[walkabouter]

Happy birthday Enoch.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...t-outcast.html

[jammers1978]

Originally Posted by walkabouter

Happy birthday Enoch.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...t-outcast.html

Just read the entire speech just to be sure. Yes, he was a blatant, narrow minded racist. Also not that great a speech write given that half the stuff he says needs to be pieced together afterward. His story about the land lady is just the ultimate example. When the street was white it was fine, then it became black and noisy. LOL.

Hardly the great intellectual the Daily Mail is making him out to be. By the way look at this article, The Daily Mail is making him out to be a hero. What fools! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...t-outcast.html

We, the liberals. Have already won. Nice to see them live up to their Master Race credentials again though.

[Blairdennon]

Originally Posted by oldfogey101

Racial discrimination is bad indeed.

If some sections of society are racially discriminated and not others, then you have an inequality in society. This isn't good.

If quotas are given then you reduce the inequality theoretically. This is a more balanced society.

I don't think I can explain it any other way.



What is it about black history month that you find objectionable?



I think I wasn't denying numbers are important but numbers become less important if the immigrants do have something savvy about them.

Inequality may not be good but that arises from treating people differently. You balance society by treating all equally. You assume that the lack of balance is always racial discrimination by a white person or people along the way but that is a broad assumption that does not necessarily hold water. We know ethnic minorities are significantly under represented in blood and organ donation.
So under representation in any sphere is not specifically racism by one race but could be the sum total of many factors. I acknowledge that racism is A factor but not necessarily THE factor.

The same objection I would have to white history month which I assume you would object to as well.. Noticeably it does not exist.

[2+2=5]

Originally Posted by walkabouter

Happy birthday Enoch.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...t-outcast.html

The spin and bias in that article is a true artform the creator should be proud of. It's breathtaking to behold.

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by Blairdennon

You seem to be saying I should get over racial discrimination. I do not think anyone else does so am unclear why I should unless you are saying there is good racial discrimination and bad racial discrimination. Are you?

As regards removing a 'chip' I would disagree. There are some things that are right and some things that are wrong. Rewriting history to give a view to suit an agenda is wrong. It was wrong written from a white perspective with untruths at its heart. It is equally as wrong to imply in history that one race was the reason for holding back all others. If it is rewritten in that way it is no longer history it is propaganda. Perhaps you should take a long look at black history month. It is interesting. I thought equality was the name of the game which I support ALL the time.

Numbers are always important The point of having immigrants is to keep the home nation vibrant and healthy by integration and assimilation not to have multitudinous pockets of little home countries around the place fiercely defending their culture and in many cases their unlawful practises. It destroys the homogeneity of a nation by removing the age old pressure to join in, integrate and then assimilate.

So the Jewish/Italian/French etc quarters we have had in London and one or two other cities for centuries were equally bad, too?

[GreatGodPan]

Originally Posted by Blairdennon

Inequality may not be good but that arises from treating people differently. You balance society by treating all equally. You assume that the lack of balance is always racial discrimination by a white person or people along the way but that is a broad assumption that does not necessarily hold water. We know ethnic minorities are significantly under represented in blood and organ donation.
So under representation in any sphere is not specifically racism by one race but could be the sum total of many factors. I acknowledge that racism is A factor but not necessarily THE factor.

The same objection I would have to white history month which I assume you would object to as well.. Noticeably it does not exist.

You cannot balance a fundamentally unequal society.

Until the cause of that inequality, Capitalism and its associated class system is eradicated and all people have equality of opportunity the problem remains.

[oldfogey101]

Originally Posted by Blairdennon

Inequality may not be good but that arises from treating people differently. You balance society by treating all equally. You assume that the lack of balance is always racial discrimination by a white person or people along the way but that is a broad assumption that does not necessarily hold water. We know ethnic minorities are significantly under represented in blood and organ donation.
So under representation in any sphere is not specifically racism by one race but could be the sum total of many factors. I acknowledge that racism is A factor but not necessarily THE factor.

What's THE factor in your view?

The same objection I would have to white history month which I assume you would object to as well.. Noticeably it does not exist.

I don't object to it not existing or existing tbh.

What would you include in white history month?

[Speak-Softly]

Originally Posted by jammers1978

Just read the entire speech just to be sure. Yes, he was a blatant, narrow minded racist. Also not that great a speech write given that half the stuff he says needs to be pieced together afterward. His story about the land lady is just the ultimate example. When the street was white it was fine, then it became black and noisy. LOL.
Hardly the great intellectual the Daily Mail is making him out to be. By the way look at this article, The Daily Mail is making him out to be a hero. What fools! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...t-outcast.html

We, the liberals. Have already won. Nice to see them live up to their Master Race credentials again though.

Do you LOL when it's so often pointed out that when the street was white it wasn't fine until non whites moved there?

Because that's what we have now. But that racism is accepted.

"Hideously white" ring any bells?

[2+2=5]

Originally Posted by Speak-Softly

Do you LOL when it's so often pointed out that when the street was white it wasn't fine until non whites moved there?

Because that's what we have now. But that racism is accepted.

"Hideously white" ring any bells?

The converse is still true. Life wasn't full of roses and hunky dory before immigration of the last 50odd years took place.

Otherwise why was there a hanging law still in place? Why was the quintessential bobby on the beat needed at all?

Before and after comparisons only tend to tell you want you want them to tell you. It doesn't benefit or educate us living in the here and now.

[Blairdennon]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

So the Jewish/Italian/French etc quarters we have had in London and one or two other cities for centuries were equally bad, too?

Size matters. Maintaining a culture/ethnicity is not a problem in small doses. The numbers present mean that they have to be part of the mainstream eventually. That is the thing it is not immigration that is the problem, Powell said that, I say that, most possibly except the NF say that, it is the numbers that are all important
Most of the French in quarters have spread out I know several people descended from them, there are some small enclaves of French who keep to themselves and speak only French but the accent is on small.
However if they wish to maintain aspects of their culture that break UK law then as ever that is unacceptable.

[Blairdennon]

Originally Posted by GreatGodPan

You cannot balance a fundamentally unequal society.

Until the cause of that inequality, Capitalism and its associated class system is eradicated and all people have equality of opportunity the problem remains.

How do you create equality of opportunity for a person from a family of ten who possibly does not have a father present and a single child whose parents spend time helping his education. We can present the equality in general education but the parents contribute most. You are right you cannot balance a fundamentally unequal society the argument is how hard should you try and who should you hold back to bring others forward or possibly why should you hold someone back?

[Blairdennon]

Originally Posted by oldfogey101

What's THE factor in your view?



I don't object to it not existing or existing tbh.

What would you include in white history month?

Maybe there is no one factor. That is what I said perhaps racism is a factor in under representation as regards employment and is one amongst many factors. Who knows but institutional racism seems to be accepted as present everywhere yet there is little or no evidence that this is the case other than people saying it is. That is a way of saying that all white people are racists or unwitting racists which includes you.

I would not include anything in white history month because it would not and does not exist except more and more as the evil race responsible for the denigration and persecution of all other races, as in Institutional racists, like to play divide and rule, cannot but help expect little from black people and when in positions of authority persecute black and Asian people endlessly.

[Blairdennon]

Originally Posted by 2+2=5

The converse is still true. Life wasn't full of roses and hunky dory before immigration of the last 50odd years took place.

Otherwise why was there a hanging law still in place? Why was the quintessential bobby on the beat needed at all?

Before and after comparisons only tend to tell you want you want them to tell you. It doesn't benefit or educate us living in the here and now.

No one has said otherwise but why is it OK to use the phrase 'hideously white' in a negative and demeaning way?

[oldfogey101]

Originally Posted by Blairdennon

Maybe there is no one factor. That is what I said perhaps racism is a factor in under representation as regards employment and is one amongst many factors. Who knows but institutional racism seems to be accepted as present everywhere yet there is little or no evidence that this is the case other than people saying it is. That is a way of saying that all white people are racists or unwitting racists which includes you.

Not sure where you get that from.

If 3 of 10 people have a racial bias towards one race or another then within the group there is a racial bias but individually all do not have one (the majority do not in this case).

There is evidence that racism exists, I don't think there's evidence that ethnic minorities on the whole don't want jobs. I would only have quotas in unskilled jobs.

I would not include anything in white history month because it would not and does not exist except more and more as the evil race responsible for the denigration and persecution of all other races, as in Institutional racists, like to play divide and rule, cannot but help expect little from black people and when in positions of authority persecute black and Asian people endlessly.

Isn't that your own paranoia?

[Blairdennon]

Originally Posted by oldfogey101

Not sure where you get that from.

If 3 of 10 people have a racial bias towards one race or another then within the group there is a racial bias but individually all do not have one (the majority do not in this case).

There is evidence that racism exists, I don't think there's evidence that ethnic minorities on the whole don't want jobs. I would only have quotas in unskilled jobs.



Isn't that your own paranoia?

3 of 10 having a racial bias, and how do you define how that is put into practice by those with that bias, means that racism exists, it neither makes it the primary reason why under representation in employment exists nor means that everybody in the 10 group should be discriminated against because of their ethnicity.
To discriminate on race grounds is illegal, as it should be, but it should be illegal in all respects. The act of balancing, and the narrative that goes with it results in racial stereotyping.

Paranoia?? The Macpherson report brought forward the concept of the police being Institutionally racist on very little evidence other than he disagreed with the Police investigation not to immediately label the crime a race hate crime. Police ineptness in an investigation is not the same as Institutional racism. THe essence is that the police should treat all crimes equally but also be 'aware' of ethnicities involved. In other words not be racially discriminatory but to be racially discriminatory. The support for Dianne Abbott's divide tweet is toe curling embarrassment or just straight forward race hate with whites being the recipients. Lee Jasper proposes that black children should be taught by black teachers as white teachers (that is all white teachers) cannot help but have negative expectations of those pupils.
The negative narrative is at work and the enforcement of unequal rights only helps to reinforce that narrative. In 10 to 15 years time, or whenever, when equal representation is achieved will this stereotyping be removed or will the narrative have become so strong that the belief amongst many will be that 'the white man' cannot be trusted because that is what it currently says. You treat all equally now.

[oldfogey101]

I think you're picking on extreme examples there, though I've often wondered how/why thick and extreme people do so well in politics and some other professions.

[northantsgirl]

Originally Posted by 2+2=5

The spin and bias in that article is a true artform the creator should be proud of. It's breathtaking to behold.

Simon Heffer is a reactionary old fool, so the content of the piece is hardly a surprise. I note the gushing didn't extend to a reference to Powell being opposed to the death penalty.

[spiney2]

people seem to be confusing poor enoch with alf garnett the wonderful fictional bigot.

powell was an old style one nation tory and believed in the post ww2 consensus of full employment and social cohesion. he did not endorse thatcherism.

apparently he was an excellent constituency mp. before there were "mp surgeries". whatever his speeches said. and if you think multicultural failure and islamism then maybe he wasnt that far wrong .......

[ftsemonks]

Originally Posted by Capablanca

One man's prophet; another man's pariah.

Enoch Powell would have turned 100 years old today.

A decent piece by Ed West in today's Telegraph:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ed...opean-tragedy/

One point Ed doesn't touch on is the profound effect Powell's notorious 1968 speech had on both the Conservative and Labour parties.

Powell was Right

[ftsemonks]

Originally Posted by oldfogey101

The 'whip hand' doesn't seem especially prophetic. Unless counting serving tea to immigrants in cafes on the same footing to everyone else was considered as having the whip hand.

His numbers argument was fair enough I suppose as one factor, if not a little bit obvious.

What a load of TOSH
Powell was Right,. He lost "everything" BUT He was Right and those in power at the time knew he was right.
Mr Powell was cut off by the Tories, labour, that other party? BUT they new what he said was the Truth and the people of N. Ireland new that by electing him to the House of Commons.

[oldfogey101]

Originally Posted by ftsemonks

What a load of TOSH
Powell was Right,. He lost "everything" BUT He was Right and those in power at the time knew he was right.
Mr Powell was cut off by the Tories, labour, that other party? BUT they new what he said was the Truth and the people of N. Ireland new that by electing him to the House of Commons.

How was he right then?

[Johnbee]

Like all racists, Powell thought that he was in a large majority. He was wrong about that. He was also wrong because he was a liar. How do I know? At the time, after the speech was reported, he asked for letters of support. I wrote to him saying that I was against racism because it causes trouble, strife and violence and I do not want to live in a country with those things. (Of course trouble strife and violence does not bother me a lot because I live in a nice place and I am 6 feet 3 and weigh 13 stone and did some martial arts when I was young, but I just don't want nastiness for my wife and children).

I personally knew quite a lot of people who also wrote letters against his obnoxious speech.

After a few days he was interviewed on TV and he said he had received hundreds of letters in support and only 6 against. Because I personally knew that more than 6 letters had been sent against racism, I knew that he was a liar.

He could not get elected in Britain, and had to find a seat of the N. I. right wingers who cared little for race issues, only bothering about people being protestant, which Powell was, as old fashioned as they wanted.

I think it is good that racists have free speech, so we can chuck them out.

[Blairdennon]

Originally Posted by oldfogey101

I think you're picking on extreme examples there, though I've often wondered how/why thick and extreme people do so well in politics and some other professions.

An 'extreme' example by definition is one outside of the mainstream. Lee Jasper writes regularly, and is invited to write regularly for Operation Black Vote which is the home of Black Politics. His pontifications are part of the mainstream of 'black' culture and the empowerment of the black vote. Dianne Abbot is needless to say an MP who is not just in touch with the mainstream but effectively is, influences and can be the mainstream. The Mcpherson report and its 70 odd recommendations are the mainstream as all Governments have taken them on board and incorporated most into the law. Now which do you think were extreme examples?

[Blairdennon]

Originally Posted by Johnbee

Like all racists, Powell thought that he was in a large majority. He was wrong about that. He was also wrong because he was a liar. How do I know? At the time, after the speech was reported, he asked for letters of support. I wrote to him saying that I was against racism because it causes trouble, strife and violence and I do not want to live in a country with those things. (Of course trouble strife and violence does not bother me a lot because I live in a nice place and I am 6 feet 3 and weigh 13 stone and did some martial arts when I was young, but I just don't want nastiness for my wife and children).

I personally knew quite a lot of people who also wrote letters against his obnoxious speech.

After a few days he was interviewed on TV and he said he had received hundreds of letters in support and only 6 against. Because I personally knew that more than 6 letters had been sent against racism, I knew that he was a liar.

He could not get elected in Britain, and had to find a seat of the N. I. right wingers who cared little for race issues, only bothering about people being protestant, which Powell was, as old fashioned as they wanted.

I think it is good that racists have free speech, so we can chuck them out.

Well you know the letters were posted but with the Post Office inundated with mail for Powell it took several members of staff to categorise them.
Did he ask for letters of support? I have no recollection of that, you may be right but I cannot find a quote anywhere to say he asked for letters of support do you have a quote?
You may believe racism causes trouble strife and violence but the point of Powell's speech was that large scale immigration causes exactly the same. He did not attack immigration he attacked the levels of immigration.
Remember Powell was the one who brought to light the injustice of treating Mau-Mau suspects in Kenya in a way different from how British people expect to be treated by the British.
Powell had two Parliamentary admirers and friends in Michael Foot and Tony Benn both of whom were temporarily distanced from him by the speech but always respected his opinions and sided with him on Europe and Lords reform. But hardly two people who would be associated with a dyed in the wool racist. Perhaps there is more to it than you see.

As regards not being elected in the Britain he did not lose his seat he resigned over Europe before the 74 election. The seat was won by the Conservatives in that election.