The icons of multiculturalism continue to shatter. Here's BBC Radio Four commissioning a documentary on the cricketing loyalties of British-born Pakistanis. Well, well. Maybe the old racist had a point after all.
Not so long ago raising the issue in polite society was the equivalent of wandering about in jackboots or talking about blood and honour. Now it's hastily being put back on the mainstream shelf. Similarly Enoch Powell was persona non cheesegrater in the 1970s Conservative Party for fearing 'rivers of blood'. Trevor Phillips warns of 'the fire next time' and everyone says what a sensible chap he is. (Except someone who correctly points out the hypocrisy of saying "the real crisis is our failure to adjust to change in our society" - i.e. it's up to the natives to change, not the incomers, then follows it with "of eastern Europeans bringing pre-1960s attitudes from countries pervaded by deep racism" - i.e. it's up to the incomers to change, not the natives. Some incomers seem to be more equal than others.)
On now - you can hear it here for a week. Despite the obligatory liberal genuflections (let's have anti-English Guardiansta Mike Marquesee for some impartial comment, shall we ?) there's some interesting stuff there.
And some depressing stuff. The young people who say 'we're Pakistani and we'll always be Pakistani' seem to take the Duke of Wellington's wiew of nationality. I can't find it in my heart to blame those who consider any English defeat as 'revenge for colonialism', though. That's what they've been taught in school and college, by white teachers and lecturers. But we'll only have true integration when young British Asians who read of the 57 Mutiny, or Clive at Plassey, can think of the British troops as "us". Way to go. Not getting there will have - and has already had - consequences.
UPDATE - the R4 "listen again" link gives you ageing liberal Charles Wheeler examining looted art. Ho hum.
Well, Of Course We Will, Emma…
21 hours ago
8 comments:
Well the fact is they are pakistani, which isn't a criticism, its just the reality.
When the Anglo-Saxons invaded Brython they didn't suddenly become 'Celts'.
They are still the English 1500 years later. Although I doubt they last much longer.
And the scale of immigration was nothing compared to now.
Wellingtons view is not 'a' view it is the truth like it or not.
The only real way for a country of two or more peoples to become one is through large scale intermarriage but because of the large cultural differences of the communities now in Britain such as non-Muslims not even able to see veiled womens faces thats not going to happen as much as before.
Oh and those 'forward thinking' inter-married couples need to have children as you have pointed out before.
But we'll only have true integration when young British Asians who read of the 57 Mutiny, or Clive at Plassey, can think of the British troops as "us".
No...because the British fought with loyal Indian regiments alongside there anyway..............but history teaching is crap in British schools..............
Just read the crappy article by Jo Johnson in Saturday's FT on General Nicholson and how he dealt with the Mutineers which apparently will be celebrated in India next year.............so no doubt the BBC will be churning out more anti-British programming ready for 2007
The only real way for a country of two or more peoples to become one is through large scale intermarriage but because of the large cultural differences of the communities now in Britain
Not so with Indians and there is a long tradition of inter-marriage even if the Indians call them derogatory names
voyager - that is because the British, by and large, are beguiled by Indians. It's been a 350 year love affair.
Honestly, you'd think just one of them would see the irony in complaining about western colonialism.
No wait - Muslims, self-awareness...nah, maybe not.
If you're speaking of first generation immigrants, the Tebbit test is ridiculous if applied to an immigrant from a cricket playing country. Here in Australia, our largest source of immigrants has been the UK. There are plenty of first generation immigrants from the UK, particularly England, who cheer for England when it is playing Australia (indeed, for any country that is playing Australia) but nobody complains. On the other hand, Chinese and Italian immigrants, for example, once they take to cricket, always cheer for Australia. I suppose the Tebbit test might have some validity when applied to the succeeding generations.
"There are plenty of first generation immigrants from the UK, particularly England, who cheer for England when it is playing Australia (indeed, for any country that is playing Australia) but nobody complains."
I have to say, I haven't noticed this in New Zealand, quite the opposite. First generation Brits always seem to cheer for the kiwis over the visitors, while subcontinental immigrants also cheer for their country of origin.
Im assuming this is because poms are white they can be criticised, while fewer people would criticise a non-white for being unpatriotic.
sorry, I meant to say first generation brits always cheer for the kiwis over the visitors, while as in the UK, subcontinental immigrants usually cheer for their country of origin.
Post a Comment