Monday, September 05, 2005

Multiculturalism.

Sadly, in recent years, any sort of critique of multicultralism has been the domain of BNP idiots and the right wing of the Tory party. In other words a cover for a thinly veiled racism. In much the same way as the modern fascists use attacks on 'Islam' as a way to legally abuse Asians in general.

I must say right from the off, that I have a number of issues with Islam, (could I be inviting a fatwa here??) almost as many as I have with Christianity! But I shall address these at some other time, lest this become an over religious blog.

However, having said all that, I do feel that the kind of multicultural approach which was in vogue in the English education system over the last 20 years or so does seem to have backfired some what in the light of recent events. The strategy seems to have been to bring people together by increasing their understanding of each other by celebrating particular aspects of their cultures. Thus reducing fear and separation by breaking down barriers to understanding and tolerance.

It all sound very laudable, but there seems to have been a problem, for many people it seems that these 'celebrations' have simply amplified differences between us. Many of them are based on religious festivals and it has to be faced that most 'ordinary' people in the UK are turned off by religion at the best of times. I myself have heard parents muttering about celebrating eid in schools and nurseries whilst Christmas nativity scenes are being taken down in charity shops, so as not to offend other faiths. These people might just be dangerous racists, or perhaps they actually have a point. What really binds people in out inner cities together? Faith, festivals? Well I for one think it is poverty and lack of opportunity and hope.

Perhaps our multicultural approach should have focused more clearly on what people have in common. People in (mainly white) Gipton have far more in common with people in (mainly black) Chapletown and (mainly Asian) Harehills than they do with people in large parts of Wetherby and Boston Spa. The trouble with this approach is that it will lead to questions being asked about the nature of our society as a whole. Marx's solutions may have been proved to be simplistic and in some cases just plain wrong, but his analysis of the world we in the west live in remains as cogent today as ever it was.

The vested interests in our country and indeed in the world will not come up with solutions to problems which involve them losing any power or priviledge. This isn't dangerous lefty talk its common sense. No one ever sees themselves as the problem, or that getting rid of themselves might be solution.

The question I now ask myself, when watch inner cities tearing themselves apart or sad fundimentalists justifying their murder or bleeding heart politicians crying crocodile tears over flood victims, is how can this be changed? Is it just that I am older and less inclined to direct action. How many more summers will I waste my time praying in vain for a saviour to rise from these streets? (thanks Bruce)

4 comments:

Paul Richardson said...

Cheers Sam,
As ever you make a good point. I think one of the things I will get from this blog is the benefit of my friends (and hopefully others too) take on these issues. It is all too easy to trapped in a mind set. Seeing Nelson Mandela released was one of the most movingly human experiences I have had. Separated by thousands of miles but we were all there outside that prison with him in spirit - Amandla!!

Paul Richardson said...

OK DUDES
CALM DOWN!!
Tstarnge thing isthat we are notthat far apart in what we are trying to say. Sam, Science is a discipline it is something which humans do, so its not capable of 'producing' anything as such. eg science didnt create the universe. I, like you and Phil for that matter would probably agree that science best describes the processes which brought about the universe etc. However all f us rightly point out that no religious group has a monopoly on the truth. because they are human creations. The same must also go for science. Charles Darwins most fierce critics were other scientists. Just like the irony of religion causing most wars. But it is not the religions that cause the wars its the humans. The posibility of atomic fission was first flagged up by Einstien. Yet we cant blame him for Hiroshima. Phil youareright this is great stuff and Ilove it!!

Ps Sam it was your questions and arguments back in the 'old days' which first challenged my own athiest views.I do hve a type of faith now and I'm sure you ould gree that I'm not sad and diluded. We need to discuss all this further in future posts etc

Anonymous said...

Felly here. Interesting stuff guys. I like Sam's point about science being based on observable 'fact', whilst religion relies on faith- belief without evidence being required. As a scientist myself I often find myself smiling wryly when people say stuff like '... but there must be a god to make it all happen like this'. I don't agree at all! Lets face it, if the universe were significantly different to how it is, we wouldn't be here to know about it. But this does not mean that a creator is necessary, at least as far as I'm concerned. Another thing about the Christian God that I was brought up with is the idea of Him (sexist!) being omniscient, omnipotent and caring. There's a massive logical inconsistency here. If he knows that bad stuff is happening, then a caring God would need to stop it from happening- but still New Orleans happens. So either God doesn't know about it, or he doesn't care about it, or he can't do anything about it. He can't have it every way here! Having said that,Phil, I had my daughter Christened and might evn be tempted to see if young Alex can enter a church without his head spinning and projectile vomiting occurring- talk about hedging your bets eh? But then, for me, the teachings of Jesus are important and worth obeying. Love one another as you love yourself, seems to me to be the essence of what makes for a fair, society with the right kind of values. I'm sure that there are equally good codes to be found in the Holy books of all proper religions. I teach in a C of E school and I have no doubt at all that the Christian ethos plays a part in helping us have, in my opinion, the best set of kids of any school in the city. We do have kids from other faiths and pretty much everyone seems to get on really well with everyone else and I have never come across examples of the kind of overtly racist comment that you hear daily in other places. One final point on this issue from me,; I really envy people who have faith- what must it be like to know that there is an afterlife? Beats contemplating your atoms ending up spread to the four corners of the Earth and beyond.....

Paul Richardson said...

Baz a real beauty of a post.
I cant really disagree with much of what you say at all. I would simply add this.

During my (as Sam has described them)Wilderness years, basically the two years in which I was recovering from a bout of severe depression, I did meet alot of wonderful, liberally minded Christians who far from taking the literal interpretation of the Bible, tried to make its message relevant to todays world. Now I disagreed with alot, perhaps most of what thy said, bur they were not people bent on controlling anyone or trying to take advantage of what was at that time a bit of a sad case(me).

Christianity was a religion (we need to dicuss what this means in future I think) before the collection of books we call the bible was collected. It spead to Rome and had suffered the persecution of its followers for nearly 100years before they started killing each other over what books should be included and what sheould be left out! And of course the real disaster for those who followed the man from Galilee was when the Romans adopted the religion and it became assosiated with power.

From this point your excellent analysis af all religiouns hold true for me.

But we must I feel accept that in those first years just after JofN's death his followers werenot motivated by greed of politics, biut by something altogether closer to their hearts.

The trouble for Christaians now, is that when they try to talk about the message of thier hero they first have to disassociate thenselves from all the history odf crusades, burnings, theft etc not least the likes ogf george Bush and the tv evangelists across the pond.

speak to you soon Baz great to have you on board!!