apologies for reviving an old topic, but i was wondering if the events of 7/7, the Birmingham riots and French riots have had much of an impact on British Muslims today.
Has it made you want to integrate more into british society? do you feel compassion or anger towards those in the riots?
and what does it mean to integrate into british culture?
the oldham and bradford riots were a while back, but what impact have they had on muslims today?
do young muslims feel disillusioned living in a country they may not be able to fully connect with?
soon after 7/7 a woman was asked on live TV if she was British or Muslim. She lashed out and asked why she could not be both, that by being Muslim she was not denying her Britishness.
what are your thoughts on this?
A reason why this keeps coming up is because the people who always go on about 'integration' never say what they mean. The 'British way of life' is never defined. And it's only certain groups who get told to 'inegrate'.
but why should they integrate? what is the need? and what exactly does it mean? how much does one have to change to be acceptable?
to some it means denying their roots and adopting the british way of life.
does that mean we can not be tolerant of others?
and how has integration worked in other countries? obviously britain is not only one with problem, but how have other countries dealt with it?
It's no good asking the people who are being to integrate what integration is. the definition and measures of integration will always come from those who are trying to impose integration.
The Telegraph had an editorial recently where it outlined 10 things that made you British. I'm trying to find it. Bare with me.
America seems to have managed very well. American-Muslims happily call themselves American.
I think it's because in America on the whole every single person is seen as a 'citizen of the state'. This concept is lost in this country esp in the rest of Europe.
Thats a very good point Irfghan.
When they say British way of life or Australian or French what they really mean is secular liberal values.
They have to say "British way of life" because then if someone doesn't seem to be conforming to it then they can say they are treacherous or they don't belong here.
Its all rubbish though.
Nobody would ever define a British anglo-saxon christian (or atheist for that matter) with "backward" views towards women as not being British. Its only with minorities when conformity to these values becomes an issue of loyalty. I'd add it's only with certain minorities as well. Melanie Phillips claims she's a patriot but her biggest criticism of the Church of England is that it doesn't support Israel. Thats not a problem though.
[size=18]The Telegraph's Top 10 Tips for Integration[/size]
[size=16][i]from the paper that brought you Will 'Muslims are dogs' Cummins[/i][/size]
[size=14][i]... and continues to bring you Boris Johnson, Charles Moore, and Mark Steyn[/i]
[/size]
[b]I. [/b]The rule of law. Our society is based on the idea that we all abide by the same rules, whatever our wealth or status. No one is above the law - not even the government.
[b]II.[/b] The sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. The Lords, the Commons and the monarch constitute the supreme authority in the land. There is no appeal to any higher jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal.
[b]III. [/b]The pluralist state. Equality before the law implies that no one should be treated differently on the basis of belonging to a particular group. Conversely, all parties, sects, faiths and ideologies must tolerate the existence of their rivals.
[b]IV. [/b]Personal freedom. There should be a presumption, always and everywhere, against state coercion. We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.
[b]V. [/b]Private property. Freedom must include the freedom to buy and sell without fear of confiscation, to transfer ownership, to sign contracts and have them enforced. Britain was quicker than most countries to recognise this and became, in consequence, one of the happiest and most prosperous nations on Earth.
[b]VI. [/b]Institutions. British freedom and British character are immanent in British institutions. These are not, mostly, statutory bodies, but spring from the way free individuals regulate each other's conduct, and provide for their needs, without recourse to coercion.
[b]VII.[/b] The family. Civic society depends on values being passed from generation to generation. Stable families are the essential ingredient of a stable society.
[b]VIII. [/b]History. British children inherit a political culture, a set of specific legal rights and obligations, and a stupendous series of national achievements. They should be taught about these things.
[b]IX.[/b] The English-speaking world. The atrocities of September 11, 2001, were not simply an attack on a foreign nation; they were an attack on the anglosphere - on all of us who believe in freedom, justice and the rule of law.
[b]X. [/b]The British character. Shaped by and in turn shaping our national institutions is our character as a people: stubborn, stoical, indignant at injustice. "The Saxon," wrote Kipling, "never means anything seriously till he talks about justice and right."
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/27/dl... Editorial[/url] - 27 July 2005
I have very few if any issues with those points.
Except 2 and 10.
Number 2 tells me to beleive in the Queen as the highest authority in the universe. That I cannot do. I doubt many other people would be able to do that either. Does this disqualify me from being British? And what about republicans, are they disqualified too?
10 says I should become a Saxon. That is impossible. That could only have been possible if I was born to Saxon parents. Does this disqualify me from being British?
Number 2 was put in there to disqualify anyone who is not a CoE Christian from being truly British.
Number 10 was put in there to disqualify anyone who is not white from being British.
This integration and Britishness hoo-haa is used by racists and people with racist tendencies as a stick with which to beat immigrants and minorities esp, in the current climate, Muslims.
well said Enver good research especially your own thoughts such deep and true analysis is inspiring
hmmm....
while I agree with most of those points, if they were made to me in that manner, I would take offense.
And quite rightfully so.
And it misses out the colour of british history.
We should be taught the biography of Winston Churchill. You know, him the greatest briton. the one who gassed Kurds ling before saddam was born. One who bombed villages if they late in paying taxes... the greatest briton of all time...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Yea... citizenship really defines the US citizen, there have always been attempts to assert an american "race" but ever since Dredd Scott and the civil war that idea has been dying - today it's fringe and ridiculous.
In fairness we have a longer (less negative) experience with muslims - and far fewer comparative to the population.
It's kinda hard to describe but Europeans don't seem to understand we don't think like them. We've been living in our own little world for so long our European ancestry is literally just history. So all the spotted history Europe has had with muslims from ancient times all the way up through the age of empires and until today - has no real effect on us. It's not really something we relate to...
So it's like there is no baggage.
Also if you think defining "British" is tough - try defining "American" we don't consider ourselves European by any stretch of the imagination - that would be an insult, but we're "westernish" there isn't a homogenous race, we're Christian by and large but by no means call ourself a "Christian state" and basically everybody who lives here to some degree believes in the American Dream and the idea of Democracy. So really that just gets back to what you were saying about citizenship.
Britain on the other hand has had a homogenous race for roughly 1,000 years, a State religion for something like 300 - an extremely rich (and if I may arrogant) history attached to both of those, and since it's opening up to multiculturalism after the fall of the empire, has seen a big boom in immigration which drastically changes the latter two identities.
We've freaked out many times in the past when percieved "hoardes" of immigrants coming in to turn us all into Irish Catholics, or Mafioso Italian Catholics, or various other "undesirable races"
On top of all that we are a bajillion times larger than the UK space wise - we don't live on top of each other.
Most of our "big cities" - metropolii aside, would probably shock you.
Charleston for example is roughly a third the size of London but with 1/120th the people.
Boston, Pittsburgh, Miami, San Fransisco are all roughly the same in this regard.
We consider cities like Boston or Charleston "Huge"
So really if American Muslims are integrating better in the US it's because we've gone through pretty much everything Britain is in terms of finding a definition for who we are other than a race or religion - and we have other advantages that Britain does not.
I suspect integration in all European countries is going to be very difficult just because the cultures are so tied to the ethnicity of the people.
This is going to sound rather mean and pessimistic, don't take it as an insult.
But if you really want to be honest, before you all came in such large numbers (asians, and any other non anglo brit) I think number 2, and number 10 might be the ONLY criteria, or at least one and two - maybe throw in the additional criterion of loyalty to the Queen for good measure. And i'm sure nobody would have found that terribly shocking - in fact it probably would have been considered simple logic - England = land of the Engles
What is the first thought you have when I say "A Pakistani"
Is it a 6'3 half black half chinese buddhist?
What about a 6'3 white dude named Dave?
It's not particularly racist to think of the homogenous race or religious adherent to Pakistan - but imagine if tomorrow 1,000,000 "Daves" moved to Pakistan?
Wouldn't you be just a little bit worried your picture of a Pakistani would be "swallowed up" by the Daves?
From what I have read of the treatment your grandparents recieved when they came to Britain, you were not welcome, and were considered "working guests" at best.
Your grandparents came to Britain largely of their own wills for a better life rather than some collective invitation from those who were already there.
I think that is really sort of the heart of the issue - and perhaps the reason I am picking up this "vibe" that integration isn't working out so well - has something to do with the British never really extending that welcome since.
To many deep down - you're still a little odd, perhaps they have it in mind you'll "see it their way" eventually and "become British" so they don't turn to orgs like the BNP but the fears are still there.
And certainly you are going to have integration issues any time one group doesn't want the other there.
Look at France as an excellent example - they do not want the Africans there. For the exact fear that the identity the white French know and hold on to is the white, catholic identity that they have had for centuries.
Thus the reason they are so restrictive with their immigration laws, and the reason there are such horrific issues with integration.
Integration means that the two groups - preexisting and the relative newcommers have to mix, become one interdependent synthetic.
There are only two things which can disrupt this. Fear of losing ones pre-established identity in both camps.
I'm not "in touch" with the asian youth of Britain but i'm guessing assimilation is a bit of a swear word - not a very welcome idea.
So... as long as that fear exists on either or both sides - you're going to have integration issues.
Out of curiosity - what aspect of your identity are you most afraid you would lose in the process of "integrating on their terms?"
I do not have a problem with 2.
The queendom is a farce. nothing to lose sleep over. just our eccentric way on this side of the pond.
She is the queen of the UK (and canada, and australia... and NZ..), and I have no problem with it.
however, alot of 'natives' have a problem with it, and want it removed.
So it is hypocritical to ask us muslims who have been born in the UK to support this position.
its more a problem as attitude, than the actual principle.
Most came as 'working guests' after the separation of the british empire. However some came as citizens of the british empire when the regions were a part of the collonial rule.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
This is from page ten of the Jokes page.
Salam
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the Supreme Sovereign of England.
As a Muslim, I don't have any problem with that.
I consider myself one of her subjects.
Long Live the Queen !!
Omrow
pure genius now go and do tobah
Salam
Why Seemo ?
Being loyal to law of the land is purely Islamic.
Omrow
as a pure british free thinking liberal socialist citizen i vote to depose the monarchy only then can true democracy flourish in this beautiful green and pleasant land of ours
Salam
You wouldn't be a liberal in Saudi Arabia.
You are free thinking BECAUSE this is free country.
Thanks to Her Majesty.
Omrow
Hey come on... you changed your post.
i had to i didnt want the thought police to get me for saying i'm an ananarchist err which i'm not defintely not just a little liberal
Salam
Seemo. This is not a police state.
Its a free country. You can say what you will.
Watch.
I am an anarchist !!
Omrow
no dont say that.
he doesnt really mean it hes kidding
no seriously i've got too much time on my hands got a cold cant go out or do anything so i'm unusually prolific on the forum and i just thought why not edit to make a better post
constantine, excellent posts.
last year i lived in sheffield. i had many friends from different cultures, but two stick out the most. the first was an indian born in this country. he was born in this country, his parents, although indian, were brought up in africa. he had never visited either africa or india and had no desire to. he did not speak or understand any other language apart from english, and had no desire to learn any other language.
he saw hiself as truly british. he did not understand why i wanted to marry a man from my own religion and culture. he just didnt get it.
his point was that if he was living in this country, he would embrace it wholly. he did not embrace his asian side, partly because his parents had never taught it to him, and never made an effort to show him that side of their culture.
towards the end of the year he said he felt a little resentment towards his parents for not teaching him more.
he was totally 'british'. is this how integration should be?
embracing the culture you are around at the expense of your own culture?
Ofcourse, native populations have a right to 'protect' their culture and way of life. No-one is telling them to change their age-old ways.
But as more and more people are discovering the values which they once held so dearly and that made them British are not British values. Values such as equality, justice, and private property are almost universal values. They are not exclusively British. As a result 'exclusively British' values are increasingly being defined on the basis of colour and religion.
Look at the 10 points laid out in the Telegraph. I generally agree with 8 of them and so would most other people. These 8 values therefore are not the issue. They are just thrown in to make up the numbers. If integration was about these issues then there'd be no problem.
2 and 8 are the crux of the matter.
2, We shoud be devoted servants to the Queen. Excuse me, but there are many people who wou;ld take serious issue with that, and most of them are even immigrants. Even secular humanists take issue with that - they're not likely to give their lives to someone who is only in power becuase of a God-given birthright.
Such a thing wouldn't even work in America. would you give your life for [url=http://stockholm.usembassy.gov/cabbio/images/bush.jpg]this guy[/url]? Or if he were still alive, [url=http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/asian.superpower/view.from.tai... dude[/url]? This is as rediculous as 1 000 000 Daves in Pakistan to give absolute and eternal loyalty to [url=http://image.pathfinder.com/time/asia/covers/1101020722/images/musharraf....
8, We should be Saxon. Being Saxon (ie white) is not very easy. It's impossible. And that is exactly why it is put in there. Immigrants will most definately not turn white in the forseeable future, therefore this aspect of 'Britishness' will continue to be used as stick with which to beat wogs.
As these 2 aspects are impossible to acheive, immigration, race, integration and what not will always be used as a scapegoat for society's real problems.
Integration on their terms is for me to lose my religion and for my children to marry white people, and for their children to marry white people, and for their children to marry white people and so on and so forth. Integration on their terms is assimilation.
Honestly I am not sure [i]what[/i] integration is supposed to be or what it is for that matter, for European states or any country older than the "New World."
We are very clear over hear from the US down to Argentina you will find variations of this "melting pot" or in latin american the "Mestizo" idea where the culture is sort of... democratically elected by the citizens - thus we are a little more open to the idea of not locking anything down and flexing, even changing the culture.
Europe and the "old world" are different in this regard - the idea of a multi-ethnic state is new world - not that we over here have prosecuted the idea in a fair way at all times in our history... it is still an idea that really was born here as a natural result of our collective histories and imperialism - it's part of the reason everyone in North and South America hate imperialism so much.
For places like Europe you are talking about a single ethnicity within a single race with a single religion and a single language for centuries - in some cases millenia. It's only very recently Europe has had to confront the idea of "mixing" any of the above.
Asians' background appears (from what I am seeing) much the same. Strong racial, ethnic, religious and language ties to your "cultural identity" - and from what people talk about here (and I would concur) this is because "back home" it's much like 1940s Britain, an established culture tied to race, ethnicity, religion, and language. - In fact it seems like you deal with the issue of mixing identities with what appear to me as racist caste systems and strange tribalist collectives.
So now we are seeing what happens when we take one cultural identity with strong ties to race, ethnicity, language, and religion and throw it into another culture with those same strong ties and see how they "mix" and define themselves [i]as a collective[/i].
The problem is who is moving where. The preexisting asian cultural identity has been severed to some extent from the soil of the "home land" where as for the preexisting brits with their preexisting culture.. they are still on their "home land" which they associate with their culture - and obviously since they stayed they probably have no interest in severing that relationship (british "culture" with british soil).
Therefore they are more apt to demand asians concede more to "british culture" in defining what collectively you all are as a people.
Meanwhile asians probably feel a little scared they will lose their culture - be swollowed up - because they no longer have the safety of "the home soil" with its very secure "asian culture" to remind them that their culture and way of life will survive the experience - they are afraid they will lose their identities. This is certainly a natural and understanble (and justified) fear - thus they are more insistent that the British give up their cultural identity of race, ethnicity, religion and language - or at least be more fluid with them in defining this collective culture.
So what is integration - what's the point of it. If the idea is to define the entire group of people loosely under one set of principles - or in what seems to be the asian concession (you don't have to change to accomodate us) to at least say there no longer is a culture, then I see you were definitely run into the problems I outlined.
I'd call that synthesis
But if the idea is to maintain your seperate cultural identities then I would say there are two possibilities - a sort of caste-like or southern segregationist "two worlds mutually ignoring each other" or "seperate but cooperative"
I think the latter is really where Britain and Europe will find peace with this issue.
No one will concede their culture as they define it - but to build interlocking ties to one another that stress a common focus or direction for the country they [i]share[/i] (and not the country they [i]are[/i]) will probably put a rest to the mutual concerns of preserving identities and working together.
Honestly for me American and the New World is the only place that is even remotely (though that's not always saying much) equipped to take a stab at synthesis. Most people that come here want to come here because they are attracted to what in Europe I see are secondary cultural values - but to us are primary cultural values; because Race, religion, language, and ethnicity are so extremely diverse here - and the white european population that lived here has not dominated long enough to establish a white european society permanently (in fact one could argue they have failed); this makes those four traditional cultural indicators nearly null and void and forced us long ago to start defining ourselves based on "soft values"
The problem for us is what happens when a group merges that doesn't share the "American" or "New World" values - it's been argued that muslims do not. But given the relative ease muslims have had in defining themselves - their citizens, an their place in the United States - their "Americanization" I do not believe this is so.
That holds true for South America as well, especially the Central American states.
I think we are agreeing here... but whereas you are talking about your perceptions on the ground level I am looking at this from across the atlantic.
In a strange way you are highlighting the problem of race and religion in culture as well as highlighting what I agree are "secondary" or "scapegoat" reasons.
You are showing an article in which a guy tactfully posits that "British culture" is tied to "Saxon identity" - then you rightfully argue that that is based on a racial indentity.
But you also note that what you consider to be "assimilation" - which if I understand correctly is bad - means you would have to give up your racial identity by marrying a white girl in perpetuity until such a point as your racial identity is dead and everybody is white.
To me that sort of reveals a preoccupation with maintaining your racial and ethnic identity in what you consider a situation to be hostile to the preservation of it. - Just like the white guy who wrote the article
Neither of you are interested in seeing their racial identity go away.
And I would argue that is also the case with religion, language and ethnic identity as well - perhaps less so language, and ethnicity since most everyone here seems to despise the caste system and (lets be honest) lol most of your Urdu sucks - you had to have a whole thread dedicated to remembering how to count.
But religion and race aren't going away.
On top of that you argued (and I agree) that this whole business about the Queen is total rubbish. I think the author is aware of that too. I see these "british values" or free market economy liberalism - all of it, as just secondary issues to Europeans in the face of race and religion.
I just don't see after centuries and millenia either "ethnic brits" nor "ethnic asians" willing to divorce themselves from those two basic cultural identities.
Honestly what do you think of when I say "a Pakistani"
I really think that synthesis of cultures is just not going to happen - you aren't going to get a single "what it means to be british that includes everybody" even in the broadest of terms - perhaps other than "people that live on the islands of Britain"
lol but the world isn't ready for that sort of progressivism.
And I see that expressed best in the arrogance of France over the riots.
Here's another question for you which might highlight my point.
If I moved to Britain tomorrow and raised my kids like Americans - republican, anti-monarchist, liberal (note we share many of the same "values"). How many think my family would be facing the problems of integration that non-white non-christians face in Britain?
I'd fail many of the tests on your exam because I have American values - similar but not identical to "British values" (as outlined on your list).
Much like how all of you have similar - but not identical values to "British values"
But the key difference for me is I don't have the racial or religious difference from mainland brits.
Would I have serious problems integrating?
You'd have no problems integrating.
But people might take issue with you accent and say 'Y'not frum round iya uyyu?' (That's if you're in the West Country)
BTW, just going back to an earlier point, I wuldn't mind marrying a white woman. And if my children chose to marry someone white, then I'd have no prob with that either. I just don't want it to be imposed on me or demanded of me, that's all.
If anyone in London would like to broaden this discussion to include British people from other ethnicites and cultures I'm sure I'd like to see you at the New Speakers' Corner discussions. Please check the Events forum.
Shabbat Shalom.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
Speaking of integration Dave is it true that there is Mexican nationalist inspired terrorism going on in the south-western USA?
Not in South-Western USA - but in Mexico there is trouble with terrorists who call themselves the Zapatistas.
They are an indigenous movement I believe - "terrorist" probably isn't a word that can be applied to them though - or any mexican criminal movement other than the drug lords.
For the most part they just like to throw their mexican romeo/zorro on TV "Sub Commander Marcos" so he can wave a gun around and talk about freedom.
[img]http://www.usip.org/peacewatch/1998/698/rebels.gif[/img]
lol I don't think they've ever done anything violent...
Peasants waving pitchforks and all that
Ever girl in Mexico has a picture of Sub Commander Marco... he's a bit of a teen idol.
The real trouble in South Western USA is border security - there is a fear that terrorists will exploit our shoddy security to penetrate into the US. Consequently there have been these crazy militia men - might as well be terrorists - who patrol the borders as vigilantes.
[img]http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/zapatistas/marcos-2.jpg[/img]
I don't get it ladies... what's the attraction?!
Pages