Quote:
Originally Posted by bandwagon
No. Acceptance of laws is only a small part of integration into a culture. It is values and attitudes that set cultures apart. Without the adoption of values and attitudes of the host they prevent themselves from taking on citizenship of the host nation as the dominant part of their identity; it encourages a separate identity, isolation, social exclusion, which predisposes to discrimination, racism and reaction, which further exacerbates the problem.
If you take values and attitudes away from a culture what have you got left? Some traditions and clothing accessories. If that is multiculturalism I can live with it.
There is enough variation in our culture to allow people to have vastly different habits and tastes without it being divisive. What we want from immigrants is a sense of shared citizenship and I can’t see that happening without them relinquishing the essence of their cultural identity.
|
With all due respect, what you are asking for is for your immigrants to deny every aspect of their culture and adopt all of yours, which is a bit of an indicator as to why the UK is having the problems it does.
Values and attitudes can be and are diverse within a single culture let alone a multicultural one. Differing aspects of belief in marriage, religious beliefs, alcohol consumption, political allegiance, et cetera et cetera can all be accomodated within a monoculture, so why not within bi or multicultural one?
The only neccesary requirements are respect for the laws of the land, acquiring those skills such as language neccessary to make your way in your adopted society, and accepting the responsibilities of your adopted country.
I guess I have to ask why you think 'habits and tastes' differ from 'values and attitudes'. What's the difference?
I understand the anxt current in Britain with some new cultures having not assimilated into British society and the pressures this generates, but coming from a true multicultural society I know that it can be achieved. The advantage we have over you is an extra hundred years.
Here's an example of what your ancestors came up with 166 years ago to deal with bi-culturalism.
Quote:
HER MAJESTY VICTORIA Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland regarding with Her Royal Favour the Native Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and anxious to protect their just Rights and Property and to secure to them the enjoyment of Peace and Good Order has deemed it necessary in consequence of the great number of Her Majesty's Subjects who have already settled in New Zealand and the rapid extension of Emigration both from Europe and Australia which is still in progress to constitute and appoint a functionary properly authorised to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands - Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government with a view to avert the evil consequences which must result from the absence of the necessary Laws and Institutions alike to the native population and to Her subjects has been graciously pleased to empower and to authorise me William Hobson a Captain in Her Majesty's Royal Navy Consul and Lieutenant-Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may be or hereafter shall be ceded to her Majesty to invite the confederated and independent Chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following Articles and Conditions.
Article the First
The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole sovereigns thereof.
Article the Second
Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.
Article the Third
In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.
(signed)
William Hobson,
Consul and Lieutenant-Governor.
Now therefore We the Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand being assembled in Congress at Victoria in Waitangi and We the Separate and Independent Chiefs of New Zealand claiming authority over the Tribes and Territories which are specified after our respective names, having been made fully to understand the Provisions of the foregoing Treaty, accept and enter into the same in the full spirit and meaning thereof in witness of which we have attached our signatures or marks at the places and the dates respectively specified.Done at Waitangi this Sixth day of February in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty.
|
Now I'm not pretending this is easy. So far it's taken all of those years to bring about what we now have, and it's an ongoing process and far from perfect. What it has enabled us to do however is to have migrants from all over the world, from every religion and race, without the major problems you are experiencing in the UK.
If your ancestors can come up with the idea, and we can implement it, why can't you? Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander?