- British stoicism goes to shit - nice one. As if it's not bad enough that eveyone who looks a bit foreign is being stared at suspiciously on the tube and made to feel deeply uncomfortable, attacks on "asian" people (which may or may not include Brazilians these days) have risen significantly since the bombings. Due to the same ignorance which leads people to get confused about the different Islamic sects, this has included attacks on Sikhs and Hindus.
So, what started out as a fight between "us" and a small group of fanatics has seemingly started to expand to take in not just every Muslim on the planet, but into a full-on racial division throughout British society. Which is one of the least British things going - the last time we had such a racial split was just after the Norman Conquest.
42 Comments:
Does this mean that Muslim pediatricians are doubly in danger from the moronic types?
If it's really a religous split, the last time was the Reformation, or perhaps the Civil Wars. If it's really a political split, the last time was WWII or the Cold War.
Seeing off the Catholics, Puritans, Nazis and Commies all seem like pretty good moves to me.
Unfortunately, it has all the appearances of being racial at the moment. I'm hoping it'll calm down.
Still, we didn't actually see off the Catholics or Puritans - a few of the more extreme ones, certainly, but the majority were eventually assimilated through a gradual process of increased toleration. Admittedly, it took about 300 years before Catholics and Nonconformists had the same rights under the law as the regular CofE lot, but still...
Apparently the UK is going through the same thing The Netherlands went through after the murder of Van Gogh:
"Nine mosques had been attacked, a garage firebombed, people assaulted in the street, and homes had had their windows broken, he told BBC News."
Needless to say this is an international problem.
The Normans were trying to impose their will on the host society - which didn't like it and fought back, unsuccessfully.
The Islamist bombers are trying to do the same.
BTW - Where is your "These terrorists could not have been bred in London" argument now? I said you might have to eat your words.
while I share your dismay about attacks on Muslim, I can't help thinking Britian (like everywhere else) has always contained idiots, and while despicable, the rise in attacks is woefully predictable: idiots behaving like idiots. Hopefully it is no sign that Britian is any less British, or that we are sliding towards full on racial division. I could be wrong though - we've never had such a racially (mis)identified enemy in our midst before.
of course, one has to try and understand the root causes of idiocy, and accept our responsibility for those causes ... oh hang on, let's not go there
and while you say it's bad enough Asian's are getting stared at on public transport .... I try not to, but I cannot help myself scanning the bus for young asian lads with rucksacks (and then nervously sitting near them, thinking I ought to have the courage of my convictions).
What percentage of londoners do you think are pure enough of thought and action not to do the staring nervously at Asian lads with rucksack thing? [Nosemonkey you may be a better man than I, I wouldn't doubt it.]
oh I didn't mean to be anonymous. that was me.
Steve - the (somewhat significant) difference you're forgetting between the Normans and our bombers is that the Normans were in complete military and political control of the country, while the bombers are from a powerless minority (and no, I'm not suggesting that's an excuse, before anyone leaps on that phrase).
As for my reckoning about how the bombers couldn't have been bred in London, as of yet there's been no statement that they were. Some of them had bases in London - that's not the same thing.
If and when it turns out that these guys were born and bred Londoners, then I will, naturally, take it back and admit my mistake.
Paddy - re: the staring thing, the only reason I'm not (although I will admit to being a tad uncomfortable on the tube these days, which is only natural) is that it doesn't really make any sense. They may be stupid, but they're surely not going to be so stupid to look/act in a suspicious way - especially with the massively enhanced police presence at the moment and the attendent risks of getting shot in the head - and they'll be more than aware that to look a bit foreign and have a rucksack is going to count as suspicious these days.
In short, my basic thinking is that there's no way we can spot these guys before, so there's no real point worrying about it. Don't stress about something you can't do anything about.
The police comment about a backlash being just what the terrorists want is exactly right.
I don't think they (as in the masterminders, not the bombers) expected for a minute that we would change our Middle Eastern policy as a result of the attacks.
However, I do think that they've observed what went on in the Netherlands after Theo van Gogh's murder and drawn conclusions. What they're after is to radicalise a lot more Muslims. For us to pull out of Iraq would hardly achieve that for them. For mosques to be burnt/race riots to break out would give them exactly what they want.
Up to us to prove them wrong.
Can't fault your reasoning - not always so easy to be rational in practice, mind.
Valerie - this may be of interest - Suicide blasts conspiracy against Islam: MMA
Paddy - for sure. People being nervous is more than understandable. As I say, I've been getting nervous as well - but it doesn't really make sense, is all.
"Don't stress about something you can't do anything about."
Thank you.
Now, if we can just inculcate our youth with this sentiment, the next generation of society as a whole might not be quite so dumb.
Wishful thinking, I suppose, people have been after such a thing for centuries, and if we're getting there at all it's happening very, very, very slowly.
NM - aren't the guys in that link merely indulging in 'it must have been someone else trying to radicalise Muslims' conspiracy theory?
When I said 'they', I was talking about al Qaeda, not anyone/thing else!
[nosemonkey:]... while the bombers are from a powerless minority ...
WTF is "powerless minority" supposed to imply? These guys are victims, are they, valiantly striking back at their oppressors through desperate acts of heroism?
[Nosemonkey:] If and when it turns out that these guys were born and bred Londoners, then I will, naturally, take it back and admit my mistake.
You're nitpicking. These young men arrived here as children and were largely raised and educated here. They are a sight closer to being "born and bred" than they are to being transient malign foreigners.
Edwin, dearest, do pay attention to the bit in parenthesis, there's a love.
And as for the "raised and educated here" bit, maybe they were raised in this country - but was it in London? That was my initial and only point, as London is distinctly different from the rest of the country. As of yet I haven't heard anything to say that they were raised and educated IN LONDON. If they were, as I say, I will naturally admit my mistake.
Nosemonkey, Sweetie, I did indeed read, mark and inwardly digest your parenthesis, and it has no bearing, indeed it's a cop-out.
I took issue with the phrase powerless minority, which in itself suggests that you regard them as victims and would be pleased to find excuses for their actions.
Of course I accept your parenthetic assurance that you view their sense of victimhood as inadequate grounds for blowing people up.
The media reports I have read or watched indicate that Muktar Said Ibrahim was educated, and presumably lived, in the Edgware area. Where his oppo Omar lived, I don't know.
No, Edwin, what you're doing is projecting your preconceptions of what you think someone with the views you believe me to hold would think onto innocent statements.
Fact: our bombers were from minorities.
Fact: I used the term "powerless" in direct comparison to the Normans who were in complete political and military control of England in the post-Conquest period. It was a comparison to a situation 900 years ago, and implied no sense of victimhood, moral judgement or anything similar with any bearing on the present day.
As for the Edgeware thing, if so I was wrong and I'll admit it. Not overly happily, as it will shake my faith in this city somewhat, but I will admit it. As and when that is proven, of course.
Belfast Telegraph:
It emerged last night that Mr Omar had come to Britain aged 12 with his elder sister and her husband in 1992. All three had lived together initially in Enfield, north London. It is thought a family dispute led to Mr Omar leaving the home and being taken into care by social services. He stayed with a series of foster parents before moving to Curtis House [moved in with Ibrahim] in February 1999.
Where were the foster homes?
Edwin's right, NM. These people were raised in London. Deal with it - and the end of your wonderful multlculti city theory.
This doesn't please me; this saddnes me no end. I think if the bombs end now we have a chance to get back to normal, eventually... but if they go on??
Fuck. It almost doesn't bear thinking about. But the fact is we have a murderous fifth column in our midst, entirely Muslim, though racially varied; moreover, these people are inspired by Islam, or their version of it.
The closest equivalent I can think of is the Catholics in the 16th/17th century. A majority of Catholics just wanted to practise their faith in peace; but a significant minority really did want to overthrow the state, and saw all Protestants as fair game.
It's fucking medieval. But we are dealing with a medieval religion.
The result was a virtual pogrom against Catholics, as that was the only way for protestant England to protect itself.
If the bombs go on, I cannot see any outcome but this: a hideous rift in society. The temple of multiculturalims is burning down around our ears.
And to that guy who said I was wrong to rope in the themes of illegal immigration and asylum. What are these bombers? Asylum seekers, or the children of asylum seekers. What insanity have we wrought with our tolerance and hospitality?
I pray the bombs end so we can rescue our society.
Until that time, God help us. I'm in Cornwall at the mo, and not looking forward to coming back to London. I'm not sure I've said that before.
And it's raining.
Bollocks.
Sean.
Sean, you really are giving them what they want, aren't you.
Where were the foster homes?
As Yoda would say, clutching at straws you are.
I've no idea where the foster homes were -- perhaps some determined googling would reveal this -- but I would be rather surprised if the Borough of Enfield were fostering kids, especially black kids, out to the Isle of Skye.
No, Nosemonkey, I agree that London is different in character from the rest of the UK, but not all that different.
Clutching at straws possibly, but certainly not leaping to conclusions before all the evidence is known. That way lies dead Brazilians.
Valerie
Just which of my remarks would you take issue with?
Bit more constructive, than merely making sarcastic bleating noises.
That said, I am a little acid today. Weirdly enough, being in Cornwall makes it all feel worse - because you imagine the worst going on in London.
Maybe when I'm back in London I'll calm down... bit of sunshine would help us all, too...
Sean
Sorry, didn't mean to bleat, I was just in a bit of a hurry. Was referring to remarks on medieval religion, temple of multiculturalism crashing down etc. You'd have to read it in conjunction with what I said earlier re. the bombing campaign's primary aim being to create hatred that will further radicalise Muslims. We've already played into their hands once with Iraq (responding to 9/11 in wrong way) - we can't play into their hands on this as well.
Very envious of you being in Cornwall. Sun is out here now although that probably means it's doing something totally different down there.
again, sorry, I shouldn't have phrased it so rudely. Just that while I'm as worried as you are about existence of c. 3,000 people in the country who hold my life of no value, and very very worried about senior Muslim clerics who find it opportune to say bombers might be innocent, I think a backlash would be the biggest strategic mistake possible that we could make at this point.
Fair enuff Valerie. But the line between a 'nasty racial backlash' and 'non-Islamic Britain justifiably protecting itself' is going to become rather blurred I feel.
In a way, the UK as a whole faces the dilemma of the person on the Tube confronted by a nervous Muslim with a rucksack. While it is reprehensible and maybe even racist for the white person to get off and change carriage, it also entirely understandable. And perhaps justifiable.
Similarly, though it would be wrong for us, in absolute terms, to penalise Muslims as a whole for what a few of them do, in the end we may have to do just that...
Sean, You say Similarly, though it would be wrong for us, in absolute terms, to penalise Muslims as a whole for what a few of them do, in the end we may have to do just that...
Isn't that exactly the kind of thinking which leads suicide bombers to blow up innocent British civilians? The greater good and all that.
I'm afraid I find your statement just about as twisted as the justifications used by the extremists. It is also, as Valerie pointed out earlier, exactly the sort of behaviour the extremists wish to provoke.
We are supposed to be a civilized country. We do not punish the many for the crimes of the few. If you think otherwise, I suggest you leave the country. There are lots of places where such attitudes would fit right in. Not here.
Sean - I don't think the lines need become blurred. The difference between what is reprehensible/racist and what isn't is one of self-restraint. Getting off the tube = OK, if you do it very discreetly so that only you know what's going on in your own head.
I don't think you can justifiably expect people to have some kind of spotless inner minds on the subject, but it is justifiable to expect them to keep it to themselves. What I'm trying to say is that the line between what's understandable and what's justifiable is clear, in that sense.
All I see here is fear, in all its various forms. Fear of being blown apart on the Tube. Fear of Islamists. Fear of offending innocent people by suspecting them of being potential bombers. Fear of just about everything.
This is what "they" (meaning every enemy of 'freedom', be they Islamists, the KKK, or the nastier BNP types) want, more than anything. Fear divides us, fear strengthens their hand and gives them purpose.
In the immediate wake of 7/7, I remember reading someone commenting about how for the first time in ages, they actually smiled at another person on the Tube (which normally would brand them as a nutter). Perhaps that's what it takes to break down some of these artificial barriers. I know you English can be terribly reserved (with notable exceptions). Instead of dwelling on offending an Asian by switching carriages, what about engaging them? Flash them a smile. Complain about the weather. Engage them in any way, however simple it may be--show them you couldn't care less if they're from Lahore or London. Be colorblind.
A foolishly optimistic, American answer to a complex problem, to be sure, but there you have it. It's a way of ACTING, instead of merely living in fear and constantly worrying about this or that...
Eric - they only want visible signs of fear, and above all fear that manifests itself as hatred. If no one else but you can tell you're afraid, then it doesn't matter.
Clearly, it's also better for everyone not to be afraid & to take whatever steps helps that - I was just talking about the crucial difference.
(& I would never move along the train).
Valerie
Well maybe you're a better woman than I! - if you know what I mean. But I think your liberal fear of giving offence is getting the better of your logic.
If you were being followed home from the Tube, in the dark, by two young men - would you quicken your pace? Of course you would. But nobody is saying you therefore hate all men. You are just taking a sensible precaution. Similarly, with nervous-looking Muslims on Tubes. Why take the risk? If I see one, I move down the carriage. Doesn't mean I hate Muslims, I just want to slightly lessen the chance of my being killed.
Anybody who does otherwise is either a poseur - or a saint!
Curioushamster, your spineless liberal wittering is what may one day get us all killed. Remember internment in the Second World War? Was that cruel? Yes. Was it justified? Yes.
Sometimes the world is a confusing and blurry place. I'm sorry if you can't cope with that, and would rather stay to admire your own noble profile in that lovely mirror. You sad person. Meanwhile, the rest of us are moving on.
But a fear of giving offence *is* a sensible precaution. It's sensible not to give offence...That's my logic I'm only a liberal because I think it works better :)
I think it's worth trying to imagine what it's like for a "nervous-looking Muslim" on the Tube these days. If we consider the fact that the vast majority of Muslims have absolutely no interest in blowing anything up (least of all themselves), and we consider the recent spike in 'hate crimes' against Asians (NM linked to a BBC article about this earlier), then it's easy to imagine some other reasons why they might seem nervous!
I also think it's worth considering the effect of 'discreetly moving along to the next carriage' will have on the typical Asian Londoner. If you're already feeling rather scrutinized, you're sure to notice a few people slinking off the carriage every time you board--thus making you feel even more nervous. The cycle perpetuates itself.
At the same time, it's perfectly healthy to want to preserve oneself. London is a very large city, though, and the chance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time is really quite small. Hopping carriages every time a nervous-looking Muslim boards could prove quite difficult, especially considering not all Muslims look...Muslim. What if we see another bombing attempt by, say, a Malaysian or Indonesian Muslim? Do you switch carriages any time a fidgety South *or* East Asian boards? What if a *white* Muslim bombs a train? Ack, that white guy in the bulky jacket looks nervous! Time to invest in a nice bicycle, I suppose.
It's partly a matter of simple respect, it's partly a matter of trying to help 'integrate' people a bit (yes, that's rather optimistic, I know), and it's partly just a matter of not changing your way of life because of a few terrorist bastards. You could argue that this is a rather dangerous gamble--what if that nervous guy with the rucksack really *is* a bomber? But I think what Valerie is saying is correct--you're also gambling by shunning Muslims and/or Asians in your midst. Of course, some will have no desire to consort with infidels; I suspect the vast majority will appreciate being treated with respect.
Sean,you say Curioushamster, your spineless liberal wittering is what may one day get us all killed.
Well, it's very kind of you, but I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood my position. Don't worry, I know it's more comfortable for you just to repeat your mantras over and over. I believe it's much easier than thinking. Insults though? Ouch, you've hurt my poor spineless liberal feelings.
Seriously though, let's not spoil nosemonkey's post by slagging each other off. The point I wanted to make is that the extremists want to provoke reactions like those described in the original post. It's a standard tactic to divide us from the Muslim communities so they can recruit more easily. You can play their game if you want, but don't kid yourself that the terrorists aren't going "YES!" everytime you do.
Valerie
I admire your bien pensant fortitude, and can - now - see some logic in what you are saying. Which is - that the damage wrought to race relations by shunning nervous-Muslims-on-Tubes (NMOTs) outweighs the small gain in personal safety. Is that right?
So, yes, I can see the logic, but I don't quite agree. There is also an argument for saying that: until Muslims understand how angry the rest of us are, they won't get the picture. They do have to cleanse their stables. Chase out the troublemakers, close the bad mosques, rein in their sons. If we let them get away with their denial (that top Brummy imam who thinks it wasn't Muslims that did the bombs??!!), if we let them get away with blaming it all on Iraq (when Salman Rushdie and 9/11 preceded Iraq), if we let them get away with thinking that all is well in their faith apart from a few radicals (stoning of homosexuals, killing of apostates) then they won't change their ways.
Sorry if this sounds harsh. But it's what I think. We have made Muslims TOO comfortable in our society. Given them faith schools, let them peache hatred, bowed to demands on usury law, we're even trying to make polygamy tax- rational, I mean, Jesus - this is frigging England.
Multiculturalism IS part of the problem here. I think the days of atomised racial groups must be brought to an end. Muslims have to integrate; and if we have to tell them that we find parts of their faith (stoning gays, slaying apostates, female genital mutilation) utterly repugnant, so be it.
The first part of this is to make Muslims feels less comfortable in the UK. Then the ones who don't like ot here anyway (10-30%?) who think it is OK to kill us infidels (10%?), who want to destroy Western society (30%?) can fuck off back home.
The rest can integrate and assimilate, at last - as of course many do already, quite peacably.
So a few NMOTs being offended could be viewed as the beginning of that process. Make Muslims examine why they are being shunned.
Curioushamster - I agree that slagging each other off is not a good way to go. But it does stike me how liberals are often the most intolerant of differing views. You no doubt find the views expressed above unsavoury. But the fact is we simply disagree on matters of race and religion. It does not make me Satan.
Liberal narrow-mindedness, liberal moral narcissism, like yours, is part of the problem here. The inability to think that the left-liberal consensus might in some ways be wrong. 'Consider it possible in the bowels of Christ that you make be mistaken!'
If the left in this country doesn't wake up (and there are hopeful signs.. to be fair..) then we are headed down the Dutch route. Pim Fortuyn, Geert Wilders, etc...
But enough slagging! Good morning all. Feeling more cheerful today - sun's out.
As far as going the Dutch route--don't forget the police suing Van Gogh's murderer for damaages, essentially because he made them feel bad. I suppose you can take heart in that. The Metropolitan Police certainly don't seem to be hiding on the floors of their vehicles. =)
I agree with most of your comments about multiculturalism, Sean...it really is a problem. It's an even bigger problem that so many people see it as a *strength*--"look at how tolerant and multicultural we are!". If every ethnic/religious group is an island unto itself, then saying your society is "multicultural" is really a bit of a joke. Tolerance for people who wish to destroy everything that makes your society great is simply slow-motion suicide.
I couldn't care less about rooting people out based on their views on homosexuality, women's rights, or anything like that. There will always be enormous numbers of people we disagree with. That's where integration and assimilation come into play, though. It's not what you believe that matters, it's how you express it. If an American Muslim or Southern Baptist Christian is opposed to homosexuality, that's their right. Whether they're "correct" is another issue entirely. If they violate the law and start stoning or gunning down gays, though, then they've gone too far and must be stopped.
You are completely correct to say that we will always anger *some* of them, and that this is a good thing. To deny that there is a very nasty extremist streak running through Islam is to deny reality. Islamists are the enemy of everything liberals stand for, and it baffles me how the left often lives in denial of this simple fact. Everything they hold dear--tolerance for gays, full equality for women, the right to play dreadful Europop at loud volumes--stands in clear, direct opposition to Taliban-style Islam. The larger issue of integration and assimilation was a problem long before 9/11, 7/7, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The difficulty lies in how to bring about integration. It's not easy.
a) I'm not on the left !!!!!!!
b) I agree with a lot of what you're saying re. cracking down, but the method you're suggesting would be catastrophic. What's wrong with the force of the law pure and simple? The trouble is that it doesn't seem to be used properly.
I get the feeling that there simply hasn't been enough effort until now in anti-terror operations, apart from right at the moment. Why were people slipping through borders because they were 'too far down the list'? Why don't we have laws on incitement/glorification of terrorism already? Why isn't phone-tap evidence useable yet? I think I said elsewhere that it feels as if Tony Blair was the one who went back to sleep after 9/11.
Eric - I know what you mean about multiculturalism. It actually feels too pigeonholing - like everyone has to belong to some culture or another. What if I don't?
I've been an expat, and on most days I 'integrated,' whatever that means, on other days I didn't. I hope that on most days I didn't break the law, though.
Valerie:
Yes, being an expat is an interesting exercise in trying to 'integrate'.
I spent a year living in London with friends (2 semesters of college and another 2 semesters of drinking/carousing) in the early 90s. For the first few months, I lived in Stockwell...some may say it's a but run-down, but for a 20-year-old, endless 60p pints of stale beer at the dismal Taylor Walker pub on the corner was like heaven on earth (at least until I woke up the following morning...).
My friend Meg was promptly snapped up by a dashing London firefighter; we rarely saw her after that (she's still married to him and living in London--completely assimilated, I fear). The rest of us carried on as best we could, slowly giving up our bad American habits and replacing them with...bad British habits.
Not sure what this has to do with anything. I think I just miss London, heh heh. It really is the greatest city on the planet, you know...all of this nasty business in recent times hasn't done a bit to change that.
Which pub was that? (I lived there until 6 months ago).
I like the historical London, but there's too much about modern London that I don't like. Where are you now?
Gads, it was so long ago--I'm trying desperately to remember the name of the Taylor Walker pub...The Red Lion, I think. It was really a rather forgettable pub, just west of South Lambeth Road. I believe they stopped brewing Taylor Walker beers in the mid-90s, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's changed hands since then. The place was a bit rough around the edges, but quite friendly. Oh, and I nearly *always* managed to get the slot machine in the corner to cough up enough coins to pay for my drinks...
When we had money to burn, we preferred to wander across Clapham Common to the Faraday & Firkin. I spent New Years' Eve 1990 there. A Canadian friend tended bar at the Faraday, and made history that night by staggering his way across the entire pub by leaping from tabletop to tabletop to the cheers of the crowd--somehow he survived, but scores of pint glasses were lost. A long night, of which I remember so little...
Well, this certainly redefines 'off-topic'...
Post a Comment