Welcome to my part in the ongoing blog conversation with the man recognised throughout the world of people who know as the better Dryden, David. . Here’s the premise.
Previously in the conversation: My brother is very brave. There are things that people don’t know about him and what he experiences. I’m hardly an expert on him myself, but I know enough to declare that when he rights about the problem about claims to legitimacy for the government of this country, he does so knowing full well he’s in the vast minority. He writes with clarity and incisive precision on the matter. As well as what he took from his parents that influences who he is today. These all reflect a man who is my brother but is not my Dad or my Mum. He is not obliged to be anything or anyone other than who he grows to be in the pursuit of the truth. What he writes in the recent part of our conversation is not just brave it’s brilliant. Do yourself and your friend a favour – read it, share it, read it again and grapple with what is presented from your perspective.
David had some questions for me, so let’s see how I can answer them … if I can:
Q – Is multiculturalism a good thing? Explain your answer.
What is multiculturalism is the important place to start? There is a home culture, that home culture endorses the introduction in the home territory of other cultures and suggests that these cultures can and should co-exist in a way that accommodates each other with due acknowledgement of the home culture’s prominence. Further, there is an encouragement for mixing between cultures to learn from each where possible. Not with the desire for cultures to be totally assimilated in the home culture, rather how the flow of things can produce fresh nuances of each culture as the generations go by proving once and for all that people of different cultures can get along in peace and harmony.
I’m sure you can appreciate the need for me to give a picture of the multicultural idea before giving my view on whether it is a good thing. I’m open to critique on the definition, etc. I think the desire for multiculturalism, as with the matter of globalisation, is well-meaning idealism that has little bearing on how cultures interact as well as how cultures should interact. The English culture spent a few centuries travelling to various locations in the globe on quests to establish and enlarge an empire via economic and military methods. The English were clear on their culture and messed around with others giving a clear impression that theirs was the superior culture. When the financial and political fortunes took a hammering due to wars and the weight of imperial responsibilities. Those from the colonies were invited to come to the motherland and help her repair from the exertions. As that invitation was received and accepted the ‘idea’ of multiculturalism was expressed in this country.
Was it a good thing? In the larger scheme of things, I don’t think so. I don’t think Britain is a ‘better’ country for its attempts to implement it. It’s not a country that is more aware, embracing and welcoming to different cultures. Even if it claims that it is, that hasn’t highlighted qualities that have made it a better or righteous country to live in. Mixed in with some of the liberal influences that shape the concept all it really does is highlight the difference between cultures and only accepts those cultures that still will submit to the prominence of the home culture and with a subtle push get it to comply and conform more with the ‘values’ of that home culture. You’re welcome as long as you comply is still the gist of the effort. I do have an idea of how people from different cultures can live together in genuine harmony and peace, but even that requires a recognition of a more important culture than the one in which we’re raised. I think the multicultural project is the misguided effort of accommodating people to enrich a home economy at the cost of others.
I’m open to being wrong about this perspective in the light of compelling arguments that can dissuade me.
Q – What do you believe to be the purpose or outcome of the mainstream media, both fiction and nonfiction?
You may be aware of simple sentiments. Sentiments like in the world of football, participants will say that it’s a simple game where the team with the most goals wins the game. Lovely, simple sentiments. The mainstream media. Now there’s a broad title covering so much. I don’t usually go researching into definitions because I like going off my understanding of definitions – that way people know where I’m coming from. On this occasion, though, I want to get a definition of the mainstream media outside of my own terms of reference.
Oxford Language defines the mainstream media as ‘traditional or established broadcasting or publishing outlets’. Lots of questions crop up from that chief of which would be what would make an outlet traditional or established? Is Facebook considered a part of mainstream media? For the sake of this conversation, I’ll suggest that mainstream media in Britain includes the BBC, major national newspapers such as The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Daily Telegraph and the Sky broadcasting company.
Is there such a broad and simple definition that underlines the purpose for all of these companies and organisations? It’s difficult for me to ascribe one blanket answer. I would, however, suggest that their desire is to entertain, inform and educate. The bias with which they do that can lead to questions as to if it is really informing or providing that which allows with the desire to conform to less than noble standards in life. They’re certainly educating though for sure – challenging and shaping the views of those who consume what they have to offer.
When I use those terms to describe their purpose, it’s also worth underlining how their purpose is to do this to a degree that maximises their influence, reach and commercial investment. They don’t do this out of the kindness of their heart, they don’t do this with any noble quest for the truth, they do this to get more eyes and hears on their product to generate the most income and sway.
Q – For many nowadays, the world is no longer based on experience but on ideas, normally outside of the ability to verify, through which experience must be interpreted. Is this true or false? If true, do you think ideas have been framed to dominate the behaviours of people? If false, how so?
There’s a fascinating statement to base things on. The ability to verify – has that been a standard throughout all the ages? OK, before I travel down a long and winding road in understanding the terms used, I’ll dive into actually addressing the question.
Experience should be interpreted through ideas that is as prevalent now as it has been for every generation before this one. Reasonable arguments can be made that experience tends to be interpreted through the big ideas of the culture n which life takes place. For example, the narrative of the entitled rights/identity-magnified culture influences a significant amount of those who interpret their experiences to see themselves as victims deprived of that which they believe should ‘rightfully’ be theirs. And if they’re not the victims they can certainly identify the victims and the perpetrators and then express indignation and pressurise authorities to duly make sure the perpetrators are punished.
These are not the only ideas that are framed to dominate the behaviours of people. It does call for a degree of awareness of what informs and influences behaviour.
Those questions used up a lot of brain-work, I can tell you that for sure. So thanks for that and how its kept the economy thriving because I definitely needed to eat and drink after that!
There now follows some questions that I’d like your responses to, please:
Q – What elements shape the way you see the world around you? Are those factors trustworthy?
Q – What are the consequences are there for the many acts of injustice and corruption that take place unaccounted for in this life? If there are no consequences does that weaken the appeal to justice and what’s right in this life?
Q – What would you like your son to carry on when he reaches the age of maturity that he receives from you?
Conversing is delightful with you, my brother. Keep on keeping on. Thanks for your time.
For His Name’s Sake
Shalom
C. L. J. Dryden
Life With CD 
One thought on “ADBC: 18 – Ideas, Mainstream Media and Multiculturalism”