We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Good riddance to bad rubbish Regulars will know that this blog does not have a lot of time for political correctness. They will also know, however, that this blog does not also have a lot of time for racist bigots – or “race realists” as these creeps call themselves these days – either. As Ayn Rand once remarked, racism is the oldest form of collectivism. And like all forms of collectivism, it ignores the unique differences between individuals.
With that in mind, the resignation of this idiot was inevitable and wholly justified. I read the Telegraph comments and see that a lot of people defended the views of the Tory MP who said what he said. It makes me realise that I have as little sympathy for parts of the “right” as I do for a lot of the “left” as well. Non-white soldiers have put their lives on the line in the service of their comrades and their regiments. This MP would do well to remember that point.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I long for the day Al Sharpton is sacked for saying nasty things about whites. If we want consequences, let them be symmetrical.
So tell me – if you’re a senior NCO pissed of at the performance of a squaddy, said squaddy 20 yards or more away in a group that is identically attired and supposedly acting identically, how do you let the malefactor know that he/she is the one that has incurred your displeasure? By coupling his/her most obvious personal physical characteristic to the shouted bollocking, of course. And he was right – it’s done to redheads, fatties, the thinnies, those of restricted growth – the forces are an equal opportunities denigrator.
And if you don’t have an obvious personal physical characteristic they’ll invent one for you.
As I understand it, he wasn’t suggesting that black soldiers were worse than their white comrades, just that some bad black soldiers were crying racism to get away without getting a much needed bollocking. Patrick Mercer isn’t a racist, but he should be fired anyway for demonstrating the political sense of a slug.
bt,
That’s what I got out of the article as well. The concept being more that the black folk were able to use the pre-existing “card” that others weren’t. I think that’s what Mercer was getting at.
As a libertarian I take something else away from this – just how much I wish the world didn’t have to resort to such collectivism that belittles anyone. But then again standing armies tend to attract the bottom of the proverbial barrel, whatever the skin or hair color. If we’re going to have standing armies, they’re going to have a strata of goldbrickers, and I guess given its martial raison d’etre, it’s not going to pussyfoot around. And it would be racism itself to not subject blacks who happen to be brickers to the same treatment as anyone else.
This MP was a distinguished officer who is well aware of your point. I am waiting for one of his black soldiers to come forward to defend him.
I am waiting for one of his black soldiers to come forward to defend him.
Apparently at least one of them already has (according to the Telegraph).
What I understood from this article was that this particular officer is not a racist, and made the following points:
1. NCOs traditionally make use of insults based around personal characteristics which may or may not be racially based (compare privates Snowball and Pile in Full Metal Jacket).
2. Some who are insulted on racial grounds are able to seek redress, unlike those insulted by other means, due to the prevalence of the state-sponsored racial relations industry, and that this is unfair to fatties, gingers &c.
I don’t recall him saying anything that suggested he held racist beliefs, but such a shocking heresy is racism that it is difficult to say anything about race without being mistaken for the worst sort of villain. I may well even get flamed myself, for I have failed to preface this comment with the obligatory ritual denunciation of racism (“I deplore racism, racists make me feel physically sick, &c.”).
By incredible co-incidence, I was discussing this site in the pub tonight with a reasonably minarchist UKIP member who had not heard of it. I said that in general it Samizdata is excellent, but sometimes they cock it up somewhat. Perhaps this is one of those times.
I’ve just seen one of his black soldiers defending him on Newsnight.
I think this that rare case of a politician getting the sack for telling the truth. Oh, crikey. “he should be fired anyway for demonstrating the political sense of a slug.” And is there any wonder, given such a demonstration of the wages of virtue, why politicians are the way they are?
Never mind. My faith in human nature was restored by a spokesman for Cameron telling us that his crime was not being a racist, but for giving the impression that such hurtful comments are part of the background noise in the army and somehow acceptable. I can only imagine this is a spokesman who has never met any actual real people. Can you imagine what the internet would be like if you wasn’t allowed to insult anybody, or make hurtful remarks?
I’m not entirely comfortable with Lt Col Mercer’s remarks either, but they made me squirm slightly less than Johnathon’s.
A black soldier who served under him spoke very well of him on BBC radio earlier. I don’t care for much for the right or the left but I also don’t like to see people demolished because of their predjudices or because they said something unacceptable. Given time I believe that it would be possible to observe a moment of predjudice in anybody. British society seems to me to be permeated by an atmosphere of moral self-righteousness these days. Despite governmental/media encouragement of a rather sterile tolerance for cultural and religious forms, forgiveness, an old Christian value, is a quality that seems to have disappeared.
the comments on this thread miss the point by the mile. This is what this MP said, in case people prefer to forget:
It may be they used “racism” for their misdemeanors, but n MP who says that “I came across a lot of ethnic minority soldiers who were idle and useless” is frankly, asking for trouble. His comments were out of order.
Freeman, why do my comments make you squirm exactly?
A lot of soldiers are idle and useless. Unless one is asserting some statistically significant behavioural differences between the races, one would therefore expect there to be some black soldiers that were idle and useless. Therefore, to say that one had come across a lot of black soldiers who were idle and useless might be classed as a statement of the blindingly obvious. But, as you say, to actually tell the truth about such a subject is asking for trouble.
I think his point was that he found idle and useless soldiers of all races and characteristics, but that only the black ones had an -ism to claim, to stop them getting bawled out for it. It’s the sort of soldierly sentiment that is the reason they don’t normally let the grunts near the press; only highly trained press officers, spinning like gyroscopes.
Pa, no doubt what you say is true. But there is something about the way that this MP said what he said that strikes me as going over the line. If he had simply said that non-white or whatever soldiers must abide by the same rules as anyone else, then I doubt I would have written what I did. But instead, he said that racially charged comments and abuse is all part of the jollity and fun of life in the armed forces.
It isn’t. I could not give a fuck what this MP did in the armed forces, either. He’s not exactly the Duke of Wellington, anyway.
Anyone who has served in the armed forces would know that there are a thousand seriously nasty ways that an NCO of any nation can insult you without needing to resort to colour or ethnicity. You would be amazed at how many insults a staff sergeant can levy at an officer cadet at RMC Sandhurst whilst always politely calling him ‘sir’ in a completely respectful tone.
I recall several officer cadets from various African states being passed through the same grilling method as I did without being insulted about their colour or their land of origin, but still feeling totally belittled by some little former Welsh Guards Hitler with a pechant for standing 1 inch from your ear and screaming about how his granny in the valleys can march faster, shoot better and clean kit better than anyone else can.
Mercer is a damned fool who should have learned by now to engage his brain before opening his mouth. He did himself, his party and the Army no favours at all by his actions.
Abuse of all sorts is part of army life. If you’re tall, or short, or fat, or ginger haired, or good looking, or have a squeaky voice, or have smelly feet or, yes indeed, if you’re black, brown, beige, ten foot tall and green with scales or different in appearance in any way. They’ll use it.
I believe the idea is that if you fall apart because that nasty man went and shouted at you and called you names, that you’re not going to get along with crouching in a cold and muddy ditch eating fried rat a hundred miles behind enemy lines surrounded by people who want to slowly cut your nadgers off shooting at you. Best they find out early.
Sticks and stones, you see, sticks and stones…
Jonathon wrote:
Well, firstly, I think that comes down to whether he was calling Mercer a racist bigot, or just an idiot.
And secondly, what is the (politically) correct term for someone who is not into inappropriate discrimination of any sort, but does think that (just occasionally) some people do play the discrimination (“get out of jail free”) card?
Best regards
I also heard the black soldier who had served with Lt Col Mercer for 12 years speak on the radio. But no matter how many black soldiers speak in support of him it will do not good – it is classic example of “culture clash”.
By the way why is telling the truth “out of order” Johnathon?
If Patrick Mercer came accross “a lot” of ethnic minority soldiers who were useless and tried to hide it by playing the race card – why should he not say so?
An army is not (or should not be) a P.C. organization. It can not pretend that people are good soldiers who are the victims of racialism – if they are actually useless soldiers.
On the other hand I do not like the army practice of insults. Although Patrick M. was quite correct that it is not just skin colour (it is ANYTHING that the corporal can think of – from colour of hair to size and shape of ears).
Certainly it is useful to see if a soldier reacts (by breaking down or trying to attack the N.C.O. who is tormenting him) – if he does he is useless, for if he can not take the pressure of insults he will never stand the pressure of the battlefield.
HOWEVER, there are other ways of finding these things out. Just as there ways of motivating men to achieve a task in training – other than to shout abuse at them (which is done to make them want to prove the person shouting wrong).
Of course, Patrick M. could say “when have you ever led men into battle?” and I have not. But that does not alter the fact that there are different training methods.
However, Patrick M. was honestly explaining the British army method, one that has been in use for hundreds of years. It is one in which shouting personal abuse is a important part of the training process.
The army claim (or used to before they had to learn to tell P.C. lies – a skill that Patrick M. does not seem to have picked up) that it is vital to them.
Of course what the man should have said (in order to be Mr Cameron’s team) is something like the following:
“I fully support the setting up of this union, racism is something that must be stamped out in the army – we need a modern, progressive 21 century army for our new caring society”.
Such an army would be useless in war time (at least so the people in it believe) but as long as the above was what he said (regardless of what he thought) Patrick M. could have stayed in his position.
Of course, if your position is that people who THINK (as opposed to say) what you hold to be nasty things should not hold senior positions in political parties – well that is also possible.
But it would mean that very few people who had served long in the army could hold such positions.
By the way, whilst individual thought is vital in war it is about the most “collectivist” thing there is. War is very much a tribe thing – the emotions and ways of operating needed to win wars are not P.C. at all.
This is one of the reasons why “humanitarian” wars where the objective is to help the locals (rather than kill them) are rather unnatural undertakings.
It is also why talk of running the military “like a business” is mistaken.
Robert McNamara often talked like this in his time at the DOD. To which (out of his hearing) military people used to say “how many people did he convince to kill or die for the Ford motor company?”
Certainly they have always been commercial fighters -but they are not like car workers (it is not a “business” in the same sense). Nor are they less nasty people than soldiers who fight for their county – indeed they are sometimes worse.
A soldier in wartime must be prepared to shoot another man (who he has never met before) in the face – without hesitating for a second.
He must also be prepared to toss a grenade into a position where enemy fighters are – even if he knows that there are women and children in that position as well.
Is information needed fast? Does an enemy prisoner have that information? What has to happen to that prisoner then? Do I have to go on?
This is what war is. And that is why it should not be undertaken lightly.
All in all concern about “the N. word” (or whatever) shows a lack of understanding about all the worse things that are part of the military life.
And while Smite Control does its job on my other post, Jonathon also wrote:
But anti-Muslin sentiments chez Samizdata would seem to indicate that some collectivism is more equal than other collectivism.
Best regards
Pa Annoyed makes a valid point – and Jonathon, it could be pointed out that the Randian point about racism being collectivism increasingly applies to those quite ready to jump on the bandwagon of denunciation of same, without critical regard for the actual presence of racism or simple “racism baiting” for political purposes. Which is, in case anyone missed it, quite a popular tactic and activity.
As far as I can tell here, the MP was not being overtly racist, and was reporting an observation that service members, with the ability to do so by way of ethnicity, using it to deflect what may have been otherwise legitimate criticism – that much is clear from a read of the full interview.
The MP’s crime was to have the impertinence of being a) a politician, and b) candidly speaking to a reporter about c) observations he’d made about circumstance in real life of an anecdotal nature.
How utterly horrid. Flail him alive for such utter bufoonery.
Or not…
Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom speaks to the type of thing that’s happened here – and not to, hopefully, frivilously throw the ‘victim’ card, but that Jonathon is a classic victim of. And that is, that Jonathon has allowed himself to have the rules of what is and is not allowable within political discourse dictated to him by those who wish to guide the narrative for their own purposes (usually political – its a favorite sniping tactic of neo-liberal progressive snipers).
I’d say the bagged two here.
On the one hand, Patrick Mercer was an idiot to phrase this sort of statement. On the other hand, saying that “a lot of” white people are lazy and dodge employment and live off benefits is fine and grounds for “positive action” to reduce “long term unemployment”. However, saying that a lot of “ethnic minorities” display a negative characteristic of any type rapidly gets you villified, as other posters have pointed out. Much like our libel laws, truthfulness is not a defence.
Besides which, the often-repressed libertarian in me draws the line at the enforced repression of free speech and the quashing of opinions which the Tory Party has just engaged in. When will the Powers That Be learn that we should have the freedom to take offence with someone’s words, not the freedom to silence them?
Having seen this ‘situation’ from both sides, and having read the offending quotes in the article, I’m on Col Mercer’s side. The Army has its own culture which is not always congruent with the civil culture of the moment. Unfortunately for the critics, it is that distinctive culture which determines the Army’s effectiveness in doing its job. Persons of sensibility should not choose the Army for a career. And others should not indulge in such commentary without becoming better informed of the subject.
Cheers
JP,
I agree completely. Patrick Mercer was (a) utterly politically inept (not least because they resembled “Big” Ron Atkinsons), (b) insulting to a great many of our soldiers (remember the Gurkha’s recent battle for equal pay & pensions?).
Pa A,
Unless one is asserting some statistically significant behavioural differences between the races, one would therefore expect there to be some black soldiers that were idle and useless.
So why not just say that some soldiers are idle and useless? I mean, if there’s no statistical difference between races (I’m gonna get smited for that) then why single out one race?
Ah, but they play the “race card”. Of course they do. Idle and useless people always have some kind of very good excuse. Every army that ever took to the field had it’s share of malingers and barrack-room lawyers. Whether it’s “That’s racist” or “It’s me back, it’s killin’ me, sarge” is a matter of supernatural irrelevance.
Dr Ellen,
Al Sharpton has nothing to do with this.
knirirr,
Since when did Full Metal Jacket represent a paradigm for what military training ought to be? While we’re on the subject of of FMJ the Sgt also made use of some spectacularly inventive insults which had nothing to do with physical appearance. Alan Bennett(!) described:
as being “Shakespearian”.
I once had to explain what that meant to my mother. The horror, the horror!
Given that fat ginger soldiers haven’t felt it necessary to form their own union and compain about discrimination, I think that there is something more than casual drill sergeant abusiveness going on against non-white soldiers. Unless you want to adopt the position that non-whites are more sensitive?
The point to note is not the validity or otherwise of his remarks, or any attitudes or views they may represent, but the political idiocy of Mercer in making them, and the impressive way Cameron handled it. Many, many political leaders would have tried to give their man the benefit of the doubt and been forced to sack him later, allowing lots of damage to be done in the meantime.
Diane Abbott (a black, left-wing, MP for US readers) and Michael Portillo (white, Tory, former Tory Minister of Defence), as resident commentators on the poltical talk show This Week, were classically united in failing to discuss what he said, but being aghast at the stupidity of saying it.
honestly explaining the British army method, one that has been in use for hundreds of years.
Training manuals during the Napoleonic wars suggest that training during that period was not as harsh as it was during the 20th century in this respect. There were even regulations stipulating that a soldier who “upbraids another for his nation” should be punished.
Since when did Full Metal Jacket represent a paradigm for what military training ought to be
I did not say that that is what it ought to be, but it does offer an example of the sort of insult that we have been discussing in this thread.
I would say that the “anti-racist” knee-jerk is the main collectivism at work here.
Pa Annoyed and Paul Marks pretty much echo my views on this and more eloquently.
Idiotic? No. Clumsy/Foolish? Yes (given the nature of the collective). Racist? it does not stack up IMHO. If he said that ethnic minorities were lazier, but that is not what he said. He spoke about exploiting the PC climate, not race per se.
This outrage is evidence, in part, of how the general level of education and critical reasoning has fallen, so that people are unable to comprehend what was actually written and politicians have to act to the lowest common denominator.
If he is telling the truth from personal experience then this should not be shouted down. It has been shouted down. Cameron knee-jerked, but realistically he was in a no-win situation as he “had” to respond immediately to feed the Circus Medius and without the chance for reasoned analysis, I doubt if we could have expected anything else. At least Tories resign/get booted, unlike the squealling Labour troughers who scrabble, grip and wedge themselves in as long as possible.
Bryan Appleyard has written A Tolerable Equanimity: The List, which has some definite plus points.
Concerning verbal discrimination (racial, religious and other), I particularly liked his fifth:
Best regards
What he said that was out of order was this:
That was out of order. If he had said that he came across a lot of other, presumably white, soldiers that were also “idle and useless” then perhaps it would not have sounded so bad.
If we want people of all races to serve in the armed forces, it hardly helps when a buffoon like this MP use such remarks. It is one thing to argue against PC nonsense, quite another to tar an entire section of the population as “idle and useless”.
Islam is a set of beliefs, not a race, over which its members have no control, Nigel.
For what it is worth, I do not have much time for blanket condemnations of Muslims, either. I recall reading the repulsive Verity on this thread damning almost every Muslim, which is one reason why I had no compunctions about telling her to buzz off, even though she was amusing in a slightly terrifying way.
How do any of us know that this isn’t actually what he said? Reporters make it their business to crop and choose sentences and parts of sentences to make a story/fit it into their word count. I’m sure some of the posters on Samizdata must have experience of having a statement misquoted in the press (local or national).
The most embarassing thing about this incident is David Cameron’s knee jerk reaction to the news. He would seem to have more trust in and solidarity with the media than with his own front bench.
Johnathan:
Sometimes I laugh, sometimes I cry and sometimes I squirm. This happens to be a squirm-making event.
Maybe my 25 years military service gives me a different perspective from yourself. Others here have made some comments that I can sympathise with, though many would give a political opponent some juicy quotes to be used against them. It’s a minefield which I should prefer to skirt around.
All I can say unreservedly is that if I were a hostage in somewhere like Eritrea there is nothing I would prefer to see more than a bunch of non-PC squaddies on the horizon.
Regards,
Also we have the CRE, a government funded body coming out with
So we have taxpayers cash going to set up bodies with independent sounding names so that they can attack people who deviate from what it is acceptable to say in public.
I would wager that one of the reasons that Mr. Mercer didn’t realise that these comments would cause such a fuss is that he is more comfortable with people of different races than many of those who attack him.
***That was out of order. If he had said that he came across a lot of other, presumably white, soldiers that were also “idle and useless” then perhaps it would not have sounded so bad. ***
As far as I can see from the article, the context from which the quote (one from a whole interview) is not given.
Here is the full quote:
“I had the good fortune to command a battalion that was racially very mixed. Towards the end, I had five company sergeant majors who were all black. They were without exception UK-born, Nottingham-born men who were English – as English as you and me. They prospered inside my regiment, but if you’d said to them: ‘Have you ever been called a nigger?’ they would have said: ‘Yes.’ But equally, a chap with red hair, for example, would also get a hard time – a far harder time than a black man, in fact.
“But that’s the way it is in the army. If someone is slow on the assault course, you’d get people shouting: ‘Come on you fat bastard, come on you ginger bastard, come on you black bastard.’
“I came across a lot of ethnic minority soldiers who were idle and useless, but who used racism as cover for their misdemeanours. I remember one guy from St Anne’s (Nottingham) who was constantly absent and who had a lot of girlfriends. When he came back one day I asked him why, and he would say: ‘I was racially abused.’ And we’d say: ‘No you weren’t, you were off with your girlfriends again.’
“In my experience, when you put on the uniform then all differences disappear. If you are a good soldier, you will do well. If you are a bad soldier, you will leave prematurely. There is a degree of colour-blindness among the vast majority of soldiers.
“I never came across a piece of nastiness inside the battalion that was based exclusively on racism.”
To fish out an incomplete clause, and leave off the other, which perfectly qualifies it, and taken out of the complete context of the whole quote which actually trends toward color-blind individualism, and then to call him “rubish” is clearly overreaching.
The picture here is the POLITICAL issue, and as a libertarian I despise politics.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,2030034,00.html(Link)
Jonathan said: “as Ayn Rand once remarked, racism is the oldest form of collectivism. And like all forms of collectivism, it ignores the unique differences between individuals.”, unfortunately real life isn’t quite as neat as this statement makes out. Today, at work for instance, I had to make a quick decision based not upon what I knew about an individual, (I had never met him before) but upon a generalisation about similar people I had met in the past. As it turned out my suspicions about this person proved to be sound. One of my employees subsequently identified him to me later as the man who had attempted to steal some fencing from me a few months ago. We all generalise because it makes decision making easier. For example, I am unlikely to employ one of the following, A white man with dreadlocks, a man or woman with a Vote Labour badge pinned to his lapel, or a woman (or man) wearing a burqa. Yes, everyone is an individual, unfortunately we don’t have time to get to know them as such, so, call me intolerant, but I for one, will continue to generalise.
Jonny, in case you wonder, I would shut down the CRE tomorrow, plus most of the other worthless organisations. I think Mercer should have resigned for being an idiot. But be in no doubt, his behaviour is not a criminal offence. Stupid yes, illegal, no.
I know that some soldiers have defended him. He is probably a decent man, but my god, the Tories do have an infallible tradition to shoot themselves in the foot at times.
Patrick M. said (when asked in the context of the new union) that he came accross a lot of ethic minority soldiers (not all ethnic minority soldiers or even a majority) who were idle and useless – and played the race card rather than trying to improve.
And that is “out of order”.
O.K. it is “out of order” for this man to tell the truth (i.e. recount his own experience). Well at least now we know.
Guy Herbert says that Mr Cameron was “impressive” in getting rid of Patrick M.
This is the same Guy Herbert who sneared at George Bush for accepting Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation.
No doubt there are deep political P.R. reasons why this all makes sense – but I am not interested in them.
Not that I hold any brief for Patick M. Anyone prepared to work with David Cameron is not someone I am going to go out of my way to defend.
I find myself hopeing for a Labour party come back – anything to defeat Mr Cameron and his chums.
As for military training methods. I continue to believe that there are other ways – but, I admit, I have no personal experience of command.
This is why I despise political correctness, you judge someone as ‘bad rubbish’ not by what is in their heart and soul but by a few miss-quoted sentences.
Obviously you know the man personally so you are clearly better positioned to know what is in his heart and soul.
As I do not, I can only go by his public statements and thus I conclude from his own words that he is probably just another racists jackass.
I would not call you intolerant, I would call you ‘missing the point’. You are describing behaviour. And a race is not a behaviour.
This MP put his life on the line for his non-white comrades too. Maybe you would do well to remember that point before passing judgment on an area you clearly have no experience of.
Rob, do you “generalise” that say, black guys are potential muggers? I hope not. A lot of racists do think that way. There are generalisations, and there are generalisations. Let’s be careful here.
Tom Marshall. What my experience/lack of experience of the armed forces is not frankly relevant. Several other people on this comment thread, such as Julian Taylor, who has served in the armed forces (the artillery), have made it clear they despise folk who use racist banter in the Army.
As to the personal qualities of Mr Mercer, I am sure he is a good guy, but he said that “in my experience a lot of ethnic minorities are lazy and useless” and however hard certain commenters try to put those remarks “in context” or whatever, they stand out as unpleasant, stupid, and the reason why this MP is no longer on the front bench. And, pace Paul Marks, I find it hard to believe that this MP was telling the truth. He was exaggerating. Consider how many non-white people serve and have served, with great distinction, in the Armed forces. Has this twerp of an MP never heard of the Ghurkas, the Indian Army, the various African regiments, etc?
Another broader point. There is a danger that we become so annoyed at the PC trend that we lapse into the opposite error, of bending over backwards to excuse nasty comments because to do otherwise would be to “pander to political correctness”. There is a kind of groupthink here. Sometimes rudeness, nastiness and viciousness are bad, even if a Guardian journalist says so.
That’s my last word on the subject.
I have no problem with your “last words on the subject” Johnathan – I agree with them.
It is your first words on the subject “good riddance to bad rubbish” that I object to (and some of your other words).
What you are saying is that we can not have politicians who (when asked) can not talk honestly about their own experiences and have to measure every word they say (to see how it might play as regards “racism”, “sexism”, “homophobia”, and so on).
Now this may be TRUE (one of the reasons that I get irritated by Guy Herbert is that I think he may be QUITE CORRECT that this the only sort of politician who can prosper in modern Britain – if I thought he was talking out of his hat he would not bother me, it is my fear that he is not). But that just means that all the senior politicians will be dishonest and unprincipled – who may be good at getting elected, but are no use for anything else.
A whole House of Commons of David Camerons.
Johnathan, along with you, Perry, VR and Euan, I am one of the privileged Samizdatistas that I found singled out for special derision and attack on a racist website. I wear that as a badge of honor. I certainly will not link them but you probably know who I mean.
I read as much of Patrick Mercer’s full statement as I could find (courtesy Brad’s link). This is the first Patrick Mercer statement quoted in the Guardian:
The racists I know would never say “good fortune” in the geniune way Mr Mercer appears to mean it. And a key point here, racists would never make the claim that blacks are “as English as you and me.”
He also makes the statement:
I rather doubt the Guardian was picture framing Mr Mercers comments to make him look good. If any thing most people on this site would expect the opposite of them.
His statements that you quoted were addressed specifically to lazy people who claim “racist abuse”. It seems to me a given that anyone who claims racist abuse in the context given will not be the “ginger bastard”, but will in fact be from an ethnic minority.
Mr Mercer appears to me to have been discussing a topic far beyond his savvy to handle in a Whitehall/Fleet Street arena. Political professionals can and often do say (and mean) much worse and get away with it. Unlike Mercer who doesn’t appear to me to be racist but is clearly lacking the level of ‘sensitivity’ needed for politics.
I think there is a danger in painting “racism” with too wide a brush. There are some truely evil racists about and equating them with Mr. Mercer discredits the campaign to defeat the very real evil. Those people rarely make such obvious statements in a public forum. In fact their trademark is often how logical and scientific they try to appear. Mr Mercer’s mistake appears (unless the Guardian left something out) to have been one of making a statement about ethnic minorities without having one of the ‘PBUH’ moments and making the requisite equal or greater denunciation of non-minorities.
Again, I am basing my opinion only on what I read in the Guardian link. If there is more than this that is influencing people’s opinions, then they should provide that information to us.
Perry said: “I would not call you intolerant, I would call you ‘missing the point’. You are describing behaviour. And a race is not a behaviour.” What can I say, I have just re-read the Ayn Rand quote that I quoted, and I totally missed the bit about it being about race. Don’t ask me how, I’m now feeling a bit foolish, so, just ignore what I wrote in my previous comment.
No I don’t know him personally but I have read the comments of black soldiers who served under him.
Whos words would you rather judge him by..
#1, Black Soldiers who know him and served under him for a very long time.
#2, Or words from an uppity journalist hatchet job trying to create a story out of nothing.
?
–
You are misquoting him Johnathan. The full quote of the line you mention is “I came across a lot of ethnic minority soldiers who were idle and useless, but who used racism as cover for their misdemeanours,”
And the context is he was responding to a report that soldiers from the Commonwealth were forming their own trade union because of the abuse and racism to which they were subjected.
Maybe his words should have been better but it hardly justifies the uproar when read in full.