h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There's quite a lot of money going into perpetuating British culture. High culture, in particular, has long had state patronage. There exists an Arts Council with a fair old bit of money to throw around. Museums are still state funded aren't they?

So why these and not Gaelic?

All community centres can be inclusive just depends on how they are run.

There have always been bog standard CCs then you get arts, sport and such like specialist centres even before you get to ones themed to cater fora specific user group. The bottom line is that if your programme of events is broad enough and good enough people will turn up regardless of what type of centre you are running.

I think its a mistake to run a centre for a single group, sure slant it towards one or another but saying this building is only for the elderly or Eastern European migrants in terms of events is just stupid. It can at the worst breed resentment and misses out on the opportunity for people from diverse backgrounds to get an insight into the richness of other strands of culture.

If your pilates class is housed in a Bangladeshi community centre the people it is mainly aimed at get to see you and you get to see them doing ordinary things, its a great way of breaking down barriers.

Lets not delude ourselves in Britain we (all of us) are becoming increasingly bad at communicating across our self imposed lines. Does anyone remember the recent report on teenagers becoming more and more distant from older generations? Remember these are people who were born in this country and live in the same houses we do, they are blood relatives but we act as if they are a scourge and a plague (on the whole) then we act all astounded when they dont want to talk to us or be like us?

Now Im not saying hug a hoody will solve everything but rather than saying what's wrong why arent we saying whats right?

We all too often create divides over differences whilst forgetting that we can spend time focussing on what unites us.

Agood Post Blicky

And I agree with your view

Novo

No problem with that viewpoint as it reinforces the need for inclusive community centres, not "Brand X" community centres.

I think Muslims were, in general, getting along fine until around the 90s. Since then a mixture of extremist bullying and religious hectoring from within and media hype from without have combined to marginalise Muslims.

Instead of the govt cozying in with the extremists and the religious leaders, they should try and go directly to the communities. Break down the artificial barriers like "Brand X" Centres and "Islamic" Societies. Of necessity this means doing away with all state support for religion-based groups. The priority for funding should be the benefit for the community as a whole, not just favoured sections.

It should also not allow cultural and religious practices to make them back away from important human rights issues. They can do it when they want, witness the inspiration for this thread, but they back down at other times. For example, an inquiry into the issue of forced marriages was carried out with a view to making it illegal. However, the message they received back was mixed. Young Muslim women were vehemently against forced marriage, but older Muslim women were in favour. In the face of such confusing feedback, the plan was quietly shelved. But the suicide rate amongst young Muslim women is twice the national average. To me that says young Muslim girls are not wanting to continue the practice and governmental action is essential.

Where the precious Human Rights Act is concerned, it seems the govt is not interested in going against cultural practices where Muslims are concerned.

Uh, forced marriage is most certainly illegal.

Arranged marriage is not.

Although when it comes to packing people off to other countries, forcing them to marry there, then bringing them back, I'm unsure where the law stands.

It doesn't stand. It whimpers in the corner.

Forced marriages are commonplace. Far more so than some people want to admit.

Denmark recently passed legislation banning under 24's marrying spouses from abroad. The suicide rate amongst young Muslim women fell almost overnight.

I see what youre saying SWL but cutting funding to groups that help young people in forced marriages wpould come under your no funding to denominational or cultural groups would it not?

The HRA would overide any laws about not being able to marry if its your right to marry at 16 or 18 then its your right to marry who you want from wherever they come from.

Forced marriages wont disappear over night I think it is a case of pressure put on thhe communities over other issues that is creating a hot house environment where practices that should wither are infact flourishing.

Im loathed to fall back on an old saying I learnt from Della, "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar"

Going back a bit to quotas. Quotas and positive action dont mean shoe horning in people who cant do the job it means finding you want in, taxing them round to the interview and holding the door open for them. doing what it takes to get the results you want, desirable results.

Women whose families have migrated here have for the most part missed out on the cultural shifts that came with women being drafted into the armed services, land army and factories. we need to get black and asian women thinking like white women and it wont happen if we dont give them a similar experience.

one love

Doesn't supporting abused women come under the remit of Social Services irrespective of religion?

The Danes tied the marriage thing in with immigration laws. I'm not on my own laptop just now so I don't have the link, but it has been hugely successful and popular.

There was a BBC article on it that had me laughing my s off. It reported the case from the point of view that this was a horrid law, contrary to HRA and victimising poor Muslims but finished with the line, "Yes this law is popular amongst Danes now, but it is inevitable that continued pressure from the media and Human Rights activists will force the Danish Government to reconsider"

With community centres, I'd certainly rather they were inclusive, but in practice, it does depend where they are.

Since they tend to be local by definition, in a heavily segregated town like the one I was born in, a centre in one place could *effectively* be Muslim (or Pakistani, or Bangladeshi, or non-white, or whatever) by sheer geography. Likewise, a centre elsewhere (possibly not far away) could be *effectively* white from sheer geography.

Where communities are actually geographically mixed, having state-funded specific centres doesn't seem a great idea - even if there are specific facilities targeted at different groups, like ESOL lessons, having people mixing seems a good thing.
Of course, it's always possible that in some places, separate centres arose because people weren't (or didn't feel) welcome at existing ones.

Lets have a bit of honesty here. I'm noticing any discussion about so called 'multiculturalism' always winds up being about the negatives of muslim culture. I notice my description of my local area where multiculturalism works really well gets completely ignored. Just like the agenda of the tabloids, all they ever seize on is the bad news of any subject. Well you can find bad news in just about anything, so such discussions will always be heavily slanted.

Fine lets have a discussion about Muslim culture in Britain. But don't pretend that's multiculturalism in general, because there's a huge array of different cultures and races living hhere. Some like the Carribean community who have been here in large numbers only since the 1950s. And sure there have been all kinds of tensions and difficulties, riots, murders, etc. After 50 years things are gradually getting much better. I think the same will happen with Muslims; these things inevitably take time.

But what really angers me are those people who use it as an excuse to attack multiculturalism in general. Some people just like being perpetually negative and cynical, and there's nothing new in that.

Caribbeans, Africans and every one else managed to get along without multiculturalism. Racism and discrimination was tackled by legislation in the 70's, not the more recent multiculturalist ethos.

Jamaicans, Ghanains, Nigerians, Poles, Albanians, Hindus etc etc etc don't give a stuff about multiculturalism. They want to better themselves, not tie themselves to a culture they left behind.

I mentioned earlier the Notting Hill Carnival - a huge success driven by the people from the Carribean themselves - not a bunch of think-tank, action group experts. Chinese street parties don't need 500 committees and consultation groups and massive govt impact assessments.

>>Jamaicans, Ghanains, Nigerians, Poles, Albanians, Hindus etc etc etc don't give a stuff about multiculturalism.<<

Reference please. I really do wonder where you get your information from?

And what exactly do you mean by multiculturalism? I mean people from a variety of ethnicities living together in a community as pretty much good neighbours. Being able to keep their own cultural traditions and sharing it with one another. Works great where I live. Despite the *appalling* loudness and noisiness from time to time.

But I'm starting to think that this part of London must be some kind of *promised land* Actually we do have our fair share of murders and they are always reported in the tabloids. But the 99% nice bits? - never a dicky bird gets reported!

Um yeah and no SWL.

I like what I like and gieven the chance i'll take a punt at most things.

Im a product of a very mixed area now it is starting to become divided more than it ever was. You speak about critical mass well we are at a point where black people who dont want to intergrate dont have to. i think we need to address this because just as all white people could easily be tarred with one brush I could be tarred with the same brush as people with a separatist attitude.

Some of the legislation though well meaning has been distorted by its implementation and while there are those attempting to capitalise on every differerence these two factors can create a downward spiral.

Its worth remembering that the religious right AND left still held more sway through the 60s and 70s then they atleast shared a religion with the oppressed balck minority (and we were only slightly less intelligible than your avergage Jock). So while there were yobs petrol bombing black houses and indifferent authorities there were people willing to hold out a hand of friendship. Failing that there was almost certainly a football team that wanted you.

As a Bangladeshi Muslim right now I imagine I'd feel got at from all angles. We are ghettoising Muslims and they in defence put more walls around themselves. Its not about who started its about turning it around I see people on all sides unwilling to give an inch and I honestly scratch my head for somewhere to start that wont put somones nose out of joint.

How do you feel about postive action in the police force to get more Asian females and other under-represented groups taking part in this vital part of British life?

I've lived in various parts of London - Wood Green, Holland Park and Tooting as well as working in Nottingham, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester. OK, Holland Park wasn't exactly ethnically diverse but the rest were. I shared a flat in Wood Green with 3 guys from Ghana for a few months. My work means I deal almost exclusively with ethnic minorities. Five days a week I am talking to them, blethering, doing deals etc etc.

I might not meet every single ethnic in the UK, but I meet more than most.

I've got a bee in my bonnet about Islamic Extremism and it's something I've discussed with moderate and not so moderate Muslims.

There are only two groups of people driving multiculturalism - extremist Muslims and people whose careers are based on it. Even Labour have started a new buzzword - interculturalism. As I said earlier, the CRE don't believe in it either.

That's its politically expedient to drop a name that has collected so much bad press means nothing. Its mearely rebranding, it does not suggest an overall sea change in attitudes.

Moreover New Labour are well known for their spin tactics if they tell you its raining Id suggst you go outside and check.

Your description rings true to my experience Blicky.

The secret is education IMO. Bangladeshis in particular have a habit of turning up at the school gates hardly speaking a word of English. This has to be addressed. It's far too easy for people to get by in Britain without needing to learn the language. This breeds exclusion.

If everybody comes out of school able to read, write, count and communicate having all been through the educational system *together*, we'll have made a start.

As to the black gang culture, that's endemic now I fear. Youth initiatives, sports clubs and the like will only ever scratch the surface. What these kids, (what all kids) need is a job paying a fair wage. But this govt has given up on that. Far easier to ship in even more cheap immigrants.

Say what you like about Thatcher, but at least she initiated *real* employment initiatives. Community Programme got me a job in theatre. YTS got my sister a secretarial job and she was kept on.

Give a kid a job, give him the self-respect that comes with pulling in a wage and he has something to lose. The kids going round thiking they're gangsters have nothing to lose.

But "No" to positive action. Equal opportunity for all where "Equal" means no discrimination whatsoever.

Even if the past and present situations lead you to think you are automatically excluded?

What was a YTS but a government led initiative to get people identified as underepresented and for one reason or another somewhat reluctant into work.

If we want more minority representation in the police force and its not happening its not good enough to sit back and say weel its a level playing field *now* and do nothing to redress the problems that have led us to here. We cant change the past but we can change what we do now.

No, YTS was a scheme to get every kid into work. It wasn't really about under-representation I don't think.

I see the argument for Positive Action, but I can't get away from the idea that you can't be fair by being unfair. That's just giving the racists gifts.

Sometimes a percentage under-representation has nothing to do with discrimination. For Sikhs, being a policeman is an honourable profession. Hindus don't, primarily because of the caste system. Muslims have a similar ambivalent attitude. The Arab mentality is pervasive in Islam and for them the only real honourable people are merchants. Let me just say, there is a reason most corner shops are run by Muslims - they are *superb* small businessmen. They have an instinctive understanding of good retail practices that many white Brits don't.

When an organisation sets out a quota based on ethnic breakdowns, it totally fails to take into account that certain minorities may not want to work in that field.

>>Sometimes a percentage under-representation has nothing to do with discrimination. For Sikhs, being a policeman is an honourable profession. Hindus don't, primarily because of the caste system. Muslims have a similar ambivalent attitude. The Arab mentality is pervasive in Islam and for them the only real honourable people are merchants. Let me just say, there is a reason most corner shops are run by Muslims - they are *superb* small businessmen. They have an instinctive understanding of good retail practices that many white Brits don't.<<

What are you on about SWL? How can you generalise so specifically without looking at the historical reasons for such apparent bias? And the point is, it doesn't matter a dam whether Sikhs appear to like being coppers, or Muslims are good at running corner shops, (which incidently may have as much to do with other professions being made more difficult for them to enter in the past, much as Jews were actually legally denied entry into certain professions in medieval times, and so business was the only job was left open to them.) What's important is there is an absolute level playfield open to an individual to choose. Women, so people like you said a few years ago made brilliant secretaries. Now it seems with a more level playing field, plenty of them are rather good as bosses. But I'm sure plenty individuals still want to be secretaries. It's about fair individual chioce for all, that's why positive action has been needed, to overcome prejudicial old fashioned attitudes that seeks to tie* every individual* to a group identity.

I'm all for different traditions in a general sense, we all need that to give meaning to our lives, but I would never assume any particular individual was any better at say dancing/sport because they were black Carribean, an Arab individual being cut out for merchanting. A woman being better at cleaning, ad infinitum. Such an attitude strikes me as racist and sexist, because the point is that *cultural traditions* are always changing and evolving according to the cultural mileu they operate within.

"Say what you like about Thatcher, but at least she initiated *real* employment initiatives. Community Programme got me a job in theatre. YTS got my sister a secretarial job and she was kept on."

Is there a spit my drink all over the screen smiley? WTF? Thatcher helping work?!?!?!?!?!?

Have I died and gone to osme alternative dimension where thatcher didnt have 3 million unemployed? Where who communities and industries were ruined by the black hearted bitch? Where whole generation of kids born in the 80s grew up without prospects of work?