Wednesday, 29 December 2010

The Myth of the Melting Pot

The right won the economic wars and the left won the cultural wars. Apparently. Whether this is true or not, at some point during the 20th Century the left in Britain and Europe which had traditionally defended the white working class, turned against them. At one point the white working class were there to be protected from big business and the wealthy in society but at some point they became the enemy, a part of 'monoculture' and racism and today the left spends all of its time with its back firmly turned to the people it grew up defending.

One of the big problems with this switch is it meant that the parameters for political discourse changed quite drastically. When the left's concern was economic, this was quantifiable and could be measured, when the left's concern became 'multiculturalism' it became far more hazy and ideological. This is, I fear a large amount of the problem today when it comes to arguing with liberals. No matter how much evidence is presented to them on this topic, nothing will change their mind because essentially Britain merely has to be a diverse country in point of fact so they can tick it off of their ideological list, whether that means that the diverse nation gets on together or is remotely cohesive is an entirely separate and to most leftists, irrelevant point. This is one of the things I found so infuriating about arguing with students at University. The same people who spent their time opposing 'imperialist America', hating the Tories and promoting multiculturalism, never actually took part in it themselves. It shows their great ignorance on the topic that many friends would point to the fact that they had some black friends that, that was somehow proof that they were engaged in multiculturalism, as if to be black automatically meant that you had to be part of another culture. The reason why race is brought up so often in discussions on this topic is because most people cannot tell the difference between multiculturalism and multi-racialism. No-one reputable or mainstream has a problem in the 21st Century with racial diversity, the argument is not against racial diversity but against artificially and rapidly created cultural diversity even when those cultures contain aspects that are incompatible and even hostile to British culture. Trevor Phillips the head of the Commission for Racial Equality repeatedly warned that Britain was sleepwalking into segregation with communities sharing some of the same space but none of the same identity or interaction. To most liberals I speak to though any failure at all of multiculturalism (if they will acknowledge even a small amount) is attributed to a racist and stubborn indigenous population, any evidence that demonstrates that it is far more often, the minority communities that refuse to engage in multiculturalism themselves by even going as far as to arrange marriages from abroad to avoid interacting with cultures outside of their own is completely ignored. This multicultural paradise we live in, is in the minds of the left alone. It was in creation and remains so today.

A better term for what has happened in Britain is multi-nation-alism because this is what has happened, as it has happened everywhere else in the world where multiculturalism has taken place. In Britain we have segregated communities divided up along ethnic instead of racial lines. There are plenty of black and asian British people who have assimilated into the British culture and have British accents and British interests like anyone else (one of a million reasons why the BNP will never receive any significant backing from the British public), but we also have, at the behest of the government communities that have been essentially transplanted from other cultures. In many cases where first generation migrants have integrated fairly well we are finding now that many of their later children and grandchildren are doing the opposite and 'de-integrating' due to this insane policy made worse under New Labour of identity politics. How did multiculturalism work out in the Soviet Union? Or Serbia? Even in places like Canada to dispel the racist misunderstanding, there is great division between the ethnically 'French Canadians' and the rest of Canada.

The entire notion of multiculturalism is that you become British merely by owning a passport and obeying the law, and that you do not need to integrate but may retain your own culture. The phrase 'Islamification' is quite a loaded and often misused term. However, if multiculturalism means that you do not integrate and bring your culture with you, then if a large number of Islamic migrants move into an area and impose their culture then under any definition that area has become 'Islamised'. Recently, I was watching the documentary 'Don't Panic I'm Islamic' put on youtube that was supposed to give a perspective from the British-Muslim side that perked my interest in this topic recently as a large amount of the faulty liberal world-view was once again on display and not registered. For example, one of the Muslims interviewed stated that when he applied for jobs using his non-Anglo sounding name he did not receive any replies, and when he changed it to an English sounding name he got plenty of replies which apparently demonstrated once again that they only problem is the racist host culture. This is not proof of individual racism but universal human nature. If an English sounding person applied for jobs to an entirely Muslim neighbourhood, they would similarly be passively discriminated against for appearing different. This is a cultural phenomenon that is universal. People need to feel part of a community and are fairly hostile on differing scales to outsiders. The refusal to acknowledge that and the 'one-way integration' that a lot of people complain about was again perfectly demonstrated in this documentary when the issue of the veil was brought up. The Muslims in the documentary felt no stigma attached when it came to criticising if not downright insulting the members of 'English culture' who were drunk at night or were female and not wearing a huge amount of clothing, but refused the same courtesy to people who criticised Muslims who for example dressed in full faced veils. They seemed to quite happily recognise a cultural dissonance between themselves and the host culture, the only difference was when they were the ones being criticised they screamed Islamaphobia and prejudice. I guess they were all Anglophobes. I know many Muslim friends who have told me that their parents discipline them if they are caught dating a 'white girl', I do not bring this up to scream reverse racism as I do not think it even exemplifies such a phenomena but rather exhibits a recognition of one's endogenous community that the minority population is allowed to exhibit by the liberal elite which the majority is not. It is impolite to acknowledge in liberal circles that the Muslim complaint that the veil is no different to the uniform worn by nuns is actually completely valid. The reason that most British people are slightly hostile to the veil and not the nuns is the same reason that many Muslims are slightly hostile towards too much exposed flesh; because it is not a part of their culture and what they expect. Much of the religion of Islam is heavily influenced by Eastern culture and especially the garb associated with it. People from a non-Islamic culture naturally find this to be fairly alien, as do those brought up in the east, exposed to western dressing habits. The liberal response to this natural trait has been either flat out denial that such a separation is present, or to simply label any hostility as one-way and due to racism.

What's worse is the original notion of multiculturalism, of merely changing the make-up of the nation state without compromising on the values it was built on has changed over time as well. The values the West is supposed to hold dear have played second fiddle to multiculturalism at almost every conceivable opportunity. In the Netherlands recently the Jewish community were told to leave the country, as they could no longer be protected from Islamic anti-Semitism. Free speech irrespective of offence is no longer considered a virtue and it is now a mainstream view of the secular left that religious sensibilities may legitimately suppress free speech (unless it's Christian of course). Feminists are silent on the burqa and the treatment of women in many new migrant communities. All of this of course is simply political discourse, but there have been plenty of threats to the actual legal aspects related to multiculturalism as well. Labour attempted to put through the despicably backward law on blasphemy recently in relation to 'offensive' statements made against predominantly Islam. It seems very likely that aspects of sharia law that already take place in an unofficial basis, may do so under an official auspice in the near future. This all means that where Islam has entered Britain, instead of Islam becoming more like Britain, Britain is expected to become more like Islam, and in may areas has already done so.

This same double standard is applied to media representation. Despite the cries of victimhood that come out of the Muslim community, all institutions of government are at a pains to satisfy quotas and appear politically correct. Any Muslim extremist is instantly disassociated with the rest of the Muslim community, which went as far as the British government under Gordon Brown calling Islamist terrorism 'Unislamic activity'. This same courtsey is never applied to the broader British culture, whereby any racist or other comment is instantly seized upon as evidence of the sins of the majority rather than a fringe member of society. The delusional liberal classes of Britain make every effort to engage in multiculturalism to communities that have largely migrated from fairly illiberal areas and do not extend the courtesy back as the increasing attacks on Jews and gays the extreme end of the spectrum demonstrate, as well as the problem of arranged marriages and segregated communities in the wider population.

Members of the British public are increasingly confused as to why they should endorse continued mass immigration when they already have high levels of unemployment, an incredibly fractuous society that must be held together by legally sanctioned discrimination against the idengous population in the work place, millions of pounds spent on race relations committees, translation services and other instruments of the state, unbearable levels of political correctness and state interfering, all to achieve the so-called multicultural dream of parallel communities that do not interact, expect one way tolerance, bring religion back into the public sphere and erode free speech. Half of the arguments that the left make about modern Britain seem to suggest that they themselves think that multiculturalism has failed. The constant moaning and crying about racism, distrust, discrimination and hostility all seem to point to one thing: a fractured society, the very opposite of a multicultural society but parallel societies that happen to be geographically connected. If when the social experiment was concocted in the early years of the of the post-war period (or again around the time of New Labour's election) this issue had been discussed in parliament and members of the supposedly conservative party had objected by arguing that this policy would lead to such wide levels of hostility, distrust and racism, surely the left would have had to of argued that they were wrong and this was not their desired intent? By spending so much of their energy arguing that Britain is racist, hostile and all the rest of it, surely they are admitting to their own mistakes?

The very opposite of a multicultural society seems to be preached at a political level as well. Apparently Muslims cannot be properly represented unless the MP in their constituent is a fellow Muslim. Does this mean therefore that any African Christians cannot themselves be represented by a Muslim? By extension if blacks are expected to vote for fellow black candidates does that mean the indigenous population has a legitimate grievance at an ethnic minority becoming their MP, because apparently an MP can only represent his or her ethnic background? All of this seems to suggest that only individual ethnicity's can be catered to by a representative of that ethnicity which as well as promoting (and producing) sectarianism, flies completely in the face of the idea of multiple cultures interacting and moving forward equally and together. This has also meant in popular discourse that while going to extreme lengths to recognise and celebrate ethnicity's that have originated from outside of Britain, the notion of a British ethnicity has been effectively eradicated and even a crime to celebrate. Hazy terms like 'always evolving' are used refer to British culture, which apparently has never been particularly homogenous or rooted in religion or community like all other cultures. This has meant that while minority communities are encouraged to celebrate their ethnicity and vote accordingly at local elections, the British community is essentially told that it is not a community at all and is not represented as a valid ethnicity. This appalling policy has led to one million voters in the nation that fought against fascism in the Second World War, voting for the BNP.

History (and one really would have thought, common sense) tells us that piling together large numbers of people from different backgrounds does not automatically lead to peace, love and brotherhood. Integration is not an automatic occurrence but a process. It requires an active effort on the part of the migrant (and the host) to learn the language and customs of the place they are entering which requires translation, communication, housing and job searching facilities to be made available. If, as under New Labour immigration is not checked to make sure that migrants are not heading to areas that cannot sustain them and not even keeping a check on them, then of course chaos is going to ensue and of course people are going to be angry. Furthermore if migration is no longer treated as a process but as an economic good that automatically takes place then the policy on migration is going to quickly fall apart.

Ken Livingstone made a point of emphasising that Britain was a multicultural country and that attacks like 7/7 on our country would not stop our policy of allowing people from all over the world to settle and live in our cities. Saying things like that still does not have a stigma but it should. What he was really saying was unlike in say the 19th Century in America where she was in the process of being built as a nation by migrants and other processes, when Britain is already a nation, where families and communities already exist he was telling the world at the behest of his own ideology not the population he was supposed to represent, that they could come and use Britain like a hotel and bring and impose their own culture and celebrate their own heritage in these cities without a single care in the world for the people that were already there who already had their own communities and heritage. Britain is an island which was once populated by no-one. It became a nation by immigration whereby those who moved here integrated into a broader British nation, it did not develop by people moving here and retaining and actively holding on to the culture they had left, foreign to Britain and not integrating. Multiculturalism in other parts of history has led to disintegration and even war in many parts and as such we must recognise this problem for what it is before it gets completely out of our control. The same liberals who complain at the arrogance of Tony Blair for invading Iraq against popular public opinion should take a leaf out of their own book and start to form a policy that does not ignore, lie to, deceive and patronise the population they are supposed to be representing on this issue, but listens to it.

1 comment:

  1. Good to know one more Brit who's actually showing some instinct for civilizational level self preservation. The problem is that most of your fellow Brits have been dumbed down by your progressive media. In the US we have conservative talk radio and Fox News to provide perspective on the other 90% of the media. We conservative Republicans (JFK Democrats in other words) have a similar problem to yours. Here in the US our progressives are bent on supporting an invasion of millions folks from south of the border as a means of ultimately ending the ability of Republicans to get elected. More than 70% of our immigrants from that border end up on government assistance. And as every honest person will acknowledge, human beings of all stripes can figure you who their sugar daddy is (the Democrat party in this case). So consider our Hispanic vote fully paid for. Keep up the good fight!
    The Contra NPR Listener