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

"Is there any protection against simple nepotism?"

Is it not in the government's interests (indeed, in society's interests) to promote 'family businesses', as they tend to be more productive and to generate more employment? Are there not exceptions from certain equal rights employment legislation for very small businesses, where a cohesive body of staff may be important, and you can handpick staff from your friends and family, chosing people you know you get on with?

Perhaps I'm wrong.

TRiG.

The Irish Travellers do have a distinctive culture, SWL. Have you seen the film Into the West? And they're a specifically named group under Irish employment legislation.

TRiG.

I have to admit to knowing nothing about Irish travellers, but I am concerned that the drive to give any and every group of people distinct status and 'rights' is having a splintering effect on society. The opportunity for "them & us" increases every time another group is created.

We don't have a society any more IMO. We have a thousand and one communities based on skin colour, ethnicity and flavour of sky fairy. Each of which multiculturalist dogma tells us must be 'celebrated', 'promoted' and 'protected'. Isn't being British enough any more? Or is being British a source of shame?

Every time we create another legal grouping, we splinter the country a little more.

Multiculturalism *causes* racism.

This post has been removed.

>>"Multiculturalism *causes* racism."

Presumably if groups fail to mingle or merge, that's usually down to one or more groups considering themselves superior, rather than down to some liberal-inspired idea of various cultures each having good and bad points?
Is it multiculturalism or racism that gets in the way of intermarriage?

Is, for example, religious tolerance (a seeming analogue of multiculturalism) to blame for enmity between Celtic and Rangers fans?

>>"Is it not in the government's interests (indeed, in society's interests) to promote 'family businesses', as they tend to be more productive and to generate more employment? Are there not exceptions from certain equal rights employment legislation for very small businesses, where a cohesive body of staff may be important, and you can handpick staff from your friends and family, chosing people you know you get on with?"

There's a difference between choosing who to employ in a growing small business and sacking someone in order to give a job to a relative or member of one's own ethnic group, gender, etc.

Thinking of the case mentioned:
http://www.cre.gov.uk/legal/cases_face.html
When it comes to making people redundant and then employing or moving someone to do their old job, that seems to indicate a potential unwillingness to even be honest about what one is doing.
If someone buys an existing business and then syatematically replaces staff with relatives, friends, etc, it's not really a family business in the normal sense of the word.

<>

Is religious tolerance really analagous of multiculturalism? It seems to me that the majority of Protestants tolerate Catholicism because they're not that fussed about religion anyway. The catholic/protestant divide is perpetuated by neanderthal thugs, state promotion of seperatism and vested interests in the religious hierarchies protecting their power base.

But you can't foster tolerance with a policeman's truncheon.
You can't foster tolerance when any one group feels under threat.

Tolerance comes when both (or all) groups intermingle freely with no perceived advantage given to one over the other. A common sense of belonging and purpose can be tremendous driving forces towards this.

Multiculturalism breaks down national boundaries, and seeks to protect minorities with artificial laws. There should be no need for "quotas" and "lists" or "targets".

One law - the best candidate on the basis of ability gets the job.

One education system - no Catholic, Protestant, Sikh, Muslim or Jedi schools.

How in hell can we ever hope to have a united nation where we all understand and respect each other if we seperate out kids for 13 years from the age of 5?

why are you turning my area(i made the first post into a catholic discussion area, leave now

please explain why you have done it

I live in an area with a very large Carribean population. Multiculturalism seems to work fine. Every year there is 'black history month', which involves schools giving out more information about specifically black history, such as slavery, the history of where black people came from in west Africa, information about their transport to the Americas by white people and why, and more recent history about their arrival in the UK and why. This information is also distributed in places like libraries and local magazines.

I have also noticed over the years an increasing number of people of Carribean ancestry working for the local police and the council. Many people of Carribean ancestry live in my street and I don't, as a white person, feel in the least alienated from them. We all treat each other as fellow Brits and neighbours, despite our very different histories. I think black people getting a sense of respect and identity about their 'difference' has really contributed to the present good community relations. So long as multi culturalism is done sensibly there is no problem whatsoever.

Simpleminded people at present are trying to equate 'multiculturalism' with 'racial/religious separatism.' They actually two different things entirely.

>>"why are you turning my area(i made the first post into a catholic discussion area, leave now"

>>"please explain why you have done it"

Don't be silly, you didn't make the first post.
It was made by a grown-up who knows how to write in English.

what do you mean, knows how to write in english????

Your example of Caribbeans is a good one. I would say the biggest single factor in promoting caribbean culture to outsiders has been the Notting Hill Carnival. Lots of images of shiny, happy people. Great.

But is banging on about slavery a good idea? Hasn't the world moved on? Did endless pictures of the atrocities carried out in the name of slavery actually encourage inter-communication? Is that what people from the Caribbean want - pity? I don't think so.

People from the Caribbean themselves were the real architects of tolerance. By showing us repeated examples of the positives, by mixing and adopting British Culture, by facing down the worst excesses of racism with dignity and fortitude they showed the racists for the fools they are. By showing determination and pride in joining British Institutions, they showed a commitment to themselves and to society.

Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Poles, Italians and a plethora of other immigrants have done the same over the last 50 years - gaining respect from the vast majority of Brits along the way.

Who do I respect more - Trevor McDonald for achieving success through ability or the current young ethnic presenters who will always be tainted with the suspicion of "making up the quota"?

How can I respect "Blair's Babes" when they were selected because of their sex when Thatcher, Widdicombe, Williams & Mowlam achieved success through sheer bloody ability.

I don't believe you can fight racism by adopting racist policies, neither can you address sexism by being sexist.

>>"Tolerance comes when both (or all) groups intermingle freely with no perceived advantage given to one over the other. A common sense of belonging and purpose can be tremendous driving forces towards this."

So can a lack of people trying to heighten *perceptions* of advantage being given to the 'other', which is precisely what the Daily-Hate style of attack on multiculturalism is engineered to do.

Whilst there are certainly valid criticisms to be made of various policies, ones coming from the direction of "Look at all those XXXXes getting special treatment when the XXXXes *aren't* getting special treatment are intentionally stoking the fires of racism.

>>"Multiculturalism breaks down national boundaries, and seeks to protect minorities with artificial laws. There should be no need for "quotas" and "lists" or "targets""

I don't think there *are* many quotas and targets. To the extent there are, often they're a reaction against things seemingly persistently staying well away from what would seem to be expected in a fair arrangement.
However, I'd agree with you that there *shouldn't* be a need for them, though it does seem sometimes that there may be such a need. However, where used, there should be a deal of common sense applied. There's no point having a target that can't be achieved because there just aren't enough sufficiently able people from group XXXX willing to help achieve it.

>>"One law - the best candidate on the basis of ability gets the job."

Thing is, where there's a deal of subjectivity in determining who is 'best', some people will be rather more biased in their decisions than others.
Even 'best' can mean 'best qualified at the time', 'expected to be best at doing the job in a few months', etc

<>

That is almost inevitable, given that we have a free press. At the end of the day, they can't print outright lies and there are laws when they do overstep the mark.

>>But is banging on about slavery a good idea?<<

No it's not done like that. It's all out in the open, so it can be mentioned like anything else in conversation. The point is in previous generations it was completely ignored. I certainly never learned it at school. It's by the acknowledgment of it and honesty of it that *does* allow us to all move on together now.

For goodness sakes it's not like the US where white history is as recent as black. In the UK much is made of our long and ancient history, stone age, bronze age, iron age, Romans, Vikings, Anglo Saxons etc etc. I think it is incredibly important to acknowledge our different history so we can accept the here and now and move on together in the future. By pretending we're all the same in terms of identity will just cause more conflict.

I know dam well if I was black and my history and identity was ignored and hidden in the UK, I certainly wouldn't feel very British.

---
Multiculturalism breaks down national boundaries, and seeks to protect minorities with artificial laws. There should be no need for "quotas" and "lists" or "targets".
---

Any actual examples of these? Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK apart from all-women shortlists (legal exception, I think) and the Disabilty Discrimination Act which guarantees disabled applicants an interview if they meet the essential requirements, but not prefernece in actually getting the job.

---
One education system - no Catholic, Protestant, Sikh, Muslim or Jedi schools.
---

I agree absolutely.

---
That is almost inevitable, given that we have a free press. At the end of the day, they can't print outright lies and there are laws when they do overstep the mark.
---

*cough* Daily Mail *cough*

>>"How can I respect "Blair's Babes" when they were selected because of their sex when Thatcher, Widdicombe, Williams & Mowlam achieved success through sheer bloody ability."

Personally, my respect would be based largely on what they actually *do* once elected, not how they came to *be* elected.

Presumably many who made it onto the lists had manouvred and licked backsides about as much as much as many of the new male candidates had?

The notable thing about many of the intake is they rather give the lie to the idea that politics would change magically just by having more women - politicians are still products of the political system, and if they are spineless, it doesn't really matter what sex they are.

>>"Who do I respect more - Trevor McDonald for achieving success through ability or the current young ethnic presenters who will always be tainted with the suspicion of "making up the quota"?"

Similar to my earlier answer, I'd respect them if they were good at their job, not resent them because I couldn't be *entirely* sure they hadn't been beneficiaries of some quota system.

I wonder, SWL, was there ever a Golden Age in your estimation when success depended purely on merit?

>>"That is almost inevitable, given that we have a free press. At the end of the day, they can't print outright lies and there are laws when they do overstep the mark."

Oh, your faith is so touching, SWL.

<>

Well, how does it fit that schools do not appear to be teaching pre WWII British history any more? (Please, somebody tell me the reports aren't true).

What is an immigrant child meant to think when the host country denies its own heritage or worse, accentuates the negatives? Are they being encouraged to feel British?

There are undoubtedly many, many negative and shameful parts of British history but I actually believe they are outweighed by the positives. I believe that Britain is the finest country the world has ever seen and British people have been a force for good in the world. It has always stood as a bulwark against totalitarianism and led the world into philisophical enlightenment and personal fulfillment. And I'm not alone. Millions of immigrants came here and continue to come here precisely because this country offers them more than their homeland. It never seems to be first generation immigrants that cause unrest. It's the children of immigrants who have no way of comparing life here with their parent's homeland and who have been through an education system that tells them Britain's history is shameful.

They are not taught British values because the Establishment seems to be unable to define them. They *are* taught of the achievements and glories of other countries though. Personally, I can perfectly understand 2nd & 3rd generation immigrants having little respect for Britain. We've been telling them Britain's crap all their lives.

Otto, the BBC, the Home Office and the Police are three institutions that certainly have quotas for ethnic applicants. The Police were recently caught out discriminating against whites, but only because they were outrageously blatant about it.