It's true that the dying religious culture of England is being replaced by a more dynamic one, just not in the way you think. Religious superstition has been on the wane there for several hundred years now, being replaced with something that doesn't have a name but that religious people like to call "secular humanism."
You seem to imagine English religious culture is being replaced with the possibly more dynamic, but also more primitive and tribal religious culture of Muslim immigrants. This is wrong - the Muslim immigrants are a small minority of the English population and their own culture, far from being dynamic, is even more obviously backward, ugly and oppressive when compared to "secular humanism" than traditional English religious culture was. That's a big problem for them, as witnessed by the linked story in the Guardian:
Ikwro's campaigns officer, Fionnuala Ni Mhurchu, said the increase was probably due partly to better police awareness and to more victims coming forward after coverage of high-profile prosecutions, but that violence itself was also increasing as young people increasingly refused to bow to their families' demands.
"They're resisting abuses of their human rights such as forced marriage more and more," she said. "And as a result they're being subjected to this kind of violence. We hear from the community that this violence is on the increase."
The above means this is a war "secular humanism" will win, simply by virtue of being obviously superior to the culture opposing it. New generations of these immigrants make the comparison and vote with their feet - and responding to that with violence will become more difficult for the reactionaries year by year, as the UK police forces get better at policing these kinds of crimes. Basically, we are going to win this one.
The above means this is a war "secular humanism" will win, simply by virtue of being obviously superior to the culture opposing it.
obviously superior????? In a relativistic world who is to judge the superiority of one culture over another?
In a multicultural world there are multi cultures "opposing" secular humanism not one - multiple forces if you were tearing at its guts.
Secular humanists with their passions for abortion and sexual freedom but not reproduction as a rule nor family are on the road to extinction.
And when it comes to the crunch who in their right mind would lay down their life in war to preserve the rights of sexual minorities to hold Gay Pride marches etc - indeed in a degraded culture when the call comes people (that would be men) will just shrug.
In a relativistic world who is to judge the superiority of one culture over another?
The people in it. You'll note no boatloads of English desperate to share the freedoms enjoyed by Kurds and Persians.
Secular humanists with their passions for abortion and sexual freedom but not reproduction as a rule nor family are on the road to extinction.
This would be true if rationalism and a belief in human freedom were hereditary, but they aren't. The descendants of the Muslim immigrants will contain fewer and fewer honour-killing loonies - this is what's making their parents so angry.
And when it comes to the crunch who in their right mind would lay down their life in war to preserve the rights of sexual minorities to hold Gay Pride marches etc...
This is merely another way of asking "Who in their right mind would lay down their life to preserve freedom?" History to this point suggests the answer is "Lots."
The people in it. You'll note no boatloads of English desperate to share the freedoms enjoyed by Kurds and Persians.
No PM - but the Kurds and "Persians" who leave their blighted homelands for Blighty do not start singing "Jerusalem" either. Rather they accept the more comfortable existence of an enlightened society while remaining unenlightened.
This would be true if rationalism and a belief in human freedom were hereditary, but they aren't. The descendants of the Muslim immigrants will contain fewer and fewer honour-killing loonies - this is what's making their parents so angry.
A curious phenomena, well documented, is that the children of earlier emigrants who did westernize have adopted the mores of the less enlightened lands.
Thus a daughter of a lip stick wearing Pakistani mother may well be a burka wearer.
This is merely another way of asking "Who in their right mind would lay down their life to preserve freedom?" History to this point suggests the answer is "Lots."
Freedom is just a word - when the boys went off to the Boer war they weren't fighting for freedom, they were fighting for empire - they considered themselves British and Britain called. So much for history. Pretty much the same with WW1.
The "fighting for Freedom" thing came from Frank Capra's "Why we Fight" series which are darn good movies created to make American Soldiers feel good about who they were and what they were doing during WW2.
Do you know why the Republicans lost the Spanish Civil War? Why their fight against "tyranny" for "democracy" ended in their defeat?
They started shooting each other, my friend, even though they were on the same side, allegedly.
The Nationalists on the other hand, whether you like what they stood for or not, stood for something and won.
A curious phenomena, well documented, is that the children of earlier emigrants who did westernize have adopted the mores of the less enlightened lands.
And yet, the very article you linked to suggests the rise in violence against the children of Muslim immigrants is exactly because they're embracing the freedom their new country offers them. I saw the same thing in Germany - the children of the Turks wanted what the German kids had, not to be married off to some illiterate Turkish peasant for obscure family reasons.
Freedom is just a word - when the boys went off to the Boer war they weren't fighting for freedom, they were fighting for empire - they considered themselves British and Britain called. So much for history. Pretty much the same with WW1.
True enough - there's always a proportion of saps who'll volunteer to risk violent, undignified death simply because the govt asks them to. But doesn't this also undermine your point? If we do require some cannon fodder to step up for the freedom to hold gay pride marches there'll be some, just like there were some to get shot by Boers or Bosche.
he very article you linked to suggests the rise in violence against the children of Muslim immigrants
Actually Milt the violence isn't against the children of Muslim immigrants it is against the female children and often the perpetrators are the male children if you look into it.
Men fight for money, men fight for women, men fight to protect their own or men fight for ideals - the former two being related and the later two being related.
A better way of putting it might be that some men will kill women who won't do what the men consider to be the right thing. We had an attempt to do that here only yesterday, with no Muslims involved. The more backward tribalists of the Middle East might have it a bit more codified than their NZ equivalents, but the principle is the same.
The more backward tribalists of the Middle East might have it a bit more codified than their NZ equivalents, but the principle is the same.
No Milt it is not. In Anatolia an honor killing would be understood and possibly approved by many of the population whereas in New Zealand an incident like yesterdays is met with almost universal disgust its that culture thing.
If the number of people from Anatolia in NZ is small that cultural peculiarity will soon be lost but if there a significant numbers of said people living in enclaves it will persist or might even become exaggerated if the people feel under siege and threatened by the dominant culture.
Cultural transfers can be positive and negative when it comes down to it
Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.
It's true that the dying religious culture of England is being replaced by a more dynamic one, just not in the way you think. Religious superstition has been on the wane there for several hundred years now, being replaced with something that doesn't have a name but that religious people like to call "secular humanism."
ReplyDeleteYou seem to imagine English religious culture is being replaced with the possibly more dynamic, but also more primitive and tribal religious culture of Muslim immigrants. This is wrong - the Muslim immigrants are a small minority of the English population and their own culture, far from being dynamic, is even more obviously backward, ugly and oppressive when compared to "secular humanism" than traditional English religious culture was. That's a big problem for them, as witnessed by the linked story in the Guardian:
Ikwro's campaigns officer, Fionnuala Ni Mhurchu, said the increase was probably due partly to better police awareness and to more victims coming forward after coverage of high-profile prosecutions, but that violence itself was also increasing as young people increasingly refused to bow to their families' demands.
"They're resisting abuses of their human rights such as forced marriage more and more," she said. "And as a result they're being subjected to this kind of violence. We hear from the community that this violence is on the increase."
The above means this is a war "secular humanism" will win, simply by virtue of being obviously superior to the culture opposing it. New generations of these immigrants make the comparison and vote with their feet - and responding to that with violence will become more difficult for the reactionaries year by year, as the UK police forces get better at policing these kinds of crimes. Basically, we are going to win this one.
The above means this is a war "secular humanism" will win, simply by virtue of being obviously superior to the culture opposing it.
ReplyDeleteobviously superior????? In a relativistic world who is to judge the superiority of one culture over another?
In a multicultural world there are multi cultures "opposing" secular humanism not one - multiple forces if you were tearing at its guts.
Secular humanists with their passions for abortion and sexual freedom but not reproduction as a rule nor family are on the road to extinction.
And when it comes to the crunch who in their right mind would lay down their life in war to preserve the rights of sexual minorities to hold Gay Pride marches etc - indeed in a degraded culture when the call comes people (that would be men) will just shrug.
In a relativistic world who is to judge the superiority of one culture over another?
ReplyDeleteThe people in it. You'll note no boatloads of English desperate to share the freedoms enjoyed by Kurds and Persians.
Secular humanists with their passions for abortion and sexual freedom but not reproduction as a rule nor family are on the road to extinction.
This would be true if rationalism and a belief in human freedom were hereditary, but they aren't. The descendants of the Muslim immigrants will contain fewer and fewer honour-killing loonies - this is what's making their parents so angry.
And when it comes to the crunch who in their right mind would lay down their life in war to preserve the rights of sexual minorities to hold Gay Pride marches etc...
This is merely another way of asking "Who in their right mind would lay down their life to preserve freedom?" History to this point suggests the answer is "Lots."
The people in it. You'll note no boatloads of English desperate to share the freedoms enjoyed by Kurds and Persians.
ReplyDeleteNo PM - but the Kurds and "Persians" who leave their blighted homelands for Blighty do not start singing "Jerusalem" either. Rather they accept the more comfortable existence of an enlightened society while remaining unenlightened.
This would be true if rationalism and a belief in human freedom were hereditary, but they aren't. The descendants of the Muslim immigrants will contain fewer and fewer honour-killing loonies - this is what's making their parents so angry.
A curious phenomena, well documented, is that the children of earlier emigrants who did westernize have adopted the mores of the less enlightened lands.
Thus a daughter of a lip stick wearing Pakistani mother may well be a burka wearer.
This is merely another way of asking "Who in their right mind would lay down their life to preserve freedom?" History to this point suggests the answer is "Lots."
Freedom is just a word - when the boys went off to the Boer war they weren't fighting for freedom, they were fighting for empire - they considered themselves British and Britain called. So much for history. Pretty much the same with WW1.
The "fighting for Freedom" thing came from Frank Capra's "Why we Fight" series which are darn good movies created to make American Soldiers feel good about who they were and what they were doing during WW2.
Do you know why the Republicans lost the Spanish Civil War? Why their fight against "tyranny" for "democracy" ended in their defeat?
They started shooting each other, my friend, even though they were on the same side, allegedly.
The Nationalists on the other hand, whether you like what they stood for or not, stood for something and won.
And that's how it will always be
A curious phenomena, well documented, is that the children of earlier emigrants who did westernize have adopted the mores of the less enlightened lands.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, the very article you linked to suggests the rise in violence against the children of Muslim immigrants is exactly because they're embracing the freedom their new country offers them. I saw the same thing in Germany - the children of the Turks wanted what the German kids had, not to be married off to some illiterate Turkish peasant for obscure family reasons.
Freedom is just a word - when the boys went off to the Boer war they weren't fighting for freedom, they were fighting for empire - they considered themselves British and Britain called. So much for history. Pretty much the same with WW1.
True enough - there's always a proportion of saps who'll volunteer to risk violent, undignified death simply because the govt asks them to. But doesn't this also undermine your point? If we do require some cannon fodder to step up for the freedom to hold gay pride marches there'll be some, just like there were some to get shot by Boers or
Bosche.
he very article you linked to suggests the rise in violence against the children of Muslim immigrants
ReplyDeleteActually Milt the violence isn't against the children of Muslim immigrants it is against the female children and often the perpetrators are the male children if you look into it.
Men fight for money, men fight for women, men fight to protect their own or men fight for ideals - the former two being related and the later two being related.
A better way of putting it might be that some men will kill women who won't do what the men consider to be the right thing. We had an attempt to do that here only yesterday, with no Muslims involved. The more backward tribalists of the Middle East might have it a bit more codified than their NZ equivalents, but the principle is the same.
ReplyDeleteThe more backward tribalists of the Middle East might have it a bit more codified than their NZ equivalents, but the principle is the same.
ReplyDeleteNo Milt it is not. In Anatolia an honor killing would be understood and possibly approved by many of the population whereas in New Zealand an incident like yesterdays is met with almost universal disgust its that culture thing.
If the number of people from Anatolia in NZ is small that cultural peculiarity will soon be lost but if there a significant numbers of said people living in enclaves it will persist or might even become exaggerated if the people feel under siege and threatened by the dominant culture.
Cultural transfers can be positive and negative when it comes down to it