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

>>We've been telling them Britain's crap all their lives.<<

Who is this 'we'? Tabloids? People on message boards? (I don't think you realise how cynical and critical you sometimes come across, SWL, about things here.)

Also where do you get this information about no pre WW2 history? There's certainly loads and loads on tv.

All I can go on is the really good and improving neighbourhood relations where I live, and what an exciting and vibrant place it is to live in.

'We' as a society. Our educational establishments. The state institutions. Not the independent media.

Yes, I'm cynical & critical. I've seen two long-term governments take corruption, sleaze and lying to new heights. I've seen educational standards slide. I've seen taxes steadily rise whilst services steadily get worse. (I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate)

I honestly never thought I'd see the day when a British PM was questioned by the police. Never mind twice.

>>"The Police were recently caught out discriminating against whites..."

...and they've never discriminated in the other direction?

More generally, if someone will look at a rise in minorities in an organisation and *assume* it's the result of positive discrimination, and then decide not to respect any of the minority as a result, it seems nothing would be likely to satisfy them except a continued low participation by minorities.

That's a valid point Potholer, but when you *know* positive discrimination is encouraged there will always be suspicion. If you *knew* there was absolutely no discrimination allowed, you could be sure that the person you are looking at has achieved their position on merit.

Incidentally, positive discrimination in favour of women is illegal for everyone in Britain, *except* the politicians. One law for them ....

>>"I honestly never thought I'd see the day when a British PM was questioned by the police. Never mind twice."

How about a bit of pre-war British History?
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/maundy_gregory.html
Ever heard of Maundy Gregory - after he was convicted of selling honours, he got a pension, seemingly hush money, from 'sources close to the Conservative party'.
I suggest that even if the police at the time didn't interview the PM then, they damn well should have done.

Isn't negative discrimination (against minorities) de facto positive discrimination for whites? Ignoring for a minute whether it's official or not, obviously.

SWL, did you look at white policemen as a boy and think 'He's just there because he's in the masons. He's not really up to the job'?

Discrimination is wrong Pedro - negative, positive or no charge. I don't support any of it because this is certainly a case where two wrongs etc.

The Grauniad recently reported that white working class kids receive the least educational support. Resources are finite so when you start over-allocating to some groups, others will suffer. In years gone by, minorities probably had a case in saying they did not receive support in overcoming racist attitudes. I'm not so far insulated from the world that I'm not aware of the iniquities that were perpetuated. The answer should have been to punish the racists, to create an equitable and fair environment. That happened, but the pendulum kept swinging until we reach the stage we are at now when even the leading media cheerleader for multiculturalism notes that white kids are being left behind. On past evidence, the solution is obvious - punish the racists and provide resources for the disadvantaged. But how can you punish the racists when it is the punishers who are perpetrating racism?

So, in all likelihood it will be ignored. To acknowledge there is a problem would be to acknowledge that multiculturalism is flawed. What do you think increasing numbers of poorly-educated, disadvantaged kids are going to do? They have a perception that resources are directed to people of different coloured skins. The BNP will have a field day.

And BTW, it is not just me that says multiculturalism has failed. Trevor Phillips of the CRE says exactly the same. "Sleepwalking into segregation" is how he puts it.

Lastly, when I looked at cops when I was a kid, I automatically assumed their parents weren't married. I still do

What this says to me (and probably doesn't to you) is that society needs to be structured. Without any government interference, then society (minorities' employment in this case) is going to be less than perfect. Obviously, with govt interference, it's still less than perfect.

What I think the point is, is 'Will society be better off with government interference than without?' Given that the discrimination was so overt, and so damaging without govt interference, then *I* would say that it's a good thing that we legislate to *try* to attain the outcomes we're looking for.

There will be discrimination of some sort with or without legislation. With legislation, we've got the option of trying to get the type of outcome that we, as a society, want to have. Without it, we're just hoping that the outcome is the one we want. I think that we shouldn't trust to chance. It's more likely, IMHO, that we'll get closer to where we want through choice than through chance. So we have to, essentially, 'manage' discrimination.

I think that there is a huge difference between not being able to achieve what society is trying to achieve (because this is a hugely complex problem with untold unforeseen consequences), and not achieving it because we can't be bothered. Confusing the two doesn't really help matters.

Ah. We've been here before. Equality of outcome versus equality of access. I seem to remember that I was the only one arguing that equality of access is the only manifestly fair solution. Equality of outcome would follow naturally.

However, I recognise that I *was* the only one arguing this option. Everyone else felt it was desireable to jury-rig the access in order to achieve equality of outcome. I still disagree but I also understand why others see it differently.

All I can say is, when in the position to act on it, I always practice equality of access and it's worked for me so far

And I'm a firm believer in less government, not more.

<< Equality of outcome versus equality of access. I seem to remember that I was the only one arguing that equality of access is the only manifestly fair solution. Equality of outcome would follow naturally.>>

I don't think you can separate them. You won't get equality of outcome without 'jury-rigging' equality of access. Personally, I'd imagine that this would follow socio-economic thingies rather than race (although that would be one of those factors).

<>

And I'm not. I'll be back to discuss this later.

>>"Ah. We've been here before. Equality of outcome versus equality of access. I seem to remember that I was the only one arguing that equality of access is the only manifestly fair solution. Equality of outcome would follow naturally."

>>"However, I recognise that I *was* the only one arguing this option. Everyone else felt it was desireable to jury-rig the access in order to achieve equality of outcome. I still disagree but I also understand why others see it differently."

Which argument would that be?

Personally, I'm in favour of equality of access, and recognise that outcomes may well be a very poor way of judging that equality. For example, if few women were actually keen on applying for certain kinds of jobs, you couldn't automatically judge the employer unfair if few women ended up being employed.

Where there are suggestions that there is an unfair process happening, things might need considering through the whole process to try and work out if/where things might be wrong, but one should always be open to the conclusion that any or all steps are actually not discriminating.

It's not up to an employer to compensate for imbalances earlier in the education system.
However, if there were imbalances that resulted in people who actually had similar potential to do a job equally well presenting at interview with different qualifications, it seems reasonable for an employer to take that into consideration.
However (again), were an employer to pursue that path, maybe they should really have the evidence to support their position, rather than just have some vague social theory that group X were starting from a position of disadvantage.
If someone could say that experience had shown that people from group X actually performed as well as an average candidate with higher qualifications, there'd be some argument for considering that qualifications weren't everything. The best person for the job needn't automatically be the person with the best qualifications, though that should probably be the starting position.

Even for someone committed to equality of access, there remains the issue of how to determine that access is equal.
Presumably, in a poor neighbourhood it's allowable to spend *some* money trying to combat inequalities that might hold children back unfairly, but how much of *that* levelling-up is 'fair'?
Is it really possible to make any kind of objective judgement, and if not, what kind of subjective judgements should be blended to try and reach a vague agreement?

The argument was months ago and there's no chance of finding it again. Blicky and I were the chief protagonists, (surprise surprise).

If I'm remembering wrong, hopefully he'll set me straight, but I seem to recall that the position was that if at the end of the employment process there is an imbalance in the number of women (for example), it is necessary to introduce a bias in favour of women at the selection stage to redress the balance. My position was that if you make the selection process as equal as possible, you have given everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. What happens after that point is entirely down to the individual employee.

In other words, Blicky felt that you started at the end point and worked back, eliminating discrimination as you went whereas I felt that you create a level playing field and leave it to the individual.

>>"I don't think you can separate them. You won't get equality of outcome without 'jury-rigging' equality of access. Personally, I'd imagine that this would follow socio-economic thingies rather than race (although that would be one of those factors)."

Personally I think there's a finite amount of effort that should be spent trying to achieve equality of outcome.

With social mobility, there can come a greater social stratification based on ability - there can be an understandable tendency for those who can to escape the poorest neighbourhoods to move elsewhere, whereas a few generations ago, they tended to stay in the 'class' they were born into.

It isn't impossible for the situation to arise where the schools in the rougher/poorer areas have an intake relatively depleted in the brighter pupils. Trying to get equality of outcome there could actually be quite difficult even if one could overcome the unfair obstacles that may well be in the way of children achieving their own potential.
The more outcome is *measured*, the more it may appear there's a problem even if a school is doing a perfectly good job.

>>"If I'm remembering wrong, hopefully he'll set me straight, but I seem to recall that the position was that if at the end of the employment process there is an imbalance in the number of women (for example), it is necessary to introduce a bias in favour of women at the selection stage to redress the balance. My position was that if you make the selection process as equal as possible, you have given everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. What happens after that point is entirely down to the individual employee."

My view is if there's an imbalance, it's worth trying to find out *why*, without preconceived ideas, either of sexual discrimination *or* of female inadequacy.
For reasons including (but by no means limited to) equality, it's also worth trying to find out how well candidate selection criteria actually match up with job performance. It's possible that the wrong things are being looked for, just because things have always been done that way.

An example.

I read recently that young Asian girls are excelling in chemistry and sciences at school. You would expect a few years down the line to see a preponderance of Asian women working in pharmaceuticals and the like. Now, that brings an unbalanced outcome. But every child has an equal opportunity to study chemistry at school so it would be reasonable to assume that this just might be a natural phenomena. I certainly would not be impressed at any social engineering project that tried to falsely influence this natural outcome.

Another.

Black sportsmen are represented in professional sport in numbers that exceed the demographics. Does this mean whites are being discriminated against? Does this mean we should be promoting access to sports for white kids only? Of course not. And yet we see initiatives like the one at Queens Park FC aimed at increasing Asian participation in football and Asian-only football leagues. Why do Asians need special support when little was done for Blacks in the 70s? Asians are indeed under-represented in sport, but I doubt that it is due to lack of access.

This is an area where I believe Blicky has experience and I would be interested in his input.

I don't have any problem with positive action because to me we're all Brits. Certain ethnic groups may need a bit of extra help at present because of prejudice of the previous more traditional mono cultural attitudes, including the previous attitude that men go to work and women stay at home. But ideally once we've moved on from those attitudes and all peoples of all ethnicities and men and women will be able to compete on a level playing field so there won't be any more need for positive action. I want *all Brits* whatever their colour, ethnicity or sex etc etc to feel comfortable that their differences will be acknowledged, but not lead to any kind of unfair treatment.

Personally I still hope there are a rich variety of sub cultures within our society, which contribute difference that we can all celebrate. I hope my local market with a Carribean bias in terms of fish and vegetables sold remains that way. I love learning about cooking traditional Carribean recipes and want to buy those ingredients. And I want to be able to go into some music shops and still hear music which has an ethnic individuality. For me this is the *absolute joy of multiculturalsim*. I would hate for all Brits to be subsumed under some kind of grey monoculture. The rich mixture of our peoples is what makes this country great in my opinion.

Let's take a step back and examine multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism isn't about anti-discrimination or anti-racism per se, that's bound up in the ethos but more as a side-effect than a main thrust. Multiculturalism came about as a recognition that many people of different cultures were settling in Britain. This is actually nothing new. Look at the influx of Jews, Italians & Poles after WWII. These groups, especially the latter two, settled with little fuss and became thoroughly integrated. Of course it helped that they were virtually indistinguishable from the natives.

What has really set immigration going has been cheap air travel. This has brought huge numbers of immigrants, so much so that there has been a culture shock. The establishment, faced with a growth in areas which were becoming almost exclusively mono-cultural, reacted by giving up on hoping these people would integrate into the status quo and started promoting the new cultures. But this totally ignored why these people came here in the first place. They came here because they saw British culture as being better than their own, because they saw less persecution and more opportunity than in their homeland. Yes, they congregated at first, like every immigrant group always does and especially when faced with racism and typical British reserve. But ultimately, they wanted to be British.

You don't join the Boy Scouts if you want to be a Sea Cadet.

The Establishment reinforced these budding communities. By providing resources specific to each culture's needs, they perpetuated the ghettoes. By providing translators and multi-lingual pamphlets, there is no need for immigrants to try to assimilate. By funding culture-specific community centres and religious schools, immigrants find a ready-made facsimile of the homeland.

One group in particular reacted strongly to this cossetting and the Establishment made a move that totally flummoxed them. The first Muslims to come to Britain did so for exactly the same reasons as every other immigrant group. Fleeing religious oppression, they welcomed the secularism of Britain and rapidly flourished with the opportunities at hand. But as soon as they hit a critical mass, the Establishment made a crucial mistake. Recognising that such large groups might have specific needs, the Establishment looked for leaders to communicate with. But they went to the Mosques. They ignored the secular Muslims who were integrating and flourishing and chose to liaise with the very people Muslims had left behind them. Suddenly, to have any influence, a Muslim had to communicate via the Mosque. Many refused to do so and they now represent the majority of Muslims who have little say in issues that affect them. Instead, the self-elected "Community Leaders" dictate the relationship between British and Muslim culture.

In effect, *we* are the ones defining Muslims by their religion, not the Muslims themselves and that is grossly unfair.

If I moved to Ghana, I would be furious if I were defined as a Christian and the only way to liaise with the govt was through the church.

Multiculturalism reinforces differences amongst people who generally do not care.

Yes, this is especially the case with Muslims and mosques.

As Muslims need to be close to Mosques to pray the need to live near them.

Planning permissions for Mosques, for whatever reasons, have not allowed mosques to be built in 'non-Muslim' areas therefore the Muslims remain close to the Mosques that are built near them. They do not move away to non-Muslim areas because there are no Mosques...councils will not allow Mosques to be built in areas where there are no/very few Muslims as there would not be the patronage...and the circle starts again!

Knowing someone who lives in Leicester in council/PCT work I have come to realise that there is some truth in this.

However, I wouldn't want Mosques to be built near me...I don't like church bells annoying the peace so I certainly don't want the call to prayer annoying the peace either.

Now a Sikh temple...that would be different...a great place for free food.

Though a few of the, cliched-but-factual Asian corner shops around me would be good. It's a pain trying to find good Asian ingredients around where I have moved to...I was spoilt living in Bradford, Coventry and Leicestershire.

>>"These groups, especially the latter two, settled with little fuss and became thoroughly integrated. Of course it helped that they were virtually indistinguishable from the natives."

As in "it helped that they were white"?

>>"What has really set immigration going has been cheap air travel. This has brought huge numbers of immigrants, so much so that there has been a culture shock."

Were the people moving in to northern mill towns in the 60s the result of cheap air travel?

>>"By funding culture-specific community centres and religious schools, immigrants find a ready-made facsimile of the homeland."

How many state-funded culture-specific religious schools are there?

>>"The first Muslims to come to Britain did so for exactly the same reasons as every other immigrant group. Fleeing religious oppression, they welcomed the secularism of Britain and rapidly flourished with the opportunities at hand."

Funny, I thought they basically came for economic advantage, to work as cheap labour in factories and mills, etc.

>>"But as soon as they hit a critical mass, the Establishment made a crucial mistake. Recognising that such large groups might have specific needs, the Establishment looked for leaders to communicate with. But they went to the Mosques. They ignored the secular Muslims who were integrating and flourishing and chose to liaise with the very people Muslims had left behind them."

Odd. I thought that the primary interface at the local level in towns like the one I grew up in would be with ethnic community leaders, (businessmen, councillors, etc). Whether or not they were really representative (let's not mention postal voting), they were the most obvious point of communication, not least because they were likely to be relatively educated and English-speaking.

At the national level, I only recall *hearing about* TPTB paying attention to people in mosques after 9/11. Wasn't the idea supposed to be that there *wasn't* much communication before that?
Who actually paid any attention to the self-styled Muslim Parliament? What did that body really do apart from just talk?

Afternoon all,

Some pretty heavy stuff going on here!

Harking back to previous threads , and then addressing this current one, INHO there should never have been the 'multicultural' push from Govt.

If we are going to enjoy a peaceful and ordered society ( ecluding criminality of course) then it has to be, as I think Fanny alluded, ONE Culture, and that is British.

OK you can be any colour, any faith, any origin, but esssentially we need to be British first, with our own culture second, thoug as important as our difering opinions are.

I have remarked before when pleading for integration, that the best success was achieved by mixed marriages ( or partnerships ). I am certain this is still the case today.

All the discussion about 'multicultural' Britain simply moves the day further away when everyone here will call themselves Brits.

Novo