( letter published in Bristol Evening Post, 1st April 2010. For comment see website of paper & scroll 'letters')
Dear Sir,
I have attended the last two Bristol Legacy Commission meetings in order to gain a better understanding of the approach the Council is taking to improved community cohesion. I have also followed the correspondence in the EP re City of Sanctuary application, including the articles submitted by Rev. Barrett. I tried to see it from a sympathetic viewpoint but was astonished by the extent to which the debates seem to be promoting the very dependency I would hope we were trying to remove. I would urge more people to attend these meetings and see for themselves.
I do feel strongly that the conventional teaching of slavery is damaging to the self-esteem of the black community. In any case, as any well educated historian will tell you, most slaves were rounded up by Africans themselves, marched to the coast and then sold to British and other merchants at the slave ports in what is now Ghana. The reason for this is that white men could not easily survive in the interior of Africa and so needed willing black collaborators to "harvest" the slaves. Slavery was certainly not a uniquely white European crime. These forts/ports are now holiday destinations for those seeking a better understanding of their background.
I think teaching about the absurdity, ignorance and cruelty of racism might be useful, but black slavery is not as relevant to contemporary Britain or Bristol as is people trafficking, a more acceptable euphemism for slavery. More usefully, racism and bigotry prevention via education spreads the enlightenment net to cover Asians and other minority groups (including religious) as well. Another benefit of this would be to show the BME community that many other groups have faced prejudice and that they, the descendants of the African slaves, are not uniquely cursed.
Just ask the Welsh and Irish if in any doubt.
In addition, academic research in the US has shown that learning about accomplished role models from one's own group (e.g. Obama) has a more positive effect than enlarging the chips on people's shoulders. To be fair, there was some discussion of this at Monday's Legacy Commission meeting, but it seemed fairly patronising and, without using the word, was emphasising the importance of proportionality in representation and employment. Interestingly, several people were careful to point out that they were not in favour of quotas. The difference between proportionality and quotas is too subtle for my limited cranial capacity. As we know in Bristol, the Jewish/Zionist obsession with the Holocaust, which we encourage, is still being used to justify tremendous injustice against the innocent Palestinians. This is a very significant but not the only example of the harmful effects of promoting a victim culture in specific minority groups. For the good of our community, I believe we must stop this obsession with victims and martyrs.
I firmly believe that some of these politically correct behaviours to which we are so devoted in Bristol, and of which the Commission is an excellent example, are motivated by a kind of buried, latent, guilty, residual racism. By this I mean that some people promote the cruel absurdities of slavery in an attempt to prove to themselves and others that they have no racist feelings. The comments of the (white) councillors who were present at that meeting, plus the (white) council officers were in this category. They were trying too hard to be appalled. A true non racist is relaxed, logical and objective. Those representatives I've mentioned above used emotion and assertion to put over the points they were making and it was not at all convincing other than to those who were convinced already and had much to gain from their victim stance. Their jobs, careers and self-respect depend on them deceiving themselves that what is palpably false on any objective assessment, can be sufficiently convincing to justify the continuing payment of blood money in the form of grants to the alleged descendants of the alleged victims of the crimes largely perpetrated by their own countrymen.
I was left in no doubt that the work of the Legacy Commission, as currently conducted, is almost guaranteed to be dangerously counter productive to the cause of community cohesion and is likely to benefit extreme right-wing parties only.
The next meeting is on Monday, 14th June at the Council House, 6 - 8 pm. Visitors welcome.
Yours sincerely,
Roy Tallis,
Showing posts with label BCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BCC. Show all posts
Saturday, 3 April 2010
15th Feb., Bristol City Council Legacy Commission meeting
Dear Cherene,
Thanks for warm welcome at meeting on 15th February and it was good to meet you.
I attended because I am concerned with the feeble and apologetic pose BCC seems to adopt in relation to the city's past.
I was hoping to see a more positive approach to building a united community in the city. One that, perhaps, did not exhibit the guilt-ridden angst that has been promoted so much in the last few years, at least since the Macpherson Report of 1999, (I think).
I came with an open mind.
I'm afraid I left a very disappointed person.
When an organisation chooses such a laudable ambition as 'Community Cohesion' but conducts its activities in a way, it seems, directly opposed to the success of its objectives, it does cause dismay.
Community cohesion is such a wonderful phrase and something I hope all intelligent citizens would work towards. However, the obsession with BME issues is paradoxical given this aim. And even the BME focus seemed so predominantly Black and, perhaps, Caribean, in terms of activities supported that I fear we may be damaging rather than healing difficulties within our communities if the focus of the Legacy Commission is not to be changed radically.
For example, mention was made of the evil of people trafficking, something not unknown in current day Bristol, but then a curriculum development programme dealing with historic slavery was endorsed. Is there any fundamental difference between the evils of both slavery and people trafficking? And should not the current failures be of more concern than glorying in the past?
++The discussion reinforced my view that Bristol concentrates too much on promoting the victim culture. Many of the observations made emphasised the importance of proportionality (eg: a White dominated football industry) but failed to concede that the captain of the England team and the proportion of players in the national and other top teams was more Black than would be under true proportionality. Not that I agree with proportionality which is arguing, at best, for a new apartheid. I was even told a few years ago by an officer in the Equalities department in an open meeting that only black councillors can truly represent black citizens. Is this still the view of the Council?
I hoped we had moved on from such an ill-informed and anti-democratic opinions. From what I saw on Monday, there seems to have been little if any progress.
The paper on Education proudly highlighted where BME performance exceeded non-BME. There can be no clearer evidence of the racist competitiveness behind such assertions and it certainly did not sound to me like an argument leading towards cohesion.
Without knowing the full background behind the proposals for funding put to the meeting, and there seemed to be little encouragement from the Chair when members asked for clarification, it did seem to me that they were pet projects from members of the committee rather than issues of wider community concern. To a certain extent I accept that this is inevitable, but I did wonder what arrangements there are for members to gather wider concerns and feed them to the Commission. Again, if I have not done my homework, please accept my apologies. If there are opportunities to influence the content of the meeting, I would be grateful if you would let me know.
If it would be of any interest for me to expand on the points made, I would welcome an opportunity to do so.
If possible, I will attend the next meeting to see give a more balanced view of the proceedings than I gathered from just this one experience.
I have copied this email to the councillors who were present and my own councillor ( Simon Cook) and am happy for it to be used for wider circulation if you think it appropriate.
Please ignore if of no interest to you.
Yours sincerely
Roy Tallis
Thanks for warm welcome at meeting on 15th February and it was good to meet you.
I attended because I am concerned with the feeble and apologetic pose BCC seems to adopt in relation to the city's past.
I was hoping to see a more positive approach to building a united community in the city. One that, perhaps, did not exhibit the guilt-ridden angst that has been promoted so much in the last few years, at least since the Macpherson Report of 1999, (I think).
I came with an open mind.
I'm afraid I left a very disappointed person.
When an organisation chooses such a laudable ambition as 'Community Cohesion' but conducts its activities in a way, it seems, directly opposed to the success of its objectives, it does cause dismay.
Community cohesion is such a wonderful phrase and something I hope all intelligent citizens would work towards. However, the obsession with BME issues is paradoxical given this aim. And even the BME focus seemed so predominantly Black and, perhaps, Caribean, in terms of activities supported that I fear we may be damaging rather than healing difficulties within our communities if the focus of the Legacy Commission is not to be changed radically.
For example, mention was made of the evil of people trafficking, something not unknown in current day Bristol, but then a curriculum development programme dealing with historic slavery was endorsed. Is there any fundamental difference between the evils of both slavery and people trafficking? And should not the current failures be of more concern than glorying in the past?
++The discussion reinforced my view that Bristol concentrates too much on promoting the victim culture. Many of the observations made emphasised the importance of proportionality (eg: a White dominated football industry) but failed to concede that the captain of the England team and the proportion of players in the national and other top teams was more Black than would be under true proportionality. Not that I agree with proportionality which is arguing, at best, for a new apartheid. I was even told a few years ago by an officer in the Equalities department in an open meeting that only black councillors can truly represent black citizens. Is this still the view of the Council?
I hoped we had moved on from such an ill-informed and anti-democratic opinions. From what I saw on Monday, there seems to have been little if any progress.
The paper on Education proudly highlighted where BME performance exceeded non-BME. There can be no clearer evidence of the racist competitiveness behind such assertions and it certainly did not sound to me like an argument leading towards cohesion.
Without knowing the full background behind the proposals for funding put to the meeting, and there seemed to be little encouragement from the Chair when members asked for clarification, it did seem to me that they were pet projects from members of the committee rather than issues of wider community concern. To a certain extent I accept that this is inevitable, but I did wonder what arrangements there are for members to gather wider concerns and feed them to the Commission. Again, if I have not done my homework, please accept my apologies. If there are opportunities to influence the content of the meeting, I would be grateful if you would let me know.
If it would be of any interest for me to expand on the points made, I would welcome an opportunity to do so.
If possible, I will attend the next meeting to see give a more balanced view of the proceedings than I gathered from just this one experience.
I have copied this email to the councillors who were present and my own councillor ( Simon Cook) and am happy for it to be used for wider circulation if you think it appropriate.
Please ignore if of no interest to you.
Yours sincerely
Roy Tallis
May 2007, BEP letter re Slavery
(Letter to Bristol Evening Post, May 2007)
Subject: Slavery
Please let's move on.
There may indeed be an argument that the absolutely bestial cruelty inflicted by some slave owners upon their victims in the West Indies and in America are even more inexcusable because they were inflicted by people from a relatively advanced state of civilisation.
However, on the question of guilt and compensation, I do not think that the complainants have a valid case today.
If we go back eight or 10 generations to the heyday of western slavery, I have 250-1000 ancestors, and so do all British people now living.
In this "guilt by descendancy", may I point out that the United Nations decided, long ago, that the present or past occupation of territory by a certain community cannot be regarded as a pretext for occupying that territory. Hitler was quite wrong to claim the Sudeten land in Czechoslovakia because it was inhabited by ethnic Germans, and the Jews have no claim over Palestine any more than the Celtic Bretons can claim England.
African complaints about slavery should be met with a clear statement that such brutality was wrong, and a reproach to those, African or not, who practised it. But the descendants of an African slave-trader cannot be held responsible in any way for their ancestors' sins, and neither can the descendants of a European slave trader.
It is a principle of law that a man or woman is responsible for their own actions, and to some extent for the actions of their minor children or wards, or their pupils, agents or employees. But the buck surely stops there.
Subject: Slavery
Dear Sir,
Slavery
Slavery
Please let's move on.
There may indeed be an argument that the absolutely bestial cruelty inflicted by some slave owners upon their victims in the West Indies and in America are even more inexcusable because they were inflicted by people from a relatively advanced state of civilisation.
However, on the question of guilt and compensation, I do not think that the complainants have a valid case today.
If we go back eight or 10 generations to the heyday of western slavery, I have 250-1000 ancestors, and so do all British people now living.
It is quite false to picture the British or other countries as homogeneous societies, not interbreeding with other countries. In Britain today, one person in four has a foreign-born parent. The ideal of collective responsibility is therefore as unreasonable and unjust as the principle of collective punishment. There should be a statute of limitation - certainly not more than 100 years- beyond which complaints cannot be considered.
In this "guilt by descendancy", may I point out that the United Nations decided, long ago, that the present or past occupation of territory by a certain community cannot be regarded as a pretext for occupying that territory. Hitler was quite wrong to claim the Sudeten land in Czechoslovakia because it was inhabited by ethnic Germans, and the Jews have no claim over Palestine any more than the Celtic Bretons can claim England.
African complaints about slavery should be met with a clear statement that such brutality was wrong, and a reproach to those, African or not, who practised it. But the descendants of an African slave-trader cannot be held responsible in any way for their ancestors' sins, and neither can the descendants of a European slave trader.
It is a principle of law that a man or woman is responsible for their own actions, and to some extent for the actions of their minor children or wards, or their pupils, agents or employees. But the buck surely stops there.
Are we going to blame the present Duke of Wherever for the fact that his land was originally stolen from the people. What dangerous nonsense.
The Africans were at it decades ahead of anyone else, and still are. Well before mssrs Colston and others got involved, tribes were stealing other tribes' and trading them for trinkets. It is still going on in many parts of the world today, and it is to its eradication that all efforts should be directed.
Our ancestors put it on an efficient basis and it is this which has so annoyed them.
Most people, it seems to me, would be more tolerant of capitalism and enterprise if it were less successful or if they'd thought of it first.
This extreme jealousy can be seen in other current events as well, perhaps the main one being Zimbabwe's self destruction - blamed on the Brits of course.
The victim industry has become extremely irrational, expensive and damaging to community cohesion. Many of the articulate, educated, complaining descendants are no doubt in a much better position than they would have been had not their ancestors been removed forcibly from their homeland, tho' such logic seems to escape them when a trough of compensation loot is within their grasp.
Hence they see the need to foster guilt in their rescuers.
Yours,
Roy
The Africans were at it decades ahead of anyone else, and still are. Well before mssrs Colston and others got involved, tribes were stealing other tribes' and trading them for trinkets. It is still going on in many parts of the world today, and it is to its eradication that all efforts should be directed.
Our ancestors put it on an efficient basis and it is this which has so annoyed them.
Most people, it seems to me, would be more tolerant of capitalism and enterprise if it were less successful or if they'd thought of it first.
This extreme jealousy can be seen in other current events as well, perhaps the main one being Zimbabwe's self destruction - blamed on the Brits of course.
The victim industry has become extremely irrational, expensive and damaging to community cohesion. Many of the articulate, educated, complaining descendants are no doubt in a much better position than they would have been had not their ancestors been removed forcibly from their homeland, tho' such logic seems to escape them when a trough of compensation loot is within their grasp.
Hence they see the need to foster guilt in their rescuers.
Yours,
Roy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
