Thanks to @Casino_Royale for a nice header. It well articulates many sentiments that most people (including me) would agree with. But let's focus on the main message - that we need more and better dialogue about the subject of racism.
We do. Everyone says this. But do they really mean it? Or is it a piece of motherhood and apple pie deflection? You know, along the lines of the notorious platitude, "the way to prevent affluent people using private schools is to make state schools so good that they don't want to."
Because it seems to me that for those who constantly deride anti-racist campaigners as the "woke brigade" more conversation about racism - indeed any conversation about racism - is precisely what they do not want. It exasperates. It bores. Why? Because in truth they feel the problem is at best wildly exaggerated and at worst a grievance narrative invented by a Left obsessed with identity politics.
Either that or they suspect there is a problem but would prefer to shy away from it since it creates queasiness to consider there might - there just might - be a lingering, deep-seated racist legacy from Empire, Slavery & Colonialism which we need to face up to in order to realize the "colour blind" future that almost everyone (I think sincerely) wishes to see.
So rather than put in the hard yards to confront the issue - which could be difficult and unpleasant but would have a chance of paying real dividends - what they seek to do instead is pretend it isn't there. Not so much "let's talk about racism" - it's "let's talk about anything except racism." The desire is to close the subject down. Cards used - invention, extrapolation, deflection, ridicule.
We see it time and time again on here.
The reaction to a statue of a slaver coming down? - The evergreen "Oh FFS what's next?" plus a cry of "Mob rule, lock em up!"
To the N word removed from a TV show? - "Oh FFS, what's next?" plus "How come Kanye West can say it? It's not fair! No consistency!"
To an anti-racist # of Black Lives Matter - "Yeah, so how come they don't talk about all the blacks killing other blacks?"
In other words - long story short - I like the message of more dialogue on racism in this header but I question the good faith of those on here who are probably applauding it the most strongly. Since they are the very people who in practice demonstrate to me the opposite tendency.
Perhaps there's many issues relating to race in the modern world you prefer not to discuss ?
So you keep retreating to your 18th century comfort zone.
Please start such a discussion. I will be pleased to contribute.
Well CR already has but I've also made comments today about the issue and how it affected by class, housing affordability, the specific inequality issues areas of large Afro-Caribbean communities have and what the consequences covid might be.
You'll find them timed at 10:56, 11:18, 11:34 and 11:38.
You make some good and interesting points about class and exploitation.
But since your thrust is to argue that racism is - relatively speaking - not a material factor in this I don't know what you meant by suggesting that I wish to avoid discussing "many issues relating to race in the modern world."
You would have to float one or two and see if I avoid responding.
Well here goes:
How are Afro-Caribbean people affected by racism in comparison with those of African background or those of Asian background (Asian generally or type of Asian if more detail is wanted) ?
Are people who migrate more or less successful if they congregate within an immigrant community or if they disperse into the wider community ? Does this also apply to subsequent generations of that immigrant community ? Does the location of the immigrant community matter - expensive cities or cheaper towns ?
Is gender equality driven by racism ? White middle class men giving jobs to white middle class women in preference to black working class men.
Is racism fundamentally tolerated by the urban middle class because of the economic necessity of having an easily exploited workforce ?
OK. So in order -
1. Interesting question. To what extent is (say) black and muslim underachievement due to them facing greater racism than other groups, as opposed to them being (for whatever reason) less able to rise above it and succeed regardless? I think it's mainly down to racism but it's complex because the one affects the other and you can get a vicious circle. For example, the more you are knocked back, the more likely you are to stop trying. You can also get virtuous circles and these are what we want to get going.
2. Another interesting question. Does an determined attempt to integrate into the host society pay dividends for incomers and their descendants? My strong sense would be yes. Yes it does. Therefore such integration - especially English language skills - should be encouraged whilst maintaining respect for difference. Carrot not stick.
3. No. Gender equality is not driven by racism. That (imo) is you overthinking it and stretching for a conclusion you quite like. Gender equality in the workplace - which we do not yet have btw - is driven by feminist activism over the years and by straightforward economic necessity. If we do not fully utilize the talents of women we will fall behind places that do. Look at some parts of the muslim world to see what a drag - in both senses of the word - the exclusion of women from "man's important work" is.
4. No. Racism is not specifically or especially tolerated by the urban middle class because of the economic necessity of having an easily exploited workforce. If we want to go big picture, I'd suggest that unfettered capitalism will always lead to mass exploitation and that those exploited will (for many reasons, including the legacy of colonialism) contain a disproportionate proportion of people who are other than white.
EDIT - See? I'm discussing this stuff with you.
One other possibility is that race is not the crucial factor, but class. Working class Blacks, Whites and Asians get screwed. Middle class Blacks, Whites and Asians do all right.
I think that's generally right but location affects that.
A working class person can start with nothing but through hard work and self-improvement can earn £30k.
In some parts of the country that means you can buy a house and start accumulating wealth.
Does not justify England's governments current attitude or the Scottish Government meekly accepting it.
There is no England government. Which is part of the problem.
Technically you are correct.
In practice, it feels like the "Provinces" have been given their Assemblies and Westminster governs for England. What is good for England is good for the UK, so to speak.
No, as there are still Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs at Westminster.
Personally I have no problem with an English Parliament
Technically you are also correct. But it does not feel like that.
When are you going to grasp the fact that for Ordinary Joe/Joanne, perception is everything and facts are a long way down the list...
The facts are there is a UK Parliament at Westminster, a Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff Bay and a Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont but no English Parliament or Assembly.
As for perception 41% of English voters and 52% of Leave voters do indeed want an English Parliament
Covid has demonstrated very starkly that in so many areas the Westminster government only governs England. Most notably, Hancock is England's Secretary of State for Health.
The surest route to Scottish independence is to give the English a vote on it.
Feck all to do with them, if they want to be independent then they should have an England vote. Scottish independence is purely for Scotland to decide.
Why is that? I say we give the English a vote on getting rid of you.
They can vote to go their own way if they have the cojones, I doubt it they will not want to lose our funding of their follies. They will never do it.
Comments
A working class person can start with nothing but through hard work and self-improvement can earn £30k.
In some parts of the country that means you can buy a house and start accumulating wealth.
But not in Hackney and Lambeth.