Liverpool FC Forum

[dawson99]

That just reminds me of chasing Amy "Whats a nubian?"

[Benny The Noon]

Any chance of an end of day summary .

[Bad Bob]

Critical Whiteness seeks to deconstruct the norms of 'White' ways to supposedly help a majority of educated Anglo-Celt demographic, understand how they can marginalize ethnic groups without meaning too. Therefore, what a White man considers to be the norm a Black man of different ethnic background could see this as foreign. Without wanting to marginalize the Black fella, the White man should acknowledge that his 'way' isn't necessarily the right way - and therefore should accommodate for this.

This discipline has probably evolved from the more broader post colonial studies in which I do agree, as an ex-pat living in an Aboriginal community should be critically examined.

We're off to a good start here, as I also think there's important value in understanding the colonial past.  Especially in places like Australia and Canada, where present circumstances (esp. concerning native peoples) are still profoundly rooted in that past.  As for the first bit about critical white studies, I would broadly agree with your interpretation but would add that (based on the limited looking into it I've done recently) it also focuses on how "whiteness" as a marker of race is socially constructed.  For instance, in the U.S. in the late 19th century, Irish, Jewish and Slavic immigrants were not universally considered 'white' by the established Anglo-Saxon population.  It's building on a larger body of critical race theory that argues that races are social constructs rather than biological categories (there's more genetic difference to be found within a 'race' than between races etc etc.).

But 'Critical Whiteness' studies to an extent, and in my opinion only, does give justification to people who critic it's very existence. Just as we can be critical of our post colonial past, surely we can be critical of why such disciplines (Critical Whiteness studies) are ever written into existence? Who's idea, and rationale was behind it, why did they conjure up such a subject?

Absolutely.  Areas of academic study don't spring forth out of nothing.  They are the product of their times--social constructions, if you wish.  As such, they are just as fair game for critique.

The Frankfurt School's work cannot be fully comprehended without equally understanding the aims and objectives of critical theory. Initially outlined by Max Horkheimer in his Traditional and Critical Theory (1937), critical theory may be defined as a self-conscious social critique that is aimed at change and emancipation through enlightenment, and does not cling dogmatically to its own doctrinal assumptions.[13][14]
Horkheimer opposed it to "traditional theory", which refers to theory in the positivistic, scientistic, or purely observational mode – that is, which derives generalizations or "laws" about different aspects of the world

Source: Wiki

Okay, we need to be careful here.  The Wiki quote above is drawing a semantic distinction between the term "theory" as used in the social sciences and humanities (theory as social critique; e.g. pyschoanalytic theory or eco-feminist theory) and "theory" as used in the sciences (theory as a formal, carefully-defined and reasonably well-tested outcome of the scientific method, e.g. the theory of plate tectonics or the theory of natural selection).  Scientists are much more specific when they talk theory and much less likely to use the term.  In fact, most scientists consider the "theories" of social science and the humanities to be little more than what they would call "hypotheses".

So, as you can see from the paragraph above it is easy to see how the 'Critical Whiteness' studies can be correlated to Frankfurt agenda, well I can. It, is turning inside out everything 'we' (westerners) see as normal (traditions & culture etc).

I would certainly agree that the Frankfurt School, other Marxists, Feminists, Postmodernists, Postcolonialists and many more (this is why a focus on just the Frankfurt School is a red herring) are carrying out a social critique of Western society, its norms, values and practices.  The aim of doing so is to understand when and how and why particular practices, values and indeed "norms" came to exist in Western society: how they have been constructed and perpetuated and reinforced, and with what consequences. And, yes, many of those studies have been quite critical of cherished Western values and traditions.

For me there is a big difference between post colonial and the Critical Whiteness studies, one is an historical critique and the other is critiquing modern norms and practices. Is it really necessary for 'Westerner's' today to critique ourselves like this? Many Indigenous European cultures are producing sympathizers to other ethnic groups, to an extent that they're marginalizing their own people (see the Swedish article on the prior page for example).

I think this is the crux of the matter: can modern norms and practices be divorced from the events of the past?  You suggest they can be by drawing a distinction between 'legitimate' postcolonial critiques of past wrongs and 'less legitimate' CWS critiques of present norms and practices.  Well, for many postcolonial writers, it's not quite so cut and dried.  They argue that the events of the past have brought us to where we are in the present and continue to shape norms and practices today.  For example, in British Columbia, contemporary, ongoing negotiations over a series of native land claims are fundamentally shaped by the native land policy pursued by white settlers and their political representatives in the second half of the 19th century.  So, not signing a formal land treaty with a particular native group in the 1860s (as was protocol elsewhere in Canada) means that a lot of torturous negotiating is taking place now.  This is stirring up resentment among a certain segment of the contemporary BC population who are reluctant to acknowledge that decisions made by their forefathers have a bearing on their interests in the here and now--but of course they do.  Divorcing present from past is not easily done nor is it advisable because it robs current moments of friction of the important historical context we need to understand them and resolve them.

As an aside, your talk of "sympathizers" and "own people" draws very firm and rather adversarial boundaries between groups.  Who is the "us" and who is the "them" in these scenarios and is there no middle ground where both can coexist and prosper?  If I welcome new immigrants to Canada and value their contributions to a multicultural society, for instance, am I somehow betraying my "own people"?

Another theory that the Frankfurt School have built upon, among others including Freudian theory (all that sexuality stuff, again see the Swedish artcile about Boy's being made to dress up as girls!), is 'Culture Theory': Critique of mass culture as suppression and absorption of negation, as integration into status quo; critique of Western culture as a culture of domination, both of an external and internal nature; dialectic differentiation of emancipatory and repressive dimensions of elite culture; Kierkegaard's critique of the present age, Nietzsche's transvaluation, and Schiller's aesthetic education. Source: Wiki (which is objective in it's discussion re Frankurt)

Again, Critical Whiteness studies is something that ties into the bold quote above AND Frankfurt School agenda theories.

There's way too much going on in the above reference to discuss without knowing the context in which the likes of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Schiller are being used but the bit at the end seems like it's referring to one of the oldest debates about culture: is elite culture (the opera, high tea, classical music etc.) the only culture worth paying attention to, or is mass culture a viable and valuable form of culture too?  Given that this is a football forum where we also do a lot of talking about movies, television, music and other forms of "mass" entertainment, I'm guessing that most of us would consider culture to be broader than elite culture.  Interestingly, we also see quite a few threads and posts on here about the dominance of mass media and the 'dumbing down' effect of the gossip rags, reality tv, sky sports etc.  That's what I think is being discussed in the first part of the quote above: the way that mass media can (and arguably has) replaced religion as the opiate of the masses (to borrow a phrase from Marx)--a means of focusing people's attention on entertaining distractions (see the twitter and google + threads as the latest version of this) and conspicuous consumption (which smart phone should I buy?).  That's the internal side of the culture of domination.  The external side would be globalization: the way these entertaining distractions and consumer desires are exported around the world.  Do these critiques sometimes go too far?  Sure.  But is there something to them?  I think so.

These studies must come from somewhere and while the OP article had links to 'White Supremists' serving their agenda, then surely we are entitled to question the foundations, theories and agendas we are mostly reading (Foucault et al, Critical Whiteness Studies etc) in Universities today and ask what purpose are they practically serving.

Absolutely.

These ideologies in turn pervade many Westernized government ideologies today, Sweden, Norway and Great Britain amongst a host of others, in a kind of sympathetic outlook on policies like immigration and multiculturalism.

During this period the Institute of Social Research re-settled in Frankfurt (although many of its associates remained in the United States) with the task not merely of continuing its research but of becoming a leading force in the sociological education and democratization of West Germany. This led to a certain systematization of the Institute's entire accumulation of empirical research and theoretical analysis.
During this period, Frankfurt School critical theory particularly influenced some segments of the Left wing and leftist thought, particularly the New Left. Herbert Marcuse has occasionally been described as the theorist or intellectual progenitor of the New Left. Their critique of technology, totality, teleology and (occasionally) civilization is an influence on anarcho-primitivism. Their work also heavily influenced intellectual discourse on popular culture and scholarly popular culture studies.

The New Left arose in the 60's and 70's and to quote Wiki ''The New Left was a term used mainly in the United Kingdom and United States in reference to activists, educators, agitators and others in the 1960s and 1970s who sought to implement a broad range of reforms''.

''Activist, educators and agitators: Many current Pollies today went through Universities being educated by this Nu Left approach ( I should back that up I know, but given their age and current societal norms of lax immigration issues, highly sensitive discrimination issues in the work place etc etc, I've just put 2 + 2 and equaled 4).

I'm sure there's some truth to what you're saying here: that some of these social critiques developed on the social science and humanities side of academia in the past 75 years or so have been taken up by politicians and bureaucrats in various western countries.  What I question is the neat and tidy straight line drawn from the Frankfurt School to contemporary immigration policy and extreme political correctness.  It's too simplistic, unidirectional and conspiratorial.  As I said in my last post, students are not empty vessels and university profs simply do not wield that kind of ideological clout.  And, given that a number of recent-vintage conservative politicians went to university during this period you've flagged, you can see that it's not quite a 2+2=4 situation (Bush Jr. got a history degree from Yale in '68!).  Plus, don't forget that students in business, science, engineering and professional programs are not, as a rule, getting this stuff as part of their intellectual diet.  Surely many politicians and bureaucrats have emerged from their ranks too? 

I would add, as well, that one of the roles of the university is to analyze and critique the way that society functions, what the mainstream values are etc.  In this capacity, the left-leaning of parts of the academy acts as a counterpoint to the right-leaning of parts of society.  Of course, the right likes to suggest that government, the media, and society in general are left-leaning but a stronger case, IMO, could be made that the corporate influence on government, the media, and citizens (through a consumer focus on culture) makes the broader society more right-leaning and in need of a left-leaning critique from the academy.

So in summary to point 1, Postcolonial discussion and critique is necessary and worthwhile, modern day critique of the Westernized world only acts as a tool to justify the extreme cases of Political Correctness we see today in society.

In sum, I disagree with the neat division you're making between past and present in terms of what can be critiqued but I do agree that fields like Critical White Studies and some of the other offshoots of Postmodernism can and have taken some extreme and unsupportable positions in criticizing mainstream society, western civilzation etc.  To the extent that this encourages an obnoxious and over-zealous fixation on being politically correct (the "good morning guys" example from your OP for instance or the city that renamed "manhole covers" "person-hole covers"), I think they are doing the wider society a disservice.

I do feel Universities push too much left ideology yes Bob. On my 'online library' at Uni, I found many many Politically 'sensitive' readings listed. The problem is, at one point in time or other this 'library' had listed books from author's who were, more right leaning in their writings, critiquing other cultures in order to sort out deep rooted social and political problems they may have had. However, when I went to click on these author's to get a balance in views, the article, book or journal had been taken down off the site! THIS IS GOD'S HONEST TRUTH, Therefore the University had decided to suppress and silence certain academic authors' discussions because it didn't like the rhetoric used. Certain author's were given a voice, while other voices were being muted - leaving the inquisitive learners, passive and adhered to the left-wing ideology on University education - hardly democracy now is it, where were those authors' freedom of voice when it came to the University deciding students' literature. There is no balance, hence why I think that Universities are overly left in their teachings.

Obviously, I can't comment on the specifics of the situation at your university but that doesn't match my experiences with the universities I've been associated with.  If these right-leaning writings are based on sound research and vetted through the peer-review process they should be available to all students.  This is key--it has to be credible material in the first place.  The excerpts on Sweden you keep referring to, for example, would not be considered suitable source material for discussion in an academic context because it is simply not credible.  The author has cobbled together a bunch of excerpts from online blogs maintained by a rather extreme crowd of anti-immigration, anti-Jihad types.  I trust those interpretations of the situation in Sweden about as much as I trust Alex Ferguson's views on our title potential.

Put it this way, I know MANY Briton's who are threatened by it and I can see why. Myself, yes I am worried because I can see this escalating to the point of no return in future where civil unrest and society simply fall apart. If one specific Indigenous demographic feel oppressed and marginalized by rules and regulations that were not a part of their society, culture and traditions in years gone by, ugliness will be born and fed. Take for example More people voting for the BNP, UKIP and EDL's new sorry existence.

Here's where I'll fully acknowledge that I'm on the outside looking in when it comes to European concerns over immigration and culture.  In Canada we are avowedly multicultural and have been for decades, with very little unrest associated with that policy approach.  In fact, most Canadians are very proud and supportive of our multicultural society.  There simply isn't the same fear and anger expressed on the issue over here.  That probably explains why I'm so perplexed with this sentiment in Europe.  It also relates to my view of culture as something fluid and adaptive.  I don't see it as something fixed, rooted and traditional that is under threat and needs to be protected.  For this reason I get frustrated with the globalization critics who say that Hollywood and MacDonald's and Lady Gaga are homogenizing the world, as if cultures aren't resilient enough to absorb some outside influences (and the people who bring them) while retaining the key elements that make a society distinct.  I think cultures are far more resilient than some give them credit for and, consequently, I think the sense of threat is vastly over-stated.  My two cents anyway.

[Reg]

Feck me Bob, slow down mate or St Mike 'll think its a cut'n'paste competition.....

[Bad Bob]

Feck me Bob, slow down mate or St Mike 'll think its a cut'n'paste competition.....

Cut and paste?  You wound me sir.

[Benny The Noon]

My eyes are bleeding trying to read all that

[Kharhaz]

Alright....

[laza]

Feck me Bob, slow down mate or St Mike 'll think its a cut'n'paste competition.....

Cut and paste?  You wound me sir.

Jury's out until I check the RAWK 

[Emerald Red]

I'm not reading all that shyte.

[Kenny Kan]

Okay, we need to be careful here.  The Wiki quote above is drawing a semantic distinction between the term "theory" as used in the social sciences and humanities (theory as social critique; e.g. pyschoanalytic theory or eco-feminist theory) and "theory" as used in the sciences (theory as a formal, carefully-defined and reasonably well-tested outcome of the scientific method, e.g. the theory of plate tectonics or the theory of natural selection).  Scientists are much more specific when they talk theory and much less likely to use the term.  In fact, most scientists consider the "theories" of social science and the humanities to be little more than what they would call "hypotheses".

I think you may have missed the intent and reason as to why I quoted that paragraph from Wiki. The ''semantics'' wasn't so relevant to me regarding the term ''theory''. It was the meaning of those sentences, which I used to back up my view that the Frankfurt School uses such ''theories'', or Critical Theory as an underlying method in constructing their over-arching ideology. The notion of ''self-conscious social critique'' plays a very large part in western society today. A quick analogy, Britain today has 100 Sharia law courts in operation up and down the Isles, the British government have pandered to the Muslim cohort in order to appease these Diasporas. Another construct which the Frankfurt-ers and remnants of their movements today like to  agitate is, ''traditional theory'' which derives generalizations or "laws" about different aspects of the world.

Another case in point and another idea to help you as a Canadian understand the fears of uncontrollable globalization in European countries, is the recently ridiculous overridden British ''law'', preventing prisoners up and down the Isles from voting. The EU is trying to override this law, seeking to allow prisoners the vote while doing 'bird'. Now I'm sorry, people are put in prison because of a social misdemeanor that prevailed their detention in HMP. 'Tradition (the very thing certain European judges often conflict with - Frankfurt agenda, no ''red herring'') and rationale' to the average Brit (pardon my generalization when I speak on behalf of almost 60 million people) would endorse that 'common sense' says, 'these people lost their right to vote when they broke British law and were sent to prison'. Why does EU ''supreme'' court seek to give prisoners the right to vote in Britain? Human Rights, is the only argument that can be made to hide behind when enforcing such inept workings, it smells like Nu Left Wing ideology which was constructed, and built upon by a large portion of the Frankfurt School's agenda.

As an aside, your talk of "sympathizers" and "own people" draws very firm and rather adversarial boundaries between groups.  Who is the "us" and who is the "them" in these scenarios and is there no middle ground where both can coexist and prosper?  If I welcome new immigrants to Canada and value their contributions to a multicultural society, for instance, am I somehow betraying my "own people"?

Here you state my linguistic tenor is adversarial, does this mean you would like me to write in a way you deem more 'politically correct'? Shall I panda and alter my tenor, so I do not upset your sensitive mind.

Many culture's in Britain over the years have coexisted - West Indies, Indian, and Jewish etc. And granted, I know back in the day when they first arrived to Britain's shores, they were treated as 'alien' and were the butt of racism, and no doubt found it arduous to assimilate into British society, but they did assimilate and have been here ever since, nothing wrong with that. I'd class them as my ''own people''. However Bob, government appeasement to factions of the old Eastern Bloc and Middle-Eastern Diaspora's doesn't work on the mind-set of assimilation. Today, it looks to accommodate immigrants and arguably has an adverse affect on the assimilation process of these immigrants. Pandering to them seems to be the forte these days, knocking up a 100 Sharia courts isn't my idea of assimilation.

But 'Critical Whiteness' studies to an extent, and in my opinion only, does give justification to people who critic it's very existence. Just as we can be critical of our post colonial past, surely we can be critical of why such disciplines (Critical Whiteness studies) are ever written into existence? Who's idea, and rationale was behind it, why did they conjure up such a subject?


Absolutely.  Areas of academic study don't spring forth out of nothing.  They are the product of their times--social constructions, if you wish.  As such, they are just as fair game for critique

Would you care to critique why they are written into existence and presuming they are a ''product of their times --social constructions'' is it not a plausible notion that Frankfurt School played it's role into the birth of ''Political Correctness''? Key question - (as in the title of this thread).

I'm sure there's some truth to what you're saying here: that some of these social critiques developed on the social science and humanities side of academia in the past 75 years or so have been taken up by politicians and bureaucrats in various western countries.  What I question is the neat and tidy straight line drawn from the Frankfurt School to contemporary immigration policy and extreme political correctness.  It's too simplistic, unidirectional and conspiratorial.  As I said in my last post, students are not empty vessels and university profs simply do not wield that kind of ideological clout.  And, given that a number of recent-vintage conservative politicians went to university during this period you've flagged, you can see that it's not quite a 2+2=4 situation (Bush Jr. got a history degree from Yale in '68!).  Plus, don't forget that students in business, science, engineering and professional programs are not, as a rule, getting this stuff as part of their intellectual diet.  Surely many politicians and bureaucrats have emerged from their ranks too?

I agree with the view that conservative pollies weren't so easy to brainwash It was those lost souls at Uni who jumped on this activistic bandwagon. (kidding). Yes I agree for every plus there is a minus - analogy for;  conservative to liberal.

I would add, as well, that one of the roles of the university is to analyze and critique the way that society functions, what the mainstream values are etc.  In this capacity, the left-leaning of parts of the academy acts as a counterpoint to the right-leaning of parts of society.

That's bollox Bob I could argue that Universities should tend to lean right to act as a counterpoint to left leaning parts of society. Sorry Bob, there is no reason for Universities to 'lean' so obviously towards the left like they do, again it's something that was probably started by the Frankfurt School and has pervaded silently from their ever since:

''The New Left was a term used mainly in the United Kingdom and United States in reference to activists, educators, agitators and others in the 1960s and 1970s who sought to implement a broad range of reforms''.


Source: Wikipedia

Of course, the right likes to suggest that government, the media, and society in general are left-leaning but a stronger case, IMO, could be made that the corporate influence on government

"corporate influence of government'' that's capitalism which arguably is done through globalization and therefore is probably more left leaning with it's imports and exports to other cultures around the world. On an internal note (to that country), I still do not see how it is right leaning?

but I do agree that fields like Critical White Studies and some of the other offshoots of Postmodernism can and have taken some extreme and unsupportable positions in criticizing mainstream society, western civilzation etc.  To the extent that this encourages an obnoxious and over-zealous fixation on being politically correct (the "good morning guys" example from your OP for instance or the city that renamed "manhole covers" "person-hole covers"), I think they are doing the wider society a disservice.

Ah, some common ground, at last. However, it could be argued that these disciplines are not merely doing a ''disservice'' to the culture they're in or critiquing, they could seriously be undermining that very culture they seek to ''deconstruct''.

This is key--it has to be credible material in the first place.  The excerpts on Sweden you keep referring to, for example, would not be considered suitable source material for discussion in an academic context because it is simply not credible.

Ah, the 'elitist culture'. Academics and laymen's - I prefer 'mass culture', it's just as well we're on a Liverpool FC forum and not an Oxford University one.

That probably explains why I'm so perplexed with this sentiment in Europe.

Here's an analogy for you that pertains to the British, not the Europeans.

In 1941 America had declared war on the world with a fascist dream to turn every other person in N.America into an obese and ignorant demographic, that epitomized their idea of the 'master race'. In doing so they try to invade Canada with the air-force and personnel over land, and sent their navy up both flanks of the Canadian coast lines. Your nation defended its land successfully and the rest they say is history, or is it?

Fast forward 50 years later and this American motley crew with the aid of a Mexican government (a Mexican government who back in the day only relied on it's resistance to disrupt America's occupation of its land) started to impose and overrule Canada's constitutional laws. This is now undergone through political means; as their previous aggressive route had been succumbed to, by your countries forefather's who put their lives on the line to keep your current freedom and democracy alive. Their ironic view on 'Human Right's' issues led them telling you that you had to open your boarders to a free labor market and let in thousands of Easten Bloc Diaspora's (Cuban's in your case, and even then their numbers nowhere near match our eastern bloc counterparts' numbers) to build their ideological dream of a United States of Europe (just look where that's getting the Orish, Greek, Spanish, Italian economies at the moment). As well as many other diverse backgrounds of other ethnic creeds, who for the large part come in and work the system (Canada's welfare state), a system that can barely look after its ''own''. A system that flaws the minimal wage in Canada while producing cheap and dangerous labour while marginalizing the Indigenous employment rate because they aren't willing to be exploited for 3.50 pound an hour - and see how the audacity of outsiders winds you up, when they say 'everything is lovely jubbly over their side of the pond', and you'd probably be perplexed and possibly annoyed to say the least.

And to top it all off, this all took place on Canada's Baffin island which is twice the size of the GB!

[lakes10]

ok so what is 'politically correct' in 2011

i mean i got some black paint the other day from hobbycraft and its called black/negro....is can not be 'politically correct'.

we might all end up Marxis by the end of this thread.

[neil]

As an aside, your talk of "sympathizers" and "own people" draws very firm and rather adversarial boundaries between groups.  Who is the "us" and who is the "them" in these scenarios and is there no middle ground where both can coexist and prosper?  If I welcome new immigrants to Canada and value their contributions to a multicultural society, for instance, am I somehow betraying my "own people"?

Here you state my linguistic tenor is adversarial, does this mean you would like me to write in a way you deem more 'politically correct'? Shall I panda and alter my tenor, so I do not upset your sensitive mind.

ouch

[neil]

btw, iphone4 bob, I'm paying attention

[Bad Bob]

I think you may have missed the intent and reason as to why I quoted that paragraph from Wiki. The ''semantics'' wasn't so relevant to me regarding the term ''theory''. It was the meaning of those sentences, which I used to back up my view that the Frankfurt School uses such ''theories'', or Critical Theory as an underlying method in constructing their over-arching ideology. The notion of ''self-conscious social critique'' plays a very large part in western society today. A quick analogy, Britain today has 100 Sharia law courts in operation up and down the Isles, the British government have pandered to the Muslim cohort in order to appease these Diasporas. Another construct which the Frankfurt-ers and remnants of their movements today like to  agitate is, ''traditional theory'' which derives generalizations or "laws" about different aspects of the world.

Another case in point and another idea to help you as a Canadian understand the fears of uncontrollable globalization in European countries, is the recently ridiculous overridden British ''law'', preventing prisoners up and down the Isles from voting. The EU is trying to override this law, seeking to allow prisoners the vote while doing 'bird'. Now I'm sorry, people are put in prison because of a social misdemeanor that prevailed their detention in HMP. 'Tradition (the very thing certain European judges often conflict with - Frankfurt agenda, no ''red herring'') and rationale' to the average Brit (pardon my generalization when I speak on behalf of almost 60 million people) would endorse that 'common sense' says, 'these people lost their right to vote when they broke British law and were sent to prison'. Why does EU ''supreme'' court seek to give prisoners the right to vote in Britain? Human Rights, is the only argument that can be made to hide behind when enforcing such inept workings, it smells like Nu Left Wing ideology which was constructed, and built upon by a large portion of the Frankfurt School's agenda.

I don't disagree with a lot of this.  I'm no fan of Sharia Law and am glad Canada has denied its application here.  I also agree that prisoners should not be getting the vote.  See all kinds of common ground. Clearly, the British government has some issues to address.  I still say the Frankfurt School is a bit of a red herring in this discussion, though.  They didn't invent social critique of 'tradtions' and 'norms', they aren't the only school of thought that has influenced the 'left-leaning' dimensions of the academy in the past century and the academy didn't foist any of this on politicians and bureaucrats--otherwise we'd be seeing similar policies in places like Canada and the US which also have universities that I'm confident you'd consider left-leaning.

So, at root, you're frustrated about British policy making in recent decades on cultural and immigration issues (which is absolutely fair enough) but I think you're tilting at windmills a bit to lay this all at the doorstep of the Frankfurt School--the neat, tidy through line you're drawing just isn't there.

As an aside, your talk of "sympathizers" and "own people" draws very firm and rather adversarial boundaries between groups.  Who is the "us" and who is the "them" in these scenarios and is there no middle ground where both can coexist and prosper?  If I welcome new immigrants to Canada and value their contributions to a multicultural society, for instance, am I somehow betraying my "own people"?

Here you state my linguistic tenor is adversarial, does this mean you would like me to write in a way you deem more 'politically correct'? Shall I panda and alter my tenor, so I do not upset your sensitive mind.[/quote]

No, I'm not upset by your language, I just find it interesting and revealing.  You have a strong "us-them" mentality that polarizes the discussion and leaves little common ground between Britons and immigrants.  You talk below about earlier immigrants to Britain and how they probably struggled to fit in at first before acknowledging they eventually did so you clearly understand that the "them" can become an "us" with time.  Is that now impossible?

Many culture's in Britain over the years have coexisted - West Indies, Indian, and Jewish etc. And granted, I know back in the day when they first arrived to Britain's shores, they were treated as 'alien' and were the butt of racism, and no doubt found it arduous to assimilate into British society, but they did assimilate and have been here ever since, nothing wrong with that. I'd class them as my ''own people''. However Bob, government appeasement to factions of the old Eastern Bloc and Middle-Eastern Diaspora's doesn't work on the mind-set of assimilation. Today, it looks to accommodate immigrants and arguably has an adverse affect on the assimilation process of these immigrants. Pandering to them seems to be the forte these days, knocking up a 100 Sharia courts isn't my idea of assimilation.

Here's the root of your critique then.  You had a set of immigration policies in the past that worked reasonably well in integrating ("assimilation" is another interesting word choice!) newcomers and now, at least in your view, you don't.  So what's changed in that policy approach?  And don't tell me it's because British politicians suddenly discovered the Frankfurt School.

Would you care to critique why they are written into existence and presuming they are a ''product of their times --social constructions'' is it not a plausible notion that Frankfurt School played it's role into the birth of ''Political Correctness''? Key question - (as in the title of this thread).

But it's not a key question at all.  At best it's a tenuous aside that does little to address the real crux of the matter regarding your multicultural and immigration policies.  Don't fall prey to the far-right nonsense, Bam.  Blaming the big bad German Marxist Jews is a cop-out.  The Frankfurt School and the Critical Whiteness crowd didn't invent your immigration policy and focusing on that just clouds the issue and (as this thread reveals) drives people away from what seems like a pretty significant discussion.

I agree with the view that conservative pollies weren't so easy to brainwash It was those lost souls at Uni who jumped on this activistic bandwagon. (kidding). Yes I agree for every plus there is a minus - analogy for;  conservative to liberal.

That's bollox Bob I could argue that Universities should tend to lean right to act as a counterpoint to left leaning parts of society.

Somehow, I knew you'd say that. (We'll never agree on this one, I'm afraid.)

Sorry Bob, there is no reason for Universities to 'lean' so obviously towards the left like they do, again it's something that was probably started by the Frankfurt School and has pervaded silently from their ever since:

''The New Left was a term used mainly in the United Kingdom and United States in reference to activists, educators, agitators and others in the 1960s and 1970s who sought to implement a broad range of reforms''.


Source: Wikipedia

Again with the Frankfurt School bogeyman!  Do you check your closet every night to make sure Marcuse isn't there to deconstruct you in your sleep?  Kidding aside, I've made my views on the FS clear.  As for the "obvious" left lean of the universities, don't forget (or at least respond to) my other point: that its the Social Sciences and Humanities parts of the university that lean left, whereas other powerful and far more populated parts of the university lean quite right.  If universities help shape society than the whole of the university spectrum needs to be taken into account.  (As an experiment, go ask anyone in your business school, science faculty, engineering programs, law school if they've heard of the FS, Foucault, Said etc.)

"corporate influence of government'' that's capitalism which arguably is done through globalization and therefore is probably more left leaning with it's imports and exports to other cultures around the world. On an internal note (to that country), I still do not see how it is right leaning?

What?  Corporate influence is left-leaning?  Not sure how that works.  Most corporate influence on government is designed to minimize red tape, provide tax loopholes, get around environmental regs or given special protection to their sectors...not left leaning in the slightest.

Ah, some common ground, at last. However, it could be argued that these disciplines are not merely doing a ''disservice'' to the culture they're in or critiquing, they could seriously be undermining that very culture they seek to ''deconstruct''.

Yes, I'll fully acknowledge that some segments of the Postmodern movement in the academy go way off the deep end in finding windmills to tilt at.  As I said in my last post, though, I don;t worry about culture being undermined.  It's too resilient to be taken down by a few militant feminists and guilty white guys.

Ah, the 'elitist culture'. Academics and laymen's - I prefer 'mass culture', it's just as well we're on a Liverpool FC forum and not an Oxford University one.

So, not believing some crackpot blogger about circumstances in Sweden is elitist?  I call it having some intellectual standards mate.

Here's an analogy for you that pertains to the British, not the Europeans.

In 1941 America had declared war on the world with a fascist dream to turn every other person in N.America into an obese and ignorant demographic, that epitomized their idea of the 'master race'. In doing so they try to invade Canada with the air-force and personnel over land, and sent their navy up both flanks of the Canadian coast lines. Your nation defended its land successfully and the rest they say is history, or is it?

Fast forward 50 years later and this American motley crew with the aid of a Mexican government (a Mexican government who back in the day only relied on it's resistance to disrupt America's occupation of its land) started to impose and overrule Canada's constitutional laws. This is now undergone through political means; as their previous aggressive route had been succumbed to, by your countries forefather's who put their lives on the line to keep your current freedom and democracy alive. Their ironic view on 'Human Right's' issues led them telling you that you had to open your boarders to a free labor market and let in thousands of Easten Bloc Diaspora's (Cuban's in your case, and even then their numbers nowhere near match our eastern bloc counterparts' numbers) to build their ideological dream of a United States of Europe (just look where that's getting the Orish, Greek, Spanish, Italian economies at the moment). As well as many other diverse backgrounds of other ethnic creeds, who for the large part come in and work the system (Canada's welfare state), a system that can barely look after its ''own''. A system that flaws the minimal wage in Canada while producing cheap and dangerous labour while marginalizing the Indigenous employment rate because they aren't willing to be exploited for 3.50 pound an hour - and see how the audacity of outsiders winds you up, when they say 'everything is lovely jubbly over their side of the pond', and you'd probably be perplexed and possibly annoyed to say the least.

And to top it all off, this all took place on Canada's Baffin island which is twice the size of the GB!

Interesting analogy and one I'm in no position to really deconstruct(!).  As I said in my last post, I'm not especially up on the details of British multicultural and immigration policy.  I am looking at the broader issue of multiculturalism from afar and knowing how it works over here (rather well, as I said).  From what you've said, it sounds like the British approach has been quite different.  I'll leave it to other posters--if there's any left in this thread--to discuss the merits and drawbacks of British involvement in the EU and the state of these policies.

[Bad Bob]

btw, iphone4 bob, I'm paying attention