the extent that has happened in England over the centuries, I don't see the Irish losing their identity any time soon.

Maybe that's because Ireland has a much smaller population size than Britain, and although immigration into the ROI has increased, it hasn't yet reached the concerning levels of Britain, and thus hitherto there has been no discernible race issues or the experience of Islamists preaching religious hatred and intolerance in Irish Mosques, and urging Muslims to jihad and the extermination of the kuffar/infidel of their host nation.

To be honest, this sounds a lot like conspiracy theory stuff. New Labour want to transform Great Britain into....? And why?

Labour sustained an open door immigration policy to make the UK a more multicultural milieu. Even Ed Miliband himself has acknowledged that immigration under Blair went too far, that it was ideologically motivated, naive and foolish, and apologised for it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

Bertie Woot

Nodin wrote: »

...as they had under previous administrations. All this predates new labour.

But what you are evading is the fact that immigration went ballistic under New Labour.

..and this is what makes such discussions so difficult. Yes you can seperate the two. France has had immigration yet does not practice "multiculturalism". A society with many cultures in it may practice multiculuralism or it may not. Thus far, you're referring, inso much as I can gather, to immigration exclusively.

Are you suggesting that via immigration France has not become a more multicultural country? How on earth does a society with many cultures in it have a choice on whether or not to "practice multiculturalism"? How are immigration and increased multiculturalism not correlated?

Perhaps I have? And given that the only British party that proposes something akin to this pre-1948 halycon era (via repatriation) is the BNP, their electoral position gives my view rather more weight that yours.

And what is your view?

So do you think Ian Wright is english?

I don't follow football and know nothing of Ian Wright's background.