Let us celebrate the official end of the multiculturalist experiment in Britain!

[Seeker]

"since multiculturalism is the principle of different cultures coexisting harmoniously and in tolerance of each other within one nation, there is no part of Blair's speech that actually goes against that principle."

That's not what most people understand by 'multiculturalism'. You've made a statement which most reasonable people couldn't disagree with, not a definition of multiculturalism.

In Canada multiculturalism is a legally defined term (potentially)entitling members of a minority community to financial support for the purpose of perpetuating their culture.

And actually, "different cultures...coexisting...in tolerance of each other" DOES seem to be at issue here. Wearing the veil is part of some Muslims cultures. If the British or other governments is no longer prepared to "tolerate" that, don't you see how it changes multiculturalism?

Let's see the new definition of multiculturalism if cultural practices like the veil/burka become illegal:

"multiculturalism is the principle of different cultures coexisting (relatively) harmoniously and in tolerance of each other within one nation, with said tolerance existing within certain limits imposed by the cultural and legal standards of the majority culture therefore forbidding such cultural practices as burka wearing, FGM, Muti, Sharia, etc."

Legally it would be quite a change. Which definition of multiculturalism is Blair's speech more consistent with, yours or mine?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Seeker
"since multiculturalism is the principle of different cultures coexisting harmoniously and in tolerance of each other within one nation, there is no part of Blair's speech that actually goes against that principle."

That's not what most people understand by 'multiculturalism'. You've made a statement which most reasonable people couldn't disagree with, not a definition of multiculturalism.

Dunno about Canada or the UK, but here in Krautland there was over years a "ideological" battle what multiculturalism would mean. One classic left view was that it means the tolerance of every cultural practice, and this moved any criticism/legal limitations of such practices near racism/xenophobia. One classic right view was that multiculturalism is evil, destroys the "majority" culture, and as consequence from such views there were demands either to limit immigration and/or that people being here from other cultures should more or less give up their own culture and follow the "majority" culture (they coined the nice term "Leitkultur" - "leading culture" for that).

Today the debate has lost most of its momentum, and the only thing left between those extremes that makes sense IMO is what Laz described as multiculturalism.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Seeker
That's not what most people understand by 'multiculturalism'. You've made a statement which most reasonable people couldn't disagree with, not a definition of multiculturalism.

mul·ti·cul·tur·al·ism

–noun
1. the state or condition of being multicultural.
2. the preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation.

Shocking stuff, right? Where's the unreasonable stuff in there?

In Canada multiculturalism is a legally defined term (potentially)entitling members of a minority community to financial support for the purpose of perpetuating their culture.

Lucky old Canada. Why should your silly legal minutiae be considered binding on the English language and definitions of multiculturalism in the wider world?

Does multiculturalism only exist when state funds are at stake?

And actually, "different cultures...coexisting...in tolerance of each other" DOES seem to be at issue here. Wearing the veil is part of some Muslims cultures. If the British or other governments is no longer prepared to "tolerate" that, don't you see how it changes multiculturalism?

We've had a couple of politicians declaring a preference for people removing veils to talk to them. They're entitled to their opinions. It's not as if laws are being passed (they'd almost certainly be unworkable anyway).

Let's see the new definition of multiculturalism if cultural practices like the veil/burka become illegal:

"multiculturalism is the principle of different cultures coexisting (relatively) harmoniously and in tolerance of each other within one nation, with said tolerance existing within certain limits imposed by the cultural and legal standards of the majority culture therefore forbidding such cultural practices as burka wearing, FGM, Muti, Sharia, etc."

Legally it would be quite a change. Which definition of multiculturalism is Blair's speech more consistent with, yours or mine?

Mine. Thanks for playing.

[Seeker]

Don't pretend to be obtuse, we're talking about word usage here, not dictionary definitions, particularly popular word usage, which you know full well is often more nuanced and contains different meanings then the mere dictionary definition of a word.

And when it comes to policy that affects people's lives "silly legal definitions" are more important that the dictionary entry.

I have a dictionary. I know how to use it. If I was interested in looking up the dictionary definition of 'multiculturalism' then I would've. There's no point playing if you're just going to be facetious.

"mine"
Wrong.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Dis


has it occurred to anyone that veils are stupid? And women shouldn't be forced to wear them?

I remember a few years back here in Arkansas during July a muslim family came in to a store with the woman covered head to toe except her eyes. The guy was wearing a tank top, shorts and flip flops while the two kids (both girls) were wearing shorts and tank tops as well.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
aneeshm- since multiculturalism is the principle of different cultures coexisting harmoniously and in tolerance of each other within one nation, there is no part of Blair's speech that actually goes against that principle.

Let's put it this way- if a Christian extremist came here to violently protest against the celebration of Eid, they'd be shown the door very swiftly.

The sections of Blair's speech that your article conveniently omits detailed examples of sucessful multiculturalism with the Hindu and Sikh communities in Britain, after all. So on behalf of the Hindus and Sikhs of Britain, I'd like you to carefully consider whether multiculturalism is really such a bad thing.

Hindus and Sikhs are successfully integrated precisely because they harbour no secret dreams of shaping British society to be like Indian society. They go with full awareness that they will have to adopt British culture.

And again, Blair spoke against multiculturalism as in "anything goes", not as in "harmonious co-existence of people from different cultural backgrounds". The difference is crucial.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by DaShi
Yes, do what the US did with the Irish?

Which was nothing compared to what Britain did with them. I don't recall millions of them having been left starving here.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Seeker
Don't pretend to be obtuse, we're talking about word usage here, not dictionary definitions, particularly popular word usage, which you know full well is often more nuanced and contains different meanings then the mere dictionary definition of a word.

And when it comes to policy that affects people's lives "silly legal definitions" are more important that the dictionary entry.

Why do you feel a Canadian legal definition not used in Britain has more revelance to the issue in Britain than the British definition?

I have a dictionary. I know how to use it. If I was interested in looking up the dictionary definition of 'multiculturalism' then I would've. There's no point playing if you're just going to be facetious.

Dictionaries are not arcane hidden lore. They reflect the commonly-accepted definition of words. Again- why do you feel your Canadian legal definition is more correct?

"mine"
Wrong.

Bollocks. See Blair's praising of the multicultural stances as seen within Britain's Hindu and Sikh communities.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Hindus and Sikhs are successfully integrated precisely because they harbour no secret dreams of shaping British society to be like Indian society. They go with full awareness that they will have to adopt British culture.

Which is why they all adopt the official state religion of Britain, and British dress codes, presumably. Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

The only difference is the lack of militants. That's it.

And again, Blair spoke against multiculturalism as in "anything goes", not as in "harmonious co-existence of people from different cultural backgrounds". The difference is crucial.

"Anything goes", as in imposing your cultural whims forcibly on others, is not multiculturalism. It's fascism. The difference, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, is crucial.

[Kuciwalker]

Does British multiculturalism include Finns? If so, it needs to go.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

But this is, in truth, not what I mean when I talk of integration. Integration, in this context, is not about culture or lifestyle. It is about values. It is about integrating at the point of shared, common unifying British values. It isn't about what defines us as people, but as citizens, the rights and duties that go with being a member of our society.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and other faiths have a perfect right to their own identity and religion, to practice their faith and to conform to their culture. This is what multicultural, multi-faith Britain is about. That is what is legitimately distinctive.

This is part of Blair's speech that the right-wing Telegraph curiously omitted. Now doesn't that look remarkably like the definition of multi-culturalism that I used?

[KrazyHorse]

The Telegraph

A paragon of British journalism.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Which is why they all adopt the official state religion of Britain, and British dress codes, presumably. Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

The only difference is the lack of militants. That's it.

The second generation on does adopt British dress.

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

"Anything goes", as in imposing your cultural whims forcibly on others, is not multiculturalism. It's fascism. The difference, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, is crucial.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. "Anything goes" refers to the tolerance of anything whatsoever done by somebody in the name of respecting his culture.

[Cort Haus]

The basic problem with the multicultural model in the UK is that it encourages difference and what sets people apart, rather than what people have in common.

Wedded to this is the victim mentality which encourages people to portay themselves as downtrodden ("help, help, I'm being repressed"). Throw in some self-righteous anger and you have the ingredients for discord.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
The basic problem with the multicultural model in the UK is that it encourages difference and what sets people apart, rather than what people have in common.

Wedded to this is the victim mentality which encourages people to portay themselves as downtrodden ("help, help, I'm being repressed"). Throw in some self-righteous anger and you have the ingredients for discord.

QFT


Multiculturalism:

Melting pot Assimilationism: