Is multi-culturalism right for your country?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Jun 2006, 01:25

Please leave a message explaining your vote.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 06 Jun 2006, 01:32

Not sure by what you mean with the 'no' statement: how does an immigrant become British first?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Jun 2006, 01:39

EDIT: I've reworded to make more sense.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 06 Jun 2006, 01:45

OK, an oath taking ceremony. That's fine (and I personally am in favour of that), but I don't see how that opposes the 'yes' statement or indeed bears relevance to the question. Because, at this moment in time, I'd like to check both boxes

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Jun 2006, 01:50

You may want to open it to a more general question? As otherwise it made alienate those here who don't live in Britain. It's an issue all over the world.

I won't vote now as I need to get to bed. I'll leave that for tomorrow.

I got you thinking did I

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 06 Jun 2006, 01:50

Dammit. See, now my previous message makes no sense

But, still, I don't see a contradiction. Both the 'yes' and 'no' answers could (and with my personal feelings would) apply.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Jun 2006, 01:53

Well, if immigrants becomes "British" they won't be bringing foreign cultures with them. When I say "welcome foreign cultures" I don't meant "welcome foreigners" (as people) but the culture they originally came from. "Become British" doesn't just mean take a test, but rather live a British way of live (ie. adopt the culture).

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Jun 2006, 01:56

bradavon wrote:You may want to open it to a more general question? As otherwise it made alienate those here who don't live in Britain. It's an issue all over the world.

I choose Britain because most of us live here, but also because every country is different. America was founded on multi-culturalism for example. It would be an impossible question for an American to answer. But I do take your point and will consider making a change.

I got you thinking did I

Yep. 8)

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 06 Jun 2006, 02:22

Ahhh. Well, that depends then. Even with the indigenous people (of any land, not just Britain), the 'culture' varies depending on things like age and location.
England is a mongrel country (I mean that in the most nicest sense

) and it's been invaded so many times in centuries gone by (the Vikings, Romans, French etc.) that it's difficult to establish what the original people (Bretons, I believe they were known as) would consider as being the original 'culture'. Even when the roles were reversed, and His/Her Majesty's forces were out conquering half the world, influences were being drawn in and assimilated.

Now if (and I believe this is what you meant with the question; correct me if I'm wrong) you want to know if an immigrant should live in an insular fashion and keep their original culture and act as though nothing except the weather has changed (it's got to be wetter here than where the immigrants came from, hasn't it?

) rather than integrate, then no, I don't believe that anyone, not just an immigrant, but anyone should live like that. One should always be aware that the world is constantly changing and that they have to change also. Not to the degree that it clashes with some fundamental belief that they have (there's that phrase again

), but enough to keep in step. If they find that their beliefs are incompatible, then there is something wrong with them. By that I mean that they aren't thinking and working towards a solution. No sensible belief structure in the world is incompatible with another. I'm not talking about Nazism, or Vampirism and the like because they're not sensible (although I do like the benefits of the latter.)

Sorry to bore, but I have a huge interest in history and how it affects our future and by asking a question such as this (and at a time when I'm itching to do something) you brought this upon yourself.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 06 Jun 2006, 02:23

Godammit, another option to choose from?! :x

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 06 Jun 2006, 03:49

Markgway wrote:I choose Britain because most of us leave here, but also because every country is different.

One ironic typo there.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 06 Jun 2006, 05:55

I chose YES, simply because everyone should be able to live his life the way he wants to live it, as long as it's within the law.
Immigration is a 2-way thing. The newcomers should respect their new invironment and it's customs, but should also be allowed to keep their own.
The local people should respect and accept the differences of the new people. So what if they wear a headscarf? So what if they wear a turban? Just because you don't, and might not understand why they do, it's their own body and they're not bothering anyone with it.

The multi-culture brings way more pro's then cons. The pro's should get some more attention, the cons should be dealt with by law and politics.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Jun 2006, 11:34

Markgway wrote:I choose Britain because most of us leave here

"Most" yes but I'd guess about 50% aren't.

Markgway wrote:America was founded on multi-culturalism for example.

True but since 9/11 things have drastically changed. Look at all the Hispanics (mostly from Mexico) in the news fighting to stay in the country.

EvaUnit02 wrote:
Markgway wrote:I choose Britain because most of us leave here, but also because every country is different.
One ironic typo there.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Jun 2006, 13:15

I've fixed that unfortunate typo.

When I talk about "British" culture - to be clear - I mean culture of the last century. I don't think we can go back centuries and talk about invaders: that's beyond what I'm looking at. The source of my intended debate is the change in the last 30 years from a uniquely British culture into a multi-cultural culture. Non-Brits can apply their own history to the question.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 06 Jun 2006, 13:20

Mark,

I don't think it is possible to say what we would our society to be like these days without looking at the past.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Jun 2006, 13:28

Lol, I had no idea my question was so complex. I'm explaining it badly, I guess? OK, Britain 30 years ago VS Britain today with specific regard to the shift into multi-culturalism. I can't be any clearer than that can I?

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 06 Jun 2006, 13:39

OK, if it is that simple, don't be surprised if you get simple replies.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 06 Jun 2006, 14:53

Markgway wrote:OK, Britain 30 years ago VS Britain today with specific regard to the shift into multi-culturalism. I can't be any clearer than that can I?

I'm not being arsey about this, but give a definition of British culture of the mid-70's and then give a definition of multi-culturalism in Britain today. Based on the information as you see it, I'll be able to answer your question.

As the poll question currently stands, I want to select the first two boxes. If you modify the second answer so it reads 'should be forced to adopt local culture above all else.', then my answer would be the first option only.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Jun 2006, 16:19

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_culture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-culturalism

If you modify the second answer so it reads 'should be forced to adopt local culture above all else.', then my answer would be the first option only.

'Forced' is too strong a term, as I'm not talking about rough treatment or persecution here, but 'strongly advised thru choice' would perhaps be more suitable? In other words: no specific catering to minorities, as is policy now.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 06 Jun 2006, 17:01

Your definitions are the Wikipedia definitions then?

So, stuff like multi-language pamphlets would be thrown out of the window in a 'strongly advised through choice' policy-based government? Hmm, slippery slope, that 'un

.

I'll take the first option, as choosing either of the other two starts down a pretty bad road, in my opinion; the third one especially.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Jun 2006, 22:06

thelostdragon wrote:I don't think it is possible to say what we would our society to be like these days without looking at the past.

I'm with Mark on this on. Jeez LD talk about blowing it over the top.

As Mark says past events of really anything more than 50 years (50 years IMO) aren't relevant to the discussion. The world was a very different place with very different people.

It's not simple at all you're missing the point of the question. In today's world do you agree/disagree with multiculturalism?

Sorry no time to comment properly again but I will. It's an interesting discussion.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 06 Jun 2006, 22:43

How is this over the top? If the question is really that simple, you will either get a 'yes' or a 'no'. When you ask them why, most of the people who answered with 'no' will tell you some BS. How will they be replied to by those who voted with 'yes'?

It's a conversation doomed to go into this direction.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Jun 2006, 22:46

thelostdragon wrote:When you ask them why, most of the people who answered with 'no' will tell you some BS. How will they be replied to by those who voted with 'yes'?

When you ask them why, most of the people who answered with 'yes' will tell you some BS. How will they be replied to by those who voted with 'no'

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 06 Jun 2006, 22:48

Exactly. They will tell you how it has been all these years etc etc...

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 06 Jun 2006, 22:53

Markgway wrote:When you ask them why, most of the people who answered with 'yes' will tell you some BS.

Hey, I don't talk BS! Well, not all the time...