Political Crossfire Forums

[DSwain]

What Trevor Phillips is guilty of here - and I do respect the man - is something of which many of us are equally guilty, namely ignoring the elephant in the room - the considerable disquiet of many of the white, working class British population.

These white Britons in London, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow and elsewhere see themselves as under attack in the media - for poor diet, poor educational achievement, poorly brought up children. There aren't many (or any) calls for moderation in this media bruising - no ministers calling for calm, no civil rights or human rights groups calling for understanding, no police forces looking at sensitive methods of policing. At the same time, they see tiny British Muslim minority in the country at the centre of public policy, rightly or wrongly. These working class white Britons see their state schools swamped (no excuse for that word) with children for whom English is not a first language, GP's surgeries having to use dial-an-interpreter services, women in burkhas at the bus stop.

These white Britons don't strap on suicide vests, but they will riot. In this Philips is right, and the whole veil controversy is acting as a lightning rod. Where he is wrong, IMO, is to imagine that British Muslims are at the centre of the problem. What we need is a fundamental look at how integration, immigration and 'multiculturalism' work in the UK - and where things have to be changed for the majority while protecting the minority.

[Rankor and Pissing]

That's the 800lb gorilla - "integration" "assimilation" of the culture. It's not happening. Until it starts happening, or, the immigration of Muslims into Europe slows or is stopped by the gov't by the MP's or PM... it will continue, it will be a problem.

I posted in the Middle East forum about a gal Brigitte Gabriel who's called Europe "Eurabia" and that Europe as American's know it no longer exists. She's Lebanese and has been on the talk show circuit hawking her new book and discussing these types of issues.

[Blinky]

A guy on another forum I used to read predicted that the Paris riots a while ago would trigger a backlash against muslims that would see "Paris burn".

I often hear people warn of criticising muslims lest it radicalise moderate muslims. Why hasn't anyone considered the fact that if muslims continue to make a burden of themselves (from the POV of the locals in their host countries) it may very well radicalise the moderate native population?

Its far less taboo to say that new arrivals should assimilate than it was even 5 years ago. Prime ministers of both our countries have countries have stated as much in the last couple of years. The media is also increasingly following suit.

[scotsboyuk]

The problem in this country si that we have become afraid of offending anyone and as a result we have arguably lost the ability to say what needs to be said. Of course one should respect other peoples' beliefs and culture, but at the same time people should not be afraid that saying something that someone else doesn't agree with is going to be labelled as 'discrimination', 'racism', 'sexism', 'ageism' or any other 'ism'.

There are two sides to this issue, both of which I find equally rediculous. On one hand we have people saying we should be 'tolerant' of people who come from foreign countries and who have different beliefs and traditions. I do not want to be 'tolerant' towards such people because that implies a certain amount of patronisation and seperateness, as if such people should merely be tolerated and are not actually considered full members of society. I don't want to merely 'tolerate' others, I want to accept them as equals and fully include them in our society. I want such people to become full members of our society, and their culture, beliefs and traditions to be included alongside our exisiting ones. That has been the British way of things for centuries.

There really isn't such a thing as 'pure' Briton. We are all descended from an eclectic mixture of peoples; Celts, Romans, Germanic tribes, French, etc. We have always integrated other cultures into our own and our own culture has been modified as a result. I believe that to be one of the great strengths of this country. Where other countries may simply look to take in people from other countries and make them into citizens, we have taken other cultures and used them to modify and develop our own. We speak a language that is a mixture of Germanic, Latin, French, Greek and goodness knows what else besides. Some of the most popular foods we eat are from India and Italy.

On the other side of the coin we have people too afraid to speak up when they don't agree with something. Of course the rights of minorities should be protected and of course we shouldn't be rude to one another, but it's nonsense that if one doesn't like an aspect of another culture or tradition one should feel that one cannot say so. I said above that I want people to be fully integrated and accepted into British society as equals. That also means that they become part of the great British tradition of free speech and debate.

[mendosan]

Quote: There are two sides to this issue, both of which I find equally rediculous. On one hand we have people saying we should be 'tolerant' of people who come from foreign countries and who have different beliefs and traditions. I do not want to be 'tolerant' towards such people because that implies a certain amount of patronisation and seperateness, as if such people should merely be tolerated and are not actually considered full members of society. I don't want to merely 'tolerate' others, I want to accept them as equals and fully include them in our society. I want such people to become full members of our society, and their culture, beliefs and traditions to be included alongside our exisiting ones. That has been the British way of things for centuries.

Sorry I for one am not going to blindly, accept, female circumcision in the UK because its traditionally practiced in Africa or labeling problem children witches, nor would I accept the stoning of homosexuals or regressive religious ideologies as being part of British life.

The British way of doing things has always been to "tolerate" diffrence in culture, allow people to make there own decisions about how they live within the framework of British society not promote diffrence as being the basis for a society.

Quote: On the other side of the coin we have people too afraid to speak up when they don't agree with something. Of course the rights of minorities should be protected and of course we shouldn't be rude to one another, but it's nonsense that if one doesn't like an aspect of another culture or tradition one should feel that one cannot say so. I said above that I want people to be fully integrated and accepted into British society as equals. That also means that they become part of the great British tradition of free speech and debate.

The whole point about Britian and why its been an attractive place for migration for nearly 800 years is because we have always "tolerated" difference and that British Laws and traditional liberalism has never forced people to accept Britishness, they just have. But neither until recent times has difference been promoted as a government policy, multiculturalism has separated people not brought them together, once again the state ha dismantled a system that has worked literally for centuries.

[slitedeviance]

Blinky wrote: if muslims continue to make a burden of themselves (from the POV of the locals in their host countries) it may very well radicalise the moderate native population?

Prove that they have become a burden. Prove that these issues specifically relate to the fact they are Muslim rather than poor or disenfranchised.

Saying that the POV of "the locals" needs to be taken into account fails to accept that "the muslims" are part of this. We are dealing with families who have resided in countries stretching back 3 - 4 generations. I am not denying there is an issue with intergration regarding the newer immigrant families, however this is not best approached by lumping everyone in together by virtue of their religion. Specific ideas need to relate to specific issues, rather than looking into a generalised approach.

[mendosan]

slitedeviance wrote: Blinky wrote: if muslims continue to make a burden of themselves (from the POV of the locals in their host countries) it may very well radicalise the moderate native population?

Prove that they have become a burden. Prove that these issues specifically relate to the fact they are Muslim rather than poor or disenfranchised.

Saying that the POV of "the locals" needs to be taken into account fails to accept that "the muslims" are part of this. We are dealing with families who have resided in countries stretching back 3 - 4 generations. I am not denying there is an issue with intergration regarding the newer immigrant families, however this is not best approached by lumping everyone in together by virtue of their religion. Specific ideas need to relate to specific issues, rather than looking into a generalised approach.

Well the majority of British Muslims are decended from Muslims who came from the sub continent, as a source of cheap labour (mostly illerate) because of the 1948 British Nationality Act, restictions have been implace on that since Act since 1971, and in general there decendents are poorer and less educated than Muslims that came from for example Iran and Iraq as refugees or East African Muslims (who originated from India) who came as refugees because of "Africanisation" polices there.

The Muslims who are decended from "cheap labour" sources are generaly the less intergarated ones, esppecaily in the Northern towns like Bradford for example. All the people I have ever met from Northern towns like Bradford who were white had a profound dislike for Muslims so I guess the would be the locals who had hostile POVs

[cap'n queasy]

Sounds like the natives (ChavScum?) are restless. :lol:

[slitedeviance]

mendosan wrote: The Muslims who are decended from "cheap labour" sources are generaly the less intergarated ones, esppecaily in the Northern towns like Bradford for example.

Do you have any source to back this up. I'm not neccesarily disputing this however I would be interested to see whether there are any qualitative or quantitative examples for this.

Quote: All the people I have ever met from Northern towns like Bradford who were white had a profound dislike for Muslims so I guess the would be the locals who had hostile POVs

If the Muslims in question have been living in the area for more than 1 generation then they are the locals as well.

Also, alot of my and my housemates families live up north and I have not met one person in this group who has a specific dislike for Mullims. Perhaps your sample is not a representative one.

[mendosan]

Quote: Do you have any source to back this up. I'm not neccesarily disputing this however I would be interested to see whether there are any qualitative or quantitative examples for this.

Well ive just taken this from some old lecture notes on the history of migration, and you see untill post 1945 most UK migraton was centerd on London and Port cities, only after with post war labour shortages did migrants disperse to provincial towns and cheap labour generally means uneducated labour.

Quote: When recruitment into the armed forces resulted in acute shortages of industrial labour during the course of the Second World War, many of these pedlars were able to obtain jobs in industry for the first time. When Britain experienced the post-war economic boom, which lasted right up until the end of the 1970s, there were plenty more jobs to be had, and more and more migrant workers from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh came to join these early pioneers.

Some of the immigrants had professional qualifications - many were doctors. However, the overwhelming majority of those who came to fill the (mostly unskilled) jobs on offer in Wolf's rubber factory in Southall, in iron foundries in Birmingham, in steelworks in Sheffield and Scunthorpe, and in the textile towns on both sides of the Pennines had rural origins. Most were literate in *Urdu, *Punjabi or *Gujarati, but few had much in the way of formal educational qualifications. [/quote]
http://www.movinghere.org.uk/galleries/histories/asian/origins/origins.htm#migrated

Quote: If the Muslims in question have been living in the area for more than 1 generation then they are the locals as well.

Also, alot of my and my housemates families live up north and I have not met one person in this group who has a specific dislike for Mullims. Perhaps your sample is not a representative one.

Possible its not most of the people I know from the Bradford, Leeds and Hull areas are from my POV quite racist, maybe both are samples are wrong, the people I know some people who have actualy left Bradford because they don't feel comfortable living there anymore.

I hope your right and I am wrong.

[MoscowMatt]

DSwain wrote: What we need is a fundamental look at how integration, immigration and 'multiculturalism' work in the UK - and where things have to be changed for the majority while protecting the minority.

Multiculturalism works until you have a clash of two vastly different cultures where one is not very willing to adapt or modernise. That is the issue with Islam.

[slitedeviance]

mendosan wrote: I hope your right and I am wrong.

Actually I think we both have aspects of what is right. You can probably tell I'm a tad of an idealist so I will always try to argue that as a country we are capable of bettering ourselves and moving past narrow views that may inhabit certain aspects of our culture.

I do accept there is alot of racial tension in certain areas such as Burnley, but as I say, from my experience I haven't personally encountered this specifically from a northerner.

I honestly hope that something can be done past what I'd class as a specific and targeted campaign against certain communities, to a constructive way of moving forward. Like I say, I love this country but I find there is a real inability to properly address problems.

[scotsboyuk]

mendosan wrote:

Sorry I for one am not going to blindly, accept, female circumcision in the UK because its traditionally practiced in Africa or labeling problem children witches, nor would I accept the stoning of homosexuals or regressive religious ideologies as being part of British life.

Are you hysterical for a living? I ask because I am wondering why it is you have listed the most hysterical topics you can find, which were not mentioned in the comments you quoted, and presented them as if I was saying that such practices had to be accepted. You even included the word 'blindly'; one imagines to really rev up the hysteria. Now if you can manage to climb down from your high horse for a moment, I can provide a ladder if you like seeing as it is a particularly high horse, we can actually look at the issue with something more approaching reason.

First of all where was it mentioned that any of those practices should be accepted? What I said was that I wanted the culture, beliefs and traditions of those who settle here to be included in our own British way of life. It should be blatantly obvious that to integrate new traditions, beliefs, etc with exisiting ones they have to be compatible to some degree. I know that sounds awfully simple, but well it is.

We have always been quite happy and willing to accept aspects of other cultures, which are compatible with our own. We take such aspects and make them our own. What could be more British than a night at the pub followed by a rather tasty Indian curry? Or a kebab? (Perhaps vomiting the afore mentioned food over the pavement might be considered more British, but I think that's perhaps more a personal choice).

As an aside though, it is interesting to consider some of the points you mentioned. Up until the latter part of this century homosexuality was a crime in the UK. Indeed, execution for sodomy continued up until 1835 in the UK, not all that long ago. What exactly is a 'regressive religious ideology'? Because frankly it is very British in my opinion to be allowed to believe whatever one wishes to believe. You may disagree with someone's religious beliefs, but it is not for you to say what they should and should not believe, that is part of living in a free country. As for witchcraft, you seem to be under the illusion that in this country sense and reason have always prevailed. We are only just over two hundred years from burning at the stake being a valid punishment. The last person in the UK tried under the Witchcraft Act was in 1944, and yes I typed that correctly, 'Witchcraft Act'. The act wasn't repealed until 1951, so we are not all that far removed from our own history of labeling people witches.

At any rate, the point still stands. If one wishes to be hysterical then one can mention any number of things that belong to non-British cultures e.g. voodoo, stoning, cannabalism, David Hasselhoff, etc. On the other hand, one can look to the many things that we have already integrated and accepted into our shared culture and traditions.

Quote:
The British way of doing things has always been to "tolerate" diffrence in culture, allow people to make there own decisions about how they live within the framework of British society not promote diffrence as being the basis for a society.

At the risk of sounding rude, you don't appear to have much understanding of British history. First of all there is no such thing as 'British society' in the mold you have just presented. Rather there is a society made up of different peoples who share some similarities in outlook, beliefs, history and tradition. At root though, those peoples are not a homogenous people. Our differences as English, Irish, Welsh, Scots, or whatever else, are the basis for 'British society', and the unity it creates.

Using your logic, do Scots 'tolerate' English differences and vice versus? Of course that is not the case, English traditions are as much a part of Britain as Scottish ones are. However, whilst we have accepted English traditions, etc we still remain culturally seperate from them in some regards, just as the same is true for English people in relation to Scots. Those differences make us who we are, and furthermore they also help to define what Britain is.

These islands have seen migrants throughout the centuries, from Romans to Germanic tribes to Norman French to Irish Scots to Indians. If you look at our history you will see that over the course of time migrants have become part of our society and aspects of their beliefs and their culture have come to be British. Our language is a Germanic language, replacing the Latin that was used before, which itself would have replaced the previous languages in use at the time at the time. Our Empire introduced things that we now regard as being 'British', jodhpurs spring to mind for one.

The idea that some sort of homogenous British society has existed and tolerated others is rot. We do not have that sort of society, nor have we ever had it. Our whole society and culture is based upon different peoples coming together. Within the UK itself we have seen the Home Nations and the various dependencies do this. The Empire itself was an extremely eclectic mix with people being sent all over the place and influencing other cultures around the world. Take a trip to Durban and you will see a huge Indian community there thanks to the British Empire (It's awfully humid there so I would advise taking a fan and making sure your hotel has jolly good air conditioning. Mind you even with the air conditioning on we were still hot, a shower works for all of five minutes, and then one is sweating like a Turkey on Christmas Day again. One of the best ways to deal with the humidity was a delish swim in the pool or the ocean. The Indian Ocean there is simply scrummy, it's actually slightly warm, most pleasant to bathe in.). Take a trip to New Zealand, you will find a mixture of Scots influence, modern New Zealander and Maori. Pop up to Orkney where you will see Scots and Norse influences blending.

The British way of things has been unity through diversity. Our history is full of different peoples, cultures, traditions, and beliefs; at times warring and at times uniting. 'British society' is a collection of traditions, cultural influences and beliefs that come froma range of different peoples. There is no one source for 'British society', and it will continue to take in new influences and change; even a cursory glance at our history would show that.

Quote:
The whole point about Britian and why its been an attractive place for migration for nearly 800 years is because we have always "tolerated" difference and that British Laws and traditional liberalism has never forced people to accept Britishness, they just have. But neither until recent times has difference been promoted as a government policy, multiculturalism has separated people not brought them together, once again the state ha dismantled a system that has worked literally for centuries.

Britain has been an attractive place for migration for 800 years? This is a generalisation, which doesn't hold up to the context you are attempting to put it in. I could mention instances like the Highland Clearances, the Irish Famine, the expansion of the colonial empires, or the expulsion of the Jews. Then there is the fact that 'Britain' has only been a political entity for the past few centuries, and that before that, the entire island of Great Britain may not have necessarily been attractive to migrants at various points.

You mention that people have always 'tolerated' people and never forced them to accept Britishness. I would find it jolly surprising if we had since Britain and 'Britishness' didn't really exist until faily recently. I sense a certain romantic nostalgia in your post, but unfortunately this doesn't bear up to history. One can look back over our shared history and see a number of occassions when one set of people forced their view upon another. Take the aftermath of the 1745 Jacobite Uprising for example, the government banned tartan and the playing of the bagpipes. Look at Edward I's quasi-imperial ambitions over the rest of the British Isles. Look at the alternating anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant actions in the 16th century.

Looking at Britain today I can say that we have actually done a reasonably good job of integrating migrants into our society, certainly if one compares Britain with somewhere like France. How often do we hear of British Sikhs or Hindus in the news? British Jews? British West Indians? British Chinese? We hear of British Muslims so often because there is a global battle between Muslim extremists and the West. It isn't terribly surprising that Britain's Muslim community should receive more attention as a result, with debates and discussions opening up about aspects of Muslim life in Britain.

Multiculturalism does work, in fact, in the case of these islands, it has been working with various degrees of success for the better part of two millennia.

[DSwain]

Multiculturalism and a country of many cultures are different concepts so I don't think the statement of Britain always having been multicultural washes; yes, we've always had different cultures but we've not lived under multiculturalism. There has been a dominant host culture and beneath that several strata of different cultures, from the Chinese of Limehouse to the Jews of Salford to the more recent additions of Afro-Caribbeans in St Paul's and Poles in King's Lynn. So it's true to say that Britain has never been homogenous - but it's a rotten smoke screen to cover what is going on now regarding Britain's Muslims - because this is something rather new.

There is a fundamental difference between such communities and some of those communities from the Indian sub-continent - not only Muslims, but also Sikhs to a far lesser extent. The cultural identity and values of tranches of Britain's Muslims, as shown in the fairly comprehensive C4 doc "What do Muslims Want", differs greatly from many of the shared values of the rest of the nation.

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/dispatches2006/muslim_survey/index.html

http://www.imaginate.uk.com/MCC01_SURVEY/Site%20Download.pdf

Significant proportions of Muslims - particularly young Muslims - feel ambivalent at best, hostile at worst, to their country. Should we worry? Hasn't the young always kicked at the traces and shrugged at calls to nation and flag etc? Yes, of course - but this is different from counter-culture, even from the hairies in things like the Angry Brigade. This is hundreds of thousands of people who put their religion above everything, certainly above country - and it's a heck of a lot harder to rationalise with someone over acts committed to benefit Allah than to benefit Karl Marx. Why do some young Muslims feel this way? It's because of a brand of multiculturalism that has made no attempt to instill British values, multiculturalism of the sort that sniffs at those who wish to fly one of our national flags for fear of suggesting that one culture is somehow superior to another. Well here's the newsflash - in Britain, the indigenous culture is superior; not better necessarily, not more worthy - but it is and should be superior to alien cultures. Alien cultures have the right to exist in the UK, but not alongside the indigenous culture, on a par. And by British culture, I don't mean Morris dancing and Cheddar rolling - but the values of tolerance, freedom to speak, a free press, no recourse to religious diktat. Any alien culture that embraces those values I see as complimenting the UK and British (or English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish culture if you prefer) culture, any culture that sets itself against those values I see as a threat.

[antonio62]

DSwain wrote: What Trevor Phillips is guilty of here - and I do respect the man - is something of which many of us are equally guilty, namely ignoring the elephant in the room - the considerable disquiet of many of the white, working class British population.

These white Britons in London, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow and elsewhere see themselves as under attack in the media - for poor diet, poor educational achievement, poorly brought up children. There aren't many (or any) calls for moderation in this media bruising - no ministers calling for calm, no civil rights or human rights groups calling for understanding, no police forces looking at sensitive methods of policing. At the same time, they see tiny British Muslim minority in the country at the centre of public policy, rightly or wrongly. These working class white Britons see their state schools swamped (no excuse for that word) with children for whom English is not a first language, GP's surgeries having to use dial-an-interpreter services, women in burkhas at the bus stop.

These white Britons don't strap on suicide vests, but they will riot. In this Philips is right, and the whole veil controversy is acting as a lightning rod. Where he is wrong, IMO, is to imagine that British Muslims are at the centre of the problem. What we need is a fundamental look at how integration, immigration and 'multiculturalism' work in the UK - and where things have to be changed for the majority while protecting the minority.

These problems belong to all races living in Britain. We shouldn't try and divide the problems up along ethnic lines and try and tackle problems facing Muslim communities while ignoring black or white commmunities needs. We should try and solve the route cause of all of the problems.

[scotsboyuk]

DSwain wrote: Multiculturalism and a country of many cultures are different concepts so I don't think the statement of Britain always having been multicultural washes; yes, we've always had different cultures but we've not lived under multiculturalism.

'Multiculturalism' is a modern word, but the general theme has existed in Britain for a very long time. If we go back to Roman Britain, the Roman government moved people all across the Roman Empire. The guards on Hadrian's wall, for example, weren't necessarily Italian or even from Britain, they could be from Eastern Europe. They were part of the society at that time, citizens of the empire.

If we look to further on in British history, during the early medieval period, we have an eclectic mixture of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Romano-British, Celts, etc. All these people lived on the same island, often at the same time.

The late 7th century king of Northumbria, Edwin, had an Italian bishop, Paulinus, who converted the royal court and the people of Northumbria to Christianity. There was intermarriage and trade between British kingdoms and the Merovingian Frankish kingdoms. In 'Scotland' there was a new kingdom created between the Irish Scots and the Picts. Later on we have Norse and Danes coming to Britain.

Interestingly, there is evidence to suggest that Edwin, and Anglo-Saxon, looked towards the earlier Roman tradition to present an image of power.

All these people brought their own cultures, traditions and beliefs to 'Britain'. It might not have been called multiculturalism, but the basic practice of different peoples being integrated into a kingdom, and later a nation, was there.

However, as I said in my previous post, there wasn't a homogenous 'British culture', just as there isn't today. Our culture is one of eclectic mixes, drawing upon various different sources. The very idea of a 'British culture' through the ages is not valid in my opinion because the idea of 'Britain the nation' didn't exist until the 18th century. What we have before that is various forms of unification of various parts of the present day United Kingdom, but ultimately there was no single unified 'British state'.

Quote:
There has been a dominant host culture and beneath that several strata of different cultures, from the Chinese of Limehouse to the Jews of Salford to the more recent additions of Afro-Caribbeans in St Paul's and Poles in King's Lynn. So it's true to say that Britain has never been homogenous - but it's a rotten smoke screen to cover what is going on now regarding Britain's Muslims - because this is something rather new.


Two points here, which I shall address in turn.

The idea of a 'dominant host culture' needs a little clarification I think. What we regard as being the current 'dominant host culture' might be looked upon in horror by our recent ancestors. Take for example a Victorian view of British culture in the late 20th century. Would they have approved of homosexuality being legal? The integration of Britain into a European framework? Women being given the right to vote? Even in the short space of a hundred or so years our society has changed immensely. British culture has always been in a state of flux, ever changing. Sometimes that change is quick paced,a nd at other times it is slower.

The 'dominant host culture' is modified and changed by the people who come to live here. When the Anglo-Saxons came to Britain they altered the 'dominant host culture' from a Romano-British one with Christianity, to a more Germanic one with paganism. When Italiana nd Irish missionaries arrived the host culture was again changed to a Christian one. When the Norman arrived in England the Anglo-Saxon culture was modified over time to include certain French influences.

Your point about British Muslims is valid to a certain extent. This isn't just a debate that is going on in Britain, but across Europe and in various parts of the world, and it is happening within the context of a threat that we really haven't seen before, a global terrorist threat. Yes we have faced terrorism before, but not on this scale, and without the significant cultural and religious differences that we are debating.

What we should be doing is looking to see where contemporary British culture and Islamic culture meet and integrating those aspects into our own society. By doing that we can more fully integrate Britian's Muslims, whilst also drawing a line at the extremes that threaten us. By taking on those characteristcs on Islam that are most compatible with our current society, we can make British muslims feel that they are a part of this country.

My point, if it has been lost in this rather long post, is that the lack of a homogenous British culture is actually a great strength. We don't necessarily have to bend people to our way of doing things because our way of doing things involves accepting new infleunces. What is it to be British? In my view it's to be part of a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. We each have individual identities; an Englishman is English with all that entails, a Scotsman is Scottish with all that entails. However, we also have another identity, one that is big and flexible enough to incorporate our differences within an overall framework.

Quote:
There is a fundamental difference between such communities and some of those communities from the Indian sub-continent - not only Muslims, but also Sikhs to a far lesser extent. The cultural identity and values of tranches of Britain's Muslims, as shown in the fairly comprehensive C4 doc "What do Muslims Want", differs greatly from many of the shared values of the rest of the nation.

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/dispatches2006/muslim_survey/index.html

http://www.imaginate.uk.com/MCC01_SURVEY/Site%20Download.pdf

That is a rather interesting survey, and reading through it it seems to present something of a mixed bag of views. One of the major things I noticed was that there tended to be a differenc ein opinion between older Muslims in Britain and younger ones. I am not anthropologist or a sociologist, but I rather wonder whether the younger generations hold some of the views they do because of less tiem spent in Britain, less familiarity with British ways of doing things, and.or some idealised version of Islam that is incompatible with certain British traditions.

You mentioned the Indian sub-continent, and I would like to tocuh on that for a moment. I think it is rather interesting to note that India has maintained a democratic secular state since independence in 1947, whilst incorporating a varied mixture of peoples and religions. Of course I realise that India has had religious issues through the years, but the point remains, India is a democratic secular country modelled along certain British lines. That would seme to suggest that such a system is not wholly incompatible with the peoples of India.

Since you talk more about the survey below I'll continue there.

Quote:
Significant proportions of Muslims - particularly young Muslims - feel ambivalent at best, hostile at worst, to their country. Should we worry? Hasn't the young always kicked at the traces and shrugged at calls to nation and flag etc? Yes, of course - but this is different from counter-culture, even from the hairies in things like the Angry Brigade. This is hundreds of thousands of people who put their religion above everything, certainly above country - and it's a heck of a lot harder to rationalise with someone over acts committed to benefit Allah than to benefit Karl Marx. Why do some young Muslims feel this way? It's because of a brand of multiculturalism that has made no attempt to instill British values, multiculturalism of the sort that sniffs at those who wish to fly one of our national flags for fear of suggesting that one culture is somehow superior to another. Well here's the newsflash - in Britain, the indigenous culture is superior; not better necessarily, not more worthy - but it is and should be superior to alien cultures. Alien cultures have the right to exist in the UK, but not alongside the indigenous culture, on a par. And by British culture, I don't mean Morris dancing and Cheddar rolling - but the values of tolerance, freedom to speak, a free press, no recourse to religious diktat. Any alien culture that embraces those values I see as complimenting the UK and British (or English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish culture if you prefer) culture, any culture that sets itself against those values I see as a threat.

There is a lot to pick up on in this paragraph, but I shall do my best old boy.

First of all I would agree with you regarding your comments that what we are seeing today amongst Britain's Muslim youth is not comparable to traditional rebelliousness that prompts the young to thumb their noses at the establishment. Technically speaking we don't live in a secular country given that there are established and state sanctioned churches e.g. the Church of England and the Kirk in Scotland, but of course in practice Britain is a secular state. If some people feel that their religion is more important than the state, even to the point of thinking the two are incompatible, then that is of course their choice in a free country. However, I think what we should be asking is why more people don't feel a connection to their nation.

This ties in with the other point you made regarding an inability to display one's patriotism. I think we go the wrong way about such things in the UK., and England in particular. Why don't we make more of a show of celebrating things like Battle of Britain Day? In school all children seem to be taught about in history are Nazis. Why don't we place more emphasis on teaching them about things like the Napoleonic Wars; the spread of liberal democracy; the way Britain has helped to shape the world? Why don't we teach children more about the Empire, botht he good and the bad? This last point is very important in my opinion.

I think some of what we see today is a legacy of the Empire, a shame over it. Yes of course there were some awful things done during the Empire and of course we should be taught baout them, but at the same time we shouldn't shy away from educating people baout our past. When they know where we came from, what we did and why we did it, it may prompt people to become more intereste din their country.

When you say "... a brand of multiculturalism that has made no attempt to instill British values..." I have to disagree with you. I don't think the fault lies with multiculturalism, but rather the hijacking of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism isn't politcal correctness, but in some respects that is what it has become. Multiculturalism should be about diverse peoples living side by side, each respecting one another, not artifical attempts at insitlling nicities and platitudes. Multiculturalism doesn't entail ignoring problems or calling a spade a spade, that's political correctness in my opinion. It's high time we actually took back multiculturalism, and make it work the way it should work without all this silly nonsense of treading on eggshells every time someone speaks or wants to fly a flag.

I actually wonder whether the insane drive towards political correctness doesn't actually create some of the issues we see today. Rather than being bale to have an open debate about an issue we have people tip toeing around or sensational headline sin reaction to such pu**y footing. If you raise certain issues above debate through political correctness then I think it's bound to eb the case that people will do one of two things; become nagry at that and take a more extreme view than they might have or consider any raising of the subject to be discrimination and not fit for discussion.

[DSwain]

An interesting post, scotsboyuk - I'll take you up on a few points:

- India and UK are markedly different countries so I don't think the comparison, in re peoples of the sub-continent, actually works. It's well said that India is a country of a thousand thousand villages, while UK is a highly centralised, predominantly urban country with sophisticated transport and communication links between each and every part of the country. India has a strongly federal system, the UK has weak local governance. Difference languages are spoken in different parts of the country. Aside all that - 'relgious differences' is a far too inocuous term to describe some incredibly bloody periods in post-independence India, between Hindu and Muslim and between Sikh and Hindu.

- In discussing a dominant culture I of course acknowledge that any such culture is subject to contemporary dynamism. You're right, the late Victorians would take a rather queer view of what passes for the mainstream today. I'm not arguing for conservatism at any price, only that a country of many cultures doesn't lose sight of the very important beliefs held by the dominant culture. In 2000 years, Taoist Britain will I'm sure wring its hands in a similar way as we do - how to make the young feel more Taoist - and they'll be right, if Taoism is that dominant culture.

- I think you're being a tad disingenous to say that multiculturalism has been hijacked; that's rather like saying socialism was hijacked. Socialism remained the preserve of the academic until it was put into practice and when one criticises (or praises) socialism today, one does it regarding what socialism actually achieved in practice, not what Marx imagined it would do. The same applies to multiculturalism, maybe even more so. If we argue multiculturalism, I'm not particularly interested nor affected by what I might find in the library of the department of sociology at UEA about the theory, but I am concerned about how the practice of multiculturalism affects daily British life.

- I would absolutely agree with you re political correctness stymying good relations and good debate. I think the recent case in Manchester is telling - the police are told by their management to avoid making arrests over Ramadan and some of the strongest criticism came from a Muslim group. As with so many of the problems of contemporary Britain, dig a little and you find an interfering, white, well-meaning but foolish civil servant.

[scotsboyuk]

DSwain wrote:

- India and UK are markedly different countries so I don't think the comparison, in re peoples of the sub-continent, actually works. It's well said that India is a country of a thousand thousand villages, while UK is a highly centralised, predominantly urban country with sophisticated transport and communication links between each and every part of the country. India has a strongly federal system, the UK has weak local governance. Difference languages are spoken in different parts of the country. Aside all that - 'relgious differences' is a far too inocuous term to describe some incredibly bloody periods in post-independence India, between Hindu and Muslim and between Sikh and Hindu.


I wasn't making a direct comparison, more making the general point that a system of government based upon a British model is not necessarily incompatible with the groups you identified.

Of course there have been problems in India since independence, but the point still remains, India has maintained a secular democracy. I'm not saying the picture has always been rosy in India, but that a very diverse nation has been able to maintain that system is an important point in my opinion.

Quote:
- In discussing a dominant culture I of course acknowledge that any such culture is subject to contemporary dynamism. You're right, the late Victorians would take a rather queer view of what passes for the mainstream today. I'm not arguing for conservatism at any price, only that a country of many cultures doesn't lose sight of the very important beliefs held by the dominant culture. In 2000 years, Taoist Britain will I'm sure wring its hands in a similar way as we do - how to make the young feel more Taoist - and they'll be right, if Taoism is that dominant culture.

I think we are largely in agreement here. The host culture certainly shouldn't loose sight of itself in an effort to change. There should be a measured pace that gives chaps and chapesses time to get used to the changes.

Obviously we should do our best to accomodate people, but at the same time I don't think we should be scrambling to alter things in a bid to appear more inclusive. I would rather that we took our time and actually were more inclusive rather than rushing, and doing little but giving a semblance of inclusiveness.

For instance, this rot about 'Britishness classes' or whatever people are calling it. It's total nonsense in my opinion; you can't teach someone to be British. What you can do is give people academic lessons in British history, and teach them the English language. But to actually be British people have to be immeresed in Britain itself. The very idea of trying to promote 'Britishness' doesn't seem very British to me. When have we ever slapped our hands on our hearts, pledged allegiance to something and cried with passion at being British? If you're British you know it, and you don't have to tell everyone, that's the British way.

Since I am a Taoist I'd like to reply to your Taoist scenario if I may. Taoism, as it is practiced in the West, isn't very big on making people feel more Taoist. It's a personal thing to a great extent, as one has to interpret things for one's self. Proselytism and evangelagising aren't really in keeping with Taojia (philosophical Taoism).

Quote:
- I think you're being a tad disingenous to say that multiculturalism has been hijacked; that's rather like saying socialism was hijacked. Socialism remained the preserve of the academic until it was put into practice and when one criticises (or praises) socialism today, one does it regarding what socialism actually achieved in practice, not what Marx imagined it would do. The same applies to multiculturalism, maybe even more so. If we argue multiculturalism, I'm not particularly interested nor affected by what I might find in the library of the department of sociology at UEA about the theory, but I am concerned about how the practice of multiculturalism affects daily British life.


I would have to disagree with you here. Multiculturalism can work perfectly well in my opinion if it isn't co-opted by those sekeing to build some sort of happy happy joy joy smiley smiley society. What we have in this country is PC madness that thinks it is doing the work of multiculturalism. It's the PC rot in my opinion that buggers up the whole affair.

There was a Sikh chap on Question Time the other week who was rather bang on in my opinion. He basically said that people coming to live in Britain should respect British culture and traditions. He wasn't saying that as a minority he had to eb treated with kid gloves or treated as if he were made of lalique. That's what multiculturalism is, the respectful and peaceful co-existence of different peoples.

We hear about how everyone should be integrated and such like, and of course integrating those who come to live in Britain is important, but it is being attempted through PC. If you want people to be equal parts of the community and feel they are British then treat them as such. Don't molly coddle people, don't raise certain issues up as being almost unfit for discussion. That's where PC has hijacked multiculturalism. If the PC brigade would simply step back and actually let people ge ton with integrating the process would probably be a lot smoother and more successful. As it is the PC brigade creates issues with their nonsense that can't be tackled properly.

Quote:
- I would absolutely agree with you re political correctness stymying good relations and good debate. I think the recent case in Manchester is telling - the police are told by their management to avoid making arrests over Ramadan and some of the strongest criticism came from a Muslim group. As with so many of the problems of contemporary Britain, dig a little and you find an interfering, white, well-meaning but foolish civil servant.

Much of the nonsense we see today is arguably attributable to PC. The Sikh chap I mentioned above made an interesting point, essentially that one doesn't necessarily feel free to speak out on certain topics. Why have we allowed this to happen? Why are we sitting idly by and allowing this nonsense to propogate?