egafd.com

Lets take a work diversity policy for example which isn't about equality but a embrace of all the aspects of the group or group for example allowing staff to wear appropriate clothing, or making sure there's rooms to pray in or work different days due to religious needs.

Of course when group A swears that group E are aberrations due to their lifestyle choices or B demands that C must be killed due to being from another tribe and don't forget group Z who has no compunction against considering all known Zs as unbelievers and must be removed or killed.

There is no way of pleasing all groups especially with every group no matter how made up wanting to have their views foisted on others totally opposite to theirs.

Our great society which is held up as a multicultural miracle is only a veneer which is allowed to continue by the destruction of those who speak out by portraying them as racists or nutters.

Of course these victims are mostly the proverbial white Anglo Saxon as they are able to be used as the whipping boys of society as there isn't any lobby groups interested in them.

Is there a definition of what multiculturalism is amongst that? Or have I just missed it in the midst of the general rant?

Secondly, "Of course when group A swears that group E are aberrations due to their lifestyle choices or B demands that C must be killed due to being from another tribe and don't forget group Z who has no compunction against considering all known Zs as unbelievers and must be removed or killed."

Dunno about you but I spent years working in London which is about as multicultural as you get in the UK, in the 80s and 90s and didn't come across that malarkey.

Always a mistake to extrapolate from the unusual and describe it as the typical. A bit like stating that all Christians stand outside abortion centres shouting insults at the doctors.

Know what I mean?

Happy to David.

Of course it IS indeed "a pile of shite put together by the Labour government". Well spotted! !laugh!

But you're also right in saying that this is only part of the definition, and a tad over-simplistic. I'll give you that one.

How would I define it? Well I think that first we need to look at the woolly, muddle-headed liberal definition of it. Which seems to be that if different cultures ? along with all their different and often conflicting cultural ideas, mores, values and moral codes - are all brought together and are allowed and/or encouraged and/or forced to intermingle, all the "best bits" from each culture will rub off on all the other cultures, all the "bad bits" will fall by the wayside and will somehow be magically eliminated. And everybody will then live happily ever after in some kind of utopian "rainbow nation".

This is idealistic, cloud-cuckoo-land bollox.

Because what it means in practice is that once you start encouraging all manner of minority groups by telling them that their cultural ideas, mores, values and moral codes are equally "valid" in the "host" culture, then what's inevitably going to happen is that you're going to end up with a cuckoo-in-the-nest situation in which the loudest, most aggressive and most strident minority groups are going to start demanding more and more prominence, concessions and "rights" and will then go running to the courts moaning about their "human rights" being violated once they get challenged. They end up using our own "tolerance" against us and undermining the "host" society from within. Resulting in more disharmony and resentment, not less. The complete opposite of what was originaly intended.

This is multiculturalism in practice in the UK today. And while I'm not of the "all immigrants are scrounging lazy bastards" / "if it's black send it back" school, I do think that the virtual open-door immigration policy is a complete disaster, as is the constant pandering to minorities that we have seen not just from Labour but from the current bunch of clowns as well. I think that's a disaster because it has the potiential to ultimately result in major confrontation, social disorder and ultimately our society breaking down.

I think that any society has to have a basic set of tenents by which it functions, and for centuries in the UK these have been (broadly speaking) a Western parliamentary-style secular Christian democracy with the associated values which (although by no means perfect) have served us reasonably well on the whole over the years.

I think our message to immigrants and minorities should be that "you're welcome here, (a) provided you actually bring something useful to the table, and (b) remember that this is how we do things here. Because If you seek to try and impose your system on us, you can fuck off back to where you came from". After all, they do it in places like Australia, Canada and NZ. So why not here?

We should be "tolerant" of other cultures, sure. But not to the point of letting them take the piss. I suppose I'm a "uniculturalist".

You'll probably disagree vehemnetly of course. But you're entitled to your own view.

Now perhaps in return you'd be kind enough to tell us why you apparently think that multiculturalism is such a wonderful thing. Thanks!

- Eric

Eric the Canadians always have a practical approach to life yet equally will give someone a bloody nose who tries to alter their very high quality of life. If I was emiggrating Canada would be well up the list.

It would be grand if after all this time of using the forum, you got the hang of threads, Eric.

Now to the topic in discussion.

"Which seems to be that if different cultures ? along with all their different and often conflicting cultural ideas, mores, values and moral codes - are all brought together and are allowed and/or encouraged and/or forced to intermingle, all the "best bits" from each culture will rub off on all the other cultures, all the "bad bits" will fall by the wayside and will somehow be magically eliminated. And everybody will then live happily ever after in some kind of utopian "rainbow nation".

This is very long winded and secondly not a definition of multiculturalism that I would recognise or in fact, I suspect the overwhelmingly majority of the UK population. "All the bad bits will fall by the wayside"? You haven't been reading the Jackanory Definition of Multiculturalism have you?

I will try to give you more precise definition(s).

Multiculturalism can be used simply as a descriptive term, referring to the simple fact of cultural diversity: it is generally applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place e.g. schools, businesses, neighbourhoods, cities, or nations.

Now with regard to the above definition, Britain is multicultural whether you like it or not and nothing short of extermination camps or enforced emigration is going to change that. It is also worth pointing out that many of the immigrants and their families arriving in this country were invited here by the British Government in the 50s and 60s to fill many of the employee shortages arising after the Second World War. WIthout doctors and nurses from the old Empire, the NHS would have collapsed.

A second definition of multiculturalism is one in which cultural diversity is supported and encouraged. For many on this forum this is "naughty" multiculturalism. And results in views like your own e.g. "Because what it means in practice is that once you start encouraging all manner of minority groups by telling them that their cultural ideas, mores, values and moral codes are equally "valid" in the "host" culture, then what's inevitably going to happen is that you're going to end up with a cuckoo-in-the-nest situation in which the loudest, most aggressive and most strident minority groups are going to start demanding more and more prominence".

Max Tranmere is also a proponent of "naughty" multiculturalism. What denotes many of the people who hold similar views is how limited and insular their outlooks are. For example, Max has no Muslim friends. Has never had Muslim or Hindu friends and shows no interest in ever having friends from these cultures. Nor have I ever heard you, Eric talk about mates such as Muslims and Hindus that you have. The result of this insularity seems to be an overwhelming tendency to lump people of a particular religious faith together like Muslims and Hindus in a way you would never do with CHristians. So many people on this forum come out with ridiculous generalisations as if there was a hook-nosed Muslim with a large knife hiding under their bed just waiting to decapitate them.

Let me give you an example of cultural divesity. I am white English, brought up in the mining community of the North East. The culture of my upbringing is based on the closeness of the mining community and the many shared facets of life then. I am delighted that the government/council helps fund festivals and museums that keep alive the story of that culture.

Many British are of Asian descent. The culture of their upbringing in terms of dance, story telling etc is completely different from mine. I am delighted that the government/council helps fund festivals such as the various melas which celebrate Asian culture. I enjoy visiting these festivals even though it is a million miles from my upbringing. Just as I enjoy West Indian festivals/carnivals.

Now that isnt to say everything is hunky dory with multiculturalism in the sense there will always be groups that take the piss. That is basically what the Canadian is on about. However what you do not seem to have cottoned on to is that she comes across as a supporter of multiculturalism whilst pointing out that there can be groups whose views are inimicable to those of western states.

But hey in the case of the world of Islam, the British government's decision to illegally invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims, to stay in Afghanistan for longer than the two world wars put together and to condone the unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan, is not really an act of great kindness is it ? And hey not all British Muslims think it is fantastic? What a surprise?

In short, I think that yourself, Max and the "naughty" multicultural believers need to get out and about a bit more, make Muslim/Hindu friends, travel to some of the countries that are overwhelmingly Muslim and/or Hindu. And you might have a bit more balanced view of reality.

David Johnson wrote:

> Nor have I ever heard you, Eric talk about mates such as
> Muslims and Hindus that you have.

> In short, I think that yourself, Max and the "naughty"
> multicultural believers need to get out and about a bit more,
> make Muslim/Hindu friends, travel to some of the countries that
> are overwhelmingly Muslim and/or Hindu.


Well David, for all your long-winded moral-superiority and lecturing, that just goes to whow how much (or rather how little) you actually know.

As it happens I was with an Iranian woman for 12 years (married to her for six), have visited several Muslim countries (Iran obviosuly being one) and have probably had more Muslim friends (not to mention in-laws !wink!) than you've had hand-jobs.

And just for good measure, my one of my best friends at school 30 years ago (and who I still have occasional contact with) was a Hindu.

Perhaps you're the one who needs to "get out more"?

- Eric

David Johnson wrote:

> Nor have I ever heard you, Eric talk about mates such as
> Muslims and Hindus that you have.


You must be slipping David. Not like you to leave such a glaring gap in your "personnel files":



- Eric

Ooh, one of your best friends at school 30 years ago was a Hindu. What a shining example of multiculturalism in action you are!!!

And you refer to all your Muslim friends.

Tell me, Eric then, did your time with "all your Muslim friends" result in your views that

"then what's inevitably going to happen is that you're going to end up with a cuckoo-in-the-nest situation in which the loudest, most aggressive and most strident minority groups are going to start demanding more and more prominence, concessions and "rights" and will then go running to the courts moaning about their "human rights" being violated once they get challenged. They end up using our own "tolerance" against us and undermining the "host" society from within. Resulting in more disharmony and resentment, not less. The complete opposite of what was originaly intended.

Is that how they were, Eric?

PS I note you counter nothing in my post other than the fact that you are multiculturalism personified in your personal life. I am surprised you aren't working on a government quango, Eric running workshops on "Making Multiculturalism work in everyday married life".

So on the one hand your life is a monument to multiculturalism according to you e.g. lived in Iran, Iranian wife, many Muslim friends etc.


But on the other, if any government tries to create an environment where it is acceptable to do what you have done by purporting "their cultural ideas, mores, values and moral codes are equally "valid", provided they are within the law of the land, it is "idealistic, cloud-cuckoo-land bollox".

Did you live together in Britain? If so did you start off each day by telling your wife and your "Muslim friends" that "your cultural ideas, mores, values and moral codes are not as valid as mine".

That must have gone down well over the breakfast table.

David Johnson wrote:

[quote]Ooh, one of your best friends at school 30 years ago was a Hindu. What a shining example of multiculturalism in action you are!!![/quote]

That's our David! Always good for a "funny" sarcastic quip! !laugh!

Of course you choose to completely ignore the rest of my post but heyho - only to be expected I suppose.


[quote]Tell me, Eric then, did your time with "all your Muslim friends" result in your views that

> "then what's inevitably going to happen is that you're going to
> end up with a cuckoo-in-the-nest situation in which the
> loudest, most aggressive and most strident minority groups are
> going to start demanding more and more prominence, concessions
> and "rights" and will then go running to the courts moaning
> about their "human rights" being violated once they get
> challenged. They end up using our own "tolerance" against us
> and undermining the "host" society from within. Resulting in
> more disharmony and resentment, not less. The complete opposite
> of what was originaly intended.

Is that how they were, Eric? [/quote]


Funnily enough David, they held pretty much the same view as me - not being backward fundamentalist types and all that. They worked hard, paid their taxes, lived and let lived and for the most part were very westernised in their outlook. And I have no problem with that. They celebrated Xmas, drank alcohol, the women wore make-up, the kids went to state schools etc. etc. In other words they generally fitted in (as opposed to trying to ram Islam down everyone's throats).

It's the placard-waving poppy-burning nutters who I'd like to see the back of. And the "health tourists", scroungers, criminals etc.

You're making the fundamental (and very silly) mistake of equating scepticism about "multiculturalism" with xenophobia.


[quote]I am surprised you aren't working on a government quango, Eric running workshops on "Making Multiculturalism work in everyday married life".[/quote]

Hey! Great idea David!! I'll do it if the money's right! !laugh!

Maybe you can have a word with Ed next time you're down at NuLabour HQ for your monthly indoctrinal. Tell him I'm his man come 2015.

In the meantime, I'm off out for a Chinese - to further polish my "multicultutral credentials". Have a nice evening!

- Eric