Thursday, April 24, 2008
"WHITES ONLY"?
At Harry’s Place there’s a story about a council which introduced male "Muslim only" swimming sessions or not as the case seems to be. But in the course of trying to ascertain from the staff whether that was indeed the official policy or not, HP’s writer
Is he serious? I find this quite intriguing. They really would? Perhaps someone should alert the BNP. That said in a way of course it's the only logical destination multiculturalism* will end up in. If one were a white supremacist who is the government, the public or the law to tell me that "white separatism" is not the authentic expression of my "culture"? And if we're using taxpayers money to foster arbitrary expressions of particularistic sub-sections of society, why not this one too? Well . . . ?
Of course it's bollocks.
And that's exactly the problem with multiculturalism.
* Before anyone has a go at me about opposition to multiculturalism being racism I should point to this standard definition of the term, which says that multiculturalism denotes
I only use it in the second meaning. Otherwise the term multiculturality would be correct, which is entirely uncontroversial and in effect only a statement of fact. I'd add to that, that when I use the term multiculturalism I don't mean just support or maintenance of sectional identities, but the pressurising nature usually employed to do so (see the above example), almost invariably coupled with the refusal to support to unifying ones.
At Harry’s Place there’s a story about a council which introduced male "Muslim only" swimming sessions or not as the case seems to be. But in the course of trying to ascertain from the staff whether that was indeed the official policy or not, HP’s writer
asked him whether Clissold Leisure Centre would institute Whites Only swimming for racists. His answer was that they would, if there was sufficient demand.
Is he serious? I find this quite intriguing. They really would? Perhaps someone should alert the BNP. That said in a way of course it's the only logical destination multiculturalism* will end up in. If one were a white supremacist who is the government, the public or the law to tell me that "white separatism" is not the authentic expression of my "culture"? And if we're using taxpayers money to foster arbitrary expressions of particularistic sub-sections of society, why not this one too? Well . . . ?
Of course it's bollocks.
And that's exactly the problem with multiculturalism.
* Before anyone has a go at me about opposition to multiculturalism being racism I should point to this standard definition of the term, which says that multiculturalism denotes
[t]he characteristics of a multicultural society; (also) the policy or process whereby the distinctive identities of the cultural groups within such a society are maintained or supported
I only use it in the second meaning. Otherwise the term multiculturality would be correct, which is entirely uncontroversial and in effect only a statement of fact. I'd add to that, that when I use the term multiculturalism I don't mean just support or maintenance of sectional identities, but the pressurising nature usually employed to do so (see the above example), almost invariably coupled with the refusal to support to unifying ones.
Labels: nation
