Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 04:40 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 02:45 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Today at 12:50 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 04:17 AM

What's happened to the fo...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:39 PM

New Britain
Yesterday at 05:41 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 05:47 AM

Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM

عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM

Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM

Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM

Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford

 (Read 12606 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     OP - April 25, 2011, 11:25 AM

    http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/category/events/upcoming-events/

    Maryam Namazie will be proposing the motion that multiculturalism has been a failure at Oxford union.

    ---

    Glad to read Namazie is speaking out about how multiculturalism has been a failure and what it has led to with respect to Sharia Law.
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #1 - April 25, 2011, 02:16 PM

    Interesting. Afro  I hope the event gets filmed and videos get uploaded.  I support Maryam on this issue.

    "Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so." -- Bertrand Russell

    Baloney Detection Kit
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #2 - April 25, 2011, 02:42 PM

    Why is your avator a thuggish version of mine? I thought we are supposed to think a like? Tongue Grin
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #3 - April 25, 2011, 03:51 PM

    I would be really interested to see what she has to say, will it be recorded / uploaded to YouTube?

    It will be nice to see people who have been born into the Islamic faith bring up a perspective against multiculturalism. Because, let's face it, the issue of multiculturalism comes down to Islam almost exclusively... I don't think it would be much of a debate otherwise.

    The correct word of what I and I think most people support, is actually "multiracialism". And I think assimilation works better than multiculturalism; when in Rome do as the Romans do. Learn the language, adopt the customs, absorb the values... You can't force that onto people, but you can promote it through things such as civic patriotism (and I think patriotism works wonders in promoting a common shared identity, and it may even be necessary when you have a city that is as globalised and diverse as London).

    I'm not sure how we messed up and confused culture with race. Culture is simply shared values or beliefs, values or beliefs are not all inherently equal... All values, all beliefs, all cultures should be up for debate and criticism... I think what is most regrettable is that multiculturalism almost absolves any coherent debate on right or wrong... You can't try to create a playing field where all cultures and all values are absolutely equal... it's just an insane idea.

    "The relativism of multiculturalists affect their ethics and morals, to the extent that they are no longer capable of distinguishing between good and evil, right and wrong. Everything ends up in a grey area, where all values are equal, even those values that are totalitarian or barbaric."

    "If we have to have an incoherent, self-loathing 'peace' movement, then women showing off their hooters in support of a culture that would stone them to death for showing off their ankles is about as good as it's gonna get."

    All humans are equal, all values are not. Whilst values and cultures are never static, at this point in time, Western values are superior in my books... and this is where I think Western society should be less apologetic, and instead be more proud of the fact that it has the most liberal, progressive, free, secular and democratic societies and values in the world... Wink

    Bill Maher explains why he believes Western values are better:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhvhNZC51gY&feature=player_embedded
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #4 - April 25, 2011, 03:57 PM

    "I think Western civilisation is more civilised, precisely because we have learned to ignore out religious leaders."
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #5 - April 25, 2011, 06:26 PM

    It's not just a Western thing.

    Religion is almost totally irrelevant to daily life in Japan (though people still respect the culture that surrounds their religions).
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #6 - April 25, 2011, 08:58 PM

    Because, let's face it, the issue of multiculturalism comes down to Islam almost exclusively... I don't think it would be much of a debate otherwise.


    This is kind of true. If Islam didn't exist as a religion then no one would care about multiculturalism in the UK as much. But this is the thing about Islam: no major mainstream religion makes demands like it like any other politically, socially or economically. It hides itself under the banner and mix of being a religion. All the more which makes it a deadly mind virus! Compare it to the demands of Hinduism or Sikhism ... Islam by far is the most power hungry idealism that thrives through fear and hatred (in my opinion).


    Unechance: Thanks for the vid, v funny! I love the line, "Don't get so tolerant you tolerate intolerance".  Afro



    David: That's an interesting point about Japan. You live in Japan? Awesome!
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #7 - April 25, 2011, 09:33 PM

    Religion is almost totally irrelevant to daily life in Japan ...

    Yeah, except Hello Kitty.
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #8 - April 25, 2011, 09:57 PM

    s
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #9 - April 26, 2011, 02:55 AM

    It's not just a Western thing.

    Religion is almost totally irrelevant to daily life in Japan (though people still respect the culture that surrounds their religions).


    Well, I classify Japan as a Western nation in its values, not merely the food it eats or whatever. Liberal democracy, secularism, individual liberties, human rights, gender equality, lack of religiousity, significance of science, technology and academia, critical thinking and whatever else.

    Conversely, some Eastern nations, for example, Japan, India, Israel, Taiwan, South Africa and South Korea, could be considered politically Western, due to their adoption of indigenous liberal democratic political institutions similar in structure to those of the traditionally Western nations. Japan and South Korea, in particular, are the only Asian members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the two leading full democracies in Asia, having a high standard of living and a high level of human development. All of these are amongst the generally accepted political or economic characteristics of Western nations
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #10 - April 26, 2011, 07:14 AM

    Those nations also have a lot to teach the West about social cohesion, humility, patience, attention to detail and respect for, but not blind adherence to, tradition.

    Not to mention refraining from acting like the world's policeman.


    And yes, Kenan, a Kitty cult would be a splendid thing. But a Manzanilla sherry cult would be better.
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #11 - April 26, 2011, 08:22 AM

    We can't actually join for this talk, can we? It seems to be one of those closed things. I couldn't even go when she was here at Cambridge because it was also for a Union and you need to be a 'member' of the Union (a.k.a. pay over a 100 euros for one year).  mysmilie_977
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #12 - April 26, 2011, 10:26 AM

    Universalist, not western.

    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #13 - April 26, 2011, 10:29 AM

    Wow! Well SuzanneB, perhaps what you can do it ask Maryam personally about the work you are doing and she'll be able to pull strings to get you in (if it will help with your research - I think it would). If you need an introduction to Maryam feel free to contact one of us and we can get you introduced!
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #14 - April 26, 2011, 10:31 AM

    Universalist, not western.


    Universalism in developed values that naturally converge to a set of ideals that are consequentially beneficial to humanity .... and it just happened to have originated prominently from the West in modern times ... or at least that's my take.
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #15 - April 26, 2011, 10:38 AM

    It's one of those rare occasions for which forking out for a Cambridge Union sub might be useful*, Suzanne - reciprocal membership rules and all that. If I'd bothered paying out for a life membership as a callow youth, I'd have been able to make it to her last appearance, but hey ho.

    *'useful' here meaning that one is thus able to buy tickets - any further usefulness is possibly debatable!
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #16 - April 26, 2011, 10:42 AM

    Universalist, not western.

    ^this

    'Western' values are not Western in any essential sense - they are truly universal.
    Concepts such as democracy, universal values, scientific method based on ideas of reason, humanism and progress are palpably better concepts than those that existed previously, or those that exist now in other political or cultural traditions.
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #17 - April 26, 2011, 11:03 AM


    Quote
    ^this


    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #18 - April 26, 2011, 11:30 AM


    Unechance: Thanks for the vid, v funny! I love the line, "Don't get so tolerant you tolerate intolerance".  Afro



    No one should tolerate intolerance - if someone has nasty views we should challenge them, indeed we have a responsibility to do so. The worst views are ones that incite racial hatred or those that are grossly insensitive (eg. "What are [soldier's] dying for, 18k?") - but we have laws against these sorts of things (atleast in England).

    Ofcourse there are a number of problems with the way it is implemented in the West, but multiculturalism unquestionably enriches society.  It's a terrible idea for a state to repress people's culture and identity; infact there's a word for this - it's called 'fascism'...

    BTW If anyone wants to go to Maryam's lecture, let me know - I can take up to 3 guests with me Smiley
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #19 - April 26, 2011, 12:29 PM

    Those nations also have a lot to teach the West about social cohesion, humility, patience, attention to detail and respect for, but not blind adherence to, tradition.



    Hold up.

    Comparing Europe and Japan on "social cohesion" or "humility" is apples and oranges.

    Considering the fact that over 98% of Japanese people are ethnically Japanese, it doesn't surprise me that you don't hear about "social friction" in Japan, so it would be wrong to compare the two on issues like "social cohesion" when Europe is much more diverse both racially and religiously, and social friction is an unfortunate part of living in a diverse society.

    All societies have their issues, and actually, race is a huge issue in Japan, and racism is quite prevalent there. Perhaps, in part, due to their strict immigration and almost homogeneous racial makeup that makes it quite common for there to be insecurities about "outsiders". I spoke to a person who went on a student exchange there, he loves Japan (still does) and he learned the language there, but he said being the only blond-haired person meant he got some pretty evil stares.

    Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_issues_in_Japan

    Quote
    A handful of apartments, motels, night clubs, brothels, sex parlours and public baths in Japan have put up signs stating that foreigners are not allowed, or that they must be accompanied by a Japanese person to enter. However, these signs are very rare and many Japanese claim that the prohibitions are due to perceived social incompatibility—for example, foreigners may not understand proper bathhouse etiquette—and not racism

    In housing there is also discrimination based on ethnicity. In a 2006 survey by the Information Center for Foreigners in Japan, 94% of foreign residents reported being refused by at least one real estate agent.

    In fact, there were a substantial number of lawsuits regarding discrimination against foreigners. For example, in 2005, a Korean woman who attempted to rent a room was refused because she was not a Japanese citizen. She filed a discrimination lawsuit, and she won in Japanese court

    In 2005, a United Nations special rapporteur on racism and xenophobia expressed concerns about "deep and profound" racism in Japan and insufficient government recognition of the problem.

    Doudou Diène (Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights) concluded after an investigation and nine-day tour of Japan that racial discrimination and xenophobia in Japan primarily affects three groups: national minorities, descendants of former Japanese colonies and foreigners from other Asian countries.


    So, whilst I think Japan is a Western nation in its ideas and values, to pretend that it somehow does not have the same problems that Europe has is a far-stretch. In fact, I would say that Europe has done more than Japan to tackle the issue of assimilating millions of people from across the world into their societies. Wink

    Whilst we should acknowledge that there is social friction in European countries, European countries are also some of the most diverse both racially, religiously and otherwise so you would be foolish not to expect a degree of friction, and I would argue that if Tokyo had the same diversity as London or Paris, with hundreds of thousands of people from Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Australia... with different religions, different values and whatnot, you would have the exact same issues in Tokyo as we have in London.

    Billy, I've used "Western values" because secularism, democracy and free speech were the fruits of the enlightenment in Europe... Universalism works too, however.
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #20 - April 26, 2011, 12:55 PM

    Hold up.

    Comparing Europe and Japan on "social cohesion" or "humility" is apples and oranges.

    Considering the fact that over 98% of Japanese people are ethnically Japanese, it doesn't surprise me that you don't hear about "social friction" in Japan, so it would be wrong to compare the two on issues like "social cohesion" when Europe is much more diverse both racially and religiously, and social friction is an unfortunate part of living in a diverse society.

    You like Japan? Japan doesn't like you:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88fvKD6qJCY


  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #21 - April 26, 2011, 12:57 PM

    ... but multiculturalism unquestionably enriches society.


    I think it depends on what is meant by "culture".

    If we are discussing core values, then I don't think modern values are up for negotiation (e.g. if women like to dress attractively).

    If we are discussing differences in implementations of the core values (e.g. a mini-skirt or a fairly revealing sari) which both derive from a core value (i.e. women should be free to express their beauty), then indeed that's all fine and dandy.
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #22 - April 26, 2011, 01:00 PM

    You like Japan? Japan doesn't like you:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88fvKD6qJCY




    Whoa!
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #23 - April 26, 2011, 01:14 PM

    Billy, I've used "Western values" because secularism, democracy and free speech were the fruits of the enlightenment in Europe... Universalism works too, however.


    It more than works, it is the essence of the matter.


    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #24 - April 26, 2011, 01:20 PM

    Ofcourse there are a number of problems with the way it is implemented in the West, but multiculturalism unquestionably enriches society.  


    Liberal, secular democracy enriches society, creating the conditions in which cosmopolitanism can flourish.

    'Multiculturalism' is an ideology of stratification and identity politics.

    Maybe people should use the word 'cosmopolitanism' rather than 'multiculturalism', and think about how the conditions for cosmopolitanism can be striven for and upheld in that context.


    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #25 - April 26, 2011, 05:46 PM

    I think it depends on what is meant by "culture".

    If we are discussing core values, then I don't think modern values are up for negotiation (e.g. if women like to dress attractively).

    If we are discussing differences in implementations of the core values (e.g. a mini-skirt or a fairly revealing sari) which both derive from a core value (i.e. women should be free to express their beauty), then indeed that's all fine and dandy.


    Well, I don't disagree with you at all, but do you think women should have the right to wear the Hijab or the Niqaab if they want to? 
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #26 - April 26, 2011, 05:56 PM

    Liberal, secular democracy enriches society, creating the conditions in which cosmopolitanism can flourish.

    'Multiculturalism' is an ideology of stratification and identity politics.

    Maybe people should use the word 'cosmopolitanism' rather than 'multiculturalism', and think about how the conditions for cosmopolitanism can be striven for and upheld in that context.



    I had to look up the idea of cosmopolitanism - good point..

  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #27 - April 26, 2011, 06:38 PM

    Well, I don't disagree with you at all, but do you think women should have the right to wear the Hijab or the Niqaab if they want to?

    The question is not directed at me but I hope you don't mind if I share my perspective on this issue (mostly copied from this thread: BBC News: Women in face veils detained as France Enforces Ban).

    Wearing or not wearing the Hijab or the Niqaab should be a personal choice of the to-be wearer. It should be a free choice - but the complication is that it is not. This “choice” is in fact an illusion. The circumstances these girls will be in (as a result of indoctrination they received during the upbringing) at the time when they will make the choice is going to make this choice unfree.

    Have you ever heard of 'Rumschpringe'?
    Some Amish adolescents are encouraged to explore the world outside Amish community and are thus formally given a "free" choice of leaving the community if they so desire.
    Problem is that the conditions they will be in as a result of indoctrination they received during the upbringing  is going to make this choice unfree.

    Because the only way for them to really understand the outside culture would be to extract them from the Amish community and Americanise them.

    Therefore only somebody who is not essentially defined by her/his culture and has been presented with alternatives can then make a free choice amongst the alternatives. Because such an individual would experience her/his cultural background as contingent and non-essentialist.
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #28 - April 26, 2011, 10:22 PM

    Hi Kenan

    Forget about the hijaab for a sec - why do you and I wear clothes at all; covering ourselves with bits of fabric is a very unnatural thing to do if you think about it, no? Ofcourse we wear clothes because we've been 'indoctrinated' with seemingly arbitrary social norms.  We are moulded by our upbringing so ofcourse you'd expect it to influence our actions later in life.
     
    The key difference between the Amish community and Western Muslims is that in the former case, the community lead segregated lives and as such, develop an extreme in-group mentality - this is a sociological/psychological explanation for the phenomenon you describe.

    On the other hand, sure, Muslims are by definition indoctrinated, but they are exposed to an alternative world view on a daily basis, through school, university, work etc.    
  • Re: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford
     Reply #29 - April 26, 2011, 11:06 PM

    Well, I don't disagree with you at all, but do you think women should have the right to wear the Hijab or the Niqaab if they want to? 



    Depends what lead them to wear it and what the reason for the want.

    If they want to wear it out of fear of their husbands, then it's not really a want.
    If they want to wear it because of their faith (which they've been indoctrinated to believe in their through fear or by deception of a life hereafter) - then I don't agree with it.

    But well, there is also the  aspect of the impact a hijjabs has over a niqaab, with the niqaab being more divisive, unwelcoming, lowers their confidence, it is unnatural for communication, makes a woman feel less and is going against the reason why she have evolved to have beauty in the first place.

    So I think there is a lot more to it than just, "if a woman wants to".
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »