# John Cleese: London's no longer an English city



## Anudder Oik (Sep 2, 2011)

This'll get the juices flowing.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/268680/John-Cleese-London-s-no-longer-an-English-city

Do people dare say what they think? I left London 20 years ago to live in a warmer clime but have family still living in London. Amongst them is one ex activist from ANL MKI, who speaks to me of how they are feeling increasingly alienated in their own city and that immigration "has gone mad".

It would be interesting to talk about this without bringing the likes of the BNP into it.


----------



## Random (Sep 2, 2011)

More Lib Dem racism. London hasn't been an English city for about 1,000 years. Odd to notice just now.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 2, 2011)

Random said:


> More Lib Dem racism. London hasn't been an English city for about 1,000 years. Odd to notice just now.



Can you elaborate on that, please. Are you saying nothing's changed?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/268680/John-Cleese-London-s-no-longer-an-English-city



..




			
				Cleese said:
			
		

> But the alimony is one million dollars a year. That’s a lot.”


----------



## Random (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Can you elaborate on that, please. Are you saying nothing's changed?


Like so many other large ports, London has been made up of many cultures other than its Home County hinterland. Scots, Welsh, Irish, French, etc etc have all come in their hundreds and thousands. Saying 1,000 years might be conservative on my part, since London was a Roman city well before that.
London has never been anything like Bath. Odd for Cleese to only notice this now.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 2, 2011)

I find it hard to believe that John Cleese is racist and as I have said. People I know are echoing the same sentiment.

Cleese in the article


> “I love having different cultures around but when the parent culture kind of dissipates you’re left thinking ‘well, what’s going on?’ ” Earlier this year Cleese – an ardent Liberal Democrat supporter – said he preferred living in Bath to London.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Love the comments. They are so mental. Are we sure the Express aren't making them up. Particularly love this one:



> The nicest possible families are found in French schools


----------



## weltweit (Sep 2, 2011)

I don't spend much time in London so I don't feel qualified to have an opinion.


----------



## Random (Sep 2, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I don't spend much time in London so I don't feel qualified to have an opinion.


Thanks for letting us know.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Love the comments. They are so mental. Are we sure the Express aren't making them up. Particularly love this one:
> 
> 
> 
> The nicest possible families are found in French schools



yuck...


----------



## marty21 (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> This'll get the juices flowing.
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/268680/John-Cleese-London-s-no-longer-an-English-city
> 
> ...


I've lived in London since 1989 and I am not increasingly alienated

HTH


----------



## weltweit (Sep 2, 2011)

Random said:


> Thanks for letting us know.



Oh don't worry, it won't stop me from commenting


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 2, 2011)

Jesus, it's not like the Roman city of Bath isn't choc full of tourists, nothing very english about it, and certainly not representative of 'english' cities.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

By 'Where are all the English people', did Cleese's Californian friend mean 'Where are all the white people'? I presume so.

Racist cunt is racist, I'm afraid. Racist cunt Farage shows his true colours too.


----------



## Random (Sep 2, 2011)

Just googled Kings Road and it appears its in Kensingtom and Chelsea. So Cleese and his friend are presumably complaining about an influx of oligarchs and petrocrats?


----------



## Badgers (Sep 2, 2011)

I heard immigration was out of control in Monaco too


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 2, 2011)

Random said:


> Odd for Cleese to only notice this now.



Probably a bit behind with developments, what with being a tax exile.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 2, 2011)

I was born and raised in London in the 60s and 70s.  It has changed hugely.

There were 2 black kids in the entire school.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 2, 2011)

Random said:


> Like so many other large ports, London has been made up of many cultures other than its Home County hinterland. Scots, Welsh, Irish, French, etc etc have all come in their hundreds and thousands. Saying 1,000 years might be conservative on my part, since London was a Roman city well before that.
> London has never been anything like Bath. Odd for Cleese to only notice this now.



Britain, and especially london, has a fascinating history of migration but I feel the comparison is somehow weak and irrelevent when you think about the impact on identity in the capitol now.

The Norman invaders, for example, (William was apparently the rightful heir to the throne, not Harold) spoke french and so did their grandchildren, but that influence dissipated, as english as a dominant language, was adopted by the ruling elite. Apart from words for meats, the Normans left traces indistinguishable from the native culture, castles etc...

Up until the 60's London was vertually mono-cultural, grey, conservative and boring. People craved something new and colourful. 1000 years of immigration was unnoticeable.

Compare London then to London now, the difference is immense.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

The sense of 'alienation' from certain Londoners is nothing new. It happened when a load of East Enders decamped to Essex a generation ago. Good riddance, afaic. But also, it's just a process - new immigrants move into an area and others move out - onwards, normally, in terms of their sense of status: to a house with a mortgage in Essex rather than a council flat in Bow, for instance.

And yes, to use the King's Road as the example just shows what an ignorant tosser Cleese is, I'm afraid. Millionaire has no clue shocker.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 2, 2011)

If Cleese thinks London is bad he should try visiting countries abroad. They are full of bloody foreigners


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I was born and raised in London in the 60s and 70s. It has changed hugely.


Exactly. It's much better now.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2011)

I don't think it's a big deal. He's not really saying anything that new, offensive or particularly untrue.

He's just saying that London is an international city rather than an english one. I'd say that was pretty true.

Let the 30 page U75 knicker-twist begin.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> ...Let the 30 page U75 knicker-twist begin.



Indeed - again


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Exactly. It's much better now.


What people can't afford to live there, actual Londoners?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

I do not agree, Idaho. What he said about his friend's comment was very specific. If you are black you are not English was the inference. Racist. Fucking racist.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> What people can't afford to live there, actual Londoners?


----------



## 100% masahiko (Sep 2, 2011)

Cleese is an old man and everyone he grew up with are dead.

Of course things change.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> What people can't afford to live there, actual Londoners?


Lots of people can't afford to live there now but that's a recent development - as recently as the late 1990s housing was affordable. The housing crisis is _not_ the fault of immigrants.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Lots of people can't afford to live there now but that's a recent development - as recently as the late 1990s housing was affordable. The housing crisis is _not_ the fault of immigrants.



How can so many immigrants afford to live in London?


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Culturally it's much better. Lots of people can't afford to live there now but that's a recent development - as recently as the late 1990s housing was affordable. The housing crisis is _not_ the fault of immigrants.


I never said it was. The housing crisis is the fault of the rich pushing prices up to unnatural levels for everyone.
Some of them will be foreign and some of them not, it doesn't actually matter.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 2, 2011)

I to visit Central London lots as one tourist amongst the many.

I'd be continually asked where something was and have to explain that I wasn't from London either only to watch them wander off and ask someone else who wasn't from London.

That was over 20 years ago so its not as if London hasn't always been notably full of visitors (permanent or temporary).


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 2, 2011)

Has anyone got any statistics?


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> How can so many immigrants afford to live in London?


Overcrowding, bad conditions?? I'd guess.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Overcrowding, bad conditions?? I'd guess.


Yep, overcrowding basically. Again, nothing new - immigrants are willing to put up with more crowded conditions when they first arrive somewhere, and to work longer hours for shitter pay, often.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Has anyone got any statistics?



Some general stats from 2009 here:
http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/bl...on-statistics-2009-cause-another-storm-teacup


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 2, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> How can so many immigrants afford to live in London?


 
Because they get a gold plated car and a handout so massive they have to wheelbarrow it five times to the automatically granted council house. And if anyone says anything they are branded as a racist and chastised by the human rights act. Worlds gone mad.


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2011)

'I agree with Ben Naylor's comments. Cleese and people of a certain generation seem to equate being English with being white. Just because their faces are different, it doesn't mean they are less 'English.' Whatever that means. One of the problems with being English, is that there are no obvious characteristics to it (unless you count football hooliganism and teenage pregnancy as examples). It's why other cultures' music, food, etc are always being taken and adapted;because the English have got nothing of their own.

*- Dani, London, 02/09/2011 12:38'*

comment from the Express

how to win an argument

 not


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 2, 2011)

Willing, or feeling that they have no choice but to put up with it.  Until they know their rights.  Or fight for them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 2, 2011)

I blame the left and PC do gooders myself


----------



## 100% masahiko (Sep 2, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> How can so many immigrants afford to live in London?



What's your definition of immigrants?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 2, 2011)

Some of my family came over during the reign of Catherine The Great, others just before the Second World War. Some ended up in America (ironically the English ones), some went back to France or Russia, some came back to London. If you move here, you become a Londoner. It's stupid to say London is no longer English. It's always been a great world city, right from when it first started being a settlement. It's the Thames wot done it.
Actually in a way, it's like living in a different country. Whenever I'm outside the M25 I realise things are not quite the same.

John Cleese may be funny but that doesn't stop him from being a twat. He always has been. People don't like admitting he's like the embarrassing relative because he's so much part of the cultural landscape, it somehow might cause what they've always valued to be sullied. Spike Milligan got away with some unpalatable views because he was like a Holy Fool. Cleese isn't a Holy Fool, He isn't even the Holy Twat. He's just a very silly boy.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'I agree with Ben Naylor's comments. Cleese and people of a certain generation seem to equate being English with being white. Just because their faces are different, it doesn't mean they are less 'English.' Whatever that means. One of the problems with being English, is that there are no obvious characteristics to it (unless you count football hooliganism and teenage pregnancy as examples). It's why other cultures' music, food, etc are always being taken and adapted;because the English have got nothing of their own.
> 
> *- Dani, London, 02/09/2011 12:38'*
> 
> ...


*makes notes for bean aphorisms*


----------



## weltweit (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Has anyone got any statistics?



In 2001, the number of people living in Britain who were not born here was 4.3m which was 7.5% of the population, up from 4.55% in 1971
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/born_abroad/html/overview.stm


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I do not agree, Idaho. What he said about his friend's comment was very specific. If you are black you are not English was the inference. Racist. Fucking racist.



He said that? He said black people aren't English? I have read and re-read the article and still managed to miss that.

I really don't see the point of combing through the opinions of random people - comedians, sports people, actors, etc looking for things to get upset about.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> He said that? He said black people aren't English? I have read and re-read the article and still managed to miss that.
> 
> I really don't see the point of combing through the opinions of random people - comedians, sports people, actors, etc looking for things to get upset about.


I didn't see it altho admittedly I skimmed it.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 2, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...... Cleese isn't a Holy Fool, He isn't even the Holy Twat. He's just a very silly boy.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Has anyone got any statistics?



The average penis length is 6 inches but this can vary according to country.

HTH.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> He said that? He said black people aren't English? I have read and re-read the article and still managed to miss that.
> 
> I really don't see the point of combing through the opinions of random people - comedians, sports people, actors, etc looking for things to get upset about.


Come off it. His American friend looked around the street on the King's Road and asked 'Where are all the English people?' Wtf do you think they meant by that?


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2011)

in reply to the idiot Dana,

Shakespeare, Milton, Euan McColl, English, Folk Music, The Smiths, The Beatles, Real ale, Lowry, Turner, Tim Burners Lee, Bansky, Donald McGill, Sunday Roast, Norman Rogers, Richard Rogers, Henry Moore, George Orwell, one could go on forever,


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> This'll get the juices flowing.


It did, but not in the way you imagined. Please don't do thread titles in shouty capitals. It's much more of a hassle to correct than misspellings.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Come off it. His American friend looked around the street on the King's Road and asked 'Where are all the English people?' Wtf do you think they meant by that?



There are loads of tourists of all nationalities in places like the Kings Road.  They're not all black!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Come off it. His American friend looked around the street on the King's Road and asked 'Where are all the English people?' Wtf do you think they meant by that?


Women in Windsmoor coats and posh blokes in bowler hats. And not a Pearly King and Queen in sight.


----------



## Lea (Sep 2, 2011)

I love multi cultural London. I live in Bethnal Green where there's a big Bangladeshi community and work close to Edgware Road where there is Arab community. With the sites, sounds and smells you could think you are transported to a different country. It's just wonderful.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

And then the racist Farage jumps in to support him. Farage will never say anything openly racist, so this kind of comment is perfect for him.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Sep 2, 2011)

Lea said:


> I live in Bethnal Green where there's a big Bangladeshi community and work close to Edgware Road where there is Arab community. With the sites, sounds and smells you could think you are transported to a different country. It's just wonderful.



That sounds like England to me.


----------



## lazyhack (Sep 2, 2011)

King's Road eh? Its all bloody tourists - http://g.co/maps/zmmp


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Come off it. His American friend looked around the street on the King's Road and asked 'Where are all the English people?' Wtf do you think they meant by that?


If you want to assume he meant "where are the white people" then there is nothing I can do to stop you. However I think it's a leap of ..er.. "faith" if you do.

It being the Kings Road I would doubt that it was full of native black Londoners. More likely it was Chinese/Japanese/European tourists, ethnic Arabs, Indians, Pakistanis etc.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 2, 2011)

True story: My friends daughter - aged 5 - was sitting in the back of the car as mum drove from Stoke Newington to Windsor to visit her brother. Daughter said "Is this where all the white people live, mummy?". LOL.


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2011)

the 2011 census results will be published soon, that will clarify a lot of things...


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Lea said:


> I love multi cultural London. I live in Bethnal Green where there's a big Bangladeshi community and work close to Edgware Road where there is Arab community. With the sites, sounds and smells you could think you are transported to a different country. It's just wonderful.


Only London is multicultural. The rest of the country are knuckle dragging racists. That's important to remember.


----------



## Lea (Sep 2, 2011)

100% masahiko said:


> That sounds like England to me.



Only certain bigger cities. I grew up in Kent and me and my siblings were the only ethnics in our primary school.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 2, 2011)

100% masahiko said:


> What's your definition of immigrants?



People who put sweetcorn on pizza


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> If you want to assume he meant "where are the white people" then there is nothing I can do to stop you. However I think it's a leap of ..er.. "faith" if you do.
> 
> It being the Kings Road I would doubt that it was full of native black Londoners. More likely it was Chinese/Japanese/European tourists, ethnic Arabs, Indians, Pakistanis etc.


Why are you trying to excuse his racism? Sorry, but especially when he then comes out with comments about 'the England he grew up in', the inference is very clear to me. And it was very clear to Farage as well.

And you know what, he was talking to an _Australian_ audience. It will have been triply clear to them. He wasn't referring to the tourists, either.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

Englishness is nothing to shout about anyway - limp cucumber sandwiches, cricket and dreary Sundays spent in garden centres. fuck that shit. I feel much more at home in Brixton than in the part of Leeds I'm in at the moment, which is boring and almost exclusively white.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> Englishness is nothing to shout about anyway - limp cucumber sandwiches, cricket and dreary Sundays spent in garden centres. fuck that shit. I feel much more at home in Brixton than in the part of Leeds I'm in at the moment, which is boring and almost exclusively white.


yes but you're a twat!


----------



## 1%er (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Has anyone got any statistics?


There is some info here about immigration since1922.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

leeds really is not "almost exclusively white"


----------



## 100% masahiko (Sep 2, 2011)

Badgers said:


> People who put sweetcorn on pizza



and raisins in their curry.


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> Englishness is nothing to shout about anyway - limp cucumber sandwiches, cricket and dreary Sundays spent in garden centres. fuck that shit. I feel much more at home in Brixton than in the part of Leeds I'm in at the moment, which is boring and almost exclusively white.


This is as lazy and as bollocks as lazy racist bollocks about immigrants taking our country.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 2, 2011)

There is also at least two very distinct central London's. There's the pre and post-evening rush hour - it looks pretty white until 6.00pm, but then the central areas lose upwards of three million mostly white commuters. That has a great effect on yer instant demographic judgements.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

100% masahiko said:


> and raisins in their curry.


that's the 1970's isn't it?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> yes but you're a twat!


that's not relevant! headingley is well white, you can't argue with that!


----------



## 100% masahiko (Sep 2, 2011)

Lea said:


> Only certain bigger cities. I grew up in Kent and me and my siblings were the only ethnics in our primary school.



Blah, you know what I really think of Kent.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why are you trying to excuse his racism? Sorry, but especially when he then comes out with comments about 'the England he grew up in', the inference is very clear to me. And it was very clear to Farage as well.


Oooh nooo! You've unmasked me as teh racialist.

I have no interest in justifying or explaining his beliefs or statements. I do, however, tire of the self-defeating activity of 'outing' people as racists based on statements that deviate from pro-forma equal opps press releases.

The man grew up in the London of the 1960s. It's a more international place now and he prefers to live somewhere that's more similar to the place he grew up. Obsessing about it and declaring him a racist based on this fairly ambigious and entirely non-hate-filled statement, is daft.

I suppose that last point is the key. I don't see any fear or hate. I just see the personal cultural preference of where someone wants to live. That doesn't amount to racism.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> that's not relevant! headingley is well white, you can't argue with that!


studes not the same as the rest of leeds


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> leeds really is not "almost exclusively white"


i didn't say that did i?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

With Black forest gateau for dessert.

'The past is a foreign country.'


----------



## 100% masahiko (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> that's the 1970's isn't it?



by god, i'm not that old!!!


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

Santino said:


> This is as lazy and as bollocks as lazy racist bollocks about immigrants taking our country.


yep, i am totally prejudiced against English suburbia. I love the inner city too much.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> that's not relevant! headingley is well white, you can't argue with that!


Is it? The bit of Headingley I lived in (Burley Lodge Road) was predominantly Asian with a few students thrown in.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Only London is multicultural. The rest of the country are knuckle dragging racists. That's important to remember.



We're just sooooo unvibrant.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> yep, i am totally prejudiced against English suburbia. I love the inner city too much.


How do the ethnics around you feel about being chosen based on their ethnicity? When in Brixton do you vet your friends for exotic racial features? How about knocking on your neighbours door and telling them how great it is that they interesting and non-white?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> Oooh nooo! You've unmasked me as teh racialist.


Don't say things I haven't said. From where I'm sat you _are_ trying to excuse his racism. That doesn't mean that I'm calling you a racist.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is it? The bit of Headingley I lived in (Burley Lodge Road) was predominantly Asian with a few students thrown in.


i'm living in an estate in Far Headingley that feels like another world compared to Brixton. The only black people on the estate are my sister and nephew. There are no Asians.
I'm just saying that in contrast to Brixton, it's a dull dull place.
I miss Brixton.


----------



## Lea (Sep 2, 2011)

I've always preferred Michael Palin!


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2011)

Best thing about living in a multicultural city is whenever you go out you can stop and chat briefly with an elderly ethnic man. Probably high five him too.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm living in an estate in Far Headingley that feels like another world compared to Brixton. The only black people on the estate are my sister and nephew. There are no Asians.
> I'm just saying that in contrast to Brixton, it's a dull dull place.
> I miss Brixton.


Ah you're in POSH Headingley.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 2, 2011)

Everyone except the Welsh are cunts anyway.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm living in an estate in Far Headingley that feels like another world compared to Brixton. The only black people on the estate are my sister and nephew. There are no Asians.
> I'm just saying that in contrast to Brixton, it's a dull dull place.
> I miss Brixton.


So dullness is dictated by melanin levels?????


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> that's the 1970's isn't it?



My mum used to do that to curry in the 60s, along with desiccated coconut and banana slices on top. We were a right on family.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 2, 2011)

Fuck those Huguenots, coming over here stealing our silk weaving jobs


----------



## 100% masahiko (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm living in an estate in Far Headingley that feels like another world compared to Brixton. The only black people on the estate are my sister and nephew. There are no Asians.
> I'm just saying that in contrast to Brixton, it's a dull dull place.
> I miss Brixton.



I just wiki-ed Far Headingley. It looks grim. Grimmer than Kent x 1000.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> So dullness is dictated by melanin levels?????



By how spicy your food is.

English Roast Beef - Dull
Jerk Chicken or Lamb Madras = Now we're cooking.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> My mum used to do that to curry in the 60s, along with desiccated coconut and banana slices on top. We were a right on family.


I recall it in school dinner and vesta curries. *shudder* as bad as brown custard and pineapple chunks on your meaty stuff.

Spam fritters


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> How do the ethnics around you feel about being chosen based on their ethnicity? When in Brixton do you vet your friends for exotic racial features? How about knocking on your neighbours door and telling them how great it is that they interesting and non-white?


it's not just about ethnicity is it? it's about bustle, it's about excitement, it's about being able to walk for 2 minutes and buy pak choi or other 'exotic' foods.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 2, 2011)

I used to like Vesta (Prawn) curries.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

100% masahiko said:


> I just wiki-ed Far Headingley. It looks grim. Grimmer than Kent x 1000.


It is not remotely grim, there's some nice houses and it's awash with money.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

100% masahiko said:


> I just wiki-ed Far Headingley. It looks grim. Grimmer than Kent x 1000.


there are lots of places like this around England


----------



## TopCat (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Only London is multicultural. The rest of the country are knuckle dragging racists. That's important to remember.


Lusty's got the log in!


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> It is not remotely grim, there's some nice houses and it's awash with money.


that doesn't mean it's not grim


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Presumably Far Headingley is the other side of the cricket ground. I never really went there.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Lusty's got the log in!


no he aint


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Presumably Far Headingley is the other side of the cricket ground. I never really went there.


It's nice. It's where the ex studes go to if they stay in Leeds IME.
Think me mum and dad had a flat there years before I was born.


----------



## treelover (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> it's not just about ethnicity is it? it's about bustle, it's about excitement, it's about being able to walk for 2 minutes and buy pak choi or other 'exotic' foods.



I'd stop if i was you, cliche after cliche...


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> it's not just about ethnicity is it? it's about bustle, it's about excitement, it's about being able to walk for 2 minutes and buy pak choi or other 'exotic' foods.



If it's just about bustle and access to a variety of food, why are you dressing it up as a need to surround yourself with ethnic folk?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

treelover said:


> I'd stop if i was you, cliche after cliche...


i'm just missing my Brixton, been cooped up in dreary suburbia for way too long


----------



## TopCat (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> no he aint


Chin rub...


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> If it's just about bustle and access to a variety of food, why are you dressing it up as a need to surround yourself with ethnic folk?


I wasn't, was I? You mentioned ethnicity, I mentioned the inner city and suburbia and how I preferred one over the other. I made a joke about cucumber sandwiches and garden centres, but that's not really about ethnicity is it?


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> If it's just about bustle and access to a variety of food, why are you dressing it up as a need to surround yourself with ethnic folk?


Get down to Leeds market.
Jesus. It's not as if Headingley isn't permanently fucking busy anyway, all the time.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> it's not just about ethnicity is it? it's about bustle, it's about excitement, it's about being able to walk for 2 minutes and buy pak choi or other 'exotic' foods.



I used to only want all that stuff as well, but now I'm over 45 I crave a bit of 'dull' now and then.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Get down to Leeds market.
> Jesus. It's not as if Headingley isn't permanently fucking busy anyway, all the time.


it's just not the same


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> I wasn't, was I? You mentioned ethnicity, I mentioned the inner city and suburbia and how I preferred one over the other. I made a joke about cucumber sandwiches and garden centres, but that's not really about ethnicity is it?


I like cucumber sandwiches fwiw.
And garden centres.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> I wasn't, was I? You mentioned ethnicity, I mentioned the inner city and suburbia and how I preferred one over the other. I made a joke about cucumber sandwiches and garden centres, but that's not really about ethnicity is it?



O..kaaaaay.... so why post on this thread which is all about how people are racialists for not wanting to live in a place that feels unfamiliar?


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> it's just not the same


Leeds market is the best thing in the city centre. It's just about it, actually


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I like cucumber sandwiches fwiw.
> And garden centres.


well there you go. Hourses for courses.
Brixton is BETTER than Leeds though


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't say things I haven't said. From where I'm sat you _are_ trying to excuse his racism. That doesn't mean that I'm calling you a racist.



You seem to be saying things that John Cleese never said


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> well there you go. Hourses for courses.
> Brixton is BETTER than Leeds though


It really really isn't.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 2, 2011)

A decent slab of roast beef needs no sauces to cover up the quality of the meat
full English breakfast
lunch ploughmans or a pastie or a pork pie
dinner roast beef.

Who needs a cook book


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> You seem to be saying things that John Cleese never said


You don't seem to be able to see what Cleese was saying. His comment about the American friend was all too clear to me.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> well there you go. Hourses for courses.
> Brixton is BETTER than Leeds though



Brixton is better than Leeds. But not because of the exotic ethnics and their bright clothes and stinky cooking. It's better because if you have to be in a big crappy city, you may as well be in a really big crappy city.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> O..kaaaaay.... so why post on this thread which is all about how people are racialists for not wanting to live in a place that feels unfamiliar?


see my first post in the thread.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 2, 2011)

It's always been this way with London. Boudicca burned it to the ground because it was full of Italians and their collaborators, that was before the English even arrived. In the middle ages it was full of Normans, Flemings and Easterling merchants. Then the Huguenots, then everyone getting their knickers in a twist about the numbers of Jews and Irish. It's never been an English city, I wouldn't live here if it was.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> Brixton is better than Leeds. But not because of the exotic ethnics and their bright clothes and stinky cooking. It's better because if you have to be in a big crappy city, you may as well be in a really big crappy city.


we have fields and scenery, what do you have?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> Brixton is better than Leeds. But not because of the exotic ethnics and their bright clothes and stinky cooking. It's better because if you have to be in a big crappy city, you may as well be in a really big crappy city.


Nah. OU is saying that he likes Brixton because of the diversity of cultures there and all the things that brings. He likes a multicultural environment. You are caricaturing that as something cheap and shallow.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2011)

Belushi said:


> that was before the English even arrived



You self-identifying welsh people always hang on to the spurious notion that the people on the rest of this island are entirely imported from upper Freisland.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> I find it hard to believe that John Cleese is racist and as I have said. People I know are echoing the same sentiment.
> 
> Cleese in the article


He's a LIb Dem. That will do just nicely.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> So dullness is dictated by melanin levels?????


swarthy?


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah. OU is saying that he likes Brixton because of the diversity of cultures there and all the things that brings. He likes a multicultural environment. You are caricaturing that as something cheap and shallow.


He's also trying to paint Leeds as if it is not also multicultural. This is bollox. I excommunicate him from Yorkshire.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> He's also trying to paint Leeds as if it is not also multicultural. This is bollox. I excommunicate him from Yorkshire.


I was initially just talking about the part of Leeds I'm in at the moment, but you had to get all defensive and I just had to rise to it. I'm really talking about suburbia, not just Leeds. Leeds has an inner city too and I'd certainy rather live there.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

I agree that Leeds is multicultural - certainly the Leeds I knew was. But its multiculturalness is patchy, isn't it. Then again so is London's. Brixton is far more multicultural than Bromley, for instance.


----------



## junglevip (Sep 2, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> How can so many immigrants afford to live in London?



Its quite cheap to live in poverty, you should try it


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2011)

Belushi said:


> It's never been an English city, I wouldn't live here if it was.


yawn


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> I was initially just talking about the part of Leeds I'm in at the moment, but you had to get all defensive and I just had to rise to it. I'm really talking about suburbia, not just Leeds. Leeds has an inner city too and I'd certainy rather live there.


Even suburbia can be multicultural.


----------



## editor (Sep 2, 2011)

The best thing abut London is that it's not an English city, imo.


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree that Leeds is multicultural - certainly the Leeds I knew was. But its multiculturalness is patchy, isn't it. Then again so is London's. Brixton is far more multicultural than Bromley, for instance.


I wouldn't say that Leeds was particularly multicultural - at least from my, admittedly out-of-date memories. It was more clumps of different mono-culture sitting uneasily in neighbouring ghettos.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

at editor and belushi.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> I wouldn't say that Leeds was particularly multicultural - at least from my, admittedly out-of-date memories. It was more clumps of different mono-culture sitting uneasily in neighbouring ghettos.


It was quite a bit like that when I left Leeds in 94. Quite a racist place compared to London. It's changed a lot though.


----------



## Lea (Sep 2, 2011)

What's the difference between an expat and an immigrant then?

You always hear of the English living in places such as France and HK as expats rather than immigrants.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 2, 2011)

editor said:


> The best thing abut London is that it's not an English city, imo.



Reminds me of when i wanted to support a Premiership team and choose Chelsea as it wasn't an English team.

(Denis Wise was the only english squad member)


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2011)

1994 is pretty much the year I spent the most time in the place. Glad it's changed.

I am not really sure what multi-cultural means tbh. I don't think it means the same to all the people who use the term.


----------



## Garek (Sep 2, 2011)

Well it is an English city, it just isn't very English iyswim. Which is a good thing. I like how in London, compared to a lot of other places, you can 'look foreign' but not be foreign. If you don't like that then quite frankly you can do what people have been doing for years and move to the Home Counties. Prefer not to have you kind here.

EDIT: Not that I am saying areas which aren't mixed are bad. I should make that clear.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

Lea said:


> What's the difference between an expat and an immigrant then?
> 
> You always hear of the English living in places such as France and HK as expats rather than immigrants.


expats are over there, immigrants are over here


----------



## Idaho (Sep 2, 2011)

Gromit said:


> Reminds me of when i wanted to support a Premiership team and choose Chelsea as it wasn't an English team.
> 
> (Denis Wise was the only english squad member)



Were you worried that people might think you were racialist if you supported an english team?


----------



## Gromit (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> I am not really sure what multi-cultural means tbh. I don't think it means the same to all the people who use the term.



They have Opera AND Ballet.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

I remember quite a few fights on Burley Lodge between local lads (around 89-90, this was), where white and black kids would line up against Asian kids. According to a friend a few years later, that had changed to white vs black and Asian, but the kids still lined up according to racial lines.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> Were you worried that people might think you were racialist if you supported an english team?


i think he's just a bloody-minded welsher!


----------



## Gromit (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> Were you worried that people might think you were racialist if you supported an english team?



As a Welshie I was worried that might go soft on our foreign invaders if I started to support one of their teams.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I remember quite a few fights on Burley Lodge between local lads (around 89-90, this was), where white and black kids would line up against Asian kids. According to a friend a few years later, that had changed to white vs black and Asian, but the kids still lined up according to racial lines.


I got NF sprayed on my coat when I was at Scott Hall school in North Leeds. No teacher did anything about it. This was a long time ago though (1982-3)


----------



## Gromit (Sep 2, 2011)

NF?


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> I wouldn't say that Leeds was particularly multicultural - at least from my, admittedly out-of-date memories. It was more clumps of different mono-culture sitting uneasily in neighbouring ghettos.


No, it's not really like that. Of course there are some areas like that, but no way is it as bad as say, Bradford, for divisions.


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2011)

I once saw two elephants drinking from a river.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

Gromit said:


> NF?


yes! had to walk home on a freezing winter's day holding my coat so no one could see it


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> I got NF sprayed on my coat when I was at Scott Hall school in North Leeds. No teacher did anything about it. This was a long time ago though (1982-3)


That couldn't have happened anywhere else?

I think my high school was one of the most mixed, perhaps in Leeds, from just about all perspectives (race, class, religion) so maybe I am coming at it from another perspective.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 2, 2011)

junglevip said:


> Its quite cheap to live in poverty, you should try it



Why?


----------



## Garek (Sep 2, 2011)

Idaho said:


> I am not really sure what multi-cultural means tbh.



It means divisive, co-optive politics.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> That couldn't have happened anywhere else?
> 
> I think my high school was one of the most mixed, perhaps in Leeds, from just about all perspectives (race, class, religion) so maybe I am coming at it from another perspective.


yeah, didn't get off to a good start with this place, which is why i fled as soon as i could


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 2, 2011)

editor said:


> The best thing abut London is that it's not an English city, imo.



If you're you're going to subscribe to Orang's dated view of 'Englishness' as being without any cultural mix, then maybe you're right.


----------



## Yossarian (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> I find it hard to believe that John Cleese is racist and as I have said. People I know are echoing the same sentiment.



Cleese has been saying similar things for a while - I think it's more to do with him becoming extremely conservative in his old age than actual racism, he says England becoming less racist is one of the things that's changed for the better.

_"There were disadvantages to the old culture, it was a bit stuffy and it was more sexist and more racist. But it was an educated and middle-class culture. Now it's a yob culture. The values are so strange.
...London is no longer an English city which is why I love Bath. That's how they sold it for the Olympics, not as the capital of England but as the cosmopolitan city. I love being down in Bath because it feels like the England that I grew up in."_

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...owers-Why-John-Cleese-declined-a-peerage.html

_"England changed much more than I did. We used to have some sort of middle-class culture with an adequate amount of respect for education. It was a bit racist - not in a mean way though - but still racist. Some things have changed for the better. But it's not a middle class culture anymore, but a yob culture, a rowdy culture."_

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ns-middle-class-rowdy-yobs.html#ixzz1Wnnzwxzs​​


----------



## Gromit (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> yes! had to walk home on a freezing winter's day holding my coat so no one could see it



No what I meant is that I have no idea what NF would have stood for.

Either because its local to you or because the areas I've lived in have never had much racism so I haven't come across that.

Edit: I've just done a google. National Front?

I can see how that would be upsetting.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> If you're you're going to subscribe to Orang's dated view of 'Englishness' as being without any cultural mix, then maybe you're right.


are you referring to the joke i made about cucumber sandwiches? FFS!


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 2, 2011)

Some years back I was "privileged" to hear a chap called Schneider and a bloke called "McCormack" pontificating on how immigration was destroying London. Nuff said.

Anyone complaining that "not everyone is just like me", "it's different so it must be worse", or "it isn't what I expect it to be", is a racist, a hopeless reactionary, a moron, or simply a bit ignorant. Anyone who isn't a Londoner going back several generations who is complaining that immigration is changing London is an ignorant hypocrite and can simply just fuck off. If they are a Londoner going back several generation and they are making that complaint they can stay if they want but should get a clue before they open their gob.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

Gromit said:


> No what I meant is that I have no idea what NF would have stood for.
> 
> Either because its local to you or because the areas I've lived in have never had much racism so I haven't come across that.


you should know what the NF is, fercrissakes!


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Gromit said:


> No what I meant is that I have no idea what NF would have stood for.
> 
> Either because its local to you or because the areas I've lived in have never had much racism so I haven't come across that.


Some moron had scratched it on my window of this house before I moved in. Nice.
Not only moronic but out of date too!
I don't believe this couldn't happen in London, though. There's more race based murders.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 2, 2011)

I'm the son of immigrants - I apologise for alienating John Cleese


----------



## Gromit (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> you should know what the NF is, fercrissakes!



Sorry I do now.


----------



## Garek (Sep 2, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I'm the son of immigrants - I apologise for alienating John Cleese



How could you do that to a national treasure. 

I mean, "how could we"...um...also a son of immigrants...ooops.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I'm the son of immigrants - I apologise for alienating John Cleese


That was you walking down the King's Road that day, wasn't it? Flaunting your immigrantness. Just flaunting it.


----------



## blossie33 (Sep 2, 2011)

I can understand the comment in the original post.

Travelling on the bus and tube to work quite early in the mornings in London it's pretty obvious I am usually the only white native English speaking person.

May I add, I have no problem with this, I like the fact that London is so multicultural but sometimes you do feel in the minority!


----------



## Belushi (Sep 2, 2011)

What exactly is it Cleese is missing? Smog, Rickets, shit food?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

rickets, diptheria, 'itler


----------



## marty21 (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That was you walking down the King's Road that day, wasn't it? Flaunting your immigrantness. Just flaunting it.


me and my sort are destroying Britain


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> are you referring to the joke i made about cucumber sandwiches? FFS!



Sorry mate, it's just that I'm a big fan of cucumber sandwiches.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

i like them too tbh


----------



## Yossarian (Sep 2, 2011)

Belushi said:


> What exactly is it Cleese is missing? Smog, Rickets, shit food?



Sounds like a bit like he's missing the environment he grew up in - Weston-Super-Mare in the '50s.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

blossie33 said:


> I can understand the comment in the original post.
> 
> Travelling on the bus and tube to work quite early in the mornings in London it's pretty obvious I am usually the only white native English speaking person.
> 
> May I add, I have no problem with this, I like the fact that London is so multicultural but sometimes you do feel in the minority!


You only feel in a minority if you class yourself as different due to the colour of your skin.

Not having a go, btw, but people don't _have to_ group themselves according to these kinds of characteristics.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Sorry mate, it's just that I'm a big fan of cucumber sandwiches.


I want one now and have no cucumber!!!!!!!!!


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Yossarian said:


> Sounds like a bit like he's missing the environment he grew up in - Weston-Super-Mare in the '50s.


How can anyone pine for Weston supermare???


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> How can anyone pine for Weston supermare???


He's a massively ignorant cunt, basically. He grew up in Weston, lived in London when he came down from Cambridge or wherever, lived in posh bits of London, no doubt, then fucked off to America for the last 20 years or so. Ignorant arse who is completely out of touch, going on about his money problems. Boohoo, feel sorry for the millionaire. ffs.


----------



## kittyP (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The sense of 'alienation' from certain Londoners is nothing new. It happened when a load of East Enders decamped to Essex a generation ago. Good riddance, afaic. But also, it's just a process - new immigrants move into an area and others move out - onwards, normally, in terms of their sense of status: to a house with a mortgage in Essex rather than a council flat in Bow, for instance.
> 
> And yes, to use the King's Road as the example just shows what an ignorant tosser Cleese is, I'm afraid. Millionaire has no clue shocker.



Same with SE London and Kent over the last generation.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 2, 2011)

I'm a proper Londoner. My Mother's parents were both the children of East End dockers. Both from Cornish families that had emigrated to London to work on the docks when the bottom fell out of the covert import/export business in Cornwall. However I was born abroad and brought up in North Lincolnshire, so I'm also an immigrant. What could be more London than that?

What some people seem to want London to be is a sort of historical theme park full of bowler hatted business men walking around looking fat and important, and lovable chirpy Cockneys pretending to be Dick Van Dyke. They can basically just fuck off and go to somewhere like Beaconsfield instead. Change is what London does best. When London stops changing we Londoners are basically fucked, we'll all have to bugger off to somewhere like Bath so that we can piss off John Cleese.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 2, 2011)

"Cleese – an ardent Liberal Democrat supporter – said he preferred living in Bath to London."

I remember reading somewhere that Cleese lost his virginity in a bath tub age 26, so I'm not suprised he likes living in a bath.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The sense of 'alienation' from certain Londoners is nothing new. It happened when a load of East Enders decamped to Essex a generation ago. *Good riddance*, afaic. But also, it's just a process - new immigrants move into an area and others move out - onwards, normally, in terms of their sense of status: to a house with a mortgage in Essex rather than a council flat in Bow, for instance.
> 
> And yes, to use the King's Road as the example just shows what an ignorant tosser Cleese is, I'm afraid. Millionaire has no clue shocker.


Why???


----------



## marty21 (Sep 2, 2011)

He prefers Bath to London? I'm the other way around, grew up in Bath, left there 20+ years ago, like visiting but I couldn't live there now, I mean, it's not exactly Hackney is it


----------



## Random (Sep 2, 2011)

Yossarian said:


> Cleese has been saying similar things for a while - I think it's more to do with him becoming extremely conservative in his old age than actual racism, he says England becoming less racist is one of the things that's changed for the better.


 Then why is he linking the riots to less Englishness and to immigration? Sounds very close to racism to me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Why???


Good riddance if, and this applies to no means everyone who did move, but _if_ they don't like the new immigrants and want to get away from them. If you don't want a multicultural environment, move away and you won't be missed, that's all.

The East End has seen several waves of this over the centuries, as it has traditionally been a place where new arrivals go to. So, for instance, Brick Lane has changed in the past few decades from a place of predominantly the descendants of Jewish immigrants fleeing persecution in mainland Europe to a place of predominantly Bangladeshis and their descendants. In a few decades time, it may well change again.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Sep 2, 2011)

What makes London great is precisely that it isn't just an English city. For centuries it has been multinational and must be one of the most cosmopolitan places on earth. These cultures include English, they don't exclude it. There is plenty that is English about London.  I don't happen to like the overcrowding or expense, I especially don't like how everything is supposed to revolve around the place at the expense of other cities (major cause of ovecrowding) but this comment from Cleese, taken by itself, would appear a bit reactionary. I'll put it down to old age.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 2, 2011)

Er..... wasnt london properly founded by the romans? Which would never have made it an 'english city' in the first place.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Good riddance if, and this applies to no means everyone who did move, but _if_ they don't like the new immigrants and want to get away from them. If you don't want a multicultural environment, move away and you won't be missed, that's all.



Are you psychically channelling all the people who have moved, or did I miss something?


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't seem to be able to see what Cleese was saying. His comment about the American friend was all too clear to me.



I disagree, There are just as many white immigrants in London, Lithuanians, Poles, Russians...The american friend comes from a country where people of all colours are americans.

I think you are reading racism into a statement that is basically a fact. British people can be any colour, what the friend probably noticed was foreign languages...

My relative who was in ANL MKI was in Ealing recently and said exactly the same thing. She is definitely not racist.

I'm sure that if one of my old black classmates walked down the Kings Road or Hammersmith or Ealing he'd say the same thing, too.


----------



## Random (Sep 2, 2011)

sim667 said:


> Er..... wasnt london properly founded by the romans? Which would never have made it an 'english city' in the first place.


No, there was at least an earlier Iron Age settlement there first.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Are you psychically channelling all the people who have moved, or did I miss something?


So-called 'white flight' is partly motivated by a desire to get away from immigrants.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 2, 2011)

sim667 said:


> Er..... wasnt london properly founded by the romans? Which would never have made it an 'english city' in the first place.



Irrelevent and way too far in the past.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 2, 2011)

Random said:


> No, there was at least an earlier Iron Age settlement there first.



It was a gathering of settlements I thought, not one whole unified settlement, holding one name?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> I think you are reading racism into a statement that is basically a fact. British people can be any colour, what the friend probably noticed was foreign languages...
> .


I don't know how many Americans you know, but I've lived in America and you'd probably be surprised by how many Americans there are, and educated Americans, who are surprised to hear that there  are any black people in Britain at all.

Again, I think you're trying to find ways to excuse Cleese's racism. Why? Why not accept the most obvious explanation?


----------



## sim667 (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Irrelevent and way too far in the past.



Pendantry always wins 
Tbh, I feel that john cleese is irrelevant and from the past, but people still feel the need to publish his views in a paper, and start threads about it on forums!


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

I would have imagined he meant foreign languages being spoken more than skin colour.. but who knows?


----------



## 100% masahiko (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> I disagree, There are just as many white immigrants in London, Lithuanians, Poles, Russians...The american friend comes from a country where people of all colours are americans.
> 
> I think you are reading racism into a statement that is basically a fact. British people can be any colour, what the friend probably noticed was foreign languages...
> 
> ...



British people do speak in non-English funny languages.

Also, I'm not racist but some of my black friends are.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 2, 2011)

sim667 said:


> It was a gathering of settlements I thought, not one whole unified settlement, holding one name?



Archaeological remains of two small settlements on Ludgate Hill and Cornhill iirc.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

London is older than England. As is Bath for that matter. That's not particularly relevant, though, I don't think.


----------



## Yossarian (Sep 2, 2011)

Random said:


> Then why is he linking the riots to less Englishness and to immigration? Sounds very close to racism to me.



"I am not a racialist," says Cleese


----------



## phildwyer (Sep 2, 2011)

He seems a bit touched to me. Always going on about how he's only working because he's in debt and has to pay alimony. So why would anyone go to see him then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> He seems a bit touched to me. Always going on about how he's only working because he's in debt and has to pay alimony. So why would anyone go to see him then?


Sad really. He comes across as a bitter, confused, pathetic old man. If he has to pay a million quid a year in alimony, we can only presume that he's worth quite a bit more than that.


----------



## iROBOT (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Come off it. His American friend looked around the street on the King's Road and asked 'Where are all the English people?' Wtf do you think they meant by that?


How strange. I went to New York and asked a white man "Where are all the Red indians?"

He looked at me odd.....


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 2, 2011)

iROBOT said:


> How strange. I went to New York and asked a white man "Where are all the Red indians?"
> 
> He looked at me odd.....



All I can say to the red indians is "If you don't want a multicultural environment, move away and you won't be missed, that's all".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> All I can say to the red indians is "If you don't want a multicultural environment, move away and you won't be missed, that's all".


Doesn't work, though, that comparison. London has a long history of waves of immigration. If you don't like that, you're in the wrong place.

But tbh, I've never had much sympathy for the kind of person like the woman in the letter Enoch Powell allegedly received who basically don't like having neighbours move in who are different from them. Narrow-minded would be the word I'd use.


----------



## iROBOT (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Doesn't work, though, that comparison. London has a long history of waves of immigration. If you don't like that, you're in the wrong place.


Your missing my point.

i think it's a bit rich a (I presume) white american talking about immigration. The entire world is awash with the descendants of white Europeans and the land has usually been aquired by war and genocide of the original inhabitants.

[And anyhow....London is an Italian town].


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

That wasn't the point annuder oik was making though. S/he was using my words in an attempt to show that it is not reasonable to criticise people who don't like immigration in London.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 2, 2011)

marty21 said:


> He prefers Bath to London? I'm the other way around, grew up in Bath, left there 20+ years ago, like visiting but I couldn't live there now, I mean, it's not exactly Hackney is it



I do love Bath, a proper Anglo-Saxon town.


----------



## iROBOT (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That wasn't the point annuder oik was making though. S/he was using my words in an attempt to show that it is not reasonable to criticise people who don't like immigration in London.


Well (in that case) annuder oik can suck my robotic cock.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Doesn't work, though, that comparison. London has a long history of waves of immigration. If you don't like that, you're in the wrong place.



Waves of immigration that have been absorbed by the dominant culture and have over time become english while in the process contributing to and enriching that culture with new ideas or cultural contributions pushing us forward and making our culture richer and more interesting.

How is that process doing at the moment in London? Could it be stalled? Recent immigration has been massive? Flight has been massive. Many immigrants who want to integrate cannot find an original londoner to practice their english with.

It seems that more and more areas of London are becoming a massive chaotic Tower of Babel-like experiment.

I am an Ex-pat/Immigrant myself. I feel the need to integrate. I couldn't do that in a ghetto.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Waves of immigration that have been absorbed by the dominant culture and have over time become english while in the process contributing to and enriching that culture with new ideas or cultural contributions pushing us forward and making our culture richer and more interesting.
> 
> How is that process doing at the moment in London? Could it be stalled? Recent immigration has been massive? Flight has been massive. Many immigrants who want to integrate cannot find an original londoner to practice their english with.
> 
> ...



Oh do fuck off you daily mail reading twat 

I fucking live here, its nothing like the hysterical picture you paint.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

A very large majority of Londoners speak perfectly good English. But I don't have a problem with lots of languages being spoken. All good as far as I'm concerned.

Edited - misread the post.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 2, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Oh do fuck off you daily mail reading twat
> 
> I fucking live here, its nothing like the hysterical picture you paint.



Rather than resorting to insults could you elaborate with facts?


----------



## Belushi (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Rather than resorting to insults could you elaborate with facts?



No. Your post is so full of crap I don't have the time to spare.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Waves of immigration that have been absorbed by the dominant culture and have over time become english while in the process contributing to and enriching that culture with new ideas or cultural contributions pushing us forward and making our culture richer and more interesting.
> 
> How is that process doing at the moment in London? Could it be stalled? Recent immigration has been massive? Flight has been massive. Many immigrants who want to integrate cannot find an original londoner to practice their english with.
> 
> ...



Where is this ghetto you speak of? What Tower of Babel like experiment?
Many immigrants want to integrate? Who, what are their names?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Rather than resorting to insults could you elaborate with facts?


One place you're wrong is the idea of ghettoisation. One of the very good things about London is that is hardly at all ghettoised. Compare and contrast with Paris, where most recent immigrants live in suburban estates miles from the centre and miles from any Parisian with a 'white French' background.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 2, 2011)

100% masahiko said:


> Where is this ghetto you speak of? What Tower of Babel like experiment?



Ealing, Hammersmith for example...


----------



## Garek (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One place you're wrong is the idea of ghettoisation. One of the very good things about London is that is hardly at all ghettoised. Compare and contrast with Paris, where most recent immigrants live in suburban estates miles from the centre and miles from any Parisian with a 'white French' background.



Hmmm, I am not quite sure about that. There are large parts of London that seem to be 'off map'. I'm thinking, Woolwich and Thamesmead for a start (simply because they are near where I lvie) where prospects are a lot lower than in other parts of London. Al depends how define ghetto. Areas which are not well connected to London's extensive transport network really suffer, even if technically they are not that far from the centre.


----------



## Garek (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Ealing, Hammersmith for example...



Bollocks. Utter bollocks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Yeah, but Woolwich and Thamesmead aren't ghettos of recent immigrants. There really isn't an equivalent to the French suburbs in London.

I'm using the word ghetto to mean an area, normally not a nice area, where overwhelmingly just one particular group of people live. By that definition, London doesn't really have any ghettos at all. Paris definitely does.


----------



## Garek (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, but Woolwich and Thamesmead aren't ghettos of recent immigrants. There really isn't an equivalent to the French suburbs in London.



Oh right you mean specifically immigrant ghettos. Ok.


----------



## Lea (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One place you're wrong is the idea of ghettoisation. One of the very good things about London is that is hardly at all ghettoised. Compare and contrast with Paris, where most recent immigrants live in suburban estates miles from the centre and miles from any Parisian with a 'white French' background.



Agree with this. They don't mix the HLM (council estates) with private estates and so it becomes a bit of a ghetto in some suburban areas of Paris.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 2, 2011)

always the expats that don't live in the places they criticise!
funny that


----------



## Belushi (Sep 2, 2011)

ddraig said:


> always the expats that don't live in the places they criticise!
> funny that



"I had to move to Spain to get away from all the immigrants"


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 2, 2011)

Garek said:


> Bollocks. Utter bollocks.



Go and see for yourself. Don't take my word for it. Immigrants always tend to concentrate due to accessability to housing/accomodation or rather lack of. Ealing is one example of a very heavy concentration of just about every nationality you can think of. A spanish friend of mine recently stayed there in the vain hope of practicing her english. She ended up practicing with other non-native speakers.

The complaint I am hearing more and more from family and friends in London, none of whom would read a shit rag like the daily mail, is that they feel they are the minority. Too many reports to be ignored.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Ealing, Hammersmith for example...



This proves it's a wind up.


----------



## ddraig (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Go and see for yourself. Don't take my word for it. Immigrants always tend to concentrate due to accessability to housing/accomodation or rather lack of. Ealing is one example of a very heavy concentration of just about every nationality you can think of. A spanish friend of mine recently stayed there in the vain hope of practicing her english. She ended up practicing with other non-native speakers.
> 
> The complaint I am hearing more and more from family and friends in London, none of whom would read a shit rag like the daily mail, is that they feel they are the minority. Too many reports to be ignored.


bullshit


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Sep 2, 2011)

Random said:


> No, there was at least an earlier Iron Age settlement there first.


No trace ever found and no mention of it in the usual source (Tacitus), the Romans effectively bulldozed the area. A few neolithic sites (mainly related to farming iirc) have been found on the southbank around London Bridge.

Sources : this, this and this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> The complaint I am hearing more and more from family and friends in London, none of whom would read a shit rag like the daily mail, is that they feel they are the minority. Too many reports to be ignored.


Depends how you define minority, doesn't it. In reality, in most parts of London, people who would put 'white British' on a census form are still the largest single ethnic group.

Then there's the racist way of thinking that the likes of the Daily Express peddle saying how the number of non-whites has gone up dramatically in the last few years and citing this as evidence of 'over-immigration', but ignoring the obvious and very significant fact that a very large number of those 'non-whites' are in fact 'half-white' as they have one 'white British' parent.

So it all depends how you define 'your' group, doesn't it?


----------



## Mation (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Britain, and especially london, has a fascinating history of migration but I feel the comparison is somehow weak and irrelevent when you think about the impact on identity in the capitol now.
> 
> The Norman invaders, for example, (William was apparently the rightful heir to the throne, not Harold) spoke french and so did their grandchildren, but that influence dissipated, as english as a dominant language, was adopted by the ruling elite. Apart from words for meats, the Normans left traces indistinguishable from the native culture, castles etc...
> 
> ...


1000 years of immigration was unnoticable? At what point? Immediately after each influx of people who weren't there in any great numbers before, or hundreds of years later? What do you think people will think of as typical British culture in 1000 years time? That the 1950s is still the norm to hark back to?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

Unless you're a descendent of the couplings of demons with the thirty three wicked daughters of diocletian, you're a feelthy immigrant


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Norman French didn't 'dissipate'. It fused with Old English to create modern English. The influence of French on modern English, which came via the Normans, is profound. It's given English a whole set of parallel vocabularies that few other languages have, as well as making the way you speak and words you use a matter of class signifier!

Like it or not, the way kids of all races talk today is showing the influence of immigration too. It's not just a case of the immigrant assimilating. Assimilation is a two-way process. That's something that the likes of Cleese with his harking back to the drab 1950s don't understand. Why anyone would hark back to the 1950s is beyond me, tbh.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 2, 2011)

Mation said:


> 1000 years of immigration was unnoticable? At what point? Immediately after each influx of people who weren't there in any great numbers before, or hundreds of years later? What do you think people will think of as typical British culture in 1000 years time? That the 1950s is still the norm to hark back to?



How was it noticable? Viking influence in language is debateable, The Normans? left nothing except maybe 250 irregular verbs and a number of synonyms. After that what do you have that is visible apart from technological change?

The changes since the mono-cultural 50's are differnet. There was a very important divorce between the generations, nothing to do with immigration.

Bollox, have rushed this and don't have time to continue today.

PS, I left London for Spain for an interest in Spain. But if I were to blame something for not coming back it would be the gentrification of London and the soaring prices. Mine is the first generation of my family in 200 years to leave London. In my school in west London 1 quarter of classmates were ethnic origin. All of them sound and integrated. I gather that one of them is even complaining about what is perceived as massive immigration in London in the last 7 years or so.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why anyone would hark back to the 1950s is beyond me, tbh.



I miss rationing, damp and deference


----------



## Garek (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Go and see for yourself.



I work in Acton so I know what the areas are like.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 2, 2011)

So, what is central Ealing like?


----------



## Garek (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> The changes since the *mono-cultural* 50's are differnet.



More bollocks.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

it's very much like any other part of london


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Garek said:


> More bollocks.


It was more monocultural, certainly outside London. No point denying that. But I don't see monoculture, where everyone does things one particular way, as a good thing. It's not a bad thing, per se, but the influx of others who do things differently is something to be welcomed, as far as I'm concerned. And if, as you have in London, you reach a point where it really makes no sense to speak of an indigenous Londoner, well why not? That's actually a very inclusive thing. Anyone can be a Londoner.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Waves of immigration that have been absorbed by the dominant culture and have over time become english while in the process contributing to and enriching that culture with new ideas or cultural contributions pushing us forward and making our culture richer and more interesting.
> 
> How is that process doing at the moment in London? Could it be stalled? Recent immigration has been massive? Flight has been massive. Many immigrants who want to integrate cannot find an original londoner to practice their english with.


I don't think you can argue against this anymore. Because of the scale, immigration is no longer being integrated - if it ever truely was, instead it has fundamentally changed the character of the city.


----------



## Garek (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It was more monocultural, certainly outside London. No point denying that.



Yes there is is. The creation of a dichotomy between multicultural and monocultural is a false one.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I don't think you can argue against this anymore. Because of the scale, immigration is no longer being integrated - if it ever truely was, instead it has fundamentally changed the character of the city.


And yet you hear black and white kids - the generation coming up - in places like South London, both speaking the same way. They are integrating. Just not in a way that everyone approves of. But people have always railed against change.

I'm not too sure what people want with integration. If someone works, pays their taxes and generally doesn't go around pissing anyone else off, while it might be lovely if they were to do some community work too, they don't actually owe anyone anything else. If they want to only socialise with one group, that's entirely up to them. (I realise that this is a very London view and it might not apply everywhere. But I just don't see how anyone can feel 'swamped' in London - there are too many other people about for that to happen.)

Normally when you hear politicians talk of integration, it's as a cover to hide the fact that it has been their policies that have caused the various social problems they are complaining about. Worse, it's often just plain scapegoating of immigrants for those problems.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 2, 2011)

That's no more 'integration' that is MLE.


----------



## Lea (Sep 2, 2011)

I reckon Cleese is referring to non white immigrants in his rant. There has always been immigration in this country but by mainly by white Europeans only. It was only since the 1950s came mass immigration of Asians, Blacks and to a lesser extent East Asians. He seems to link English only with white people whether they be descendents of Normans, Vikings, Anglo Saxon, French or Polish.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 2, 2011)

Oh yes. The darkies. Of course. That's what he must be referring to.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> That's no more 'integration' that is MLE.


Changes in language are a very good indicator of social changes and the way people are interacting with one another.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 2, 2011)

I'd be lost without you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> I'd be lost without you.


You seemed to think that wasn't an example of integration. I say it certainly is.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 2, 2011)

.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> If they was speaking Cockney I fink you might be right, geezer. But they ain't.


And that's my whole point. As I said earlier, integration is a two-way process.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 2, 2011)

can't be bothered. Friday. Thank you and goodnight.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And yet you hear black and white kids - the generation coming up - in places like South London, both speaking the same way. They are integrating. Just not in a way that everyone approves of. But people have always railed against change.



You do. My (white) Bethnal Green daughter's birthday parties look like a Bennetton ad.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> The complaint I am hearing more and more from family and friends in London, none of whom would read a shit rag like the daily mail, is that they feel they are the minority. Too many reports to be ignored.


Their perception that their race is the minority is automatically a Bad and Worrying thing giving them cause for concern is it?
Why is being the minority inherently bad?


----------



## ska invita (Sep 2, 2011)

scifisam said:


> You do. My (white) Bethnal Green daughter's birthday parties look like a Bennetton ad.


Not new either - infants in '79 in tottenham, my class had one white english boy, and one white english girl. Almsot every person ahd a different ethnic background. That's 32 years ago (I just added it up!).
Shows how long Cleese has been living in Cambridge/Hollywood


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> This'll get the juices flowing.
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/268680/John-Cleese-London-s-no-longer-an-English-city
> 
> ...



Poor John: forced to live in a modern world.



> According to the Office for National Statistics, based on 2006 estimates, 69.4 percent of the 7.5 million inhabitants of London were White, with 58 percent White British, 2.5 percent White Irish and 8.9 percent classified as Other White. Some 13.1 percent are of South Asian descent, with Indians making up 6.5 percent of London's population, followed by Bangladeshis and Pakistanis at 2.3 percent each. 2 percent are categorised as "Other Asian". 10.7 percent of London's population are Black, with around 5.5 percent being Black African, 4.3 percent as Black Caribbean and 0.7 percent as "Other Black". 3.5 percent of Londoners are of mixed race; 1.5 percent are Chinese; and 1.9 percent belong to another ethnic group.



The 2006 census indicates 46.9% of Toronto's population is composed of visible minorities; 1,162,630 non-Whites, or 23% of Canada's visible minority population, live in Toronto; of this, approximately 70% are of Asian ancestry. Annually, almost half of all immigrants to Canada settle in the Greater Toronto Area. In March 2005, Statistics Canada projected that the combined visible minority proportion will comprise a majority in both Toronto and Vancouver by 2012.



> Ethnicities in the Toronto CMA (2006)
> Source: Stats Canada 2006 Toronto CMA Community Profile: Visible Minorities


Population %
Ethnicities White / Aboriginal 2,898,005 57.1
South Asian 684,070 13.5
Chinese 486,330 9.6
Black 352,220 6.9
Filipino 171,980 3.4
Latin American 99,295 2.0
West Asian 75,475 1.5
Southeast Asian 70,215 1.4
Korean 55,265 1.1
Arab 53,430 1.1
Japanese 19,010 0.4
Multiple minorities 60,075 1.2
Other 46,705 0.9
_*Total population*_ _*5,072,075*_
_*100*_

*Tables of ethnicities (for census metropolitan area)*

Vancouver:



> Ethnic Origin by Regional Group[3][_dead link_]


Population

Percent of 2,097,960*


British Isles origins 753,215 35.90%
French origins 138,145 6.58%
Aboriginal origins 59,110 2.82%
Other North American origins (Canadian and American) 296,895 14.15%
Caribbean origins 11,830 0.56%
Latin, Central and South American origins 28,575 1.36%
Western European origins (Germany, Austria, Benelux, Switzerland) 289,030 13.78%
Northern European origins (Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Icelander, Finnish) 123,620 5.89%
Eastern European origins (Polish, Ukrainian) 219,325 10.45%
Southern European origins (Italian, Sicilian, Portuguese, Spaniards) 172,425 8.22%
Other European origins (Basque, Romany, Jewish, misc. Slav) 26,485 1.26%
African origins 22,610 1.08%
Arab origins 14,170 0.68%
West Asian origins 40,145 1.91%
South Asian origins 208,535 9.94%
East and Southeast Asian origins 584,895 27.88%
Oceania origins 18,125 0.86%
*Percentages total more than 100% due to multiple responses, e.g. German-East Indian, Norwegian-Irish-Polish


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> This'll get the juices flowing.
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/268680/John-Cleese-London-s-no-longer-an-English-city
> 
> ...



I feel more alienated that my city has been "gentrified" out from under me. As far as immigration is concerned, *if* it's a concern, the people who facilitate it should be addressed.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I was born and raised in London in the 60s and 70s. It has changed hugely.
> 
> There were 2 black kids in the entire school.



If your skin is a different color, does it mean you can't be British?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I was born and raised in London in the 60s and 70s. It has changed hugely.
> 
> There were 2 black kids in the entire school.



In my first year at school we had two Indian girls, a Pakistani boy, 2 black boys with Jamaican parents, I black boy with Nigerian parents, 2 Indo-Portugeuse boys and 2 girls whose parents were from Hong Kong, out of a class of 30. That would have been school year 1966-67, in "inner city" south London.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

> Anudder Oik said: ↑
> The complaint I am hearing more and more from family and friends in London, none of whom would read a shit rag like the daily mail, is that they feel they are the minority. Too many reports to be ignored.​


​ 
So. Fucking. What?

If it makes you feel better, there are no plans by the darkies to come and murder you in your sleep, when you no longer comprise the majority.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If your skin is a different color, does it mean you can't be British?



Nope, although you can expect the usual identity crises as the kids try to conform to the various expectations placed on them w/r/t identity. Even us white Jews have that problem in a mild form.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 2, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I was born and raised in London in the 60s and 70s. It has changed hugely.
> 
> There were 2 black kids in the entire school.



ElizabethofYork. Fuck yeah.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Anudder Oik said: ↑
> The complaint I am hearing more and more from family and friends in London, none of whom would read a shit rag like the daily mail, is that they feel they are the minority. Too many reports to be ignored.​


I never believe that sort of statement. AO phones a relative or friend in London and they chat about how things are, then the relative starts moaning about the immigrants? And that is happening 'more and more'. Don't believe it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

His relatives are 'complaining'. What is it they have against people of a different skin color?


----------



## marty21 (Sep 2, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> In my first year at school we had two Indian girls, a Pakistani boy, 2 black boys with Jamaican parents, I black boy with Nigerian parents, 2 Indo-Portugeuse boys and 2 girls whose parents were from Hong Kong, out of a class of 30. That would have been school year 1966-67, in "inner city" south London.


my primary/junior had one black family (Bath 1969-76) the Bristol Catholic Grammar school I went to 76-83 had one Chinese boy, and one Indian boy - things have changed a fair bit since then, but when I look at my nephew's FB page (he lives in Bath)  , his friends are almost exclusively white.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Anudder Oik said: ↑
> The complaint I am hearing more and more from family and friends in London, none of whom would read a shit rag like the daily mail, is that they feel they are the minority. Too many reports to be ignored.​



Population of London when last measured by ethnicity (2007) was less than 8 million. 29.1% of them weren't "white" (the figures quantify "white" and "non-white"), so any whining whites feeling like they're a minority should sort their heads out and shut the fuck up.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I never believe that sort of statement. AO phones a relative or friend in London and they chat about how things are, then the relative starts moaning about the immigrants? And that is happening 'more and more'. Don't believe it.



You never know: some people are obsessed with this sort of thing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Britain, and especially london, has a fascinating history of migration but I feel the comparison is somehow weak and irrelevent when you think about the impact on identity in the capitol now.
> 
> The Norman invaders, for example, (William was apparently the rightful heir to the throne, not Harold) spoke french and so did their grandchildren, but that influence dissipated, as english as a dominant language, was adopted by the ruling elite.



It's influence arguably dissipated because, like Latin before it, it was a language the elites deliberately retained to mark a difference between themselves and the peoples they conquered. It became useless as greater fractions of the mercantile classes etc became educated.



> Apart from words for meats, the Normans left traces indistinguishable from the native culture, castles etc...
> 
> Up until the 60's London was vertually mono-cultural, grey, conservative and boring. People craved something new and colourful. 1000 years of immigration was unnoticeable.



Balls.

Like any port, London has always had a significant community of ethnic minorities living in the city, and has a significant history of that presence affecting diet. You don't "notice" a thousand years of immigration" because the native London culture, like all cultures, hybridises, takes on new ideas and tastes, and makes them its own.



> Compare London then to London now, the difference is immense.



Compare London in 1990 to London now and the difference is immense. What's your point?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You never know: some people are obsessed with this sort of thing.


Yeah, that's true. Racist people, generally.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 2, 2011)

One of the many fantastic things about London is that it doesn't feel like an English city. It feels like a world city because it is. You can travel through several continents walking down the High Street. If you don't like it, move to fucking Norwich.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Amongst them is one ex activist from ANL MKI, who speaks to me of how they are feeling increasingly alienated in their own city and that immigration "has gone mad".



Does them being an ex ANL activist lend more weight then to your argument?



Anudder Oik said:


> Ealing, Hammersmith for example...



Lol.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 2, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I feel more alienated that my city has been "gentrified" out from under me.



Yep.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I never believe that sort of statement. AO phones a relative or friend in London and they chat about how things are, then the relative starts moaning about the immigrants? And that is happening 'more and more'. Don't believe it.



My relatives don't, because there are too many non-whites in my family for that to work. Acquaintances of mine sometimes do. I'm white, so they're much more likely to come out with this guff to me than to you. I actually got my flat, on a homeswap, because the former tenant was 'fed up of all the pakis in our area.'

This is because, in our area white kids definitely are in the minority, and quite a small minority at that. There are a lot of white British people too, but they tend to be single childless adults working in the city or in the media or something. My daughter's small secondary school of 600 kids has one blonde child: her. And this is one of the whitest schools in the area. Honestly? It's not without its problems. For example, it's really alienating when most of the kids in a class can have secret conversations in Bengali and the few non-Bengali kids can't. It's not an insurmountable problem and it's not permanent either. But I did choose her school partly because it wasn't, like one of the girls' schools here, monocultural in a culture that is very different to hers.

Hopefully nobody here will jump up crying rascist!!! for pointing out that immigration isn't without its problems. I mean, it's not easy for the immigrants and their kids either, adapting to another culture or trying to live within two cultures, so why should it be problem-free for the longer-term residents who are also having to adapt? Change always has problems on the way.

TBH, it's mostly language which causes the problems (harder to chat to Yussuf's mum at the school gates if she seems friendly but doesn't speak English well enough to understand 'we're going to the park, do you and Yussuf want to come?' Though the pantomiming you both end up doing can be mutually amusing), and language gaps don't last for generation after generation. Cutting funding for ESOL classes is one of the best ways to discourage integration and harmony between different communities.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 2, 2011)

(((Londinium)))


----------



## scifisam (Sep 2, 2011)

I am SO going to be called names now, aren't I?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

scifisam said:


> I am SO going to be called names now, aren't I?


you'll probably be quoted on a certain twitter feed


----------



## scifisam (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> you'll probably be quoted on a certain twitter feed



Which one's that?


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 2, 2011)

scifisam said:


> Which one's that?


#someofmybestfriendsare


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

some snarky one which quotes what are deemed by the creator to be typical U75 utterances. it's only got a few followers. best stay that way.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

scifisam said:


> I am SO going to be called names now, aren't I?


Not by me. That was just a good honest post about you and the problems you face with your school. Problems relating to immigration, integration, etc can be discussed. Some people who have racist assumptions think it's all pc gone mad that makes it something you can't discuss. But that's their problem.

I agree about the language thing, as it happens. If you are going to live in Britain, if you don't learn English, you're leaving yourself at the mercy of family members who do. You're putting yourself in a very vulnerable position, especially if you're a woman in a patriarchal set up. Everyone who lives in Britain really needs to learn English, not as some nationalistic thing, but for their own sake.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 2, 2011)

I think it is still possible that Cleese is not racist.

It is still possible that he was talking of nationality or language.

Heck I lost Starkey just recently to Racism, I don't want to lose Basil Fawlty also


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 2, 2011)

basil fawlty was definitely a bit racist!


----------



## Belushi (Sep 2, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> If you don't like it, move to fucking Norwich.



This really should be adopted as Londons motto


----------



## Pinette (Sep 2, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> So dullness is dictated by melanin levels?????


Wow!  What a riposte!  That was pure gold.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> basil fawlty was definitely a bit racist!



Yea but Manuel was from Barcelona ... oh and the Germans - don't mention the war


----------



## weltweit (Sep 2, 2011)

weltweit said:


> oh and the Germans - don't mention the war



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xnNhzgcWTk


----------



## Belushi (Sep 2, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Yea but Manuel was from Barcelona ...



He used to hit Manuel


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 2, 2011)

and acutally nearly killed him once in real life


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 2, 2011)

Of course his comments will be welcomed by australians who are all massive racists to a man except the aborigines who might well hate white people but have good reason for doing so


----------



## Pinette (Sep 2, 2011)

articul8 said:


> I used to like Vesta (Prawn) curries.





articul8 said:


> I used to like Vesta (Prawn) curries.


I used to like the beef ones years ago when I was a student.  I have one in my cupboard now which I bought at the £ shop a month ago for old times sake but can't bring myself to eat it. Don't know why.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not by me. That was just a good honest post about you and the problems you face with your school. Problems relating to immigration, integration, etc can be discussed. Some people who have racist assumptions think it's all pc gone mad that makes it something you can't discuss. But that's their problem.
> 
> I agree about the language thing, as it happens. If you are going to live in Britain, if you don't learn English, you're leaving yourself at the mercy of family members who do. You're putting yourself in a very vulnerable position, especially if you're a woman in a patriarchal set up. Everyone who lives in Britain really needs to learn English, not as some nationalistic thing, but for their own sake.



Yes, but (and you know this) even then it takes a while to learn the language - it's unfair to expect every immigrant to be able to speak English fluently within two years or so of coming to England. A lot of language learning, especially to fluency level, can only be achieved in a country which uses that language all the time.

Hope I won't be quoted on that twitter feed, since my post doesn't actually fit it.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 2, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> ElizabethofYork. Fuck yeah.



What's your problem, arseface?


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 2, 2011)

Lol.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 2, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If your skin is a different color, does it mean you can't be British?



Of course not.


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Ealing, Hammersmith for example...


I live in Ealing. You haven't got a fucking clue.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 2, 2011)

My school, in a small North Lincolnshire village, had four black kids, a couple of Ugandan Asian refugee brothers, and a half Turkish girl, as well as quite a number of children with a Polish or Ukrainian background. That's back in the late 60s, early 70s.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Waves of immigration that have been absorbed by the dominant culture and have over time become english while in the process contributing to and enriching that culture with new ideas or cultural contributions pushing us forward and making our culture richer and more interesting.
> 
> How is that process doing at the moment in London? Could it be stalled? Recent immigration has been massive? Flight has been massive. Many immigrants who want to integrate cannot find an original londoner to practice their english with.
> 
> ...



We don't have ghettos.

I love the way people talk blithely about ghettos, as if they understand what the word means. A Ghetto isn't a self-imposed location a community gathers in, it's a location imposed on a particular community. For Jews that meant we got stuck in the older, grimmer parts of every village, town or city in central and eastern Europe, for US blacks, it meant the lowest of the poor quarters.

What immigrant communities in Britain exist in aren't ghettos. There's no singularly monocultural community I can think of. Ghettos are generally monocultural. They exclude *a* culture, rather than all but the native one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One place you're wrong is the idea of ghettoisation. One of the very good things about London is that is hardly at all ghettoised. Compare and contrast with Paris, where most recent immigrants live in suburban estates miles from the centre and miles from any Parisian with a 'white French' background.



Quite. We may have class divisions showing themselves more and more, but you'll find a total melange of cultures and ethnicities on, from the poorest areas to the most exclusive.


----------



## Garek (Sep 2, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Quite. We may have class divisions showing themselves more and more, but you'll find a total melange of cultures and ethnicities on, from the poorest areas to the most exclusive.



This is what I was getting confused in my head earlier. They are severely disadvantaged parts of London which are off the rader of most people, yet they are not ghettos for the reasons you state. It is the class divisions that are most striking in London, not the racial or ethnic ones.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> My school, in a small North Lincolnshire village, had four black kids, a couple of Ugandan Asian refugee brothers, and a half Turkish girl, as well as quite a number of children with a Polish or Ukrainian background. That's back in the late 60s, early 70s.



Eric, whatever the fuck you do, if you get Ukrainians and Poles confused, don't put yourself in a situation where you might accidentally call a Ukrainian a Pole or _vice versa_, because it''s seen as kind of a "now I must kill you" insult.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2011)

...


----------



## Lea (Sep 2, 2011)

I must say I not be able to tell the difference between a Ukrainian and a Pole from either language or appearance. You'd have to have basic knowledge of at least one the languages.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> some snarky one which quotes what are deemed by the creator to be typical U75 utterances. it's only got a few followers. best stay that way.


no no no, twitter is the bigger part


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2011)

Lea said:


> I must say I not be able to tell the difference between a Ukrainian and a Pole from either language or appearance. You'd have to have basic knowledge of at least one the languages.


if you can tell the difference between a german and a french type from their accents - and it's not too difficult - then it shouldn't be hard to pretty quickly pick up the same knowledge about polish and ukrainian accents.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh jews in particular don't do themselves many favours when they insist about an eruv, within which they can get away with all sorts of religious things they can't do outside. it does, to the uninitiated, smack rather of a ghetto in the first sense you give it.



Even then, though, not every household inside the _eruv_ is Jewish. It's not something I agree with myself, but then I happen to think religionists are bonkers anyway.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 2, 2011)

scifisam said:


> My relatives don't, because there are too many non-whites in my family for that to work. Acquaintances of mine sometimes do. I'm white, so they're much more likely to come out with this guff to me than to you. I actually got my flat, on a homeswap, because the former tenant was 'fed up of all the pakis in our area.'
> 
> This is because, in our area white kids definitely are in the minority, and quite a small minority at that. There are a lot of white British people too, but they tend to be single childless adults working in the city or in the media or something. My daughter's small secondary school of 600 kids has one blonde child: her. And this is one of the whitest schools in the area. Honestly? It's not without its problems. For example, it's really alienating when most of the kids in a class can have secret conversations in Bengali and the few non-Bengali kids can't. It's not an insurmountable problem and it's not permanent either. But I did choose her school partly because it wasn't, like one of the girls' schools here, monocultural in a culture that is very different to hers.
> 
> ...



All true and absolutely not what Cleese was saying.

Basically Cleese is a remote and isolated rich old divorcee with some racist ideas moaning about how the world has changed beyond all recognition.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 2, 2011)

Pinette said:


> Wow! What a riposte! That was pure gold.


?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 2, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Even then, though, not every household inside the _eruv_ is Jewish. It's not something I agree with myself, but then I happen to think religionists are bonkers anyway.



I find eruvs quite interesting and they don't exactly impact on any one else (not in the UK anyway).


----------



## Lea (Sep 2, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> if you can tell the difference between a german and a french type from their accents - and it's not too difficult - then it shouldn't be hard to pretty quickly pick up the same knowledge about polish and ukrainian accents.



Yes, but you learn French and German at school here so it's easier to recognise. You don't learn Slavic languages here often so it's difficult to pick up the differences. I guess Ukrainian is closer to Russian.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 2, 2011)

Aye, belongs to a small language group consisting of Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Of course not.


 
So then it can still be London - even with brown people in it?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> basil fawlty was definitely a bit racist!


 
Especially against the Spanish.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> We don't have ghettos.
> 
> I love the way people talk blithely about ghettos, as if they understand what the word means. A Ghetto isn't a self-imposed location a community gathers in, it's a location imposed on a particular community. For Jews that meant we got stuck in the older, grimmer parts of every village, town or city in central and eastern Europe, for US blacks, it meant the lowest of the poor quarters.
> 
> What immigrant communities in Britain exist in aren't ghettos. There's no singularly monocultural community I can think of. Ghettos are generally monocultural. They exclude *a* culture, rather than all but the native one.



There were/are white people living in Haarlem and Watts. Chinese people too.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> We don't have ghettos.
> 
> I love the way people talk blithely about ghettos, as if they understand what the word means. A Ghetto isn't a self-imposed location a community gathers in, it's a location imposed on a particular community. For Jews that meant we got stuck in the older, grimmer parts of every village, town or city in central and eastern Europe, for US blacks, it meant the lowest of the poor quarters.
> 
> What immigrant communities in Britain exist in aren't ghettos. There's no singularly monocultural community I can think of. Ghettos are generally monocultural. They exclude *a* culture, rather than all but the native one.



Looks like some black Britons are concerned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4257992.stm


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Aye, belongs to a small language group consisting of Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian.



Pah, what the Russians call Russian, Ukrainians call "modern rubbish"!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Looks like some black Britons are concerned.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4257992.stm



It's a 6 year old article, and it cites Trevor Philips, who had ever such a slight interest in promoting such a thesis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There were/are white people living in Haarlem and Watts. Chinese people too.



You know, I'm quite sure that I never claimed that there weren't.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You know, I'm quite sure that I never claimed that there weren't.



I thought that's what this meant.



> There's no singularly monocultural community I can think of


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a 6 year old article, and it cites Trevor Philips, who had ever such a slight interest in promoting such a thesis.



So they had concerns six years ago. Did the problems evaporate in the interim?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 2, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pah, what the Russians call Russian, Ukrainians call "modern rubbish"!



And the Great Russian chauvinists of old referred to the Ukrainian language as a mere dialect.

I have enjoyed past friends speaking modern rubbish to me, however.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 2, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What's your problem, arseface?



ElizabethofYork. Fuck Yeah.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 2, 2011)

ElizabethofYork. FUK yeh.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 2, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So they had concerns six years ago. Did the problems evaporate in the interim?



The "problem" was only a problem insofar as a small group of middle-class race-relations professionals saw a problem. As it was, the claims Philips made weren't supported by very much in the way of evidence, as he'd indulged in that old-fashioned political stupidity known as "cherry-picking".
Herman Ousley, Phlips's predecessor, puts the issue much more clearly when he says "we do have concentrations and clusters of ethnic groups in areas that are suffering poverty, racialism, exclusion and discrimination". he also rightly says that this sort of thing has been around a long time and may be getting worse. What he doesn't say is "I'm really worried that we've got ghettos in the UK, probably because Sir Herman understands the nuances, whereas Trevor is in love with getting his face in the media.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

> concentrations and clusters of ethnic groups in areas that are suffering poverty, racialism, exclusion and discrimination


 
That sounds a lot like a ghetto.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 2, 2011)

I haven't bothered to read anything ElizabethofYork (FUk yEh) has written in this thread apart from her first contribution. I bet it's all shite tho.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 2, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I thought that's what this meant.


No, I'd have thought that "_there's no singularly monocultural community I can think of_" meant he couldn't think of any singularly monocultural communities.

But there you go, divided by a common language.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

> *ghet·to  * (g
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You saying you don't have that in Britain?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 2, 2011)

not in the US sense, no.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

scifisam said:


> Yes, but (and you know this) even then it takes a while to learn the language - it's unfair to expect every immigrant to be able to speak English fluently within two years or so of coming to England. A lot of language learning, especially to fluency level, can only be achieved in a country which uses that language all the time.


Absolutely. Which is why I don't approach this from the point of view that 'they must learn English'. I approach it from the point of view that it is massively important _for them_ that they should learn English. And moreover, I would say that we (the rest of society) owe it to immigrants, usually women, to provide them with lessons, going into the communities if necessary to tell them that there are lessons for them. But it would only ever be doing it for their sake, not out of some feeling that you need to force a British identity onto them or somesuch bollocks.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

I recall when I visited London in the Eighties: Whitechapel was considered to be a ghetto.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> not in the US sense, no.



I'd agree that British people might like to think that they don't, and might try to redefine the term, but it certainly sounds like you have them.


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2011)

Come on everyone, give Johnny credit. He's not the sort to be contrary just for the sake of it.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 2, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> All true and absolutely not what Cleese was saying.
> 
> Basically Cleese is a remote and isolated rich old divorcee with some racist ideas moaning about how the world has changed beyond all recognition.



Yes, but I was replying to the thread topic. But it is wrong to say that London hasn't changed; London has always been different to the rest of the country, which is common for capital cities, and it's always had a lot more immigration than the rest of the country, which is common for major ports. But both have accelerated in the past 50 years or so.

My paternal Grandmother, from Woolwich, was half African and half 'Lascar' (her Dad was a sailor from a region that these days is either Indian or Bangladeshi, hence the quotes), but she somehow passed for white. My Dad apparently always knew but hid it from his kids until one of his sisters did some genealogy.

Nowadays someone who was mixed-race Indian and African would still stand out a bit, because that mixing is still unusual, but it wasn't the mix that was the problem - it was not being white. Nobody would hide that these days.

Anyway, given that he was on the King's Road, I suspect that John Cleese wasn't talking about black British people or other non-white people who happened to be British; that area is so full of tourists, students and business people that the people you pass on the street aren't very likely to be the ones who grew up on that street or have out roots down there. He'd have been hearing loads of accents that weren't any kind of English because they were mostly visitors. He's basically complaining that we're doing really well for tourism and international investment.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

I guess this woman has it wrong also:



> One often hears criticisms of the Asian or Caribbean communities in Britain who settle into *the ghettos of Bradford or Brixton*, creating mini Pakistans or Jamaicas,



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/4205113/Resist-temptation-to-retreat-into-British-ghetto.html

She thinks there's ghettos there.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 2, 2011)

Bradford is probably more ghettoised, but Brixton isn't a ghetto.


----------



## Santino (Sep 2, 2011)

Look, he's found the word 'ghetto' in a news story. What more do you want? Evidence?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 2, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'd agree that British people might like to think that they don't, and might try to redefine the term, but it certainly sounds like you have them.


 
modern britain doesn't have the same history of segregation as the usa, it didn't have the whole "black schools" and "white schools" thing. there are parts of us cities where (almost) nobody except black people live - while britain has areas of high ethnic minority populations, nowhere is it the case that one ethnic minority consitutes an absolute majority, and while these areas are sometimes (usually) more deprived, it's not to the same extent as america, there aren't places which are no go areas for the police and we don't have the equivalent of "the bloods" and "the crips" etc - while it is true that the most deprived areas often tended to be populated by immigrants, it is not the case that anyone was compelled to live in them (for example because there were no "black schools" nearby or suchlike) although i would agree that these days people (of all races, not just black) are becoming increasingly priced-out of what were formerly rather poor areas


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

Santino said:


> Look, he's found the word 'ghetto' in a news story. What more do you want? Evidence?



It's an indication that the idea of British ghettos isn't totally foreign to all British people.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

> Integration of British Muslims has been increasingly hindered by the rise of ghettos



http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1061340.html


----------



## peterkro (Sep 2, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I guess this woman has it wrong also:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/4205113/Resist-temptation-to-retreat-into-British-ghetto.html
> 
> She thinks there's ghettos there.


If you're going to use a term like "ghetto" in such a broad way it becomes a synonym for area,so Hampstead would be considered a ghetto of middle class tossers.Who exactly considered Whitechapel a ghetto in the eighties?


----------



## scifisam (Sep 2, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I recall when I visited London in the Eighties: Whitechapel was considered to be a ghetto.



It always has been. It just varies on what type of ghetto. But I don't think it's ever been anything close to a ghetto by German or American standards; even in the 1890s, when it was a Jewish area, it had lots of people who weren't Jewish too.

I think Whitechapel may be moving onto its next stage, as an Eastern European (but not nec. Jewish) area, as the Bangladeshis who can afford to move outwards where there are bigger homes for the same money, and the Eastern Europeans move in. Whitechapel is like a filter for every major immigrant group that wants to enter the UK; it's almost like this area's tradition is to take on other traditions.

I do actually quite like it for that. Like I said above, it's not without its problems, but acknowledging problems doesn't mean disliking the whole thing.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 2, 2011)

http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/gber/pdf/vol6/issue2/Article2.pdf


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Anyway, the point is made. No doubt that Britions consider themselves superior to Americans when it comes to race relations, and one of the ways to maintain that aura of superiority, is to believe that Britain has nothing like ghettos.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

scifisam said:


> It always has been. It just varies on what type of ghetto. But I don't think it's ever been anything close to a ghetto by German or American standards; even in the 1890s, when it was a Jewish area, it had lots of people who weren't Jewish too..



To repeat, there are many non-blacks living in what usually gets called 'black ghettos' in the US.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Anyway, the point is made. No doubt that Britions consider themselves superior to Americans when it comes to race relations, and one of the ways to maintain that aura of superiority, is to believe that Britain has nothing like ghettos.



Who made that point? John Cleese?

But no, Britain doesn't have ghettoes like the America does. I don't know about Canada.


----------



## toblerone3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> Englishness is nothing to shout about anyway - limp cucumber sandwiches, cricket and dreary Sundays spent in garden centres. fuck that shit. I feel much more at home in Brixton than in the part of Leeds I'm in at the moment, which is boring and almost exclusively white.



Surely people in Leeds never eat cucumber sandwiches.


----------



## treelover (Sep 3, 2011)

scifisam said:


> I think Whitechapel may be moving onto its next stage, as an Eastern European (but not nec. Jewish) area, as the Bangladeshis who can afford to move outwards where there are bigger homes for the same money, and the Eastern Europeans move in. Whitechapel is like a filter for every major immigrant group that wants to enter the UK; it's almost like this area's tradition is to take on other traditions.
> 
> I do actually quite like it for that. Like I said above, it's not without its problems, but acknowledging problems doesn't mean disliking the whole thing.



Jobbik have already had a meeting in Whitechapel.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

scifisam said:


> Who made that point? John Cleese?
> 
> But no, Britain doesn't have ghettoes like the America does. I don't know about Canada.



What kind of ghettos does the US have?


----------



## scifisam (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> To repeat, there are many non-blacks living in what usually gets called 'black ghettos' in the US.



But it'd be unusual to find even a single building, a ten-storey block, that had only one ethnicity (to use a crap term) in it in London. You can _always_ walk two or three minutes, breathe in deeply and smell a different combination of spices coming from the homes around you. For that matter, you can always walk two or three minutes and find someone who earns 100 times the amount of the person living in the flat you just left. London is not geographically stratified in the same way as most other cities are.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

scifisam said:


> But it'd be unusual to find even a single building, a ten-storey block, that had only one ethnicity (to use a crap term) in it in London. .



What does that matter?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

scifisam said:


> . You can _always_ walk two or three minutes, breathe in deeply and smell a different combination of spices coming from the homes around you. .



Have you ever walked through Watts, or the South Side of Chicago, or North St. Louis?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 3, 2011)

Because the situation is very different in US ghettos.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Because the situation is very different in US ghettos.



Care to explain?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What kind of ghettos does the US have?


The US has cities with areas that are virtually 100 percent a particular group. London doesn't have any areas like that. It is true that there are other parts of Britain where there are more distinct areas - Bradford is one in which some areas are almost totally white and other areas are almost totally Asian.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What does that matter?



Er, weren't we talking about ghettos, as in areas where it's only people of one ethnicity and it's hard to get out? (I assume you didn't mean forced Jewish ghettos c. WW2). In London it's rare to find even a _building_ that's all of one ethnicity unless it's only got like fifteen people living in it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

scifisam said:


> Er, weren't we talking about ghettos, as in areas where it's only people of one ethnicity and it's hard to get out? (I assume you didn't mean forced Jewish ghettos c. WW2). In London it's rare to find even a _building_ that's all of one ethnicity unless it's only got like fifteen people living in it.



You seem to believe that in order for it to be a ghetto, there must be multistory buildings with people of exclusively one ethnicity living in them.


----------



## Santino (Sep 3, 2011)

No she doesn't.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

scifisam said:


> and it's hard to get out? (



I think nowadays that 'hard to get out' means something different than it did 30 years ago. In the past, minorities in either an American or a British ghetto would have faced active discrimination if they'd attempted to move into the wealthiest neighborhood. That's not as major an issue now. What makes it hard to get out, is the economic status of the people living in the ghetto, whether American or British.

Someone mentioned whether Canada has ghettos. Not really in the cities: our equivalent would be the First Nations reservations.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think nowadays that 'hard to get out' means something different than it did 30 years ago. In the past, minorities in either an American or a British ghetto would have faced active discrimination if they'd attempted to move into the wealthiest neighborhood. That's not as major an issue now. What makes it hard to get out, is the economic status of the people living in the ghetto, whether American or British.
> 
> Someone mentioned whether Canada has ghettos. Not really in the cities: our equivalent would be the First Nations reservations.


what, a fair portion of quebec? and of course other provinces...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> what, a fair portion of quebec? and of course other provinces...



Not all reservations are equal.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think nowadays that 'hard to get out' means something different than it did 30 years ago. In the past, minorities in either an American or a British ghetto would have faced active discrimination if they'd attempted to move into the wealthiest neighborhood. That's not as major an issue now. What makes it hard to get out, is the economic status of the people living in the ghetto, whether American or British.
> 
> Someone mentioned whether Canada has ghettos. Not really in the cities: our equivalent would be the First Nations reservations.



I knew I shouldn't have added that bit. Size does make a difference, in this case.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Not all reservations are equal.


but some are more equal than others


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

scifisam said:


> I knew I shouldn't have added that bit. Size does make a difference, in this case.



Have you ever visited a US ghetto, btw?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2011)

It is hard to find any part of London today where there isn't a fair old mix of income brackets. There's a simple reason for that. There was a time when there were expensive bits of London, in terms of housing, and cheap bits. That is no longer the case. With the explosion in house prices, one by one the cheap bits have been colonised by those who can't afford to buy anywhere else. There are no cheap bits left.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is hard to find any part of London today where there isn't a fair old mix of income brackets. There's a simple reason for that. There was a time when there were expensive bits of London, in terms of housing, and cheap bits. That is no longer the case. With the explosion in house prices, one by one the cheap bits have been colonised by those who can't afford to buy anywhere else. There are no cheap bits left.



Which part of UK is Bradford in?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2011)

Yorkshire.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yorkshire.



Any ghettos there?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2011)

I don't know any of them well, but there are a few towns in the north of England that aren't really multiracial. They're biracial - white people and Asians, usually Pakistanis. Places like Bradford, Burnley. The two groups live in different areas and barely mix, so you could say that they are ghettoised.


----------



## machine cat (Sep 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't know any of them well, but there are a few towns in the north of England that aren't really multiracial. They're biracial - white people and Asians, usually Pakistanis. Places like Bradford, Burnley. The two groups live in different areas and barely mix, so you could say that they are ghettoised.



There are towns in that area that are pretty mixed though. Huddersfield especially.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Any ghettos there?


what is a ghetto? didn't it used to mean somewhere people were forced to live cos of who they were?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> what is a ghetto? didn't it used to mean somewhere people were forced to live cos of who they were?



I think it used to mean that.


----------



## rollinder (Sep 3, 2011)

stephj said:


> Anudder Oik said:
> 
> 
> > Ealing, Hammersmith for example...
> ...



They think Ealing's full of non English speakers.
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ant-speak-english.279997/page-8#post-10418998


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Speak up: anyone ever visited a US ghetto?


----------



## scifisam (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Have you ever visited a US ghetto, btw?



Yup! Even to the extent of being told that if it weren't for my accent, my skin colour would have got me in trouble. 

But with the US, it's just a matter of geography. In London we don't have room for mile-wide 'projects' because every area of land had already been built on. Even the biggest estates in London aren't as big as that, and they all have pockets of long-term wealth within them.

When I say a minimum-wage earner can't stroll for five minutes without passing by the residence of a fellow resident who earns 100 times than him/her, I'm being literal. This actually has its problems too, but ghettoisation is not one of them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2011)

If you mean run down neighbourhoods where only black people live, yes, I've been to a couple. Not sure what you want to know though. Urban poverty isn't anything particularly remarkable.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2011)

scifisam said:


> Yup! Even to the extent of being told that if it weren't for my accent, my skin colour would have got me in trouble.
> .



Yeah, I had a similar experience. Make it known as soon as possible that you're not American! 

Got some words when some friends and I accidentally stumbled into Harlem, but again, letting it be known that we weren't American helped. I wouldn't count Harlem as a ghetto, though. That's part of the US that I couldn't really get used to, the way that black and white people often consciously stay away from each other by choice. Harlem's actually pretty big, and by no means run down. It's a vibrant place with loads going on, but we found out very quickly that we weren't welcome there.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

scifisam said:


> Yup! Even to the extent of being told that if it weren't for my accent, my skin colour would have got me in trouble. .



Whereabouts?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

scifisam said:


> When I say a minimum-wage earner can't stroll for five minutes without passing by the residence of a fellow resident who earns 100 times than him/her, I'm being literal. This actually has its problems too, but ghettoisation is not one of them.




Is that true in Bradford, or in what I think they call Midlands towns?

And if it is, are the high earners whose house they're going by, the same skin color as them?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you mean run down neighbourhoods where only black people live, yes, I've been to a couple. Not sure what you want to know though. Urban poverty isn't anything particularly remarkable.



People on here seem to be able to distinguish between a run down neighborhood where minorities live [which britain seems to have] and a ghetto [which the US apparently has.

So I'm wondering if you people have visited whatever it is that you're talking about when you talk about 'US ghettos'.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Got some words when some friends and I accidentally stumbled into Harlem, but again, letting it be known that we weren't American helped. I wouldn't count Harlem as a ghetto, though. That's part of the US that I couldn't really get used to, the way that black and white people often consciously stay away from each other by choice. Harlem's actually pretty big, and by no means run down. It's a vibrant place with loads going on, but we found out very quickly that we weren't welcome there.



The Harlem of today is not the Harlem of the Seventies or Eighties. It's been gentrified.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

So: which ghettoes did everybody vist? 

British definition, of course.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> People on here seem to be able to distinguish between a run down neighborhood where minorities live [which britain seems to have] and a ghetto [which the US apparently has.
> 
> So I'm wondering if you people have visited whatever it is that you're talking about when you talk about 'US ghettos'.


A place where there are only black people living, for instance. Where most white people won't even drive through the area let alone get out of the car there. That kind of thing. A lot of US towns seem to have areas like that. And completely run down - as I said, not like Harlem, but with a feeling of hopelessness around, nothing's been painted for years, pot holes in the roads, some houses little more than shacks. Hard to believe such out and out poverty can exist in such a rich country - that kind of thing has no equivalent in the UK, and that's what I would call a ghetto.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

are you trying to make a point, johnny? it's not clear


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> are you trying to make a point, johnny? it's not clear



It's an ongoing discussion.

Have you visited a US ghetto?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

no i have not, johnny


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> no i have not, johnny



Ok, orang utan.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A place where there are only black people living, for instance. Where most white people won't even drive through the area let alone get out of the car there. That kind of thing. A lot of US towns seem to have areas like that. And completely run down - as I said, not like Harlem, but with a feeling of hopelessness around, nothing's been painted for years, pot holes in the roads, some houses little more than shacks. Hard to believe such out and out poverty can exist in such a rich country - that kind of thing has no equivalent in the UK, and that's what I would call a ghetto.



Places like that exist in the US. East St. Louis is one.

But would you call the south side of Chicago a ghetto?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2011)

I have no idea. I know nothing of the south side of Chicago.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Whereabouts?



Between Orlando and Gainesville, Florida, nearer to Orlando. I don't know the name of the place or at least don't remember it now. To me it actually looked like an OK place to live, but that's probably because, to me, having any outside space = an OK place to live.

I do know one woman my age who acts like Bethnal Green, where I live, is hell on Earth, and that she'll be mugged if she so much as looks out of her window after dark. I was so surprised by her horror that I assumed she must have had something horrible happen to her in that area, and no, it was just that 'this area is so bad.' I ended up walking her home a few times rather than her pay for a cab for the two-minute walk from the bus stop.

Whereas I walk the dogs down the back alleys at 3am. I don't look hugely weak and feeble, nor hugely sexually-alluring, but I'm not exactly a tough fucker in appearance either.

I don't get it, this fear; I have seen trouble round here, but it's not random, and if someone hears you scream then they will call the cops. I know this because I've heard screams, thought it was probably nothing but called the cops anyway, and been told on the phone that other people had already called and the police were on their way. Then, as I put the phone down, I heard the sirens. I don't know what happened, but I do know that the time between me hearing the screams and me hearing the sirens was less than five minutes and that other people had already called it in.

There are lots of people around to notice it, and they have the advantage of anonymity when calling in - they don't have to say who they are, so it will just be someone nearby who called.

I've only ever seen this fear from people who have some sort of expectation about the races of the people around them.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

The fucking media embed thing isn't working...


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

i suspect you know as much about US ghettoes as the people of Britain, Johnny


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

The reason I asked about the ghettos is, when I've walked through them, and I've walked through a few: watts, chicago, st louis, san francisco etc, it's the same thing you talk about: different food smells coming from windows, different people passing you on the streets.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i suspect you know as much about US ghettoes as the people of Britain, Johnny



Well there you go: wrong again.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The reason I asked about the ghettos is, when I've walked through them, and I've walked through a few: watts, chicago, st louis, san francisco etc, it's the same thing you talk about: different food smells coming from windows, different people passing you on the streets.


well they don't just happen in ghettoes johnny. is new york a ghetto? is vancouver a ghetto? i think perhaps it would be best to step back from the use of ghetto to mean a place where it smells different.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> well they don't just happen in ghettoes johnny. is new york a ghetto? is vancouver a ghetto? i think perhaps it would be best to step back from the use of ghetto to mean a place where it smells different.



I was replying to a post by scifisam which you apparently haven't read, orang utan.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The reason I asked about the ghettos is, when I've walked through them, and I've walked through a few: watts, chicago, st louis, san francisco etc, it's the same thing you talk about: different food smells coming from windows, different people passing you on the streets.



That was me replying about somewhere that wasn't a ghetto. I have visited somewhere in the US where you couldn't even drive, let alone walk, for five minutes without it being one subculture that my white face was not usually accepted in.

Just think about it for a second. The US has lots of land. It's a relatively new country. That means it's much easier for projects to be built than in the UK, especially compared to London.

How would you define a ghetto, Johnny?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 3, 2011)

I see JC's point, but people seem to be getting defensive so it's not going anywhere.
To turn it around, what does racial and ethnic separation or segregation look like in the UK? If you think there is none, explain your reason for thinking this.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 3, 2011)

Miss Caphat said:


> I see JC's point, but people seem to be getting defensive so it's not going anywhere.



Yeah, he has done this well, hasn't he? Like throwing a spark into a gas fire.


----------



## baldrick (Sep 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't know any of them well, but there are a few towns in the north of England that aren't really multiracial. They're biracial - white people and Asians, usually Pakistanis. Places like Bradford, Burnley. The two groups live in different areas and barely mix, so you could say that they are ghettoised.


really?

i find that quite a bizarre thing to say. yes, people may not live literally on top of each other as in london, but that doesn't make it a ghetto. if london was allowed to expand, would it not be like other cities in the UK?

also i think "ghetto" is quite a pejorative term and I wouldn't describe anywhere I knew as a "ghetto"


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

scifisam said:


> Yeah, he has done this well, hasn't he? Like throwing a spark into a gas fire.



he knows all about the different smelling ghettoes all round the world cos he's part black


----------



## baldrick (Sep 3, 2011)

.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

.?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 3, 2011)

The UK equivalent of the ghetto is the sink estate. Poor people of various colours depending on which part of the country you are in. Away from the big cities the ghettos are predominantly white, in the big cities they are fairly mixed with lots of new immigrants from various ethnic backgrounds.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 3, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> The UK equivalent of the ghetto is the sink estate. Poor people of various colours depending on which part of the country you are in. Away from the big cities the ghettos are predominantly white, in the big cities they are fairly mixed with lots of new immigrants from various ethnic backgrounds.



Even the sink estate has public transport - which makes a huge difference - and on-site shops. I lived on one back in Essex; it got chopped down eventually. It was one of those Barbican-style estates where there was a big walkway where everyone was supposed to congregate, but from the outside they looked like rabbit hutches. Thing is, we actually did hang out all together on the concrete walkway, but all the time underneath us were garages and parking spaces with no cars, getting overgrown with weeds, while we couldn't have more than a yukka.

That was THE worst sink estate in the area and I think it probably was one of the worst overall, hence it being destroyed. It was still nothing like the projects in America, because you could always walk somewhere. You could walk to college, walk to the town centre, walk to work. You'd walk five minutes and there were ordinary suburban houses with gardens and piano lessons and the like. Nobody grew up only knowing people in exactly the same situation as them.

When I was in the suburbs of Florida - and in LA, and even in NY - that was so, so much harder. Want to buy a pint of milk? Walk half a mile or drive.


----------



## baldrick (Sep 3, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> .?


i was drunk and quoted myself instead of editing


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

i was drunk too, not now thoughhhhhhhhsdsaj kfljbdgilxj


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 3, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> he knows all about the different smelling ghettoes all round the world cos he's _part black_



Is a 'part' of him Black or does he have one Black parent?  Fux sake OU.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

i was trying to make a point, but should probably try to make it at another time. laters


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Sep 3, 2011)

you don't compare  London to other cities. you compare other cities to London.

also Londoners make up about 16% of population of England  so i would be very careful about talking about an English identity  without London in it


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

scifisam said:


> That was me replying about somewhere that wasn't a ghetto. I have visited somewhere in the US where you couldn't even drive, let alone walk, for five minutes without it being one subculture that my white face was not usually accepted in.
> 
> Just think about it for a second. The US has lots of land. It's a relatively new country. That means it's much easier for projects to be built than in the UK, especially compared to London.
> 
> How would you define a ghetto, Johnny?



Tbh, it seems like a bit of an antiquated term. There is more social mobility [even if perhaps not enough] for minorites; but there are still areas where poor people belonging to ethnic minorites, seem to be concentrated. Another indicator might revolve around policing: either way too little, or way too much.

I've done some travelling in the US: I didn't feel unsafe in Chicago, nor in LA. Maybe I was deluding myself. I haven't been to Baltimore, or Philadelphia, or Cleveland. I don't know what it's like there.

The only place inhabited mostly by minorities where I felt distinctly uncomfortable, was East St. Louis. I sincerely hope that there aren't too many places like that in the US. But maybe even it has changed: I haven't been there for a few years.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Is a 'part' of him Black or does he have one Black parent?  Fux sake OU.



Part of me is black. It's not a thing to be ashamed of.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

scifisam said:


> Yeah, he has done this well, hasn't he? Like throwing a spark into a gas fire.



Can you understand how coming to a thread where you hear that people are complaining that they are losing their city because of an influx of dark-skinned people, might be a bit inflammatory to a dark-skinned person?

There are so many white british people coming on the thread to downplay problems of segregation etc. I thought that the recent riots there were at least at their inception, about race.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

scifisam said:


> Yeah, he has done this well, hasn't he? Like throwing a spark into a gas fire.



I'd made sort of a promise to myself, to try to tone it down a bit on the boards. It's better to get along.

I should be more ... something .... on these race threads. Quieter maybe. Use different language. Better or nicer words. But it depends on the day. The wrong day, and some of the less than better words slip into the posts. Maybe today was like that.

I hate 'the race issue'. But it keeps coming up, doesn't it? And when it does, and a number of non-minority types become congratulatory about all the good work and the progress, when they get together to laugh out of town the idea that maybe you have something like ghettos; on the wrong day, at the wrong time, my respose might not be as measured as people might like.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

I've mentioned on another thread that I enjoyed visiting Cuba. One of the things, was watching the interaction on streets where the majority of the people are mixed-race of some type.

I don't speak Spanish. I didn't tour the country. There may be simmering racial tensions there that wouldn't be evident to a tourist like myself.

But I've been a tourist elsewhere, and felt some tension: in Paris, in London, in San Francisco. In Coeur d'Alene Idaho.

They seem to do it different there somehow. And the fact that it can be different, in a perhaps better way, creates both hope and despair, all at the same time.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 3, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> This'll get the juices flowing.
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/268680/John-Cleese-London-s-no-longer-an-English-city
> 
> ...



He wouldn't be Uncle Kenny surely?


----------



## Santino (Sep 3, 2011)

rollinder said:


> They think Ealing's full of non English speakers.
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ant-speak-english.279997/page-8#post-10418998


To be fair, there are lots of people in Ealing who speak languages other than English.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I hate 'the race issue'. But it keeps coming up, doesn't it? And when it does, and *a number of non-minority types become congratulatory about all the good work and the progress*, when they get together to laugh out of town the idea that maybe you have something like ghettos; on the wrong day, at the wrong time, my respose might not be as measured as people might like.



I really don't see that on this thread. Saying that there are no 'ghettos' in London is not congratulatory about progress particularly. It's just a statement of fact. And it is a fact. It means that London is different from other cities in Britain and many other cities around the world, notably very different from Paris in this regard.

There is a mix of ethnic groups and income brackets in pretty much every area in London. That is all anyone has been saying. Not that this is a model of integration or anything like that. It is a good thing, however. It is something that I, personally, like about London.

TBH if you don't like the term ghetto - and I don't like it much either - why not just say so right off. It felt with your leading questions about ghettos in the US that you were trying to catch someone out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> And the Great Russian chauvinists of old referred to the Ukrainian language as a mere dialect.



Well, to be fair it is. It's the dialect they based their own dialect on. 



> I have enjoyed past friends speaking modern rubbish to me, however.



Hey, I'm just projecting all the anti-Russian stuff my great-gran indoctrinated me with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That sounds a lot like a ghetto.



Is "sounds a lot like" the same as "is a"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I recall when I visited London in the Eighties: Whitechapel was considered to be a ghetto.



"Considered to be a ghetto" by whom, Johnny?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I guess this woman has it wrong also:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/4205113/Resist-temptation-to-retreat-into-British-ghetto.html
> 
> She thinks there's ghettos there.



She's a hyperbolic twat.
I live in Brixton, in a poor bit, and I can assure you that like everywhere else in Brixton, it's a witch's brew of cultures, ethnicities and income levels. Yep, even us poor folks have income strata.

She hasn't just got it wrong, Johnny, it's fairly obvious from her formulation of "one often hears criticism of" that she's writing from an external perspective - one might say a middle-class external perspective.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> She hasn't just got it wrong, Johnny, it's fairly obvious from her formulation of "one often hears criticism of" that she's writing from an external perspective - one might say a middle-class external perspective.



In otherwords, "I've never been to those places but they sound frightly awful from what you hear".


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I guess this woman has it wrong also:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/4205113/Resist-temptation-to-retreat-into-British-ghetto.html
> 
> She thinks there's ghettos there.


She thinks anywhere there's a lot of black or asian people living in England, it's a "ghetto".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2011)

stephj said:


> In otherwords, "I've never been to places but they sound frightly awful from what you hear".



Yep. It's the kind of attitude you get from non-Brixtonites UK-wide when you say "yeah, I'm from Brixton".

"But...but...it's a hell-hole, with gangs and race wars and fried chicken !!!"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> The UK equivalent of the ghetto is the sink estate. Poor people of various colours depending on which part of the country you are in. Away from the big cities the ghettos are predominantly white, in the big cities they are fairly mixed with lots of new immigrants from various ethnic backgrounds.



Even then, even the scabbiest "sink estates" tend to have a social mix, although obviously because of the residualisation of social housing, the social mix narrows over time.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. It's the kind of attitude you get from non-Brixtonites UK-wide when you say "yeah, I'm from Brixton".
> 
> "But...but...it's a hell-hole, with gangs and race wars and fried chicken !!!"



The same sort of muppets who think Tottenham is a ghetto as well lol.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. It's the kind of attitude you get from non-Brixtonites UK-wide when you say "yeah, I'm from Brixton".
> 
> "But...but...it's a hell-hole, with gangs and race wars and fried chicken !!!"


 
Brixton has got a reputation for being vibrant and edgy though


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Eric, whatever the fuck you do, if you get Ukrainians and Poles confused, don't put yourself in a situation where you might accidentally call a Ukrainian a Pole or _vice versa_, because it''s seen as kind of a "now I must kill you" insult.



Absolutely. Just to clarify, there were several kids with a Polish background (admittedly mostly the Wolkowski family) and a couple from Ukrainian families. Scunthorpe, the town 5 miles away, is a steel town and thus has been a centre for immigration from Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Poland, Ukraine, and India. I grew up well aware that you mustn't, above all, confuse Ukrainians with Russians, and preferably never confuse Poles at all.


----------



## 1%er (Sep 3, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Of course his comments will be welcomed by australians who are all massive racists to a man except the aborigines who might well hate white people but have good reason for doing so


Am I misreading this? Are you saying that racism is okay if based on some prior bad act?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 3, 2011)

I was taking the piss, I've yet to make a serious comment on this thread.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a 6 year old article, and it cites Trevor Philips, who had ever such a slight interest in promoting such a thesis.



Firstly. It may be 6 years old, but I can't say that things are definitely heading the right direction. TP is actually a great example of how no amount of integration will completely defeat a tendency to being stereotyped. He's as British as it's possible to get but he's never been allowed to get involved in mainstream politics on any basis other than as an activist on racial equality. Even back when he was a student politician that was the case. He was pretty much the last NUS leader to give a damn about students rights, but still got characterised as largely being concerned about racism.

To be fair, as the article manages to mention at the end, the real ghettoisation is by income. However that still leads to what is effectively much the same thing.

It's also something that is more of a problem outside of London. Because London is such a hotch potch of "villages" in which wealthy enclaves exist right in the middle of some of the poorest areas of the city (try Cleaver Square in Kennington, one of the most exclusive and expensive streets in the city sandwiched between council estates).


----------



## 1%er (Sep 3, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I was taking the piss, I've yet to make a serious comment on this thread.


It did seem strange, that's why I asked


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 3, 2011)

Hebden Bridge, Britain's number one Lesbian ghetto. Bootham, the famous quaker ghetto in York. Not to mention Featherstone, the celebrated ghetto of rugby league players.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 3, 2011)

No. The riots were at least partially a reaction to seemingly racist policing, but not about any other aspect of race. The media coverage may have tried to show young black rioters but that wasn't a particularly accurate picture. Riots in some primarily white areas got next to no media coverage, whereas riots were reported as happening on this estate three times when there was nothing of the sort. The difference being that as far as the press and police were concerned a crowd of mostly young mostly white people throwing bricks through windows and setting fire to cars isn't necessarily a riot, whereas a large crowd of predominantly black young people talking angrily about something is a riot.

I can see how that impression might have been given, but the only ways in which race were a factor in the riots were perceived racism by the police and the racial bias in income and wealth distribution. Important factors but not in a way that makes them race riots.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Brixton has got a reputation for being vibrant and edgy though



Vibrancy and edginess are just attributes bigged up by estate agents in order to attract a particular type of buyer. Works every time and, as with everywhere else "vibrancy and edginess" have been promoted, the current denizens are partially "ethnically-cleansed" via the "gentrifying" effect.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Absolutely. Just to clarify, there were several kids with a Polish background (admittedly mostly the Wolkowski family) and a couple from Ukrainian families. Scunthorpe, the town 5 miles away, is a steel town and thus has been a centre for immigration from Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Poland, Ukraine, and India. I grew up well aware that you mustn't, above all, confuse Ukrainians with Russians, and preferably never confuse Poles at all.



We don't like Russians. Ukrainian slang for an effete homosexual is "Moskalny" or "man from Moscow". Yep, it *is* that childish.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> We don't like Russians. Ukrainian slang for an effete homosexual is "Moskalny" or "man from Moscow". Yep, it *is* that childish.



My favourite Polish joke is:
A man is walking across a field with a shotgun. He sees a Russian and a German. Which does he shoot first?

The German. Business before pleasure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Firstly. It may be 6 years old, but I can't say that things are definitely heading the right direction.



Oh, I wouldn't dream of saying that things are "heading in the right direction" myself, either. They're obviously not, because the massive lack of social housing causes a concentrating effect that could, if you were being lazy, be quantified as "ghettoisation".



> TP is actually a great example of how no amount of integration will completely defeat a tendency to being stereotyped. He's as British as it's possible to get but he's never been allowed to get involved in mainstream politics on any basis other than as an activist on racial equality. Even back when he was a student politician that was the case. He was pretty much the last NUS leader to give a damn about students rights, but still got characterised as largely being concerned about racism.



I'm not a fan of Trevor. He's all too willing to allow himself to be used to be a decent politician (not that many MPs are exactly unwilling to allow themselves to be used), at least IMO. He's also not got the kind of fire I like from my pols. Give me a Bernie Grant who's willing to fight for his constituents over the machine politics of Chukka Umanna (my MP) or his predecessor Keith Hill any day.



> To be fair, as the article manages to mention at the end, the real ghettoisation is by income. However that still leads to what is effectively much the same thing.



Almost, maybe, but not quite. The pseudo-meritocratic nature of much of economic life means that at least some members of the middle and upper classes don't tick "white, British" on their census forms.



> It's also something that is more of a problem outside of London. Because London is such a hotch potch of "villages" in which wealthy enclaves exist right in the middle of some of the poorest areas of the city (try Cleaver Square in Kennington, one of the most exclusive and expensive streets in the city sandwiched between council estates).



Yep. I made this point earlier. You don't get entire _locales_ that are "black", "white" or "Asian". A mate used to go on about Tooting being "Asian". I challenged him to go to the library and look in the electoral register, then find me any street with more than 50% of Asian or "Asian-sounding" surnames. He used his membership of 192.com instead, but couldn't find a single street or housing block.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I really don't see that on this thread. Saying that there are no 'ghettos' in London is not congratulatory about progress particularly. It's just a statement of fact. And it is a fact. It means that London is different from other cities in Britain and many other cities around the world, notably very different from Paris in this regard..



We're talking about Britain, though.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> She's a hyperbolic twat..



Maybe that's how British ghettos work: polyglot hold-alls for the poor of every description.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Even then, even the scabbiest "sink estates" tend to have a social mix, although obviously because of the residualisation of social housing, the social mix narrows over time.



Do you get many ultra-rich white people in them?

Any?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> No. The riots were at least partially a reaction to seemingly *racist policing, but not about any other aspect of race*. .



I'm speechless.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> No. The riots were at least partially a reaction to seemingly racist policing, but not about any other aspect of race. The media coverage may have tried to show young black rioters but that wasn't a particularly accurate picture. Riots in some primarily white areas got next to no media coverage, whereas riots were reported as happening on this estate three times when there was nothing of the sort. The difference being that as far as the press and police were concerned a crowd of mostly young mostly white people throwing bricks through windows and setting fire to cars isn't necessarily a riot, whereas a large crowd of predominantly black young people talking angrily about something is a riot.
> 
> I can see how that impression might have been given, but the only ways in which race were a factor in the riots were perceived racism by the police and the racial bias in income and wealth distribution. Important factors but not in a way that makes them race riots.


 
I'm just assuming you're answering my comment about the riots at least being kicked off by a racial issue.

If in fact you are answering me, why not do the courtesy of quoting my post?


----------



## Corax (Sep 3, 2011)

Response to OP - I've not read the subsequent 15 pages I'm afraid:

Although I'm sure I have one, I've never considered myself to have a 'national identity', and it's certainly not a major element in my self-image. I was born and educated in a certain country due to chance, not anything earned or decided. As such, I've never seen myself as having any more claim to that country's resources (physical, social, cultural or political) than anyone from anywhere else in the world. I don't cherish any false history of leather on willow, so however 'multi-ethic' the area I'm living becomes I can't imagine that I'd feel anything was threatened.

Sure, I'd be sad to see some unique traditions (morris-dancing or English folk music for instance*) die out. But that's extremely unlikely to happen, however 'multi-cultural' the country becomes. There will always be people that want to preserve things like that.

So no, it's all bollocks. Why would I feel 'alienated'? I have more in common with my Bangladeshi former neighbour than plenty of white folks I know.

* Yeah, they're often the source of cringing, but there's a certain charm as well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Do you get many ultra-rich white people in them?
> 
> Any?



No, you don't. Stupid fucking question. It's a fucking sink estate, you twat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'm speechless.



If only your hands would drop off too.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 3, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I haven't bothered to read anything ElizabethofYork (FUk yEh) has written in this thread apart from her first contribution. I bet it's all shite tho.



*yawn*


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So then it can still be London - even with brown people in it?



errr ... yes.  Why are you having difficulty with this?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> errr ... yes. Why are you having difficulty with this?


didn't you say non-white people couldn't be english or did i imagine that?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 3, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> didn't you say non-white people couldn't be english or did i imagine that?



You absolutely imagined that.  I'd never say such an idiotic thing.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

forgive me then. there's been a lot of silliness on this thread and it's hard to know if people are joking or not


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 3, 2011)

No problem.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If your skin is a different color, does it mean you can't be British?





ElizabethofYork said:


> Of course not.


i misunderstood this


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 3, 2011)

Pffffff!  Had a few beers?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Pffffff! Had a few beers?


yesterday, when i read it, yes


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 3, 2011)

Lol at people being surprised at cleese being a massive racist. The guy is funny as fuck but he is an arrogant tosser and so these revelations of racism dont surprise me in the least


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 3, 2011)

Is it racist to say that London has changed?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 3, 2011)

ElizabethofYork (fuUk yerH) - can you sum up in one post whatever the fuck the point you're trying to make is? Many thanks.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, you don't. Stupid fucking question. It's a fucking sink estate, you twat.



Someone told me last night that there wasn't anywhere in a UK city where you couldn't walk five minutes without passing the house of someone who earns 100x as much as you.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 3, 2011)

oh. u just did. The answer to ur q is 'no'. Now go away.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 3, 2011)

Jeff Robinson - are you okay?  You sound rather disturbed.  Go to bed.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 3, 2011)

Fuck yeah.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Lol at people being surprised at cleese being a massive racist. The guy is funny as fuck but he is an arrogant tosser and so these revelations of racism dont surprise me in the least


the racism thing has obscured what he also said about taxes. America is welcome to the cunt.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Someone told me last night that there wasn't anywhere in a UK city where you couldn't walk five minutes without passing the house of someone who earns 100x as much as you.


that's a bit of an exaggeration but in london it might be true. give it 20 minutes though


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 3, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> the racism thing has obscured what he also said about taxes. America is welcome to the cunt.


What did he say about them?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> that's a bit of an exaggeration but in london it might be true. give it 20 minutes though



Twenty minutes is long enough to walk out of a ghetto.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> What did he say about them?


he said he couldn't afford to live here cos of the taxes and he might have to move to switzerland or monaco. In The Mirror, he's quoted:
I would have to earn around £6million before I kept a penny. So the question is where do I go? Liechtenstein? Tax is too high in Europe."


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Twenty minutes is long enough to walk out of a ghetto.


what's your point? i don't think you know what you are talking about


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> what's your point? i don't think you know what you are talking about



You're the one who's drunk; not me.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You're the one who's drunk; not me.


that was yesterday fella. stop pronouncing about stuff you know nothing of


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> that was yesterday fella. stop pronouncing about stuff you know nothing of



I know that at an average walking speed of 5 mph, you can walk out of a district in 20 minutes.

You say 'fella', just like the Editor does.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I know that at an average walking speed of 5 mph, you can walk out of a district in 20 minutes.


but does that mean you can used the word ghetto with impunity? nope


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Someone told me last night that there wasn't anywhere in a UK city where you couldn't walk five minutes without passing the house of someone who earns 100x as much as you.


 
Someone told you wrong, I reckon.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> but does that mean you can used the word ghetto with impunity? nope


 
No? Watch this:

Ghetto ghetto ghetto

_ghetto_

*ghetto*

ghetto


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 3, 2011)

have you been listening to dj assault?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Someone told me last night that there wasn't anywhere in a UK city where you couldn't walk five minutes without passing the house of someone who earns 100x as much as you.


No they didn't. go back and reread the thread. You are confusing what people have said specifically about London with the UK.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Someone told me last night that there wasn't anywhere in a UK city where you couldn't walk five minutes without passing the house of someone who earns 100x as much as you.


what tosh. even if it was true, while you might pass the house of someone who is paid a great deal more than you whether they earn it is a different matter.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 3, 2011)

I don't think the American meaning of ghetto is the same as the British one. And how did John Cleese suddenly become a racist? London isn't England.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

Do people suddenly become ignorant bigots? I'm guessing he always was, just he's now reached an age when he's not afraid to speak his mind.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do people suddenly become ignorant bigots? I'm guessing he always was, just he's now reached an age when he's not afraid to speak his mind.


out of curiosity, which part of his comments do you find ignorant and / or bigoted?


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'm just assuming you're answering my comment about the riots at least being kicked off by a racial issue.
> 
> If in fact you are answering me, why not do the courtesy of quoting my post?



Because the javascript that is involved in quoting is completely fucking borked when it comes to my version of Opera. Sometimes it puts a quote in, sometimes it doesn't, and there's absolutely no way of telling beforehand which it's going to be. Plus I can't immediately fix it because I get a javascript error page and have to backtrack a few times to get back to the right point in the thread.

If anyone has a problem with that they can get hold of a replacement for the knackered graphics card on my main PC so that I can stop trying to get around the web on a 12 year old box. Alternatively they can sort out Xenforo's javascript so that it still works in older browsers.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'm speechless.



Why? My point is that it wasn't black people rioting about racist policing. It is working class people of ALL races rioting about racist and "over-enthusiastic" policing. This is a really important point. There was, at least initially, an effort by the media to present it as young black men rioting. It very definitely wasn't that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Why? My point is that it wasn't black people rioting about racist policing. It is working class people of ALL races rioting about racist and "over-enthusiastic" policing. This is a really important point. There was, at least initially, an effort by the media to present it as young black men rioting. It very definitely wasn't that.



But if one of the causes was racist policing, then no matter who did the rioting, racism was part of the cause of the riots, at least at their inception.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 4, 2011)

One thing we like about living in the London is precisely because of the mix. We'd feel uncomfortable living in less mixed places.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Someone told me last night that there wasn't anywhere in a UK city where you couldn't walk five minutes without passing the house of someone who earns 100x as much as you.



You know what a "sink estate" (you know, what was *actually* being referred to?) is? It's a development of social housing that the local council has decided to use as a "dumping ground" for problem tenants.

So no, you wouldn't get "ultra-rich white people in them", and to ask if you would is fucking moronic, given that I made clear that the social mix is narrowing.
I could easily walk five minutes and be in an area where someone earns 100x more than me (not difficult). I *couldn't*, however, walk round the council estate I live on and do so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> out of curiosity, which part of his comments do you find ignorant and / or bigoted?


If you read the thread, you'll see that I've already explained. "Where are all the English people?" is the core element.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> that was yesterday fella. stop pronouncing about stuff you know nothing of



He wouldn't be Johnny if he didn't pontificate on subjects he has just a passing google-knowledge of, would he?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> I don't think the American meaning of ghetto is the same as the British one. And how did John Cleese suddenly become a racist? London isn't England.



Hmm, I think that's partly what he's saying.

Of course, for him not to be aware that the capital city of *any* nation is going to be a damned sight more "cosmopolitan" than the rest of the nation shows that sometimes an Oxbridge education is wasted.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

It's far worse than that. He harked back the the 1950s and the England of his no doubt idealised youth and bemoaned its passing by giving the example of the multicultural/multiracial nature of London.

Some on here may not have heard the dogwhistle, but Nigel Farage did.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 4, 2011)

Tbf, he's always flirted with that kind of thing. Just watch his reaction to the black doctor, the Irish builders, Spanish waiter and Germans.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's far worse than that. He harked back the the 1950s and the England of his no doubt idealised youth and bemoaned its passing by giving the example of the multicultural/multiracial nature of London.
> 
> Some on here may not have heard the dogwhistle, but Nigel Farage did.


oh dear. nostalgia now ignorant and bigoted. i've always thought of racism as the belief in the superiority of one race over another. now i find you've redefined it to include aging comedians harking back after their youth when the ethnic makeup of the city was somewhat different despite there being nothing in cleese's remarks disparaging other races.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmm, I think that's partly what he's saying.
> 
> Of course, for him not to be aware that the capital city of *any* nation is going to be a damned sight more "cosmopolitan" than the rest of the nation shows that sometimes an Oxbridge education is wasted.


fucking londoners


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 4, 2011)




----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> One thing we like about living in the London is precisely because of the mix. We'd feel uncomfortable living in less mixed places.





littlebabyjesus said:


> It's far worse than that. He harked back the the 1950s and the England of his no doubt idealised youth and bemoaned its passing by giving the example of the multicultural/multiracial nature of London.
> 
> Some on here may not have heard the dogwhistle, but Nigel Farage did.



Why is it wrong to bemoan the passing of something?

You've got a thing about people supposedly idealising the past, haven't you? How are people to be stopped from indulging in this completely normal and inevitable human trait?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Brixton has got a reputation for being vibrant and edgy though


 
I thought Brixton has, to a large extent, been gentrified to accommodate those people who like to feel they're living the 'edgy' existence that their background's lack?


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 4, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Tbf, he's always flirted with that kind of thing. Just watch his reaction to the black doctor, the Irish builders, Spanish waiter and Germans.



You do realise that Cleese was just acting in "Faulty Towers"?


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Why is it wrong to bemoan the passing of something?
> 
> You've got a thing about people supposedly idealising the past, haven't you? How are people to be stopped from indulging in this completely normal and inevitable human trait?


Look at all the threads bemoaning the fact this site isn't the same as it used to be!


----------



## Mation (Sep 4, 2011)

fuck's sake - what a frustrating thread!

I think the ghetto confusion may be partly that, to non-UK ears, saying there aren't any 'real' ghettos in London sounds a bit like someone who drinks a lot but really isn't an alcoholic trying to convince a concerned person who's only seen them drunk; it sounds like they're fooling themselves, whether or not they are. And also that the UK idea of a 'typical US' ghetto is a bit outdated, perhaps. There isn't anything quite like that typical ghetto here, as others have said. I also can't imagine it taking 20 minutes to walk out of any type of area, 5 is much closer, shirley?

I've been very briefly to Anacostia, which is apparently Washington DC's version of a ghetto. I can't remember seeing any non-black faces, it did have some very run down parts and some not so; it certainly didn't seem like my idea of a ghetto.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Look at all the threads bemoaning the fact this site isn't the same as it used to be!



I've found that those who don't like people idealising the past are usually working on the baseless assumption that we are constantly moving towards a better future.

While the heavy racial and cultural mix of today's Britain may well be better in many respects, it also drmatically increases the potential for ethnic warfare when the shit hits the fan. It isn't as if we haven't already seen glimpses of it in places like Oldham and Burnley.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> You do realise that Cleese was just acting in "Faulty Towers"?


 
Jer has always had a problem distinguishing between reality and fiction...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

What is Cleese bemoaning exactly?

The way that article reads to me it isn't an issue that he notices how things have changed since he was a lad, it's the implication that those changes are a bad thing and him using 'immigration' as the reason that makes him an arse.

Cleese is 71, no doubt looking back over his life and experiencing/thinking about his own mortality, as many do at that age....shame he can't be a bit more generous and intelligent about his reflections.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 4, 2011)

Mation said:


> There isn't anything quite like that typical ghetto here, as others have said. I also can't imagine it taking 20 minutes to walk out of any type of area, 5 is much closer, shirley?



Quite. I've got a friend who lives on an estate in North Kens that illustrates perfectly the sheer contrast of wealth/income that exists even within a 5 min area.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> What is Cleese bemoaning exactly?
> 
> The way that article reads to me it isn't an issue that he notices how things have changed since he was a lad, it's the implication that those changes are a bad thing and him using 'immigration' as the reason that makes him an arse.
> 
> Cleese is 71, no doubt looking back over his life and experiencing/thinking about his own mortality, as many do at that age....shame he can't be a bit more generous and intelligent about his reflections.


 
However, it is not compulsory to like anything, including immigration.

And there lies the problem.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> What is Cleese bemoaning exactly?
> 
> The way that article reads to me it isn't an issue that he notices how things have changed since he was a lad, it's the implication that those changes are a bad thing and him using 'immigration' as the reason that makes him an arse.
> 
> Cleese is 71, no doubt looking back over his life and experiencing/thinking about his own mortality, as many do at that age....shame he can't be a bit more generous and intelligent about his reflections.


please could you point to a reference cleese makes to 'immigration'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I've found that those who don't like people idealising the past are usually working on the baseless assumption that we are constantly moving towards a better future.


Know what, I very much doubt that you have found that. You just like the turn of phrase.

But well done for being both reactionary and smugly superior at the same time.

And if you can't see anything wrong with the attitude that says 'It was so much better when everyone was white', well fuck you, frankly.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> However, it is not compulsory to like anything, including immigration.
> 
> And there lies the problem.



You are right, however the way I see it, harking back and romanticising the 1950's as a 'great' time is also problematic...1950's London wasn't exactly a great time for everybody. I actually think that Cleese is being selfish and ungenerous, his perogative I suppose but sod him for dancing the all too familiar dance of blaming immigration/immigrants instead of accepting that things change, they always have done, it was not his birth right that the world he knew as a child remained as it was so he can feel as good as he did then.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Know what, I very much doubt that you have found that. You just like the turn of phrase.
> 
> But well done for being both reactionary and smugly superior at the same time.



I have actually found that the kind of people who frown on others idealising the past are usually those who blandly assume that we are constantly moving into a better future, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Nothing I've said in this thread is remotely reactionary. The real reactionaries are the usual liberal-lefty hystericals. And Jer.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

Listen to yourself 'It is not compulsory to like anything, including immigration'. That closely following warnings of the danger of race violence.

'Ethnic warfare'? You sound like Enoch Powell.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> You are right, however the way I see it, harking back and romanticising the 1950's as a 'great' time is also problematic...1950's London wasn't exactly a great time for everybody. I actually think that Cleese is being selfish and ungenerous, his perogative I suppose but sod him for dancing the all too familiar dance of blaming immigration/immigrants instead of accepting that things change, they always have done, it was not his birth right that the world he knew as a child remained as it was so he can feel as good as he did then.


 
As pointed out, though, Cleese hasn't blamed immigrants for anything.

And the point I was getting at is that idealising the past is an inevitable human trait about which nothing can possibly be done.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Listen to yourself 'It is not compulsory to like anything, including immigration'. That closely following warnings of the danger of race violence.
> 
> You sound like Enoch Powell.



As I said, liberal-lefty hysterics.

So it isn't a fact that it isn't compulsory to like anything? And we didn't glimpse ethnic warfare in Burnley and Oldham?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> While the heavy racial and cultural mix of today's Britain may well be better in many respects, it also drmatically increases the potential for ethnic warfare when the shit hits the fan. It isn't as if we haven't already seen glimpses of it in places like Oldham and Burnley.



Enoch?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Get a grip on yourself.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

You are warning about the dangers of race war.  Who needs to get a grip here?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You are warning about the dangers of race war. Who needs to get a grip here?



Of course there'a danger of race war. There's always a danger of race war, especially when politics are racialised, either deliberately or unintentionally, by official multiculturalism. All multi-ethnic societies contain the danger of race war.

Dmitry Orlov has it right:

_'Multi-ethnic societies are fragile entities, and have a tendency to explode. When they do, everybody loses. _

_Whenever two or more ethnic groups live side-by-side, the danger of war, ethnic cleansing and genocide is always present. What usually triggers it is the presence of politicians who are willing to exploit ethnic differences in order to grab or hold on to power.' _


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> As pointed out, though, Cleese hasn't blamed immigrants for anything.


 Oh come on. 'No longer an English City', 'where the parent culture has dissapated' ...Prey tell me what you think he is actually talking about then?



> And the point I was getting at is that idealising the past is _an inevitable human trait_ about which nothing can possibly be done.



I don't believe that's true actually, I think often people idealise the past in an effort to distort/deny the stuff they find difficult.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh come on. 'No longer an English City', 'where the parent culture has dissapated' ...Prey tell me what you think he is actually talking about then?


 
in that quote, where does he blame immigrants?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't believe that's true actually, I think often people idealise the past in an effort to distort/deny the stuff they find difficult.



Yes, as I said, it's an inevitable human trait.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> in that quote, where does he blame immigrants?



Please tell me what you think he is talking about as I have asked.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Yes, as I said, it's an inevitable human trait.



So what do you think Cleese might be finding difficult then?

Also, again I don't think it's inevitable, many people can address/accept their 'difficult' feelings.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Of course there'a danger of race war. There's always a danger of race war, especially when politics are racialised, either deliberately or unintentionally, by official multiculturalism. All multi-ethnic societies contain the danger of race war.
> 
> Dmitry Orlov has it right:
> 
> ...



You think that quote is even remotely applicable to the UK? A danger of war, ethnic cleansing and genocide? In the UK?

And you're telling me to get a grip.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> So what do you think Cleese might be finding difficult then?
> 
> Also, again I don't think it's inevitable, many people can address/accept their 'difficult' feelings.


 
People might be able to 'address difficult feelings,' but it depends on whether they want to do this 'addressing,' doesn't it? And the outcome of this addressing almost certainly will not be the one you think it should be. Such is life.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You think that quote is even remotely applicable to the UK? A danger of war, ethnic cleansing and genocide? In the UK?
> 
> And you're telling me to get a grip.



I don't think it's likely in any widespread sense at the moment. You'll notice that I said 'when the shit hits the fan.' But are you denying that we glimpsed race war in places like Oldham, where an Asian mob torched one pub with drinkers still in it, attacked customers, and bricked the windows of many others with drinkers still inside? And when a few nights later a white mob gathered to march on the mainly Asian areas and were held back by police? And this after a large white mob had already rampaged through an Asian housing estate, attacking anybody who got in their way?

And the statement that having a multi-ethnic society increases the potential for it is actually irrefutable. After all, you can't have ethnic warfare in a society that isn't multi-ethnic. Can you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And you're telling me to get a grip.


go on then


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> People might be able to 'address difficult feelings,' but it depends on whether they want to do this 'addressing,' doesn't it? _And the outcome of this addressing almost certainly will not be the one you think it should be._ Such is life.



Eh? I haven't said what I think anything/the outcome 'should' be. You are making assumptions and being very dismissive with all this 'it's inevitable, such is life' talk.

I asked you this:



> So what do you think Cleese might be finding difficult then?



...and why might he not want to address those things?

Also, since you are so sure Cleese was not referring to immigrants/immigration, I am asking you again what you think he is referring to?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Please tell me what you think he is talking about as I have asked.


 
He is talking about what the article tells us he's talking about. But I don't see that he's said that 'London is no longer English,' or 'It isn't the palce of my childhood,' or whatever, and followed it up with 'And it's all the fault of the immigrants who shouldn't have come in the first place.' That would be blaming the immigrants, but if you want to read into his words a call to scapegoating immigrants, nobody can stop you. The worst you can say is that perhaps he underestimates the utter stupidity of many people. These of course, encompass both those who wish to see racism in his words because they are racists themselves, and those, as in evidence here, who deplore racism.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> He is talking about what the article tells us he's talking about. But I don't see that he's said that 'London is no longer English,' or 'It isn't the palce of my childhood,' or whatever, and followed it up with 'And it's all the fault of the immigrants who shouldn't have come in the first place.' That would be blaming the immigrants, but if you want to read into his words a call to scapegoating immigrants, nobody can stop you. The worst you can say is that perhaps he underestimates the utter stupidity of many people. These of course, encompass both those who wish to see racism in his words because they are racists themselves, and those, as in evidence here, who deplore racism.



So what is he talking about then?


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> So what is he talking about then?



Nostalgia.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> Nostalgia.


Nostalgia for what? What particular aspect of the past is he being nostalgic about?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nostalgia for what? What particular aspect of the past is he being nostalgic about?


if you can't work this out from reading his comments then there's no hope for you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> if you can't work this out from reading his comments then there's no hope for you.


I can. I am asking L&L what he thinks.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Eh? I haven't said what I think anything/the outcome 'should' be. You are making assumptions and being very dismissive with all this 'it's inevitable, such is life' talk.
> 
> I asked you this:
> 
> ...


 
Are you saying that it's possible to change human behaviour in a way that eliminates traits such as looking to the past with affection, whether misplaced or otherwise (in itself a completely subjective judgement?) If so, good luck. You'll need it.

I think Cleese was, as I said, referring to immigration, but as I've also said, he didn't actually blame immigrants for anything.

Strewth.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

I'm sure Cleese would find this implication that he needs to seek some kind of psychotherapy due to having the wrong opinion highly amusing, especially coming from people on here, by the way.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can. I am asking L&L what he thinks.



How old are you? A person's age can have a lot to do with their understanding of nostalgia.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I thought Brixton has, to a large extent, been gentrified to accommodate those people who like to feel they're living the 'edgy' existence that their background's lack?



Those parts of it amenable to "gentrification", anyway.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

If anything demonstrates what rubs a lot of people up the wrong way when it comes to immigration, it's the kind of attitudes expressed here, when even those who are actually the opposite are accused of racism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> How old are you? A person's age can have a lot to do with their understanding of nostalgia.


You said that he was referring to 'nostalgia'. He wasn't. He wasn't talking about nostalgia. He was being nostalgic. And he was being nostalgic for one particular aspect of the past, which, as is often the way, never existed in the way he was imagining it. That is revealing of all kinds of pretty nasty assumptions on his part. Why do you think he told the story of his American friend and what do you think he meant by it?


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ..........And he was being nostalgic for one particular aspect of the past, which, as is often the way, never existed in the way he was imagining it..........



Nostalgia is often like that.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You said that he was referring to 'nostalgia'. He wasn't. He wasn't talking about nostalgia. He was being nostalgic. And he was being nostalgic for one particular aspect of the past, which, as is often the way, never existed in the way he was imagining it. That is revealing of all kinds of pretty nasty assumptions on his part. Why do you think he told the story of his American friend and what do you think he meant by it?


 
What do you imagine you can do about people remembering things the way they want to remember them?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Are you saying that it's possible to change human behaviour in a way that eliminates traits such as looking to the past with affection, whether misplaced or otherwise (in itself a completely subjective judgement?) If so, good luck. You'll need it.


 No I am saying that it is possible to both romanticise the past and also understand why and how you are doing that by looking at the things that you are rejecting/distorting or denying.



> I think Cleese was, as I said, referring to immigration, but as I've also said, he didn't actually blame immigrants for anything.
> 
> Strewth.



So he was talking about immigration but not immigrants?

I suppose you are also prophesying a 'race war' without talking about immigrants too?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> *I'm sure Cleese would find this implication that he needs to seek some kind of psychotherapy due to having the wrong opinion highly amusing,* especially coming from people on here, by the way.



Who here has said that?

IME people don't always need therapy/counselling to be more _honest_ in their opinions/representations and formulations.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Someone told me last night that there wasn't anywhere in a UK city where you couldn't walk five minutes without passing the house of someone who earns 100x as much as you.



That was me, and I said London. It is true for London. And the thread is about London, not Britain.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> Nostalgia.



Nah, I don't think he is talking about 'nostalgia' as a phenonoma/process of looking back/romanticising, if he were he would be discussing in which way he or anyone does it and why they do it. That would include acknowledging the possibility of 'leaving' stuff out of the 'romanticised past'....he is being *nostalgic*, which is different.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But if one of the causes was racist policing, then no matter who did the rioting, racism was part of the cause of the riots, at least at their inception.



Difficult. To say that requires pinning down racism as an aspect of the shooting of Mark Duggan. I can confidently state that there's a widely held perception that the Met Police (especially the TSG) are responsible for a number of deaths of black people in their custody as the direct result of racism. However it's more problematical to pin that down for certain as a factor in Mark Duggan's death, it could equally just be plain old stupidity and aggression.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> ....he is being *nostalgic*, which is different.



Fair enough. But he's not being racist, IMO.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

scifisam said:


> That was me, and I said London. It is true for London. And the thread is about London, not Britain.


no it isn't. you go to barking and find me the house of someone who is either paid or earns than a couple of million pounds in five minutes walk from barking and dagenham fc's ground.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 4, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> One thing we like about living in the London is precisely because of the mix. We'd feel uncomfortable living in less mixed places.



The thing that struck me on returning from working in Italy in the early 90s was how nice it was to be able to make eye contact with black people when passing them in the street. I hadn't realised how oppressive and strange I'd found the widespread covert racism and its effects until I was back in London.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You know what a "sink estate" (you know, what was *actually* being referred to?) is? It's a development of social housing that the local council has decided to use as a "dumping ground" for problem tenants.
> 
> So no, you wouldn't get "ultra-rich white people in them", and to ask if you would is fucking moronic, given that I made clear that the social mix is narrowing.
> I could easily walk five minutes and be in an area where someone earns 100x more than me (not difficult). I *couldn't*, however, walk round the council estate I live on and do so.



I live on a supposed sink estate, or at least an estate that has a recent history of being a prime example of a sink estate. I don't think there's anyone on the estate with 100x my income, but there are at least a couple of people with 50x my income when I was on the lowest level of benefits a couple of years ago.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> no it isn't. you go to barking and find me the house of someone who is either paid or earns than a couple of million pounds in five minutes walk from barking and dagenham fc's ground.



I bet you could, though I don't know how I could prove it. A 100 times minimum wage is less than a million pounds and you can walk a fair distance in five minutes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

scifisam said:


> I bet you could, though I don't know how I could prove it. A 100 times minimum wage is less than a million pounds and you can walk a fair distance in five minutes.


the thing is i don't earn minimum wage and so i'd be looking for someone who is paid a couple of million pounds who lives within five minutes walk of victoria road.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> the thing is i don't earn minimum wage and so i'd be looking for someone who is paid a couple of million pounds who lives within five minutes walk of victoria road.



I never said _anyone_ could walk five minutes and walk past a fellow resident who earns a million pounds more than them, because that would be impossible (the millionaire isn't going to be able to do it, after all); I said that a minimum wage earner could do that. Though, thinking about it, 100 times is probably wrong for B&D because it's less densely-populated - 50 times easily though. It's surprising how high some people's wages are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

scifisam said:


> I never said _anyone_ could walk five minutes and walk past a fellow resident who earns a million pounds more than them, because that would be impossible (the millionaire isn't going to be able to do it, after all); I said that a minimum wage earner could do that. Though, thinking about it, 100 times is probably wrong for B&D because it's less densely-populated - 50 times easily though. It's surprising how high some people's wages are.


you're right you didn't say you could bowl past someone who earned 100x as much as you; you did say (your post 541) that you could walk by their house.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you're right you didn't say you could bowl past someone who earned 100x as much as you; you did say (your post 541) that you could walk by their house.



No, I said a _minimum wage earner_ could do that, and then referred back to that post. Come on, give me some credit - it's physically impossible for _every single person_ to live near people who earn lots more than them, because someone has to be the highest wage earner in the area. I can be stupid sometimes, but not as stupid as that.

Ah, I see you're going on the post where Johnny's misquoting me. What he's claiming I said is not what I actually said. Perhaps I should have clarified further, but it never occurred to me that people would think I meant 'yes, even the highest wage earner in England can live near someone who earns 100 times what they do!'


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

scifisam said:


> No, I said a _minimum wage earner_ could do that, and then referred back to that post. Come on, give me some credit - it's physically impossible for _every single person_ to live near people who earn lots more than them, because someone has to be the highest wage earner in the area. I can be stupid sometimes, but not as stupid as that.


as you will


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> No I am saying that it is possible to both romanticise the past and also understand why and how you are doing that by looking at the things that you are rejecting/distorting or denying.
> 
> So he was talking about immigration but not immigrants?
> 
> I suppose you are also prophesying a 'race war' without talking about immigrants too?



What if he doesn't wish to understand why he may be doing this, as he doesn't see it as a problem? I doubt if most people would.

He was talking about immigration, but nowhere blamed immigrants for anything. I don't see why this needs constantly repeating for you.

I'm not prophesying anything, just making the point that multi-ethnic societies do contain the ingrediants for ethnic warfare. It is a point which, as I said, is actually irrefutable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> He was talking about immigration, but nowhere blamed immigrants for anything. I don't see why this needs constantly repeating for you.


you're being very generous today.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I'm not prophesying anything, just making the point that multi-ethnic societies do contain the ingrediants for ethnic warfare. It is a point which, as I said, is actually irrefutable.


By pointing out its irrefutable nature, you also make it a completely trite point. Why even bring up something so empty?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you're being very generous today.


 
i'm just that kind of guy, I suppose.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> By pointing out its irrefutable nature, you also make it a completely trite point. Why even bring up something so empty?


 
That's a good one. It's trite because impossible to refute.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> That's a good one. It's trite because impossible to refute.


All you are saying is 'you can't have inter-ethnic conflict if there is only one ethnic group'.

Well done Einstein. I'm sure nobody had understood that.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Quite clearly, reading this thread, most people have not grasped the fact that multi-ethnic societies contain the possibility for inter-ethnic warfare. Including you before you had to concede the point.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 4, 2011)

LOL

(((Urban)))


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I thought Brixton has, to a large extent, been gentrified to accommodate those people who like to feel they're living the 'edgy' existence that their background's lack?



That's Hulme


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> That's Hulme


 
Is it still a mugger's paradise?


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 4, 2011)

Apparantly boats a sizeable contingent of anarchist and alternative types now happily ensconced as owner occupiers


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Quite clearly, reading this thread, most people have not grasped t_he fact that multi-ethnic societies contain the *possibility* for inter-ethnic warfare._ Including you before you had to concede the point.



Oh please....you were *not* just making this very obvious point with regard possibility.
You were prophesying...your use of the phrase _'when the shit hits the fan'_ is evidence of that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

Yep. Backtracking furiously.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh please....you were *not* just making this very obvious point with regard possibility.
> You were prophesying...your use of the phrase _'when the shit hits the fan'_ is evidence of that.



The conditions for ethnic warfare are in place for when the shit hits the fan. Is this prophesy?

And are you saying that, at some point in the future, the shit won't hit the fan in some way? All societies eventually crumble, whatever the reasons, and all the factors it would take for this one to do so are already in place. We are not exempt from history. We just don't know when it will happen.

Luckily, however, we'll have abolished racism by then, due to the sterling efforts of people like you and LBJ.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. Backtracking furiously.


 
Or not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

Hopping back and forth at the moment.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hopping back and forth at the moment.



it's actually you who's backtracking, with having to admit that multi-ethnic societies do indeed contain the possibility for ethnic warfare.

Anyway, does this have to be another thread where people start writing about each other instead of the thread subject? Get a grip on yourselves. Simmer down, control your temper.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 4, 2011)

I'm off. Don't worry. I think you're a complete gobshite, btw. A dishonest one at that.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> The conditions for ethnic warfare are in place for when the shit hits the fan. Is this prophesy?


 Surely you mean 'if' which denotes possibility not probability that using the word 'when' does.



> And are you saying that, at some point in the future, the shit won't hit the fan in some way? All societies eventually crumble, whatever the reasons, and all the factors it would take for this one to do so are already in place. We are not exempt from history. We just don't know when it will happen.
> 
> Luckily, however, we'll have abolished racism by then, _due to the sterling efforts of people like you and LBJ._


 Nicely, placing yourself outside of the description of an anti-racist, also undermining/devaluing the sentiments and any efforts other people may make. Good work, own goal!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A *dishonest* one at that.


Yep.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm off. Don't worry. I think you're a complete gobshite, btw. A dishonest one at that.


 
You chat shit, though.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Surely you mean 'if' which denotes possibility not probability that using the word 'when' does.
> 
> Nicely, placing yourself out of the anti-racist, and undermining/devaluing the sentiments and any efforts other people may make. Good work, own goal!


 
It isn't an own goal. It's a comment on how certain types of well meaning idiots actually do more harm than good by seeing racism where there is none and tolerate no dissent form the orthodox line.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm off. Don't worry. I think you're a complete gobshite, btw. A dishonest one at that.


 
Takes ball indoors.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Surely you mean 'if' which denotes possibility not probability that using the word 'when' does.
> 
> Nicely, placing yourself outside of the description of an anti-racist, also undermining/devaluing the sentiments and any efforts other people may make. Good work, own goal!


 
What does 'placing yourself outside of the description of an anti-racist,' mean, by the way?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It isn't an own goal. It's a comment on how certain types of well meaning idiots actually do more harm than good by seeing racism where there is none and tolerate no dissent form the orthodox line.



I feel much the same way about folk that constantly dance around the existence of prejudice, are overly apologetic and dismissive of prejudice and are _orthodox_ in their attempts to belittle and undermine those people or opinions that are much better informed and honest on the subject.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I feel much the same way about folk that constantly dance around the existence of prejudice, are overly apologetic and dismissive of prejudice and are orthodox in their attempts to belittle and undermine those people or opinions that are much better informed and honest on the subject.



People or opinions like you and yours, you mean?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> People or opinions like you and yours, you mean?



You are using the wrong bait my dear.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Well for a start, you've displayed no superior knowledge of the subject under discussion yourself, and as for honesty, do you call it honest to accuse people who are the oposite of being racist?

And far from 'dancing around the existence of prejudice,' I've tried to reinforce the point that it is all too prevalent in this society. Did you read my posts that mentioned Oldham and Burnley? Prejudice is always with us. The only way to abolish it would be to abolish human beings. The best you can do is create conditions that prevent people from acting on their prejudices in a damaging way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What if he doesn't wish to understand why he may be doing this, as he doesn't see it as a problem? I doubt if most people would.
> 
> He was talking about immigration, but nowhere blamed immigrants for anything. I don't see why this needs constantly repeating for you.
> 
> I'm not prophesying anything, just making the point that multi-ethnic societies do contain the ingrediants for ethnic warfare. It is a point which, as I said, is actually irrefutable.



"Ethnic warfare" is hyperbolic. "Ethnic strife" might not be.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Ethnic warfare" is hyperbolic. "Ethnic strife" might not be.


 
Ethnic strife is already with us. I'm talking about when it spills over into bloodshed, which is warfare on however small a scale.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Ethnic strife is already with us. I'm talking about when it spills over into bloodshed, which is warfare on however small a scale.



Not in the conventional meaning of "warfare" (multi-state or multi-party formalised combat). I know the media like to label stuff like informal conflict as "*** warfare", but that's hyperbole on their part. Ethnic strife? Yes. Ethnicity-centred combat? Yes. Warfare? Only if you're using tabloid shorthand.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Ethnic strife is already with us. I'm talking about when it spills over into bloodshed, which is warfare on however small a scale.


so a saturday night bash outside a pub's a little war?

returning unwillingly to the real world...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2011)

How many _racial wars_ have there been?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> so a saturday night bash outside a pub's a little war?


 
Can you never resist nitpicking?  It's clear that I was talking about the potential for situations like Oldham and Burnley to escalate.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> How many _racial wars_ have there been?


 
I don't know, but there have been plenty of inter-ethnic wars.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not in the conventional meaning of "warfare" (multi-state or multi-party formalised combat). I know the media like to label stuff like informal conflict as "*** warfare", but that's hyperbole on their part. Ethnic strife? Yes. Ethnicity-centred combat? Yes. Warfare? Only if you're using tabloid shorthand.


 
If people are attacking and killing each other, do technical definitions matter?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I don't know, but there have been plenty of inter-ethnic wars.


Pretty important to get terms that are being used to describe our conditions, our society, right. Racial war is not a term to use.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Can you never resist nitpicking? It's clear that I was talking about the potential for situations like Oldham and Burnley to escalate.


no it isn't. you said:


LLETSA said:


> Ethnic strife is already with us. I'm talking about when it spills over into bloodshed, which is warfare on however small a scale.


so, iyo strife - ethnic or not - is 'warfare on however small a scale'. and a scrap outside a pub often ends in a spot of blood shed. i hope you wouldn't consider it a war though.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> so a saturday night bash outside a pub's a little war?
> 
> returning unwillingly to the real world...


 
It wasn't a saturday night bash in the Live n Let in G/W. Unless you call punters (white and Asian) cowering in terror as the gaffe was firebombed a Saturday night bash? A night out with you must be not for the faint hearted.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Pretty important to get terms that are being used to describe our conditions, our society, right. Racial war is not a term to use.


 
I've mostly used the term inter-ethnic conflict, and am referring to the potential for it, not saying that it's widespread. But this is being turned into a thread about it, which was not my intention whern I merely pointed out that you can only have ethnic conflict in a multi-ethnic society.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> no it isn't. you said:
> so, iyo strife - ethnic or not - is 'warfare on however small a scale'. and a scrap outside a pub often ends in a spot of blood shed. i hope you wouldn't consider it a war though.


 
It's quite clear from the rest of the thread that I was referring to the rather larger scale of the events of a decade ago in certain northern towns, but carry on nitpicking if that's what makes you happy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

Frances Lengel said:


> It wasn't a saturday night bash in the Live n Let in G/W. Unless you call punters (white and Asian) cowering in terror as the gaffe was firebombed a Saturday night bash? A night out with you must be not for the faint hearted.


i'm talking about the sort of scrap you see in town centres up and down the land on the saturday night, when there's a decent fight passers-by can watch to round off a decent night's drinking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It's quite clear from the rest of the thread that I was referring to the rather larger scale of the events of a decade ago in certain northern towns, but carry on nitpicking if that's what makes you happy.


yes and then you start talking about strife and making it sound like a racist attack is iyo a little ethnic war.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> yes and then you start talking about strife and making it sound like a racist attack is iyo a little ethnic war.


 
The only time I mentioned ethnic strife was when I pointed out to VP that it's already with us, and that I was talking about the potential for something larger.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> The only time I mentioned ethnic strife was when I pointed out to VP that it's already with us, and that I was talking about the potential for something larger.


i'll believe you, millions wouldn't.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll believe you, millions wouldn't.



Well it's in the fucking thread. You're just trying to do your usual thing and tie people up in pointless argument over trivia.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm talking about the sort of scrap you see in town centres up and down the land on the saturday night, when there's a decent fight passers-by can watch to round off a decent night's drinking.


 
Nah coz Lletsa said "when it spills into bloodshed", and you tried to pass off said bloodshed as a "Saturday night bash". It was fairly clear (at least to me) that Lletsa was talking about something a bit more than a drunken scrap.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

Frances Lengel said:


> Nah coz Lletsa said "when it spills into bloodshed", and you tried to pass off said bloodshed as a "Saturday night bash". It was fairly clear (at least to me) that Lletsa was talking about something a bit more than a drunken scrap.


i'm pleased for you.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm pleased for you.


 
Do you think you could envelope the entire helmet of my penis within the folds of your foreskin?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

what's it to you?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 4, 2011)

Well do ya? Perhaps we could make something beautiful? But only if your foreskin has the capacity of a creme egg...I've been let down too many times.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

perhaps we could make something beautiful. but we're not going to.

keep your knob to yourself and everyone will be happier.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps we could make something beautiful. but we're not going to.
> 
> keep your knob to yourself and everyone will be happier.



Everyone except me, you fucking killjoy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2011)

that makes me happier.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 4, 2011)

Ok, so the very size of my helmet daunts you... I'd be intimidated myself.

In all honesty, fuck knows how we got into this, I can remember being in Oxford house when all oldham kicked off, but that was a long time ago,  where's it all gone,eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> If people are attacking and killing each other, do technical definitions matter?



Yes, it does matter. Misrepresentation has the potential for causing more problems, more misunderstanding, more strife.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, it does matter. Misrepresentation has the potential for causing more problems, more misunderstanding, more strife.


 
Nobody's misrepresented anything.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Nobody's misrepresented anything.



Nobody was accusing anyone of misrepresenting anything.
I'm simply stating that technical definitions do matter, because if one goes round saying "warfare" rather than, say. "intermittent racially motivated aggro", theres always the possibility of unintentionally misrepresenting what's happening, and causing more problems by doing so.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nobody was accusing anyone of misrepresenting anything.
> I'm simply stating that technical definitions do matter, because if one goes round saying "warfare" rather than, say. "intermittent racially motivated aggro", theres always the possibility of unintentionally misrepresenting what's happening, and causing more problems by doing so.


 
Yes, but apart from using Oldham and Burnley as illustrative examples, I haven't talked about any specific situations. I've simply stated that multi-ethnic societies contain the possibility of inter-ethnic conflict-which could, under certain disastrous circumstances, be far worse than 'itermittent racially motivated aggro.'


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You know what a "sink estate" (you know, what was *actually* being referred to?) is? It's a development of social housing that the local council has decided to use as a "dumping ground" for problem tenants..



_That's the point, isn't it?_ 

It's a ................ghetto!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So no, you wouldn't get "ultra-rich white people in them", .



...which would make it that much harder for someone living there to walk past one of them after stepping out of the front door of their flat.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps we could make something beautiful. but we're not going to.
> 
> keep your knob to yourself and everyone will be happier.



Are you truly incapable of rising above this level?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> He wouldn't be Johnny if he didn't pontificate on subjects he has just a passing google-knowledge of, would he?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Why is it wrong to bemoan the passing of something?



Like the ban on gay marriage?

It's not actually wrong: you can moan about anything. It just points out to others that you're a bigot.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Like the ban on gay marriage?
> 
> It's not actually wrong: you can moan about anything. It just points out to others that you're a bigot.


 
Luckily, society has people like you on constant bigot patrol.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> _That's the point, isn't it?_
> 
> It's a ................ghetto!



I don't totally agree with VP's description of a sink estate....I live on one too, mine isn't full of 'problem tenants'. I wouldn't describe mine as a ghetto either.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I've found that those who don't like people idealising the past are usually working on the baseless assumption that we are constantly moving towards a better future.
> 
> While the heavy racial and cultural mix of today's Britain may well be better in many respects, it also drmatically increases the potential for ethnic warfare when the shit hits the fan. It isn't as if we haven't already seen glimpses of it in places like Oldham and Burnley.



It doesn't have to, though. We have a population where ethnic minorities make up a greater part of the whole than you do, and 'ethnic warfare' isn't anywhere near the horizon.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Like the ban on gay marriage?
> 
> It's not actually wrong: you can moan about anything. It just points out to others that you're a bigot.



I don't understand the logic of that posting, Johnny.

Might be because I've just come home from the pub.

Then again, I don't see how moaning can make you a bigot.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Luckily, society has people like you on constant bigot patrol.



Well, yeah. You get enough people moaning about gay marriage or immigration, and the ones amongst you with low impulse control, end up on the streets gay or paki bashing. Someone has to remind the hard-of-thinking that that sort of thing isn't ok.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It doesn't have to, though. We have a population where ethnic minorities make up a greater part of the whole than you do, and 'ethnic warfare' isn't anywhere near the horizon.


 
I never said anything was near the horizon.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't totally agree with VP's description of a sink estate....I live on one too, mine isn't full of 'problem tenants'. I wouldn't describe mine as a ghetto either.



Maybe you're a problem tenant; that's why you can't recognize the others.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> Then again, I don't see how moaning can make you a bigot.



It's what you moan about that matters. If you moan about the good old days before gay marriage: you are a bigot.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Well, yeah. You get enough people moaning about gay marriage or immigration, and the ones amongst you with low impulse control, end up on the streets gay or paki bashing. Someone has to remind the hard-of-thinking that that sort of thing isn't ok.


 
Bashing minorities doesn't usually come about because people are nostalgic for the past though.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I never said anything was near the horizon.


 
Well, you said this:



> it also drmatically increases the potential for ethnic warfare when the shit hits the fan.


 
That doesn't apply here, even though we have a greater proportion of visible ethnic minorities than you do.  So it isn't just the presence of the minorities that 'increases the potential'. It's something more - like maybe the attitudes of the original majority population.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's what you moan about that matters. If you moan about the good old days before gay marriage: you are a bigot.


 
The pub last night was full of people harking back to the days before gay marriage.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Bashing minorities doesn't usually come about because people are nostalgic for the past though.


 
I've never done it nor known anyone who has. You seem familiar with the motivation; can you explain exactly what that motivation is?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> The pub last night was full of people harking back to the days before gay marriage.



Sounds like you drink in a lovely bar. Well, your moniker is 'gobshite magnet'. Maybe similars attract.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Well, you said this:
> 
> That doesn't apply here, even though we have a greater proportion of visible ethnic minorities than you do. So it isn't just the presence of the minorities that 'increases the potential'. It's something more - like maybe the attitudes of the original majority population.


 
As a certain learned Russian-American I quoted says, all ethnically mixed societies contain the potential for inter-ethnic bloodshed.

Neither he nor I said anything was inevitable in that regard, but do you really think It's all a matter of the self-declared enlightened instilling the right attitudes into the population?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Sounds like you drink in a lovely bar. Well, your moniker is 'gobshite magnet'. Maybe similars attract.



You can't move round here for people affectionately recalling the days before gay mariage. It's like Nazi Germany.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

When = probability.
If = possibility.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's what you moan about that matters. If you moan about the good old days before gay marriage: you are a bigot.



Even if you think that gay marriage has nothing to do with the demise of the good old days?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> Even if you think that gay marriage has nothing to do with the demise of the good old days?


 
If someone thought that they probably wouldn't use 'before gay marriage' as the marker.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You can't move round here for people affectionately recalling the days before gay mariage. It's like Nazi Germany.



I don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> Even if you think that gay marriage has nothing to do with the demise of the good old days?



If you don't consider it a negative, then why would you moan about it?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> As a certain learned Russian-American I quoted says, all ethnically mixed societies contain the potential for inter-ethnic bloodshed.
> 
> Neither he nor I said anything was inevitable in that regard, but do you really think It's all a matter of the self-declared enlightened instilling the right attitudes into the population?



People of different races have killed one another here. But they did so for reasons unrelated to race or ethnicity.

Your learned friend sounds like a bit of a twat. The implication is that if people have different ethnicities, there is, somewhere at basis, an animosity that can never be effaced. That's bullshit.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I've never done it nor known anyone who has. You seem familiar with the motivation; can you explain exactly what that motivation is?


 
You can have no end of people who'd say they prefer the days before mass immigration or rights for gays etc, but in the absence of certain social conditions, very few people channel that attitude into violence against minorities.

You surely have enough knowledge of history to know what has triggered bouts of inter-ethnic bloodshed in various societies.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> People of different races have killed one another here. But they did so for reasons unrelated to race or ethnicity.
> 
> Your learned friend sounds like a bit of a twat. The implication is that if people have different ethnicities, there is, somewhere at basis, an animosity that can never be effaced. That's bullshit.


 
Stop going off at the deep end. Nobody has said anything of the kind.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You can have no end of people who'd say they prefer the days before mass immigration or rights for gays etc, but in the absence of certain social conditions, very few people channel that attitude into violence against minorities.
> 
> You surely have enough knowledge of history to know what has triggered bouts of inter-ethnic bloodshed in various societies.



We're not a particularly poor society. We've had gay bashing occurrences, and those doing it weren't always from a lower socioeconomic strata.

There have been a few convictions in the past few years of men of East Indian ethnicity, for gay-bashing.

So: someone from an ethnic minority bashing gays: how does that fit into your theory?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Stop going off at the deep end. Nobody has said anything of the kind.


 


> As a certain learned Russian-American I quoted says, *all ethnically mixed societies contain the potential for inter-ethnic bloodshed*.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

I think I'm going to nominate the bolded part of the quote above for 'boneheaded bigoted quote of the day'.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

That isn't the same as saying that there is, as you put it, 'at basis, an animosity that can never be effaced.'


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think I'm going to nominate the bolded part of the quote above for 'boneheaded bigoted quote of the day'.



Read the full quote, you excitable fucking idiot.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> That isn't the same as saying that there is, as you put it, 'at basis, an animosity that can never be effaced.'



But it is. If it's possible to efface the animosity, then it's possible to get to a place where there is no potential for inter ethnic bloodshed.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Read the full quote, you excitable fucking idiot.


 
Bait a bigot long enough, and he starts to snap and bite.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> We're not a particularly poor society. We've had gay bashing occurrences, and those doing it weren't always from a lower socioeconomic strata.
> 
> There have been a few convictions in the past few years of men of East Indian ethnicity, for gay-bashing.
> 
> So: someone from an ethnic minority bashing gays: how does that fit into your theory?



I haven't offered a theory, but given the attitudes of many black and Asian males towards gays, it would hardly be surprising.

I don't see why you keep going on about Canada as though it's some kind of universal model.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Bait a bigot long enough, and he starts to snap and bite.


 
No, keep spouting ill-informed idiocies and you'll get called a fucking idiot.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> No, keep spouting ill-informed idiocies and you'll get called a fucking idiot.



It was you said this; not me:



> As a certain learned Russian-American I quoted says, *all ethnically mixed societies contain the potential for inter-ethnic bloodshed*.



Do you actually believe that muddleheaded tosh?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I don't see why you keep going on about Canada as though it's some kind of universal model.



It's obviously not: you aren't following it. 

Canada is a big country. I don't think race relations in Montreal or Halifax are the same as they are in Vancouver.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Do you actually believe that muddleheaded tosh?



What is there not to believe, Johnny? The potential is obvious.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 4, 2011)

There seems to be an idea, from the histrerical element here, that new arrivals to London automatically become Londoners, because it's always been that way. There's no baggage and everything is just hunky dory. The desperation and poverty of most immigrants is not even acknowledged. I get the impression that the posters who are the quickest to label someone racist are people who stereotype all ethnics into a comfortable uniform package of shiny happy people.
Some posters have even aired the view that integration is unnecassary and that all change brought by immigrants is welcome, as demonstrated with the ultra leftist post that went something like; Fuck off to Norwich anyone who doesn't like fast change. (a la Alvin Toffler Future Shock).

What if part of that change is regressive?

For example

How do feminists feel about the gains they made over decades that must surely have been set back somewhat now that there has been a massive boom in immigration to London from countries where there is little or no track record for women's lib?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Bait a bigot long enough, and he starts to snap and bite.



FWIW, I am not sure LLETSA is a bigot. He does though seem to have difficulty talking about and acknowledging how internalised prejudice can influence the thoughts/opinions of other, including John Cleese.

His claim is that Cleese is talking about immigration but not immigrants themselves, which makes his focus on the possibility of  'ethnic warfare' even more weird IMO.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It was you said this; not me:
> 
> Do you actually believe that muddleheaded tosh?


 
As I said above somewhere, the point is actually irrefutable. Have you not noticed that it says potential and not inevitability?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> What is there not to believe, Johnny? The potential is obvious.



Apparently in England. Perhaps not so much elsewhere.

Take a step back: why should the presence of people of different skin colors in the same place, bring with it an automatic potential for 'inter ethnic bloodshed'?

To repeat: that means that there is an underlying racial animosity that can never be erased. I don't believe that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> As I said above somewhere, the point is actually irrefutable. Have you not noticed that it says potential and not inevitability?



Yes, I read that part.

It makes an assumption that at some level, an animosity must always exist between people of different skin colors.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

It also ignores the fact that people with different skin colours can be the same/similar ethnically/culturally.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> FWIW, I am not sure LLETSA is a bigot. He does though seem to have difficulty talking about and acknowledging how internalised prejudice can influence the thoughts/opinions of other, including John Cleese.
> 
> His claim is that Cleese is talking about immigration but not immigrants themselves, which makes his focus on the possibility of 'ethnic warfare' even more weird IMO.


 
How can Cleese, or anybody else, talk about immigration without talking about immigrants? That isn't what anybody's said. They've said that he talks of immigration without blaming immigrants for anything. Jesus, the number of times you have to repeat things on here.

I have no difficulties in acknowledging that 'internalised prejudice can influence opinions. But it doesn't prove that Cleese blames immigrants for anything.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> His claim is that Cleese is talking about immigration but not immigrants themselves, which makes his focus on the possibility of 'ethnic warfare' even more weird IMO.



His claim is that all ethnically mixed societies contain the potential for inter-ethnic bloodshed.

Do you agree with that?


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Apparently in England. Perhaps not so much elsewhere.
> 
> Take a step back: why should the presence of people of different skin colors in the same place, bring with it an automatic potential for 'inter ethnic bloodshed'?
> 
> To repeat: that means that there is an underlying racial animosity that can never be erased. I don't believe that.



I've found that simply living next door to neighbours can lead to disagreements, so between ethnic communities, possibly eying each other from two different standpoints, (the have's and the don't-haves), the result can only be described as potentially violent.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Yes, I read that part.
> 
> It makes an assumption that at some level, an animosity must always exist between people of different skin colors.


 
Not just different skin colours, and the assumption would be correct. You can outlaw discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and the overt expression of racism etc, but if people are dertermined to be prejudiced, there's nothing you can do to make them think differently.

But it isn't just abstract prejudice that counts when the shit comes to hit the fan, especially if socities have to any significant degree racialised social and political problems.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> *How can Cleese, or anybody else, talk about immigration without talking about immigrants?* That isn't what anybody's said. They've said that he talks of immigration without blaming immigrants for anything. Jesus, the number of times you have to repeat things on here.
> 
> I have no difficulties in acknowledging that 'internalised prejudice can influence opinions. But it doesn't prove that Cleese blames immigrants for anything.



How is it possible to bemoan immigration then and not be talking about immigrants as a factor of what you don't like about the changes you see?

You can repeat yourself forever as far as I am concerned, you are missing the point, you don't seem to want to acknowledge the point. You would prefer to accuse everyone else of seeing things that are not there.

I feel like you don't want those things to be there so won't even discuss the possibility of it being true, yet at the same time keep harping on about 'ethnic warfare' as if it is completely unrelated to the kinds of gripes people like Cleese have about the changes he sees between 1950's London and now

Cleese hasn't shouted a 'warcry', his comments though do betray his annoyance, and possible prejudice.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> I've found that simply living next door to neighbours can lead to disagreements, so between ethnic communities, possibly eying each other from two different standpoints, (the have's and the don't-haves), the result can only be described as potentially violent.



So people who are different can never be fully acceptant of other people's differences?

You really should visit here. The idea of ethnic battling between the Chinese and Indian populations of Vancouver - both of which are very sizeable - is beyond laughable.

I suspect that we inhabit vastly different realities.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Not just different skin colours, and the assumption would be correct. You can outlaw discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and the overt expression of racism etc, but if people are dertermined to be prejudiced, there's nothing you can do to make them think differently..



That's very true. What you can do, is punish the shit out of them if they have the temerity to act on their racist ideas.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 4, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> I've found that simply living next door to neighbours can lead to disagreements, so between ethnic communities, possibly eying each other from two different standpoints, (the have's and the don't-haves), the result can only be described as potentially violent.



The ruling elites are experts in divide and rule, so you can expect ethnic tensions to be stoked deliberatley as the crisis deepens.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

R


> utita1 said: ↑
> His claim is that Cleese is talking about immigration but not immigrants themselves, which makes his focus on the possibility of 'ethnic warfare' even more weird IMO.​


​
His claim is that all ethnically mixed societies contain the potential for inter-ethnic bloodshed.

Do you agree with that?


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So people who are different can never be fully acceptant of other people's differences?



Why are you not seeing the word "potential"?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> The ruling elites are experts in divide and rule, so you can expect ethnic tensions to be stoked deliberatley as the crisis deepens.



Which crisis are we talking about?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> *So people who are different can never be fully acceptant of other people's differences?*
> 
> *You really should visit here.* The idea of ethnic battling between the Chinese and Indian populations of Vancouver - both of which are very sizeable - is beyond laughable.
> 
> I suspect that we inhabit vastly different realities.



He doesn't have to visit Canada to witness that. It's going on here too!


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Which crisis are we talking about?



Somebody tell him.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> Why are you not seeing the word "potential"?



I do. It means 'possibility that it might happen'.

Not that it will, but that it might.

It presupposes that people who are different, will always, at some level, harbor some feelings of animoisty towards each other.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So people who are different can never be fully acceptant of other people's differences?
> 
> You really should visit here. The idea of ethnic battling between the Chinese and Indian populations of Vancouver - both of which are very sizeable - is beyond laughable.
> 
> I suspect that we inhabit vastly different realities.



But it might not be laughable if Canadian society is brought to the brink of collapse, as it will be some day. All societies collapse at some point. You'd better hope that it will be a relatively smooth collapse and that your apparent belief in the basic goodness of people holds firm.

The point is that many people can be accepting of differences but not all, and in the right circumstances fear and desperation can transform attitudes. Look at Yugoslavia: the mixed marriages, the mixed communities etc etc. Even when war was only week's away, in the case of Bosnia especially, most people didn't believe that what they eventually saw unfold around them could actually happen. People used to actually laugh at the notion of inter-ethnic bloodshed.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It presupposes that people who are different, will always, at some level, harbor some feelings of animoisty towards each other.



Do you doubt that?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> But it might not be laughable if Canadian society is brought to the brink of collapse, as it will be some day..



If Canada were brought into some extreme eventuality, where there wasn't enough food or water to go around, for instance, we might well come to a place where people fought each other in the streets.

Where we disagree, is that you seem to think that no matter what, no matter when in future it happens, people will line up on the basis of ethnicity at that time.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> How is it possible to bemoan immigration then and not be talking about immigrants as a factor of what you don't like about the changes you see?
> 
> You can repeat yourself forever as far as I am concerned, you are missing the point, you don't seem to want to acknowledge the point. You would prefer to accuse everyone else of seeing things that are not there.
> 
> ...



Cleese has managed to bemoan immigration without blaming immigrtants for anything, as keeps having to be pointed out for you.

This is what I mean by hysteria. Cleese's war cry indeed. It's as if you think his goose stepping in Fawlty Towers was for real. As I said earlier, get a grip


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If Canada were brought into some extreme eventuality, where there wasn't enough food or water to go around, for instance, we might well come to a place where people fought each other in the streets.
> 
> Where we disagree, is that you seem to think that no matter what, no matter when in future it happens, people will line up on the basis of ethnicity at that time.


 
No I don't, as I've already said.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> Do you doubt that?


 
Yes. I am ethnically different from you. It's possible that I might not like you should I have you as a neighbor, but I can guarantee that the color of your skin will not be one of the factors in the decision.

Will it be for you?


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Yes. I am ethnically different from you. It's possible that I might not like you should I have you as a neighbor, but I can guarantee that the color of your skin will not be one of the factors in the decision.
> 
> Will it be for you?



No, but it's not me we're talking about.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So people who are different can never be fully acceptant of other people's differences?
> 
> You really should visit here. The idea of ethnic battling between the Chinese and Indian populations of Vancouver - both of which are very sizeable - is beyond laughable.
> 
> I suspect that we inhabit vastly different realities.


 
In Mallorca, Spain last week it kicked off between Nigerians and Gypsies. A few days later it kicked off in Lerida, (Mainland Spain) between Nigerians and Moroccans. Ethnic tensions can arise at any time, but more so in times of "economic" crisis when people begin to feel desperate.

Take note, and I'm not saying this is bad thing, during the riots in London the people's patrols that came out to defend their neighbourhoods from looting were clearly differentiated along ethnic lines. In Southall there was the Seikhs, The Poles in Ealing, Kurds in North London and Somalies in Whitechapel. What was missing, unfortunately, was mixed patrols.

People turned to what they percieve as their own. The potential for the ruling elite/racist groups to exploit that negatively is clear.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> No, but it's not me we're talking about.



We're talking  about people.

If you can be color blind when deciding on your feelings about another person, and I can and others can too, why is it not possible on a much wider basis?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> In Mallorca, Spain last week it kicked off between Nigerians and Gypsies. A few days later it kicked off in Lerida, (Mainland Spain) between Nigerians and Moroccans. Ethnic tensions can arise at any time, but more so in times of "economic" crisis when people begin to feel desperate.



No question that it does in fact happen. Where we disagree, is with your comment that such behavior remains a constant possibility between people of different ethnic backgrounds.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If you can be color blind when deciding on your feelings about another person, and I can and others can too, why is it not possible on a much wider basis?



Johnny, some can.

I believe I'm one of them.

Experience tells me that it doesn't happen like that all the time.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Cleese has managed to bemoan immigration without blaming immigrtants for anything, as keeps having to be pointed out for you.



...and as has been repeatedly pointed out to you and as you have said yourself;


> How can Cleese, or anybody else, talk about immigration without talking about immigrants?


...just because he didn't say 'bloody immigrants' or some such does not mean the _possibility_ that prejudice (internalised or not) is not driving his comments.

As you keep banging on about....'ethnic warfare' MIGHT happen!



> This is what I mean by hysteria. Cleese's war cry indeed. It's as if you think his goose stepping in Fawlty Towers was for real. As I said earlier, get a grip



There is no hysteria here. To characterise this discussion as hysterical is dishonest of you.

Nor did I say Cleese shouted a warcry...in fact I said the opposite:



> Cleese hasn't shouted a 'warcry', his comments though do betray his annoyance, and _possible_ prejudice.



...so don't misrepresent my posts/opinions and get a poxy grip yourself.

You have spent almost the whole day trying to convince others that there is no possibility Cleese could be prejudiced, now unless you are him you can't know that for sure, so how about you stop trying to smother any discussion of what his comments might mean, or attacking people because they read them differently to you.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> No question that it does in fact happen. Where we disagree, is with your comment that such behavior remains a constant possibility between people of different ethnic backgrounds.



It wasn't my comment but I agree with Lletsa on that point. Divide and Rule has been used again and again throughout history as a tactic.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Take note, and I'm not saying this is bad thing, during the riots in London the people's patrols that came out to defend their neighbourhoods from looting were clearly differentiated along ethnic lines. In Southall there was the Seikhs, The Poles in Ealing, Kurds in North London and Somalies in Whitechapel. What was missing, unfortunately, was mixed patrols.
> 
> People turned to what they percieve as their own. The potential for the ruling elite/racist groups to exploit that negatively is clear.


]

We had a riot a couple of months ago. There were people who placed themselves between shops, and the idiots and vandals intent on destroying them. The people intervening to keep order, were of mixed ethnic backgrounds. Whites stood beside sikhs.

We really do live in different places.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> In Mallorca, Spain last week it kicked off between Nigerians and Gypsies. A few days later it kicked off in Lerida, (Mainland Spain) between Nigerians and Moroccans. Ethnic tensions can arise at any time, but more so in times of "economic" crisis when people begin to feel desperate.
> 
> Take note, and I'm not saying this is bad thing, during the riots in London the people's patrols that came out to defend their neighbourhoods from looting were clearly differentiated along ethnic lines. In Southall there was the Seikhs, The Poles in Ealing, Kurds in North London and Somalies in Whitechapel. What was missing, unfortunately, was mixed patrols.
> 
> People turned to what they percieve as their own. The potential for the ruling elite/racist groups to exploit that negatively is clear.


 
This is why I've been using the examples of Oldham and Burnley etc. As i said, it isn't as if we haven't seen glimpses of what inter-ethnic violence looks like.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

Perhaps you should be looking at the factors of why, when it does occur, inter-ethnic tensions occur, instead of just banging on about the potential for it happening?

I'll start you off...IME it isn't just because people are 'different'..


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> ...just because he didn't say 'bloody immigrants' or some such does not mean the _possibility_ that prejudice (internalised or not) is not driving his comments.



I understand where you are coming from but I don't think Cleese has a problem with immigrants per se.

He did say;


> “I love having different cultures around but when the parent culture kind of dissipates you’re left thinking ‘well, what’s going on?’


I think the key to understanding him is the way he uses the word "dissipation".


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> Johnny, some can.
> 
> I believe I'm one of them.
> 
> Experience tells me that it doesn't happen like that all the time.



I don't believe there's anything overly special about you or about me. I believe with proper education and the right societal values being promoted, it's attainable by many people.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> I understand where you are coming from but I don't think Cleese has a problem with immigrants per se.
> 
> He did say;
> 
> I think the key to understanding him is the way he uses the word "dissipation".



For me it's about focus. I quoted him earlier on saying' when the parent culture dissipates'...what does her mean by that? If he doesn't mind immigrants/immigration/change why is he so moved to comment? Cleese is bemoaning something. I'd have more respect for him if he could say 'I feel insecure, because I don't understand or feel confident' for example.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> For me it's about focus. I quoted him earlier on saying' when the parent culture dissipates'...what does her mean by that? If he doesn't mind immigrants/immigration/change why is he so moved to comment?



Because he is in shock at the speed of change.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Because he is in shock at the speed of change.



I am nearly 40. The changes haven't been that quick at all IMO. Perhaps had Cleese spent more of the last 50 years living in London and interacting with Londoners he wouldn't be moaning at all?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> Because he is in shock at the speed of change.



Poor old guy.

Where is the England of 1953. And why did all this change have to take place in 58 years?

It would have been so much nicer if it had taken 253.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> ...and as has been repeatedly pointed out to you and as you have said yourself;
> ...just because he didn't say 'bloody immigrants' or some such does not mean the _possibility_ that prejudice (internalised or not) is not driving his comments.
> 
> As you keep banging on about....'ethnic warfare' MIGHT happen!
> ...


 
So maybe Cleese has some 'internalised prejudice.'

It isn't the discussion that's hysterical, it's some of you lot. You may have said it wasn't a war cry from Cleese, but you talk as if it's going to cause a race war right now.

I haven't spent the whole day on anything. Twenty-odd posts of a few lines each on here doesn't take all day. And I haven't said Cleese couldn't be prejudiced. For the nth time: Cleese hasn't blamed immigrants for anything in anything he's said in the statement under discussion. He might be prejudiced or he might not. It doesn't even matter.

Stop attacking people for having a different viewpoint? Bit rich coming from the one who accuses anti-racists of racism just because they don't have a simpleton's viewpoint.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> ]
> 
> We had a riot a couple of months ago. There were people who placed themselves between shops, and the idiots and vandals intent on destroying them. The people intervening to keep order, were of mixed ethnic backgrounds. Whites stood beside sikhs.
> 
> We really do live in different places.


 
They're not proper riots in Canada though.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It isn't the discussion that's hysterical, it's some of you lot. .



But you see, it's us black types who have a vested interest in this. And we're used to white people like yourself accusing us of hysteria when we speak up.

We should really try to tone ourselves down [no pun intended] so that the sensibilities of calm and logical white people such as yourself, aren't disturbed.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Perhaps you should be looking at the factors of why, when it does occur, inter-ethnic tensions occur, instead of just banging on about the potential for it happening?
> 
> I'll start you off...IME it isn't just because people are 'different'..


 
What are you on about? Who has said anything is merely because 'people are different'?

I'm one of a small minority here who have actually touched on why inter-ethnic tensions occur. You're not.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> They're not proper riots in Canada though.



I'd agree that a riot such as you've gone through is not possible in Canada as it's presently constituted.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> So maybe Cleese has some 'internalised prejudice.'


 I call this progress!



> It isn't the discussion that's hysterical, it's some of you lot. You may have said it wasn't a war cry from Cleese, but you talk as if it's going to cause a race war right now.


 DO NOT MISREPRESENT my opinions/posts, I will not ask you again. In fact, you are the one who has been banging on about 'ethic warfare', not me!
I haven't spent the whole day on anything. Twenty-odd posts of a few lines each on here doesn't take all day. And I haven't said Cleese couldn't be prejudiced. For the nth time: Cleese hasn't blamed immigrants for anything in anything he's said in the statement under discussion. He might be prejudiced or he might not. It doesn't even matter.



> Stop attacking people for having a different viewpoint? Bit rich coming from the one who accuses anti-racists of racism just because they don't have a simpleton's viewpoint.



One? You are talking about me. Please quote me on this thread calling Cleese a racist or fuck off. Simpleton? Nah that would be you, that is clear given your need to default to insults and horribly misrepresenting my posts/opinions here because you have run out of arguments/points to make.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I'm one of a small minority here who have actually touched on why inter-ethnic tensions occur. You're not.



Remind us again of the reasons.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'd agree that a riot such as you've gone through is not possible in Canada as it's presently constituted.



huh????


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> huh????



Three or four days of rioting where the mob essentially does whatever it wants?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But you see, it's us black types who have a vested interest in this. And we're used to white people like yourself accusing us of hysteria when we speak up.
> 
> We should really try to tone ourselves down [no pun intended] so that the sensibilities of calm and logical white people such as yourself, aren't disturbed.



I don't know if you're black or not. And I haven't accused anybodyof hysteria because they're black. You're actually proving my point here.

For what it's worth, I have several family members who are of Afro-Caribbean background. I think I should be awarded some anti-racism points for this fact alone.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> One? You are talking about me. Please quote me on this thread calling Cleese a racist or fuck off. Simpleton? Nah that would be you, that is clear given your need to default to insults and horribly misrepresenting my posts/opinions here because you have run out of arguments/points to make.



Be careful: Lletsa doesn't like talking with black people once they get too excited.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What are you on about? Who has said anything is merely because 'people are different'?
> 
> I'm one of a small minority here who have actually touched on why inter-ethnic tensions occur. You're not.



Again, you keep banging on about the possibility of 'ethnic warfare', nobody (including me) has denied that this can happen. I have invited you to talk about _why_ such things occur instead of going on about it in a way that suggests it meerly occurs because people are different.

I'll let you know now that you have all night to respond...I'm off to bed.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> i don't know if you're black or not. And I haven't accused anybodyof hysteria because they're black. You're actually proving my point..



Which point have I proven for you?


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Three or four days of rioting where the mob essentially does whatever it wants?



It was the word "constituted" that confused me.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Be careful: Lletsa doesn't like talking with black people once they get too excited.


 
You're a fucking crank.

A crank who, when all else is lost, pulls out the race card.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Which point have I proven for you?


 
 That you're fucking hysterical.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> It was the word "constituted" that confused me.



I mean, it might have been possible 50 years ago, although I doubt it for other reasons.

And it might be possible 50 years from now, depending on how things go.

But not in Canada as it's presently constituted.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I don't know if you're black or not. And I haven't accused anybody of hysteria because they're black. You're actually proving my point here.
> 
> For what it's worth, I have several family members who are of Afro-Caribbean background. I think I should be awarded some anti-racism points for this fact alone.



But were you ever proud to shake their hands.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You're a fucking crank.
> 
> A crank who, when all else is lost, pulls out the race card.


 
On a thread about race??!!



If I say that I can smell a bigot, and that you smell like one to me, will you be offended?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I call this progress!
> 
> DO NOT MISREPRESENT my opinions/posts, I will not ask you again. In fact, you are the one who has been banging on about 'ethic warfare', not me!
> I haven't spent the whole day on anything. Twenty-odd posts of a few lines each on here doesn't take all day. And I haven't said Cleese couldn't be prejudiced. For the nth time: Cleese hasn't blamed immigrants for anything in anything he's said in the statement under discussion. He might be prejudiced or he might not. It doesn't even matter.
> ...



It isn't progress, as, like most people, I would imagine, I don't care if Cleese has some 'internalised prejudice.' Life's too short.

There's nothing at all wrong about discussing the possibilities of inter-ethnic warfare. Anybody would think it has either never happened, or else that I'm actually calling for it. As I keep saying, get a grip.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 4, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> But were you ever proud to shake their hands.



That's a pretty out of order statement. Hysterical even...


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> On a thread about race??!!
> 
> 
> 
> If I say that I can smell a bigot, and that you smell like one to me, will you be offended?


 
So when all else is lost, you suddenly reveal you're black and start talking as if all along you've been picked on for being black. Fuck off.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> That you're fucking hysterical.



You're not, though. I never find bigots to be hysterical.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> So when all else is lost, you suddenly reveal you're black and start talking as if all along you've been picked on for being black. Fuck off.



My ethnicity shouldn't come as a big surprise to anyone who's been here any amount of time.

I'm pointing out that members of minority groups might not share your calm equanimity on this topic.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> On a thread about race??!!
> 
> 
> 
> If I say that I can smell a bigot, and that you smell like one to me, will you be offended?


 
If you call me a bigot I'll just laugh, and so would anybody who knows me. And so would, probably, anybody who knows my posting record on here and on the old Red Action messageboard-where you could actually find some genuine bigots.

In fact, you can call me whatever you like. It's like being slagged off by the nutter on the bus.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It isn't progress, as, like most people, I would imagine, I don't care if Cleese has some 'internalised prejudice. Life's too short.


 IMO it is progess in the context of this thread, it has taken you quite a few pages to actually acknowledge it.

I agree life is too short, which is why I find it's better to consider all possibilities. 



> There's nothing at all wrong about discussing the possibilities of inter-ethnic warfare. Anybody would think it has either never happened, or else that I'm actually calling for it. As I keep saying, get a grip.



Again, I have asked you to show some awareness about why 'inter ethnic' conflict occurs aside from people simply being 'different', seeing as though you have repeatedly banged on about it on this thread in a way that suggests you feel it is relevant to the article about Cleese and/or the UK today. I have not accused you or anyone else of calling for it. When are you going to stop misrepresenting my posts?

You brought up Oldham for example, what are the particulars to what happened there IYO?

Night.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 4, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> If you call me a bigot I'll just laugh,.



Well then go ahead: start laughing.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 4, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> My ethnicity shouldn't come as a big surprise to anyone who's been here any amount of time.
> 
> I'm pointing out that members of minority groups might not share your calm equanimity on this topic.


 
Contrary to what you might imagine, most people on here probably don't hang on everything you happen to post. I'm vaguely aware of you posting in World Politics, usually to make some bland or irrelevant comment, or express a profound misunderstanding of a subject, but as for your skin colour, I have no idea. So stop trying to use it as a weapon.

Calm equanimity about what exactly? Do you think members of 'minority groups' all think alike then? That there are none who'd actually welcome the idea of ethnic conflict?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> IMO it is progess in the context of this thread, it has taken you quite a few pages to actually acknowledge it.
> 
> I agree life is too short, which is why I find it's better to consider all possibilities.
> 
> ...


 
To be brief, in Oldham you have a town that's never really recovered from the demise of its main industry, which came soon after the importation of a significant number of immigrant workers. This has, over the years, resulted in widespread relative impoverishment of both a large part of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi population and a large part of the white working class. In the 1990s, an element of the former's younger generation began to regard random attacks on young white males as legitimate payback for the 'Paki bashing' their elders endured. It provoked a white reaction which the far right exploited. They were able to use the fact that official multiculturalism had fostered a widespread rivalry over local resources between the working classes of different ethnic backgrounds. It kicked off. In the quote from Dmitry Orlov, it is explicitly pointed out that it usually takes the intervention of politicians with an interest in causing ethnic conflict to start the ball rolling. This has proved true the world over.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 5, 2011)

To back up JC's point. I learned what "having a chip on your shoulder" means from observing a black lad in the year below me at school. So far as I can see he was routinely described as "having a chip on his shoulder" basically because he would sometimes object to particularly ignorant racist remarks. That was in the late 60s. Things have changed a little since then, but not nearly enough. The simple fact is that as a white man there is a limit to what I can ever know about racism and sexism. Empathy, experience and extrapolation can take you so far... and no further.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> To back up JC's point. I learned what "having a chip on your shoulder" means from observing a black lad in the year below me at school. So far as I can see he was routinely described as "having a chip on his shoulder" basically because he would sometimes object to particularly ignorant racist remarks. That was in the late 60s. Things have changed a little since then, but not nearly enough. The simple fact is that as a white man there is a limit to what I can ever know about racism and sexism. Empathy, experience and extrapolation can take you so far... and no further.


 
JC as in Johnny Canuck? If so, JC hasn't made any point. What he's done, if you read the thread, is chosen to regard a certain opinion as 'bigoted,' and then, after getting nowhere in the argument, suddenly revealed himself to be black and implied that he's been picked on all along for it.

Nobody has made anything remotely like a racist remark.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 5, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Again, I have asked you to show some awareness about why 'inter ethnic' conflict occurs aside from people simply being 'different', seeing as though you have repeatedly banged on about it on this thread in a way that suggests you feel it is relevant to the article about Cleese and/or the UK today. I have not accused you or anyone else of calling for it. When are you going to stop misrepresenting my posts?
> 
> You brought up Oldham for example, what are the particulars to what happened there IYO?
> 
> Night.



This is a really important point. It's a step missed out of the argument far too often. To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is because it is routinely missed out. My closest guess is that it's an assumption that a majority of people are by nature vehemently racist to the point of being liable to react violently to the presence of people of a different race, and that the person making the argument considers that to be something that can never be changed or that shouldn't be changed. If that isn't the missing step then I would love to know what is.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> This is a really important point. It's a step missed out of the argument far too often. To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is because it is routinely missed out. My closest guess is that it's an assumption that a majority of people are by nature vehemently racist to the point of being liable to react violently to the presence of people of a different race, and that the person making the argument considers that to be something that can never be changed or that shouldn't be changed. If that isn't the missing step then I would love to know what is.


 
As examples around the world show us, not least that of Yugoslavia, it doesn't matter when it comes to the crunch how many people have 'been changed' in the course of relatively peaceful times. If the ingredients are right, and those who want to stir up ethnic tensions powerful enough, enough people forget their former lack of prejudice and fall into line.

It isn't inevitable but it's always possible.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> As examples around the world show us, not least that of Yugoslavia, it doesn't matter when it comes to the crunch how many people have 'been changed' in the course of relatively peaceful times. If the ingredients are right, and those who want to stir up ethnic tensions powerful enough, enough people forget their former lack of prejudice and fall into line.
> 
> It isn't inevitable but it's always possible.



Totally inappropos example. The ethnic tensions etc had existed there for centuries, and had been temporarily kept in check by the Soviet era.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Totally inappropos example. The ethnic tensions etc had existed there for centuries, and had been temporarily kept in check by the Soviet era.


 
Yugoslavia left the Soviet bloc in about 1948.

Myths abound about the effect of Communist rule on pre-existing ethnic tensions there. Inter-marriage was widespread before the Communists came to power, and in any case they were powerless to compel people of different ethnic backgrounds to marry. So too with ethnically mixed communities. They mainly sprang up naturally, with many preceding Communist rule. It is a complete myth that everybody hated each other and only Communist rule kept it in check.

What's crucial about Yugoslavia is the speed with which events unfolded. As I said above, people were laughing at the idea of ethnic violence even when it was only weeks away. The intervention of politicians with an interest in ethnic bloodshed was all it took to wipe away decades of mutual tolerance and destroy one of the most socially peaceful societies in the world.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Yugoslavia left the Soviet bloc in about 1948..



I said the soviet era. During that era, Tito kept a fractious Balkans artificially united.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What's crucial about Yugoslavia is the speed with which events unfolded. As I said above, people were laughing at the idea of ethnic violence even when it was only weeks away. The intervention of politicians with an interest in ethnic bloodshed was all it took to wipe away decades of mutual tolerance and destroy one of the most socially peaceful societies in the world.



Do you know much about the history of the Balkans?


----------



## little_legs (Sep 5, 2011)

Anudder Oik said:


> London's no longer an English city



Thank God for that.



LLETSA said:


> All societies collapse at some point.



If this is an axiom, then they would collapse regardless of being made of a single ethnic group or multiple ethnic groups. So why worry about it.

Are you suggesting that the collapse is accelerated by the presence of different ethnic groups?


----------



## flutterbye (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I said the soviet era. During that era, Tito kept a fractious Balkans artificially united.



There was nothing artificial about Yugoslavia, it was a successful, prosperous, healthy economy.
It united different sects, religions and ethnicities and was a success, its failure was driven mainly through seeking loans from the IMF in order to increase production. When it struggled to pay back those loans, the IMF refused any more, and imposed measures to accelerate the social, political and economic changes necessary to turn it into a free market economy. They took over the central bank and ran Yugoslavia into the ground. This was a deliberate policy.
The US under George Bush senior deliberately sought to bankrupt it and once bankrupt to support only independence minded nationalist entities. Hence the rise of the ultra-nationalists.

Serbians was left demonized and impoverished even though the regime there was not really any worse than the croats under tudjman or the bosnians under the kla - the kla who have been declared an illegal terrorist organisation, another terrorist organisation whose rise to prominence came after US support and funding.

The idea that Yugoslavia was always going to fall apart wasnt necessarily the case, the CIA/The UN/Nato/The US/The EU actively sought the destruction of yugoslavia in order to further the interests of the capitalist elites.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

flutterbye said:


> There was nothing artificial about Yugoslavia, it was a successful, prosperous, healthy economy.
> It united different sects, religions and ethnicities and was a success, its failure was driven mainly through seeking loans from the IMF in order to increase production. When it struggled to pay back those loans, the IMF refused any more, and imposed measures to accelerate the social, political and economic changes necessary to turn it into a free market economy. They took over the central bank and ran Yugoslavia into the ground. This was a deliberate policy.
> The US under George Bush senior deliberately sought to bankrupt it and once bankrupt to support only independence minded nationalist entities. Hence the rise of the ultra-nationalists.
> 
> ...



My point was that ethnic difficulties existed prior to the creation of Yugoslavia; and when it ended for whatever reason, those difficulties reemerged.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> suddenly revealed himself to be black



Who knew?


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 5, 2011)

Idaho said:


> Let the 30 page U75 knicker-twist begin.



Only 5 to go. Can someone point me to the best bits


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 5, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> To back up JC's point. I learned what "having a chip on your shoulder" means from observing a black lad in the year below me at school. So far as I can see he was routinely described as "having a chip on his shoulder" basically because he would sometimes object to particularly ignorant racist remarks. That was in the late 60s. Things have changed a little since then, but not nearly enough. The simple fact is that as a white man there is a limit to what I can ever know about racism and sexism. Empathy, experience and extrapolation can take you so far... and no further.


This extends to the view of lower order (social) types as seen from many ex-public school perspectives - inc. many in the political class; anyone not entirely content with the status quo is dismissed as 'chippy'.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I said the soviet era. During that era, Tito kept a fractious Balkans artificially united.



This is what I mean about your showing an unfailing ability over in World Politics to misunderstand a subject. After 1948, Yugoslavia was little affected by 'the Soviet era.' The country followed its own path, as a leading light in the non-aligned movement and in its friendly relations with both (eventually) the Soviet bloc and the West.

Tito had control over Yugoslavia, which was no more 'artificial' than a whole host of states across the world. He did not have any control over the rest of the Balkans. The rest of the Balkans didn't dissolve into bloodshed, because the set of circumstances that brought Yugoslavia down were not present.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Do you know much about the history of the Balkans?


 
I'm no expert, and, quite clearly, neither are you.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

little_legs said:


> Thank God for that.
> 
> If this is an axiom, then they would collapse regardless of being made of a single ethnic group or multiple ethnic groups. So why worry about it.
> 
> Are you suggesting that the collapse is accelerated by the presence of different ethnic groups?



I have given no indication that I believe an ethnic mix makes collapse more likely. Stop trying to see things which are not there

For the nth time: the presence of an ethnic mix makes possible inter-ethnic bloodshed under the right circumstances. Without an ethnic mix,inter- ethnic bloodshed is impossible. I am not worrying about it, just stating a fact.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> My point was that ethnic difficulties existed prior to the creation of Yugoslavia; and when it ended for whatever reason, those difficulties reemerged.



And it was the ethnic mix which made these, ahem, 'difficulties' possible.*

*Note to idiots: this doesn't mean that I don't believe people of different ethnic backgrounds should mix.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> For the nth time: the presence of an ethnic mix makes possible inter-ethnic bloodshed *under the right circumstances.*





> As a certain learned Russian-American I quoted says, *all ethnically mixed societies contain the potential for inter-ethnic bloodshed*.


Portable goalposts are portable.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> This is what I mean about your showing an unfailing ability over in World Politics to misunderstand a subject. .



You're familiar enough with me to think you understand the nuances of my debating style on World Politics.... but you've missed the threads where I've discussed my ethnic heritage?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Tito had control over Yugoslavia, which was no more 'artificial' than a whole host of states across the world. He did not have any control over the rest of the Balkans. The rest of the Balkans didn't dissolve into bloodshed, because the set of circumstances that brought Yugoslavia down were not present.



By 'the rest of the Balkans' do you mean Greece, Albania, Romania and Bulgaria?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Portable goalposts are portable.


 
Those are not contradictory statements. All ethnically mixed societies do-obviously-contain the potential for inter-ethnic bloodshed. This does not come about automatically, but takes some kind of crisis which can be exploited by those with an interest in creating ethnic bloodshed. Hope this helps your understanding of this simple point.

And only idiots put a fucking smiley with nearly everything they post.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> By 'the rest of the Balkans' do you mean Greece, Albania, Romania and Bulgaria?


 
I thought you'd know, after hinting at your superior knowledge of the subject, what is meant by the rest of the Balkans.

I mean the bits that Tito had no control over.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Those are not contradictory statements.



In today's post, you've qualified yesterday's broader statement.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I thought you'd know, after hinting at your superior knowledge of the subject, what is meant by the rest of the Balkans.
> 
> I mean the bits that Tito had no control over.



Romania and Bulgaria were part of.........the Soviet Bloc?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You're familiar enough with me to think you understand the nuances of my debating style on World Politics.... but you've missed the threads where I've discussed my ethnic heritage?


 
Yes, yes, it's quite possible, especially seeing as I've only noticed you in passing. As on here, I only skim through about 95% of threads over there.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> In today's post, you've qualified yesterday's broader statement.


 
Sigh. What I've just said above is contained in the Dmitry Orlov quote that seems to disturb you so much. If you'd bothered reading it in the first place, you could have saved yourself a bit of work.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Romania and Bulgaria were part of.........the Soviet Bloc?


 
And?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Yes, yes, it's quite possible, especially seeing as I've only noticed you in passing. As on here, I only skim through about 95% of threads over there.



What does it mean to notice someone 'in passing'?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> And?



And we're thinking of reasons why ethnic rivalries might have been cooled from 1945 - 1990?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What does it mean to notice someone 'in passing'?


 
That I've seen your name next to posts you've made and sometimes read them but usually don't bother.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Sigh. What I've just said above is contained in the Dmitry Orlov quote that seems to disturb you so much. If you'd bothered reading it in the first place, you could have saved yourself a bit of work.



 I read what you posted. If you've omitted important parts, it's not my fault.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> That I've seen your name next to posts you've made and sometimes read them but usually don't bother.



But you're aware that I'm usually misguided in World Politics. How would you know that if you haven't read a fair number of my posts?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> And we're thinking of reasons why ethnic rivalries might have been cooled from 1945 - 1990?



There may be some truth in that, but the history of that region is more complicated than constant ethnic conflict with a break for the Soviet period before emerging again. You might have noticed that Bulgaria and Rumania did not disslove into inter-ethnic violence after the end of Communist rule.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> There may be some truth in that, but the history of that region is more complicated than constant ethnic conflict with a break for the Soviet period before emerging again. .



No one said that. Straw men are easy to knock down.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But you're aware that I'm usually misguided in World Politics. How would you know that if you haven't read a fair number of my posts?


 
I have read a fair number, but you're hardly off there.

Anyway, when did all this become about you?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> . You might have noticed that Bulgaria and Rumainia did not disslove into inter-ethnic violence after the end of Communist rule.


 
How's it going for the gypsies in those countries?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I have read a fair number, but you're hardly off there.
> 
> Anyway, when did all this become about you?



When you steered the thread that way.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> No one said that. Straw men are easy to knock down.


 
Whatever you've been saying, it's looked pretty close to that to me.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> When you steered the thread that way.


 
What-I asked you to sneakily play the race card by revealing your skin colour as if it's some kind of virtue?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> How's it going for the gypsies in those countries?


 
Have I said it doesn't exist at all? Bit of a difference between discrimination for the Gypsies and all-out civil war, isn't there?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Whatever you've been saying, it's looked pretty close to that to me.



That would be an error on your part then.

I said there is a history of ethnic conflict in that area that dates back hundreds of years in some cases. It was supressed for a time following WW2, but has reemerged from around the time that the Soviet Bloc collapsed.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> That would be an error on your part then.


 
Whatever. As they say these days.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What-I asked you to sneakily play the race card by revealing your skin colour as if it's some kind of virtue?



I was replying to your comment that I was becoming excited. I replied that given that I'm one of your minorities, I have a vested interest in matters involving the tolerance of the traditional majority.

Your response, typically, was to say that I was playing 'the race card'.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> *Note to idiots: this doesn't mean that I don't believe people of different ethnic backgrounds should mix.



Be a bit of a bugger for you at family gatherings if you did believe this kinda shite would it not?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Be a bit of a bugger for you at family gatherings if you did believe this kinda shite would it not?


 
Exactly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2011)

What on earth are you going on about now, LLETSA? Are you trying to make some kind of spurious comparison between the _Balkans_ and the UK?

You think the wars in Yugoslavia were the result of the attempt to create a Yugoslavia? Or were they the result of the deliberate manipulation of centuries upon centuries upon centuries of problems, problems for which in many ways, Yugoslavia provided a temporary sticking plaster?

Your reading of history and where it is and isn't valid to make comparisons is very poor.

You also seem to misunderstand historic processes. I compared you to Powell earlier and it wasn't an idle comparison. Powell warned of the dangers of race war over 40 years ago. It didn't happen. But are we closer to it happening now than we were then? No, if anything we are much further away from it happening now than we were then.

We cannot know the future, beyond knowing things like the Sun is going to explode in 5 billion years' time. All we can do is look at the evidence of today and the past and say what we think might be on the horizon. You seem to want to comment on what lies beyond the horizon by talking of historical inevitabilities such as 'every civilisation comes to an end'. Well yes, evidently, by definition, every civlilisation not currently in existence has come to an end. But the Roman empire lasted hundreds of years. The Egyptian dynasties lasted thousands of years. What exactly are you trying to say?

I'm sorry to say that you are prone to this kind of banality dressed up as wisdom. I can't quite work out whether or not you yourself realise just quite how banal your statements are.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I was replying to your comment that I was becoming excited. I replied that given that I'm one of your minorities, I have a vested interest in matters involving the tolerance of the traditional majority.
> 
> Your response, typically, was to say that I was playing 'the race card'.


 
When did they become my minorities?

What happened, as a read through the last few thread pages shows, is that you suddenly wielded the race card as if being black gives you some kind of special privilege in the matter being discussed.

Everybody has 'a vested interest' in preventing a society dissolving into inter-ethnic violence. As Dmitry Orlov says, which you'd know if you'd bothered to read the quote before jumping in with your misplaced outrage, when that happens 'everybody loses.'


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> you suddenly wielded the race card as if being black gives you some kind of special privilege in the matter being discussed.'



You commented that I was becoming emotional or hysterical or some such. Being a member of a minority, that might happen when discussing these things.

Yes, everyone has an interest in etc, but it's not you who the EDL wants to ship back to the mother country.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

edit

[the consequences of the Labor Day weekend: drinking rum late on Sunday night. This is your chance, lletsa. Go for the kill shot. ]


----------



## Belushi (Sep 5, 2011)

More interesting  demographic maps here http://www.guardian.co.uk/graphic/0,5812,1395103,00.html


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What on earth are you going on about now, LLETSA? Are you trying to make some kind of spurious comparison between the _Balkans_ and the UK?
> 
> You think the wars in Yugoslavia were the result of the attempt to create a Yugoslavia? Or were they the result of the deliberate manipulation of centuries upon centuries upon centuries of problems, problems for which in many ways, Yugoslavia provided a temporary sticking plaster?
> 
> ...


 
I thought you'd taken your ball in?

So here we have another one who doesn't bother reading what people have actually written. If you had, you'd see that I haven't made any comparison between Yugoslavia and the UK.

I like the way you always like to dismiss anybody with a different opinion to you as demonstrating  'a poor understanding' of this or that subject, as if you're fucking Isaiah Berlin or somebody.

How many times do I have to say that I don't think we're close to all-out racial violence? (Although you're wrong about being further away from it than forty years ago. Forty years ago we didn't have situations like Burnley and Oldham etc with white and ethnic minorities at each others throats and a large minority vote for an avowedly racist party-which goes far beyond towns like that, actually.) We didn't have anything like the overtly anti-Muslim EDL, who may be idiots but have a mass audience. And so on. Overt expressions of racism have decreased but there's no lack of racism in society. If anything, serious racists have become more articulate and persuasive.

What has how far we may be from societal collapse (about which nobody can do more than speculate) got to do with the fact that an ethnic mix makes possible a degeneration of a society into inter-ethnic violence?

I really don't mind being called banal by somebody who does nothing but utter liberal platitudes.


----------



## treelover (Sep 5, 2011)

'Corax said
Although I'm sure I have one, I've never considered myself to have a 'national identity', and it's certainly not a major element in my self-image. I was born and educated in a certain country due to chance, not anything earned or decided. As such, I've never seen myself as having any more claim to that country's resources (physical, social, cultural or political) than anyone from anywhere else in the world. I don't cherish any false history of leather on willow, so however 'multi-ethic' the area I'm living becomes I can't imagine that I'd feel anything was threatened.'

Absolutely ridiculous open borders nonsense, for instance, what about the generations, our grandfathers, etc who have paid into the system for many years, even those who fought two world wars, I'm no nationalist, but views like this push people into the arms of groups like the EDL


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 5, 2011)

treelover said:


> Absolutely ridiculous open borders nonsense, for instance, what about the generations, our grandfathers, etc who have paid into the system for many years, even those who fought two world wars, I'm no nationalist, but views like this push people into the arms of groups like the EDL


what about the dead generations?


----------



## flutterbye (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> My point was that ethnic difficulties existed prior to the creation of Yugoslavia; and when it ended for whatever reason, those difficulties reemerged.



Yes you're right but it was tensions reemerging that was artificial, not the holding together of the disparate forces, but obviously issues like race, ethnicity, religion and nationality will when stoked cause people to kill others because they are told to or because of the actions of their political leaders. Id recommend weight of chains or the Michael Parenti talks on Yugoslavia if you not seen them.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 5, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> By 'the rest of the Balkans' do you mean Greece, Albania, Romania and Bulgaria?


Afai


LLETSA said:


> I thought you'd know, after hinting at your superior knowledge of the subject, what is meant by the rest of the Balkans.
> 
> I mean the bits that Tito had no control over.



Afaik though, Romania and Hungary came close to it (am i wrong here?), and Moldova suffered from a (relatively minor by balkan standards) war of its own, although that wasn't entirely due to ethnic causes tho


----------



## Nigel (Sep 5, 2011)

I'm suprised that the EDL aren't proposing the same policies on immigration as Netanyahu is proposing, as they are so close to their Zionist cousins politically speaking to keep the puppet state of *srael's appearance distinguishly Jewish from their reactionary taint.
http://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-deports-children-preserve-jewish-character-state/10337


----------



## flutterbye (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Those are not contradictory statements. All ethnically mixed societies do-obviously-contain the potential for inter-ethnic bloodshed. This does not come about automatically, but takes some kind of crisis which can be exploited by those with an interest in creating ethnic bloodshed. Hope this helps your understanding of this simple point.
> 
> And only idiots put a fucking smiley with nearly everything they post.



First paragraph is valid, your abuse isn't, its fucking pathetic, its abusive shit like this that that ruins these boards.
I'm sure there would be far more discussion on here without that shit. Its annoying to see it, just ignore it ffs


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Afai
> 
> Afaik though, Romania and Hungary came close to it (am i wrong here?), and Moldova suffered from a (relatively minor by balkan standards) war of its own, although that wasn't entirely due to ethnic causes tho


 
Did Rumania and Hungary come seriously close to civil war?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 5, 2011)

AFAIK there were serious fears that they would, at least for a couple of weeks.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

flutterbye said:


> First paragraph is valid, your abuse isn't, its fucking pathetic, its abusive shit like this that that ruins these boards.
> I'm sure there would be far more discussion on here without that shit. Its annoying to see it, just ignore it ffs


 
It's hard not to give abuse when, for instance, some idiot calls you a racist just beacuse they fail to understand the argument.

However, if it offended anybody, I'd just like to apologise to all the people out there.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> AFAIK there were serious fears that they would, at least for a couple of weeks.


 
When was this? What were the issues?


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 5, 2011)

Transylvanian Hungarians and the Roma may disagree on that point. Likewise Greek and Muslim Albanians. Czechoslovakia has split but with NO bloodshed between Czechs and Slovaks (though again the Roma may have a different experience). Basically what you are saying is that having a monoculture makes internal inter ethnic conflict impossible (which is true but pointless) and in any multicultural society there may or may not be ethnic conflict entirely according to other factors. The latter being what everyone else is saying. The difference being that the rest of us don't seem to consider the former to be relevant as we consider ethnic cleansing to be utterly wrong. Assuming that you agree with that too, then basically all you are saying that is different from anyone else is a completely irrelevant and facile point. Can we move on now?


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 5, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> AFAIK there were serious fears that they would, at least for a couple of weeks.



Dunno whether they came close to a civil war as such but groups like Vatra Romanescu, National Unity Party and the Greater Romania Party were certainly stoking up tensions in Transylvania where the majority of the ethnic Hungarian population in Romania live. Claims that Hungary were trying to 'recover' Transylvania. There were clashes and certainly deaths especially in Targu Mures.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA, you appear to be under the illusion that Rumania is a monoculture. It isn't. There are several distinct ethnic and cultural groups in Rumania. Yet it hasn't had widespread ethnic conflict.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Transylvanian Hungarians and the Roma may disagree on that point. Likewise Greek and Muslim Albanians. Czechoslovakia has split but with NO bloodshed between Czechs and Slovaks (though again the Roma may have a different experience). Basically what you are saying is that having a monoculture makes internal inter ethnic conflict impossible (which is true but pointless) and in any multicultural society there may or may not be ethnic conflict entirely according to other factors. The latter being what everyone else is saying. The difference being that the rest of us don't seem to consider the former to be relevant as we consider ethnic cleansing to be utterly wrong. Assuming that you agree with that too, then basically all you are saying that is different from anyone else is a completely irrelevant and facile point. Can we move on now?


 
You move on if the subject makes you feel uncomfortable. I maintain that having an ethnic mix in a society means that any such society contains the possibility for ethnic bloodshed. It isn't a world that I created.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 5, 2011)

It was in about 1989-1990 and, as i said, i don't know much about it (I was asking you whether you knew any more), but there was stuff like this for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_clashes_of_Târgu_Mureş

There's also this paper as well (I don't know if anyone has access to it?)

http://www.jstor.org/pss/20097779

I've also just found this, which from what I've read so far is attempting to demonstrate why ethnic clashes of this nature did not end up taking place on a wider scale (and it's not like there aren't tensions and a huge amount of suspicion between hungarians and romanians in romania ...)

http://www.berghof-conflictresearch.org/documents/publications/boc19e.pdf


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 5, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Transylvanian Hungarians and the Roma may disagree on that point. Likewise Greek and Muslim Albanians. Czechoslovakia has split but with NO bloodshed between Czechs and Slovaks (though again the Roma may have a different experience). Basically what you are saying is that having a monoculture makes internal inter ethnic conflict impossible (which is true but pointless) and in any multicultural society there may or may not be ethnic conflict entirely according to other factors. The latter being what everyone else is saying. The difference being that the rest of us don't seem to consider the former to be relevant as we consider ethnic cleansing to be utterly wrong. Assuming that you agree with that too, then basically all you are saying that is different from anyone else is a completely irrelevant and facile point. Can we move on now?



In fairness to Lletsa all he has done is point out that a society that is ethnically mixed has in certain circumstances a chance of seeing inter-ethnic conflict. He at not point articulated any desire to see this happen or see it come closer. He was simply making a point that it can and does happen as the examples on here have shown.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 5, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Dunno whether they came close to a civil war as such but groups like Vatra Romanescu, National Unity Party and the Greater Romania Party were certainly stoking up tensions in Transylvania where the majority of the ethnic Hungarian population in Romania live. Claims that Hungary were trying to 'recover' Transylvania. There were clashes and certainly deaths especially in Targu Mures.



Yep.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> LLETSA, you appear to be under the illusion that Rumania is a monoculture. It isn't. There are several distinct ethnic and cultural groups in Rumania. Yet it hasn't had widespread ethnic conflict.



The only reason I mentioned Hungary and Rumania is to counter the idea that conflict in the Balkans was inevitable once Commmunist rule collapsed. I'm well aware that Hungary and Rumania aren't 'ethnic monocultures,' and haven't claimed they contain no ethnic tensions. And I've already said that the conditions which created inter-ethnic warfare in Yugoslavia were absent in other parts of the Balkans. That was partly what the argument with JC was about.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> In fairness to Lletsa all he has done is point out that a society that is ethnically mixed has in certain circumstances a chance of seeing inter-ethnic conflict. He at not point articulated any desire to see this happen or see it come closer. He was simply making a point that it can and does happen as the examples on here have shown.


 
If people don't want to see the unplatable facts, they usually do accuse those who point them out of actually advocating them.

People are strange that way.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> If people don't want to see the unplatable facts, they usually do accuse those who point them out of actually advocating them.
> 
> People are strange that way.


Uncomfortable truths?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Uncomfortable truths?


 
Read the thread.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 5, 2011)

I haven't seen Lletsa say anything racist on this thread or give any indication that he wants this stuff to happen tbf.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I haven't seen Lletsa say anything racist on this thread or give any indication that he wants this stuff to happen tbf.


 
You've probably been on here long enough to notice that there's no accounting for idiocy.


----------



## treelover (Sep 5, 2011)

'The four-party coalition has pledged to improve *Slovakia's* ties with neighbouring Hungary. Relations between the two have eroded to the extent that some analysts feared violence could erupt. The next cabinet looks set to include Most-Hid, a party that represents many people in Slovakia's 10 per cent Hungarian minority.'

'http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...t-coalition-to-ease-tension-with-Hungary.html'



My friends tell me that there is a strong dislike of Slovakians in Hungary(and of course, Roma,even liberal types were very dismissive of them) and this is not just personal but State level.

tbh, my experience of Hungary is that it is riven with old hatreds, etc, in terms of new ones, there is little immigration, so luckily they don't have that tension...They also seemed to have appalling attitudes to disabled people, in many ways despite EU membership, some wealth, (very uneven) and trendy 'youth capital' Budapest, it is locked into 19th C ways of thinking.

and of course there is Jobbik which got 20% of the vote.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 5, 2011)

Afternoon all. 

The way I see it, LLETSA hasn't said anything racist, nor does it appear to me he is calling for 'inter ethnic' conflict.

I asked about what LLETSA's awareness is with regarding the 'causes' of such conflict because although on the one hand he is sure Cleese was not 'blaming' immigrants, he was also banging on about the possibility for 'ethnic warfare', although at first because of his choice of lanaguage it appeared he was prophesying it. All that (the difference between saying _if_ or _when_) is cleared up now I think.

With the description given with regard Oldham, there is an example of why it simply isn't the case that people will automatically conflict/fight because of their ethnic/cultural differences...it is much more complicated than that, obviously.

So back to Cleese or what he said at least. A 71 year old English man who feels out of place in London because of it's diverse make-up, it isn't the city he remembers as a child, I say again, perhaps had Cleese spent more time living in London and mixing with Londoners, he wouldn't feel as insecure or uncomfortable about it.

He doesn't understand it because he hasn't lived it perhaps?

He feels like the 'parent influence/culture has dissapated'? I disagree with him, being a born and breed Londoner, but with an awareness that the changes of the last 40 years may seem more marked to someone who is using London of the 1950's as a benchmark.

IMO London hasn't really changed that _much_ or that _quickly_, it seems to me that the way Cleese feels about London has changed, it's about where he puts his focus.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 5, 2011)

er... london has changed quite a bit over the past 20 years, let alone the past 60.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Sep 5, 2011)

Rutita1 - Apologies if this has been mentioned already (just speed-reading this thread at the moment), but you're literally right about your "he hasn't lived it" thing - he was based in Calfornia from 1990 until his relatively recent divorce from his US-based wife, so he hadn't been resident here for near on 20 years during that time...even before then, there was diversity galore in London, but the shifting influx/outgoing of peeps from all over the world has continued apace.  Regardless, Cleese really should know better, though.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It's hard not to give abuse when, for instance, some idiot calls you a racist just beacuse they fail to understand the argument.
> 
> However, if it offended anybody, I'd just like to apologise to all the people out there.


If you think this place is bad try twitter!


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> If you think this place is bad try twitter!



I wouldn't go on twitter even if somebody offered me a full-time wage to do it.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I wouldn't go on twitter even if somebody offered me a full-time wage to do it.


Well I'm not surprised, I don't really get it and since you can only say about three words at a time, talk about dumbing down.
Swarthy's on there and already been accused of racism, despite not having said one single thing about race.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 5, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Rutita1 - Apologies if this has been mentioned already (just speed-reading this thread at the moment), but you're literally right about your "he hasn't lived it" thing - he was based in Calfornia from 1990 until his relatively recent divorce from his US-based wife, so he hadn't been resident here for near on 20 years during that time...even before then, there was diversity galore in London, but the shifting influx/outgoing of peeps from all over the world has continued apace. Regardless, Cleese really should know better, though.



He's also from Somerset originally, which may explain why he prefers Bath to London, as he grew up around there.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 5, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Well I'm not surprised, I don't really get it and since you can only say about three words at a time, talk about dumbing down.
> Swarthy's on there and already been accused of racism, despite not having said one single thing about race.


I got accused of sexism for saying I fancied someone as it was "judging a woman by their looks".


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 5, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I got accused of sexism for saying I fancied someone as it was "judging a woman by their looks".


Yeah that's about right.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 5, 2011)

yeah, they called me a disgrace and told me to shut up!


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Sep 5, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> yeah, they called me a disgrace and told me to shut up!



It wasn't Laurie Penny, was it?


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 5, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> It wasn't Laurie Penny, was it?


----------



## Phil Aychio (Sep 5, 2011)

Probably my Co Durham concept of 'Englishness' is at odds with Nob Cheese's Devon concept of 'Englishness'.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 5, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Well I'm not surprised, I don't really get it and since you can only say about three words at a time, talk about dumbing down.
> Swarthy's on there and already been accused of racism, despite not having said one single thing about race.



 what is his tag name or what ever its called?


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 5, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> what is his tag name or what ever its called?


hang on, do you mean what's his name (Swarthy) or the person accusing him of stuff?


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> If people don't want to see the unplatable facts, they usually do accuse those who point them out of actually advocating them.
> 
> People are strange that way.



It's not that I find it unpalatable and thus refuse to accept it as true. I just don't see what the fucking point is of discussing it. It's like saying that having access to the Internet makes it possible for your computer to be attacked by viruses. It's true in so far as it goes, but it's not a useful contribution to any discussion, unless you are proposing a way of avoiding the situation being possible. Sometimes a multi-ethnic society explodes into ethnic conflict, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes monocultural societies have managed to have civil wars nonetheless, so an absence of an ethnic mix doesn't prevent conflict, it only means that it can't be ethnic conflict.

So basically I simply don't see what the point is of mentioning it unless you believe it to be relevant in some way. Perhaps you might care to explain why an ethnic conflict is worse than any other kind of civil war, or precisely why you believe it is more likely than any other type of conflict. Otherwise it's about as useful a statement as "in a society where everyone is working class there is no class struggle".


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 5, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I got accused of sexism for saying I fancied someone as it was "judging a woman by their looks".



You shoulda replied with 'I assume your dad fucked your mum cos he didn't find her physically attractive, lucky you eh'?!


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> It's not that I find it unpalatable and thus refuse to accept it as true. I just don't see what the fucking point is of discussing it. It's like saying that having access to the Internet makes it possible for your computer to be attacked by viruses. It's true in so far as it goes, but it's not a useful contribution to any discussion, unless you are proposing a way of avoiding the situation being possible. Sometimes a multi-ethnic society explodes into ethnic conflict, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes monocultural societies have managed to have civil wars nonetheless, so an absence of an ethnic mix doesn't prevent conflict, it only means that it can't be ethnic conflict.
> 
> So basically I simply don't see what the point is of mentioning it unless you believe it to be relevant in some way. Perhaps you might care to explain why an ethnic conflict is worse than any other kind of civil war, or precisely why you believe it is more likely than any other type of conflict. Otherwise it's about as useful a statement as "in a society where everyone is working class there is no class struggle".



If you don't see any point in discussing a subject, it's about time you stopped discussing it.

It's relevant in that the possibility exists. Nobody's said that it's worse than any other type of civil war.

The hysterics have managed to take a completely uncontroversial statement and turn it into the main feature of the thread.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 5, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> hang on, do you mean what's his name (Swarthy) or the person accusing him of stuff?



His name but the name of the fella accusing would be useful as well


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 5, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> hang on, do you mean what's his name (Swarthy) or the person accusing him of stuff?



There are tons of Swarthy on Twitter, inclusing a swarthy gadfly!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 5, 2011)

flutterbye said:


> Yes you're right but it was tensions reemerging that was artificial, not the holding together of the disparate forces, but obviously issues like race, ethnicity, religion and nationality will when stoked cause people to kill others because they are told to or because of the actions of their political leaders. Id recommend weight of chains or the Michael Parenti talks on Yugoslavia if you not seen them.



It's an interesting idea: I'll look into it.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Sep 5, 2011)

I've only just got round to reading this thread, and I can't read all 28 pages, so excuse me if I repeat someone else's view.

If John Cleese complains that London isn't an 'English' city, he is completely missing the point of London. It's supposed to be an international city. To compare it with Bath is ludicrous. Cleese isn't being racist, he's just being stupid.

And I imagine only the Express would be prepared to be sympathetic about such moronic ideas. Its the most laughable of all of Britain's national papers.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> I've only just got round to reading this thread, and I can't read all 28 pages, so excuse me if I repeat someone else's view.
> 
> If John Cleese complains that London isn't an 'English' city, he is completely missing the point of London. It's supposed to be an international city. To compare it with Bath is ludicrous. Cleese isn't being racist, he's just being stupid.
> 
> And I imagine only the Express would be prepared to be sympathetic about such moronic ideas. Its the most laughable of all of Britain's national papers.


 
What's an international city?


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What's an international city?



I'd suggest Amsterdam and New York would be examples.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> I'd suggest Amsterdam and New York would be examples.


 
What does it actually mean though?


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 5, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What does it actually mean though?



Different from the countries they were built in.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 5, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> Different from the countries they were built in.


 
Is it really the case that certain cities are radically different than the countries in which they exist as a whole, or other cities within them? As far as I can see, London, for example, if you take away the tourist sites and the city, is little different to other English cities apart from being much bigger.

And I still don't get what is meant by 'an international city.'


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Sep 6, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, to be fair it is. It's the dialect they based their own dialect on.
> 
> Hey, I'm just projecting all the anti-Russian stuff my great-gran indoctrinated me with.



Which dialect specifically?  Perhaps you need to unlearn all that anti stuff.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Is it really the case that certain cities are radically different than the countries in which they exist as a whole, or other cities within them? As far as I can see, London, for example, if you take away the tourist sites and the city, is little different to other English cities apart from being much bigger.
> 
> And I still don't get what is meant by 'an international city.'


They mean, nowhere else in England has any immigration.


----------



## Random (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Is it really the case that certain cities are radically different than the countries in which they exist as a whole, or other cities within them? As far as I can see, London, for example, if you take away the tourist sites and the city, is little different to other English cities apart from being much bigger.


 Well a quick google tells me that London's population is 58% White British, whereas England overall is 82% White British. I agree that other large English cities probably have a similar makeup as London.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Random said:


> Well a quick google tells me that London's population is 58% White British, whereas England overall is 82% White British. I agree that other large English cities probably have a similar makeup as London.


 
I don't know how similar the figures are for London and the other major cities, but there isn't a major city in the country that doesn't have substantial immigration. The term 'international city,' however, makes no sense. Surely London is a British/English city with a high level of immigration and a massive number of visitors?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2011)

you should lose the word 'magnet' from your tagline


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 6, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> There are tons of Swarthy on Twitter, inclusing a swarthy gadfly!


----------



## krink (Sep 6, 2011)

If you...


LLETSA said:


> don't know how similar the figures are for London and the other major cities



then how can you know...



LLETSA said:


> there isn't a major city in the country that doesn't have substantial immigration.


 ?

How much is substantial? 3%, 30%, 50%?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2011)

krink said:


> If you...
> 
> then how can you know...
> 
> ...


because he's a gobshite.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you should lose the word 'magnet' from your tagline


 
You should take your medication.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

krink said:


> If you...
> 
> then how can you know...
> 
> ...


 
18.9%


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> 18.9%



What is it that you're suggesting: what is it that you want when it comes to the issue?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You should take your medication.


what's this medication for?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What is it that you're suggesting: what is it that you want when it comes to the issue?



What I, or anybody else, wants doesn't come into it really. When it comes to London, or most other places, I'm indifferent to most things including levels of immigration. What happens happens. What is it you're looking for anyway? More evidence of non-existent racism?

All I'm asking really is what is meant by the vague term 'international city.'


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What I, or anybody else, wants doesn't come into it really.



Never said it was going to become a plan. Just asking, how you'd like things to be?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Never said it was going to become a plan. Just asking, how you'd like things to be?


 
With regard to what?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> With regard to what?


 
Uh..... do you remember what we're talking about in the thread?


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What I, or anybody else, wants doesn't come into it really. When it comes to London, or most other places, I'm indifferent to most things including levels of immigration. What happens happens. What is it you're looking for anyway? More evidence of non-existent racism?
> 
> All I'm asking really is what is meant by the vague term 'international city.'


It means everyone else is racist for not living there.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Uh..... do you remember what we're talking about in the thread?


 
So you do want me to say something you can seize on as racism? I've already told you that I'm indifferent to levels of immigration in London or anywhere else. If borders are opened completely or immigration strictly capped, or whatever, we are completely powerless to affect it.

What do you want, for that matter?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> It means everyone else is racist for not living there.



The smug superiority of the self-righteous London liberal (who doesn't even usually come from London anyway.)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> So you do want me to say something you can seize on as racism?



You're overthinking. You've put forward a fairly strong argument here; I was just curious.

If you say something racist, I'll certainly comment. If you don't, I won't.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I'm indifferent to levels of immigration in London or anywhere else.



So if they start letting in 1 million immigrants per year, you'd be indifferent?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So if they start letting in 1 million immigrants per year, you'd be indifferent?



I'd have an opinion, like everybody else, but there'd be nothing we could do about it.

This is a child's level of argument you're indulging in, by the way.


----------



## krink (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> 18.9%



pathetic.

I asked because I live in one of the 15 biggest cities in the UK and the population is 97.9% white. So is 2.1% significant?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

I mean the real cities, not glorified villages.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I mean the real cities, not glorified villages.


so you mean cities, as in places with cathedrals.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What I, or anybody else, wants doesn't come into it really. When it comes to London, or most other places, I'm indifferent to most things including levels of immigration. What happens happens.


 Why are you indifferent? What happens happens? Is that because you already know that London has always been on comparable levels, a city of trade/immigration and more diverse than lots of other places in England? Cleese paints a picture that London was once like Bath or comparable to it, which is rubbish and you know it.

It seems to me that London has never been the kind of English City that he likes, that doesn't mean it's not an English City, it means Cleese doesn't like/understand it. Again, it's about where his focus is and what he is measuring it by.



> What is it you're looking for anyway? More evidence of non-existent racism?



Or maybe others are just not as 'fearful' of discussing issues that may touch on issues regarding either explicit or implicit prejudice?



> All I'm asking really is what is meant by the vague term 'international city.'



It's not a vague term if you know the history of London or have any real experience of living here.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> It means everyone else is racist for not living there.



No it doesn't.


----------



## krink (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I mean the real cities, not glorified villages.


Newcastle? Are you saying it isn't a real city? My city is bigger than Newcastle. Pathetic.

I see you're going into your "what I think doesn't matter anyway" retreat now that you've ran out steam. Maybe have a lie down son.


----------



## Random (Sep 6, 2011)

Which city is it, krink? Am racking my brains to think of somewhere in England of 200,000 plus pop with only 2 per cent non-white population. Or are you in Scotland?


----------



## krink (Sep 6, 2011)

I'm from sunderland, Random, so nearly scotland!

*my figures were from the council and the university


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2011)

krink said:


> I'm from sunderland, Random.


((((krink)))) 

it could be worse, you could be a scouser


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Why are you indifferent? What happens happens? Is that because you already know that London has always been on comparable levels a city of trade/immigration and more diverse than lots of other places in England? Cleese paints a picture that London was once like Bath or comparable to it, which is rubbish and you know it.
> 
> It seems to me that London has never been the kind of English City that he likes, that doesn't mean it's not an English City, it means Cleese doesn't like/understand it. Again, it's about where his focus is and what he is measuring it by.
> 
> ...


 
I'm indifferent, as I said, because powerless to affect it.

You'll notice that I haven't defended Cleese's view, only challenged the glib assumption that he blames immigrants for anything.

Your remark about 'implicit racism' only goes to illustrate what I'm talking about regarding the search for non-existent racism.

If it isn't a vague term, why don't you define what it means? Because I don't think it means anything much.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

krink said:


> Newcastle?


 
Glorified ex-mining village.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

krink said:


> I'm from sunderland



Glorified ex-mining village.


----------



## krink (Sep 6, 2011)

so sad, at least on mwatb you used to put up a decent fight before you gave up.

*and it was shipbuilding more than anything.


----------



## krink (Sep 6, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> ((((krink))))
> 
> it could be worse, you could be a scouser



I know, it's that thought which keeps giving me reason to get up in the morning!


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 6, 2011)

There is map is this document which shows where ethnic minorities are resident. A lot of towns and cities have next to no ethnic minorities in them.
(A lot of Britain has next to no ethnic minorities:-
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/healthatwarwick/publications/occasional/ethnicprofile.pdf


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I'm indifferent, as I said, because powerless to affect it.
> 
> You'll notice that I haven't defended Cleese's view, only challenged the glib assumption that he blames immigrants for anything.
> 
> Your remark about 'implicit racism' only goes to illustrate what I'm talking about regarding the search for non-existent racism.



So today you are going to put words into my posts again?

My actual word was 'prejudice' IME there are levels of it that don't necessarily mean someone is a 'racist'. You are trying to shut down debate and ridicule others with your insistence that this discussion and the concerns people have about Cleese's comments, are some kind of search for non-existent racism.

It seems to me that you may not have had enough experience of 'prejudice', and the fact that for most, our experiences/understanding of it, teach us that there are far more implicit examples/experiences of it than explicit ones, in day to day life.

You've admited yourself on this thread that you have no way of knowing whether  Cleese's comments are borne of underlying prejudice or not.



> If it isn't a vague term, why don't you define what it means? Because I don't think it means anything much.


 Well myself and other posters have said things about London that should help you to understand. You don't think it means anything much because you don't want to.


----------



## Random (Sep 6, 2011)

krink said:


> I'm from sunderland, Random, so nearly scotland!


 Damn, and Sunderland is a port, too, which rather undermines my theory about ports usually having a different character to their hinterland. Sunderland is obviously the exception that proves the rule. Did you get a mass influx of Norse or Belgians a few hundred years ago and have needed no more immigrants since? Or is your hinterland depopulating, youngsters coming to the city and filling up all the low-wage immigrant jobs?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I'm indifferent, as I said, *because powerless to affect it*.
> 
> .



Which to me begs the question; Why would anyone want to change it?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

krink said:


> so sad, at least on mwatb you used to put up a decent fight before you gave up.
> 
> *and it was shipbuilding more than anything.


 
Glorified mining and shipbuilding village.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Which to me begs the question; Why would anyone want to change it?



They might not. In fact most people probably wouldn't. So what?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> They might not. In fact most people probably wouldn't. So what?



If so, why would anyone even consider their 'powerlessness' to change it? Unless they didn't like it that is.


----------



## krink (Sep 6, 2011)

Random said:


> Damn, and Sunderland is a port, too, which rather undermines my theory about ports usually having a different character to their hinterland. Sunderland is obviously the exception that proves the rule. Did you get a mass influx of Norse or Belgians a few hundred years ago and have needed no more immigrants since? Or is your hinterland depopulating, youngsters coming to the city and filling up all the low-wage immigrant jobs?



We did have a period where German immigrant workers came to work in the shipyards. There are one or two streets with german names and there is the way we say the words 'make' and 'take' as 'mack' and 'tack' which is thought to be influenced by german word 'macht'


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What's an international city?



A city that has closer ties to the rest of the world than to it's neighbouring areas. In the UK that would be London, Cardiff, Bristol, and Liverpool for definite, and to a lesser extent, Edinburgh, Southampton, and Hull.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> So today you are going to put words into my posts again?
> 
> My actual word was 'prejudice' IME there are levels of it that don't necessarily mean someone is a 'racist'. You are trying to shut down debate and ridicule others with your insistence that this discussion and the concerns people have about Cleese's comments, are some kind of search for non-existent racism.
> 
> ...



Far from shutting down debate, I seem since Sunday to have actually kept the thread going.

I'm not stopping anybody from having 'concerns' about Cleese's comments (some people evidently have time on their hands and few personal worries.) But it's disingenuous to claim that people haven't looked for racism in the minds of those who point out that he blamed immigrants for nothing.

In actual fact, you know nothing of what prejudice I or anybody else may have or haven't experienced, so cut the cod psychology. And sometimes, when prejudice amounts to no more than a mildy disparaging opinion of you and your kind (note that I'm referring to everybody here)-or a majorly disparaging opinion for that matter-you just have to shrug it off and get on with things. It doesn't matter if, as with the Cleese article, it goes no further than opinion. There will always be people whose opinions you don't like.

As far as I can see, nobody has said anything about London that helps any kind of understanding of it.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> A city that has closer ties to the rest of the world than to it's neighbouring areas. In the UK that would be London, Cardiff, Bristol, and Liverpool for definite, and to a lesser extent, Edinburgh, Southampton, and Hull.


 
i suppose that's one definition.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 6, 2011)

Random said:


> Damn, and Sunderland is a port, too, which rather undermines my theory about ports usually having a different character to their hinterland. Sunderland is obviously the exception that proves the rule. Did you get a mass influx of Norse or Belgians a few hundred years ago and have needed no more immigrants since? Or is your hinterland depopulating, youngsters coming to the city and filling up all the low-wage immigrant jobs?



Sunderland is surely more of a shipbuilding town than a port. It's an engineering city not a trade city.


----------



## Random (Sep 6, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Sunderland is surely more of a shipbuilding town than a port. It's an engineering city not a trade city.


Aha! In your FACE Sunderland!


----------



## krink (Sep 6, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Sunderland is surely more of a shipbuilding town than a port. It's an engineering city not a trade city.



You're right, mostly exporting ships and coal. It feels totally different from say Hull or Liverpool where it was more about trade than just exports. There was a small area of the town on the north riverbank  which was populated by some of the poorest locals and people off the ships and it earned the nickname of the Barbary Coast due to the unruly nature of the residents. It's also where I was born!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

krink said:


> You're right, mostly exporting ships and coal. It feels totally different from say Hull or Liverpool where it was more about trade than just exports. *There was a small area of the town on the north riverbank which was populated by some of the poorest locals and people off the ships* and it earned the nickname of the Barbary Coast due to the unruly nature of the residents. It's also where I was born!



Interesting! An example perhaps of how 'prejudice' manifests in the naming and charaterisations of place too? I wonder why they were seen as 'unruly', apart from being poor and different/immigrants that is.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 6, 2011)

WOW! The hypocrisy. America, isn't a Native American country any more. Australia, is in an aboriginal country any more. Large parts of Spain, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, India, etc had been 'Englishifide'.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 6, 2011)

Staying Power, a History of Black People in Britain, is very good on this topic.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Staying Power, a History of Black People in Britain, is very good on this topic.


Peter Fryer:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDfryer.htm



> Peter Fryer’s seminal book, _Staying Power_, has been reissued, with a new introduction by Paul Gilroy. First published a generation ago, in 1984, it has received high praise from C.L.R. James, Salman Rushdie and many others, and was, as Paul Gilroy says, ‘something of a phenomenon in its own right’. It is a brave book; Gilroy testifies to the harsh treatment the author received because he believed that black history was not the preserve of black historians but that it was equally part of the history of white people. Fryer remarked in his own preface that the history of black people in Britain had a very strong impact on British society: firstly, there was the effect of the slave trade on the economic development of the country, secondly the effect of racism on British people. The book therefore has three strands: one is the story of black people in Britain, the second the history of the slave trade and the third a discussion of racism, its development and its effects.
> 
> The early presence of black people is largely silent: those who took part in pageants in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries and danced, sang, performed acrobatics and music seem to have been appreciated by their white audiences but we do not know how they themselves felt, as there are no records. In the later seventeenth century we hear of black servants, and they appear in paintings and on inn signs. It was in the seventeenth century that the taste for sugar developed - and so did the slave trade. When we do begin to hear the voices of black people in the eighteenth century - in a chapter Fryer entitles ‘Eighteenth Century Voices’ - they are the voices of slaves, or escaped or freed slaves, and they are raised against slavery and racism. He continues this history through the biographies of many of the most outstanding and talented people who have lived in Britain over the last two hundred years. Many of them played important parts in the abolition of slavery, in the fight against colonialism and imperialism and the independence of India, the West Indies and African countries. Many others earned their living more humbly; the point is that they were in Britain.
> 
> Fryer shows that although the Elizabethans may have had strange beliefs about the habits and the physiognomy of black people, there is a huge difference between the kind of suspicion engendered by ignorance, which after all is quickly dispelled on acquaintance and on the production of contrary evidence, and a calculated attempt to enslave a whole continent by denying that the inhabitants are human. This is what the promoters of the slave trade achieved, despite the fact that at first there were those who refused to accept their lies. But the importance of sugar as a product and the profitability of slavery in its production led to the growth in Britain’s wealth. The sadism of the eighteenth-century slave trade captains was justified by supposing slaves to be inhuman chattels. The horrors included the beating of babies to death and the throwing of ill people overboard: ‘only one captain from the port [of Bristol] did not deserve to be hanged’. The planters became enormously rich, had close connections with banks and local government and bought seats in Parliament. But the power and propaganda of the ruling class could still be exposed. Although Pitt may have adopted abolitionism to beat French trade and sugar may have become less profitable, the Quakers, for example, had already been protesting against slavery for a hundred years. The slogan of the anti-slavery campaign was ‘Am I Not a Man and a Brother?’


http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...-power-the-history-of-black-people-in-britain


----------



## krink (Sep 6, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Interesting! An example perhaps of how 'prejudice' manifests in the naming and charaterisations of place too? I wonder why they were seen as 'unruly', apart from being poor and different/immigrants that is.



Oh yeah, it was a rough area with what seemed like more pubs than houses but it was down to pure prejudice against 'the rabble'. It even extended to the local church! The story was that during one particularly bad episode of crushing poverty and starvation the bishops ate the monks at St Peters church. St Peters is a pretty big deal in church history in the uk as it is where Venerable Bede was first schooled. He went on to be one of the most important early british/christian historians.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> some people evidently have time on their hands



Oh, the ironing.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Far from shutting down debate, I seem since Sunday to have actually kept the thread going.


 There is a difference I think between staying on a thread since Sunday trotting out the same claims that everyone else is paranoid, and keeping it going in any constructive way. 



> *I'm not stopping anybody from having 'concerns' about Cleese's comments* (some people evidently have time on their hands and few personal worries.) But it's disingenuous to claim that people haven't looked for racism in the minds of those who point out that he blamed immigrants for nothing.



Yes you are. You are trying to ridicule them for having such concerns at all...this comment by you:


> (some people evidently have time on their hands and few personal worries.


...is evidence of that.



> In actual fact, you know nothing of what prejudice I or anybody else may have or haven't experienced, so cut the cod psychology.



I can only go on what you have written here and you have not demonstrated any significant understanding at all. If you have had experiences, it seems strange to me that you have not drawn on them to illustrate your points. That's not _cod psychology_, and your use of the term is another example of you trying to dismiss valid points made that you don't have a decent response to. Another example of you trying to shut down the discussion IMO.

This is not dissimilar to telling people they 'have a chip on their shoulder' when they don't like certain opinions/behaviour, because it neglects to value opinions and experiences. Often, it's the added insult to injury.



> And sometimes, when prejudice amounts to no more than a mildy disparaging opinion of you and your kind (note that I'm referring to everybody here)-



Me and my kind? What does that mean? What do you know about people like me?



> or a majorly disparaging opinion for that matter-you just have to shrug it off and get on with things. It doesn't matter if, as with the Cleese article, it goes no further than opinion. There will always be people whose opinions you don't like.



Are you suggesting here that I (and my kind) should simply ignore Cleese, shrug it off and get on with other things? Are you suggesting that comments like his don't matter and nobody should care or at least have an opinion too? If you are you are missing an important point. Many concerns are borne out of real experiences/understanding, as such, comments like Cleese's, mean something or represent something that has meaning and real consequence in everyday life.



> As far as I can see, nobody has said anything about London that helps any kind of understanding of it.



Fine, it's all there above if you change your mind and decide to actually read what people have written.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oh, the ironing.



Here comes the temperamental dickhead to write about the poster and not the subject as usual.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Here comes the temperamental dickhead to write about the poster and not the subject as usual.



Oh come on...you are hardly innocent of that yourself!!!


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Here comes the temperamental dickhead to write about the poster and not the subject as usual.


Pot. Kettle. Etc.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> There is a difference I think between staying on a thread since Sunday trotting out the same claims that everyone else is paranoid and keeping it going in any constructive way.
> 
> Yes you are. You are trying to ridicule them for having such concerns at all...this comment by you:
> ...is evidence of that.
> ...


 
In 'keeping the thread going,' I meant that some of you seized on a completely uncontroversial point and, in the heroic search for latent racism, banged on about it for many pages.

Not demonstrated any significant understanding of what? I'm not one of life's habitual takers of offence, if that's what you mean. And I don't see that, in your constant hints at unacknowledged prejudice and so on, you've demonstrated anything other than what could be termed cod or amateur psychology.

'You and your kind' was used in the general sense, not about you, as the context made perfectly clear. I even added a clarification in parenthesis. This is what I mean about the willingness to take offence.

Yes, yes. I'm suggesting that pretty much everybody should ignore the comments of an ageing comedian who has displayed no personal prejudice against anybody anyway. I suspect you'll find that this is what 99% of the country, white, black or whatever, have already done.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Pot. Kettle. Etc.


 
I'm rarely the one who starts it off.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I'm rarely the one who starts it off.



Same here. As for ignoring JC, I dunno. Given that the man enjoyed iconic status for so long - he's kind of made us take notice at his recent utterings. Whether we agree or no.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> A city that has closer ties to the rest of the world than to it's neighbouring areas. In the UK that would be London, Cardiff, Bristol, and Liverpool for definite, and to a lesser extent, Edinburgh, Southampton, and Hull.


i blame dr beeching


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> In 'keeping the thread going,' I meant that some of you seized on a completely uncontroversial point and, in the heroic search for latent racism, banged on about it for many pages.


 So you are in a position to tell everyone else what they should and shouldn't see as 'contraversial' or relevant or interesting or whatever? 

I get it lletsa, you are uninterested, unprovoked, uninfluenced, unaffected by the possible wider significance of these kinds of comments and/or this discussion. That though doesn't mean we will not have the discussion anyway.



> Not demonstrated any significant understanding of what? I'm not one of life's habitual takers of offence, if that's what you mean. And I don't see that, in your constant hints at unacknowledged prejudice and so on, you've demonstrated anything other than what could be termed cod or amateur psychology.



I have not _hinted_ at unacknowledged prejudice. I have talked about it EXPLICITLY. I am not freaked out by it or fearful of it. IME it is usually those that are,that can't bear to talk about it.  You yourself have conceded that you have no way of knowing whether Cleese has these issues. It's not cod or amateur however much you want to dismiss it or undermine it as a possibility.



> 'You and your kind' was used in the general sense, not about you, as the context made perfectly clear. I even added a clarification in parenthesis. This is what I mean about the willingness to take offence.


 I asked you to define what you see me and my kind as...I know you were making a generalised comment. That doesn't though mean you can make such statements and not be asked to qualify what you mean. To me, this comment;



> This is what I mean about the willingness to take offence.


 Is another example of you skirting around the issue, trying to ridicule and dismiss others.



> Yes, yes. I'm suggesting that pretty much everybody should ignore the comments of an ageing comedian who has displayed no personal prejudice against anybody anyway.* I suspect you'll find that this is what 99% of the country, white, black or whatever, have already done.*



What like you have you mean?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> What like you have you mean?


it's another case of do as lletsa says, not as lletsa does


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> it's another case of do as lletsa says, not as lletsa does


Lots of urbanites do tho, don't they tho'


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Lots of urbanites do tho, don't they tho'


pls point me to an example of anyone actually doing as lletsa says.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> pls point me to an example of anyone actually doing as lletsa says.


 I mean plenty of urbanites tell others what to do/think, no?

Anyways, if I did what Lletsa said, I wouldn't be here anymore.

I think we're all a little sensitive that yet another national treasure has bollixed things up a bit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I mean plenty of urbanites tell others what to do/think, no?
> 
> Anyways, if I did what Lletsa said, I wouldn't be here anymore.
> 
> I think we're all a little sensitive that yet another national treasure has bollixed things up a bit.


it's going a bit far to describe lletsa as a national treasure


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 6, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> it's going a bit far to describe lletsa as a national treasure


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I'm rarely the one who starts it off.


Starts off what? In your usual absurd way, you are having a go at others for bothering themselves with such nonsense after spending a goodly part of the last few days posting at length on this thread.

It's laughable. And you do it again and again and again. I can't remember you ever posting about any subject on here that you did not think was a waste of time. You'll be telling a mod to ban you next. As if you care.

And it's rarely not you who starts it. That's why you're always getting into arguments. You come on threads about subjects you say you don't care about and label those you disagree with 'hysterical liberal-lefties' or similar. *That is you starting it*, fuckhead!


----------



## kabbes (Sep 6, 2011)

In terms of meaningless labels, "glorified village" has got to be right up there with "international city".


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Starts off what? In your usual absurd way, you are having a go at others for bothering themselves with such nonsense after spending a goodly part of the last few days posting at length on this thread.
> 
> It's laughable. And you do it again and again and again. I can't remember you ever posting about any subject on here that you did not think was a waste of time. You'll be telling a mod to ban you next. As if you care.
> 
> And it's rarely not you who starts it. That's why you're always getting into arguments. You come on threads about subjects you say you don't care about and label those you disagree with 'hysterical liberal-lefties' or similar. *That is you starting it*, fuckhead!


 
Please go away, you over-emotional fool.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

kabbes said:


> In terms of meaningless labels, "glorified village" has got to be right up there with "international city".


 
Another sense of humour bypass?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Another sense of humour bypass?


Possibly.  I wouldn't like to say whether you have had such a thing or not.  Either you're very dry and droll and I like it or you take each word you say entirely seriously, which would be worrying.  I'm hoping it's the former.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 6, 2011)

why the fuck does anyone care what john cleese thinks?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Please go away, you over-emotional fool.


 


> Here comes the temperamental dickhead to write about the poster and not the subject as usual.



...................


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What I, or anybody else, wants doesn't come into it really. When it comes to London, or most other places, I'm indifferent to most things including levels of immigration. What happens happens. What is it you're looking for anyway? More evidence of non-existent racism?
> 
> All I'm asking really is what is meant by the vague term 'international city.'



Livingston came out with some old tosh about London surplanting New York as the worlds most international city. Funnily enough when I go abroad I am quite happy with seeing cities that reflect the country that they are in.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Funnily enough when I go abroad I am quite happy with seeing cities that reflect the country that they are in.



Which part of the country there are in?...it strikes me that in the case of both England and America, there are different parts of the country, which are surprise surprise, different!


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 6, 2011)

What is an English city meant to be like? How can you compare Sunderland with, like, Oxford?


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 6, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Which part of the country there are in?...it strikes me that in the case of both England and America, there are different parts of the country, which are surprise surprise, different!



Strikes me that your astute observation could even be extended to other countries


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 6, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> What is an English city meant to be like? How can you compare Sunderland with, like, Oxford?



On a Saturday night there are fewer drunks in Sunderland?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Strikes me that your astute observation could even be extended to other countries



No shit sherlock! Now, are you going to answer the question I asked, only your statement which prompted it, it seemed less than astute.



> Funnily enough when I go abroad I am quite happy with seeing cities that reflect the country that they are in.





> Which part of the country there are in?



See Angel's post above too.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 6, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> What is an English city meant to be like? How can you compare Sunderland with, like, Oxford?



That in itself is relective of England isn't it?

What I was driving at was Livingstons boast that implied that  a goal had been reached in London being a more international city than New York as if that was something to be desired.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> That in itself is relective of England isn't it?
> 
> What I was driving at was Livingstons boast that implied that a goal had been reached in London being a more international city than New York as if that was something to be desired.



Ah I see.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> So you are in a position to tell everyone else what they should and shouldn't see as 'contraversial' or relevant or interesting or whatever?
> 
> I get it lletsa, you are uninterested, unprovoked, uninfluenced, unaffected by the possible wider significance of these kinds of comments and/or this discussion. That though doesn't mean we will not have the discussion anyway.
> 
> ...



I think you'll find that when something is a statement of fact then it's usually uncontroversial.

I'm not telling anybody not to have any discussion.

I don't care whether Cleese or anybody else has 'issues' of unacknowledged prejudice or 'issues' regarding anything else.

You can say what you want, but you, like Canuck, seem ready to take offence at every imaginary slight. That's your prerogative, but people who do so are usually a bit of a pain in the arse.

Sigh. If the term 'You and your kind' is a general comment, then it applies to everybody. As I said, this is clear from the context.

Do you really think that most people care about anything John Cleese might say about anything?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I think you'll find that when something is a statement of fact then it's usually uncontroversial.



People might disagree on whether or not it's a fact.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> People might disagree on whether or not it's a fact.



As was said pages ago, of course the statement that an ethnic mix always makes inter-ethnic bloodshed a possibiilty is a statement of fact. It doesn't matter who disagrees or how many times.


----------



## little_legs (Sep 6, 2011)

To be fair to Lletsa, he actually kept the thread going and also urged to consider Orlov's quote more than once. The quote is taken from Orlov's blog entry from September 2009, which Orlov updated in March, 2010 with: "It took six months for the mainstream to catch up, but now Frank Rich is saying pretty much the same thing in the NYT: white people are upset that they are not in charge anymore".

I recommend reading Orlov's essay. In a way, I think the demonstrators Orlov is describing could easily be a bunch of _nostalgic_ Cleeses.

Link: http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/09/caution-white-people.html


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I think you'll find that when something is a statement of fact then it's usually uncontroversial.


 So now it's a statement of fact eh?



> I don't care whether Cleese or anybody else has 'issues' of unacknowledged prejudice or 'issues' regarding anything else.


Yes I know, not your problem, doesn't affect you, not interested at all...only despite all that you have been on this thread since Sunday.



> You can say what you want, but you, like Canuck, seem ready to take offence at every imaginary slight. That's your prerogative, but people who do so are usually a bit of a pain in the arse.


 Oh yeah, just JC and I have had anything to say on this thread...everyone else has either agreed with you, or with Cleese, or both. 

Nice use of the phrase 'imaginary slight' there, only it isn't imaginary at all, you continue to try and ridicule, dismiss, claim paranoia etc.



> Sigh. If the term 'You and your kind' is a general comment, then it applies to everybody. As I said, this is clear from the context.


 Stop dancing around the point, I asked you what you meant by it...you seem happy enough to throw it around, yet reluctant to qualify what you mean, I wonder why?



> Do you really think that most people care about anything John Cleese might say about anything?


 Well since you have been on this thread since Sunday defending what he said and claiming to know exactly what he meant I think it's obvious YOU do care, which makes your question rather silly.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Sep 6, 2011)

When I say London is an international city, I'm not referring to the proportion of non-English people living in it, although that reinforces its international status. I mean it's like the whole world condensed into one small space. What you can't find in London probably doesn't exist, anywhere in the world (there are of course exceptions). And there are far more ethnic communities in London than anywhere else in England. It can't be compared with any other city in England: it's almost like a country in its own right. If John Cleese doesn't like that, he should stay away.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh yeah, just JC and I have had anything to say on this thread...everyone else has either agreed with you, or with Cleese, or both.
> .



He's singling out the blacks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> As was said pages ago, of course the statement that an ethnic mix always makes inter-ethnic bloodshed a possibiilty is a statement of fact. It doesn't matter who disagrees or how many times.


That's entirely definitional. The birth of the second child makes sibling rivalry a possibility too. Any other gems?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

little_legs said:


> To be fair to Lletsa, he actually kept the thread going and also urged to consider Orlov's quote more than once.



Personally, I think what has kept the thread going is the fact that LLETSA insisted that CLeese meant no blame to immigrants but then started banging on about 'ethnic warfare'. The way I see it he still hasn't explained what he see's as the link between Cleese's comments and his quoting of Orlov. It seems to me he wants it both ways.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Sep 6, 2011)

I'll add that other international cities include New York, Los Angeles, Paris, Berlin, Mumbai, Shanghai and probably Tokyo. And probably Amsterdam as well. Of course in all these cities it is still the indiginous population who are the dominant ethnic group, but less so than in a non-international city.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's entirely definitional. The birth of the second child makes sibling rivalry a possibility too. Any other gems?



But if race is a social construct, then surely it can be deconstructed, removing the possibility of conflict on that basis alone?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But if race is a social construct, then surely it can be deconstructed, removing the possibility of conflict on that basis alone?


Yes I quite agree. But he keeps repeating this as if it were some kind of insight. It isn't.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes I quite agree. But he keeps repeating this as if it were some kind of insight. It isn't.


...and what is the connection to Cleese's comments?


----------



## little_legs (Sep 6, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Personally, I think what has kept the thread going is the fact that LLETSA insisted that CLeese meant no blame to immigrants but then started banging on about 'ethnic warfare'. The way I see it he still hasn't explained what he see's as the link between Cleese's comments and his quoting of Orlov. It seems to me he wants it both ways.



Without presuming to speak for Lletsa, I think his position is that we are free to take issue with Cleese's comments, but in all seriousness we, including Cleese, are all being played by politicians against each other. From reading and listening to what Orlov's got to say on the collapse of societies (damn you, Lletsa), I conclude that one way or another we are all fucked and we are powerless to do anything about it, and getting angry at someone who is essentially being played with is pointless. It just makes one ethnic group angry at another, and that is exactly what the people that govern us want.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 6, 2011)

What evidence do you have for the idea that the people who govern us are keen on ethnic division? I don't see that. I don't see the advantage to them to do so either.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> So now it's a statement of fact eh?
> 
> Yes I know, not your problem, doesn't affect you, not interested at all...only despite all that you have been on this thread since Sunday.
> 
> ...


 
It's always been a statement of fact. It's absolutely irrefutable, as even some of those on here who say, for some reason, that we shouldn't mention it, have admitted.

I have been on this thread, on and off, since Sunday because people like you keep answering and misrepresenting me. You, and many others, have been on the thread a lot longer.

Carry on imagining slights and you'll get midly ridiculed. Being ridiculed is only acceptable, in some eyes, when they are the ones doing it, or when its being done on their behalf to one of the perceived messageboard baddies. People are funny like that.

I'm not 'dancing around' any point. I couldn't make myself clearer on the matter. If you didn't want something you could seize on as evidence of latent racism you'd stop obsessing about it.

How many more times-I haven't defended what Cleese said. I haven't even mentioned what Cleese said aside from pointing out that he blamed immigrants for nothing. Have you considered writing him an abusive letter (in green ink?) or sending him a turd in a jiffy bag, or summat?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It's always been a statement of fact. It's absolutely irrefutable,



Sorry: still don't agree.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 6, 2011)

It is something to be desired. London has always made it's living from trading. That means the more international it is the better it is doing. Anyone who doesn't like that needs to sod off and retire to somewhere like Bath where they can read PG Wodehouse and Evelyn Waugh novels in the comfort of their own nostalgic fantasy world.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Sorry: still don't agree.


 
Doesn't matter if you agree or not.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Doesn't matter if you agree or not.



Just like it doesn't matter if you think trash.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Just like it doesn't matter if you think trash.


 
Look, hopefully for the last time, I'll explain again: if you have a society containing an ethnic mix, it always contains the possibility for inter-ethnic bloodshed. This doesn't necessarily mean it will happen, and it would take a specific sort of crisis to trigger it, but that the possibility exists is absolutely undeniable.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Look, hopefully for the last time, I'll explain again: if you have a society containing an ethnic mix, it always contains the possibility for inter-ethnic bloodshed. .



You keep saying that. I know that in your head, it makes perfect sense. You can't imagine anything else.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You keep saying that. I know that in your head, it makes perfect sense. You can't imagine anything else.


 
Oh never mind, I'm clearly talking to an idiot. .


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 6, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What evidence do you have for the idea that the people who govern us are keen on ethnic division? I don't see that. I don't see the advantage to them to do so either.



There are 2 stress lines in society. Class and Race. In times of economic or political crisis, the ruling class will turn racism on like a tap in order to divert attention from themselves or an important issue. It's an age old tactic called divide and rule.

In recent years in France there has been a lot of class struggle. Massive Strikes, etc. The stress line has been a class one. Sarkozy has campaigned against the Burka and Rumanian gypsies in an attempt to shift the fault line back over to race.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Oh never mind, I'm clearly talking to an idiot. .



You cannot conceive of a situation where two differing groups of people become so blind to their apparent 'differences', that those differences will not always contain within, the possibility of violence.

Sad.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

I suppose you're right to this extent: so long as people with your worldview exist, the possibility of that type of violence will continue to exist.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2011)

let's try an analogy. you can't have a baseball tournament with just one team. in the same way, you can't have an inter-ethnic conflict where just one ethnic group is present. i hope that's clearer, because loathe though i am to agree with lletsa it's hard to argue with his conclusion expressed in post 935


----------



## Anudder Oik (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I suppose you're right to this extent: so long as people with your worldview exist, the possibility of that type of violence will continue to exist.



Behave..


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 6, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> It is something to be desired. London has always made it's living from trading. That means the more international it is the better it is doing. Anyone who doesn't like that needs to sod off and retire to somewhere like Bath where they can read PG Wodehouse and Evelyn Waugh novels in the comfort of their own nostalgic fantasy world.



So all towns and cities should desire to be international, including Bath?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> let's try an analogy. you can't have a baseball tournament with just one team. in the same way, you can't have an inter-ethnic conflict where just one ethnic group is present. i hope that's clearer, because loathe though i am to agree with lletsa it's hard to argue with his conclusion expressed in post 935



Imagine two groups of people who look different. Suppose they come to regard that difference as being no more important than hair color.

At that point, the chance for inter-group conflict becomes as likely as a war between blondes and redheads.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Imagine two groups of people who look different. Suppose they come to regard that difference as being no more important than hair color.
> 
> At that point, the chance for inter-group conflict becomes as likely as a war between blondes and redheads.


ethnicity is not all about skin colour. but even if it was, lletsa's already said that conflict between people of different ethnicities is not inevitable.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> You cannot conceive of a situation where two differing groups of people become so blind to their apparent 'differences', that those differences will not always contain within, the possibility of violence.
> 
> Sad.


 
Of course I can conceive of it. It has no bearing on the fact that where different ethnic groups exist side by side, the possibility of inter-ethnic bloodshed is always there.

Are you unable to conceive of the kind of crisis situation where previous apparent 'blindness to difference,' goes out of the window due to along with the deliberate stirring up of resentment, fear, panic or both? It isn't as if we don't have plenty of examples around the world.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> ethnicity is not all about skin colour. but even if it was, lletsa's already said that conflict between people of different ethnicities is not inevitable.



I know that. He says that it always remains a possibility. _A possibility_.

I know that.

Like I said, we would consider the chance of blondes going to war with redheads a extremely remote possibility, remote to the extent that it needn't be given any real consideration.

If it's that way with hair color, why can't it become that way with skin color?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Are you unable to conceive of the kind of crisis situation where previous apparent 'blindness to difference,' goes out of the window due to along with the deliberate stirring up of resentment, fear, panic or both? It isn't as if we don't have plenty of examples around the world.



Of course I can. Where we differ, is that you think it must always be that way.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Imagine two groups of people who look different. Suppose they come to regard that difference as being no more important than hair color.
> 
> At that point, the chance for inter-group conflict becomes as likely as a war between blondes and redheads.



No it doesn't, because as I've just said, world history, including recent world history, shows us that all that can be swept away in the blink of an eyelid. It took a matter of weeks for neighbour to start killing neighbour in Yugoslavia. A couple of years earlier, or a couple of weeks in many cases, the same people would have laughed at the possibility.

Is your naivety a typical Canadian thing or is it just you?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> No it doesn't, because as I've just said, world history, including recent world history, shows us that all that can be swept away in the blink of an eyelid. It took a matter of weeks for neighbour to start killing neighbour in Yugoslavia. A couple of years earlier, or a couple of weeks in many cases, the same people would have laughed at the possibility.



The fact that inter ethnic violence has occurred in the past, doesn't preclude the possibility that we might move to a place in future where it doesn't.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Of course I can. Where we differ, is that you think it must always be that way.



So you think you can abolish the possibility of any form of crisis that the unscrupulous and the fanatical racists could exploit? If so, you'd better get on to the UN. And the media: you could be a rich man, if somebody doesn't assassinate you first.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The fact that inter ethnic violence has occurred in the past, doesn't preclude the possibility that we might move to a place in future where it doesn't.


 
Clearly, you have a dream...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> So you think you can abolish the possibility of any form of crisis that the unscrupulous and the fanatical racists could exploit? If so, you'd better get on to the UN. And the media: you could be a rich man, if somebody doesn't assassinate you first.



No, I don't think that. I don't believe that the whole world will become that way for the foreseeable future. But I believe that it might be possible in particular societies.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Clearly, you have a dream...



Oh, fuck off with your racist digs.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I know that. He says that it always remains a possibility. _A possibility_.
> 
> I know that.
> 
> ...


 
Blondes have never gone to war with redheads, but different ethnic groups have often gone to war with each other.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Clearly, you have a dream...



I'm not wasting another second on you, you fucking twat.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Oh, fuck off with your racist digs.


 
As I said, an idiot.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> No, I don't think that. I don't believe that the whole world will become that way for the foreseeable future. But I believe that it might be possible in particular societies.


 
But you are forgetting about the fact that all human arrangements are always temporary and dependent on matters outside of anybody's control.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 6, 2011)

For the benefit of others: Martin Luther King did a famous speech called the 'I Have A Dream' speech.

So, fuckface reads a post from a black person talking about hope for a better future, and of necessity, his type of mind makes this equation.

His thinking is suffused with racial stereotyping; it would  be an impossibility for him ever to lose his race-consciousness.

He's a throwback to the bad old days that we would best be rid of.

Best part is: he's totally unaware of what he is. He thinks he's a reasonable person.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> For the benefit of others: Martin Luther King did a famous speech called the 'I Have A Dream' speech.
> 
> So, fuckface reads a post from a black person talking about hope for a better future, and of necessity, his type of mind makes this equation.
> 
> ...


 
I didn't even know Canuck was black until the other day when he revealed it in order to smear me as racist because he couldn't answer what I was saying.

You don't have to even take into account that MLK was black to recognise that his vision was a utopian one.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> He's a throwback to the bad old days that we would best be rid of.


 
Accuse me of wearing a pointy hood. Go on.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> His thinking is suffused with racial stereotyping; it would be an impossibility for him ever to lose his race-consciousness.


 
If anybody can lift one instance of racial stereotyping from any post of mine I'll donate a kidney to the NHS.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 6, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> For the benefit of others: Martin Luther King did a famous speech called the 'I Have A Dream' speech.
> 
> So, fuckface reads a post from a black person talking about hope for a better future, and of necessity, his type of mind makes this equation.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, Johnny, but I think you've got this one completly wrong.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 7, 2011)

Lock&Light said:


> I'm sorry, Johnny, but I think you've got this one completly wrong.


 
We all have the privilege of being wrong sometimes, or often.


----------



## Lock&Light (Sep 7, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> We all have the privilege of being wrong sometimes, or often.



That I know is right.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 7, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Clearly, you have a dream...



Oh, ya see...then you come out with things like this and I conclude that you are not as innocent as you are making out.

I expect you will be here sooner or later saying that JC and I have read you post and _imagined_ you were trying to be offensive...



> You don't have to even take into account that MLK was black to recognise that his vision was a utopian one.



Yes but you do know JC's ethnicity and therefore are aware of the possible impact your post would have in the way you laid it down.

If you wanted to say JC was being 'utopian' in his view or approach you could have said it...what you have done now though is used the words of a respected Black man, whom is known for his achievements in the civil rights movement, in an attempt to ridicule a poster here that you know to be Black. I do not believe you would have done this to a poster you knew to be White.

Twat.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 7, 2011)

I've been thinking about this thread today.

I don't know who this guy LLETSA is or what he thinks. His comment hit a nerve somehow, some way, and I let go with a broadside.

I should be bigger than that. There's little point in getting worked up too much by words on a bb; and even if it happens, there's little dignity in showing it.

I haven't read any more of the thread, but in any event, apologies to LLETSA. You won't see another similar display out of me if I can help it.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 7, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh, ya see...then you come out with things like this and I conclude that you are not as innocent as you are making out. Twat.
> 
> I expect you will be here sooner or later saying that JC and I have read you post and _imagined_ you were trying to be offensive...
> 
> ...


 
I wondered how long it would be before you stuck your self-righteous oar in again.

I was trying to be mildly offensive but not on the basis of race. As I said, MLK's vision was a utopian one, which has absolutely nothing to do with him being black himself as its the kind of philosophy shared by many people of all ethnic backgrounds, and JC's posts, with their lack of any basis in reality, came across like MLK-by-numbers.

Anyway, what is life without being able to offend somebody from time to time? And as I have also said, a lot of people are never happy unless they find some offense to take, and you and JC can clearly be counted among them. So I guess that we're all happy. That was the only 'impact' my post had on JC , whose ethnicity, as I keep saying, I was entirely unaware of until, after getting the worst of the argument, he revealed it and tried to use it as a weapon.

Anyway, I'm off here now for much of the day, but please do keep that entertaining faux outrage of yours coming.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 7, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I've been thinking about this thread today.
> 
> I don't know who this guy LLETSA is or what he thinks. His comment hit a nerve somehow, some way, and I let go with a broadside.
> 
> ...


 
Apology accepted.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 7, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I wondered how long it would be before you stuck your self-righteous oar in again.


 As opposed to your own self righteous oar?  Seriously, since when did you start believing that your opinions are any more important or more righteous than other people's?



> I was trying to be mildly offensive but not on the basis of race. As I said, MLK's vision was a utopian one, which has absolutely nothing to do with him being black himself as its the kind of philosophy shared by many people of all ethnic backgrounds, and JC's posts, with their lack of any basis in reality, came across like MLK-by-numbers.



In your view/opinion, not mine....and your _'MLK-by-numbers'_ phrase further reveals you to be a condescending arse.

For many, MLK's message was a 'human' one, that's why _IMO, his_ philosophy appeared to be shared by so many, and still is, because in reality, it is and was not _his_ alone!

Regardless of whether you see JC's view as 'utopian' you have no authority to say there is no basis in reality, you do not live his life, think and experience as he does etc...you have given up on this stuff and feel powerless to change anything, this you have made clear, not everyone feels as _impotent_ as you thankfully, and fortunately not everyone lacks _empathy_ in the way in which you do.



> _Anyway, what is life without being able to offend somebody from time to time? And as I have also said, a lot of people are never happy unless they find some offense to take, and you and JC can clearly be counted among them. So I guess that we're all happy._ That was the only 'impact' my post had on JC , whose ethnicity, as I keep saying, I was entirely unaware of until, after getting the worst of the argument, he revealed it and tried to use it as a weapon.



Bollocks...nothing more than a twisted self validating/apologetic argument. No responsibility taken on your part, completely someone else's fault!

For the record, you haven't offended me, you are not creative nor important enough to do so. Your methods/attempts are nothing new either.



> Anyway, I'm off here now for much of the day, *but please do keep that entertaining faux outrage of yours coming.*



There you go again, attempting to devalue and ridicule...I have opinions that are contrary to yours on some things, there is nothing _faux_ or _outraged_ about it, it is a real and legitimate fact.

Whilst you sit back pondering/banging on about the possibility of 'ethnic warfare' and trotting out Tory-esque insults, other people find a different focus and purpose to life, imagine that?

Perhaps if you stopped focusing/clinging onto that _possibility_, you would begin to feel less impotent/fearful and find the motivation/creativity to at least attempt, in thought or deed, to try to counter some of the 'reasons' something like that might happen.

...but wait....as you have repeatedly stated, you don't care, oh well, fine.

Enjoy your day!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 7, 2011)

little_legs said:


> Without presuming to speak for Lletsa, I think his position is that we are free to take issue with Cleese's comments, but in all seriousness we, including Cleese, are all being played by politicians against each other.



I personally don't think Lletsa has explicitly made that connection, in that way, on this thread, but fair enough.



> From reading and listening to what Orlov's got to say on the collapse of societies (damn you, Lletsa), I conclude that one way or another we are all fucked and we are powerless to do anything about it, and getting angry at someone who is essentially being played with is pointless. It just makes one ethnic group angry at another, and that is exactly what the people that govern us want.



Well, some of us don't see ourselves as from one ethnicity or another in this very literal sense. 

Point taken and agreed with regarding getting played off against eachother. That should be the focus though IMO, doing things to counter that happening as much as possible, not simply pondering the 'possibility' of it happening and berating those who care about or are affected by the the wider implications/representations of comments such as those Cleese made (not Cleese himself).

I personally don't think you can dismiss such comments/representations as irrelevant/unimportant etc and then bang on about the 'possibility' of 'ethnic warfare'...there is a connection IMO, albeit a complex one.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 7, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> So all towns and cities should desire to be international, including Bath?



You clearly don't get it at all.

I shall repeat in terms I hope are simple enough for you to understand.

London is a city that depends on trade. London has always made its money by buying selling services and things abroad, and by bringing things into the country. As such its interests are as much in what is happening in Paris, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Tokyo... as in what's happening in Kent or Sussex. Its population inevitably consists to a large extent of people who have arrived as part of that trade in services. If its population was becoming MORE homogenous it would mean that London is less involved with the rest of the world, implying very strongly that London was trading less and thus making less money. An increasingly diverse population implies London is trading well and thus making more money.

Bath is not a trading city. In fact its economy gains from the city appearing stuck in the past, so it doesn't gain anything from being an international city.

So obviously not every city gains from being an international city.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 7, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> You clearly don't get it at all.
> 
> I shall repeat in terms I hope are simple enough for you to understand.
> 
> ...



I admire someone who makes an effort to make things simple but I don't really think that banking and commerce ( which provides the larget percentage of Londons GDP) explains the composition of Londons population.

I am not sure if you are explaining what an international city is  ie is it a city which is judged on what % are born outside of the country, is it based on languages spoken , is it based on its connection to world trade ( London is suited to that because of its can trade stocks with Japan  and USA in the same day)


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 7, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> I admire someone who makes an effort to make things simple but I don't really think that banking and commerce ( which provides the larget percentage of Londons GDP) explains the composition of Londons population.
> 
> I am not sure if you are explaining what an international city is  ie is it a city which is judged on what % are born outside of the country, is it based on languages spoken , is it based on its connection to world trade ( London is suited to that because of its can trade stocks with Japan  and USA in the same day)



Banking and commerce goes a very long way to explain the composition of London's people. What happens when you have the HQs of a lot of multinational banks and such in a city is that you have the employees of those companies in the same city.

As I have already said, an international city is one that has more or closer links to places abroad than to its neighbouring towns/cities. So it's down to how important that city finds its connection to wrorld trade.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 7, 2011)

I think he's right, weston _is_ better.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I think he's right, weston _is_ better.



Is it full of people from all over the world working in banking though? Is Bristol an international city?


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 8, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Is it full of people from all over the world working in banking though? Is Bristol an international city?


 
Even if a place is full of people from all over the world, it doesn't mean it's 'an international city.' The term makes no sense and is simply another stupid 'buzz word' (itself a stupid term), coined in this stupid era that we live in.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 8, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> As opposed to your own self righteous oar?  Seriously, since when did you start believing that your opinions are any more important or more righteous than other people's?
> 
> In your view/opinion, not mine....and your _'MLK-by-numbers'_ phrase further reveals you to be a condescending arse.
> 
> ...



The difference between my opinion and yours is that I offer mine on a 'take it or leave it' basis. I couldn't really give a toss who does or doesn't agree.

"Whilst you sit back pondering/banging on about the possibility of 'ethnic warfare' and trotting out Tory-esque insults, other people find a different focus and purpose to life, imagine that?" And you say you're not self-righteous. Jesus.

You can't counter the possibility of ethnic warfare in an ethnically diverse society , as the possibility always exists no matter what happens; it just becomes more or less likely depending on events, usually events out of the control of most people. Again, I don't really see why this completely uncontroversial statement arouses so much anguish. A fact can't be controversial (are some facts Tory and some facts Labour etc, by the way?)

As for 'feeling fearful or impotent,' about it, at present I don't. It's all academic at the moment, even if we do catch glimpses of catastrophe from time to time (as mentioned with references to places like Oldham and Burnley.) But if you think you are in some way 'countering' the possibility', why not let us know how so we all have the opportunity of joining in?


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 8, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> I was initially just talking about the part of Leeds I'm in at the moment, but you had to get all defensive and I just had to rise to it. I'm really talking about suburbia, not just Leeds. Leeds has an inner city too and I'd certainy rather live there.


spoken like the true fungi who knows he will never have to.
I lived in harehills for three years, it ain't edgy and vibrant when you don't have money enough for the meter,the baby's run out of nappies and you can't get to the shops cos someone's been knifed in spensors place and the streets are cordoned off.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 8, 2011)

barney_pig said:


> spoken like the true fungi who knows he will never have to.
> I lived in harehills for three years, it ain't edgy and vibrant when you don't have money enough for the meter,the baby's run out of nappies and you can't get to the shops cos someone's been knifed in spensors place and the streets are cordoned off.


 
Some people have a hard-on for these things though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 8, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You can't counter the possibility of ethnic warfare in an ethnically diverse society


You say you don't care yet you're still trotting out this utter inanity. It is purely _definitional_, what you're saying. ffs. This is an execrable performance.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 8, 2011)

It strikes me that I'm not even sure _exactly _what we mean by "ethnicity" in this conversation.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 8, 2011)

kabbes said:


> It strikes me that I'm not even sure _exactly _what we mean by "ethnicity" in this conversation.



Well yes...I did hint at that when I asked how this played out when individuals don't see themselves as being one 'ethnicity' or another.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 8, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Some people have a hard-on for these things though.


Didn't Pulp write a song about this kind of thing.
Lived in toxteth for a bit. Was utterly miserable and someone got shot dead in broad daylight across the road.


----------



## Mation (Sep 8, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You can't counter the possibility of ethnic warfare in an ethnically diverse society , as the possibility always exists no matter what happens; it just becomes more or less likely depending on events, usually events out of the control of most people. Again, I don't really see why this completely uncontroversial statement arouses so much anguish. A fact can't be controversial (are some facts Tory and some facts Labour etc, by the way?)


Are you _still_ banging on with your truism? Why??


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 8, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You say you don't care yet you're still trotting out this utter inanity. It is purely _definitional_, what you're saying. ffs. This is an execrable performance.


 
For somebody who thinks he's Isaiah Berlin, you can be incredibly dense.


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 8, 2011)

Mation said:


> Are you _still_ banging on with your truism? Why??


 
Why not?


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 8, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Didn't Pulp write a song about this kind of thing.
> Lived in toxteth for a bit. Was utterly miserable and someone got shot dead in broad daylight across the road.



Alright for those who want it on their cv though!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2019)




----------



## bellaozzydog (May 29, 2019)

Doubling down

I presume his twitter is getting a proper malletting


----------



## Lord Camomile (May 29, 2019)

"virtually all my friends from abroad" - so, not anyone living in London, or even England?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 29, 2019)

What a cock. 

Is Charlestown no longer Nevisian cos he's moved there?


----------



## Poi E (May 29, 2019)

Cleese says that "race relations are better" on Nevis.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 29, 2019)

Poi E said:


> Cleese says that "race relations are better" on Nevis.



Ah, that'll be why he moved there then. And nothing at all to do with the citizenship by investment programme which sees him no longer paying tax in the UK and will deny the exchequer the inheritance taxes due when he finally becomes an ex-human.


----------



## Smangus (May 29, 2019)

1st order tosser that Cleese fuckwit


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 29, 2019)

I always thought he was a knob. This comes as no surprise.


----------



## Poi E (May 29, 2019)

Man who used to be funny says something not very funny. When did it all get so serious, Mr Cleese? After the first million or the first divorce?


----------



## Gromit (May 29, 2019)

London and New York.
Recognisably the most diverse cities in their respective nations.
Recognisably the most successful cities in their respective nations.

Is there a correlation between diversity and success perhaps?

What's so fucking great about something being 'english' anyways?
It might be holiganism but at least it's English holiganism and therefore the best!!! /playsnationalathemwhilstburningforeignbooks


----------



## Poi E (May 29, 2019)

I don't think you could look around London and think you were anywhere other than England. People are miserable, for a start.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 29, 2019)

A multimillionaires perspective on London is going to be rather different to pretty much everyone else’s who actually has to live and work here.wonder what particulars prompted this resurgence of snottery ?


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 29, 2019)

the bbc has this with a link to soi disant funnyman lee hursts twitter comment. dont click through. he is a proper edgelord these days


----------



## Mumbles274 (May 29, 2019)

Has cleese got something to flog? What's rattled his fucking  Carribean cage. Dick


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 29, 2019)

English public school boy in "is a complete (racist) cunt" shocker.


----------



## Yossarian (May 29, 2019)

Mumbles274 said:


> Has cleese got something to flog? What's rattled his fucking  Carribean cage. Dick



He's on tour in Canada right now, apparently he decided being a dick on Twitter was the best way to kill time between appearances in Alberta.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2019)

Yossarian said:


> He's on tour in Canada right now, apparently he decided being a dick on Twitter was the best way to kill time between appearances in Alberta.


He's missing out, there's lots to do in alberta


----------



## Orang Utan (May 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> He's missing out, there's lots to do in alberta


Like get lost in a forest and get eaten by a bear.


----------



## planetgeli (May 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> He's missing out, there's lots to do in alberta



Alberta is one of the most amazing places I’ve ever seen...on google images. Unfortunately that’s as close as I’m likely to get, not being an oil-rich wanker who has driven the local populace out by making all homes unaffordable.

Seriously beautiful landscapes though.


----------



## Poi E (May 29, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> Like get lost in a forest and get eaten by a bear.



"Just a flesh wound" etc.


----------



## elbows (May 29, 2019)

Ugh Cleese treats us that giddy mix of crap nostalgia, privilege, 'generation gap', hypocrisy and various other shitty opinions and ways of thinking.

Peers of my own generation are already showing in middle age some signs of crap nostalgia and bullshit generation gap thinking. The latest golden age that never existed is being born in some peoples minds. Its depressing. Granted this is probably not the largest factor at work in Cleeses thinking but I see plenty of parallels and will just rant incoherently if I focus on the straightforward racist crap.


----------



## Poi E (May 29, 2019)

Yes, nostalgia is a sickness and England has it bad.


----------



## elbows (May 29, 2019)

Poi E said:


> "Just a flesh wound" etc.



I suppse when I heard about Cleeses London comments reprise the Python quote that leapt to mind was 'He said it again!'. We dont get to stone him to death on this occasion though I dont think.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 29, 2019)

Poi E said:


> Yes, nostalgia is a sickness and England has it bad.


Nostalgia is crap, these days. It was much better when I was younger.


----------



## elbows (May 29, 2019)

Poi E said:


> Yes, nostalgia is a sickness and England has it bad.



Having strong feelings and attachments when remembering our early, growing years seems appropriate, but its so easily distorted into narrow minded justifications for all sorts of shit. I suppose it is inevitable that harking back to our early years may conjure up themes of change, loss, etc. But people need to get a perspective on this and realise that some of this is inevitable on a personal basis, its part of the cycle of life. If you dont get that and just go off spouting shit by allowing these feelings to power sour opinions in a completely different context, it can poison things that you have no right to poison.


----------



## Poi E (May 29, 2019)

As the future recedes so nostalgia takes grip.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2019)

elbows said:


> Ugh Cleese treats us that giddy mix of crap nostalgia, privilege, 'generation gap', hypocrisy and various other shitty opinions and ways of thinking.
> 
> Peers of my own generation are already showing in middle age some signs of crap nostalgia and bullshit generation gap thinking. The latest golden age that never existed is being born in some peoples minds. Its depressing. Granted this is probably not the largest factor at work in Cleeses thinking but I see plenty of parallels and will just rant incoherently if I focus on the straightforward racist crap.


I look back to the days when the ruling elite lived in terror of the mob


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2019)

elbows said:


> I suppse when I heard about Cleeses London comments reprise the Python quote that leapt to mind was 'He said it again!'. We dont get to stone him to death on this occasion though I dont think.


Not unless you can chuck a rock over the Atlantic


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 29, 2019)

elbows said:


> I suppse when I heard about Cleeses London comments reprise the Python quote that leapt to mind was 'He said it again!'. We dont get to stone him to death on this occasion though I dont think.


"All I said was that that deportation plane was good enough for an immigrant."


----------



## kenny g (May 29, 2019)

Scratch a liberal party political broadcaster and get a bigot


----------



## elbows (May 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I look back to the days when the ruling elite lived in terror of the mob



Is there a special 'Rees-Mogg / Peter Hitchens throwback time machine' edition of your tiny violin available for purchase?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2019)

elbows said:


> Is there a special 'Rees-Mogg / Peter Hitchens throwback time machine' edition of your tiny violin available for purchase?


Our development department will have just such a thing put for july


----------



## Riklet (May 29, 2019)

Rich cunt in greedy rich cunt shocker.

He's not wrong in that London genuinely is completely different to any other English city.  But you could say that about most big capitals in the world.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 29, 2019)

Cleese was never funny, all his characters were just nasty, vindictive bullies. From The Frost Report through to Fawlty Towers. Bitter old man.


----------



## ska invita (May 29, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> John Cleese: "I note also that London was the UK city that voted most strongly to remain in the EU"



Birmingham: LEAVE: 50.4% REMAIN: 49.6%
Bristol: LEAVE 38.3% REMAIN: 61.7%
Leeds: LEAVE: 49.7% REMAIN: 50.3%
Liverpool: LEAVE: 41.8% REMAIN: 58.2%
London: LEAVE: 40.1% REMAIN: 59.9%
Manchester: LEAVE: 39.6% REMAIN: 60.4%
Aberdeen city LEAVE: 38.9% REMAIN: 61.1%
Edinburgh city: LEAVE: 25.6% REMAIN: 74.4%
Glasgow city: LEAVE: 33.4% REMAIN: 66.6%
Belfast East: LEAVE: 51.4% REMAIN: 48.6%
Belfast North: LEAVE: 49.6% REMAIN: 50.4%
Belfast South: LEAVE: 30.5% REMAIN: 69.5%
Belfast West: LEAVE: 25.9% REMAIN: 74.1%
Cardiff: LEAVE: 40% REMAIN: 60%
Source

London, by the way, culturally, is in my experience as "English" as any other town or city in England. The idea that its somehow of a completely different culture is just imagined (feared). Cities in the UK are all much the same IME - the biggest difference perhaps the state of a music scene.

ETA: in fact the biggest cultural difference is the work culture - work-consciousness is overbearing in London compared to most other cities. Its migrating commuters who are probably the most to blame for that.


----------



## Dom Traynor (May 30, 2019)

The only talented one in Python was Gilliam


----------



## Southlondon (May 30, 2019)

Gromit said:


> London and New York.
> Recognisably the most diverse cities in their respective nations.
> Recognisably the most successful cities in their respective nations.
> 
> ...


Nothing wrong with liking your country. Football hooliganism isn’t the sum total. How about trade unions or the NHS for example? Or football itself? Most people feel an Affinity to their country of birth/residence.


----------



## ash (May 30, 2019)

interesting moment on the One Show yesterday:

Michael Caine was on and Michael Palin suggested to him that they had considered asking him onto Monty Python instead of John Cleese - I wondered if this was a dig at both their politics and views ?!


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 30, 2019)

Southlondon said:


> Nothing wrong with liking your country. Football hooliganism isn’t the sum total. How about trade unions or the NHS for example? Or football itself? Most people feel an Affinity to their country of birth/residence.


Tbf trade unions were a byproduct of industrialisation and have no specific connection to englishness beyond Britain industrialising early doors


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 30, 2019)

Southlondon said:


> Nothing wrong with liking your country. Football hooliganism isn’t the sum total. How about trade unions or the NHS for example? Or football itself? Most people feel an Affinity to their country of birth/residence.


I don't really understand the whole nationalism thing. People tend to not have a choice over where they're born. Granted, it's nice not to have been born in a ditch in some third-world country, but it's something we should be thankful for, not proud of. Similarly, people usually don't have a choice over which religion their parents choose to indoctrinate them into. It seems to me that nationalism and religion are very similar in this respect. They're both simply ways of to make yourself feel superior, whilst alienating those who weren't lucky enough to be born into your country/religion.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 30, 2019)

Southlondon said:


> Nothing wrong with liking your country.



Britain isn't "your" country, it's mostly owned by a tiny minority of cunts or controlled by a tiny minority of cunts from the same class. What you like is the people around you and "some" of the culture that you live in. Which is itself not "British" in any real sense, because this particular locale has been drawing on incoming cultures since before the last Ice Age and will continue to do so until the day it finishes sinking.

êow canne nealles leornian sê, as they say in old English.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Granted, it's nice not to have been born in a ditch in some third-world country


'Our Lord' famously born in a manger in Judea after his parents forgot to book their accommodation


----------



## isvicthere? (May 30, 2019)

Well, if you want to be pedantic, London is a Roman city. 

It's a good 400 years or so older than "England "


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2019)

ash nazg durbatulûk as they say in mordor


----------



## Pickman's model (May 30, 2019)

isvicthere? said:


> Well, if you want to be pedantic, London is a Roman city.
> 
> It's a good 400 years or so older than "England "


yeh but it was abandoned for ages and the city as we know it founded not on the roman street pattern but the anglo-saxon


----------



## Rob Ray (May 30, 2019)

Good point actually, I don't even recognise London any more what with this foreign "Christianity" nonsense all over the place. Whatever happened to good old animal sacrifice?


----------



## Gromit (May 30, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Good point actually, I don't even recognise London any more what with this foreign "Christianity" nonsense all over the place. Whatever happened to good old animal sacrifice?


Gone downhill since Uhtred of Bebbanburg left tbh.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 30, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> 'Our Lord' famously born in a manger in Judea after his parents forgot to book their accommodation


Folklore. She was born 80 miles to the west. Those 'wise men' were a bit shit at celestial navigation.


----------



## Southlondon (May 30, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Britain isn't "your" country, it's mostly owned by a tiny minority of cunts or controlled by a tiny minority of cunts from the same class. What you like is the people around you and "some" of the culture that you live in. Which is itself not "British" in any real sense, because this particular locale has been drawing on incoming cultures since before the last Ice Age and will continue to do so until the day it finishes sinking.
> 
> êow canne nealles leornian sê, as they say in old English.


The fact that English culture is the product of huge waves of immigration, and that our language and character is the product of years of successful immigration is why I like it. If I hated England I’d have fucked off to live somewhere else years ago I wouldn’t stay here to be miserable. My England is an inclusive one, a person who decides to come and settle in England is as English as me, and of course most of the people who do settle here have chosen to come here. As a socialist obviously I don’t see perfection in our country, but I do see strong characteristics amongst the population over the years  that I admire. The courage of the tolpuddle martyrs, Rochdale pioneers, the Dagenham girls, the working people who joined the international brigades, militant antifascists who smashed Mosley etc etc. I don’t celebrate the kings and queens and the murder and plunder of the British empire, and as well as considering myself English and that in no way means I’m uncritical of the actions of our government carried out in the name of our country. As an Englishman I’ve marched beside Irish republicans against the British government, but when the football is on I support my country. I’d rather live in London than any other capital city I’ve visited.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> What you like is the people around you and "some" of the culture that you live in. Which is itself not "British" in any real sense, because this particular locale has been drawing on incoming cultures since before the last Ice Age...


What a load of bollocks. The "incoming cultures" as you put it, are precisely what have made the country _British._


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 30, 2019)

Cricket and warm beer and stuff


----------



## Athos (May 30, 2019)

Gromit said:


> London and New York.
> Recognisably the most diverse cities in their respective nations.
> Recognisably the most successful cities in their respective nations.



What measure of 'success' are you using, and why?


----------



## Gromit (May 30, 2019)

Athos said:


> What measure of 'success' are you using, and why?


Bagels eaten per capita.
Because Bagels are awesome.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 30, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> What a load of bollocks. The "incoming cultures" as you put it, are precisely what have made the country _British._



What's _Britishness_ about if none of it actually comes from Britain, or characterises Britons, or is unique to Britain, and why should anyone get hot under the collar about this nebulous _Britishness_ inevitably changing over time?

I live in London, I like bits and loathe bits, but I'm not such a scrub as to think that my personal familiarity with the place, which inspires me to find it more comforting to be in than say, Paris or Tokyo, makes it in any way special.



> I do see strong characteristics amongst the population over the years that I admire. The courage of the tolpuddle martyrs, Rochdale pioneers, the Dagenham girls, the working people who joined the international brigades, militant antifascists who smashed Mosley etc etc.



Because people in other countries have never manifested that level of courage and solidarity against the ruling classes? Why not be equally proud of _all_ humanity that has made such stands, and who you have also never met?

Edit: Taking the Dagenham girls as a wee example on how actually "British" culture is nothing to take as read. They weren't part of "British" values as understood by a majority at the time, when they fought to change their working conditions and the way British society treated them — they were fighting those values. They were challengers to widely-accepted "Britishness" at the time and actively helped change what modern British lefties consider it to be.

You citing them now is all well and good, but it's only a majority "British culture" circa 2019 in circles which happen to agree with you. Go down a pub full of misogynist managers and their "British culture" might still be different. In 100 years from now it'll be different again, and tbh that may well be a fucking good thing, because much of what passes for "British" majority culture today is small-minded shit along the lines of Cleese and co.


----------



## planetgeli (May 30, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> What a load of bollocks. The "incoming cultures" as you put it, are precisely what have made the country _British._


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 30, 2019)

Britain is the one thing that is guaranteed to be 100% British at any time you care to choose. Similarly I can safely say that England will always be English, France French and so on.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 30, 2019)

.


----------



## Poi E (May 30, 2019)

Yeah. We are consumers. Nuff said.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 30, 2019)

I am not in a "we" with HSBC.


----------



## Poi E (May 30, 2019)

You probably are and just don't know it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 30, 2019)

*The British - Poem by Benjamin Zephaniah*

Take some Picts, Celts and Silures
And let them settle,
Then overrun them with Roman conquerors.

Remove the Romans after approximately 400 years
Add lots of Norman French to some
Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Vikings, then stir vigorously.

Mix some hot Chileans, cool Jamaicans, Dominicans,
Trinidadians and Bajans with some Ethiopians, Chinese,
Vietnamese and Sudanese.

Then take a blend of Somalians, Sri Lankans, Nigerians
And Pakistanis,
Combine with some Guyanese
And turn up the heat.

Sprinkle some fresh Indians, Malaysians, Bosnians,
Iraqis and Bangladeshis together with some
Afghans, Spanish, Turkish, Kurdish, Japanese
And Palestinians
Then add to the melting pot.

Leave the ingredients to simmer.

As they mix and blend allow their languages to flourish
Binding them together with English.

Allow time to be cool.

Add some unity, understanding, and respect for the future,
Serve with justice
And enjoy.

Note: All the ingredients are equally important. Treating one ingredient better than another will leave a bitter unpleasant taste.

Warning: An unequal spread of justice will damage the people and cause pain. Give justice and equality to all.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 30, 2019)

People generally are being very deliberate when they make a distinction between people  or things being English or British.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 30, 2019)

The thing I like about that HSBC ad is the countries list (Belgium aside - I feel like that must have been a later addition?):

*Colombia* — laundered money for a major drug cartel.
*US* (and Europe) — conspired to rig Libor
*Korea* — pulled out of its KEB holdings ahead of a massive nepotism and corruption scandal
*Holland* — One of many source countries, along with Scandinavia, UK, US etc, involved in the Swiss banking scandal
*India* — Tax evasion and money laundering
Truly the world's local banksters.


----------



## ddraig (May 30, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Birmingham: LEAVE: 50.4% REMAIN: 49.6%
> Bristol: LEAVE 38.3% REMAIN: 61.7%
> Leeds: LEAVE: 49.7% REMAIN: 50.3%
> Liverpool: LEAVE: 41.8% REMAIN: 58.2%
> ...


Over half that list are not in engerlund!!


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2019)

ddraig said:


> Over half that list are not in engerlund!!


They’re all in the UK though, which is what the reference was to.


----------



## planetgeli (May 30, 2019)

ddraig said:


> Over half that list are not in engerlund!!



That’ll be because Cleese specifically said “U.K. city”.

And Spymaster can type faster than me.


----------



## ska invita (May 30, 2019)

ddraig said:


> Over half that list are not in engerlund!!


John Cleese specifically said UK not a England about city voting records. But even if he had said in England hed have been wrong


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (May 30, 2019)

Does he have a new dvd out or something?
Interesting its a bump from way back when, its obviously worked for him in the past.


----------



## strung out (May 30, 2019)

ddraig said:


> Over half that list are not in engerlund!!


11 cities, 6 of them English. You need to scrub up on your maths mate.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 30, 2019)

ddraig said:


> Over half that list are not in engerlund!!


Can you count how many are in wails?


----------



## ddraig (May 30, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> That’ll be because Cleese specifically said “U.K. city”.
> 
> And Spymaster can type faster than me.


ai but you said english and england in your post, that's what i was responding to!
eta - you didn't say that, apols!


----------



## ddraig (May 30, 2019)

strung out said:


> 11 cities, 6 of them English. You need to scrub up on your maths mate.


places listed son, not cities!
done me own list so it's easier for you

englund
Birmingham:
Bristol:
Leeds:
Liverpool:
London:
Manchester: 

NOT englund
Aberdeen city 
Edinburgh city:
Glasgow city:
Belfast East:
Belfast North:
Belfast South:
Belfast West:
Cardiff:


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2019)

ddraig said:


> ai but you said english and england in your post, that's what i was responding to!


Why did you quote Ska's post if you were responding to Geli?

You little fibber, you!


----------



## spanglechick (May 30, 2019)

Southlondon said:


> The courage of the tolpuddle martyrs, Rochdale pioneers, the Dagenham *girls*, the working people who joined the international brigades, militant antifascists who smashed Mosley etc etc.



Really? In 2019?


----------



## planetgeli (May 30, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Why did you quote Ska's post if you were responding to Geli?
> 
> You little fibber, you!



There is also no post where I talk of England or English.


----------



## ddraig (May 30, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> There is also no post where I talk of England or English.


you didn't, i was wrong there! have already edited my post, apologies


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2019)

ddraig said:


> ... i was wrong there! ... apologies



Wow! You're growing up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 30, 2019)

Poi E said:


> I don't think you could look around London and think you were anywhere other than England. People are miserable, for a start.



So are people in Paris. Parisians are misanthropic shits.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 30, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> Like get lost in a forest and get eaten by a bear.



You forgot "have sexual relations with a moose".


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 30, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> Really? In 2019?



Historical reference rather than denigration, like if someone refers to "the match girls' strike".


----------



## spanglechick (May 30, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> Historical reference rather than denigration, like if someone refers to "the match girls' strike".


But we have an obligation to adapt historic language when it is offensive, don’t we?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 30, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> But we have an obligation to adapt historic language when it is offensive, don’t we?



Personally I think we should, but unfortunately there's the dead weight of 6 decades of common usage - in the case of Dagenham - and over a century in the case of the Bryant & May strike, to overcome.


----------



## spanglechick (May 30, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> Personally I think we should, but unfortunately there's the dead weight of 6 decades of common usage - in the case of Dagenham - and over a century in the case of the Bryant & May strike, to overcome.


All the more reason to be consistent, and to support others who are trying to make a change.


----------



## Southlondon (May 30, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> What's _Britishness_ about if none of it actually comes from Britain, or characterises Britons, or is unique to Britain, and why should anyone get hot under the collar about this nebulous _Britishness_ inevitably changing over time?
> 
> I live in London, I like bits and loathe bits, but I'm not such a scrub as to think that my personal familiarity with the place, which inspires me to find it more comforting to be in than say, Paris or Tokyo, makes it in any way special.
> 
> ...


It’s quite possible to be proud of humanity and still retain an affinity with a localised area/culture. I personally do find familiarity of a place is what makes me feel at home. I would feel  I describe myself as English because I’ve only been to N Ireland, Wales, Scotland a few times and the geographical area I choose to live in and that I’m most familiar with is England as opposed to Britain or anywhere else in the world, thus I’m English. I love the fact that the other countries that make up the Britain still have distinct cultures and think regional differences are positive and enrich life. The challenge is to fight for a better share of resources and less  inequality not feeling I should identify my self as nothing more than a member of humanity.


----------



## Don Troooomp (May 30, 2019)

Random said:


> More Lib Dem racism. London hasn't been an English city for about 1,000 years. Odd to notice just now.



Try 2,000 (Minus about 24 years) and a place called Londinium


----------



## Rob Ray (May 30, 2019)

I think it's weird that you'd consider it to be "nothing more" than being a member of humanity. Surely the glorious variety we have between us, which can easily be manifested across a single street most of the time, is part of what makes being human worthwhile?

Personally the last thing I'd ever want to do is stifle that variety by reverting to simplistic caricatures of "Englishness", "Welshness" and "Scottishness" that require us to act or think in a certain way to qualify as one of the folks. I know optimistic pagan English people, Welsh atheists who can't sing for toffee and right-wing Scots who don't drink. I know Northern Irish anarchists who think sectarianism is a pile of shite and Londoners with middle-class sounding accents who are considerably more down to earth working class than Jess Phillips MP could ever aspire to represent by leaning on her Brummie accent. 

That makes them not one jot lesser than those around them, it makes them not even slightly less part of the streets and towns they live in. Burying their perspectives beneath an anemic desire to fit everyone into discrete boxes, which is precisely what this "distinct cultures" stuff always ends up doing, is something I find rather repulsive tbh. It sucks the joy out of being part of the whole of humanity.


----------



## Don Troooomp (May 30, 2019)

Idaho said:


> He's just saying that London is an international city rather than an english one. I'd say that was pretty true.



If that's what he's saying, he's correct.
London is a melting pot of the world's people, complete with languages, food, and culture from everywhere - The city is an anthropologist's wet dream ... and the food is wonderful.
I watched a history of Indian food in London some few weeks ago - I felt hungry enough to lick the TV screen.

That, as a note, is where racism really limits the idiots that subscribe to that especially moronic way of semi-thinking. To be a good racist twat, you must deny yourself the culinary wonders the world has to offer.

Foolish people.


----------



## Don Troooomp (May 30, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Surely the glorious variety we have between us, which can easily be manifested across a single street most of the time, is part of what makes being human worthwhile?



Absolutely - YES
Think how boring it would be not to know about the rainbow of cultures the world has, and how that mix in one city educates us as to them. I hardly met anyone from other places until I entered the beer flavoured world of Sheff uni (The real one, not the poshed up poly), then I started to meet a whole bunch of new people, many with interesting backgrounds and wonderful tales of life in their home country. 
I'd missed out on all of that until I met these people, and it changed my whole way of thinking. Education is wonderful.


----------



## Don Troooomp (May 30, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Lots of people can't afford to live there now but that's a recent development - as recently as the late 1990s housing was affordable. The housing crisis is _not_ the fault of immigrants.



No - It's estate agents - The bastards!


----------



## Ming (May 30, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> You forgot "have sexual relations with a moose".


Well they have antlers you can hold on to (you need a plan if you’re going to fuck an animal that big. Sheep? Don’t make me laugh).


----------



## krtek a houby (May 31, 2019)

Southlondon said:


> Nothing wrong with liking your country. Football hooliganism isn’t the sum total. How about trade unions or the NHS for example? Or football itself? Most people feel an Affinity to their country of birth/residence.



Cleese doesn't like his country, though. He seems to believe "English" means white people.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 31, 2019)

Southlondon said:


> It’s quite possible to be proud of humanity and still retain an affinity with a localised area/culture. I personally do find familiarity of a place is what makes me feel at home.



Yes. That’s absolutely the case. In many cases that affinity you describe, or the shared cultural repertoire, has been hundreds of years in the making. Where I come from I’d argue it emerged about 500 years ago as the West Midlands (as it is now) began to industrialise.

It was a settled and shared culture and intrinsically linked to industrial work and the communities that grew up around it. There was always immigration - it was present from the outset driven by the enclosures act and from wales and Ireland - but the dominant culture absorbed people from everywhere.

The notion, as argued by some on this thread, that Britain has witnessed swirling cultural change through the centuries is a nonsense and ahistorical. What’s more important is that the feelings described by Southlondon are widely shared and the sense of loss people feel for it must be engaged with seriously and sensitively.

John Cleese is absolutely right about London in one way. It’s a centre of global, rootless, capital accumulation and movement. Whenever I go there I’m struck by how the dominant culture that overpowers you is one that could be anywhere. It’s basically middle class, young, affluent, with loads of cultural, social and economic capital and its global.  I suspect though, that if you come from there, there is a different culture which feels very marginalised by the dominant culture.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2019)

Rootless cosmopolitans eh?


----------



## Rob Ray (May 31, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The notion, as argued by some on this thread







> that Britain has witnessed swirling cultural change through the centuries is a nonsense and ahistorical.



No U.



> What’s more important is that the feelings described by Southlondon are widely shared and the sense of loss people feel for it must be engaged with seriously and sensitively.



Everyone feels that, including most middle class people (what do you think the Times, Daily Mail et al are actually whinging about?). We live in a fast-changing world which is unsettling and alienating (though it should be said people have also been moaning about how things used to be better/simpler/more community-oriented back in the day since there was a day to be back in). That doesn't mean the West Midlands has an extra special culture compared to any other region, or that its people have a certain something that others don't. Down that path lies parochialism, exclusion and at its far end, outright bigotry.

And for the record, I'm not a Londoner by background - same as countless billions have throughout history, I moved for work. I grew up in East Anglia, in a bit of the region where most of the local historians claiming specialness (as pretty much _all_ local historians do) mention our historically excellent sail-making background and beautiful landscape. We of course no longer make sails, which is really just an industrial activity which happened to be regionally useful for a while (the skills base was actually imported iirc) and John Constable was just a rich man with a hobby and some talent.

I didn't get some historic hand-me-down sense of Iceni rebelliousness because everyone involved in that is long-since dead. I don't speak the language Boudica did, I don't live in a mud hut, I wasn't forced to marry young from a selection of people who happened to live within walking distance, I'm not pagan (or even Christian, which could have gotten me killed not too long ago) and I don't know the best mix of pig's blood and whitewash to produce Suffolk Pink. I live in the modern world, not in 3rd, 12th or even 18th-century Suffolk (let alone West Midlands/Essex/Scotland, where various of my ancestors came from - at some point they were serfs, and I have no clue what that must have been like), so my cultural cues stem from the material conditions that come along with that.


----------



## andysays (May 31, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yes. That’s absolutely the case. In many cases that affinity you describe, or the shared cultural repertoire, has been hundreds of years in the making. Where I come from I’d argue it emerged about 500 years ago as the West Midlands (as it is now) began to industrialise.
> 
> It was a settled and shared culture and intrinsically linked to industrial work and the communities that grew up around it. There was always immigration - it was present from the outset driven by the enclosures act and from wales and Ireland - but the dominant culture absorbed people from everywhere.
> 
> ...


I guess your perception of London depends on what parts of it you go to and what you do when you're there. I'm not quite sure how far back in time we would have to go to find a period when London was homogenous, either culturally or in any other way, but  I'd suggest it's a long time before Cleese has any experience of.

Your version of it doesn't really reflect my experience of it, and the sense of alienation which many Londoners feel, whether their families have lived here for generations or whether they're recent arrivals, are far more to do with the changing nature of capitalism that anything to do with immigration. In that respect,  I doubt  it's qualitatively different from most large conurbations.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 31, 2019)

Every place is different. I don't think the differences between London and say Swindon are any more pronounced than the differences between I dunno Slough and Rotherham


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2019)

Nothing is more pronounced than the difference between Slough and _anywhere_


----------



## Poi E (May 31, 2019)

GT40 came from Slough. All is forgiven.


----------



## ska invita (May 31, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Whenever I go there I’m struck by how the dominant culture that overpowers you is one that could be anywhere.....


....if by anywhere you mean any city in the UK, then yes. 



Smokeandsteam said:


> It’s basically middle class, young, affluent, with loads of cultural, social and economic capital and its global.


It's no more that than it is anything else. I don't think you know London very well tbh. When was the last time for example you were in Croydon, Wapping, Enfield, Bexley, Harlesden or Wembley?

It's a big place and not surprisingly attempts at characterising ten million people are doomed to fail. 

One thing you can say is that the dominant culture is English, even if people have other cultural influences in their lives.

John Cleese is absolutely right about nothing btw.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Yes. That’s absolutely the case. In many cases that affinity you describe, or the shared cultural repertoire, has been hundreds of years in the making. Where I come from I’d argue it emerged about 500 years ago as the West Midlands (as it is now) began to industrialise.
> 
> It was a settled and shared culture and intrinsically linked to industrial work and the communities that grew up around it. There was always immigration - it was present from the outset driven by the enclosures act and from wales and Ireland - but the dominant culture absorbed people from everywhere.
> 
> ...


I responded a bit hastily to this earlier. My more considered response is this: absolute cobblers from start to finish.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 31, 2019)

Londoners - I agree that there are other cultures in London. That’s why I said there were in my post. However, it’s a fact that the dominant culture in London is as I described it. Financialisation, new-conservative economics and the planned supremacy of the city of London by thatcher has had a causal effect that is blindingly obvious to anyone visiting the place. I’m sure it’s not the case in Croydon or similar but I’d argue the culture of Croydon isn’t the dominant one.


----------



## Rob Ray (May 31, 2019)

Capitalism is destroying and remaking our landscape, geographical, cultural, social, all the time. Not just in London but everywhere. I could go to Sheffield, to New York or the outskirts of Beijing and see exactly the same new build blocks as have ousted working class people in Hackney, built from the same architectural templates.

That's not a dominant "British culture" in play particularly, it's the homogenizing effect of a matured market where gigantic multinationals are working off incrementally-refined models of maximised income. A model which is contributed to by elites (and their skilled subordinates) from every Western country, from Sweden and the UK to Japan and Australia. These are what undercut and eliminate the bespoke/interlinked creativity of individuals and small groups, what we tend to box off in collective terms as a given town or region's culture, and it's what kicks out the nice old boy who used to run the independent bookshop across the way.

It's not about culture(s), it's about profit. The problem, as ever, is Capital. 

Where is this block of apartments?

Could be basically anywhere which has had a major build project rock up over the last ten years. Might as well be Stratford. It's actually Beijing.


----------



## Yossarian (May 31, 2019)

I picked points at random on Google maps in south, west, east, and north London and they all looked pretty British to me - maybe the third one is borderline.


----------



## isvicthere? (May 31, 2019)

andysays said:


> I guess your perception of London depends on what parts of it you go to and what you do when you're there. I'm not quite sure how far back in time we would have to go to find a period when London was homogenous, either culturally or in any other way, but  I'd suggest it's a long time before Cleese has any experience of.
> .



In Peter Ackroyd's "London: the biography" he concludes that London has four characteristics that run through its entire history.

1. Multicultural
2. Noisy
3. Violent
4. Intimidating to visitors/outsiders.


----------



## planetgeli (May 31, 2019)

Yossarian said:


> I picked points at random on Google maps in south, west, east, and north London and they all looked pretty British to me - maybe the third one is borderline.



The Spratt's flats used to be a dog biscuit factory, so was pretty 'British' then. They are now million pound plus flats for 'creative' types. They are fucking amazing inside but unaffordable to any definition of an average person. I know because the richest person I know lives in one. He's a record producer. His family are British but live in Singapore. The flat was bought as 'an investment'. What was once a dog food factory in Poplar may as well belong to another planet.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I responded a bit hastily to this earlier. My more considered response is this: absolute cobblers from start to finish.



Culture, is partly formed by, and forms, social and economic processes. They overlap and interlink.

This imbrication has taken on profound forms in Britain since the mid 1970’s. If you think culture hasn’t changed and that people haven’t noticed, don’t care or that they wrong/merely racists, then your a bigger idiot than your posts on here indicate


----------



## Rob Ray (May 31, 2019)

Culture is _always_ changing, it's never been and will never be a static point. What changes culture and what impact that has is the question, not whether it'll happen or whether anyone notices.


----------



## andysays (May 31, 2019)

isvicthere? said:


> In Peter Ackroyd's "London: the biography" he concludes that London has four characteristics that run through its entire history.
> 
> 1. Multicultural
> 2. Noisy
> ...


And that's just how we like it, especially the last one


----------



## andysays (May 31, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Londoners - I agree that there are other cultures in London. That’s why I said there were in my post. However, it’s a fact that the dominant culture in London is as I described it. Financialisation, new-conservative economics and the planned supremacy of the city of London by thatcher has had a causal effect that is blindingly obvious to anyone visiting the place. I’m sure it’s not the case in Croydon or similar but I’d argue the culture of Croydon isn’t the dominant one.


Which parts of London have you visited recently and for what purpose? because you really appear not to know what you're talking about.

Of course the stuff you're mentioning is part of the story, but it is only a part, and to present it as the whole story or even the primary part of the story is simply untrue and plays into the narrative of 'immigration gone mad' which is clearly the basis of Cleese's position.


----------



## Cid (May 31, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Londoners - I agree that there are other cultures in London. That’s why I said there were in my post. However, it’s a fact that the dominant culture in London is as I described it. Financialisation, new-conservative economics and the planned supremacy of the city of London by thatcher has had a causal effect that is blindingly obvious to anyone visiting the place. I’m sure it’s not the case in Croydon or similar but I’d argue the culture of Croydon isn’t the dominant one.



‘To anyone visiting the place’. Fuck’s sake.


----------



## weltweit (May 31, 2019)

I don't get into London much but when I do the usual impression I get is - there are just a lot more people there than I am used to!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2019)

People visiting the place generally, what do they do?

Usual tourist traps perhaps, few museums and galleries, take in a concert or a show, meal in a nice pub by the river, lie around in one of the many parks.

Other people visiting the place might start in the anarchist centre in Elephant, find out about a couple of squat parties, go to the odd gig, lie around in one of the many parks.

Or maybe they have family/friends and want a quiet time of it. Then they might be taken to a brilliant local restaurant that their friend knows of, some great pubs, go to the odd local gig or comedy night or show, lie around in one of the many parks.

Fuck all to do with The City or financialisation, in other words. That will just be some thing _over there_, on the horizon, as relevant to their visit as La Defence is to a visit to Paris.

Not that The City hasn't fucked London up, _for Londoners_, by making it increasingly unaffordable for many people, but that's not something a visitor is going to be directly aware of.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 31, 2019)

andysays said:


> Which parts of London have you visited recently and for what purpose? because you really appear not to know what you're talking about.
> 
> Of course the stuff you're mentioning is part of the story, but it is only a part, and to present it as the whole story or even the primary part of the story is simply untrue and plays into the narrative of 'immigration gone mad' which is clearly the basis of Cleese's position.



Let’s deal with your second point first. How does my ‘suggestion’ that neo-liberalism is the dominant culture of London play into the narrative of John Cleese? Also the argument you and others have put up  -‘’but there are other cultures” - is correct. But I’ve already said this twice. If you are arguing that I’m wrong that despite these other cultures you’ll need to do better.

In terms of London I’ve been down three times recently - for football, for a Unite trade union reps meeting and with my wife for a gig. On each occasion I was in central or north London. On each occasion everyone I’ve been travelling with has remarked on how different London feels and how it’s affluence strikes you compared to elsewhere. They aren’t saying that this applies to everyone or that it’s monocultural. They are remarking on what they perceive to be the dominant culture of the city.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 31, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> That's not a dominant "British culture" in play particularly, it's the homogenizing effect of a matured market where gigantic multinationals are working off incrementally-refined models of maximised income. A model which is contributed to by elites (and their skilled subordinates) from every Western country, from Sweden and the UK to Japan and Australia. These are what undercut and eliminate the bespoke/interlinked creativity of individuals and small groups, what we tend to box off in collective terms as a given town or region's culture, and it's what kicks out the nice old boy who used to run the independent bookshop across the way.



Yes. This is precisely the point. It’s not a British culture. It’s a neo-liberalised, monotised, plastic culture


----------



## Rob Ray (May 31, 2019)

The templated residential block is an asset on a spreadsheet that people happen to live in, it's not a "culture" at all in that sense — more a facsimile generated by the drive for maximised profit. Same goes for the giant glass towers which people look at and say "oh London's so different/affluent". Those belong to a whole other class which balances on the nose of the city like an unlanced boil.

None of that has any relation to how most people in London live and love. As a megacity it has a million cultures, few of which filter through to the casual tourist and none of which could possibly represent "London" in sum.


----------



## spanglechick (May 31, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I don't get into London much but when I do the usual impression I get is - there are just a lot more people there than I am used to!


And this comes as a surprise?


----------



## weltweit (May 31, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> And this comes as a surprise?


Well as I said, I am not often there. Last time I had to take the tube through the city at rush hour and that was an eye opener, it was simply crammed with everyone well in everyone else's personal space no room to move at all. I am just not used to that no.


----------



## spanglechick (May 31, 2019)

weltweit said:


> Well as I said, I am not often there. Last time I had to take the tube through the city at rush hour and that was an eye opener, it was simply crammed with everyone well in everyone else's personal space no room to move at all. I am just not used to that no.


You are aware that more than one in ten Brits live in this city? Plus the bulk of tourists?


----------



## weltweit (May 31, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> You are aware that more than one in ten Brits live in this city? Plus the bulk of tourists?


I am now  But I have avoided living in cities so it is always a culture shock when I visit them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> In terms of London I’ve been down three times recently - for football, for a Unite trade union reps meeting and with my wife for a gig. On each occasion I was in central or north London. On each occasion everyone I’ve been travelling with has remarked on how different London feels and how it’s affluence strikes you compared to elsewhere. They aren’t saying that this applies to everyone or that it’s monocultural. They are remarking on what they perceive to be the dominant culture of the city.


What bit did you visit? Plenty of London is rather down-at-heel, not strikingly affluent at all. But it's a very big capital city with many parts and features - if you were to visit Mexico City, for example, and confine yourself to certain areas, you'd be struck by the affluence there as well.

As for your 'dominant culture' thesis, as someone who lives in London, I don't buy it one tiny bit. The 'dominant culture' in my immediate area is Bangladeshi muslim. But I feel no problem living here as a decidedly boozy atheist type. Why would I? Some of the assumptions in your posts are pretty bad, tbh. Culture is not a fixed, essential thing. It is something that is constantly inventing and reinventing itself, something that doesn't belong to anyone particularly and that is multiple: my muslim neighbours and I will share some aspects of a 'British' culture and not others. _And that's fine. _The idea that either of us should feel threatened or dominated by the other is a false idea.


----------



## Ranbay (May 31, 2019)

These days.....


----------



## Winot (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What bit did you visit? Plenty of London is rather down-at-heel, not strikingly affluent at all. But it's a very big capital city with many parts and features - if you were to visit Mexico City, for example, and confine yourself to certain areas, you'd be struck by the affluence there as well.
> 
> As for your 'dominant culture' thesis, as someone who lives in London, I don't buy it one tiny bit. The 'dominant culture' in my immediate area is Bangladeshi muslim. But I feel no problem living here as a decidedly boozy atheist type. Why would I? Some of the assumptions in your posts are pretty bad, tbh. Culture is not a fixed, essential thing. It is something that is constantly inventing and reinventing itself, something that doesn't belong to anyone particularly and that is multiple: my muslim neighbours and I will share some aspects of a 'British' culture and not others. _And that's fine. _The idea that either of us should feel threatened or dominated by the other is a false idea.



Yeah London = many tribes living in parallel, with some Londoners having a foot in more than one tribe. And tolerance (getting on/ignoring rather than living in harmony - but that's OK).


----------



## YouSir (May 31, 2019)

Winot said:


> Yeah London = many tribes living in parallel, with some Londoners having a foot in more than one tribe. And tolerance (getting on/ignoring rather than living in harmony - but that's OK).



A model that's dying imo, much like the city as a whole. It's been the case for decades now that whatever power individual cultural 'tribes' had has been thrown completely off balance - certain wealthier ones have complete dominance and everyone else either sees their space eroded to nothingness or becomes a cultural novelty. There to offer a veneer of authenticity to an otherwise generic notion of 'the big city' which is palatable to people who either don't have their own sense of self, are ashamed of it or are eager to buy into an ersatz alternative that gives the impression of community/culture/depth.

Same is happening in a lot of places all over.

That's fuck all to do with Cleese's ex-pat nonsense though.


----------



## YouSir (May 31, 2019)

Yossarian said:


> I picked points at random on Google maps in south, west, east, and north London and they all looked pretty British to me - maybe the third one is borderline.
> 
> View attachment 172772 View attachment 172773 View attachment 172774 View attachment 172775



Reckon that first one at least would give Cleese palpitations - that pub's a church/religious centre now, the pub over the way from it is an Islamic centre and you've got an Argentine grill in shot too. No less British for that though, if British is your thing. Certainly no less London either.


----------



## isvicthere? (May 31, 2019)

Cid said:


> ‘To anyone visiting the place’. Fuck’s sake.



You 8million plus who live there, what are you on?


----------



## Winot (May 31, 2019)

YouSir said:


> A model that's dying imo, much like the city as a whole. It's been the case for decades now that whatever power individual cultural 'tribes' had has been thrown completely off balance - certain wealthier ones have complete dominance and everyone else either sees their space eroded to nothingness or becomes a cultural novelty. There to offer a veneer of authenticity to an otherwise generic notion of 'the big city' which is palatable to people who either don't have their own sense of self, are ashamed of it or are eager to buy into an ersatz alternative that gives the impression of community/culture/depth.



Sounds like you’re tired of life.


----------



## YouSir (May 31, 2019)

Winot said:


> Sounds like you’re tired of life.



More too poor for it.


----------



## ska invita (May 31, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Capitalism is destroying and remaking our landscape, geographical, cultural, social, all the time. Not just in London but everywhere. ...............*That's not a dominant "British culture" in play particularly,* it's the homogenizing effect of a matured market where gigantic multinationals are working off incrementally-refined models of maximised income.


Then again, global capitalism is basically British culture, historically speaking. 
Whatsmore theres nothing more (little) English Culture than voting for repeated conservative governments to implement all this homogenising-market-destruction on UK cities.



Smokeandsteam said:


> I’m sure it’s not the case in Croydon or similar but I’d argue the culture of Croydon isn’t the dominant one.


Croydon is very average London tbh,
Yes theres a mass of wealth concentrated in the likes of
City of London, City of Westminster, and Kensington and Chelsea (K&C far from without its poverty btw)

Think though of the likes of,Wandsworth, Lambeth,Southwark, Islington, Tower Hamlets,Hackney, Brent,Ealing,Hounslow,
Merton,Sutton, Bromley, Lewisham,Greenwich, Bexley, Havering,Barking and Dagenham, Redbridge, Newham, Waltham Forest, Haringey, Enfield, Barnet, Harrow, Hillingdon - there are wealthy corners in a few of those but on the whole London is very much like Croydon, just as its like most UK cities, just scaled up


----------



## ska invita (May 31, 2019)

The other day serial cunt Tony Blair pronounced Tony Blair: migrants should be forced to  integrate more to combat far right

My experience is that migrants to the UK in the vast majority do actively assimilate, do take on "English" culture (even if retaining aspects of other cultures in tandem), and thats why I dont blink for a second in saying London is as English a city culturally as any other in England.... The assimilation 'problem' comes as much from the other side, that migrants, particularly those who don't pass for white British, will, for some people, never 'count'. The Gooodness Gracious Me: Coopers/Kapurs sketches touched on this brilliantly/tragically IMO


----------



## Favelado (May 31, 2019)

ska invita said:


> The other day serial cunt Tony Blair pronounced Tony Blair: migrants should be forced to  integrate more to combat far right
> 
> My experience is that migrants to the UK in the vast majority do actively assimilate, do take on "English" culture (even if retaining aspects of other cultures in tandem), and thats why I dont blink for a second in saying London is as English a city culturally as any other in England.... The assimilation 'problem' comes as much from the other side, that migrants, particularly those who don't pass for white British, will, for some people, never 'count'. The Gooodness Gracious Me: Coopers/Kapurs sketches touched on this brilliantly/tragically IMO



People can "assimilate" but racists will still dislike their accents, the occasions when they speak in forrin in public (it's impossible not to speak in your first language with friends of the same nationality), heightened levels of melanin, and any vague displays of national customs or identity.

It would never be enough, and as you say, they're doing it anyway in the majority of cases. Unlike the fucking Brits down on the Costa Del Sol. Send those cunts back to where they came from.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 1, 2019)

London almost crushed this one over the years but still fucking loved it. Nowhere on the planet like it.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jun 1, 2019)

Cleese comes across as incredibly pompous in this clip from Newsnight.


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 1, 2019)

ska invita said:


> The other day serial cunt Tony Blair pronounced Tony Blair: migrants should be forced to  integrate more to combat far right



Tony Blair seems to be morphing into a political version of Morrissey, and at least Morrissey had some good songs. Was there a Tony Blair equivalent in the 1930s, saying it's all fine and well for Jews to be in Britain, but they should address the concerns of fascists by trying harder to be more British?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 1, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Then again, global capitalism is basically British culture, historically speaking.
> Whatsmore theres nothing more (little) English Culture than voting for repeated conservative governments to implement all this homogenising-market-destruction on UK cities.


Only if you define capitalism in the most silly simplistic way possible. Neo-Liberalism has been occurring across the globe for decades under governments of both the centre-left and centre-right.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 1, 2019)

I took ska invita to be referring to the historical legacy of 'The British Empire'. That Britain is precisely as it is with all it's wealth and cultural influences because of it's historically _capitalist_ values and _global_ actions.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 1, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I took ska invita to be referring to the historical legacy of 'The British Empire'. That Britain is precisely as it is with all it's wealth and cultural influences because of it's historically _capitalist_ values and _global_ actions.


But that second sentence goes for just about every country - they are as they are because of the interactions of capital and labour.

Anyway I can't agree with that reading of ska's sentence. He said that "_global capitalism is basically British Culture_" not that British culture is basically capitalistic. The alignment of the UK/US with capitalism is unfortunately an all too common trend, one that is unhelpful/


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 1, 2019)

Fair enough, he'll be along to clarify what he meant soon enough I imagine.

Cleese's comments don't make sense on so many levels...._'London isn't an English city anymore, I don't like x, y, z...why do you think I moved to Nevis?'
_
Is he saying that Nevis feels more English to him? Or that all the things he likes about living there remind him of how England used to be in terms of values? 

I wonder how Nevisians feel about people like John moving there and re-colonising them is such head patting, condescending ways?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 1, 2019)

No disagreement with you on Cleese. He's a typical LD twat.


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 1, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Anyway I can't agree with that reading of ska's sentence. He said that "_global capitalism is basically British Culture_" not that British culture is basically capitalistic. The alignment of the UK/US with capitalism is unfortunately an all too common trend, one that is unhelpful/



I took it to mean that Britain did more than any other country to spread capitalism around the world through imperial conquest.


----------



## Nylock (Jun 1, 2019)

isvicthere? said:


> Cleese comes across as incredibly pompous in this clip from Newsnight.



Cleese comes across as incredibly pompous in any clip from any show. The twat.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 1, 2019)

Yossarian said:


> I took it to mean that Britain did more than any other country to spread capitalism around the world through imperial conquest.


Absolutely...also see
ht://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_model
It was a slightly jokey point hence the 
, but some home truths in it.. Cleesian English nostalgists always airbrush the realities of empire and also key role of the british mode of global capitalism, the book of which was written, practised, honed and exported by British hands.

What is English culture? British capitalism, as practiced by particularly the English ruling class, and resistance and acceptance to it, is central to it. 



Redsq try missing out the personal attacks and patronising put downs from your posts, and see what happens.


----------



## Poi E (Jun 1, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Redsq try missing out the personal attacks and patronising put downs from your posts, and see what happens.



Doesn't really assist getting the required response...


----------



## isvicthere? (Jun 1, 2019)

Ranbay said:


> These days.....
> View attachment 172798



You say you're English these days and you get arrested and thrown in gaol.

Really?

Well, no, but you have to fill in the form again.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 2, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Absolutely...also see
> ht://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_model
> It was a slightly jokey point hence the
> , but some home truths in it.. Cleesian English nostalgists always airbrush the realities of empire and also key role of the british mode of global capitalism, the book of which was written, practised, honed and exported by British hands.


So you are not merely arguing that "Britain did more than any other country to spread capitalism around the world through imperial conquest." are you? You a positing (as I said in my previous post) that global capitalism has some specific British "mode". 



ska invita said:


> What is English culture? British capitalism, as practiced by particularly the English ruling class, and resistance and acceptance to it, is central to it.


Of course British culture is created by the interaction of labour and capital. But the same is true of every nation in 2019 - the culture of any capitalist country is created by the interaction of labour and capital. 

French/Danish/Swedish/US/Russian/etc culture is every bit as marked by capitalism as British culture. That doesn't mean that all cultures are the same, of course they are not, the different material conditions in each countries means that the interactions of capital and labour have been different in subtle ways, but no culture is more or less capitalist than the others.


----------



## elbows (Jun 2, 2019)

Nylock said:


> Cleese comes across as incredibly pompous in any clip from any show. The twat.



This is his problem with London, he felt an affinity for it due to a shared pomposity, but these days Londons pompous nature has gone in a direction he cannot relate to.


----------



## Irwin Winton (Jul 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> *The British - Poem by Benjamin Zephaniah*
> 
> Take some Picts, Celts and Silures
> And let them settle,
> ...



He was horridly underused in Peaky Blinders


----------



## T & P (Dec 16, 2021)

Cleese appears to be growing into a bigger, bitterer cunt with every passing year...









						John Cleese to complain over BBC interview
					

The Monty Python star says he was made to look "harmful" during a discussion on cancel culture.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 16, 2021)

Cancel that cunt


----------



## Gromit (Dec 16, 2021)

T & P said:


> Cleese appears to be growing into a bigger, bitterer cunt with every passing year...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think he is right. They got him on TV under false pretences.

They makes a big deal about how unbiased they are when one of their reporters says something like racism is bad but then slant an interview to accuse someone of being bigoted when really he isn't. He's just calling for people to not automatically hit the censorship button the moment they feel a bit uncomfortable.

I'd rather not have a world of just Michael McIntyres. We need Stewart Lees.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2021)

Gromit said:


> I think he is right. They got him on TV under false pretences.
> 
> They makes a big deal about how unbiased they are when one of their reporters says something like racism is bad but then slant an interview to accuse someone of being bigoted when really he isn't. He's just calling for people to not automatically hit the censorship button the moment they feel a bit uncomfortable.
> 
> I'd rather not have a world of just Michael McIntyres. We need Stewart Lees.


tbh john cleese could hardly hope for a worse advocate than you


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2021)

wait, when was Stewart Lee cancelled?


----------



## Dom Traynor (Dec 16, 2021)

Stewart Cheese?


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 16, 2021)

Gromit said:


> They makes a big deal about how unbiased they are when one of their reporters says something like racism is bad



Wait, what?


----------



## two sheds (Dec 16, 2021)

Fucking hell that's ironic. Objects to interviewing the word 'but' so suggesting that she shouldn't disagree with him. 

Ducked the question about racist banter which is at the heart of 'anti-wokism'. Then refused to listen to what she was saying and then said that people don't listen to what other people are saying. Then does a 'good people on both sides' when comparing Fox News to other media. 

Loved him when he was with python, he's turned into a pompous old git


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2021)

killer b said:


> wait, when was Stewart Lee cancelled?


And why wasn’t it sooner?


----------



## killer b (Dec 16, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> And why wasn’t it sooner?


I guess his TV show was cancelled in 2016, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't because of all the racist jokes he used to crack.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2021)

killer b said:


> I guess his TV show was cancelled in 2016, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't because of all the racist jokes he used to crack.


I just mean he’s an unfunny prick.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Dec 16, 2021)

I enjoyed Miriam Margolyes’s memoirs

“I admire the creation of Monty Python and The Goodies and I think they were men of genius, but they were not gentlemen. 

John Cleese, Bill Oddie and Graham Chapman were total s***s — and they have never apologised. The only one who did was the late Tim Brooke-Taylor. All the perpetrators went into light entertainment and I went into drama, so thankfully our paths were seldom to cross. But nearly 60 years later I have not forgotten.

Some are born comic, some achieve comedy, some have comedy thrust upon them. I am definitely in that third camp. There is something about my face and body that makes people laugh. I've always known that. It's professionally useful, socially perhaps a bit limiting, but I'm asked to dinner parties because of it and I'm not going to moan about looking different.

I'd assumed comedy was not for me after the nastiness of Footlights but I have ended up working with many of the non-Cambridge-educated greats of comedy (including Kenneth Williams and Ken Dodd).”

(bits were serialised  in the Mail)


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2021)

Miriam is a treasure.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 16, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> I just mean he’s an unfunny prick.



It’s not mean for people like you though.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 16, 2021)

goldenecitrone said:


> It’s not mean for people like you though.


I know the joke is that he’s playing an unfunny, self-satisfied middle class prick.  But there’s a flaw in the the gag.


----------



## Santino (Dec 16, 2021)

.
















Plain.


----------



## Serge Forward (Dec 16, 2021)

danny la rouge said:


> I just mean he’s an unfunny prick.


Much as I love you, both as an urban poster and as a comrade, I'm sad to say, on this occasion... you're dead wrong


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 16, 2021)

Gromit said:


> They makes a big deal about how unbiased they are when one of their reporters says something like racism is bad



Isn't it?


----------



## Gromit (Dec 17, 2021)

planetgeli said:


> Wait, what?


A black BBC journalist commented on Trump saying Go back home and what it had meant whenever it had been said to her. And they disciplined her for showing bias.
Did you miss that incident?
It's not an isolated incident either. I forget the other examples of where they told black people off for commenting on rasism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2021)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I enjoyed Miriam Margolyes’s memoirs
> 
> “I admire the creation of Monty Python and The Goodies and I think they were men of genius, but they were not gentlemen.
> 
> ...


to be fair graham chapman would have found it difficult to apologise without the help of a medium after october 1989


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Dec 17, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Much as I love you, both as an urban poster and as a comrade, I'm sad to say, on this occasion... you're dead wrong


I concur.


----------



## kenny g (Dec 17, 2021)

two sheds said:


> Fucking hell that's ironic. Objects to interviewing the word 'but' so suggesting that she shouldn't disagree with him.
> 
> Ducked the question about racist banter which is at the heart of 'anti-wokism'. Then refused to listen to what she was saying and then said that people don't listen to what other people are saying. Then does a 'good people on both sides' when comparing Fox News to other media.
> 
> Loved him when he was with python, he's turned into a pompous old git


He comes across like a complete arse who lives for his gin and thrashings. Hopefully he is being overcharged for both.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Dec 17, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> to be fair graham chapman would have found it difficult to apologise without the help of a medium after october 1989


That would still have given him 25 years or so

“The only girl in the show, I was a pert little madam and thought I was as good as they were — and they didn't.

My perception was that they thought I was a jumped-up, pushy, overconfident, fat little Jew. But I was funny, and they didn't like it. 

If you think about it, the Monty Python shows didn't feature funny women, only the occasional dolly bird. And I certainly wasn't that.

Their attitudes towards women stemmed from the minor public schools most of them had attended. At that time, and the whole time I was at Cambridge, a woman could not be a member of the Footlights Club. Girls were not welcome: we attended only as guests. These chaps wanted to sleep with women, not compete with them. I was neither decorative nor bedworthy, and they found me unbearable.

The problem was exacerbated by my excellent notices, which were resented. They acknowledged each other's cleverness, but only just, and there was considerable class antagonism. David Frost was looked down on, for example, because he was merely a middle-class lad from Gillingham, and they were not happy when Clive James arrived during the Sixties.”


----------



## ska invita (Dec 17, 2021)

every face tells a xenophobic story (from their mansion in another country)


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 17, 2021)

Gromit said:


> A black BBC journalist commented on Trump saying Go back home and what it had meant whenever it had been said to her. And they disciplined her for showing bias.
> Did you miss that incident?
> It's not an isolated incident either. I forget the other examples of where they told black people off for commenting on rasism.



Guess you are referring to Naga Munchetty?

BBC defends censure of Naga Munchetty over Trump comments | BBC | The Guardian


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2021)

pseudonarcissus said:


> That would still have given him 25 years or so
> 
> “The only girl in the show, I was a pert little madam and thought I was as good as they were — and they didn't.
> 
> ...


I don't know how much had changed by the time of Chapman's death, I suspect that there were more continuities than sudden changes by then: and I'd be interested to know when tbt apologised to mm. Surprised by bill oddie tbh. Wonder how things were there when fry and Laurie were in the footlights


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Dec 17, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't know how much had changed by the time of Chapman's death, I suspect that there were more continuities than sudden changes by then: and I'd be interested to know when tbt apologised to mm. Surprised by bill oddie tbh. Wonder how things were there when fry and Laurie were in the footlights


“It was on set in 1985 that Margolyes introduced herself to Stephen Fry as, “The fat Jewish lesbian that they have to have in this kind of film.” In telling the world who she is up front, Fry writes over email, “She gets her retaliation in first when it comes to anything nasty that can be said about her. I think that speaks perhaps of a past where she really did feel that what we can now see as her glorious attributes were used to make her feel inadequate or unwanted. I know she felt that her time at Cambridge was made less pleasant by her being shut out of the public school men’s club of Footlights.”

Maybe things changed a bit, Fry always comes across as being a kind person.

Bill Oddie? Has he tried to be funny away from the Goodies? A lot of the comedy of those days is dreadful and doesn’t bear repeats…apart from the cat and the post office tower, what was memorable about the Goodies? could you watch an episode of Some Mothers do ‘ave ‘em” again? It wasn’t some golden age.

TBT and GG worked on the “clever” R4 panel shows, I guess. I don’t know if they are still going


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2021)

pseudonarcissus said:


> “It was on set in 1985 that Margolyes introduced herself to Stephen Fry as, “The fat Jewish lesbian that they have to have in this kind of film.” In telling the world who she is up front, Fry writes over email, “She gets her retaliation in first when it comes to anything nasty that can be said about her. I think that speaks perhaps of a past where she really did feel that what we can now see as her glorious attributes were used to make her feel inadequate or unwanted. I know she felt that her time at Cambridge was made less pleasant by her being shut out of the public school men’s club of Footlights.”
> 
> Maybe things changed a bit, Fry always comes across as being a kind person.
> 
> ...


Tbt dead, so he's not going anymore; thought bo nicer than he was to at least mm.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Dec 17, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Tbt dead, so he's not going anymore; thought bo nicer than he was to at least mm.


I just read BO’s wiki page. I guess I missed most of his TV work. 
Educated at “King Edward's School, Birmingham, an all-boys direct grant school, where he captained the school's rugby union team.”
I wasn’t expecting that 🏉


----------



## Dom Traynor (Dec 17, 2021)

BO was a vague trot at some point but moved quite far to the right in later years, until making some veiled anti immigrant hints through SpringWatch


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Dec 17, 2021)

Dom Traynor said:


> BO was a vague trot at some point but moved quite far to the right in later years, until making some veiled anti immigrant hints through SpringWatch


My first ‘45 was “the funky gibbon”. I won’t play it again


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Dec 17, 2021)

pseudonarcissus said:


> My first ‘45 was “the funky gibbon”. I won’t play it again


I need to go to bed, strange, disconnected memories of the 70s are scaring me


----------



## Smangus (Dec 17, 2021)

He's a racist cunt, can't bear the thought that he shouldn't have a mc privileged life, just like Eric Clapton.


----------



## Sue (Dec 18, 2021)

kenny g said:


> He comes across like a complete arse who lives for his gin and thrashings. Hopefully he is being overcharged for both.


Comrade, no need to be judgemental.


----------



## Sue (Dec 18, 2021)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Their attitudes towards women stemmed from the minor public schools most of them had attended. At that time, and the whole time I was at Cambridge, a woman could not be a member of the Footlights Club. Girls were not welcome: we attended only as guests. These chaps wanted to sleep with women, not compete with them. I was neither decorative nor bedworthy, and they found me unbearable.


I'm sure she was treated unfairly but privately-educated woman making a point about 'minor public schools'? (Would major public schools have excused them/been better? ) A plague on both their houses.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 18, 2021)

Dom Traynor said:


> BO was a vague trot at some point but moved quite far to the right in later years, until making some veiled anti immigrant hints through SpringWatch



Rowan Atkinson's become a right wing disappointment too, over the years.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 18, 2021)

Smangus said:


> He's a racist cunt, can't bear the thought that he shouldn't have a mc privileged life, just like Eric Clapton.



Old slowhandjob in the news again

_Clapton has made headlines in the past 18 months for taking a staunch stance against Covid-19 protective measures such as lockdowns, vaccines and vaccine passports.

He claimed to have experienced a severe physical reaction to his first dose of the AstraZeneca jab, and referred to scientific research – which has found vaccines to be safe and life-saving – as “propaganda”.

In December 2020, he collaborated with another noted vaccine sceptic, Van Morrison, on the song Stand and Deliver, which likens adherence to government restrictions to slavery.
The song prompted the Black blues musician Robert Cray, who was born in segregated Georgia, to withdraw from supporting Clapton on his US summer tour as planned, the Washington Post reported.

On that tour, Clapton was photographed posing with Texas governor Greg Abbott, who signed into law the country’s most restrictive abortion legislation and a measure to limit who can vote in the state._

Eric Clapton wins legal case against woman selling bootleg live CD for £8.45


----------



## Raheem (Dec 18, 2021)

John Cleese was great in his time, IMO. Turns out that doesn't include now, so ignore him and don't worry about it


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 18, 2021)

Raheem said:


> John Cleese was great in his time, IMO. Turns out that doesn't include now, so ignore him and don't worry about it



He was good in that episode of Cheers and A Fish Called Wanda, a few years back


----------



## bellaozzydog (Dec 18, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> He was good in that episode of Cheers and A Fish Called Wanda, a few years back


Ironic grasping of straws?


----------



## kenny g (Dec 18, 2021)

I laughed and laughed at the cinema watching clockwise the film where he played a headmaster. The approach towards a plotline focused on an under 18 student running off with the drama teacher looks dodge in a modern light but that is probably down to the Director more than the lead actor. He appears to have since become swallowed by his bloated pomposity.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Dec 18, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Old slowhandjob in the news again
> 
> _Clapton has made headlines in the past 18 months for taking a staunch stance against Covid-19 protective measures such as lockdowns, vaccines and vaccine passports.
> 
> ...


What an absolute arsehole Clapton is.


----------



## two sheds (Dec 18, 2021)

and not sure why he was so exercised by amount of non-English spoken in London (and surely has to be tourists). Go to Amsterdam it's all spoken fucking English in the inner city.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Rowan Atkinson's become a right wing disappointment too, over the years.


Should have died after Blackadder goes forth first shown and would be admired as a great comic


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Old slowhandjob in the news again
> 
> _Clapton has made headlines in the past 18 months for taking a staunch stance against Covid-19 protective measures such as lockdowns, vaccines and vaccine passports.
> 
> ...


He's def funny peculiar and not funny haha


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 18, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Should have died after Blackadder goes forth first shown and would be admired as a great comic



Over the years, seems he immersed himself in cars and isolated himself from the rest of the world.

Fuck him, Cleese and the rest of the Tory apologists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Over the years, seems he immersed himself in cars and isolated himself from the rest of the world.
> 
> Fuck him, Cleese and the rest of the Tory apologists.


Thought cleese an apologist for the golden shower


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Dec 18, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Thought cleese an apologist for the golden shower


The yellow tories


----------



## petee (Dec 18, 2021)

two sheds said:


> and not sure why he was so exercised by amount of non-English spoken in London



i've always loved all the non-english spoken in nyc, i understand almost none of it and so don't get vexed by any bullshit they're talking.
(though by rights we should all be speaking dutch and munsee)


----------



## 8ball (Dec 18, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Should have died after Blackadder goes forth first shown and would be admired as a great comic



Very common story.  Elton John would be considered a musical genius at this point if he had been standing in front of John Lennon on a certain day in 1980.
And the kind of embarassment John Lennon would now be doesn't bear thinking about.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 18, 2021)

just  what  have  the  Romans  done  for  us .....?


err  .......Londinium


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2021)

Tankus said:


> just  what  have  the  Romans  done  for  us .....?
> 
> 
> err  .......Londinium


Excellent song by catatonia


----------



## PTK (Dec 18, 2021)

AmateurAgitator said:


> What an absolute arsehole Clapton is.


Eric Clapton made appalling racist comments on stage in the 1970s, and his words were one of the reasons that Rock Against Racism was formed. Another reason being the pro-fascist statements of David Bowie. So Clapton’s recent comments are unsurprising in light of his political history.


----------



## kenny g (Dec 18, 2021)

PTK said:


> Eric Clapton made appalling racist comments on stage in the 1970s, and his words were one of the reasons that Rock Against Racism was formed. Another reason being the pro-fascist statements of David Bowie. So Clapton’s recent comments are unsurprising in light of his political history.


The 'I was drunk' excuse doesn't wash.

 As someone who has been exceptionally drunk on multiple occasions and witnessed numerous others in similar states I can be almost certain I have never given or experienced the rambling torrent of shit that dribbled forth from Eric's gob on that stage back in 1970ish.

 Enoch was not right, even many of his close friends at the time told him he wasn't, and Eric's claims that  Eric's response was a product of the time rather than an expression of his true bigoted inadequacies has been belied by Eric's subsequent devotion to bigoted fact lite prejudice.


----------



## PTK (Dec 18, 2021)

kenny g said:


> The 'I was drunk' excuse doesn't wash.
> 
> As someone who has been exceptionally drunk on multiple occasions and witnessed numerous others in similar states I can be almost certain I have never given or experienced the rambling torrent of shit that dribbled forth from Eric's gob on that stage back in 1970ish.
> 
> Enoch was not right, even many of his close friends at the time told him he wasn't, and Eric's claims that  Eric's response was a product of the time rather than an expression of his true bigoted inadequacies has been belied by Eric's subsequent devotion to bigoted fact lite prejudice.


Mel Gibson excused an anti-Jewish rant by claiming that he was intoxicated. Clapton and Gibson are apparently unaware of the expression “in vino veritas” [in wine there is truth]. Alcohol merely removes the caution that people normally exercise; it does not change their opinion. I am old enough to know that what Clapton said was not acceptable at the time. It has never been acceptable to abuse members of the audience on the grounds of their ethnicity.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Dec 18, 2021)

PTK said:


> Eric Clapton made appalling racist comments on stage in the 1970s, and his words were one of the reasons that Rock Against Racism was formed. Another reason being the pro-fascist statements of David Bowie. So Clapton’s recent comments are unsurprising in light of his political history.


Yeah I am aware of Clapton's appalling comments about immigration. Am not aware of any pro-fascist remarks from Bowie though, that's news to me.


----------



## elbows (Dec 18, 2021)

AmateurAgitator said:


> Yeah I am aware of Clapton appalling comments about immigration. Am not aware of any pro-fascist remarks from Bowie though, that's news to me.



During a total cocaine madness phase I believe.


----------



## tim (Dec 18, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> He was good in that episode of Cheers and A Fish Called Wanda, a few years back


Do you know the difference between decades and years? And do you understand what actors do?


----------



## PTK (Dec 18, 2021)

elbows said:


> During a total cocaine madness phase I believe.


----------



## PTK (Dec 18, 2021)

It ought to be noted that Clapton and Bowie made their comments at a time of rising support for a not-so-crypto-fascist party. A time of racist assaults and murders. As Hitlerites were leading marches along streets of areas with large Back and Asian populations, two of the biggest pop stars of the time were apparently on their side.


----------



## elbows (Dec 18, 2021)

Yeah I wouldnt use the cocaine aspect to let him off the hook. Its one dimension that needs to be joined by a bunch of others. People were searching for something in the 1970s and some delusion fuckwits who were detached from reality in some ways, sheltered from it in others, naive in others, probably got a kick out of imagining themselves as part of a glamorous rock and roll front for the banality of evil.

There is some detail here, I dont know how good it is because I havent taken a large amount of time to explore other sources.









						Golden years: David Bowie and the Third Reich
					

Still the world mourns David Bowie, and rightly so. He’s had an amazing career and he made the world a little brighter by being in it. He…




					medium.com
				




I'm still a great fan of many forms of music but a lot of the superficial lustre of rock & roll sure did wear off for me as I got older. A lot of immature bullshit, spoilt twats, bad priorities and fucked up lifestyles. Another form of dodgy worship.


----------



## Raheem (Dec 18, 2021)

One of the two Bowie "fascism" interviews (the other one was in Sweden and doesn't seem to be in full on the Internet) is here:









						The Quietus | Features | Rock's Backpages | Classic David Bowie Interview: Adolf Hitler And The Need For A New Right
					

In association with Rock's Backpages we republish the controversial 1975 interview in which David Bowie appeared to call for the rise of a new right wing




					thequietus.com
				




It's not OK and fine by any means, but I'd say it's a lot more "is everything alright, David?" than anything else.


----------



## elbows (Dec 18, 2021)

Yeah a phrase in the article I mentioned, "in a state of psychic terror", is quite possibly most appropriate.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Much as I love you, both as an urban poster and as a comrade, I'm sad to say, on this occasion... you're dead wrong


Stewart Lee seems to have taken against Kenan Malik for some reason.


----------



## Serge Forward (Jan 4, 2022)

Seems odd. Wonder what that's about?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Seems odd. Wonder what that's about?


It’s because he’s a middle class liberal, Serge.


----------



## killer b (Jan 4, 2022)

I think Malik's position on freedom of speech etc is one that could be easily misconstrued, especially when considered where it crosses over with his former(?) comrades in the RCP. He's written a lot on the topic last year, so I'd imagine that's where the beef arises.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2022)

Raheem said:


> One of the two Bowie "fascism" interviews (the other one was in Sweden and doesn't seem to be in full on the Internet) is here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you mean you think it was a call for help. Can you offer a couple of other examples of similar interviews where support  for fascism is a call for help, so we can see this is a thing, rather than people bending over backwards to excuse a musician they adore?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2022)

killer b said:


> I think Malik's position on freedom of speech etc is one that could be easily misconstrued, especially when considered where it crosses over with his former(?) comrades in the RCP. He's written a lot on the topic last year, so I'd imagine that's where the beef arises.


Just to answer your query, former is correct.


----------



## killer b (Jan 4, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> Just to answer your query, former is correct.


I'm sure that's probably true. I could understand someone taking a different position without it necessarily being down to their middle class liberalism though.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2022)

killer b said:


> I'm sure that's probably true. I could understand someone taking a different position without it necessarily being down to their middle class liberalism though.


Aye, but in Lee’s case it’s true.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Jan 4, 2022)

Tbh I never liked Lee's smug liberal pro-voting mockery of Russell Brand (who was certainly not the best person to fight the anti-voting corner). But Lee still makes me laugh.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2022)

Oh, Russell Brand. I’m going to have to produce a pedal bin list of my own, aren’t I?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2022)

I mean, I won’t, because who wants to read everybody’s list of things and people they like/don’t like?  That would be extremely dull.


----------



## Serge Forward (Jan 4, 2022)

Isn't there a pedal bin thread on here already?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Isn't there a pedal bin thread on here already?


There's Twat of the Year.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 4, 2022)

should be in the bin if there is


----------



## Raheem (Jan 4, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> I think you mean you think it was a call for help. Can you offer a couple of other examples of similar interviews where support  for fascism is a call for help, so we can see this is a thing, rather than people bending over backwards to excuse a musician they adore?



Is everything alright, Pickman's?


----------



## Santino (Jan 4, 2022)

Why is some of Stewart Lee's list in red? Mostly women's names, but then other seemingly random bits of text.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 4, 2022)

Santino said:


> Why is some of Stewart Lee's list in red? Mostly women's names, but then other seemingly random bits of text.


Post modernism. He probably does a two hour gag where he explains the punchline.


----------



## killer b (Jan 4, 2022)

guessing he was probably checking the gender balance of his list then ended up pasting it like that, or something. I do that with my end of year lists.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 4, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> I think you mean you think it was a call for help. Can you offer a couple of other examples of similar interviews where support  for fascism is a call for help, so we can see this is a thing, rather than people bending over backwards to excuse a musician they adore?


Yeah but,


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 5, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> I mean, I won’t, because who wants to read everybody’s list of things and people they like/don’t like?  That would be extremely dull.



Urban would be listless


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Yeah but,
> 
> View attachment 304569


I cannot conceive of a better post in the circumstances


----------



## pinkychukkles (Jan 5, 2022)

That Bowie story has had the Buxton treatment and been animated…


----------

