Is this racist?

Of course not, but I bet that the usual suspects will claim that it is.

What this demonstrates is that Britain is being racialised by the very people who claim to be doing the opposite through "positive" discrimination. Because these non-white groups are being recognised and given powers because of their 'race', it makes 'white' people - who don't have the same sort of racial grouping, certainly in this country, feel weak since 'whites' don't have any power inherent in our race, just that which we have as individuals.

Any sort of attempt to grant power to groups based on race, gender, sexuality, religion etc. just backfire in the end, as instead of making the members of those groups equal, it does precisely the opposite - and that causes resentment.

Politically correct stupidity.

And the prize goes to Liam Byrne, who feels it necessary to say that Britain is 'not a nation of Alf Garnetts'.

Really, you think so? Well done. That's not something we possibly could have worked out on our own is it?

Britain is a nation of immigrants. We are who we are because we have allowed others to move here when threatened elsewhere, and because we have assimilated with foreigners who have otherwise moved here. Our language, for one thing, can hardly be called "pure", and neither can our culture.

Besides all that, it's not like the BNP actually have any real support either!

I agree with Simon Heffer:

Far more so than with Daniel Finkelstein:
Whilst what Powell said in his speech was inflammatory, it was not racist. Every single quote that critics drag from his speech - such as "charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies" or "[i]n this country in fifteen or twenty years time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man" - were not his own words, but those of the people who spoke to him. Maybe he could or should have made the point that these were, as Danny Finkelstein says "unpleasant or unacceptable", but Powell was the sort of man who would assume that others would understand that point without prompting.

Also, he never actually said "as I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood." But instead he said the phrase in Latin, but wrote it in the transcript, a choice of which he later said:
If he had, it is quite likely that the speech never would have generated such a resonance.

Was Powell racist? No, he wasn't. I wrote my entire undergraduate dissertation on that subject, which you can read here. My conclusion, after a year of study, is this:

The reason that it has been claimed that Enoch Powell was racist is because he spoke on the issues of race and immigration, and was opposed to the continued entry of immigrants into Britain, and the voluntary repatriation of those who failed to integrate into British society. But Powell was not opposed to immigrants because of the colour of their skin, their racial origins, or their nationality. But what he was concerned about – and what motivated his articles and speeches on the issue – was whether or not they were, or could become, a part of the British nation through integration.

There are complaints about the World Cup-winning South African rugby team. They are said to be "too white", because only two of the fifteen members of the first team are black.

Maybe, just maybe, that is because the white players were better? Since they won the Rugby World Cup, they certainly can't have compromised that much on player quality!

There is probably more that can be done to increase diversity in the sport - but after all there is always something that can, and some claim should, "be done" about almost anything.

Source: BBC

Should the police stop more ethnic minority suspects? The president of the National Black Police Association thinks so. He said:

It may be unpopular, but it's right. It is the only way in which to win the battle against gun and knife crime. It shouldn't matter what your race, religion, or skin colour is if you are suspect. The police should be free to stop and search anyone who they regard as likely to be part of any criminal activity.

If race is used as a reason not to stop-and-search any suspect, Britain will suffer. It may lead to an increase in "tension" in black communities, but if it works then it is worth it. If it stops crime, or stops more people getting involved in crime, then it is worth it. The police must not shy away from tackling criminal activity because they might be accused of racism. In an equal society, the police should be colour blind, and stop and search anyone who they have reasonable suspicion to suspect, whatever their race. If they can't act through fear of being branded racist, crime cannot be tackled.

Crime affects all parts of society. Preventing it - and locking up the perpetrators - helps all parts of society too, and makes everyone safer.

Source: The Guardian, The Telegraph, BBC

Does the fact that a young aide "blacked up" and another posted the photo along with a jokey caption mean that the Tories are racist? Of course it doesn't. Yet Dawn Butler says that this shows that the Tories "ha[ve] not changed one bit". Quite what she is suggesting, I don't know. Anyone who makes such a link between one young aide dressing up and an entire party being potentially - if not actively - racist is an idiot. Yes, both of them were stupid. But, last I heard, stupidity wasn't a crime. If it was, all of the present government would currently be residing at Her Majesty's pleasure.

What is shows is that Labour react against anyone who does not fully accede to their racism, their politically correct "positive discrimination" - such an oxymoronic phrase that I'm surprised that anyone can utter it in all seriousness. There is nothing "positive" about discrimination, after all - discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. And discrimination, we all accept, is wrong.

Racism can go in any direction, from any and to any. So why is it that Labour believe that only whites can be racist? Because they are living in a world created by their politically-correct infatuations with an "equality" that is anything from equal at all. Nelson Mandela himself came out and said that we shouldn't read racism into every situation after a man was reported to what was then the CRE for "blacking up". So why won't Labour listen to him on this? Because that would be common sense.

Labour is living in a racial world that stopped existing years ago. People my age don't see race or skin colour as meaning anything. It's just your genes, innit, not who you are. It is these middle-age race campaigners who are the modern racists, who fixate about skin colour and creating an "equal" [ie. unequal] country.

To my generation, "race" means bugger-all. We believe in meritocracy, where a person earns their own position, not one where they have one already created simply because of their racial origins, usually demonstrated by skin colour. Who cares what your ancestors may have been or done? To them, it means everything. Who is the racist here?

Image: Oxfam
Sources: The Guardian, Daily Mail

Sayeeda Warsi is accused of "pandering to racists" when she said:

What she says is perfectly reasonable. We shouldn't just write off those who are voting for the BNP, and they do have some legitimate concerns. That is the reason that they vote for the BNP - because they have concerns which are not being addressed by any of the major parties.

That Sayeeda Warsi is willing to engage with them is a good thing, not a bad thing, and fits in perfectly with her position as Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion. She is quite obviously trying to bridge the gap between those who feel ignored by the main parties and thus vote for a racist party like the BNP instead. People don' vote for the BNP because they're racist, but because they have concerns that are not being addressed by any other party because of 'political correctness'.

The Conservatives - and all major political parties - must address the prime reason why people vote for the BNP - and that is because they feel ignored. They have some legitimate concerns about crime, justice, and immigration which the main parties aren't addressing and thus they feel ignored. If we listen to the voters - the vast majority of whom aren't racists - then we can convince them that the BNP are not the party who can deal with the problems they are concerned with, but just a bunch of racists and bigots.

Ignoring them just because they have the stigma of the label "BNP voter" attached to them is not an option in a democracy. They are still part of the electorate. Just ignoring them is what caused the problem in the first place. If we listen to, and engage with, them then they will no longer feel any need to go and vote for the BNP - and they will thus wither and die as they should. But if we continue to ignore their concerns, the BNP will just gain more support. We must act now to stop it - and this is the only way.

UPDATE: Devil's Kitchen agrees with me, and Norfolk Blogger doesn't.

Image: Sayeeda Warsi
Source: The Independent

WTF?

As far as I am aware, the vast majority of people in Britain are still white. Hence, to have a character that was not white would be the far worse scenario. Ethnic minorities should of course be encouraged to join the police force, but if they felt "isolated" by the use of a white mascot, I'm not convinced that they are the sort of people we want in our police force.

To have had 'Steve' as an Asian or black man or woman would have been the far worse scenario. It would have been caving into the PC fascists. Britain is still vastly white, and so for the police to have a white mascot is simply representative. What I expect they'll end up doing now is introducing an ethnic woman partner for Steve, which I don't really object to. But what i do object to is Metropolitan Police sergeants saying that Asian and woman officers could feel "isolated" by him. What utter bollocks.

Sources: The Telegraph, Mail on Sunday

So are the Lib Dems all closet racists? Of course not. But they are having the same sort of problems as the Conservatives have had in this area. What this shows is that they can't continue to be smug about their internal race issues.

That he could think that the party considers ethnic minority candidates as "defective" and that they are deliberately giving Brian Paddick, the only white Lib Dem mayoral candidate, extra support and felt strongly enough about it to speak out shows that there must be something wrong. This is an issue the Lib Dems need to deal with. A candidate shouldn't get the perception that he and others of his race are considered "defective" by their party.

Source: The Guardian

Why is there money available for this? Why should money be available to be allocated based on race? Extra money should be allocated to schools to help with kids who need it, not aimed at specific racial groups.

Quite frankly, it smacks of racism when money is specifically allocated in this way. It encourages segregation and marks certain children out as different from the rest of their class. Money simply shouldn't be allocated based on the race of the children.

Allocating money based on ability and attainment of children is fine - as is selecting by ability and not race - and beneficial to them all. But giving a school money to spend just on a specific minority sure as hell isn't.

Source: Watford Observer

Gender is not the real classroom divide, claims Equal Opportunities Commission:

In fact, they say that instead of helping to narrow to gap
So, predictably, it's class [and race] that is the source of all inequality:
Except, really, it's not because of their class or race that certain kids fall behind, it is either because they are not as intelligent as others or because they don't put the work in.

Class, race, and gender are not the real classroom divides. Ability and application are. This may be reflected along gender, race, and class lines, because they don't exist because of them. They are a symptom, not a cause. Instead of trying to focus on one group, however defined, it would be far better to encourage all school children to work harder, and to encourage their parents to encourage them as well.

General ability and the extent to which that is applied to school work are the divides within the classroom. Nothing else causes them, but they can be seen as areas where extra work needs to be done in order for them to reach their potential. It's not because they are working class, male, or black that are low in the class, but because they either don't have the ability and/or aren't applying it.

Source: The Times

The image above comes rom an EU anti-racism and all kinds of prejudice leaflet [pdf] produced in 1998 [via Pub Philosopher], which manages to stereotype pretty much everyone. It is also remarkably condescending in its tone. The leaflet claims that:
According to their chart, Belgium and France are the most racist EU countries [so long as I am reading it right]. It is interesting to note that it also says:
But it seems that all that the EU can do is "adopt a resolution" against it. Again, and again, and again [and again]. But they can also "mention the importance" of combating racism, of course. Just in case we forget that it's bad.

Under the heading "Why should we take action at [a] European level?" it says:
So what you actually mean is that the struggle against racism is an inseparable part of the identity of the European Union - a different thing entirely to a "European identity" which implies that of the people, not the political organisation. Who do you think developed the racist stereotypes in the first place? Nothing in that section actually gives any reason why action needs to be taken at a European level rather than the nation-state level, either.

What the entire leaflet seems to forget is that very few people are consciously racist. No-one can really claim that they aren't at all racist, despite the answers given to their survey. If they do so, they're either lying or fooling themselves. The difference is that it (a) isn't a conscious thing, and (b) exists only on the very small things in a persons life, such as forming an opinion of someone you see walking in the street or sitting on the bus based on a stereotype. It's not a big thing; you'll never see them again, and even if you did, that opinion would be reformed with actual evidence of their character.

The best and most insightful [as well as funny] view of racism I've seen is that in the Avenue Q song "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist":


UPDATE: Now they're going to delete it. Just in case they do, I have uploaded it here.

Playing the race card seems to be coming more popular again recently. First of all, two black [Labour] MPs, along with Stephen Lawrence's mother, are claiming that Boris Johnson, the likely Conservative candidate for Mayor of London, has a "1950s attitudes to race". On what is this based? On a 2002 article by Boris in which he "referred to the Queen being greeted in Commonwealth countries by "flag-waving piccaninnies"" and "during a mooted visit by Tony Blair to the Congo, that "the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief"." These can hardly be described as racist, but more like satire.

There's also Ali Miraj, who claimed today in a Sunday Times article that “I have never upheld playing the ‘race’ card” - despite having quite obviously done so when he was evicted from the selection for the PPC in Witham - despite that later being won by Priti Patel. Even with this article, he is, as Dizzy points out, playing the race card by not playing the race card:

"Rather than saying "you're a bunch of racists" it's essentially saying "you're a bunch of racists because you're only doing this to send the message that you're not a bunch of racists"."

This renewal of the playing of the race card is a bad thing for politics and the country as a whole. "Race" is again seeming to become a political play-thing, with the rolling out of Stephen Lawrence's mother and two MPs specifically selected because of their ethnicity. If this sort of shallow colour-focused rather than colour-blind politics becomes important again in Britain, then it is nothing but to all our detriment. The race card should not be played by anyone, no matter their own "race". It is as bad when played by a black person as by a white person - colour blind politics should be actually colour blind.

Sources: BBC, Sunday Times

There are some things that you just don't expect - and that the Conservatives would propose selection by race is certainly one of them. David Willetts said that they drew up this proposal because there are towns which are