No argument with any of that (well apart from the last sentence). I'm not sure what you mean by multiculturalism, but I mean it to mean the policy that has been pursued in Britain under the name of multiculturalism. You sum up its defects admirably - you cannot just add millions of people of hugely disparate races, cultures and religions and expect it all to work without any effort to forge a more unitary British identity.
Your original post says:
The guiding doctrine has been a "multicultural society", which is something formulated by somewhat woolly intellectuals and can be basically summed up as "if we are nice and politically correct to everyone, then we can ignore all the real problems you always get when people of very different cultures live right next to each other, because we are right and everything will sort itself out as long as we stick to our liberal principles."
So, I took that to mean that this is what you believe multiculturalism to be. Now, if you want to amend that, as you seem to want to do now, to be a description of Britain's policy/attitiude, then that's fine. But again, what you described isn't multiculturalism. Let's be clear on that.
Also, you can achieve multiculturalism in a society without resorting to a "more unitary national identity" -- the Canadian mosaic is an example of a much looser framework. Yes, there is unity there, but it still retains a lot more distinctiveness as well.
I agree you need a vision and to put effort into it. If that's your main argument, then we agree. But you took a bit of a detour getting there. Also notice how we are no longer talking about immigration and immigrants. The "knowing exactly what was being talked about", "mishandling of immigration" as well as "deliberate blindness" you roll out in your earlier post missed the mark -- it's those types of comments that fuel the perception that "it's the immigrants".
Moe: "Even when it was the bears, I knew it was the immigants."
Britain isn't a multicultural society -- it is one where multiple cultures dwell, but that's not multiculturalism. The perceived problem you cite is not one of immigration, but one of a lack of an ideological framework. In the U.S. the ideological framework is the oft quoted "melting pot" -- all cultures melt into something uniform where each has added a little bit to the whole. In Canada, there's a different ideological framework -- the "mosaic". This is where each culture maintains more distinctivenss, but each distinctive piece takes its place as part of a larger pattern.
In the U.K., there just isn't a cohesive articulated framework. So, you get the perception of cultures at odds with eachother all over the place. Immigration isn't the problem -- perceived or real. It's the ruderless nature of British society when it comes to its cultural vision.
And your polemical description of multiculturalism pretty much proves the point -- you haven't got a clue.
1) The population isn't white enough.
2) The non-whites haven't been "voluntarily" repatriated "home".
3) All that holocaust hoo-haw was just make believe.
4) Anti-discrimination legislation.
5) Those pesky Gurkhas wanting to live in Britain after putting their lives on the line fighting in/along side Britain's military.
I learned metric in Canada when we were in the process of switching over from imperial. I was a kid in school about 12 years old at the time. Now, at the age of 44 I still think in imperial and a metric measurement doesn't really have its full meaning until I convert it to imperial. Not that I have difficulty with metric measurements, but my "first language" of measurement is still imperial and that's what I think in.
So, I know exactly what you mean. The good news is that you only have a generation or so of people with this way of thinking and the more you do it the better you are at converting between the two.
160 euros is considerably less than what I used to pay for basic cable in Canada. Having 10 times as many channels gave me close to zero times more content to watch. Speaking again for the UK, the BBC doesn't have to pander to advertisers and makes the viewing audience their primary customer. This raises the standard of TV across the board, and it's no wonder commercial broadcasters like Sky hate it as they have to spend more than they otherwise would.
Oh please stop. This is the nice little story people tell themselves, but it is far from the reality of British television.
Trying to find something to watch on the basic five channels (only four for me since we can't get channel 5 over the air here) that doesn't involve someone cooking something, someone selling houses, someone decorating houses, someone building houses, someone asking banal questions of people, someone dancing, someone getting drunk while locked in a house with cameras, someone singing in front a panel of douchebags, someone gardening or something that isn't a soap opera is nearly impossible.
The market is so bland because it caters for the lowest common denominator in order to appeal as widely as possible -- far from raising the standard it perpetuates a string of knock-offs over and over. Channels even rip off their own content in order to spin out a plethora of cloned programs.
What is it with democracies these days that they feel the need to snoop on citizens?
They've realized technology is at a point where they can. In short, it's now easy enough. And they also have convenient boogey men lying about that they can invoke as justifications: terrorist, paedophiles (or even just "think of the children" without a specific threat), pirates (copyright and high seas), etc.
It's often said in a throwaway manner, but information really is power. Governments need a certain amount of power over the citizenry, but once they begin to accumulate it they generally want more.
I'm not sure why this is currently modded "Funny". It seems pretty much right on the point. You could add the movies "Children of Men" and "V for Vendetta" to that list.
"The U.K. government -- turning fiction into reality in the 21st century."
Are you fucking kidding me? Did you really just connect file sharing with a movement to acknowledge the humanity of African Americans? Please, get some perspective.
No, he pointed out a philosophical underpinning of civil disobedience -- that to break an unjust law one ought to do it openly, lovingly and with a willingness to accept the penalty. That is, one who performs civil disobedience shows the utmost respect for the law by, in fact, violating the law.
The quote isn't about the respective issues being morally comparable -- it's about a comparison in methdology.
Now, there's still a question whether the Pirate Bay are acting with this purpose (civil disobedience), but that's another matter.
And don't forget the method by which they do their thing -- deep packet inspection.
It's not the behavioural targeted ads that are the real problem with Phorm -- the real problem is that their DPI kit "gifted" to the ISP intercepts communication between two parties (the web surfer and the web page) without informed consent of both parties.
In short, they spy on your web browsing in order to profile you.
Slashdot Mirror
No argument with any of that (well apart from the last sentence). I'm not sure what you mean by multiculturalism, but I mean it to mean the policy that has been pursued in Britain under the name of multiculturalism. You sum up its defects admirably - you cannot just add millions of people of hugely disparate races, cultures and religions and expect it all to work without any effort to forge a more unitary British identity.
Your original post says:
The guiding doctrine has been a "multicultural society", which is something formulated by somewhat woolly intellectuals and can be basically summed up as "if we are nice and politically correct to everyone, then we can ignore all the real problems you always get when people of very different cultures live right next to each other, because we are right and everything will sort itself out as long as we stick to our liberal principles."
So, I took that to mean that this is what you believe multiculturalism to be. Now, if you want to amend that, as you seem to want to do now, to be a description of Britain's policy/attitiude, then that's fine. But again, what you described isn't multiculturalism. Let's be clear on that.
Also, you can achieve multiculturalism in a society without resorting to a "more unitary national identity" -- the Canadian mosaic is an example of a much looser framework. Yes, there is unity there, but it still retains a lot more distinctiveness as well.
I agree you need a vision and to put effort into it. If that's your main argument, then we agree. But you took a bit of a detour getting there. Also notice how we are no longer talking about immigration and immigrants. The "knowing exactly what was being talked about", "mishandling of immigration" as well as "deliberate blindness" you roll out in your earlier post missed the mark -- it's those types of comments that fuel the perception that "it's the immigrants".
Moe: "Even when it was the bears, I knew it was the immigants."
Britain isn't a multicultural society -- it is one where multiple cultures dwell, but that's not multiculturalism. The perceived problem you cite is not one of immigration, but one of a lack of an ideological framework. In the U.S. the ideological framework is the oft quoted "melting pot" -- all cultures melt into something uniform where each has added a little bit to the whole. In Canada, there's a different ideological framework -- the "mosaic". This is where each culture maintains more distinctivenss, but each distinctive piece takes its place as part of a larger pattern.
In the U.K., there just isn't a cohesive articulated framework. So, you get the perception of cultures at odds with eachother all over the place. Immigration isn't the problem -- perceived or real. It's the ruderless nature of British society when it comes to its cultural vision.
And your polemical description of multiculturalism pretty much proves the point -- you haven't got a clue.
Yeah, I'd like to know too.
For the BNP, problems are:
1) The population isn't white enough.
2) The non-whites haven't been "voluntarily" repatriated "home".
3) All that holocaust hoo-haw was just make believe.
4) Anti-discrimination legislation.
5) Those pesky Gurkhas wanting to live in Britain after putting their lives on the line fighting in/along side Britain's military.
And so on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party
*sigh*
Guess I'll go clean it up then...
Anyone have a spare metaphasic shielded space ship, a pair of welding goggles and a sturdy trash bag I can borrow?
I learned metric in Canada when we were in the process of switching over from imperial. I was a kid in school about 12 years old at the time. Now, at the age of 44 I still think in imperial and a metric measurement doesn't really have its full meaning until I convert it to imperial. Not that I have difficulty with metric measurements, but my "first language" of measurement is still imperial and that's what I think in.
So, I know exactly what you mean. The good news is that you only have a generation or so of people with this way of thinking and the more you do it the better you are at converting between the two.
Looks like they might have a bonafide Atari stomping machine.
That job is already filled by Atari themsleves.
The WHO claims they are making this level 6 because it is spreading globally...
Bah. It's now level six because it camped respawn spots and got the required XP to level.
160 euros is considerably less than what I used to pay for basic cable in Canada. Having 10 times as many channels gave me close to zero times more content to watch. Speaking again for the UK, the BBC doesn't have to pander to advertisers and makes the viewing audience their primary customer. This raises the standard of TV across the board, and it's no wonder commercial broadcasters like Sky hate it as they have to spend more than they otherwise would.
Oh please stop. This is the nice little story people tell themselves, but it is far from the reality of British television.
Trying to find something to watch on the basic five channels (only four for me since we can't get channel 5 over the air here) that doesn't involve someone cooking something, someone selling houses, someone decorating houses, someone building houses, someone asking banal questions of people, someone dancing, someone getting drunk while locked in a house with cameras, someone singing in front a panel of douchebags, someone gardening or something that isn't a soap opera is nearly impossible.
The market is so bland because it caters for the lowest common denominator in order to appeal as widely as possible -- far from raising the standard it perpetuates a string of knock-offs over and over. Channels even rip off their own content in order to spin out a plethora of cloned programs.
I'm pretty sure you're being funny, but the way the U.K. is in the 21st century this just seems all too plausible.
African or European?
:P
Need to define your question better.
What is it with democracies these days that they feel the need to snoop on citizens?
They've realized technology is at a point where they can. In short, it's now easy enough. And they also have convenient boogey men lying about that they can invoke as justifications: terrorist, paedophiles (or even just "think of the children" without a specific threat), pirates (copyright and high seas), etc.
It's often said in a throwaway manner, but information really is power. Governments need a certain amount of power over the citizenry, but once they begin to accumulate it they generally want more.
It's easy and they want it.
I'm not sure why this is currently modded "Funny". It seems pretty much right on the point. You could add the movies "Children of Men" and "V for Vendetta" to that list.
"The U.K. government -- turning fiction into reality in the 21st century."
Are you fucking kidding me? Did you really just connect file sharing with a movement to acknowledge the humanity of African Americans? Please, get some perspective.
No, he pointed out a philosophical underpinning of civil disobedience -- that to break an unjust law one ought to do it openly, lovingly and with a willingness to accept the penalty. That is, one who performs civil disobedience shows the utmost respect for the law by, in fact, violating the law.
The quote isn't about the respective issues being morally comparable -- it's about a comparison in methdology.
Now, there's still a question whether the Pirate Bay are acting with this purpose (civil disobedience), but that's another matter.
Here's a short article by Dr. Richard Clayton that might explain a few things. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/15/phorm-internet-privacy-european-union
And don't forget the method by which they do their thing -- deep packet inspection. It's not the behavioural targeted ads that are the real problem with Phorm -- the real problem is that their DPI kit "gifted" to the ISP intercepts communication between two parties (the web surfer and the web page) without informed consent of both parties. In short, they spy on your web browsing in order to profile you.