|
U-Know! Forum » opinions on last night's question time |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
ratcni01 916 posts |
Edited Oct 24, 2009, 16:31
Oct 24, 2009, 15:58
|
||
|
Race itself wasn't perhaps a western originated idea and there are obvious differences between people. But the language of race, for instance the division of humanity into caucasian, dravidian, negroid etc was most definitely, and was based on anthropological studies born of a certain period with a certain perspective and underlying values and philosophy and we now inherit some of that language to describe the situation we are now in. Sure I'd agree diversity is brilliant and to be embraced and interesting too as each of us has a unique history, based on a number of concepts all of which seem to get mixed up when trying to define race. Being Jewish, is that a race? The research I've done is totally inconclusive, yet that's part of my heritage, and in turn my kids, as is their Mum's african-caribbean family history. Black is certainly not a term to define race surely? That's about skin colour, and indeed you or I may share more genetic coding with someone who is black or asian than two people born in africa. I guess that's what am trying to say, the language of race seems to me to perpetuate a myth that there are still races, sure there are differences, and populations that share characteristics, its seems somehow as fallacious to define race on that basis as it does to define British as being those people who moved to the UK after the last ice age. The language of race isn't necessarily hateful, but lets be aware it was created in a certain context to describe things that were at the time poorly understood, and as I'm sure you'd agree can carry with it all sorts of stuff, based on politics, power An interesting throwaway comment on QT the other night was that in the UK "1 in 2 of black children have a white parent". My kids from a political perspective, might describe themselves as black, yet they are light/mid-brown in colour, they in fact are clear they not white thought they have a white looking parent. I've no idea if I would be white enough though to join the BNP under their current rules as I not clear on what their definition of "race" actually is, yes my family on both sides are british going back several generations, but only one generation ago the family name on one leg of the family tree was Myerson, so would naming convention come into a definition of race, or religious practice, or ethinicity (is ethnicity defined as equivalent to race?) I think we're using a blunt instrument to describe something far more complex, interesting and at times wonderful. My kids would definitely not be white enough to join the BNP under their current rules. Somehow seems to me that theres something missing in al of this, including my own comments to do with the human race's ongoing evolution, the continuous process we are all part of. Dunno quite what tho right now. I like the "human race" model because that is a philosphical model where people are equalised, but perhaps attendant language hasn't eveolved to accompany that model, its a different way of looking at things, not better or worse just different, and brings it own benefits and is not per se complete in itself. In the same way that modernist philosophically based research brings one type of useful result, and socially constructed research brings another very different and equally valid result (assuming either research method is undertaken well!). The messiness of the debate seems to me to illustrate the validity of this post-modern situation we find ourselves in. You are right and your point has value, and so I think does mine yet neither are complete or neat in themselves, and fall down in certain aspects, as you have pointed out of my points (points, points points - bleh ;-) ) I also like one race the model because it means the BNP aren't "them" they're part of us, and indeed why all the therapists I have talked to about racism, and my own view as a therapist, is that those who view the world through a racist set of lenses, demonstrate to us how their internal world (intrapersonal relationships) must be as well, they are indeed telling us what it is like to be them. If the BNP are part of "us" then it also makes "us" responsible somehow rather than being able to demonise them, they are human, fucked up yes, but human all the same, still have families, feel love/affection as real as you or I (of course excluding some people in this on an irrational basis) do, feel grief or anxiety when a family member falls ill. God I dunno where this is going enough for now ...
|
|||
red paeony 184 posts |
Oct 24, 2009, 16:07
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: On more than one occasion I've had other white men assume I'm one of their fellow racists (just because I'm white) and give me the ol' nudge nudge wink wink. Get these fuckers AWAY from me. Yep, I get that vibe too, sometimes. I feel like saying, "Don't drag me onto your hate bus", but usually it makes them feel lame to just ignore them. I'll tell you something quite telling about people. My daughter has three best friends. One of them is of mixed race, his dad being black, mom is white. Sometimes I throw the kids in the car and we go out for ice cream or whatever. You wouldn't believe the looks I get from nosey buggers. I've even been asked BY TOTAL STRANGERS if they're brother and sister. I know what they're thinking and I don't give 'em satisfaction of an answer at all. These kids are 11 and color blind. They get along, have shared interests, and I've never heard any of them bring up the topic of race. It just doesn't matter to them. ~D
|
|||
|
ratcni01 916 posts |
Oct 24, 2009, 16:40
|
||
|
red paeony wrote: handofdave wrote: On more than one occasion I've had other white men assume I'm one of their fellow racists (just because I'm white) and give me the ol' nudge nudge wink wink. Get these fuckers AWAY from me. Yep, I get that vibe too, sometimes. I feel like saying, "Don't drag me onto your hate bus", but usually it makes them feel lame to just ignore them. I'll tell you something quite telling about people. My daughter has three best friends. One of them is of mixed race, his dad being black, mom is white. Sometimes I throw the kids in the car and we go out for ice cream or whatever. You wouldn't believe the looks I get from nosey buggers. I've even been asked BY TOTAL STRANGERS if they're brother and sister. I know what they're thinking and I don't give 'em satisfaction of an answer at all. These kids are 11 and color blind. They get along, have shared interests, and I've never heard any of them bring up the topic of race. It just doesn't matter to them. ~D I was in KFC (yes I know) with my kids getting a snack after some event, and some drunk bloke "said hey, you get off then on feeding these poor black kids this shit then" I just said "they're my kids" and he went slack jawed and his partner who was obviously highly embarrased by him anyway just went into profuse apology mode, fortunately my kids barely noticed. They were then of the age to be totally unphased by difference, things are changing for them though. Its part of my job to help them grow and develop the personal power, knowledge and language to discuss who they are - or this aspect of who they are so that they maintain good self-worth and self esteem.
|
|||
|
ratcni01 916 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 00:30
|
||
And indeed will we see as was forecast by Ken Livingstone a rise in violent racist attacks following the QT broadcast?
|
|||
|
red paeony 184 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 01:03
|
||
|
Shine on, dad! ;-D x
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 01:31
|
||
|
ratcni01 wrote: And indeed will we see as was forecast by Ken Livingstone a rise in violent racist attacks following the QT broadcast? Now that's pretty scary!
|
|||
|
ratcni01 916 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 03:50
|
||
This is the reason I think trumps all others in terms of whether the BNP should have been invited onto QT. If a rise in attacks can be correlated with their appearance then this justifies them not being invited on again indeed invited to get any air time at all. I hope the BBC will be watching the statistics on this, or someone (some organisation) with credibility.
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 11:11
|
||
|
ratcni01 wrote: This is the reason I think trumps all others in terms of whether the BNP should have been invited onto QT. If a rise in attacks can be correlated with their appearance then this justifies them not being invited on again indeed invited to get any air time at all. I hope the BBC will be watching the statistics on this, or someone (some organisation) with credibility. I'd expect the BNP rank and file would be taking orders to chill out while they're getting all this press. My concern is that, if the criteria for censorship is how the public reacts to someone being on TV, do you apply that to everyone? What if you had someone who is anti-BNP on the air and it correlated with a rise in attacks? Do you ban them too? I'm not just talking about abstract concepts of free speech, here... if legal precedents can be set against the BNP that can end up coming back around and sabotaging progressives too, it might be wise to beware the impulse to censure.
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 11:32
|
||
|
drewbhoy wrote: Why have us in Scotland continually got to watch the BNP, Tories, Libs, Labour, UKIP, all British parties on our TV. We're a multi racial country or trying to be and Britain drags us down, bring on the next election. Britain/Engerland would be much better without us!! Underneath the facetiousness, your post does raise a valid point. There are just as many areas of Scotland that could lay claim to being neglected by complacent Labour councils as there are in England, and yet the BNP seem to have made no inroads whatsoever up there. This is despite of the fact that the percentage of Asian people living in Glasgow is now not that much lower than in London.
|
|||
pooley 501 posts |
Oct 25, 2009, 11:52
|
||
|
Found this on a blog - couldn't put it better myself A Question of FreedomSo Nick Griffin has finally ‘graced’ Question Time with his presence. And guess what? We didn’t turn into the Third Reich overnight! I’m being flippant, I know, but I was firmly on the BBC’s side in the recent furore over the BNP leader’s appearance. Yes, I find his politics – and his party – repugnant, but like it or not, he’s an elected representative, and in a democracy is therefore entitled to a say. To effectively censor him would be to stoop to the very tactics that he himself might espouse. Not that people didn’t try. Inevitably, a large group of well-meaning – but in my view rather naïve – anti-fascist protestors were firmly camped outside the gates of Television Centre, blithely oblivious to the fact that their very presence was ensuring far more media coverage than Mr Griffin might otherwise have enjoyed. Having to be sneaked into the studio past an angry mob also lent him an unfortunate air of martyrdom, and lent unwelcome credibility to his claims of being demonised. Obviously not at all enjoying the free publicity for what was rapidly turning into a media circus, BBC News sent an intrepid reporter the several hundred yards outside the building to talk to the protestors. “Freedom of speech has its limits,” an earnest young man declared to camera with a breathtaking lack of irony. He followed that up by actually saying that giving Griffin airtime would allow him to eventually censor freedom of speech. Undizzied by this circular argument, our brave correspondent then talked to a similarly earnest young woman. “Would the BBC have allowed Hitler on the air a couple of years before the Second World War?” she asked, instantly evoking Godwin’s Law. Actually, yes, they probably would, and with good reason. As leader of an increasingly (and unpleasantly) influential nation, the BBC would have been lacking in principle to not have him on a forum such as Question Time, had one existed in 1937. Precisely because we don’t live in a totalitarian state, men like Hitler (and Nick Griffin) can and should be publicly called to account for their beliefs and actions. Later, some more of the earnest young people broke into the Television Centre, thereby affording the news cameras some less than dignified footage of them being dragged out through reception shouting “Shame on you BBC!” By this time, Sky News and even CNN were giving the events live coverage, though I failed to check on Fox News to see what the ever-charming Glenn Beck might have made of it. So, what could have been a mildly contentious event giving a right wing buffoon a little airtime to metaphorically hang himself turned into an international news event that ensured Nick Griffin is now hot news in several continents. Well done, those protestors, thank goodness you showed up to stop him getting publicity. I’m not against the idea of opposing fascism, don’t get me wrong. But the cornerstone of opposing Nazi-style fascism is to maintain freedom, and when anyone – especially an elected representative of the people – is refused his say, you’ve instantly lost the moral high ground. And it also occurs to me that it’s tremendously patronising of the protestors to assume that the viewing public need protecting from a man like Griffin. It proceeds from the view that everyone watching is a brainless sheep who might be swayed to vote BNP just by seeing the man. For heaven’s sake, people, credit the British population with a little more intelligence than that! Eventually, though, we actually got to see Griffin in action. No denying it, he’s smoother than your old-fashioned NF boot boy (which of course he used to be). Like David Cameron, he’s trying to copy Tony Blair in reinventing both himself and his party. But once the questions got underway, the smooth veneer began to crack. Even having presumably prepared himself for the questions he would face – and they were predictable enough- his well-rehearsed patter began to seem more and more like an ant under a big magnifying glass. He could plainly cope with Jack Straw’s contempt, but seemed rather less equipped to deal with the wrath of Dimbleby. Mercilessly interrupting him at well-judged points, David got him to unknowingly let slip a few howlers. Commenting on his well-publicised meeting with David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan, he first contended that the Klan (or possibly Duke himself) were ‘non-violent’, then followed this up literally seconds later by saying he was there to try and subvert Duke’s message. What, the message about ‘non-violence’? Plenty more flat out falsehoods were obviously exposed as the debate continued. Griffin floundered on the topic of his previous Holocaust denial, lamely commenting, “I can’t explain why I used to say the things I used to say” – hardly glowing rhetoric. He was as mealy-mouthed as ever on the subject of race, effectively avoiding the issue every time it was addressed by bandying about the now familiar euphemisms about ‘indigenous populations’, which was effectively rubbished by Jack Straw. For a man so avowedly anti-Europe, Griffin was on shaky ground referring to the ‘indigenous’ people of a nation that’s been variously colonised by the Romans, the Vikings and the Normans, to name but a few. Predictably enough, it wasn’t so much Question Time as the Nick Griffin show, but for the most part was effective in revealing him to be the thoroughly unpleasant and slimy piece of work we knew him to be. And it was always going to do that, which is one reason why having him on the show was a rather good idea. Even so, a couple of opportunities were missed. Part of the problem with spending the whole show focussing on contentious issues we know about the BNP is that no time was left over to ask them about issues they probably haven’t even thought about. I would have loved to have seen Griffin flounder when asked about his party’s economic policies, or what he would do to reduce the national debt. So, was it, in the end a show full of sound and fury, signifying nothing? Ultimately, no. Griffin was given enough rope to hang himself, which he effectively did, and it seems unlikely that such a lacklustre, uncharismatic performance will gain the BNP any new support. BBC Director General Mark Thompson was absolutely right – and I’ll grudgingly admit, a tad courageous – to allow the show to go ahead despite the storm of protest. Far from ‘shame on the BBC’, it made me feel a little bit proud of them. Well, not proud enough to forgive them for Help, I’m as Fat as My Dog, but freedom of broadcasting has its limits;)
|
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
