|
U-Know! Forum » opinions on last night's question time |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
ratcni01 916 posts |
Oct 24, 2009, 11:22
|
||
|
The idea of dividing the human race into races in the way we currently do was born of european anthropological studies done during a historical period where this terminology was defined based on the modernist philosophy that the kind of research being done was neutral in values and factual in output. Imo no research is neutral and the supposed factual output has in many ways been superceded by contemporary genetic research about genetic diversity etc. Also think that the term race encourages polarised thinking and division. Whereas I prefer the view of humanity based on the Pogo cartoon which concludes "I have seen the enemy, and they are us" (an eco cartoon I know) but the sentiment is applicable elsewhere. Seems to me a better way to regard race is that there's one race, the human race. So the only interracial progeny are mermaids or centaurs etc. I used the term race at times, but I prefer describing difference between people, I tend to describe what the difference is and/or use the self descriptive phrase used, so my kids are black people in some contexts, even though they're actually light brown skinned, but mostly they're an emo/indie/rock girl and a footie/xbox fanatic :-) Racial descriptive terms such as black, asian, mixed race, arab or jewish aren't actual terms to define a race are they, they're a socially constructed piece of shorthand to enable us to describe what might be a historical location, religious or cultural tradition describe skin colour or physical features but when you delve into it defining this or that person as being of this "race" becomes virtually impossible with any kind of real logical or scientific basis.
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Oct 24, 2009, 11:22
|
||
|
IanB wrote: I take anything that the far left says about the far right and vice versa with a massive pinch of salt. The 'far' in far right, as it exists here, is closer to the center, at least in terms of how that movement has branded Obama with ridiculous labels like 'socialist'. And this is due to the right wing's control of the media in many markets (the charge that the media is controlled by the left is unintentionally pretty funny when it's coming from FOX NEWS). AM radio from coast to coast is chockablock with ranting white guys who are permitted to say anything (as long as there's no profanity... but slander and baldfaced lies are OK). The far left in the USA is not a very cohesive force and virtually lost against the babble of right wing chatter. The moderate left and right seem to occupy a perilous majority for the time being... but so besieged by the idiocy of the far right that, as you can see in current headlines, the US public is forced to suffer watered-down, compromised action by it's own government as regarding healthcare and other essentials. Most of the US public WANT the government option, WANT socialized medicine... but even many on the moderate left have scrapped that sensible and proven model just because they've been brainwashed into thinking that it could never work here. There's an ominous sense in the USA among many that collapse is inevitable... gun sales skyrocketed with Obama's election. Americans fear themselves probably more than they fear 'terrorists' from afar. And in that they are correct. We're our own worst enemy. The difference as I see it is your BNP is like our far right wing, with the difference that OUR far right wing actually has power. And they use it. Prisons overcrowded- Corporate malfeasance on a vast scale (the supposedly left Clinton was even part of that)- projections of power abroad- etc.
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Oct 24, 2009, 11:24
Oct 24, 2009, 11:23
|
||
|
The analogy of the BNP being the same as the US republican party is very weak though. I may be out of touch but I don't think the Republican Party would say; that NY is no longer an American city nor that the only true Americans are those who can say their ancestors lived on US soil just after the last ice age, or that all immigrants should be sent home. Cos, well, in a US context it would be quite silly really. Yep,it's quite silly here too,but we're dealing with European Fascism, it's very different. I've never heard of an anti-jewish holocaust denying Republican. I know you have those minutemen loonies down on the mexican border, I reckon they're about the closest to our BNP in political terms. Of course our BNP have all manner of additional unpleasant opinions,such as homophobia (very Republican true). It's also true what Ian said about the Tory rank and file having similar opinions to the BNP. However, it is much more likely that a Tory who feels disenfranchised in Camerons new (no, it isn't new tbh) Tory Party to vote for UKIP before they would vote BNP. What I'm saying is painting all right-wing parties as being the same is really, really fucking dumb. You just end up validating, and legitimising a lot of policies and ideas that you really, really don't need to. Grufty is correct, this is about legitimising that which we cannot afford to, especially at this time where polarisation is creating traction for extremists. Mind you, if the BNP did enact their no immigration, send em all home, policy this country would be royally fucked into an unrecoverable situation economically. The Tory party is already legitimising a few facist parties in Europe by working with them in the EU group they're part of. This, this is the problem here. The rise of fascist groups (as opposed to the normal right wing parties) is a european wide problem. It's also a problem in Russia too. The anti-islamic feeling even in Denmark has gone completely over the top, the violence there at the moment is horrifying and the state and the police are completely out of line. Know thine enemy, move down south cos the racism there is overt and therefore visible. FFS. That is a terrifyingly stupid argument. Anyhow, the Anti fascist groups here in the UK can be happily relied upon to beat the living crap out of BNP members and supporters when it comes to the point that it will be required. Same is true in a lot of other European countries , but not all of Europe unfortunately.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Oct 24, 2009, 11:35
Oct 24, 2009, 11:31
|
||
|
Sorry mate, but your far right is not the same as our BNP. Really, it isn't. The BNP has no policies or ideas beyond get rid of anyone who isn't white, speaks english and is heterosexual. Edit :As in the far-right you claim have power. I think a lot of reasons why the far-left, or even moderate left, gets no traction in the US is precisely because of the massive generalisations it tends to make about the 'enemy'. I could be wrong though, maybe some kind of strategic essentialism could work wonders there.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Oct 24, 2009, 12:21
|
||
|
You've misread me here and on your other post. I didn't say the Republicans were the equivalent of the BNP. For all his faults, I never thought Bush was a racist (he's an economic class snob, sure, but that isn't quite the same thing). What I said was, the larger Republican sphere of thought has at it's far end the equivalent of the BNP. There is no political party in the USA that I know of that equates with the BNP itself.... just extreme Republicans (and independents). What is this, a pissing match? Your fascists are more nasty than our fascists? ;-)
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Oct 24, 2009, 12:42
|
||
|
stray wrote: The analogy of the BNP being the same as the US republican party is very weak though. I may be out of touch but I don't think the Republican Party would say; that NY is no longer an American city Only after 9/11 did the Republicans start loving NYC. stray wrote: I've never heard of an anti-jewish holocaust denying Republican. Really? I have. Republicans only started 'loving' the Jews once they started hating Islam more than Israel. stray wrote: What I'm saying is painting all right-wing parties as being the same is really, really fucking dumb. But I didn't say that. What I said was that the Republicans permit their own extreme end of their party to operate without much criticism, and let them off the leash when it's politically expedient to their ends. Not the same. stray wrote: Know thine enemy, move down south cos the racism there is overt and therefore visible. FFS. That is a terrifyingly stupid argument. Nobody I know moves down south because racism is overt. I was just passing on a rhetorical observation that some have expressed. stray wrote: Anyhow, the Anti fascist groups here in the UK can be happily relied upon to beat the living crap out of BNP members and supporters when it comes to the point that it will be required. That sounds like what the right wingers say about the left, too. My basic point is that your BNP may be a defined political party that doesn't have an analogue in the USA... but we have plenty of far-right Republicans that are sympathetic to the same fascist aims. Perhaps they are more 'diluted' against the larger backdrop of the GOP, but they do exist. They don't need to be 'legitimized' to have a negative effect on the larger body politic... they thrive inside of the established Republican fold.
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Oct 24, 2009, 12:51
|
||
|
I would agree with your posts so far, except for one detail - the far right HAS had power in this country to the same extent that the Republicans have in the States - under Margaret Thatcher. It wasn't left-wing protests or a recovering economy that caused the National Front (the fomrer BNP, to all intents and purposes)to wane in popularity - it was Margaret Thatcher's pre-electin speech about britain being swarmed with immigrants. Hey presto, all but the most extreme of right-wingers suddenly started voting Conservative, and we had a government in power for thirteen years that was only three steps to the left of the BNP, if that. I also suspewct that the same thing will happen again with Cameron. He may be presenting himself a sa reasonable, moderate new school Tory, but once the Tories get into power you can bet your boots they'll start showing their true colous again.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Oct 24, 2009, 13:10
|
||
|
I didn't forget about Thatcher. Since then, however, we've only had a total of 9 years where the president was a Democrat, and even that was a bit of a fluke... Clinton won without a majority vote because Ross Perot bled away ballots cast for Bush 1. Obama won because Bush was a fuck-up. Yeah, he's charismatic and all, but if the economy hadn't tanked before the election, and if McCain hadn't screwed himself by choosing that twit Palin to be his VP, things would have ended differently. The USA is primarily a center-right nation. Even here in Massachusetts, which has traditionally been lambasted by the right as being a 'lefty' state, we had Republican governors for the vast majority of the last 20+ years.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Oct 24, 2009, 13:40
|
||
|
'Race' wasn't a concept invented by white Europeans. Every ethnicity and religion defines itself, and has terms to describe other ethnicities and religions. This idea that somehow only white Europeans are capable of prejudice is born out of white guilt. All I'm saying is that it's virtually impossible to dance around the fact that we have obvious characteristics that we inherit from our forebears. It's not inherently hateful to say that someone is of a particular race. I guess it does get more complex now that more people share mixed ethnic parentage. In the USA (and in Britain too, no doubt) most people would call anyone who has even a very dilute share of African blood a black person. THAT comes out of the old days when mulatto children were automatically designated as black. But rather than gloss over one's parentage in the hopes of overcoming old evils, what's wrong with embracing them? There's a rumor that one of my great-great grandmothers had native American blood... I LIKE to think so... 'cause otherwise my heritage would be exclusively Anglo-Saxon. Some have envisioned a future where all ethnic characteristics blend into one worldwide type. Utopian? Perhaps. Dull? Most certainly. I appreciate seeing the variety of human beings. That doesn't mean I believe in keeping 'racial purity', but it'd be a loss if we all blended into some sort of homogenized human species. It'd be like if all the varieties of birds were cooked down into just some sort of one-size-fits-all chicken, or something.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 24, 2009, 14:44
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: But are they actually seeing a rise in support? 30 years ago the BNP (or the organisation they evolved from) were little more than skinhead football hooligans with a fanzine. They occasionally assaulted non-whites when superior numbers were on their side and broke a lot of Asian-owned shop windows in certain parts of the country. Once in a while they'd vandalise a curry house or Chinese takeaway for variety. 20 years ago, when I first moved to the UK and encountered them, they were more organised. Rallies, benefit gigs, proper membership scheme and visions of members standing for election. I can vividly recall the anti-fascist actions I went on as the 80s gave way to the 90s and watching as the racists started to don suits and pretend to be reasonable. 10 years ago they started winning the occasional seat in local elections. There was always a big media furore about it, and they inevitably lost the seat again. Nick Griffin was invited to the Oxford Union debate society and he slowly but surely (and with no little buffoonery) started to remove offensively racist language from the BNPs public pronouncements. He started talking about "the indigenous people of these islands" rather than "white people". Nonsense on so many levels, but it appears there are those who get taken in by it. Because this year's elections saw the BNP secure two seats in the European Parliament and a seat on the London Assembly plus close to 80 council seats nationwide. On top of that, the Minister for Justice and senior opposition politicians are now willing to sit down and debate with them in front of a mass audience. And according to the first poll carried out after the broadcast of Question Time, it has increased support for the BNP. Or rather, it has helped increase the number of those who would now "consider voting BNP" to 22%. So in answer to your question, "are they actually seeing a rise in support?" Yes they are. Very, very clearly. What's worse is that the kind of racist scape-goating that the BNP peddle has historically flourished in times of economic hardship. And given that we are going to have to deal with Climate Change and resource depletion over the next 30 years, this is something that should concern us. I want to reply to the rest of your post too but I've got to head out for a few hours. Later.
|
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
