Caporegime
Did you write and ask them what the minimum criteria were?
Enoch Powell Documentary. My opinion has been changed.
- Thread starter something_totally_different
- Start date
Did you write and ask them what the minimum criteria were?
Caporegime
You're talking about minority quotas. This is not the same as positive discrimination towards immigrants. The two concepts are not equivalent.
The original claim made in this thread was that 51% of all jobs created in the last 10 years went to immigrants as a result of positive discrimination.
I have yet to see that claim substantiated in any form whatsoever.
Soldato
That's a very smart approach. Well done sir.
Caporegime
I think he believed that "the black man" would come to have socio-political dominance over the "white man".
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 302
Pretty good argument. I think perhaps my definition of 'multi-culturalism' is literally 'many-cultures.' Though idealistically it'd be seasoned with good old human kindness and repsect. Continuing cultural differences but without the antagonism that seem to have stemmed from it.
I'd still claim that intergration implies homogenisation, and so what you describe as Australian culture is in fact an integrated society and de-facto not a multi-cultural one. Not to say either's better than the other. Just semantics at work I suppose.
Still, a good working definition.
As an aside, what is it with the internet and nazis? Extreme fascist dictatorships are not a catch-all social example you know? I don't think the nazis were multi-cultural anyhow, as they did not hold cultural difference as a desirable, even sacred element of social change. (In so much as exterminating it?)
Thanks, it often saves me time.
Just watched some of it - he's trying to isolate an extremely complex and nebulous set of interconnected (and some disparate) socio-economic problems onto a single factor, when I think the bulk of economists and sociologists would say it's a much more complex problem than just blame-sticking immigration and ignoring everything else.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 302
I'm not sure it will be, sounds like Sun and Daily Mail **** to me.
Caporegime
Ah, now you're confusing integration with assimilation. You don't get homogenisation with integration; you get homogenisation with assimilation.
If Australia followed a policy of assimilation rather than integration, there would be no cultural plurality; the national culture would be purely "white Australian". But that's not what we have. We have a pluralistic multiculture. Our national culture is not based on any single race, ethnicity, or religion.
Multiculturalism is impossible to achieve via assimilation; the two terms are mutually exclusive. It is equally impossible to achieve via isolationism (where separate cultures refuse to mix not only from each other, but also with the dominant monoculture).
The way to achieve multiculturalism is via integration.
We've been discussing Nazis and the Holocaust in another thread, so it was the first one which sprang to mind. And at the start, your definition merely consisted of different cultures within a single nation - which Nazi Germany did actually have, for a time.
Still, I could give you some other examples: medieval Britain (Jews discriminated against, forcibly baptised, and eventually thrown out of the country); 19th Century Britain (lots of black people in Britain - but oh dear, that's because they're all slaves); Southern USA in the 18th & 19th Centuries (same as 19th Century Britain). The list goes on.
The Roman Empire was probably the closest anyone came to true multiculturalism before the modern era. States conquered by the Romans were permitted to follow their own cultures, customs, traditions and religions - insofar as they did not conflict with Roman law. Nevertheless, their citizens did not enjoy the status of Roman citizens, and discrimination was built into the legislature at every level.
And of course, these cultures only co-existed as separate entities alongside an invading, ruling power; they did not co-exist as part of a larger Roman multiculture.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 302
I think I'm implying that via integration the resident culture becomes homogenised along with the new immigrant ones. Each culture changes to reach a status quo. Isn't what you're suggesting as assimilation actually imperialism? If so I'd dispute the assimilation/integration thing, but again, semantics.
I think I now agree with your argument about Australian culture, but then the chilli vodka is starting to take effect, so all i really want to do is lie down. You are also australian, so I'll elect you as thread Aussie expert.
I suppose what I'm really suggesting with multiculturalism is: difference is good, it makes life interesting, can't we all just get along? I don't think multi-culturalism (or many distinct mono-cultures, if you will) implies the dominance o one or the other, that's quite another social mechanism, though one that seems to crop up quite a lot.
Would I be right in saying that the Australian racial and cultural demographic is now relatively fixed? If we accept that the UK is in the midst of a large scale other-culture immigration then integration, if assumed beforehand, would create a slow and steady form of social change. The monoculture is slowly altered as new immigrants change to the national way, but bring elements of their beliefs as well? I'd argue that first generation Indians would be an example of this, now largely more English than the English but without some of the less pleasant Bulldog stereotypes and a much better work ethic. Would a switch to a multi-cultural aspect al-a Australia while in the midst of a large scale immigration of other cultures result in social schism as the 'founders' percieve themselves to be inundated by 'others' displacing their own beliefs and morals? I pretty much see this as an example of what is happening in the UK now. If the second generation immigrants had been guided towards integration as their parents had, then we would not have ghettoisation or racial fear, because we would all have had a more common ground, and be better people for it.
I've got an incling that you've got more formal training in this field than I, so some of that may not stand up to a second read through. Just my thoughts on the subject, not substantiated by anything other than a bit of my own brand of logic.
Interesting documentary, thanks for posting. 
What a foul racist this man was, glad he is dead. I'm also glad that reality has proved him wrong, and I hope he got to see that he was wrong (although I doubt he would see things that way) before he died.
What a foul racist this man was, glad he is dead. I'm also glad that reality has proved him wrong, and I hope he got to see that he was wrong (although I doubt he would see things that way) before he died.
Caporegime
If each culture changes as a result of integration and results in a new status quo, you have the beginnings of a multiculture. If, however, one culture is absorbed into the other to the extent that it loses all traces of its original identity, there is no integration and no multiculturalism; only assimilation resulting in homogenisation. Thus we are left with a dominant monoculture which has successfully assimilated (and thereby eliminated) another culture.
Something that is "homogenised", is the same throughout its entire being. This is true of a monoculture. It is not true of a multiculture.
Finland is a good example. It has one of the lowest percentages of immigrants in Europe (around 2% or something), resulting in a population that is nearly 100% homogenous, with a culture to match.
No. Imperialism is the forcible subordination of one nation by a greater power via political and socio-economic domination.
Ta.
I agree. Unfortunately, the history of human existence is the history of human conflict. Humans don't "just get along".
Australia's demographic has stabilised, but continues to change; over the past 20 years, we have taken in an average of around 100,000 new immigrants per year. The current figure is perhaps a little higher. 25% of Australians were born overseas; a much larger figure than the number of British citizens born overseas. So we know from experience that large-scale immigrant (strictly managed) and multiculturalism (correctly implemented) can, and do, work.
The UK's culture will change, but only if her current wave of immigrants choose to become permanent residents; and despite the fears of the Daily Mail crowd, there is no guarantee that this will happen. Many of the Poles who came here for work, are now returning; look at this BBC article, for example, and this Times article.
Those Poles who stay, are more likely to be those who brought their families, found a stable job, and are in a position to finance themselves while they consider permanent residence. This, of course, is much better for the nation than people who will rely on the state.
People in the UK have been worried about recent immigrants because they have arrived in large numbers and tend to be concentrated in specific areas (which makes their numbers look even larger). All of this gives the appearance of an immigrant takeover, which is not true at all.
One advantage of these immigrants is their cultural proximity to Britain; unlike immigrants from the Orient or Middle East, they are more likely to share moral values and social norms that are compatible with the existing British culture. This reduces the possibility of friction, as does the fact that they share the same skin colour as the "native" British population.
The UK already has a thriving multiculture. I am not sure if the government ever made multiculturalism official policy, but it has certainly tended in this direction. However, pre-existing rivalries between England and her vassal states (Scotland, NI, Wales) combined with longstanding rivalries between certain ethnic and religious groups (black/white; black/Indian; Sikh/Muslim, etc.) and the tendency towards isolationism amongst certain communities (to which you refer) have all slowed the progress of multiculturalism in recent times.
Now, in the wake of 9/11 and 7/7, national loyalty is a hot topic and immigrants (whose loyalty is suspect by default in the eyes of many people) are less welcome. Combine this with widespread misconceptions about multiculturalism, existing social pressures caused by overpopulation, rigorous lobbying from both extreme ends of the political spectrum and awkward questions about national identity, and you have a country racked with insecurities.
Multiculturalism does not flourish in such a climate. But it can survive the storm, and I trust that it will. Britain is experiencing a period of rapid demographic change, similar to the one which she faced in the 50s and 60s. It's not a new experience; but it looks that way, because the faces are different.
Very true. This is a crucial point.
You've presented an excellent summary of your thoughts, and a fair analysis too.
I have studied anthropology at university level. Not extensively, but sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Iraq, Afghanistan etc....
Man of Honour
People go on about how Britain is becoming too diluted and everything, but the percentage of ethnic minorities are still such that they very much are that - a minority. I think it's 7.9% or something along those lines of people living in Britain are from ethnic minorities. Though in London it is a bit higher at around 30%.
Is this such a bad thing though? There's no such thing as "pure" English anyway, besides if it wasn't for multicultural Britain people wouldn't have the experience and diversity that it offers.
Excessive immigration and scrubbers that don't contribute anything to society I will agree are not a good thing - but you don't have to be a non-white immigrant to be one of those - you get scum like that exclusive of skin colour or cultural background. If anything people from foreign countries have a stronger work ethos than most of us.
Is this such a bad thing though? There's no such thing as "pure" English anyway, besides if it wasn't for multicultural Britain people wouldn't have the experience and diversity that it offers.
Excessive immigration and scrubbers that don't contribute anything to society I will agree are not a good thing - but you don't have to be a non-white immigrant to be one of those - you get scum like that exclusive of skin colour or cultural background. If anything people from foreign countries have a stronger work ethos than most of us.
Man of Honour
I could be wrong about this but I thought Mr Powell was talking about the UK foaming with rivers of blood - attempting to draw parallels with the Roman Empire hence the River Tiber quote rather than dealing with countries outwith his own. If that is the case then I still wouldn't call it particularly far-sighted to suggest that parts of the World would be in turmoil, war being one of the things that occurs throughout the centuries with alarming regularity.
Caporegime
Wrong country. Powell predicted "the Tiber foaming with blood" in the UK, not overseas.
You can hardly blame UK immigration for the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Caporegime
Correct; non-white minorities still make up less than 10% of the UK's population (and of course, not all of those non-white minorities are recent immigrants; some are the children of immigrants from the 50s & 60s). Yet people whinge about the "foreign takeover of Britain"...
They should be more concerned about the corporate takeover of Britain.
Caporegime
Perhaps I should have added a "" and "
" to my previous post. 
" and "" to my previous post.
Caporegime
Perhaps.