• Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • BBC editor replies to Radio 1′s BNP-gate


    by Sunny
    5th October, 2009 at 10:26 am    

    I’ve mentioned a few times that BBC Radio 1 recently aired a ridiculously soft and lame interview with two BNP activists. It turns out the article was initially titled ‘Young BNP members explain beliefs‘, which was later changed to ‘BNP members challenged on beliefs‘,

    …suggesting that someone in the editorial process realised that inviting the BNP to “explain” their racism really wasn’t going to pass as a probing piece of journalism.

    as Sarah Ditum quite rightly puts it. But there’s more: the editor of Newsbeat and 1Xtra News Rod McKenzie has now tried to defend his piss-poor show on the BBC blog.

    But he doesn’t answer any criticism of how soft and cuddly the whole damn thing was, instead describing the journalist Debbie Randle’s interviewing as “extremely rigorous” and saying she posed “tough questions”. Anyone with half a brain who listened to the interview can attest to neither of those things. Yes the BNP is a legal party and yes they are entitled to being interviewed on the BBC. But does no at the corporation have the intelligence to question them properly? That’s the real problem, not the fact they turned up.

    Lenin points out the BBC’s hypocrisy here:

    In fact, as Love Music Hate Racism supporters have pointed out, the BBC have often refused to broadcast LMHR carnivals because they’re ‘too political’. This is the BBC’s instinctive hostility to the left showing: giving air time to anti-racists is political; air time for fascists is ‘free speech’.

    BBC editors have been accused of being leftwing for so long that they’ve internalised it to the point they’ve become scared of representing any genuine left-wing views at the corporation.

    And then there’s Rod McKenzie’s pathetic argument that because he got so many appreciative texts from BNP supporters there’s a big viewpoint out there to be represented. But this misses the point. BNP supporters are an angry and hateful bunch so they’re more like text in supporting their people because they think the BBC is one big marxist conspiracy anyway.

    Furthermore - I look forward to a BBC editor justifying softballs interviews with 7/7 “truthers” on the basis they have lots of support out there. Unbelievable.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Media,Race politics






    47 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. pickles

      New blog post: BBC editor replies to Radio 1′s BNP-gate http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6104


    2. Lucio Buffone

      New blog post: BBC editor replies to Radio 1′s BNP-gate http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6104 (via @pickledpolitics)


    3. nika barton

      Pickled Politics » BBC editor replies to Radio 1′s BNP-gate: In fact, as Love Music Hate Racism supporters .. http://bit.ly/MFhTl


    4. Kurt

      Pickled Politics » BBC editor replies to Radio 1′s BNP-gate http://bit.ly/9uiji


    5. ajit8

      @aboutpolitics Pickled Politics » BBC editor replies 2Radio1′s BNP-gate: In fact, as Love Music Hate Racism supporters. http://bit.ly/2lMj1E


    6. Noxi

      BBC editor replies to Radio 1’s BNP-gate | Pickled Politics » http://ow.ly/t0U5 british national party nick griffin


    7. Daniel Pitt

      BBC Editor Replies To BNP-Gate http://ow.ly/t0U5


    8. Liberal Conspiracy » Why was Radio 1’s BNPgate ignored earlier?

      [...] There was outrage on many blogs over the interview, and the editor of the programme published a pathetic defence of the show which was further taken apart. [...]


    9. pickles

      @kikirobinson thanks. There's a link to some background and the interview itself here http://is.gd/4ip1z




    1. Morrigan — on 5th October, 2009 at 11:43 am  

      How do you know that all the supportive texts were from BNP members?

    2. Sim-O — on 5th October, 2009 at 11:49 am  

      and just because there may be “a big veiwpoint to be represented” doesn’t make that veiwpoint any less disgusting.

      The size of the viewpoints support base shouldn’t dictate how big an arse-kicking that viewpoint should get.

      Rod MacKenzie thinks that’s rigorous? He must be one soft lad.

    3. Reza — on 5th October, 2009 at 11:55 am  

      Fascism is just as much a left wing trait as it is right wing.

      Allowing freedom of speech, freedom of thought and ideas, and the freedom of broadcasters to report those thoughts and ideas is what true democracy is about.

      Of course we don’t always agree with them, but that is not grounds for censorship.

      The left love censorship. After all that what ‘no platform’ is. As we’ve seen, they’ll use any means legal or illegal to prevent any views being aired that they disagree with.

      That way they don’t have to debate them. Because deep down, the left operate as a faith. Like a religion. And you can’t debate against faith with rationality.

      And equating the views of those BNP supporters with 7/7 ‘truthers’ is disingenuous.

      Nothing those BNP supporters said was factually wrong. There was no overt hate or invention. They were just views. Views that the left and the multiculturalists would consider as heresy.

      As an assimilationist who believes that race is irrelevant I strongly disagree with those BNP views. However, I would never seek to silence them as left wing fascists do.

      Because in that respect the left are far more fascistic than the right.

    4. coruja — on 5th October, 2009 at 12:04 pm  

      They are a strange bunch the Beeb and they have their own agenda that nobody seems to be able to figure out. They pretty much kindled the Oldham riots, it was their initial reporting of no-go areas for whites in the Today programme that kicked things off.

      Last year an episode of Hard-Talk featuring the Sri Lankan Central Banks governor was accidently deleted - which is was a shame as apparently he did very well on it - much better than the the Beeb expected- http://www.island.lk/2008/03/08/satmag6.html. An agenda here? And what about the deliberate initial under-reporting of the anti-war marches prior to Iraq invasion.

      Strange stuff.

    5. Tze Ming — on 5th October, 2009 at 12:36 pm  

      Personally, as an endangered panda, I see where these BNP kids are coming from. /ethnicfacetiousness

      If anyone caught it, Radio 4 aired a strong analytical piece last night with Kenin Malik, called ‘Who’s Afraid of the BNP?’ It was almost as if Sunny had scripted it himself…

    6. Tze Ming — on 5th October, 2009 at 12:37 pm  

      You can listen to it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/programmes/schedules/fm/2009/10/04

    7. Reza — on 5th October, 2009 at 12:46 pm  

      Oh Sunny, you’re so funny

      “BNP supporters are an angry and hateful bunch so they’re more like text in supporting their people because they think the BBC is one big marxist conspiracy anyway.”

      Yet you’ve provided links on these pages for people to complain, as have all the sundry leftie, commie, anti-fash and multiculturalist websites, apoplectic that freedom of speech and thought might finally be out of the bag. And let’s face it, your chums have a lot more time and inclination to get into texting campaigns.

      The days when you could shut down freedom of speech with a simple shriek of “racist!” are well and truly numbered. You’ve lost the debate and you never even tried to have it.

      You must be sh*tting yourself.

    8. cjcjc — on 5th October, 2009 at 12:56 pm  

      Surely you don’t need to quote the appalling “Lenin” to make your point…

    9. Sunny — on 5th October, 2009 at 1:13 pm  

      Nothing those BNP supporters said was factually wrong. There was no overt hate or invention.

      Supporting BNP policies and ideas now Reza? Doesn’t surprise me at all.

    10. Shatterface — on 5th October, 2009 at 1:25 pm  

      Fascism isn’t a left-wing trait, but authoritarianism and censorship come naturally to those whose political affiliations are insecure.

      And suffixing a supposed ‘scandal’ with ‘-gate’ in the hope other people will take the term up just makes you look like an idiot.

    11. Kismet Hardy — on 5th October, 2009 at 1:37 pm  

      Reza, you’ve said of BNP voters you know as ‘thoroughly decent’ and think all foreigners should stop talking funny and burn their burkhas and kilts and such. I’m surprised you haven’t changed your name to Toby by deedpoll

    12. Reza — on 5th October, 2009 at 1:58 pm  

      @Shatterface

      “Fascism isn’t a left-wing trait, but authoritarianism and censorship come naturally to those whose political affiliations are insecure.”

      Not quite. Authoritarianism and censorship are the only way that an intellectually bankrupt ideology can prevent being challenged.

      Multiculturalism, internationalist socialism and ‘open-borders’ ideologies are faiths. Like religion they are not hampered by scientific truth, economics, statistics, history or current events or even the truth before the ideologue’s own lying eyes.

      That’s why you always hear multiculturalists speak in intangibles. “Diversity is strength”. “Multicultural societies are more interesting”. “Immigrants enrich our society”.

      And anyone who attempts to use truth or scientific fact to counter those meaningless assertions will appear very threatening. Because attacking someone’s blind faith is like attacking that person.

      And knowing they can’t win the argument, they seek to shut it down.

    13. Morrigan — on 5th October, 2009 at 1:58 pm  

      Love Music Hate Racism have never reached out to voters across the spectrum.

      Conservatives do not feel welcome at any of their events.

      Why should the BBC broadcast their concerts, any more than it should broadcast a Nazi fundraiser?

    14. Paul — on 5th October, 2009 at 2:48 pm  

      The two BNP members can be, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, subjected to:

      a prohibition or restriction on use of specified services or specified facilities (BBC studios), or on his carrying on specified activities (giving any interviews to the media);

      a restriction on association or communications with specified persons (journalists) or with other persons generally (house arrest in isolation)

      a restriction in respect of place of residence (can be resettled on Shetland) or on the persons to whom he gives access to his place of residence (can not meet journalists at home)

      a prohibition on being at specified places or within a specified area at specified times or on specified days (can not go to interviews, or into broadcasting facilities, or newspaper offices)

      a prohibition or restriction on his movements to, from or within the United Kingdom, a specified part of the United Kingdom or a specified place or area within the United Kingdom (can be kept away media offices, or any place where they have arranged to meet journalists)

      a requirement to comply with such other prohibitions or restrictions on his movements as may be imposed, for a period not exceeding 24 hours, by directions given to him in the specified manner, by a specified person and for the purpose of securing compliance with other obligations imposed by or under the order (can be kept at home on the day of the interview, no court order required)

      a requirement to surrender his passport, or anything in his possession to which a prohibition or restriction imposed by the order relates, to a specified person for a period not exceeding the period for which the order remains in force (can not evade other restrictions by meeting journalists outside the UK)

      a requirement to allow specified persons, either for that purpose or for the purpose of securing that the order is complied with, to remove anything found in that place or on any such premises and to subject it to tests or to retain it for a period not exceeding the period for which the order remains in force (computer, fax and mobile phone can be seized, to prevent communication with the media)

      a requirement to co-operate with specified arrangements for enabling his movements, communications or other activities to be monitored by electronic or other means (communication with media can be intercepted, no court order required)

      a requirement to report to a specified person at specified times and places (can be made to report to police at time of planned interview)

      That is more than enough to prevent not just these two, but any member of the BNP, from presenting their views via the media, ever. And that’s just one piece of existing legislation. The powers are there, and if these two had had been Islamists, the powers would have been used.

      So what is really the problem here? Is it the BBC? Or it it those who demand that the BNP be treated as a legal party, and freely allowed to say anything at all, short of direct incitement to violence? There would not be a British National Party at all, if it had not been officially registered, as a legal entity and a political party. They are wholly dependent on the goodwill of the authorities, and that is available, because the three main parties in the UK approve this kind of party.

      Banning the BNP won’t make its supporters disappear. The underlying issues have to be dealt with, including the issues raised by the two BNP members. But simply allowing xenophobic parties to engage in all forms of political activity, and then doing nothing except call for “debate” with them, makes it very easy for these parties, in the UK, and in other countries.

    15. Reza — on 5th October, 2009 at 3:06 pm  

      “Or it it those who demand that the BNP be treated as a legal party, and freely allowed to say anything at all, short of direct incitement to violence?”

      You’ve got it. “…freely allowed to say anything at all…”

      That’s called freedom of speech, something the left don’t seem to get. You see, as long as you do not incite people to commit violence or to break the law then you are entitled to say pretty much anything.

      Now there are plenty of Islamists out there saying some perfectly horrid things, but they’re all within the law. Hell, they even get the support of SWP type lefties and the more intellectually bankrupt among the multiculturalists.

      But when they support attacks on British personnel or interests then that makes them subject to the Prevention of Terrorism Act. See. Simple.

      Nothing that those two BNP supporters said was terrorism.

    16. Jai — on 5th October, 2009 at 3:30 pm  

      Nothing those BNP supporters said was factually wrong.

      Reza, as someone allegedly of Iranian origin, your own alleged marriage to your allegedly European wife is something “those BNP supporters” forcefully oppose, as per their nonsensical analogies with pandas and whatnot.

      If you do not think they are “factually wrong” in their assertions about mixed-race relationships and the children that result from them, then it raises questions about how you psychologically reconcile your domestic situation with your political sympathies and (if you do indeed agree with the BNP on the matter) your views on mixed-race relationships.

      A person of Iranian ethnicity, married to a white woman, with mixed-race children, who supports the BNP’s opposition to such relationships, on-the-record assertion that they are neither “moral” nor “normal”, and claim that the children who result are “tragic victims”. Something doesn’t quite add up there…..

    17. Ravi Naik — on 5th October, 2009 at 3:48 pm  

      A person of Iranian ethnicity, married to a white woman, with mixed-race children, who supports the BNP’s opposition to such relationships, on-the-record assertion that they are neither “moral” nor “normal”, and claim that the children who result are “tragic victims”. Something doesn’t quite add up there…..

      Yes, I have been pondering the same thing, Jai. I am guessing he suffered racism when he was growing up, and he became deeply ashamed of his Iranian ancestry to the point that he completely erased it. Remember when you asked to translate a verse, and he said it was rude to speak a foreign language? I have laughed at Goodness Gracious Me characterisation of such people, but it is very sad to see that they exist in real life.

      Reza/Amir wants to be a good little Englishman, and he looks at the BNP (which personifies the racists that taunted and excluded him) as a way to feel fully accepted in this society.

    18. Morrigan — on 5th October, 2009 at 3:52 pm  

      Sayeeda Warsi on stage right now at Conservative Conference, condemning State Multiculturalism and equating EDL/BNP with Al Muj.

      You won’t hear rhetoric like that at any other party conference, and if you know she’s right, there’s only 1 party that is standing up for YOUR views.

    19. Steve — on 5th October, 2009 at 4:05 pm  

      “‘open-borders’ ideologies are faiths”

      Err can I run the definition of faith past you, mate. Faith means something you believe in, but can’t necessarily prove. ‘Open borders’ are not a ‘faith’ because they are man-made institutions. Humans are the only species on this planet that believes in the ‘faith’ of borders. Other species just move around freely.

    20. Jai — on 5th October, 2009 at 4:14 pm  

      I am guessing he suffered racism when he was growing up, and he became deeply ashamed of his Iranian ancestry to the point that he completely erased it. Remember when you asked to translate a verse, and he said it was rude to speak a foreign language? I have laughed at Goodness Gracious Me characterisation of such people, but it is very sad to see that they exist in real life.

      Reza/Amir wants to be a good little Englishman, and he looks at the BNP (which personifies the racists that taunted and excluded him) as a way to feel fully accepted in this society.

      Ravi, you’re absolutely right. And the Coopers/Kapoors GGM sketches did occur to me too.

      It’s interesting how much Reza seems to have internalised matters, to the extent that he now identifies with (and emulates) the racists themselves rather than their targets (the latter includes himself, whether he acknowledges it or not). It’s as though he’s trying his utmost to be “more English than the English”, in a desperate urge to “fit in”, deflect any potential bigotry away from himself, and diassociate himself from anyone who could be labelled “the Other”.

      The phrase “zeal of the converted” comes to mind; it’s like someone who converts to a particular religion and takes his interpretation of it to the maximum possible extreme (far more than those who were born into it), and — worse — feels tremendous contempt and superiority towards those he believes to have “left behind” and no longer identifies with; to the extent that he does his utmost to publicly diassociate himself from them and reinforce his declarations of allegience and sympathy towards the “new group” that he now wishes to accept him.

      It’s textbook.

      Assuming, of course, that he’s telling the truth about being of Iranian origin.

    21. Steve — on 5th October, 2009 at 4:19 pm  

      “That’s called freedom of speech, something the left don’t seem to get. You see, as long as you do not incite people to commit violence or to break the law then you are entitled to say pretty much anything.

      Now there are plenty of Islamists out there saying some perfectly horrid things, but they’re all within the law. Hell, they even get the support of SWP type lefties and the more intellectually bankrupt among the multiculturalists.”

      In the words of Steve Ignorant:

      ‘Pogo on a Nazi, spit upon a jew’

      Left-wing, right-wing; SWP, BNP; Labour, Tory - you’re all as bad as one another. You are ALL authority-loving, power-seeking freakshows. If you’re not using the state to rob people of their liberty; you’re using private property, capitalism, religion and patriachy. And by the way, you’re BOTH using racism and violence.

      I on the other hand, don’t seek to play your pathetic games - rather aspire to go beyond your false power-laden dichotomies.

    22. Sunny — on 5th October, 2009 at 4:34 pm  

      Do we really have to keep up this pretense that Reza is some Iranian dude? Let’s face it. He sounds like a BNP sympathiser (well, he’s admitted as much up there) who is taking on some Iranian identity to deflect the idea that he’s just some far-right troll.

    23. Sunny — on 5th October, 2009 at 4:35 pm  

      Sayeeda Warsi on stage right now at Conservative Conference, condemning State Multiculturalism and equating EDL/BNP with Al Muj.

      I was against state multiculturalism about three years ago. In fact you can see Guardian articles I’ve written attacking exactly that. The Tories have merely appropriated my terminology.

    24. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 5th October, 2009 at 4:41 pm  

      “Why should the BBC broadcast their concerts, any more than it should broadcast a Nazi fundraiser?”

      You can ask them when they inevitably get around to the latter.

    25. Morrigan — on 5th October, 2009 at 4:46 pm  

      I was against state multiculturalism about three years ago. In fact you can see Guardian articles I’ve written attacking exactly that. The Tories have merely appropriated my terminology.

      Shame you’re working for the wrong side in that case. Labour obviously haven’t taken your critique on board!

    26. MixTogether — on 5th October, 2009 at 5:00 pm  

      So the Beeb aren’t doing what you want them to Sunny?

      Boo hoo! No need to have a hissy fit about it…

    27. Random Guy — on 5th October, 2009 at 5:06 pm  

      Sunny @ 22: Moreover, he is probably using the whole Iranian identity thing as a cipher for the sort of behavourial conditioning that your typical BNP/Tory would expect any ‘ethnic’ group to be part of.

      MixTogether @ 26: GTFO. The BBC did something stupid. Everyone knows they are realigning their standpoint to placate the alleged incoming Tory brigade and (it would seem) their BNP sensibilities.

    28. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 5th October, 2009 at 5:30 pm  

      They’re not ‘realigning’ anything, they’ve been this way since (at least) 2004 when they started having ukip on qt every week with dimbleby apparently given instructions not to challenge kilroy or farage in any way.

    29. Just Lisa — on 5th October, 2009 at 6:37 pm  

      question - please somebody answer

      i hate bnp, but how can uaf justify saying ‘stop fascism’ when they have embraced homophobic islamic leaders? is homophobia not fascism also

      thanks

    30. Don — on 5th October, 2009 at 6:43 pm  

      is homophobia not fascism also

      Strictly speaking, no. Although the two tend to go together.

      Specifically which leaders did you have in mind?

    31. Just Lisa — on 5th October, 2009 at 6:49 pm  

      Well its just as bad as racism…

      Sir Iqbal Sacranie publicly denounced lesbians and gay men, saying they were immoral,harmful and spread disease. Resorting to inflammatory language barely distinguishable from the homophobic tirades of the neo-Nazi BNP, the MCB website demonises same-sex relationships as offensive, immoral and repugnant

    32. Reza — on 5th October, 2009 at 7:46 pm  

      Jai, Ravi et al

      What can I say. Is it really beyond your wit to comprehend that I can loathe the BNP, loathe their racism, loathe their far left economic policies yet feel strongly enough about freedom of speech and thought to support their right to exist. And speak.

      My own views support assimilationism and one dominant culture and a broad set of values to represent the nation. I deeply oppose multiculturalism. I believe that whilst race no doubt exists, it is irrelevant. I support mixed marriage. What does that have in common with the BNP?

      I don’t believe that all cultures are equivalent. I believe that Islam is an awful belief system and ideology which could ultimately take the Europe I love to the level of those oppressive, wretched, backward and corrupt Muslim majority countries.

      I oppose uncontrolled mass immigration. I refuse to accept the lie that it has somehow benefited and improved this country. It hasn’t.

      And I oppose the constant whitey-bashing that my fellow ‘immigrants’ and the self-hating white multiculturalists indulge in on these pages.

      So you guys, I have nothing in common with you. But that doesn’t make me a BNP sympathizer.

      I loathe the BNP. Just as much as I loathe moral equivalence, socialism, Islamism and multiculturalism.

      Is that really so hard to get your heads around?

    33. Don — on 5th October, 2009 at 8:31 pm  

      @Lisa #31

      That’s a valid point. Pete Tatchell takes that position, as do Worker’s Liberty. As I guess you know.

    34. Don — on 5th October, 2009 at 8:54 pm  

      Serendipitously, check Rumbold’s post above this one.

    35. Paul — on 5th October, 2009 at 8:56 pm  

      There is no obligation to concede free speech to the BNP, or indeed to any political party. Of course the BNP want ‘free speech’ for themselves, but others don’t. The party does not concede free speech to others either, but pointing that out will make no impression on them.

      The three posts by Sunny on this issue all have the same message: that the BBC is at fault for the interview style. That seems a trivial detail, compared to the question of whether the party ought to be banned entirely. If you allow them to speak freely, and to communicate with journalists, then you can expect that journalists will have different approaches to them. Some of them will do ‘soft’ interviews.

      It also says something about the bloggers who took up the case of the interview. What if the interviewer had in fact pointed out, that their panda analogy was false, or that Ashley Cole was born in Britain? Would that have made any difference to BNP members, or BNP voters? The underlying assumption of these critics seems to be that BNP supporters are somehow ‘mistaken’ or ‘misled’, and that pointing out errors will cause the party to disappear. It won’t, so there is no point in asking the media to adopt that as a strategy.

    36. Jai — on 6th October, 2009 at 11:41 am  

      “Reza” (assuming that’s your real name),

      I’ll make it simple for you.

      1. You ignore the fact that the two largest democratic nations in the world, whilst indeed having a dominant majority culture in both cases, are not internally ethnically or culturally homogenous. I’m referring to the United States and (particularly) India. The latter’s post-independent ethos is essentially the same as that of the US, ie. “out of many, one”. And on the whole, it has been successful.

      Even Iran, while less diverse than India, certainly isn’t homogenous, either culturally or ethnically. If you really are Iranian, you should know that. If.

      2. Islam, which you claim has an “awful belief system and ideology”, isn’t represented solely by mullahs, Wahhabis, Islamists, terrorists or warlords, either historically or in the present day. This certainly hasn’t been the case in historical Iran in particular (or neighbouring South Asia, for that matter). If you really are Iranian, you should know that. If.

      3. You claimed that Pakistan is “culturally and ethnically homogenous”. It isn’t. Given the extensive historical and cultural links between Persia and the northern half of the subcontinent (along with Hyderabad in the south), not to mention the immediate proximity of the two regions, if you really are Iranian then you should know that. If.

      4. You claimed that “Muslims in India haven’t assimilated in even a thousand years”. This assertion is factually and historically completely false. If you really are Iranian then you should know that. If.

      5. One more thing, since you’re so adamant about becoming “fully English” and mirroring the worst aspects of bigotry towards Asians, and Muslims in particular: The latter is predominantly a relic of Victorian-era Evangelism, the culturally corrosive effect of imperial conquest, and the extensive degree of calculated social re-engineering and historical revisionism which was systematically implemented from the early/mid-19th century onwards. Prior to that, English people in general, and specifically those who had extensive contact with South Asia (most of all, those who actually lived in the subcontinent) did not have any of those attitudes.

      In fact, I expect you’d be shocked at the level of cultural assimilation and even conversion to Islam which was prevalent amongst a surprisingly large number of English men and women living in India, right up to the events of 1857. And at the time, the interpretation of Islam in the major political and cultural centres, coupled with the associated culture itself, had little in common with the “Islamists” or the stereotypes you’re referring to.

      But again, if you really are Iranian, you should know that. If.

      Which leads us to two possible conclusions: Either you’re not actually of Iranian origin at all and you’re masquerading as such in order to present an “acceptable” face to racist attitudes — knowing that, as someone claiming to speak as “an individual originally from the other side of the fence and with inside knowledge”, in some cases it would decrease the likelihood of your attitudes being challenged; or you’re someone of Iranian origin who has psychologically disconnected himself from (and renounced) his own ethnicity and ancestry to such an extent that you have a level of bigotry and ignorance about Iran and the Indian subcontinent which would be expected more from a racist non-Iranian/non-Indian person who has had practically zero experience or knowledge of either regions and their respective peoples, culture and history.

    37. coruja — on 6th October, 2009 at 4:10 pm  

      I think this Reza chap is using the Boris Johnson “you can’t out-ethnic me as my wife is half-indian” excuse, Also known as the Ann Coulter “my ex-boyfriend was a muslim” excuse. Don’t you picaninnies get it?

    38. persephone — on 7th October, 2009 at 10:03 am  

      “If you really are Iranian”

      Close members of my family lived and worked in Iran for many years. Agree that Reza does not come across as an Iranian at all.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.