Multiculturalism

The poppadom paradox

As life-transforming events go, the arrival of poppadoms at the table hardly counts as the most dramatic. But it gave Saskia the kind of mental jolt that would profoundly alter the way she thought. The problem was that the waiter who delivered the poppadoms was not of Indian descent, but a white Anglo-Saxon. This bothered Saskia, because for her, one of the pleasures of going out for a curry was the feeling that you were tasting a foreign culture.

But the more she thought about it, the less it made sense. Saskia thought of herself as a multiculturalist: she positively enjoyed the variety of cultures an ethnically diverse society sustains. But her enjoyment depended upon other people remaining ethnically distinct. She could only enjoy a life flitting between many different cultures if others remained firmly rooted in one. For her to be a multiculturalist, others needed to be monoculturalists. Where did that leave her ideal of a multicultural society?

just thought that given the constant slanging about the origin of players this would be of interest, though by no means any kind of answer.

Alter the story and make him a maori, afrikaan or samoan and it might ring more true to the context you are implying...!

Bang on!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxfU5gCfvys

Crikey Bomb that's a bit deep.
However not sure I agree. Can I not be deeply rooted in a culture while enjoying and accepting aspects of another culture. Does not that make me a multiculturalist rather than a mono...? Then if others do the same we can all be multi's and just all get on.

I have moved this thread to off topic.

Cheers Hobo, I thought it was quite relevant to the rugby discussions common to this board, especially your comments xx

What were my comments exactly?

All I did was point out how many people in the England rugby team were born in a different country. I never stated that I had a problem - far from it. I am Welsh yet was born in Spain, so I would be highly hypocritical to suggest it.

I never said you had caused a problem, just that it was relevant xx

The actual debate is far more a case of representational ethnicity rather than multiculturalism.

The English population is a wonderful blend of many ethnic lineages. Popular sport and culture reflect that.

But if the England rugby team reflected Englands ethnic balance their would be far more Chinese, Afro Caribbean, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indians in the team rather than the extreme minority kiwi, south African and south sea islanders. Football and cricket are far better examples of the construction of Englands multicultural society.

The blend of ethnic roots in the England rugby team is there to serve a purpose not as a true representation of the countries multicultural make up, using multiculturalism to disguise the influx of foreign players qualified through the residency laws is an excuse rather than a reflection of the countries wonderfully vibrant population mix.

Members of this forum that hark towards accusations of racism when non Englishman point out the current trend to exploit the residency laws leniency towards qualification to represent a country not of your birth is hypocritical and I dislike that arguement it very much.

This is not a new phenomenon as shown below:
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=33354

Also in the 20's there was quite a lot of controversy surrounding Englands willingness to select players whos qualification was perhaps somewhat dubious.

No doubt someone will be mentioning grannygate or the kilted kiwis but these are isolated incidents whereas England, with the biggest pool of players have been doing it for almost 100 years

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/2349459/The-day-a-Russian-prince-in-an-England-shirt-beat-the-All-Blacks.html

Prince Alexander Obelenski

Great story mm. After reading that article - 'Obo' was an absolute legend... especially that purported 17 try feat against Brazil.
Hope it's true!

maestegmafia wrote:The actual debate is far more a case of representational ethnicity rather than multiculturalism.

The English population is a wonderful blend of many ethnic lineages. Popular sport and culture reflect that.

But if the England rugby team reflected Englands ethnic balance their would be far more Chinese, Afro Caribbean, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indians in the team rather than the extreme minority kiwi, south African and south sea islanders. Football and cricket are far better examples of the construction of Englands multicultural society.

The blend of ethnic roots in the England rugby team is there to serve a purpose not as a true representation of the countries multicultural make up, using multiculturalism to disguise the influx of foreign players qualified through the residency laws is an excuse rather than a reflection of the countries wonderfully vibrant population mix.

Members of this forum that hark towards accusations of racism when non Englishman point out the current trend to exploit the residency laws leniency towards qualification to represent a country not of your birth is hypocritical and I dislike that arguement it very much.

It's true that there are a number of ethnic groups that make up comparitively large sections of the English population that are not represented in the national team, but that is primarily down to a cultural issue. What the national team is representative of is local club composition. More so in London, but throughout England, even at relatively low levels, a lot of clubs have quite a few players from the SANZAR nations.

Can't agree the national football and cricket teams are more representative of England's multicultural make up. No black players in the cricket team, and no Asian players in the football team. You could argue Bopara & Shahzad get close to bringing the cricket team in line with the 6% Asian section of the population, but the 3% black section is somewhat over represented in the national football team.

Should that not be the England and Wales Cricket team. [which occasionally has a Scots captain]('')

Good point, in which case it's definitely lacking in representation.

Nice arguement, and I'm sure you are right about some objectors. However I think you miss the point for many fans outside of England. It's not that people born outside of England play for England. This has always been the case, Kiwis and Aussies have played for England as far back as the 19th Century. I think comparing the amateur and professional games is pointless, it's comparing apples and oranges.

The issue is more to do with buying and selling players as an international commodity. It's about the growth and sustainability of the game. Most people aren't going to object to the likes of Hartley, Tuilagi, and Armatage: players who have english parantage and/or have moved there at a young age. It's more the number of players who have moved to England to play rugby and are now in the national team.

I'm not sure that people in the UK understand, because it doesn't adversely affect you. You have a rich league and players migrate there. Playing for England can speed up residency and open up work opportunities for foreign players. But it can negatively impact on local players and rugby as a whole.

In the case of England at the moment. there are a substantial number foriegn players in the national squad. It's not about their ethnicity. It's more about the fundamental question of who should represent a country at sport. Irrespective of actual rights, most people would agree that you should have a strong connection to the nation you represent (i.e. grown up there, born there, parents from there).

The issue is not restricted to England and it's not going to go away. But it doesn't mean that people have to accept it. I also think it's overly simplistic to describe it as essentially a racist backlash.