Douglas Murray on intolerant politics

I don’t think it’s a small minority. Anyone who asks me is clearly saying
“You can’t be British because you’re not white

But if I were to meet you and have a genuine interest in you and wanted to know where you were from, what question am I allowed to ask you if not "where are you from?"

That's true, Wrath.

My dad found it really funny when he first moved to Edinburgh because it really freaked out the middle class professionals he worked with that they couldn't place him on the basis of which school he'd been to. First question was always "where did you go to school?" He told me about one hilarious conversation where the guy he was talking to desperately grasped at ever smaller straws in an attempt to place him - "where are you going to send your son to school?" - "I don't have a son" - "Well, if you did, where would you send him to school?"

Where are you from?
In the UK this also applies to class.
If you work in the town you grew up in then your employer might make assumptions simply because he would know the locality of your school etc.
'Anywhere' people are more anonymous because their employer would have no idea of the reputation of a school, good or bad.

This gives Anywheres an advantage, like being able to reinvent yourself. Yet potentially a disadvantage to Somewheres, where you have to live with your history.
Maybe it's no bad thing, just another stage of growing up and acceptance.

In Canada they talk about their “heritage”. I quite liked that. As opposed to being “from” anywhere.

My Canadian cousins don’t understand why race is an issue for us.

(Obviously I am talking about recent immigrants. Not First Nations - that’s a whole other story)

I don’t know if the early contributors are still on the thread but it’s like they said - my skin colour wasn’t an issue 20 years ago and now suddenly it’s a big deal. I know some people think they are being polite in asking.

It’s all a big mess when we all chugging along so well.

Chester I didnt say I was banning them.

One poster thinks it’s bad if those conversations stop. I added my observation that I think it would be nice if those conversations stop.

I don’t think it’s a small minority. Anyone who asks me is clearly saying
“You can’t be British because you’re not white”.

"Now it’s known what some people usually mean mean by “where are you from”, it’s hopefully asked less in the workplace for example.

It’s good if these “conversations” stop. "

Really? Just because a few snide people imbue a perfectly innocent, neutral phrase with an implied insult, the rest of us should stop using said phrase?

That feels rather Orwellian; controlling language, dictating what terms should/should not be used, and where/when... we move towards a slippery slope towards the reduction of communication to the most basic set of encoded formulae, set in stone, with no variation or personalisation or nuance or flourish - just in case someone gets offended by mistake?

Um, I like it when someone asks where I'm from. Obviously if they are trying to make me feel excluded, that changes the situation. I know lots of others feel the same way as well.

“ But the most predictable outcome of making certain conversations too difficult to have is that people just won't have them.”

But in some ways, that’s the best result. Now it’s known what some people usually mean mean by “where are you from”, it’s hopefully asked less in the workplace for example.

Though the last time I got it was at the bus stop.

It’s good if these “conversations” stop. Conversation can easily flow without those kinds of questions, in fact it flows better.

Getting back to language, I think we all have the choice about whether to be offended or to give someone the benefit of the doubt.
Not saying the latter is better necessarily, there are some snide people who can put a lot of spite into "so, where are you FROM?".
But the most predictable outcome of making certain conversations too difficult to have is that people just won't have them.

I'd be interested to know if people are now actually more segregated than before, with online echo chambers and blocklists and cancelling.
I remember all the long conversations I've had with straight people, all those awkwardly worded questions fielded. I didn't mind, if I liked the person I'd talk to them. Would anyone ask a trans person the same kind of daft questions they asked me?
I doubt it. People just think "minefield" and avoid.

Antibes

Sort of. Have you read them?

This is a bit ironic. Doesn't Murray discuss in his book the way the whole concept of political correctness has come about and how it serves identity politics?

I mean, if you have a Polish cleaner, are you going to avoid asking her to clean the Living Room? Are you going to call it the Sitting Room instead to avoid the Nazi connotations?
I'm pretty sure living room is Wohnzimmer not Lebensraum.

Also, surely intention and context count for something when describing a word/term/concept as 'racist' or 'offensive'..? For example, one black person may call another a 'nig*er', without accusation of racism, whilst I certainly couldn't (and wouldn't want to), and can't even write it out without asterisks (and I'm now fearful that I have used the 'wrong' descriptive term in this post - I genuinely hope I have not caused offence!).

Or the JKRowling thread, as another example: a woman who accidentally 'mis-gendered' someone, now being hounded out of her job and eviscerated on social media. Intention is important, and as PPs have said, surely we can/should give the other the benefit of the doubt until/unless there is evidence to the contrary to say that we shouldn't?

You're missing the point, terfsandwich.

PP were discussing bringing back into common usage the (otherwise excellent) term "kith and kin", because they thought they could use it as a good, neutral term to discuss community cohesion while avoiding "national identity baggage."

I am saying that I would expect future use of that term, in the particular context they were describing, to almost immediately become heavily loaded with exactly the baggage they wish to avoid.

I cite as evidence for this one extended example (there may well be others) when it has been loaded with such baggage.

If it were revived and used as a term to discuss community cohesion, I would expect it to spontaneously re-acquire that loading (because, humans). I would also expect it to be much quicker at re-acquiring that loading, or to have never lost it, among people who remember the previous example.

It's not about "offending people because of the past". It's that I think this otherwise poetic term which in many ways I find delightful, is doomed to become a euphemism for in-groups (vs out-groups) with nasty racial edges in all directions, if used like a catchphrase in discussions of communities.

You might disagree with me that this would happen!

There are many historical events where conventional terms and phrases have been used as metaphors. Just because you might know a lot about the history of a former African colony, I don't think it justifies colonising a term to always have the baggage of that historical event.

I mean, if you have a Polish cleaner, are you going to avoid asking her to clean the Living Room? Are you going to call it the Sitting Room instead to avoid the Nazi connotations?

Manners being about making people feel comfortable and welcome, etiquette about excluding them on the basis of petty and ever changing 'rules' that only the select, in the know, few are aware of.

Yes, absolutely. You generally don't even notice if someone has good manners, as they are all about making sure other people are feeling comfortable, not about using the right fork or winning some arcane social one-upmanship.

Imnobody4 and Goosefoot, I agree with you and am similarly uncomfortable about the way it becomes hard to have serious, honest discussions about important topics, when fragments of the ideas and language we need for the discussion have been pressed into service elsewhere as handy tropes to propagate an ideology we don't wish to, eg antisemitism, racism.

I'd like to say there's a thin line between using terms for honest discussion, and using them to eg propagate racism, but unfortunately I actually think there isn't so much a line as an overlap.

It's entirely possible to be having an honest discussion and also be inadvertently furthering a nasty trope (good eg of this recently with the criticism of George Soros, out of all billionaires, some of which may well be reasonable but which gets such good traction because it's hitched to an antisemitic conspiracy theory).

I honestly don't know what to do about this. I want to be able to discuss important issues.

I'd actually prefer to do the careful hedging around that Goosefoot describes, than be caught in the dichotomy where I either don't discuss a subject at all, or I unwillingly propagate an ideology I abhor.

No dont! I'm enjoying your posts certainly not dumb!

*Oh

Goosefoot I'm agreeing with you. Just making a 1984 joke, referencing the restrictions on permissible language leading to restrictions on what can even be thought about, etc, let alone articulated. In the book is a it's an actual strategy to eliminate dissent. Your post brought it to mind.

Go, wow, I feel dumb! Sorry!

I would assume the north London metropolitan elite was Kate Moss and her pals or something. Or maybe champagne socialists.

Goosefoot I'm agreeing with you. Just making a 1984 joke, referencing the restrictions on permissible language leading to restrictions on what can even be thought about, etc, let alone articulated. In the book is a it's an actual strategy to eliminate dissent.
Your post brought it to mind.

I absolutely agree with that definition of manners. The Queen is reputedly very good at making people feel comfortable and welcome.

I don't think that's the case at all. I've always though manners and etiquette are complete opposites. Manners being about making people feel comfortable and welcome, etiquette about excluding them on the basis of petty and ever changing 'rules' that only the select, in the know, few are aware of.

Excellent way of putting it.