She wont vote for militant Islam
This evening BBC Radio 4′s Moral Maze is discussing the unrest in Egypt. I usually find this program to irritating to listen to. The panelist seem to consider that it is their soul objective to be obnoxious and insulting to the “witnesses”.
In describing tonight’s program the BBC web site asks: “Is it morally justifiable to tolerate or support unpleasant, authoritarian, undemocratic regimes because we feel the likely alternatives might prove worse for the citizens of Egypt.”
My answer is simple: NO! No because it is wrong to support unpleasant, authoritarian, undemocratic regimes. NO because we cannot know what the alternative will be. And NO because we have experience of what happens when revolution finally breaks out in countries where the West has connived to suppress democracy. i.e. the people despise the West along with the dictator which they have just thrown off.
The classic example of this is Iran. In 1953 the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup d’état instigated by the United States and the United Kingdom. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was installed as Shāh and propped up by the United States until the revolution in 1977.
From what I have read the revolution was initially backed by a secular movement but militant Islamists used the chance to grab power. Secular Iranians tried to resist but were crushed by the new regime of Ayatollah Khomeini. They could have received help from the West but having been responsible for 20 years of their repression we were not trusted and there followed a caustic division between Iran and the West that lasts ’till this day. That is an example of what happens when we support unpleasant, authoritarian, undemocratic regimes because we feel the likely alternatives might prove worse.
We should support the people of Egypt in ejecting their dictator. If they then elect an authoritarian Islamist government then more fool them. At least the responsibility will not be ours and when they are finally in a position to reject authoritarianism we will be in a position to help.
More optimistically I believe that Egyptians will have learned from the experiences of Iran and Afghanistan and will reject outright Islamist rule though Islamists may have some role in a coalition. It is possible that Egypt could finally break the curse that has afflicted the Arab world for decades and start to modernise.
Imagine a middle east of modern democratic countries right on the border of the largest trading block in the world. I am talking of the European Union. While the world obsesses over whether China will supplant America as the largest economy in the world they overlook the fact that the EU has an economy larger than both. With the Arab world modernising trade would take off and this would be great news for Arabs and Europeans.
The financial crisis has caused market uncertainty and companies have been nervous about initiating capital projects. Investors are also unenthusiastic as many assets appear overpriced; there is even talk of a Chinese asset bubble. Consequently some sectors, such as insurance, are awash with capital.
If democracy were to blossom then this capital could find it’s way to infrastructure projects in the Arab world. There was speculation in The Economist in 2009 of solar powered electricity generation in the Sahara with the electricity transported to Europe across the Mediterranean. That is not going to happen while the region is ruled by unstable dictators.
Lastly consider the effect on the Arab / Israeli conflict. Today the subtext of much of Israel’s argument is that the Palestinians are just Arabs who are used to being oppressed and the Palestinians are no worse off than citizens of other Arab countries.
Imagine if Israel were surrounded by thriving democracies. Israel would be forced to confront it’s oppressive and racist policies toward the Palestinians. Could The United States continue to support the siege of Gaza or the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians? Shame on them if they did.
Art Photography
Thank God for Diane Abbott
Tags: anti-racism, “them and us”, “white people love to play divide and rule”, bigots, David Norris, Diane Abbott, ethnic cleansing, Gary Dobson, Israelis, Newt Gingrich, Palestinians, political opportunism, prejudice, racism, Stephen Larwence, tweet, Twitter
Only an idiot would consider her a racist
Having followed the career of Diane Abbott MP for some years I consider her to be a great benefit to the House of Commons. While she is not as technically learned as some, she has a common sense approach that slices through bullshit like a knife through butter and, most of all, I believe that her heart is in the right place.
Now we hear that she has tweeted that “white people love to play divide and rule” and she is being lambasted as a racist. What are we to think?
Personally, I’m getting a feeling of Déjà vu. Back in March last year TV producer Brian True-May was suspended after being accused of racist comments relating to the ITV series Midsummer Murders. When speaking in an informal situation, he was asked if his Ms Marple style/chocolate box program should have ethnic minorities. He answered no and added that “..it wouldn’t be the English village with them”. A friend of mine told me that suspension was not enough and that Mr. True-May should be imprisoned!
The comments of Mr. True-May and Dianne Abbot do nothing to show racism. If we held ourselves to the same standard as we hold other people we would all be behind bars. On the face of it both comments ARE racist but only an idiot would depend on these words in isolation to judge a persons character and the calls for the resignation of Ms. Abbott are merely political opportunism.
As a white man, I understand Dianne’s comments while welcoming her clarification. In truth the baying mobs who chant RACIST have more in common with real racist than do the, usually innocent, people who stumble into these mine fields laid by the mean spirited and the lame witted.
This is not to say that all who utter remarks such as these are not racist, just that the judging of people by a handful of isolated remarks shows a bigotry and prejudice more in keeping with the likes of the BNP. The accusations come from a “them and us” mentality. They are supported by the simplistic idea that racism is a simple yes/no analysis. That anyone whose commitment to anti-racism is called into question must be immediately rejected as evil. Often, I suspect, this attitude is propelled by the fear of the finger of racism being pointed at anyone who dares defend such people.
This week real racism was in the news in the form of the conviction of Gary Dobson and David Norris for the murder of Stephen Larwence. When confronted with events such as this, we may be forgiven for wondering whether hypocrisy in the racism debate really matters? While Brian True-May might have lost a few weeks pay and Dianne Abbot a few voters this is nothing when compared to the horrendous suffering by many black people in this country as demonstrated by the murder of Stephen Lawrence..
I believe that hypocrisy in the racism debate does matter. While not knowing anything about Brian True-May I am not willing to brand him as racist for the handful of comments I have been fed during a media frenzy. Similarly nobody with any intelligence or sincerity who follows politics can seriously consider Dianne Abbott a racist.
If we continue to turn on each other every time one of us is accused of racism then we will all learn to disguise our opinions and this will not be a good thing. I am told by English friends who work in America that it is almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation at work. Nobody even tries as they are all afraid of tripping up over racism, sexism, agism or any other bloody ism. Yet do we consider America to be the least racist of countries? The election of President Obama would suggest that they are yet the disgraceful attacks on Mr. Obama indicate otherwise.
The debate on racism has become stilted and the two extremes monopolise debate. The outright racists at one end and the bigoted anti-racist at the other. Each side can be recognised by their obsession with hate. Their insistance on dividing humanity into absolute good and absolute bad. This leaves the rest of us walking on eggshells.
The intermittent witch hunts betray a society desperate to prove it’s anti-racist credentials while neglecting some very real forms of racism which exist in the world today. For example the monopolising of racist victimhood by Israel allows it to settle fundamentalist Jews on Palestinian land while simultaneously throwing the accusation of racist at anyone who dares to criticise. While the Israelis carry out ethnic cleansing Newt Gingrich refers to families who may have lived in Palestine for longer than America has existed as “so-called Palestinians”.
Dianne Abbot has done us all a favour by showing that ANYONE can be caught out saying something stupid which, when one is too lazy to pay attention, can be branded as racist. We should all, therefore, calm down and stop flinging accusation of racism about in such an indiscriminate manner.
The words of Rudyard Kipling may be worth considering:
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build’em up with worn-out tools;
…..Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
………daughter…I mean man..woman……..person….human…oh bollocks!
Poppies
Rate this: