I made the mistake, today, of agreeing with Stephen Glenn on Twitter about the stupidity of a particularly repellent piece of racist campaign literature by Racist UKIP. I say it was a mistake, because I then spent most of the day being bombarded with messages from members of Racist UKIP, trying to claim that their clearly racist policies are, in fact, not racist.
But, you know, fair enough. If they want to go around being racist and then denying it, they can go ahead. That is, after all, what racists do.
But what I won’t accept is them – or any other ‘anti-immigrant’ (racist) party – trying to claim they’re patriotic. I’m no patriot myself – patriotism is one of those things for which I am just not wired – but I understand it to involve loving your country. Now. when *I* think of Britain, I think of things like:
Parliamentary democracy – our Parliament, of course, being created by Simon de Montfort, a Frenchman.
Winston Churchill – son of an American immigrant
Doctor Who – created by a Canadian, first episode written by an Australian and directed by a gay Indian
the Carry On films – starring Sid James, a South African
Queen – lead singer Farrokh Bulsara from Zanzibar
our great theatrical tradition – playwrights like Shaw, Wilde, Beckett…
The Beatles – ‘Lennon’ and ‘McCartney’ of course being good old Irish names
The Goons – created by Spike Milligan, an Irishman born in India
Prince Philip – a Greek
Our pioneering scientists – such as James Watson, who co-discovered the structure of DNA in Cambridge, and was American
2000AD, featuring Judge Dredd – created by an American and a Spaniard
Queen Victoria – daughter of Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld
Fish and Chips – invented by 19th century Jewish immigrants
The brave Spitfire pilots in World War II – especially all the Polish ones
Presumably Racist UKIP, and the ‘B’NP, don’t like any of those things, what with them all being the work of the immigrants who they wish to keep out. I’m just wondering what, precisely, about the UK they *do* like then?
Sci-Ence! Justice Leak! 
To my mind this sort of thing is best summed up by the artwork ‘Pacific’ by Yukinori Yanagi, in the Tate Modern. Yanagi made the flags of forty-nine countries out of coloured sand, then released thousands of ants to run through them, shifting the sand about and breaking up the images.
Japanese, Yanagi concentrated on Pacific countries. But no matter where in the world you went , it would work out the same. The way everything is supposed to look, with everything happening inside neat little boxes, has superimposed the intricate pathways of cross-fertilisation which make up actual history.
UKIP might not like this picture. King Canute didn’t like the sea moving.
Tate description here
That’s a wonderful installation, but I’m going to have to nitpick on Canute, he wanted the sea to move, to prove the worthlessness of the power of kings as compared to that of god.
I’m fairly sure the BNP don’t object to all population movements in principle, only to immigration into the UK right now. I’ve never heard the calling for the Normans to be sent home or anything like that…
Andrew, your list is brilliant — and seems so effortless. Thanks for that.
But I think your routinely calling the UKIP “Racist UKIP” is an own goal. You can make your point well enough with actual data that you don’t need to resort to name-calling. (Whether the name is accurate or not is really not the point.) By giving the name as Racist UKIP, you put yourself in the same boat as pro-life advocates who label their counterparts “pro-death” or pro-choice advocates who label their counterparts “anti-choice”. Really, no ground is ever gained by that kind of manoeuvre.
(Exception: Andrew Risltone’s rebranding of Torchwood as The Dreadful Torchwood is obviously correct and unobjectionable.)
Oddly, this didn’t get emailed to me. Apologies for late reply. (The list *was* effortless, BTW – this was an annoyed stream-of-consciousness rant more than anything else)
I take your point, but I have a good reason. I said on Twitter, about 18 months ago, that Racist UKIP’s immigration policies were racist. As a result, a member of Racist UKIP threatened to sue me. He wouldn’t actually have a leg to stand on, but I refuse to allow people to use threats to shut me up. As a result, I will now, on principle, *only* refer to them as Racist UKIP (except when engaged in non-partisan AV campaigning, and even there I just try to avoid discussing them as much as possible), and whenever someone asks why I insist on this I explain it…
K has me bang to rights on Canute’s intentions. But I was going for the cuteness…
“I’m fairly sure the BNP don’t object to all population movements in principle, only to immigration into the UK right now.”
The BNP object to immigration when it’s happening live in front of them, and pretend the rest isn’t happening, This is precisely the point. It’s like objecting to traffic when you want to cross the road and not when you’re behind the wheel.
“(Whether the name is accurate or not is really not the point.)”
It seems to me that is exactly the point. I am pro-abortion but don’t consider it accurate to call me “pro-death”. But UKIP are racist. They’re the BNP for posh people.
Gavin argued thus:
“(Whether the name is accurate or not is really not the point.)”
It seems to me that is exactly the point. I am pro-abortion but don’t consider it accurate to call me “pro-death”. But UKIP are racist. They’re the BNP for posh people.
If you disagree with someone then there are two approaches you can take. One is to try to understand what exactly the point of disagreement is; the other is to demonize the other party. If you call the UKIP “the Racist UKIP” you’re doing the latter (sorry Andrew, that’s how it is, whatever your justification), and no-one ever learned anything from anyone else in that kind of atmosphere.
To take your own “but I’m different from that!” argument, Gavin, don’t you see that a UKIP member could just as reasonably say “I am a UKIP supporter but don’t consider it accurate to call me “racist”. But abortion supporters are baby-killers. They’re King Herod for posh people.”
That’s not an argument. It’s name calling. And so was your version.
Clearly, ‘racist’ isn’t a name in the way ‘Mike’ is a name. But it seems to me a perfectly accurate description for those who are prejudiced against other races, so I can’t see why it should be considered ‘demonisation’. Assuming you share my opposition to UKIP, what term would you prefer? Or what would you call the BNP?
I also don’t see why that should run counter to “trying to understand what exactly the point of disagreement is.” John Major famously said “we should condemn a little more and understand a little less.” I never understood why those two were to be held in opposition.
I’m wondering if you consider the harshness of the word would jeapordise debate, block the ears of UKIP supporters to what I’m saying. (Who, as Andrew’s said, may not themselves be racist.) I think the opposite. If someone asks how I can use the term, I’m confident I could demonstrate why, that I wasn’t just mud-slinging.
Assuming you share my opposition to UKIP, what term would you prefer?
UKIP.
Or what would you call the BNP?
The BNP.
This would at least make the Today programme shorter and more succinct.
“So, you are the Conservative spokesman on Health?”
“Yes, that’s correct.”
“No further questions.”
Actually, what you’re advocating is more like this:
“So, you are the Evil Vicious Bastards Conservative spokesman on Health Who Wants To KIll Everyone?”
“Yes, that’s correct.”
“No further questions.”
The point is to separate the NAME of a thing from our opinions of it. As soon as you take your opinion and make it part of the name, all chance of rational discourse has gone. You’re reduced to (literally) name-calling.
I would argue that as soon as people start threatening lawsuits for statements like “UKIP’s policies are racist”, all chance of rational discourse has *already* gone – you can’t talk rationally with someone who’ll use threats if you say something they disagree with. At that point, name-calling is the only reasonable response.
“Name-calling is the only reasonable response”? No, never.
When ONE UKIP member stupidly threatens a lawsuit, it’s not a proportional response to cut off all possibility of rational discourse with ALL UKIP members. I’m sorry, but it’s just not. Regardless of the true history, anyone who sees your repeated use of “Racist UKIP” is just going to assume you’re in a snit, and move on.
I’d tried rational discussion many times before with other members of Racist UKIP, and none of them had been interested in/capable of it. That was just the last straw.
And I disagree about reactions – at least, my own reaction to Rilstone’s repeated use of ‘the fascist Daily Express’ in the same way has been to find it amusing rather than anything else…
Pardon me if this is me being slow, but I’m not quite sure whether you’re objecting specifically to Andrew’s insistence on calling them by the name ‘Racist UKIP’. I’d describe them as racist, but not necessarily use that formulation of their name. (Reserving the right to start if they ever threatened to sue me.)
If the former, I think it’s illusory to imagine that language could be made ‘value-neutral’ in that sort of way. As I said in an earlier comment on (I think) Andrew Rilstone’s board, I used to call the Falklands/Malvinas the ‘Malklands’, but only to try and wind up both sides.
“I’m not quite sure whether you’re objecting specifically to Andrew’s insistence on calling them by the name ‘Racist UKIP’. I’d describe them as racist, but not necessarily use that formulation of their name. ”
Yes, that’s it exactly. If you attribute a quality to something (e.g. racism to the UKIP) then you can defend that attribution with argument. But when you use it as a label, the game is over.
I know even less about UKIP’s policies than I do about the LibDems’, but I doubt they can legitimately be called ‘racist’. ‘Racist’ has a pretty precise meaning, and IMO to call a party (rather than some of its members) ‘racist’, the explicit policies and beliefs of that party must be literally racist. Opposing immigration isn’t in itself racist, although of course the motivation could be racist.
This is worth commenting on, because it’s a very pernicious tendency on the internet. One of the most basic tenets of civilized discourse is civility – indeed civility is probably the most important factor in having a reasonable discussion rather than an argument.
I can’t think of any justification for departing from civility in an intellectual discussion; incivility can only hurt the overall discussion and everyone taking part…
My own belief is that if the effect of a set of policies will be to harm one ‘race’ more than another, and if those policies were formed by people who are avowedly racist (some publicly, others in private), then whether they say “we are racist” in those words, it’s reasonable to call those policies racist. It’s actually *more* reasonable in my view to refer to Racist UKIP – the party – as racist than to do so for individual members, many of whom may not themselves be racists.
(This is why I always use the formulation ‘a member of Racist UKIP’ rather than ‘a Racist UKIP member’, to ensure the adjective is seen to apply to the party not the person).
As for civility, I *absolutely* agree (as I hope you can tell from the general tone in the comments on this site) – however, I think the threat of a lawsuit is a far, *far* more serious breach of civility than mere name-calling, especially when it comes first. It’s precisely *because* a senior member of the party decided to start threatening me (out of the blue – someone on Twitter who I didn’t follow and who was not following me, butting into a discussion he had not previously been part of) – thus making reasonable debate impossible, that I think name-calling entirely appropriate.
‘hus making reasonable debate impossible, that I think name-calling entirely appropriate.’
Because if you can’t have a reasoned discussion you might as well throw insults? I’m afraid I don’t follow the logic. If someone else has butted in with calumnies and threats, you can’t help the situation by name-calling, only make it worse… At least that’s what I remember being told endlessly at school.
I’m sure you were also told at school to stand up to bullies, though. Threats to use force (in this case the force of the law) – however impotent – are attempts at bullying.
In this case, the best way to stand up to bullying is to spread, as widely as possible, the speech the bully was trying to stop. It is far more important to me that bullying and intimidation be visibly seen to be counterproductive than that I be perceived as being civil to people who were uncivil to me first.
“Be visibly seen” – one from the Department of Tautology Department there…
I cannot mentally recall when I last saw such terrible English!
Also, since when are racists interested in/amenable to civil or reasoned discourse? You can’t talk someone out of something they were never talked into to begin with, right?
I just think we should be horribly mean to racism all the time, and not fair at all. Loud unceasing ridicule.
They hate that.
This is a very old thead and there is nothing to be gained by prolonging it now, three and a half years later. Which is clearly a prelude to my doing exactly that.
The problem with UKIP is that, because they have somehow acquired a veneer of respectability (and that “not like all the other politicians” appeal), they are able to attract people who are not themselves racist. I know this because, rather painfully, and old friend of mine has been tweeting pro-UKIP recently. People like that may well be won away from UKIP by demonstrating their racism. They most certainly will not be won away from UKIP by simply labelling it “racist”.
We have to be better than that.
You’re saying that for a party to be racist, it must be a group of racists who have banded together under racist aims and objectives.
That’s not an argument. That’s a tautology.
In a way, all definitions are tautologies.
Umm… think I said “argument”, not “definition.”
As you are showing not the slightest inclination to listen to anybody else, I shall now be granting you the same courtesy.
I’m sorry if I’ve given that impression; it’s not my intention to ignore anyone. I took your comment as a humorous aside, so responded in kind.
The summary you give of my post:
‘for a party to be racist, it must be a group of racists who have banded together under racist aims and objectives.’
is a definition, so I assumed that you calling it ‘tautologous’ was intended humorously, because calling a definition ‘tautologous’ while disagreeing with it doesn’t make any sense. I guess you actually meant something very different.
(thread above cont.)
And that brings us back the the question whether UKIP can reasonably be called ‘racist’. :-)
Just like to point out that Canada claims Watson for our side.
We claim a lot of Americans, actually. But sssh! Don’t tell them!
How does that work? Did you invade Chicago when no-one was looking?
Actually, we DID! It’s called “Second City”.
I dunno, he’s just always been claimed. It’s a tradition, or something.
Weird, huh?
So, those were supposed to be one comment, there’s not two of me. Just so you know.