The ThunderDragon

As the Northern Monkey, I very much enjoyed watching This is England last night on Film Four.

I particularly enjoyed the scene in the shoe shop, where the idea that these boots had come from London was of great prestige - that place often talked about, never visited. Things have moved on a bit since the 80s in which the film was set - we do now occasionally visit the big smoke, so know the idea of anything special coming from down there is a daft idea.

I also liked the way that the shop assistant addressed Shaun’s (main character) mother as “Mum”. I did that not so long ago on a St John duty (”Can I just have a word with you please Mum?”), so am left wondering if it is a Northern thing or of some Southern Pansies do it also?

Anyway, enough about Northern roots - the film. BAFTA Best British Film 2008, it is a very emotive film by Director and Writer Shane Meadows. No point in writing my own synopsis when Film Four’s own does the job perfectly:

Twelve-year-old Shaun hooks up with a bunch of fun-loving skinheads during the long hot summer of 1983, until the spectre of racism drives the group apart. Shane Meadows’ most personal film to date.
At 12-years-old, and young-looking even for his age, Shaun Fields (Turgoose) looks hardly capable of breaking and entering a boiled egg. As elder skinhead Combo (Graham) jokes, he looks like “he came out of a box, like an Action Man, or Barbie doll”. Shaun’s loss of innocence is at the heart of Shane Meadows’ most autobiographical work to date (notice how ‘Shaun Fields’ deliberately echoes ‘Shane Meadows’), along with ever-relevant subjects like absent and surrogate fathers, Western imperialism and white working-class marginalisation, particularly in the post-industrial suburbs.

Unintentionally, it’s very easy to draw parallels with the 21st Century in which we currently live.

Shaun lost his father in the Falkland’s war, and this made him very vulnerable. Perhaps particularly receptive to the ideas of the National Front, and easily persuaded that their cause was Nationalism, not Racism. The BNP are the next generation of the NF, how many people are supporting them as a result of a deep personal dissatisfaction with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Immigration is, once again, high on the agenda. The phrase “Coming over here, taking our jobs” could easily have been said in the film, just as it is today.

The political climate in 1983 was a productive breeding ground for the National Front, and This is England showed - dramatically - the effect such beliefs can have. I dare venture that the present political climate isn’t that far removed from 25 years ago.

As a film review - I rarely say much for fear of spoilers, but it comes with Asp’s high recommendations - a deeply emotive British drama, the style of independent film that we do exceptionally well, and this was no exception. It made me think, about the issues of the day, which is what a good film should do.

~Asp

Is this racist?

Of course not, but I bet that the usual suspects will claim that it is.

What this demonstrates is that Britain is being racialised by the very people who claim to be doing the opposite through “positive” discrimination. Because these non-white groups are being recognised and given powers because of their ‘race’, it makes ‘white’ people - who don’t have the same sort of racial grouping, certainly in this country, feel weak since ‘whites’ don’t have any power inherent in our race, just that which we have as individuals.

Any sort of attempt to grant power to groups based on race, gender, sexuality, religion etc. just backfire in the end, as instead of making the members of those groups equal, it does precisely the opposite - and that causes resentment.

Politically correct stupidity.

And the prize goes to Liam Byrne, who feels it necessary to say that Britain is ‘not a nation of Alf Garnetts‘.

Really, you think so? Well done. That’s not something we possibly could have worked out on our own is it?

Britain is a nation of immigrants. We are who we are because we have allowed others to move here when threatened elsewhere, and because we have assimilated with foreigners who have otherwise moved here. Our language, for one thing, can hardly be called “pure”, and neither can our culture.

Besides all that, it’s not like the BNP actually have any real support either!

I agree with Simon Heffer:

Far more so than with Daniel Finkelstein:

Whilst what Powell said in his speech was inflammatory, it was not racist. Every single quote that critics drag from his speech - such as “charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies” or “[i]n this country in fifteen or twenty years time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man” - were not his own words, but those of the people who spoke to him. Maybe he could or should have made the point that these were, as Danny Finkelstein says “unpleasant or unacceptable”, but Powell was the sort of man who would assume that others would understand that point without prompting.

Also, he never actually said “as I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.” But instead he said the phrase in Latin, but wrote it in the transcript, a choice of which he later said:

If he had, it is quite likely that the speech never would have generated such a resonance.

Was Powell racist? No, he wasn’t. I wrote my entire undergraduate dissertation on that subject, which you can read here. My conclusion, after a year of study, is this:

The reason that it has been claimed that Enoch Powell was racist is because he spoke on the issues of race and immigration, and was opposed to the continued entry of immigrants into Britain, and the voluntary repatriation of those who failed to integrate into British society. But Powell was not opposed to immigrants because of the colour of their skin, their racial origins, or their nationality. But what he was concerned about – and what motivated his articles and speeches on the issue – was whether or not they were, or could become, a part of the British nation through integration.

There are complaints about the World Cup-winning South African rugby team. They are said to be “too white”, because only two of the fifteen members of the first team are black.

Maybe, just maybe, that is because the white players were better? Since they won the Rugby World Cup, they certainly can’t have compromised that much on player quality!

There is probably more that can be done to increase diversity in the sport - but after all there is always something that can, and some claim should, “be done” about almost anything.

Source: BBC

Should the police stop more ethnic minority suspects? The president of the National Black Police Association thinks so. He said:

It may be unpopular, but it’s right. It is the only way in which to win the battle against gun and knife crime. It shouldn’t matter what your race, religion, or skin colour is if you are suspect. The police should be free to stop and search anyone who they regard as likely to be part of any criminal activity.

If race is used as a reason not to stop-and-search any suspect, Britain will suffer. It may lead to an increase in “tension” in black communities, but if it works then it is worth it. If it stops crime, or stops more people getting involved in crime, then it is worth it. The police must not shy away from tackling criminal activity because they might be accused of racism. In an equal society, the police should be colour blind, and stop and search anyone who they have reasonable suspicion to suspect, whatever their race. If they can’t act through fear of being branded racist, crime cannot be tackled.

Crime affects all parts of society. Preventing it - and locking up the perpetrators - helps all parts of society too, and makes everyone safer.

Source: The Guardian, The Telegraph, BBC

Does the fact that a young aide “blacked up” and another posted the photo along with a jokey caption mean that the Tories are racist? Of course it doesn’t. Yet Dawn Butler says that this shows that the Tories “ha[ve] not changed one bit”. Quite what she is suggesting, I don’t know. Anyone who makes such a link between one young aide dressing up and an entire party being potentially - if not actively - racist is an idiot. Yes, both of them were stupid. But, last I heard, stupidity wasn’t a crime. If it was, all of the present government would currently be residing at Her Majesty’s pleasure.

What is shows is that Labour react against anyone who does not fully accede to their racism, their politically correct “positive discrimination” - such an oxymoronic phrase that I’m surprised that anyone can utter it in all seriousness. There is nothing “positive” about discrimination, after all - discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. And discrimination, we all accept, is wrong.

Racism can go in any direction, from any and to any. So why is it that Labour believe that only whites can be racist? Because they are living in a world created by their politically-correct infatuations with an “equality” that is anything from equal at all. Nelson Mandela himself came out and said that we shouldn’t read racism into every situation after a man was reported to what was then the CRE for “blacking up”. So why won’t Labour listen to him on this? Because that would be common sense.

Labour is living in a racial world that stopped existing years ago. People my age don’t see race or skin colour as meaning anything. It’s just your genes, innit, not who you are. It is these middle-age race campaigners who are the modern racists, who fixate about skin colour and creating an “equal” [ie. unequal] country.

To my generation, “race” means bugger-all. We believe in meritocracy, where a person earns their own position, not one where they have one already created simply because of their racial origins, usually demonstrated by skin colour. Who cares what your ancestors may have been or done? To them, it means everything. Who is the racist here?

Image: Oxfam
Sources: The Guardian, Daily Mail