I'm a mongrel, too. But I can't get excited about "inheriting the earth". I think the earth is here now and I'm living in it, and it's living that matters.
I thought Shack's poem was pretty good actually (had to go off and puke half way through so it must have hit the spot) and said a lot about how we all feel about ourselves; things you like the idea of being part of, along with those that make you cringe.
I don't agree with you Neil about Dunkirk. Most wars are pointless; I remember hating all the jingoism surrounding the Falklands. All the wrongs of empire though can be justified by the simple act of it's existence making the defeat of fascism in Europe a possibility.
Ah. I considered the idea that it was a deliberately cockeyed ending, Paul, but the sincerity of the earlier sentiments put me off the idea. I think what you needed is more evidence earlier on to suggest the poet is misguided or bitter, otherwise it just comes out as a surprising statement.
If I were to write a poem striking out at the idea of white Englishness, it would be in the style of Shack's, but with more about beating foreigners up and acting like a prat. I think that's already been done though.
---
David - I very firmly disagree.
"These experiences, which represent the historical experiences of some black people fundamentally affect the lives of their descendents currently living in this country. This history is not taught in most of our schools."
Firstly, this matter of teaching it in schools. I don't know the statistics, but it's enough of an issue to have people on one side of the debate claiming that it's being taught *too much* in schools. Likewise, I've seen one too many articles claiming that 'good' books are being forsaken in favour of books by black authors, like the father in 'American History X'. Yes, these views are stupid, but they gather momentum, and get a sympathetic ear, when the public have multiculturalism as a brand forced on them, when there is an insistence that we have more of a duty to read and teach black history than, say, anglo-saxon history (the right are pretty damn adament on this.) When you parcel up an entire race of people under a banner based on the 'historical experiences' of their ancestors, and you tell white people that this is more important than the things they want to talk about, you inspire hatred for that whole race. You fuel the divide.
Secondly, I'm sorry, but this idea that the historical experiences of 'some black people' fundamentally affects the lives of their descendents is bollocks. It *can* affect their lives, sure, but only if we make it so, only if certain forces insist they try to incorporate it into their identities. We, and they, can choose not to let it affect their lives - that's what the whole idea of fighting racism and prejudice is all about. Why should there be this shadow hanging over people just because of their colour? I don't want to be treated in a particular way because of something that happened to one of *my* ancestors. I wouldn't even want to be treated a particular way because of what happened to my grandfather! Why should that 'fundamentally' affect my life? Why should people's responses to me have anything to do with what some anglo-saxon rulers did centuries ago? What's important to my life is what happened to me since I was born, and it should damn well be the same for everyone else. The only way slavery should affect a black person now is if they're interested in studying that area of history. Believing that it makes them fundamentally different from white people is a completely backward attitude.
Missed this:
"Are you seriously saying that because many black people refuse to treat their date of birth as year zero they are guilty of feeding racial prejudice?"
Yeah, I am. Anything that draws the line between black and white not only feeds that prejudice, but is a part of it. It's a simple fact, demonstratable by logic. If you believe that being black means XYZ, then you believe XYZ defines being black. That means whenever you see a black person, before you have spoken to them, or know anything about them, you assume that they are defined by XYZ. And that assumption, whether positive or negative, is a prejudice, a prejudgement.
> If you believe that being black means XYZ, then you believe XYZ defines being black. <
Your logic is faulty Jon, and far too black and white, if you'll excuse the expression. If we suppose that XYZ = 'you ain't white', then according to you not being white means you are black and that doesn't give the yellows or browns and redsanywhere to go.
My logic tells me that your logic ain't logical.
(Stormy)
George, I didn't say you were wrong, merly that you pop up after each post and say words to the effect of "well, I don't care what anyone says, my definition is correct!" and you just did it again.
Colin, my definition of ‘English’ is nothing more than that. I don’t claim my definition is unequivocally correct for the whole goddamn human race. Just for me.
(Argyll)
>> Mississippi, I'm the last person in the world to get British and English mixed up, being one but not the other. <<
But it seems Argyll may be in agreement with me, and now it comes to mind, I should think that a lot of Scots having a similar lineage to those of us south of the border, and indeed a healthy percentage of Irish too would, in the main, vehemently deny being English even if they were born and raised in Surrey. Rod Stewart, born and raised in London considers himself to be a Scot when by most of the definitions here he is English.
Blimey, I've never been this controversial in me life. At last! A chance to shout my poetry out to the world - and have the world shout back at me.
Where to begin? ... Theo, I've never backed out of anything in my life. I would dearly love to respond to your first paragraph - but for the life of me, I just haven't got a clue what you're on about. I never saw 3 weddings-thingy. I'm part of the same stock as Darwin because we are both made up of human DNA and both born in England.
Mississippi ...... By my definition of an Englishman, I'm an Englishman.
'Family shop'? - 'TCR'? - I'm stuffed again - ain't got a clue wot you are on about - pray enlighten me.
Reference Dunkirk and Poppy Day ... neither glorify war. Dunkirk was a thumping defeat - My proud thoughts of Dunkirk concern ordinary people doing extraordinary things in ferrying a defeated army back across the channel - have a read of the history books. Poppy Day is a chance to remember the fallen from all wars, from all sides. Nothing more sinister than that.
Most of the other 'adverse' comments concern other poems for other days - I've written a couple of them already and I'm working on others - I hope you lot are too.
... and so to bed, perchance to dream in relative safety from the big, bad world ... It's about being an Englishman.
An excellent and thought provoking read thus far. Well done everyone and especially Hen for starting this thread.
I find myself agreeing with Hen's take on this, although am reluctant to concede the term 'multiculturalism' to describe what I have seen for some time as an outmoded way of thinking about racism. Multiculturalism formed from Multiple and Culture - both good words, and we should be looking for a re-definition rather than dumping the word in favour of some spangly new concept.
Unfortunately, what Hen has described is still very much the establishments view (and by the establishment I mean all those charged actively with reducing racism in society today - the government, councils, court and law institutions, CRE and the various anti-racist campaigning organisations). This is however changing, and the recent news of a single 'Human Rights Commision' to replace the CRE other anti-discrimination bodies etc I see as a step in the right direction.
Multiculturalism as I understand it and practice it is the access to a multitude of modes of living available for us to pick and choose from in this modern age - brought to us through travel, global communication (internet) and very lucky for us in parts of Britain - the diversity of peoples and their communities on our doorsteps.
We don't live in multicultural communities - each of us is a multicultural individual - unique in the particular makeup of our loves and interests. This is a cause for celebration indeed, but not in a way typically evidenced at multicultural evenings.... I felt queasy at the last ABC Tales event too - I'd much rather enjoy the tale of a Zen Bhuddist who lives in a council estate in feltham who goes line dancing on saturdays, is an expert in Swiss mountain yodelling etc, then someone who revels in the pride of his Asianness, Blackness, Englishness, Yorkshireness etc
I do not wish to have a go at the now middleaged liberal, left leaning establishment, that still persist with their outmoded views. I accept that we are partly here, in multicultural Britain, due to their efforts in the past... and it is not a bad place to be, however, the battlefront has moved on. Racism today is not what it was 20 years ago in this country... it needs to be treated not independently but looked at anew within a whole set of discrimination and general injustices that many people irrespective of their colour are subject to in society today... and yes these are tied in mainly with fear, poverty, crime, depravation, lack of education, expectation, standards and resources etc
I have always thought David's politics was that of the dinosaur variety, and he has confirmed it with his history posting above... That view is an old and tired one.. History is far more complex and tentacle like than the simple story/myth:
'White man particularly bad. He take away everything good, now he must pay.'
I have to say that the Third World Countries who bought into this myth at the time of their independence and beyond are still those lagging behind in almost every aspect of nationhood in the modern world . Those who accepted that they were where they were as a result of the invidious nature of history and took responsibility for their fate, have moved on... spectacularly in some cases.
If subsequent generations do not actively throw away the shackles of their past in favour of forging something new, they will remain entrapped in recycling old battles and grievances ad infinitum - cue the Middle East.
I believe it is the same at a personal level, irregardless of your origin.
I don't understand, Missi. My logic deals purely with the positive - 'being black', as opposed to 'not being white'.
If we suppose XYZ = 'not being white', then being XYZ means you aren't white, and means that we judge anyone of any colour other than white to be XYZ.
But I was following XYZ = 'being black', which means you're XYZ if you're black, and means we judge anyone who is black to be XYZ.
They're both models of racial prejudice, even if the first is on the larger scale of pre-judging anyone who isn't white.
Oh dear.. I sat on my post too long. I see Hen has jumped on David already for his 'Tainted by History Post'... I'd go so far as saying those views are cultural imperialism but of a misguided sort and prevalent from a few years back ... unfortunately too many people (black & white) bought into that and it has held progress on racism back.
"I'm part of the same stock as Darwin because we are both made up of human DNA and both born in England. By my definition of an Englishman, I'm an Englishman."
Shacks - while you're entitled to your opinion, I think you need to rethink this whole thing. You're part of the same stock as Darwin because you're both made up of human DNA? Well, great - that makes everyone across the world of the same stock as Darwin. Because you were both born in England? No - I'm sorry - that's entirely unrelated to any idea of 'stock'. To borrow a joke from Bernard Matthews, that means if a dog's born in a stable it's a horse! Of course, Matthews implies by this that to be English you have to have English ancestry, which is rubbish. But the truth is that the place you were born has very little impact on how closely related you are to someone. I mean, in many cases it's probably not as much of a factor as if you went to the same University as them! You and Darwin grew up surrounded by very different cultures, and you undoubtedly share more in common with someone who was born in India in the same decade as you, than with a man born in the same place over a century ago.
Yes, you can call yourself an englishman (whoopydoo) but that doesn't - and here, loathe as I am, I agree with Missi again - make you of the same stock as Darwin. If everything in the world centred around YOUR definitions, I would fear for this planet.
Even if you were his great great great (and so on) Grandson, what would you have in common with the guy apart from that? You're very good at picking out the GOOD from English history, and making it your own.
Aren't you, Shack.
And you seem in denial about what you said in your poem originally. Are you a professional goalpost-mover, Shack?
George, I have to take issue with you over your definition of being 'English'
I hope you are merely being pedantic but, if not, you remind me of Nazi Germany when people of the nationality 'German' were killed because they were not of Aryan stock - itself a hotch-potch of nationalities. If I follow your logic to the extreme, then no one living in this country can truly say they are 'English'.
If, for example, we exclude Karl's Irish ancestry, his 'I'm as Anglo-Saxon as it's possible to be' simply proves him to be half German. And if we take it even further back and ask 'who are the Angles?' you will find a right old mix of nomadic celtic (as they are now known) tribes who wandered Europe. So there can be no such such thing as a Frenchman, a German, a Scot, an Italian.
By your definition, no one can say they are American since America was populated initially by Europeans and subsequently by other continents. Native Americans, of course, belong to the same nomadic tribes that wandered Europe. Therefore we are all of the same 'stock'. But you ask these people what nationality they are and they will proudly state 'American'
Nationality is exactly what it says on the tin. It is nothing whatsoever to do with race or ancestry (witness the royal family). To be English or Scottish or French is a cultural thing and nothing to do with your heritage.
On to the main debate: I find it interesting that this debate on culture has centered upon black/white issues. There are cultural differences within the colours too aren't there? We are often told that 'English culture' nowadays is of the club18/football hooligan/eating curry after ten pints variety (I bet the Indians pis.s themselves laughing, watching the English sweat over a vindaloo - something invented for the English by the restuaranteurs after they sussed the 'English' macho mentality) ... if that is the case then count me out as 'English'
What about the street cafe culture that has spread from warm europe to our cold climate? Is that not multiculturalism? Culture, to me, is more about your upbringing, your way of life and your beliefs than 'Isn't it nice we like black people nowadays?' kind of thing.
There was a thread last week about 'belonging' and hardly anyone replied to it yet, to me, the replies in this thread are, mainly, about 'belonging'
I find that odd.
It's a very good point. I don't respect any culture that creates and nurtures NF gobshites, and the NF clearly don't respect unfamiliar cultures and never will, so the fight for mutual respect is quite a futile one. You're only pitching (with any success) to wet liberals in tweed jackets, and so preaching to the converted.
I'm reminded of a documentary about an ex-NF thug turned anti-racism campaigner. He talks about working with a black guy, and how he used to say, "It's not you I hate, YOU'RE all right." Eventually he accepted that they were all all right (and if any weren't, it was not race-related). The black guy got through to him just by showing that he was not really that different to him, and the differences that were there were little to do with race. Also, think of the breakthrough scene in American History X, where the black guy mimics a typical girlfriend, and makes the ubernazi thug roar with the laughter of recognition. In these extreme examples, it's the non-difference that wins, not the difference.
I try to avoid glib generalisations like "The Asian people enrich our culture." I like curry because it tastes good, and Bollywood films cause they're cool and f**king funny.
We all love curry in Britain now (generalisation!) so now we have one more thing in common with Asians, which is better than a patronising, "We don't eat that here, but well done for eating something different, it fits nicely into the whole Cosmopolitan thing we have going down here."
> I don't understand, Missi. My logic deals purely with the positive <
You can't pick the bits that suit you and disregard the rest Jon. It's only the existence of the 'negative' that makes the 'positive' positive. You can't have one without the other and I still think your logic is faulty.
> Matthews implies by this that to be English you have to have English ancestry, which is rubbish <
It's not rubbish at all, this 'I was born in England so that makes me English' is the biggest load of old cock I've ever heard. I suppose the baby born on an airliner a few weeks ago is a bird by your definition (or maybe a plane).
> But the truth is that the place you were born has very little impact on how closely related you are to someone. <
Er... my point exactly, it has very little to do with being English, relatively speaking of course. You seem to be contradicting yourself Jon.
> Nationality is exactly what it says on the tin <
Nationality actually, is something bestowed by national governments, and is sometimes removed by them too. In this country it's possible to be naturalised which is the method of bestowing British nationality on a foreign national. Some other countries operate a similar system but there are countries where you could never become a national.
> To be English or Scottish or French is a cultural thing and nothing to do with your heritage <
That is the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read.
Yes I'm being pedantic, Colin.
------------
Sorry for being obscure Shacky.
I was of course referring to Radio Shack in the Tottenham Court Road.
------------
(I'm getting heartily sick of dicko agreeing with me, I'm beginning to think I'm doing something wrong.)
But origins are significant, though; finding and celebrating your origins may be a way of finding yourself. I agree with you to the extent that it shouldn't be compulsory, though
Could somebody tell me who George is?
Could somebody tell me who Dicko is?
I wish some of you blooming folks would stick to one persona.
Tottenham Court Road - I presume that's somewhere down south?
Acceptance and tolerance irrelevant of shade are all well and good. Prejudice, the kind that undermines 'multiculturalism' exists in older generations and is passed from father to son. Paralleling today in the face of asylum seekers taking up precious resources, housing, NHS, welfare, jobs etc. Yes, I reckon there's a few who simply see colour but the majority saw, and now see an influx into their Britain, one which competes on a level playing field and in some cases exceeds it. Ok I suppose of you're a blue-collar worker there is no immediate threat, but if you've been on the housing list for several years, are claiming benifit, frustration and tolerance aren't as forthcoming. Some black families are prejudice about prejudice, assuming that the back-lash to their noise and litter are skin-tone based, when of course they're not. All black friends I have are proud of their culture and guard their boundaries fiercely celebrating their distinction.
Respect for another's right to be, to choose and live their lives the way they wish to, is what a multicultural society should embrace, even if it encroaches, which is why it exists in the minds of a few. Christ if you can't even except Shack's statement of what makes him English, what hope have we?
[%sig%]
Missi
People born in America are..Denzil Washington, Wesley Snipes, Samuel L Jackson, Sidney Poitier, Snoop Doggy Dogg, DMX, JA Rule, Coolio - American artists
People born in France are...Patrick Vieira, Thierry Henry, Jean Tigana (sorry just trying to find someone you've heard of) are French footballers
People born in England are...Ashley Cole, John Barnes, Paul Ince, Sol Campbell, Viv Anderson... all black players all play/ed for England. What does that make them? Black players who play for England, English players, they don't play for Britain.
Linford Christie ran for England, John Regis, Dwayne Chambers all did the same.
If they're not English they shouldn't play for England. Does it mean that no black sportsmen/women should play for England.
You're opening a can of worms. If I was born in this country, I should be counted as English. If I went to live in another country, I would still be English. If I went to America and comitted a crime I would be deported back to...
Its not as easy as where you were born. It's what you believe too; what nationality you believe you are. Look at the Northern Ireland thing where people born within a few streets of each other; some wanted to be British, others considered themselves Irish. So they fought for thirty years.
Sportsmen aren't a good guide either; most of them will put on whatever shirt helps them further their career. Remember Jack Charlton's "Irishmen"
The problem seems to me, from a bit of an outside perspective, that the English are less comfortable with areas of their own culture than other nations. I think this is unfortunate as the lager lout / football hooligan thing is perpetrated by a small minority. The same small minority that exists in every western european country but elsewhere doesn't seem to have got into the national psyche.
I don't think you'll hear French, or Dutch or Belgians wringing their hands over a colonial past either; the only thing anyone can owe the past is to learn from it
I watched the first part of this programme and found it fascinating but sleep overtook me.
I've lived in exclusively white parts of Britain (rural Devon for example) and in some of the most multicultural parts (Leicester for example). I am also white, middle class, liberal and a participator in the Anti Nazi League demos of the 70s and 80s - Blair Peach was a mate of mine.
It's certainly true that we embraced the multicultural road - and I still do. However I think that the portrayal of multiculturalism on the programme was flawed. What it says, in brief, is that each culture should celebrate its own-ness but should also find the points in which it can inter-relate with other cultures and enjoy them too. An example would be the wonderful music of the Gotan Project which fuses french gypsy, hip hop, tango and other beats to produce a glorious riot of sound.
Multiculturalism is not about cultural exclusion - it is about cultural inclusion. It was a real turning point in race relations in Leicester when people of all ethnic origins were invited to join in the Diwali celebrations - even to the extent of many white people going into the Hindu temples with respect and a spirit of inquiry. They were given a great welcome and learnt a whole lot. It brought the communities far closer together. We would go every year to our Indian friends for Diwali and they came to us each year for Christmas. It was great! When we moved to Brighton my kids were horrified that we wouldn't be celebrating Diwali and for many years we would go back up to Leicester so that they wouldn't miss the fun.
That's multiculturalism, not racial exclusiveness from whatever angle - be it black power, demands for an Islamic state in Bradford or the BNP. You won't find many people in the black or Asian communities who back that kind of thinking - just as it is only a tiny minority of white people who back the BNP.
One of the greatest things about this country is its racial tolerance and its cultural diversity. It's a fragile and very precious gem and we should treasure it, improve it and celebrate it.
Lexy, I don't accept Shack's definition of what makes him, or anybody else 'English' because it isn't accurate. OK, I accept that HE feels it is and seemingly others do too, but that doesn't make it accurate either. My disagreement on the point has absolutely nothing to do with prejudice, racism or nationalistic fervour of any description, simply on the grounds of accuracy. Actually I can't see for the life of me why anyone would want to be considered English anyway, I mean look at the wankers that run the place!
(I also accept I may be wrong, but this is what I was taught and will continue to believe until an otherwise logical definition is presented that I can accept)
They're 'British', Sadbelle, as are you and I.
Citing 'Americans' isn't really a good comparison as it's been cosmopolitan since the arrival of Europeans, the only true indiginous Americans being the buffalo.
Argy, I notice you use the word 'British' and NOT 'English', I have no problem with that at all, it's what I have been saying all along. Then you change tack mid-post. Make your mind up.
Shacky dear fellow, George is myself, Dicko is Paul Thompson, (whose most recent incarnation on this thread is 'Theo' and is also known by a multitude of other droll troll names), Stormy is Colin, Hen is Jon, Larph is Ralph, but who the hell are you?
I also use other names.
Colin also uses other names.
Ralph also uses other names.
Stufart also uses other names.
Most of the regulars here use other names.
You get the idea?
Get on down to Safeways and get some for yourself, they're as cheep as quips.
> People born in America are..Denzil Washington, Wesley Snipes, Samuel L Jackson, Sidney Poitier, Snoop Doggy Dogg, DMX, JA Rule, Coolio - American artists <
I am sure most, if not all of these people would refer to themselves as 'African Americans', meaning they are of African descendency and only American by location.
Mississippi, I'm the last person in the world to get British and English mixed up, being one but not the other.
The thread though has been about the English identity or lack of. The Scots went through a similar exercise in navel gazing around the time of the first parliament. The question of defining who we were was carried out throughout the media over a period of several months. Funnily enough the main worry seemed to be that the English national identity that you seem to struggle to define, was deemed in Scotland to be so strong that we were in danger of defining ourselves merely in relation to it. By what we were not rather than by what we were.
You can see the temptation; try negatives, define what you're not rather than what you are.
Well, I usually refer to people by their real names, unless of course i either don't know their real name or i'm insulting them or maybe going for humour
Sod it. I pressed the post button before i'd finished, i was replying to shacky actually. I find it a little unreal to call someone by a pen name when i actually know their real one, though i do make exceptions.
Argy, I wasn't really getting worked up about nationality or patriotism, just the authenticity of personal nationality.
I think the program was tackling the word 'multiculturalism' as a brand, investigating why it's a word that's constantly flung about by big companies when they're talking about their aims and policies - multiculturalism the buzz-word, the logo, the trend and the excuse. *Not* multiculturalism as it might be understood to mean when we interpret it generously, or look at how its more sincere advocates conduct themselves.
"You won't find many people in the black or Asian communities who back that kind of thinking - just as it is only a tiny minority of white people who back the BNP."
Scarily, the man they interviewed who called out "Black power!" as the lift doors closed, has a list of titles longer than an ABCTales feud-thread. He seemed to be the chairman of almost every black and Asian interest group in the country. He was constantly twisting what the presenter said, and argued that in mostly black communities there should be mostly black administrators, teachers, dinner ladies, you name it. He echoed many of the things BNP's Nick Griffifth said earlier in the show. He quite clearly saw black and white communities as separate, and what he really stood for was increasing the power of ethnic minorities, *not* equal opportunities.
We were also shown the kind of white people who back the BNP. The presenter (born in India, brought up in Manchester and London,) said "These are not raving lunatics or crazed Nazis. They're the kind of people I'd go to the pub with." And he was right. They were ordinary working class people, often living in poverty, who felt that asylum seekers were being given preference over them. One of them was a black taxi driver who opined something like, "Asian Britains have worked hard to get where they are - now these asylum seekers are undermining all that." They may be a minority now, but if their support for the BNP isn't down to a nasty character trait, what is it down to?
"One of the greatest things about this country is its racial tolerance and its cultural diversity."
But the argument is that both these things are under threat from forcing people to look at each other in broad race terms. Racial tolerance comes, as in Paul's examples, from moments when we recognise what we share. Cultural diversity comes from not asking people to conform to particular ways of behaving. The trend for 'celebrating' different groups of culture, pretending that Indians act one way, Africans another, whites another, forces people to act in a uniform way based on their 'origins'. Ultimately, it doesn't even have anything to do with culture as a whole, but the extreme edges of it.
Re. Bez's point. Yeah, hunting down your origins can be a way of discovering another side of you, but so can taking up sport. When we're hunting for identity, we latch onto all sorts of things, and I'm not sure there's a particular importance in one's ancestral past. My grandfather, for example, was a manual labourer in Derbyshire who had to work every day just to keep himself alive - but that has less to do with *my* identity than knowing I like writing, say. I do feel my roots are in the Midlands, but that's because I was partly brought up there, and lots of people I love are there, not because I was born there and have automatically 'inherited' the culture. Likewise, someone born in India, but brought up in Manchester and London is clearly going to be more English than someone born in England and brought up abroad.
Och, to be quite honest I don't hold with it to any extent - except when there's an opportunity for a bit of fun - you either end up liking people or not and the lattitude and longitude of where they were born or squat now is the least of it.
One disadvantage mind you of being a Scot, and particularly a west coast one. I've just come back from walking the dog and it is absolutely pissing down out there.
I can see that Tony thinks like me; we're probably typical of liberals of a certain age. But the problems Hen points out are real now.
Ironically, it's probably the very success of multiculturalism that has led in places to the notion that if you have a right to express your cultural or racial identity then you also have a right to immerse yourself in it to the exclusion of all else. So I can understand why we allowed the establishment of Muslim schools, for example; but it saddens me to think that there are few if any white faces in these schools. All our kids miss out when they're segregated; but, if we are truly tolerant, we can't force them to mix. That's the present dilemma.
I love that imperfect multi-coloured-swap-shop approach where you see black, white, and Asian kids playing in the school steel band, and all the rest of it, and chikken-tikka burgers on the menu. It upsets to realise that the old Leicestershire-type multiculturalism wasn't, as I'd hoped, the answer to everything, after all.
1 leg,
Feel I should respond, belatedly, to this:
"I have always thought David's politics was that of the dinosaur variety, and he has confirmed it with his history posting above... That view is an old and tired one.. History is far more complex and tentacle like than the simple story/myth:
'White man particularly bad. He take away everything good, now he must pay.'"
I've always had a lot of time for dinosaurs, Brontosaurus is my favourite, but this is not my view at all. I didn't suggest and do not believe that white people, when in positions of power, are particularly any more likely to misuse that power than anyone else.
What I was pointing out, using one, of many, possible examples is that the modern world has been shaped by the actions of big western powers and that the consequences are still relevant today for many people living in this country.
The opportunities you can access, the environment you're born into and the way you are perceived by those around you is and will always be fundamentally influenced by what has gone before.
The issue is not about whether the white man should pay. It's that, taking this specific instance, that many young people from african and caribbean backgrounds have paid, do pay and will continue paying for our historical past and more importantly, the way it impacts on the present.
But this is book, not a discussion thread, and I'm not the person to write it.
"I have to say that the Third World Countries who bought into this myth at the time of their independence and beyond are still those lagging behind in almost every aspect of nationhood in the modern world . Those who accepted that they were where they were as a result of the invidious nature of history and took responsibility for their fate, have moved on... spectacularly in some cases."
I thought I was meant the one dealing in myths and simplicity. The reasons for the success and failure of post-colonial states is also series of books.
I agree that many early post-colonial leaders tapped into the historical anger of their populations in order to sustain themselves at the head of shambolic kleptocracies.
Many also suffered from being used as pawns by either side (or both) in the cold war.
Just to add: I'm from Liverpool originally, so I'd rather not delve too much into my ancestry and origins, lest I find connections with the slave trade; thanks all the same, Bez.
Hen's right about identity, it should be about the here and now, what you're good at, who you love, where you love, what you love.
People will always claim origins will help them understand more about themselves. A lot of the time, origins are just a way to make people feel more cool or interesting: hence this huge English obsession with Irish roots, and the Americans are worse: they actually CALL themselves Irish if their surname is Kelly.
There's nothing inherently evil, here. Just a bit sad.
Isn't the point that everyone is a person and can contribute to society. The problem comes when we're pigeonholed. People are people, some are nasty some nice - doesn't matter whether you're black white or indifferent
""One of the greatest things about this country is its racial tolerance and its cultural diversity."
But the argument is that both these things are under threat from forcing people to look at each other in broad race terms."
I'm not clear who is forcing who to look at people in broad race terms.
I'm also not clear who's stopping Karl from writing about football and fish&chips if he wants to.
I'd like to read poems about how white English people feel to be white English, in fact, I might even write one myself.
I don't see any reason why this should be connected to racism and supporting the BNP.
I think the issues that course the rise of the likes of the BNP are more to do with class, poverty and political inadequacy than any deep, rooted racism. But I'd need to write a very long post to explain that properly.
I'm having difficulty unpicking this series of interlocking comments about what "multiculturalism" is.
I think I can see it as a "brand", or perhaps a new word with a new meaning rather "community", hardly a new word but re-branded as it were, given a new conceptual meaning in the 1970s, following the popularity of the use of the word "commune" [1960s, as in Hippie]. As a new word, "multiculturalism" has its own hierarchy of linguistic meanings and associations, which we resist, because we ("we" being people who are likely to have encountered the idea of multiculturalism, and people who look at ABC) dislike being told what to think; and clearly the people who have responded to the thread very much dislike being told what to think and will resist it with their last breath.
I work in a Yorkshire city and like Tony, I've lived in "exclusively white" parts and "some of the most multicultural parts" of Britain. I frequently hear unthinking racist comments, automatic like swearing, and I try to challenge them. It's a norms and values thing (psychology). People in their "communities" have certain norms that are reinforced within that social circle of family and friends, and in order to be "in" they all back each other up (group psychology). Many of the families I work with are poor, unemployed, socially excluded, vulnerable people. Many are also white british, living next door to a refugee or asylum seeker family who has been rehoused in their street because it's a rough area. I was stopped in the street once by an Asian man who lived in the street, told me all about the nasty goings-on there, the drug-dealing, violence, vandalism, noise. Racism was way down his list.
In that part of the city where I work, many people feel threatened by "them". Any outsider or agency that could affect them, and the top of the list is the Council, followed by social workers. There's also the amorphous mass of "foreigners", "taking our jobs" or "sponging".
I reckon that in ten years time the area where I work will be well on its way to being genuinely multi-cultural. I think we've reached the bottom and the only way is up.
David, you say:
"I'm not clear who is forcing who to look at people in broad race terms."
No one's *forcing* anyone to, but the influence of multi-culturalism is obviously taking its toll on you: "I'd like to read poems about how white English people feel to be white English, in fact, I might even write one myself."
Come on, David. The best poems are always the ones that about being a human being, not about being white, black, from Milton Keynes, depressed, a bricklayer, vengeful, or drunk. Sure, those things can go in, a bit of context (I prepare implicitness rather than heavy-handedness, Blur's crappest songs were about s and v crisps, sugary tea and a night down the dogs. There's NOTHING racist about them, just a whiff of pathos.)
This desire to connect with people on a human level is what can bring everyone together. Not, as Hen points out, inadvertently promoting differences and putting up barriers.
Another thought: Damon Allbran (see what I did?!) from Blur used to say: "Our culture is under siege" which was oft interpreted as St-George-flag-flying-shitheadedness, and even racist.
First, he was on about the invasion of American culture (or so he claimed) but the real point is this: Multiculturalism as a concept has caused many backlashes of this kind. It reinforces the idea that we have a culture to protect in the first place (I mean, do we F**K! Culture's just a load of false impressions and disfunctional baggage) - the only thing that is sacred is the experience of being alive and interacting with others who are too.
Another example: wife swap this week. That embarrassment of a scouser reckoned:
Everyone in Liverpool goes down the footie, it's what they do. (False.)
Everyone in the North drinks too much, down South it's a different story (Couldn't be more wrong.)
In Liverpool, not watching the telly during meals is sacrilege (What??!!)
People calling their own experiences "culture". We've become culture-obsessed and it's making people embrace their own perceived cultures and shutting out others. I was seduced by Hen's argument, but now I'm convinced. There's throw multi-culturalism on the fire!
As Kiesklowski (filmmaker, possibly mis-spelt) once said: "I realised I didn't give a shi.t about society anymore; only the individual."
"Come on, David. The best poems are always the ones that about being a human being, not about being white, black, from Milton Keynes, depressed, a bricklayer, vengeful, or drunk."
Don't what this means. I don't except there is such thing as 'being a human being' that exists in as an abstract outside human experiences and the experience of one human is fundamentally different from another.
I often write poems about being a skinny, nerd with limited coversational skills - this is a particular grouping that some people are included in and others are excluded from.
Many poets write about being poets, which also fits into the category.
Why are poems that explore the human condition by exploring what it means to be black or white, any less about what it means to be a human being.
If remove your world view and your life experience, what do you have left to write about and more importantly, why does connecting with people on a human level necessarily involve pretending that we're all the same?
Missi - I'm not contradicting myself. You misunderstand me.
"It's not rubbish at all, this 'I was born in England so that makes me English' is the biggest load of old cock I've ever heard. I suppose the baby born on an airliner a few weeks ago is a bird by your definition (or maybe a plane)."
Both ideas are rubbish. Being English has nothing to do with being born in England, and it has nothing to do with having English ancestry. It's about where you grew up, where you think of as home, what cultural surroundings suit you. If you've spent most of your life in England, you're probably an Englishman.
Consider this:
The presenter of 'Disunited Kingdom' was born in India. He almost certainly had Indian ancestry.
According to Shack's logic, this man is an Indian. According to Missi's, he is an Indian. But this man spoke with a London accent, behaved exactly as any member of my family would, and said he felt his home was England. He did nothing in a way that seemed unfamiliar or foreign. Not knowing his background, no one unprejudiced would doubt that this man was English.
So why do these details change what he is? Do you mean to say, Shack, that if your parents took you aside one day and said, "To tell the truth, we were holidaying in France when you were born," you'd immediately reclassify yourself a Frenchman? And, Missi, to reiterate an earlier point - do you mean to say there's no such thing as a white American, just because their ancestors didn't always live in America?
In fact, Missi, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, there's no such thing as nationality, since our ancestors presumably, at some point, lived in the sea.
Nationality is about where you feel you belong.
Pages