Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

[Gramsci]

Perusing a bookshop yesterday and saw this by Stuart Hall. I haven't read much by him. But this looks relevant to this topic. Anyone read this? Thinking of giving it a go/ putting it on my reading list
.

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674248342

 

[danny la rouge]

Perusing a bookshop yesterday and saw this by Stuart Hall. I haven't read much by him. But this looks relevant to this topic. Anyone read this? Thinking of giving it a go/ putting it on my reading list
.

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674248342

I’ve not read that one, but I’ve read a fair bit of Hall, and he’s well worth reading.

 

[Gramsci]

Yep. That right to come here was ended in 1962, but not because Britain had been 'flooded'. Net migration was still emigration at the time, not immigration.

I know someone whose great grand mother came here one year before Nigeria got it's independence on British passport.

 

[Gramsci]

I’ve not read that one, but I’ve read a fair bit of Hall, and he’s well worth reading.

Thanks. I will get it.

 

[Gramsci]

The other thing about Britishness and the People who came here from Carribbean was imo that it was the second generation born here who partially rejected there parents Britishness.

Remember watching the Carribbean Marxist CLR James arguing with some Rastafarians about culture. He was of the generation immersed in Shakespeare and the great writers in English. They rejected all this. And were developing a culture of resistance in what they saw correctly as a racist society.

What I take from this is that people don't necessarily bring an alien culture here. But create a culture in reaction to the British society they faced growing up here.

It's not as simple as people migrate here with their own culture and come up against "ours". Particular with a country like this with long history of Empire.

Whereas CLR James whilst writing on and opposing racism from Marxist angle saw radical potential in European culture.

 

[The39thStep]

During your big think did it occur to you that the inequality of our society arises from people subscribing to the very “look after our own” philosophy that you were advocating just yesterday?

On the other hand looking after our own, our families, friends and workmates , those less fortunate , those who need a helping hand is often key to working class solidarity not just in our communities but internationally.

 

[kabbes]

Hall is great to read. Good choice.

 

[brogdale]

On the other hand looking after our own, our families, friends and workmates , those less fortunate , those who need a helping hand is often key to working class solidarity not just in our communities but internationally.

Yes, fair point…but I’ve tended to hear expressions of class solidarity more usually couched in terms of looking after/out for our fellows, not looking after our own.

I’ve also encountered far too many “look after our own” folk argue against internationalist aid ventures.

 

[Serge Forward]

Also, where is the concern about internal economic migration? That costs, puts strain on infrastructure, housing, education etc.

Maybe we should have controls on that too?

Back in the 80s while handing out flyers for Tottenham Claimants Union, someone told me to go back where I came from, up north.

 

[Gramsci]

Just seen this in Brixton. Thought this was topical

 

[ddraig]

Just seen this in Brixton. Thought this was topical View attachment 439983

They had that on a T shirt with the blokes from Wham on it at the Massive Attack gig in Bristol on Sunday

 

[PTK]

Fantastic post Danny.

In a similar vein, I remember 20+ years being in Arizona and meeting a Latinx family who were telling us that they got treated as immigrants despite the family having lived there since before it was the USA. The elderly Grandmother could remember the old people in her childhood talking about when the place was still part of Mexico.

On this island we often forget just how utterly arbitrary borders are.

Even "natural" ones.

Iirc there's pockets of "terra nullis" in the Balkans where rivers have altered course but the borders that followed haven't.

There's also the crazy enclaves and exclaves of Belgium and the Netherlands. Read about those and tell me nations = cultures.

I think it is that that states do not equal cultures. A definition of a nation, to which I subscribe, is that a nation is a group of people sharing a common language, culture, and territory,

 

[RevolutionSound]

I think it is that that states do not equal cultures. A definition of a nation, to which I subscribe, is that a nation is a group of people sharing a common language, culture, and territory,

What culture do I share with Kirstie Allsop?

 

[PTK]

Back in the 80s while handing out flyers for Tottenham Claimants Union, someone told me to go back where I came from, up north.

Off topic: I used to know somone in the Tottenham Claimants Union.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think it is that that states do not equal cultures. A definition of a nation, to which I subscribe, is that a nation is a group of people sharing a common language, culture, and territory,

I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. I don’t think there’s one culture per nation, only one culture, and carpeting the nation from skirting board to skirting board, like a fitted culture.

Napoleon tried to do this with the French language, but even that didn’t fully work.

 

[Pickman's model]

Just seen this in Brixton. Thought this was topical View attachment 439983

It's always thank God. Whatever happened to free will?

 

[danny la rouge]

It's always thank God. Whatever happened to free will?

 

[PTK]

I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. I don’t think there’s one culture per nation, only one culture, and carpeting the nation from skirting board to skirting board, like a fitted culture.

Napoleon tried to do this with the French language, but even that didn’t fully work.

.

 

[Serge Forward]

Off topic: I used to know somone in the Tottenham Claimants Union.

I was involved when it was based at Haringey Unemployed Centre. I also ran the Friday evening Homes For All squatter meetings from that centre.

 

[planetgeli]

I think it is that that states do not equal cultures. A definition of a nation, to which I subscribe, is that a nation is a group of people sharing a common language, culture, and territory,

And your nation starts with borders right? Borders often arbitrarily drawn by past colonialists?

Many 'nations' have multiple languages and different cultures within their borders.

Nations do not produce homogeneous cultures.

 

[PTK]

And your nation starts with borders right? Borders often arbitrarily drawn by past colonialists?

Many 'nations' have multiple languages and different cultures within their borders.

Nations do not produce homogeneous cultures.

The Republic of Turkey, for example, is a state. There people who live on the territory of that state who are not part of the Turkish nation, the largest such group being the Kurds. The Kurdish nation lives on contiguous territory that is divided between four states: Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq.

 

[The39thStep]

The Republic of Turkey, for example, is a state. There people who live on the territory of that state who are not part of the Turkish nation, the largest such group being the Kurds. The Kurdish nation lives on contiguous territory that is divided between four states: Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq.

The Kurds have been fighting for their own state for decades .

 

[PTK]

The Kurds have been fighting for their own state for decades .

Yes, this is indeed true.
If we are to support the right of nations to self-determination, then we have to have a definition of a nation.

 

[Gramsci]

This whole debate is throughly saturated in neoliberal subjectivity on both sides of the fence. The rejection of nationalism is being constructed through the same atomisation of the self that the embrace of it is. To that extent, BigMoaner is spot on when he points out that saying “I don’t feel British” is really the same thing as saying “I do feel British” — they both construct an idea of Britishness, and merely assign it opposite valence as part of the individual ego. And the claiming of peoples outside the UK as “also like me” and “I have more in common with…” is similarly constructed around the idea of the essential individual ego and its actualisation through free expression. But this strong divide between the ego and others in the core of the self, combined with a fuzzy and porous boundary around different sets of kinship groups is not a universal or even particularly common way of defining the self across the globe — in itself, it’s already a pretty Westernised construct. It’s more common to have a sense of self that is fuzzy between the ego and the immediate kinship group (e.g., a common sense of shared future, shared ideals, shared resources) and hard lines between that kinship group and outsiders. (NB: a massive simplification, there, but it’s broadly right). So, ironically, the very claiming that you personally, as an individual, have lots in common with someone in Syria may itself be an expression of the opposite.

The debate also conceives of nationalism as something actively engaged in, and thus subject to conscious choice. But one of the all time greats in psychology, Michael Billig, wrote a book about this in 1995 called Banal nationalism that suggests the opposite. At the time, Billig was very focused on discursive psychology, i.e. how social reality is constructed moment-to-moment through the action of speech and other symbolic representations. The book is a classic so forgive me if I just nick bits of the Wikipedia summary:







Long story short, I can understand — really, honestly, understand — how the ideological desire to reject the structures of capitalism creates a need to deny the ancillary social structures that support it, like the nation-state. But it just isn’t that straightforward. Even if you manage to define yourself in opposition to it, the act of rejecting it still acknowledges the social reality and importance of it. As Bourdieu pointed out, most of what we understand we are is actually through identifying what we are not. And it’s extremely likely that there are ways in which you still understand your group identity through expression of that nationalism one way or other, because it’s like a fish understanding itself through the water it swims in.

Interesting stuff.

I got a form of nationalism stuffed down my throat at school. It being public school it was a particular form of patriotism/ nationalism.

Harking back to days of the empire. Anachronistic even then but it seems to me bits linger on.

So maybe I was a fish swimming in it but it wasn't something I could identify with in any way.

And it was a social reality. First thing I was taught there was that we were there to learn how to take charge and run the country. The social reality that was end product of that wasn't that hidden.

Reminds me of French and US friends of mine who have lived in this country. They sense a difference between Republican nationalism and ours. It's a subtle one of how people interact with each other ( yes and I know all the problems US and France have internally

For my friends the problem was that their countries didn't live up to the heroic ideas of the founders.

I still think the kind of banal nationalism here gets peoples backs up.

Here whilst I agree there is a soft nationalism its undercut by lingering social divides. And the legacy of Empire.

An example being someone I work with. He tells me he's proud of being British and this country. He also has got into reading about Irish history as his mother and father came from Ireland. He's scathing about British Empire and the aristocracy.

His nationalism is different from what I was taught and one that includes a critique that some may argue is not patriotic enough

What I'm saying is that even with a banal nationalism people have strong views on it. It's not either reject it or embrace it.

I notice the Wikipedia article also says this on banal nationalism :

Banal nationalism should not be thought of as a weak form of nationalism, but the basis for "dangerous nationalisms".[9] However, in earlier times, calls to the "nation" were not as important, when religion, monarchy or family might have been invoked more successfully to mobilize action. He also uses the concept to dispute post-modernist claims that the nation-state is in decline, noting particularly the continued hegemonic power of American nationalism.

Not having a go at you here. After reading your post I thought the banal nationalism was like the soft nationalism of say the Olympics in London. The famous opening ceremony.

But he's saying banal nationalism can end up as a dangerous nationalism

But here he's saying its not a weak nationalism. What he is taking issue with is the idea that the nation state is weakening as an historical force. He's saying that is not the case and it needs to be understood.

That's not saying what he writes is a justification of nationalism. He's saying its something we must understand.

I like your posts but I'm afraid some might think what your saying is a justification of nationalism / patriotism

When in fact what I think your saying is that it cant just be wished away. ?

I assume he would take issue with someone like Gilroy when he talks of a planetary humanism?

 

[planetgeli]

The Republic of Turkey, for example, is a state. There people who live on the territory of that state who are not part of the Turkish nation, the largest such group being the Kurds. The Kurdish nation lives on contiguous territory that is divided between four states: Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq.

You said shared culture. Turkey is a great example of why you're talking rubbish. Turkey has a massively diverse culture because of historical, warring, geographical reasons. Even simplistically put (it's late, I can't be bothered) half of it is in Asia and half in Europe. So what is this shared culture of Turkey?

Have a go at dividing up Iran next.

 

[The39thStep]

Yes, this is indeed true.
If we are to support the right of nations to self-determination, then we have to have a definition of a nation.

You did suggest that common language, culture, and territory defined a nation .

 

[kabbes]

Interesting stuff.

I got a form of nationalism stuffed down my throat at school. It being public school it was a particular form of patriotism/ nationalism.

Harking back to days of the empire. Anachronistic even then but it seems to me bits linger on.

So maybe I was a fish swimming in it but it wasn't something I could identify with in any way.

And it was a social reality. First thing I was taught there was that we were there to learn how to take charge and run the country. The social reality that was end product of that wasn't that hidden.

Reminds me of French and US friends of mine who have lived in this country. They sense a difference between Republican nationalism and ours. It's a subtle one of how people interact with each other ( yes and I know all the problems US and France have internally

For my friends the problem was that their countries didn't live up to the heroic ideas of the founders.

I still think the kind of banal nationalism here gets peoples backs up.

Here whilst I agree there is a soft nationalism its undercut by lingering social divides. And the legacy of Empire.

An example being someone I work with. He tells me he's proud of being British and this country. He also has got into reading about Irish history as his mother and father came from Ireland. He's scathing about British Empire and the aristocracy.

His nationalism is different from what I was taught and one that includes a critique that some may argue is not patriotic enough

What I'm saying is that even with a banal nationalism people have strong views on it. It's not either reject it or embrace it.

I notice the Wikipedia article also says this on banal nationalism :



Not having a go at you here. After reading your post I thought the banal nationalism was like the soft nationalism of say the Olympics in London. The famous opening ceremony.

But he's saying banal nationalism can end up as a dangerous nationalism

But here he's saying its not a weak nationalism. What he is taking issue with is the idea that the nation state is weakening as an historical force. He's saying that is not the case and it needs to be understood.

That's not saying what he writes is a justification of nationalism. He's saying its something we must understand.

I like your posts but I'm afraid some might think what your saying is a justification of nationalism / patriotism

When in fact what I think your saying is that it cant just be wished away. ?

I assume he would take issue with someone like Gilroy when he talks of a planetary humanism?

Nono, banal nationalism is nothing to do with “soft” nationalism. The point is not about it being hard or soft — the point is that it is transparent to us. It’s not about people saying “this country is great”. It’s merely about people saying “this country”. Every time they use a phrase like “this country”, they are reinforcing that “this” is a particular “country”. And that creates barriers between “this” and “that” country every bit as much as border guards do.

A classic example of banal nationalism is the weather map on TV. It shows me all the weather in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But not in France or the RoI. Why? Because it’s “natural” — this is our country, that is their country. It implies that I will care about one particular geographical territory.

All these banal ways that the idea of a nation are reproduced again and again every day are every bit as much a part of nation-building as are the big set-piece parades or celebrations.

 

[RevolutionSound]

Nono, banal nationalism is nothing to do with “soft” nationalism. The point is not about it being hard or soft — the point is that it is transparent to us. It’s not about people saying “this country is great”. It’s merely about people saying “this country”. Every time they use a phrase like “this country”, they are reinforcing that “this” is a particular “country”. And that creates barriers between “this” and “that” country every bit as much as border guards do.

A classic example of banal nationalism is the weather map on TV. It shows me all the weather in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But not in France or the RoI. Why? Because it’s “natural” — this is our country, that is their country. It implies that I will care about one particular geographical territory.

All these banal ways that the idea of a nation are reproduced again and again every day at every bit as much a part of nation-building as are the big set-piece parades or celebrations.

Sounds like a rehash of Gramsci (the Italian Marxist, not the U75 poster)

 

[Gramsci]

lol at all these men saying repeatedly how angry they are that someone has a different pov.



Maybe one way to mitigate the uneven spread of the initial costs of immigration is to make society more equal. To invest in resources so that communities aren’t shitholes where people are having to fight for what little they can. Build more good quality social housing for example so there isn’t the level of resentment.

But I’ve recently been having a big think again about state handouts and state dependency and it’s potential damaging impact on society. So I dunno.

What have men got to do with it?

So the welfare dependency arguement.

On the Far right riots thread you said this:

The US centre right view (been discussing the British riots with Trump supporters) is that half the problem in the UK is dependency on welfare. If there weren’t so many people expecting the state to house them and pay for their living there’d be less of a sense that you’re not getting what your ‘owed’ and others are. Appreciate that’s a view a long way from Urbans general perspective.

I haven't even heard the centre right argue that here.

What is the basis for this. As to me it does not make sense.

Given you posted that a while back what is conclusion?

 

[Spymaster]

Above post was a bit rushed. As I was going to do it tomorrow.

Here is pdf of the JCWI on what they are saying should be abolished and then replaced with routes to stay. Most of these people are no danger to the public and just want to work and live here.

Someone () managed to get me banned before I read this, but I notice nobody else has responded to it either.

Are you suggesting these measures to accompany the current entry requirements, or as part of an "open borders" policy?

The former would be sensible, whilst the latter, ludicrous.