Douglas Murray on intolerant politics

[BovaryX]

There is an interesting article by Douglas Murray in the DM about the authoritarian, identity politics which have alienated Labour voters and triggered a paradigm shift in the political landscape. It covers some of the themes which Lang GC Pencils and others have been discussing in light of election result.

It is a divide between people who have real-world concerns and those focused on niche and barely significant ones...How, you might ask, have we reached such a state? There is a clue in the Labour Party’s dysfunctional reaction to its catastrophic defeat on Thursday

Immitation - fucking autocorrect again.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Yes, I don't want to be divisive and it doesn't apply to all in the middle and upper classes of course, but there's a general sneering attitude towards the working classes.

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.

This! Colonialism benefited the British upper class. The working class was having its arms lopped off in unsafe factories and dying of TB in the workhouse. Working class British people should be allowed to be proud of their grandparents, standing alone against fascism at the outset of WWII while dying abroad and being bombed at home.

Quite, Upfield.

Quite

It would seem there is a queue of opinion writers at the Guardian and indeed pundits here on MN who have no problems spewing out hatchet job pieces that seek to mock, shame or embarrass anyone who holds even the slightest regard for English culture, it's history or a sense of national identity. Nobody wants to see their culture ignored, insulted and dismissed, something many on the left simply don't get. The UK's counties and towns, it's tribal origins and histories, it's celebrations and traditions, accents and music and food and rivalries and every quirk of culture should be admired and celebrated, and if we were talking about any other nation the Guardian
and some folk here would be doing just that. But instead we get sneering and mockery. I'm not even English but it did not take long for me to see the contempt many on the left have for the 'lower orders' and your country as a whole yet curiously you expect them to vote for your party.

There is so much in this thread I'd love to comment on if I had more time and was less knackered.

The whole imperial guilt thing has taken over British universities. Yes, we as a nation need to acknowledge past misdeeds, but I have read some popular histories by academics which talk about my own area of expertise, and to find the primary documents misrepresented to the point where the author must have known he was bending the truth to breaking point (and beyond) is actually shocking. But the facts as given in the documents didn't match his agenda, so they were twisted or ignored. There is enough in the British Empire's Hall of Shame without making up more, and in any case our understanding of the past is not enhanced by dishonesty in its representation.

The whole experience of reading this bullshit when I had access to the primary sources really shook my faith in academia, and in fact in anyone claiming to be telling me the truth. And it looks to me as if many of the Woke swallow everything that they're told... Not sensible. Not at all.

Lang, it has to be said that the Empire benefitted more of the working classes than is usually understood. My GF did bloody well out of it, as did his business partner, and they were not alone. They both married Asian or mixed women, which perhaps supports the argument upthread that the working class often didn't care what colour you were.

And finally, can we nominate this thread for Classics? It's the most civilised, interesting and respectful debate that I can recall having on here.

Or is that not what Classics is about?

Blimey, my working class UK family did very well out of colonialism – across at least three continents. Sure, there was a Rockefeller up the road having it easier, but there was a Jewish Eastern European on the same boat refused entry, never mind getting a £10 passage and guaranteed work through the emigration agent who organised the lot. (This isn't hyperbole: I've seen the passenger manifests and immigration officers' remarks.)

Am I allowed to be proud of my grandparents? Standing together (not alone) with the Mother Country against facism? Or do we get written out of the story again as soon as we're no longer needed? Just like always?

I was actually writing a post to completely agree with Upfield that it's neither desirable nor even possible to "continually demonstrate a personal sense of shame," and no one should feel required to.

I came to post it – and found people trying to support this position by re-writing history.

Seriously, can we discuss without resorting to some romanticised, fictional idea of a sanctified Working Class, Gawd Bless 'Em? It's all kinds of wrong – and completely unnecessary, given there's more than enough true bad stuff, to be going on with.

Or what Grumpy said much more succinctly (about an eg in the opposite direction; there's clearly a lot of this about ):

There is enough in the British Empire's Hall of Shame without making up more, and in any case our understanding of the past is not enhanced by dishonesty in its representation.

Lang, it has to be said that the Empire benefitted more of the working classes than is usually understood. My GF did bloody well out of it, as did his business partner, and they were not alone.

Fair enough, yes.

They both married Asian or mixed women, which perhaps supports the argument upthread that the working class often didn't care what colour you were.

Interestingly enough, two of my greatgrandmothers married Asian men. One of whom was a lascar who died in colonial service.

Isn't part of the problem though that every individual alive today is the descendent both of people who benefited at the expense of other people, individually and as a group, and also which was exploited for the benefit of other people, both individually and as a group?

And I think we'd also struggle to find a people historically that is innocent of any exploitation or othering of out-groups. I've never seen any evidence that there is a culture that is immune to this sort of self-seeking and exploitation.

And even those who arguably have come out, at this moment in time, at the tippy top, through the good luck or ruthlessness of their ancestors, had nothing to do with any of it. We all find ourselves here and in a particular position in society and just have to deal with it.

It's a bit odd that we expect people in other cultures to celebrate their family and ethnic cultural heritage, to hold on to their traditions, to be proud of their nation even, but we are so uncomfortable with doing so ourselves. I feel like there should be some Freudian complex that describes this state.

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

Dividing is a sort of corollary to uniting, I think.

Without any sort of institutions, perhaps the largest unified group we could come up with would be a tribe of related family lines, and tribalism tends to be a rather fractious political system. Marriage becomes about the only way to join those divided reliably and it's not all that reliable.

So the question becomes, how can you unite a bunch of tribes into something like a people or even a nation? I think Scrunton is right - it's got to be social institutions, like religion, some sort of system of laws, an emperor, cultural or nationalistic observances, even pass-times like sports or narrative stories. In fact - all of these things create a sort of illusion of an extended tribe, a common experience, a buy-in to a compatible set of expectations about how to live and mediate disputes.

But all of those things can also work to divide when there are differences within a culture or society. You may not need all of them, but you need some and the rest have to have some level of compatibility.

The mistake is the John Lennon one of imagining that if we got rid of all those institutions everyone would begin to rub along fine.

Goosefoot, I agree with a lot of that.

I only disagree with your last paragraph in that I don't feel uncomfortable being proud of (much of) my country's heritage and traditions. The bits that are worth celebrating, I celebrate and enjoy – I loved Cool Britannia as a really positive manifestation of a modern UK culture that for once didn't depend on some notion of how we'd dissed someone else.

I don't have any difficulty celebrating the good stuff. And meanwhile, the bad bits of my country's heritage I recognise, own, and don't hanker to have back.

But that's me talking about me, in the UK. I think you're in Canada, aren't you? So when you say "we are so uncomfortable with doing so ourselves", I don't have a full understanding of what's packed into your "we".

Sorry, my reply was to your post at Mon 23-Dec-19 19:01:11.

Two points while I'm on page 28:
*the first time I heard of identity politics was on campus before 2000 where student politicians were preaching and practising it. As an activist I found it ludicrous.
*it was explained to me by a French housemate years ago that France doesn't have a policy of multiculturalism because the French revolution banished secularism and they wanted to preserve the separation of religion and mainstream/official life. Whether that's true or not. He was quite vehement that French culture would have been compromised by multiculturalism.

On another note, this discussion is fascinating from the perspective of a colonial: the progressive perspective in Australia is that we have no right to distinct British heritage/traditions/community practices because the land wasn't ours to take in the first place.
My question is: should Britain be immune to being colonised [in a different way] by the machinations of global capitalism. After all, they did inflict it on other places with real people whose own lives, ancestral lands and traditions were turned upside down.

Sorry, *banished non-secularism

Interestingly enough, two of my greatgrandmothers married Asian men. One of whom was a lascar who died in colonial service.
Lang, do you look at the ethnicity question on forms like ? I resent the over-simplification every bloody time.