""Per Rønne"" <spam@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1h445kt.ijkzwi1s8aelqN%spam@RQNNE.invalid...
>I dagens JP skriver Hans Hauge på:
>
>
http://www.jp.dk/meninger/ncartikel:aid=3309906
>
> Med andre ord: Hun forlanger, at alle andre skal være monokulturelle og
> værne om deres kultur og holde den ren, for at hun kan nyde tilværelsen
> som multikulturalist. Kan nogen gætte, hvem kvinden kunne være? Den
> radikale Elsebeth Gerner Nielsen, der netop har udtalt, at dansk kultur
> er en trussel mod »friheden i det multikulturelle samfund.«
> ==
>
> Kan det virkelig passe at Elsebeth Gerner Nielsen opfører sig på den
> måde? Det svarer jo helt til den karakteristik fra et folketingsmedlem
> fra SF af Naser Khader som en »kokosnød«; han holdt sig jo ikke til sin
> baggrund. Vel nok et ægte, racistisk synspunkt, men altså populært i SF.
Det kan sikkert godt passe. I England har jo efterhånden de fleste forladt
ideen med multikulturalisme, - men neden for er uddrag af en artikel af en
mand, som argumenterer for at man bør bevare konceptet, MEN at det kun er
bevaringsværdigt, hvis man opretholder en stærk britisk (dansk) identitet.
Som han siger, - hvis vi hævder det intet er værd at være britisk, hvad er
det så, vi vil have vores indvandrere integreret i?
Han mener altså, at man har brug for en "hovedkultur" eller "ledekultur",
som alle er med på, og så kan man derefter dyrke sine egne særlige
kulturelle træk. Det var også det man kunne læse om i Information i
forbindelse med det multikulturelle Malaysia, - som forfatteren til artiklen
også nævner.
Man kan altså se at han mener at en Gerner Nielsen eller svenske Mona Sahlin
som mener at egen kultur bare er mindreværdig og står i vejen for
multi-kulti-samfundet, at det er helt galt, medmindre man arbejder på at
udskifte vores kultur med en fra en større kulturkreds, fx den
Mellemøstlige.
Derfor er der heller intet forkert i at se en dansk kanon, som én af vejene
til at finde det, vi kan blive enige om at være fælles om, det var fejt af
Brian Mikkelsen at flygte fra sit synspunkt, - og utroligt at de
intellektuelle og kunstnere, som han havde hyret til opgaven, skreg som
grise, da de opdagede, at den kunne bruges på den måde.
Fra
www.opendemocracy.net
Remaking multiculturalism after 7/7
Tariq Modood
29 - 9 - 2005
Britain's multicultural model is held responsible for the London bombs of
July 2005. Rather, says Tariq Modood, it needs to be extended to a "politics
of equal respect" that includes Britain's Muslims in a new, shared sense of
national belonging.
....
Multiculturalism in Britain has I believe been broadly right, progressive
and beneficial in its principles and practice; it does not deserve the
desertion of support from much of the centre-left I described above, let
alone the blame for the present crisis. Its articulation has, however,
overlooked or at least underemphasised the other side of the coin, which is
not just equally necessary but is integral to multiculturalism.
This is that we cannot have strong multicultural or minority identities and
weak common or national identities; strong multicultural identities are a
good thing - they are not intrinsically divisive, reactionary or "fifth
columns" - but they need a framework of vibrant, dynamic, national
narratives and the ceremonies and rituals which give expression to our
common citizenship.
We - in Britain and in Europe generally - have overlooked that where
multiculturalism has been accepted and worked as a state project or as a
national project (in Canada, Australia and Malaysia for example) it has not
just been coincidental with but integral to a nation-building project (to
creating Canadians, Aussies, Malaysians). Even in the United States, where
the federal state has had a much lesser role in the multicultural project,
the incorporation of ethno-religious diversity and the welcoming of
hyphenated Americans has been about country-making, civic inclusion and
nurturing a claim upon the national identity.
Just as integration is a two-way process, so is the pluralising and remaking
of citizenship and national identity. This goes to the heart of social
policy, where (for example) the phenomenon of residential segregation has
many causes beyond ethnic minority groups themselves: including structural
conditions such as poverty, racist exclusions, "white flight", benign
neglect by local authorities, and estate-agency discrimination.
In the same way, we must recognise that the lack of a sense of belonging to
Britain able to withstand the ideological call of jihad against fellow
Britons also has several causes, including those belonging to the majority
society and not the minorities.
The source of this lack can be found in arguments on both right and left. On
the right are exclusivist, even racist notions of Britishness that hold that
non-white people are not really British and that Muslims are an alien wedge.
On the left is the view that there is something deeply wrong about rallying
round the idea of Britain, about defining ourselves in terms of a normative
concept of Britishness - that it is too racist, imperialist, militaristic,
and elitist - and that the goal of seeking to be British in the present and
the future is silly and dangerous, and indeed demeaning to the newly settled
groups among the population.
But if the goal of wanting to become British, to be accepted as British and
to belong to Britain is not a worthwhile goal for Commonwealth migrants and
their progeny, what then are they supposed to integrate into? And if there
is nothing strong, purposive and inspiring to integrate into, why bother
with integration at all?
Do we just take the view that if inspiring and meaning-conferring identities
can be found elsewhere - in some internationalist movement - that's just
fine and if that's at the expense of your country and its citizens, well
they don't really matter all that much in the ultimate scheme of
significance? That being British is small coinage in the light of the real
struggles between good and evil; between the dross and misery of the present
and the imaginative and redemptive futures that beckon?
We cannot both ask new Britons to integrate and go around saying that being
British is, thank goodness, a hollowed-out, meaningless project whose time
has come to an end. This will inevitably produce confusion and will detract
from the sociological and psychological processes of integration, as well as
offering no defence against the calls of other loyalties and missions.
Perhaps one of the lessons of the current crisis is that multiculturalists,
and the left in general, have been too hesitant about embracing our national
identity and allying it with progressive politics. The reaffirming of a
plural, changing, inclusive British identity, which can be as emotionally
and politically meaningful to British Muslims as the appeal of jihadi
sentiments, is critical to isolating and defeating extremism. But - like
multiculturalism as a whole - this is not a minority problem. If too many
white people do not feel the power of Britishness, it will only be a legal
concept and other identities will prevail.
Netop, så vil vi bare være forskellige folk, som lever på samme stykke jord,
og nogle af grupperne kun fordi de her kan få bedre sociale forhold end i
hjemlandene. Det vil være døden for den så ofte omtalte "sammenhængskraft" i
samfundet, vi *skal* blive enige om nogle danske værdier, og at vi sammen
vil arbejde på dette lands fortsatte velfærd og velstand.
----------------
Lidt ekstra for dem der gider:
Throughout 2004, a swathe of civil-society forums, journals and institutions
of the centre-left or liberal-left - Prospect, the Observer, the Guardian,
the CRE itself, Channel 4, the British Council, openDemocracy - held
seminars or produced special publications with titles like "Is
Multiculturalism Dead?", "Is Multiculturalism Over?", and "Beyond
Multiculturalism".
This line of argument has acquired even more vigour and force after the
events of July 2005. But despite all that's happened in the last few months
and the gathering chorus of belief to the contrary, I continue to think that
multiculturalism is still an attractive and worthwhile political project;
and that indeed we need more of it rather than less.
This, however, does not mean that those calling for integration do not have
a point; multiculturalism and integration are complementary ideas. What it
does mean is that integration should take a multicultural rather than an
assimilative form. At the same time, we in Britain do probably need to work
harder to develop a national identity, and forms of belonging to each other,
that can win the imaginations and hearts of minorities and majorities alike.
Assimilation, integration, multiculturalism
It is widely said by its critics that "multiculturalism" is a vague,
confused concept whose different meanings to different people render
sensible debate and policy orientation difficult. There is some truth in
this, but the same is true of its rival ideas or models, "assimilation" and
"integration".
---------------
Multiculturalism is where processes of integration are seen both as two-way
and as working differently for different groups. In this understanding, each
group is distinctive, and thus integration cannot consist of a single
template (hence the "multi"). The "culturalism" - by no means a happy term
either in relation to "culture" or "ism" - refers to the understanding that
the groups in question are likely to not just be marked by newness or
phenotype or socio-economic location but by certain forms of group
identities. The latter point indeed suggests that a better, though longer,
term might be "pluralistic integration".
In the perspective of multiculturalism, the social requirement to treat
these group identities with respect leads to a redefinition of the concept
of equality.
Let us take these two points, multiplicity and equality, in turn.
Multiplicity
Multicultural accommodation of minorities is different from integration
because it recognises the social reality of groups (not just of individuals
and organisations). This reality can be of different kinds; for example, a
sense of solidarity with people of similar origins or faith or mother
tongue, including those in a country of origin or a diaspora. Such feelings
might be an act of imagination but may also be rooted in lived experience
and embodied in formal organisations dedicated to fostering group identity
and keeping it alive.
This form of accommodation would also allow group-based cultural and
religious practices to be fitted into existing, majoritarian ways of doing
things. These identities and practices would not be regarded as immutable,
but neither would there be pressure either to change them (unless a major
issue of principle, legality or security was at stake) or to confine them to
a limited community or private space.
Multicultural accommodation works simultaneously on two levels: creating new
forms of belonging to citizenship and country, and helping sustain origins
and diaspora. The result - without which multiculturalism would not be a
form of integration - is the formation of "hyphenated" identities such as
Jewish-American or British Muslim (even if the hyphenated nature of the
latter is still evolving and contested). These hyphenated identities are in
this understanding a legitimate basis for political mobilisation and
lobbying, not attacked as divisive or disloyal.
The groups in Britain for whom questions of integration arise - those formed
out of the "new Commonwealth" immigration from the post-1945 generations -
are multiple; their different identities combine elements based on origins,
colour, culture, ethnicity, and religion. They are not just a plurality but
differ in kind. Moreover, they have diverse socio-economic positions and
trajectories, and experience both advantage and disadvantage in British
society - some of these groups have incomes above the national average.
begin 666 blank.gif
M1TE&.#EA`0`!`)$``````/_______P```"'Y! 44``(`+ `````!``$```("
$5 $`.P``
`
end