BNP ad in Ham & High

[Keef]

I don't have time to check my facts right now, but I am pretty sure the term "wog" band from gollywog dolls which were popular toys once upon a time with black faces.

[Brendan]

Words come and go and their meanings and uses change over time and sometimes end up significantly different to what they originally were. The important thing is what the intention of the person using the word is. Some common sense needs to be applied. We all know which words offend and which don?t. Some of their origins may have been relatively innocuous and some not but that doesn?t change what they mean to us today.

Keef I think the dolls were called Golliwogs because they had a black face not the other way around.

[*Bob*]

There's no such thing as a word you can't use. It's usage and application which is the defining factor.

I've seen two things on the box in the last week alone in which the word 'nigger' was used, and neither was (ultimately) offensive, derogatory, or a rap record.

On the BNP issue: Liberal democracies (like ours) need their BNPs - and we need them to be visible.

The more visible the better.

[SteveT]

seanmcG wrote:-the next unusable word on the horizon (tribal, for reference)

The word racism and tribalism are quite close, so I can imagine that becoming offensive to.

seanmcG wrote:-

Which immigrants do you know who want to stop immigration and do you point out to them that you want them out as well?

Are you going to send me back in fact? I need to know! "No sean".

My chinese accupuncturist is convinced "immigration will smash this country" he believes like many others, that politicians have neglected to deal with immigration and it should be stopped.

I was also talking to the chap who sweeps the road (west indian) and he was cursing and blaspheming about letting in so many and was appalled at what was going on.

This is just two people I have recently chatted to.

It is not intended to inflame anyone but there views I feel are worthy of publication.

Nothing has been said about anyone being sent back Sean just stopping immigration is what I here on the street.

Sadly I have unintentionally upset people just by mentioning immigration, how can it be discussed and dealt with if everyone gets heated and defensive(?)

One way of the bnp getting stronger is by ignoring these glaring issues.

I must say I feel reluctant raising future issues because of the irate responses.

[annaj]

Steve, I agree that the debate should be had and everyone should be allowed to express their opinions.

I don't think my post was irrate, heated or defensive.

I simply expressed my opinion and asked a series of questions provoked by your post.

That, as I understand it, is debate.

[SeanMacGabhann]

the term "racist" isn't offensive SteveT - the belief system behind someone who believes other cultures and races to be inferior or "other" is..

Do you not find it suspicious that immigrants themselves want to stop immigration? Now that they've arrived and want to pull the draw bridge up? And what about emigration - should we stop that as well?

By all means bring up topics Steve - you don't usually invite irate responses. But it's fairly obvious from any discussion in any forum (tv, radio etc) on immigration/race does become emotive.. and not just on this forum

[Cassius]

There used to be a processed cheese in Australia called 'Coon'.

[SeanMacGabhann]

on the subject of the use of the N word and it's consequences

Stewart Lee - the N word

[Jeremy]

Don't wish to get personal, SteveT, but I think you're way, way off the mark. Yes of course we all want our own children to do well, but I don't agree with "looking after one's own race" for a second. You're implying that we should give preference to people of our own race, over and above others... in short, you're suggesting that racial discrimination is biological fact. I don't believe that such behaviour is at all natural, or desirable. (In fact, I believe that we are biologically programmed to favour diversity).

Immigrants against immigration? Who are these people? If I were you, I would be quick to point out their hypocrisy. And I don't believe that many immigrants to this country are racist... sure there may be cultural differences which are a barrier to integration, but it's nothing to do with some imaginary natural human inclination to "stick to your own kind".

I agree that we need to keep close checks on immigration to safeguard our economy, but that is absolutely not a racial issue.

[SteveT]

I quite agree annaj I was not referring to your posts as I had not read them at the time of writing.

Having read them they are informative, interesting, and worthy of publication.

Question:- should immigration be (A) stopped or (B)substantially reduced

[Cassius]

On a purely personal and subjective note I have to say that the most openly racist people I have ever come across have been Chinese.

[david_carnell]

Ok Steve. Let's gloss over the whole semantic debate and move on to your other points which, I think, are worth looking at.

Firstly the anecdotal evidence of two of your friends (The acupuncturist and the street-sweeper) cannot be anything more than that - an anecdote. They do not and cannot be seen to represent the wider view of their communities. It's too small a sample and none of us know the context.

Secondly the idea of "stopping immigration". I presume we can continue to accept asylum seekers under UN charter? These people are ineligible for work and so cannot be scapegoated as "scroungers" or any other term that is oftern bandied about. I'm guessing you're referring to economic migrants - those who come to Britain to look for better paid jobs than they can get in their home country. A better way of life so to speak.

IMO they have had a positive effect on this country. I like living in a multi-cultural society and neighbourhood. I believe that they (economic migrants) fulfill a vital role in filling jobs that 'native' workers either cannot or will not do. As we move away from an industrial to a technological and service-based society large numbers of low skilled workers are actually essential.

I do no believe they pupt undue pressure on local resources. The idea that if you removed migrants from the equation you could get a hospital appointment quicker is naieve. It ignores the fact that your doctor, nurse and orderly are all likely to be from the four corners of the globe.

Nor do I accept that Britain is "full". London is actually one of the least densely populated capitals in the west. Trying to put a finite number on population is foolhardy and impossible to regulate.

Unfortunately my opinion would be elctoral suicide if it was espoused by a major party. Popular opinion is against me. Hence we have a battle between the two main parties to appear 'tough' on immigration. A points system has been introduced so that only skilled or needed workers will gain easy access to the British jobs market. I think this is actually the reverse of what is needed - unskilled, menial workers to do the low paid jobs that Brits seem to think are below them.

[SeanMacGabhann]

It's a hardy perennial one that SteveT - the DailyMail were banging on about it back in the 40s as well. Should immigration have been stopped then? The answer then would probably be yes but 70 years on, really? How would Britain look compared with the rest of the world now?

When the question is asked do people mean everywhere? Or do they mean the UK?

Interesting site here regarding immigration across the world

Immigrations stats

I think the whole idea and worry about it is becoming increasingly.... not irrelevant - it still has negative and positive impacts... but people being born now would do well to look at the wider world. The world is opening up in ways it never has before and it is more useful to see oneself as a world citizen than that of a specific country IMO

[*Bob*]

Those Asians can be pretty racist. Can't stand the blacks.

Northern Italians are pretty bad as well - mostly about southern Italians, it has to be said.

And don't talk to me about the Spanish and north Africans.

The Greeks and the Turks have had their fair share of issues.

Even Papua New Guinea is rife with tribal warfare.. but only because they haven't encountered The Jews yet, I suppose.

The French are always having a pop at the Belgians.

I don't know who the Belgians don't like. Probably the French. That would seem fair.

The lesson seems to be that whichever country you go to - anywhere in the world - and whatever they look like, there will always be a small but significant percentage of people who don't like someone or other, based on something or other, rightly, wrongly, or a mixture of the two.

[Cassius]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I think the whole idea and worry about it is

> becoming increasingly.... not irrelevant - it

> still has negative and positive impacts... but

> people being born now would do well to look at the

> wider world. The world is opening up in ways it

> never has before and it is more useful to see

> oneself as a world citizen than that of a specific

> country IMO

I see and understand what you are saying here Sean - but how do you explain this concept to someone whose only experience of 'abroad' may be somewhere where they only came across other English people, ate English breakfast in the English cafe, bought a MacDonalds as soon as they got to the airport etc etc. Or to someone who has never been abroad and never will. How does one approach them and sell them 'world citizenship'?

[david_carnell]

Cassius Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I see and understand what you are saying here Sean

> - but how do you explain this concept to someone

> whose only experience of 'abroad' may be somewhere

> where they only came across other English people,

> ate English breakfast in the English cafe, bought

> a MacDonalds as soon as they got to the airport

> etc etc. Or to someone who has never been abroad

> and never will. How does one approach them and

> sell them 'world citizenship'?

I drink Belgian beer in an Irish bar, eat Indian curry on the way home. At home, I sit on my Swedish sofa and watch American T.V shows on my Japanese TV! You use and embrace world culture all the time. Sometimes you just don't realise it.

[Keef]

Just as a matter of interest, a couple of years back I was doing some work that involved working with the asylum seekers team in Greenwich. The manager told me that since the team had started, they had only known of one person who had been refused leave to remain and sent back home. Most asylum seekers are granted indefinite leave to remain and are then entitled to work and claim benefits and all that. For my part, I completely agree with Jeremy's last post. I do think immigration needs to be watched simply because the country must have limits. But that has nothing to do with were anyone is from, or what colour their skin is.

[Cassius]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I drink Belgian beer in an Irish bar, eat Indian

> curry on the way home. At home, I sit on my

> Swedish sofa and watch American T.V shows on my

> Japanese TV! You use and embrace world culture all

> the time. Sometimes you just don't realise it.

And a lot of people don't - they drink bitter (or probably think Carlsberg or Fosters is English anyway - and most of it is brewed here!). A lot of them think foreign food is 'muck' - and IKEA might be big here (if that is where you got your sofa) but there are none in the South West. Try going into a Conservative club in the Midlands or a Working Man's club in the East End and find out how much they embrace world culture.

[david_carnell]

This was in my work inbox this morning:

The Association of Chief Police Officers has rejected claims that the surge in immigration from eastern Europe has fuelled an increase in crime. An ACPO report finds that offending rates among Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians are no higher than in the general population.

So that puts paid to the swan-eating urban myth. I hope.

[Moos]

Tribalism is an interesting concept. I think many people tend to identify with a 'tribe' of sorts (loosely defined as 'people like me' (see below for what I mean by that)) and some also believe whether consciously or subconsciously that their tribe should be given preferential treatment.

I'm not advocating this as a political approach! but I'd like to know whether people agree that this is often true. I think it explains a lot of behaviours in society and in politics.

To take it a step further, I also believe that it's useful to explore and think about concepts like this because it helps us understand our own subconscious drivers. It's arguable that we are all instinctively drawn to prefer people whom we identify as being 'like me'. But because I'm sure we'd all agree it's not OK to act upon this sort of prejudice, I'd also put the case that to recognise your own prejudices is the only way to overcome them.

OK, what do I mean by 'people like me'? It could be as woolly as people who live in a similar area to me, who do a similar sort of job, or who like doing similar things in their spare time. Because of shifts in culture I think this often means that you define yourself differently from (for example) your parents. I'd guess that for my parents' generation (I am mid-30s) it would definitely be about class and possibly about colour.

I'm quite nervous about posting on this thread... here goes.

Edited to replace and 'and' for an 'or'...

[david_carnell]

Couldn't agree more Moos.

Tribalism is alive and well. This board is littered with diffferent groups of people. Some people overlap more than one. Mums; young couples; singletons; boozers; pseudo-intellectuals; nerds; pensioners; Guardian-reading, pinko, wooly, yoghurt-knitting, sandal wearing hippies etc etc

I particularly agree with the "to recognise your own prejudices is the only way to overcome them."

Excellent post.

[annaj]

Don't be nervous Moos, it was a good post.

I made a smiliar point in a previous thread that started off about where to go drinking and finished on personal boundries. Ask SeanMac, he'll explain ;-)

Being drawn to people you identify with for whatever reason, and therefore to an extent being prejudiced against those you don't, is part of human nature. The important thing is how you choose to respond to those feelings and how you behaviour and beliefs are modified by them.

I would also agree that it's only by recognising and acknowledging our prejudices that we can overcome them.

[SteveT]

Question

1. should immigration continue at the present level, and if so why?

2. should it be reduced and to how much?

3. should it be stopped and if so why?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Question

1. should immigration continue at the present level, and if so why? Answer: I have no problem with current levels. I would even extend it to allow non EU citizens and non-Asylum seekers to stay longer (eg Australian/Safrican and US citizens)

2. should it be reduced and to how much? Nope. And no-one will ever be able to come to a sensible answer on "how much" is a good amount

3. should it be stopped and if so why? Nope - answer already given in previous posts

As to the question "how do you explain this concept to someone whose only experience of 'abroad' may be somewhere where they only came across other English people, ate English breakfast in the English cafe, bought a MacDonalds as soon as they got to the airport etc etc. Or to someone who has never been abroad and never will. How does one approach them and sell them 'world citizenship'?"

Why would I approach them? It sounds like I could talk for ever and they would never listen or want to listen. But if they approach me and start telling me how "others" are ruining their country I might tell them to keep schtum as they have, because of their wilfull blindeness to the wider world very little knowledge about the situation and lack the analytical skills to suggest what the real problem is . I have lived out there in the country and even went to the local conservative club once a week for skittles ( I know.. I know...) I was definitely viewed as the "colourful" one - but I was left in no doubt that they were often nice people with very scary views. And they are also a dying breed. The world is moving on and they will be left behind. And it will be their choice

As for the asylum centre in Greenwich - anecdotal it may be but no reason to disbelieve it. So only one asylum applicant was sent back - is this a problem? It's an asylum centre - not a general immigration centre - Would anyone here want to read the circumstances from which those people were fleeing and then send them back? Really? For what gain?

Lastly - building bigger walls doesn't really help the economy does it? Finding after finding shows how immigration helps the economy. Now, immigration does have an impact on some members of indigineous communities viz: salary levels and job security. But then many more jobs are being EXPORTED anyway - and that is the real indicator of where this is all going. To suggest the local economy can be managed by any indigenous country through policy and immigration controls is folly. WItness the whole current crisis as a result of the packaged bad-debts in America and it's knockon effects here

[Keef]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Tribalism is alive and well. This board is littered with diffferent groups of people. Some people overlap more than one. Mums; young couples; singletons; boozers; pseudo-intellectuals; nerds; pensioners; Guardian-reading, pinko, wooly,

> yoghurt-knitting, sandal wearing hippies etc etc

>

> I particularly agree with the "to recognise your own prejudices is the only way to overcome them."

Yep couldn't agree more. Those bloody teetotallers are a bunch of weirdos, but I recognise that as a prejudice on my part, and I'm working on that.