Multiculturalism - a failed ideal?

Nodin wrote: »

You have ascribed radical views to the english population. Thats the same difference.

No I havent, you have.

Conspiracy theory nonsense. The BNP and National Front are not banned from the air, their views are well known, yet they've never won a seat.

The British people are terrified of speaking out on immigration and multiculturalism for fear of being branded 'a racist'. The BNP have been successfully demonised by the PC establishment, and people are afraid to vote for them.

The British do promote multiculturalism, the French do not. Immigration and a multicultural ideology are not the same thing, as has been pointed out to you numerous times.

Regardless of whether France promotes multiculturalism or not, via their immigration policy they are creating a more multicultural society.

Estimates from non-government sources.

And they are accurate.

Obsessed with skin colour again.

What is an "ethnic ethos"?

I know you're gagging to call me "a wacist!".

Google ethnic and ethos, then put the two definitions together.

Skin colour isn't really that big a deal.

Having had religous types "holler" at me before, I'd imagine it would be amusing, though probably not for them.

Yes, I would object if I saw somebody stabbed.

Why would you object if a Muslim stabbed an Irish soldier to death in front of you? Be specific.

You'll note I bolded the "you" a few posts back. The above is why. I want to know what you think.

Do you think Ian Wright is english? Likewise Frank Bruno, Lennox Lewis, Jermain Defoe, Samit Patel?

Why are you fixated on skin colour?

I've asked you for a universally accepted definition of "nationality" twice thus far, and twice you've failed to provide one so as to permit me to answer your question. Do you want me to answer your question or not?

And you are obfuscating skin color with both race and nationality. Bit clumsy.

Nodin wrote: »

You might point out where I've indulged in "evasion" blank denial and "bollocking".

Do you think Ian Wright is english? Likewise Frank Bruno, Lennox Lewis, Jermain Defoe, Samit Patel?

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

You stated

What is an "ethnic ethos"?

zZzZzZZZ

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 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 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 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.

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.

BluntGuy wrote: »

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

Is a far cry from expressing this sentiment:

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.

Cameron is PM and his views and opinions are thus taken as representative of the majority electorate, otherwise he and Clegg wouldn't be in power, and Labour would. And I don't think any Tory or UKIP voter would wish to be lumped in with the BNP, as if you hadn't already noticed, the Tories have been gravitating to the left, and whilst UKIP are a right-wing party, they are not far-right enough to be mentioned in the same breath as the BNP, who are a far-right party.

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

How would you define "indigenous"?

Okay, I give up on this one.

You could have just as easily supplied a "universally accepted definition of nationality" as was requested, but I shall accept your capitulation.

This is what you asked:

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.

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

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:

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:

The facts:

Oh dear.

No-one can deny that the National Front, BNP et al. have had racist origins dating back to the 70's and 80's, and as you have rightly pointed out; "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."

What I have been questioning is the assumption that the BNP is still a racist party. Some people evidently think that they are, and despite the BNP clearly describing themselves as "a patriotic, democratic alternative to the old parties that have wrecked our great country", with the racial element of their politics having been virtually erased. Because the BNP has not successfully lost the boot-boy image completely, and because the PC brigade are all too eager to pounce on anyone who even mentions the word "race", the BNP have little to no electoral support in middle England, and indeed many working class people have no desire to be associated with them, even though they have seen their towns and cities transformed by mass immigration and consequent multiculturalization, and aren't too happy about it.

FTA69 wrote: »

Eh, you've denied they're a racist party and have bemoaned their "demonisation at the hands of the PC leftist media" etc, it isn't a far leap to believe that someone who denies a racist party is racist may perhaps be that way inclined politically.

Similarly you've continually used race as the bedrock of your argument, namely how a decline in whites in some parts of the UK is a terrible thing.

You aren't fooling anyone.

You've jumped through all of the hoops set before you, made some premature deductions, and reached a foregone conclusion. I asked someone to provide a link to where the BNP specifically stated "We are a racist party", and I also outlined the fact that London, Luton, Leicester and Slough are now minority indigenous white British cities, and you've decided for yourself that I must therefore be "a racist". I've experienced it numerous times; if you dare question the usefulness of multiculturalism and point out the phenomenon of minority white cities and towns in England, you are automatically branded as "a racist!".

I'll repeat, "racism" refers to a "hierarchy of race", where some races are deemed superior to others. I subscribe to no such ideology, and am therefore not a racist. It is not racist to question immigration policy and/or multiculturalism, and it is not racist to acknowledge the fact that race exists.