Thread: When does "tolerant" become "too tolerant"? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029546
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Some comments following a Washington Post article about societal problems in a small German town because of the 1700 migrants living there in tent cities, led me to a video on Youtube called "One country, two worlds: Islam - Effects on Germany - ZDF" (If I post the link, do hosts have to watch the whole half hour?)
I find the questions raised fascinating, and I don't always know what side of a specific issue I am on. Shouldn't people be able to live their own culture, but shouldn't women be free to choose who to marry, and what happens when those two values conflict?
The video is inspired by concerns about whether the new migrants will become German or instead create a parallel universe. It explores the parallel universe created by the "guest workers" who moved there in the 70s, an in-Germany world where girls must obey family males and may not choose who to marry.
To what extent should migrants - now or any time - be accepted on a "you adopt our culture or leave" basis, vs a "bring your culture and impose it on your people (but leave us alone)" basis?
What if anything should happen when some migrants openly reject the values of the country they moved to instead of adapting and integrating to their new homeland's ways?
The Washington Post article
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Funnily enough, I was thinking about this question earlier today, having happened to see a random newspaper headline "Why should we tolerate the burkha?"
I think it was in the Telegraph, but my answer is that if you don't tolerate the burkha, you may think you're standing up for women's rights and trying to overturn the patriarchy but if you ask the women who are being forced to abandon it, most of them will say they're exchanging one group of people telling them what to wear for another.
And I don't think we've got to the stage of being 'too tolerant' yet. If we had, things like the murder of Sophie Lancaster wouldn't happen.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
What about the suggestion- in principle- that if we were less tolerant we might be taking a tougher line on things like forced marriage, FGM, and dodgy exorcisms of child 'witches'? As for the burka, there's surely a difference between telling people that they must wear something and telling them that they mustn't wear one specific thing. But we need to take account of our culture too, and part of that culture is the liberal position that we tend not to like telling people what they must or mustn't wear- so while some of us may dislike it and wish that it wasn't worn, we're not prepared to ban it. Quite different in France, where they have a culture of republican equality which leads them in the other direction.
It has to be, surely, a pragmatic matter of give andd take all round; a distinction between things we dislike and things we can't tolerate, between things that are essential to who we are and things that aren't.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
It has to be, surely, a pragmatic matter of give and take all round; a distinction between things we dislike and things we can't tolerate, between things that are essential to who we are and things that aren't.
Exactly.
Really, it's only an extension of the same rights and responsibilities we expect of our native citizens. We will accept a pretty wide swath of abnormality-- all sorts of weird quirks and habits and fetishes-- if they have little or no impact on others. Even things that are uncomfortable, perhaps, or distasteful to others, if they are not causing any material or physical harm.
But there is a line we will draw-- we won't allow infanticide, for example, even in the name of, say, religious freedom. An extreme example, but I think it goes to the point: would we allow this degree/sort of variation among our native citizens? If yes, then we ought to tolerate it among refugees and immigrants, even if their sort of variation is different than ours (i.e. we allow teens to dress in ways that might seem sloppy, immodest, or just plain ugly to others, so surely we should allow burkas or other forms of religious dress that might strike us as merely odd or unusual).
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
We all draw the line somewhere. The current societal position in Britain, on the whole, is that we can put up with hurt feelings, but we don't tolerate physical harm. It hasn't always been so. If physical abuse is tolerated or even encouraged within the culture of people who come to live here, that should not be seen as acceptable, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted in the same way as everyone else.
Similarly, if our law prohibits bigamy, but those coming to live here think it acceptable to have more than one wife, they should be prosecuted in the same way as everyone else.
If there is a law against abduction, and a young girl is abducted so that she will be forced to marry, then those who abducted her should be prosecuted.
Bullying is a difficult middle ground. At what point does parental control become bullying?
As for clothing, if it is legal to wear a balaclava, it should be legal to wear anything else that covers the face. The fact that it either makes others feel afraid or encourages others to ignore them might be a deterrent, but it does no real harm to anyone else.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
... The video is inspired by concerns about whether the new migrants will become German or instead create a parallel universe. It explores the parallel universe created by the "guest workers" who moved there in the 70s, an in-Germany world where girls must obey family males and may not choose who to marry. ...
The first generation of guest workers (many of whom were Turkish) in Germany were not citizens. Their children and grandchildren, born and raised in Germany, are excluded from German society by racism. Why would they trust in the "values" of a society that thinks they and their families will always be second-class non-Germans? And anybody who is worried about arranged marriages in immigrant communities in Europe needs to tell me why extremist Mormons are still getting away with trafficking children in North America.
To paraphrase Gandhi, many people might like "western" values if we actually practiced them.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
What about the suggestion- in principle- that if we were less tolerant we might be taking a tougher line on things like forced marriage, FGM, and dodgy exorcisms of child 'witches'?
We might well, but that's because we're a bunch of reactionary idiots who don't think things through.
We should be intolerant of forced marriage and other forms of child abuse, whether we're talking about FLDS extremists or Muslims from some rural village somewhere.
But we don't really have any principles, except that we fetishize democracy and hope it all kind of works out, which means we don't have a framework for thinking about this.
Ben Franklin never actually described democracy as two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner, but there's a point in there, which is that nobody has any business voting on what's for dinner. We are, in general, very bad at saying "it's none of our business whether you do X."
So we could, certainly, oppose FGM and forced marriage because we're jackbooted cultural imperialists and are going to force you to behave like us, or we could oppose FGM and forced marriage because we are going to defend your children's rights because they are the same as our own children's rights.
A lot of the pussyfooting is because people would like to think they're in the second group, but aren't really very committed to it, but are scared of looking like they're in the first group.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
I'd say it depends on how much the new residents want to be treated like Germans.
There is always some amount of tension between the cohesiveness of an expatriate/exile community and assimilation. There are benefits to both things, but I don't think it's ever happened that an immigrant could remain completely faithful to the culture he came from and at the same time be accepted as part of the culture in the place he emigrated to. It's a trade-off; the more you cling to your ways, the more likely you are to be seen as "other," and the more you assimilate, the more you have to give up.
Where I live, it's especially visible with immigrants from Asia and Latin America. It generally takes 3 or so generations until full assimilation occurs, though people of some cultures resist for much longer (or give up much sooner).
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
We're in the middle of an election in Canada, and in the midst of this issue. The sitting Conservative prime minister has made the wearing of a niqab (a cultural Moslem face covering for women) at citizenship ceremonies an election issue. (He's had help from the wicked Australian man Crosby who got Cameron in the UK recently, but that's a hell call I think.)
Albertus expresses the balance: "there's surely a difference between telling people that they must wear something and telling them that they mustn't wear one specific thing".
Now how to ensure that it's voluntary versus coerced is another matter. It's also, I think necessary to require that immigrants learn the languages required in the receiving country, and to become proficient in the culture. In my youth it was eastern Europeans, who wore black clothes, spoke Ukrainian dialects and other languages of the region of origin, and the women all wore what we called babushkas, which look a lot like hijabs. A couple of generations later, and it seems to have disappeared. Though we still talk about "going down behind the perogy curtain", which means the Ukrainian plate will be available at truck stops and cafes.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
To what extent should migrants - now or any time - be accepted on a "you adopt our culture or leave" basis, vs a "bring your culture and impose it on your people (but leave us alone)" basis?
What if anything should happen when some migrants openly reject the values of the country they moved to instead of adapting and integrating to their new homeland's ways?
From your linked article:
quote:
That is especially true after the riot. In this quaint municipality of 3,000 inhabitants, the chaos started at lunchtime Sunday when a 19-year-old Albanian cut in the food line at the town’s new tent city, prompting a reprimand from a 43-year-old Pakistani. Pushes degenerated into punches. Soon, 300 migrants wielding pepper spray and metal pipes were attacking each other in rival mobs.
A caravan of ambulances and SWAT team vans careened down streets lined with gawking residents. More than 50 police officers struggled for hours to restore order, with three hospitalized with injuries, according to witnesses and local officials.
From about a month and a half ago:
quote:
A riot erupted in the German town of Heidenau on Saturday when an angry mob of anti-immigrant protesters greeted buses loaded with 250 asylum seekers.
Thirty one police officers were injured in the melee, one of them seriously, authorities told Tagesspiegel. The demonstration reportedly turned violent when members of the far-right National Democratic Party arrived on the scene.
Protesters hurled bottles and rocks at the buses and chanted "Wir sind das Volk," ("We are the people") — a rallying cry used by East Germans calling for reunification before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The saying was repurposed earlier this year by the Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident (PEGIDA) movement.
Sounds like the new arrivals are "adapting and integrating to their new homeland's ways" just fine!
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Albertus: quote:
What about the suggestion- in principle- that if we were less tolerant we might be taking a tougher line on things like forced marriage, FGM, and dodgy exorcisms of child 'witches'?
All of these things are already illegal in the UK. If they are not as rare as we'd like them to be, perhaps we should find the funding for more police and social workers so that the existing laws can be effectively enforced.
quote:
As for the burka, there's surely a difference between telling people that they must wear something and telling them that they mustn't wear one specific thing.
Well, I would defend your right to walk down Oxford Street in a pink tutu if you wanted to, but a lot of people wouldn't. You only think you are free to wear what you like because you don't want to wear anything unusual; also, being male, you are free to walk down the street without fearing that complete strangers will feel compelled to comment (loudly) on your appearance.
And yes, I do think we would lose an important part of our cultural identity if we banned burkhas. Or hijabs. Or whatever the current Islamophobes are focused on. There is quite enough intolerance of people who dress differently already, without encouraging every street-corner yobbo to harass women in Muslim dress. Do you seriously think that will de-radicalise people? How would you like it if your granny got beaten up for walking to the corner shop with a headscarf on?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by
quote:
Similarly, if our law prohibits bigamy, but those coming to live here think it acceptable to have more than one wife, they should be prosecuted in the same way as everyone else.
No need to go too deeply into it, but I think it would be fair (and is already the case in our law, I think) to make a distinction between a person who arrives here already in a bigamous marriage, where much distress might be caused by arbitrarily breaking it up, and a person who, having arrived here in a monogamous relationship, wants to contract a bigamous marriage (or a third or fourth marriage on top of an already bigamous relationship) in the UK.
A similar consideration applies to some other situations.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Personally I think that not recognising polygamous marriages does more harm than good. Even if we don't treat them as marriages in law there needs to be some legal protection for secondary spouses otherwise people are left very vulnerable. More widely there needs to be a conversation about how the civil law deals with non-traditional family structures. Polyamory is the living situation of a small but growing number of people and when there are likely to be children involved it seems like a good idea to smooth out some of the bumps in how that works without requiring every family to employ a team of lawyers before they start their relationship.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Jane R
You seem to have misread my posting in an astonishing way. May I make it clear- as it would be to anybody who read what I said with the very least smidgin of fairness and an open mind- that disapproving of something does not for a moment mean the same thing as harrassing or attacking those who do or wear that thing. I can only imagine that you have some agenda of your own here, though what it might be I have no idea.
As for funding police and social workers to investigate and prosecute the things that I mentioned at the beginning of my post: anyone who has their eyes open knows that enforcing laws depends on both resources and will to enforce. There have always been offences that have not in general been dealt with- domestic violence and child abuse were long in that category in much of the UK. There has not, AFAIK, been a single prosecution for FGM in the UK except, I think, of a couple of doctors who effectively restored a woman to her mutilated condition after another unrelated intervention. I suggest that that reflects at the very least an uneasiness at the prospect of appearing racist by prosecuting women (not those mutilated, those who arrange it- AIUI it usually is women who arrange FGM) from ethnic minorities for what might be seen as a culturally significant practice.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Personally I think that not recognising polygamous marriages does more harm than good. Even if we don't treat them as marriages in law there needs to be some legal protection for secondary spouses otherwise people are left very vulnerable. More widely there needs to be a conversation about how the civil law deals with non-traditional family structures. Polyamory is the living situation of a small but growing number of people and when there are likely to be children involved it seems like a good idea to smooth out some of the bumps in how that works without requiring every family to employ a team of lawyers before they start their relationship.
Are these women any more vulnerable than the increasing numbers of single mothers and their children who are not religious? At least the children of non-legally binding religious marriages are recognised by, and have a relationship with their fathers. This is not always the case in other kinds of families.
More broadly, I do feel that refugees and other migrants applying for leave to remain in another country should be given assistance in understanding the cultural values and expectations of the country in question. I'm not sure if this routinely happens in Europe, but it would surely aid integration and prevent misunderstandings. I can understand why the German school in this situation decided to send out this message about how schoolgirls should dress, but really, it would be far better for everyone if the refugees understood Western attitudes towards individual freedom and women's rights, etc.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Some years ago a Muslim woman sued the Department of Motor Vehicles (in Florida, I think it was). They would not issue her a driver's license because she refused to have her face photographed without covering.
I don't recall how the case turned out. I think the DMV was right. If you refuse to show your face uncovered, how can you be identified?
Moo
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Jane R
You seem to have misread my posting in an astonishing way. May I make it clear- as it would be to anybody who read what I said with the very least smidgin of fairness and an open mind- that disapproving of something does not for a moment mean the same thing as harrassing or attacking those who do or wear that thing. I can only imagine that you have some agenda of your own here, though what it might be I have no idea.
None is needed, beyond the recognition that where there is societal disapproval, there will always be those who take it further and harass and attack.
Can you think of a single example of something which is widely disapproved of but for which people are never harassed or attacked? I get harassed for having long hair, and that's not even generally disapproved of any more. I get harassed for commuting on a bike, even though it's only a minority who disapprove of cycling. How much worse would it be for me if these things were widely disapproved of? I'd get more than "cut your fucking hair you hippy div!" and "get off the road you fucking wanker!" wouldn't I?
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
The bottom line on how tolerant we should be is how many people are getting hurt.
With bullying it is easy. The bully is not tolerated, so fewer people get hurt. Zero tolerance for bullying is the right way.
With government policies it is harder. I would say that policies that harm more people than they help should be argued against, up to peaceful disobedience. But it is not so easy. There is the level of hurt to look at.
It is easy to say that there are a few asylum seekers and a lot of native people, so make it difficult for the few. But is the hurt of the native people so bad?
People are leaving their native countries to seek asylum in Greece. How desperate do you have to be to go to a county with a collapsing economy.
Here's the problem. Measuring the level of hurt on something as big as the current European migrant crisis is a lot harder than something that can be conveyed in a news bulletin. Politicians and journalists will look at the complex issues and come to different conclusions. My view is that more help per capita for those living in tents and a little extra discomfort in the short term for the natives of the host country is a good thing. Coming into contact with people of a different culture is a positive for both sides if we can drop our xenophobic tendencies.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Karl, it's a matter of degree and of comparative disapproval. I dsapprove of women wearing burkas: I disapprove more- even I would hope to the extent of doing something about it if I saw it and had the guts- of people attacking and harrassing women for wearing the burka.
[ 13. October 2015, 12:25: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Albertus: quote:
You seem to have misread my posting in an astonishing way. May I make it clear- as it would be to anybody who read what I said with the very least smidgin of fairness and an open mind- that disapproving of something does not for a moment mean the same thing as harrassing or attacking those who do or wear that thing. I can only imagine that you have some agenda of your own here, though what it might be I have no idea.
I apologise for the tone of my previous post. Might I in return suggest that you are less likely to be misinterpreted if you refrain from using loaded words like 'agenda' to describe the comments of people who disagree with you?
The reason why your previous post got right up my nose was that you appeared to be equating tolerance of wearing the burkha with approval of forced marriage, FGM and child abuse.
Just for the record, I don't approve of the burkha either, but I think telling women they can't wear it is wrong. Fix their other problems and maybe they'll abandon it of their own accord.
Oh, and I was delighted to hear that the Prime Minister disapproves of anti-Muslim hate crime, but it came as rather a surprise after the Home Secretary's speech at the Conservative conference.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Karl, it's a matter of degree and of comparative disapproval. I dsapprove of women wearing burkas: I disapprove more- even I would hope to the extent of doing something about it if I saw it and had the guts- of people attacking and harrassing women for wearing the burka.
Yeah, but the thing is when you say "I disapprove of women wearing burkas" you legitimise those who would go rather further and harass, at least in their own minds.
Let me give you another example.
For reasons I have no intention of going into here, I was sent to a minor public school, despite left-wing political connections. There was a low level of grief I got about that from other students. One day a guest speaker at an assembly commented on how now the Tories were in (it was 1979) a "more favourable environment" would exist for the independent sector. That subtle, low level of disapproval of the Labour party was enough to increase, significantly, the amount of harrassment and abuse I got for some days afterwards. Including the level of violence.
You need to be extremely careful before legitimising disapproval in society. It's a very, very powerful force.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The bottom line on how tolerant we should be
is how many people are getting hurt.
I don't think this thread is about whether or not we should welcome refugees who are getting hurt, but about their integration when they arrive in the West.
One problem is that there's not much for them to integrate into, I suppose. The British in particular don't really require much more than that you don't attract too much attention to yourself. Knowing how to mind your own business. But that's easier said than done, because too much 'minding your own business' can look like segregation and cultishness, and those things draw unwelcome attention in themselves....
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
It depends on who builds the ghetto.
People building their own communities is one thing, being told, "You have to live here," is another story.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Also, women who wear the burkha or hijab or niqab or any of the other variations on this theme are conforming to the standards of dress for Respectable Women in their community. I can understand why they do that, because I have been harassed for the 'crime' of being female in a public space myself. If you ever did walk down Oxford Street in a pink tutu you might get some idea of what being female in a public space is like.
It is unfortunate that these women are caught between two groups with different standards of what constitutes 'respectable' dress, but it's a wider problem; it's the other side of slut-shaming.
Oh, and what Karl said.
[ 13. October 2015, 12:49: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And one of the reasons that although I disapprove of women wearing the Burka I do no more than disapprove, passively, of it is that I recognise exactly that point about women dressing according to the standards that are respectable in their society, or rather dressing within the range of standards that are respectable, since I often see women with the veil and muslim women without the veil out together with no suggestion that the veiled women look down on the unveiled ones.
Meanwhile I must learn from Karl's admirable tolerance and remember not to disapprove of child abuse because that only serves to legitimate vigilantes who set fire to the homes of convicted and released paedophiles. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 13. October 2015, 13:52: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And one of the reasons that although I disapprove of women wearing the Burka I do no more than disapprove, passively,
I only disapprove if they are forced to wear the burka by someone else, including by peer pressure.
Should she decide to dress like that of her own free will it is fine.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
It depends on who builds the ghetto.
People building their own communities is one thing, being told, "You have to live here," is another story.
Well, if we're talking about the Syrian refugees in Europe, they're expecting to be housed by the state for the time being. This means they're not free to go just anywhere - although some of them seem to be rather choosy (i.e. choosy about which country to go to, and which regions).
If we're talking about more established ethnic minority communities with work/study visas or British citizenship, for example, these days they can live wherever in the country they like, depending on availability, affordability, jobs, etc. Discrimination over housing was much worse in the past. Now, everyone's top priority is just to make money out of their property as possible.
I think we should acknowledge too that so-called 'ghettos' aren't simply about the people moving in, but the people moving out. In many places 'integration' is relatively meaningless because the indigenous population has largely chosen to leave, or send its children to different schools. This movement pre-dates mass immigration, but it's left a long term cultural impact.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
It depends on who builds the ghetto.
People building their own communities is one thing, being told, "You have to live here," is another story.
Folk need to remember that many of these communities cohere (in ghettoes, if you like the word) for a very basic reason-- they don't have a lot of money and accommodation is relatively low-cost in some areas. The part of Ottawa where I live received waves of Irish (S Patrick, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, S Luke), eastern Europeans (S Saviour's, S Leopold Mandic, S Hyacinth), Italians (S Anthony) and Vietnamese (now they are being succeeded by a wash of condo-buyers, but that's another story-- their places of Sunday worship are brunch joints on Preston Street).
When that happens, shops etc will grow up around them to serve that population. Again, no surprise. And as soon as they can afford the suburbs, off they go! Nobody ever told them to live anywhere in particular. But rents and fixer-uppers are where immigrant and refugee populations (not identical population sets) will head.
Receiving countries can expect some challenges on integrating these populations, particularly in the school system which is for Canadians the main instrument of bringing them into local society (in Ontario, they have a choice of the RC system, the public system, or forking out $10k-$35k per child for private education) but they have been an incredible benefit for us.
England and Ireland can look at their own past, to see how the Huguenot refugees of the 1700s invigorated their economies, bringing new industries and skillsets along with a population very much committed to their new home. Often some very political refugees produce children with different social and political views (Michael Portillo, anyone?). Others, having fled to Britain as refugees, are not even thought of in the context (twice-fled Prince Philip is not a bad example).
The burka or niqab is extremely rare here (when there was shameful election talk of banning them in the public service, nobody could come up with a single example) and normally among the wives of visa students, but the hijab or headscarf is seen often enough on lively and articulate students-- my Muslim friends tell me about a quarter or fifth. I learned a long time ago that it is foolish and inappropriate to tell women what to wear and would advise Conservative and separatist politicians to follow my wise example.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And one of the reasons that although I disapprove of women wearing the Burka I do no more than disapprove, passively, of it is that I recognise exactly that point about women dressing according to the standards that are respectable in their society, or rather dressing within the range of standards that are respectable, since I often see women with the veil and muslim women without the veil out together with no suggestion that the veiled women look down on the unveiled ones.
Meanwhile I must learn from Karl's admirable tolerance and remember not to disapprove of child abuse because that only serves to legitimate vigilantes who set fire to the homes of convicted and released paedophiles.
Argument by ridiculous comparison. I said you must be very careful, not you should never disapprove of anything.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Yeah, but the thing is when you say "I disapprove of women wearing burkas" you legitimise those who would go rather further and harass, at least in their own minds.
Yeah, but the thing is when you say "I disapprove of child abuse" you legitimise those who would go rather further and burn out paedophiles, at least in their own minds.
[ 13. October 2015, 15:26: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I once had an interesting discussion with a prominent Muslim politician. She said there is a difference between a woman being forced to adhere to a religious dress code and a woman choosing to dress like that. Society should help a woman trapped in a religious dress code she doesn't want to be part of whilst at the same time upholding other women's rights to dress according to their religion as they see it.
It seems to me that white men generally can't see the difference and often do not allow that any woman anywhere would choose to dress like that.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Yeah, but the thing is when you say "I disapprove of women wearing burkas" you legitimise those who would go rather further and harass, at least in their own minds.
Yeah, but the thing is when you say "I disapprove of child abuse" you legitimise those who would go rather further and burn out paedophiles, at least in their own minds.
Which is why you go on to consider whether the negative effects of widespread societal disapproval of the Burka outweigh the positive effects. Similarly with child abuse. And you might just come up with different answers.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Whatever. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I once had an interesting discussion with a prominent Muslim politician. She said there is a difference between a woman being forced to adhere to a religious dress code and a woman choosing to dress like that. Society should help a woman trapped in a religious dress code she doesn't want to be part of whilst at the same time upholding other women's rights to dress according to their religion as they see it.
It seems to me that white men generally can't see the difference and often do not allow that any woman anywhere would choose to dress like that.
Depends where you are: my straw polling on this over the years is that the difference is generally not seen by a wide range of people. If anything, I would have said that it was francophones or women of colour who did not allow that any woman would choose to dress that way. I suppose it depends on whom you are polling (actually, my sampling suggests unanimous support among transgendered white persons for wearing the niqab but the two with whom I have spoken are perhaps not a significant enough sample).
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yeah, but the thing is when you say "I disapprove of child abuse" you legitimise those who would go rather further and burn out paedophiles, at least in their own minds.
No you don't. You mean exactly what you have said. If other people gloss that to reach their own conclusions, that is their mistake, for which they are wholly morally responsible. Not you.
The only exception to this is if you do not, or can't be bothered to, express yourself clearly enough. If somebody gets the wrong end of the stick because you don't express yourself clearly, that is your fault. If they get the wrong end of the stick because they don't listen to what you said, that is their fault. All that, though, is a different issue.
Nor is anyone entitled to tell you you must not express what you think because other people might misunderstand what you said, or hang something else onto it that you didn't put there. Whether you express your own opinion or not is entirely a matter for you to decide.
You are free to express it. You are free not to. It is up to you.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think we should acknowledge too that so-called 'ghettos' aren't simply about the people moving in, but the people moving out. In many places 'integration' is relatively meaningless because the indigenous population has largely chosen to leave, or send its children to different schools. This movement pre-dates mass immigration, but it's left a long term cultural impact.
And the few pale skinned people, often elderly, who cannot afford to move out can, if they welcome their new neighbours, become valued members of an otherwise darker skinned Muslim community. As has happened in this town.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Which is why you go on to consider whether the negative effects of widespread societal disapproval of the Burka outweigh the positive effects.
No, you don't.
People have (and should have) the right to choose to wear a burqa. People have (and should have) the right to disapprove of that choice.
End of.
I understand your point about widespread disapproval encouraging people who are so inclined to yell abuse at long-haired cyclists, for example, and you're right. Bullies pick on people with unpopular characteristics; it all falls apart when a bully yells "fucking footballers" and all his mates look at him like he's crazy.
But the problem isn't that some people don't like long hair on men, or cyclists, or smart nerdy people, or any other set of characteristics - it's the bullying treatment that is the problem. And it's rather incumbent on those who do disapprove of the burqa to be the ones to stand up when some bully starts yelling about bin bags.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
balaam
Indeed. It happens in my town too. And interfaith work often seems to be an activity for older white Christians.
Unfortunately, though, these elderly people won't be around for ever, and I do wonder who's going to do their work when they're no longer here.
[ 13. October 2015, 17:26: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Which is why you go on to consider whether the negative effects of widespread societal disapproval of the Burka outweigh the positive effects.
No, you don't.
People have (and should have) the right to choose to wear a burqa. People have (and should have) the right to disapprove of that choice.
End of.
I understand your point about widespread disapproval encouraging people who are so inclined to yell abuse at long-haired cyclists, for example, and you're right. Bullies pick on people with unpopular characteristics; it all falls apart when a bully yells "fucking footballers" and all his mates look at him like he's crazy.
But the problem isn't that some people don't like long hair on men, or cyclists, or smart nerdy people, or any other set of characteristics - it's the bullying treatment that is the problem. And it's rather incumbent on those who do disapprove of the burqa to be the ones to stand up when some bully starts yelling about bin bags.
Bullshit. What you say has consequences. It's not unreasonable to ask people to consider what those consequences might be.
Posted by Anglicano (# 18476) on
:
quote:
What if anything should happen when some migrants openly reject the values of the country they moved to instead of adapting and integrating to their new homeland's ways?
Always remember that the worst integrators are.....the British. They failed to integrate in India and Africa and there are hundreds of thousands of British immigrants in Spain and Portugal who can't/won't speak the language.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yeah, but the thing is when you say "I disapprove of child abuse" you legitimise those who would go rather further and burn out paedophiles, at least in their own minds.
No you don't. You mean exactly what you have said. If other people gloss that to reach their own conclusions, that is their mistake, for which they are wholly morally responsible. Not you.
The only exception to this is if you do not, or can't be bothered to, express yourself clearly enough. If somebody gets the wrong end of the stick because you don't express yourself clearly, that is your fault. If they get the wrong end of the stick because they don't listen to what you said, that is their fault. All that, though, is a different issue.
Nor is anyone entitled to tell you you must not express what you think because other people might misunderstand what you said, or hang something else onto it that you didn't put there. Whether you express your own opinion or not is entirely a matter for you to decide.
You are free to express it. You are free not to. It is up to you.
I reserve the right to say I don't think you should say particular things. I accept I can't say you MUST not. And I do not believe one can excuse oneself from the predictable consequences of what one says. I do hold the Jeremy Clarksons of this world, for example, partly responsible for the treatment cyclists get, which sometimes results in their deaths.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Bullshit. What you say has consequences. It's not unreasonable to ask people to consider what those consequences might be.
I am in two minds on this. On the one hand, clearly it would be better if people more-or-less logically thought about the effects of their words on others.
On the other hand, that probably isn't possibly when we're talking about strongly-held beliefs, people are not generally able to understand completely different worldviews or to empathise with the stereotypical "other". Another difficulty is that although one might want to try to think of others, this quickly becomes a difficult task when there are a range of different people responding differently to the same phenomena.
Practically speaking, therefore, one can only really understand the point of view of people that one understands and/or knows well (obviously) and one can only really be judged against ones own moral standards - held in common with the community of people one understands and moves within - and/or the societal standards exacted as laws (which in themselves might be struggling to see how to include the needs of a diverse population, but clearly are not just there to support the historical norms of a historical WASP population).
It is a delicate balance, but overall I think it isn't really physically possible to ask people to consider the effects of their words on people who are different.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I do hold the Jeremy Clarksons of this world, for example, partly responsible for the treatment cyclists get, which sometimes results in their deaths.
That is something of a special case as it is bullying. Specifically, a rich, privately educated white male with an over-developed sense of entitlement (and tendency to extreme anger and violence) really shouldn't be given any sort of credence, even if he is, as bullies often say "'Avin a larf".
Definitely not to be tolerated.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I reserve the right to say I don't think you should say particular things. I accept I can't say you MUST not.
Yes, of course. Just like you could say that people shouldn't wear burqas, but can't say that they mustn't.
quote:
And I do not believe one can excuse oneself from the predictable consequences of what one says. I do hold the Jeremy Clarksons of this world, for example, partly responsible for the treatment cyclists get, which sometimes results in their deaths.
I think it's perfectly possible to argue that cyclists should be banned from roads because they impede the flow of car traffic, say, without having any responsibility for the treatment of cyclists. That's not what the likes of Clarkson do, though - what you get from them is sneering contempt of cyclists, and encouraging that same contempt in others.
A fine line? Perhaps.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicano:
quote:
What if anything should happen when some migrants openly reject the values of the country they moved to instead of adapting and integrating to their new homeland's ways?
Always remember that the worst integrators are.....the British. They failed to integrate in India and Africa and there are hundreds of thousands of British immigrants in Spain and Portugal who can't/won't speak the language.
I heartily agree. British people who go to Spain/Portugal/India/Africa and refuse to integrate are just as wrong as Spanish/Portugese/Indian/African people who move to Britain and refuse to integrate.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I reserve the right to say I don't think you should say particular things. I accept I can't say you MUST not.
Yes, of course. Just like you could say that people shouldn't wear burqas, but can't say that they mustn't.
quote:
And I do not believe one can excuse oneself from the predictable consequences of what one says. I do hold the Jeremy Clarksons of this world, for example, partly responsible for the treatment cyclists get, which sometimes results in their deaths.
I think it's perfectly possible to argue that cyclists should be banned from roads because they impede the flow of car traffic, say, without having any responsibility for the treatment of cyclists. That's not what the likes of Clarkson do, though - what you get from them is sneering contempt of cyclists, and encouraging that same contempt in others.
A fine line? Perhaps.
It's also a fine line between "You shouldn't be on the road anyway" and "so I'm going to give you a fag paper's space as I overtake" - one which makes life unpleasant on a daily basis. But we're getting away from my central point, which is that you cannot completely separate societal disapproval of something from harrassment of people who indulging in the activity disapproved of, whether it be wearing a Burqa, cycling, having long hair, or dressing as a Goth.
Posted by Anglicano (# 18476) on
:
I lived in Ireland for some years. I remained an Anglican and was a member of the Church of Ireland. It did not occur to me to become a Roman Catholic but I respected that Church. I'm not sure whether (traditionally) Irish RCs in England respected the CofE, but hopefully things are better now.
I've no problem with non-Anglican religions here as long as they respect our church and do not seek to convert us. I have a feeling that that could not be said of these trendy "New Atheists".
I'm quite happy with multi-culturalism. I do not share the culture of the Tory right, UKIP or for that matter socialist class warriors, but they're part of our society, as are various ethnic and religious groups.
But in conclusion there are certain practices which we should not tolerate, eg FGM and polygamy. It's all a question of degree.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicano:
I lived in Ireland for some years. I remained an Anglican and was a member of the Church of Ireland. It did not occur to me to become a Roman Catholic but I respected that Church. I'm not sure whether (traditionally) Irish RCs in England respected the CofE, but hopefully things are better now.
Bit of a struggle to see where this is related to the thread, to be honest with you.
quote:
I've no problem with non-Anglican religions here as long as they respect our church and do not seek to convert us. I have a feeling that that could not be said of these trendy "New Atheists".
That seems to be a very odd thing to say from someone who is a member of a missionary faith. Presumably you'd be in favour of attempting to convert atheists, no?
quote:
I'm quite happy with multi-culturalism. I do not share the culture of the Tory right, UKIP or for that matter socialist class warriors, but they're part of our society, as are various ethnic and religious groups.
But in conclusion there are certain practices which we should not tolerate, eg FGM and polygamy. It's all a question of degree.
Why those things in particular? You seem to be strong on asserting things, but pretty weak on giving any real reasons for them.
Posted by Anglicano (# 18476) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicano:
I lived in Ireland for some years. I remained an Anglican and was a member of the Church of Ireland. It did not occur to me to become a Roman Catholic but I respected that Church. I'm not sure whether (traditionally) Irish RCs in England respected the CofE, but hopefully things are better now.
Bit of a struggle to see where this is related to the thread, to be honest with you.
Sorry you're struggling. It's just that I did not alter/adjust my culture and religion to concur with that of the host community and I was tolerated.
quote:
I've no problem with non-Anglican religions here as long as they respect our church and do not seek to convert us. I have a feeling that that could not be said of these trendy "New Atheists".
That seems to be a very odd thing to say from someone who is a member of a missionary faith. Presumably you'd be in favour of attempting to convert atheists, no?
I don't go round trying to convert. Should I?
quote:
I'm quite happy with multi-culturalism. I do not share the culture of the Tory right, UKIP or for that matter socialist class warriors, but they're part of our society, as are various ethnic and religious groups.
But in conclusion there are certain practices which we should not tolerate, eg FGM and polygamy. It's all a question of degree.
Why those things in particular? You seem to be strong on asserting things, but pretty weak on giving any real reasons for them.
Polygamy and FGM are against the law in this country.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Is polygamy actually against the law in the UK? Surely what is against the law is going through what would otherwsie be a binding form of marriage while you are still legally married to someone else. There would AIUI be nothing illegal in going through multiple forms of, say, religious marriage which did not in themselves have legal effect, especially if there were no deception involved.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicano:
Polygamy and FGM are against the law in this country.
Isn't that argument just a tad circular? "We shouldn't have them because they're illegal."
I agree, of course, that we shouldn't tolerate FGM, but that's because it's a horrific abuse of girls and women, not because it's illegal.
It is rather less clear why polygamy should be illegal. (It's clear that plural legal marriage is much more complicated than two-person marriage. I imagine crafting legislation to allow a 6-way marriage with four children to split up into a three-way marriage, a two-way marriage and a single person would keep orfeo gainfully employed for many years to come. But that's a practical argument against it, not a principled one.)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Alberts, they would not be marriages.
[ 14. October 2015, 22:01: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Yes, that's pretty much what I thought. The people contracting them might think of them as marriages but in law they would not be, so no offence committed. I might declare the six women who share my life to be my wives, and they might declare themselves to be my wives, and we might even go through some form of ceremony to mark that; but that is just our own business if we leave it at that.
[ 14. October 2015, 22:07: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Different people's expectations can conflict, when neither side is "wrong", they just have differing values that cannot co-exist intact.
On a personal level, if we share a cruise cabin or resort room and I find a playmate do I get to say you can't sleep here tonight? (Been there.)
In Florida there are occasional conflicts between those who sacrifice animals in worship and those who say that violates public health laws.
A famous atheist wanted to not have to see any crosses when she drove around a town. A friend wants a prominent cross on every hill top so when you look up, you can't help but see a cross. Who gets their way -- those who want to practice and display their religion with signs, smells, sounds projected into the public space, or those who want freedom from religious intrusion on their enjoyment of public space?
We don't have to talk about Germany or Islam to discuss the issue of conflicts of expectation that cannot be resolved in a way that pleases everyone.
I found the question "When does "tolerant" become "too tolerant" intriguing because I think it's asking a question that has no clear answer when two groups have needs or expressions or expectations that impact outsiders to the group.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
Non-legal marriages can cause considerable challenges when they dissolve - I've had dealings with such over child protection issues. The marriage certificate issued by an imam (in NZ) bore no resemblance to the legal marriage certificate used in NZ, but the family held it to be fully legal.
Oddly enough, in the case I saw right through, the end result was better than expected because the (very young) mother realised she was entitled to more freedom and equal rights under NZ law and sought legal help to extricate herself from the very powerful men around her. And she got to keep the kids, which was looking very unlikely to begin with. It was very brave, given that the other end result was her being ostracised by her community. She's doing OK, though, and so are the kids.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Belle ringer: quote:
A famous atheist wanted to not have to see any crosses when she drove around a town. A friend wants a prominent cross on every hill top so when you look up, you can't help but see a cross. Who gets their way -- those who want to practice and display their religion with signs, smells, sounds projected into the public space, or those who want freedom from religious intrusion on their enjoyment of public space?
Interesting. In a town near mine some Christians got all upset when an atheist billboard went up. But it was just too-bad-so-sad for them. The attitude in law hereabouts seems to be that if religious symbols or atheist postings are on private property, people have to be in charge of their own eyes and turn away if they are offended. Sounds might be another problem. Church bells playing hymns? Muslims called to worship over a speaker system? Recorded lectures against religion heard outside a free-thinkers center? Ears are harder to cover, and many towns have noise abatement laws that basically say that if your noise disturbs people outside the space you control, you must cease and desist.
Government property is a different story. Our city government divested itself of part of a park that had a huge cross on it, and a historical consortium bought it and administers it now. It was a fairly amiable settlement. No secularists tried to cry foul against having a private half acre that has a cross in the middle of a nature park.
Yet. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by Anglicano (# 18476) on
:
In a town near mine some Christians got all upset when an atheist billboard went up.
Of course we had the famous bus poster advertisement telling us that God probably did not exist so no need to worry (or something). I don't think that non-atheists minded much. Apart from the fact that I felt a lot happier when I came to the conclusion that God probably did exist, I felt that the money spent on this poster could have been better spent on some worthy charity.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Perhaps they felt that freeing people from their theistic fantasies was in itself an act of charity.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
To what extent should migrants - now or any time - be accepted on a "you adopt our culture or leave" basis, vs a "bring your culture and impose it on your people (but leave us alone)" basis?
I would hope our culture is one where you do what you want as long as you aren't messing with other people or their stuff. So, if you can go for that, fine. However, I don't get the "impose it on your own people" stuff. Maybe some of your "own people" like the local culture better than the one in the old country. Maybe some of the local folks like what you bring, too. I'm not a Mexican but tacos and a couple of pints of Dos Equis each Thursday for lunch counts as gracious living in my book.
Posted by Anglicano (# 18476) on
:
the values of the country they moved to
------------------------------------------
Posted by Anglicano (# 18476) on
:
the values of the country they moved to
------------------------------------------
This is a big issue here. People, not least politicians, are talking about "British Values" and I've a feeling they might even be taught in schools. The trouble is that I'm not sure what they are or that I share them. I suspect they're rather anodyne. Does Christianity form a part of the, or are they in some way "humanist", whatever that is.
Note too, "British" values, as opposed to English, Scottish, Welsh or European for that matter. And when David Cameron "reluctantly concedes" that there might be people born here who don't identify with Britain, is he thinking of nearly half the population of Scotland and of Northern Ireland and many Welsh people for that matter? No, he's not. And I wonder whether RC schools in the north of Ireland will be obliged to teach "British Values"?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I always suspect that the British values being proposed are more closely related to those taught to my grandmother, about curtseying to carriage folk because God had put them in their place because they were better than her, than to those of my grandmother, who didn't do it.
British values include those of the Lollards who inspired the Peasants Revolt, the translators of the Bible when it was against the law, the Levellers, Tom Paine, the American revolutionaries, the Methodist Tolpuddle Martyrs, the suffragists and suffragettes and others of that sort. I keep hearing mutterings about obedience to the law. I would go rather with an active involvement in the law, its formulation and consent to it.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
I've been reading a lot about this lately, mainly to sort out the tangle in my own head between my liberal impulse to support the rights of Muslims to practice their own faith and discomfort I feel at the very clear evidence that for some Muslims this might mean killing me or denying me the rights I seek for them.
I forget which book it was in but one commentator noted that Western law is mostly about defining what is forbidden and allowing the rest whereas Islamic law is mostly about prescribing what is allowed. The differences in the two approaches cause stark contrasts in the approach that Islamic and Western Cultures take towards civil society.
I think that we in the West who have spent most of our lives here just simply cannot see our own values because we're surrounded by them. But they are there and we hold them more fundamentally than we can appreciate until we find someone who doesn't hold them (and no they don't have to be Muslims to do that).
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicano:
the values of the country they moved to
------------------------------------------
This is a big issue here. People, not least politicians, are talking about "British Values" and I've a feeling they might even be taught in schools. The trouble is that I'm not sure what they are or that I share them. I suspect they're rather anodyne. Does Christianity form a part of the, or are they in some way "humanist", whatever that is.
Note too, "British" values, as opposed to English, Scottish, Welsh or European for that matter. And when David Cameron "reluctantly concedes" that there might be people born here who don't identify with Britain, is he thinking of nearly half the population of Scotland and of Northern Ireland and many Welsh people for that matter? No, he's not. And I wonder whether RC schools in the north of Ireland will be obliged to teach "British Values"?
Without wishing to get into the detail of what Mr Cameron means by 'British values'- or of whther he actually knoiws what he means- 'British' in this conext could make sense, as the point about 'Britain' and 'British' is that they exist as additional identities to pull together first the English and the Scots, and then other groups. I realised this especially striongly when i settled in Wales: I'm English, but I've invested emotionally in Wales and I don;t describe myself on froms as 'English' because that would seem to deny that investment and be ungracious to a country that has welcomed me; but I'm not Welsh. So British is an inclusive identity that gets round that problem.
BTW ISTM that if Mr Cameron is looking for 'British values' he could do worse than start with the European Convention of Human Rights, which was of course drafted by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe and is very much grounded in British ideas about liberty and law.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
To what extent should migrants - now or any time - be accepted on a "you adopt our culture or leave" basis, vs a "bring your culture and impose it on your people (but leave us alone)" basis?
I would hope our culture is one where you do what you want as long as you aren't messing with other people or their stuff. So, if you can go for that, fine. However, I don't get the "impose it on your own people" stuff. Maybe some of your "own people" like the local culture better than the one in the old country. Maybe some of the local folks like what you bring, too.
The problem here is that a 'let's all just mind our own business' Britishness doesn't hold anything together. It's basically just individualism. And individualism represents modern Western culture in general, so it's hardly distinctively British.
I'm not complaining about this, really, because there's no point. I'm an individualist as much as anyone else. Britishness means whatever you want it to mean, according to strictly personal preference.
Posted by Anglicano (# 18476) on
:
British values include those of the Lollards who inspired the Peasants Revolt, the translators of the Bible when it was against the law, the Levellers, Tom Paine, the American revolutionaries, the Methodist Tolpuddle Martyrs, the suffragists and suffragettes and others of that sort.
---------------------
None of which would appeal particularly to the average UKIP supporter in a saloon bar and/or Clacton.
A few other points:
i) there is no such thing as "British Law";
ii) If you watch Scotland or Wales play England at football, you'll hear the British National Anthem roundly booed.
iii) State funded RC schools taught their children that the state church in England and the national church in Scotland were not really churches at all. Perhaps they still do.
Perhaps that's multi-culturalism?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
England shouldn't be using God Save the Queen as their anthem, especially when playing other home nations. It's our anthem as much as it's theirs. Let them use Jerusalem- much better song anyway. (I believe NI use GSTQ too; they should find or make up something of their own as well.)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
'Jerusalem' is rousing, but its reference to Jesus doesn't make it terribly user-friendly in a post-Christian, pluralist culture.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I have a bit of a silly problem in this vein, but it is certainly cultural.
50% of the people in our area are Pakistani-origin Muslims. Which is absolutely fine. We chat in the street etc.
But our next door neighbours are moving and an Asian family are moving in. We have two big dogs, these are 'unclean' to Muslims and most are very scared of them... when we go to the local park I am careful to have them close at heel when we pass Asian families.
So I feel sad that there will be no chance of inviting them in for cuppas, chats etc. I somehow feel it more keenly with next door neighbours than the folks who live on the same street.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
England shouldn't be using God Save the Queen as their anthem, especially when playing other home nations. It's our anthem as much as it's theirs. Let them use Jerusalem- much better song anyway. (I believe NI use GSTQ too; they should find or make up something of their own as well.)
(Londonderry Air?)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Boogie
There are lots of Muslims in the areas adjacent to mine, and some of them own dogs. They tend to be walked by teenaged boys and young men rather than women or families. In any case, you might not have a strictly anti-dog family moving in next to you, especially if you explain to them that your dogs are being trained to help human beings and are well-behaved.
As for making friends with the neighbours, that might happen, given time. My father has become very friendly with the Muslims on the street, and there's a mutual respect there, which involves helping out if necessary. It's also the Muslim custom to give gifts of food, for example when Ramadan ends.
If you share something of yourself with them they'll appreciate that, because they don't always find the indigenous population to be welcoming. They will appreciate that you're a Christian (but you don't have to go into the theological details).
[ 20. October 2015, 19:46: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Yes, we've seen the whole range of reactions to our dog among Muslim families that we meet in the street and so on that we have from (presumably) non-Muslims- from shying away from him to encouraging their children to take an interest in him. You might very easily have had non-Muslim neighbours with a strong dislike of, or allergy to, dogs, Boogie: that's just the luck of the draw, I think.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicano:
British values include those of the Lollards who inspired the Peasants Revolt, the translators of the Bible when it was against the law, the Levellers, Tom Paine, the American revolutionaries, the Methodist Tolpuddle Martyrs, the suffragists and suffragettes and others of that sort.
---------------------
None of which would appeal particularly to the average UKIP supporter in a saloon bar and/or Clacton.
A few other points:
i) there is no such thing as "British Law";
ii) If you watch Scotland or Wales play England at football, you'll hear the British National Anthem roundly booed.
iii) State funded RC schools taught their children that the state church in England and the national church in Scotland were not really churches at all. Perhaps they still do.
Perhaps that's multi-culturalism?
I'm perfectly aware that my British values are not those of UKIP, but that doesn't stop them being British.
Posted by Anglicano (# 18476) on
:
I'm perfectly aware that my British values are not those of UKIP, but that doesn't stop them being British.
------------------------------
Precisely. But presumably that means that UKIP values, Corbyn values and the values held by British-born Moslems in Oldham are also British. Which begs the question again, "what are British values"? And do we only tolerate those we approve of?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'Jerusalem' is rousing, but its reference to Jesus doesn't make it terribly user-friendly in a post-Christian, pluralist culture.
As Michael Flanders observed, what English national anthem do we have? Scotland has "Scotland for Aye", (or "for me" as it should more properly be*). The Welsh have Yr Hen Wlad fy Nhadau (which doesnt really make rude jokes about the English ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
). What have we got? Jerusalem. A song about a city on another continent.
GSTQ is terrible, and would be even if weren't solely a Monarchist, rather than National Anthem.
I can't speak for all booers, but I think many of those booing GSTQ are not objecting to England appropriating it for themselves so much as objecting to England trying to tell Scotland and Wales that it's their anthem as well. They don't want it.
*Joke only works spoken
[ 21. October 2015, 09:46: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
'Jerusalem' is rousing, but its reference to Jesus doesn't make it terribly user-friendly in a post-Christian, pluralist culture.
Are you sure of that? And if so, so what? it's only an indirect reference anyway.
Posted by Anglicano (# 18476) on
:
what English national anthem do we have? Scotland has "Scotland for Aye", (or "for me" as it should more properly be*). The Welsh have Yr Hen Wlad fy Nhadau
England trying to tell Scotland and Wales that it's their anthem as well. They don't want it.
-----------------
I thought that there was something called "Flower of Scotland", vaguely anti-English, which had replaced Scotland the Brave as the unofficial Scottish national anthem. Doesn't Wales have Men of Harlech? (Perhaps you're giving us the Welsh translation?).
Yes, England needs an anthem, and I don't like God Save the Queen much either. But politicians do. They prefer "Britain" to England and contemptuously refer to our flag as "the football flag": even though it's been used since the 13th century.
An Australian I know who'd lived in England/Britain for six months remarked, "they all hate each other". Hardly a comfortable observation when it comes to shared values and tolerance.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The first verse asks if the 'Holy Lamb of God' walked on 'England's green and pleasant land'. How is that 'indirect'? Of course, you might say it's only pretty imagery, but I'm not sure it's exactly the imagery we need.
Is England blessed with a special mission by God? Does the country particularly seek God's blessings? Do we even have any factories ('dark satanic mills') left to be blessed? I agree with the sentiment of making England a better place (i.e. building 'Jerusalem') but the song as a whole is a bit strange, when you think about it.
Maybe we could have a competition for some new lyrics.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicano:
what English national anthem do we have? Scotland has "Scotland for Aye", (or "for me" as it should more properly be*). The Welsh have Yr Hen Wlad fy Nhadau
England trying to tell Scotland and Wales that it's their anthem as well. They don't want it.
-----------------
I thought that there was something called "Flower of Scotland", vaguely anti-English, which had replaced Scotland the Brave as the unofficial Scottish national anthem. Doesn't Wales have Men of Harlech? (Perhaps you're giving us the Welsh translation?).
Yes, England needs an anthem, and I don't like God Save the Queen much either. But politicians do. They prefer "Britain" to England and contemptuously refer to our flag as "the football flag": even though it's been used since the 13th century.
An Australian I know who'd lived in England/Britain for six months remarked, "they all hate each other". Hardly a comfortable observation when it comes to shared values and tolerance.
Yr Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau is usually translated as Land of My Fathers. No, it's not Men of Harlech. That song doesn't appear to have any definitive set of lyrics in Welsh or in English.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
(Crossposted: response to Svitlana)
Anthems are often symbols and not meant to be taken literally. Plenty of Welsh people who don't have a word of the language apart from being able to sing the anthem itself happily sing 'o bydded i'r hen iaith barhau' ('O may the old language endure'). Plenty of Dutch people, from one of the most post-Christian countries in Europe, cheerfully sing an anthem that is not only devout but refers to their prince's undying loyalty to the King of Spain.
So I think a bit of Blakean mysticism could be carried off quite easily.
[ 21. October 2015, 11:43: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Anthems are often symbols and not meant to be taken literally. Plenty of Welsh people who don't have a word of the language apart from being able to sing the anthem itself happily sing 'o bydded i'r hen iaith barhau' ('O may the old language endure'). Plenty of Dutch people, from one of the most post-Christian countries in Europe, cheerfully sing an anthem that is not only devout but refers to their prince's undying loyalty to the King of Spain.
So I think a bit of Blakean mysticism could be carried off quite easily.
In certain nostalgic circles, I suppose. But I'm not sure it would serve the purpose of bringing a multicultural nation together. That sort of thing requires a shared heritage, and that's what modern Britishness has less and less of.
As for the Dutch I should think they face similar issues with their national anthem. Googling suggests that creating and reinforcing a common Dutchness is a challenge in the Netherlands. In fact, I read that knowing and singing the Dutch national anthem is pretty rare anyway, which is one way of getting round the problem of inheriting some ridiculous and irrelevant lyrics!
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I have a bit of a silly problem in this vein, but it is certainly cultural.
50% of the people in our area are Pakistani-origin Muslims. Which is absolutely fine. We chat in the street etc.
But our next door neighbours are moving and an Asian family are moving in. We have two big dogs, these are 'unclean' to Muslims and most are very scared of them... when we go to the local park I am careful to have them close at heel when we pass Asian families.
So I feel sad that there will be no chance of inviting them in for cuppas, chats etc. I somehow feel it more keenly with next door neighbours than the folks who live on the same street.
My dad was a Muslim (non practising, admittedly) but he came to love our two dogs very much. Essentially, they became *his* rather than the family's (and I hope they are re-united now).
When his father, my grandfather, a devout Muslim, visited us in the UK and stayed for around a month, he had to adapt to the fact that we kept a dog. It was a whippet at the time - beautiful creature.
Granddad would say disparagingly of her "She is NO KIND OF ANIMAL. She is BEAST." But he too, got quite fond of her (how can you not be fond of a whippet?)
So I wouldn't have any preconceptions about how Muslims will react to house dogs. Some might be uncomfortable, some perfectly happy, some need to acclimatise. And certainly as SvitlanaV2 says, the fact that yours are assistance dogs must add to their appeal. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Jerusalem was the final hymn at my father's Requiem Mass. Jerusalem is a symbolic place for both Muslims and Christians. And the hymn is on one level about the fact that we choose where to locate our own Jerusalem - our place of peace. My father, an immigrant, chose to build his in Lancashire.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... No, it's not Men of Harlech. That song doesn't appear to have any definitive set of lyrics in Welsh or in English.
Now that's given me an idea. Let's have
the Woad song as an anthem. Much more fun.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As Michael Flanders observed, what English national anthem do we have? Scotland has "Scotland for Aye", (or "for me" as it should more properly be*).
I've never heard of this song! You may have conflated 'Scotland the Brave' (which we Scots generally hate) with 'Scots Wha Hae'. And as u wel kno, 'Scotland for Aye' would mean 'Scotland Forever'. Which would be a good song, but it doesn't exist. Nice joke, though.
'Flower o Scotland' commemorates a battle in which the Scots beat the English forces of Edward I, who was a pretty nasty piece of work even by the standards of the time. It is anti-English to an extent, but a better emphasis would be to see it as pro-Scots. Rather like how commemorating the heroism of the Battle of Britain can be pro-British without being anti-German. 'Scots Wha Hae' is in a similar vein. (The full first line is 'Scots wha hae wi Wallace bled' - Scots who have with Wallace bled'.) Both are better and tougher songs than the rank sentimentalism of 'Scotland the Brave' - to which no one knows the words anyway. Indeed, it was Billy Connolly who pinted out that the Scots were the only people who danced to their national anthem!
And I remind you of the very anti-Scots verse of 'God save the Queen', never officially removed, as far as I am aware.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicano:
quote:
originally posted by PennyS:
I'm perfectly aware that my British values are not those of UKIP, but that doesn't stop them being British.
Precisely. But presumably that means that UKIP values, Corbyn values and the values held by British-born Moslems in Oldham are also British.
First, values held by people in Britain =\= British values. If the first is your standard, the second doesn't exist as you will find every variation of value possible.
Second, Moslem is an insult in Arabic, did you mean Muslim?
Third, not all of any broad religious group hold the same values.
quote:
originally posted by Anglicano:
Which begs the question again, "what are British values"? And do we only tolerate those we approve of?
National values will be a bit amorphous. But they won't be the key values in fringe manifestos. Speaking of the UKIP, are you professing tolerating the intolerant?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As Michael Flanders observed, what English national anthem do we have? Scotland has "Scotland for Aye", (or "for me" as it should more properly be*).
I've never heard of this song! You may have conflated 'Scotland the Brave' (which we Scots generally hate) with 'Scots Wha Hae'.
Karl is quoting from the introduction to the "Song of Patriotic Prejudice" by the wonderful Flanders and Swann.
quote:
And I remind you of the very anti-Scots verse of 'God save the Queen', never officially removed, as far as I am aware.
It was never officially inserted either. Like so much else, our national anthem is a matter of custom rather than statute.
[ 22. October 2015, 04:36: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Anglicano (# 18476) on
:
Second, Moslem is an insult in Arabic, did you mean Muslim?
Speaking of the UKIP, are you professing tolerating the intolerant?
-------------------------
I neither speak Arabic, nor can I read Arabic script (can you?). From what I can gather, Moslem is an older spelling of Muslim. As for it being an insult, well, I think the expression is, "citation needed".
I don't know any Ukippers. Well, I might do, but they haven't admitted it. I would never vote for them, but I'm sure they'd deny being intolerant. So, of course, would Muslims/Moslems, Marxists, and many other groups. So tolerating the intolerant is a complex question. But I don't think we should tolerate those who invoke violence and racial hatred. I'm not keen on class hatred either, but that's a fundamental British value, deeply engrained in our society.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicano:
I neither speak Arabic, nor can I read Arabic script (can you?). From what I can gather, Moslem is an older spelling of Muslim. As for it being an insult, well, I think the expression is, "citation needed".
Citation.
[ 22. October 2015, 08:56: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Anglicano, as a Shipmate requested recently on another thread, please format quotes from other posters using, as a minimum, named attribution, and (far) preferably, the Ship's "quote" function. You can pratice using this on the UBB practice thread.
Failure to do so means that it is not clear which parts of your post are your own comments and which parts are not. This is sufficiently disruptive to merit Admin attention, so to avoid the latter, please comply with this request forthwith.
/hosting
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicano:
I neither speak Arabic, nor can I read Arabic script (can you?). From what I can gather, Moslem is an older spelling of Muslim. As for it being an insult, well, I think the expression is, "citation needed".
Citation.
Thank you, lilbuddha, I am sure that we will all remember this impoirtant distinction when we are posting in Arabic. Which, of course, by the rules of the Ship we are not allowed to do.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Cottontail: quote:
'Flower o Scotland' commemorates a battle in which the Scots beat the English forces of Edward I...
Really? I thought it was commemorating the Battle of Bannockburn, which was Robert the Bruce for Scotland v. Edward II for England.
Edward II, the original Prince of Wales, is remembered mainly for two things; losing the Battle of Bannockburn and being assassinated (allegedly with a red-hot poker).
Don't get me wrong, I like 'Flower o' Scotland' but it's a lament. Shouldn't a national anthem sound more, well, positive?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Just to confuse matters, I occupied myself during the ride into work today** translating as much as I could of Jerusalem into Welsh. Since there was no England at the time of Joseph of Arimathea, it's quite amusing to correct the words at the same time. Alas, dim ond dysgwr ydw i* so (a) I didn't get very far, and (b) it's probably full of mistakes, but it'll end Yn Dir gwyrdd a dymunol Prydain
/Utterly pointless tangent, apart from pointing out how silly it is, really, to sing a song about something that couldn't have happened because your country didn't even exist when it is proposed it could. Especially when you sing it in a context of distinguishing yourself from the people whose country it was before your (cultural at least) ancestors nicked it from them. Hence the joke of translating it into Welsh.
* "I'm only a learner"
** Look, I've done this commute over a hundred times on a bike so it's got boring, m'kay?
(edited to correct initial consonant mutation)
[ 22. October 2015, 11:52: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Translation by Prof D Miall Edwards:
quote:
A sangodd traed ein Harglwydd gynt
Anial fynyddoedd Cymru gu?
A welwyd sanctaidd Oen ein Duw
<snip>
It looks pretty close to the original- except, you'll note, it that mentions coal mines rather than mills and more significantly it's about Wales (Cymru) rather than England!
Edited for copyright.
Gwai
[ 22. October 2015, 13:34: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Please do not post whole pieces. They are probably under copyright. If it were English you'd posted, I'd do check with Google to see whether I could find a link to that text anywhere, but since it's Welsh, I won't. You may though.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
... Shouldn't a national anthem sound more, well, positive?
I agree - I think Flower of Scotland's a terrible old dirge, but Scotland the Brave makes me feel quite patriotic, even when played on bagpipes ... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
... Shouldn't a national anthem sound more, well, positive?
I agree - I think Flower of Scotland's a terrible old dirge, but Scotland the Brave makes me feel quite patriotic, even when played on bagpipes ...
The Scots in my family reckon that 'Flower of Scotland' is a fair attempt to out-dirge GSTQ, while 'Scotland the Brave' is a wee bit too 'White Heather Club' for their taste. A new anthem appears necessary.
Thy are from the Borders though and Scotland isn't by any means homogenous (except when the English are coming!)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Please do not post whole pieces. They are probably under copyright. If it were English you'd posted, I'd do check with Google to see whether I could find a link to that text anywhere, but since it's Welsh, I won't. You may though.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Professor Edwards died in 1941 and the book referred to in the postings was published in 1929, so I believe that it is out of copyright in the UK. Still, there you are, - you'll need to scroll down a bit.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Far better than my fragmentary effort, which wasn't helped by the lack of terms like "bow" and "chariot" in most Welsh teaching materials.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Professor Edwards died in 1941 and the book referred to in the postings was published in 1929, so I believe that it is out of copyright in the UK. Still, there you are, - you'll need to scroll down a bit.
Your posting of the link is appreciated.
Please note, however, that hosts' deletion of text from other sources is not governed by your interpretation of copyright law in whichever jurisdiction you happen to be in, but by what we feel comfortable with.
The only exception to this, as I understand it, is if you personally undertake to assume full liability for all material posted by anyone on the Ship ever, and do so in writing, addressed to the admins.
/hosting
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicano:
I neither speak Arabic, nor can I read Arabic script (can you?). From what I can gather, Moslem is an older spelling of Muslim. As for it being an insult, well, I think the expression is, "citation needed".
Citation.
Thank you, lilbuddha, I am sure that we will all remember this impoirtant distinction when we are posting in Arabic. Which, of course, by the rules of the Ship we are not allowed to do.
I was interested to learn this fact about the roots of Moslem and Muslim, and if it takes such a little alteration of usage to be more respectful, I'm happy to adjust. YMMV.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Professor Edwards died in 1941 and the book referred to in the postings was published in 1929, so I believe that it is out of copyright in the UK. Still, there you are, - you'll need to scroll down a bit.
Your posting of the link is appreciated.
Please note, however, that hosts' deletion of text from other sources is not governed by your interpretation of copyright law in whichever jurisdiction you happen to be in, but by what we feel comfortable with.
The only exception to this, as I understand it, is if you personally undertake to assume full liability for all material posted by anyone on the Ship ever, and do so in writing, addressed to the admins.
/hosting
Understood and thank you for that clarification.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Oddly, the 'dark satanic mills' has nothing to do with the Industrial Revolution. There was a belief prevalent when Blake wrote, that the Ancient Britons performed human sacrifices at places like Stonehenge by grinding people between large mill stones.
So 'coal mines' isn't a good approximation.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglicano:
I neither speak Arabic, nor can I read Arabic script (can you?). From what I can gather, Moslem is an older spelling of Muslim. As for it being an insult, well, I think the expression is, "citation needed".
Citation.
Thank you, lilbuddha, I am sure that we will all remember this impoirtant distinction when we are posting in Arabic. Which, of course, by the rules of the Ship we are not allowed to do.
Posting with consideration of your fellow humans is allowed, though.
And that is what this is about. Why do you wish to use an archaic spelling when it is likely to offend?
BTW, neither of those spelling is in Arabic, but in the English representation of the sound. so Muslim and Moslem are not two different spellings of the same word, but two different words.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As Michael Flanders observed, what English national anthem do we have? Scotland has "Scotland for Aye", (or "for me" as it should more properly be*).
I've never heard of this song! You may have conflated 'Scotland the Brave' (which we Scots generally hate) with 'Scots Wha Hae'.
Karl is quoting from the introduction to the "Song of Patriotic Prejudice" by the wonderful Flanders and Swann.
Ah, okay. I'd never heard of it. Obviously never made its way up here.
Posted by Anglicano (# 18476) on
:
Why do you wish to use an archaic spelling when it is likely to offend?
-------------------
I don't wish to persist with it. I didn't know that a minor matter of spelling and pronunciation caused offence. Goodness me, it's hardly like the 'n' word, is it?
Incidentally I've been in trouble about using words like "ladies" and/or "women" (both seem to give offence in certain quarters). And when my wife and I were playing bridge with some Jewish friends and jokingly described ourselves as "goy", we were put in our places very quickly: "we never use language like that".
I've also been told off for using homosexual instead of gay and mental hospital instead of psychiatric hospital. And talking about a "male nurse".
Oh, and some RCs don't like being called Roman Catholics, which is a problem since Anglicans are expected to use the term.
Can you recommend a book with guidelines to enable me to stop making further blunders?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Anglicano, you were warned here about not attributing quotes from other people appropriately. You have also been warned in Heaven.
In the post linked to above, I have explained to you how to quote properly and where to practise. You can also ask for help on the thread linked to in that post.
Failure to comply with this will result in your behaviour being flagged to the Admins.
/hosting
[ 22. October 2015, 17:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Oddly, the 'dark satanic mills' has nothing to do with the Industrial Revolution. There was a belief prevalent when Blake wrote, that the Ancient Britons performed human sacrifices at places like Stonehenge by grinding people between large mill stones.
So 'coal mines' isn't a good approximation.
According to wikipedia there have been several different interpretations of Blake's words, but the one that it was referring to the factories of the industrial revolution seem plausible given that contemporaries referred to them as satanic.
Interestingly another interpretation is that Blake was referring to the great churches of his time.
[ 22. October 2015, 17:31: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Responce to Anglicano
There is no book, nor hard and fast rules. If courtesy and consideration are your guides, though, it is not that difficult.
[ 22. October 2015, 17:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Just to continue with this thought: I'm also reminded of the episode in Don Quioxte where the noble knight and his squire are frightened by the terrible sounds of the fulling mills.
It doesn't seem to unlikely that Black could have been referring to these kinds of noises - which pierced the silence of the countryside and which would have been going on long before the industrial revolution.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Moslem/Muslim again. TBH I think I probably do write 'Muslim', on the rare occasions that I write the word at all, as that's the version I'm used to now. But FWIW it might be noted that old-school posh English speakers often did pronounce 'o' as 'u'- e.g. 'Cuvent Garden', and IIRC Harold Macmillan used to refer to his suburban Kentish constituency as 'Brumley'. So for them, the two spellings would have been pronounced in pretty much the same way.
Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... Scotland isn't by any means homogenous (except when the English are coming!)
Or the Welsh?
Sorry - couldn't resist.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... Scotland isn't by any means homogenous (except when the English are coming!)
Or the Welsh?
Sorry - couldn't resist.
Yes, the Welsh too. And the Irish. And the French. TBH, We English have this gift of uniting others when the English are coming.
The voting at the Eurovision Song Contest is a fine example.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Eh? England, as such, dosn't compete in Eurosong, does it? People might dislike us as British but don't understimate the contribution of the other home nations to that!
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Eh? England, as such, dosn't compete in Eurosong, does it? People might dislike us as British but don't understimate the contribution of the other home nations to that!
That's true, I can think of but the Welsh, Scots, Manx, Irish and others get aggregated with the English too often, and the Eurovision Song Contest is one of the worst instances of this.
Had Wales and Scotland their own entries I'm sure they would get better scores than England!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Eh? England, as such, dosn't compete in Eurosong, does it? People might dislike us as British but don't understimate the contribution of the other home nations to that!
That's true, I can think of but the Welsh, Scots, Manx, Irish and others get aggregated with the English too often, and the Eurovision Song Contest is one of the worst instances of this.
Had Wales and Scotland their own entries I'm sure they would get better scores than England!
I doubt it. They'd probably be better, and as such, score even lower. Mind you, they could form a Celtic Voting Block I suppose. "And here's the scores from the Breton jury - Cornwall, 12 pts. Wales, 10 pts. Ireland, 9 pts. Scotland, 8 pts. Isle of Man, 7 pts - well, no surprises there!"
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0