h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think they're two sides of the same coin. Both should be monitored, but if they keep their politics out of the classroom they are doing nothing wrong. People might be uncomfortable with it, but we've not got to the stage of policing "future crime" yet.

I knew teachers at school who were fervent socialists and they allowed this to colour their teaching. This is just as wrong.

School is the last place on earth to allow free reign to politics or religion IMO.

>>>
"In various threads around here I think we've all agreed that racism is not as rife as it once was. SWL

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I have not agreed anything of the like so its not ALL of us is it? (what were you saying earlier about burying heads in the sand?) blicky
<<<

I haven't agreed to that either. I think that certain kinds of overt racism have changed, obviously, but there's plenty of others to choose from. Also I notice that that kind of overt racism still exists visibly most in more conservative circles and I suspect that in many liberal circles people are more careful about not *appearing* racist (which is why being called a 'racist' is seen as a Really Bad Thing).


*


>>>
No. I'm not. There was never a Celtic culture. There were Gauls, Britonni, &c. but it wasn't until the 17th Century that the term 'Celt' was applied as a catch-all term to these peoples.


I'll consult my sources this evening and offer a better explanation.

I have to ask though... what makes you think I was taking the piss?
<<< Mr D.

It was your use of the smiley after your post. My mistake.

I'd be interested to hear more about what you are saying about the history of the word/concept 'Celt

I'll still probably debate that indigenous, or indeed 'Celt' has to refer to a homogenous group though.

SWL, you seem to have this idea that belief and action are inherently separate or seperable. I can see that theorectically someone might be able to keep their racist views separate from their job, but I doubt that that is the case most of the time. If racism is a number of things including institutional and covert, then someone who was a staunch member of the BNP could quite easily work to maintain institutional racism if they were say a policeman or someone in charge of who gets state housing. We know that instututinal and covert racism exists, so why wouldn't someone politcally committed to racism not use their position to practice racism where they could?


I also can't make the connection between socialism and racism. You seem to think that racism is simply a politcal movement alongside others

Well, if you think racism is as bad now as it ever was, after 30 years of legislation and untold millions spent on education, what's it going to take to achieve a non-racist world? Another 30 years of the same? 60 years? 200 years?
If we accept the proviso that our society is as racist as ever, what measures do you think are going to eradicate racism? Education hasn't worked obviously.

Or maybe the focus is wrong.

Feminism worked principally because it empowered women. It encouraged women to stand up for their rights and demand equality. I don't think we're all the way there on that one, but it is surely undeniable that women's role in society has changed beyond recognition over the last century.

Taking that as an example of combating prejudice, perhaps the racial equality message should be aimed at the minorities?

Belief and action are of course seperable. We can control ourselves. It's what raises us above the common beast. How many people work for a boss they can't stand? How many people manage to hide their true feelings from their boss?

I didn't say racism is as bad as it ever was, I disputed that society has improved to the extent that you say it has.

That is true for how women are treated in society as well (eg we still don't have pay parity, rape is still a prevalent crime against women, women still do most of the work on the planet and still have the least amount of political power etc). Yes there have been many changes, and some of the more overt ones are ones that I wouldn't want to lose, but there are still fundamental oppressions of women that haven't substantially changed, and others where we are losing ground again.


>> but it is surely undeniable that women's role in society has changed beyond recognition over the last century.

Taking that as an example of combating prejudice, perhaps the racial equality message should be aimed at the minorities?
<<

See that is where you and I principally disagree. I don't think that women (or non-whites) are the problem. So where women's place in society has changed due to their own efforts it is also to the extent that the dominating system allows - what hasn't really changed too much is the dominating system itself. It's not 'minorities' that need to change, it's those that do the oppressing.

We haven't really seen a large shift with that yet, which is why the backlash against feminism has been so strong in the last 15 years, and why the backlash against anti-racism work appears to be going the same way i.e. once the oppressed start to gain some power and get too uppity, once the oppressors see that true change involves giving up priviledge and genuinely sharing power (not being in total control) then the oppressors generally start freaking out and blaming the oppressed for everything that goes wrong.

eg feminists are responsible for the breakdown of the nuclear family (read women have taken some power from men in terms of how families function), or immigrants (other than white ones) are responsible for loss of English culture because they keep to themselves and don't assimilate (read I don't like living with too many black people because they are different from me and if they get too big in numbers and get too much power they will treat me as badly as whites have treated them).

And once there is someone to blame, ways are found to undermine those who the oppressors feel threatened by.

>>
Belief and action are of course seperable.
<<

I said inherently separable. Like I said, if someone is staunchly racist and politically committed to racism, how likely is it that that won't affect their work? You think out of the goodness of their heart they are going to say I really don't think non-whites should be living here and in my private life I am committed to ensuring that they don't, but when I make this decision about which family to grant this house to I'm going to be colour blind and not discriminate against the black family?

Kind of begs the question how this would be enforced, doesn't it? Our beliefs are made manifest by our actions. I think that most of us would like part of our life to be separate from and not affect our jobs (so long as we do not commit a crime).

If you start making racist remarks, however neutral your tone, intellectual your argument or calm your expression, whilst in the process of doing your job, things get a bit tricky.

>>"Throwing somebody out of their job, one that they perhaps have pursued a university education and career path to attain, purely because of their private beliefs, is effectively ostracisation. The head of RIBA for example. WTF has racism to do with architecture?"

The RIBA case, as explained at great length before, was a case of someone wanting to be elected being criticised for their views and being described in less-then-glowing terms by people with direct personal experience of their attitudes and behaviour.
They weren't thrown out of a job, they just failed to be elected to one. Whether that's because people disliked them for their views and overt style of behaviour or because people just thought they weren't good enough for other reasons isn't known.