Gordon Brown's mask slips "she's a very bigoted woman"

[purdyamos]

OK, my response is that I've tried on many occasions discussing matters related to immigration and specific groups in the past. What often happens is that those on the far right pick up the ball and run with their own skewed agenda, and those on the left often react with knee-jerk polarised responses that deny that there is any kind of concern at all. My observation would be that it's very difficult to discuss certain issues in the reasonable middle ground, because there is such a centrifugal pull in our culture towards one 'side' or the other. generally I haven't let that stop me, but it does confuse people because they can't shove me in the easy-label box.

 

I've been called right wing by the left, PC by the right, and racist by the fundamentalists even when all the links I've provided have been from within the relevant community. No-one has succeeded in shutting me up, I've never had a post removed apart from when I posted when I was very ill, and the overwhelming majority of people can see that when I have posted something that touches on issues like immigration or matters ethnic it is not driven by gut prejudice but an reasoned and informed overview of that particular topic. Even those who disagree with me generally respect my opinion because they know it's not visceral scapegoating. I don't have a one size fits all opinion on 'immigration' because 'immigration' covers so many different categories of people and reasons for being here that it's a functionally meaningless term unless someone either just hates outsiders full stop, or is in complete denial that there might be any issues pertaining. Again, it's polarization.

 

As it happens I well understand the dynamics of communities feeling suspicious of outsiders, it's a deep tribal response hardwired in human nature, but that doesn't mean that the fears people perceive are automatically true. Neither does it encourage the imagination to weigh up how a situation might be worse with the perceived problem removed (as in stripping the NHS of foreign workers or the fields of migrant pickers).

 

It's no good chastising any of us for 'attempted put downs' against Milford when he himself has thrown about 'attempted put downs' himself. It's Saturday night and the thought of Phanerothyme in a Cath Kidston apron was too good to keep the Zippy mouth closed.

[DragonofAna]

Nicely written purdyamos but it does not actually answer Milford's question.

 

Simples - why is it always alright to slag off the British in ways that would be viewed offensive if aimed at any other race/nation/people?

[1ofTheseDays]

You're a nincompoop if you can't see the contradictions in your own posts I'm afraid. Everyone else seems able to, but you.

 

Why dont you just answer him?

[1ofTheseDays]

Really? It appears the BBC would beg to differ..

 

However, in true British tradition, they also chose to elaborate sophisticated and intellectual arguments to justify and explain their rule.

 

On the one hand, Whigs and Liberals expounded sentiments most iconically expressed by TB Macaulay in 1833: 'that... by good government we may educate our subjects into a capacity for better government, that, having become instructed in European knowledge, they may, in some future age, demand European institutions. Whether such a day will ever come I know not. ... Whenever it comes, it will be the proudest day in English history.'

 

Link to the full article here:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/independence1947_01.shtml

 

So do you still think that the British didn't argue that the Indians weren't fit to govern themselves or is the BBC just lying and making stuff up?

 

Their obvious response to to this will be that the British imposed themselves on other countries, but yet we moan about inward immigration into this country.

 

But at the end of the day, the British Empire is history.

[Phanerothyme]

Nicely written purdyamos but it does not actually answer Milford's question.

 

Simples - why is it always alright to slag off the British in ways that would be viewed offensive if aimed at any other race/nation/people?

 

Is it always all right? Wrapped up in the question is an assumption that simply doesn't hold up.

[Phanerothyme]

Why dont you just answer him?

 

Because milford hasn't asked me anything, they only agreed that no debate is being shut down here, in spite of their claims. And then proceeded to include me in their crass generalisations.

[mj.scuba]

Went to the pub on Wednesday evening, the day of "Bigotgate", so when the news appeared on the big screen after the footie, it brought up the topic in conversation. The folk I went to the pub with are all lifelong Labour voters, about half said they would not vote Labour this time, partly due to "Bigotgate" and the fact that Labour wanted immigration in order to bring in more Labour voters to keep them in power.

[Br8inend]

You're a nincompoop if you can't see the contradictions in your own posts I'm afraid. Everyone else seems able to, but you.

 

I agree with milford nor can I see the contradiction . Edit the word everyone please. We know the trouble sweeping generalization can cause.

[rubydazzler]

None of the above actually answers the question posed by Milford on this thread. Maybe a new thread is needed for a full and frank discussion?

 

The question was: why do some people, probably influenced by the media they indulge in, seem to think it's fine to make these perjorative remarks about the English, when such comments make about any other section of our society, or indeed the rest of the world, would be met with outrage, burning brands and pitchfork waving (to coin a phrase beloved of our own lefty/righty chatterati)? And probably shedloads of links and web arguments to boot

 

I really feel that this is such a bigoted and prejudiced attitude. Especially as many of the critics actually rely on the existence of such people in order to provide themselves with a livelihood. It's actually in their interests to perpetuate this dependant 'underclass'.

 

(and for the record, there is no way I was referring to you, purdyamos, even at your least incisive you are a protaganist I would fear to engage with, probably because I usually agree with you anyway, and also because in a battle of wits with you, I would find myself woefully unarmed)

[JFKvsNixon]

In answer to Milfords question about the British rule in India, the British went to India for one reason, and that was there was rich pickings to be made. The Dutch where making a fortune and we wanted in on the action. We stayed in India for two reason, money and evangelicalism. We may have tried to morally justify our position there with grand claims of patronage, but the things that rules the world today, ruled the world then. Money and religion. One thing is for sure though, the politicians of the day would not admit to this.

 

In answer to the second question, of course it is wrong for anyone to describe the British as lazy, and I never have.