Douglas Murray on intolerant politics

Exactly Upfield, but I’d extend your remarks across all classes.

I think a lot of working class people are sick to the back teeth of constantly being shamed whenever they show they celebrate being British and having it interpreted as racism, because of the past sins of British governments. Especially since, for many of us, our ancestors only a few generations ago didn't even have the vote and thus no say in foreign policy. I do, of course, understand that racism exists in British society and has been exacerbated by the Brexit vote, but it's important to distinguish between far right nationalism and patriotism. The whole concept that someone who is working class and British is supposed to personally feel ashamed for the actions of governments that would also have been slaughtering their ancestors at Peterloo doesn't make much sense. Denouncing past actions and events as shameful is is one thing, but some seem to constantly call for us to demonstrate a personal sense of shame in our nationality, and to never celebrate anything British ever, unless it has been radically re-framed in the light of identity politics to make it more palatable. These calls for shame tend to come from the middle and upper classes (whose ancestors were, ironically, more likely to have had involvement in colonisation and wars) to the working classes. We should all learn from the atrocities of the past, but how are working-class people supposed to personally, continually demonstrate shame for events which they weren't present for and even their ancestors had no control over? I feel no responsibility for the actions of my estranged father and what he gets up to, how am I supposed to feel anything for people, generations back, whose actions I have absolutely no control over?

Upfield “ I think it's important to recognise the ills of our colonial past“

Depends what you mean. So-called comedians - Nish Kumar - harping on about it years later and extrapolating it to Brexit voters isn’t recognising it. In fact, it comes quite close to inciting hatred IMHO but I’m not a lawyer.

Recognising the ills of our colonial past while celebrating national accomplishments (particularly current ones that don't involve invading and oppressing other countries) is something I'm definitely up for.

I intended to apply the quote very loosely to identity politics in the context of this conversation and don't necessarily agree with him on class. The systematic undermining of every institution for being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc leads to a reluctance to celebrate not only our nationality, but the underlying principles upon which our country is founded. It feels that celebrating Britain is frowned upon and seen as a lower class, racist and ignorant endeavour. This is surely a form of self-abuse, and if a country only stands for dismantling and chastising itself, with the demand to abandon everything that was consider an achievement in the past, whilst also elevating every single other culture on Earth as superior, what kind of values can we have any confidence in to lead us into the future? I think it's important to recognise the ills of our colonial past, whilst also being able to celebrate past national accomplishments and where we are now in terms of equality.

"By seeing society in class terms we are programmed to find antagonism at the heart of all the institutions through which people have attempted to limit it. Nation, law, faith, tradition, sovereignty – these ideas by contrast denote things that unite us. It is in terms of them that we attempt to articulate the fundamental togetherness that mitigates social rivalries, whether of class, status or economic role."

Eh? This statement by Scruton is

Completely obviously, faith is something that is very, very often used to divide people. As are most of the other things on his "unite" list.

Faith can, of course, also be used to unite people. And... so can class.

Maybe there's some vital context missing here, but this quote just makes Scruton look like he's ignoring factual evidence of which he's perfectly aware, but which doesn't suit him.

I can't scroll up just now, but I think PP made comments along the lines of there being plenty of factors which unite us with other human beings, and these are worth pursuing rather than always seeking what divides us. I'd agree strongly with that.

But Scruton isn't saying that. He's merely trying to elevate his fave unifying factors and diss his bogeyman unifying factor.

Re immigrants and blending;
It was not the case in colonial times when the English language, law etc etc was introduced to other countries. And nowadays people who retire abroad don't make a point of learning the language. It was what was said here about immigrants but, imv, because we believed we had a better country and way of life that we assumed people would want to adopt.
True, but colonists were colonising not migrating. It's definitely always been a thing in the US, the idea that you become an American above all else because Hell why wouldn't you want to?
In the UK we have always been more of a patchwork, and I think that's fine. There's nothing wrong with celebrating heritage, but in this age of REPEAT AFTER ME INCLUSION everybody gets labelled to the extent that it actually ends up excluding. Civil rights is the right to participate in a civil society as a full citizen isn't it? That's what I always thought. Pls correct if wrong, my education failed me too!
And I know Brits often move to the continent and don't learn the language and I find it baffling, but then I'm a chatterbox and it would drive me mad not to be able to talk to people.
I don't want a French anti Islam state either. That's just Authoritarian from the other end of things.

At it’s heart identity politics is systemically sexist/racist/homophobic etc (depending what identity is in the dock for examination). The reason being is at it’s core it’s segregationist.

There really is only one of two fundamental ways you can take this and that is to strive for integration and harmony or we segregate. Unfortunately even well meaning efforts to positively discriminate reinforce a paradigm of othering and division.

As has been said economic class is the real issue, and the lack of social mobility opportunities no matter who you are.

Immitation - fucking autocorrect again.

At the moment there seems to be a compromise - not legally enshrined as I understand it but fairly well enshrined in practice, that you can ask people to remove face coverings in public places where security or identity matters. So for instance someone with a motorbike helmet walking into a bank, or a woman in a Niqab giving evidence in court.

As I understand it, the wearing of a Niqab is a religious decision to imitate one of the prophet's wives, not a requirement connected to the Islamic belief that both sexes should dress modestly, so requesting its removal is different from, say, telling women they can't wear burkinis to the beach.

For me, the acid test is "why is this making me uncomfortable?" If it's down to fairly arbitrary rules about what counts as modest/immodest (which all societies and cultures have, my own included - otherwise why would I feel uncomfortable about going topless on a beach in the S of France), then I should probably let it go.

But seeing people's faces is pretty fundamental to communication, and pretty much cross cultural (including among men in cultures where women go veiled), which is why I think the Niqab goes beyond arbitrary rules on modesty and into the realms of the dehumanising.

However, that's how I see it from outside - as a patriarchal rule whose purported explanation (immigration of one of the wives of the Prophet) is just a post hoc rationalisation. To a woman within a Western culture who has chosen this as a religious and political statement, my claims about "patriarchal post hoc rationalisation" probably come across as patronising.

However, so long as we sort the practical issues - that it's okay to expect her to unveil in a court of law, for instance - then I'm okay with her wearing it on the occasions where it doesn't matter, so long as she's okay with my freedom to express that I think it's a regressive choice.

Barbara all those examples worry me, but I would ban the full face covering.

I was actually wondering what would happen if anyone got on a bus wearing a motorcycle helmet, for example. I presume it would be okay.

but as soon as couriers arrive in reception at work, they are asked to take a helmet off (if they haven't already). So what happens when we inevitably get someone wanting to wear full face covering at work?

Upfield oh, Goldsmiths...

Jilly that must be very difficult. I have a lot of literary and historical interests so follow a few uni accounts on Twitter and sometimes I'm amazed at the things I see. Every PhD student seems to be putting their pronouns in their bio and making a big deal of them.

then there's intersectionality and the fact that things which happened centuries ago now seem to be analysed differently due to identity politics.

of course, to some extent this will be about making money as people keep increasing fields of study, but it's depressing.

I'd hate for us to go down the French route of banning the Niqab, having armed police hassle a woman on the beach for wearing a bikini, have a list of state approved first names (which IIRC excludes some Breton names), which has such strict privacy laws that their press can't report on a defence minister having an affair with someone who works for an arms company.

I want to live in a society where women can choose to wear the Niqab and at the same time I am free to express why I personally, as a feminist, think that choice is a bad one.

*Oh crikey upfield I know Goldies only too well

I have two postgraduate degrees and have started to realise what a miserable excuse for an education I've had. I feel quite angry about it, that I've been indoctrinated rather than challenged, I haven't been given a thorough education at all, and I have attended well-respected institutions. It's only now that I'm free from the education system I can actually learn by reading texts which challenge the narrative I've been taught.

That is quite something to reckon with. I can imagine how angry you feel. It’s an important thing to realise though, and if nothing else you’ll stop your kids making the same mistake?

I work in HE, in a student support role. Diversity and Inclusion absolutely dominates the agenda of everything we do. The political environment seems suffocating to me sometimes. It is depressing. I don’t like it at all, but don’t know what to do about it.

Autumn rose I don't really want to say the subjects, but one institution I went to was (drumroll) Goldsmiths, so that should give you an idea. Haha, and I said 'well-respected', my bad.

I don’t understand why the U.K. isn’t more like France in expecting newcomers to adopt French culture.

Setting aside non-majority nationalities/ethnicities for a moment, UK culture, certainly latterly, accommodates a diversity of subcultures (if that’s the right word) surprisingly well. And we love a bit of eccentricity. And then there’s that libertarian streak. Perhaps that accounts for a laissez-faire attitude around culture?

Dolorabelle "I was a migrant to another English-speaking country as a child, where the policy was assimilation - that is a kind of coercion & compulsion which is not pleasant."

what does it actually involve please?

So maybe it’s this intersection of race and class which is unique to England and isn’t understood through a US lens

Yup - I think class and relative wealth/poverty is really important here - this is real 'intersectionality.'

I don’t understand why the U.K. isn’t more like France in expecting newcomers to adopt French culture

I was a migrant to another English-speaking country as a child, where the policy was assimilation - that is a kind of coercion & compulsion which is not pleasant. I tried to "pass" but felt such a sense of relief & relaxation when I settled back in the UK as an adult.

So while I think that elements of a common culture are very important - including a common central language - I am sceptical about any blanket statements or solutions.

That's the thing isn't it? This is a nuanced & multi-stranded debate. It's not black & white - there are no goodies and baddies except at both extremes.

Upfield "I have two postgraduate degrees and have started to realise what a miserable excuse for an education I've had. I feel quite angry about it, that I've been indoctrinated rather than challenged, I haven't been given a thorough education at all, and I have attended well-respected institutions."

oh. That's really interesting, but obviously I feel for you. I'd be interested to know what your subjects were, but of course I understand if you'd rather not say.

I don’t understand why the U.K. isn’t more like France in expecting newcomers to adopt French culture.

But I can see the negatives in that being quite dictatorial.

My experience of Asian friends at school in 80/90s was that the more middle class ones eg dcs of doctors and dentists were more westernised eg giving dcs ‘western’ names, pushing female education, western dress, whereas the more working class pupils were more likely to have names from their culture, women in rigid homemaker roles, and stronger links to the culture of origin.

So maybe it’s this intersection of race and class which is unique to England and isn’t understood through a US lens.

For many, I think it's well-intentioned and comes from a place of wanting to be inclusive, but ironically those with a sense of superiority due to their upbringing are often the ones we find making patronising demands for the plebs to 'repeat after me' as we've just seen. Noblesse oblige, as someone upthread mentioned. I also think it's to do with anyone passing through the education system being drenched in theories supporting identity politics throughout, and very rarely having these ideas challenged. I have two postgraduate degrees and have started to realise what a miserable excuse for an education I've had. I feel quite angry about it, that I've been indoctrinated rather than challenged, I haven't been given a thorough education at all, and I have attended well-respected institutions. It's only now that I'm free from the education system I can actually learn by reading texts which challenge the narrative I've been taught.
I've just been reading this in 'Fools, Frauds and Firebrands' by Roger Scruton, talking about class but might apply (better) to identity politics "By seeing society in class terms we are programmed to find antagonism at the heart of all the institutions through which people have attempted to limit it. Nation, law, faith, tradition, sovereignty – these ideas by contrast denote things that unite us. It is in terms of them that we attempt to articulate the fundamental togetherness that mitigates social rivalries, whether of class, status or economic role. Hence it has been a vital project on the left, to which Hobsbawm made his own distinctive contribution, to show that these things are in some way illusory, standing for nothing durable or fundamental in the social order."

I was thinking about the use of faggot in Fairytale of NY. If we go back in time and ban every song that has a racist/sexist/homophobic/ anti-semitic phrase there will be little left. Shakespeare included.
I think we need to agree that the past is the past. If you remove all the politically incorrect references in the past then you also remove the evidence that it was in common usage. This proved the homo phobia or whatever was rife.
We now know that it is offensive so must not use it (though there is blatant sexism and other offences still).

It used to be accepted that when you move to a new country you try to fit in, adopt the customs to some extent, learn the language, get involved

I now don't think this was true. It was not the case in colonial times when the English language, law etc etc was introduced to other countries. And nowadays people who retire abroad don't make a point of learning the language. It was what was said here about immigrants but, imv, because we believed we had a better country and way of life that we assumed people would want to adopt.

Also in some countries if you DON"T adopt their life style you can be penalised eg Saudi . When I lived in the US people who appeared to be from India, possibly Pakistan, all wore western dress. Perhaps it wasn't accepted to dress traditionally (US a nation of immigrants) or perhaps they chose to.
Many countries are very corrupt which we aren't, having a non corrupt police and unarmed police is a pretty good thing imv.
I'm sure some immigrants would adopt our life style if they weren't restricted by strict adherence to religious laws, maintained by a patriarchy or patriarchal church.

I agree, Autumn. Some of the aims of what broadly gets categorised as "identity politics" are laudable - accepting that various forms of prejudice (racism, sexism, disablism, etc) are real, and can and frequently do become institutionalised. And that if you're a member of one of the relatively privileged members of society (white middle class for eg) it's easy not to notice this going on around you. As an analysis of why there are more barriers in your way if you're black, female, disabled, English as a second language, I think this will speak to you.

I like John Scalzi's analogy of being white male and middle class being like playing a computer game on the lowest difficulty setting.

The problem comes with the hangers-on - the student politics types itching to get offended on someone else's behalf, or worse, those claiming membership of a group they don't actually belong to (Lisa Simpson and the Hitachi tribe).