|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Red ken and antisemitism
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
On this idea of Israel being moved to the Americas (as per Shah's now infamous facebook post).
The problem here is about subtext. On the one hand it looks a bit jokey and innocent - akin to saying that if Scotland won independence the English should saw them off at Hadrian's Wall and use tugs to move them to the mid Atlantic so they can see what real independence would feel like.
Of course, the issue is that Jews have already experienced near extermination during the twentieth century, so this "joke" looks a lot less like a mild barb and very much more like pandering to the Neo-Nazis who think that someone should try completing the job.
If Shah didn't intend that, she should have been known how it would be perceived.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Yes, he has:
When questioned by reporters, Goldsmith said it was legitimate to question Khan’s “extremist” links. “I don’t believe [Khan] is an extremist. But it is a matter of judgment … Not everyone in the Muslim community has provided cover for extremists.”
I refer the honorable gentlemen to Goldsmith's interview on BBC Radio 4 on Today on Saturday morning when he spent a large amount of time equivocating about whether or not he was claiming Khan was an extremist. In the end he just insisted that Khan kept dodgy company because he kept appearing on political platforms with people that he (Goldsmith) didn't approve of.
quote:
The Obama / Kenyan ancestry / affect on Anglo-US relations seemed to be discussed a bit when Obama was first elected, as I seem to remember. Even the Guardian raised it.
Yes, and to avoid the continued discussion of these statements we're now into the business of judging Khan by the platforms he speaks on and judging Shah by something she said on facebook before becoming an MP and for which she's apologised for.
This whole thing is manufactured to get political advantage and to avoid the truth that Goldsmith is a very nasty piece of work and is prepared to stoop to whatever depths he can to win elections. Note the very cynical writing of letters to people with Hindu and Indian surnames to warn them about Khan stealing their jewellery.
quote:
But, thanks to Jeremy Corbyn's election, these sort of people seem much more welcome into the fold, don't they?
I honestly have no idea, I am not nor have ever been a member of the Labour party.
However I can say that many years ago I associated with a lot of people in the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and went to Palestine quite a few times myself.
On one occasion I happened to meet Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn at a PSC march in London.
My general impression of the PSC was that it was genuinely a good hearted organisation which was genuinely trying to work for better things for the Palestinian people.
I also discovered that a large number of people in the PSC - and other solidarity groups - were actually Jewish and that a small but significant proportion were rabidly anti-Semitic, racist conspiracy theorists. These were often involved in various lefty political groups.
Since that time, I've heard several times of commotions within various Palestinian Solidarity groups to remove notorious racists. It seems like a perennial problem.
From those interactions, I believe that there is likely a large overlap between the Palestinian Solidarity groups and various left/Labour groups, so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that those lefty groups have similar problems. I've no evidence about whether it is any worse under Corbyn, although my guess would be that these individuals were unlikely to be New Labour and would be more likely to be at the Socialist Worker end of the spectrum. I also know, for example, that the Socialist Worker Party has been plagued by racists for some time.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I can't be arsed to go through your entire Gish Gallop, GCabot, but to read Corbyn's comments on Barghouti as endorsement of him, and a further leap to anti-semitism from there, is a blatant case of seeing what you want to see.
Lenin was an iconic figure to many Marxists in the 1920s. Look, I must support Soviet-style communism.
[ 02. May 2016, 19:17: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
But, thanks to Jeremy Corbyn's election, these sort of people seem much more welcome into the fold, don't they?
On what basis are you making this claim ?
Sorry, I may not have been clear. I was referring to very left-wing types being welcomed back in to the fold and I think there's plenty of evidence for that.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
May 2: Mr. Corbyn lauds convicted terrorist Marwan Barghouti as an “iconic figure” – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/01/jeremy-corbyn-called-convicted-terrorist-an-iconic-figure/
Some see Barghouti as a freedom fighter and Mandela figure. Whether one personally agrees with him or not, I think it is a simple fact that many Palestinians see him as an icon, just as many black South Africans saw Mandela as an icon whilst he was convicted as a terrorist on Robbin Island.
Personally, I think it is highly unlikely Barghouti could pull off a South African style transformation without a vicious war.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
But, thanks to Jeremy Corbyn's election, these sort of people seem much more welcome into the fold, don't they?
On what basis are you making this claim ?
Sorry, I may not have been clear. I was referring to very left-wing types being welcomed back in to the fold and I think there's plenty of evidence for that.
Not there really isn't, nor have you supplied any. A large number of people joined the Labour party over the last year - doubtless that includes a small minority with extreme views of various stripes. That's a world away from your actual contention that people with 'extremist links' (which is what you were actually referring to in your original post) have been welcomed back in.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
But, thanks to Jeremy Corbyn's election, these sort of people seem much more welcome into the fold, don't they?
On what basis are you making this claim ?
Sorry, I may not have been clear. I was referring to very left-wing types being welcomed back in to the fold and I think there's plenty of evidence for that.
Not there really isn't, nor have you supplied any. A large number of people joined the Labour party over the last year - doubtless that includes a small minority with extreme views of various stripes. That's a world away from your actual contention that people with 'extremist links' (which is what you were actually referring to in your original post) have been welcomed back in.
As I say, the point I was trying to make (which I appreciate wasn't very clearly expressed to start with) is that those with very left-wing views are being accommodated in the higher echelons of the Labour Party. I think we've seen that with, for example, the appointment of John McDonnell, the return of Ken Livingstone to a senior review role, the appointment of Seamus Milne and various Socialist Action types, together with the appointment of a figure from the SWP who had recently campaigned against Labour as one of McDonnell's economic advisers.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can't be arsed to go through your entire Gish Gallop, GCabot, but to read Corbyn's comments on Barghouti as endorsement of him, and a further leap to anti-semitism from there, is a blatant case of seeing what you want to see.
Lenin was an iconic figure to many Marxists in the 1920s. Look, I must support Soviet-style communism.
I do not believe I made either of the leaps you are suggesting.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
May 2: Mr. Corbyn lauds convicted terrorist Marwan Barghouti as an “iconic figure” – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/01/jeremy-corbyn-called-convicted-terrorist-an-iconic-figure/
Some see Barghouti as a freedom fighter and Mandela figure. Whether one personally agrees with him or not, I think it is a simple fact that many Palestinians see him as an icon, just as many black South Africans saw Mandela as an icon whilst he was convicted as a terrorist on Robbin Island.
Personally, I think it is highly unlikely Barghouti could pull off a South African style transformation without a vicious war.
Certainly, there are people who reasonably view Mr. Barghouti as a “freedom fighter.” For Mr. Corbyn to use such an admiring tenor given the recent controversy embroiling Labour, however, speaks to a profound tone-deafness at best. If Mr. Corbyn were actually heeding the calls of his fellow Labourites for serious investigation and introspection into the problem of anti-Semitism, it is difficult to imagine that he would make such cavalier comments, which was the original impetus for my noting this event.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Third rate rhetoric on second.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You missed this one.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Certainly, there are people who reasonably view Mr. Barghouti as a “freedom fighter.” For Mr. Corbyn to use such an admiring tenor given the recent controversy embroiling Labour, however, speaks to a profound tone-deafness at best. If Mr. Corbyn were actually heeding the calls of his fellow Labourites for serious investigation and introspection into the problem of anti-Semitism, it is difficult to imagine that he would make such cavalier comments, which was the original impetus for my noting this event.
Though, whether "freedom fighter" or "criminal terrorist" Barghouti committed politically motivated acts against the Israeli state targeting civilian citizens of the Israeli state. That those citizens were Jewish is very much secondary to them being illegal settlers in territory illegally held by an occupying military power. If any criticism of and protest against (even violent protests) the Israeli state is anti-semitism then the word has lost any meaning.
And, in expressing his views on Barghouti, Jeremy Corbyn was not, IMO, being remotely anti-semitic. It may not have been the wisest thing for him to do, he's already been widely portrayed as a friend to terrorists and if it hadn't been for the recent issues with anti-semitism the press would have certainly jumped on him on those grounds. But, I admire him for standing by his principles in support of the Palestinian peoples, despite the issues of association with violent political activists and anti-semitism claims.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Certainly, there are people who reasonably view Mr. Barghouti as a “freedom fighter.” For Mr. Corbyn to use such an admiring tenor given the recent controversy embroiling Labour, however, speaks to a profound tone-deafness at best. If Mr. Corbyn were actually heeding the calls of his fellow Labourites for serious investigation and introspection into the problem of anti-Semitism, it is difficult to imagine that he would make such cavalier comments, which was the original impetus for my noting this event.
Though, whether "freedom fighter" or "criminal terrorist" Barghouti committed politically motivated acts against the Israeli state targeting civilian citizens of the Israeli state. That those citizens were Jewish is very much secondary to them being illegal settlers in territory illegally held by an occupying military power. If any criticism of and protest against (even violent protests) the Israeli state is anti-semitism then the word has lost any meaning.
And, in expressing his views on Barghouti, Jeremy Corbyn was not, IMO, being remotely anti-semitic. It may not have been the wisest thing for him to do, he's already been widely portrayed as a friend to terrorists and if it hadn't been for the recent issues with anti-semitism the press would have certainly jumped on him on those grounds. But, I admire him for standing by his principles in support of the Palestinian peoples, despite the issues of association with violent political activists and anti-semitism claims.
Again, I never contended that Mr. Corbyn’s statement on Mr. Barghouti constituted or implied anti-Semitism on Corbyn’s part. It is indicative, however, of the gravity or lack thereof with which Mr. Corbyn views the issue of anti-Semitism within his party, which is relevant because it is exactly Mr. Corbyn’s lackluster approach towards this issue that is garnering him such vehement criticism, including from within his own party.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
But apparently, Boris is allowed to make racist slurs against Obama
My understanding is that he referred to the President as "half-Kenyan" and suggested that this gave him an antipathy towards Britain as the colonial power.
In what way is that a racist slur? It is a fact that the President's father was Kenyan, so describing him as half-Kenyan is accurate (cf. millions of people describing their ancestry). It is a fact that members of his family were mistreated by the British colonial powers.
I think it's incorrect to say that he feels an antipathy towards Britain because of that - he's far too smart to let that overly colour his opinions - but it would seem to be neither racist nor a slur.
Are you referring to some different Boris comments?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Personally I think the Guardian article is a bit off as well. But "ancestral dislike" is a phrase you would rarely hear used about a view of Germany by someone with English parents. One might hear references to baggage or national sympathies, but unlikely "ancestral dislike".
Anyway the notion that US presidents without any Kenyan heritage would feel more warmly towards the British empire is, I suspect, missing something.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The danger for liberal Christians is in crossing the line that Jez & Ken are two and one half short wavelengths away from respectively: justifying violence. A line Welby has already crossed from the beginning of the shorter side of the spectrum course.
[ 03. May 2016, 07:04: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
My understanding is that he referred to the President as "half-Kenyan" and suggested that this gave him an antipathy towards Britain as the colonial power.
In what way is that a racist slur? It is a fact that the President's father was Kenyan, so describing him as half-Kenyan is accurate (cf. millions of people describing their ancestry). It is a fact that members of his family were mistreated by the British colonial powers.
In what way is it not?
Imagine Boris had said the following:
--
Joshua has Eastern European Jewish forebears and lost many of his Grandparent's generation in the holocaust. His mother arrived in Britain as part of the Kindertransport.
Given his family background, there is an inbuilt generational antipathy towards Germany and the Netherlands.
Therefore as a Jew, Joshua should absent himself from the Brexit discussion, because he is clearly unable to contribute anything of value.
--
That would almost by definition be a racist and anti-Semitic slur, because it is trying to argue that someone is unable to contribute to a conversation about something because of his family background and inferences made about his political position made upon them.
I'm a bit shocked that you need this to be explained to you.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Personally I think the Guardian article is a bit off as well. But "ancestral dislike" is a phrase you would rarely hear used about a view of Germany by someone with English parents. One might hear references to baggage or national sympathies, but unlikely "ancestral dislike".
Anyway the notion that US presidents without any Kenyan heritage would feel more warmly towards the British empire is, I suspect, missing something.
This is overthinking. If Boris had said that the US President was a lame duck and had no dogs in the Brexit debate (to mix metaphors) and therefore should mind his own business - that'd be a fair political point.
Bringing someone's ancestry into the discussion to close down discussion and to dismiss their views is just out-and-out racism.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
This strikes me as a very similar issue to Red Ken's problems.
Both Boris and Ken might be stating true facts - i.e. it does indeed seem to be true that Zionists were talking to Hitler. It is undoubtedly true that Obama's father was Kenyan and that many Kenyans did not appreciate the British Empire.
However stating these facts in a particular context at a particular time is doing more than asserting those facts. It is asserting that they are relevant to the discussion.
Hence, as Cheesy says, the implication is that Obama can't talk about Brexit because of his part-Kenyan heritage and that it is somehow relevant to make a link between Hitler and Zionism in the context of a modern-day discussion.
Had the discussions been an overview of the heritage of various world leaders and the pre-war history of Zionism the implications of mentioning these facts would have been different.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This strikes me as a very similar issue to Red Ken's problems.
Both Boris and Ken might be stating true facts - i.e. it does indeed seem to be true that Zionists were talking to Hitler. It is undoubtedly true that Obama's father was Kenyan and that many Kenyans did not appreciate the British Empire.
However stating these facts in a particular context at a particular time is doing more than asserting those facts. It is asserting that they are relevant to the discussion.
Hence, as Cheesy says, the implication is that Obama can't talk about Brexit because of his part-Kenyan heritage and that it is somehow relevant to make a link between Hitler and Zionism in the context of a modern-day discussion.
Had the discussions been an overview of the heritage of various world leaders and the pre-war history of Zionism the implications of mentioning these facts would have been different.
I disagree for reasons already explained, primarily that the interviewer put a point about Hitler to KL in the question.
But even if we accept that there is an equivalent, clearly there is no witch-hunt of racists in the Tory part and Boris has not been made to resign the whip even after apologising.
This, in essence, is the difference even if it was provable that KL was being anti-Semitic. In Labour, those who make questionable statements - even ages ago on twitter and facebook - are punished. In the Tory party, those statements are made in public and are widely distributed and nothing happens.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Ken was asked about Hitler but not that specific point. What he said was rather an unbalanced detail to focus on, and I still for the life of me can't really see what the point in mentioning that detail was - unless it was just to appear clever for knowing some minutiae of history that many other people wouldn't know.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, in expressing his views on Barghouti, Jeremy Corbyn was not, IMO, being remotely anti-semitic. It may not have been the wisest thing for him to do, he's already been widely portrayed as a friend to terrorists and if it hadn't been for the recent issues with anti-semitism the press would have certainly jumped on him on those grounds. But, I admire him for standing by his principles in support of the Palestinian peoples, despite the issues of association with violent political activists and anti-semitism claims.
I think this is pretty wide of the mark. Barghouti is a moderate who accepts Israel inside the 1967 borders, who has renounced violence, and who has called for a negotiated peace.
Many voices inside Israel have pragmatically stated that Barghouti is the best chance of peace and the best available pragmatic deal-maker. Some Israelis see that there is no alternative.
That being the case, why shouldn't Britain's Labour leader support a pragmatic, Israel acknowledging, negotiating, peace-making Palestinian leader?
Or are we really getting into the business of saying that whoever the Israeli state determines is a terrorist must be a terrorist, including the thousands of men, women and children incarcerated on administrative detention without charge.
Let's not forget that Nelson Mandela was called a terrorist and was charged with being an accessory to murder.
I'm a pacifist and I think Palestinian violence is entirely counter-productive. But to condemn someone for admiring Barghouti smacks of those young Tories who went around with "Hang Mandela" badges.
In the end, that was just the wrong side of history.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Ken was asked about Hitler but not that specific point. What he said was rather an unbalanced detail to focus on, and I still for the life of me can't really see what the point in mentioning that detail was - unless it was just to appear clever for knowing some minutiae of history that many other people wouldn't know.
I've already said that it was a stupid and convoluted way to answer a rather stupidly worded question. But that doesn't make it racist in the way that Boris' statement was racist.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Yes, I've been back and read your post on that. I think the explanation does hang together, although from what I've read of the transcripts it is quite a feat assembling a plausible reasoning as you have done.
Ken's combination of thinking a lot of his own intelligence and absolute inability to ever back down have compounded it. He hasn't gone back to lay out his reasoning in the way you have, although I accept it is difficult to do that with John Mann screaming at you or through the locked door of a disabled toilet.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
No one yet has mentioned the Haavara Plan which one assumes is the basis of Ken's position. He was asked about Hitler and of course put his foot in his mouth.
Nazis agreed with Zionists to create a mechanism to send German Jews to Palestine , with the clever caveat that their belongings became property of the German state and to get them back the Jews had to pay a fee on arrival in Palestine.
No doubt the Zionists believed that an influx of Jews to Palestine would create a momentum for a Jewish state by destabilizing the British authority (in the same way as the expulsion of Russian Jews to Palestine did previously).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
This operated for most of the 1930s. Ken is wrong to suggest that Hitler had the SAME aims as the Zionists but he did eventually support the plan.
As for Naz Shah, her map was created by the radical Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein who has a bit of an axe to grind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein
Its probably legitimate political comment but probably unwise if you want to become an MP..... And Finkelstein is no friend of Israel's Government despite being a child of the Shoah (he is banned from the country).
HOWEVER what we are all missing is this. Why has this 2 year old Tweet reappeared now - just before the local elections and London Mayor campaign? And particularly on something to which JC is vulnerable - he was 'friends' with Hamas , don't forget.
Who in Labour benefits from a witch hunt when they should be campaigning? Or is this a grenade chucked in from the other side, who were just starting to look electorally vulnerable over Tax Avoidance and the Junior Doctors. In Politics nothing is as simple as it appears.
[ 03. May 2016, 08:26: Message edited by: beatmenace ]
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'd add that this is nevertheless clear evidence that Ken "doesn't get it" when it comes to anti-semitism. This is the equivalent of a middle-class white Englander telling stories about what a terrible state agriculture in Kenya was in before the settlers arrived to make a point about land ownership issues in post-colonial Africa. It's not necessarily evidence of racism, but it does suggest a failure to understand the sensitivities associated with the issues in a way that suggests worrying about racism is a very low priority.
I think that is the best one can say about Ken. He may not be anti-semitic but he sails very close to the wind in his modes of expression, and worrying about anti-semitism seems to be an extremely low priority for him.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Yes, I've been back and read your post on that. I think the explanation does hang together, although from what I've read of the transcripts it is quite a feat assembling a plausible reasoning as you have done.
Ken's combination of thinking a lot of his own intelligence and absolute inability to ever back down have compounded it. He hasn't gone back to lay out his reasoning in the way you have, although I accept it is difficult to do that with John Mann screaming at you or through the locked door of a disabled toilet.
Agree John Mann was a disgrace. There are legitimate ways for a Party to disagree and ranting at people you disagree with is way down the list.
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, in expressing his views on Barghouti, Jeremy Corbyn was not, IMO, being remotely anti-semitic. It may not have been the wisest thing for him to do, he's already been widely portrayed as a friend to terrorists and if it hadn't been for the recent issues with anti-semitism the press would have certainly jumped on him on those grounds. But, I admire him for standing by his principles in support of the Palestinian peoples, despite the issues of association with violent political activists and anti-semitism claims.
I think this is pretty wide of the mark. Barghouti is a moderate who accepts Israel inside the 1967 borders, who has renounced violence, and who has called for a negotiated peace.
Sorry, why is it wide of the mark? Even the article you linked to says "There is no question he supported and encouraged violence.". I thought my description if his involvement in attacks against (what he would consider illegal) settlements in the West Bank was consistent with a withdrawal to the 1967 borders.
And, I think people like Barghouti, especially if his renouncement of violence is genuine, are exactly who we need involved in negotiations for a settlement of the ongoing issues in Palestine. And, I still stand by my admiration for Corbyn to stick to his principals that we need to talk to, even admire, people like Barghouti.
If Corbyn was to back down on his well known position on Palestine because some people in the media who struggle to find more than one neuron working in their brains think this looks like anti-semitism then that looks very much like letting the bastards win. Yes, crack down hard on anti-semitism when it rears it's ugly head, but to also stop working for justice in Palestine is throwing out several babies with a few drops of dirty bath water.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Sorry Alan, I misread/misunderstood what you'd written. I was responding to the idea that support of Barghouti was an example of a problem for Corbyn and Labour (anti-Semitic or otherwise).
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'd add that this is nevertheless clear evidence that Ken "doesn't get it" when it comes to anti-semitism. This is the equivalent of a middle-class white Englander telling stories about what a terrible state agriculture in Kenya was in before the settlers arrived to make a point about land ownership issues in post-colonial Africa. It's not necessarily evidence of racism, but it does suggest a failure to understand the sensitivities associated with the issues in a way that suggests worrying about racism is a very low priority.
I think that is the best one can say about Ken. He may not be anti-semitic but he sails very close to the wind in his modes of expression, and worrying about anti-semitism seems to be an extremely low priority for him.
This post, ISTM, captures the essence of the whole problem with Ken Livingstone here. If you go back over verbatim reports of what he has been saying, there's one in which he states categorically that he has never experienced any antisemitism in the Labour party, and then goes straight on to assure the interviewer that the current perpetrators of antisemitic posts are being dealt with. Clearly not a man to be troubled by cognitive dissonance.
Yesterday evening, I spent some time trying to track down what people who are both left wing and Jewish were saying about this whole business. Without trying to speak for them, my general impression is that they are inclined to let the Naz Shah business drop - she has apologised fully, and in their view beyond the call of duty. The same cannot be said for KL - he is incapable of apologising it seems, and moreover has previous form. They don't trust him a single inch.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Yesterday evening, I spent some time trying to track down what people who are both left wing and Jewish were saying about this whole business. Without trying to speak for them, my general impression is that they are inclined to let the Naz Shah business drop - she has apologised fully, and in their view beyond the call of duty. The same cannot be said for KL - he is incapable of apologising it seems, and moreover has previous form. They don't trust him a single inch.
The danger here is that you are taking the views of Jewish people you've spoken to and are extrapolating to infer that this is a majority or unanimous view amongst all Jews. Or perhaps all right-thinking Jews.
But in reality Jews are not an amorphous lump and do not all think the same on this, or any other, issue. In fact, the map used on Facebook by Shah was one created by Norm Finkelstein, a Jew who lost both parents in the Holocaust (and, incidentally, royally pissed off many pro-Palestinian groups a few years ago by refusing to talk about wiping Israel off the map).
In fact Moshe Machover, Tony Goldstein (recently also removed from membership of the Labour party), Jamie Stern-Weiner and various other lefty Jews have made statements supporting Ken Livingstone - and in some cases have said that Shah was stitched up.
Now, I don't happen to entirely agree with all of these, and I'm not pretending that they represent all lefty Jews or anything. But let's be clear: they are all Jews and they are entitled to be heard. A blanket claim of offence held by all Jews helps nobody.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
That would be taking things too far, I agree. However, I thought it worth mentioning that a small subsample seemed to be agreed (and in fact I did a quick check online to make sure it wasn't way out of line).
But if it came over as a claim to universality then I apologise.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The Tories have lots of problems. Prejudice against people of other races, nationalities and religion being among them. Also prejudice against the poor, people who have to work hard for barely enough to live on, the disabled and anyone unfortunate enough to get ill but unable to afford private health care. A strong dislike of quality health care and education for all. Economic theories that they now get to enact that will totally screw up and already messed up economy - well, screw it up for the majority, they might succeed in making lots of money for those who are already rolling in it.
But, apart from that, the Tory party is a bastion of virtue and tolerance.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
mr. cheesy wrote: quote:
But in reality Jews are not an amorphous lump and do not all think the same on this, or any other, issue. In fact, the map used on Facebook by Shah was one created by Norm Finkelstein, a Jew who lost both parents in the Holocaust (and, incidentally, royally pissed off many pro-Palestinian groups a few years ago by refusing to talk about wiping Israel off the map).
In fact Moshe Machover, Tony Goldstein (recently also removed from membership of the Labour party), Jamie Stern-Weiner and various other lefty Jews have made statements supporting Ken Livingstone - and in some cases have said that Shah was stitched up.
Just returning to this, if you haven't picked it up yet, there is an interview by Jamie Stern-Weiner with Norman Finkelstein himself over at the OpenDemocracy.net website which is worth a look.
Alan - I entirely agree with you, and with earlier posters who point out that even on this one topic the labour party is hardly the most blameworthy of all parties. But I don't think a race to the bottom is helpful. The issue within the labour party is particularly important because, if anything, islamophobia is an even bigger problem in the UK, and labour is far better placed to address it sensibly than any other party - something it will be badly hindered in if it is perceived as doing so from a perspective that has an antisemitic component.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Alan - I entirely agree with you, and with earlier posters who point out that even on this one topic the labour party is hardly the most blameworthy of all parties. But I don't think a race to the bottom is helpful.
I don't think a race to the bottom would be helpful either. I don't think that that is really what has been happening.
There is a very small number of people who have expressed views that were either anti-Semitic or idiotic, and have been censured for it - generally fairly swiftly, often even before their remarks have been picked up by the media.
Similarly, the Labour party has grown significantly over the last year, and - to the extent that they will be reflective of society in general - it wouldn't be surprising if a small number of the new members held anti-Semitic views.
There are people who would like to make a huge crisis of this, and there are a number of journalists willing to misrepresent if this gets a story going (see Andrew Marr claims regarding Seamus Milne - which I gather he has now apologised for).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Given his family background, there is an inbuilt generational antipathy towards Germany and the Netherlands.
Therefore as a Jew, Joshua should absent himself from the Brexit discussion, because he is clearly unable to contribute anything of value.
I'm a bit shocked that you need this to be explained to you.
"Clearly unable to contribute anything of value" doesn't resemble Boris Johnson's comments at all, which were, after a rather throwaway comment about how the Obama family history might not necessarily endear Britain to the President, centered on Boris's claim that the US President urging the UK to remain in the kind of organization that the US wouldn't consider joining is just a little on the hypocritical side.
In your example, Joshua clearly has both a right and a responsibility to share his opinions on Brexit, because he's British. And I don't think it's racist to say that, given his family history, he might have more cause than most to be wary of Germany, and so if he were to express anti-German sentiment, to wonder if his family's history has led him to be biased against Germans.
I had a friend (long since passed away) who was a POW in a Japanese POW camp in the war, and was treated about as you'd expect. His kids still bear a grudge against the Japanese because of it. They have, and will admit to having, anti-Japanese bias, and I will assume their bias colours any comments they make about Japan or the Japanese. It's not racist, or anti-Britishist or anything to point that out.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Given his family background, there is an inbuilt generational antipathy towards Germany and the Netherlands.
Therefore as a Jew, Joshua should absent himself from the Brexit discussion, because he is clearly unable to contribute anything of value.
I'm a bit shocked that you need this to be explained to you.
"Clearly unable to contribute anything of value" doesn't resemble Boris Johnson's comments at all, which were, after a rather throwaway comment about how the Obama family history might not necessarily endear Britain to the President [...]
"Throwaway comment"? Did you even read what Johnson wrote? The whole opening section is a recycling of a fringe right-wing story about the dark meaning of the replacement of a bust of Churchill with one of Martin Luther King Jr. ("Some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire") quote:
I had a friend (long since passed away) who was a POW in a Japanese POW camp in the war, and was treated about as you'd expect. His kids still bear a grudge against the Japanese because of it. They have, and will admit to having, anti-Japanese bias, and I will assume their bias colours any comments they make about Japan or the Japanese. It's not racist, or anti-Britishist or anything to point that out.
Well this argument is just fucked up in a number of ways. Are we to presume that all those WWII vets who claimed to have reconciled with their former enemies were just lying? Or is it only "ancestral dislike" rather than personal experience which can't be overcome.
In either case, Obama's father wasn't tortured in a POW camp, and he's never claimed or shown (right-wing fantasies notwithstanding) any particular animus towards the British. And we're supposed to believe that his secret hatred of Britain is now manifesting itself in the form of ... bad advice about leaving the EU?
If it makes sense to discount what he says about Brexit based on such flimsy evidence of bias as this, then I guess the opinions and advice of half the world can be safely ignored, whatever they say - they're all just sore about the Empire! (Presumably it works for the US, too - maybe black Americans are all just sore about slavery.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
If he was just American he'd be fine with the British Empire. Americans love all that. It's just the black African heritage that might bias him.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
I've been thinking about this over the past few days. Mostly to be as conscious as possible about any blindspots I might hold.
I really do not think the antisemitism charge (against the Labour party, in general) stands up to any proper analysis. I've thought about it a lot in the context that some lefties really are self-satisfied and have a desperate superiority complex. Try being lefty and 'pro-life*' in some contexts and you're soon see what I mean. Or, simply being Christian causes all sorts of issues for some really smart people. That one annoys me for two reasons, firstly they all seem to think their oh-so-clever arguments are new and secondly because it shows a complete lack of appreciation of the strong links to the church in the Labour movement in the UK....
Sorry, I digress.
I do not want to engage in a whataboutery argument, Such arguments smell like what they are. However, there is a bare-faced hypocrisy going on here. And as such, I think laying charges against those who are making noise (Tory party and sections of the press) is fair and necessary.
Ken remains crass and stupid. It does seem to be an ego thing. You may remember that when the lottery was launched in this country their was a joke about a holocaust survivor winning and wanting to thank the Nazis... I won't tell it here. It is clearly possible to tell that joke and not be antisemitic. However, It would be quite likely that many people would be offended by it. To then say "I'm not antisemitic and therefore it's ok for me to tell it in any context I like" is the equivalent of what I think Ken is doing.
Let me put it another way. I have a good friend and colleague who is from Manchester. His parents and Grandparents are all from Pakistan. When with him and few others it is well known that I am not racist, just because I hate Asians. I hate everyone. I do not discriminate, I am a grumpy sod that hates the world, and everyone in it. (I am white by the way). Now, outside of the context of certain friends, I would be very careful not to say this - it could be offensive to people who have good reason to be sensitive and it's not for me to tell them that they shouldn't be. The point is that for me to carry on in all contexts decrying I AM NOT A RACIST therefore I can say this kind of thing if I want to would be crass and stupid and arrogant.
As has been noted, all potential antisemitic issues within Labour have been addressed and I hadn't realised how there had been 12 or so as many have been sorted before even being reported in the mainstream media.
Conversely, Boris's comments when put to the Prime Minister, we are told are simply a 'matter for Boris.' Let's be clear here, Obama has not shown any indication of an anti-British bias. He stakes out a (well-reasoned) position that Mr Johnson happens to not like and suddenly his Kenyan heritage disqualifies him from comment.
How can that not be racist?
The thing that worries me most, is that I suspect Johnson is not a racist but is quite happy to play with fire if it suits him. Which, in my book, is even worse.
It's much like the observation about Nigel Farage. Farage is not a racist in the same way that a coke can in not a wasp.
Similarly, this is the party who sent vans round non-white areas encouraging immigrants to 'go home.' This is the party whose members in the 80s wore 'hang Mandela' T-shirts.
But, remember, the Labour party has the problem.
AFZ
*I hold a complex and nuanced, pro-life position (see a dead horse thread if you really want to) but for some anything other than an absolute pro-choice position is unacceptable. In this context for some who support the Palestinians, it's easy to see how subtle antisemitism might be tolerated.
[ 04. May 2016, 06:36: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Well this argument is just fucked up in a number of ways. Are we to presume that all those WWII vets who claimed to have reconciled with their former enemies were just lying?
No, of course not, and I said nothing of the kind. My friend, as it happens, had long since forgiven his captors, but his kids couldn't.
quote:
Or is it only "ancestral dislike" rather than personal experience which can't be overcome.
Well, I think it might well be easier to forgive sins against you than sins against someone you love. But that's not the point. Nowhere did I say that "ancestral dislike" or any other negative opinion can't be overcome.
quote:
In either case, Obama's father wasn't tortured in a POW camp,
According to his wife, he was beaten in prison. Which may or may not be true, and Barack Obama may or may not believe it, but if it's true, it's not so far from the same thing.
quote:
And we're supposed to believe that his secret hatred of Britain is now manifesting itself in the form of ... bad advice about leaving the EU?
No, not that either. There is a belief in some quarters that the "special relationship" means that the US President would have Britain's best interests at heart when offering such advice.
Boris Johnson's point is that the US President in fact has America's interests at heart when he advises Britain to stay in the EU, and that those might not be the same as Britain's interests.
It's not so much that we should assume that Obama hates us as that we shouldn't assume that he likes us (oh, and by the way, he has cause to not like us. We think that Americans are naturally predisposed to like us because of our shared heritage, but this President has some different history.)
Now, I think you'd have to be crazy to think that Barack Obama has anything other than America's best interests in mind. It's his job to have America's best interests in mind, and he's quite good at it. And it's completely obvious that it's in America's interests to have the UK in the EU.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Boris Johnson's point is that the US President in fact has America's interests at heart when he advises Britain to stay in the EU, and that those might not be the same as Britain's interests.
It's not so much that we should assume that Obama hates us as that we shouldn't assume that he likes us (oh, and by the way, he has cause to not like us. We think that Americans are naturally predisposed to like us because of our shared heritage, but this President has some different history.)
Now, I think you'd have to be crazy to think that Barack Obama has anything other than America's best interests in mind. It's his job to have America's best interests in mind, and he's quite good at it. And it's completely obvious that it's in America's interests to have the UK in the EU.
No, sorry. Boris' point was that Obama could and should be judged - and his thoughts dismissed - because of the colour of his skin and his ancestry. There isn't a clearer cut form of racism than that.
It is certainly arguable that the USA's interests are served by the UK remaining in the EU. If Boris had made that point, then that'd be a totally fair comment.
Instead Boris decided to do the least honourable thing and bring into question the legitimacy of Obama making a statement by predetermining that he cannot possibly be trusted because of residual anti-British sentiment inherited from his family.
Shame on him.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Alienfromzog and Chris Stiles - I agree (broadly). One of the problems of discussing a single issue like this is that it risks slewing perceptions so as to make it THE subject of general concern. It isn't, for me at least. I don't believe for a minute that the labour party has a general problem involving antisemitism, and I think that Jeremy Corbyn's approach is the right one.
The thing is, though, that it is the labour party who will be looking for my vote in the next round of elections (I'm not in London and there is no election here in this round). Not the conservatives, not the libdems, nor anyone else most likely. This is why I am interested. And I do think there is a specific problem within the labour party - it is small and it is localised, and that is the best stage at which to address it. (Of course your political opponents are making a meal of it - what did you expect?)
quote:
Ken remains crass and stupid. It does seem to be an ego thing. You may remember that when the lottery was launched in this country their was a joke about a holocaust survivor winning and wanting to thank the Nazis... I won't tell it here. It is clearly possible to tell that joke and not be antisemitic. However, It would be quite likely that many people would be offended by it. To then say "I'm not antisemitic and therefore it's ok for me to tell it in any context I like" is the equivalent of what I think Ken is doing.
I think that's probably true. It's an identity thing. In other past discussions on another incident, I think what seems to happen is that Ken has some analytical fraamework in his head which drives these outbusts. He is unwilling (and possibly unable) to concede that many others do not see things that way. The technical term for that is bigotry, though I'm not sure it's helpful, as the word is more a generalised insult than a precise descriptor these days.
In any event, it looks like that's what is happening here. As to the what and why, that too is probably worth a discussion, though this post is probably already tl;dr.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
And I do think there is a specific problem within the labour party - it is small and it is localised, and that is the best stage at which to address it. (Of course your political opponents are making a meal of it - what did you expect?)
I'd agree to a point. The problem is that at the moment the larger issue within the Labour party is that those on Blairite-wing are having a prolonged tantrum over the temerity of the line members disagreeing with their view of how the world should be.
Hence absurd situations like Liz Kendall (4.5% of the leadership vote and the closest the party has to a Nicola Murray figure) pronouncing on threshold of popular support Corbyn will have to achieve to stay leader.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Personally I think the Guardian article is a bit off as well. But "ancestral dislike" is a phrase you would rarely hear used about a view of Germany by someone with English parents. One might hear references to baggage or national sympathies, but unlikely "ancestral dislike".
The word 'ancestral' does seem convenient to be used as a dogwhistle. That is, while a racist intention can be denied in using it, nevertheless I think most people hearing 'ancestral' will think of the biological ancestry of the person in question rather than of the specific personal histories of the person's parents.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
And I do think there is a specific problem within the labour party - it is small and it is localised, and that is the best stage at which to address it. (Of course your political opponents are making a meal of it - what did you expect?)
I'd agree to a point. The problem is that at the moment the larger issue within the Labour party is that those on Blairite-wing are having a prolonged tantrum over the temerity of the line members disagreeing with their view of how the world should be.
Hence absurd situations like Liz Kendall (4.5% of the leadership vote and the closest the party has to a Nicola Murray figure) pronouncing on threshold of popular support Corbyn will have to achieve to stay leader.
Also, some of them seem more interested in defeating Corbyn than the Tories. There are even rumours that they are hoping that Labour do badly in the local elections, but I don't know this for a fact.
Incidentally, I've been in/on the left for 50 years, and I think anti-Jewish sentiment is rare, but of course, criticism of Israel is quite common, especially by Jewish socialists!
The Finkelstein map, reproduced by Naz Shah, is akin to saying that Israel is the 51st state, isn't it? Not anti-Jewish, to my mind.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Furthermore, if you watch Prime Minister's Questions today you can see Rt Hon David Cameron try to smear both Jeremy Corbyn and Sadiq Khan whilst not answering any questions.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
AFZ
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I haven't yet had chance to watch PMQs, but I understand that Mr Corbyn didn't distance himself from claims that he called Hamas his 'friends'. Seems quite bizarre that he hasn't tackled that (assuming he has any serious ambition to lead the country).
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I haven't yet had chance to watch PMQs, but I understand that Mr Corbyn didn't distance himself from claims that he called Hamas his 'friends'. Seems quite bizarre that he hasn't tackled that (assuming he has any serious ambition to lead the country).
Bollocks.
Watch it.
It was a totally shameful performance by Cameron - being praised as effective politics by the Guardian. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Personally I think the Guardian article is a bit off as well. But "ancestral dislike" is a phrase you would rarely hear used about a view of Germany by someone with English parents. One might hear references to baggage or national sympathies, but unlikely "ancestral dislike".
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The word 'ancestral' does seem convenient to be used as a dogwhistle. That is, while a racist intention can be denied in using it, nevertheless I think most people hearing 'ancestral' will think of the biological ancestry of the person in question rather than of the specific personal histories of the person's parents.
Yes. And there must be something specific about this President that makes an ancestral aspects of this dislike of the empire more remarkable than the dislike other US citizens might feel when thinking about 1776 or 1812. Clearly the ancestral aspects of having a Kenyan father are more determining than the ancestral aspects of being American.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Furthermore, if you watch Prime Minister's Questions today you can see Rt Hon David Cameron try to smear both Jeremy Corbyn and Sadiq Khan whilst not answering any questions.
AFZ
Well, in London, the Tories are insinuating that Khan is Muslim = radical = extremist. It would be comical, if it wasn't so bigoted. And then Goldsmith goes all wide-eyed, it wasn't me, guv. Talk about plumbing the depths.
I'm just waiting for the Zinoviev letter.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Just going back a bit, quetzlcoatl wrote: quote:
Also, some of them seem more interested in defeating Corbyn than the Tories. There are even rumours that they are hoping that Labour do badly in the local elections, but I don't know this for a fact.
It looks that way at times. It's a bit of a tangent but does anyone have any inside info on what's happening? Not guesswork please - I can do that one myself.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
