View previous topic | View next topic

Racism redux

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Dix
1281137.  Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:38 pm Reply with quote

It will probably be the subject of a heated discussion somewhere on the internet :-P

 
barbados
1281142.  Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:03 pm Reply with quote

 
Spud McLaren
1281147.  Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:21 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
And what happens in another 50 years when your current behaviour is considered wrong?
At the age of 110, I hope I'll be big enough to admit it.

However, whilst I'm far from perfect, I think others will have to suffer the opprobrium before I do. Unless the world keeps going in the way it has for the last couple of years, in which case I stand by my decisions.

 
crissdee
1281151.  Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:59 pm Reply with quote

barbados wrote:


Careful barb, 'yorz will be having a funny turn..........

 
'yorz
1281152.  Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:03 pm Reply with quote

Too late. *gets a towel*

 
barbados
1281168.  Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:59 pm Reply with quote

Spud McLaren wrote:
barbados wrote:
And what happens in another 50 years when your current behaviour is considered wrong?
At the age of 110, I hope I'll be big enough to admit it.

However, whilst I'm far from perfect, I think others will have to suffer the opprobrium before I do. Unless the world keeps going in the way it has for the last couple of years, in which case I stand by my decisions.


You appear to have missed the point.

 
Spud McLaren
1281197.  Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:55 am Reply with quote

Appearances can be deceptive.

 
dr.bob
1281495.  Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:06 am Reply with quote

It seems that former Smiths frontman Morrissey has decided to take his career in a slightly different direction......by becoming a massive racist.

Yesterday he released an interview on his own website called There Is A Light That Must Be Switched On. Among the opinions he's decided to express are:

In response to accusations of racism:
Morrissey wrote:
as far as racism goes, the modern Loony Left seem to forget that Hitler was Left wing!


He follows that up with:

Morrissey wrote:
But of course, we are all called racist now, and the word is actually meaningless. Itís just a way of changing the subject. When someone calls you racist, what they are saying is Ēhmm, you actually have a point, and I donít know how to answer it, so perhaps if I distract you by calling you a bigot weíll both forget how enlightened your comment was.Ē


He has quite a bee in his bonnet about Halal slaughter:
Morrissey wrote:
If you have any concern for animal welfare, for example, you cannot possibly vote for either Conservatives or Labour, because both parties support halal slaughter, which, as we all know, is evil. Furthermore, halal slaughter requires certification that can only be given by supporters of ISIS


When asked about politics, he opines:
Morrissey wrote:
There is a new party called For Britain. They have the best approach to animal welfare, whereas no other party even bothers to mention animal welfare. The EU will not protect animals from halal or kosher practice. For Britain seem to say what many British people are currently thinking, which is why the BBC or Channel 4 News will not acknowledge them, because, well, For Britain would change British politics forever Ö and we canít have that!


Wikipedia tells me that "For Britain" is a party formed by people who were thrown out of UKIP for being too racist. It was founded by anti-Islam activist Anne Marie Waters last year and has since won the support of Tommy Robinson, former leader of the English Defence League.

He's got a particular slant on the recent violence in London:

Morrissey wrote:
London is second only to Bangladesh for acid attacks. All of the attacks are non-white, and so they cannot be truthfully addressed by the British government or the Met Police or the BBC because of political correctness.


This is slightly at odds with this BBC article which reports statistics from the Metropolitan Police. They report that, for all acid attacks in London over the last 15 years, 32% of the suspects were White European, while for a further 20% the ethnicity of the assailant was unknown.

Then again, why listen to the Met? I'm sure we can just trust Morrissey since, as he says himself:

Morrissey wrote:
Nothing I say is provocative. They are just facts.

 
cornixt
1281499.  Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:17 am Reply with quote

I don't think anyone has taken Morrissey's political opinions seriously in 30 years. The only publicity he gets these days is for being an arse rather than anything to do with making new good music.

 
Bondee
1281524.  Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:52 pm Reply with quote

You can run anything that Morrissey says through a subtext translation device and you'll always get the same result...

LOOK AT MEEEE!!!

The bloke's a cunt. Always has been, always will. I really don't understand the godlike status that some people hold him in.

 
dr.bob
1281659.  Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:04 am Reply with quote

By the way, if you haven't yet listened to the Radio4 broadcast mentioned in the original post, I'd recommend it. I caught up with it yesterday, and it was full of interesting insights from a variety of people about the background to the speech, and the oratorical devices that Powell used to try and make his racist language more palatable.

It also included an interesting clip from an interview he did with David Frost a few months after the speech. In it, Frost challenged him about the story of the old woman abused by her immigrant neighbours and asked if he had verified if that story was true. Powell's weasely attempt to step around the question spoke volumes.

My favourite bit was the comment from Matthew Parris, who said he knew Powell a bit in his later years. He also said that:

Quote:
I got the very clear impression that he wasn't quite as brilliant as everybody said. He was actually a stupid person's idea of an intelligent person.

 
Brock
1281661.  Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:33 am Reply with quote

Yes, I think it was a very well-balanced and considered programme, sensitively presented by the BBC's media editor Amol Rajan. There were a few rather hysterical voices before the broadcast saying that it shouldn't be transmitted, but I'm glad the BBC went ahead with it. I'd never heard the speech in full before and knew very little about its content or the context in which it was made.

My main gripe was with the actor (Ian McDiarmid) who voiced Powell's words - I think he was trying a bit too hard to imitate his voice, to the point where it started of slip into parody and detract from the content of the speech. But that's a fairly minor criticism.

Incidentally, why has it become known as the "rivers of blood" speech when the words "rivers of blood" appear nowhere in the speech? There is an allusion near the end to Virgil's Aeneid ("I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood"), but it's not particularly significant in the context of the whole speech. Was it a contemporary newspaper headline?

 
dr.bob
1281664.  Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:25 am Reply with quote

That's the impression I got from the discussion in the programme. They mentioned how newspapers like a pithy (preferably hysterical) phrase they can use to summarise a long speech like this. I'd imagine some journalist wrote that Powell talked about "Rivers of Blood", and the name stuck.

 
Brock
1281665.  Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:48 am Reply with quote

It's actually quite misleading, because it suggests that Powell was predicting actual bloodshed in the streets, whereas in fact - as the context makes clear - he was merely trying to convey his own sense of foreboding. But I doubt whether too many people would have picked up on the classical allusion.

 
suze
1281707.  Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:28 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
I'd imagine some journalist wrote that Powell talked about "Rivers of Blood", and the name stuck.


That seems likely, although no one appears to know which journalist used those words. Possibly one of the older members of the press corps, one who was old enough to have heard Winston Churchill say "We are asking the nations of Europe between whom rivers of blood have flowed, to forget the feuds of a thousand years and work for the larger harmonies on which the future depends".

Churchill said those words in a talk on BBC Wireless in 1948. Contrary to what some have claimed since, he was supporting the then-new idea of creating was to become the EU. He actually was asking them to do that, not decrying the idea as impossible. Churchill was probably quoting Thomas Jefferson, who had used the same expression 150 years earlier.

In those days anyone who went to grammar school studied Latin, so it's likely that more recognized the Virgil quote than would today. Even more would have done had he quoted the line in Latin, as he later said that he wished he had done.

Powell himself very much was a Classicist; he had a Double First from Cambridge and was for a time Professor of Greek at the University of Sydney. He did not involve himself in politics while at Cambridge, and had WWII not happened he might well have spent his entire life either in academia or in diplomacy. He was at one point interested in joining the Indian Civil Service, for which reason he also learned Urdu while at Cambridge.

Professor Mary Beard, writing about Powell for the Times Lit

Boris probably reads the Times Lit, and I have little doubt that Enoch Powell did. It's all a bit highbrow for most of the rest of us.

 

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group