Multiculturalism - a failed ideal?

walshb

hedgehog2 wrote: »

Belfast is on the island of Ireland hence your Irish Bertie.

That is ridiculous. Do you really believe that Orangemen, for example, consider themselves Irish?

laoch na mona

[QUOTE=Bertie Woot;84825854



Post me a link to where the BNP have unequivocally stated "we are a racist party".[/QUOTE]
Nick Griffen said
We believe not just that our people are different from others'

'immigration which is destroying this and every other white nation in the world'

'Yes. There is a wider range of takeaway food. That's it' - whenasked is their any benefit to immigration

sounds racist to me

FTA69

Not to mention the fact loads of their members have convictions for racist incidents. That's usually a give-away like. :rolleyes:

K-9

Bertie Woot wrote: »

zZzZzZZZ

Mod:

That isn't a sufficient response, it's a perfectly reasonable question.

Just a reminder that soapboxing isn't tolerated on the forum, we expect posters to engage with discussion and debate, the above type of reply is beneath the standards expected in the forum and is a classic sign of a soap box style poster..

BluntGuy

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Can you provide better alternative evidence to refute my claim ie. something which states that the majority of British people are happy about the government's sustainment of mass immigration and multiculturalism?

I'm not making that (rather loaded) claim.

I don't have to provide anything because you haven't adduced credible evidence for your claim. Let's break down what you said into three components:

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.

(1) Most indigenous English people hate present day England

You've presented two online petitions, with less than 150,000 signatures each, we've no idea who signed them, whether they were "indigenous" or not.

(2) because of "undemocratic and unrequested" mass immigration

How was it undemocratic? As has been repeatedly pointed out, British people voted for parties which are open to immigration, again and again.

(3) have eroded "the traditional culture and ethnic make-up of their country"

With 80+% of the British population being white British, I don't think the ethnic make-up has been as radically shifted as is often made out. There are numerous influences that have impacted on culture. The idea that there would've been some sort of cultural stasis in the last few decades without immigration is laughable. Anyway what's so great about "traditional" culture. I can think of plenty of cultural norms that have changed and Britain is all the better for it.

With due respect, two internet petitions and some random daily mail links doesn't suffice as evidence for any of that. You're the one making massive claims, you back them up.

Perhaps you're as not bright and/or determined to derail this thread as Nodin? Perhaps you too are unable to provide a simple, universally accepted definition of "nationality"? Not sure why providing one thus far is so difficult.

There's a running theme here of you answering questions with questions, instead of answers. I'll ask one final time:

Do you consider Ian Wright, English?

I consider him English because he was born in England and he considers himself English. Do you consider him English? If you answer the question maybe it can stop going in circles.

Post me a link to where the BNP have unequivocally stated "we are a racist party".

That is a disingenuous request, as generally racists don't announce "I'm racist!". One is more likely to hear racists prefix their spouting with assertions that they are not ("I'm not racist, but...").

That said, prior to the turn of the millennium, the BNP were indeed espousing openly racist policies. They've changed tact since of course, having to be more subtle about it, what with them realising that racism had become just that bit more unfashionable.

This paper provides an excellent analysis of their recent development and how their public rhetoric has changed.

In their 1997 electoral manifesto, the BNP outline the cornerstones of British nationalism to include political sovereignty, ethnic identity, economic nationalism, and national unity (1997: 7). This encompasses the nationalist ideals put forward by the BNP within the 1982-1999 period. Focusing on their manifestos during this period, we have identified the BNP’s nationalist narrative as based on three pillars: racial, economic and imperial. Their racial nationalism is the premise for the other two: ‘our nationalism is ethnic as well as political- in fact it is ethnic before being political’ (1997: 7; italics in the original). Economic ties are based on race; immigration is refuted on the basis of race. The BNP portrays the UK as an organic entity based on primordial ties. The prime bond is race and kinship: ‘we recognise the ethnic kinship which exists between the indigenous people of the United Kingdom…we believe it is important to preserve this kinship, and where possible, strengthen it’ (1997: 7). They take the UK, which is as argued above a civic entity because it is a multi-ethnic and multi-national state bound by common political institutions, and portray it in an ethnic manner as defined by bloodline and native descent: ‘The British nation is for the most part descended from Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Celtic stocks, all indigenous to Northern Europe and all closely related. Therein lies the basis of our national identity’ (BNP 1984: 14).

gallag

Untill a couple of weeks ago the U.K.I.P was considered by many as racist and their rise is manly based of, as berty said people being pissed off with what is happening to their country. Multiculturalism has failed the U.K at this point, it has went entirely to far and the people are voicing their fears no matter how deaf the pc brigade want to be.

laoch na mona

gallag wrote: »

Untill a couple of weeks ago the U.K.I.P was considered by many as racist and their rise is manly based of, as berty said people being pissed off with what is happening to their country. Multiculturalism has failed the U.K at this point, it has went entirely to far and the people are voicing their fears no matter how deaf the pc brigade want to be.

that's because they are a bit racist. Multiculturalism is not the problem poverty is

gallag

laoch na mona wrote: »

that's because they are a bit racist. Multiculturalism is not the problem poverty is

So lets just make everybody rich? The leaders of france, Germany and the U.K Agree with me, failed multiculturalism is the problem, sure if everybody were millionaires it would gloss over the problem.

laoch na mona

gallag wrote: »

So lets just make everybody rich? The leaders of france, Germany and the U.K Agree with me, failed multiculturalism is the problem, sure if everybody were millionaires it would gloss over the problem.

no a system that works by maintaining divisions between between rich and poor people.
everyone should not be a millionaire but there should not be a vast gap between rich and poor based on privilage

FTA69

gallag wrote: »

So lets just make everybody rich? The leaders of france, Germany and the U.K Agree with me, failed multiculturalism is the problem, sure if everybody were millionaires it would gloss over the problem.

This such a ridiculous and glib comment often lazily thrown out by the right. One doesn't have to make everyone super wealthy in order to alleviate the fact that there is a massive disparity between the rich in society and those increasingly finding themselves in poverty. When you have a situation where the very top of society increasingly accumulates wealth while the bottom increasingly loses it then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there will be friction.

gallag

FTA69 wrote: »

This such a ridiculous and glib comment often lazily thrown out by the right. One doesn't have to make everyone super wealthy in order to alleviate the fact that there is a massive disparity between the rich in society and those increasingly finding themselves in poverty. When you have a situation where the very top of society increasingly accumulates wealth while the bottom increasingly loses it then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there will be friction.

Hey I mostly agree, I would like to see that gap closed also but that is not the reason why we have failed multiculturalism in the U.K, wealth is not the reason crowds of hundreds routinely march British roads calling for the police to be murdered, lack of money does not cause honour crimes, poverty does not make women second to a man and abuse British women for dressing wrong and money worries does not cause men to stab British service personnel in the streets of the capital or blow them selves to bits in packed trains and buses.

Poverty is just a convenient distraction for the left to avoid discussing the real problem.

FTA69

I'm not saying that fundamentalism or backward beliefs haven't arrived here as a consequence of multiculturalism, they have. And to be honest I don't think anyone on the left is tolerating Islamist extremism or female genital mutilation; it is often left-leaning people in these communities who are doing sterling work in arguing against those things.

The question is, however, is how representative are these things of the wider Muslim or African communities? While what happened in Woolwich was terrible, the fact is there have been more squaddies killed in drunken brawls or road accidents than there has been at the hands of Muslim terrorists. The notion that all Muslims are practising jihad, or trying to take over swathes of the country is just false. The vast, vast majority of them don't feel that way. I deal with conservative Muslim Somali and Bengalis on a weekly basis and even they'll tell you they have no time for violence.

Take for example the "Muslim Patrol" brigade in Whitechapel, there's around 15 nutters in an area of 1.5m people who were roundly condemned by pretty much everyone in their own community, shut down by the cops straight away and yet people are quick to pounce on that issue as characteristic of every Muslim in Britain who only constitute 5% of the population anyway.

If you want to discuss the riots, the vast majority of those involved were British born and British raised but the one thing most of them had in common was the fact they came from communities which are generally poor and excluded.

Bertie Woot

walshb wrote: »

That is ridiculous. Do you really believe that Orangemen, for example, consider themselves Irish?

Some of them in fact do, and in essence, they are both British and Irish.

laoch na mona wrote: »

Nick Griffen said
We believe not just that our people are different from others'

'immigration which is destroying this and every other white nation in the world'

'Yes. There is a wider range of takeaway food. That's it' - whenasked is their any benefit to immigration

sounds racist to me

They are a Nationalist party, who unlike the PC brainwashed brigade, acknowledge the realities of mass immigration, and are prepared to recognise the phenomenon of 'race'.

FTA69 wrote: »

Not to mention the fact loads of their members have convictions for racist incidents. That's usually a give-away like. :rolleyes:

Many BNP supporters are in fact football hooligans and thugs, but the BNP has been attempting to shake off the boot-boy image, albeit with limited success.

FTA69

Look don't cod yourself. The BNP emerged out of the "white pride" scene and the National Front. They've tried to shake off their boot-boy image because they're trying to get votes. They're still a shower of racist bastards.

FTA69

http://web.archive.org/web/20020203190553/www.bnp.org.uk/faq.html

A cursory look at their own website shows them banging on how mixed-race relationships are wrong because they destroy the white bloodline. That line of thought first came about with the Nazis by the way.

Bertie Woot

BluntGuy wrote: »

I'm not making that (rather loaded) claim.

I don't have to provide anything because you haven't adduced credible evidence for your claim. Let's break down what you said into three components:



(1) Most indigenous English people hate present day England

You've presented two online petitions, with less than 150,000 signatures each, we've no idea who signed them, whether they were "indigenous" or not.

(2) because of "undemocratic and unrequested" mass immigration

How was it undemocratic? As has been repeatedly pointed out, British people voted for parties which are open to immigration, again and again.

(3) have eroded "the traditional culture and ethnic make-up of their country"

With 80+% of the British population being white British, I don't think the ethnic make-up has been as radically shifted as is often made out. There are numerous influences that have impacted on culture. The idea that there would've been some sort of cultural stasis in the last few decades without immigration is laughable. Anyway what's so great about "traditional" culture. I can think of plenty of cultural norms that have changed and Britain is all the better for it.

With due respect, two internet petitions and some random daily mail links doesn't suffice as evidence for any of that. You're the one making massive claims, you back them up.

Denigrate the evidence of dissatisfaction if you wish. The Tory-Libdem coalition got into power because a majority of British people voted Tory and LibDem, and they formed a coalition government. When David Cameron speaks he therefore speaks on behalf of the majority of the British people who voted him into power, and who keep him in power.

In February 2011 Prime Minister David Cameron stated that "the doctrine of state multiculturalism" (promoted by the previous Labour government) has failed and will no longer be state policy.[68] He stated that the UK needed a stronger national identity and signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.

"Opposition has grown to state sponsored multicultural policies, with some believing that it has been a costly failure. Critics of the policy come from many parts of British society. There is now a debate in the UK over whether explicit multiculturalism and "social cohesion and inclusion" are in fact mutually exclusive.[52] In the wake of the July 7 Bombings 2005 David Davis, the opposition Conservative shadow home secretary, called on the government to scrap its "outdated" policy of multiculturalism.[53][54] The British columnist Leo Mckinstry said of multiculturalism, "Britain is now governed by a suicide cult bent on wiping out any last vestige of nationhood" and called it a "profoundly disturbing social experiment".[55] The head of the Commission for Racial Equality, who has called for an official end to multicultural policy, has criticised "politically correct liberals for their “misguided” pandering to the ethnic lobby".

"In the May 2004 edition of Prospect Magazine, the editor David Goodhart temporarily couched the debate on multiculturalism in terms of whether a modern welfare state and a "good society" is sustainable as its citizens become increasingly diverse.[57] In November 2005 John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, stated, "Multiculturalism has seemed to imply, wrongly for me: let other cultures be allowed to express themselves but do not let the majority culture at all tell us its glories, its struggles, its joys, its pains."[58] The Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali was also critical, calling for the Church to regain a prominent position in public life and blaming the "newfangled and insecurely founded doctrine of multiculturalism" for entrenching the segregation of communities."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism#United_Kingdom

UKIP's soaring popularity is supplementary evidence, if supplementary evidence were needed, of David Cameron's explicitly stated "failure of multiculturalism".

There's a running theme here of you answering questions with questions, instead of answers. I'll ask one final time:

Do you consider Ian Wright, English?

I consider him English because he was born in England and he considers himself English. Do you consider him English? If you answer the question maybe it can stop going in circles.

There's a running theme here of one poster consistently failing to provide a 'universally accepted definition of nationality', so as to provide me with the means to comprehensively and adequately answer his question. If he or you can finally provide aforementioned definition of "nationality" any time soon, then you can in fact prevent yourselves form going around in circles, and have the question answered.

That is a disingenuous request, as generally racists don't announce "I'm racist!". One is more likely to hear racists prefix their spouting with assertions that they are not ("I'm not racist, but...").

It's a perfectly valid and genuine request, and you have failed to meet it.

That said, prior to the turn of the millennium, the BNP were indeed espousing openly racist policies. They've changed tact since of course, having to be more subtle about it, what with them realising that racism had become just that bit more unfashionable.

This paper provides an excellent analysis of their recent development and how their public rhetoric has changed.

Provide some evidence of when "racism" was ever "fashionable", and the moment the BNP suddenly realised that racism had become "just that bit more unfashionable".

walshb

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Some of them in fact do, and in essence, they are both British and Irish.
.

Well, me would think that most loyalists/unionists/orangemen would not ever want to seen as Irish.

Bertie Woot

walshb wrote: »

Well, me would think that most loyalists/unionists/orangemen would not ever want to seen as Irish.

Many do in fact reject and deny their Irishness, but the fact is, they were born on the island of Ireland, and whilst they maintain that they are "British" as Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, they are also Irish, as NI is also on the island of Ireland.

They are British and Irish.

Cody Pomeray

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I have no soapbox, and as a regular poster, neither do I have the power to issue petty infractions to people who exercise freedom of speech by speaking the truth. If the poster in question does not have the ability to provide a universally accepted definition of "nationality" as reasonably requested, then he is preventing his own question from being answered.

If you are having as much difficulty with this simple concept as he is, that's something you should attend to.

But you're clearly trying to evade his question by resorting to someone else's interpretation of nationality, and answering using such a reference.

Nobody is asking you which passport Ian Wright holds, obviously, we all know he is English in a legal sense. That is a question that is irrelevant to public opinion.

How would you, as a member of the public, describe Ian Wright's national identity, or his nationality using any interpretation of nationality to which you personally adhere?

Bertie Woot

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But you're clearly trying to evade his question by resorting to someone else's interpretation of nationality, and answering using such a reference.

Nobody is asking you which passport Ian Wright holds, obviously, we all know he is English in a legal sense. That is a question that is irrelevant to public opinion.

How would you, as a member of the public, describe Ian Wright's national identity, or his nationality using any interpretation of nationality to which you personally adhere?

I am not trying to evade anything. If you're as anxious to have this question answered as are other posters, then provide "a universally accepted definition of nationality" as I have requested now about five times. Is this really that difficult for you?

FTA69

It's fairly obvious by this stage that you don't consider a black man born in England to be really English. You just don't want to admit it because people will rightly call you out on your racism.

Bertie Woot

FTA69 wrote: »

It's fairly obvious by this stage that you don't consider a black man born in England to be really English. You just don't want to admit it because people will rightly call you out on your racism.

You've just called me a "racist", simply because a number of posters have completely failed to provide a simple universally accepted definition of nationality, and in order to enable me to answer their question.

I find being labelled "a racist" not only completely erroneous, but both objectionable and deeply offensive. You should apologise immediately.

walshb

Maybe the racism claim by FTA69 is correct. Does one think that Kenyans, for example, would consider a white man born in Kenya to be truly Kenyan? I'd say not. I guess in this respect it's quite easy to be labeled a racist.

FTA69

You're banging on about the BNP are a great bunch of lads, trying to portray the actions of a few nutters as representative of an entire group and have consistently based your criticism of immigration on race.

Seriously like, if it walks like a duck...

I'm apologising for nothing, as far as I'm concerned you've demonstrated pretty much that you're a racist.

Cody Pomeray

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I am not trying to evade anything. If you're as anxious to have this question answered as are other posters, then provide "a universally accepted definition of nationality"

There is no universally accepted definition of a nationality which can be foisted on anyone.

All you are being asked for is your opinion, so we can see how logical it may be.

Why don't you want to give your opinion?

Bertie Woot

FTA69 wrote: »

You're banging on about the BNP are a great bunch of lads, trying to portray the actions of a few nutters as representative of an entire group and have consistently based your criticism of immigration on race.

Seriously like, if it walks like a duck...

I'm apologising for nothing, as far as I'm concerned you've demonstrated pretty much that you're a racist.

Point me exactly to where I have banged on about the BNP being "a great bunch of lads". You are astoundingly naive and jumping to a very wrong conclusion that because I have revealed dissatisfaction with multiculturalism and recognise the racial transformation of Britain and that race is a component of a multicultural society that I must therefore be "a racist".

Racism refers to a belief in a hierarchy of race. I adhere to no such ideology and am therefore not a racist.

Bertie Woot

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

There is no universally accepted definition of a nationality which can be foisted on anyone.

All you are being asked for is your opinion, so we can see how logical it may be.

Why don't you want to give your opinion?

I'm not asking for you to foist a definition of nationality on anyone, I'm asking you to provide a universally accepted one which I can use to answer the question.

Do you want the question to be answered or not? If not, keep hammering on about personal definitions and continue to fail to provide a universally accepted one.

If I defined a giraffe as "a bird with wings" that would be a personal but universally rejected definition. I prefer objective definitions.

Provide one, it's really not that difficult. Use google.

periodictable

You want to emigrate to this state?. What have you got to offer? If nothing special, any pressing reasons to let you in?
If we let you in, welcome, now get with the program. Learn about our culture, laws, system of government, etc. If you have a problem with any of that, or if you want to force the natives to do what you think is right, there are several airports and sea ports by which you can leave. If you refuse, we'll deport you, permanently.

Nodin

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I'm not(..........)google.

There you are. Three questions outstanding for you, which I'll re-iterate here -

Do you think Ian Wright is english? Likewise Frank Bruno, Lennox Lewis, Jermain Defoe, Samit Patel? Please don't come back with this "accepted definition" nonsense - I'm asking for your opinion and an explanation of same.

Why are you fixated on skin colour? You've mentioned it numerous times.

What is an "ethnic ethos"?

BluntGuy

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Denigrate the evidence of dissatisfaction if you wish. The Tory-Libdem coalition got into power because a majority of British people voted Tory and LibDem, and they formed a coalition government. When David Cameron speaks he therefore speaks on behalf of the majority of the British people who voted him into power, and who keep him in power.

For a start, I never said there wasn't an element of British society who are dissatisfied. Secondly, this:

In February 2011 Prime Minister David Cameron stated that "the doctrine of state multiculturalism" (promoted by the previous Labour government) has failed and will no longer be state policy.[68] He stated that the UK needed a stronger national identity and signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.

Is a far cry from expressing this sentiment:

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.

Nonetheless, even if we were to accept that they're along the same line of thinking, the irony of you trying to claim that a majority of British people share that opinion on the basis of the electoral results of a party that couldn't even get a parliamentary majority is quite amusing. You can try and lump the Lib Dems in, but they're not anywhere nearly on the same page on the immigration issue. If anything, going down this route, if you add up the votes for the parties with more liberal views on immigration they outnumber quite comfortably the Con/UKIP/BNP vote.

And how many of the voters were "indigenous English people"?

There's a running theme here of one poster consistently failing to provide a 'universally accepted definition of nationality', so as to provide me with the means to comprehensively and adequately answer his question. If he or you can finally provide aforementioned definition of "nationality" any time soon, then you can in fact prevent yourselves form going around in circles, and have the question answered.

Okay, I give up on this one.

It's a perfectly valid and genuine request, and you have failed to meet it.

This is what you asked:

Post me a link to where the BNP have unequivocally stated "we are a racist party".

It is a disingenuous request.

You are asking me for a direct quote of someone from the BNP saying "We are a racist party!". You know damn well you are not going to get it. The idea that somehow the absence of such dispels the notion that they are a racist party is seriously misguided, to say the least.

I have linked you an excellent paper, and highlighted the relevant part which has direct quotations from their own manifesto outlining their racist views. Just because they don't tag them as racist, doesn't mean they're not racist.

‘Britain’s ethnic identity based as it is on a mingling of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish strains, must be preserved […] this ethnic nationalism is a positive one of devotion to our own race’ (BNP 1997: 7)

Is this not racism? Or do they have annex "Btw this is racist" to it?

Provide some evidence of when "racism" was ever "fashionable", and the moment the BNP suddenly realised that racism had become "just that bit more unfashionable".

I don't know why you quoted "racism", but whatever.

The paper I linked is about that very topic, and discusses it succinctly. It discusses how the tone of their rhetoric has shifted by doing a qualitative analysis of their pre and post 1999 manifestos. To quote them:

Although race still figures, it does so less prominently and it no longer
forms the premise of their nationalist agenda which gradually and increasingly
comprises of civic values such as liberal sovereignty and the rule of law.

Note that whether the BNP has genuinely adopted the civic values outlined in their official narrative or whether this has been subject to internal divisions is outside the scope of this article.

Since Nick Griffin took over, the party has made an effort to shed its image as an extreme, racist party, to distance itself from its fascist roots, in order to be more electable, following disastrous results in the preceding elections.

Of course, one doesn't have to look very far to see how this party continues to operate:

...from at least two BNP leaflets, put out in 2006: "Various Labour councils are giving Africans grants of up to £50,000 to buy houses under a scheme known as 'Africans for Essex'. It is believed that Labour-run Hackney have been conspiring with Labour-run Barking and Dagenham to change the population of this area to ensure safe Labour majorities in the future."

The facts:

1,300 Londoners took advantage of the scheme, 30 of whom moved into Barking and Dagenham. Seven were white, nine Asian, nine black and the other five's ethnicity was unclear.

Oh dear.

periodictable wrote:

You want to emigrate to this state?. What have you got to offer? If nothing special, any pressing reasons to let you in?

There are a lot of 'natives' who sit on their arse offering "nothing special" to the state. Should we kick them out? What right do they have to be here?