The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:40 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 10:34 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 - 10:32 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: 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: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 10:15 AM

To oppose that sort of thing is natural, and it has nothing to do with racism

I entirely agree. You're describing opposition to immigration on economic grounds - which isn't racist. WAV is expressing opposition to immigration on cultural grounds - which is.

I don't think it's wise or judicious to label other people as "racists"

If someone expresses what I think are Christian or Marxist or Tory views, I'm quite likely to comment that I think they're a Christian or a Marxist or a Tory. WAV has expressed what I think are racist views.

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

Actually, Ruth, people are economically threatened when very large numbers of immigrants from impoverished societies come into a wealthier society and are willing to work jobs at a wretchedly low levels of pay and under wretchedly bad conditions.

That kind of thing has always caused great social stress in any society where it occurred, not just in the UK, but everywhere, and it hurts many people (both locals and immigrants)...but it plays into the hands of the employers and industrialists, because:

1. they want to keep wages down
2. they want cheap labour who will put up with bad working conditions
3. they want to keep a certain number of people unemployed at all times, because that puts the public at their mercy, so to speak, and people will then accept marginal employment, low wages, and bad conditions, because they have no choice.

To oppose that sort of thing is natural, and it has nothing to do with racism (although it often results in a racist reaction setting in amongst some local people who aren't very deep thinkers). It has to do with general human rights and workers rights all over the world.

I think you are just becoming emotionally wedded to your own past arguments on this thread to the extent now that you have to prove it to yourself that WAV is a "racist", otherwise your past argument would be "wrong"! And that would trouble your ego, wouldn't it?

On the other hand, maybe WAV is a diabolically clever closet racist who has deliberately set this entire discussion up just so that Ruth and Little Hawk and various other forum members can disagree over it and end up hating each other! ;-) (and now the paranoia REALLY sets in...OUCH!)

Yeah, well, anything's possible, isn't it? I haven't read enough of this thread to be sure about it one way or another, but I don't think it's wise or judicious to label other people as "racists". I really don't. Not unless you are 100 % sure, and maybe not even then.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Mr Happy
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:47 AM

.............hmmmnnnnnnnn, that's the trouble with having holidays abroad, there's far too many foreigners there!!

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:23 AM

Nicely avoided, WAV. The POINT of my message was that "You do not approve of immigration to the UK because you feel economically threatened by it, and because you are afraid of English culture being damaged or diluted by the presence of other cultures."

By this criteria, using the OED definition, you are a racist. It is not your "questioning of immigration" which makes you so, it is the grounds upon which that questioning is based.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:21 AM

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.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:21 AM

Yes, Pip - but the particular country of origin does NOT matter to me (no need for you to list that few)

Thanks for answering the question. I listed the countries and regions from which most immigrants have come to England, since about 50 years ago, when mass immigration began in your words.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 09:01 AM

"You do not approve of immigration to the UK" (Ruth)...I don't approve of the UK (as mentioned in the "No Football Olympics" below): the UK, The Commonwealth, The EU, etc. should all be dissolved - apart from some local government within nations, all we all need is our own nation and the United Nations. 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.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Paul Burke
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:58 AM

Perhaps everyone who has posted here AGREES on liking our world being multicultural

I really don't think there is any realistic prospect of the world becoming monocultural.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:47 AM

Yes, Pip - but the particular country of origin does NOT matter to me (no need for you to list that few), except to say that genuine asylum seekers should be helped to their NEAREST safe country. And not just "cuturally" but socially as well - I believe the cliche of elders that they used to be able to leave their house-doors open. However, the most important thing is, given all the immigration that has occurred world-wide, what's best from now on - which brings us back to my last Weekly Walkabout, among others, "Global Regulationism."

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:29 AM

"Ruth - as I've said before, you're someone who doesn't like immigration being questioned, so you try and label anyone who does as a bigot or a racist."

I am happy for real dialogue to take place, WAV, but you are not interested in real dialogue. You repeat the same points endlessly; you try to ringfence music and culture; whenever anyone points out the mistakes you've made in your reasoning, or the factual inaccuracies inherent in your attempt to invent a culturally pure version of Englishness, you ignore them or post yet another link to your website.

You do not approve of immigration to the UK because you feel economically threatened by it, and because you are afraid of English culture being damaged or diluted by the presence of other cultures. Read the OED definition again, WAV. Regardless of my own feelings on immigration, the dictionary defines this position as a racist one. Your response is to dismiss the OED definition.

There's only one person who's in denial here.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Joseph P
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:28 AM

I will say this for the last time, forgetting the race issue, forgetting the migration issue, Culture does not equal nationality. This is a fact.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:24 AM

The reason I haven't given up on WAV (yet) is that I don't believe he's a lost cause. It seems obvious to me that he holds views that are grounded in racism; I'm hoping that something that one of us says will make him realise this and reflect on it, rather than taking his usual approach of redefining 'racist' so that it won't apply to him.

I've also got a personal interest, as my wife's parents were both born a long way away & grew up speaking languages other than English. WAV seems to be saying that it would have been better for English culture if my wife's parents had never come here, in which case she would have been born somewhere else and I'd never have met her. Now, I love English culture, but I also love my wife, and I'm personally affronted by the idea that she's alien to it - she's part of it, just as much as I am.

I'm sure WAV will say that he's not thinking of people like my wife, but I can't see on what basis. If you want fewer foreigners to come here, that must mean you think it was a bad thing that so many foreigners have come here. People like my wife's parents.

So, WAV, a simple question, which you can answer in one word. Do you think it would have been better for England, culturally speaking, if immigration from the West Indies, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Uganda had been severely limited?

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

Ruth - as I've said before, you're someone who doesn't like immigration being questioned, so you try and label anyone who does as a bigot or a racist. And, when they give genuine non-racist reasons for doing so, you talk about what's underlying. Further, if you scroll back, this topic came up again when I frankly answered a question on it again, and my responses are somewhat repetative because the questions/accusations are.
Perhaps everyone who has posted here AGREES on liking our world being multicultural - the dispute is over whether trying to have a multiple number of cultures living under the one state law is a good idea, and whether immigration should be more restricted/regulated (I've said via a stronger UN). My concerns are certainly not just over England, by the way, I genuinely don't like moneyed English, Germans, etc. pricing young Spanish couples out of the Spanish property market - and, if I VISIT Spain again as a respectful TOURIST, I'd like another taste of SPANISH culture whilst there, frankly.
"believes that music has border checkpoints"...I believe, IE, there is more-and-more blending of cultures, globalisation, Americanisation; and, as I do like our world being multicultural, I'm at least trying to do something about it - as 50s and 60s folk-club organisers here did when they encouraged/insisted on folks performing music from their own culture.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:07 AM

No offense taken by be no offense meant to you. I'm just asking nicely, make your point once, or ten thousand times, its up to you. You are doing nothing wrong. It just seems tedious to me, and pointless, thats all. It looks like talking to a wall.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: irishenglish
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 08:02 AM

No offense Jack, but its not up to you to tell me to drop the subject. I'll keep trying to prod answers out of WAV, and whether you seek to read the process is up to you.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:56 AM

My last post to any of your threads for any reason at any time.

WAV, I believe you are exactly what I have said and you cloak it in the aura of something else. You say otherwise but I don't believe it.

I'm off your self aggrandizing threads for good.

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:44 AM

Also a valid point Irishenglish, but one I've read a number of times and not just from you. Maybe he just is not interested in your opinion.

He has shared his opinions you all have shared yours with him. I'm not an expert myself, but I'm fairly confident that his musical ability is not such that droves of young musicians will be emulating him and following him like some pied piper of musical values. So maybe its time to let that subject drop as well.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: irishenglish
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 07:16 AM

I prefer to challenge WAV on some of his more outrageous claims of musical issues. He can have all the aboriginal and Native American friends on myspace he wants, but he somehow (because he has never answered this point to me)believes that music has border checkpoints, that there is no cross pollinization, something which I believe Don Firth also pointed out. WAV has what he feels should be the strictest of all rules for English traditional music, yet he ignores the wise advice given to him by professional musicians who have countered his assertions. Again to WAV I quote Dave Swarbrick-you can do anything you want with music, it doesn't mind. That's the policy I stick with when I here such rigidity from the mind of WAV. Enjoy the music, promote it, share it with others. But to govern it WAV? Sorry, but I don't think it needs your type of governance.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 06:16 AM

You're probably right, Jack. I know how pointless these threads are - I keep returning to them in the way you keep prodding a sore tooth with your tongue...

I know that the sensible thing to do is to walk away, because WAV won't ever change his opinions on any of these topics, no matter how many very clever people (I'm not including myself, but referring to some of our esteemed colleagues) present evidence that there is no cultural or historical foundation for many of the beliefs which inform his world view. My instinct is always to confront bigotry, and bigotry is what I see in WAV's views - and while he insists on repeating those views ad infinitum, it is very hard not to challenge them.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:45 AM

Pip Radish
Ruth Archer

You are both making excellent points. I also think that Walkabouts has said some unfortunate things which open him up to your accusations. I don't see what you two are doing as attacks, because they clearly are not meant that way. You are rightfully offended by his words. I don't think it is likely that you will get him to admit to racism though, I don't think he believes that he is racist, which may be understandable, because I am not completely convinced that he is racist. For the purpose of peace and harmony, I would like to respectfully suggest that now might be the time for you two to drop the subject of racism.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:34 AM

>>>Simply stating an opinion that one considers true in even tones is not an attack.

So if I were to observe that Walkabout's calm responses to your constant, yammering, and teasing is making you look like a desperate, screaming, playground bully, you would not perceive that as an attack? Because of course I would never voice such an opinion, even though I hold it, except as an illustration. Because such an attack, if I did voice it, would not hurt you so much as it would the harmony of this forum. I do not have the relish for making extra work for the moderators that some have demonstrated.

Though Spaw, you are not identifiable as the worst upsetter of this little apple-cart we lovingly call the 'Cat. That honor should be held for the "moderator" who abused his (not likely her) position to vandalize this thread. I don't care to speculate on who that might be.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:55 AM

"a few shots at Walky" (Spaw)..well this has become something of a tennis/ping-pong thread...BS, Music, BS...(but I've had an email saying it's back down due to lack of verse, sorry Spaw - the next Weekly Walkabout will not be posted until Saturday...I wonder if we'll wander back up again?!).
As for the "shots" regarding racism, from Pip, Ruth, Spaw, etc., I will always respond as I know myself, and my genuine enjoyment of travelling and being in-among other cultures for a time. However, what Carol just said of me/answered for me is accurate, and I'll leave it at that on this occasion.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:16 AM

Esteemed member? Me? Surely not. Although at one point early on I was enjoying a few shots at Walky, I have since even had posts deleted and have not posted anything attack-like since. Saying he's a racist and a bigot is not an attack. Ruth and Pip and others are not attacking the lad either. Simply stating an opinion that one considers true in even tones is not an attack. Walky says he believes his stuff and I don't feel he's attacking me by saying I am not telling the truth. Its his opinion.

And it was Walky himself who long ago made the subject matter of his poetry the topic of these threads.

228, now ain't that great
I couldn't wait til 228
Later you'll see
Its all about me.

The OCness of Boredom

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 04:01 AM

They did a lot more than keep Blacks and Whites separate. They completely subjugated the indigenous Black population and rendered them effectively captive in their own lands. That's an entirely different kettle of fish than someone saying they'd like to preserve their own culture in the location from which it sprang.

Another thing racists don't do is seek out people of cultures other than their own (because they consider them inferior), unlike the person who started this thread.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:44 AM

racists have universal contempt for people and cultures other than their own

Some racists may do, but most don't. Racists divide the world into their own race/ethnicity/culture and other races/ethnicities/cultures, and see other cultures as a threat to their own. Even the white South African government used to proclaim its respect and admiration for black culture - they just thought it was best if black and white cultures were kept separate (which is the meaning of the 'apart' in Apartheid).

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:16 AM

By the way, I notice that someone with moderator powers has altered the contents of the link in the opening post in this thread.

---

Noted and repaired.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:15 AM

I agree that racists definitely couch their racism in that kind of terminology. But racists have universal contempt for people and cultures other than their own. The person who started this thread has expressed appreciation and admiration for many cultures other than his own, many of which are non-white cultures, which are the most hated by racists. For pete sake, just look at his myspace friends...

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=167864750


As I said before, I don't agree with the methods proposed, but wishing to preserve one's own culture is not racism.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 03:00 AM

The BNP supporting a position does not automatically make it racist.

Wanting to preserve one's culture certainly is not. Though racist politicians may use that argument when less palatable ones prove unpopular.

On the other hand, isn't all the talk about racism here an attempt to stop the poetry? Racist talk is banned on the Mudcat. If WalkaboutsVerse says something blatantly racist on this forum, y'all can ask the moderators to delete it. On the other hand, the harmless descriptions of geographical English blandness, seem to be drawing a very high level on hostility. They also seem to be drawing a high number of personal attacks from at least one esteemed member. Its making us all look a little childish.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:26 AM

"The difference is that the thread originator is concerned that English culture will die out (not that other cultures are not as valid as English culture), and the belief is that stopping some kinds of immigration will prevent this from happening. I don't happen to agree with this idea myself, but it's not racist."

The politics of seige have been used in many places to justify bigotry. The "our culture is under threat" chestnut is a favourite of the BNP.

"I love our world being multi-cultural", but not wanting to see any of that multiculturalism in England, is one of the most fundamental tenets of xenophobia: "I don't mind them, as long as they're not over here."

I'm afraid I disagree with you, Carol. I think these views are not only racist, but they are of a particularly nasty variety, as they try and couch themselves under a veneer of acceptability.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 02:20 AM

Its plain to see that what the devil will do with idle hands.

For the sake of peace and harmony on the Mudcat I just wish that more threads were closer to one hundred.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 01:33 AM

I am sure its 220!

220 is right
At this time of night
Later you'll see
Its all about ME!!!

The OCness of Boredom


Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 11:32 PM

I don't think it's racism either. The desire is to preserve English culture in England. An appreciation for other cultures has been expressed by the one articulating this desire numerous times. The difference is that the thread originator is concerned that English culture will die out (not that other cultures are not as valid as English culture), and the belief is that stopping some kinds of immigration will prevent this from happening. I don't happen to agree with this idea myself, but it's not racist.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 11:08 PM

walkabout
>>>No, Stu - if someone says immigrants of some particular ethnicity are all like this or that, they may be racist; but questioning the act of immigration itself is certainly NOT.

Pip
>>>if someone says immigrants of some particular ethnicity are all like this or that, they may be racist

But that's exactly what you're saying! You're saying that immigrants of any ethnicity other than English are all alien to English culture and a potential threat to it. You're a racist even by your own arbitrarily limited definition, I'm afraid.<<<

He certainly is not from this quote. What he is saying is that they are not a part of English culture. Which is true. True but not racist.

I find keeping people out to protect English culture a bit daft at this point because modern English culture certainly includes such things as south Asian curry shops. But that alone would qualify as proof as racism.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 10:33 PM

Well, lemme see. "Dipstick" was a cartoon duck in a short-lived comic strip by a local cartoonist in one of the Seattle papers. Dipstick wasn't like Donald Duck. He wore a jacket and what looked like a derby hat, spent most of his time sitting on the end of a dock on the waterfront and commenting on the news of the day. He appeared on the editorial page rather than the regular comic page. He had a sort of semi-human appearing buddy named Cecil Addle (Get it? C. Addle.)

I think he got his name from coming out second best in too many encounters with oil-spills.

Anybody have a good definition for the word "dork?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Aug 08 - 05:38 PM

Good job there Pip!

Now that its been factually and logically decided and determined that Wavyboy is obviously a racist, how about we look up "Dipstick" and/or "Brokedick Jadrool" so that these terms might also be used freely?

That's not an attack. I'm simply hoping and trying to define terms...........

Spaw