Multiple cultures
I was writing this as a reply to Glad, but it became so long that I thought it worth writing a bit more as post in its own right. My gaff, my rules! 
So the reply to this comment by gladiolys – https://www.annaraccoon.com/reflections/not-the-same/#comment-58374 and incorporating a replies to some of the other comments in the post.
Hmmm…. yes, variety is essential to any community, but surely you don’t want people to be greedy, spiteful, hateful, rude, mean or arrogant (amongst many others)?
Do I want greedy people? Well actually yes. Because greedy people have a purpose, to get more. How they go about being greedy is a different matter. They can do it illegally by stealing or they can do it legally by working. All other emotions are valid too. Rude people for instance. It’s just a facet of someone’s personality. That personality might have many other facets too. They might be rude because they are socially awkward but have a brilliant mind for a particular task.
I’d differ on your definition of progressives – for me, that’s about “from each, according to their abilities, for each, according to their needs”. I think being progressive is more about seeing people as individuals and not expecting everyone to want to be go-getting Apprentice types, which means, yes, some people will not be able to be as “productive” as others, so how do you ensure their basic needs are met? Just because they don’t produce economically, does not mean they are not good parents, partners, friends, carers or thinkers.
The mantra of progressives of “from each to each” can just as easily be catered for in a capitalist market driven society. Probably better than a socialist authoritarian society, but just my opinion. In a capitalist society giving from each is part of the process business carries out in paying a salary to it’s workers. Any left over is given to shareholders. The needs of the consumer is satisfied by the businesses providing goods. All during this giving and taking ever equality is being driven upwards. Businesses grow, more workers employed, more products produced and more consumers buying.
Some people aren’t as productive as others. So they get paid less. They will therefore do jobs which are valued less. That doesn’t mean that the jobs they do are not important. Think of cleaners. Not a greatly valued job so not paid well, but very important that they do the job otherwise the place becomes a pigsty. Others could do it, but is it worth having a nuclear engineer emptying out the bins of the office.
How do such low paid people survive? Because they can take on such jobs knowing that the rest of the family or local community supports them. They might be retired from full time work, they might have children, they might be disabled. But they will probably live with others who can help provide other income to allow them to live comfortably. Will it mean that they can afford a 40″ LCD TV? Probably not. That’s life. But they can afford a fridge and cooker and some form of entertainment which just 50 years ago they wouldn’t have. 50 years ago a holiday to Europe was only enjoyed by the few, now look at.
Charity still has a place in such society, but it’s down to the individual not the state. Charity can fill the gaps. Either through religion or other societal groupings such as the Scouts. Watch the Secret Millionaire and you realise that the people at the top are human to and actually quite enjoy giving their money away when they see the pleasure it gives to others. OK, so not all millionaires are so philanthropic, but it’s more than zero.
And in your desire to be celebrate difference, where does that leave your views on multiculturalism? I’m one of those who actually still believes in it. We are one world, with many cultures, They are always going to butt up against each other. Unless we get off the planet, the issue will become more acute. Cultures, or specific populations, should not be walled off in separate geographies. Yes, there are problems now in this country, but if we look at how Caribbean, African and Hindus and Sikhs have integrated, those problems diminish with time and patience. The same will happen with Muslim communities.
Multiculturalism. A bad word. A better term would by multiple cultures. Even in the white Anglo Saxon protestant world there are many cultures. You have Scotland in the north and Cornwall in the south. They are pretty much separate cultures with different ways of doing things. One likes deep fried mars bars, the other meat and veg inside a pastry crust. What they do have is a common identity of belonging to the UK. That means the monarchy, crap summers, tea, Christian values, and English.
Immigrants can come to the UK and keep their culture. They can either use it or forget it. That’s why the number one food in the UK is curry. But it’s also why we don’t have sharia law. Integration takes time. Pakistanis arrived in the UK in the 50s. It’s taken nearly 50 years for curry to become the top food. But it’s become the top food because the host culture saw it and liked it, not because it was imposed on them through multiculturalism which demands that Diwali is noted even if no one is Hindu. As you say, time and patience, something in seemingly short supply from certain sections of society.
Look at the Chinese. Their values aren’t being imposed on the rest of the UK society. They have their areas like in Manchester. But people go there because they want to enjoy the culture not have it imposed on them.
For some reason Muslims have stared acting all impatient and demanding that they culture be assimilated at a very fast rate. That just does not work. Human society is a slow moving beast and trying to get it to move faster just ends in disaster.
Whats the reason? In my view they’ve been goaded and helped by the progressive multiculturalists (and they aren’t Muslims) who rather than celebrate that there is a different culture think that they have to bend over backwards to adapt the host society to the needs of the immigrant society. That’s the problem, it’s the wrong way round. The host society can accept the immigrants or it can reject them. Which happens cannot be decided by some central authority or planned by any group. It just happens.
Why do they bend over backwards? An attempt to apologise for the evils of the British Empire. The same Empire that gave India a civil service which is better than ours. The same Empire that created America. Yes, it had it’s faults but it also had many benefits.
And finally, why do I use term progressives? I use it as a derogatory term. Because of things like progressive taxes act less on the poor and more on the rich whilst it’s called regressive to tax the poor. But excessively taxing the rich is also regressive. Because progressives are also authoritarian in that their methods only work when they demand everyone follows it.
Progressive is a word that has been twisted out of it’s real meaning just like the word gay doesn’t mean joyful anymore. It implies progress when in actual fact progressive ideas tend to be very conservative (small c). Progressive ideas about education do not use feedback to learn how best to teach but to impose a set method on everyone. Progressive work practises mean that the worker is in charge and demands the business owner to adapt to their needs even if it means the company makes a loss.
Right rant over (and my lunch break wasted). Feel free to rip into it. Point out my mistakes, strawmen, ad homs, etc. I won’t take offence as much as I hope you don’t take offence at my rant. Tell me where I am wrong and why and I will listen and probably learn.
SBML
-
1
May 24, 2012 at 16:27 -
No offence taken, and I don’t want to write too much as it would be like a counter-post, but here are a few points:
Before entering this debate, we should have agreed terms, so we know what each other means by certain words… such as greedy – you want greedy people? We have them, everywhere, but largely it’s rampant consumerism. People buying stuff they really don’t need, but are persuaded they really, really want because advertising by corporations has succeeded in creating a demand. Nobody wants to be left out. Everyone wants to be included even if it is counterfeit tat off a market stall (hello Burberry!). I’m not preaching – I have been as guilty as any of that and am now finding my way out of that particular honeytrap.
Our society has become built on and fuelled by greed and that has largely contributed to the situation where we all have to cope now. Greed means you count your success by how much you have in your account or how much stuff you’ve got, not how many friends you have (and not FB friends either), nor what you have done for people. Success, now that’s another matter – is that what you mean?
As for rude, people can learn to control that. If they can’t be bothered, why should anyone have time for them. (Yes, I know there are degrees of rudeness – we’re back to terms again) – and there you end up ostracising someone again.
As for capitalism paying according to people’s needs – I’m virtually speechless. If wages met people’s needs, why would they also need housing benefit, child benefit, an NHS, tax credits? Who needs millions a year in bonuses when others need the state to support them? Make nuclear scientists (your example), or venture capitalists (mine) clean their own toilets at least once a week and maybe they’d realise those who clean several on a daily basis (or the sewers they connect to) are the real heroes of our society.
I have lots of thoughts on your views on progressives – can I get back to you on them so I can sort them out?
Thanks for your rant. I don’t agree with most of it, but it would be fun counter-pointing it over a pear cider (even a Babycham)!
-
3
May 24, 2012 at 16:30 -
I’d like to address the section on Muslims. Most in this country who brought their beliefs when they arrived are fine upstanding people. But there are two nasties: 1) Islam does not allow other beliefs and allows killing for apostasy and 2) I see very few attempts to integrate.
I’ve lived and worked in countries where Islam is the major way of life and always felt welcome because there was no way I could or would be aggressive about my own beliefs. But when you come to the UK Mr follower of Islam you leave us to our way of life and don’t threaten to behead our soldiers.-
4
May 24, 2012 at 17:42
-
-
5
May 24, 2012 at 17:50 -
“The same Empire that created America”……….chuckle. I think you will find that the USA was created after they booted out the Brits, but we allowed you to strut around a bit longer in Lower Canada.
Prodigious output for a lunch-hour though, well done SBML.
-
6
May 24, 2012 at 20:09 -
not really thinking when you wrote that was you
-
7
May 24, 2012 at 20:13 -
As Tonto *(nearly) said …”What do you mean ‘they’ white man?”
The core of the USA was formed from British colonies financed by British capital and populated by British citizens. Arguably the upset was the refusal of the colonists to pay for the protection of the British army against the indigenous ‘Americans’.
The revolution was more in the nature of a civil war with newcomers and born and bred colonials as likely to join either side of the dispute.
So keen were some of the colonists to remain under British rule that 600 ships were needed to take the refugees to Canada.
I love the way that American-Americans have the arrogance to think that somehow they originated from nothing in America and fought off the wicked ‘British’ overlords. They are just like the English-English in that attitude, which, of course, is where their genes come from!
* The Lone Ranger, realising that their camp is surrounded by Red Indians, turns to Tonto and says, “We are in big trouble!”, to which Tonto replies…
-
8
May 25, 2012 at 02:27 -
Wow, JimS got his jingoim topped-up recently.
The British Empire did a great deal of good for many countries, but it demonstrably did not create America. (I am assuming SBML is using the brit shorthand America to mean the USA, as you have).
The USA grew out of land holdings variously deemed to be “owned” by the Spanish, French, Dutch, various indigenous tribes and Britain, The British “holdings” were in the area generally now defined as New England an area far less than 10% of the USA landmass. To say that Britain created the USA is as fallacious as saying Britain created Asia because it had a presence in Hong Kong or India.
After the Brits made themselves unwelcome by their general arrogance and taxation without representation they were ousted around 1782 after the Declaration of independence in 1776 and the intervening revolutionary war. The revolutionary war was not similar to a civil war, it involved many participants including indigenous tribes and the French, there was a lot at stake and everybody was jostling for position. The adoption of the constitution in 1787 specifically dropped all ideas of rule by a hereditary royalty and careful safeguards were implemented to avoid a British style political system.
You may well “love the way American-American’s” think that America (USA) “originated from nothing”, but I never said or implied that. You are arrogant enough to assume I am a citizen of the USA, I am not, and your version of the history and geography of the USA are mostly factually incorrect.
One of the problems with Britain is you have “too much” history, this leads to it being taught very poorly and understood even less.
If the USA is anything it is the complete antithesis of the British Empire, it has fought and won wars and never colonized the conquered lands beyond its mainland , it venerates freedom of the individual and until recently despised class systems. For all that it is far from perfect. You would do well to read the declaration of independence, a wonderful example of the English language used well to describe a complex problem. It seems to me the British people are in a similar situation as that the colonists faced and a declaration of independence would perhaps spur a revolt of the over-taxed masses.
And this is a million miles away from the subject, sorry SBML.
-
9
May 25, 2012 at 13:25 -
we allowed you to strut around a bit longer in Lower Canada
You are arrogant enough to assume I am a citizen of the USA, I am not, and your version of the history and geography of the USA are mostly factually incorrect.
Hardly arrogant, I made no assumption as to your nationality, even though you use the ‘republican we’.
I stand by the history. I only made reference to British colonies and the colonists must de facto have been ‘British’, indeed many of the ‘founding fathers’ traveled frequently between the ‘colonies’ and the British Isles. The American-American, as opposed to the Swedish-American, Irish-American etc. is so clearly the child of the English-English. Where else did they come from? Spontaneous conception?
-
10
May 25, 2012 at 17:38 -
“I only made reference to British colonies”…which is my point, they constitute a tiny part of the USA. Therefore the empire clearly did not create America (USA).
And if you believe British colonies (or Britain) are only populated by British then you have not looked around yourself lately, have you? Perhaps the fact that the brits deemed ownership of all residents and the right to tax them is a clue to why the declaration of independence and the revolutionary war was necessary.
-
-
11
May 27, 2012 at 10:35 -
hahahahaha.
I haven’t had such a good belly laugh for a while.
The Oligarchs amongst the colonists whipped up a storm because they were asked to pay a bit for the Roayal Navy to protect their trade and ships in the Atlantic. 2% tax on the goods, not on the general population of colonists. But they spat the dummy and tipped the tea is the sea. The outcome? Two centuries of British blood and treasure invested in this ‘new world’ was stolen, just like south American dictators did with American banana plantations and oil facilities in later years, to much wailing and complaining by the descendants of those same embezzling Oligarchs. And the New Americam govenment levied a 6% tax on all Americans to pay for hiring the same Royal Navy to do what is had been doing before.
Dumb!
-
-
-
-
12
May 24, 2012 at 17:57 -
Wow! What was on the sandwiches Sad – steroids?
-
15
May 24, 2012 at 18:55 -
O/T but of interest: subsequent to Anna’s critique of Labour List’s Mark Ferguson the whole labourlist website has been suspended.
http://labourlist.org/I’ve no idea if these events are connected.
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }