A call by a group of racist petitioners to introduce a publicly-funded White History Month has been rebuffed by the government.
Responding to the petitioners the government wrote: "The Government vision is of a fair society where there are no barriers to participation or ambition based on race, colour or ethnicity. Only by giving everyone the opportunity to succeed can we build a better future for everybody in Britain.
"The Government is not responsible for Black History month. This is, rather, a community led initiative which has developed since the mid-eighties, and individual organisations take part on a voluntary basis. Its benefits are that it raises awareness of the, often unknown, Black contribution to our shared history, for example, that Africans and Asians and their descendants have been living in Britain for the last 500 years and also made a major contribution in the Second World War. By focusing on what people have in common, as well as recognising the value of diversity, we can foster a shared sense of belonging and a shared sense of the future.
"In schools, the existing National Curriculum programme of study for history requires pupils to be taught a substantial amount of British history. The Government is currently reviewing the national curriculum and has announced its intention to reduce the amount of central prescription in the way that schools teach their pupils. The Secretary of State for Education has expressed his intention to return to a more narrative approach to British History."
I'm fairly much with the government on this one. The history our children are taught in the schools and colleges of this country is already predominantly white history. This is because Britain has always had and still has a large white majority, and therefore the historical events that have shaped these islands has been largely, although by no means exclusively, determined by people who happen to have been white. There is no need for a White History Month.
However the valuable and growing contribution made by people of black and minority ethnic origin towards the British society of which we are all part has historically been overlooked. By overlooking that contribution we run the risk of alienating people of minority origin and of forcing them into a cultural ghetto in which they are compelled to make good the deficit by recognising and celebrating their own history to the exclusion of others. In other words creating a parallel historical perspective rather than an integrated one.
That is why Black History Month is important to us all, and not just to black people. Not rocket science, is it?
Friday, 17 September 2010
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
My Role
Somebody asked me today why I don't update this blog more frequently, and I do accept that I had been absent from duty for far too long prior to last night's posting.
All the same I see my role in the fight against the far-right not as a conveyor of everyday news that can be found elsewhere (the excellent but misnamed Lancaster Unity blog - misnamed because it clearly provides a nationwide service - being a good example), but as one who can provide a perspective from somebody who has been "on the other side" himself and who can call upon that knowledge and experience.
Knowledge, not propaganda or wishful thinking, is what sincere anti-fascists need to help them in their work. Those who don't want that knowledge cannot in my book be sincere anti-fascists.
All the same I see my role in the fight against the far-right not as a conveyor of everyday news that can be found elsewhere (the excellent but misnamed Lancaster Unity blog - misnamed because it clearly provides a nationwide service - being a good example), but as one who can provide a perspective from somebody who has been "on the other side" himself and who can call upon that knowledge and experience.
Knowledge, not propaganda or wishful thinking, is what sincere anti-fascists need to help them in their work. Those who don't want that knowledge cannot in my book be sincere anti-fascists.
Wherein lies the best option when one knows both devils?
I've been watching with some interest the increasingly acrimonious spat that has been developing between current BNP Chairman Nick Griffin and his challenger in a recent leadership ballot, Eddy Butler.
I have recounted in previous articles how I knew Griffin back in his National Front days. I worked closely with him on the NF's National Directorate and often saw him at close quarters. He is, or at least was, a man who has both qualities and weaknesses in great abundance.
I also knew Eddy Butler. I recall him during the mid-1980s as a fairly competent member of a fairly competent organisational team that ran the NF in Tower Hamlets, in London's East End. I often spoke at their meetings at Butler's invitation.
On a personal level I liked Butler. I can't recall recognising him at the time as being national leadership material, but I did always feel he was "one for the future". He was bright, and seemed to slot in well within the team at Tower Hamlets, a branch which was not massive in numerical terms but was considered consistent and dependable.
So I look upon the current BNP leadership squabble with a blend of voyeuristic curiosity and, as an anti-fascist, with an interest in the eventual result. Whilst no BNP at all would be the desired outcome, I am realistic enough to accept that it won't be. So a battered and divided BNP, possibly supplemented by the creation of a dead-duck rival party destined from the day of its launch for Boot Hill, would appear to me to be the next most desirable option.
The case against Griffin's leadership appears to have most of its roots in his appointment of a consultant, one Jim Dowson, to help market the BNP and raise funds in a way in which it is alleged by Griffin the party could not have managed using its own resources. Despite having procured donations and other income under Dowson's guidance on a scale that the NF of yesteryear could only have dreamed of, the party would appear to be skint. So much so, say Griffin's critics, that it is heading relentlessly for the abyss. Not unreasonably, assuming for the sake of this argument that there is some truth in the allegations, Butler's supporters are curious to know where all the cash raised as a consequence of Dowson's efforts has actually gone.
As is always the case when the far-right ventures forth into the chaos of internecine warfare a number of secondary, although in some cases even more serious, allegations have been levelled at Griffin and his entourage. Dowson himself has been accused of serious sexual assault, even rape. Lurid stories of illegal detention, the unlawful recording and bugging of members considered not to be in good standing, gratuitous suspensions of "malcontents" and suspected malcontents, accusations of being enemy infiltrators and incidents of what we in the 1980s used to describe as "petty terrorism" - threats, harassment and rumour-mongering - dominate the far-right websites as well as those of their active opponents. This is fairly much how fascist leaders facing the threat of impeachment invariably respond.
Furthermore it is claimed that Griffin has cost the BNP hundreds of thousands of pounds in court costs as a consequence of his reckless disregard for the law and its processes. An out of court settlement paid to Unilever after his bizarre inclusion of its Marmite product on the BNP Party Political Broadcast had clearly breached copyright is a case in point.
Despite clearly having a few disgruntled neo-Nazi hardliners on his team, Butler is generally considered to present a more moderate image (by BNP standards) than Griffin. Having gone to some considerable effort in recent years to repackage himself as a more touchy-feely kind of fascist - dropping compulsory repatriation and arguing the case for allowing a very limited and powerless non-white presence into BNP membership - Griffin now finds himself back in the position of having to appeal to the party's "hardliners" to support him against the encroachment of the "civic nationalism" allegedly promoted by Butler.
Butler's campaign to relieve Griffin of the party leadership was always going to be an uphill struggle under the rules laid down by the BNP's constitution, rules made even more draconian following a political sleight of hand by Griffin (and ironically supported at the time by Butler) at a recent Emergency General Meeting. Under these rules a challenge can only ever take place after the challenger has acquired the nominations of 20% of the party membership meeting the appropriate requirements according to length of service. Unsurprisingly Butler failed to achieve this, but the acrimony between the two factions (as in the NF split of 1976 the majority of the party's middle-management would appear to be behind the challenger whilst the core membership remains behind the leader) has rendered it nigh on impossible that the two sides will ever be able to bury their differences and rebuild their relationship.
And so we are faced with an almost inevitable two-party solution. Members of Butler's team seem to be in some disagreement as to whether to break away and form a new party now, to hang around and prepare for the demise of the BNP under a sea of debts before doing so, or to fight to take over ownership of the party. One thing though is certain - Griffin will not give up and call it a day so there will soon be two political factions emerging from the party formerly known as the BNP.
The question that anti-fascists everywhere will be asking is whether a BNP, or even part of a BNP, led by someone who is ostensibly "cleaner" than Griffin (who seems to be losing control in every direction in any case) would be a blessing or a bane. Is the desire for harmony across the community (and that's wherein lies my own anti-fascism, not in some sordid calculation of which scenario creates which particular party advantage) best served by a Griffin victory or a Butler victory?
Let us not forget that both sides are arguing over control of a fascist party. There is no democratic alternative, acceptable to most normal people, on the table.
For me the best outcome would be to see the two factions fight each other to an exhausted stalemate. Better still would be if such a process was to take place over a period of years rather than months, taking us to and beyond the next GLA, European and also hopefully Parliamentary elections.
In the meantime we can take a step back, watch and enjoy. In my considerable experience inter-fascist feuds are never resolved by consensus. BNP watchers should be prepared for the imminent emergence of two or even more fascist parties where once stood the BNP.
I have recounted in previous articles how I knew Griffin back in his National Front days. I worked closely with him on the NF's National Directorate and often saw him at close quarters. He is, or at least was, a man who has both qualities and weaknesses in great abundance.
I also knew Eddy Butler. I recall him during the mid-1980s as a fairly competent member of a fairly competent organisational team that ran the NF in Tower Hamlets, in London's East End. I often spoke at their meetings at Butler's invitation.
On a personal level I liked Butler. I can't recall recognising him at the time as being national leadership material, but I did always feel he was "one for the future". He was bright, and seemed to slot in well within the team at Tower Hamlets, a branch which was not massive in numerical terms but was considered consistent and dependable.
So I look upon the current BNP leadership squabble with a blend of voyeuristic curiosity and, as an anti-fascist, with an interest in the eventual result. Whilst no BNP at all would be the desired outcome, I am realistic enough to accept that it won't be. So a battered and divided BNP, possibly supplemented by the creation of a dead-duck rival party destined from the day of its launch for Boot Hill, would appear to me to be the next most desirable option.
The case against Griffin's leadership appears to have most of its roots in his appointment of a consultant, one Jim Dowson, to help market the BNP and raise funds in a way in which it is alleged by Griffin the party could not have managed using its own resources. Despite having procured donations and other income under Dowson's guidance on a scale that the NF of yesteryear could only have dreamed of, the party would appear to be skint. So much so, say Griffin's critics, that it is heading relentlessly for the abyss. Not unreasonably, assuming for the sake of this argument that there is some truth in the allegations, Butler's supporters are curious to know where all the cash raised as a consequence of Dowson's efforts has actually gone.
As is always the case when the far-right ventures forth into the chaos of internecine warfare a number of secondary, although in some cases even more serious, allegations have been levelled at Griffin and his entourage. Dowson himself has been accused of serious sexual assault, even rape. Lurid stories of illegal detention, the unlawful recording and bugging of members considered not to be in good standing, gratuitous suspensions of "malcontents" and suspected malcontents, accusations of being enemy infiltrators and incidents of what we in the 1980s used to describe as "petty terrorism" - threats, harassment and rumour-mongering - dominate the far-right websites as well as those of their active opponents. This is fairly much how fascist leaders facing the threat of impeachment invariably respond.
Furthermore it is claimed that Griffin has cost the BNP hundreds of thousands of pounds in court costs as a consequence of his reckless disregard for the law and its processes. An out of court settlement paid to Unilever after his bizarre inclusion of its Marmite product on the BNP Party Political Broadcast had clearly breached copyright is a case in point.
Despite clearly having a few disgruntled neo-Nazi hardliners on his team, Butler is generally considered to present a more moderate image (by BNP standards) than Griffin. Having gone to some considerable effort in recent years to repackage himself as a more touchy-feely kind of fascist - dropping compulsory repatriation and arguing the case for allowing a very limited and powerless non-white presence into BNP membership - Griffin now finds himself back in the position of having to appeal to the party's "hardliners" to support him against the encroachment of the "civic nationalism" allegedly promoted by Butler.
Butler's campaign to relieve Griffin of the party leadership was always going to be an uphill struggle under the rules laid down by the BNP's constitution, rules made even more draconian following a political sleight of hand by Griffin (and ironically supported at the time by Butler) at a recent Emergency General Meeting. Under these rules a challenge can only ever take place after the challenger has acquired the nominations of 20% of the party membership meeting the appropriate requirements according to length of service. Unsurprisingly Butler failed to achieve this, but the acrimony between the two factions (as in the NF split of 1976 the majority of the party's middle-management would appear to be behind the challenger whilst the core membership remains behind the leader) has rendered it nigh on impossible that the two sides will ever be able to bury their differences and rebuild their relationship.
And so we are faced with an almost inevitable two-party solution. Members of Butler's team seem to be in some disagreement as to whether to break away and form a new party now, to hang around and prepare for the demise of the BNP under a sea of debts before doing so, or to fight to take over ownership of the party. One thing though is certain - Griffin will not give up and call it a day so there will soon be two political factions emerging from the party formerly known as the BNP.
The question that anti-fascists everywhere will be asking is whether a BNP, or even part of a BNP, led by someone who is ostensibly "cleaner" than Griffin (who seems to be losing control in every direction in any case) would be a blessing or a bane. Is the desire for harmony across the community (and that's wherein lies my own anti-fascism, not in some sordid calculation of which scenario creates which particular party advantage) best served by a Griffin victory or a Butler victory?
Let us not forget that both sides are arguing over control of a fascist party. There is no democratic alternative, acceptable to most normal people, on the table.
For me the best outcome would be to see the two factions fight each other to an exhausted stalemate. Better still would be if such a process was to take place over a period of years rather than months, taking us to and beyond the next GLA, European and also hopefully Parliamentary elections.
In the meantime we can take a step back, watch and enjoy. In my considerable experience inter-fascist feuds are never resolved by consensus. BNP watchers should be prepared for the imminent emergence of two or even more fascist parties where once stood the BNP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
