# David Cameron says Multicultarism has failed



## Wingchunwarrior (Feb 8, 2011)

BBC News - State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron

Opinions?

I for one agree with the guy, I sometimes walk down the corridors of my college and feel like a foreigner in my own country, "pakis" hang around "pakis", blacks hang with blacks, Nepalese with Nepalese etc.

Now I know its only natural to socialise with your own kind, but I lived in Costa Rica for 5 years and I integrated with all the locals and I became one of them,I didn't hang around the rich European or American families,I came to live in Costa Rica not anywhere else.

Its the same with those villages in places like Spain, where you get all these English people who have built up these communities where no one speaks spanish and no one wants to integrate.Whats the point of coming to country if cannot adopt its ways of life and laws? 

I forgot how desirable a Wetherspoons in the sun was


So yeah what does everyone think?


----------



## signalgrey (Feb 8, 2011)

its a shame. I grew up in international schools overseas and i never bothered to select my friends based on anything other than...they were people i liked.

my best friends were Kenyan, Scottish and Kazak. I'm (serbian) American. The love of my elementary to middleschool life was a Filipino girl. doesnt get more integrated than that.

to bad the rest of the world arent like those school.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 8, 2011)

I agree that monoculturalism has been the source of some really amazing accomplishments. Look at how quickly National Socialism managed to gain followers, and how those who didn't integrate... or, rather, weren't of the sort that *should* be integrated... disappeared. All those foolish people causing problems for the single culture, and even taking up arms against the main culture which had literally swept Europe. 

Soviet and Chinese communism. American Ku Klux Klan. Al Qaeda. American fundamentalist Christianity. Any fundamentalism.

----

Wait a minute... is it possible that some are mistaking one of the symptoms of being intolerant, and accidentally attributing it to tolerance? Or is the argument that the Taliban was absolutely correct for destroying those ancient Buddhist statues, and all art and religion which wasn't Islamic?

Sorry, I'm not on board with this. I'd be happy with more pubic scrutiny of all groups, as I think that the Freemen and Tim McVeigh's vision wasn't/isn't a good thing for the US, and I'd agree that it would be good in the UK for anyone who threatens the whole melange of cultures which make up the UK to be subject to the rule of law. However, I'm always a little uncomfortable arguing for something like strong monoculturalism which can be used so easily as a justification for the National Socialists.

Maybe that's just me....


----------



## orb451 (Feb 8, 2011)

I can't really speak to the situation in England. Here in the states however, I think we have a mix of scenarios. In some places there is a *lot* of self-segregation and isolation from immigrant groups. In other places there seems to be more integration and inclusion. I think it comes down to the individual area and to an extent, the group. 

In Los Angeles where I live most of the minorities self-segregate. Sometimes to what I would consider a fault. To me anyway, if you want to enjoy and actually be *part* of the country you've moved to, you should assimilate yourself. Make an effort to be *part* of it. Otherwise, why bother uprooting a family and moving them somewhere? If you want the benefits (public or private), freedoms, etc, then you should put forth the effort. That means speaking the language and adopting or at least exposing yourself to the local customs. Doesn't mean you should lose your heritage or stop speaking your native language, but at least try to include yourself in the melting pot. 

I think some minorities (religious or otherwise) get lazy. It's *easier* to move to our country, "stick with their own" and never really let themselves blend in. It's easier to keep speaking your native language than it is to learn a new one. It's easier to live amongst people that look like you, live and talk like you, than it is to challenge yourself and learn and experience new things. It requires energy and effort to assimilate. Moreso than many minorities would care to exert. I think that's the issue. Putting up walls to keep the separation (physical or otherwise). Maybe some minorities feel like "hey, I've moved all the way here *insert country name* what else do I have to do to show that I want to be part of something?"

My answer would be, When in Rome, Do as the Romans Do. You moved there for a reason, make it worth your while. Don't move to an area to leech off their resources and then expect people to stoop and bow and bend over backwards to suit *your* customs and *your* language, etc. 

Maybe some people think that by learning the language or customs that they are losing their cultural identities. To me anyway, that couldn't be farther from the truth. I think the crux of the issue is assimilation or the failure to do so. YMMV.

EDIT: And as usual Explorer, you miss the point entirely. The point is *not* to wash the country clean of foreign infestation, no matter how much you want it to be about that. The point is *including* minorities into the fold. As stated best in the article: _"I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, but I am a Londoner... too"
_Doesn't sound like he's saying he wants a mono-cultural society like the examples you're talking about, sounds to me like he's saying if you move to England, you should assimilate yourself. Not keep or build artificial cultural walls to keep others out, or to keep your own folks in. I don't see anything unreasonable about that, not there and not here in the US.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Feb 8, 2011)

Explorer said:


> pubic scrutiny


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 8, 2011)

Man, it's the 2. time I agree with Explorer, this feels very Uncomfortable. 

The multiculturalism died. Sounds like Merkel 3 months ago.
Funny how Right wing spread the same shit over and over again. It was cool to have collonies, give just a bit and get as much as possible. But those days are over. If you have 1 foreigner, you can ask him/her to blend in. But if your population is %20 foreigner, than you have to accept some of their culture too. Integration is always 2 sided. 

Look at the US for instance. Without all those chinese, you wouldn't have railroads. Without all the Blacks, you wouldn't even have jeans. Without all the latinos, you wouldn't have something to eat. Those are the people who made U.S the thing it is.

Same goes to the U.K. customer services, Medical services, ITs. Most of them have Indian and Pakistani workers. 

Germany. Without Turks, Albanians and Italians, there wouldn't be this technology, not even the schools or streets.

If you want to integrate them, you have to move to them too. You can't just get what you need and tell them bye bye.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Feb 8, 2011)

To be honest it doesn't matter to me whether I hang around with people of other races or not. Should we feel compelled to go and hang out with people of other races for the sake of it? No, we hang out with people we like, and if those people are from another part of the world so be it. You shouldn't force multiculturalism on people, becase then it just comes off as an attempt to prove you aren't racist. Just let society do it's thing, and guide it from negative feelings when necessary. And to be honest, I prefer meeting people or dfferent backgrounds on their terms, in their countries. It makes me appreciate it more.

Unfortunately, trying to put people with other cultures doesn't always work anyway. If you grab people from LEDCs ripe with war and famine, then bring them to a place like the UK where suddenly all these services are freely available and you get given free money for being here, you're going to make the most of it. As a result, a large amount of immigrants who come here try to get the most out of the system they can, because they've never been treated so well. This brings a bad image on immgrants as a whole, when a lot of them work hard and abide by the rules here. You can't force multiculturalism and allow this to happen. It's counter-productive.

I guess I am completely fine with everyone being different. Social acceptance comes from the heart, not because your teacher, MP or whoever tells you you should have more black friends, or more Asian friends. Don't fource culture on a country that already has it's own. If people come here to live here, by all means I would love to see a bit of variation and learn about new things, but you can't expect different social backgrounds to just blend together. If I move to a country, I would take my own culture with me but I would also fully embrace the one there.


----------



## Mordacain (Feb 8, 2011)

I don't really have a whole lot to say about this. I think its fine and a good thing to have diverse cultures, I'd just like it if there was a whole lot more tolerance and acceptance instead of fear and mistrust to go along with it.


----------



## synrgy (Feb 8, 2011)

Speaking in an incredibly large brush stroke, I think you can't say you have a free society and then get pissed at people for exercising their freedom however they deem fit. Western culture by-and-large puts a lot of emphasis on freedom. If you say 'immigrants are welcome in our free society', that means they're A) welcome and B) free. If they choose to exercise that freedom by continuing to speak their native languages and practicing their native customs, more power to them.

From a more personal perspective, I'll borrow a line from Stephen Colbert: "I don't see color." I have friends of many cultural persuasions, but it's not like I ever said to myself "Hey, self, you don't have any friends from Guam. You need to work on that." I'll also readily admit that *most* of my friends are typical Americans, through no intent on my part.

Like others have said, I think most of us choose our relationships based on basic compatibility. As an example, I'm a lot more interested in whether or not me and person X find the same joke funny than I am about who either of us pray to, who we sleep with, or who we vote for. I think those who use race or culture as a basis for compatibility are a minority, but then again I'm looking through a distorted lens having grown up in a melting pot.

I certainly don't find multiculturalism to be dead, but I'd casually observe that in some places it is failing due to opposing cultures refusing to meet a middle ground. Again, as someone before me said, 'integration' is a 2 way street.


----------



## Alberto7 (Feb 8, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> I don't really have a whole lot to say about this. I think its fine and a good thing to have diverse cultures, I'd just like it if there was a whole lot more tolerance and acceptance instead of fear and mistrust to go along with it.



^ This.

I was born and raised in South America for 15 years. All of a sudden, I moved to the Middle East with my family, and went to an American school that belongs to the military base here (5th fleet, I believe). The culture shock, and the language barrier were huge problems that were eventually overcome. But what you gain and learn from being around people of other cultures is absolutely priceless. My best friend is Palestinian, and within my group of friends there were Indians, Swedish, Japanese/Swiss, American, Kuwaiti, Pakistani, etc. I love the idea of having multi-cultural communities. However, I do wish that there would be more tolerance among different cultures and beliefs...


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 8, 2011)

Alberto7 said:


> However, I do wish that there would be more tolerance among different cultures and beliefs...



I know that your intention was good, but I disagree.
Tolerance is something you do on your own cost. It means you have the right to do something to quit the disturbance, but you prefer not to do anything against it. That is tolerance we see in social situations.
What we need is no tolerance, but the acknowledgement of freedom for everyone. If you accept other's cultures and rights, there is no need for tolerance.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior (Feb 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Man, it's the 2. time I agree with Explorer, this feels very Uncomfortable.
> 
> The multiculturalism died. Sounds like Merkel 3 months ago.
> Funny how Right wing spread the same shit over and over again. It was cool to have collonies, give just a bit and get as much as possible. But those days are over. If you have 1 foreigner, you can ask him/her to blend in. But if your population is %20 foreigner, than you have to accept some of their culture too. Integration is always 2 sided.
> ...



first thing that came to mind when I read your post:



Please no more "white man bad, white man bad" posts please,this is a discussion on minorities not integrating into the society of there chosen residence,not "out of our country foreigner, its a privilege for us to let you in" debate

stop missing the point please


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Feb 8, 2011)

My opinion? 

You cannot expect to chuck hundreds of cultures together in a confined space and expect it to work.

I feel that a lot of Asian and Arabic immigrants in the UK are arrogant and believe their culture to be superior, claiming that our music videos are "disgusting" but yet are happy to eat all of our fatty Western food. This is then perpetuated by racism, which then becomes a bouncing ball, strengthening their desire to only associate (for the most part) with other Asians and Arabs. This is also made worse by the fact that a lot refuse to learn the indigenous language, which completely dumbfounds me as learning the native language is not only good manners but just plain logical. I have found this is significantly less of a problem with black people, who to me, seem to have less of a problem associating with white people. People from any ethnic background tend to associate with mainly their own kind, but I have found that black people have integrated significantly more into British culture than Asians and Arabs. 

There are of course, plenty of exceptions to this rule, but having lived in Reading (immigration central) for most of my life, this is what I observed.

What I would like to see is what this Muslim talks about, which is the discarding of Muslim arrogance and the adoption of Western benefits.



A lot of foreigners exploit our country's leniency in regards to immigration, and I would like to see our state adopt a similar system to the USA.

This post may come off as racist or biased, but I am only speaking from what I have seen and I am a very open minded person.

tl;dr: we can both learn from each other, the East could learn from our contemporary technology and liberal moral structure and the West could learn from the East's family values, which I believe with the advent of the internet and whatnot we have become extremely out of touch with.


----------



## Alberto7 (Feb 8, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> I know that your intention was good, but I disagree.
> Tolerance is something you do on your own cost. It means you have the right to do something to quit the disturbance, but you prefer not to do anything against it. That is tolerance we see in social situations.
> What we need is no tolerance, but the acknowledgement of freedom for everyone. If you accept other's cultures and rights, there is no need for tolerance.



I couldn't have said it better myself. That is, btw, exactly how I feel. I guess I just didn't use the correct words to say it .


----------



## Meatbucket (Feb 8, 2011)

The way I see it is that the vast majority of people still look to stop out the differences in other people from themselves first rather than taking the time to wonder what they have in similarity first. I guess it's kinda like a "glass is half empty" way to look at things than "glass is half full".

In example: One could be a metalhead that plays guitar and spot someone on the street playing like folk music or something. Generally speaking the metalhead would probably think something along the lines of "Psh, folk, lame" rather than "Hey, that guy plays guitar. I play guitar too. Cool." The metalhead would probably have a lot of other metalhead friends too because they would have the least amount of differences between them.

Same could be said about race, religion, blah blah blah. Everyone is so quick to find differences in each other. That's why these cliques form because people huddle around other people with the least amount of differences. Though I really wish it wasn't like that.

Hopefully this makes some sense.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 8, 2011)

Meatbucket said:


> The way I see it is that the vast majority of people still look to stop out the differences in other people from themselves first rather than taking the time to wonder what they have in similarity first. I guess it's kinda like a "glass is half empty" way to look at things than "glass is half full".
> 
> In example: One could be a metalhead that plays guitar and spot someone on the street playing like folk music or something. Generally speaking the metalhead would probably think something along the lines of "Psh, folk, lame" rather than "Hey, that guy plays guitar. I play guitar too. Cool." The metalhead would probably have a lot of other metalhead friends too because they would have the least amount of differences between them.
> 
> ...



It make perfect sense mate!


----------



## 13point9 (Feb 8, 2011)

Random comment regarding what I saw today outside my uni's main campus. I should mention that my uni is the most 'culturally diverse' in England...

outside the main entrance there it a walk way with 2 large benches facing each other. on the left side, all black people, on the right side, all asian people, with (mainly) white people walking through the middle with their heads down...

Luckily on my Campus there doesn't seem to be this issue but I noticed this today as I was getting the bus home from lectures and then I read the article. I semi agree, but everybody had a part to play in this division...


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 8, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


>




How does he walk with balls that big?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Feb 8, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> How does he walk with balls that big?



He waited until he retired until he made the appearance, so his cojones aren't that big, but still pretty hefty.


----------



## Customisbetter (Feb 8, 2011)

I wouldn't say that I am a racist person. In fact I find those who force diversity and the like to be contributing to racism. If all people are equal, why do you keep shouting at me to hire more black and asian people?  

Also, entropy does not always exist. I have many friends and am around thousands of very different people every day, however only one of my friends isn't Caucasian. Does that mean I'm an isolationist? I don't think so, but iIcan see how an outsider could come to that conclusion.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Feb 8, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> In fact I find those who force diversity and the like to be contributing to racism.



THANKYOU.

Saying "to make this fair we must give this many jobs to these poor people from this ethnic minority" is not anti-racist, it's the definition of racism.

When I see a poster of people who are all from different ethnic backgrounds, I find that offensive and insensitive. It's more racist because it's patronising.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Feb 8, 2011)

They call it 'positive discrimination' but theres no need for it. Just treat people on an individual basis, don't even make race an issue.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 8, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> You shouldn't force multiculturalism on people, becase then it just comes off as an attempt to prove you aren't racist.
> ...Don't fource culture on a country that already has it's own.



I know you said a lot more, but this is an interesting viewpoint. 

If I understand your point, one shouldn't force multiculturalism upon anyone, but I don't think the point of multiculturalism is for everyone to adopt each others' customs. Multiculturalism is to accept that others in your society have different customs and cultures. 

If multiculturalism means that someone has to *accept* that others have different cultures, then yes, one could say that allowing blacks and whites to date in the US without being allowed to lynch someone is being forced to accept that someone else has the right to different viewpoints. Isn't that the basis of most free societies, though? 

If I misunderstood the thoughts there, I'd be curious... are there any examples in a free society where the religion or culture of one group is forced on the entire group? The only examples I can readily think of are those involving American fundamentalists and neo-cons who insist that their viewpoint is the only really American one. 

Which, sadly, is just like the Taliban, with their one acceptable viewpoint. 

----

Imagine the conversation being about gay marriage instead of multiculturalism. No one is being forced to marry someone of the same sex. It's about those who are gay being allowed to marry another consenting adult whom they love. 

Now, imagine that no one is being forced to be of a different culture. It's about those of any given culture being allowed to choose to embrace any and all cultures they may love.

If someone can seriously argue that one shouldn't have freedom... well, it guess that's *their* culture, but fortunately I don't have to embrace that particular culture....


----------



## Xaios (Feb 8, 2011)

Just thinking out loud here, but the biggest flaw I see with multiculturalism is that we, as westerners, expect other cultures to see that our ideas about multiculturalism are the best ones. Our culture teaches us that embracing and fostering other cultures in our land is the morally just and correct thing to do. Which is great. The problem is someone coming to a western country from the far or middle east may be subject to a societal code, whether imposed by religion or just their general way of living, that teaches them it's more important to remain separate and not embrace the different ways of the people around them, essentially a form of self-ostracization. The adage in western culture is "when in Rome, do as the Romans do." That's fine and good. In their culture, the saying may well be "when in Rome, do as Tehranians do." And then we get bent out of shape because they're in our land, but not embracing our culture. The simple fact of the matter is that their culture and the manner in which they've been brought up may preclude such action, despite having moved to a foreign land.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 8, 2011)

Again, I don't see it as anyone being forced to embrace anyone else's culture, just that others have a right to their culture.

So, in the US, if someone says that those Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, have to convert to another religion, the laws prevent that kind of force. It doesn't matter if those who want to enforce such a thing have been here for generations, or have newly arrived. It's just the American Way for people to be able to choose their own culture. 

Is the argument being made that it is wrong to be able to choose one's own religion and culture? That it's wrong for one to decide *not* to be part of a particular culture? 

That the Founding Fathers were just idiots for putting that whole "freedom of association" into the Constitution?

Well, if you're so arguing, guess what? You're allowed to believe that! 

Of course, you're not allowed to force others to believe that, in the same way no one can force you to believe otherwise. 

Still, it would seem odd to argue that, because that would mean one was in favor of being forced into that unwanted same-sex marriage, or opposite sex marriage, whichever was wanted less....

*laugh*


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 9, 2011)

Wingchunwarrior said:


> first thing that came to mind when I read your post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I clearly point to the problem, the integration, the view of the "natives" against the "foreigners". I get the point very well, didn't miss it even one mm. 
The insult is funny and everything, but makes more sense when posted by someone intelligent enough to understand what is written.


----------



## C2Aye (Feb 9, 2011)

My view is, as a person who has come from abroad to settle in the UK and call it my home, is make the effort if you want to live there. Learn the language and learn the culture. Don't move to a country and expect them to change their rules for you and don't bite the hand that feeds.

I've had it fairly easy though. I could speak English like a native when I arrived and because the community I moved into was in the country, integrating could not really have been any easier even with a white majority. I was token Asian thoughout all of high school 

I've also found that because I speak English like any other Scottish person, people tend to forget where you're from when you speaK!


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Feb 9, 2011)

C2Aye said:


> My view is, as a person who has come from abroad to settle in the UK and call it my home, is make the effort if you want to live there. Learn the language and learn the culture. Don't move to a country and expect them to change their rules for you *and don't bite the hand that feeds*.



A million times this


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 9, 2011)

Wingchunwarrior said:


> BBC News - State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> ...


 
It's weird, but when you think about it, it also kind of makes sense--at least in America it does. We're not segregated anymore, but we've almost been conditioned to segregate ourselves in our minds because of stereotypes, prejudices and insecurities we've made up through the course of events we've decided to call the Civil Rights Movement...


----------



## Wingchunwarrior (Feb 9, 2011)

> The insult is funny and everything, but makes more sense when posted by someone intelligent enough to understand what is written.



alright man, no need to call me dumb

ok this is why I think you're missing the point:



> It was cool to have collonies, give just a bit and get as much as possible. But those days are over.



what does this havevto do with the topic? In fact this is the exact opposite to colonies, Why? because this is about a large amount of different cultures/races/people becoming a whole nation, and how certain minorities do not want to blend in to the nations society and have their own life and laws in their community but still live off the country they reside.How certain groups alienate themselves further and further, put no effort into ADAPTING and bring nothing to benefit the land or its native people(which include all people who have integrated and live with different people in harmony).



> If you have 1 foreigner, you can ask him/her to blend in. But if your population is %20 foreigner, than you have to accept some of their culture too. Integration is always 2 sided.



You think the UK hasn't adopted "foreigner" ways or culture?

The fact that integration is 2 sided is the whole point,why should foreigners come over here put no effort into blending in,learn english,abide by the lands laws and being able to sponge off our welfare,services and then moan about how they want culture or society to change around them because they want it to be exactly like home?

and Goddam it is already happening, in Reading as mentioned very very multicultural, a huge mosque was built to accommodate the large muslim community in the area, so that is the UK adopting some of the "foreigner's" culture.right? but then you have a large amount of muslims in the area who couldn't care less about the UK's culture and continue to live their life in their own way without any influence from the land in which they live in.

I don't want to come across as "Muslim bad, they terrorists blah blah blah", its just one example that is apparent.




> Look at the US for instance. Without all those chinese, you wouldn't have railroads. Without all the Blacks, you wouldn't even have jeans. Without all the latinos, you wouldn't have something to eat. Those are the people who made U.S the thing it is.
> 
> Same goes to the U.K. customer services, Medical services, ITs. Most of them have Indian and Pakistani workers.
> 
> ...



Now this bit, I'm reading it and thinking yep, that's right that's what's good about multiculturalism and how it has benefited a lot of people, and then at the end you lose me.......

You make the link back to colonization, Why? David Cameron is making the point that multiculturalism has failed because the UK are happy to adopt foreign ways and culture, but the immigrants who come to the Uk aren't.

Now of course you could go on all day about how bad colonization was, but that is not the topic at hand, is it?


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 9, 2011)

Wingchunwarrior said:


> alright man, no need to call me dumb
> 
> ok this is why I think you're missing the point:
> 
> ...



The colonization has a lot to do with it. The Brits still think the Citizens of Indian or other roots as foreigners. So does Germans and even many French. It's not important how they look or what their roots are, Anglo-Saxon people await them to be Anglo-Saxons, or GTFO. I am no way alright with Muslims or other people pushing their moral and other cultural behavior on me, or try to get the benefits of a land and leave the rest. But I am against the opposite too. Building a huge Mosque is not a privilege Brits gave to the Muslims. It is their right! You still see it as "we even let them build a fuckin mosque" attitude, which is the core of the problem. 

You have to understand the history to understand what is happening today. How Ghettos are created, how Thatcher, Kohl, Mitterrand acted. How people from around the world was "welcome" for working of half wages, 12 hours a day without insurance etc. If you don't understand this, you won't understand the very source of the so called "wealth" of your country. 
People blame Pakistanis or Indians for "stealing" their wealth. Well it is not wrong, but who stole their wealth in the first place? How a small Island like UK can have so much power without stealing the wealth and work power of others? 
Now I hope it makes more sense about colonization and the current view about foreigners.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 9, 2011)

C2Aye said:


> . Don't move to a country and expect them to change their rules for you and don't bite the hand that feeds.



I find this pretty wrong. The people who move to a land are not "fed", they become a part of the hand. They work, pay taxes and everything.


----------



## C2Aye (Feb 9, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> I find this pretty wrong. The people who move to a land are not "fed", they become a part of the hand. They work, pay taxes and everything.



As immigrants to the UK my family have done all these things, we work (well, I'm still a uni student) and pay taxes. I mean, my father pays 40% of his wage and his job requires him to help people on a daily basis. But never have we hit out at the UK. Never have we demanded that others change their ways for us. Never have we said our way of life is better. Never have we shut ourselves off from the local community.

As someone who has immigrated and become a citizen of the UK, I say if you don't like it here and your culture and way of life is so much better, then go back to where you came from. By all means share your culture and help to enrich the diversity of the UK but don't demand that others adhere to it. Anyway, I like it here, so imma stay if you don't mind


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 9, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> I find this pretty wrong. The people who move to a land are not "fed", they become a part of the hand. They work, pay taxes and everything.


 
Score


----------



## Wingchunwarrior (Feb 9, 2011)

> I find this pretty wrong. The people who move to a land are not "fed", they become a part of the hand. They work, pay taxes and everything.



But they don't become part of the hand,yes they contribute financially but thats about it.Guys like C2aye are part of the hand but minorities who refuse to integrate are biting the hand that feeds them.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 9, 2011)

Wingchunwarrior said:


> But they don't become part of the hand,yes they contribute financially but thats about it.Guys like C2aye are part of the hand but minorities who refuse to integrate are biting the hand that feeds them.


 
"... minorities that refuse to integrate..." 

Explain. Minority is a term used to describe citizens at a presumed political or social disadvantage, no? Since I used the word "citizen" that would imply that they as well are part of the hand whether they agree with YOU or not. 

I don't mean to be a dick. I seek clarification only. Your statement was a tad ambiguous.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Feb 9, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> I find this pretty wrong. The people who move to a land are not "fed", they become a part of the hand. They work, pay taxes and everything.


 
Meh yes ad no, immigrants who move to the UK are given a lot more slack than they should. You know if we want to deport a criminal immigrant from the UK we pay them £150 to leave? Thats how this government solves things. For people so concerned about making cuts to public spending, they splash money out on occassions when it really isn't needed.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 9, 2011)

C2Aye said:


> As immigrants to the UK my family have done all these things, we work (well, I'm still a uni student) and pay taxes. I mean, my father pays 40% of his wage and his job requires him to help people on a daily basis. But never have we hit out at the UK. Never have we demanded that others change their ways for us. Never have we said our way of life is better. Never have we shut ourselves off from the local community.
> 
> As someone who has immigrated and become a citizen of the UK, I say if you don't like it here and your culture and way of life is so much better, then go back to where you came from. By all means share your culture and help to enrich the diversity of the UK but don't demand that others adhere to it. Anyway, I like it here, so imma stay if you don't mind



Now it sounds much better!


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 9, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Meh yes ad no, immigrants who move to the UK are given a lot more slack than they should. You know if we want to deport a criminal immigrant from the UK we pay them £150 to leave? Thats how this government solves things. For people so concerned about making cuts to public spending, they splash money out on occassions when it really isn't needed.



I am talking about a citizen, you are talking about an immigrant who is not a citizen. You can't deport a citizen.
If you don't deport a criminal, it cost you around 50 pounds per day, paying 150 and let them go is vaaaaaaaay cheaper than you might think.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 9, 2011)

Wait...

So, anyone who doesn't agree with a majority opinion, or doesn't conform to a majority norm, is suddenly "biting the hand?" 

Are those who are advancing such ideas truly average in all ways, including every bit of the culture? If you play a seven-string guitar, for example, you clearly are taking advantage of being able to *not* conform in all things. It sounds like bullshit to talk about how someone else isn't conforming enough, but to judge that you yourself are conforming enough... at least in your opinion.

Go to those threads where idiots insult any instrument with more than six strings. Think about why they sound moronic. 

Then, look at your arguments for playing a larger instrument, and your arguments against someone being able to choose their own culture. 

And now, imagine how someone might look at the "six strings tops!" and "embrace this culture!" arguments, and consider them the same thing.

Again, I'm happy to be free to choose my own destiny and culture. Fascists, religious extremists, and others are not so happy about my ability to do so. I'm glad to not conform to their ideas....


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Feb 9, 2011)

It's a shame that words are being put in other people's mouths, because before that I actually wanted to read this thread.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 9, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> It's a shame that words are being put in other people's mouths, because before that I actually wanted to read this thread.


 
That's about where I'm at, too.


----------



## C2Aye (Feb 9, 2011)

Same here. My whole 'bite the hand that feeds' line was about the people who bitch and moan about the UK despite the amount of benifits and support avaliable to them.

The view I'm taking is a very utilitarian view. Settlers, regardless of where they came from get the same help and have to pass the same tests (yes, I had to do a bloody citenzenship test which was full of questions likes "Name the patron saints holidays in order" or "What percentage of kids go to independent school". You know, the kind of questions the most UK residents, myself included, wouldn't have a fucking clue about.)

Basically Explorer, I'm saying the majority view rules because it has to rule because in the UK, you would descend into a massive mess otherwise (my view anyway)

The whole 'six strings vs seven string' argument is incredibly redundant when you're talking about something like this because there is so much more to it. 

Anyway, I've let my views been known to the thread in my previous posts. That's how I stand.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior (Feb 10, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> It's a shame that words are being put in other people's mouths, because before that I actually wanted to read this thread.



thats about right

shame really..........


----------



## signalgrey (Feb 10, 2011)

ugh...lock this up please.


----------



## Prydogga (Feb 10, 2011)




----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 10, 2011)

I noticed that when I visited England and it really was a true failure. It's not like that at all here (IMO). Two of my best friends are asian, three white and another Arab.


----------



## The Reverend (Feb 10, 2011)

I don't know how it is for you guys over in the UK, so this post may not bare relevance to you. As for us 'Murricans...

What is this 'culture' you would have immigrants embrace? They aren't coming here because they want to eat hot dogs and play baseball, they're here for the opportunities. Notice how the children of immigrants are generally assimilated into the host countries culture? My dad is from the DRC (central Africa) and I am 100% American, at least from a cultural perspective. I'm spoiled, love McDonald's, and will probably develop diabetes. My dad is still African as shit, and that's okay. 

I don't see any logical reasons being brought up in this thread for why immigrants should learn the host language, and adopt their customs. It's unfamiliar to them, and depending on their religious and societal precepts, could be downright offensive. It shows a tremendous prejudice and arrogance on your part if you feel that YOUR culture, since it's the predominant one (at the moment, and even then saying a country has a broad, sweeping culture falls apart when you look at it critically) is any better than theirs. You're all acting like they owe you something. They don't. 

Furthermore, I'd like to see some of you who are grown, mature adults move your families to another, radically different culture, and then abandon your culture completely. You wouldn't. You would find comfort being with others who share your likes, your slang, you're childhood bedtime stories, and your general lifestyle preferences. Given enough time, the differing cultures will diffuse naturally. Look at England, for example. At one point, y'all had multiple cultures. As I understand it, there's a difference between Scots and Irish folks even today, right? Your country is smaller than my state, and managed to have different languages! But now, outside of arguably superficial differences, you can unite under mostly the same banner. (Yes, I realize Ireland is not England.) 

tl;dr -Give me three completely rational, indisputable reasons based on pure logic why people should embrace the culture you want them too.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 10, 2011)

What they're saying is it's annoying when immigrants don't make a genuine attempt to at least learn the language or to try and share their culture, instead choosing to isolate themselves. When my grandfather and grandmother came to Canada they didn't change their faith, culture etc, they choose to learn the language, get involved with the community (as best they could) and share their culture. (which one of you fuckers doesn't love butter chicken?). It's not about giving up your faith or culture. Multiculturalism is about the amalgamation of the best characteristics of numerous cultures...what defines best? I don't have a clue but it probably has to do with copious amounts of pho. Delicious, delicious pho.

Personally I find it really frustrating when immigrants refuse to at least try and become part of the community.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Feb 10, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


>






HOLY FUCK.

That dude is................




























Probably dead by now


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Feb 10, 2011)

CrushingAnvil said:


> HOLY FUCK.
> 
> That dude is................
> 
> ...



He's being paid/protected by the FBI to indoctrinate the East with Western values... probably.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Feb 10, 2011)

C2Aye said:


> Same here. My whole 'bite the hand that feeds' line was about the people who bitch and moan about the UK despite the amount of benifits and support avaliable to them.
> 
> The view I'm taking is a very utilitarian view. Settlers, regardless of where they came from get the same help and have to pass the same tests (yes, I had to do a bloody citenzenship test which was full of questions likes "Name the patron saints holidays in order" or "What percentage of kids go to independent school". You know, the kind of questions the most UK residents, myself included, wouldn't have a fucking clue about.)
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Sofos (Feb 10, 2011)

yeah its pretty segregated at my school. the black hang out with blacks, whites with whites, hispanics with hispanics and asians with asians (forgive my complete political incorrectness with this statement). I myself am Native American Indian, but I got pulled into the hispanic crowd, mainly because my last name is Padilla. It isn't that there's anything wrong with me being part of this group, as:
1) they're the best behaved at my school. generally keep to themselves and don't bother others
2) i have a thing for hispanic women <3 i've dated about half of the hispanic women at my school (that are worth dating)... among... other things o.o'


----------



## orb451 (Feb 10, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> What is this 'culture' you would have immigrants embrace? They aren't coming here because they want to eat hot dogs and play baseball, they're here for the opportunities.



No one is expecting them to come here and become pro baseball players, despite the fact that some actually do. Nor is anyone expecting them to come here and become food eating contest champions. Remember, the linked article in the OP's post is about *England*. Not the USA. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that *most* immigrants moving anywhere, want to go for the opportunities, but also for personal freedoms their home countries or cultures might not afford them. I'm not saying they should move to any country and become Gung-Ho GI Joes, but they could at least make an *effort* (Muslims in England for example) to assimilate themselves more into English culture.



The Reverend said:


> Notice how the children of immigrants are generally assimilated into the host countries culture?



No. I haven't noticed that. Not in LA anyway. I noticed the sons and daughters of Latino and Asian immigrants more or less continuously congregating with their *own*. The only thing they've adopted is Black Urban subculture (i.e. hip hop slang, manner of speaking, dress, etc).



The Reverend said:


> I don't see any logical reasons being brought up in this thread for why immigrants should learn the host language, and adopt their customs. It's unfamiliar to them, and depending on their religious and societal precepts, could be downright offensive. It shows a tremendous prejudice and arrogance on your part if you feel that YOUR culture, since it's the predominant one (at the moment, and even then saying a country has a broad, sweeping culture falls apart when you look at it critically) is any better than theirs. You're all acting like they owe you something. They don't.



Here's a simple reason to learn the language:

1) Driving: Street signs with language on them, are in English. You should know how to read the signs on the streets to get around. I'm not talking about stop signs and yield signs, I'm talking about "Freeway exit 18a Crenshaw Boulevard South, Exit 18b Crenshaw Boulevard North" etc. Things like that. "Two Right Lanes closed ahead 1/4 mile" and so on. Being able to read the traffic signs makes you a *safer* driver than someone caught unaware by signs that they don't understand.

The rest are arguably about culture and etiquette. Are you familiar with the concept of etiquette? You don't go to a formal dinner dressed in a ripped t-shirt and cut off Daisy Dukes. Could you? Sure. Would you look like an asshole? Yup. Would you likely be asked to leave or change? Yup. It has nothing to do with being *owed* anything. As Syn brought up, people who move to a "free" country are "free" to *choose* whether or not they want to adapt to native customs, language, etc. They're just exercising their freedoms. That's fine. Just know that the natives are "free" to treat those people as they see fit. So if that means the immigrants aren't treated like royalty by the natives, well, I see no issue with that. 

And you mentioned arrogance regarding culture. I don't think the OP's article or the idea in general has anything to do with arrogance. I personally am not saying that American culture is better than x, y or z. Nor do I think the English are saying anything similar. I think they're just saying that if you move to a country, you ought to make some effort to show that you *want* to be there for more than just opportunities (READ benefits). That if you *want* those benefits and to reap the rewards, you ought to make some overtures to show that you're part of it. Lest you make yourself look like a leech. 

Again, it goes back to etiquette. I wouldn't move my family anywhere else in the world so your example is moot. And if I did move, hypothetically, who are you to say what I would do, or what anyone else would do or not do? Sure I'd still have my American culture, but I'd damned sure make an effort to learn the language of the country I moved to, and make an effort to learn the customs as well. It's part of the experience of moving. I wouldn't *want* to move to another country and have a little slice carved out that's "just like home". Why? Because what's the fucking point of moving somewhere if it's exactly like the place you just left? Makes no sense to me.

So there's two logical, simple reasons to learn the language. Etiquette, and public safety. I don't know what's so crazy about those two ideas. Sure everyone has the freedom to withdraw or shun culture, but that's covered by common decency and politenes. You *could* choose to do those things and in doing so, you'd be a tool. Just like you can choose to do lots of things that would make you look like an ass or be considered an ass. Doesn't mean that you *should*.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior (Feb 10, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Big epic post





I don't really see a point in me posting in this thread anymore, orb always says it better than anyone else and seems to be one of a few people here who gets the thread


----------



## Dan (Feb 10, 2011)

Im not going to read through as i will probably end up on one of my rages. But i will say after hearing Cameron speak its the ONLY thing i have agreed with him on to an extent. 

The problem is that its his own fault for letting the situation get out of hand. Things wouldnt be like this if the media didnt seperate and label different cultures every day in the papers and the news. I like to think i embrace all people and backgrounds as equal, but because of the media hype i cant help but think 'maybe that guy has a bomb' everytime i see a muslim wearing a robe. 

It's scaremongering. Only way to describe it.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 10, 2011)

Plug said:


> I like to think i embrace all people and backgrounds as equal, but because of the media hype i cant help but think 'maybe that guy has a bomb' everytime i see a muslim wearing a robe.
> 
> It's scaremongering. Only way to describe it.





The right wing European Politicians gave a lot of effort to come to this level of segregation. It began in the end of 19. century, and reaches it's peak.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 10, 2011)

If I could make love to orbs posts, I would.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior (Feb 10, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> If I could make love to orbs posts, I would.





if it is ever made possible, I want first dibs


----------



## The Reverend (Feb 11, 2011)

orb451 said:


> No one is expecting them to come here and become pro baseball players, despite the fact that some actually do. Nor is anyone expecting them to come here and become food eating contest champions. Remember, the linked article in the OP's post is about *England*. Not the USA. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that *most* immigrants moving anywhere, want to go for the opportunities, but also for personal freedoms their home countries or cultures might not afford them. I'm not saying they should move to any country and become Gung-Ho GI Joes, but they could at least make an *effort* (Muslims in England for example) to assimilate themselves more into English culture.



These people are not here/there because they admire our culture. They're here for the reasons you just gave. Also, like I said a few times in my post, I'm aware that this topic is about England. Replace hot dogs with bangers and mash, and baseball with rugby, and my point remains the same.




orb451 said:


> No. I haven't noticed that. Not in LA anyway. I noticed the sons and daughters of Latino and Asian immigrants more or less continuously congregating with their *own*. The only thing they've adopted is Black Urban subculture (i.e. hip hop slang, manner of speaking, dress, etc).



And they watch MTV, and they steal cars or do whatever they do. They're just as Americanized as the white kids from the suburbs doing what you're describing. The only difference is that when they come home, they're eating ethnic food instead of spaghetti . (I'm so clever. Not.) Black culture could be arguably considered a large portion of American Pop Culture, anyways. Outside of the ghetto, the children of immigrants wear hipster clothes and frequent the same coffee shops as anyone else their age. 






orb451 said:


> Here's a simple reason to learn the language:
> 
> 1) Driving: Street signs with language on them, are in English. You should know how to read the signs on the streets to get around. I'm not talking about stop signs and yield signs, I'm talking about "Freeway exit 18a Crenshaw Boulevard South, Exit 18b Crenshaw Boulevard North" etc. Things like that. "Two Right Lanes closed ahead 1/4 mile" and so on. Being able to read the traffic signs makes you a *safer* driver than someone caught unaware by signs that they don't understand.



This is a logical reason, and I stand corrected. As well as road signs, there's all sorts of warning labels and such they would be well off to know how to read. It would also make dealing with the native population much easier, especially in urgent circumstances such as vehicle accidents or medical emergencies.




orb451 said:


> The rest are arguably about culture and etiquette. Are you familiar with the concept of etiquette? You don't go to a formal dinner dressed in a ripped t-shirt and cut off Daisy Dukes. Could you? Sure. Would you look like an asshole? Yup. Would you likely be asked to leave or change? Yup. It has nothing to do with being *owed* anything. As Syn brought up, people who move to a "free" country are "free" to *choose* whether or not they want to adapt to native customs, language, etc. They're just exercising their freedoms. That's fine. Just know that the natives are "free" to treat those people as they see fit. So if that means the immigrants aren't treated like royalty by the natives, well, I see no issue with that.



I'm from the South, which has its own unique brand of etiquette that borders upon lunacy sometimes. Let's try to keep personal insults out of this, okay? Etiquette in some places means farting when you finish your meal. That's just not something I'm going to do. You have to think about the fact that some of these people have been doing things the way they do them their whole lives. Asking them to drop it and pick up your way seems fairly presumptuous to me.




orb451 said:


> And you mentioned arrogance regarding culture. I don't think the OP's article or the idea in general has anything to do with arrogance. I personally am not saying that American culture is better than x, y or z. Nor do I think the English are saying anything similar. I think they're just saying that if you move to a country, you ought to make some effort to show that you *want* to be there for more than just opportunities (READ benefits). That if you *want* those benefits and to reap the rewards, you ought to make some overtures to show that you're part of it. Lest you make yourself look like a leech.



Since you're in MY country, you should adopt MY culture. Sounds kinda arrogant to me. I think you need to understand that these people don't give a fuck about the culture of the country they move to. They want better lives, free from strife or religious oppression or whatever the reason. Again, they aren't in another country because they admire its culture. You seem to think that these people need to change one of the things that defines them as a person. Your mannerisms, your beliefs, the way you comport yourself, these are part of what makes you you. 




orb451 said:


> Again, it goes back to etiquette. I wouldn't move my family anywhere else in the world so your example is moot. And if I did move, hypothetically, who are you to say what I would do, or what anyone else would do or not do? Sure I'd still have my American culture, but I'd damned sure make an effort to learn the language of the country I moved to, and make an effort to learn the customs as well. It's part of the experience of moving. I wouldn't *want* to move to another country and have a little slice carved out that's "just like home". Why? Because what's the fucking point of moving somewhere if it's exactly like the place you just left? Makes no sense to me.



I'm someone with a good grasp of human psychology. You would act like most people in that situation would act, which is to say you would gravitate towards your peers. This should already be evident in your life. The majority of your friends have something large in common with you, whether it be a workplace, a neighborhood, musical tastes, or some other factor. If I'm wrong, than you could be the exception that proves the rule.

I think that immigrants should learn enough of the host country's language to communicate effectively, and should have the skill set to live successfully in said country. I don't believe at all that they need to change anything about themselves. If they choose to be around people with whom they have a lot in common, why does that bother you? You don't plop yourself down in the middle of their communities, making an effort to welcome them to your country and show them your culture, do you? (This is a general question, not aimed at you, Orb.) We complain about multiculturalism, while not exposing ourselves to other cultures. It's hypocritical, at best, and possibly dangerous at worst.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 11, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> I'm from the South, which has its own unique brand of etiquette that borders upon lunacy sometimes. Let's try to keep personal insults out of this, okay? Etiquette in some places means farting when you finish your meal. That's just not something I'm going to do. You have to think about the fact that some of these people have been doing things the way they do them their whole lives. Asking them to drop it and pick up your way seems fairly presumptuous to me.


 
Excellent point... But when moving to another country you still have to be aware of what is and isn't socially acceptable. What you do behind closed doors is your business as has been stated already in the thread. In mixed company you put on your hat of social acceptability. That's the etiquette Orb was talking about.

I know that at home if I disagree with something it's socially acceptable to say "That's BULLSHIT!!!" Can I say the same about a court room? It's etiquette and has absolutely nothing to do with what you're "used to." 

To assume that ppl will make acceptions for you because you're used to a different protocol is ridiculous. Moreover, doing so for everyone would mean there'd be more or less no standard for anything... 

Honestly it's not that hard to "do as the Romans do" in public at the very least. And what harm could really come to learning the language of he land in which you choose to live? 

Likewise, however, if a country has an immigrant population of significant size it's probably in the best interest of the natives to learn that language as well. I'm not saying we should translate all the signs and what not, but to be able to speak the language w/ some sort of passing familiarity might not be such a bad thing. Hell, it might even help immigrants learn the language of the land more quickly thus making them more comfortable and facilitating the overall assimiliation most ppl expect to take place instantaneously upon crossing border lines. Why not meet half way? I'm sure both sides would be more willing to cooperate in that case.


----------



## McKay (Feb 11, 2011)

Explorer said:


> I agree that monoculturalism has been the source of some really amazing accomplishments. Look at how quickly National Socialism managed to gain followers, and how those who didn't integrate... or, rather, weren't of the sort that *should* be integrated... disappeared. All those foolish people causing problems for the single culture, and even taking up arms against the main culture which had literally swept Europe.
> 
> Soviet and Chinese communism. American Ku Klux Klan. Al Qaeda. American fundamentalist Christianity. Any fundamentalism.
> 
> ...



I don't think you understand this at all. I enjoyed your constant reiteration of 'National Socialism' though. What's that all about?


----------



## McKay (Feb 11, 2011)

Multiracial societies can work. I don't believe multicultural societies can work if the difference between the component cultures is as large as ours.

The idea of the nationstate is an interesting one. What about a culturestate?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 11, 2011)

McKay said:


> Multiracial societies can work. I don't believe multicultural societies can work if the difference between the component cultures is as large as ours.
> 
> The idea of the nationstate is an interesting one. What about a culturestate?


 
The problem to me sounds more like the inherent selfishness of human beings. It seems to all boil down to the fact that *most* ppl--regardless of who they are or where they come from--want to get as much as they can out of every situation while putting in as little as necessary. The situation we're currently discussing is just one in which it this becomes obvious.


----------



## orb451 (Feb 11, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> These people are not here/there because they admire our culture. They're here for the reasons you just gave. Also, like I said a few times in my post, I'm aware that this topic is about England. Replace hot dogs with bangers and mash, and baseball with rugby, and my point remains the same.



Well I would argue, from experience, that immigrants move here to the US for a variety of reasons. In England perhaps this is drastically different, but I suspect it still comes down to the individual groups. Point being, in my experience *some* do move here precisely because their admiration or love of freedom is greater than their desire to stay in country "x" and is at least equal to their desire for benefits, rewards and opportunities. Regardless of their reason, assuming for a second that *none* of them go for cultural benefits/freedoms, does that preclude them from exercising a modicum of common courtesy? I don't think so.




The Reverend said:


> And they watch MTV, and they steal cars or do whatever they do. They're just as Americanized as the white kids from the suburbs doing what you're describing. The only difference is that when they come home, they're eating ethnic food instead of spaghetti . (I'm so clever. Not.) Black culture could be arguably considered a large portion of American Pop Culture, anyways. Outside of the ghetto, the children of immigrants wear hipster clothes and frequent the same coffee shops as anyone else their age.



Come take a tour of LA, check out where and what children of Latino and Asian immigrants are doing on a regular basis. If gangs, crime, violence, poverty, and general social delinquency are part of "American" culture, so be it. Not that "Americans" are without the things listed above, but from what I've seen, these kids congregate amongst themselves, live amongst themselves and aside from the violence and mimicking movies/tv/pop-culture, they've isolated themselves. 




The Reverend said:


> Let's try to keep personal insults out of this, okay?



Ummmm OK  Not sure what you took as a personal insult...



The Reverend said:


> Etiquette in some places means farting when you finish your meal. That's just not something I'm going to do. You have to think about the fact that some of these people have been doing things the way they do them their whole lives. Asking them to drop it and pick up your way seems fairly presumptuous to me.



They *choose* to move to a country, and because their social norms are different from the locals, expecting them to learn and blend is somehow presumptuous? Wow. So they just get to move wherever they want, and act however they want, because that's what they're used to? Sorry, I don't buy it. If they're not interested in the culture of the country they're moving to, so be it, but they should at least educate themselves on the local customs. I don't see what is so presumptuous and/or preposterous about that notion. They don't have to like it. Just learn it. Same with the language. What they do in their own homes is their business, in public, that's a different story. Don't like it? Don't move there. Essentially it sounds like you're arguing that people should have their cake and eat it too.

Right?

Move to a country, do whatever the fuck you want, act however the fuck you want and because your culture is *different* you get a free pass? Oh and you're *entitled* to whatever benefits/rewards/what-have-you that the country you moved to has to offer. You get all the culture of your home, with the benefits/rewards of a new country with none of the effort required to assimilate, blend in or adapt. What's that term for an organism that moves to an area and uses resources for it's own benefit and offers nothing back to the host? Oh that's right, a parasite. 

Sorry if this offends some of your (collective group) delicate sensibilities, but I'm trying to make a point. Point is, if you move to a new country and you want something they have, be it freedom, resources, opportunities, benefits, etc, then I think you *should* feel obliged to offer something back. That is learning the language and the customs. I see nothing outrageous about that at all. I'm not saying be a *patriot*, I'm not saying lose your own language and customs, I'm saying adapt. Those small gestures of assimilation will go a LONG way in earning the good-will of the natives. And I'm not saying that Muslims in England, or immigrants here or there, are automatically *parasites*, I'm drawing a clear parallel behind the behavior and mindset of those that *do* feel entitled to rewards while giving little, if anything in return. That goes back to etiquette and courtesy and common decency. Has nothing to do with whether the group is green, blue, orange, religious, non-religious, etc. Hopefully the mods and the rest of you will get my point.




The Reverend said:


> Since you're in MY country, you should adopt MY culture. Sounds kinda arrogant to me.



As opposed to the humble view of: I'm in *your* country, I'm going to do what I *want* and what I'm *used* to and if you don't like it, fuck off. Right. Nothing arrogant about that either 



The Reverend said:


> I think you need to understand that these people don't give a fuck about the culture of the country they move to. They want better lives, free from strife or religious oppression or whatever the reason. Again, they aren't in another country because they admire its culture.



Again, I don't give a shit *why* they move to a country. I only give a shit about what they do when they get there. And as you said, they have their reasons. On that we agree. I'm not asking them to give a shit about the native culture, I'm asking them to acknowledge and learn it (language customs). They don't have to like it. They don't have to adopt them as their own. But I think they'll find if they make small gestures, they will go a *lot* further and cut down the animosity against them drastically. The more assimilated they become, the more *they* benefit and the more the *country* they moved to benefits. That's the whole point. INCLUDING people and their cultures into the fold. If they want their *better* lives, etc, then I see nothing wrong with the price being set at a little god damned common courtesy. 



The Reverend said:


> You seem to think that these people need to change one of the things that defines them as a person. Your mannerisms, your beliefs, the way you comport yourself, these are part of what makes you you.



Sure, I get that. Now how rude would it be for me to move to Pakistan and refuse to learn the language and customs of the locals? Couldn't I just say "hey, sorry locals, I'm *used* to America. I wear my jeans and my wife wears her Daisy dukes, and if you don't like her tits hanging out, sorry... but too bad. That's *my* culture. That's what *I'm* used to. " Sure I could say those things, and I could feel and act that way. But should I be *surprised* if my actions have repercussions? Should I be *astonished* if I feel alienated and ostracized? Who knows, maybe those folks wouldn't give a shit. I suspect some of them *might* though.




The Reverend said:


> I'm someone with a good grasp of human psychology. You would act like most people in that situation would act, which is to say you would gravitate towards your peers. This should already be evident in your life. The majority of your friends have something large in common with you, whether it be a workplace, a neighborhood, musical tastes, or some other factor. If I'm wrong, than you could be the exception that proves the rule.



Well, you're wrong about me. Talk about presumptuous. Sheesh, calling me out on that, yet telling me whom I do and don't congregate with and how much in common I have with my friends.  Whatever dude.



The Reverend said:


> I think that immigrants should learn enough of the host country's language to communicate effectively, and should have the skill set to live successfully in said country.



Agreed 



The Reverend said:


> I don't believe at all that they need to change anything about themselves. If they choose to be around people with whom they have a lot in common, why does that bother you? You don't plop yourself down in the middle of their communities, making an effort to welcome them to your country and show them your culture, do you? (This is a general question, not aimed at you, Orb.) We complain about multiculturalism, while not exposing ourselves to other cultures. It's hypocritical, at best, and possibly dangerous at worst.



I don't think they need to *change* anything about themselves, in so much as I *want* them to have their language and customs and whatever they feel comfortable with. I'm not opposed to that in the least. I just want them to make an effort to assimilate themselves into the country they've chosen to live in. I'm not saying it happens overnight. I'm not saying the second they walk in the door *poof* they're assimilated and *westernized* or what have you. I'm saying make an effort. Make no effort? Fuck off. Make an effort? Get an 'atta boy from me at least. Small moves sir. Small moves. I don't see why that's so hard to grasp or understand. Give a little, get a little. Millions of european settlers (Irish, Italian, German, etc) managed to come to the US and in a relatively short span of time, assimilate themselves and make this country a better place. They kept their Little Italies and Chinatowns and still managed to blend in. Africans were brought here by force, and through a long, hard assed struggle, managed to carve out their own slice of the country, creating new and better cultures too (Blues & Jazz anyone?). To me, they're not African Americans, they're Americans. They earned it.

This country has a long history of fucking people over, discrimination, etc, and while there's still plenty of it in existence, we're a better, stronger country *because* of our immigrants and because of all the shit they, and we, have been through collectively. I just don't like free loaders and I don't like rude people. That's all it boils down to. Make an effort to make this (or that) country your own, instead of making the country you moved to like your previous country of residence and you'll go far. Put up walls, isolate yourself, refuse and resist and you may *still* go far, but you (and the country) would be better off, if you gave a little back. The world, afterall, does not revolve around *anyone*.


----------



## signalgrey (Feb 11, 2011)

CrushingAnvil said:


> HOLY FUCK.
> 
> That dude is................
> 
> Probably dead by now



i grew up in Riyadh. That was a very interesting interview. ill leave it there.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 11, 2011)

For the person who has no idea what Nation Socialism was, it is a powerful example of how one culture can ensure that those who don't assimilate far enough, or are still distiguishable as not close enough to the "real" culture, can be taken care of. 

----

Getting back to the video originally posted, and the criticism that England has "allowed" the weakening of the national identity, I remember my time in the UK where friends were immediately assumed to be West Indian because they were black, just as those who were of Indian origin were assumed to be foreign, and not really English. 

So, rather than saying that the problem is that the UK is home to some really racist ............s, and this feeling of estrangement and rejection, caused by the actions of the majority, is something which needs to be addressed... instead, the problem is said to be the fact that all that estrangement and non-acceptance is the fault of those who get rejected by the whites of the UK. 

I have friends of different cultures, even languages, here in the US, but maybe it's too much to expect that the OP would hang with the Pakis and blacks and Nepalese around him. I know that I can connect with people without converting to Hinduism, without converting to their culture, and I know that they don't have to have a Mexican heritage in common with me to be American. 

However, there is definitely only one kind of person who doesn't really get along with me: someone who insists that I need to abandon my own culture and become Christian, or become a football fan, or to adopt their view on the Constitution. 

Does that mean that multiculturalism has failed? 

I watch the war on accepting people of different creeds, cultures and sexual orientations evolve here in the US, and the same questions lie behind those arguments which the speaker never directly addressed in that speech: "Why can't they just be like us, instead of insisting that they be treated equally and with respect just as they are?" 

Stupid foreigners who just happen to have UK citizenship! Just get with the program! Why do you have to keep that silly religion? You know you'll just get made fun of, and you'll be alienated purely through your own doing, and not through the actual actions of the real English citizens!

I don't know how far I believe that... or how far any of you believe that....


----------



## Meshugger (Feb 12, 2011)

The whole concept of multicultural society leaves me a perplexed, more or less. For example, it might work to a certain degree in the US, which happen to based on an ideal, rather than a nation. However, it is not truly multicultural. For example, there's one language that completely dominates all others. With language, there's also certain customs that come along with it. Same thing with laws, i do not see any laws based on nigerian or icelandic culture there, rather anglo-saxon. 

The country might have a load of people of Irish, Russian, African, German, Italian, Chinese, Japanese and Persian decent, but they are more americans than anything else.

Here comes the problem Europe has with multiculture: Namely most of the countries were nation-states until the 1960-70's. Laws, customs and language still reflect that to this very day. For a truly multicultural society to work, the nation-state has to be abolished or heavily changed in principle since it has its origins in people with from the same church, customs or langauge forming a state of their own. For some reason, i haven't heard any politician mention this.

Another thing that bothers me is that politicians behave like all cultures are equal, which they aren't. Middle-eastern and subsaharan culture are wastly inferior compared to east-asian, japanese and western cultures in terms of music, art, work-ethic and individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Even if we somehow find a common set of values and abolish the nation-states as we know it, we have another hurdle to cross: Human nature. Almost all progress has been achieved through one strife or the other. Look at computers, the internet, the space program, medicine and so on.


----------



## ddtonfire (Feb 12, 2011)

Forgive my ignorance, but are places like India, Nepal, Germany, Ireland, Scotland, Italy, Poland, Greece, China, Japan, Thailand, Mexico, Brazil, Congo, Niger, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Brazil, Peru, etc multicultural as well. If so, or if not, has it hampered or encouraged their development as nations?


----------



## AySay (Feb 12, 2011)

I'm gonna leave this here...


----------



## Meshugger (Feb 12, 2011)

ddtonfire said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but are places like India, Nepal, Germany, Ireland, Scotland, Italy, Poland, Greece, China, Japan, Thailand, Mexico, Brazil, Congo, Niger, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Brazil, Peru, etc multicultural as well. If so, or if not, has it hampered or encouraged their development as nations?



I think that you are mistaking having minorities from actual multiculture. For example, in what way is Japan a multicultural society with 98,5% of the population speaking japanese, having japanese names, and practice religions that have been in japan for the last 1000 years? Same thing with Ireland. Every country has one form of minority and always has, but that is not multiculture.

Multiculture means that a country has no underlying social framework that binds its populance. It means seperate laws and customs and no official language(s). Otherwise the weaker cultures will be swallowed up by the more dominant ones through the pass of time.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 12, 2011)

First off, the US does have a culture, one based on the principles which allow people to choose for themselves. Some try to assert that "freedom of religion" doesn't mean that everyone shouldn't be Christian, but they lose in court. 

Other than that, as long as one isn't breaking the law, one can be of any culture. German, Irish, Klan, multi-generational Mexican in areas where they've been before English-speakers came, Native Americans who have been fucked over... they're still here, and only idiots normally talk about how the Constitution should be rewritten to remove freedom of speech.

----

Again looking at those who are ready to talk about how people have failed to adopt customs with which they are not familiar...

There are places in the US where there are large groups of refugees. Some of them have volunteers help the immigrants learn about US culture, and those people who have people opening their homes and customs to them wind up doing rather well in integrating.

I already commented on how I have friends from other cultures; it shouldn't surprise anyone that I befriend all kinds of people, regardless of race or culture, and that I work on finding similarities rather than differences. 

What about those who are commenting on those of different cultures, and how those people don't adopt customs to which they are unfamiliar? How are those posters helping to ease the transition for those who are in a strange place?

Sorry, but I suspect that those who would have no clue who Tosin Abasi is, outside of his music and work, would consider just talking to him on the street based on his appearance, rather than after they know about his musical interests and focus. 

----

Sadly, for those who wondered why I brought up the National Socialists in terms of monocultural societies, it looks like the French Nazis are fully behind that speech from the first post. It would freak me out to be in full agreement with Nazis when it comes to slamming other cultures, or someone's ability to embrace those cultures.

But, as always, that's just me. It is definitely anyone's right to ally themselves with any group or that group's viewpoints... even one which has been so harmful to others. 

What is that about knowing a person by the company they keep?


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 13, 2011)

AySay said:


> I'm gonna leave this here...




Not much more to say!


----------



## Rook (Feb 13, 2011)

My group of 'best friends' consists of:
A Polish American
A South African
An Egyptian
An Indian
A Pakistani American
A Ghanaian
A guy from Hong Kong (Chinese I guess)
and a Tamil (Sri Lanka)

Multicultural win


----------



## Wingchunwarrior (Feb 13, 2011)

> I have friends of different cultures, even languages, here in the US, but maybe it's too much to expect that the OP would hang with the Pakis and blacks and Nepalese around him. I know that I can connect with people without converting to Hinduism, without converting to their culture, and I know that they don't have to have a Mexican heritage in common with me to be American.



That is extremely presumptuous of you, how would you know who I socialize with,I am friends with: nepalese,sikhs,pakistanis,south african,american,vietnamese and one of my best friends is norwegian.

You know this thread would have probably been a lot better if people like you would stop jumping to conclusions and as previously stated putting words into people's mouths.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior (Feb 13, 2011)

AySay said:


> I'm gonna leave this here...





I could never take a video like that seriously with his child full throwing about of the word Nazi

Edit: I forgot to say, Daemon Barbeque, when I posted that video of that insult, It wasn't meant to be an insult to you,I just thought you were going a bit off topic, just thought I'd clear that up


----------



## Explorer (Feb 13, 2011)

I understand if you consider it presumptuous for an outsider (American) to comment on something in a public forum, or to see certain implications in a particular viewpoint.

If you have no problem with those people being of different cultures... then why agree that they need to get with the program, and to embrace British culture and get rid of their old one? 

Or, if that wasn't what you were arguing for... why did you post that particular video, which did argue for such a thing? 

I'm confused, since you're saying one thing, and posting support for something else. 

----

In case you think that I'm a bit off for initially finding the video to be supporting the same ideas as the Nazis (also known as the National Socialists), please be aware that the current neo-Nazis are on board with the ideas supported in that video. I'm sure the National Front hasn't repudiated the ideas at this point. 

Would they also be wrong in thinking those expressed ideas to be in line with their thinking? Are they presumptuous in finding the core arguments to be exactly what I thought?

If you meant something else, then you might consider that you chose the wrong video to support it.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior (Feb 13, 2011)

> If you have no problem with those people being of different cultures... then why agree that they need to get with the program, and to embrace British culture and get rid of their old one? ]



But my friends don't isolate themselves, they hang around me an Englishman and all the different people mentioned.Also I don't know if you brought it up or if it was someone else but I have been in there situation.I have gone to live in a country that was completely alien to me where I had no family or English or European acquaintances.I had to fit in with the locals of Costa Rica, learn THEIR language, learn what was beyond the moral boundaries of THEIR society and FIT IN.One of the main attractions of Costa Rica is its natural beauty,now in my mind if I want to live in their country,I feel I must give back,fit in and become like everyone else.IMO if I don't I'm nothing more than a tourist.This is the way I feel about it,to become a citizen you must give back to the land otherwise you're just a guest, not a citizen.






> Or, if that wasn't what you were arguing for... why did you post that particular video, which did argue for such a thing?



which video are you talking about?


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 13, 2011)

Wingchunwarrior said:


> I could never take a video like that seriously with his child full throwing about of the word Nazi
> 
> Edit: I forgot to say, Daemon Barbeque, when I posted that video of that insult, It wasn't meant to be an insult to you,I just thought you were going a bit off topic, just thought I'd clear that up


----------



## AySay (Feb 13, 2011)

Wingchunwarrior said:


> I could never take a video like that seriously with his child full throwing about of the word Nazi



26:17 of logical rebuttal to the statement "multiculturalism has failed" but all of it is irrelevant now because he said "nazi" slightly out of context.
That's a little more deserving of a


----------



## McKay (Feb 14, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Getting back to the video originally posted, and the criticism that England has "allowed" the weakening of the national identity, I remember my time in the UK where friends were immediately assumed to be West Indian because they were black, just as those who were of Indian origin were assumed to be foreign, and not really English.



So? The vast majority of black Africans in Britain are from the West Indies. You're complaining about the equivalent of assuming a black American to be an African American as opposed to any similar looking ethnicity. Generalisations aren't inherently bad and don't inherently carry negative connotations.



> However, there is definitely only one kind of person who doesn't really get along with me: someone who insists that I need to abandon my own culture and become Christian, or become a football fan, or to adopt their view on the Constitution.



Replace Christian with Muslim and you have a better understanding of the _cultural_ tensions in the UK.

Please actually research this topic before chiming in with your characteristically uninformed opinion. It's a real issue to many of us on the forum and I find it a little disrespectful.



Meshugger said:


> The whole concept of multicultural society leaves me a perplexed, more or less. For example, it might work to a certain degree in the US, which happen to based on an ideal, rather than a nation. However, it is not truly multicultural. For example, there's one language that completely dominates all others. With language, there's also certain customs that come along with it. Same thing with laws, i do not see any laws based on nigerian or icelandic culture there, rather anglo-saxon.
> 
> The country might have a load of people of Irish, Russian, African, German, Italian, Chinese, Japanese and Persian decent, but they are more americans than anything else.
> 
> ...



I don't think most of the people involved in the debate at large even know what a nation-state is. All countries need some binding principle. In the past, it was racially based (in the classic sense of the word, not the 20th century definition). Now our union is ideologically based, but it is not an ideology that has arisen through common consensus or natural evolution. Because of this, there is tension, unrest and unhappiness amongst the population of the European countries. 

I find it hard to marry together an ideologically based Britain using old borders. It seems contradictory. The entire affair of British and European is a mess of ideological inconsistency. If kinship (race) isn't grounds for political union or action, then why do we continue as Britain, working together as a _nation_? Why not Europe? Where do borders come into that?

How is it possible to use ideology and shared culture to unify us politically, in the face of racial unity, if we are multicultural?

It's a dangerous mess.


----------



## Wingchunwarrior (Feb 14, 2011)

AySay said:


> 26:17 of logical rebuttal to the statement "multiculturalism has failed" but all of it is irrelevant now because he said "nazi" slightly out of context.
> That's a little more deserving of a




well I'm going to admit I didn't watch the whole thing, I could not bear to watch it, I'm all for hearing the "opposition" or someone with a different point of view but him .i can't stand him but he clearly knows his stuff, but his liberal extremism sort of ruins it.Maybe I'll watch later on, give him another chance.I probably shouldn't of based an opinion on the video just from watching 10 minutes of it.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 14, 2011)

McKay said:


> Replace Christian with Muslim and you have a better understanding of the _cultural_ tensions in the UK.



Mr. Cameron represents the Anglo-Saxons and tell that the Multiculturalism; that him and his fellows where allowing; has failed.
I can't see it as Muslims try to push the Anglo-Saxons for something, but the opposite.
The problem is, they are citizens. They pay as much tax as an Anglo-Saxon. They have the same rights.
Don't get me wrong, I am all against any kind of bigotry, Muslim or Christian or whatever. But you cannot fight bigotry with another kind of bigotry. You cannot fight a culture that Anglo-Saxons don't like with false accusations, ignorance, apathy, blasphemy and the worst, Hypocrisy.

If you fear about Sharia, don't allow it. If Anglo-Saxon culture is the right and dominant one, there is the democracy. Go, vote and stop it. But don't blame "Multiculturalism" that never really needs an accuse to exist. the U.K has a lot of people from different cultures as citizens. Live with it, enjoy it. Learn how to cook something delicious. How to use different languages. Enjoy the diversity.


----------



## Meshugger (Feb 14, 2011)

AySay said:


> I'm gonna leave this here...




Took me two days to watch that  

His body language and use of words was incredibly irritating, waaaay too emotional. He could've recited the lyrics to "A Wonderful World" and i would still hate the guy.

Sadly, he didn't approach the issue of multiculturalism as an idea. Why should Britain be multicultural? What are the benefits as a nation to be multicultural? Any kind of source would be appriciated. 

He also claimed that Britain has been multicultural hundreds(?) of years with ties to Islam? Where's the source on that one again? It seems more like that he is confused about what a minority is compared to a country being multicultural in its foundation.

Finally, he seems to think that only racist hardwingers are against multiculturalism, which is hardly the case. I simply do not think that he knows what multiculturalism really is.

Btw, who the hell is Pat Condell? A leader for a british rightwing-movement/party? He mentioned the guy more times than the characters in 'Atlas Shrugged' mentioned John Galt (cliff-notes-version).


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Feb 14, 2011)

AySay said:


> I'm gonna leave this here...




Nailed it.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 14, 2011)

Meshugger said:


> Btw, who the hell is Pat Condell? A leader for a british rightwing-movement/party? He mentioned the guy more times than the characters in 'Atlas Shrugged' mentioned John Galt (cliff-notes-version).



Check him on Youtube. No Political correctness can be found on his videos. Very sarcastic, very unbalanced, and sometimes very uninformed videos. He is clearly an intelligent guy, but uses it a bit wrong IMHO.


----------



## McKay (Feb 14, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Mr. Cameron represents the Anglo-Saxons and tell that the Multiculturalism; that him and his fellows where allowing; has failed.
> I can't see it as Muslims try to push the Anglo-Saxons for something, but the opposite.
> The problem is, they are citizens. They pay as much tax as an Anglo-Saxon. They have the same rights.
> Don't get me wrong, I am all against any kind of bigotry, Muslim or Christian or whatever. But you cannot fight bigotry with another kind of bigotry. You cannot fight a culture that Anglo-Saxons don't like with false accusations, ignorance, apathy, blasphemy and the worst, Hypocrisy.
> ...



When you're finished on your soapbox, re read the quote. The problem is that a sizeable portion of the Muslim community in Britain actively want to convert and expand. I don't see how recognising their expansionism as bigotry.

For the record, Cameron is neither an Anglo-Saxon nor does Anglo-Saxon = British.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 15, 2011)

Recognizing an expansionism is not bigotry, but saying that multiculturalism failed is. It's a clear tactic to get rightists votes, and push his Conservative agenda. You can't stop people expanding Islam by forcing them out, because you don't like Islam. That is not Democracy, nor does it fit with modern world, justice, human rights. The Anglican church has a big impact on these decisions. Now if you want to stop Islam, begin make more babies, raise them with your culture, and stay as the dominant culture. Everything else is futile. You also can educate the current Muslim kids to fit in your system.

Anglo-Saxon culture is the dominant culture, and the dominant bloodline on the Island. Angles (vikings), Saxons (German) Britons (French) and Celts (Scots and Irish) are the cultures who build the cultural base of Anglo-Saxon culture. Like the Anglican church, the whole Christian, expansionist and Colonial culture is Anglo-Saxon. So is the Royal culture of England. The other Anglo-Saxon countries are even less bound to the Anglo-Saxon bloodline, but still count as Anglo-Saxon. Funny enough, all of them are former British Colonies!

Now stating Cameron wouldn't be Anglo-Saxon is plain wrong. His all education is, Anglo-Saxon. His family tree goes back to king William the IV, who and his brother where kings of Britain, Ireland and Hanover (Saxony in Germany). His Scottish Family does not change that fact, since from his religion, his birthplace, to his bounds to Royal family is Pure Anglo-Saxon. 
I also would like to mention that The University Of Glasgow (Vet School) Graduates Vets with "Anglo-Saxon" Diplomas, to allow them work in Australia, New Zealand, U.S.A and Canada without further education. This is one of the examples how Scotland is not Anglo-Saxon at all !


----------



## Rook (Feb 15, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Anglo-Saxon culture is the dominant culture, and the dominant bloodline on the Island. Angles (vikings), Saxons (German) Britons (French) and Celts (Scots and Irish) are the cultures who build the cultural base of Anglo-Saxon culture.



I'm keeping out of all this, but I will say that ^^^ is all wrong.

We're not Anglo-Saxon... We, like most of the French who invaded us, started out being greatly influenced by the Romans (hence the large proportion of Christianity/Catholicism). Anglo-Saxons are also largely associated with paganism, and they are largely taken as having 'stopped being' Anglo Saxons after the Romans, as Roman Catholicism was largely consensus - and the cultural changes that came with that.

Angles are German, as are the Saxons; not Vikings. Vikings are Scandinavians that came to Britain between the 9th and 11th centuries, at least 400 years after the Romans left.
Britons are Celts, Picts, Woads, etc a general term for early people of Britain, not French. Britons are what the natives were referred to by the Romans around 50AD. Largely became Romanised in the 400 years the Romans were here.
The French who came in the _Norman Conquest_ (1066 yadayadayada) are generally referred to as the _Normans_ and are of Viking descent, but will have suffered the Roman effect for about 300 years before the Vikings.

The Normans are largely believed to have merged with the Romanised collonies of Britain to form what is today a nation with one of the largest vocabularies of any, and language coming from French (Normans), Latin (Romans) and a bit of Germanic origins.

Britain about 500 years after all that fuss had a bit of a quiet period (lol), a few civil wars an whatnot, had a bit of a tiff with the _british_ people that went to the USA (it wasn't USA vs England, it was British vs British haha, the American accent is largely presumed to be ascended from Irish/English), but then they decided that they rather liked the look of the planet Earth, so they started wondering into other people's countries (take note...) and decided they liked it better than bloody rainy England with it's crappy weather and ridiculous taxes (*cough*).

So far we have a blend of Roman/French/German/Scandinavian people wondering into Europe, the USA, Canada, Egypt and down through Africa, and crucially through Asia into India. We told them they had it all wrong and they should do it our way (particularly in what is now the USA and India) and called it ours for hundreds of years.

Anglo-Saxon seems to be one of those terms that people like to flail around in this country, but historically is highly questionable.

Interesting stuff eh? 

I've tried to be as factual and accurate as possible and make no swayed opinions etc etc. It's valuable information though.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 15, 2011)

Fun111 said:


> I'm keeping out of all this, but I will say that ^^^ is all wrong.
> 
> We're not Anglo-Saxon... We, like most of the French who invaded us, started out being greatly influenced by the Romans (hence the large proportion of Christianity/Catholicism). Anglo-Saxons are also largely associated with paganism, and they are largely taken as having 'stopped being' Anglo Saxons after the Romans, as Roman Catholicism was largely consensus - and the cultural changes that came with that.
> 
> ...



It is indeed valuable , but some points have to be addressed 

Angles are not German. The word German as used today is a Roman word. The tribes who lived in North Germany now, where from Danish origin (Still are, and accepted as Danish minority). The Plat-Deutsch is a language much closer to Danish than German, and is spoken in the very North Germany, and the North-East. The Red cross on White is another Danish thing that happened to be taken by the Angles with them. Language is always a good indicator of Historical events, (as you are aware of as I see).

Funny enough I totally missed the importance of Britons moving down to France. I knew that Gauls did it,but for Britons, I always thought it was the opposite way. You gave me the opportunity to go and check back. 

Romans where on the Island before Saxons, but failed to get it as they wished to. The only reason why romans called those "Barbarians" German (means brother) is, their big efforts on the island to win against the Celts. Germans never called themselves German. The names Germans associate themselves with are more like,Teuton, Teutsch... Preuss, Sachs. Funny enough, we all know our own culture in another "depth", but prefer to see other cultures in a Roman way. Not just Roman, but in the eyes of the dominant culture for the given century.
Thanx again for the very valuable post


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 15, 2011)

Fun111 said:


> The Normans are largely believed to have merged with the Romanised collonies of Britain to form what is today a nation with one of the largest vocabularies of any, and language coming from French (Normans), Latin (Romans) and a bit of Germanic origins.



The name England was "Angland" and it is Germanic  The name Scott is in Roman and means Irish 
Funny enough, most of the Germanic words found in English are mostly names of the places or things.
French seems to have the biggest impact, more than 1200 verbs are the same. The written language seems to be build in French too.
The Roman effect is mostly through religion, and not military act.


----------



## McKay (Feb 15, 2011)

I stopped reading-



daemon barbeque said:


> dominant bloodline on the Island



There.

Learn to history and modern haplotype research. British genes are overwhelmingly _pre_ Indo-European, part of the 'Atlantic European' branch.


----------



## McKay (Feb 15, 2011)

Fun111 said:


> We're not Anglo-Saxon... We, like most of the French who invaded us, started out being *greatly influenced by the Romans* (hence the large proportion of Christianity/Catholicism). *Anglo-Saxons are also largely associated with paganism*, and *they are largely taken as having 'stopped being' Anglo Saxons after the Romans*, as Roman Catholicism was largely consensus - and the cultural changes that came with that.



No.

The Anglo Saxons were pagans for less than half of their British hegemony. They ceased to be considered Anglo Saxon after the Normans invaded, by which time the Anglo Saxons had nearly completed the cultural elimination of the Celtic British culture, with holdouts in Cumbria, Cornwall, Devon, the Pennines and of course, Wales. The population in West England were now Anglo Saxon by cultural change, the population in East England were Anglo Saxon by much heavier Anglo Saxon immigration and the ruling class shifted from Anglo Saxon to Norman.

Just as the dominant Anglo Saxon culture (read: not 'blood') replaced the Celtic before it, the Norman culture replaced the Saxon.



> Angles are German, as are the Saxons; not Vikings. Vikings are Scandinavians that came to Britain between the 9th and 11th centuries, at least 400 years after the Romans left.



No. Anglo Saxons are Frisian, not German. There is a distinction. They are Germanic, but belonged to the now nearly extinct Frisian group, which is now considered in some circles to be as distinct from conventional German as Scandinavian is.



> The Normans are largely believed to have merged with the Romanised collonies of Britain to form what is today a nation with one of the largest vocabularies of any, and language coming from French (Normans), Latin (Romans) and *a bit of Germanic origins.*



No. English is a Frisian Germanic/Norman French creole langauge with an extremely high percentage of loanwords.



> Britain about 500 years after all that fuss had a bit of a quiet period (lol), a few civil wars an whatnot, had a bit of a tiff with the _british_ people that went to the USA *(it wasn't USA vs England, it was British vs British haha, the American accent is largely presumed to be ascended from Irish/English)*, but then they decided that they rather liked the look of the planet Earth, so they started wondering into other people's countries (take note...) and decided they liked it better than bloody rainy England with it's crappy weather and ridiculous taxes (*cough*).



Oh God this. Why can't most people get this into their heads? The Revolutionary War was essentially a British civil war and yes, American accents are basically amalgamations of the contemporary English accents. Any film that shows a serious difference between the two is annoyingly hard to watch. The only show that got it right was John Adams by HBO.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 15, 2011)

I don't know how things suddenly took a turn towards defining who is of what bloodline. 

Wouldn't the only thing relevant to the conversation be the fact that England decided to make these people citizens of the Empire? No citizenry tests, no agreement on the part of the people already there, just forced them, no? 

The argument seems to be, we made these people English, but now we regret it! 

Sure, you can't undo the past, so it's time to just move on, and embrace the results of the decisions of the white English conquerors, and those who were made fellow citizens by those conquerors....


----------



## Rook (Feb 16, 2011)

I knew whatever I said people would despite :-S

Ah well.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Feb 16, 2011)

Fun111 said:


> I knew whatever I said people would despite :-S
> 
> Ah well.



No man, I liked it, although I don't agree with all of it. Cool post anyway!


----------



## Rook (Feb 16, 2011)

Haha I was being ironic, I in posting was correcting someone. 

I think my point's clear either way lol


----------

