UK "culture"

[Richard Barrett]

So, the supplimentary question is

How many of these things are really "under threat" and need defending?
And if they do need "defending" who should be doing the defending?

The danger of looking at things in that sort of way (which I don't imagine you do anyway!) is that it leads to the kind of conservative thinking that holds that it's possible and desirable to go back to some imagined past (usually the past supposed to have been experienced by a certain class, race, gender...) or even to hold on to what one imagines is a status quo, whereas neither of these is in fact possible, both being based on a somewhat illusory and partial view of society. British society is considerably different now from the way it was when I was growing up, which I see clearly in my twice-yearly visits back to my home town. Some changes are for the better (much more racial diversity, cleaner air, better places to eat...) while others aren't (the decline of the town centre as a hub of society). If our society were set up to respond to the needs and wishes of all of its members we wouldn't have to have conversations about things being under threat and having to be preserved and so on, the whole discussion emerges from the way society is instead based around maximising short-term profit and hanging onto short-term political power.

[MrGongGong]

The danger of looking at things in that sort of way (which I don't imagine you do anyway!) is that it leads to the kind of conservative thinking that holds that it's possible and desirable to go back to some imagined past (usually the past supposed to have been experienced by a certain class, race, gender...) or even to hold on to what one imagines is a status quo, whereas neither of these is in fact possible, both being based on a somewhat illusory and partial view of society. British society is considerably different now from the way it was when I was growing up, which I see clearly in my twice-yearly visits back to my home town. Some changes are for the better (much more racial diversity, cleaner air, better places to eat...) while others aren't (the decline of the town centre as a hub of society). If our society were set up to respond to the needs and wishes of all of its members we wouldn't have to have conversations about things being under threat and having to be preserved and so on, the whole discussion emerges from the way society is instead based around maximising short-term profit and hanging onto short-term political power.

I agree
but find myself frequently having to argue with folks (and not always older "conservative" thinking ones) about how our culture isn't "threatened".There are many folks who really DO feel that it is and one needs to be able to refute their misunderstandings in a well-informed way.

[Lat-Literal]

Racial diversity, of itself, is not an unquestionable positive or negative in regard to all culture any more than an absence of it is an unquestionable positive or negative. A positivity or negativity mainly arises in oppositional senses to the alternative, ie you are excluding or you are insular etc. In reality, most of world music, for example, is over there and not here. When it is here, it is - other than on the fringes - thrown through autotuned productions or hip hoppified as indeed it is sadly the entire world round. That can be great when there is obvious fusion, especially where that fusion has a genuine meaning based in an identifiable mixture of roots - but not when it is so uniformed it could merely emanate from the Bronx.

I do have an angle on this too in broadcasting terms which I accept is generational. As it happens, I still have a regard for the BBC and tend to believe that there is still something of a BBC standard. When I see the range of good broadcasters on BBC television, many of whom are not from stereotypical backgrounds, I can get a sense of uplift from the combination of their gifts and Britain's inclusivity. When I see diversity in American television, it doesn't say anything to me, other than that these are all television people above and beyond anything else. It appears cocooned on a big business scale and nothing to do with the harmonious or acrimonious relationships in the real world beyond it. To integration with a common purpose, it is a yes and yes again. But too integrated and it's as bland as there being no diversity at all. Worse, it's unharnessed from national identity for being wedded to the market place.

[Richard Barrett]

Racial diversity, of itself, is not an unquestionable positive or negative

Well, yes it is actually - racial diversity is one reason for the fact (mentioned by others on this thread) white people are in general less racist than they were a few decades ago, although this effect is less noticeable in parts of the country which are more racially homogeneous. It isn't rocket science, as they say, to see why this should be.

[Joseph K]

I agree
but find myself frequently having to argue with folks (and not always older "conservative" thinking ones) about how our culture isn't "threatened".There are many folks who really DO feel that it is and one needs to be able to refute their misunderstandings in a well-informed way.

Of course culture might be threatened - by cuts, privatisation, upper redistribution of wealth etc.

[Lat-Literal]

Well, yes it is actually - racial diversity is one reason for the fact (mentioned by others on this thread) white people are in general less racist than they were a few decades ago, although this effect is less noticeable in parts of the country which are more racially homogeneous. It isn't rocket science, as they say, to see why this should be.

But that isn't an absolute positive. It is a positive because it is rallying against a negative. As I said, "a positivity or negativity mainly arises in oppositional senses to the alternative, ie you are excluding or you are insular etc." Whereas if it goes beyond that so that there is something of positive cultural merit - good restaurants, good concerts - then that is a wholly positive thing. If every Indian restaurant was just fish and chips and every African or West Indian record was straight outta Compton, the word "diversity" would need to be questioned.

I am not sure that even as a reactional positive it completely holds true. It would have Japan with hardly any diversity as one of the most racist places on earth which I am guessing it is not. Cultural globalisation, more travel, IT which crosses international lines, the end of the industrial Empire, the passing of time, education for all, legislation - all have reduced racism. North Korea is quite an interesting one. I doubt that we ever assess it in terms of racism. We simply regard its people as deprived of a positive diversity - and almost everything else.

As for white people being more racist in areas which are more racially homogeneous - this is to presuppose for one moment that all racism is towards the non white, not that it is - my belief on the basis of experience is that you are right but it is only an unsubstantiated belief. Polling, for example, includes an element that is people of ethnicity or ethnic background. Remove that percentage from what appears in any outcomes in the urban areas and you might find that the very opposite is true. Some figures could suggest that it's an urban myth.

Perhaps we could contrast, say, attitudes in Stoke on Trent or Ipswich or Burnley with attitudes in the Highlands and Islands or the Cotswolds in Gloucestershire or the Isles of Scilly? I would not be at all surprised if (a) the curve for least racism was slighter than we think and (b) it peaked statistically at somewhere around the average for levels of diversity in the UK.

[Richard Barrett]

But that isn't an absolute positive. It is a positive because it is rallying against a negative.

[Conchis]

If you did a random 'Vox pop' sample of people in their 60 upwards in any largely white area in Britain and asked them who, in their view, was the best Prime Minister Britain never had, I'm pretty certain the majority would answer: 'Enoch Powell.'

[Richard Barrett]

If you did a random 'Vox pop' sample of people in their 60 upwards in any largely white in Britain and asked them who, in their view, was the best Prime Minister Britain never had, I'm pretty certain the majority would answer: 'Enoch Powell.'

Any largely white what? UKIP branch?

[Lat-Literal]

No, no......this is a key point in the cultural read across to the OP which asks (a) what is UK culture and (b) who is it threatened by. On (b), the OP makes it clear that he thinks that it isn't threatened by anyone. On (a) there may well be the implication from him that it is too nebulous to define. Hence what any "discussion" - his word - amounts to is simply an imaginary concept and a feeling or fear of that concept being threated by imagined unknowns. The further implication is the concept is little more than a rallying against "what Britain is not". A shallow patriotism. A dislike of the foreigner. The presentation of a positive against a negative when those things are the other way round. But what the response to the OP turned out to be in page after page of individual posts was a positive listing of many aspects of British culture - some serious, some funny - that was crystal clear and diverse and not set against anything in particular. It stands in its own right. And there is no reason why the contribution of migrants should not stand likewise in a non-comparative positive light.

[MrGongGong]

Any largely white what? UKIP branch?

Quite

[Lat-Literal]

I don't agree with what has been said on Powell. When it comes to those on the right of the spectrum, I see the 70 somethings as having got the PM they wanted. It was Mrs Margaret Thatcher. They would campaign to have her resurrected. The 80 somethings never thought that anyone would fit the bill. Powell was too divisive. Mostly, they couldn't stand Tony Blair.

We are told that there are millions of right wing 60 somethings. Everyone I meet who is in that age bracket is an ardent Blairite. Powell did have moderate support from the generations which are now largely deceased but mainly as a statement of protest against an establishment which had sent them off to war and then had never done enough to win their trust again.

This is not to say that I haven't detected Powellite leanings in some 70 somethings. The ones who succeeded under Thatcher have a golden age of politics and economics as they see it. It is not wholly dissociated from various definitions of whiteness. That makes them unique. Those older had a war as children. And most younger than 70 have had high housing costs.

[Bryn]

I don't agree with what has been said on Powell. When it comes to those on the right of the spectrum, I see the 70 somethings as having got the PM they wanted. It was Mrs Margaret Thatcher. They would campaign to have her resurrected. The 80 somethings never thought that anyone would fit the bill. Powell was too divisive. Mostly, they couldn't stand Tony Blair.

We are told that there are millions of right wing 60 somethings. Everyone I meet who is in that age bracket is an ardent Blairite. Powell did have moderate support from the generations which are now largely deceased but mainly as a statement of protest against an establishment which had sent them off to war and then had never done enough to win their trust again.

In that case, we clearly have not met.

[Richard Barrett]

In that case, we clearly have not met.

Quite so. Only one among my circle of friends and acquaintances could to my certain knowledge be described as an "ardent Blairite", the others either aren't or are too ashamed to admit it. Mind you I'm not yet 60, let alone something.

[Lat-Literal]

In that case, we clearly have not met.

I am not quite sure where you stand.

My main point is that this Kellnerite insistence on lumping together the Brexiting over 60s is a bit ridiculous when 60-105 is the same as 15-60 in terms of the number of years.

There are identifiable strands.