What i'm opposed to is the government and, more relevantly, the media, led by the BBC, forcing a politically-motivated "brand" of multiculturalism down our throats.
I come from Leicester, and i'm hugely proud of the city's reputation as a multicultural capital of sorts. We've got people from all over the world living here - and all pretty much in harmony. Take the Belgrave area, home to the "Golden Mile." I can think of few other places in the world, let alone Britain, where Hindu and Muslim communities live side by side with next to no trouble whatsoever. And these communities don't just "tolerate" each other, they actively interact with one another. The road has the odd honour of having the largest number of Asian restaurants per square mile in the western world - i'm not sure there are many places where a Halal butcher and a vegetarian Indian restaurant can be found side by side. There has even in the past 10 years been an influx of Polish and Lithuanian migrants to the area - and again, there has been no trouble. And this is coming from an area in the world spotlight right now for rampant racist, anti-semetic and fascist behaviours. The culmination in Leicester is probably the Diwali and Eid celebrations on Belgrave Road itself. The festivals always draw people from across the city and county and are both great spectacles. The people come from all walks of life.
But why has "multiculturalism" worked in Leicester while it has seemingly failed in places like, say, Barking, where we saw that pitiful BNP sideshow at the last general election? I think, basically, it is due to the time during which Leicester became a multicultural city. The majority of immigrants to Leicester came here during the late 50's and early 60's. They were, on the whole, welcomed to the city, which isn't that suprising given the city's reputation as a liberal and/or "progressive" place in the 60's (though the less said about the decision to build the ring road the better.) Most came from India and came to the UK as families who still remembered it being part of the UK's empire, and shared some sense of British identity as a result despite the independence drive. But it was the ensuing years that caused the close-knit community to develop. Leicester's multiculturalism developed largely under the radar between the 60's and 90's as families grew up in the city, came to identify with life there and developed a pride in their hometown. By the time the third generations were growing up, the first real "Asian Brits" were growing up - people proud of their home country. To called said country adopted would be ignorant when somebody has spent their whole life there.
Had this wave of immigration come even fifteen years later, the story could be very different. During those dark days of the 70's recession and the failures of Wilson and Callaghan's governence, which make today's economic problems look rosy by comparison, the Skinhead became king on the backstreets, and those job taking "aysyunz" were the target. It would have been very difficult for any new migrant to feel at home or develop any connection with their new host country when going outside, even in broad daylight, could result in savage beatings at the hands of Doc-Martin toting hooligans. In places like Leicester, where the Asian community was already established and had actually helped drive a local economic boom - the hosiery industry in Leicester experienced an Indian Summer (excuse the pun) of trade boom in the late 60's while factories closed in surrounding cities thanks to an increased labour pool willing to work at lower wages - which lowered council tax and put more money in the pockets of everyone, regardless of skin colour.
Now, call me a cynic, but given that it was Labour's hideous mismanagement of the 70's economy (sound farmiliar?) which led to the rise in hooliganism and racially-motivated attacks thanks to unemployment amongst the white working class, I feel that New Labour's policy of "Multiculturalism" was a thinly-veiled attempt to score political points with the liberal centre ground and give the illusion that these communities across the country were now somehow closer-knit in spite of the social divisions their own party had been instrumental in creating. Is it not odd that places like Leicester or Camden, where there were never any real problems with race divisions, are rarely cited as beacons of "multiculturalism?" That's because they aren't what governments consider to be multicultural. The very word has become a dirty term for a socially-engineered forcing of communities together through which political parties score cheap points. Nowhere is this more apparent than recently in Bradford, where George Galloway's Respect party have wormed their way into power by throwing out a rhetoric based on this false "multiculturalism." Bradford is notoriously divided, with violence between it's Sikh and Muslim communities. It is Bradford where, amazingly, some Sikhs were publicly shown to be turning to the BNP a few years ago, such were the social divisions of a city where - you guessed it - the majority of immigration took place between the late 70's and early 80's.
And y'know, it saddens me to say this, but now this political dark side of multiculturalism is invading Leicester, too. Many of you will know Keith Vaz, that muppet who chairs the Home Affairs Select Committee and is a well-known crony of Ed Miliband. This man is the very face of political multiculturalism, that thing I hate so very much. At any given oppurtunity, he will launch into a tirade of politically correct babble about how his party have helped people to integrate more. More and more, he cites Leicester as a city where "multiculturalism has worked."
No, Mr Vaz. Don't you DARE tarnish my city's history and reputation with the evil shadow of political multiculturalism. The situation in Leicester has nothing to do with you, or your political party's odious attempts to score cheap political victories on the basis of social engineering. Leicester's Asian and Afro-Carribean communites developed and integrated with the rest of the city by themselves, over time, without any intrusion from politicians or councillors. By the time we first heard the word "Multiculturalism" from Blair's government, our city was already getting on with it's life and not bothered by the religion or colour of a person. Now your party are trying, succesfully, to create a national stereotype of "apathetic integration" which is sadly being accepted by many as true. It's not, Mr Vaz. As someone who grew up in Leicester, who knows what REAL multiculturalism is, it's shocking that you'd pander to this ideology for the sake of political brownie-points.
I'm afraid that the word multiculturalism is now a political word more than a social one.I see true multiculturalism every day on the streets of my city, in the celebrations, in the festivals, in the vibrant market where, regardless of ethnicity, everybody has the same Leicester twang to their shouts of "GET YER TEMATOS, PAHND A PAHND!*" Then i switch on the TV and I'm bombarded with politicians and programs trying to give the illusion that everything is okay, and it's all thanks to those lovely people in Westminster. I never hear the man on the street talk of "multiculturalism." They don't care. It's only in the media, in those self-centred political corridors of power, where the poisonous phrase is ever uttered.
If anybody saw the channel 4 documentary "Make Bradford British" - there you have the real face of "political multiculturalism." But the stigmas that the show threw up - asian ladies scared to go into a pub, the segregated communities, the language barriers - were broken down when people simply began to talk and learn more about each other. I don't believe you can ever do that on a community-wide scale with politics involved. It has to be down to the people themselves wanting to try and get along. It happened in Leicester but - as I've said time after time - it takes time.
I love real multiculturalism - but the word is now an insult to what it originally stood for.
* - Leicester dialect for "Get your tomatoes, one pound for a pound!" Usually followed by something along the lines of "I den wan' ote, m'duck (I don't want anything, my friend.)
images - sun.co.uk, pd3.co.uk
