What is the difference (if any) between apartheid and multi culturalism?
Both systems appear to create division rather than integration and assimilation yet one was universally reviled whilst the other is politically correct.
I think the difference between the two is quite clear to be honest.
The first was a system a racial segregation imposed on the people of South Africa. The second is an idea, not something specifically imposed on the population
sure the diferrence is clear and actully thats a very valid point about one being imposed and one not........ BUT the reality is very often the same as in section of people within certain segregated locations IE parts of Birmingham which are prodominantly one race or even east london, also with the Eastern Europeans coming to London now, same thing
But me personally Im up for the opening of doors due to the fact that if the boot was on th other foot Id be across the border in a flash if a 'better' life was available
By all means we can discuss multi-culturism and whether people from other culturural backgrounds making at least as much effort to adopt our cultures as this great country makes to adopt theirs ..... but how you can bracket multi-culturism and apartheid together beggars belief frankly.
I work with people of different races and religions and my kids go to school with kids from other races and religions, I sometimes go on holiday with some Sikh friends. There's no generalised division - and if you think our country compares to an apartheid regime, then hopefully you are just barking mad.
Multiculturalism: This generally means nothing now (like the term politically correct, it is an empty signifier to which anyone can attach virtually anything). It is a social construct to which every nutter with an idea in his/her head can attach whatever meaning they wish, but usually applied to 'race' relations, obviously. They can laud it from the rooftops or cry over the threat it represents to their human rights. It can be a redemptive ideal or a scaremonger's weapon. Make of it what you will. Politicians call it multiculturalism, as it has a soft ring to it, but too often it is an empty form of judicial anti-racism. Before the term acquired its current baggage, it was born of a desire that people from different backgrounds live together. Simple. You either think that is possible, or not. Any divisiveness is caused by groups battling to establish their meaning of the disputed term (and it will likely always be disputed so long as one group is defending their power to define over and above others. And they will always dispute this because people have material interests in how the term is applied) over the meaning which it carries for others.
Apartheid: This is not a social construct in the way that multiculturalism is. It is simply the enshrinement in law of one group of people's rights (in the case of South Africa, this is based on 'race') over and above all others. That is not some rights, but all rights of one group controlled by another. A codified racial heirarchy enshrined in law and enforced by military rule. Nasty. Generally, the term is/was not in dispute by any groups (though, of course, the policies were), because those living under Apartheid conditions with the material interest to dispute its meaning were declared to be acting illegally and were locked up, tortured and/or killed. This happened on such a great scale that we could invoke the term genocide to describe the actions of those that enforced Apartheid.
[cite]Posted By: Salad Spinner[/cite]By all means we can discuss multi-culturism and whether people from other culturural backgrounds making at least as much effort to adopt our cultures as this great country makes to adopt theirs ..... but how you can bracket multi-culturism and apartheid together beggars belief frankly.
I work with people of different races and religions and my kids go to school with kids from other races and religions, I sometimes go on holiday with some Sikh friends. There's no generalised division - and if you think our country compares to an apartheid regime, then hopefully you are just barking mad.
The point I'm trying to make is that, arguably, both systems create division and segregation rather than integration and assimilation. As no less a luminary than Trevor Philips has questioned the wisdom of multi culturalism I venture to suggest that perhaps I'm not barking mad:-)
Kigelia has of course identified a fundamental difference in that apartheid was expressly, often violently, imposed whereas the pressures to embrace multi culturalism are more subtle.
However the reality is that the indigenous white population of places such as Bradford live separate lives to what, for want of a better word, I'll call the ethnic population. In that sense surely it can be argued that the effect is the same as apartheid?
What is the difference (if any) between apartheid and multi culturalism?
I suspect a leading question...
The differences are considerable...
Apartheid is a system whereby a minority based around ethnicity/religious lines effectively control the political and economic systems of a nation - essentially because numerically that group isn't strong enough to win elections on a level basis, and the result is that members of that group receive a disproportionate amount of the benefits of living in that State - ie better access to health, economic prosperity, education opportunities etc.
Multi-culturalism recognises the reality of modern life - that there are many different races, religions and that all can contribute to society given the right opportunities.
"The point I'm trying to make is that, arguably, both systems create division and segregation rather than integration and assimilation. As no less a luminary than Trevor Philips has questioned the wisdom of multi culturalism I venture to suggest that perhaps I'm not barking mad:-)"
Apartheid seeks to deliberately create divisions and enshrines segregation and is a rather nasty little philosophy as it ties in with ideas of supremacy, where necessary it is violently backed up and in places like apartheid South Africa it was even enshrined in law. I think by trying to work in and mis-quote Trevor Philips/ Campaign for Race Equality I think you are aiming to deliberately blur the distinctions to make some cheap point.
"...whereas the pressures to embrace multi culturalism are more subtle."
No they aren't, multi-culturalism is a reality, accepting that there is no hegemony of one group over another, neither is there any pressure to "subtly" accept it, if you can't recognise fact....
"However the reality is that the indigenous white population of places such as Bradford live separate lives to what, for want of a better word, I'll call the ethnic population. In that sense surely it can be argued that the effect is the same as apartheid?"
Like someone who lives in south east London is an expert on race in bradford...
There is and always will be economic apartheid - just as much a reality as multi-culturalism is - rich people band together just as our directors have their box in the West Stand rather than sit in Covered End etc. White people aren't banding together except economically, other races who are less established in Britain tend to live in cheaper housing, in time they will assimilate and move to these richer suburbs and neighbourhoods. Look not at Bradford but London's East End. Over the centuries waves of immigrants settled there - housing was cheap and as they established themselves each successive wave moved on and up - whether they were Hugenoets, Jews or whatever. It's called social mobility - people want to live in nicer areas, make money, send their kids to better schools and have a better standard of life.
I think the key difference between difference here, once you look beyond how the systems arose and were imposed, is the Apartheid was created by a single group for the benefit of that group, whilst Multiculturalism as it is in the uk is instigated by a minority group for the benefit of another group. Also, one could argue, the apartheid was very successfully implemented (for want of a better word) whilst multiculturalism is generally offensive to all sides and does the opposite of it's intention.
There are few, if any, truly successful multi-cultural nations in the world. The human race is petty and bigotted in general and differences will always be exploited or abused by one group or another.
The UK at the moment facecs a dire problem in that it is inviting or encouraging people to come here who really don't want to be here, but just want what they can get from the UK. It is a bit of a cliche to say "When in Rome..", but there has to be an element of that. The current policies of pandering to any demands and behaviour, especially those that wouldn't be accepted from another group (especially what is still numerically the dominant group) causes huge problems for the cohesiveness of society. Prince Charles wrote to Tony Blair a few years ago questioning the power of human rights legislation and correctly pointing out the huge imbalance it between the power of the individual and that of society at large will continue to cause problems.
There is something deeply wrong with a society when it is considered racist to fly your own flag. Anybody who is offended by our flag shouldn't be in our country. Unfortunately, it is not those who are portrayed at the offended part that have actually raised the issue, it is faceless, do-gooders (terrible term) who have no real understanding of those they claim to represent.
As another ridiculous example, schools can no longer sing ba ba black sheep, nor call blackboards blackboards. I'm yet to find a "black" person offended by the nursery rhymne, nor offended by a board that is painted black from being called a black board. Compounded with these ridiculous rules is that fact that a white board is still called a white board (blackboards are now called chalk boards, despite not being made of chalk, so why aren't white boards called pen or marker boards?) and the nursery rhymne is now ba ba rainbow sheep (multiculturalism at its best surely). There's no such thing as a rainbow sheep, sheep are white or black, mostly white (which is the whole point of all sayings involving the term black sheep).
To get back on point, the similarities between Apartheid and multiculturalism are striking in one area, they both involve the treatment of one group differently from all other. In multicultural Britain that means that the anglo-saxon population has less rights than any other group when it comes to cultural expression. No other group is castigated as much for celebrating their own heritage nor held to such ridiculously high (and often wrong) standards of what might offend another cultural group. This can only and is sowing discord and allowing more nationalistic groups to gain power.
"There is something deeply wrong with a society when it is considered racist to fly your own flag. Anybody who is offended by our flag shouldn't be in our country. Unfortunately, it is not those who are portrayed at the offended part that have actually raised the issue"
Sadly the Union Jack has become an image for the likes of the Tory party and the BNP, and given their enthusiastic support for "little" England they are perhaps the ones who need to be blamed for making it the symbol of an isolated class of people. If Labour/Lib-Dems were to co-opt it maybe it would acquire the image of a flag that seeks to unite people rather than divide them. Allied to that is Dr Johnson's saying - that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel - sadly the right are to blame for the Union jack being considered racist.
Elsewhere you compalin about ba-ba black sheep that is really falls under "political correctness" - an exaggerated desire to make non-indigenous Brits not feel alienated and indeed feel welcomed.
[cite]Posted By: randy_andy[/cite]To get back on point, the similarities between Apartheid and multiculturalism are striking in one area...In multicultural Britain that means that the anglo-saxon population has less rights than any other group when it comes to cultural expression. No other group is castigated as much for celebrating their own heritage nor held to such ridiculously high (and often wrong) standards of what might offend another cultural group. This can only and is sowing discord and allowing more nationalistic groups to gain power.
Does the white Anglo-Saxon population have fewer rights over cultural expression? Or is this another urban myth perpetuated by interested parties?
All political parties, and religious groups work on the same basis a feeling of inclusiveness and a feeling of exclusiveness. Groups like the BNP like to spread the myth that "whites have less rights", and that immigrants are taking over, getting a disproprtionate amount of benefits. Reality is that when pressed to provide examples all I see is rhetoric rather than substance. I certainly do not see white anglos having their culture repressed...
there is really no need for the nasty little personal digs that permeate your posts. You diminish your otherwise excellent points by inserting them. It seems to be a favourite tactic of (usually) the left when they do not want to debate uncomfortable issues.
Please advise me how I misquoted Trevor Philips. It is my genuine belief that in the aftermath of 7/7 he questioned whether or not multi culturalism had gone too far.
For your information I do not live in SE London and I have relatives in Yorkshire hence I know something of the situation prevailing in Bradford. I also have a sister in law of Kenyan Asian extraction so I'm not a card carrying Ku Klux Klan member as I suspect you believe I may be!
I'm simply trying to stimulate a debate amongst the many intelligent people (you included) that frequent this forum.
i agree with randy andy. Going back to the shilpa popodom thing! They are saying that that is racist! Is it bollox! No different from me being in india and them calling me 'Ollie Pie and mash' or 'Ollie Bread roll' which if you put it like sounds rather pathetic. I certainly wouldnt be offended, anyone else??
Anglo saxon whites have less right these days such is the varied perception of this 'racism'.
IMO its gone mad, and this country aint going in a good direction!
With apartheid the key is justice, imposed segregation is always accompanied by one side enjoying priveleges over the other, hence it is merely a tool of oppression.
Multiculuralism, is more to do with allowing people to be free within a framework of laws, to follow their own beliefs and practices and customs.
The question is to what degree, and the social impact of this. Unless you want to live in Nazi Germany a certain amount of MCism is inevitable.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]What is the difference (if any) between apartheid and multi culturalism?
Both systems appear to create division rather than integration and assimilation yet one was universally reviled whilst the other is politically correct.
Discuss!
the same difference between fans of football clubs...there are some that are overtly haters of any club but their own...and there are those that tolerate the fans of other clubs and share a joke and generally get on with but will, even if its only occasionally, make (and receive) detrimental comments about them and their teams but with no intention of lasting malice...it doesn't meant they hate them or are hated in return...its human nature...
[quote][cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]It's all going to the dogs, the kids in the streets with rickets and selling matches, the millions on the dole, rations blah blah blah.
I'm going to move to Spain, and join the rest of the English out there destroying culture.[/quote]
[cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]It's all going to the dogs, the kids in the streets with rickets and selling matches, the millions on the dole, rations blah blah blah.
I'm going to move to Spain, and join the rest of the English out there destroying culture.
Ahem, it's en'ancing it when we do it, innit?
innit just, I'm going to go and live in Spain, read the Daily Vile, drink PG tips, and complain that them brownish people don't speak English at the supermarket. Sod learning Spanish.
Give me the mix of London, over the dullness of Costa Del Sidcup
The problem wiv London, yeah? Is arf the people can't talk bleeding pwoppar English, though.
Innit?
I suggest everyone moves to India, reforms the Raj and calls all the locals poppadom, to demonstrate our innate superiority. Can't get a decent cup of tea or a beefburger though.
"there is really no need for the nasty little personal digs that permeate your posts. You diminish your otherwise excellent points by inserting them. It seems to be a favourite tactic of (usually) the left when they do not want to debate uncomfortable issues."
Lol...I said what? You are the one who cannot distinguish between apartheid (something which is a direct opposite of multi-culturalism) and a philosophy that essentially recognises that we are all equal and can contribute to a changing society.
"Please advise me how I misquoted Trevor Philips. It is my genuine belief that in the aftermath of 7/7 he questioned whether or not multi culturalism had gone too far."
By selectively quoting him and placing that next to a statement that purports to indicate that he opposes multi-culturalism...as for you being upset...apparently I accuse you of being a member of the KKK... just for the record where did I say that? Not making things up as you go along again are you?? Not that the "right" ever do that...
"For your information I do not live in SE London and I have relatives in Yorkshire hence I know something of the situation prevailing in Bradford. I also have a sister in law of Kenyan Asian extraction so I'm not a card carrying Ku Klux Klan member as I suspect you believe I may be!
I'm simply trying to stimulate a debate amongst the many intelligent people (you included) that frequent this forum. "
Ahh the good old I'm not a racist answer...I have black friends!!!...along with the perceived and heightened sense of injustice when your motives are questioned, not to mention your dubious interpretation of what I said...
If you don't want to read my replies fine...but don't spit your dummy out because I choose to disagree with you, ok??
Comments
The first was a system a racial segregation imposed on the people of South Africa. The second is an idea, not something specifically imposed on the population
agreed, lost init
But me personally Im up for the opening of doors due to the fact that if the boot was on th other foot Id be across the border in a flash if a 'better' life was available
I work with people of different races and religions and my kids go to school with kids from other races and religions, I sometimes go on holiday with some Sikh friends. There's no generalised division - and if you think our country compares to an apartheid regime, then hopefully you are just barking mad.
Apartheid: This is not a social construct in the way that multiculturalism is. It is simply the enshrinement in law of one group of people's rights (in the case of South Africa, this is based on 'race') over and above all others. That is not some rights, but all rights of one group controlled by another. A codified racial heirarchy enshrined in law and enforced by military rule. Nasty. Generally, the term is/was not in dispute by any groups (though, of course, the policies were), because those living under Apartheid conditions with the material interest to dispute its meaning were declared to be acting illegally and were locked up, tortured and/or killed. This happened on such a great scale that we could invoke the term genocide to describe the actions of those that enforced Apartheid.
Therefore, they are not the same thing.
The point I'm trying to make is that, arguably, both systems create division and segregation rather than integration and assimilation. As no less a luminary than Trevor Philips has questioned the wisdom of multi culturalism I venture to suggest that perhaps I'm not barking mad:-)
Kigelia has of course identified a fundamental difference in that apartheid was expressly, often violently, imposed whereas the pressures to embrace multi culturalism are more subtle.
However the reality is that the indigenous white population of places such as Bradford live separate lives to what, for want of a better word, I'll call the ethnic population. In that sense surely it can be argued that the effect is the same as apartheid?
I suspect a leading question...
The differences are considerable...
Apartheid is a system whereby a minority based around ethnicity/religious lines effectively control the political and economic systems of a nation - essentially because numerically that group isn't strong enough to win elections on a level basis, and the result is that members of that group receive a disproportionate amount of the benefits of living in that State - ie better access to health, economic prosperity, education opportunities etc.
Multi-culturalism recognises the reality of modern life - that there are many different races, religions and that all can contribute to society given the right opportunities.
Apartheid seeks to deliberately create divisions and enshrines segregation and is a rather nasty little philosophy as it ties in with ideas of supremacy, where necessary it is violently backed up and in places like apartheid South Africa it was even enshrined in law. I think by trying to work in and mis-quote Trevor Philips/ Campaign for Race Equality I think you are aiming to deliberately blur the distinctions to make some cheap point.
"...whereas the pressures to embrace multi culturalism are more subtle."
No they aren't, multi-culturalism is a reality, accepting that there is no hegemony of one group over another, neither is there any pressure to "subtly" accept it, if you can't recognise fact....
"However the reality is that the indigenous white population of places such as Bradford live separate lives to what, for want of a better word, I'll call the ethnic population. In that sense surely it can be argued that the effect is the same as apartheid?"
Like someone who lives in south east London is an expert on race in bradford...
There is and always will be economic apartheid - just as much a reality as multi-culturalism is - rich people band together just as our directors have their box in the West Stand rather than sit in Covered End etc. White people aren't banding together except economically, other races who are less established in Britain tend to live in cheaper housing, in time they will assimilate and move to these richer suburbs and neighbourhoods. Look not at Bradford but London's East End. Over the centuries waves of immigrants settled there - housing was cheap and as they established themselves each successive wave moved on and up - whether they were Hugenoets, Jews or whatever. It's called social mobility - people want to live in nicer areas, make money, send their kids to better schools and have a better standard of life.
There are few, if any, truly successful multi-cultural nations in the world. The human race is petty and bigotted in general and differences will always be exploited or abused by one group or another.
The UK at the moment facecs a dire problem in that it is inviting or encouraging people to come here who really don't want to be here, but just want what they can get from the UK. It is a bit of a cliche to say "When in Rome..", but there has to be an element of that. The current policies of pandering to any demands and behaviour, especially those that wouldn't be accepted from another group (especially what is still numerically the dominant group) causes huge problems for the cohesiveness of society. Prince Charles wrote to Tony Blair a few years ago questioning the power of human rights legislation and correctly pointing out the huge imbalance it between the power of the individual and that of society at large will continue to cause problems.
There is something deeply wrong with a society when it is considered racist to fly your own flag. Anybody who is offended by our flag shouldn't be in our country. Unfortunately, it is not those who are portrayed at the offended part that have actually raised the issue, it is faceless, do-gooders (terrible term) who have no real understanding of those they claim to represent.
As another ridiculous example, schools can no longer sing ba ba black sheep, nor call blackboards blackboards. I'm yet to find a "black" person offended by the nursery rhymne, nor offended by a board that is painted black from being called a black board. Compounded with these ridiculous rules is that fact that a white board is still called a white board (blackboards are now called chalk boards, despite not being made of chalk, so why aren't white boards called pen or marker boards?) and the nursery rhymne is now ba ba rainbow sheep (multiculturalism at its best surely). There's no such thing as a rainbow sheep, sheep are white or black, mostly white (which is the whole point of all sayings involving the term black sheep).
Sadly the Union Jack has become an image for the likes of the Tory party and the BNP, and given their enthusiastic support for "little" England they are perhaps the ones who need to be blamed for making it the symbol of an isolated class of people. If Labour/Lib-Dems were to co-opt it maybe it would acquire the image of a flag that seeks to unite people rather than divide them. Allied to that is Dr Johnson's saying - that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel - sadly the right are to blame for the Union jack being considered racist.
Elsewhere you compalin about ba-ba black sheep that is really falls under "political correctness" - an exaggerated desire to make non-indigenous Brits not feel alienated and indeed feel welcomed.
Does the white Anglo-Saxon population have fewer rights over cultural expression? Or is this another urban myth perpetuated by interested parties?
All political parties, and religious groups work on the same basis a feeling of inclusiveness and a feeling of exclusiveness. Groups like the BNP like to spread the myth that "whites have less rights", and that immigrants are taking over, getting a disproprtionate amount of benefits. Reality is that when pressed to provide examples all I see is rhetoric rather than substance. I certainly do not see white anglos having their culture repressed...
there is really no need for the nasty little personal digs that permeate your posts. You diminish your otherwise excellent points by inserting them. It seems to be a favourite tactic of (usually) the left when they do not want to debate uncomfortable issues.
Please advise me how I misquoted Trevor Philips. It is my genuine belief that in the aftermath of 7/7 he questioned whether or not multi culturalism had gone too far.
For your information I do not live in SE London and I have relatives in Yorkshire hence I know something of the situation prevailing in Bradford. I also have a sister in law of Kenyan Asian extraction so I'm not a card carrying Ku Klux Klan member as I suspect you believe I may be!
I'm simply trying to stimulate a debate amongst the many intelligent people (you included) that frequent this forum.
*stands up and salutes*
*scratches arse*
Anglo saxon whites have less right these days such is the varied perception of this 'racism'.
IMO its gone mad, and this country aint going in a good direction!
This is ultimately my own opinion tho!
I'm going to move to Spain, and join the rest of the English out there destroying culture.
Sorry I meant to whisper this one.
Multiculuralism, is more to do with allowing people to be free within a framework of laws, to follow their own beliefs and practices and customs.
The question is to what degree, and the social impact of this. Unless you want to live in Nazi Germany a certain amount of MCism is inevitable.
the same difference between fans of football clubs...there are some that are overtly haters of any club but their own...and there are those that tolerate the fans of other clubs and share a joke and generally get on with but will, even if its only occasionally, make (and receive) detrimental comments about them and their teams but with no intention of lasting malice...it doesn't meant they hate them or are hated in return...its human nature...
I'm going to move to Spain, and join the rest of the English out there destroying culture.[/quote]
Ahem, it's en'ancing it when we do it, innit?
innit just, I'm going to go and live in Spain, read the Daily Vile, drink PG tips, and complain that them brownish people don't speak English at the supermarket. Sod learning Spanish.
Give me the mix of London, over the dullness of Costa Del Sidcup
*rolls eyes*
Innit?
I suggest everyone moves to India, reforms the Raj and calls all the locals poppadom, to demonstrate our innate superiority. Can't get a decent cup of tea or a beefburger though.
Lol...I said what? You are the one who cannot distinguish between apartheid (something which is a direct opposite of multi-culturalism) and a philosophy that essentially recognises that we are all equal and can contribute to a changing society.
"Please advise me how I misquoted Trevor Philips. It is my genuine belief that in the aftermath of 7/7 he questioned whether or not multi culturalism had gone too far."
By selectively quoting him and placing that next to a statement that purports to indicate that he opposes multi-culturalism...as for you being upset...apparently I accuse you of being a member of the KKK... just for the record where did I say that? Not making things up as you go along again are you?? Not that the "right" ever do that...
"For your information I do not live in SE London and I have relatives in Yorkshire hence I know something of the situation prevailing in Bradford. I also have a sister in law of Kenyan Asian extraction so I'm not a card carrying Ku Klux Klan member as I suspect you believe I may be!
I'm simply trying to stimulate a debate amongst the many intelligent people (you included) that frequent this forum. "
Ahh the good old I'm not a racist answer...I have black friends!!!...along with the perceived and heightened sense of injustice when your motives are questioned, not to mention your dubious interpretation of what I said...
If you don't want to read my replies fine...but don't spit your dummy out because I choose to disagree with you, ok??