The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:24 AM

An equal opportunity bigot. Doesn't care WHICH country of origin they come from. Some people target specific groups, you see.

Anyway, WAV, are you or aren't you going to answer my questions?

I just thought of another point. YOu say that immigration is ok in instances such as falling in love on holiday. Ok, I agree, but would the grand UN council you want look at cases in such depth?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:32 AM

Little Hawk, let me make myself even clearer: WAV has always denied being a racist becuase, as he says, "Racism is when you say they are all like this or that." Which is a rather peurile and superficial understanding of the concept from someome who claims anthropological qualifications.

Someone recently posted the OED definition of racism, and because he disagreed with it, WAV dismissed it out of hand. My recent attempts to pin WAV down were based on this definition, not on my own views, as you'll see if you examine my posts more closely. Why? Because I think he needs to examine his own views a bit more deeply, and to realise that racism is more subtle and more nuanced than he really understands.

My ego is irrelevant to this particular argument. I don't think anyone has said anything to prove that WAV is not at least xenophobic, and I believe his cultural insularity and paranoia translate to racism.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:34 AM

Objection to immigration on cultural grounds may or may not be racist, depending on to what extent and in what specific regards you are concerned about cultural issues.

Every population in the world has become annoyed or fearful at one time or another over various troubling cultural issues that arose out of immigration. So what? That happens. It happens everywhere. It happens both ways (in the breasts of both locals and immigrants). It doesn't necessarily indicate that people are "racists", it indicates that they are uncomfortable with customs and behaviours that are unfamiliar to them.

For instance, in Canada the following issue has arisen:

Should Sikh police officers in Canada be allowed to wear a turban instead of the standard police headgear while on duty? (I say "yes, sure, if they want to". Many people say "No, because if they want that job they should be willing to wear the normal uniform.")

That's not a "racist" issue, no matter how you stand on it. It's a cultural issue of what people think is right and proper normal behaviour while on the job. To a traditional Sikh, it's improper not to wear his turban. To the average traditional Canadian non-Sikh, it's improper not to wear the normal police headgear.

Neither one is being racist, but they are both clinging to cultural habits that mean something to them.

I simply don't give a damn one way or the other, so my inclination would be to let Sikhs wear turbans while on duty if they want to. I don't see why it matters...but I am more flexible on traditions than most people are.

You see, it's not that I'm necessarily less racist than they are...it's that I cling less rigidly to established tradition, that's all. To cling to traditions and rules and to expect others to do that also does not equate to being a racist...it simply equates to being somewhat inflexible in an emotional and behavioural sense...and most people are like that.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:38 AM

yes, but what you AREN'T saying, Little Hawk, is that the Sikh police officer shouldn't even be there in the first place because his very presence undermines the indigenous culture.

This , unless I am very much mistaken, is WAV's position.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:55 AM

Okay, well, I don't know if that's his position or not, Ruth.

Maybe we should ask him?

I think it's always wise to keep immigration to a country limited to a certain extent...because too much immigration destabilizes a society...the question is to what extent do you limit it? And that's where people always disagree. Imagine what would happen in the USA, for example, if all of Latin American were simply allowed free access? A civil war, that's what would happen. Millions of people would be at each others' throats, and it would become utter chaos.

I think WAV simply feels that there has been too much immigration into the UK in the last few decades. He may be quite right about that. To feel that there has been too much of something does not equate to being against all of it on principle.

You can have too much of anything. (even dachshunds)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 11:03 AM

Because WAV refuses to be too specific about his beliefs (referring us instead to his website), there is bound to be some speculation here, LittleHawk. But my interpretation, after many months, is:

- England was better before immigration because it was "more English".

- Ideally, the immigration to England, largely by groups of Asian and Caribbean people, would not have happened

- Cultures should not be encouraged to mix, because the indigenous culture becomes "diluted" and loses its identity.


These views, to me, constitute racism. Especially as nearly 86% of the population, even today, is still White British - hardly a case of the indigenous culture being "swamped" by foreigners.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 11:11 AM

by the way, once you add in other "white" categories such as Irish, the percentage goes up to 92%.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 12:40 PM

Ruth,

If he was talking only about the influx of Irish and Welsh and Scots, would it be racist then?

I think not. I think it might be some sort of cultural chauvinism, but not racism. And since he is talking about keeping the "nations" of the UK separate, then can you really clearly say that it is purely racism.

By the way this is the definition of racism I use. The issues of wage competition seem tangental to it.

racism


Main Entry:
rac·ism
Pronunciation:
\ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 12:46 PM

Cultural chauvinism is pretty much universal, isn't it? When it passes a certain extreme point, though, then people may characterize it as "racism"...and sometimes that label is appropriate...but more often, it is not.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 12:48 PM

Da ting about newfies is dat haldough dey don't want dere culture polluted dey don't worry cause da weder keeps da himmigunts haway.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 12:49 PM

"One thing needs to be done in the world, and it would permanently solve the problems that arise from economically-inspired immigration (the movement of vast numbers of people from impoverished areas of he world to richer areas of the world).

That one thing would be to provide a decent standard of living and equally good employment opportunities and equally good social justice to people in every part of the world.

That would be the real solution. That would be the enlightened solution.

It hasn't been attempted, however, because humanity is presently disunited, divided against one another, and ruled by various elites of oligarchs, captains of industry and commerce...robber barons who prefer things just the way they are now...so they can get even richer.

And there is your problem, in a nutshell. We need world liberation from the forces presently running the show."...I agree LH - except we need regualtionism NOT liberalism to reduce the inequality within and between nations.

"and I believe his cultural insularity and paranoia translate to racism." ("Ruth")...I've travelled through about 40 countries - on a shoestring, staying among the people and NOT in Hiltons like many so-called "world leaders".

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 12:50 PM

Better believe it. Lard t'underin' Jaysus, hit gets cold and damp over dere in Newfieland!

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:00 PM

I was thinking the same think JtS. French and German are not races but VAV does not want them in England either. I think he has built himself a very small box and thinks the rest of us should live in small boxes as well but I don't think he is necessarily racist.

I do have a question for WAV. I live in the middle of the USA. My ancestors came here from England, Scotland and Germany anywhere from 150 to 350 (or so) years ago. What songs do you think I should sing?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:03 PM

If he was talking only about the influx of Irish and Welsh and Scots, would it be racist then?

Yes. He's saying that only one national/ethnic/cultural group belongs in England, and that the presence of other groups is detrimental to English culture. In other words, he's dividing people into racial groups and saying that those racial groups should stay separate.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:19 PM

I have called him xenophobic as well...use that term if you prefer. It's not any nicer than racism.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:22 PM

No Pip Radish, those are not separate races those are slightly different cultures at most. Though the attitude he expresses does seem extreme. Would an economic refugee from Newcastle be forced to settle in York or Sheffield or would they be allowed all the way to London. And if so, would they not dilute the culture of whatever part of London they settled in?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:28 PM

"small box"!? just after I mentioned my (much enjoyed) travels. And, if I were you, KB in Iowa, I'd probably be into performing Country or Rock music. However, I only listen to those American genres, as well as the chants and drums of Amerindians, because I'm an Englishman.
And Pip, can't you at least accept that I am NOT against any ethnic group - I'm questioning the act of immigration itself.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:34 PM

I meant that you live in a small box. You have demonstrated a willingness to visit other boxes but you want the contents to stay put.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:47 PM

Upthread a bit, WAV says

"I believe the cliche of elders that they used to be able to leave their house-doors open."

When WAV attributes this to immigration, as to his racism and bigotry, what more does anyone need?

I've heard this exact same reason given for "red-lining" neighborhoods!

If WAV does not consider himself to be a racist (and most racists do not), perhaps a large dose of self-examination is in order.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:47 PM

And, if I were you, KB in Iowa, I'd probably be into performing Country or Rock music. Would this apply to anyone from the US who is not of Amerindian ancestry?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:48 PM

...what music fills your Iowa "box", KB?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Stu
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:51 PM

"What songs do you think I should sing?"

I keep asking him the same thing seeing as I have a Welsh mum and English dad.

As is the way with this sort of thing though, why let reality get in the way of a poor argument?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:58 PM

As someone born in Newfoundland the traditional music I grew up with came from the eight corners of the globe so to speak. Our sailors and workers venturing forth and returning home and other sailors visiting our ports brought and spread our music all over the world. My box was the world and modern broadcast media made it even more so.

That's a good thing.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: irishenglish
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:59 PM

I don't know WAV. Country derives from bluegrass, which derives from the balladry of English and Irish music originally, so I guess that simply won't do. Rock derives from blues and country, the blues part of that derives from African music, so I guess that simply won't do either. Wait, jazz-no, that comes from a similar source to blues. Cajun, no that derives from Acadia, so thats out. I've got it! The only musical form us Americans, (and this goes for my Canadian friends as well!) can properly play is Native American music. Oh, but wait a sec. I'm not native american. My ancestry comes from Ireland. Oh crap! I can't play music here because following what WAV said , " many reading this will know as well or better than I the perform-your-own policies of 50s and 60s folk-clubs here" then ANY attempt at my singing anything will be tantamount to neglection of the one, truest form of American indigenous music, that being Native American. So WAV, thanks for clearing that up.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:06 PM

You like me, Stigweard, should perform E. trads plus hymns and, perhaps, have a go at the works of some of our classical composers; further, if you ever visit Beijing, you may, again like me, wish to try Peking duck - apparently some of the Oympic swimmers have done very well on it.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:06 PM

those are not separate races those are slightly different cultures at most

Racism isn't based on biologically real 'races' (not least because there aren't any). There's no Irish 'race', but "dis tick Paddy" jokes are still racist.

can't you at least accept that I am NOT against any ethnic group

That's exactly what I can't accept - because if it were true you wouldn't have the views that you do. If my neighbour told me they wished I'd never moved to their street, I'd conclude that they disliked me - even if they tried to tell me otherwise. If someone says they try to avoid working with Jews, I conclude that they're prejudiced against Jews - even if they say they're not. And if someone says they wish non-English people hadn't come to England, I conclude that they're prejudiced against people with a non-English background *in* England.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:11 PM

Don makes an excellent point:

'Upthread a bit, WAV says

"I believe the cliche of elders that they used to be able to leave their house-doors open."

When WAV attributes this to immigration, as to his racism and bigotry, what more does anyone need?'

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:29 PM

I keep stessing Pip - given all the immigration that has occurred all around the world, what is best FROM NOW ON?; and I'm sure it should be restricted, by the UN, much more than the status quo - including making FUTURE economic/capitalist immigration/emigration illegal. (And the USA could set a good example toward this by ending the Green Card lottery scheme.)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: irishenglish
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:51 PM

WAV, on the one hand you believe,

" And England should continue to accept it's share of genuine asylum seekers, in line with my last post, and some immigration (medical, love/marriage, etc.) but NOT economic/capitalist immigration."

And on the other you believe,

" that genuine asylum seekers should be helped to their NEAREST safe country. And not just "cuturally" but socially as well."

That's a contradiction. So which is it, and what do you mean by the nearest safe country? Haitians should be returned to what, the Dominican Republic? Western Saharans should be returned to...Spa...I mean Moro...oh no, Mauritania, yes thats it. So if I was to venture a guess, I would say you are saying that asylum seekers who have been persecuted for political, religous, or sexual grounds, rather than economic grounds are acceptable. Except when, for some reason (and here's the contradiction) they are not, in which case they should be helped to their nearest safe country, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Keep in mind, I'm only discussing your notions of genuine asylum seekers here, not immigration. You made the distinction, so keep it confined to that. Please, tell me on what possible basis and precedent do you have for thinking the "nearest safe country" is a viable option? Give me an example. It does not seem grounded in any sense of reality. Its a nice notion perhaps, but its not at all likely. What if what you propose as the "nearest safe country" doesn't want asylum seekers. What if the UN deemed that the UK would be the nearest safe country for all the South Ossetians and Georgians left homeless, right now as we speak? What if unspeakable human rights violations were happening in a Commonwealth nation. Wouldn't that make Britain the de facto nearest safe nation?

Also regarding what you said about immigration, what you label economic/capitalist immigration. I'll not even discuss that one, but I find your use of economic/capitalist interesting. Call me crazy, but I've never heard of an immigrant from lets say, Guatemala, consider their act of immigration capitalist. For economic reasons, of course, but capitalist? I can't make a living here in Guatemala, so I'm going to the US for capitalist reasons. Doesn't scan.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:30 PM

"I have called him xenophobic as well...use that term if you prefer. It's not any nicer than racism."

True, Ruth, but you have not called him apoplectic, tandependentious or nihilistic yet, and I, for one, am relieved about that.

Would anyone mind if I attempt to bring dachshunds into the discussion at some point? (anyone except Spaw, that is, but I gather he's boycotting this thread now anyway, so never mind)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:47 PM

When you hear someone say, "I'm not a racist, but—," you know bloody well that they are a racist.

At the university I met exchange students from all over the world, some of whom stayed here after completing their schooling. I got the Arab slant on the Arab-Israeli conflict from a young Egyptian. I first heard sitar music played by Nazir Jairazbhoy one afternoon and saw a sitar for the first time. He later did a record for Ethnic-Folkways. Nazir didn't stay in the U. S. He wanted to work on his musical skills, so he went to where he felt the best sitar teachers were to be found:   London. Deb Das, also from India, had one of the most brilliant minds I've ever encountered. We spent hours talking politics and philosophy. And there were others.

Good friends of my wife's and mine are Hieu, his wife Tang, and their son Long. They're from Vietnam. Hieu is a chef. Brilliant. When he lays out a meal, in addition to being an exquisite adventure in flavors, it is a work of art. We also have a couple of friends from Bali.

In the building in which we live, there are two Chinese (one a doctor, the other a student), a young Belgian woman, and Simon, upstairs, who is from South Africa.

A tiny sampling of the immigrants to this country who have greatly enriched my life.

In fact, I went to broadcasting school with a young man from England. He was working hard to get rid of his English accent and sound like an American announcer. I encouraged him to keep his English accent because it would set him apart and could be a sort of trademark for him.

Almost forgot. I also went to university with a lovely young English girl named Phyllis Brooks. Absolutely charming!

Seattle is a real "melting-pot" of different nationalities and cultures. I feel privileged to live in such a city.

I have traveled, but I have a lot of it right here. I don't have to go "Walkabout."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:53 PM

Don, how many times have I pointed out on this forum that virtually everyone has some racist tendencies?

(That's a rhetorical question.)

Now, how do we decide who is to be called a racist and who is not to be? I'll tell you how. We decide, in our inveterate self-righteousness that WE ourselves are above such criticism...ah, yes, lily-white and spotless in our idealism...but someone else is not...and we call him a "racist".

Let (s)he who is without "sin" cast the first stone. No one here qualifies to do that to another person here in that fashion. That's why I object to it. It's like calling someone a "witch" in Salem.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:49 PM

I dunno, LittleHawk...when someone repeatedly and dogmatically presents their blueprint for a new world order, constantly drawing attention to their writings on the subject and endlessly starting threads so that these very views can be expressed (English instruments, English folk awards, English music etc), they are inviting others to engage with and judge those views. If others find those views dubious, and see within them an inherent racism, why should they not respond accordingly?

That's not the same as crying "racist" every time someone expresses an opinion you don't agree with.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 06:06 PM

given all the immigration that has occurred all around the world, what is best FROM NOW ON?; and I'm sure it should be restricted

You've conceded that you believe less immigration would have been better, so it's not just about FROM NOW ON. I'm sure you don't bear any malice towards actual English people of immigrant stock, but your starting-point is still "you're OK, but I wish you hadn't come here" - or, at the very least,"you're OK, but we don't want any more of your kind here".

You believe immigration should be restricted so that different cultures don't mix. You believe that native cultures shouldn't mix with immigrant cultures, and that native cultures will suffer if they do, and that people's freedom of movement should be restricted so as to stop this happening. You've spelt all this out many times.

What you've never explained is how this viewpoint is compatible with not being a racist. Here's that OED definition, in full this time:

"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, especially those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occasionally in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities."

LH: I'm well aware that I have racist views; I grew up in the 1970s, when a certain level of racism was taken for granted, and you never entirely leave the attitudes you grow up with behind. For that reason, if someone does call me out on a turn of phrase or a way of thinking which they think is racist, I take it seriously and think hard about it. That's all I'm asking WAV to do.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 06:37 PM

". . . virtually everyone has some racist tendencies. . . ."

That is a opinion and a generalization on your part, Little Hawk. But even if true, there are those who do not act on it, nor do they base their political beliefs and social actions and activities on whatever residual racism they may hold. And when and if they do find it in themselves, it becomes a matter for some heavy soul-searching.

There are othes, however, who would have us all act on their racist views.

Even the United Nations!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 06:46 PM

And that sort of thing demands a response.

I don't know who said it, but it's true. "All it takes for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."

'Scuse me for getting my dander up, but them's my sediments!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:01 PM

I understand what you're saying, Don, Ruth, and Pip...

I guess I haven't read enough of WAV's stuff to be sure of what all he is saying. Haven't got time to, actually. Well, maybe in a bit.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:44 PM

I would find it interesting, by the way, to just discuss immigration in a general sense, and see what people think about it.

As things are now in the world, immigration already IS quite restricted. It's not easy in the least to get into most countries as a permanent immigrant. You have to satisfy numerous conditions.

One thing does make it easy, though. If you're rich enough, almost anyone will take you as an immigrant. ;-)

And that is unjust. But it's pragmatic, of course.

Now, here's the basic problem in the world: gross economic inequality. That is the engine that drives millions of people to seek to emigrate. Secondarily, many people wish to emigrate because their countries are dangerous, and their lives are insecure.

THAT is the essential problem.

A real solution to the world's dilemmas does not lie in tinkering with immigration laws, it lies in establishing peace in the international community, and achieving social and economic justice.

The USA today spends over half of the entire world's arms expenditures? To do what? To fight wars on the soil of unfortunate nations, that's what. The UK, Canada, France, Russia, and many other countries also are major participants in arms production and directly or indirectly contributing to maintaining a world at war.

That is the great issue of our time, not our troubles with immigration.

It is the moral bankruptcy of those WITH the most money and power which is destabilizing the whole world, because they are making no serious attempt to achieve either peace or economic and social justice in the world.

Now...if we had peace in the world, and if we had a reasonably good standard of living all over the world, then that in itself would solve the problem of immigration. People would not need to emigrate to secure a safe and prosperous existence, and most would be happy to remain on the land they were born on under that circumstance.

But no nation is seriously addressing that. And therein lies the hypocrisy of our times.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 12:03 AM

Amen to that, Little Hawk!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:11 AM

Everything you've said is spot on, LittleHawk. Sometimes governments stir up immigration (and other) paranoia as a smokescreen to hide the real issues, which are vast.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:43 AM

To IE - genuine asylum seekers should be helped, via the UN, to their NEAREST (particularly in terms of CULTURE) safe country. And the way the world is now, with almost global capitalism, one can say either capitalist or economic immigration/emigration.
To Don - via TV, I've seen terrible ethnic conflict in the USA; and, on my travels, I've also had some friendship from most of those ethnic groups you mention. I'll say it until I'm hoarse - there IS a difference between questioning immigration and being racist.
And, to Pip, I think within a nation there should be assimilation or "blending" as you put it - without losing respect for indigenous cultures.
And the last couple of posts bring us back to capitalism and my last Weekly Walkabout - "Global Regulationism" instead of capitalism.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:07 AM

To avoid polluting the Ian Campbell thread, I'm moving this down here:

From Les in Chorlton:
"As Ruth alludes Ian's sons were singers / guitarist in the mighty UB40 one of the most important bands ever to come out of anywhere. Named after Unemployment Benefit form 40 they wrote and performed music that recorded and damned the Thatcherite policies of the 1980s that condemned millions of people to a life of poverty without work. UB40 are a collection of African-Caribbean and white brummy musicians who more or less created a new musical genre. Although a very long way from TICFG they created music that was exciting and said what needed to be said about the lives of us all and so had a link to the traditional music of this country.



Subject: RE: Ian Campbell to retire
From: Ruth Archer - PM
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:03 AM

Les: just for the record, he has two other sons who weren't in UB40 as well...both have recorded with him.

I knew Ian and Lorna for a while in the early 90s in Birmingham. I didn't know he had moved to Ireland, either.

I remember going to Ian's album launch in Digbeth in around 1992, and their mum, who I think had come down from Scotland specially, singing A Bunch of Thyme. Lovely.


Subject: RE: Ian Campbell to retire
From: WalkaboutsVerse - PM
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:15 AM

Like Ewan MacColl, I think Ian has a great gritty folk voice; but it's a shame if his sons have indeed gone into American pop rather than English folk.

Subject: RE: Ian Campbell to retire
From: Ruth Archer - PM
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:01 AM

" it's a shame if his sons have indeed gone into American pop rather than English folk."

UB40 were an English Reggae band. as the band itself was mixed race, there was no better expression of the musical and cultural values of Birmingham in the 1980s, and they went on to be one of the biggest-selling bands in the world. And they made some brilliant songs.

Only you, WAV, could find this unfortunate.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:18 AM

I respect, rather, Ruth, musicians who are good at their own culture's music (including the late Bob Marley); The Beatles, by the way, even tried talking with American accents.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:29 AM

Well, maybe you could explain to me what their "own culture" was in respect of UB40: they grew up in Balsall Heath in Birmingham, in a very culturally diverse neighbourhood. Their father is a Scot who was living in England. So what was their culture - the one they saw all around them (made up of African Caribbean music, food cultures etc), the folk music their father played, which he wrote while living in England, or the music of his native Scotland, which formed part of their heritage?

See, when you're dealing with real life, WAV, it's not so eay to fit people into little boxes.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 05:44 AM

I'll say it until I'm hoarse - there IS a difference between questioning immigration and being racist.

WAV, nobody here denies that. However, there is no difference between questioning immigration on racist grounds and being racist. I believe the grounds on which you oppose immigration are racist, and I've tried to explain to you why I think that. You seem to be unable to see your arguments as others see them.

I think within a nation there should be assimilation or "blending" as you put it - without losing respect for indigenous cultures.

I didn't use the word 'blending'! One more time:

You believe immigration should be restricted so that different cultures don't mix. You believe that native cultures shouldn't mix with immigrant cultures, and that native cultures will suffer if they do, and that people's freedom of movement should be restricted so as to stop this happening. You've spelt all this out many times.

What you've never explained is how this viewpoint is compatible with not being a racist. Here's that OED definition, in full this time:

"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, especially those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occasionally in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities."

Please quote what I actually write the next time - it'll make it much easier to see what you agree or disagree with.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:02 AM

>>You seem to be unable to see your arguments as others see them.

Pip could that charge be leveled at you? I don't see the racism in his arguments. I see misguided (in my opinion) cultural chauvinism certainly, but not racism.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:14 AM

I dunno, Jack - if you go back over the numerous threads started by WAV which eventually end up being about his cultural isolationism, you'll find that many Mudcatters in recent months have perceived WAV's views exactly as Pip doe.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:43 AM

Is there no room for miscommunication here? It that the Merriam-Webster or the OED definition of racist?





;-D
Will that be the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:47 AM

Whatever. I know what I think, and it's based purely on the views that he has repeatedly expressed.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 06:48 AM

300 !!!!