Comments?

May I take this opportunity to apologise to those who have commented on the articles posted to tygerland.  For some unknown reason they are not shown on the main screen – but remain on the Permalink if you click on the post (so not lost thankfully).

I have reported this error to Wordpress.

All comments are gratefully received and read.

Regards

tyger

An Anglican Schism?

The immorality of his toleration of gay clergy is beginning to catch up the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

A letter signed by 17 of the Anglican’s 38 primates criticises his inaction, explaining that “unrepented sexual morality” within the church is unacceptable.

The letter goes on:

“We wonder whether your personal dissent from this consensus prevents you from taking the necessary steps to confront those churches that have embraced teaching contrary to the overwhelming testimony of the Anglican communion. We urge you to rethink your personal view and embrace the church’s consensus. And to act on it as it is on the clear witness of scripture.”

The Guardian reports that the church may face a schism if the conflict cannot be resolved:

The row, which seems to bring schism still closer within the Anglican church - the primates’ letter talked of cutting away dead branches that had failed to bear fruit - arises from fundamental disagreements over actions in the US Episcopal church in electing the openly gay diocesan bishop Gene Robinson in 2003 and a decision by a Canadian diocese to bless same-sex partnerships the same year.

The Anglican Church represents 77 million Christians across the continents, and cannot possibly reconcile the social and cultural differences that such a scope represents. Many dioceses see the tolerance of US and Canadian immorality as kowtowing to the money these churches generate.

From The Times:

The “Global South” primates are headed by the ultra-conservative Nigerian archbishop, Dr Peter Akinola. They include the influential Archbishop of the West Indies, the Most Rev Drexel Gomez.

[…]

“The essence of libertinism is the severing of the grace of Christ from His moral commandments,” they say. “This, we believe, is at the heart of our present divisions.” They argue that the Church of England should have sought an exemption from the Civil Partnerships Act, which comes into effect next month, permitting gay partnerships to be registered legally, including clergy partnerships.

Could this dependence on more liberal factions cause the church to split?

And where does leave the leadership of the Archbishop?

The French Identity Crisis

The French are in the middle of a crisis not only in the streets but also within their hearts. This is a momentous time in their history; the very essence of the French national model is being questioned. Their economy is unable to provide the French people with enough jobs; the country is experiencing globalisation, and it is unable to deal with this new reality. With an ineffective government and the French penchant for blind national pride, they are not having the dialogue that will make change possible. In order for the French to retain what they have they need to challenge the status quo.

As PJ O’Rourke stated on Sunday, and I paraphrase…

“…America has a large Asian population too, but we also have something called jobs.”

O’Rourke is right, this has less to do with radical Islam and more to do with opportunity. The French like all former colonial powers view their ethnic populous as a ‘sub-community’ (although officially the French State is blind to race, the reality is very different) and are housed in slums on the outside of cities and towns and are less likely to be employed, more likely to be in poverty, and invariably less educated.

Radicalism (be that Islamic or not) will thrive in areas of low opportunity, offering belonging and community. Making Europe more competitive - by loosening restrictive labour legislation, tax reform, scraping minimum wages and protectionism - will create opportunity and jobs for the people of Europe.

Another point on this violence and the US: Many of these rioters, and pointedly the London bombers, are second or third generation immigrants, this is an important factor. Their parents would have come to France and Britain during the influx, which was instigated in the 60’s to fuel the post-war economic rebuild. Their parents would have seen this new home as an economic venture and worked to be a success; their offspring however would have entered the workforce in a time of reduced opportunity. Many of these rioters cite economic woes rather than any affinity to Allah. First generation immigrants would feel belonging for their country of origin, but who can second and third generation immigrants feel a belonging for if their society excludes them? Along comes Radical Islam offering belonging and a calling – a reason to hate the society that has ‘failed’ you.

Colonial nations such as France and Britain see their national identity as being ethnic based rather than value based, which means that Asians and Black’s are excluded from the national identity – we can see from the attitudes of those on the Hard Right that this is true. Only when we, like the US, create an identity of values can we ever hope to integrate ethnic groups successfully. This is why state engineered integration, be that pseudo Monoculturalism (a la France) or Multiculturalism (Britain), both fail.

A Parisian dilemma.

An eleventh night of rioting on the outskirts of France has caused panic within the Chirac government. As the trouble spread to other cities the French President has promised that “The law must have the last word”, summoning his top ministers to a crisis meeting to try and defuse the emergency.

This hostility of course is played against a backdrop of political turmoil as France approaches an election year in 2007 with a fractious power struggle inside its ruling centre-right government (UPM). With Chirac almost certainly destined to stand down, the future of the party will likely fall to either Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, or the current minister of the interior Nicolas Sarkozy.

Sarkozy has fashioned a tough persona for himself advocating hard-to-swallow reforms that would liberalise France’s restrictive labour laws and rejuvenate its flagging economy; Sarkozy has condemned the rioters as “scum” ensuring he has become the bête noire of the antagonists. Rioters have claimed that only Sarkozy’s resignation or sacking would quell the conflict.

I would argue that Sarkozy’s sacking would be a blessing in disguise for the ambitious reformer. Look back to the election of 2002 when France faced a national humiliation as the hard-right National Front gained 17% of the vote, the French electorate is clearly frustrated with ethnic divisions and prepared to elect hardliners such as Jean-Marie Le Pen to address these concerns. If Sarkozy is martyred in payment for peace he could ride a crest of anger to the presidency, powered by public dismay that the spineless Chirac has sold him out to appease the mob.

If Sarkozy is smart he will not back down from this tough condemnation of the violence and be prepared to sacrifice his current post for the ultimate prize in ’07. France will need a strong centre-right option if it to ensure Le Pen does not sweep to power in a wave of racial hate.

Hard-Right rhetoric will have prescient resonance in light of the current political climate, as this Le Pen statement in 2002 displays: -

“Massive immigration has only just begun. It is the biggest problem facing France, Europe and probably the world. We risk being submerged.”

So if France responds to this wave of violence with a political lurch to the right, a strong and confident Sarkozy would be necessary to ensure one of Europe’s major powers does not fall for Neo-Nazi solutions…

Multiculturalism - the failed experiment

Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism…is a theory (albeit vague) about the foundations of a culture rather than a practice which subsumes cultural ideas. (Harrison, 1984)

There are not many public institutions that do not adhere to the principle of multiculturalism, the tenet that the social structure of the United Kingdom can sustain multiple communities of differing cultural backgrounds.  The theory of Multiculturalism has become the dogmatic approach to ethnic integration in post-imperial Britain, not allowing dissent or debate of its virtues.

Is this healthy and is this democratic?  To stifle debate because of some essence of imperial guilt is contrary to democracy and equally contrary to human progress.  In this time of heightened ethnic tensions we should debate seriously and honestly the contribution to the UK of Multiculturalism.

Birmingham riots

Last months riots in Birmingham were the result of tribal differences between two minority communities; shops were ransacked, people attacked with 35 injured, and one person killed.  It appears unsubstantiated information was broadcast via a pirate radio station that Pakistani men had raped a 14 year-old Jamaican immigrant in a beauty store.  The event has highlighted rising tension between the communities in the area of Lozzels Road in central Birmingham.  The economic success of Asian businesses – which Blacks argued did not employ them – has caused increased resentment and disquiet in relations, this episode seems to be the symptoms of a long-running complaint.

What was interesting was the mainstream media response to the violence.  The BBC among others was careful not to make value judgements about the event, also citing that this was an isolated incident.  The printed press however are not as tightly wound in and reported on the simmering hostilities in the region.  From the Times: -

We have been pushed around for too long. That lot,” he [a black youth] said gesturing towards the Asian shops where some Asian youths were gathered, “think they can do whatever they want, including rape our women. Now they know they can’t.”

This conflict had been largely unreported until violence broke out this week; there is however a dangerous level of anger within both communities; the same article quoted messages from BlacknetUK where one contributor commented “I hope Asian women are getting their throats cut as we speak.” 

Further inquiry by The Guardian discovered that up to 300 Asian men were mobilised in nearby Aston and were ready to clash with the blacks, it was reported that police had blocked their access (although contrary reports suggested an Imam dissuaded them).

Can we continue to accept this level of civil disharmony?

Why multiculturalism?

There are 3 differing but heavily convergent models for the integration of immigrants. 

The first model is Monoculturalism, which argues that economic and political migrants should assimilate and concur to the indigenous cultural heritage and customs. This is increasingly being adapted in France where the country’s passionate commitment to secularism is enforced by the insistence that religious garments be banned in French schools.  There are no democratic countries that operate a pure version of Monoculturalism although some Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia do.

Multiculturalism is the model adopted by many social democratic nations, and like Monoculturalism it is state enforced.  Canada led the world in multiculturalism when it embraced its French population (in Quebec) with the adoption of twin national languages.  Britain adopted this model to integrate its rising levels of immigration following the dissolution of its empire, the consensus being that society would benefit from a tapestry of differing cultures, a supposition that is increasingly being questioned.

The third and final model rejects the social engineering of the previous versions.  The Melting-Pot system that is loosely followed in the US does not involve the federal government in the integration of immigrants (there are some token assimilating procedures such as citizen exams, and some individual states do embrace multiculturalism).  Ethnic communities within the US do appear naturally but are usually the result of economic realities, such as ghettos, and commercial and cultural expedience (such as ‘China Town’).  Again one could argue that the US does not strictly follow this paradigm, as federal intervention exists in positive-discrimination legislation.

The UK

The British adoption of Multiculturalism as I have outlined above is a product of a post-imperial evaluation.  The progressive movements of the past few decades have embarrassed the British people into forgoing part of their cultural primacy as compensation for centuries of imperial oppression.  Advocates also argued that Britain could only benefit from exposure to differing customs, people, and traditions. 

There is little doubt that cosmopolitan towns and cities are enriched by cultural diversity.  Music, food, and art are just three areas that have improved as a result of this exposure, but as with all social experiments there are unwanted side effects. 

We have seen in the UK severe disparities in educational achievements between ethnic groups, as highlighted in last month publication by The Centre for Market and Public Organisation: -

Actual GCSE attainment by ethnicity
 
Ethnicity
Actual percentage of pupils obtaining 5 or more A-Cs at GCSE: -

Black African       48.24%
Black Caribbean   32.55%
Black Other          38.06%
Bangladeshi         47.98%
Indian                   64.97%
Pakistani               41.57%
Chinese                76.25%
Other                    53.93%
White                    52.68%
 
REPORT: The Dynamics of School Attainment of
England’s Ethnic Minorities
http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/CMPO/workingpapers/wp130.pdf

As the report states there is no evidence that genetic differences are related to academic aptitude; so are we to assume society – the multicultural society – is failing these children?

From the report: -

Multiculturalism is supposed to create a progressive society where the tolerance of cultural identity provides equality and opportunity for all.  Practices such as positive discrimination within public institutions are designed to engineer a change in attitudes, to create a society comfortable with diversity.  But these practices have themselves become divisive, creating animosity within the indigenous population.

Matthew Parris of The Times has asked if multiculturalism is apartheid by another name, questioning the wisdom of culturally divided communities living side by side, and the natural inequalities and conflict this will naturally create.  Indeed the Lozzels Road incident was it appears, an economic dispute enforced by the unconfirmed belief that Asian men were preying on Black women.  Divided ethnic communities where economic prosperity is in short supply, are always going to compete for wealth, and this competition will on occasion spill over into violence.

The premise that ethnically divided communities will descend into violence has never been accepted by the acolytes of multiculturalism, in fact the reputation of poet and Conservative MP Enoch Powell was destroyed after his infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in April 1968, Powell was labelled a racist and sacked from office.  Powell could have felt harshly treated, as he was also a fierce critic of the British maltreatment of the Mau Mau in Kenya.

Powell’s statement – ironically delivered in Birmingham – was conveyed in intemperate language, which angered many, although its message has some resonance in modern society.  Powell talked of the rapid ‘colonisation’ of streets and areas as ethnic minorities were introduced, and the resentment of the indigenous white population.  Racism however distasteful is a natural phenomenon fuelled by ignorance and suspicion; multiculturalism has failed to address this instinctive xenophobia.   In fairness to Powell he was speaking at a time when interracial violence was at its height in the United States, and 1960’s Britain was experiencing a significant increase in migration from the Commonwealth (that the speech was delivered on the birthday of Hitler we should put down to carelessness rather than intent).

So if we are to make immigration a success it is right we should question the ethos of multiculturalism, which it could be argued is failing to create equality and social harmony.  Many ethnic minority children are being failed by our system, which not only affects the social cohesion but the productivity of our country.   Why are Indian children 20% more likely to succeed at school than Pakistani or Black children?  Why is such inequality so evident after decades of the multicultural experiment?

Socially liberal multiculturalists will argue that inherent racism in society limits the opportunities of ethnic minorities, but surely multiculturalism – by encouraging cultural division – cements such attitudes.  Holding up the richness and value of a culture is all well and good, but not when it’s at the cost of unity and collective prosperity.  Dianne Ravitch, the conservative US scholar and author, has argued that the celebration of Multiculturalism masks liberal/intellectual hostility towards the mainstream.

So what should we do?

This essay is not arguing for an end to immigration, far from it, immigration is important to the economic future of this nation as we come to terms with the population stagnation within all European countries.  This essay is arguing for greater integration and cohesion and an end to the apologetic counterproductive excesses of multiculturalism.

In 2004 Trevor Phillips the chairman of The Commission for Racial Equality began blocking funding to ethnic minority projects that do not promote ‘Britishness’ or integration.  Phillips - who appeared on BBC Radio 4 last week to argue that the divisions in the Lozzles area of Birmingham had been brewing for some time - has also dismissed the usefulness of multiculturalism claiming that “separateness” is no longer useful in modern Britain.

I would have to agree with Phillips.  The Multicultural Experiment is failing; failing not only society but also the very minorities it is has been employed to aid. We need to create a unique collective identity for modern multi-ethnic Britain.  A true sense of ‘Britishness’ that is inclusive and progressive.  Much like the American shared identity that ignores – in principle – origin and ethnicity in favour of idealistic values and opportunity. 

We should not allow the Hard-Right to define Britishness, who will ensure it is the exclusive preserve of the white Anglo-Saxon indigenous population.  So therefore we should not be embarrassed of celebrating our history, identity, and values.  Britishness can be reclaimed and become a notion of tolerance, fair play, justice, adventure, opportunity, and liberty.

Let’s create a shared identity that’s inclusive, allowing subscription from all ethnic communities.  This will work as a social adhesive, giving communities and individuals a real connection with the country, a chance to build relationships and share in the nations prosperity.  We need an end to the counterproductive rancour of unelected community leaders who only serve division and conflict, only then can we be blind to ethnicity and foster real equality.  Race, religion, and sex should be immaterial to the concept of Britishness, instead replaced by a loose collection of values that unite us.

There is no future in multiculturalism, as we know it.  The continued Balkanisation of British society (see Jewish-Russian Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand) will spew yet more anger, resentment, and exclusion.  Hatred within our Muslim communities is as much about isolation and inequality as it is about Iraq. 

We should also be strong and ensure that hate is not propagated within our communities, as I argued in August of this year: -

Immigrant Imams (first generation) who have no experience of Western Society should not be teaching young Pakistani’s intolerance and loathing towards western values and customs, however only by creating this new ‘Britishness’ can we ensure that these young Muslims feel a secure concrete connection with modern Britain. 

Conclusion

Britain has mortgaged the future of its social cohesion at the altar of Multiculturalism, and now in this time of increased tension and instability we must open the debate on our future direction. 

We should not allow political correctness to stymie this debate anymore than we should allow the Hard-Right to shape it.  If we do not encourage an open and constructive dialogue we will allow those with an insidious agenda to steal the march and choose our direction for us.

The future of our national stability and prosperity are dependent on our response.

Our children are not born to hate, they are raised to hate. ~Thomas della Perut

Further reading
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/O/origination/features_8.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/multicultural/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism