April 24, 2005

Britain And Multiculturalism

I didn't do much for St. George's Day, I'll admit that, but I knew when it was and I knew it was coming without the media hype. I may only be half English but I do really like this place. Everyone whinges about how everyone else thinks it's uncool to be proud of this country even though most people are proud of it. They just don't want to admit to being proud in case they get labelled as something untoward.

The biggest downer on yesterday was that the BNP published their hate document… I mean manifesto… no, wait, I do mean hate document. Typical of that shower that they try to hijack a day which needs to be rehabilitated and saved from their nasty little claws.

One of these idiots main planks is to stop "multiculturalism" and preserve the British culture…





The huge majority of people here are not racist scum. The British are crap at racism really. The French get big scary, nearly elected Jean-Marie Le Pen. Who do we get? A bunch of moronic thugs in suits called the BNP. The British are theoretically misanthropic (they 'hate' the French, the Americans, the Germans, the 'immigrants') but introduce a Brit to anyone, foreign or not and they'll be charming, friendly, polite. We can't do it, we can't manage to be that nasty when faced with actual other people.

And as for ending multicuturalism and favouring the British… that's fucking absurd. Who are the British? Seriously. Who are they?

The British are the perfect mongrel race. Whilst all those thoroughbred dogs with their defects, mental problems, breathing problems, hearing problems, are wandering around costing thousands in vet bills, the mongrels are out there, friendly and healthy and content. And that is what Britain is. Who are we? Celts, Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Romans, Normans, Hugenoets, Dutch, Jews, Indians, Pakistanis, Poles, Germans, Chinese… all these races have at sometime settled here in large numbers.

And to what effect? From the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the music we listen to, the films we watch, the books we read, the art, the language, the sport, that's where the justification comes from. That's where we draw the defences against racist scum comes from.

What do the BNP want? A Britain of Brits? Who are they? Not the Anglo-Saxons of far right myth as they are immigrants themselves. The British are the greatest myth ever perpetuated. They are not a race, they are a mentality, based on the principal of whoever arrives must bring something to the party. And the immigrants brought. They brought loads.

Campaign for an end to multiculturalism if you want (and are thick). But it's Cnut and the sea here, it's too little too late, and this nation would be a lot worse if it lost that ideology of the beautiful mess.

Cnut, for the record was Scandanavian. And St. George was (probably) Greek. Funny how it's always been the way.

- 32 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

[Skip to the latest comment]
  1. Amen to that. It seems there are two main camps on the issue of culture. Those who want to preserve "British" culture and those who embrace all culture… except anything considered "British". sigh

    24 Apr 2005, 18:05

  2. Well said, Holly. Here's hoping the BNP scum have a lousy election.

    24 Apr 2005, 18:23

  3. Bravo.

    I feel a quotation from The Screwtape Letters coming on.

    (for those who haven't read it: you should. Cliffnotes: Screwtape is a senior demon advising his nephew Wormwood on how best to turn his 'patient' away from Christianity.)

    "As regards his attitude to the (Second World) war, you must not rely too heavily on those feelings of hatred which the humans are so fond of discussing…of all humans the English (and indeed British actually) are in this respect the most deplorable milksops. They are creatures of that miserable sort who loudly proclaim that torture is too good for their enemies and then give tea and cigarettes to the first wounded German pilot who turns up at the back door."

    That about sum it up?

    24 Apr 2005, 18:36

  4. Martina

    Can you write a blog about the day Pope Hol I, Martina Navratilova and and Eskimo were seen walking through Leamington? I'd be interested to see how that turned out!

    24 Apr 2005, 19:26

  5. Bravissimo.

    I think St George was Turkish, although I may be wrong. Google may be my friend, but he's having dinner right now so I shan't disturb him.

    24 Apr 2005, 19:34

  6. According to Wikipedia:

    The traditional account of his life is considered to have originated in the 4th century. According to it, George was born to a Christian family during the late 3rd century. His father was from Cappadocia and served as an officer of the army. His mother was from Lydda, Palestine. She returned to her native city as a widow along with her young son. She reportedly provided her son with a respectable education.

    24 Apr 2005, 20:17

  7. The only problem with multiculturalism is that we've got so much of it that we forget where it all came from. We're very good at welcoming cultures that come to us, but we ought to try harder at returning the favour, and visiting others. It's only polite, after all …

    Maybe people would take more of an interest in the world around them if we had another go at empire building. We seemed to enjoy it last time, after all.

    24 Apr 2005, 20:58

  8. Indeed, the besy thing about Britain is the diversity. French people come to England and are apparently amazed about all the different things you can find from around the world. Could it be a throwback to the days of the Empire…?

    Here, everything is quintessentially French.

    25 Apr 2005, 14:02

  9. According to the chaplain doing the service yesterday, St George was Turkish. He's the patron saint of England, Turkey, Egypt, Portugal, Catalonia and Genoa, the second saint of Venice (after St Mark), and his cult is quite strong in Russia and Ethiopia. How's that for someone whose symbol has been used by people who want to end multiculturalism?

    25 Apr 2005, 17:07

  10. Ah, irony. One of life's little pleasures.

    25 Apr 2005, 22:33

  11. Santa Gordona

    Holly, Holly – did we nearly meet in the Sports Centre entrance yesterday??

    26 Apr 2005, 10:06

  12. David That's wonderful. I was vaguely aware that he was popular in other places (especially my beloved Catalonia) but I think that list is the perfect indictment of the 'English' experiment.

    Santa Gordana Which Sports Centre? If it was the one on central campus (with the gym) then I'm afraid not as I only briefly walked past it once and did not descend the stairs down to it. The Westwood Sports Hall on the other hand I was in and out of several times in the late afternoon. Curious…

    26 Apr 2005, 10:43

  13. Santa Gordona

    It was on central campus. I think I was putting 2+2+history student = 5=Holly. Must do better at maths.

    26 Apr 2005, 11:33

  14. Holly spotting, it's a challenge…

    26 Apr 2005, 14:08

  15. I spotted you yesterday at about 3pm in the corridor in humanities between H0.51 and Raffles. What do I win?

    26 Apr 2005, 14:24

  16. I think that there is very little chance of me spotting you from here, as good as my eyesight is…

    26 Apr 2005, 14:28

  17. Luke You do the same course as me. That's cheating. You win a satsuma.
    Warren That's a rubbish excuse. Get better glasses. You win a satsuma as well.
    Gordon You didn't spot me. No satsuma for you, you naughty anonymous person, you…

    26 Apr 2005, 15:17

  18. Gordon R

    No satsuma?? – humph Well luckily I have my own supply, and bananas too. It's just one big fruit shop in here.

    26 Apr 2005, 15:30

  19. There were some footballers in Rootes Reception last night at 7, but I'm not sure if Holly was one of them.

    26 Apr 2005, 15:32

  20. I was. I was the one being elected to the role of website uberlord after losing out on vice president to the lovely Housemate:Els. A satsuma for you too.

    26 Apr 2005, 17:11

  21. I gave a lift home to someone Hol likes today, although I'm not sure that counts. Can I have a prize anyway?

    Congrats on your election Hol!

    27 Apr 2005, 01:32

  22. Someone I like? Whoooooooooooooooooo… oh hang on, I think I just guessed as I type this.

    27 Apr 2005, 16:05

  23. Hehe, well I can post her name if you like… but I think you know who I mean.

    27 Apr 2005, 16:45

  24. Ralph Musgrave

    The central and daft merit you claim for multiculturalism is that it results in a greater variety of books, films, etc (in general, in a more varied culture). See your para starting "And to what effect?...."

    You may not know this, but a book written in Brazil can be translated into English and published in England, and all without any Brazilians coming here. However your assumption that importing people is necessary to importing culture is a common one: even the thickos who teach Sociology at our universities make this assumption (e.g. see Prof Bhikhu Parekhu's book "Re-thinking Multiculturalism").

    I recently did some research into where people get their knowledge of foreign cultures: precious little of it comes from direct contact with foreigners living in the UK (i.e. multiculturalism). The vast majority comes from books, TV, the Internet, foreign holidays, school, university, newspapers, etc. I.e. multiculturalism is irrelevant. (I use the word as per dictionary definition, by the way, i.e. to refer to the mixing of races)

    Another flaw in the idea that multiculturalism brings a more varied culture is that there is a limit to the amount of culture humans can absorb. I.e. adding an item to a national culture results in the discarding of an existing item (other things, e.g. technology, being constant). For example adding words to the English language does not make the English language more varied because the number of words the average person can remember is limited ( to about 5,000 if memory serves ).

    A further flaw is that since people are not acquainted with more than about one percent of their own culture, they'll get no more extra variety from reading the Koran or a mainland European author than reading Shakespeare (which is not to suggest people shouldnt read the former if they want).

    And finally, when every country has been multicultural long enough, we will end up with a monotonous, pan-world mono-cultural. Languages are already disappearing at the rate of one per fortnight according to Manchester University's linguistics department. I do not welcome this development. Presumably you do.

    Yours, Ralph Musgrave (Thicko BNP member)

    13 Sep 2005, 21:03

  25. Some interesting points raised there, although a couple appear, to me at least, to be a little contradictary. To suggest that we can only ever absorb even a tiny fraction of whatever culture surrounds us seems reasonable. But to then say it will lead to monotonous pan-global uniformity makes no sense. Surely it will lead to more choice in the aspects of a global we can choose to adhere to. It would bring a larger variation to have such choice, those who value English cultural aspects like good manners, cricket or Britpop music can get invloved in that. However those who might want to find something different, say those who would prefer a more sport like hurling, or cuisine with more kick like Mexican chilli, would be able to. The expansion of national culture to international culture would allow people more freedom to express themselves and mix things to create new items. It's common knowledge that chicken tikka masala is an English fabrication dervied from Indian ingredients (in every sense of the word).

    As for the death of languages, I cannot say I welcome it. In fact I represent part of the minority of Anglophones who has bothered to make a concerted effort to learn a foreign language. It is more the fault of the sheer power of the larger, homogenous medias of America, Spanish Latin America, etc which is killing these languages. Perhaps more exposure to foreign influence would remind the people in this country that there's more to communication than pointing at what you want and saying it loudly in English. Whatever, having Irish heritage means I can speak from experience and that experience is that none of my Irish cousins, aunties, uncles or parents speaks Irish, nor cares that it is not as successful as has been hoped. They tell me that they prefer to be able to communicate with a billlion people worldwide rather than 15 in a tiny hamlet in Limerick. I personally make no judgement on this, I merely report this to be the case.

    Technology… being constant.

    You sure? I didn't have a mobile phone, digital camera or laptop three years ago. In fact all have been invented (or perfected) in my fairly short lifetime. Technology is one of the least constant things we have.

    Anyway, an example. My home village is in white, rural, Tory-voting Cheshire. It was home to several restaurants despite not having more than 10,000 inhabitants. Two were Chinese and two Indian. The restaurants were all run by Chinese/Indians. In the middle of this conservative countryside, it was the only real contact with non-whites, the only source of multiculturalism. It was enough to bring a bit of welcome variation to the town as non of the white residents seemed willing to pick up their books and internet browsers and start a Mexican restaurant or a Japanese restaurant.

    A foreign book can be puclished in this country without a foreigner being here. I am aware of this, I just cannot be bothered to count the amount of foreign literature I have read in translation. But I'd much prefer to have a Brazilian here so I could ask her about the context of the book, how it matches the life she knows. Maybe multiculturalism isn't necessary. But neither is football, Britpop or digital cameras. I just perfer the world with them, it's more interesting, it makes it easier to find what I want, what makes me happy. Selfish? Yeah, but who isn't?

    13 Sep 2005, 21:41

  26. Ralph Musgrave

    I'll take your points in turn and start with the "contradiction". Surely there is no dispute that when cultures merge, parts of the original cultures are lost, which in turn means that when globalisation and multiculturalism go far enough we end up with a pan World mono-culture? The parts lost are parts of what might be called the "every-day" section of the culture: that part which relies on human memory: i.e. the language, well known national dishes, etc.

    In contrast there is what be called the "abstruse" section of a culture: e.g. Shakespeare, with which the average Brit is not well acquainted. Preservation of the abstruse relies on technology (i.e. books, computers, libraries, etc). But merging the abstruse aspects of cultures does not lead to an increased availability of such culture because this is available World-wide anyway. E.g. Germans can read Shakespeare in German, if they want. Maybe they can get videos too.

    Re my point about "constant technology" and to expand a bit, technology has brought us a vastly greater access to culture than multiculturalism. For example even the poorest people nowadays have access at the press of a button to a million pieces of music all played by the World's top musicians: a million fold improvement on the Middle Ages. Thus it is important to distinguish the cultural effects of technology and multiculturalism: and the former dwarfs the latter, in my view. Germans being able to get videos of Shakespeare in German might be an example.

    Put another way, when considering the effects of multiculturalism (and many other things, come to that) one must make the "other things being equal" assumption. In the case of multiculturalism, because of the enormous effect of technology, one must make a similar "effects of technology being constant" assumption.

    Re your point on ethnic cuisine, obviously this is the outstanding cultural effect of recent migrants to the UK, and I welcome immigrants who make cultural contributions like this. But the scale of immigration in recent decades has been way beyond that needed to provide every high street with an ethnic food outlet, which is why I want immigration reduced.

    A further point here is that immigrant cultures have their good and bad aspects, just like British culture. I.e. along with ethnic cuisine, we get the political corruption that is common in many immigrants' home countries. The Islamic world is backward, homophobic, and prone to kill Infidils and I can do without it. Likewise I can do without a large influx of Bible thumping, Iraq invading, George Bush supporters.

    Re your point that you would like a Brazilian to talk to after reading a book written by a Brazilain, do we import enough Brazilians to make up 1% of the UK population? And Mexicans, Italians, etc etc.? But hang on – there are more than a hundred countries in the World and we cannot go above 100%.

    Second problem is that I think it is of very limited use talking to a Brazilian chosen at random after reading the book. I agree it is nice to bump into someone of the same nationality as an author. I read "Wild Swans" by Jung Chang recently and then bumped into a Chinese fellow who as it happens had also read it. Nice. But I picked up a thousand times more information about China from the book than from the Chinese fellow – and then promptly forgot 99% of the information due to a very defective memory.

    19 Oct 2005, 09:31

  27. James

    Multi-Culturalism is proto-fascist in that preaches a future where only one misceginated human race exists, the misceginated global human mass which, once formed, signifies the end of racism as no races in the world will exist anymore. It is crypto-Hitlerian in that it preaches a future where a misceginated master race rules and a world run only by that one race. It aims to eradicate all cultural, racial and religious differences between humanity and replace it with the creedo of One World , One Culture, One Race of global consumerism. All indigenous peoples, cultures and identities will be destroyed and a world will be created where the misceginated mass will become the corporate tribes of Reebok and Nike and humanity will become just a mixture of pathetic mass animals and wage slaves defining themselves solely by their new trainers or hooded tops.

    Multi-Culturalism is a malign ideological variant of Marxism that has evolved into becoming Neo-Fabianism – a Socialist / Capitalist political war weapon against nation states that subverts them through mass immigration and that is funded and supported by Global Capitalism. It is a State planned system of ethnocide through the systematic and planned creation of political, social, economic, environmental and cultural conditions by governments in association with corporations, the media, social and financial elites of a nation that results in the extinction of the indigenous people of that nation and its national culture.

    29 Dec 2005, 17:20

  28. Hhm,

    'miscegenation' – check
    ranting about Marxism – check
    Appocolyptic world-view of what the consequences of multi-culturalism will be – check

    Sounds deeply suspicious to me.

    29 Dec 2005, 17:31

  29. Pissed

    Just wait until there are no jobs left you hippy fuckomites.

    28 Jan 2006, 01:06

  30. My, what an intelligent comment. I think in the stupendously unlikely event that jobs run out us "hippy fuckomites" (do you mean students? It's hard to tell as your spelling is atrocious) are more likely to retain our jobs than you. Now please toddle off back to your insecurity.

    28 Jan 2006, 11:11

  31. anonymous

    multiculturalism changes stuff. is the basic theme here.

    progression through neo-crypto-proto-socio-random-capitalizationo-pseudo-diversity!!!

    adding two normal distributions with different centres does not make a straight line. or you can think of venn diagrams. we do get taught them in primary school.

    state-planned ethnocide of multiculturality. aww. what a cute notion that some countries would deliberately screw themselves over so they had a reason to emmigrate here and destroy our spotted dicks. you've even listed every possible set of angles so that people can invent their own ways of pretending you're right without you having to justify it! such a smart kid.

    reading shakespeare in german is very different from considering the cultural impact of shakespeare, considering the use of language etcetc, as times have changed since then, and the only link to that past we have are words. this is why its important to choose them i guess.

    absolutely, naively false:
    "For example even the poorest people nowadays have access at the press of a button to a million pieces of music all played by the World's top musicians"
    ""effects of technology being constant" assumption."

    technology is a tool. it can be used, provided you have access to it. and could legally download music. and wanted to listen to westlife.

    "Surely there is no dispute that when cultures merge, …pan World mono-culture?"
    – equally there is no dispute that one day everyone will die and so there will be no culture.
    – culture is not a static thing, it is continually developing; this is the reason parts of it are lost. im sorry if i appear to have missed the gist of your posts, there are a lot of phrases that i dont know the meaning of.

    "But the scale of immigration in recent decades has been way beyond that needed to provide every high street with an ethnic food outlet, which is why I want immigration reduced."
    what do you suggest we put on the streets instead? what should the immigrants do? who's gonna drive our taxis? and clean up after us?

    28 Jan 2006, 13:34

  32. anonymous

    times change :) i knew there was something funny :/

    28 Jan 2006, 13:48

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

April 2005

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Mar |  Today  | May
            1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30   

Search this blog

Blog archive

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder