Ripclawe said:
The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu: Multiculturalism has seemed to imply, wrongly for me, let other cultures be allowed to express themselves but do not let the majority culture at all tell us its glories, its struggles, its joys, its pains, he said.
If by "harmonious" just gloss over differences and have to change just so others can feel welcome, no thanks. Multicult is a warped idea that you can live and let live and just keep quiet about certain aspects that go against the majority norms and culture.
Now Assimilation is a much better fit for society because newcomers have to fit it and you get a different kind of another culture. Multiculturalism as it is practiced today just promotes a wretched form of tribalism.
The Archbishop himself concedes there is ambiguity of what 'Britishness' precisely entails, but to him, however, Britain is a place where "that has allowed reason to be at the heart of all these things, that has allowed genuine dissent without resort to violence, that has allowed the fantastic music that we experience in our culture". The ironic fact is that no one is challenging or questioning the values of British society, much less any host society.
'Assimilation', the buzzword for the opposing stance, in my opinion reflects the poor understanding in this debate. It assumes that there is no intent or interest in integrating into society or adopting some of the values. It's a ridiculous generalisation. Firstly, there is no set of mannerisms, conduct or opinion mandate that unites, defines and distinguishes most societies from others. I'm not Caucasian, or born in this country and so if you lined me up with any random group of people in London; how could you determine how 'British' I am? I probably approve of the Royal Family, something that others born in this country who are considered British may not do. I probably have more of an extensive knowledge and admiration for British history; something that others born in this country may not. I am probably more thankful to this country than others, who were born here may be. I probably respect and approve of the institutional practices in this country, maybe more so than others born in this country are. But at the same time, I'm not a regular at the pub - although I would love to go to Wembley or visit my football team every weekend.
What is the measurement of how British one must be?
When someone comes to country X, they come with their own heritage and tradition. They will not forget or abandon that the moment they step a foot on the shore. First generation children are particularly interesting. Regardless of how proud their parents are of their tradition, these children (in my experience) are more likely to identify themselves of the nationality of the country of their birth simply because they grew up in that culture. Having said that, they do not ignore their heritage. Neither do the second or third generation. These children are going to be the effects of immigration and I don't think anyone can call question their 'British' identity simply because they were born to immigrant parents. I think for most people, being born here and growing up in your host country, is good enough for them to consider you British/Australian/American or whatever.
Multiculturalism is a natural consequence of people from different backgrounds mixing together or at least being aware of the other's cultural distinctiveness. That doesn't as a result equate to those minorities segregating themselves from society. Interestingly this debate came up a couple of months ago after the Burkha arguments going around in the media. Some people disregarded that these women were wearing it in expression of their freedom of religion (perhaps not something inherently British judging from our history, but something we as Britons can be proud of to uphold now) and instead decided to focus on how absurd and alien this figure was in comparison to the rest of society; it was a challenge our culture and it propelled the 'assimilation' point into public discussions. And yet the whole thing was based on a foreign piece of clothing.
And how do you measure assimilation? Do you put a limit on how many 'diverse' restaurants you can open? How many temples you can build? If you're talking about assimilating to acknowledge the host countries values and try to adopt some, or at least respect them; then there is no debate here, I absolutely agree. If it's suggesting that these people cannot be free to express themselves (within reason of course), or celebrate their own heritage, then I consider that an insult strong enough to trigger divisions.
Multiculturalism as it is practiced today just promotes a wretched form of tribalism.
That doesn't undermine the concept though. I have no defence of those who practice it to isolate themselves aggressively. Look at states in Europe, or Russia, where ethnic minorities are a rarity; this increases the probability of racial prejudice to thrive. For those groups of Russians or Italians who dislike blacks, even there are is hardly any of them there, that tribalism still exists irrespective. And then I look at our society where you'll never see a race riot in certain cities in this country.
Multiculturalism can be better improved. Assimilation only achieves in highlighting the minor differences (causing the above in the OP and racial discrimination) - we're all fucking made of flesh and blood, want the best for our children, take a dump, eat food and drink water, cry when hurt and laugh. This isn't even about nationality or how American/Australian/Britain one should be. Most people in real life on a daily basis don't care what country you're from if you respect them and show courtesy; this should be the requirements of us in society, not how thick your accent is
This is more of an idealogical plea on my behalf as opposed to a political comment
