1 edit
Originally posted by General PutzerNo, I'm not ashamed of my skin. I just recognise that it has a minimal effect on what I do (well, other than parts of my nervous system, having my internal organs not fall out, etc.).
Nothing wrong with whit walks, it's a good wholesome tradition.
Better than slashing open babies faces and covering them in blood like some islamic cultures do.
But that's it for me, no more. You people are ashamed of your skin, and for that I feel sad.
1 edit
Now they're teaching 'Britishness' in the classrooms. Trouble is, it's not Britishness at all, it's the sort of thing that should be taught by parents to their children; politeness, freedom of opportunity, freedom of speech, racial diversity, tolerance etc. These things are about being HUMAN, not about being from one place or another. Why should my skin colour or my nationality determine what sort of person I am? It doesn't. Hell I can't even think of a reason why I would be proud to be British. It's got nothing to do with being ashamed of my skin, only a bigotted simpleton could hold such a view. It's about being dismayed that the moral fibre of some people is still governed by their refusal to join the human race as a whole, but instead remain in their tribe. Every human on this planet deserves the same rights, tolerance, protection and status and the sooner we get rid of patrioitism, the sooner we'll take the first step towards that.
Originally posted by StarrmanI'd agree that it's better to think of oneself first and foremost as a human being. But it's also true that we are shaped by our culture. And there are far worse places to live, or to be born, than the UK.
Now they're teaching 'Britishness' in the classrooms. Trouble is, it's not Britishness at all, it's the sort of thing that should be taught by parents to their children; politeness, freedom of opportunity, freedom of speech, racial diversity, tolerance etc. These things are about being HUMAN, not about being from one place or another. Why should my skin ...[text shortened]... e sooner we get rid of patrioitism, the sooner we'll take the first step towards that.
I think we undervalue our traditions of fairness, sympathy and tolerance, for a start. Historically you can point to parliamentary democracy and the NHS.
It's far from perfect, but where is?
Originally posted by dottewellI agree there are of course worse places, but should we really be saying that our standard of living is something that is bound within culture? Shouldn't it be something that comes before that? Governance and health services are also, IMO, standards which should not flow from culture, but from the base state of humanity.
I'd agree that it's better to think of oneself first and foremost as a human being. But it's also true that we are shaped by our culture. And there are far worse places to live, or to be born, than the UK.
I think we undervalue our traditions of fairness, sympathy and tolerance, for a start. Historically you can point to parliamentary democracy and the NHS.
It's far from perfect, but where is?
2 edits
Originally posted by Starrman...should we really be saying that our standard of living is something that is bound within culture? Shouldn't it be something that comes before that?
I agree there are of course worse places, but .
Insofar as I understand the point, then - ideally - you are right. But there is no point denying that culture exists, or that culture shapes people as much as people shape culture. The fact we have (for example) a national health service, a minimum wage and a reasonable social security system is to some extent a product of our culture & values.
Governance and health services are also, IMO, standards which should not flow from culture, but from the base state of humanity.
They should, but (in other cultures) often do not.
Originally posted by Vladamir no1I lived there for 15 years, loved it for the first 10 then started to consider getting out which I did last August (to surrey, Dorking) best move I ever made, but London did keep me entertained for a very long time before I hit that 'got to get out feeling'
I'm a Londoner born and raised, and you're right there's some real 'crap' parts but there's some nice parts as well like Hampstead and Highgate, true the bad locations are more numerous than the good and English people as a whole are pretty ethnocentric. But there's a multiplicity of diasporic communities in London so there must be something about Londo ...[text shortened]... n and want to move in a couple of years or so but I''m sure I'll miss it when I go...
Originally posted by stevetoddYup, I lasted 3 years before I had to leave.
I lived there for 15 years, loved it for the first 10 then started to consider getting out which I did last August (to surrey, Dorking) best move I ever made, but London did keep me entertained for a very long time before I hit that 'got to get out feeling'
Having said that, I was back for a weekend earlier in the year, and we loved the place.
D
Originally posted by stevetoddThat's London. Got to get in, got to get out, got to get in...
I lived there for 15 years, loved it for the first 10 then started to consider getting out which I did last August (to surrey, Dorking) best move I ever made, but London did keep me entertained for a very long time before I hit that 'got to get out feeling'
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellI don't deny that culture exists, but I do have to wonder what there is about our culture that makes it worth retaining, given that 'the good life' should extend from a natural desire to see humanity progress. I also fear the use of culture as an antagonist, not everyone is capable of enjoying the benefits of culture wihtout portraying it's shortcomings.
...should we really be saying that our standard of living is something that is bound within culture? Shouldn't it be something that comes before that?
Insofar as I understand the point, then - ideally - you are right. But there is no point denying that culture exists, or that culture shapes people as much as people shape culture. The fact we hav ...[text shortened]... but from the base state of humanity.[/i]
They should, but (in other cultures) often do not.
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellyeah I think as well as getting your fill of it after a while also your age is a factor, I'm 48 now so tend to appreciate different things to when I first moved there (aged 32), also I was quite keen to get a dog which I did last month, in london I lived in a 2 bed flat whereas in Dorking I was able to get a detached 3 bed house with a large (by london standards) garden for the same price, which is much more suitable for having a dog.
That's London. Got to get in, got to get out, got to get in...
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanI wouldn't put it this way: our culture (taken as a whole) should be preserved.
I don't deny that culture exists, but I do have to wonder what there is about our culture that makes it worth retaining, given that 'the good life' should extend from a natural desire to see humanity progress. I also fear the use of culture as an antagonist, not everyone is capable of enjoying the benefits of culture wihtout portraying it's shortcomings.
I would say: some aspects of our culture are valuable and should be applauded.
I don't approach moral issues by an appeal to culture. I'm not sure, however, it makes sense to speak of doing away with (as opposed to changing) our culture. What would a culture-less society look like?
Originally posted by dottewelli'm not attempting to destroy culture, I'm suggesting that a world culture be created. Without sounding too Utopian about this, my view is that culture can be beneficial on a local level if the idea of nationalism is less important that a global culture of tolerance and co-operation. There are great things about celebrating the culture which you can identify with on a local or even national level, provided that you do not view it in terms of one-up-manship over other cultures.
I wouldn't put it this way: our culture (taken as a whole) should be preserved.
I would say: some aspects of our culture are valuable and should be applauded.
I don't approach moral issues by an appeal to culture. I'm not sure, however, it makes sense to speak of doing away with (as opposed to changing) our culture. What would a culture-less society look like?
Imagine - John Lennon
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
Originally posted by StarrmanThere are great things about celebrating the culture which you can identify with on a local or even national level, provided that you do not view it in terms of one-up-manship over other cultures.
i'm not attempting to destroy culture, I'm suggesting that a world culture be created. Without sounding too Utopian about this, my view is that culture can be beneficial on a local level if the idea of nationalism is less important that a global culture of tolerance and co-operation. There are great things about celebrating the culture which you can identi ...[text shortened]... tional level, provided that you do not view it in terms of one-up-manship over other cultures.
Entirely agree.
I guess nowadays we are influenced by all manner of cultures - some national, some local, some international. I think its not just irrational but impossible to try to "preserve national culture" as the single defining influence on the people who live in a particular country.