Dreaming of One Nation – Labour, multiculturalism and race

Image © Alexander Kachkaev

Robin Richardson

Review of The British Dream: successes and failures of post-war immigration by David Goodhart, Atlantic Books 2013, 381 pp, £20

David Goodhart hopes there will be a Labour government, or a Labour-led coalition, from 2015 onwards. He himself belongs, he says, to the ‘political tribe of north London liberals’ and is ‘a journalist of leftish sympathies’. His subject-matter in this book is immigration policy, and the extent to which Britain can be a multicultural One Nation. It is possible to imagine Britain, he mentions, ‘little by little becoming a less civil, ever more unequal and ethnically divided country – as harsh and violent as the United States’. In such a Britain the welfare state will have largely withered away, for white British people will be increasingly unwilling to pay taxes to support people who belong to (one of Goodhart’s favourite (phrases) ‘visible minorities’. He sees his book as a wake-up call to prevent such a dystopia. Read more of this post

The trouble with billionaires (book review) by Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks

Left Central Book Review 

Image© Andy Mitchel

I am indebted to the British Welfare state; the very one that Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, the safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major`s government, was there to break the fall…J.K. Rowling… Cited in `the trouble with billionaires`

This book is a fusion of rigorous academic analysis and sharp, witty journalism. The humour a necessary antidote, given the unconscionable economic detail outlined. Facts linked to the rapacious appetite of the super elite, gorging on tax avoidance. Aided and abetted by supine legislators in the UK and USA. Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks explain how the political right, adroitly undermined the post-war consensus of Beveridge and Keynes in the UK, the same result achieved in the USA with the gradual destruction of the New Deal consensus. Criticism articulated by Frederick Von Hayek who feared that benevolent government intervention would lead us down the road to serfdom. A ridiculous idea, predicated on the notion that social security; full employment, legal aid, economic growth and an NHS somehow reduced liberty. As this book points out, when Hayek required assistance from the social security system, he was not shy about utilising its collective provisions. It is indeed a strange sort of serfdom, which provides a hospital bed for the sick, a bizarre understanding of liberty that disregards the need of a safety net, when boom turns to inevitable bust. All those tens of thousands of post-war Higher Education students benefitting from free education in the UK or through the GI Bill in the States – hardly resemble serfs. But their counterparts today do; a bizarre twist on the Hayek model. The exchange of correspondence between Hayek and Charles Koch outlined in the text, makes for illuminating revisionist reading. Read more of this post

Jack Johnson: Remember I was a man…

Image© Library of Congress

Legal Eagle

Of course some people pretend to object to Mr Johnson`s character but we have yet to hear in the case of White America that marital troubles have disqualified prize fighters or ball players or even statesmen. It comes down then after all to this unforgivable blackness…WB Dubois.

The campaign to posthumously pardon one of the all time greats of world boxing, Jack Johnson is gathering pace in the USA. Johnson was the first African-American to win the World Heavyweight Championship in 1908, a sporting victory of incredible social and cultural significance. Jack defeated Tommy Burns in Australia, Burns lured by a $30,000 pay day. Jack held the title until 1915, he was defeated in dubious circumstances in a contest which pitted him against Jess Willard, a gruelling fight held in the blazing heat of Cuba. Willard knocked Johnson down in the twenty-sixth round (when Johnson was ahead on points). It was later suggested that the fight was a fix (an opinion sanctioned by Johnson). This view granted credence when Johnson was famously photographed protecting his eyes from the sun as he lay on the canvas, awaiting the referee to count him out. Whatever the merits of this sporting event (the defeat probably genuine), it appears beyond doubt that Jack Johnson`s criminal conviction under the Mann Act, was a travesty of justice. It is this issue that has brought Johnson back into the news, allowing a review of his treatment at the hands of the Jim Crow criminal justice system. Read more of this post

Pointing The Finger – by Julian Petley and Robin Richardson

LeftCentral Book Review 

Image©Nevit Dilmen

 

…It takes the form of an attack on multiculturalism for which Muslims are held responsible and which is a coded word for them. It cuts across political and ideological divides, and is shared alike, albeit in different degrees by conservatives, fascists, liberals, socialists and communists` (Bhikhu Parekh quoted in Pointing The Finger…)

In April 1964 Malik el-Shabazz (Malcolm X) left Detroit for Mecca, in the midst of an acrimonious split with the `Nation Of Islam`. Malcolm at this time was the USA`s foremost bogey-man, the unacceptable face of the civil rights movement. His position caricatured in the 1950s as `the hate that hate produced` – a view fitting the `orientalism` framework described by Edward Said. Whatever the merits of this documentary about the NOI, it does appear clear that Malcolm`s visit to Mecca changed him, his pilgrimage making him aware of the ethnic diversity of Islam. Recording in his diary, `it seems every nation and form of culture on earth is represented here…`. This revelation, as Manning Marble outlines encouraged Malcolm to alter his view on race. Malcolm reflecting at the time that, ‘I began to perceive that `white man`, as commonly used, means complexion only secondarily, primarily it describes attributes and actions`. Thus a metamorphosis resulted from advances in Malcolm`s `religious literacy` combined with his genius `critical literacy` (concepts outlined and explained in Pointing The Finger). Read more of this post

Book Review: Hollywood and the CIA: cinema, defense and subversion by Oliver Boyd-Barrett, David Herrera and Jim Baumann

Image© Miguel Angel Azua

Red Lester

SPOILER ALERTS: This review refers to plot points in some of the films mentioned.

Two recently released films, Argo and Zero Dark Thirty, both nominated for the Oscar for Best Film in the 2013 awards, have been criticised in some quarters for aspects of their portrayals of the CIA. Argo, which won the award for best film has been accused of exaggerating the role of the CIA agent, altering and creating events for dramatic effect, and presenting the Iranian people as an aggressive and fanatical mob.  In the case of Zero Dark Thirty, opinions are divided over whether the film glorifies or justifies torture as a means of obtaining intelligence; it certainly alarmed members of the US Senate who wanted the CIA to deny that such techniques had been used to gain information. Questions were also asked about whether ‘inappropriate’ intelligence had been shared with the scriptwriter. Read more of this post

Culture Show Abraham Lincoln Special

LeftCentral Review

© Image US National Archives Photostream

It was Abraham Lincoln`s birthday last week, the Culture Show celebrated with Steven Spielberg, Daniel Day Lewis and assortment of special guests. The Show was not a trailer for the film though the last ten minutes descended into a movie promotion. Spielberg pointing out this is the first film about Lincoln for over seventy-years. Henry Fonda who played Lincoln in the 1930s compared the assassinated President to Jesus Christ and Lincoln`s assassination on Good Friday helped secure political sainthood. However, the broadcast was no hagiography, examining Lincoln from a variety of historical perspectives, encompassing both orthodox and revisionist views. Lincoln was forensically scrutinised and Bonnie Greer one of the guests, outlined that his legacy is a complex nuanced one, while she reasonably affirmed that Lincoln was the greatest President. Greer made a significant contribution, speaking about her own background, pointing out that for people of her generation (and her parents); Lincoln was viewed as the Liberator of the enslaved. This orthodox view has been critiqued by those who consider Lincoln a white supremacist, given that he supported the plan to remove African-Americans through a colonisation programme. Those who share this interpretation of history, according to Bonnie Greer, argue that Lincoln freed the slaves because it was just a deal to get what he wanted.  Read more of this post

BBC 2012 Third Reith Lecture: The Rule of Law

John Curran

Prof Fergusson

The Aspen Institute Photostream

In Naill Ferguson`s third Reith Lecture the Professor focuses on the evolving nature of Anglo-American common law a comparative exercise allowing him to refer to alternative legal jurisdictions, most notably China where no separation of power or independent judiciary exists. In the West argues Ferguson the rule of law has degenerated into the rule of lawyer`s, especially in the USA, which was once the gold standard other legal jurisdictions measured themselves by the “United States was the rule of law” according to Professor Ferguson.The halcyon days Ferguson identifies are difficult to reconcile with America`s constitutional arrangement built on the premise that African-Americans were three-fifths human, the so called compromise of 1787. Jefferson author of the `Declaration of Independence` was also a slave owner and as Malcolm X quipped “we didn’t land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us”.  Indeed, women were also denied the vote prompting the Seneca Falls Convention 1848 to campaign for democratic rights a goal not achieved until 1920 a measure excluding African-American women living in the Deep South.   Read more of this post

Chomsky:1215 and all that…

Copyright Synne Tonidas

John Curran 

Professor Noam Chomsky the world`s leading public intellectual viewed by some as a wild-eyed radical is actually an old fashioned conservative. He is committed to the traditional values of Magna Carta, a document that shaped the Anglo-American legal system, ultimately establishing a presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. With this thought in mind, it is worth considering how traditional conservative ideas are today viewed as radical in both the USA and UK. As we know the Conservative Party in opposition went through a re-branding process as Cameron appeared to move his party leftward and in doing so rediscovered the Conservatives civil liberties antecedents. When the coalition government was formed, one significant judicial appointment was that of Dominic Grieve MP who, as Shadow Justice Spokesperson, was viewed as a politician with strong civil libertarian credentials he became Attorney General and the Coalition`s chief legal adviser. In a lecture given in 2008 Mr Grieve outlined what he saw as the essence of what it means to be British, extolling the virtues of freedom waxing lyrically about Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. But he was concerned that New Labour was dismissive of this heritage, as evidenced by restrictions of jury trail and permitting unacceptable periods of detention without trial. Grieve felt that the pendulum had swung too far and that the climate created by New Labour was one of tyranny. Labour he argued breached the ideals of the Bill of Rights and undermined the notion of Habeas Corpus. Grieve together with the Shadow Justice Minister, produced a policy document called `Reversing the rise of the surveillance state 2009`. Outlining concerns about a perceived reduction in citizen`s civil liberties in an eleven-point programme. Grieve now resides in a government that has generated concerns about civil liberties and Cameron has recently demonstrated the Tories have forgotten what Magna Carta means.     Read more of this post

The Moral Conundrum behind the Student Loan Process

Patricia Garza 

Image © ajschwegler

The question of what to do about college student loans in the US has long been debated, even before things started getting really ugly for college grads. There’s more urgency in the debate since the US reached the sad milestone of accruing over $1 trillion dollars in debt from student loans—surpassing the among of collective credit card debt held by people in country.

Some analysts say that potential college students need to be more educated about the brass tacks of the lending process. The idea is that students might make smarter financial choices if they’re better informed about types of loans, interest rates, payment plans, private vs. federal funding, and so forth. A smart college freshman might avoid repaying a $60,000 loan if they knew more about what’s at stake, right?

Maybe so, but many people aren’t convinced. While a crash course in student loans could certainly benefit many college kids, it doesn’t seem like improper education is what’s to blame for the mess that millions of college grads find themselves in. Student loans are an inevitability for millions of students who lack the financial resources to pay their way through an institution whose tuition costs the equivalent of a luxury car every semester, not to mention living expenses. The logic behind the loan education argument seems to be that no one in their right mind would agree to build up so much debt for a college education, especially if they enter a field that offers not much in the way of salary.

But the fact of the matter is that millions of college students are taking out their loans knowing full well about the repercussions and what’s at stake. Students who take out student loans essentially sign away their financial freedoms, understanding that repaying the loans will be a top financial priority for many, many years after graduation.  Read more of this post

No Bar On Roseanne`s Presidential Campaign…

 John Curran 

Image © monterey media

Mitt Romney`s acceptance speech at the Republican Convention illustrates how far American politics has descended into pastiche as an excitable audience intermittently bellowed “USA”, as if spectators at a sports event urged on by a candidate inanely smiling like a second rate chat show host. This was pantomime politics; the audience occasionally hissing in unison, an organised response in this era of stage managed politics. Given the circumstances it seems natural to send in the clowns, or at least a comedian, so enter Roseanne Barr, who is campaigning to become President of the United States on a socialist and anti-war policy plank predicated on the notion that a woman`s place is in the White House.

Barr, the most serious comedian in this Presidential race resurrected her political challenge after failing to win the Green Party nomination; she is now running for the Peace and Freedom Party on a Barr/Sheehan ticket. `Roseanne for President` is no joke and she is no court jester, refusing to apologise for proposing a radical agenda. Socialism, she reminds us, is not an agenda to merely help out Wall Street, it is time she argues that public money found its way into the pocket of Joe/Joan `six-pack` on Main Street.

Much of the attention concerning the Barr/Sheehan campaign has focussed on their proposal to legalise marijuana, but the platform covers an array of issues concerning domestic and foreign policy and constitutional change. For example the party is calling for Ballot Access in all 50 states.

Barr employs her energy and intelligence to good effect and her considerable wit is less rapier and more akin to a weapon of mass destruction. Highly articulate and quick on her feet she surely would be a match for anyone in debate. She is running a shrewd campaign, the Peace and Freedom party are appealing to national sentiment urging prospective voters to be an American and not an American`t. The campaign website is sophisticated, Roseanne knows how to communicate to the masses and she gets her message across clearly, concisely and of course, with humour.

There is a strand of isolationism running through the ticket, natural given the anti-war stance this party takes. But the Peace and Freedom Party has an international outlook, the campaign website gives pride of place to the terrible incident recently in Marikana, South Africa, “Where forty- five mineworkers were killed in what the South African press called a bloodbath that recalls the worst massacres of the apartheid epoch.”  Lest we forget, these workers were killed campaigning for improvements in wages and conditions in a British owned enterprise. It is unlikely that any of the leading Presidential candidates will give prominence in their campaign literature as Barr/Sheehan have to the massacre on the 16 of August.  Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,282 other followers