This 'racism' thing..

This anti UKIP racism thing: You are aware that EU tariffs are effectively stopping African farmers trading their way into the 1st world?

So the EU actively discriminates against African farmers & enables the continued rape of Africa, but to oppose EU is racist? Is that right?

So UKIP is anti racism then. strokes chin. And pro Europe but just anti the disastrous EU that has killed opp. in the south. hmm

Anyway all this stuff flying around as if we all know what racism is and what being a racist means? I thought some context and reasoning might be useful. It is of course a sensitive subject and I did hesitate before writing this blog; it's something of a no-win thing if you're not very careful. So, anyway, as usual I'll wade in with my hob-nailed size 11s and upset some people no doubt. Sigh, but this is important.

Here's the OED's definition:

'The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism'

More example sentences

 

'1.1Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:'


Pretty abhorrent stuff I think you might agree. I certainly do - for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever.

Can you hear it?

The 'but' that's on it's way?

Ah here it is:

But whilst I agree that we should all be able to agree and accept that racism is wrong and horrible, fundamentally, it is clearly not what Mr Farage or UKIP is peddling. Is he saying that we should close our borders to immigrants because our race is superior? No he isn't. Is UKIP suggesting that people of Indian, Pakistani, Scandinavian, Eastern European, Caribbean, African or any other decent should be sent home or not allowed in because their race is inferior to ours? Get away. That would be mad in this modern world.

So his argument is not based on race. It's based on pragmatism. That one of the first duties of any government is to control the borders of the country it governs. It's based on pragmatism in terms of capacity - housing and infrastructure, jobs, healthcare, education. The ability of the government (taxpayer) to be able to afford to pay for the welfare of incomers and the indigenous population who might not have a job but need support. It's about recognising the danger that people will, with the EU's open borders, travel to the UK because it has a welfare system that is much more generous than exists in their country of origin.

And if it was you living in a corrupt, poor former eastern European country, wanting to provide for your family, you'd think about that move, and neither I nor UKIP would blame you for that.

The thing is that we already contribute £billions a year in aid to foreign countries like India and China, both of whom have a space programme. We are also the second or third biggest net contributor to the EU (us or France depending on when you measure it) which supports emerging countries within the EU. Massively. What uncontrolled borders means is that we're paying for the welfare of people in many poorer EU states and then paying again for their citizens' welfare when they come here as well.

UKIP is not anti immigration, it recognises the valuable contribution that incomers do and always have made to this country in terms of enterprise, culture, job-creation etc. Its stance is merely that we cannot be expected to feed, house, clothe, care for and educate the world. We already give more per capita than any other western country.

I'm proud of that (notwithstanding the often utter stupidity of our foreign aid budgets which include Argentina in their recipients); we are generous as a people and a society. But wanting to be able to afford to continue to be a generous but still a successful trading nation by controlling what we spend is not racism. It's pragmatic logic.

Let me ask you a couple of things to test this racism thing:

You're a parent. You naturally want the best for your child and you will do everything you can to help that child succeed in life and be happy. You'll do what you can to support their education, help them to get into the best possible school that they can. And some of the kids that can't get in to that school might be from an ethnic minority. Does that make you a racist? And please be aware that in these scenarios in which I talk about 'you', 'you' could mean someone from any ethnic or racial background. This is not being constructed from a white middle class viewpoint but is about all of us, wherever you're from whatever your background, whatever you believe in. 

You'll feed your child as well and as healthily as you can. Encourage them to take part in healthy exercise, sports etc. Not everyone can do that and some of those that can't, for financial or whatever other reasons might be from an ethnic minority. Are you a racist now?

You'll give up some of your valuable time to help your local community. Fund raising for the church, picking litter up from the side of the road that utterly selfish twats (who I would lock up forever by the way) have thrown out of their souped-up Corsas. It makes your village a nicer place a better community, it makes your home a nicer environment in which to live than the place down the road where there isn't such a community spirit and in which live some people from an ethnic minority. Does that make you a racist?

I'll not labour (small 'l') the point but it seems to me that in the current, media-politically-correct environment it probably does.

You support your national football, cricket or rugby team. Against a team from India say. Or Poland or Africa or New Zealand. Does that make you a racist or a patriot?

And is a patriot, therefore, by definition a racist? And isn't patriotism a good thing and racism a bad thing? Or is the left and the establishment trying to turn patriotism - a love of the country in which you live - into a negative thing now?

I don't really think that anyone outside of some extreme groups - which includes the proverbial 'skin-heads' (do they still exist?), the BNP perhaps, but also some ethnic minority groups as well (being from a minority does not preclude you from being racist, obviously) -  believe that racism is an acceptable part of our lives or of society these days.

Using the term is just lazy journalism designed to impose the worst possible insult upon people you're scared of. It doesn't stack up at all.

A couple more tweets to finish.

It's about fairness really. The archetypal Brit wants people given a chance to speak so we can make up our own minds about them.

The MSM (Main Stream Media) is not allowing this - Farage/UKIP are being targeted by them & the 'establishment' in a totally biased way.

And, bless 'em, the people are growing more & more savvy about this blatant attempt to control what we hear and think. It's backfiring.

The establishment & MSM are ironically creating a momentum for UKIP by trying to demonstrate that 'we control you'. People are waking up.

They must be terrified that what the people think & want might actually gain some sort of voice/representation in government. A bad thing?

When did Dave, Ed or Nick actually attend a public meeting that wasn't hand-picked supporters? Have they ever? 


Thanks for reading.