Are you a casual racist though? Do you think I called you that or are you claiming the title for yourself? I think someone who genuinely espoused similar views of his black neighbours might be, depending on their reasoning. Its also possible for non-racists to hold beliefs that are racist for whatever reason.
You called me that. I played up to it to make a point about how indefinable it it can be. My personal views on people are formed as I meet them (or on their post history), but what i really rail against is the 'construct' of a racial group. The 'black community' means nothing, it is split upon hundreds of national, tribal, religious and political lines. Yet Diane Abbott can claim to be its voice and be received by some people as if that were legitimately true, because we have moved into an age where it
can be true, no matter how ridiculous it is, and unscrupulous people like Diane Abbot, can cleverly inject an American narrative of longstanding historical grievance and persecution until it is internalised in the black community, and thereby build a new history
The history I'm talking about is what I referred to earlier in this thread, the way it is taught having changed so dramatically from when it was a tool to weld a cohesive, unified national tapestry, in recent years it has become gripped by a succession of divergent popular romantic narratives. Take the current hot-topic of the SNP as an example. Almost everything culturally "Scottish" was invented or cherry-picked in the early 19th century, and almost entirely for an English audience, yet the romantic assertions of it as an ancient and noble culture has without doubt had a not insignificant part to play in Scottish nationalism. The same force is at play by a black elite (which Diane unfortunately represents) seeking to redefine race relations to enhance their own power base, essentially re-writing a new popular history for an ill-defined community they wish to represent and profit politically by.
I'm not the right guy for a sage opinion on this issue, being unremarkable as I am. Yes, I think the angry white people are being huge babies but I don't think they necessarily "learned" sensitivity to criticism from other groups but they've certainly adopted the language and terms. I don't feel able to comment on victim culture as its something I'm not old enough to have seen a change in. I'm not disagreeing that it exists but my observations don't go back far enough to say if it was ever different. Enough people seem to think so though. One thing I think odd is that now any politician a little bit ethnic or female can be said have only achieved their position through a party needing to meet its diversity quota and that this particular suspicion of incompetence never hangs over white men and that apparently this is an ok thing for someone to say and people won't look at you odd for saying it. It looks like a no-win situation as the assertion you seem to be making is that Diane Abbott doesn't deserve her position, but if she didn't have the position at all you'd have no trouble saying that she doesn't deserve it. Do minorities have to try extra hard to be above suspicion? Is this right? I'd like to know what the alternative explanation for low representation of non-white male groups is.
I've made bold the salient sentences I'd like to deal with:
The suspicion of incompetence
does hang over white men, it's just relatively ineffective to attack them upon racial lines as they are part of the majority. Instead the criticism hangs on class lines usually, because while you can't label someone out of touch for being from an different race or sex to the majority, you can
definitely label them that if they went to a good school. The suspicion is widely (and on personal experience, incorrectly) held that Tories are selected because they attended Eton, or went to one or two particularly raucous after-dinner clubs, is that any different to the suspicion blacks and women are selected because they "fit" a certain social type?
Your other main point is subjective. Where ethnic minority candidates in positions of power have not in the past chosen to self-identify with a larger outside group they are judged according to their individual merits. Where a candidate has been absorbed into a larger outside group to the point of
representing it in almost every action and statement then of course they are going to have to work extra hard to be "above suspicion", much in the same way an MP is held to a higher standard than an ordinary member of the public because they're seen to represent much more than themselves.
I love the twitter tags people come up with. Brief and pithy. #tacticcsasoldascolonialism is a new one to me. Part of the reason my thoughts on this issue are muddled is that the race terms we use themselves don't have a biological basis. They're social constructions that were themselves a tactic of colonialism. When you say that you don't feel guilty for tactics as old as colonialism, what are you saying?
That I don't feel guilty for history? Much as on a personal level I might have loved to have been at Rourke's Drift singing "Men of Harlech" in some mythical fantasy of what actually happened, I wasn't. I hold no stake in "the white race" or "colonialism", or the views of the past. Neither should I feel like I have to apologise for them or seek to "make up" for the past by playing into the modern continuation of those racial "tactics of colonialism" that have been appropriated to the advantage of the elites of those "communities" who were affected by them. I'm outside an argument about colonialism and race that ethnic elites are largely having with themselves, and should they choose to drag me into it - well, look at what happened to Diane Abbot's tweet (to another member of the "black community"). Didn't it seem just a bit out of touch with what we consider 21st century Britain?
As an ideal your "liberty of thought" would be great. However, would it ever be used to say anything remotely worthwhile? As an example, nearly all the positions in Macgamers link are awful and really are held almost exclusively by bigots and homophobes. Seeing conservatives adopt the victimised language of marginalised groups is as disturbing as seeing the Tea party use the culture of protest. Yes I'm picking an easy and convenient target here of socially conservative positions that primarily back up their views with irrational religious reasoning but I dread to think what would be said if people felt secure in making similarly targetted statements against non-whites.
You're worried "social conservatives" might run around calling everyone with a tan a nigger and talking about slavery? I think it's fairly easy to identify when someone is using a word as an insult, it's more about the tone that the actual word. I'm not afraid of the word nigger, but neither would I possibly forsee I would have cause to use it, as contrary to some opinions I am unerringly polite and considerate in everyday life. What I'd use the new-found liberty of thought to do would be to ask real questions free from fear of racially based retaliation. If you'd read this far I've tried to give you the lens which I see through, so just try and bear that in mind:
Here's two questions, as examples:
Why do proportionately more black people go to jail for crime in Britain?We all know the easy answer, and I think we know why its not helping anyone either. If you really want to investigate deep seated problems amongst black people (note I'm not saying "the black community") prepare to be attacked regularly by people like Diane Abbott. Her position depends on her monopoly of "black issues" and crowd pleasing assaults on "racism", and so on the presumption the problems she is prolonging are not tackled by those who can help. They might be white after all.
Why does the British Pakistani "community" have a significant rape problem?Jack Straw was incredibly brave and felt honour-bound to raise this issue after he'd retired and it couldn't affect him politically. I've raise the rape problem in dominant muslim enclaves elsewhere on this site so I don't wish to do it again, but at least he did mention it. He was immediately criticised by those peddling the equally derisive myth of a united "muslim community", this was
their domain, evidently.
So look, basically what I'm saying is "racism" in the way we're taught to think about it isn't about race at all, it's about power. Those few who can use the ladder of "race" prosper, and in allowing this we're creating yet another divergent popular history and sealing injustice and poverty into a group of people. All we've done with modern thinking about race is create elites that our own elite can talk to, as long as they prop up their own power by talking about racial injustice, much in the same way a nationalist would talk about the historical grievances of their "nation". It's all constructs, man. Throw the fucking doors wide open already and let everyone be equal.
Macgamer:
We should also have a discussion about why people holding certain points of view frequently profess physical symptoms associated with their point of view. Senethro feels physically sick when we talk about race, for instance.
You give me a ribbing, so I thought it only fair that I'd give you a little dig.