Erosion of British Culture

1246789

Comments

  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    Of course it is. If a Nation once had a culture that was recognisable as being many facets of one culture bar a few welcomed and tolerated enclaves and it now has many larger enclaves of many more cultures each impacting to greater and lesser degrees on that National culture then it is indeed being eroded. Whether it is a good or bad thing is the argument. If it is deliberate policy it is bad, if it is natural progression it may be beneficial it may not. It is hard to believe it is natural as a specific planned multicultural society seems to have arisen. I have no recollection of ever voting for it and it seems most others have no recollection either.
    Rather than being eroded, it is being changed and enhanced, even though it's not something to vote for. Culture is a diaphanous concept which is impossible to define. Do you really want to go back to how everything was 20 or 30 years ago?
  • BlairdennonBlairdennon Posts: 14,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Culture evolves. It isn't a fixed point.

    It depends whether or not that evolution is natural or a deliberate act. The Indian Mutiny occurred primarily because many of the Indians felt their culture under threat from the Missionaries who were aggressive in their spreading of the word. Many lived with other cultures but did not wish those cultural values to be forced onto them.
  • radio4extracrapradio4extracrap Posts: 2,933
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BanglaRoad wrote: »
    All those things anyone is still perfectly free to do
    If people choose not to that has nothing to do with erosion of culture

    Wrong. It is the erosion of culture.

    Oh, another one. Duty.

    The "duty" to give blood.

    FA Cup draws on Monday lunchtimes
    Test matches starting on Thursdays
    Test matches having a rest day on Sundays
    Songs of Praise singing hymns from churches
    Thought for the Day being Christian
    Half day closing
  • BlairdennonBlairdennon Posts: 14,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Rather than being eroded, it is being changed and enhanced, even though it's not something to vote for. Culture is a diaphanous concept which is impossible to define. Do you really want to go back to how everything was 20 or 30 years ago?

    If the change is a deliberate policy then voting on that policy in a democratic society would seem to be obligatory. If the policy that had been decided was to deny all immigration and remove any alien cultural influences would you have wished a say in the implementation of that policy? Again we are at the point of definition, you do not have to define it you just have to recognise it. Most cultures and most facets of those cultures are fairly easy to identify in general terms, you cannot explain why. IT is fairly easy to recognise an Indian culture, if it was a bandstand in Simla with blond ladies with parasols drinking tea and watching the polo match, you probably would not call it an Indian culture, you would call it a British culture in India.
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    If the change is a deliberate policy then voting on that policy in a democratic society would seem to be obligatory. If the policy that had been decided was to deny all immigration and remove any alien cultural influences would you have wished a say in the implementation of that policy? Again we are at the point of definition, you do not have to define it you just have to recognise it. Most cultures and most facets of those cultures are fairly easy to identify in general terms, you cannot explain why. IT is fairly easy to recognise an Indian culture, if it was a bandstand in Simla with blond ladies with parasols drinking tea and watching the polo match, you probably would not call it an Indian culture, you would call it a British culture in India.
    Your entire argument is predisposed on the on the theory that cultural change is imposed as part of a deliberate policy. I would dispute that and say that cultural change would occur whether there is a policy or not. I think the problem you have is that there are some aspects of change which you are uncomfortable with and you seek to ascribe these to some outside influence, such as immigrants. Feel free to explain why you disagree.
  • crystalladcrystallad Posts: 3,744
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Option to have Non halal chicken
    Having to say happy holiday instead of happy Christmas
    Some schools not doing nativity plays
    Education eroded through having to many different languages.
    Immigrants not intergrating making a divided society
    Cant say golly wog when only ever know as a friendly doll!
  • BlairdennonBlairdennon Posts: 14,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Your entire argument is predisposed on the on the theory that cultural change is imposed as part of a deliberate policy. I would dispute that and say that cultural change would occur whether there is a policy or not. I think the problem you have is that there are some aspects of change which you are uncomfortable with and you seek to ascribe these to some outside influence, such as immigrants. Feel free to explain why you disagree.

    People have been opposing large scale immigration in large numbers for over 50 years. IT has waxed and waned but Tony took it into new territory by inundating the country. That influx was deliberate policy, we could argue why that policy was adopted but there is no doubt it was deliberate. Cultural change was a result of that policy and arguably a part of it because Multiculturalism suddenly appeared. Of course cultural change would occur even if the policy was to try and stop cultural change occurring.
    I think many people are not uncomfortable with immigrants per se but are uncomfortable with the level of immigration and the effect that level is having on they and theirs. One cultural change from the 70s was the decision that trying to keep communities together in council house areas was racist because it worked against immigrants. It still works against immigrants but many areas have revived a policy of keeping communities together by giving a level of preference to local connections. It is no longer racist because those benefiting are the same races as those being disadvantaged. The result of course was the destruction of the old communities of the East End and their virtual replacement.
  • BlairdennonBlairdennon Posts: 14,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    crystallad wrote: »
    Option to have Non halal chicken
    Having to say happy holiday instead of happy Christmas
    Some schools not doing nativity plays
    Education eroded through having to many different languages.
    Immigrants not intergrating making a divided society
    Cant say golly wog when only ever know as a friendly doll!

    And refused permission to black up for Morris dancing.
  • jediknight2k1jediknight2k1 Posts: 6,892
    Forum Member
    Being able to criticise a religion without being issued a fatwa. I didn't used to happen, now it does. The freedom of speech to say what you want without "death to democracy banners" waving around. None of the are British.
  • MesostimMesostim Posts: 52,864
    Forum Member
    Being able to criticise a religion without being issued a fatwa. I didn't used to happen, now it does. The freedom of speech to say what you want without "death to democracy banners" waving around. None of the are British.

    Islam is a load of nonsense.

    *looks out of window*

    I'll get back to you if anyone shows up with a fatwa...

    Meanwhile... what is it you want to say that would provoke "death to democracy banners" waving around... to be honest with you I can't help thinking these threads work better without resorting to fiction but doubtless you will celebrate my freedom of speech being able to say that.

    P.s... I like where you say "being able to criticise a religion" then pointedly make it obvious you mean Islam... Christianity is bunkum as well... fatwa me Jesus.
  • BlairdennonBlairdennon Posts: 14,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mesostim wrote: »
    Islam is a load of nonsense.

    *looks out of window*

    I'll get back to you if anyone shows up with a fatwa...

    Meanwhile... what is it you want to say that would provoke "death to democracy banners" waving around... to be honest with you I can't help thinking these threads work better without resorting to fiction but doubtless you will celebrate my freedom of speech being able to say that.

    You have just said basically what Robert Spenser has said over many years. He was banned from British soil not because he said anything illegal or even untrue, he was banned on public order grounds. He was not going to do anything except speak but speaking put public order at risk. That is not culturally Britain and it was not those of British culture who were at risk of causing disorder.
  • MesostimMesostim Posts: 52,864
    Forum Member
    Islam is the opiate for the Islamic masses...

    Still nothing yet... when does my fatwa arrive... do they post it?
  • BlairdennonBlairdennon Posts: 14,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mesostim wrote: »
    Islam is opium for the Islamic masses...

    Still nothing yet... when does my fatwa arrive... do they post it?

    Put your address up and it will arrive with the implement of its execution......
  • Ethel_FredEthel_Fred Posts: 34,127
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mesostim wrote: »
    Islam is opium for the Islamic masses...

    Still nothing yet... when does my fatwa arrive... do they post it?
    Nigel Farage is a Westminster Bridge con man with delusions of grandeur.

    Still alive
  • MesostimMesostim Posts: 52,864
    Forum Member
    Put your address up and it will arrive with the implement of its execution......

    Bet it wouldn't... I think plenty of people criticise "religion" (that being Islam) and don't get fatwas.

    Islam is a big fairy story.
  • HillmanImpHillmanImp Posts: 2,874
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mesostim wrote: »
    I

    P.s... I like where you say "being able to criticise a religion" then pointedly make it obvious you mean Islam... Christianity is bunkum as well... fatwa me Jesus.

    You mean in a general sense that there is no "inner light". No "soul" or stuff like that. Socrates had this chap he discussed optics with called Timaeus.... Then hundreds of years later Jesus came along . Jesus had a discussion with a blind man called Bartimaeus (which means son of Timaeus). There is Timaeus the science of light and there is Bartimaeus the religion of light. Coincidence or Jungian Synchronicity? Jung believed you can sometimes see the workings of religion (or the "Matrix") via strange Synchronicities that occur as you go thru life. It might or might not be meaningful.
  • MesostimMesostim Posts: 52,864
    Forum Member
    Ethel_Fred wrote: »
    Nigel Farage is a Westminster Bridge con man with delusions of grandeur.

    Still alive

    Buddha ate all the pies.

    No bombs in my sock draw yet.
  • MesostimMesostim Posts: 52,864
    Forum Member
    HillmanImp wrote: »
    You mean in a general sense that there is no "inner light". No "soul" or stuff like that. Socrates had this chap he discussed optics with called Timaeus.... Then hundreds of years later Jesus came along . Jesus had a discussion with a blind man called Bartimaeus (which means son of Timaeus). There is Timaeus the science of light and there is Bartimaeus the religion of light. Coincidence or Jungian Synchronicity? Jung believed you can sometimes see the workings of religion (or the "Matrix") via strange Synchronicities that occur as you go thru life. It might or might not be meaningful.

    FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! Oh no wait... probably not.
  • BlairdennonBlairdennon Posts: 14,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mesostim wrote: »
    Bet it wouldn't... I think plenty of people criticise "religion" (that being Islam) and don't get fatwas.

    Islam is a big fairy story.

    You are probably right, your profile is too low, no insult intended. It is those who are high profile that risk the most. Salman Rushdie I am sure was more than a little nervous and all he did was criticise a religion.
  • Sniffle774Sniffle774 Posts: 20,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    crystallad wrote: »
    Having to say happy holiday instead of happy Christmas
    !

    Who says you have to say that and under what authority ? I'm pretty sure over the next few weeks the 'C' work will be used a plenty.

    Getting back to the question in hand. Culture evolves surely and as the world changes culture changes. We live in a global village these days with many children travelling further afield then there parents, we have access to more information then we have ever had and for good or bad that all influences us. Be it halal meet or US style strip malls the world changes. The drive for profit is another example as industrial hearts lands no longer exist, rural communities now dormitory towns. I grew up in a small place north of London that very people who have heard of. It had it own identity as a result but when they electrified the main railway line the town become, to all intends and purposes, a London suburb, good or bad ? Different people have different views on that but change happened anyway.
  • MesostimMesostim Posts: 52,864
    Forum Member
    You are probably right, your profile is too low, no insult intended. It is those who are high profile that risk the most. Salman Rushdie I am sure was more than a little nervous and all he did was criticise a religion.

    So you can criticise religion without a fatwa being called... bullshit called and confirmed.

    Meanwhile I've been saying everything I want to for the past half hour and not one "death to democracy banner" has shown up... You lot would probably get on a bit better if you reserved your claims to fiction perhaps?

    Hey... you know Sikhs... them knives are a bit dangerous, couldn't they use a spoon instead?
  • radio4extracrapradio4extracrap Posts: 2,933
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Going into a tent at fairground to see the "tattooed lady" - now all one needs, is to venture to the checkout queue in Tesco!
  • Sniffle774Sniffle774 Posts: 20,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Going into a tent at fairground to see the "tattooed lady" - now all one needs, is to venture to the checkout queue in Tesco!

    :D:D:D
  • Jim_McIntoshJim_McIntosh Posts: 5,866
    Forum Member
    It depends whether or not that evolution is natural or a deliberate act. The Indian Mutiny occurred primarily because many of the Indians felt their culture under threat from the Missionaries who were aggressive in their spreading of the word. Many lived with other cultures but did not wish those cultural values to be forced onto them.

    My feelings are that everything changes if you take a long-term view so I don't really get attached to traditions and culture as much as others do. It's like trying to hold onto grains of sand - everything changes at some point, it's just a question of when, and it's mostly outwith our control anyway because we are all so interconnected and influence happens almost subconsciously. Or a Sysaphus story (probably spelt wrong...the guy who rolled the boulder up the hill over and over eternally). So I think in some ways the idea of hanging onto a culture is a losing game but I can still see the reasons people feel stronger than I do about it. We live short lives in the grand scheme of things so we might get very attached to our circumstances (nationality, culture, religion) in this life. That's totally natural. It's just building an identity. I get that even though I'm not that strong on it myself.

    The key though (from the overall society POV) is absorbing the good stuff and consigning to history the bad stuff or, if it's impossible to control, just hoping society takes some good turns rather than bad. There are old traditions we are well rid of just as there might be ones we would personally be sorry to lose so a degree of openness can be very beneficial. Without a society willing to drop their traditionalist mindset and embrace the future we would still be stuck a lot further down the evolutionary ladder. Progressiveness is needed to some extent to drive society forward and I would argue is impossible to suppress anyway. That's just my argument against the normal appeal to authority or appeal to traditions mindset.

    I see culture as a moving thing that we wouldn't be able to hold still even if we wanted to and we as individuals are lucky to be able to pick and choose the bits we like from different countries and different times and assemble the things around us that we derive meaning from. We generally have those freedoms that our ancestors didn't. But I don't worry about the future and how society might change at all. What's the point? It would be like worrying about the future trajectory of the planets. It's bigger than me and beyond my control.

    So I understand people being wary of losing cultural traditions but I personally don't worry about it as I see it all as shifting sands anyway. The fault might well be with me not identifying strongly with things (or at least not traditional things).

    Sorry - complex answer but found it difficult to fully express my thoughts.
  • BlairdennonBlairdennon Posts: 14,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mesostim wrote: »
    So you can criticise religion without a fatwa being called... bullshit called and confirmed.

    Meanwhile I've been saying everything I want to for the past half hour and not one "death to democracy banner" has shown up... You lot would probably get on a bit better if you reserved your claims to fiction perhaps?

    Hey... you know Sikhs... them knives are a bit dangerous, couldn't they use a spoon instead?

    You can criticise religion without a fatwa showing up but you risk a fatwa showing up if you do. That was what Rushdie found out. You can criticise Christianity and there is no chance of a fatwa showing up. As regards death to democracy my recall was 'behead those who insult Islam'. You are safe at the moment.
Sign In or Register to comment.