I think Cameron has gone to a Munich security conference to call for three things (1)
support for the NATO mission in Afghanistan (2) reinforcement of our actual military capability and (3) The introduction of muscular state monoculturalism. Presumably celebrated at an “England Day”, which will replace May Day. Cameron genuinely seems to be saying that “state multiculturalism” caused terrorism. If only councils didn’t sometimes translate leaflets into non English languages, and if only schools never discussed Eid, then these young men would not have made bombs. I mean, I know sometimes people try and squeeze in other issues on the back of terrorism, but this takes some kind of big muscular cultural biscuit.

“The caricature is that only lefties want to tell citizens what to think, and while the right favours an absolute free market in ideas. ”

Well put. Hence the tendency by some to use the words “social engineering” in about one sentence in three – but only when talking about something proposed by the left.

Nor would he intentionally appeal to crude low order street thug racial prejudice of the variety espoused by the EDL.

I think describing them as this is a dangerous underestimation to make. This might be the image often portrayed of these groups, but isn’t judging people by these paramtors exactly what we would hope to get away from?

Rather it needs to be tackled on an ideological level, and when you do so I think you may find that their issues are not too far from those Cameron expressed in his speech on Saturday. So why wouldn’t he move to appeal to groups such as the EDL?

Labour hasn’t been able to appease these voters (who would generally be their target electorate) and David Cameron has to gain enough votes to create a majority by the next general election.

I also doubt that he would loose as many voters as you might think by taking this tone.

He gains by distracting from the issue of the economy and he gains voters sympathetic with this rhetoric. So who cares what he replaces multiculturalism with!

(Well I do, but I hope you get what I mean.)

‘Any suggestion that Cameron is somehow a closet Nazi is clearly ridiculous.’

This really misses the point. Mr. Khan doesn’t believe for a second that DC is a closet Nazi or supports the EDL, but he knows what he’s doing.

What Khan knows is he can try move the goal posts and change the subject of any debate. Muslim MP says Cameron writes EDL literature is the new headline. He wants to impress his constituents, kick the Tory and keep that network of ‘community leaders’ onside.

He can imply Cameron is a racist without taking issue with anything DC specifically. Its a reguarly used leftist slur tactic and probably one of the main reasons so many Britons despise PC and multiculturalism. If what Cameron said is racist, then he must be calling me racist also, because I agree with Dave?

‘Even so, I have one question that hasn’t gone away for the last 48 hours; has Cameron actually got any better ideas?’

Do nothing at all if you don’t like French style state monoculturalism. But don’t give public money to groups that reject secularism. Don’t put government Ministers on platforms with people who symapthise with Palestinian terrorists. Don’t let the FCO empower Islamist groups. Take note of Lord Carlile’s views on the fight against terrorism. Stop pretending people who don’t want their towns to look like Mogadishu are necessarily racist. All simple stuff but all of it will opposed by what Cameron called the Soft Left.

(I forgot to add this to my previous post)

Other than that, may I say this is an interesting assesment of that speech. I think you’re very right in many ways.

“s. Don’t let the FCO empower Islamist groups.”

In what sense has the FCO empowered islamist groups in the last decade?

“Would multiculturalism somehow be OK if the state butted out and left integration to the forces of laissez faire? Or is opposition to state multiculturalism equivalent to advocacy of state monoculturalism?”

I think these last two statements are compatible with each other. By butting out of providing, protecting and privilaging different cultures and instead attempting to provide that same funding/help/incentives/whatever through more monocultural means then integration will improve. With a state that performs its functions in a mono-cultural manner – the multicultural nature of the UK isn’t going to dissapear – it’s just that mulitculturalism and the division it brings will no longer have the govt crutch.

“The crux of the debate is how far governments should intervene to manipulate the ideologies held by sections of the people who live on the territories they rule, in this case specifically the ideologies of immigrant groups. Is it not self-contradictory for liberalism – in either muscular or weedy guise – to compel others to adopt its tenets?”

I see the abandondment of multiculturalism not as an intervention to people’s ideologies. Rather it is the state saying that it will no longer intervene to influence their rise/fall or continuance of it’s citizens ideologies.

an overtly racist organisation

Did you miss Sunny’s recent post. Unless Islam is a race the EDL is not racist.

Is it not self-contradictory for liberalism – in either muscular or weedy guise – to compel others to adopt its tenets?

No.

It would be self-contradictory if it did not.

“Tory” (above) was sounding kind of reasonable until the “look like Mogadishu” crack. I know it gets a bit rough around town on a Saturday night, but have yet to see any “technicals” driving around the streets losing off gunfire. Maybe there are armed militias round “Tory’s” way, but I doubt it. Is our council still allowedd to have the odd multicultural festival ? Or would that lead to the complete break down of law and order ? this is why Cameron’s speech is nasty, tying “multculturalism” to “terrorism”.

Are any ideas other than the state not legitimising any non-democratic form of leadership necessary? The actual question of whether Mr Cameron has some other form of organisation in mind kind of implies that you believe there has to be some agency guiding social organisation and cohesion? But is that not exactly what liberalism is opposed to anyway?

@ 9 Solomon

““Tory” (above) was sounding kind of reasonable until the “look like Mogadishu” crack. I know it gets a bit rough around town on a Saturday night, but have yet to see any “technicals” driving around the streets losing off gunfire. Maybe there are armed militias round “Tory’s” way, but I doubt it.”

That’s the usual modus operandi of such nut jobs: begin with something that sounds eminently reasonable, even if you think it’s wrong, and then either sneak a whacky reference in at the end which exposes the tin hat wearing proclivities they managed to keep under control… or watch the post get increasingly mental as they get into full Dr Stragelove mode.

The sad, and even frightening, thing is that such people sincerely believe that there is in fact a clear and present danger of what they see as the “failed” multi-cultural experiment leading directly to green flags over Bradford, and sharia law being imposed on non-Muslims.

Cameron isn’t an idiot, he’s just the latest in a long line of principle voids feeding the trolls with what they want to hear.

Maybe we are being unfair and there is actually a really nice suburb of Mogadishu, with attractive houses and well repaired roads, but ever such a slight lack of social cohesion

Galen10,

Be fair here – it is hardly principal void to want everyone treated the same regardless of ethnic origin is it?

It is a bit of a step to say that someone who agrees with this idea is humouring the idiots who think Sharia law is a major threat as opposed to a local abuse at worst. But if we were coming from a situation where the likes of ‘Tory’ had been in power and a new government was adopting a more liberal situation, would not a speech with exactly the same content by the leader cause ‘Tory’ to comment on how it was accomodating the multicultural nutters through its ‘principal void’?

Essentially, moving policy to a different position will make it closer to the extremists on the other side of that position. This is inevitable – and is why policies should be debated on their own merits, not on how the ‘Tory’s’ of this world react.

State multiculturalism? But what is multiculturalism? Is there any definitive definition? Unless people are clear what they are talking about then any conversation has no value.
In the street where I live in Birmingham there are a couple of houses occupied by Afro-Caribbeans out of about 140. There are no overt signs that they belong to another culture. If I go to the high street a quarter of a mile away, you see the occasional black or asian person. No obvious signs of them belonging to another culture though.
If I travel to the edge of the city, 7 minutes drive away, I might or might not see a non-white person. Thereafter, no signs of another culture between Birmingham and Worcester, where my search for multiculturalism begins anew. I can travel from Birmingham to the Welsh coast without encountering another culture or person of another ethnicity. Do I live in a multicultural society? Can someone explain what it means to live in a “multicultural society”?

Want to understand Khan? Then read Galen10. Nothing but projection, slurs and false assertions. Notice how people who criticise multiculturalism are denounced as mad or racist, or both. No examples of what it is I said thats so crazy, but its wink and nudge in lefty groupthink terms.

Some Londoners describe Whitechappel as ‘Little Beirut’ and complain the pubs have been replaced with Mosques. I don’t think people saying is necessarily racist at all.

‘Little Mogadishu’ is what Kenyans call Eastleigh in Nairobi. Its a reference to the large number of Somali migrants living there, including ex-warlords and rich pirates,

Damn tinfoil hat wearing racist Kenyans!

“. No examples of what it is I said thats so crazy, ”

It is crazy to pretned that multi-culturalism means turning london into Mogadishu, or that the FCO have been supporting islamic fundamentalism.

Does “multicultural” just mean “multi-ethnic”? I forgot: I did once see a Chinese woman on a bike cycling through my home village.

tory,

Some Londoners describe Whitechappel as ‘Little Beirut’ and complain the pubs have been replaced with Mosques. I don’t think people saying is necessarily racist at all.

Is it correct, though?

@ 15

I refer you to post #16 by my sensible (sorry, make that “lefty groupthinker”) friend planetshift.

If you don’t want to be taken for a mad racist, or at least someone content to feed the trolls, the answer is not to behave like one.

State multiculturalism is a contradiction in terms: a State is a monological institution and can only address people as such. You can’t have a multi-cultural society run from above.

‘The crux of the debate is how far governments should intervene to manipulate the ideologies held by sections of the people who live on the territories they rule, in this case specifically the ideologies of immigrant groups. Is it not self-contradictory for liberalism – in either muscular or weedy guise – to compel others to adopt its tenets?’

It’s more of a contradiction to maintain illiberal institutions in the name of ‘liberalism’. Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance by proxy: there’s little functional difference between being misogynistic, homophobic, anti-semitic or whatever and being tolerant of such views. Multi-culturalism is only possible between cultures which are themselves liberal.

Sadiq Khan has written about this issue and provides an argument for an opposite approach to what David Cameron was describing:

http://www.fabians.org.uk/events/speeches/missing-a-positive-vision-for-british-muslims

It argues for quite a muscular hyphenated identity, in this case British-Muslim. It’s a shame he could not have defended his own position without throwing a cheap media soundbite at Cameron.

What, for instance, is ‘state multiculturalism’ when it is at home?

One implementation of state multicultarism was the Young Muslim Advisory Group opposed by a Tory in this article for the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/14/young-muslim-advisory-group

Another example was the Prevent scheme which Tories shut down as soon as they got into power.

‘It is crazy to pretned that multi-culturalism means turning london into Mogadishu, or that the FCO have been supporting islamic fundamentalism.’

1. Angus McKee, of the FO’s Middle East and North Africa desk, .’Given that Islamist groups are often less corrupt than the generality of the societies in which they operate,’ he wrote, ‘consideration might be given to channelling aid resources through them, so long as sufficient transparency is achievable.’

Not to mention the folly of courting groups like the Muslim Brotherhood because they are the ‘less extreme’ of Islamist extremists. Like asking the BNP to deal with the real exremists in the NF.

2. I am telling you how I hear some locals and cabbies describe the area. These people have seen the very cultural fabric of their area change dramatically. Want to tell them not to moan because are still some pubs left, thats your call. My point is such views shouldn’t be ignored or always dismissed as racist.

How much longer are we going to play this silly game? If you want, I can make a racist joke so you can all look at each other and nod it agreement about how fanatical I am.

22 Tory

As has been pointed out, whilst you may not personally be a racist, be nice to dogs, volunteer your time at a local hospice, that doesn’t mean that channeling the spirit of local cabbies makes you someone whose considered opinion is worth…well, anything.

Toleration of such nonsense is a plain enough sign that you are either a fellow traveller, a dupe, or a true believer hiding beind the faux outrage of the “Of course, I don’t believe it, but I can see how some people might…” brigade.

Tory, The FCO have also provided aid and military equipment to Saudi Arabia over the years. Frankly I’d rather they didn’t, but I don’t think an internal discussion of whether to use large on the ground organisations like the MB counts as evidence as ‘promoting islamism’ any more than giving aid to Saudi Arabia counts as promoting torture – particularly given the use of the phrase ‘so long as sufficient transparency is achievable.’

All you’ve demonstrated is that the FCO sometimes give money to organisations with dodgy views on liberalism as a means of furthering unspecified strategic objectives. Something all western governments have done, and continue to do so.

“how I hear some locals and cabbies describe the area”

I can name you several estates in Wales that are described as beruit, most of which are exclusively white. It is a figure of speech used to describe rough areas that could do with extensive work, nobody seriously thinks these areas have been in a warzone.

‘Toleration of such nonsense is a plain enough sign that you are either a fellow traveller, a dupe, or a true believer hiding beind the faux outrage of the “Of course, I don’t believe it, but I can see how some people might…” brigade’

Its called listening to people, comrade.

I’m not convinced the views of a cab driver should dismissed because he’s a working class cabbie.

Stop digging.

22 Tory

” If you want, I can make a racist joke so you can all look at each other and nod it agreement about how fanatical I am.”

More a case of “Quand on parle du loup, on en voit la queue” as our French friends say

@25 Tory

“I’m not convinced the views of a cab driver should dismissed because he’s a working class cabbie. ”

They aren’t being dismissed because he’s a cab driver, or working class, but because they are wrong. The fact that you can’t see that simple distinction is symptomatic of the intellectually lazy approach you demonstrated above and have done nothing to dispel.

There are plenty of pubs in Whitechapel. Look out for the huge Engerland flags. Plenty of pubs in Beirut too.

With Britain’s dismal record on social mobility in recent years, there’s not much danger of monoculturalism spreading, surely? From the news, it seems that Disraeli and his personal legacy to Conservative thinking are now definitely out of fashion in the Party.

A brief recap for those unfamiliar with Disraeli’s special brand of Conservatism:

“Yes,” resumed the younger stranger after a moment’s interval. “Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws.” [Sybil]
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3760/3760-h/3760-h.htm

London is a modern Babylon [Tancred]
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20004/20004-h/20004-h.htm

A sign of our times: The primrose was known as the “favourite flower” of Benjamin Disraeli, and so became associated with him. The Primrose League was an organisation for spreading Conservative principles in Great Britain. It was founded in 1883 and active until the mid 1990s. It was finally wound up in December 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primrose_League

So much for Disraeli.

@15 Tory: “Some Londoners describe Whitechappel as ‘Little Beirut’ and complain the pubs have been replaced with Mosques.”

In spite of conflict, Beirut is one of the most racially and culturally diverse cities in the Middle East. I suspect that those who coined the expression “Little Beirut” did so in a positive spirit, although it may have been adopted abusively by others.

In other threads, it has been noted that areas with affordable housing attract migrants and are transformed to some extent by immigrant culture. This applies to Jews and Bangladeshis in the east end, to the Irish in north London, to Caribbeans, Africans, Indians from Africa, Cypriots etc wherever they settle.

Our experience is that transformation is not a permanent thing; the tastes of immigrants change (which might be taken as evidence of multiculturalism) or a new wave of immigrants settles bringing new culture. Recent immigrants from eastern europe are not even bringing anything new to our culture; eastern europeans were everywhere in the last century, but we didn’t really notice because they had white skins and popped in the local pub as often as the Polish Working Men’s Club. Poles and others maintained their cultural identity but merged in other ways, so the only way to spot their descendants is by an unusual name (or a Polish Working Men’s Club membership card).

Genetic differences between human beings and apes are very small. Similarly, the cultural differences between immigrants and the “traditional” population are tiny; pop down to your local immigrant store and you’ll discover that their customers buy corn flakes for breakfast and watch X Factor. The most striking thing is the similarity of people with different cultural backgrounds.

The term ‘multicultural society’ is a contradiction in terms, if it means we can have one society in which there are any number of separate cultures but no dominant culture, and that the moral standards of one culture cannot be judged by the standards of any of the others (cultural relativism). This is the type of multiculturalism that Trevor Phillips declared to be dead a couple of years ago. For, by definition, a society has one dominant culture – that’s what makes it a society.

However, a liberal society can have any number of sub-cultures, and in this context ‘multicultural society’ means simply pluralism and diversity within the dominant culture. Immigrants can retain their dress, religion, festivals etc, providing they respect the rights of others to do likewise, accept the rule of law and parliamentary democracy, speak English and don’t imagine (for example) that they can stone gays or adulterers, engage in cannibalism…

If the latter is what we mean by multiculturalism, then we might do better to abandon the term and talk simply of pluralism and diversity.

OP, Dave Osler: “What, for instance, is ‘state multiculturalism’ when it is at home?”

Cameron’s arguments were not coherent and I have sympathy with Sunny’s post from a few days ago. But Cameron only mentions “state multiculturalism” once in his address. “State multiculturalism” is a side note.

There is a more interesting sentence just before the one that Dave O quotes. Which is: “But these young men also find it hard to identify with Britain too, because we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity.”

As I wrote in paragraph #1, I didn’t entirely follow Cameron. What is “our collective identity”? If anything it means tradition combined with a more liberal and meritocratic society (whether the latter has been delivered is another concern), which should appeal to these young men (sic).

But I feel comfortable talking about our collective identity. Social liberalism is the norm in polite society, although the absence of an openly gay football player at the top levels raises a few questions. Just look at how society has changed and how TV viewers perceive programmes such as “Life on Mars”. We are building a collective identity in which everyone can find a space — secular hindus, religious muslims and various nutballs. I’ll give them all space so long as they do not invade my space — which I will defend liberally.

@31 paul ilc: “However, a liberal society can have any number of sub-cultures, and in this context ‘multicultural society’ means simply pluralism and diversity within the dominant culture.”

I largely agree with the quote above and the argument that follows. Not necessarily about language, because English is not the sole traditional language where we live (or in Ireland and other neighbours — Brittany, Norway where other dialects exist). Nor would I wish to force English lessons on granny who moves to the UK to look after the kids. Spaniards, Italians, Swiss and others have a “family tongue” and another that is used outside family.

“Dominant culture” is a fluid concept. Leicester’s first Indian restaurant opened in 1960 (others probably existed in London beforehand) and twenty years later, they were everywhere. People absorb things that are useful to them, which may come from different cultures, and ignore other things. Indian food has become part of UK culture. At the same time, Indian immigrants are likely to eat the same sort of lunch time sandwich as Anglo mates.

“Cultural relativism” is just plain ugly. Cultures cannot be awarded points in a talent show competition: The Beatles versus Beethoven, Banksy versus Breugel. Your concern is about “moral relativism”. Liberals have to talk with unpleasant people. Political compromise is not the same as moral relativism, unless you perform gymnastics.

I suggest everyone read the works of Sivanandan, Kenan Malik and John Eade to give you a view of what state multiculturalism actually is. And a really good left wing critique of it.

I’d have more faith in Cameron having a go at folk not fitting in if he’d mentioned the extremists in the EDL who refuse to fit in with our proud notions of tolerance and freedom of expression. As it stands, when he only mentions Islamism etc, he looks like he’s pandering to the Mail/Express crowd (at best).
I feel far more threatened by a group of BNP or EDL than I do by seeing a Mosque or a group of women wearing burqas/niqabs.

Not sure what “state multiculturalism” means? Really??

Here’s someone who implements it, perhaps a read might enlighten you. He gives a point-by-point explanation of exactly what it entails in his line of work.

Inspector Gadget.

@35 Mr S. Pill: “I’d have more faith in Cameron having a go at folk not fitting in if he’d mentioned the extremists in the EDL..”

Had Cameron talked about the EDL, it would not have made his speech any more coherent.

Here are some good words from Cameron: “A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them. Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality. It says to its citizens, this is what defines us as a society: to belong here is to believe in these things. Now, each of us in our own countries, I believe, must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty.”

Here is some idiocy: “Back home, we’re introducing National Citizen Service: a two-month programme for sixteen-year-olds from different backgrounds to live and work together. I also believe we should encourage meaningful and active participation in society, by shifting the balance of power away from the state and towards the people.”

In the latter part of the second quote, it is acknowledged that the state has limitations in helping to maintain a society with diverse cultural interests. Before that it drools about a “National Citizen Service”; I started to believe in Sally’s brownshirt army before my brain rebooted.

1. Solomon Hughes – “Cameron genuinely seems to be saying that “state multiculturalism” caused terrorism. If only councils didn’t sometimes translate leaflets into non English languages, and if only schools never discussed Eid, then these young men would not have made bombs. I mean, I know sometimes people try and squeeze in other issues on the back of terrorism, but this takes some kind of big muscular cultural biscuit.”

What is odd about suggesting that if we did not spend so much time teaching young boys that White British people are uniquely evil and have committed evil all over the world, and if those young boys do not come from a White British ethnic background they ought to do all they can to make sure they don’t becoming like White British men, that perhaps then these suicide bombers would not have grown up thinking that White British people are uniquely evil and have committed evil all over the world etc etc etc?

There is no stretch by David Cameron here. We raise young men to despise the society they live in, they will, naturally, despise it. Some will turn to alternatives.

33. Charlieman – ““Cultural relativism” is just plain ugly. Cultures cannot be awarded points in a talent show competition: The Beatles versus Beethoven, Banksy versus Breugel.”

Of course cultures can be awarded points in a talent show competition. I find it hard to believe that anyone takes this argument seriously. Who would say that the two cultures involved in America’s Civil War were of equal value? Who in 1967 would have said that Swedish society was as valuable as South Africa’s, just different?

If you want to avoid a moral argument (which would say that allowing girls access to abortion without their parents’ permission in the West is morally no different from FGM), there is the adaptationist argument – some societies are better adapted, even functional, than others. Foot binding is not a good adaption and it is a good thing it has gone.

@34 – Spot on wiht Malik, I’m not familiar with the writings of the other two on this subject – but for those that haven’t read it, here is a direct link to Malik’s:
http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/against_mc.html

@31: “The term ‘multicultural society’ is a contradiction in terms, if it means we can have one society in which there are any number of separate cultures but no dominant culture, and that the moral standards of one culture cannot be judged by the standards of any of the others (cultural relativism). ”

But how come Disraeli’s observation in his novel Tancred (1847) that London is a modern Babylon?

And London was a modern Babylon, even at that time, and for many reasons. With a population of well over a million, it was the largest city in the world and it was already cosmopolitan, not least because of the legacy from slave trade and because London was a great trading port.

“19th century trade was accompanied by massive international capital movements, which were much larger relative to the size of the world economy than anything seen since WWI: in a typical year in the late 19th century, Britain invested about 40 per cent of its savings overseas.” [Paul Krugman: Peddling Prosperity (Norton, 1994) p.258]

Try this about Francis Barber, the man servant of Samuel Johnson, the famed lexicographer:
http://www.100greatblackbritons.com/bios/francis_barber.html

Disraeli was the grandson of immigrants. The year after the publication of his novel Tancred, Karl Marx with family sought refuge in London from mainland Europe where he was being hounded by the established authorities because of the revolutions of 1848 – the year in which the Communist Manifesto was published. A Blue Plaque on the Quo Vadis restaurant at 26 Dean Street, Soho, London, commemorates one of the places where the Marx family lived:
http://www.quovadissoho.co.uk/

Friedrich Engels, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, managed his family’s successful textile business in Manchester.

“The founder of the world’s first socialist state, Vladimir Illich Lenin, visited London six times between 1902 and 1911, and on at least five of these occasions found the time to call into the British Museum whose Library collections were in his view unparalleled. At the time of his 1907 visit he said:

“‘It is a remarkable institution, especially that exceptional reference section. Ask them any question, and in the very shortest space of time they’ll tell you where to look to find the material that interests you. ..Let me tell you, there is no better library than the British Museum. Here there are fewer gaps in the collections than in any other library.’”
http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpsubject/history/history/lenin/lenin.html

According to this BBC Newsnight report of April 2008, 40 per cent of London residents now were born abroad:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7368326.stm

According to the 2001 Census, almost half of all Britain’s ethnic minorities live in London.

Some Londoners describe Whitechappel as ‘Little Beirut’ and complain the pubs have been replaced with Mosques. I don’t think people saying is necessarily racist at all.

I lived in Whitechapel for two years, from 2007-2009.

1) there were no major public order problems – far less grief than in white inner suburbs of London and Manchester that I’ve lived in.

2) there were about 10 pubs within a stagger of my flat, some of which were pleasant, some of which were horrific, most of which seemed to be doing good business, and none of which were threatened by marauding gangs of Talibanistas. I didn’t look particularly hard for mosques while I was there, on the grounds of not really caring very much one way or the other, but the big one on Whitechapel Road was the only one I noticed.

So while it’s not necessarily *racist* to say “Whitechapel’s like Beirut and they’ve turned the pubs into mosques”, it’s definitely incorrect, ignorant bullshit.

What is odd about suggesting that if we did not spend so much time teaching young boys that White British people are uniquely evil and have committed evil all over the world

We don’t, in fact, do that. You made it up.

London is a modern Babylon:

” The building shown here, on the corner of Fournier Street and Brick Lane in East London, has demonstrated remarkable versatility with the added quirk of remaining in the same basic use, that of a place of worship. Built in 1743 as a French Protestant chapel, it later became a synagogue and is now a mosque, an impressive canter through the principal religions.”
http://savinggeorgianbuildings.blogspot.com/2010/02/chapel-synagogue-mosque-versatile-life.html

Try these Wikipedia entries for Africans who were active in 18th century London in the campaigns at the time for the abolition of the slave trade and slavery:

Olaudah Equiano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaudah_Equiano

Ottobah Cugoano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottobah_Cugoano

Very thoughtful article by Frank Furedi in Spiked magazine on monday. I think he has it.

Don’t blame tolerance for this multicultural mess

David Cameron is right to slam multiculturalism, but wrong to blame tolerance for fostering today’s lily-livered non-judgmentalism.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10163/

Tolerence is what is required he says for aspects of culture that you don’t care for.
You don’t celebrate, you tolerate it, as people have the right to live how they want.

Multiculturalism has nothing to do with true tolerance. Multiculturalism demands not tolerance but indulgent indifference. It relentlessly promotes the idea of ‘acceptance’ and discourages the questioning of other people’s beliefs and lifestyles. Its dominant value is non-judgmentalism. Yet judging, criticising and evaluating are all key attributes of any open-minded, democratic society worth its name. It is crucially important to rescue the concept of tolerance from its confused association with multiculturalism.

And this was a good paragraph too. Because it’s true I think.

The confusion of the concept of tolerance with the idea of acceptance of all lifestyles is strikingly illustrated by UNESCO’s Declaration on the Principles of Tolerance. It says: ‘Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human.’ UNESCO also claims that tolerance is ‘harmony in difference’. For UNESCO, toleration becomes an expansive, diffuse sensibility that automatically offers unconditional respect for different views and cultures.

43. john b – “We don’t, in fact, do that. You made it up.”

Actually we do. It is not my problem if you are out of touch.

Take, for instance, the commemoration of the Slave Trade Act.

@46: “Take, for instance, the commemoration of the Slave Trade Act.”

On the Middle Passage in the Atlantic crossing of slave trading ships, there’s a celebrated painting by JMW Turner of The Slave Ship, first shown on public display at the summer exhibition of the Royal Academy in 1840:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/T/turner/slave_ship.jpg.html

The picture relates to a notorious incident in the voyage of the slave trader the Zong in 1781 when 122 sick but living slaves from among the cargo were thrown overboard in order to collect compensation from the underwriters of the voyage rather than risk the ship’s owners or crew having to bear the loss should any of the slaves have died on board:

The ship’s owners filed their insurance claim, but the insurers disputed it, backed by the evidence of the first mate. In this first court case, even with the first mate’s testimony – the ship had plenty of water, Jamaica was near – the court found for Collingwood and the owners. The insurers appealed. It is at this point that Granville Sharp, one of the first of the anti-slave-trade activists, enters the story. He was visited on 19 March 1783 by Olaudah Equiano, a famous freed slave and later to be the author of a successful autobiography, and told of the events aboard the Zong. Sharp immediately became involved in the court case, again presided over by Lord Chief Justice Lord Mansfield, who a decade earlier, in a previous action brought to court by Sharp, had held in Somersett’s Case [1772] that slavery was unlawful in England. The Solicitor General for England and Wales, Mr. John Lee notoriously declared that “the case was the same as if horses had been thrown overboard” but Lord Mansfield ruled that the ship-owners could not claim insurance on the slaves because the lack of sufficient water demonstrated that the cargo had been badly managed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zong_Massacre

46

No, Bob B is right…you just made it up…as usual. Just because you left your tin-foil hat off for long enough for the voices in your head to convince you that these things happened, doesn’t make them true.

Even if you could produce any evidence (which of course you can’t) that some twisted individual had espoused the views in your ridiculous post, that doesn’t make them general, or accepted, or in any way support your trollish convictions.

Poor effort even by your already fairly low standard.

I am a bit reluctant to respond to “So Much For Subtlety” in case they turn out to be an elaborate hoax, could anyone really talk this “decline of civilisation” stuff so absurdly ? But it is hard to resist they really are making my case for me. I thought Cameron’s speech was mostly aimed at blaming “multiculturalism” for “terrorism” and this was absurd and nasty. And up pops our unsubtle poster to say yes he is, and that teaching schoolboys and girls about the slave trade causes terrorism. That class 11B’s weekly lesson on “self hatred for Britons” and two periods on “Weakening the national will” have caused bombs in the street. they had a celebration for Chinese New Year down in town the other day, with a dragon dance and martial arts and everything. Quite a big crowd who thought it was quite nice. Little did they know that this multicultual madness would lead to self hatred and explosions.

Is it not self-contradictory for liberalism – in either muscular or weedy guise – to compel others to adopt its tenets?

No, it’s not at all self-contradictory for liberals who believe in free speech to, say, pass laws guaranteeing freedom of speech and outlawing certain behaviours aimed at restricting free speech.

The crux of the debate is how far governments should intervene to manipulate the ideologies held by sections of the people who live on the territories they rule

I’m not sure ‘manipulate’ is the right word here. What they seek to do is “challenge” really. Nowt wrong with that.

Any suggestion that Cameron is somehow a closet Nazi is clearly ridiculous.

Glory be. Hope you’ve cleared this with Sally.

One of your odder posts, Dave. Have you really thought this through?

Sorry about the diversions into history but I needed to show that political perspectives on slavery were not uniform even among the political and social elites of those times.

Pitt as PM approved of the campaign for the abolition of the slave trade and slavery but Wilberforce campaigned for 18 years before Parliament finally voted to ban the slave trade in 1807 (a year after Pitt’s death) – and note that the Napoleonic Wars continued through to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815.

Slavery in the British Empire didn’t end until 1833, the year Wilberforce died, although that was a good thirty or so years before the Civil War in America ended slavery there.

London has long been a regular refuge for diverse asylum seekers for centuries. Besides Marx after 1848, Voltaire, sent into exile from France by King Louis XIV, was here for some years in the early 18th century and Matternich, when dismissed as chancellor of the Austro-hungarian empire in response to the revolutions of 1848, came and sought refuge here.

The notion that monoculturalism prevailed in Britain until the advent of New Labour – or until the Empire Windrush first landed in 1948 – is just a fantasy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Empire_Windrush

@ 46

“Actually we do. It is not my problem if you are out of touch.

Take, for instance, the commemoration of the Slave Trade Act.”

Um, admitting that Britain has acted wrongly is not the same as teaching children that White British people are uniquely evil.

Nice try though.

“Um, admitting that Britain has acted wrongly is not the same as teaching children that White British people are uniquely evil.”

Fair enough – although I’m not aware of a lobby or political group actually pushing the line that white British people are uniquely evil.

However, there is plainly something unusual about the government of a smallish island in the north east Atlantic controlling a global empire which included about a quarter of the world’s population at one time:

“By 1922 the British Empire held sway over about 458 million people, one-quarter of the world’s population at the time, and covered more than 13 million square miles (34 million km2), almost a quarter of the Earth’s total land area.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

I recall an engaging bar-room conversation in the mid 1970s with a man who was an indisputably successful entrepreneur in an otherwise declining textile industry.

We were mutually deploring the stagnant state then of the British economy. As an economist, I was mindful of the implication of Ricardo’s international trade theory that there had to be some activity or product we British were relatively more successful at producing than other countries so I said, “We must be good at something.”

“Yes,” he responded, “war.” As had had been awarded the MC in the WW2, he knew of what he was talking about and he was correct. Historically, we have been good at conducting wars in distant places. I take this to be self-evident from the historical evidence. The challenging question is how come?

Bored in Kavanagasau 21

You quote Sadiq Khan – but I can’t take him seriously when he makes such clearly illogical analogies:

>All religions have their fanatics ? who have lost sight of the fundamental teachings of peace and tolerance as hatred triumphed over love.

True.

> The bombers may have declared that their work was done in the name of Allah, but such a bloody outrage is no more part of the teachings of Islam than the Christian evangelist bombing of abortion clinics can be attributed to Jesus Christ.

But hang on – there has been 1 bombing of an abortion clinic in 10 years, worldwide.
But just google to see there are daily acts of violence and terrorism committed by those claiming the name of Allah.

So the analogy with abortion bombers is poor.

> or IRA massacres can be used to besmirch Catholics.

Bad analogy. The IRA never quoted the words of Jesus – their goals and rhetoric were 100% political / marxist.

> Yet somehow Islam and its very teachings are seen to pose a threat to Britain.

So what’s the evidence – where those teachings have reached the UK – have they promoted liberal values?

Richard Reid would not have become a bomber if he had not been exposed to Islam here.

And the Southall Black Sisters raise concerns about the treatment of women in some communies in the UK:

‘Religious radicalism fuels UK “honour” crimes
————————————————————–
“Startling figures also show suicide rates among Asian women aged between 15 and 25 were three times the national average and twice the average for those in the 25 to 35 age group.

“It’s stark that we have people who feel … because of the shame they might bring upon their families or the perception they might suffer harm, are more likely in many cases to kill themselves rather than simply walk away from the situation.”

Hannana Siddiqui of Southall Black Sisters, an organisation experienced in dealing with honour killings and violence, said there were still no proper statistics on the issue.

“It’s only recently that you get people trying to acknowledge there is abuse in the community, that there are issues like forced marriage, that honour can often be a motive, and in the more extreme ends can lead to murder,” she said.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL0690715420070611?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

@ Bob B

“Fair enough – although I’m not aware of a lobby or political group actually pushing the line that white British people are uniquely evil.”

You’ve got me in reverse: the person I’m replying to has the odd idea that we’re teaching people to believe that white British people are the worst people in the world. I think otherwise.

@ Chaise Guevara

From a bird’s eye historical perspective, there are those eternally challenging questions about national traits concerning how come such a relatively small island country as Britain acquired such a large global empire and the connected question of why Britain has been so effective at conducting wars in distant places.

At the beginning of the 19th century with the Napoleonic wars in progress, Britain’s population was half that of France, our principal adversary at the time. By the battle of Trafalgar in 1805, Britain was established as the premier global naval power. Napoleon’s grand army was defeated at Waterloo in 1815 and Britain thereafter became the 19th century superpower.

One possible clue to answers is from the country league table of the numbers of Nobel prizes won per capita – Britain has a formidable scientific heritage:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_nob_pri_lau-people-nobel-prize-laureates

Aide memoire on national character traits or why the US White House is white:

The Burning of Washington was a battle that took place on August 24, 1814, during the War of 1812 between the British Empire and the United States of America. The British Army occupied Washington, D.C. and set fire to many public buildings following the American defeat at the Battle of Bladensburg. The facilities of the US government, including the White House and US Capitol, were largely destroyed, though strict discipline and the British commander’s orders to burn only public buildings are credited with preserving the city’s private buildings. This has been the only time since the Revolutionary War that a foreign power has captured and occupied the United States capital.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

But what about the deafening silence on this matter from the Labour Party. Hadn’t Cameron left the Labour Party an open goal with his outburst? Why did Ed Milliband say nothing?

54
The Southall Black Sisters were initially formed to assist women from all minority ethnic groups to escape from violent partners. This was in response to the fact that the Women’s Refuge movement was not attracting women from other cultures possibly because they felt that they would not be understood. It is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that it is primarily Muslim women who are assisted, the SBS deal with Sikh, HIndus, black Africans, Carribean women, in fact any woman from any ethnic group. SBS were formed after the WRM and that was formed in response to the high number of white women experiencing domestic violence, and anually half of female killings were carried-out by partners and ex-partners. So much for women in our wonderful liberal, Christian society.
As far as self-harm and suicide,among young Asian women goes, it isn’t just Muslim women. You are still selectively quoting evidence.
Christian fundamentalism, as other posters have pointed-out,is fast spreading in the US. And I don’t think Waco was anything to do with Islam.

We are inclined, unless prompted, to overlook evidence of our historic popular regard in our national culture for militarism.

Few may recall nowadays that cardigans – or “cardies” – are so named out of popular regard for Lord Cardigan, who led the widely celebrated charge of the Light Brigade at the Battle of Balaclava in 1854. The charge was utterly pointless in military terms and catastrophic in its consequences. Cardigan’s military peers considered him a fool but he became a national hero.

Tennyson’s commemorative poem at least makes passing reference to a blunder:
http://poetry.eserver.org/light-brigade.html

Steve b – 54

> It is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that it is primarily Muslim women who are assisted, the SBS deal with Sikh, HIndus, black Africans, Carribean women

Err, but But SBS talking about ‘honour crimes’ – have you evidence of such among Caribbean women in the UK?

Among Sikhs..Hindus?

And does your evidence compare that with the level among the UK Muslim community?

It’s the latter that is the main problem, you’ll find the evidence points to.

61
Yes, but you are focusing upon forced marriages within the Muslim community, this is a only a proportion of the SBS work, they have also been involved with forced marriages and honour killings with in the Hindu, Sikh and some Jewish communities.
My problem with your posts, as I’ve already mentioned, is your selective use of evidence.

Steve b

Selective use of evidence?

I agree with you entirely, on being against that.

But the statement I was responding to – I felt was exactly that. Did you too?

> The bombers may have declared that their work was done in the name of Allah, but such a bloody outrage is no more part of the teachings of Islam than the Christian evangelist bombing of abortion clinics can be attributed to Jesus Christ.

I think Cameron is right. When you consider the strict rules which people have to obey in the majority of Muslim countries why should Britain be more benevolent as far as the protection of the country’s values and traditions is concerned?

Belated response to Dave Osler’s very reasonable question ‘what does Cameron mean by “state multiculturalism”?” I’m just completing a chapter on the contested meanings of multiculturalism in the UK for a forthcoming book, and I’ve up-dated it to include Cameron’s speech. Here’s the footnote for ‘state multiculturalism’:

‘This term struck most people as a new one when David Cameron used it in this speech. He made the speech on 5th February 2011 and by 26th February a Google search brought up more than 2 million hits for this term. All of them referred to Cameron’s speech, implying that Cameron created the term. But it is quite likely that one of his advisers had read the book by Ben Pitcher cited extensively in this chapter [an excellent, complex book called 'The Politics of Multiculturalism' (Palgrave 2009)]. Pitcher used the term in this way: ‘state multiculturalism stops abruptly at the material and symbolic borders of the nation-state, and [this chapter] demonstrates how a meaningful commitment to multicultural practice must find a way of proceeding beyond them’ (Pitcher 2009:25). Thus while Cameron uses the term ‘state multiculturalism’ to signify his ideological distaste for the State (linking this to his criticism of multiculturalism itself), Pitcher uses it to critique the statist and nationalistic tendencies in the version of multiculturalism promoted by Labour Party leaders Blair and Brown.’

The salient point might be that as usual Cameron is tail-ending Blair, who, along with his acolyte Trevor Phillips, pronounced multiculturalism dead in 2005. As Pitcher points out, it is alive and kicking, if now suffused with nationalistic overtones. There is no way it will disappear, short of a BNP government with an army to enforce repatriation.

Shameless plug: watch out for ‘”Islam” in “the West” – Key issues in Multiculturalism’ ed. Farrar, Robinson, Valli & Wetherly (Palgrave 2011).