"Anyone but Little England"

[Tom Halsey]

culturally speaking, you've seen one city = you've seen 80% of British culture.

Rubbish.

 

[C_C]

And youve seen one Basque bombing a Catalunian and youve seen them all

Yeah i suppose every Basque is a terrorist ( btw, Basques have a problem with Castillians, not Catalunians...most of the time Catalans and Basques are on the same side)
And i suppose ETA has any bearing into the fact that Basques have a different language, different culinary style, clothing and architectural style than most of spain, save perhaps for the gallic areas.

 

[C_C]

Rubbish.

So tell me - what variations of literature, cuisine, clothing, lifestyle, music, architecture, etc. do you see between London and Manchester, or Manchester and Glasgow ??( btw- scale is irrelevant. We are talking different schools of thought here).

The west has very little cultural diversity - perhaps in a few hundred years it might develop some cultural diversity.
But so far, you've seen one = you've seen most

 

[Scaly piscine]

Rubbish.

Indeed, if anyone thinks a city like York is even vaguely similar to somewhere like Newcastle they're living in a different world.

 

[Tom Halsey]

So tell me - what variations of literature, cuisine, clothing, lifestyle, music, architecture, etc. do you see between London and Manchester, or Manchester and Glasgow ??( btw- scale is irrelevant. We are talking different schools of thought here).

There is quite a big cultural difference between North and South (and sometimes within North and South). Having said that, some things remain the same wherever you go - but I definitely disagree that once you've seen one, you've seen most.

 

[C_C]

There is quite a big cultural difference between North and South (and sometimes within North and South). Having said that, some things remain the same wherever you go - but I definitely disagree that once you've seen one, you've seen most.

Tell me what cultural difference exists, for i've seen very little variatons during my time in England.
And tell me how does that compare to 'diverse' nations like India and China, where you are dressing different, eating different, looking at different architecture, different literature, different language, different musical styles etc. when you go from Mumbai to Kolkata or Beijing to Kunming.
What you call 'cultural difference' is so insignificant that it is not worth mentioning in the same breath as the difference between Kolkata and Mumbai or various cities in China.
The most you notice is a slight difference in attitude, slight variations of the same language and a slight variation in activities. But everything else is pretty much the same.
You dont find any real diversity throughout the British Isles or in North America for the matter.
And infact, i would say that despite being a long long way off from the diversity seen in China, nevermind India, America and Canada are more diverse than most European nations. You have a noticably different culture once you go to parts of the US - for example Louisiana. Much the same with Quebec in Canada.
Nothing in Britain approaches that level of diversity,nevermind the much higher level of diversity seen in some asian nations.

When you are talking diversity in culture, you are talking about dressing, food, architecture, music,literature,language, customs, etc.
In places like India, there are several regions with their unique style of culture. West Bengal and Punjab are just as different culturally as Italy and Britain.
Same with Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Bihar, UP-Haryana-Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Sikkim, etc.
Hell, you step into Sikkim from Kolkata and its about as different as stepping out in the streets of Cairo just freshly disembarking from London.
THAT is what real diversity is. Not one monotonous culture with slightly different tint to it in various areas.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Nothing in Britain approaches that level of diversity,nevermind the much higher level of diversity seen in some asian nations.

And nor would I expect it to, considering how small and cramped it is. My point is that there still are considerable cultural differences, if not on the same level.

And can you give examples of differences in India? I've never seen it, s it would be appreciated.

 

[Sanz]

And nor would I expect it to, considering how small and cramped it is. My point is that there still are considerable cultural differences, if not on the same level.

And can you give examples of differences in India? I've never seen it, s it would be appreciated.

I think C_C does have a point here, In India every 100 miles you will notice different dialect, different kind of food, have different folk music..It is different man. Cultually I find nothing in common to a South Indian (apart from religion), My state borders with Bengal yet we are so different culturally.

 

[silentstriker]

And can you give examples of differences in India? I've never seen it, s it would be appreciated.

There are no 'differences'. They are about thirty completely different cultures. Thats like asking for differences between the English culture and the Ancient Mayan culture .

I am from Gujarat (originally), I travel a hundred miles east, and cannot speak the language, unless I find someone who speaks English. I meet my friend there, and travel 200 mi south, and now neither of us can speak the language, nor eat the food, nor understand the weather, nor understand their customs.

India has 24 (?) national languages. Yes, that's right. And thousands of local dialects.

 

[C_C]

And nor would I expect it to, considering how small and cramped it is. My point is that there still are considerable cultural differences, if not on the same level.

And can you give examples of differences in India? I've never seen it, s it would be appreciated.

Well there is 'very little' difference from what i've seen. I suppose all things are relative and if you havnt seen real diversity, you'd consider the inisignificant difference between London and Glasgow as 'considerable'.

However, to demonstrate what i am talking about, i will compare and contrast Punjab and West Bengal ( and there are over a dozen examples of similar and unique diversity).

Well in Punjab most women wear shalwaar kameez as their dress of choice.
In Bengal most women wear saris.
Most men in punjab also wear shalwaar kameez (though its cut differently than the women's ones) while most men in Bengal wear dhotis. Ofcourse a significant number wear pants and shirts.
In Punjab, most people eat chapattis while in Bengal, its mostly all about rice.
Fish is real popular in Bengal, fish is the least popular in Punjab.
Bengal and Punjab has its own languages.
They also have their own customs when it comes to interacting with people.
Bengali literary style is significantly different than Punjabi literary styles ( ie, even if they were the same language, the writing style is about as different as Charles Dickens and Shakespeare).
In Punjab, the architectural style is quite different than in Bengal - bengali huts tend to be rounder and lower than punjabi huts...punjabi huts have a 'front patio' while bengali huts typically have a 'back patio'. You see a lot more onion domes in Punjab while you see a lot more 'flat domes' in Bengal.
Punjabi style of music is vibrant/energetic and dance-oriented (much of their music is in similar vein to Bhangra) while Bengali style of music is often contemplative and tinged with sadness/loss.

In short, the difference between Punjab and Bengal is about as marked as the difference between Spain and Britain.....
And that is not even the biggest contrast. Comparing something like Tamil Nadu to something like Sikkim is about as markedly different as comparing Tibet and New York.

 

[Sanz]

There are no 'differences'. They are about thirty completely different cultures. Thats like asking for differences between the English culture and the Ancient Mayan culture.

Absolutely Agree.

 

[Neil Pickup]

There's a primary school across the road from my house.

The total number of languages spoken by children at said school is between 15 and 20.

 

[C_C]

There's a primary school across the road from my house.

The total number of languages spoken by children at said school is between 15 and 20.

In their homes maybe. That is true for any metropolitan city/area and so it is for Kolkata.
Is there actually a presence of the language in Britain ?
Do you see one region speaking a completely different language than another ?
Do you have a completely different language in London compared to Glasgow ? Don't mention the size of Britain or any such this and that - the cultural difference between Punjab and Himachal Pradesh are significant and they are bordering states who's total area is about the same as that of England, if not smaller....

You simply will not understand unless you visit there - or think in terms of cultural difference between Spain and Britain when it comes to cultural difference between any two cultural spheres of India ( and there are over 30 different major cultural spheres, over a 100 in reality).

In the west you have an 'overlord culture'. Where every other immigrant/addition is a tributary to it and gets absorbed into it.
You wont find many chinese imimgrants in the west who've lived in the west for 3-4 generations and still remember how to speak/read/cook chinese stuff.
Most get absorbed into the mainstream.
But you walk into Kolkata and you'd find the Baghdadi Jewish community, who've been there since 1850s and they speak/eat/dress totally different at home.
Or many marwari families who've lived in Kolkata for over 3-4 generations and still have their customs intact.
Simply because in India, there IS no 'standard baseline culture where people eat this/dress that way/speak this way/share the same moral grounds or get a dose of distrust and anger directed at them/have the same musical sphere of tastes' etc.

To understand the cultural diversity of India, you'd need to go much much beyond.
There are areas in India ( Sikkim for example) which are as markedly different from say bengal ( and bengal is the bordering state with Sikkim) as England is with Turkey...
they have different values, different food, customs,dress, lifestyle, religion, etc. etc.
The west is very homogenised where you 'keep your culture at home but when you step outside, everyone is the same ol same ol in terms of culture'.
In India, you dont see that except perhaps in the metropolitan cities...and even then there are significant differences in Indian metropolitan cities compared to the ones in the west.

 

[Sanz]

In their homes maybe. That is true for any metropolitan city/area and so it is for Kolkata.
Is there actually a presence of the language in Britain ?
Do you see one region speaking a completely different language than another ?
Do you have a completely different language in London compared to Glasgow ? Don't mention the size of Britain or any such this and that - the cultural difference between Punjab and Himachal Pradesh are significant and they are bordering states who's total area is about the same as that of England, if not smaller....

You simply will not understand unless you visit there - or think in terms of cultural difference between Spain and Britain when it comes to cultural difference between any two cultural spheres of India ( and there are over 30 different major cultural spheres, over a 100 in reality).

In the west you have an 'overlord culture'. Where every other immigrant/addition is a tributary to it and gets absorbed into it.
You wont find many chinese imimgrants in the west who've lived in the west for 3-4 generations and still remember how to speak/read/cook chinese stuff.
Most get absorbed into the mainstream.
But you walk into Kolkata and you'd find the Baghdadi Jewish community, who've been there since 1850s and they speak/eat/dress totally different at home.
Or many marwari families who've lived in Kolkata for over 3-4 generations and still have their customs intact.
Simply because in India, there IS no 'standard baseline culture where people eat this/dress that way/speak this way/share the same moral grounds or get a dose of distrust and anger directed at them/have the same musical sphere of tastes' etc.

To understand the cultural diversity of India, you'd need to go much much beyond.
There are areas in India ( Sikkim for example) which are as markedly different from say bengal ( and bengal is the bordering state with Sikkim) as England is with Turkey...
they have different values, different food, customs,dress, lifestyle, religion, etc. etc.
The west is very homogenised where you 'keep your culture at home but when you step outside, everyone is the same ol same ol in terms of culture'.
In India, you dont see that except perhaps in the metropolitan cities...and even then there are significant differences in Indian metropolitan cities compared to the ones in the west.

TOP POST man..I think every Indian on this forum can vouch for that.

 

[C_C]

This article underlines just how many languages there are in India.
Note that they are different languages, not dialects. For if we include dialects ( ie, 'Saffie English' vs 'New Yorker english' or '****ney' vs 'Yorkie') it would go into thousands.
My mother tongue is Bengali and there is Bengali i cant even understand (such as Sylheti or Chottogrami).....

 

[Richard]

Just take a look at what you've said, and tell me why it isn't a naive and media-driven view of the world. Really, the views you've expressed are only seen in tabloid journalism. Anti-white racism acceptable when racism against non-'whites' is still entrenched in the system and in the minds of many? Anti-male ***ism when females are still striving for equal treatment? Heterophobia when homophobia is almost the officially sanctioned and homosexuals are still second class citizens?

The things you point out aren't, as you seem to think, some sort of attempt to "redress past injustices" - they simply do not exist in the same way as what I've outlined, and the only way I can see that you would think that way is if you eat up whatever the media offers you without ever questioning their validity or looking deeper into the issues.

Little of the stuff about anti-white racism, anit-male ***ism or heterophobia is the product of media stories, that's more personal experience.
Yes, I'm perfectly well aware that what you've outlined is still far, far too prominent for anyone's liking, but I assure you - not in the circles I move in.

 

[Richard]

1) That statement is more true towards the US than Britain these days

It's always true to both - possibly to the US more than Britain, not really possible to say whether one is more than the other IMO.

2) I-hate-western-civilisation is still different from I-hate-white-people

It is?
White skin is one of the most obvious factors of Western civilisation.

So its, "I hate the Brits because I percieve them as intolerent". If that was "I hate white people because I percieve them as intolerant", then you'd have something. But rooting for Australia negates this.

Basically you are arguing that he [borders] on hating the symbol of white intolerence, but roots for one set of white people over another?

Indeed many have commented on the lack of logic in that.

 

[Richard]

Richard,

I dont disagree with everything you have to say on this topic BUT having too much faith in the media is a dangerous thing.

It is indeed and that's why it's so important to take a range of origins of those media.
Simply put - I have no wish to live in 50 different countries for 3 or 4 months. So media is all I've got.

 

[C_C]

It is?
White skin is one of the most obvious factors of Western civilisation.

It is also the most obvious factor in Eastern European civilisations and in places like Turkey or Lebanon- where you find as many 'white folks' as you do in Britain.

The fact that he singled out England while pitching in with Australia, which is a 'white nation' for all intents and purposes clearly undermines your claim that it was racist. For inorder to be racist, one has to speak for/against a whole race .
His commentary is no more racist than a Frenchman criciticising English 'culture' or a an Italian criticising the German 'culture'.

 

[C_C]

It is indeed and that's why it's so important to take a range of origins of those media.
Simply put - I have no wish to live in 50 different countries for 3 or 4 months. So media is all I've got.

If you have no wish to live in different nations for any period of time, you will always see the shadow instead of the person (metaphorically speaking). For i have lived in many countries for long periods of time and been to several more for months and living there is incomparably far more insightful than relying on the media.