Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

BE BRITISH!

02:19 / 09.12.01

Blunkett's 'British test' for immigrants

----------

Apparently David Blunkett wants people from ethnic minorities to bring up their children in a way that makes them 'feel British'.
Bugger me, I'm as pasty white as they come and I've never for a second wanted to feel British, or for that matter be proud to be English as Blunkett asks me to.
If he hadn't noticed, the people most proud to be British/English also seem to be the folk most hostile to ethnic minorities and other cultures. I am not going to attend meetings about St. George and my deep rich red English blood thank you Mr Blunkett, chant "Death to the IRA" yourself!

06:36 / 09.12.01

The tone of what Blunkett is saying does seem quite horrible. The idea of developing a sense of belonging to the UK is the exact opposite of what everyone should be doing. There are only a couple of practical applications of this policy in that article and they both seem worthy of debate. Firstly, that anyone seeking naturalisation must have a "modest grasp of English". Secondly that practices such as enforced marriages for Asian girls were unacceptable. As Blunkett states "We need to say we will not tolerate what we would not accept ourselves under the guise of accepting a different cultural difference. We have norms of acceptability and those who come into our home - for that is what it is - should accept those norms just as we would have to do if we went elsewhere."
I think the first point is just a practical reality for everyone concerned. The second point is open to debate though. What do you think D?

08:14 / 09.12.01

I think there are some interesting aspects to this debate - which is that multiculturalism has to be done well for it to work properly. I'm beginning to believe that no two cultures have ever peacefully existed within the same country when they are of roughly equal strength. Cultural differences at that level always seem to cause friction.

If you look at the difference between the US and the UK - particularly in large cities - it seems to me that there is a real difference in the level of integration of black culture. And I'd hazard a guess that as a rule, there's less conflict about race in the UK than there is in the US. And it seems to me that much of that is precisely about ethnicity being not as related to culture in that case in the UK...

On the other hand, the US has quite a clear policy on immigration really. The policy is... this is what we stand for, come here if you believe in it...

I'm really quite conflicted on this stuff to be honest. I think that international, geographically distributed identities are the future - that like Judaism, an identity may not be explicitly attached to a country - and that this would be facilitated by increases in communication like the net. But at the same time, I regret the kind of global homogenisation that this might involve. I think it's a good thing that a country has an identity - certain things that it claims to stand for and believe in, and I would like to think that people who DECIDE to come to the UK to live do so because they like our way of doing things - much like my fascination with America leads me to consider emigration...

I'm against forcing people to adopt my idea (or anyone's idea) of what it means to be British, but I'm weirdly FOR the encouragement of a sense of 'What it means to BE British' to develop between all the cultures living here. And I'd like that sense of community to be fostered and for people to know that when they are coming to the UK that they will be participating in that culture.

And if I don't like the culture that emerges, I will run off to the US...

08:24 / 09.12.01

Probelm is, You can drive a Jag, vote Tory, send your kids to Public School,Play golf, Take Tea at Four and support capital punsihment. However if your skin is not white then Rasist Morons will still label you a Paki/Wog etc.

Anyone remember the excelent Goodness Gracious Me-The Coopers?

Lazlo Woodbine [some call me Laz]

11:49 / 11.12.01

Good show and all that, old chap.

13:32 / 11.12.01

Just out of interest, could we have some idea from the US/Canadian/Australian posters of how difficult/easy it is to settle in those countries and whether the immigration policies applied are thought to be racist?

14:55 / 11.12.01

I think it's a mistake to discard this idea too quickly. Obviously, this could be a way of diverting attention from the failings of the State in rooting out entrenched racism in its own structure, and it would be hideous if it were used as a way of excusing BNP behaviour.

On the other hand, 'cultural difference' does hide some thorny issues - treatment of women (circumcision), for example - and the level at which institutions fail ethnic minority students: are more young black males than their white equivalents arrested or chucked out of school because they are discriminated against at that moment or because they've already been excluded and discarded, allowed to drift? Why is there a difference between figures for African and West Indian groups?

There are areas of some cultures which I won't acknowledge as 'valid', such as female genital mutilation. But you can't tackle that without bringing people into the body of the main culture.

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

17:57 / 11.12.01

Strangely I'm proud to be where I'm from but I'd have a real problem defining British. I think the problem with this is that Blunkett appeared to be singling out certain problems and then applying them wholesale to certain ethnicities (and if not that's how it can easily be translated). His words also seem to suggest that there is a set of cultuarl rules on how to act in a "British culture" when the culture is constantly changing as each ne generation of immigrants add something new to the mix (of course there are other things influencing our changing culture) and this has been going on since pre-history. Perhaps one day the national language of Britain will be Erdu, just means our culture is changing and it wouldn't be the first time we've changed languages.

Strangely a country like America that from the outside seems have a lot of race related problems, people from non-white ethnicities seem fiercly patriaotic in a way that doesn't seem to happen in Britain.

22:59 / 11.12.01

quote:Originally posted by Dao Jones:

There are areas of some cultures which I won't acknowledge as 'valid', such as female genital mutilation. But you can't tackle that without bringing people into the body of the main culture.

Yeah, I heard Blunkett talking about that. Funny but I severely doubt he'd ever dare mention anything about the Jewish community and male circumcision, and that's precisely an example of why banning certain aspects of a certain cultures could all go tits-up. It's an extremely messy area for the law to barge into, and having the Home Secretary pick out and make particular remarks on one or two issues like that is plainly fucked up and attempt to divert from the real problems of segregation and social deprivation. Twat.

13:09 / 20.12.01

This really isn't my area, but talking of female circumcision (or female genital mutilation as some prefer to term it) and things going "tits up", what about Naomi Wolf's argument in The Beauty Myth that cosmetic surgery (which is by now hardly an exclusively feminist issue) is equivalent to FGM? I.e., a dangerous, totally unnecessary and excruciating practice enforced due to an idiotic cultural norm?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

14:23 / 20.12.01

Let's take that question elswhere, shall we?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

19:37 / 21.12.01

quote:Originally posted by D:

Yeah, I heard Blunkett talking about that [female circumcision]. Funny but I severely doubt he'd ever dare mention anything about the Jewish community and male circumcision...

I see the point you're trying to make in your post, and I'm sorry if I come off as patronizing... but you do realize what female circumcision actually entails, don't you? To whit, the mutilation of a woman's genitals such that she cannot and never will be able to have a normal sex life. The least extreme variants involve the exision of the clitoris; others go further, removing the labia and stitching up the vaginal opening so that only a small hole remains to allow urine and menstual blood to escape. Infection and death are common; so are other complications such as blockages and menstrual problems. In the most extreme cases, the woman's vagina will be cut open with a knife before she can have sex.

The form of male circumcision you refer to involves the removal of the foreskin.

Spot the difference?

(Oh, and unlike a circumcised vagina, Blunkett is indeed a complete twat.)

[ 21-12-2001: Message edited by: Mordant C@rnival ]