 |
|
Working backward, a staggering “eight out of ten people in Britain” are
of the opinion that “immigrants are a drain on national resources.” The Readers Digest Mori poll published on October
23 came a little over a week after the Runnymeade Trust concluded that the term
‘Britain has racial connotations’, and ought in the interests of race relations
be banned. On September 3, the Observer ran
a front-page headline, which proclaimed that “Whites will be an ethnic minority
by the end of the century”. Lee Jasper, an adviser to Ken Livingstone, went
one further boasting that whites would be a minority in the capital “within
the decade”. A few reasons why, in responding to a critic on the Red Action
Internet discussion site recently, a BNP member could correctly remark: “We’re
obsessed with race? Race is everywhere”. Race is indeed everywhere and it is
clearly not the far-right, at whom the finger of blame ought be pointed. They
are on the contrary, merely one imagines, the suitably grateful beneficiaries.
Evidently delighted with the controversial Runnymeade Trust recommendation,
the BNP are considering a new recruitment leaflet based on it. All told, the
combination of the Readers Digest poll
findings and the ‘Britain to be banned!’ headlinegrabber, suggests that the
high water mark of political correctness over race may be near to being reached. If so the political fall-out will not be far behind. For persistently flagging
such dangers, Red Action has been accused among many worse things, of being
‘apocalyptic’ on the issue. One inference being that at best, the repeated warnings
are misplaced or wrong headed. At worst, that we are somehow motivated by racism
ourselves. It is a sign of the deep confusion that someone can be simultaneously
accused of crying wolf, and being one. But confusion is not the only, or indeed
even dominant ingredient in the unfolding controversy. Stupidity, cowardice, and hypocrisy all feature heavily in the unedifying
mix. Examples abound. Back in July we had Red Action denounced as ‘racist’,
‘chauvinist’ and even ‘national socialist’ for pointing to evidence suggesting
‘Refugees Welcome Here’ posters in impoverished working class areas, were ill-conceived,
and thus self-defeating. On August 9, a senior Red Action member took up the challenge of addressing
a seminar organised by the Communist Party of Great Britain under the banner
‘Official anti-racism and the white working class’. “Controversial for some”
is the only response to the 6,000-word speech to be found in Weekly Worker up to now. Next, when on September 5 the lone Red Action delegate to the LSA steering
committee called for a ‘review’ of current LSA strategies on race and immigration,
it was dismissed after a 20 minute discussion. A rejection seemingly sugar-coated,
by the unanimous acceptance of the CPGB recommendation that the LSA should instead
“sponsor” a public debate called by AFA, and entitled: ‘Can the Left beat the
BNP?’ Not only sponsor, but as the LSA minutes show fully “participate in” the
public forum provided. In the interim, a leading and nominally independent member of the LSA Mike
Marqusee, who had vociferously denied the need for any ‘review’ in the meeting
on September 5, then wrote a lengthy letter, printed in Weekly Worker the following week, outlining where and
why, the existing strategies might indeed be in need of ‘fine-tuning’. A U-turn
all the more startling as he liberated key sections from a Red Action document
in order to support ‘his’ case! A plagiarism compounded by members of the CPGB
dominating the letters pages of their own paper with bizarre extrapolations based
on comments from individual Red Action contributors, up to the point of dissecting
single words for hidden racial meaning, all the while brazenly blanking the
comprehensive nature of the discourse of August 9. It is instructive that where
fascism plays the race card to provoke debate, supporters of multiculturalism
wield it more often to abort debate. Or as another dissident put it: “the fascist cynically exploits legitimate concerns of ordinary people
for the propagation of his ideology. The liberal anti-fascist cynically exploits
popular disgust at reactionary ideology so as to propagate his own fake ‘progressive’
ideology.” Taking into account the preliminaries, it was not too surprising, that
when the AFA meeting on October 1 rolled up, all 37 representatives of the LSA
steering committee, and their organisations, (bar two delegates from the CPGB)
had discovered more pressing engagements. When the question “Is society moving to the right or the left?” was posed
to the remainder of the panel, now comprising the CPGB, Red Action and Class
War, all were agreed the direction was comprehensively and undeniably rightward.
As intended, the counter argument was to have been put by the SWP. For not only
is SWP policy predicated on the view that the drift is to the left, it is moreover
the SWP which is undeniably the dominant current, ideologically and numerically,
not only within the London Socialist Alliance, but within similar formations
across the country. It is this influence aligned to a neurotic need to sedate
their own membership, ‘the Nazis are tiny.. it is a good time to be a socialist’,
which causes those even partially aware, to underestimate the scale, depth and
speed of the rightward drive, and disables the SWP leadership from even discussing
it in public. Searchlight by contrast, previously
wool-pulling co-conspirators of the SWP (even to the point of fiddling election
statistics in order to try and prove the far-Right on a continuing downward
spiral), seem to have been sniffing the wind, for in the October editorial they
perform a quite shameless volte face. “Searchlight” we are now informed, “have
long argued that beyond the fascists there is a layer of society that believes
multiracial, democratic and now Labour Britain, has upset the natural order
of things... These forces extend far beyond the activities and influence of
fascist groups and are at the very heart of English Nationalism.” Correctly listed among the ‘forces of reaction’ are ‘farmers, self-employed
truck drivers, opponents of the abolition of the House of Lords, the pound,
to fox hunting and rural life’ in essence the “fascists target constituency”. Of course, for things to take a decisive turn for the worse, it is not
as Searchlight seem to be still arguing,
for these forces to coalesce underneath a BNP, or at this stage even under an
ultra-nationalist umbrella first. Which is another irony. For as BNP prospects
are brightened immeasurably by the fuel protest/refugee controversy, the strategy
of demonising and criminalising the far-right: ‘fascism is not an opinion it
is a crime’, recommended with shrill insistence to the authorities, by liberal
anti-fascism both here and in Europe is draining of credibility just as fast. Mainly because, as Red Action have long
argued, the far-Right are not the cause, but are both a symptom and of course
beneficiary of the Left’s enthusiastic support for the racialising of every
possible equation. As the political vanguard of the Right, their fortunes bear
watching, if only as an indication of which way the wind is blowing. For as
the BNP themselves correctly point out, the fuel protests are as much to do
with an attack on ‘political correctness’ as on tax. And in the same way the BNP chose from an early stage to identify with
the Countryside Alliance, the leadership of the Alliance seem equally determined
to meet them, at least half way, ideologically. “The Alliance’s fight to save
hunting is no longer being waged with vaguely rational arguments. Enter it’s
collective mind and you are in a war of national liberation against an alien
and depraved dictatorship”, wrote Nick Cohen in the Observer on October 15.
He also quoted from the magazine Earth Dog Running Dog which carries
the Countryside Alliance’s logo. The disgust with what it considers effete liberalism,
is both explicit and comprehensive. Within, are references to the “gay plague”,
Oona King MP for Bethnal Green in east London is referred to as “typical of
her species”, and her working class constituents described as “scroungers” and
“dead-beats”. To complete the full set, Sam Butler, chairman of the Alliance,
told the troops assembled outside the Labour party conference that the government’s
record was one of “terrorists released, rioters allowed to roam the streets,
wreaking havoc and destruction whilst the authorities look on”. Thus far “we
have been resolute in our determination to conduct our protests within the law.
However should Parliament act perversely on the issue of personal freedom, then
it will only have itself to blame for what may follow” (Observer,
15.10.00). Considering they are promising a 600,000-strong march on London, and do
not conceal their admiration for those who have brought the country to a halt,
and threaten to do so again, this is no idle threat. Indeed the political menace
is graphically spelt out. Not the most auspicious occasion then, one might have
thought to produce a report which was announced in screaming headlines that
henceforth the term ‘Britain was to be deemed racist’ and would therefore be
‘consigned to the dustbin of history’. Yet even worse than the timing, is the vacuous thinking behind it. In attacking
the recommendations, Observer columnist
Ros Coward bravely pulled no punches. “The Runnymeade Trust’s suggestion that
‘Britishness’ connotes racism” she wrote “is absurd, an attempt to wring a mea
culpa from guilty liberals and nothing to do with racial unity and equality”. In saying it had “nothing to do with racial unity” Coward was implying
that the motivation was other than lofty ideals, not attempting to conceal that
it is on the racial hinge that it will have the greatest negative impact. Further exploring the chaotic thinking behind the demands she revealed
that: “Some of the leading black thinkers involved in the report have previously
attacked the idea as cultural relativism which undermines shared political and
community values especially among disenfranchised white Britons.” One of the
authors for instance, Yasmin Alibhai Brown, had she revealed previously admitted
that, “British multi-culturalism imposes what I would call an impossible demand.
That is the demand for equality and difference.” Reason enough for Coward to conclude that multiculturalism “is not an innocent
term neutrally implying that races and cultures cohabit together”, rather it
is as an ideology in itself “riddled with problems”, and she adds pointedly,
“it is not racist to think so.” In attempting to defend the report one of the leading black thinkers referred
to, the former ‘Marxist’ Stuart Hall, inadvertently underscoes Coward’s point
in admitting “that it is perfectly possible for multiculturalism and racism
to exist”. What is more “the country” he concedes “is divided into three rough
groups. Some think that Britain’s multicultural character gives vibrancy and
cultural energy to life and wouldn’t have it any other way”. Such is Hall’s introspection; there is no acknowledgment that if after
over thirty years of successive government promotion, considering (at least)
two thirds of the population are at best ambivalent, there might just be one
or two niggling problem with the message? Or even some recognition that it is
primarily amongst ‘the minority prepared to stick knives in it’, that his report
will have the most ‘passionate’ political purchase. Even more alarming, of those ‘that wouldn’t have it any other way’, the
group who publicly ‘cherish the ethnic contribution to fashion, food, music,
art’, do so as - consumers! Thus while they may be indignant at the thought
of their ‘lifestyle’ coming under threat, it is unlikely they will lay down
their lives for it. A little blood-letting for political ends is not anathema
to all of course. So of the three ‘roughs groups’ some, as Hall himself concedes,
are certainly prepared to be rougher than others. A not inconsiderable concern
now that debate appears to be moving from the dinner table to the streets. That in Hall’s analysis the reality of Britain being divided ‘roughly’
in other, more fundamental ways too ie: upper, middle and working classes is
entirely omitted, as if any such class cross reference was a political irrelevance,
But then the whole drive of multiculturalism is not to do with racial unity,
or with anti-racism or better still ‘non’-racism as such. On the contrary, it’s
primary political function is to supplant issues of class with those of race
instead. It does this by the pretence that in British society there is ‘status,
power and privilege that extends to all whites and is uniformly denied to all
blacks’. Equally contrived is the acceptance that colour is a bond governing
all else. And that the ‘black community’ therefore is a unitary whole, entirely
homogeneous. Which allows a self-server like Trevor Phillips to remark: “Look at the upper echelons of any television company, look at Greg Dyke’s
new management board at the BBC: there’s none of us there” (Sunday Telegraph,
I 5.10.00). Implying that if he was, the views and interests of all blacks
would automatically be represented. This shallow And Coward by name, but not by nature, to her credit touches on it, without
entirely appreciating the full implications. “The extreme Right is” she observes
“gaining ground in Europe, even in erstwhile liberal countries such as Belgium
and Norway. It flourishes on the back of racist propaganda about the dilution
of cultural distinctiveness... It is easy to denounce those involved, much harder
to analyse them.” (Observer, 15.11.00) In truth, the link Coward tentatively identifies between multiculturalism
and Euro-nationalism is straightforward. The extreme Right, just like Alibhai-Brown,
have properly identified core contradictions, and are feeding off them. As a
consequence they have put themselves in position to benefit from racist and
multicultural propaganda alike. Writing in the Guardian (29.9.00),
Faisal Bodi, a black activist, commented: "You can’t expect black people to identify with each other on the
basis of their colour alone, any more than you can expect it of whites"
And he went on: “Once you start talking about an ethnic minority community,
it’s not a huge leap to think of an ethnic minority vote.” And, he might have
added, once you start talking up the ethnic minority vote, it’s not a huge leap
to think of ‘an ethnic majority vote’ either. Or as an article in Red Action
put it over two and a half years ago: “Since the mid-80’s the extreme Right
have successfully attacked the multicultural concept on traditional grounds,
appropriated the arguments for cultural diversity and separatist logic which
follows, to suit its own agenda, and used this common sense approach to devastating
effect in a host of Countries to appeal to working class communties abandoned
by both mainstream parties and the Left" Or again, as Alibhai-Brown puts it in her recent pamphlet, After Multiculturalism: “in an ironic twist some of those who
have most resented multiculturalism now use the arguments perfected by multiculturalists
to demand their fair share. The Right in Europe is busy cashing in on the enormous
anxiety felt by many Europeans by building its politics on this paranoia.” Following his party’s capturing of Belgium’s second city. Antwerp, Filip
Dewinter leader of the Vlaams Blok, was happy to explain the irresistible logic
of appropriating ‘arguments perfected’ by multiculturalism in the process of
ridiculing it. “I don’t believe in all these cultures living together. We are
the bosses around here, I don’t like that people adopt little pieces out of
other cultures. What is wrong with purity? We should not try to organise some
kind of multicultural society. If I want to experience other cultures I will
go to other countries.” And he went on: “I sometimes go into Moroccan communities.
These Moroccan restaurants they have Arabic writing on the walls. And the music
they play. The women dress in hijabs. It’s not our culture and I feel threatened"
Or as Cardinal Giacomo Biff of Bologna, in arguing that Italian immigration
be restricted to Catholics in order to protect the “nation’s identity” expressed
it: “Muslims had different food, festivals and family morals” (Guardian, 30.11 .00). It is expressions
of ‘common sense nationalism’ like this which have convinced Red Action that
‘the promotion of diversity’ is not a barrier to Euro-nationalism as liberals
maintain, but a sponsor. So having herself called for multiculturalism to be scrapped, earlier in
the year, how is it Yasmin Alibahi-Brown can both recognise why the Right is
winning hearts and minds on the Continent, and at the same time assume her support
for a ban on a “racial Britain” would not result in the Right cashing in on
the ‘paranoia’ engendered over here? The chaotic paralysis displayed, best summed up by fellow ‘truster’ Lady
Gavron’s hilarious comment who just days after producing an ‘expert’ report,
funded by a £350,000 Lottery grant said: “I knew Britain was racist before but
people like us often don’t realise how bad it is”! (London Evening Standard, 17.10.00) It is an example of an ecleticism that is if anything even more pronounced
within the European Left. Unnerved by objective reality, it is not prepared
to discuss, much less ‘smash’ a rampant nationalism. Theoretically disarmed
by its own hand, it stands there hapless and mute against the rising tide instead.
A not dissimilar pattern is now visible here. Specialists in addiction call
it the “elephant in the sitting room” syndrome. It is big and scary but, if
it sits there long enough it becomes easy to pretend it is part of the furniture.
So rather than attempt to wrestle the initiative from the Right, the Left, due
to being committed to a strategy of denial, is thus both unwilling and unable
to break with a retrograde liberalism, for fear of being faced with the responsibility
of addressing the issue on it’s own. It thus stands exposed, ‘as the greatest
of cowards, for’ to paraphrase Thomas Hazlitt ‘it is afraid of itself’ Reproduced from RA Vol 4, Issue 9, November/December 2000 |
|