is multi-culturalism dead?

[yingers74]

Am not any good at doing links but won't try. Have read a lot of articles including the original (before the bombs) by Trevor Philips(I think, could be wrong) who thought the multi-cultural model had failed. What do people think?

It's called 'Response to Twiglett re Islam.Old one too long' or something similar. In 'Chat'.(Admittedly) erudite male Muslim who seems to have spent hours trying to bring us laydeeeez round but who is imho a wolf in sheep's clothing. (Cue screechy horror movie violins.)

Mornin' Suzy Q!!

Oh that one. It got too long for me to follow!

(Too busy following the extended thread about extended bf...)

a related point is how do you respect and embrace cultures that we do not find acceptable and which do not respect the host country's culture?

I don't know the answer, but I do think that it is a problem we are facing. If we cannot provide a good alternative identity, can we stop our young people(regardless of race/background etc) from being attracted to extremism & its sense of purpose/belonging.

On the sharia law front, I read with much irony that the new constitution in Iraq will be heavily based on it and hence 60% of the population ie the women will lose many of the rights they had under a secular saddam controlled state. Once again, a great stride for democracy............

Yeah what irony - we killed all those people in Iraq so that women could be forced to cover their faces in public - great hey?

I think we don't want to embrace cultures we find unacceptable. I've no intention of embracing a culture which finds it acceptable to physically abuse children because they are supposed to be witches. And I think the Salman Rushdie affair was really the beginning of an awareness among lots of people who had been in denial previously, that the idea of multi-culturalism has an inbuilt problem - it is simply impossible to embrace or celebrate some aspects of some cultures. But as a society, we haven't been very clear about which aspects we won't embrace (because we're not clear ourselves).

I think it's important to remember that the negatives are not the whole culture but aspects, as Caligula says. For example, West African culture is wide and various and not all or even mostly about kindoki. And yes, there's quite a lot of woolly liberal debate about what bits of what cultures are unacceptable but pragmatism and the law are usually good failsafes for checking things out. Hence Sita Kisanga is in jail, the police and social services are making more of an effort to engage with Western African communities, which has in turn led to those communities committing to stamping out child abuse fueled by belief in witchcraft. I am probably idealistic but I think you can both celebrate the amazing warmth, generosity and vivacity of many Western Africans in Britain and condemn the child abuse of a very small minority. We seem to be able to do this with white British communities, after all. Celebrating the good bits of all cultures is important and gives currency for challenging the bad bits.

I think culture can't override the basic laws of the land, though I'm specifically thinking of western democracies and not Sharia based systems as it can work the opposite way there.

For example, clitorectomy's are an expression of misogyny, an attempt to directly control a woman?s fertility and an abuse of a woman?s (or anyone?s) right to self autonomy. That's the exact same established argument that we use in the west in defence of pro-choice. We defend this right vigorously even in our ?liberal? democracies, and realise we have to remain vigilant as the fight is never over. Arguments about time limits are valid but and argument to remove that right isn't. What I'm trying to say (without the clarity of Caligula) is that these arguments already have a place within our culture, they're the same arguments that we've been having for millennia. They just come in different guises.

Child abuse is illegal and no amount of cultural special pleading will change that. But these don't strike me as 'cultural' practices per se, but human ones, pan-cultural and universally condemned. They happen everywhere however.

And the news coming out of Iraq is indeed very worrying.

I don't know about how we stop our young becoming radicalised. Perhaps it's a rite of passage even. All that energy has to be targeted somewhere. Maybe it just depends on who gets there first?

I didn't get into the Sharia stuff Moondog as I knew right from the start I'd not agree. If not from being a feminist then from being a veggie

ScummyMummy and Monkeytrousers- I agree, law has to be the overriding factor in the 'acceptance' of things.

I wasn't suggesting at any point we celebrate EVERY aspect of a culture, just aspects of ALL cultures. I would never celebrate, for example, the history of colonialism, what the British did in Ireland (just examples), any more than I would celebrate the historical atrocities carried out by Nazi Germany, yet history is all a part of a Countries culure. But ALL countries have positive aspects to their culture. So, I would celebrate the way the UK (and other countries) fought against the Nazi's, and although I really don't like the American colonialist activity of recent years, I admire their 'American Dream' meritocratic ideology (whether a reality or not, the idea is sound).

The whole notion behind celebrating ALL cultures, really is to look at both Cultural and individual identity with the same barometer that I try to apply to all of Humankind: that every one has positive and negative aspects, but that by looking at the positives, a more harmonious society / culture / individual is developed, in which any dangerous negatives (such as the clitorectomies, child abuse, colinialist tendencies) can be addressed.

Oh I agree Peachy. I wasn't answering your post in particular, just thinking aloud really.

I'm not sure about meritocracies though. Again, those who can't compete, the disabled, children, pregnant women, the elderly can all suddlenly be seen as 'deserving' their low station in life.

I see what you mean about meritocracies, but the idea that you can be what you want to be- that appeals! My ideal society would combine that with an automatic decent life standard for those who need support such as the disabled.

I wasn't addressing your post MonkeyTrousers, one further down, I always love your posts! Makes me feel I'm not the only liberal leftie here!

Thankyou! I'll take that as a compliment!!

peachychair - your posts are worthy indeed! I would have once described myself as a leftie liberal but over the years I think I have moved to liberal centre left!!!!!!!!! Not even sure what that means exactly!

I think that we should celebrate different cultures and continue to do so in the future but I don't think doing so addresses the identity issues of many young people. I am not particularly comfortable with the whole patriotic thing in the US, but I do think we need to install the belief in everyone that they are equally british/english/scottish/welsh as well as muslim/afro-carribean/greek/chinese/indian etc etc. This has to of course go hand in hand with stamping out racism and changing people's perceptions. But it could also mean taking more of a french approach and removing religion from the state although I don't think headscarves, crosses should be banned.

Caligula, things don't have to be taken to the logical conclusion. It is a perfectly valid position to accept that we will have diversity up to a point that most of us find acceptable. Then we accept that we will always be arguing around the fringes. Well thats healthy for society imo.

Actually, I think the idea of ditching multi-culturalism is not without merits though. The idea is NOT that multi-culturalism has failed. It is that we have all influenced each other to the point where we are merging into a new, common identity.
Of course, that doesnt happen overnight. I think we are in the transition from multi-culturalism towards a new identity now.

Hmmmmmm.

Yes but how does celebrating multi-culturalism up to a point which we find acceptable, make us different from the French, who after all, also celebrate multi-culturalism but want to ban the hijab?

And of course all cultures have positive things about them - of necessity, being human, they must have - but why does that mean that each aspect has to be recognised, welcomed and celebrated? And how come some aspects of some cultures get more welcomed and celebrated than others of others? This "new" merged cultural ID we're all moving towards - by definition, as soon as we've all got there, it will have moved again. That's the nature of a shifting definition (and nothing wrong with that).

the crux is surely that the French separate religion from the state (school being the state), whereas in blighty of course the religion is inseparable from the state (queen head of official church), so they can hardly ban other religions. Its tricky - Im against having an official religion, and against religious schools (which are allowed in france btw), but I would be uncomfortable at asking a headscarf girl to remove her scarf. Bit like asking me to go to school in a mini skirt.

I think we have to make some judgements on common sense, compassion and what we currently think is the right thing to do, even if it changes.

British history seems to be peppered with so many acts/events that people feel ashamed of. We've (rightly) welcomed so many people to this island but there seems now to be no sense of cultural identity at all.

Does Cherie Blair curtsey to The Queen these days? She fastidiously observes any traditional greetings to other Heads of State but not to ours. Hmmmmmm.

Hmm,

interesting. I would say that each aspect should be recognised and celebrated because when people feel that their identity (and culture / religion etc is a huge part of somebodies identity) IS recognised, celebrated, whatever, then they feel respected, accepted, valued, and therefore become able to pass on the same respect etc. to others. No evidence to back it up, just my theory.

Nightynight, absolutely- argument is essential. That is how a middle way that is workable for the majority is found. Not sure about banning religion from state, actually I am religious myself, and studying the subject (world as opposed to any one), but I do think it needs removing from the political arena. Instead of thi nking that people are the products of their religions, full stop, we need to accept and develop the idea that religion is a facet of someone's identity. And that all religions are equal that promote equality and love as the aims- obviously I mean the religion, followers of any religion cannot be liable for interpretations such as the Islamic Fundamentalists, or the Christian Right.

Yingers74- Oh I am worthy indeed!!!! PMSL

To me leftie seems to mean that everybody tells me I'm too soft and liberal and should 'wise up and stop being naive', but I don't want to!! Coz we need a few lefties to balance all the righties.

agreed PC! it is important to have lefties to keep those righties in their place!

I am not keen on faith schools myself, partly because I am not religious and it annoys me that many of the best schools in my area are faith schools which exclude children of no faith or a different one.

Or wrongies!

Tee hee Monkeytrousers!

The faith school here accepts anyone (it's the only option for those of us in the 'old village', in fact) they seem to have a lot of Muslim kids, which is great. There is a high faith input, which un nerves me a little, let alone DH the agnostic! But I have to say the school is absolutely excellent all round. RE teaching is one of my career possibilities, but although I am a Christian (investigating Quakers right now- lots of nice leftie liberals there!!!), I wouldn't see it as my place to 'preach', but to educate equally about all religions- tolerance promotion etc. I wouldn't think it appropriate to even let on whhat my beliefs were in that environment, TBH.

If I could do the same job under a different title (community education, world knowledge?), I would and probably more comfortably.

I do wish the kids had more input about other religions, but I am hoping that is something I can offer support to the school with. I am studying all six major religions this year (Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam) so hopefully should be able to offer input. It does depend on the rather evangelical Vicar who has Governing control though, as he pays their wages.

AS an Re teacher you should be teaching children about other faiths,

i think the legislation says soemthing along the lines of reflecting the fact that we are a mulitcultural multi faith society whilst acknowledging that Britain is at its roots a Christian society!!

Most faith schools do accept anyone, by law they have to accept a percentage of children from other communities although they are within their rights to choose children who are supportive of the aims and ethos of the school. Many people have an image of faith schools that is far removed from reality, often they simply pay lip service to their faith status, many of the teachers are not in any way religious and Religious education is little more than a discussion on morality for 45 minutes a week.

At DS's school, they worship three times day! So maximum input, but your description of RE teaching is pretty much as I thought, and hopefully I will be able to contribute a little to the kids understanding, and therefore, tolerance, of all people, regardless of all else- education promotes acceptance and all that. I would like to work in one of the schools in Newport or cardiff that have a very high number of multicultural kids. But that is a while away- i'd also quite like to work with asylum seekers so have thinking to do!