Having established to my satisfaction, if not to some of my readers, that groups do indeed possess characteristics and that individuals, as well as other groups, recognise those characteristics and re-act accordingly, let me move on to the delicate, well, delicate in this hyper-sensitive society of ours, to those groups defined by their ethnicity. Again, I will use my question and answer technique.
1: Should you make judgements concerning other groups on the basis of their ethnicity? Yes, if you have any sense! For example, were I a Maori, an Aborigine or an American Indian, either South or North, born, say, 250 years ago, I would suggest that a very strong suspicion amounting to a downright detestation of all white men would have been both sensible and excusable given that they were, on the whole, a bunch of thieving, raping, murdering rascals. If I was a Palestinian living today, I would have a very keen dislike, perhaps hatred is a better word, for all Jews for reasons that are too well-known to be repeated here. Whether those reasons are right or wrong, or even sufficient, need not detain us. Were I a Chinese of venerable age I would have considerable suspicion and dislike of the Japanese, and for very good reason, at least, good enough for me! Were I an American Negro of advanced years living in, say, Alabama, I doubt that I would possess warm feelings towards white Americans.
2. But are those hostile feelings due to the colour of the skin? Of course not! Skin colour never hurt anyone, it's people who hurt people. The tint of the skin acts merely as a handy tool for identification purposes.
3. So are they due to the ethnicity of the group? No, again. It is what the ethnic group does, not what it is, that matters. As of today, English people have no particular view of South Americans. There was very slight hostility towards Argentinians during the Falklands war but within months of it ending some of their footballers were welcomed back here. The reason for our neutral stance is that they haven't done anything to us, and, they are a very long way off. The Celtic Southern Irish, are a different case. For some thirty years a small group of activists, assisted by a very much larger group of supporters and well-wishers, some of whom were in the very highest levels of the Irish government, plus a vast number of sympathetic and condoning members of the Irish public, declared war on the people of the UK. Again, it is not necessary to discuss the rights and wrongs of it, it was war and as in all wars, both sides felt they were in the right. If I had been born an Irish Catholic, I would have felt much as the majority of the Southern Irish felt, that is, a more, or less, vague feeling of dislike of all things English. However, I am an Englishman and when a group, defined by its ethnicity, or anything else, starts blowing up my fellow English men and women and children, then I definitely feel hostile! All of this is as old as history and is completely unexceptional.
4. But should I allow my antipathy to the group to affect my dealings with an individual of that group? Of course you should! But exactly how, is impossible to define because the circumstances will be precisely that - individual. It will depend on the history, the circumstances of the meeting, his re-action to you, and so on into infinity. I am reminded of a story told, I think, by the late Eric Newby who had escaped in Italy during the war and was on the run. Hiding high up in the mountains he unexpectedly bumped into a German officer who was obviously an amateur botanist pursuing his hobby. A civil exchange ensued and then both parties went their separate ways with mutual good wishes. (Some one correct me if I have the details wrong, I heard the story years ago.) However, and again from WWII, there were, I think, several instances of allied bomber crews parachuting to what they thought would be safety, only to be strung up by enraged German civilians. So, to sum up, of course you will, and you should, allow your understanding of the likely behaviour, or the degree of threat, from any defined group to colour (no pun intended) your re-action to any particular individual.
5. But must your re-action to an individual from a (potentially) hostile group be justified? Absolutely! Today we have militant Islamists trying, and succeeding in some cases, in planting bombs aimed to kill as many people as possible. That does not give anyone the right to go off and kill as many Moslems as he can find. However, and as an example, it would be totally justified for you to leave a tube train carrying a Muslim woman in full burka and mask, and were she to claim that such an action was prejudicial, the only reply would be 'damn right it is!'
6. What is 'racism'? I have no idea! It is one of those words which might have had a meaning when it was first invented, but the 'liberalocracy' being forever engaged in a competition to be 'more politically correct than thou', keep moving the meaning to cover this or that eventuality so that finally it ends up meaning nothing at all and is useful only for the dim and the dumb to shout at anyone with whom they disagree.
7. Do you, David Duff, believe that some people are inherently inferior to you on the grounds of their ethnicity? Yes and No! Yes, for example, I believe that a jungle-dweller from Papua is inferior to me in knowledge of history, but, I am inferior to him in the specialised techniques required to track animals through a jungle. None of those things are important, unless you are either about to face an examination in history, or find yourself starving in a jungle and unable to find dinner! What does matter is that both of us share a common humanity. His life is as precious as mine. We are of equal worth.
Here endeth the last lesson - praise the Lord!
Recent Comments