Oh Dear Sunny
Although I think we’re getting friendlier again, I fell out with Sunny over what I thought was a surprising and wrong headed blog post about the failed Tory leadership candidate, Davis Davis.
The post was entitled It’s time for brown people to switch to Tory, and concluded:
[G]iven that New Labour wants to extend anti-terrorism legislation until every brown person in the country is locked up until proven innocent (or once the police can be bothered to let you out), it makes more sense for brown and black people, who will overwhelmingly face the brunt of this police-state legislation, to vote Conservative. At least the Tories have finally found some balls regarding the erosion of our civil liberties. And yes, I felt slightly sordid saying that. But its worth thinking about – if you’re brown, then its not worth voting Labour for the sake of your own security.
I freely admit that I’m just a teensy bit tribal in my politics. Although some of my best friends are Tory, I’m a supporter of the Labour Party.
That said, I strongly resist the notion – as I thought Sunny did as well – that a person’s ethnicity should direct the way one votes. Indeed, one of the things that I really like(d) about Pickled Politics is that it sought to challenge the notion of a monolithic religious or ethnic identity, and in particular, the alignment of that identity with a particular political party or tradition.
I also thought that the premise of Sunny’s argument was misconceived:
The number of people who have been arrested under terrorism legislation – compared to the number of people who have been arrested overall – is small.
In the last few years, only, “brown” people have been disproportionately represented among those arrested and convicted of very serious terrorist offences. That has been for a very simple reason. We are living in an era in which the number of white Irish people and mostly white animal “rights” activists involved in terrorist activities has declined, sharply: while the number of Muslims engaged in terrorism, who are often, but not always, brown, has increased. In addition to “brown” (and “white”) Muslim people, there have been a relatively small number of arrests connected to Tamil terrorism and Sikh terrorism. Also “brown” people.
However, that will not necessarily always be the case. Until Islamist terrorists began to organise seriously in the United Kingdom, the most active purveyors of political violence were animal “rights” terrorists: who were usually, but not always, white.
So, if the balance swung that way again, what would Sunny’s advice be? That because “brown” people are disproportionately represented in the medical professions, and “white” people are disproportionately represented among animal “rights” terrorists, that “brown” people should vote Labour, because “brown” people need to be protected from “white” terrorism?
And what if the Good Friday Agreement broke down, and the IRA returned to terrorism? If I recall correctly, the last person in England to be murdered by the “white” IRA was a “brown” newsagent, who died in the Canary Wharf bombing.
The argument rolled on, and this is how I left it:
You’re not advocating voting Tory because of the principle of the matter. You’re calling for people to vote Tory because of your misperception of your own self-interest.
You’re a man who, in the final analysis, sees the world as “brown” and “not brown”. Isn’t this precisely what you’ve spent the last five years arguing against?
Seriously mate, have a think about this again.
Well, Sunny has now changed his mind about Davis Davis. In an article entitled Davis Davis Shows Why We Can’t Trust Tories, he says:
John Harris reports from the Conservative Party conference:
Richards asked him if there was a specifically Tory story on civil liberties, at which point he went on about poppies, Churchill, and – once again cranking up the testosterone – the supposedly unreliable ways of lefties. “If we had relied on Guardian-reading vegetarians to defend liberty,” he reckoned, “we’d all be speaking German.”
You’ll remember that last year when David Davis decided to resign from his seat to re-fight it under the banner of civil liberties – many of those same “Guardian-reading vegetarians” decided to support him because they also cared for civil liberties (me included).
Many of us on LibCon were split because a sizeable contingent were of the opinion that you can never trust a Tory. I’m afraid they have been proven right.
Davis Davis is wrong. The war was opposed, initially, not by Guardian reading veggies: but by Communists who followed the Soviet line, which was to defend the pact with Hitler, and by the mixture of pacifists and Hitler-sympathisers who made up the Peace Pledge Union. Guardian readers joined up, were conscripted, and fought alongside soldiers of Britain and the Empire of all stripes and colours.
But I do kind of get what Davis Davis is talking about. Liberty does have to be fought for, and will sometimes need to be defended at a high cost. It is foolish to think that this is not so. ”Guardian reading vegetarians” is an offensive and unfortunate term – it describes Sunny – but as a metaphor, I do understand his point.
Comments
| 7 October 2009, 10:47 am |
“Guardian reading vegetarians” is an offensive and unfortunate term”
I agree. I have long used it as an insult.
| 7 October 2009, 10:50 am |
hahaha
| 7 October 2009, 11:11 am |
In Sunny’s case, the term “Guardian reading vegetable” is far more precise.
| 7 October 2009, 11:28 am |
How about “worthless windbag and embarassing intellectual dwarf” ?
Did you read his latest spat with the admirable Faisal ?
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6068#comments
Faisal @ 99 :
“Again – your memory fails you. The BNP have been on the BBC for years. I’ve never said anywhere they should be denied from coming on to the BBC. Infact you either turn up the evidence or you accept you’re mischaracterising me (again).
hmmmmm. I’m really, really quite appalled to see you lying barefaced here Sunny.
And it’s pretty shoddy of you to be asking for evidence for a conversation that was held face to face. But guess what, there were at least 2 people who were listening to our conversation who heard you say you wanted the BNP banned from appearing on the BBC because that would influence the public (!).
And both are willing to back me up on that. And if you want evidence mate, we can take it offline.”
| 7 October 2009, 12:19 pm |
That said, I strongly resist the notion – as I thought Sunny did as well – that a person’s ethnicity should direct the way one votes. Indeed, one of the things that I really like(d) about Pickled Politics is that it sought to challenge the notion of a monolithic religious or ethnic identity, and in particular, the alignment of that identity with a particular political party or tradition.
Absolutely damn straight! Sunny is not a ‘racist’ as such, in that he believes light brown people are superior to fleshy pink people, but he’s certainly been practising identity politics for far too long and it’s addled his brain. This is my problem with organisations such as OBV, the National Black Police Association and other, let’s call them ‘advocacy orgs.’. The overwhelming vast majority of people who get involved do not believe in different human species; indeed, many of them are ‘culturalists’. However, for me, it’s a slippery slope when you start capitalising ‘black’ and talking of monolithic dominant ‘cultures’, as is often the case on the OBV blog.
| 7 October 2009, 12:56 pm |
Ah yes the strange belief that racism has something to do with affirmative action and recognising that racism exists. The idea that black people might be less likely to vote for racists then white people is of course just racism. And then the free pass for bigots everywhere: the line that racism is simply a reaction to evil multi-culturalism which has gone too far. In other words far right ranting.
| 7 October 2009, 1:09 pm |
johng, I’ll be generous. At best you are an unconscious anti-Muslim bigot. But a bigot nonetheless.
| 7 October 2009, 2:11 pm |
I didn’t follow the “brown people” argument at the time, but although I don’t think people’s voting habits should generally be determined by their belonging to a particular group (whether racial or sexual or whatever) if a particular party is enacting or advocating policies which would have a particular negative impact on that group then it would not be surprising if they decided to do so. I mean it hardly seems unreasonable to suggest that “brown people” should probably not vote for the BNP to take an extreme example.
| 7 October 2009, 2:21 pm |
“If we had relied on Guardian-reading vegetarians to defend liberty,” “we’d all be speaking German.”
In my opinion, it wouldn’t be a bad thing if more English people spoke at least one foreign language.
Far from limiting “liberty”, the ability to speak a foreign language expands horizons.
| 7 October 2009, 2:30 pm |
Spot on, johng.
| 7 October 2009, 2:41 pm |
“In other words far right ranting.”
I’m confused
Are you saying that Sunny was engaging in far right ranting when he said that brown people should vote Tory? Or that he’s engaged in far right ranting when he says that brown people should not vote Tory?
I’m very confused by your argument JohnG. Have you thought it through?
| 7 October 2009, 3:04 pm |
“The war was opposed, initially, not by Guardian reading veggies:” [but by commies ...]
Wrong. The Stalinists SUPPORTED the war from 1939 onwards, but they supported the war on the other side (invasion of Finland, partition of Poland) until Hitler made the mistake of attacking the USSR and starting a war on two fronts.
If Hitler had not made this mistake the war would have had a different outcome.
As well as pacifists, the war was opposed by proletarian internationalists who don’t think ordinary Germans and Italians should be killing ordinary English, French, Americans and Russians and vice versa on behalf of the ruling elite.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Unfortunately this political current was tiny in 1939, having been wiped out by Stalinism and Trotskyism, both of which committed the working class to fighting on behalf of imperialism (social democracy had already gone over to the class enemy in 1914),
There was some glimmer of hope with the foundation of the PCInt in Italy in 1943 but antifashism was an overwhelming victory for the ruling class.
Will you publish this comment?
I doubt it, it might force you to think for a change.
| 7 October 2009, 4:28 pm |
”Guardian reading vegetarians” is an offensive and unfortunate term
And thus cool
| 7 October 2009, 4:28 pm |
“If we had relied on Guardian-reading vegetarians to defend liberty,” he reckoned, “we’d all be speaking German.”
David T is upset because he knows its true.
Everyone knows its true.
You backed the wrong side and now your mission in life is to war with old comrades.
| 7 October 2009, 5:21 pm |
David T,
Does your Labour tribalism explain why you have not given so much as a nod to Sayeeda Warsi’s conference speech? This despite the fact that she basically gave voice to the mantra of this blog- the equivalence between Al Muj and white fascists.
Or is it because she is a powerful, articulate and moderate Muslim?
Or because Sunny blogged it first?
Because any way you look at it, it is wierd that PP has ignored the speech.
| 7 October 2009, 5:23 pm |
HP, even!
| 7 October 2009, 5:30 pm |
In fact, it’s not just the mantra of this blog, it is what your current logo picture clearly depicts!
So how can you ignore it?
| 7 October 2009, 5:37 pm |
Because “taking sides” and “being seen to take sides” (combined with a fairly thuggish bit of “groupthink”, properly Orwellian “daily hates”, “playing the man and not the ball”, playing to popular prejudices, and so on) are, sadly, far too prevalent round here (even if more evident in the comments threads- some of which lately have been really spectacularly vile than in the actual articles, although the latter are sadly very far from being immune to such things, and indeed often promote such imbecilic attitudes), and generally regarded as preferable to any concern for objective realities or objective truth.
Basically, it is too much “you are with us or against us” around here. Yuk. Yuk. Yuk.
What it SHOULD be, rather is, “those who are not against us are for us”.
| 7 October 2009, 6:40 pm |
David, my guess is that John is confused.
Sunny supported David Davis ‘cos it made him feel Right. He is now opposing David Davis ‘cos it makes him feel Right.
Sunny carried a banner saying “No to the IDF” ‘cos it made him feel Right. He also carried a banner saying “No to Hamas” ‘cos it made him feel Right.
George Bernard Shaw.
First, and, perhaps, above all, for sure, Eugenicist Fabian (in essence, like all Fabians).
But then, by the 2nd half of the 1930s would you say he were more “Guardian reading vegetarian” or “Communist who followed the Soviet line”?
Discuss:
Surely these terms are no more mutually exclusive today than they were in the 1930s?