KKK sends congratulations to Minister Michael McDowell.

by Merlin Thu Jul 15, 2004 13:51

Full article at The Dubliner Magazine:
http://www.thedubliner.ie/template.php?ID=96

by San Patricio Battalion Thu Jul 15, 2004 13:52

Bearing in mind that Irish immigrants to the US were discriminated against by the same elements who formed the kkk, we really don't need their 'support', and we have nothing in common with them.
But it does go to show how making decisions like the one made in the referendum gives encouragement to these thugs.

by IT reader Thu Jul 15, 2004 14:09

Posting this from IT (as it's pay-per-view)

Far-right leader praises result of citizenship poll
Mark Hennessy, Political Correspondent

South Africa's far-right political leader, Mr Eugene Terreblanche, has strongly applauded Irish voters for supporting last month's referendum to restrict citizenship rights.

The leader of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement was one of several far-right international figures whose views on the referendum were sought by the Dubliner magazine.

Meanwhile, the Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, has acknowledged that no other EU member-state had ever made representations to the Government about immigration laws, despite the ruling in the Chen case. In a written parliamentary answer last Thursday to Green Party TD, Mr Dan Boyle, he said: "No formal representations have been made to me by my EU ministerial counterparts concerning our citizenship laws."

In his Dubliner interview, Mr Terreblanche said: "I congratulate the Minister on trying to protect the people against immigrants who they don't want to be in Ireland. What I really appreciate about the Irish is that they are a very proud people. They are really trying to protect the Irish people from the overflowing and the overcrowding of other people.

"They see Ireland as their sole and sovereign country. For our people in South Africa you are really an inspiration, because we don't want to be changed by the 'new nation' idea in South Africa either - to go up into a majority which will definitely mean the end of the small Afrikaner Boer people," he said.

In an interview last night with The Irish Times, Mr Terreblanche acknowledged he was not "well informed" about the details of the referendum, passed by a 4:1 majority. "I only came out of prison three weeks ago. It wasn't possible for me to have my hand on the pulse of things at that stage," he said in a telephone interview from his home.

He was released on parole on June 11th after serving three years of a five-year term for the attempted murder of a black security guard in 1996. He said he was contacted by the Dubliner and told that the Irish people had accepted changes that made it more difficult for "foreigners to come to your country".

"Everybody is entitled to defend their own country and its culture and all those things that their forebears fought for and that could be changed by strange people who could change your culture and history." He said he had been "inspired" by the "example of the Irish who fought for 600, 700 years against the British" like Afrikaners had done against "black forces and the British".

The magazine also interviewed Mr David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, who once ran for the governorship of Louisiana. He said: "The passing of this referendum is an amazing step for Ireland and the Irish people. Thank you, Minister McDowell, for defending the heritage of our mothers and fathers. The European world is being overwhelmed [by immigrants\]."

by Davy Carlin Thu Jul 15, 2004 14:42

Below is a reply published yesterday in the Irish news that I had done. It was done in reply to an Irish News columunist who in part raised points in relation to what the ARN had not done {as opposed to what it had done} with specific references to myself.


The main thrust of his column though was to attack Sinn Fein and their concept of the 'irish Race'. Although I had sent Part one, printed yesterday {dealing with the practical issues} I have not yet sent Part two {which I will also send to the Blanket}. It deals with 'my understanding' as a socialist to the concept of Race and Irsh Racism and,

I print it here below firstly on Indymedia .

My Reply to the Newt on his reference to myself ------

Part one


I am writing in response to Newton Emerson’s article {Irish News July 8th} Before I go into the meat of his article I will firstly clear up his inaccuracies. Newton states that the Belfast Anti Racism Network {ARN} is ‘run’ by a member of the Socialist Workers Party {SWP}. I presume he is referring to myself as Chairperson of the Anti Racism network and also a member of the Belfast SWP. On both these I am proud to be an active member, as I am of being an active trade unionist in NIPSA or as an activist in the Anti War Movement. In fact standing up actively against racism, fighting against poverty pay or opposing illegal occupations are all issues I am proud to be involved in, as I am also on other such issues.

Yet as opposed to what Newton states in relation to the ARN, none of these campaigns or organisations are in fact ‘run’ by one individual. The Anti Racism Network for example is made up of a steering group of seven persons, four women and three men, with several from a minority ethnic background. They include representatives of several of the leading and largest minority ethnic associations and support groups. Also on the steering group is probably the North’s leading asylum Practitioner as well as another with a history working from a legal background. Many of us are also active trade unionists may it be NIPSA, UNISON or such. Therefore with that wealth of experience when decisions are to be made, they are made ‘collectively’.

On a personal level as a black person growing up in Belfast I had witnessed much racism, and for me it came then mainly from the state. Similarly as was seen a few years back {published on a front page article in the Irish news} I had witnessed similar racist behaviour towards oneself from the Southern state. Therefore on seeing the brutal attacks on persons from the minority ethnic community {intensifying last summer} I and others decided to organise against it, thus the formation of the ARN. Newton’s reference to the ARN concentrates on what he believes we have not done, yet he mentions nothing of what we have done. Well, briefly, as an ‘active’ campaign we have been an important part in putting the whole issue of racism and racial attacks to the forefront within Northern Irish society and indeed at times internationally.

We with others have raised the issue of refugees detained and held in prisons, in effect in doing so {detaining them} they are being ‘criminalized’ for seeking refuge. We have organised a city centre rally and with the support of the trade union movement had stood shoulder to shoulder with over two thousand citizens at the Belfast city hall against racism. We have been a voice for some of the most vulnerable who have feared to speak out. We had established networks in local communities around Belfast that have taken local collective and visual community initiatives against racism and racial attacks. We are now beginning to establish groups and networks in important areas around the North such as in Dungannon and in North Antrim.

Finally it should be stated that ARN is not funded like other groups and is voluntary participation using our own time. We all hold down other jobs, with supporters and activists raising money and providing solidarity for the Network. The ARN also has the support and involvement of twenty-five organisations and many individuals. The ARN as a network seeks to be an active, visual, grassroots, community and trade unionists based network as we continue to expand around the North.

So with clearing up those points now then to the meat of Newton’s article, the issue of the ‘Irish race’ and on that I give my individual thoughts.

Part two

To begin to talk about the ‘Irish race’ one firstly needs to know what ‘race’ is and where did it come from. Racism’s origins as we know it today began around the seventeenth century during the times of slavery, colonialism and empire. Slave labour then was used in the plantations but the slavery used then differed from those that had used it previously, such as in the slave societies under the Roman Empire. The difference, and it is a vital difference, slaves in those societies {Roman Empire} where seen essentially as commodities rather than having biological differences.

Therefore in such previous slave societies you may have been a black or white slave and slavery was based on that role {as a slave} and that status {of a commodity} within society. Yet under the developing role of early capitalism, colonialism and their plantations, this slavery was driven on the basis that one set of human beings where ‘naturally inferior’ to another set due to ‘biological differences’. These ‘differences’ were used to deny a section of the human race equal rights afforded to others and so in the process subjecting them to exploitation and slavery in the interest of, and for, the economic benefits of the developing Capitalist system. Therefore racism as many know it today is based in that historical sense, that is, the differences in skin colour and facial characteristics.

Yet that creation of difference is only half the story as the reasoning for its invention and development is the other half. That is, for its usage in colonial exploitation and for the benefit of Imperial nations and capitalism as a whole. Therefore historically the creation of racism was developed for capitalist expansion and need {greed}. This done through creating those ‘race’ based ‘biological differences’, thus developing the concept of perceived inferiority for the benefit of initial exploitation and slavery. This does not mean though that this is the entirety of racism. The understanding of its development and more importantly the reasoning for it shows how Imperial nations and the ruling classes will, have, and do use ‘race’, ethnicity – culture etc as a starting point of difference. This for the creation of perceived inferiority, thus prejudice, division, exploitation, oppression and colonialism etc can follow.

May it be biological or ethnicity, and however each is specifically termed, it has in reality been ‘differences’ that had and have been used by many a ruling interest for the benefit of that said interest. In saying this each term is of course deemed specific, especially in the historical sense and within the context from which it arose. However this needs to be put into the framework of modern society with an understanding of not so much the details of specific terms {although important}. But on the ‘still’ relationship of such racism and of Imperial nation states, the system of capitalism, and its need at times to develop and intensify such ‘difference{s}’ for its own need and greed.

Therefore this brings me on to Newton’s point of Lambasting the BNP for referring to the ‘British race’ and ‘anti English racism’, although silent on Sinn Fein talking about the ‘Irish race’. I am unsure if he is referring to me or the ARN stating this, but nevertheless I will answer it. Firstly I will say that to be frank I have not heard Sinn Fein talking about the ‘Irish race’ although I hear of them talking about racism of the Irish. Therefore I cannot raise something that I did not know about and secondly as an anti racism activist my concentration is mainly directed at those who are overtly racist or come out with racist statements, but on Newton’s point, within a wider context.

I have above addressed the issue and the historical reasoning behind the construction and manufacturing of ‘race’ by those relevant ruling interests of that period. Which was to justify the colonial oppression during the period of the developing of, and the expanding of capitalism. Therefore with that development of the concept of race and racial differences based upon the ‘biological differences’ we then had those who stood up and opposed this ‘racism’. Yet as was raised by Alex Maskey {Irish News July 10th} ‘the simple truth is that the level of genetic, physical and psychological variation is so huge between different individuals that such simplistic arguments do not stand up to scrutiny’. This is an analysis I agree with, as the idea of biologically distinct races has been proven to have no scientific basis. Therefore if the concept of biological distinct race has no scientific base then the reason as to why it was created comes more into play. Yet this is where Newton has confused himself as he tries to tie the issue of race into the same issue of Irish racism, yet there are specific differences.

If the concept of biological differences was created to produce the concept and term of ‘races’ and those differences of distinct races have proven to have no scientific basis. Where then does that leave racism {in that sense} if the reasoning of perceived differences, {that is, of biological distinct races} is so removed? What we have seen though is that although such has been shown to have no scientific base it is of course still around {used}, with other forms of racism having emerged also such as that based on ethnicity and culture {although unacknowledged currents have existed for a long time}.This again tends to replicate many of the features of the ‘biological racism’ in its usage with its rise prominent through the conditions of the present development and expansion of recent Capitalism. This is intensified through the immigration of various ‘nationals’ seeking work {however low paid} so therefore in ‘competition’ with ‘the natives’ and of course in the interest of the ruling capitalist classes. This of course is further intensified through such issues as fortress Europe.

Yet the invention and creation of racism and its purpose {as one had stated from the onset} was indeed to create an ‘inferior’ and ‘superior’ and was done for a specific interest. It was done to prejudice against, discriminate against, withhold rights from, exploit, oppress, divide and colonise, as was done to the Irish and the racism directed against them. Racism of course was witnessed severely by the Irish in Britain at many times but more especially in the 19th century and it was not that long ago of the no dogs, blacks and Irish signs that appeared in such windows.

Therefore while Newton has a point in stating that there may not be an Irish race he is wrong to state that there has not been racism directed against the Irish. Racism in the historical sense was based on a creation of biological difference, which has been shown to have no scientific base yet it is still nurtured via various avenues. The concept of racism of course still exists and expands. It exists in still creating the ‘inferior’ and the ‘superior’ for specific interests. Those interests created it and they still nurture it through and for the present economic system. May it be colonisation, Imperialism or Empire, the ‘old world order’ that created it had lead these foundations. We are now therefore seeing the ‘new world order’ continuing from this while shaping and expanding it into different avenues to fit their still Imperialist and neo liberalist projects. While of course making usage of it through the continual shifts and possible expansions of Capitalism. In effect, to continue with, and to benefit their divide, conquer and rule, of the still ‘inferiors’ and of the oppressed peoples of our world. Davy Carlin

by TT Thu Jul 15, 2004 15:41

Terreblanche and David Duke? Perhaps the Irish people should sit up and take notice who they have gotten themselves involved with, because that is precisely what they have done by voting 'yes' in that referendum.

by moonwolf Fri Jul 16, 2004 05:52

I would like to know how Davy Carlin's response can be considered a "comment". To me it looks like an abuse of the comments system here to promote the political agenda of a particular party, in this case the S.W.P.

by happy troll Fri Jul 16, 2004 13:32

As usual the extremes agree with each other with both u all and the KKK saying that a 'yes' vote=racism.
But race was never mentioned in the amendment so, also as usual, ur both wrong!

by D Fri Jul 16, 2004 13:50

Sorry but you need to read the above article
'Race' does not need to be mentioned for it to be 'racist' as explained {above} in a differing but 'similar' context.

by happy troll Fri Jul 16, 2004 14:19

Racism in referenda, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder.

(don't like freedom of expression then? sounds like control freakery,).

by D Fri Jul 16, 2004 14:44

'Never by the likes of me'? I have heard that directed towards myself before by certain persons.

And methinks if you read the above article on Race and Irish Racism or not, you will already have other ideas on the subject..

So signing of. D

by Con Lehane Fri Jul 16, 2004 15:27

The notion that there are different races is essential to racism. And racism is a key component of fascism. That the concept of 'race' has no scientific, biological or genetica basis does not prevent its use by the extreme right. Some years ago in New York City, John McDonough of Wbai's Radio Free Eireann, together with Gerry McGeough, organized a conference on the "Irish Race" . McGeough has now joined forced with the fascist Justin Barrett. 'Nuff said.

by firefox Fri Jul 16, 2004 16:10

It seems that any the people of any European Nation who try to protect themselves from being overran are doomed to be condemned with a liberal use of the dreaded 'r' word.
That said, the consequence of not protecting themselves is so dreadful the awareness of it will over ride that trifling concern.
Obviously this is an attempt to stitch up McDowell by his multitude of opponents in the majority left-leaning the mass media. But it will only find credence amongst those who already have made up their mind in that direction –with little impact been felt elsewhere.

by TT Fri Jul 16, 2004 16:20

'protect themselves from being overran' ???
That is nonsense, nobody is trying to overrun anyone.
'the consequence of not protecting themselves is so dreadful'
What consequence? You people who object to immigration never seem to concern yourselves with the way finance is moved out of the country by multinational corporations, yet you get your y-fronts in a twist is some poor person comes here looking for a job.

by john Fri Jul 16, 2004 17:37

this is a load of old guff. The first thing any of these people ever heard about the referendum was probably when the interviewer asked them about it. This site is getting more juvenile by the day.

by paul c Fri Jul 16, 2004 20:45

we know that but its enjoyable guff?

the kkk endorsing mcdowell its hilarious

by hmmming iosaf. - (hmmmming for peace) Fri Jul 16, 2004 22:42

we have read that Saddam's regime was compared on RTE by an Irish business man with considerable Irish interest in Iraq to the PDs in style, and now that both ultra right in the USA and South Africa are fans of Mc Dowell and sending him congratulations and no doubt suggesting a new recruitment drive reconsideration of the home of the "celtic cross". This surely means something. It means we haven't been alone in thinking the PDs to be a bunch of racists. And as usual we correctly pointed out the unseen consequences of a needless referendum far beyond Ireland's land of blissful ethnic coexistance.
The commercial magazine that ran the feature has to ensure reader loyalty and certainly wasn't going out on a limb by making the connections in glossy for the PDs to contemplate, and indeed the new humble pie Bertie and Ltd Co. They knew readers would be happy to read it. Many thinking it only to be "hilarious".
Yes, it is possible that De Blanche only learnt of the referendum when asked for the interview, though it is equally possible that that is not the case.
And in contrast it is most probable now, that many more South African racists and their US couterparts have contemplated Irish affairs and more so their European partners. Partners who in the form of Le Pen and Haider are already discussing the formation of a new "european liberal technical grouping". No matter that we know them to be extreme right, their language is "liberal" in economics and even Goebbels could boast a vegetable patch on traffic roundabout in 1938.
The well known "liberal" Mc Dowell did indeed give the extreme right "oxygen" by closing that loop hole. And succeed in assisting a european and global shifting of terms, which is the sad conseqeunce of so many believing that "neo-conservatism" gave us a War rather than naked hegemonic aggression of the oldest type.

Quite a shameful consequence.

by HT Sat Jul 17, 2004 07:31

seems 2 me that that many here r unduly focused on McDowell while the real neo-liberals namely Ahern, Ahern, Cullen, Brennen &, above all McCreepy- the real villains of the piece r overlooked.

by furious fire Sun Jul 18, 2004 12:12

Ur the supporters of rampant anti-irish racism- in housing,welfare,work, media,health etc
The anger has only begun.

by Mary J Sun Jul 18, 2004 15:37

"furious fire", would you care to elaborate? Or are you capable of doing so?
As it stands, your comment is incoherent.

by furious fire Sun Jul 18, 2004 21:01

nuff said!

by Rob Sun Jul 18, 2004 21:33 USA

The idea that there is "no such thing" as race is a favorite canard that is bandied about by intelligence-insulting Marxists who take high mindedness to the most absurd extremes.

They use flawed science to claim that since there is no specific single gene that indicates race, this somehow demonstrates their silly on it's face idea that "there is no such thing as race."

If there's no such thing as race, how is it that a medical examiner can determine the race of a bare skeleton? Race is bone deep, people. Anyway, here's a great article absolutely destroying the race deniers:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/sarich_miele.htm

Sarich became the rare physical anthropologist expert on both genes and bones. So, when he saw PBS proclaim, "Despite surface differences, we are among the most similar of all species," he dusted off the measurements of 2,500 human skulls from 29 different racial groups and compared them to 347 chimpanzee skulls from the two separate species of chimp (the common chimp and the bonobo). He discovered that the dissimilarity in head and face measurements between these species of chimp was less than half that found between the two most morphologically dissimilar human racial groups in the sample. (They were the narrow-headed Taita of Kenya and the wide-faced Buriat of Siberia).



Sarich concludes:



"I am not aware of any other mammalian species where the constituent races are as strongly marked as they are in ours… except those few races heavily modified by recent human selection; in particular, dogs."

In response to PBS's claim that, "Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies did not divide people according to physical differences…," Miele writes a definitive chapter showing,

"The art of the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece, Rome, India, and China, and the Islamic civilization from AD 700 to 1400 shows that these societies classified the various peoples they encountered into broad racial groups. They sorted them based upon the same set of characteristics—skin color, hair form, and head shape—allegedly constructed by Europeans when they invented 'race' to justify colonialism and white supremacy."

by Nordie Sun Jul 18, 2004 22:19

Sure, people from different places all over the globe can have subtly different bodily vessels. Thats just the way nature goes - but if you know yourself by the body alone then you're just an ignorant animal, no better than the pig or the dog and doomed to live in coarse unawareness on the ever turning wheel of stupidity and death indefinitely.

Did you know that scientists reckon that the desendents of todays white Australian's, presuming they stay in that hot country, and even if they just breed among themselves, will in ten thousand years be as black as anyone on the Earth today?

by nordie Mon Jul 19, 2004 03:58

I notive you're the quare smart fella yourself.

by D Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:11

I think Rob confuses the debate of 'biological distinct races' and the reasoning for its raise, as I had raised above, as opposed to that of 'a race of Humans' {'Racial groupings' , created, differed - divided, specifically and purposely by 'Race' as opposed to the 'understanding to a 'Human race', - 'or not' }.

Therefore, of course it is true as in any 'debate' on such issues one person will hold one view while another will hold the opposite, and persons of course will attempt to qualify it with their evidence, scientifically based or not.

I will say though that that 'reasoning' of the creation of 'biological distinct races', and how it was eventually used, in the most brutal of ways ,for the attempted ' eradication {}' of 'Perceived inferior race{s}', is vital to acknowledge. Thus helping to understand not as much in this case its historical creation - reasoning {of biological distinct races}, but more as to its continual development and thus eventually its even more brutal usage. This based on that historical concept -, by and {of} a 'superior race {s}'. {Racial grouping - 'Sarich'} which I believe, is not only as important as the continual debates on the 'genetics of 'race' and races, {which will of course continue} but, as stated, essential to it.

by firefox Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:52

That the immigrations don’t INTEND to overrun their host is beside the point.
It is very rare that they support the need of the host country to restrict numbers and, indeed, often organise to get around any restrictions imposed.

Also since when does ones support for, or opposition to, a given policy mean automatic support for, or opposition to, another.

The role of Multinationals can be seen independently from immigration issues (If you want to take to that maybe the whole world is a symbiotic organism- totally interdependent).
You may choose to twist your own garments over what you like and multinational policy seems to be your mangle over choice!

by moonwolf Mon Jul 19, 2004 14:17

Race? No Race?....in the real world people are discriminated against on a daily basis on the grounds of race(colour), ethnicity,culture,gender,sexual orientation,physical disability etc..etc..To deny that race exists is to deny reality. The issue is not whether there are different races(i'm Caucasian myself!) the issue is discrimination based on race. I can provide no evidence but i suggest if the immigrants were north american whites, south african whites or australian whites there would not be such a public outcry, since they are also Caucasian and as such are not of a different Race. To those of the hard left who would like to believe we are all "proliterians" and do not differ genetically is to deny scientific reality. Racism exists because races exist!! Vive le differance!!!

by d Mon Jul 19, 2004 16:29

Moonwolf '

Moonwolf - ' To those of the hard left who would like to believe we are all "proliterians" and do not differ genetically is to deny scientific reality.'

I do not think you have fully undertood what has been written.

'Moonwolf - ' Racism exists because races exist'.

Correct , as to start,

{Part two the Polikic of Race {above}}

Davy - 'one firstly needs to know what ‘race’ is and where did it come from', ...... {to begin to understand both 'historical and modern racism', and their relationships to and 'within' the concept of 'Race'}, then read on ...

by the real nordie Mon Jul 19, 2004 17:12

'I notive
by nordie Monday, Jul 19 2004, 2:58am


I notive you're the quare smart fella yourself.'

What is all this madness?

by Davy Carlin {D] Mon Jul 19, 2004 20:43

While it is of course important to discuss and debate the issue of 'Race' and racism I believe it is important also to discuss the various strategies to attempt to combat both Racism and Fascism

The ARN while now being termed in some of the main aspects of the Northern Media as a 'Movement against racism' as it continually moves out around the North, are of course fully aware of the important role other campaigns are playing

There are of course various other long established {and new} Anti racist and Anti Fascists campaigns that have been and are ongoing around Ireland, and all of them in their own way are doing an excellent job in highlighting and standing firm against such.

Yet I believe tactics are important, {and I had an interesting discussion with members of the Fascist Out campaign on a thread here previous, if someone can find a link to it}, where we seen differences in tactics but 'at times' solidarity voiced in common cause on a particular issue. Yet as seen around the various Anti War campaigns, tactics, 'in part’ caused divisions.

Yet 'I believe' if unity cannot be found then at least 'solidarity should be shown, however difficult it seems, this for the greater good. So solidarity should at least 'attempted' to be shown towards that ' perceived greater enemy' {that enemy being at times the other similar campaign} as was raised via the Anti War campaigns


Yet for oneself and the ARN we had some brief minor difficulties and distractions, {sectarianism and petty party politics - post the ARN rally displayed overtly by a small few} which was eventually democratically addressed by genuine activists and leading, respected {non party affiliated} anti racism activists, for and to the eventual long term good and benefit of the network.

I will go into this and other such issues in the time ahead as I believe that they are vitally important if we are to learn to move outwards and onwards on such issues of collective importance. This as I hope others will {learn} from the various issues and from concerns raised, that came up in relation to the Anti War Movement and the eventual various differing campaigns,

I will go into such in Part two of my article on the ARN, {and more especially in Part two of my Democratic Centralist [DC} articles - Part one of {DC} articles will go up on the Blanket soon}, which will go up in two months or so time on the 1 year establishment of the ARN, Part one of the ARN is provided via link attached.

Therefore as stated -

'To be recorded on the Blanket {And for Indymedia} – Post the ARN mass rally and 'alliances build and established from it' - the Anti Racism Network {Part2} now moves out into working class communities and trade unions around the North {Community - trade union empowerment, action, street protest, local community and trade union mobilisation, - the various grassroots strategies against racism} .

Of course the ARN and its activists are involved in many various aspects of campaign work, some less visual than others, but as a network as stated above,

‘ we seek to be an active, visual, grassroots, community and trade unionists based network as we continue to expand around the North', and this will be reflected in the ARN Part two article.


Yet, for us, this is the agreed strategy and direction of the ARN, and while other campaigns and groups hold different strategies we are in fact united in common cause in many points.

In the Derry Feile in August a very interesting discussion on Anti Racist Tactics is taking place. The AFA, ARN, Fascist Out and Residents against Racism I believe are taking part along with Robbie McVeigh. This is a very worthwhile discussion and such events I believe are vitally important in beginning to develop an understanding of various other campaigns and action groups standing firm on a common issue from around Ireland.

At the end of the day there will of course be difference but there will be a lot of commonality, not as much in tactics between some of the groups, but on the reasoning for our establishment of the various campaigns. Such meetings of course will not deliver unity on tactics but I believe can deliver solidarity in cause.

More importantly it can give not only those coming along to listen an understanding of various campaigns but as importantly can give the campaigns an understanding of those in common struggle.

So while we can continue to discuss and debate the questions of 'Race' and racism, we should of course discuss and debate our differences and our common aims, while in the process even at times offering solidarity as the Residents Against Racism has done for the Anti Racism Network. Although of course this has been and will be harder with those that 'have a history' with each other.

Although as I have stated previous if whatever organisation begins to reach out for fraternal or even equal engagement, and goes forward on that basis, then I believe eventually genuine activists will see and respond to such in kind.

To finish I will say that I am looking forward to the discussion in Derry and to others I am to engage with and to those meetings I am to participate in, and know I will personally take in much from them, as the ARN have already done through our recent engagement with, and solidarity provided by Resident Against Racism. D

by moonwolf Tue Jul 20, 2004 01:11

d "maybe tyou don't understand what was written"

I understand only too well, To put forward the notion(as has been done in preceding comments) that all humans are the same and racial differences do not exist and/or have no basis in genetic science is to deny reality and is not the issue. The issue is discrimination , ALL discrimination is based on difference whether percieved or real. My point wasthat instead of denying the difference exists(and that by that denial the discrimination problem would magically disappear) we should be celebrating it. In reality I have very little in common culturally with a person from central africa, I do have a lot to learn from /exchange with /teach to that same person and hopefully somehow , if both myself and the central african can lay our prejudices(oh yeah africans have prejudices too!!!shock horror) aside the interaction will be mutually beneficial. Finally I don't subscribe to the belief that because a bunch of european ego maniac capitalists/imperialist/communists harmed these people over centuries that i should carry the guilt for that. let go of the bullshit and enter the world of reality, racists come in every colour, so every colour has a role to play in overcoming the prejudiced thinking at the back of all this.

by Con Lehane Tue Jul 20, 2004 01:31

That there are different 'races' is a political and economic construct. This does not deny that 'races' exist: only that such notions have no scientific, genetic or biological basis.

by D Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:06

I can understand in part what you are getting at, re - 'preceding comments. No one is asking you to carry any guilt for anything but to, as you put it, deal with the reality, and on that point I agree.

The reality being in part the historical creation of 'races' based on Biological differences, its reasoning, and its development , and usage of such 'differences' into modern ethnicity and culture for particular interests.

As Con Lehane also puts it its 'construct', but I can understand what you are getting at Moonwolf. D.

by Big brother buster Tue Jul 20, 2004 12:43

“This does not deny that 'races' exist: only that such notions have no scientific, genetic or biological basis.”


Ye gods, you people have the discussion and rationale of the indoctrinated members of a cult. Its creepily Orwellian. You are seriously entertaining these ideas, that race doesn't exist, coz of an 3rd third rate piece of writing?

So, tell me then how many fingers is O’Brien holding up now Winston?

sad,tres tres sad!

by D Tue Jul 20, 2004 13:03

I think BBB also, 'confuses the debate of 'biological distinct races' and the reasoning for its raise, as I had raised above, as opposed to that of 'a race of Humans.'

{'Racial groupings' , created, differed - divided, specifically and purposely by the concept of 'Race' ,as opposed to the 'understanding' to a 'Human race', - 'or not' }

by Big brother buster Tue Jul 20, 2004 13:23

The concept of race, along with the concept of ethnicity , nationality, tribe or even volk ARE social constructs, agreed - but race, unlike the other concepts, IS also a biological and genetic fact which may also have social constructs built around it- but nonetheless to deny it as a real phenomenon, as some here seem bent on, is just no healthy lads and lassies!

by D Tue Jul 20, 2004 13:42

Agree with much of what you have said BBB,

by Con Lehane Tue Jul 20, 2004 18:37

There is now a condiderable amount of historical research showing that the 'race' to which a particular ethnic group is assigned is malleable. Some of the key texts are:
How the Irish became white: by Noel Ignatiev.
The wages of whiteness: by David R. Roediger.
The invention of the white race: by Theodore W. Allen.

It probably comes as a surprise to some of the less-informed that the Irish have not always been members of the 'white race'.

by curious Wed Jul 21, 2004 13:15

To all those people who find this so intrguiging, what did you think the reaction of these people would be?

Such a non-story. Lots of extreme right types also are very opposed to Globalisation. Hmmmmm...., hold the front page!

by ff Wed Jul 21, 2004 14:49

It doesn’t seem at all inevitable that only those who define themselves as belonging to the ‘left’ are exclusively anti-globalist. Many groupings like nationalist, paleo- conservative, national anarchist, indigenous movements, Islamism*, and ‘hard right’ can all be classified as anti-globalist to some extent. Some might even argue that the new’ left’ is all these along with leftist marxist/environmentalist/anarchist who seem to enjoy the banner carrying status publicity of being thee ‘anti-globalists’. Instead they should be properly seen as only one aspect of the resistance.

* Although it might be argued that Islamism is another counter vision of Globalisation.

by John Fri Jul 23, 2004 05:29

The guy who said this was Orwellian was on the mark. You all are profoundly indocrinated.

If you'd bothered, even for 5 minutes, to look this up on the internet and used a little common sense a big part of the awful nonsense I've read on this page might have been unnecessary.

People are different, people have different hair, skin, eye colour. Are different sized and proportioned with different shaped bodies and have different facial features. There is, logically, genetic information in each person that determines this. One group of people may all share a particular characteristic, similar body shapes, similar facial features. But that does NOT characterise them as a "race". Physiologically speaking, they are identical to any other human being.

And with many of these differences, they are as likely occur within a general ethnic group of people as without. No scientist out there could pick out some characterstic as making somebody belong to a particular "race", in scientific terms. There simply is no process or test for identifying somebody, scientifically, as belonging to the notion we have of any particular race.

So, on a scientific level, there is no such thing as race. Race is merely a human construct to identify somebody. The "why" of that (why we construct a notion of race) is a huge huge question that I could not even begin to answer, and given the pitiful lack of reasonable debate here you all are better leaving it. Put down the "Socialist Worker" and "Mein Kampf" and "Sunday Independant" and think for yourselves. Or at least try to come to some logical conclusion.

by ??? Fri Jul 23, 2004 09:41

???
You say,

'You all are profoundly indocrinated' 'with a lack of reasonable debate'., .

Strange as in your contribution you have just virtually repeated everything that has already been said . Which is contradictory as you finish of saying,

'think for yourselves ???

by John Mon Jul 26, 2004 06:50

So, an opinion expressed once cannot be expressed again?

So, basically, one SWP bullshitter talking about Marx is contradicting Marx himself? OR at least if he is, is not thinking for himself.

Well done. Thats some fine logic.

by Logic Sat Jul 31, 2004 10:09

SWP bad me good