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

An article about the actor's stupid comments. http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1136531,00.html

"Chris Myant, director of the Commission for Racial Equality in Wales, said: 'This way of talking is reminiscent of Enoch Powell, whose words give a veneer of seeming respectability to racist and hateful ideas.'"

Hi Susanne... you're just up the road from me, I think so "Helau to you"

Let's take a good example of "patriotism" that is going on right now in Germany. Actually it's not patriotism, but it is an expression of a national identity: we are celebrating Karneval in a most peculiarly German way.

I live smack between Köln and Düsseldorf - rival cities in all things Karneval. It's touch and go round here if you give the Düsseldorf greeting (Helau) or the Köln greeting (Alaaf). It's all taken in good part, with a healthy dose of friendly rivalry between the two cities (and others who do Karneval).

Not sure if that is relevant, but it seems to me to be a mini example.

On to the flag thing. When the world cup was on (or any big sporting occasion) everyone hangs flags out of their windows except for us. The Germans do it, the Italians, the Turkish, the French, the Dutch, the Belgians, even the one Brazilian family living round here who actually arrived during the competition immediately hung out flags - even while they were schlepping their boxes out of the removal van.

We didn't hang out a flag because, a) we don't actually have one and b) last time we did it - English flag - we were given a load of ear ache. (although the Scottish guy up the road is praised for daring to "challenge the British by demonstrating his Scottishness"

Mind you, none of the Americans round here put up a flag, which I think is a shame too.

After the recent Rugby World Cup Win by England (yaaayyy) I was having a joke with a guy in the office (he's Aussie) and was told to stop crowing by some PC guys.

So it often seems to me that it's ok to wave your flags unless your flag is a particular brand of red/white(/blue)

This St. Georges day I'll give it another go. And maybe I'll actually pick a red - even though I'm a Yorkshire girl.

'daring to "challenge the British by demonstrating his Scottishness"'

He challenged himself? Along with his fellow Scots? How valorous.

N.B. Sorry about the grammatically ambiguous use of 'along with'; 'fellow Scots' can be read as a subject, but is meant to be an object.

Hey Sho! I thought too of including something about our carnival, but then, I still don't understand it. I was never a carnival type and I think that it's okay to celebrate for those who like to, but it is so much like being forced to celebrate...
another point that came to my mind is the schützenfest, translation"fair with shooting competition". that's definately something patriotic, not on a countrywide level, but every town has their special fair. this too is something I cannot understand , but maybe it's not that bad to have a little thing to be proud of. if you don't have anything of the kind, how will that manifest itself? there wouldn't be any comunity spirit (why don't I like the word?) at all I think

"Maybe its because England hasn't been invaded and colonised since the Normans came in 1066, while Wales, Scotland, and Ireland were all placed under English colonial rule against their will" . . . this is deeply self-contradictory. The English were taken over in 1066. So were the Irish in 1170 (also by the Normans), and we were re-invaded and planted several times since.

But what is the difference between being invaded and being colonised? And what possible meaning could "against their will" have in this context? The rules of the time gave the rights to the conqueror; and it is a kind of revisionism, used to build up an uprising, to say it was "against the will" of "the people". The people, after all, has always included plenty who were happy enough to change one lot of tyrants for another.

There is a good answer to this whole vexed question though.

1. History is "a catalogue of disasters" (Bob Geldof) "a nightmare from which I am trying to awaken" (James Joyce) "bunk" (Henry Ford)

2. The past is fixed, the future we can choose.

3. Everything done in the past seemed the right thing at the time.

4. The only constructive use we can make of our background, whatever it is, is to be completely proud of it, and completely free of it.

5. That means we make our present choices on their merits, not in any attempt to preserve our antecedents' historical choices (see 1 & 2)

This reasoning is derived from the school of "re-evaluation co-counselling"; a movement that sort of imploded when its founder was accused of breaking his own rules. He said some very sensible things though; and central to the whole thing is the tenet that the past was not free, but the presesnt is. Whatever anyone ever did, let us suppose there appeared to them a good and sufficient reason. Nobody ever set out to do wrong. Feeling bad about past actions, our own or anybody else's, is just sticking ourselves to fly-paper.

The attitude that sets us free is: to forgive the past and take responsibility for the present and future.

Workshops in r. c. often required participants to state name and their social class ("working" or "owning" were two I remember); guess where the pride was lacking? Nobody apparently owned anything, or if they did, they apologised for it, and could hardly say their name above a whisper (this was in the eighties).

As for the Muslims in Holland, I confidently hope that they will form an influential tolerant and outward-looking community within Islam.

"Whatever anyone ever did, let us suppose there appeared to them a good and sufficient reason." I was being mealy-mouthed there, that's not good enough.

Whatever anyone ever did, that was the best choice they could make, at the time and in the circumstances.

Just to add something to Blickybadger's link about John Rhys-Davies, here's an interview with him: http://promontoryartists.org/lookingcloser/movie%20reviews/Q-Z/returnoftheking-jrd.htm

In it, along with things much milder at first glance, he says "g**dammit, I am for dead white male culture." Taken with the fact that the entire talk is directed at Islam and trumpeting the superior virtues of "white male culture" it doesn't end up being proud of ones nation. It is simply propaganda subtly calling for the ethnic cleansing of Europe. Seems he may want to get rid of women too, since he's for a male culture.

What a git.

I'm going to sound awful and intolerant and racist now, but I have to say it.

In a way I sort of agree with him, based on the experiences of my friend. At 16, she ran away from her strict muslim parents who were trying to force her into marriage, wouldn't let her associate with lads, made her wear those robes (sorry, I can't remember the names), etc. She ended up living above a pub, and is now in an abusive relationship and on cocaine.

I am in now way saying that Islam is wrong, but when devout muslims have caused this to happen to a sensible intelligent girl in the name of religion (ie you girl, you 2nd class, you do what daddy/predetermined husband says!) I for one don't want to live in a community where they are in the minority. And before anyone says I'm part of the witch-hunt remember that I am an atheist and so am not "safeguarding white Christo-judaism". And I am /certainly/ against facism in all it's forms (descended from Austrian Jews, work that one out).

Now part of me is saying don't post, but h2g2 is a place for opinions, no matter how strange.

Very fascinating. JRD says "If it just means the replacement of one genetic stock with another genetic stock, that doesn’t matter too much."

Do the BNP quote this?

Then he says "But if it involves the replacement of Western civilization with a different civilization with different cultural values, then it is something we really ought to discuss — because, g**dammit, I am for dead white male culture."

Why "dead"? I think it's a parallel, if not a direct reference, to "Dead Poets". Certainly not "pure-white"!

Hang on a minute!

The Scots? Under English Colonial Rule? Since when?

Dead White culture. Now there's a phrase to conjour with.
In a country where a Muslim preacher can tell his listeners that England is a pawn of Satan and that any action taken to bring the country down is good in the eyes of Allah, a relatively unremarkable actor is blasted for having an opinion.

Sometimes it feels as though being a part of a culture that values freedom of speech means that you don't get to use it yourself.

What's the reference to 'Dead Poets" about?

"Sometimes it feels as though being a part of a culture that values freedom of speech means that you don't get to use it yourself."

Film "Dead Poets Society". Answering the perennial question "why do we have to study dead poets?"

The trouble with JRD's stance is that he regards democracy as a delicate flower under attack. You can sympathise. Or you can trust to the impetus it has gained in the world. I see democracy as deriving its strength from language, in the way grammar requires logic and logic requires universality and universality requires fairness.

This discussion arose from a Tolkien thread; and Tolkien's message was also that we have to be prepared to sacrifice things that are ancient, valuable and powerful, as soon as their end effect is seen to be baleful. It's going to hurt, but there's plenty in our culture that we will have to change.

And yes, defending free speech means defending the opponent. The onlooker will see who's righteous.

Psycorp:

Your description of the Muslim girl is virtually exactly parallel to one I could tell you about a number of young Christian girls I've known.

Your description of your own religious and political leanings is also very similar to mine, so I'm certainly not trying to protect Islam, except in the sense that I believe it is everybody's right to believe what ever fool thing they want, as long as they're not hurting anybody. Personally, I think oppressing women in the name of religion is intollerable, spreading lies about a country's society is intollerable, and advocating racial eugenics is intollerable, whoever does these things.

JRD says: "the abolition of slavery comes from Western democracy."

Well, in fact, slavery was abolished in Canada, for example, a colony of a monarchy, long before it was abolished in that bastion of "Western Democracy", the U. S. And, besides, it hasn't actually been abolished yet. If you take a look at a recent issue of the (American) National Geographic Magazine, you will find out that there are thousands of slaves living and working in deplorable conditions right there in the U.S. and virtually every other "Western Democracy". The crap that JRD spouts in that interview is inciting hatred through pretty sounding lies and half-truths. What he says has nothing to do with legitimate pride in ones heritage and everything to do with demeaning other cultures.

Gradient huffs: "The Scots? Under English Colonial Rule? Since when?"

If you are saying that since James VI became king of England, the Scots have ruled (or been equal partners in) Britain, you sound like those who claim that China belongs to Tibet. Historically true (once) but a little out of line with the current facts. For the same reasons England belongs to France and France belongs to England.

Well the way I see it, at the moment, the Scots get to rule themselves to whatever extent from their separate parliament, but they also get their say in the UK parliament on issues, like say university tuition fees that won't actually affect Scotland...

"For the same reasons England belongs to France and France belongs to England."

Parts of France are historically British, and we'd like them back!

"And yes, defending free speech means defending the opponent. The onlooker will see who's righteous."

Agreed. You have to defend the right of everybody to say anything. it's the Voltaire arguement.

It's nice that so many people felt they could make statements decrying JRD's opinion. But where were the people saying 'You know...he has a point!' ?
Where were the people who thought 'Actually, all this guy wants to do is preserve the world he grew up in. What's racist about that?'

They were quiet, leaving the only support to come from a fringe political group.

Dare we, as a culture, allow ourselves to place value on that culture and declare some parts of it inviolate? Are we allowed to resist change from outside if we don't want it? I'm pretty sure that by doing so we would lose out in the long run...opinions, folks?

I am Proud to be British but I am also proud that I can say I am not racist.
When I here the word, PACKY for instens I get a little bit mad, we all should be proud of what we are and where we came from. It gets me mad when other
people use your comments out of context.

>>Sometimes it feels as though being a part of a culture that values freedom of speech means that you don't get to use it yourself.<<

I'll echo the and raise you an too

However, I do think it is a bit much that some people are allowed to live in a society and exploit the freedom of speech to incite people to bring that society down.

It's a dangerous topic to talk about. How often do you hear the words "well, I'm not a racist but..." and then go on to make blatantly racist statements.

I don't necessarily deplore the watering down or thinning of a culture, it's happened lots of times over the history of humankind and I'm sure it will continue to happen.

That atrocities and repression happen in the name of religion, and are allowed to happen because some people don't have the courage to stand up and voice their protest is a symptom of our times. And if someone does voice their protest, as is their democratic right, they are often pilloried for it.

Long live free speech!

I'm generally proud of our good achievements (we did some good things) and I'm aware of the bad things done in our name (some very bad) and all in all I'm not embarassed. It's a pity that I have to hide it a lot of the time when I'd really like to wave the flag.