I wonder how many people saw this programme on Channel 4 ( http://www.channel4.com/programmes/4od Make Bradford British). I found the last episode fascinating and quite moving. If you have seen it what did you think? (Maude Elwes – I would be interested in your views). If you haven’t seen it take a look. Bradford is clearly not Britain and it has specific problems but there is something for everyone here.
“Bradford is clearly not Britain…there is something for everyone here”
(presumably meaning “not British” or “not representative-of-the-whole-of-Britain” ?
and also meaning “something for every-one” (rather than “throughout Bradford there is a one-size-fits-all”) ?
This has to be agreed and entrenched, before we can follow the soberly cogent words of the person in Bradford who, ‘current-contextly’, says
“We want to know, is it possible for racially and culturally segregated communities to live together in a more interconnected way…” .
Sorry, immediately following the line
(rather than “throughout Bradford there is a one-size fits all”)?
I somehow failed to include my main prepared submission:
Yet every-where in Britain,
actually every-where throughout the whole human world,
our human-race needs a practicable and sustainworthy “one-size-fits-all” model,
for the individual-human-being,
and for the civilised-human-being.
We need to know, and to constitute, legislate, and proactively ‘institutionalise’
(in the basic, good “common human needs and rights sense”)
what the essentials for being, for becoming, for maintaining one-self, for being maintained as,
a human-individual-&-sustainworthy-civilisation-member;
and we need to be both enabled and able to frequently check the priority-gradings thereof.
—
(Then the closing “This has to be agreed…” would follow more intelligently).
First of all, the title for this piece of manipulative TV show, and that is what it is, a show, should in fact be the very opposite of what was selected. Bradford is indeed British. It is British because it was designed to be just that way. Politicians quite simply made a decision that they no longer liked the Britain they were elected to support, because the use of the propaganda we’d all lived under to that point, no longer brought the kind of changes they wanted to use or have us accept….
However, what is not British is the exploitation of the nice people who agreed to be part of it. This was as manufactured as Big Brother. A set up to entice however many people it could draw, by its title, into watching the advertisements it ran as often as it could throughout the minutes it was on air. And to get across a message to the human thought process in a way the mind would not reject it.
The one person who detected the set up and wanted none of it was the fleeing Mohammed. It frightened him as he felt it was a trap but couldn’t put his finger on just how he was caught in it.
The rest were fodder for the production company.
This clip explains how this kind of input or documentary works on the mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAu5I-c0Lq4&feature=related
We are set up in productions like this to believe what we see. But they implant visual and audio messages that stay fixed to give a perception they want to spread. What we saw in this film was connived in a way to convince us we are a rascist society. That was the opening objective. When, clearly, if you take the people involved and the outcome, even in the events they relate as distressing, turns out to be untrue. However, it implanted the seeds for those watching to absorb very subtly by the way they prepared the people they used. Although the subject matter in these clips are not related at all the propaganda method is identical. Thhey dierected the events from start to finish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYAnGW-dXLA&feature=fvsr
Production companies have their bread and butter based on this kind of output. The viewer is being set up to feel we are guilty of rejection and that is why we have the situation they are showing you in Bradford. The message is, this predicatment and the poverty has nothing to do with government policy, it is the public who are at fault, because of their attitudes to change.
Clever.
For those of you who like to delve into the power of the mind. This clip is very interesting. And in the same vein.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RDJEz_Iero&feature=related
At risk of only worsening the confusion, and ‘feeding the flames’
(Maude)
that Bradford TV programme connived to convince us we are a racialist society, one bloc of peopleagainst another
Politics itself is the culprit-“divide-and-rule” Beast
innit ?
What baffles me is how they all got to this country in the first place. Did they come by car or van from northern India, or by air?
I’ve got a good lady friend in a nearby town and her mother seems to be of Romany stock, from Bangla Desh. I’ve not enquired, but they must have come on the 60,000 per year immigration scheme.
Why should they want to integrate? They are Muslims. Christianity means nothing to them, and why should it?
OK so now listen to the views of those who took part – I don’t think they were taken in by any programme manager.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/make-bradford-british/articles/whos-who
@Lord Solely:
I disagree. My view is, if you read each of the questions carefully and then take each of the answers just as carefully, it is unavoidable to note it was clearly produced as an orchestrated effort to manipulate. If you like, manufactured consent.
Not only that, these people were already inundated by political propaganda as is obvious from their answers. Take, Maura, as the most obvious political mind in all of this. She says, I’m a femininist and have always been involved in political thinking. I despise racism in all its forms. And to confirm it, her main objective in the film was clearly to bring Mohammed to humiliation as a man who had a different perspective on life from that of a declared dominant feminist. On the other hand, his belief was that a man is repsponsible for women and family. He is there to defend and protect. And to enable him to fulfil this role he had to maintain a sense of pride in his masculinity. From the start, she was out to convert him to her way of thinking. Thereby having done her bit for the cause.
She has been indoctrinated from day one with women power, whilst he was indoctrinated with man power. Did the maker of this show, believe this was a good place to start by placing those two together? And if they did, why did they?
That tells it all.
These people were exploited by a production comapany who used them in what is known as ‘perception management.’ The perception management of the public having already set up to able them to receive this information without a struggle. As life for them, from cradle to grave, had been geared toward it by our system.
This production was not set up for the enlightenment of the people used in its making, the object was aimed at ‘public perception.’ On many different levels.
It appears to have worked for you.
The “Black B****rd” jibe must be very easy for Bradfordians by birth more than 50 years ago, to get into, seeing their town so completely transformed by an entirely alien people, but then you have to move if a motorway is built through your house, don’t you?
You can’t beat city hall
Like knocking your head against a brick wall
and in the case of Bradford, it may well have been the city hall who extended the hand of friendship to the early foreign settlers.
If you don’t like it, leave it.
It must be part of modern civilization anywhere in the world that there will be parts of any large city which are given over to different ethnic minorities. I like it, particularly the diversity of restaurants!
I started to watch, heard the jibe, and gave up in despair at the low level of TV programs.
Being excluded from an area of London, which I used with some frequency years ago, by a bouncer, as I was from an Arab area near Marble Arch recently, is not so pleasant.
so how did Twm O’r Nant
how did any one
“get here” ?
(? found under a gooseberry-bush ? )
Why should I, as an atheist, be expected to show respect for Christian, Islamic or Jewish cultures whose views and arguments I often find reactionary and often despicable? Why should public expenditure be adapted to fit in with the backward, misogynistic and sometimes homophobic or chauvinist claims that religions make? Is it surprising that I do not wish to share them’? Given that I do view these and many other cultures and religious practices with contempt, how can I respect them, without disrespecting my own views?
The irony of multiculturalism is that, as a political process, it undermines what is valuable about cultural diversity. Diversity is important, not in and of itself, but because it allows us to expand our horizons, to compare and contrast different values, beliefs and lifestyles, and make judgements upon them. In other words, because it allows us to engage in political dialogue and debate that can help create more universal values and beliefs, and a collective language of citizenship. But it is precisely such dialogue and debate, and the making of such judgements, that contemporary multiculturalism attempts to suppress in the name of ‘tolerance’ and ‘respect’.
Why should I, as an atheist, be expected to show respect for Christian, Islamic or Jewish cultures whose views and arguments I often find reactionary and often despicable?
And as for Stewart Roberts piping up with this
“CofEIsupose” state school atheism, in order to hammer all the other religions too, it’s contemptible!
Let’s agree; if you went to a state school
you possess all the attributes of a subject of a state with an established religion, by default.
The default beliefs are indeed like the one above are base and uncouth but beliefs they are nonetheless!
I am a Hindu CofE member with distinct Catholic preferences, and I have initiation marks of Islam and Judaism.*
Have a Brighton lollypop and forget it!
* In my closest blood family I have all these faiths, by birth, to African, Middle eastern, or Indian descent
Fine South Waleian Welsh man that Twm O’r Nant was (Tom Edwards, the Englishman, But Welsh poet and playwright) it is most likely that he came from the middle east himself, according to the recent legend that the south waleians and southern irish were Phenecian traders who liked the green fields and moisture of these parts, brought their families and stayed.
In those days they were fairly empty areas of the world, inlike Bradford in more recent years.
The question of being “British” is a bed of nails in the context, some WIndians saying they are English today because they were born in England. I mean, wouldn’t you?
Yet if Shirley Bassey said she was NOT Welsh she would never have earned a living.
There are things about being “English” which are so completely elitist that for an ethnic Pakistani or Iraqi to say he is English, is as bad as a Welsh speaking Welshman doing the same!!
Highly amusing if said in jest to another Welshman (IN WELSH) but so desperately sad for any other ethnic minority person to say in all seriousness as to need the passion wagon to be called within minutes.
I just want to say that I was born and raised in Britain. Our family weren’t really practising muslims and we all wore English clothes. The street we lived on as a kid was white, except for us. Most of the people were generally ok but there were some white families who never spoke to us, in fact would give us dirty looks. I remember one husband and wife went out of their way to be rude and sometimes aggressive towards me, when my ball went into their garden or i walked past their house on the same street. They actually said they didn’t want me anywhere near their part of the street. I was around 4 or 5 years old at the time. They were much nicer to my white friends on the street but never me. Something which i never understood at the time. I’d heard some old people say that you’ll never be British, so don’t mistake this for your country. Many of them having passed away now. As the years went on my family did suffer bits of racism but I put this down to ignorance and lack of education of silly louts which you get in all communities. By the timeI reached my 20s, I was convinced that I was not only British but English too. Worked hard, paid taxes, went clubbing, even did lots of charity work to help people from poorer backgrounds and lived like any other Brit. I wouldnt let anyone say a bad thing about Britain. I didnt like anyone calling me Pakistani because I believed I was a Brit. And being a Brit was the only thing I could relate too. Then in my late 20s immigrants started to come in under Labour to fill jobs and pay for the ageing population. Then the terror attacks happened after that. Now in my late 30s, Muslims are being slated like crazy. In the tv in the papers, all the time. Wherever I go, people who dont know me look scared and suspicious of me. They keep saying that we’re not British. What the hell am I then? If I’m honest I can relate to that young woman in the programme. After years of putting into something, they decided to change the goal posts. I honestly believe that it doesn’t matter how you dress or talk. The vast majority of white British people will never accept you as one of them. Those old people back in the late 1970s were right. I am now planning on leaving, as I feel betrayed and lied to. Where I’m going to go? I dont know yet, but I will leave. I can’t really relate to any other country. I’m a grown man but feel really hurt. I put all my trust and hopes into Britain, and my love for her was true. My grandfather fought in Burma in the British army and my great uncle died whilst in the army in world war 1. It was because we were loyal too loyal maybe that when Britain rejected us that it broke our heart.
In 3,000 years of recorded history there has never been a multicultural society that has not ended in civil war! In the past 2,000 years religion has simply been the main excuse for man’s one-up-man-ship. We should learn from our history but it’s not in our emotional power to do so.
Maybe if immigrants integrated more instead of forming boundary defined enclaves they would be better accepted. White people are not tribal and do not understand tribalism, it scares them. When the white man becomes scared he reacts with aggression. When we first went to Australia we were scared witless by the Aborigines so, we killed them. New Zealand similar. In fact, we raped & pillaged the whole world, ‘British Empire’ because we failed to understand it. We are but phillistines. That said, if you want to live here you must endure and show us how the world works. That failing, you do have a choice.
White people are not tribal and do not understand tribalism
Shall we take the Brits, rather than the broad white brush used by “scuseme”?
I suppose Cameron is not a tribal name?
Shall we make a list, not forgetting the Welsh and Irish names too?
Don’t say “but the English haven’t” or I shall scream!
Cameron, as you know, is a Scottish clan name. Here is the Cameron clan tartans.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=clan+cameron+tartans&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=LeZhT_iiMYG_0QXwypSoCA&sqi=2&ved=0CGwQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=629
Of which there are many
White people appear to be banned as a tribal group. Don’t dare mention they may feel a bond between them and their culture, akin to any other group and their culture. And that finding forced differences relentlessly pressed on them, for political convenience, may be just as offensive to them. As they feel their particular history important in this part of the world and would like to keep it going for their comfort.
After all it has been a good system for them to thrive and prosper under, hasn’t it?
White people appear to be banned as a tribal group.
Mainly because it is an idiotic idea, no less than to say a “clan” is not a “tribe”.
It is not helpful to talk about clans and tribes in the older nations states such as ours is, or any other nations state for that matter.
Much of the purpose of legislature, and legislation, is about forming and maintaining the ethics and beliefs of the people within the nation state at any given time, all of them.
If only the ethics of the central African states could become more settled it would be a fine thing, but they are so dominated by Islam to the left of them, and Christianty to the right of them, and their own tribes and clans in the midst of them, that they do as well as the Charge of the Light Brigade
in the journeys of nations states through their corporate lives.
The question of Tribe and clan in the context of the bonds of religion, is my purpose in mentioning that, but also the fact that for example the Ghanaians who form such a strong “group” in UKBritish life today
most certainly have religious AND tribal/clan links which predate their arrival in the UK, but which may be less significant when confronted with the problems of life in the UK. I think they succeed very well, but they are strong willed, if not wilful, people!
@G.Howell:
What you mean is, we must play lets pretend. Lets pretend the human race is not part of nature and that what they have in their social genes at birth, doesn’t exist.
You go on to ‘blame’ religion. When the fact is, religions, thoughout the ages, try to present a level playing field in societies that have no sense of, or understanding of, selflessness. Yes, even Islam. I am not saying those in power do not abuse or misuse theologians and so on, but, what you are missing is, it is not religion that presents the problem, it is men who exploit those ideas.
You cite Ugandans, why? Are you seriously of the belief that moving from one side of the planet to another, removes the inate, or even learned, cultural aspects of a society by the taking up life in the UK? Where on earth does this thinking come from?
People who think similarly to this are the very reason a solution to the difficulties found in such a concept cannot be addressed and corrected.
Unfortunately for your type of believer, man is quite definitely clannish, tribalish, call it what you will and culturally drawn and connected to his ‘breed’ and surroundings. And unless those who spout the unreal are ready to address these issues face frontal, no remedy can even remotely have a chance to improve the situations we find in society as a whole today.
I truly do not believe that any person within Bradford can be defined as ‘British’ for more reasons than one. This program has caused more havoc than its worth with no foreseeable benefit other than attempting to improve the reputation of Bradford.
Firstly, i don’t believe ‘Make Bradford British’ honestly represents the segregation of Bradford itself. The people on the show have obviously been carefully selected by the producers to give a false image of Bradford, never mind being chosen after answering a few questions on a quiz! I really do wonder if any of the producers or people that had an input are actually from Bradford? I sincerely doubt it! What about EDL? What about young Asians? That is where the racism most solely comes from. If your going to make a program on the segregation in a city then do it right! Show the true opinions of people in Bradford, not people hand-molded to please the viewers!
To be honest, i think everyone is as bad as each other and whatever the race is, they shouldn’t be singled out without appropriate reason. Its not about what people wear, what religion they follow or where they live.. its about the unfair opinions, bad views and pure ignorance they show towards others!
Very interesting comments following this controversial programme. I am a PR and communications student, and the way this programme communicated with so many people on so many different levels really inspired me to find out more. Me and my class mates have an ethics blog, and a have dedicated a post to this programme and other Muslim orientated news that has been in the media. Have a look and let me know you opinion. I’m interested as to what you think of my opinion. Sophie
http://ethicalangles.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/is-education-to-blame-for-ignorance-towards-embracing-other-cultures-and-religions/