|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 8, 2019 19:06:35 GMT
I think the MP was wrong because he made a churlish remark directed at a specific individual who was only trying to help, but in fairness to him it should be said that the phrase "white saviour" is a well-established phrase for a type of narrative which presents blacks as helpless victims needing to have all their problems solved by a white hero (and/or in which the blacks are simply presented as backdrop to the white hero's moral development): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_savior(The choice of HEART OF DARKNESS is a bit odd, since the whole point of the story is that Kurtz starts out seeing himself as a "white saviour" but is corrupted by the power he has assumed over the natives "for their own good".) It is necessary to be cautious in this regard when celebrating (for example) the genuine achievements of missionaries. I greatly revere Bishop Joseph Shanahan, but it is necessary to recall that his story is also the story of the Ibos' response to and participation in their own evangelisation, and I would like to know a bit more about what present-day Nigerians think of the missionary enterprise. A nice example of how "white saviour" can be overdone appeared on the BBC website recently. They published an article on the film THE MATRIX, arguing that it hasn't worn very well over time, and amongst other things they referred to the character played by Keanu Reeves as a "white saviour". They subsequently put up an apology after it was pointed out to them that Keanu Reeves is partially descended from Native Hawaiians. Perhaps a better approach, rather than tying ourselves up in such knots, would be to look past skin colour entirely-- which is what we are repeatedly told is the ideal? Because that's not really possible when you're dealing specifically with inter-racial relationships. Pretending racism doesn't exist is no more fruitful than seeing it everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 10, 2019 9:18:35 GMT
Perhaps a better approach, rather than tying ourselves up in such knots, would be to look past skin colour entirely-- which is what we are repeatedly told is the ideal? Because that's not really possible when you're dealing specifically with inter-racial relationships. Pretending racism doesn't exist is no more fruitful than seeing it everywhere. I'm not saying we should pretend racism doesn't exist. I'm saying it should be considered race-baiting to make an issue of skin colour where it's not absolutely, incontrovertibly relevant. It should be called out every time. It should also be considered racist to use "white" in a derogatory way (although as a defender of free speech I think anyone should be allowed to say such things-- but it should be called what it is). The double standard whereby the same people who claim to want to make race a non-issue can't stop bringing it up at every opportunity has to be highlighted and ridiculed, relentlessly.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 11, 2019 15:58:20 GMT
I came across this picture on Facebook. I assume it's authentic. It's all too illustrative! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 11, 2019 18:37:34 GMT
I came across this picture on Facebook. I assume it's authentic. It's all too illustrative! I don't think that's racist considering the person holding it up is white. Ageist and misandrist perhaps, but racist no.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 12, 2019 10:32:30 GMT
I came across this picture on Facebook. I assume it's authentic. It's all too illustrative! I don't think that's racist considering the person holding it up is white. Ageist and misandrist perhaps, but racist no. But if you judge a statement on the basis of the skin colour of the person uttering it, isn't that the very thing we are supposed to be avoiding? Meanwhile, Sir Roger Scruton has been removed from a UK government commission on housing for comments which have nothing to do with housing. Saying that one Chinese person is a replica of the next is obviously a bit rude, but I imagine he was speaking in broad terms. Now he "invokes the language of white supremacists", according to Labour's Shadow Secretary for Women and Equalities. Again, PC attacks are generally roundabout and indirect...she would not call Roger Scruton a white supremacist because that would be patently false, and also libellous. It's always "using the language", "dangerously close to", "reminiscent of such-and-such"...
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Apr 12, 2019 12:31:29 GMT
I came across this picture on Facebook. I assume it's authentic. It's all too illustrative! I don't think that's racist considering the person holding it up is white. Ageist and misandrist perhaps, but racist no. It is certainly racist as the person holding it has specifically targeted 'white' people (even though it is a subset of white people). If that lady was conducting an interview and the offer of a job came down to 2 applicants with the same aptitudes for the job, one a 65 year old white man and one a 65 year old black man, we have got to presume on the basis of her placard, that the white man will be her less favoured candidate.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 12, 2019 18:16:46 GMT
I don't think that's racist considering the person holding it up is white. Ageist and misandrist perhaps, but racist no. But if you judge a statement on the basis of the skin colour of the person uttering it, isn't that the very thing we are supposed to be avoiding? Meanwhile, Sir Roger Scruton has been removed from a UK government commission on housing for comments which have nothing to do with housing. Saying that one Chinese person is a replica of the next is obviously a bit rude, but I imagine he was speaking in broad terms. Now he "invokes the language of white supremacists", according to Labour's Shadow Secretary for Women and Equalities. Again, PC attacks are generally roundabout and indirect...she would not call Roger Scruton a white supremacist because that would be patently false, and also libellous. It's always "using the language", "dangerously close to", "reminiscent of such-and-such"... Post retracted as I misrepresented Dr. Scruton's position. Mea culpa.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 12, 2019 20:46:12 GMT
Scruton has stated fairly clearly (citing a full text of the interview) that his statements were deliberately edited to present him as a racist. What he said was that the Chinese dictatorship was trying to turn its citizens into mass-produced replicas - this is true of many dictatorships in different parts of the world - and he gave as an example the mass incarceration of Uighurs who are being forced to repudiate their religious and cultural identity. The Uighurs, incidentally, are Muslims and the Christchurch murderer, may his name be blotted out, expressly praised the Chinese dictatorship for this tyranny against Muslims in his vile manifesto and said other countries should imitate their example. Does that make his attitude superior to Scruton, eh? It is also fairly clear that his remarks about Islamophobia do not mean that he denies the existence of anti-Muslim prejudice, but that he thinks the term Islamophobia is excessively vague and is used to suppress even legitimate criticism of Islam. (BTW I can think of some old-style Catholic apologists who used "anti-Catholicism" in the same way.) Rod Dreher gives some examples of this from his own experience, and links to a Muslim commentator supporting Scruton on this point and to a video of Scruton engaging in respectful dialogue with a Muslim philosopher. Personally, I don't like Scruton - I think his Kantian pseudo-Anglicanism is creepy and evasive - but he has definitely been done an injustice here. www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/islamophobia-roger-scruton/blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/roger-scruton-an-apology-for-thinking/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 12, 2019 20:52:40 GMT
Similarly, he did not state the replacement theory (i.e. that Jews are conspiring to replace the indigenous inhabitants of European countries with migrants); he said that many Hungarian Jews, for legitimate historical reasons, look on nationalism with suspicion as inherently anti-semitic and therefore suspect Orban of anti-semitism. He did not state that all Orban's opponents were Jews or that the opposition is controlled by Jews. He also states that he tried personally to persuade Orban to abandon some of his anti-Soros measures, and recalls Soros' role in opposing the former communist dictatorship in Hungary.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 12, 2019 21:00:55 GMT
Similarly, he did not state the replacement theory (i.e. that Jews are conspiring to replace the indigenous inhabitants of European countries with migrants); he said that many Hungarian Jews, for legitimate historical reasons, look on nationalism with suspicion as inherently anti-semitic and therefore suspect Orban of anti-semitism. He did not state that all Orban's opponents were Jews or that the opposition is controlled by Jews. He also states that he tried personally to persuade Orban to abandon some of his anti-Soros measures, and recalls Soros' role in opposing the former communist dictatorship in Hungary. By the replacement theory, I was referring to his comment on "the sudden invasion of huge tribes of Muslims", though in hindsight I admit that I jumped to conclusions too quickly. I'm not sure that the replacement theory is in and of itself anti-semitic, though it certainly can be. Unless Judaism is brought in either explicitly of implicitly, I tend not to associate it with anti-semitism.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 12, 2019 21:53:34 GMT
The replacement theory is a conspiracy theory, though the conspirators are not necessarily seen as Jews (though they often are - the nazis at Charlottesville were chanting "Jews will not replace it"). They can be seen as native capitalists who are cutting off the branch they sit on in their pursuit of short-term profit. I know of quite a few examples of Irish Protestant populists in the late C18 and C19 putting forward a similar theory - that is, they complained that Protestant landlords and employers were favouring Catholic tenants/workers over Protestants because the Catholics, being used to a lower standard of living, were willing to accept lower wages/ higher rents, and that the landlords/employers failed to realise that when all the plebeian Protestants had emigrated, the Protestant elites would be left defenceless before the Catholics. Scruton is not necessarily saying the "invasion" is a deliberate conspiracy, for all I know he may be saying that it is the natural and unplanned result of poverty, unrest and youth unemployment in Islamic countries. BTW here is a nasty example of "replacement theory" concocted by an Israeli far-rightist, who presents it as a conspiracy between European elites and Arab/Islamic states. This example is certainly racist and I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, but it's not anti-semitic in the usual sense: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Ye%27or
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 15, 2019 10:50:52 GMT
What I think we should take from the Scruton example, and indeed the other examples I post here, is that political correctness is not a laudable attempt at sensitivity and inclusivity which occasionally goes too far. It's a battering ram against tradition and freedom, and it's used very deliberately as such by those who push it. We can't afford to be naive about this. I do think it's reached the stage where we should be willing to deliberately offend people to defend the organic traditions of human kind and of our particular societies and languages, to push back against the promoters of PC. Besides, they're not really offended-- it's all sham outrage.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 16, 2019 16:00:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 17, 2019 10:29:36 GMT
A pro-life student group in Aberdeen University is sueing the university because it has been denied affiliation with the Student Association "complete with the benefits and privileges that other societies enjoy." catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/04/17/pro-life-student-group-sues-scottish-university-for-alleged-discrimination/Once again we see "no-platforming" in action. Personally I am opposed to the suppression of seriously-held points of view on grounds of principle. But Catholics and social conservatives should certainly be opposed to it on grounds of self-protection, as well. We can't complain about our freedom of speech, assembly and conscience being suppressed when we have either cheered or remain silent when it happens to others.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 22, 2019 7:46:47 GMT
|
|