The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 08:56 PM

What you have just quoted, Don, suggests this to me:

As paranoia and hostility are clearly common aspects of the kind of fear-based psychology that can result in racism, so is any fear of that which is perceived as different, so it wouldn't be at all surprising if a racist attitude also included ancillary aspects such as "prejudice and antagonism towards ........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."

That does not mean, however, that those aspects themselves can be defined as "racism", merely that they may accompany racism.

Racism is hatred based upon race, period. That's what it is, and that's why it's called "racism". The other things in your quoted definition are many other aspects of prejudice which are reasonably likely to be found in the kind of mindset that naturally is inclined to racism.

This is the same as to say that bank robbers (a very specifically definable group of criminals) are also likely to be:

violent (though probably a few of them are not)
antisocial
ammoral
emotionally unstable
hostile
irresponsible
etc.

Fine. But just because someone is ammoral or antisocial or violent or irresponsible does NOT equate to him being a bank robber, does it?

Neither does WAV's defensiveness about the sanctity of English culture equate to him being a racist, because it is NOT based on race at all...it's based on cultural values. It is English cultural values that concern him, as opposed to Scottish cultural values, Irish cultural values, Indian cultural values, Caribbean cultural values, etc. Those are all a question of custom and mindset...not race...not skin color...not hair color...not any physical characteristic of a person whatsoever.

You can perhaps call him a cultural xenophobe if you want. You can say he's prejudiced if you want. You have no justification to call him a racist. The popularity of the word "racist" in popular dialogue these days is more based upon the devastating power of the word itself to utterly damn and fatally wound its target than on anything else, in my opinion, and that is why it comes up so much in the public dialogue.

This is not true of the word "prejudice". WAV, arguably, can be said to be showing prejudice. He is not showing racism.


To triumphantly say to someone "Game, set, and match." is like delivering one of those snappy sound bites that figure so largely in network news and political campaigns these days. It sounds impressive! It holds no actual content. It doesn't prove anything.

Accordingly, you won't find me saying it.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 10:49 PM

There you go again, Little Hawk. Smug and superior. You stick with your definitions, I'll stick with the OED. I'm not trying to "triumph" over anyone or anything, and I'm not the one who's trying to tell people how they have to live, who they can associate with, and what they can sing.

So just leave me out of your analyses. You still don't get it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 11:07 PM

Forget all that Hawk......... He's a bigot and prejudiced with some elements of racism.............Don't care anymore except to note he's still an ass! So..................

I'm heading for the century marker......................vvvrrrrooooooooommmmmm



Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 11:27 PM

"Racism is hatred based upon race, period."

Racism is prejudice based upon race, it is not necessarily hatred. WaV preaches racial prejudice, not racial hatred. He implies, or perhaps we infer, racial hatred, but doesn't literally preach it. One is no more forgiveable than the other in my opinion.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 04:36 AM

...WAV's defensiveness about the sanctity of English culture equate to him being a racist, because it is NOT based on race at all...it's based on cultural values

Bollocks. WAV couldn't give a shit about actual English Culture (something he consistently demonstrates he has no understanding of whatever, which is hardly surprising given that he's a naturalised Australian), instead he has fabricated a fantasy of Our Own Good Culture which is specifically designed to exclude, ignore and oppose the multi-cultural & ethnic realities of England. This is not defensiveness on his part, rather an out and out assault on COMMON TRUTH, consisting as it does of divisive lies voiced in inflammatory polemic in order to promote a political agenda of cultural and ethnic purity as he perceives it. When WAV states that English culture is taking a hammering and when people lose their culture society suffers and English was a more English place 50 years ago he is nailing nailing his racist colours firmly to the mast of his sinking ship. Also - If WAV wasn't a racist, none of this would be an issue, let alone the core purpose of his rancid Life's Work.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 05:03 AM

Why not just say that you disagree with his views on immigration, and explain how you disagree?

I have done, several times. The trouble is, I disagree with his views on immigration precisely because they're racist. Yes, it's a very loaded term, but I don't believe any other term fits (see also Oxford English Dictionary).

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Will Fly
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 06:22 AM

I'll repeat yet again what was posted by many of us earlier up this thread (Franks's words):

this record amount of capitalist/economic immigration (perhaps hoping for the ethnic vote) that many citizens, and wildlife, are now going to pay for

The phrase "perhaps hoping for the ethnic vote" shows me that it's not simple immigration per se that Franks is against - it's the ethnic, i.e. racial difference of the immigrants. Would he use that phrase if the mass of immigrants were, like him, white men from Australia, i.e. from the same ethnic grouping? I doubt it.

And that is why I think that his constant protestations of loving the multicultural world and the like are a smoke-screen - possibly an unconscious one, but who knows - for what are essentially racist views. He also thinks that the promotion of his attitude to culture, especially folk music, which will somehow return us to a wildly inaccurate, Good English Culture of a non-existent 1950s Golden Age - and all the rest of his baggage will be "good for humanity". I can put up with this narrow-minded insanity - if he wants to believe it, let him - but I object to him trying to conceal racist views behind this smoke-screen and peddle them on this forum without being challenged.

Good for humanity, eh... Gawd 'elp us.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 06:29 AM

Peregrina (and/or perhaps other thready posters),

Thanks for offering some thought provoking comments.
Just scanning through here and picking up a little smattering of what you say. Though it's tricky to follow the thread of some of the discussion, due to the high volume of postings here.

If you felt like opening a fresh thread specifically targeting some of the key issues that this thread may have sparked. I for one would be interested to view, and question, and listen to some informed responses.

Cheers, Sleepy Rosie

Subject: RE: The endless loop - or is it a mobius strip
From: peregrina
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 01:19 PM

Rosy, I think a thread discussing the substantive issues separately would be a bit of progress!
Whether those who come in here for, apparently, the exclusive purpose of name-calling would actually want to contribute to a constructive discussion, well, who knows?

Subject: mobius strip smoked out
From: peregrina
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 01:25 PM

Oh, and Smokey, you're a guest, but a regular, why not start a thread about some of your musical interests?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: olddude
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 03:21 PM

I said I would not come back to this thread however for some reason I have. It seems to me that this forum is composed mainly of people who have a love for the arts and offer suggestions, share common goals and have strong moral values towards others from all races or cultures. With that in mind, I would say that anyone posting messages that have elements of intolerance towards others will most certainly be taken to task very quickly. As stated by others this is probably not the place to do it. I am sure there are websites that have followers who believe in only a certain culture, or a certain race or a certain political system. In my short time here at mudcat, nearly to the person, most believe that diversity and multiculture values only bring positive aspects to any society. So the responsiblity and the adverse reaction afterwords rests solely on those who create such post on mudcat. In addition, serious and heart felt attempts to show where and how such things are not welcome, to point out how to improve a body of work, are met with resistance.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 04:12 PM

And the fun goes on and on...just like a Celine Dion song.

Well, let's see now.

Don - We both seem to keep thinking that the other is acting "smug" and "superior", while not feeling that we are acting that way at all ourselves. Ironical, isn't it? Maybe we're both just sincerely saying exactly what we think is true. Consider that. Look for something else besides the very worst in my intentions and WAV's intentions, and I will gladly return the favor. I do not think you are smug, or an ass, or anything bad at all. I just think you should not be calling him a "racist". I think you should find a less vicious label to use in its place.

- Smokey - "Racism is prejudice based upon race, it is not necessarily hatred"

You're absolutely right, Smokey. Thanks for that clarification.

"He implies, or perhaps we infer, racial hatred, but doesn't literally preach it. One is no more forgiveable than the other in my opinion."

Everything and anything can be forgivable...provided one has enough insight into another person's origins and personal problems, and also the willingness to forgive. That does not mean everything is justifiable or allowable, however. Think about the difference between those two, and see if you get what I mean.

What happens when you or anyone refuses to forgive someone else for something they said? Anything good? I don't think so. That doesn't mean, however, that you should allow the unjustifiable to be done when you are in a position to prevent it being done.

- Insane Beard - "Bollocks. WAV couldn't give a shit about actual English Culture (something he consistently demonstrates he has no understanding of whatever, which is hardly surprising given that he's a naturalised Australian), instead he has fabricated a fantasy of Our Own Good Culture which is specifically designed to exclude, ignore and oppose the multi-cultural & ethnic realities of England."

Fine. ;-) What WAV does give a shit about, though, is his fabricated fantasy OF English culture...a fantasy which is obviously 100% real to him. You have to remember that it is real to him, and that in his own mind he is defending what he thinks of as English culture. Therefore it makes sense to him. And this is the case with most people, isn't it? Their lives, in a cultural sense, are largely arbitrary, and ARE a fantasy, based upon centuries of similarly arbitrary fantasies held by their forbears. For this they are willing to enlist in a war, go to another country, and kill people who are defending a different set of arbitrary fantasies.

And most of them are completely unware of how ludicrous and unnecessary that is.

*****

I have compassion for people in general. You know why? I know that most of them know as little as I do and are as vulnerable as I am. As such, they deserve a bit of compassion, even if they are not perfect and even if they occasionally say something stupid or something that indicates some form of prejudice.

To quote that famous line from you-know-where: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 24 Nov 08 - 01:05 AM

"Everything and anything can be forgivable...provided one has enough insight into another person's origins and personal problems, and also the willingness to forgive. That does not mean everything is justifiable or allowable, however. Think about the difference between those two, and see if you get what I mean.

What happens when you or anyone refuses to forgive someone else for something they said? Anything good? I don't think so. That doesn't mean, however, that you should allow the unjustifiable to be done when you are in a position to prevent it being done."

Yes Hawk, I do see your point. 'Forgiveable' was a bad choice of word on my part. I should have said "One is no better than the other in my opinion", it would have sufficed, although the difference is nothing to do with the point of my post.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 24 Nov 08 - 01:08 AM

In fact, I should have said "One is no better than the other in my opinion", and avoided the opportunity of spelling forgivable wrong :-)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 24 Nov 08 - 01:31 AM

"Oh, and Smokey, you're a guest, but a regular, why not start a thread about some of your musical interests? "

Because I would probably sound like a grumbling opinionated old git and be quite irritating, Peregrina, though thanks for the encouragement.

---

Continuation thread here (click)