Looking after one's own: isn't than another way of saying something else?

[nino_savatte]

Looking after one's own: isn't that another way of saying something else?

You may have seen the thread titled "What's so wrong with looking after one's own" and thought, "What's all that about". It turns out that it was yet another immigrant-bashing thread.

So can we consider the phrase "Looking after one's own" another way of saying "Send them back"?

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=191600&highlight=looking+after+one's+own

 

[Luther Blissett]

i actually thought it was about looking after your own family as ma and pa get old and frail rather than pack them off to a rest home. how wrong i was

i irrationally avoid threads where baldwin is, mainly because of his name being shared with the crusader who was crowned 'first king of jerusalem'

*scurries off to write pdf on setting up youth clubs in communities on a shoe-strong budget*

 

[goldenecitrone]

Well, I'd say my own were the 20 or so really good friends I've got on this planet. After them I'd say all the billions of others were pretty equal in my list of affections.

 

[nino_savatte]

I think, in the context of UK P&P and certain obsessed posters, it means something less benign than taking care of one's family.

What I find so amusing is that one this thread is that the thread starter deliberately uses the phrase to set up another rant on immigration.

Revo68 has suggestted to me, in a lovely manner, that it is wrong to look after 'one's own' .. qoute " .. you are a parochial socialist who wants to look after "his own", which would explain why you think closed shops and sons and daughters housing policies are progressive. Fuck off back to Royston Vasey you petty minded fuck..."

this attitude has come up a few times on urban and i think it is VERY interesting and VERY wrong and explains a lot about why the left are so small in this country ..

[...]

it is this basic failure of the left to 'look after their own' .. indeed its almost total alienation from 'it's own' that is the root cause of why the left and @ are so small .

you have no understanding of the most basic processes that must be followed if we want the big prize .. of simple combination in the community and workforce ... we must start from the very very bottom .. we must NOT build our castle on sand like has always been done before .. it has been done by m/c revos many times before and it always fails .. and indeed it usually ushers in reaction .. and THIS is what i am afraid of

as i said before .. go and have kids and then tell me you don't understand what it means to look after your own .. it is not exclusive it is not reactionary it is not racist blah blah blah .. it is just simple humanity from which we can ripple out .."

and p.s. b4 anyone (yetagain) says 'this is racist',the community where i live AND and that includes my friends and THEREFORE 'my own', is mixed in race and colour and age and sexual orientation etc etc

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=191600&highlight=looking+after+one's+own

The community may be "mixed" but the attitude is decidedly parochial.

 

[Megaton]

Having read the thread in question I'd have to agree with you Nino. Time and again I hear the same old, same old "we should be looking after our own people etc etc instead of immigrants/people from other countries".

The argument in itself is highly subjective - who is "our own" and why are they so special? Why are they more important than anyone from outside the island archipelago that just happens to be called the British Isles? Seeing as the great decendants of the vast majority of people living on this island probably migrated from Central Europe after the last ice age, its a wholly flawed argument, stinking to high heaven of xenophobia.

Its a very parochial, regressive attitude and in my opinion one which is holding the human race back.

 

[Fruitloop]

Who is 'my own' anyway? I doubt that any such group of people exist.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Context is everything.

if, by "looking after your own", you mean that you will temporarily put the interests of your own community/get your own community in order before attempting to expand the ambit of your grassroots organising then that could be considered to be sensible, in that you will be pioneering a system you might wish to present as a template for future development.

If, however, you mean "eternal localised self and community-interest, "us" against "them" forever, with no ambition or drive to actually change anything merely to ossify your current situation and defend that situation against any threat to it, then you're a reactionary, and an unimaginative and (small "c") conservative reactionary at that.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Who is 'my own' anyway? I doubt that any such group of people exist.

In order of heirarchy (most important at the top) I'd say it would read something like:

Family/friends/relations
local community/political fellow-travelers
regional affiliation
country of birth
nationality

But I'd expect that there'd be loads of intersection points for even the most simple set of relationships, and that the apex of everyones' heirarchy would be loaded in a unique or near-unique way.

 

[In Bloom]

If, however, you mean "eternal localised self and community-interest, "us" against "them" forever, with no ambition or drive to actually change anything merely to ossify your current situation and defend that situation against any threat to it, then you're a reactionary, and an unimaginative and (small "c") conservative reactionary at that.

Isn't "unimaginative and (small "c") conservative reactionary" somewhat of a tautology?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Isn't "unimaginative and (small "c") conservative reactionary" somewhat of a tautology?

Only sometimes, unfortunately.

 

[snorbury]

I don't have my own I own everything, like when I was born

 

[bluestreak]

you mean someone might not have been being honest or reasonable in an effort to push their agenda?

 

[weltweit]

Yes looking after one's own can be a subtext to racism, zenophobia, anti immigration etc.

But looking after one's own is also what we all do, first we have to look after ourselves, then our families friends and neighbours and most people do this. If people become your neighbours who are different, from another country or another colour or another religeon then your responsibilities are still to look after them as if they are one of your own, which by becoming neighbours they are.

The important question in micro for individuals and in macro for political leaders is the definition of friends family and neighbours.

Why for example did we take military action to free the Iraqis from Saddam but it appears we would not consider taking military action to free Zimbabweans from Mugabi?

 

[Haller]

So can we consider the phrase "Looking after one's own" another way of saying "Send them back"?

I think it's more akin to the attitudes explicitly rejected by Jesus in the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew chap.20).

 

[Fruitloop]

In order of heirarchy (most important at the top) I'd say it would read something like:

Family/friends/relations
local community/political fellow-travelers
regional affiliation
country of birth
nationality

But I'd expect that there'd be loads of intersection points for even the most simple set of relationships, and that the apex of everyones' heirarchy would be loaded in a unique or near-unique way.

The last three are completely meaningless to me, as is local community - there's no community round here! That leaves about 7 family members and a load of people I've mostly never met.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The last three are completely meaningless to me...

As they are to many people.

...as is local community - there's no community round here!

Where'd you live, Svalbard?

That leaves about 7 family members and a load of people I've mostly never met.

I've had a bit of a think, and I reckon another important factor is how you identify yourself, what constitutes the "you" in terms of the various facets of your identity, and how you relate to those facets of your identity.

Sounds a bit mimsy, I know, but your relationship with the elements that make you a unique individual could count for a lot.

 

[tbaldwin]

Looking after one's own: isn't that another way of saying something else?

Is this your way of trying to say durrutti is a racist,nino...Why be so half arsed about it....If you think he's a racist say so....And say why....And say who he's racist against....

 

[ViolentPanda]

Looking after one's own: isn't that another way of saying something else?

Is this your way of trying to say durrutti is a racist,nino...Why be so half arsed about it....If you think he's a racist say so....And say why....And say who he's racist against....

You haven't bothered to read the thread again, have you?

 

[Luther Blissett]

i have an idea for an experiment.
let's all completely ignore baldwin in this thread

 

[tbaldwin]

You haven't bothered to read the thread again, have you?

Sorry havent managed to read all nino and yours 42,000 contributions......Been a bit busy......

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Sometimes you have to do something that is not entirely progressive to prevent something worse. Thats is my argument for a sons and daughters housing policy or at least a strong element of S and D in housing allocation is that it is the one issue that the bnp are strong on even amongst those who are not dyed in the wool racists. S and D isn't perfect, it has problems but the 'needs' based system is worse and is feeding the fash with people who are voting for them in droves primarily over issues of housing allocation policy.

Put it this way. Would you have a guest in your house who ate your food, used your electricity and didn't contribute. Yoou wouldn't would you. Now I'm not saying that those from immigrant communties are not contributing but the perception among many is that those who fight for and contribute to the nation should have first bite of the cherry.

I know that there are inherent problems with capitalism and that there are great resorce allocation issues but I think that those of us who consider themselves fanatically moderate should consider giving people a litttle of what they want before they turn to parties who will make life bad for all of us.

Lets calm things down, remove the genuine grievences that a lot of people have and then fighting the fash will be a whole lot easier.

 

[bluestreak]

i'd agree with S&D in housing as part of a major overhall of social housing in this country that built large amounts of property. moving back to S&D alone will be bad for a lot of people.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

i'd agree with S&D in housing as part of a major overhall of social housing in this country that built large amounts of property. moving back to S&D alone will be bad for a lot of people.

I agree, S and D as a single policy with no allowances made for need would cause a multitude of problems.

I think that the abandonment of S and D as an element of housing allocation has fed the growth of the bnp.

 

[Fruitloop]

Where'd you live, Svalbard?

Worse - Cambridge. A vast twee wasteland of renting IT/Biotech thirtysomethings and a five-figure transient population of students of various stripes.

 

[Fruitloop]

The problem with social housing has nothing to do with allocation, and everything to do with the fact that there isn't any.

 

[bluestreak]

I think that the abandonment of S and D as an element of housing allocation has fed the growth of the bnp.

only as part of a massive failure of housing policy in this country since thatcher's vile attack on it.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

The problem with social housing has nothing to do with allocation, and everything to do with the fact that there isn't any.

But piss poor alloation policies based on 'need' are making a bad situation far far worse.

It encourages people to lie and cheat and talk up their needs to get a place. This causes resentment amongst honest people who rightly complain that so and so only got their house because they are a refugee/deliberately got pregnant/current favoured group by certain councillors etc

The architect of the whole problem was the vile Thatcher as Bluestreak said. If all sold council properties had been replaced or if better right to buy legislation had been brought in then we wouldn't be in this position.

 

[Fruitloop]

only as part of a massive failure of housing policy in this country since thatcher's vile attack on it.

Exactamundo. Fighting over scraps is what the rest of this bollocks is about.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Exactamundo. Fighting over scraps is what the rest of this bollocks is about.

But until we can give people more than scraps then the only way to beat the bnp in places like Dagenham etc is to change the allocation system so that it favours locals. As I said before the key to buying breathing space is to give people a little of what they want so as to prevent a disaster.

 

[bluestreak]

so where do all the other people in need go? removing need-based allocation in favour of S&D might alleviate bnp voting in some areas, but then you'd have many thousands of people with serious needs living on the streets, or in hostels.