|
Post by jonjel on Apr 6, 2011 10:28:36 GMT 1
I posed this thought on another board.
We are allegedly living in a multi cultural society where all races creeds and colours meld into one.
So, why do we have an Asian Network on the BBC? Surely that is actually divisive as it is promoting a divided Britain.
If we are all assumed to be British one would assume that we all adopt the customs and behavior of Britain, and speak the local language.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 6, 2011 12:09:28 GMT 1
I have wondered that myself, jonjel.
Seems a bit racist to me, along with the Association of Black Police Officers. How ever has THAT travesty been permitted? We'll be finding the Association of Gay NHS Managers next is STA and Stonewall have their way!
As numbers increase I guess there will be a Muslim Political Party, too. Very invidious, this unintended consequence of mass immigration.
Should political parties of religious and/or ethnic affiliation be constitutionally banned, do you think, to save trouble in the future? It will just lead to a multiplicity of divergent parliamentary "interest groups" which is not democratic in my view.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Apr 6, 2011 17:00:12 GMT 1
Already exists! www.stonewall.org.uk/at_work/stonewall_nhs_leadership_programme_2011/default.aspMulticulturalism doesn't mean mono-culturalism, and frankly I can't see the harm of having provision of radio stations based on various population groupings and interest areas. We already have different radio stations for people that prefer different types of music, so what is the problem with an Asian network? There isn't one, of course, just that SOME people want to pretend there is, so they can adopt the simplistic approach of be like us or get out! Black police officers -- well, given the under-representation of various ethnic groups within the police force, and recent evidence of institutional racism, no surprise if black police officers (or any other group with specific issues, such as women, or gays) wants to take the opportunity to form some association for that specific group. So, we also have a christian police association, a muslim one, a gay one, womens one, disabled one etc. It is just employees exercising their democratic right to form an association if they so wish. We have the Islamic Party of Britain, and we have the British National Party and the English Defence League. Start banning specific political parties, or specific groupings, and you make a travesty of democracy, andn it becomes -- free to think and do as you will, and associate with who you will, as ong as we approve. And we know what result that has in other countries, when specific groups don't just feel they are excluded from the democratic process, but are actively barred. A multiplicity of interest groups just reflects how people are -- we don't all agree with you and your values Marchesarosa, and that is the sign of a healthy democracy, rather than a democracy at risk as you seem to think.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 6, 2011 18:31:55 GMT 1
You have no idea what my values are STA, of that I am sure.
"what is the problem with an Asian network?” you ask.
It promotes solidarity on an ethnic basis rather than on a societal basis - but then so does the whole policy of multi-culturalism! Eventually some will be demanding secession like Pakistan did from India in 1947, the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century.
Sharing a taste in music is not like ethnicity.
Some people just haven’t the brain to see problems coming down the road and are incapable of learning from history.
Do you think the “democracy” of Iraq is anything to write home about with Kurds voting for Kurds, Sunnis for sunnis and Shia for Shia? Like RC voting for RC and Protestants for Prots in Northern Ireland? Do you also approve of separate faith schools financed at public expense?
These differences should be downplayed rather than exalted, in the interests of ALL and in terms of national unity. Sectional interests are divisive. Your mindset takes us back to the internecine strife of tribal society, STA. But you already show signs of your rigid partisanship on umpteen levels. Me me me, about sums it up!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Apr 6, 2011 19:07:25 GMT 1
No, but I'm still (almost) 100% sure that not everyone agrees with them! That was the point I was making, rather than casting nasturiums............
Except society naturally seems to be organised in terms of various groups and sub-groups, based on various differences. What area you live in, what football team you support, what political party etc.
What has history to teach us about Asian radio networks? True, if a group which wants to define itself as a group feels excluded by the rest of society, than that surely is the problem. Not allowing of acknowledging different cultures and different backgrounds that people themselves feel is important is, I feel, MORE likely to alienate poeople from the rest of society. So, not having an asian network says to people who will insist on identifying themselves as asian that they don't MATTER, that we don't want to have anything to do with their culture, and demand that we accept ours (whatever that is). Hardly a way to go about fostering unity!
No, because we know from experience they foster division. I'm not convinced that an asian radio station will do the same.
Except whoever gets to make the decision as to what are DIFFERENCES and what the norm is is just going to be seen as other and the oppressor by those who feel their own particular experience or culture is being repressed. That is the route towards disaster, sure as sure. A delicate balancing act, certainly, between differences within a single national identity, or different cultures with no sense of unity. but you're not going to get any unity by trying to pretend that everyone is the same.
Your approach, I'm afraid, sounds more like totalitarianism, rather than democracy. Surely, if we really believe in democracy, then part of that is my right to have a different culture, different religion to you if I so wish. We aren't all the same, basic fact of like, society seems to naturally organise itself into different groupings. We just have to work out how to deal with that, rather than trying to eliminate it, within our COMMON democracy, that should be enough of a unifying element, IF people really believe in it! I'm not that convinced that you really do, not in the broadest sense.
Why? Because I happen to refer to my own personal experience in terms of gays? What else do you think you are doing? You take umbrage at a suggestion that I might know your values, yet you seem to think it is okay to assume you know mine.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 7, 2011 1:29:50 GMT 1
People can promote their own interests for themselves. The state broadcaster has no job doing it for them. That is what is "totalitarian" - State PC IS totalitarian! And there are plenty of state employees doing ideological work as its cadres. You are one of them yet you think you are "free". That's only because you are riding on the coat tails of the state. Submission to PC-dom is ever more like that other "submission" you cannot bring yourself to condemn. You are clearly an authoritarian at heart.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Apr 7, 2011 1:47:37 GMT 1
You have a very odd definition of totalitarianism!
ditto authoritarian. I wasn't the one trying to regulate how people choose to associate, or what they listen to, or how they choose to express whatever culture they feel is theirs.
The BEEB is doing what it is supposed to do -- reflecting the population in all its variety, ina way that that population wants.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 7, 2011 2:18:51 GMT 1
The State's recent promotion of the population's "variety" is what will shatter the nation into bits if we are not careful.
There are more essential social values than "diversity". One never hears YOU praising "social cohesion", for example, only the fissiparous influences of narrow sectional interests which happen to coincide with your own - surprise, surprise!
Certain resurgent "minorities" have grabbed the levers of power of the BBC, the state's broadcasting outlet. This will be the end of the BBC. Can't you already see it coming?
|
|