Those racist fucks at Operation Black Vote are at it again.........

[innit]

I would because then you are voting on gender, not policies.

<sigh>

if you just encouraged women to vote for any old female candidate then yes.

if you worked to encourage women to feel involved in the political process and to actively seek greater representation, then no. And this is what OBV are trying to do for black British people, isn't it?

 

[butchersapron]

Why do people think this initiative is happening and recieving state funding? Can we talk about that a bit more?

I'd suggest that it's a result fo the 'happy coincidence' of a small number of black professionals realising that the state at this time wants to take advantage of what is widely percieved (and often is) as real discrimination against black people, esp younger ones, in order to build up a base for a) themselves b) the staus quo by dividing people along racial lines - the point being to nip any more radical or class based resistance currently developing in the bud. Let's try and look at this is in class terms - looking at it simple racial terms is playing along with their plans.

 

[redsquirrel]

<sigh>

if you just encouraged women to vote for any old female candidate then yes.

if you worked to encourage women to feel involved in the political process and to actively seek greater representation, then no. And this is what OBV are trying to do for black British people, isn't it?

No as butchers said they are trying to get the "community leaders" to become part of the political system.

 

[kea]

if you just encouraged women to vote for any old female candidate then yes.

so you wouldn't support all-women shortlists then?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Well, no I don't think that.

Which is why I'm surprised anyone sensible would support a campaign that seems to racialise politics in the manner of OBV.

funny enough, neither do I (in relation to the question re: mps)

I don't understand what your last statement means tho? What is the "manner" of OBV exactly? Encouraging the black community to use their votes? Or to stand for election? Or to better understand how the political process in this country works?

 

[Isambard]

I don't see why you are assuming that ernie isn't being inclusive with the 'our taxes', as in 'our' - british people of every colour paying for etc.

I think he meant "everyones" taxes going towards services aimed at specific people.

Can I opt out of my taxes funding women's refuges? Can I opt out of my taxes funding for non-native speakers to get extra language help? Can I opt out of my taxes being used for street workers for the homeless, alcoholic and drug users?

NO, I fucking can't and that is good so!

Honestly this bitching and moaning is like reading the fucking Daily Mail through the years of when "loony left" councils were "forcing kids to be lesbians while singing 'Baa Baa green Sheep' on the rates".

I take it that the rest of Britain shouldn't be paying for Europe's (or maybe the world's ?) most heavily subsidised TV Channel then Ernesto........?

 

[innit]

Yes, but then you're not voting on gender, you're voting for the candidate whose policies / party you support. They just all happen to be female.

As opposed to a situation where there was a mixed shortlist and you voted for the female candidate just because she was a woman.

Edit to say I very much support women-only shortlists

 

[snadge]

<sigh>

if you just encouraged women to vote for any old female candidate then yes.

if you worked to encourage women to feel involved in the political process and to actively seek greater representation, then no. And this is what OBV are trying to do for black British people, isn't it?

that's not what you said

layabout, would you feel equally offended by a women's organisation which encouraged women to vote for female candidates?

 

[Fozzie Bear]

funny enough, neither do I (in relation to the question re: mps)

I don't understand what your last statement means tho? What is the "manner" of OBV exactly? Encouraging the black community to use their votes? Or to stand for election? Or to better understand how the political process in this country works?

It seems to me that the link in the OP was suggesting that the only issue at stake was the colour of the candidate, rather than their track record.

 

[ernestolynch]

Why do people think this initiative is happening and recieving state funding? Can we talk about that a bit more?

I'd suggest that it's a result fo the 'happy coincidence' of a small number of black professionals realising that the state at this time wants to take advantage of what is widely percieved (and often is) as real discrimination against black people, esp younger ones, in order to build up a base for a) themselves b) the staus quo by dividing people along racial lines - the point being to nip any more radical or class based resistance currently developing in the bud. Let's try and look at this is in class terms - looking at it simple racial terms is playing along with their plans.

Repeated for the benefit of the ranters.

 

[innit]

that's not what you said

So do you really think OBV's aim is to get black voters to vote for any ethnic minority candidate? Do you not think their aim might be a little bit more subtle than that?

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Why do people think this initiative is happening and recieving state funding? Can we talk about that a bit more?

I'd suggest that it's a result fo the 'happy coincidence' of a small number of black professionals realising that the state at this time wants to take advantage of what is widely percieved (and often is) as real discrimination against black people, esp younger ones, in order to build up a base for a) themselves b) the staus quo by dividing people along racial lines - the point being to nip any more radical or class based resistance currently developing in the bud. Let's try and look at this is in class terms - looking at it simple racial terms is playing along with their plans.

I think (as usual!) this sums up my objections better than I have put them...

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Why do people think this initiative is happening and recieving state funding? Can we talk about that a bit more?

I'd suggest that it's a result fo the 'happy coincidence' of a small number of black professionals realising that the state at this time wants to take advantage of what is widely percieved (and often is) as real discrimination against black people, esp younger ones, in order to build up a base for a) themselves b) the staus quo by dividing people along racial lines - the point being to nip any more radical or class based resistance currently developing in the bud. Let's try and look at this is in class terms - looking at it simple racial terms is playing along with their plans.

Why dont' you start Operation Anarchist Vote then matey

I don't really agree that educating a specific community as to how their country's political process works and how it affects them is playing along with the status quo necessarily. If the problem of (especially) young black men disengaging from civic society can be ameliorated by projects such as OBV, then surely in the longer term, their attention may fall upon the questions you pose i.e. how class ultimately affects your position & power in society, regardless of race, gender, etc. I could counter that looking upon this issue in simply "class" terms could be similarly said to be maintaining another status quo.

 

[kea]

Yes, but then you're not voting on gender, you're voting for the candidate whose policies / party you support. They just all happen to be female.

As opposed to a situation where there was a mixed shortlist and you voted for the female candidate just because she was a woman.

Edit to say I very much support women-only shortlists

um, but surely she was selected by the party for being a woman?

 

[snadge]

So do you really think OBV's aim is to get black voters to vote for any ethnic minority candidate? Do you not think their aim might be a little bit more subtle than that?

that's definately not what you said either

explain what subtle aim is involved then

 

[innit]

um, but surely she was selected by the party for being a woman?

presumably for other things too...

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Repeated for the benefit of the ranters.

fuck off, we're having a proper discussion for a change, fuckwit

 

[kea]

presumably for other things too...

yeah that's an intelligent response to the actual point.
well let me put it like this. she wasn't chosen because she was the best person for the job. she was chosen because she was on the shortlist. she was on the shortlist because she was female. someone else who might have made a very good candidate wasn't put on the shortlist because he was male. somehow the fact of her femaleness automatically makes her a better candidate in your eyes? why? because she's more 'oppressed' in some kind of points index of oppression? what if the guy is working class, gay and black? what if she's public school, white and straight? how does your point-scoring system extend to cover that then?

women-only shortlists are a pile of crap.

 

[ernestolynch]

fuck off, we're having a proper discussion for a change, fuckwit

Charming. Seems to me a few home truths are being served, OBV-Quango-Boy...

 

[treelover]

'why is lunar house being renovated when us whiteys have to put up with crappy jobcentres" threads,


er, your referring to my thread on general i take it, the thread was about a certain type of well meaning campauigner who apparently only sees one type of oppression, even if the oppression is admittedly grotesque. it was not about dividing groups into those who should have and those who shouldn't.


Paulie i resent your spinon my post, I never ever used words such as whitey, people who know me would laugh at the accusations. I think what are political arguments are being twisted into nasty smears, a bit like the witchhunts in the 80's...


oh dear, i hate viscious arguments, i like constructive debate not mudslinging,

 

[redsquirrel]

fuck off, we're having a proper discussion for a change, fuckwit

And how did that post not contribute to the discussion?

 

[ernestolynch]

What's your opinion on John Barnes's comments re the recent England DVD, Paulie?

 

[KLAAR]

fuck off, we're having a proper discussion for a change, fuckwit

He speaks more sense than all the beaucratic yes men of obv,may be thats what pisses you lot off,that class and not skin tone is more important.Obv and blink just want people to dress up in dapper suits go to cheese and wine shindigs, rape the au-pair and get prometed to regional manager.No different to the torys enterprise allowance bribes of the 80s.

 

[butchersapron]

Why dont' you start Operation Anarchist Vote then matey

I don't really agree that educating a specific community as to how their country's political process works and how it affects them is playing along with the status quo necessarily. If the problem of (especially) young black men disengaging from civic society can be ameliorated by projects such as OBV, then surely in the longer term, their attention may fall upon the questions you pose i.e. how class ultimately affects your position & power in society, regardless of race, gender, etc. I could counter that looking upon this issue in simply "class" terms could be similarly said to be maintaining another status quo.

Because it's seeking to tie those involved or who it chooses to be supportive of to the status quo, of the state - the very same state that supporters accuse of being racist. The larger point is that this, if succesfull, would contribute to stifling any more radical movements growth, by demonstrating that the state 'works', it isn't racist, it's 'fair' if only you get involved - that there's only way way to go about things.

The developmental aspect you mention, that this could be viewed as a wider stepping stone to deeper questions being posed at a later date - well, sorry i just don't think so. The same arguments were made when w/c people were first co-opted into Parliament. The idea is right, but this one is happening on the wrong terms. There's no need to begin by endorsing the status quo - in fact, i suspect that would be more likely to put more people off - except a few aspirant profesionals or careerists.

It also serves to funnel political anger into race-based moulds rather than wider community based actions, which are almost inevitbaly going to be cross-race in many areas.

There's also the fact that building up a buiffer zone between real power and the people below, a buffer zone made up of the beter off elements of those 'below' is an absolutley classic tactic of power.

I've got nothing whatsoever against initiatives to include, encourage or help black people into more political or community involvement - the key though question is - on what basis and on who's agenda? Who's doing 'the educating?'

 

[treelover]

i agree with a lot of what BA and Klarr are saying, however for me, there is a danger we don't go down the route of militant in the 80's who priveledged class so much that racism and particularly homophobia became virtually non issues. Indeed, some of the their activists actually claimed that homosexuality would disapper after the revolution! I think we need a balance: there are the usual careerists ala Lee Jasper, around what passes for the UK black civil rights movement, but the issues of black poverty, disenfranchisement, etc are real. Perhaps if we had a Jesse Jackson and his rainbow coalition type thing(something i would defo support) the issue would not be so polarised.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Because it's seeking to tie those involved or who it chooses to be supportive of to the status quo, of the state - the very same state that supporters accuse of being racist. The larger point is that this, if succesfull, would contribute to stifling any more radical movements growth, by demonstrating that the state 'works', it isn't racist, it's 'fair' if only you get involved - that there's only way way to go about things.

The developmental aspect you mention, that this could be viewed as a wider stepping stone to deeper questions being posed at a later date - well, sorry i just don't think so. The same arguments were made when w/c people were first co-opted into Parliament. The idea is right, but this one is happening on the wrong terms. There's no need to begin by endorsing the status quo - in fact, i suspect that would be more likely to put more people off - except a few aspirant profesionals or careerists.

It also serves to funnel political anger into race-based moulds rather than wider community based actions, which are almost inevitbaly going to be cross-race in many areas.

There's also the fact that building up a buiffer zone between real power and the people below, a buffer zone made up of the beter off elements of those 'below' is an absolutley classic tactic of power.

I've got nothing whatsoever against initiatives to include, encourage or help black people into more political or community involvement - the key though question is - on what basis and on who's agenda? Who's doing 'the educating?'

But i don't see many cross-race community actions happening and i don't think that's down to something like OBV - i think it is down to a basic feeling for large parts of the community (black and white) of disengagement with what you could call civic society - that feeling that you're worth nothing, that you have no influence or power, and no realistic way of challenging the status quo.

Inre: your point on w/c influence/parliament, why is it then that there are now organisations like IWCA who are challenging some of these proxys and accepted ways that the political process in this country works - I would hazard a guess that it's because of working class people getting a taste of something that 100 years ago was essentially on another planet. This is why I can't accept that stimulating wider awareness of these issues would stifle more radical movements emerging. I would flip your statement to "you can only begin to try to make things fair if you become involved".

I think your last point is important and would generally agree with you on it- "the key though question is - on what basis and on who's agenda? Who's doing 'the educating?" - the implication on this thread that OBV are some white-hating black nazis is ludicrous and as i stated earlier, i feel demonstrates some nasty racist undertones.

 

[treelover]

only one person said that and thats ern, our resident agent provacateur

 

[butchersapron]

But i don't see many cross-race community actions happening and i don't think that's down to something like OBV - i think it is down to a basic feeling for large parts of the community (black and white) of disengagement with what you could call civic society - that feeling that you're worth nothing, that you have no influence or power, and no realistic way of challenging the status quo.

There might be, there might not be - but one things sure, canalising different sections of the community into different and potentially competing groups isn't the way to ensure that they do occur in the future. That route is far more likely to prove counter-productive - in the long and short run.

You're absolutely right on feelings of disempowerment feeding disengagement - which is precisley the gap that i see the black professionals and the politicians are doing their best to use to their own ends in OBV.

Inre: your point on w/c influence/parliament, why is it then that there are now organisations like IWCA who are challenging some of these proxys and accepted ways that the political process in this country works - I would hazard a guess that it's because of working class people getting a taste of something that 100 years ago was essentially on another planet. This is why I can't accept that stimulating wider awareness of these issues would stifle more radical movements emerging. I would flip your statement to "you can only begin to try to make things fair if you become involved".

But have a look at the basis the IWCA are operating on - it's far closer to the one that i'm suggesting is the way forward - i've seen IWCA posters on here criticise OBV in very strong terms for racialising what are social problems (oddly enough that's precisely what the BNP do as well - though i'd like to make clear that i'm not directly comparing the two in anything other than the uselessness of such divisive tactics in developing a strong w/c wide resistance).

I'm 100% with you on "you can only begin to try to make things fair if you become involved" - but again, the question must be asked - on what basis? We have to be prepared to criticise things like OBV for not doing what i think we both agree is essential.

I think your last point is important and would generally agree with you on it- "the key though question is - on what basis and on who's agenda? Who's doing 'the educating?" - the implication on this thread that OBV are some white-hating black nazis is ludicrous and as i stated earlier, i feel demonstrates some nasty racist undertones.

Which is why i've been trying to establish something more concrete - i've suggested where and who i think this is coming from and why.

 

[snadge]

only one person said that and thats ern, our resident agent provacateur

could you point me to that post please?

 

[Random]

Inre: your point on w/c influence/parliament, why is it then that there are now organisations like IWCA who are challenging some of these proxys and accepted ways that the political process in this country works.

But isn't it a bit of a strange approach to say 'let's help to build up proxies that only appear to represent us so that we can later sweep them away'.

Why do we have to got through making these these bogus forms only to have to start again in 100 years time? Why not actually begin now to create the political forms we want to see?

Unless you are saying that disnefranchised black people need to be brought through a series of stages that start with attracing them to fake representations of politics...