THE HORSE THAT REARS,
NEIGHS AND BOLTED BY
MAYFAIR
by
REGINALD YOUNG
General / Sociology / Politics / Geography
For
Nazma, Mo, Tatiana and Liberty.
Copyright
© Reginald Young 2000.
All rights reserved.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication
Data.
A
catalogue record for this book is available
from
the British Library.
First Published in the United Kingdom
by
Reginald
Young
September 2000
Printed in the UK
(Part One)
ISBN 1 899968
09 1
(Part Two)
ISBN 1 899968
10 5
DEDICATION
This projected is dedicated to all liminal
individuals, endangered species and all those who dare to love, dream and
strive for life with health, safety,
happiness and freedom from prejudice, fear
and inequality.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
A million
thanks to all those individuals whose modesty prevents their names being
published, but whose patience, love, friendship, advice, humour, scrutiny,
discussions, debates and sacrifice were
essential in the arrangement and production of this article.
Without
the vigilance, intelligent discipline and prompt response of the police, the
right to speak without inciting hatred, aggression and fear, the safety, peace
and security of animals, individuals including tourists, speakers and the
audience would not be possible at “Speakers' Corner”.
Boundless
appreciation extends to all the animals, children, parents and individuals with
extraordinary knowledge and understanding, who did not abuse, manipulate nor
tyrannise the Horse but whose friendship, patience, self-expression,
self-reliance and dignity were inspiring, encouraging, and educational through
arduous, complex and hazardous occasions.
KEY IDEAS
Exclusion/Inclusion,
race, racist, racialisation, black / black skin, racism, anti-racism,
non-racism, sexism, elitism, fascism, black-fascism, nationalism,
anti-Semitism, afrocentrism, eurocentrism, anthropocentrism, essentialism,
biological determinism.
INTRODUCTION
This
article does not represent any particular political or ideological point of
view, nor is it intended to convert the opinions of any individual or solve any
problems. What is attempted,
however, is to highlight the following issues:-
(a)
Freedom of speech at “Speakers’ Corner”, Hyde Park, London, is an invaluable
asset and credit to the democratic political culture of the United Kingdom.
(b)
Individuals visiting “Speakers’ Corner” are not immune from the identities associated with the
hatreds, prejudices, bigotry, ideologies and controversies that is raging and
inflicting immense suffering and pain to individuals, families and communities
as increasing inhuman conflicts in the
modern world are rationalised and justified as fascism, racism, tribalism,
casteism and nationalism.
(c) Individuals
who adopt an identity do not necessarily respond positively by recognising
their personal responsibilities to communicate with or appreciate the relative
right of “other” individuals (categorised exclusively) to adopt an identity
in peace and harmony. Instead, identities are expediently utilised to
manipulate, finger point, fulfil privilege and nepotism, put down, justify
aggression, opportunism, hatred, fear and insecurity.
(d) The
democratic potential for free expression of ideas at “Speakers’ Corner” depends
on the ability and willingness of individuals to be tolerant, disciplined and
civilised.
(e) The
uncivilised individuals and their identities mentioned in this article are not representative of most
regular members of the Horse's audience
who are assertive by showing compassion, kindness, love and criticisms
with encouragement.
The
Marble Arch end of Hyde Park renowned as
Speakers’ Corner was the outcome of
bloody battles by social democratic activists and civil rights advocates
against the status quo demanding the right of assembly, free speech, right to
demonstrate, particularly the right to reform the Sunday Trading Bill during
the mid-nineteenth century.
In fact,
the first person to successfully achieve the reputation as a radiant speaker
was Harriet Laws an energetic activist of the suffrage movement demanding equal
political and social rights for women.
In the
first three days of May 1890 Mayday was declared at Speakers’ Corner by organisations and parties representing the
working class movements, social democratic movements, women’s movements, and
trade unions from various geographical regions as far afield across the Atlantic.
The
survival of Speakers’ Corner near Mayfair in the centre of London , a global
mega-metropolis, is a phenomenal feat in
spite of the development of television, the rise and demise of industrial
capitalism, the technological revolution in communication and transportation,
and the rising new social movements
responding to the negative consequences of modernisation such as the
peace movements, ecological, animal rights, women’s movements, gay and lesbian
rights groups, squatters, ravers, and travellers, racists, fascists, nationalists, anti-Semitic
and Islamic fundamentalists’ groups.
Speakers’
Corner is popular on Sundays.
SPEAKERS' CORNER
- A brief history
Hyde Park -
some events up to the 19th
century.
1536
- Henry VIII obtained land for hunting.
During the 16th and 17th centuries
hunting, military reviews and other open-air amusements
were popular in the park.
were popular in the park.
1730 -
The Serpentine was developed.
1783 -
Public execution by hanging at Tyburn
was ended.
1855 -
Demonstration to reform the Sunday Trading Bill.
Marx was among the demonstrators.
1866 -
The Reform League Rebellion.
1872 -
The right to assemble, organise public meetings and free speech was
acknowledged and authorised.
Speakers'
Corner is the space where individuals reproduce, question, challenge, defend
and deconstruct the dominant ideologies, values and norms of the status Quo
globally.
SPEAKERS' CORNER
a) Visitors
Some
individuals who visit Speakers' Corner are only attracted to the topics and
audiences of their perceptions thereby promoting, supporting and reproducing
the popular assumptions of Speakers' Corner, while simultaneously disregarding
the liminal individuals whose needs the socio-economic institutions failed to
serve.
Perceiving
Speakers' Corner as a place for
"fun", "Free Speech", "A place for Lunatics",
"A Tourist Attraction", and "Extremists" , yes!
these very self-righteous, narrow minded, heartless, and insecure individuals with their illusions
of being "normal" and seeking a "thrill' or
"entertainment" are part of the legitimisation process that make
objects of ridicule from the plight of the marginalised, abused, alienated,
confused, voiceless, powerless, houseless, broken hearted, lonely, ex-inmates from mental hospitals and
prisons, sufferers from all forms of addiction, strangers in a enormous
soulless metropolis, unhappy individuals rejected by family, friends,
employment society and community and
victims of pain, fear and anxiety.
Most
speakers are included in this category.
b) Rogues
and Misogynists
Males who visit Speakers Corner
primarily with the intention of abusing both the "horse" and females
for egoistic, sexual and political reasons.
As
upholders of the culture of masculinity, patriarchy and fascism misogynists
assumed a sense of superiority and
conduct abusive treatment with the
utmost contempt both to the
"horse" and any individual that dares to share a harmonious
relationship with him.
Various
tactics are used in abusing the
unsuspecting females and other individuals participating in the audience
harmonising with the "Horse".
Some of
these tactics are:-
1) Pretending to be on friendly terms with the
speaker thereby creating a false impression of friendship and familiarity to
whomsoever is watching and to access the attention and trust of females.
2) Causing distraction to female listeners during the speech performance by talking
unreasonably.
3) Making
negative judgements and derogatory statements about the speaker or the topic
under discussion while talking to females present in the audience.
4) Playing the assumed role as a go-between or
an interpreter of the speech being
presented.
5) Shouting and raising of voices to interrupt,
distract and confuse thus making it
difficult for speaker and audience to communicate clearly.
6) Abusing the speaker by making false
accusations, derogatory comments, twisting his words, put downs, ridicule and
use of threatening language.
7) Physical abuse in the form of violent assault
on the speaker's person, platform or listener in support of the speaker.
8) After persuading the females to leave the
audience , the abusers return to display their triumph by accusing me for not
being a real man, talking too much and of being a homosexual.
9) Some males collude with and demonstrate
loyalty to some so-called "better speakers" by waiting until the end
of the meeting to imposed themselves as uninvited guests of the speaker and
continuously monopolise the ears of the unsuspecting females present by
offering advice on which speaker makes "better" speeches.
10) Some of the abusers have close links with
some speakers and do meet often before during and after the events in Speakers
Corner are over to exchange information, plan strategy and co-ordinate their
fiendish operations.
"THE
HORSE" - as a conceptual device.
At
Speakers' Corner the speaker usually
wears various styles of clothing,
utilises various conceptual models and ways of speaking to deconstruct the
dominant ideology, mystification of language and cultural identities.
The horse is only one such
conceptual tool, others included the
devil's icon (a pair of red horns glued to the back end of a base ball cap),
poncho, unisex hat and overall.
The
"Horse" was adopted as an undefined entity to construct an image,
mirage, character, style, symbol and a vehicle of expression for deconstruction
purposes.
In this
case IDENTITIES.
IDENTITIES
are the outcome of what I(I'm)-D(doing with)-ENTITIES.
To
deconstruct I-(..)D(..)-ENTITIES is to liberate ENTITIES from ideology and political manipulation.
The concept of the horse evolved
during the early-80's in the midst of the conflicts involving religious
fundamentalism, cold war protagonists, frustrated intellectuals, egoists,
raging eccentrics, leftists, rightists, fascists/anti-fascists,
racists/anti-racists, populists and other ideological activists of modernity.
The horse was chosen to symbolise
the individuality, uniqueness, defiance and contribution of "horse
power" as an energy variable linked interdependently with other energy
variables such as human, animal,
vegetable, machine and electricity in a dialectical process that had
transformed the landscape of "his-story", society, civilisations and
the biosphere beyond the limits of natural expectations.
It was an
appropriate tribute to the common denominator that connect various protagonists, listeners, hecklers,
visitors, the police, caterers, ice cream vendors, pets, children, families,
joggers, horse riders, tourists, vagabonds and all those individuals I fail to
mention past or present that visited and breathe the air while passing through Speakers Corner. Moreover the appreciation and satisfaction of
participating in the dynamic processes that promote and nourish democracy, life, love, fresh air, clean
water, meeting new friends, caring, sharing, knowledge and learning,
freedom, dreams, self expression, peace,
leisure, romance, freedom to think, freedom of speech, freedom of movement and
social responsibility.
To create a democratic balance,
neutralise and challenge the religious fundamentalists bigots that aggressively
boasts of the supremacy of the power of the gods intervening in human affairs
on "their" side thereby justifying the "holy war" against
all "pagans", "unbelievers" and "evil nature
worshippers", the concept of the
"horse' is employed to present an atheistic, democratic, natural, animal
and environmentally friendly thesis embracing the concept of "horse
Power" as a measurement of energy
and recognition of the role of
horses (in this case championing of the power of animals) in making history by
performing wonderful feats in haulage,
transportation, warfare, sports,
entertainment, food, art, ecological harmony, philosophy, and in
Speakers' Corner a post-modern metaphor.
The horse is beyond objectivism,
idealism and rationalism.
The Horse
as a mechanism, technique or a symbolic
expression is not associated with any
particular animal dead or alive.
The Horse
is only a form, a symbolic pose employed as a vehicle to initiate the
exploration of ideas, debate and ultimately change.
SPEAKER'S LAMENT
(on a Sunday Morning)
O-OH,
H-H-E-E-L-L-L!
Here it comes.
That
feeling.
That
familiar feeling.
That
keeps yearning, burning and moving deep
inside of me.
Every time
I awake on a Sunday morning.
Pain in
my heart.
Tears
flowing gently down the side of my cheek.
Heart
beating in the stillness of my empty
room.
Staring
at the ceiling as I daydream.
Awaken
out of the blue by the notion
I live a sad and lonely life.
I don't
enjoy the abusive encounters at Speakers' Corner.
Over the
years the painful wounds inflicted by
heartless abusers have not completely
healed.
Moreover
I abuse myself by not creating the time to socialise with civilised people.
Likewise
I am cruel to myself by allowing my abusers to repeat their wicked conduct.
With over
a quarter of a century experience of public speaking at Speakers' Corner, I had
to learn the hard way that democracy is
not an easy game to play.
Yes, when
I was houseless I found a place to rest my weary head in Hyde Park .
When I
was jobless, doleful, heartbroken, melancholy and unenlightened I
discovered solace in the friendship of the homeless and destitute individuals at
Speakers' Corner, Hyde Park.
My
reputation as a "normal
Speaker" sheltered me during my
contact with these social outcasts who were humane, friendly,
intelligent, generous and remarkable individuals that share cider, humour,
ideas, time, space and love that gave me the remedy, strength and courage to
dream on.
While my miserable comrades and I tramp
together on the lonely winter streets of London
my abusers who wore mostly black skins spew at me and made denunciations
for socialising with "those dirty white trash".
Is Speakers' Corner an obsession? Or
an addiction?
I don't
know.
I have
too many happy, pleasant and wonderful memories.
I cherish
the superb strangers ( animals, humans and trees) I meet at Speakers' Corner.
For they showed me self esteem, self respect
and the will to live.
Every
time I return,
Every
time I have the energy to speak for ten hours or more,
Every
time I breathe, drink, laugh, dream, become angry, sad and cry,
I do it
for the magnificent people who aided me in my hour of need,
I'll do
it again and again hoping to see their
artistic faces,
Just to say
A million
thanks!
Thank you
for being you!
I love
because I love you!
Revitalised by
the surge of emotional energy
rushing through my soul,
I jumped
out of bed feeling as if I was walking on air.
I began
with the usual routine readiness for Speakers' Corner by carrying out my
lavatory chores, preparing meals and filling up whiskey and Guinness labelled
bottles with herbal tea, choosing the appropriate literature and the suitable
garment to symbolise the subject matter
of today's speech and finally after checking the air pressure of my bicycle tyres I depart with haste.
I am
unable to think rationally.
The
change of scenery while cycling through Hyde Park, the fresh air, trees, grass,
flowers, the sight of people jogging, exercising their pet dogs, skating, holding hands,
playing hockey or just leisurely strolling
in the park comforted my restless
soul as I begin to recover from my
Sunday morning euphoria.
The Horse kicks off
As the
sight of Speakers' Corner appear in view feelings of eagerness gradually
transformed into nervous self awareness as I ponder on the possible
reactions to the devil's icon. (A cap with two red horns I improvised for
today's image)
With
trembling knees and a reluctant heart I practically motivate myself on to the soapbox.
As I mount the speaker's rostrum a swift mysterious higher force overwhelmed me.
This is
it!
I'm
switched on oblivious of my self-centredness.
I'm now
engrossed in all life that is outside and around me.
Ready to
be assertive without aggressive
confrontation, hopefully.
Only on Sunday morning at Speakers'
Corner does time stood still for me. The past, present and I'm sure in the
future time will always be lost in the dynamics of analysis, interactive
discourses and friendly encounters.
Two
speakers have just arrive to take up their soapbox positions. Immediately, the leisurely moving scattered bodies begin
to converge into a ritual ballet around the speakers as they begin their
address.
One, a female wearing a pretty
multi-coloured dress with white gloves, hat and shoes to match. She is a
regular middle-aged speaker that has her own unique style of fusing religious,
political and patriotic dogmas in her speech.
The other, a retired male wearing a
blazer, grey trousers, black shoes and carries an old bible that he waves as he
preaches.
His style
is a mixture of confessing his gratitude of being a successful retired
immigrant in Great Britain, hell raising condemnation of those who do not heed
his words and the promise of a better life for those who believe in Jesus the
"Master of Creation".
The
speaker stood quiet listening and analysing the speeches when a mixed group of
young male and female tourists approached my platform smiling.
"Hello!
We have come to listen to you". said the young tourists.
The
speaker leaned forward smiled and asked
"What
time is it?"
"I
have been a visitor to Speakers Corner for nearly thirty years." Replied
the Speaker.
"I
come to Speakers' Corner because . .
." Answered the speaker when he
suddenly stopped because of the noisy
interruptions from the female religious speaker as she raised her voice to attract a larger crowd.
"I
am an English woman.
My
ancestors fought and die for my right to be here.When judgement day comes you'll have to be accountable to God for your sinful, selfish ways. If you don't come forward and ask god for forgiveness, now, it will be too late for your redemption.
You foreigners can mock me but you can't mock god.
We are a patient and patriotic people but if you push us too far we are not afraid to go to war to defend our beliefs and country." Declared the female preacher.
This is an appropriate moment to begin the theatre.
With two red horns on the top rear end of his cap of the speaker attached the union flag across his shoulders and back.
As soon as the imagery of the devil's costume caught the curious eyes of members of the female preacher's audience they slowly turn their heads and started to walk at a leisurely pace towards the speakers' platform.
If it is true that I am a liar and the devil!
In that case who am I?" Answered the speaker in an ambiguous style.
"Go on!"
Who is the liar?
God or the devil?" Another ambiguous statement from the speaker as he raises his voice to attract an audience.
The crowd
became larger.
Jesus was born in a manger.
He did not enjoy the health care benefits of the Welfare State.
Therefore he was a victim of child abuse.
God is a child abuser.
The son of god, Jesus, was a victim of child abuse because his father, the almighty god, could have provided better caring facilities than the unpleasant conditions of a manger where the baby Jesus was born.
Furthermore, the omnipotent God sanctioned the violent death of his only son Jesus on a wooden cross without attempting to save him.
Not even the devil is capable such savagery". Proclaimed the speaker as he explores the crowd anticipating response.
There was
loud laughter from the audience.
Every Sunday morning the female over there poses her white flowery dress in full view of my sight.
I spend the best part of my quality time on Sundays in her presence.
I hear her voice every Sunday.
I Listen to her words attentively, sometimes.
Observe her body movements.
The way she stretches her hands and legs with earnest deliberation.
This is no female that subjects her body to the discipline of feminised restriction and passivity.
As she is preoccupied with submitting her personality to Jesus.
She is a Jesus lover.
She is in love with Jesus.
She belongs to Jesus.
She is Jesus's woman!
She does it with cockiness!
Observe the betrayals.
First, the betrayal of her
sexuality or gender identity..
As a
female wearing a dress it would have been consistent with the image of her
sexuality, gender identity or femininity if she had chosen to worship the
goddess.Instead she betrays her sexuality, gender identity, essentialised femininity and the goddess within her by worshipping praising the masculine constructed thing called god.
Who is god anyway?
He is only a male child of masculine gender.
Why?
Because the mother of the gods exists and she is a member of the feminine gender.
This means god has a mother.
As long as there is a mother of the gods or Goddess.
God will always be a little guy.
Mothers' Day is celebrated because the Goddess Ghia is the mother of the Gods.
Isn't it great to know that God has a mother and she is Greek?
So why doesn't our female friend worships, praises and loves the Goddess Ghia, the only true creator of the universe including her son we name god?
Before she met the miracle maker called Jesus she was a modest ordinary graceful woman.
Since she discovered Jesus he must have performed a miracle on her by changing her into a new man.
Observe her masculine behaviour under that white flowery dress.
She stretches her arms and legs as she walks while preaching.
She shouts with a commanding domineering tone.
She talks about patriotism and war.
She is a classical representation of a female that has been socialised in to the dominant masculine patriarchal culture.
She is no impotent victim because she has internalised the masculine values of the dominant ideological apparatus.
Is she a radical liberal feminist in lifestyle reacting to the patriarchal reality?
Her love for life.
Her love for freedom.
Her compassionate personality.
Her condemnation of a heartless, unfriendly and abusive world is misinterpreted by what she says rather than why or how she tries to express her beliefs.
I hope god heeds her prayers.
For her petition display a lot of heart." Commented the speaker.
Why do you put her down?
God will punish you." Shouted a male waving a bible at the speaker.
Go on!
Go over there with your Christian brothers!
You Christians and Muslims dominate Speaker's Corner.
We want to hear the devil's point of view.
Please leave us alone." Pleaded a male member of the audience who was not pleased by the interruptions of the bible waving Christian.
"Second betrayal, she claims
to be patriotic but gives up the love for her country for Jesus, her spiritual
lover.
As a
middle aged person and British citizen she grew up and enjoyed the benefits under the welfare state.
Under the
welfare state citizenship was defined comprehensively in terms of political
rights -including the right to vote, economic rights - including the right to
work and social rights - including the right to free education, health care,
unemployment benefit, sick pay, pension provision on retirement and various
other community services provided by the police, fire fighting service and
garbage disposal.
Her spiritual lover Jesus the
miracle maker did not invent the welfare state.
She
betrayed her citizenship responsibilities and obligations by giving allegiance
to Jesus an alien sovereign being in heaven instead of her earthly sister Her
majesty the Queen.
Instead
of showing gratitude and praise for the welfare state that contributed to her
development she praises and worships Jesus the hippie who was never employed,
never attended public school, was never a citizen, never paid taxes, never had
a driving license, never had a TV license, have no idea of electricity, coca
cola, nor of the existence of USA and would have been declared an illegal
immigrant by the modern nation state.
She is an ungrateful rebel deep in
her guts without a cause for submitting her proletarian dignity to the
authority of Jesus.
She's
bound to heaven to be Jesus's bride.
I dream
of heaven and live in a man-made hell.
Fate has
chosen this hour to make your dreams come true.
Although
I am the devil and she is a Jesus lover.
I love
her
She is no
fool.
In this
alienating, soulless and loveless environment
she will welcome any expression of love from anyone including the Devil.
I shall
prove it". Asserted the speaker.
The
speaker bends down into the basket
attached to his bicycle and picked up a bunch of flowers he had bought earlier while cycling to Speakers'
Corner.
"Do
you see these flowers?" The speaker asked the audience as he raises the
bunch of flowers above his head .
"I
know she belongs to another man called Jesus.
I realise
that she is Jesus's woman.
That's
why I shall tempt the gods.
I shall
make the Gods jealous.
I shall
challenge the gods to prove that
their love for her is stronger
than the devil's love by offering her these flowers.
Will she
be wise and avoid the devil's trick of appealing to her latent anti-devil's
prejudices by rejecting the devil's
gift?
Let us
find out.
Watch me
as I present Her with these flowers as a trophy for her courage, dignity and
perseverance". Proclaimed the speaker as he prepares to dismount the
platform.
The crowd opened up a corridor as the speaker stepped down from the soapbox and walked slowly towards her with the bunch of flowers held firmly in my outstretched arms.
The crowd opened up a corridor as the speaker stepped down from the soapbox and walked slowly towards her with the bunch of flowers held firmly in my outstretched arms.
He smiled
and nodded with a wink as he presented the gift.
She
returned the smile as she reached for the flowers with both hands and said in a
silent voice.
"Thank
you". Said the female preacher as she grasps firmly and admires the bouquet of flowers.
The
speaker slightly bows his head as he
turned and walked at a leisurely pace towards to the soapbox.
There was
a rapturous applause from the audience.
There was
more Laugher and cheers from audience as the speaker mounts the platform and continued with
his speech.
"I
am trapped in a love triangle.
God is a
misogynist!
Jesus
loves all men!
I am a
spiritual lesbian and I love the goddess within her.
She is a
spiritual heterosexual and she hates the Goddess within her.
In Her
eyes all men have failed her.
The
political, economic, and social institutions have failed her.
Political
parties have failed her.
The prime
minister has failed her.
The trade
unions have failed her.
The
institution of marriage has failed her.
Friends
have failed her.
In fact
her whole life is full of abuse, betrayals, injustice, abortions and failures.
She
realises she exists in a patriarchal capitalist society that only recognises,
values and rewards winners.
She
doesn't want to be a loser with the fears, pain and sadness that losing brings.
She wants
to be happy.
She wants
to be a winner!
Her life
is a failure.
Jesus is
a winner!
Where
Humanity has failed.
God must
win!
No
ordinary mortal man can rescue or satisfy her.
Only
Jesus the miracle maker can save her.
For it
will take a miracle to bring change and satisfaction into her life.
I cannot
make miracles.
She will
not trust me.
She will
not depend on me.
God is
her anchor.
God is
her column of strength.
She is
god dependent.
What a
woman!
Young men
I have learned a useful lesson.
A relationship with a woman who is a Jesus
lover is a troublesome existence if you betray the feelings of your heart,
by forcing yourself or pretending to agree with her.
Beware of
"Jesus lovers"!
For
"Jesus Lovers" demand miracles and praise Jesus for your humble
humane efforts.
Learn to
love yourself along with your
shortcomings.
Believe in
Yourself and love all life.
Bear in
mind the creativity, brilliance, elegance and
dynamism of youth.
Humanity
is the only supreme being for humanity!". Expounded the speaker.
Loud
cheers and unanimous applause greeted the speaker!
The speaker stood silently smiling and
clapping his hands as a sign of appreciation to the audience.
As the
applause started to decrease some
members of the audience decided they've had their money's worth and began to
disperse.
"Why
are you wearing the devil's horns on your head?
Are you
the Devil?" Asked a young male.
The
speaker looked at the young male who appeared to be sincere and gave a serious
reply.
"In
our so-called liberal democracy,
pluralism, multiculturalism, and difference are supposed to recognised,
celebrated and tolerated but some pagan cultures including the Anglo-Saxons and
the Celts are marginalised and under represented in popular discourse.
I
celebrate Halloween all year round because as a festival Halloween was
celebrated by the Anglo-Saxons and the Celts for over 2000 years before the
birth of Jesus.
Remember,
if Jesus was not born in the year 4 BC there wouldn't be any alarm about the
millennium bug.
Blame
Jesus for the timing of the millennium bug!
As far as
the Devil is concerned, F **K the
millennium!" Declared the Speaker.
"I
like what you are saying I think the devil is great". Remarked a young female .
"The
devil does not exist.
The Devil
has no self awareness, no sense of time.
The Devil
is a figment of God's imagination.
The Devil
was created by god to justify inequality, fear, hate, poverty, inferiority,
negative discrimination, oppression, exploitation, extermination, misogyny, sin
and war?
Don't
follow the devil.
Don't be
a fascist.
Don't
follow anyone.
Especially
those who tell you don't.
I wear these Devil horns on my hat as a
symbolic gesture of protest at the dominance of religious bigotry, the under
representation of non-religious views and the use of the Devil's icon as an object of ridicule by abusive individuals who
don't want to accept responsibility for their actions.
If you
look carefully you will see that the colour of the horns I am wearing are red.
So I am a
red horned Devil!
The
Devil's icon is also useful in debunking the ambiguities of identity politics
permeating human social relationships". Expounded the speaker.
Loud
cheers and laughter erupted as the audience demonstrate their appreciation for
the ironic assertions of the red horned devil.
"Thank
you for your attention.
I need a
short break then I'll continue to
speak". Proclaimed the speaker as he stepped down from the platform and
began to quench his thirst and have a short snack.
During
his short break a middle aged male approached the speaker to show his
appreciation.
"I'm
from Wales.
I've been
in London for two weeks and I've never had so much fun.
When I
return to Wales I'll tell my wife all about this.
Good-bye!"
.
"Thank
you." Replied the speaker replied.
Complements
from appreciative tourists often boosts the energy of the speaker and stimulate
him to perform for hours. The average duration of a day's performance
generally goes on for eight to ten
hours.
In fact the longest day of speech making ever
recorded during the summer season was twelve hours. Moreover, it is not
uncommon for discussions to take place after performing at Speakers' Corner
usually under in the bright lights of the street lamps until the early hours of
three or four o'clock in the following morning.
Unfortunately,
because of a series of threats and physical attacks on the speaker since the
rise of the politics of fundamentalism and other forms of extremism during the
late nineteen-seventies, it is no longer possible for the speaker to spend long
hours in the evening and early mornings or after the early darkness of the
wintry months within the vicinity of Speakers' Corner.
Returning to the platform the speaker
continued to wear the Union Flag.
It's not
unusual at Speakers' Corner for speakers to wave the national flag of the
countries they support.
What is
unique about this speaker wearing the
Union flag on this occasion is the democratic manner in which the complicated
theme of nationalism as an ideology can be appreciated, discussed or even analysed without the promoting national chauvinism, bigotry or xenophobia.
This is
no easy task at Speakers' Corner or anywhere else.
"Hey!
You!
What are
you doing wearing that Union Jack on your back?
"There's
no black in the Union Jack!" Shouted the male as he approached me in a
threatening manner.
"I'm
not black!
I don't
represent blacks nor do Blacks represent me." The speaker replied promptly replied.
"As
A British citizen the Union Flag represents my nationality not the colour of my skin, which is brown, actually.
Citizenship
is determined by nationality not any racial, ethnic, tribal, caste or religious
identity.
I am a
British citizen and as such my right to freedom of speech is guaranteed by the
British state and not by the colour of my skin.
My
citizenship rights and obligations come from
my allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen
not the colour of my skin nor any racial or ethnic identity."
Proclaimed the speaker with a serious tone in
his voice.
"I'm
Scottish!
I am not British!
I don't
like the English!
If you do
not remove that flag from your back, I'll knock you down and rip it from your
back!" Threatened the Scottish male.
At this
moment the situation was becoming risky because the police was not on patrol
and the tourists were only interested in
satisfying their curiosity or might find the whole incident amusing.
As usual
there is always compassionate individuals nearby.
The
Scottish nationalist was immediately confronted by three young males.
"Why
don't you threaten me?
I am
English.
I do not
wear the flag of St. George nor the Union Flag.
You are
not in Scotland.
You are
in my country, England!
You don't
have the right to threaten anyone who is free to wear the Union Flag.
If you
don't like what the Speaker is saying and what he stands for, you are free to
leave and listen to another speaker.
Speakers' Corner is a big enough for
everyone." Asserted the tallest of the three males.
The other
two males joined in the dispute with the Scottish nationalist.
"If
you love Scotland so much, why don't you go there?
Scotland
is your country, England is ours!
If you
touch the Speaker we'll show you how much the English love England."
Asserted one of the English males.
The
Scottish nationalist walked away and shouted; "I'll
be back!"
"Please
do the police will be here to represent the British nation!" Replied the
speaker.
There was
a sigh of relief among the audience as the so-called Scottish nationalist
walked away.
Some of
the interesting lessons learnt by this mild confrontation in micro
international relations with the UK. include:-
a) The
incident was a fusion of ideological, ethical, sexual and political factors.
It demonstrated the potential of individuals
to manage and resolve conflict situation without the intervention of a higher
authority state or private.
b) The way individuals employed the national
imagination and identity to justify injustice and to oppose injustice in
individual every day life experience.
c) The
handling of identity politics by
substituting the terms race and racism for nation and nationalism to
define, label and exclude or include individuals.
d) Individuals are heterogeneous beings that do
not enter social relationships as pure
entities with their ideologies.
e) The flag as the symbol of national identity
can be manipulated by individuals for a variety of motives including prejudice,
masculinity, xenophobia or political mobilisation.
The
speaker returned to the forum and stood still.
By now a
large crowd was gathering curiously to observe what was going on.
Feeling
nervous the speaker seized the opportunity to continue with his speech.
"Ladies
and Gentlemen!
I am a
patriot but observe carefully I lock my bicycle with a chain and two robust
padlocks!
I shop at
a transnational hyper-market store!
My
stomach is global!
I don't
know who I am!
Albert
Camus once declared: "I love my country too
much to be a nationalist".
I've just
been told by an individual who claims to be a Scottish nationalist that there
is no black in the Union Jack.
I do not
pretend to understand what he meant but strange as it may seem , there is an
element of truth in what he said". Declared the speaker as the signs of
disbelief appeared on the faces of some members of the audience.
"I'll explain!". Remarked the speaker as he
tries to hearten the audience.
"The
Union flag which the so-called Scottish nationalist calls the Union Jack is the
symbolic representation of the British nation customarily called the United
Kingdom and Northern Ireland or Great
Britain.
Moreover,
when the Union Flag is flown on a ship it is referred to as the Union Jack!
The term
black is used in this instance as a coded term for the phenotypical
construction of "race", that is, the so-called "black
race" as imagined by some
individuals.
The Union
Jack (Union Flag) is a symbolic representation of the British nation.
As an
imagined community, the nation could be
constructed or codified by race , colour (in this case white), culture,
religion, traditions, language and
territory.
So, the
Union Jack could be perceived as the symbolic representative of the white race
or white nation.
Hence the
slogan "No black in the Union Jack" (means excluding the so-called
"black race" from the nation which is perceived as the so-called
"white race")
Literally,
in terms of colour the Union Flag consists of three colours, red, white and
blue.
There is
no black colour in the Union Flag (Union Jack).
If the Scottish nationalist was only referring
to the colour black then in this sense he was right but if he used the term
"black" as a code for race as
race conscious individuals do, then the slogan "No black in the Union
Jack" is problematic.
In terms
nationalism the Union Flag represents the national community however defined!
In terms
of racialisation or race thinking the Union Flag represents the 'White race' or
'white nation'.
Therefore
the element of truth in the slogan 'No
black in the Union Jack' is the literal meaning of the term black used to
define and describe a colour at best, or in the common sense usage, a make
belief idea that the British nation is racially constructed inclusively for the
so-called 'white race' while excluding the 'blacks' or 'black race' at
worst". Explained the speaker.
"Are
you British?" Asked one female in her mid-twenties.
"Yes!"
The speaker replied.
"But
you are black! The
British are white!
So how
can you be British?" Retorted the female.
"Let
us be clear about meaning of what we're saying.
When you say black, are you referring to the
colour of my skin or to my personality?" Questioned the speaker.
"I'm
referring to what you look
like!" Replied the female
immediately.
"In
that case, I'm not black!
The
colour of my skin does not determine my thoughts, actions and relationships
with the elements of the universe!
I may
have a non-white colour of skin but that does not mean that I imagine,
identify, belong or legitimise any racialised stereotype, culture, lifestyle or
race labelled black.
Subjectively
speaking, I am not black!
Objectively speaking, the colour of my skin
does not represent me, does not speak, think nor responsible for me and does
not determine my personality or actions!
Besides
there is no black epistemology!
So don't waste my precious time with skin
talk!
Is that clear?.
Being
'white British' or 'white and British' is the racialisation of the nation,
nationality or British nationhood!
Since I
am not a racist, that means I do not imagine, identify nor belong to any
racialised grouping however perceived (white, black, yellow, brown or mixed.)
Therefore
I am not Black!
I am not
a member of the black race!
Citizenship
is guaranteed by giving allegiance to
the nation state, nation or nationality.
Citizenship
is not guaranteed by allegiance to any tribe, caste, religion, culture or
biological specification including sexual orientation!
So, as a
British citizen my allegiance is to Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth 2nd., not
to the colour or my skin, race, religion, tribe, family, or any ethnic
grouping". Spelled out the speaker.
It's
often the case at Speakers' Corner that
individuals unwittingly or intentionally associate the colour of the skin as
a determinant factor in trying to make
sense of the speaker's personality.
Because
of this the speaker has to endure a painful process of explanation, negotiation
and assertion before any genuine clear non-racialised communication can take
place.
"Tell
me, how do you define yourself?
What is
your nationality?" Asked the speaker as he turned the spotlight on the
inquiring female.
"I
am Srilankan!" Replied the cocksure
female without delay.
"Are
you a nationalist?" The speaker further
inquired.
"Not
really". she replied.
"What
I mean is, are you a member of a community or country the nation called Sri Lanka? Clarified the
speaker.
"Yes!"
She replied.
"Are
you patriotic?" Questioned the speaker as he smiles.
The
so-called female Srilankan nationalist
did not answer.
"Would
you die for Sri-lanka?" Queried the Speaker.
"No!
I don't
want to die!". She replied.
"Do
you have a Srilankan passport?"
Asked the speaker.
"Yes!"
Responded the female in an uneasy manner.
" In
short what you are saying is you rather enjoy the benefits of citizenship than to
make sacrifices for Sri-lanka".
Commented the speaker.
"You
don't know what it is like to live in
Sri Lanka". She remarked in a sorrowful tone.
"Do
you live in London?" The speaker inquired sympathetically.
"Yes!"
I live and work in London". Answered the so-called female Srilankan
nationalist.
"Are
your folks in Sri Lanka?" Asked the speaker.
"Yes
they are!" Replied the female from Sri Lanka.
"Can
you cook?" Interrogated the speaker in jest.
"Yes
I'm a very good cook." She replied smiling
looking pleased and relaxed.
"Mr.
speaker are you going to marry her?"
Interrupted a male member of the audience.
"Are
you a match maker?" The speaker jokingly replied.
"It's
seems like a very complex situation
you're in because you say belong
to the Srilankan nation but you are not patriotic, your experience in Sri Lanka
is not a happy one, the only claims you have in Sri Lanka is a passport and
your folks while you work in
London". Summarised the speaker as he explores the world of female
so-called Srilankan nationalist residing in London, Europe.
"Are
the Tamils part of this nation named Sri Lanka?" Asked the speaker.
"Yes!"
replied the female.
"Would
you marry a Tamil Tiger?" Interrogated the speaker.
"No!" She replied.
"Why
not?" Asked the speaker teasingly.
"The
Tamils as nationalists believe in a national community, a homeland as you
do". Affirmed the speaker as he attempted to stimulate the discussion.
"The Tamil Tigers are an outlawed group
in Sri Lanka!
They are
terrorists!" She responded angrily.
"Are
you suggesting that there are two conflicting national communities within the
political boundaries of Sri Lanka?
You told
me earlier that the Tamils are part of the Srilankan nation which you also
claim to belong.
Are you
also implying that the national community
which the Tamils claim to belong is excluded from the Srilankan national
community or to put it rationally, the nation state labelled Sri Lanka that you
claim to belong?
If so,
why did you say before that the Tamils are part of the nation named Sri Lanka?
Finally
as regards to the community as a nation
what is the nation in relation nationalism?"
Expounded the speaker as he questioned the
remarks made by female Srilankan nationalist to draw out the complications,
ambiguities, anomalies and tensions of
concepts of nation and nationalism for the audience to appreciate.
The
so-called female Srilankan nationalist
was silent and looked perplexed.
There was
silence everywhere.
The
audience was calm as they gazed at the female Srilankan nationalist
sympathetically in anticipation of what will happen next.
Suddenly,
a pair of brown piercing eyes with a charming smile caught the eyes of the speaker as he glanced at the
front row of the crowd.
It was
the eyes of an infant female who must have been about six years of age standing
relaxed closely in front of her mother.
Spontaneously,
the speaker looked at the young female smiled and said;
"Please
my dear friend, would you kindly tell me, what is nationalism?" The
speaker asked the child as he leaned forward slightly.
At this
moment the dumbfounded crowd started to murmur and focus with surprised concern
on the infant to find out what on earth can a toddler say about a difficult subject
as nationalism.
The
infant female answered by raising her
pretty head towards her mother's eyes while unlocking her left hand grip from
her mother's right hand.
Then turning the palm of her hands upwards
with fingers out stretched while raising
both hands simultaneously into the air at a short distance above her shoulders
as rolled her eyes, tightened her lips smiled at the same time as she
looked into the speaker's eyes.
The
speaker responded excitement and laughter and remarked:
"Ladies
and gentlemen, from the hand movement and expression on our young friend's face
I can confidently declare that the young female has no idea what
nationalism is."
The
audience started to laugh after realising that the obscure expression of the
infant female was paradoxical for no one
including the speaker had any manifest understanding of what was going on.
The
female nationalist from Sri Lanka became embarrassed, impatient and angrily shouted:
"You
are mad!
You are
being stupid and ridiculous!
Why do
you ask a child such a question?
You
shouldn't ask children such questions!
Don't you
know anything about children?
Children
do not know anything at all especially about nationalism!". She declared.
The
audience had mixed facial expressions and misgivings, some were confounded at
the deviation and introduction of children into the discussion, some find the
whole issue trivial, some interpreted the interaction between the speaker and
the so-called Sri-lankan nationalist amusing, some were confused, some were consulting
their pocket English/native language dictionaries to translate to understand
the rumpus and others became impatient and urged the speaker to continue
speaking.
"Mr.
speaker please continue we want to listen to what you have to say!"
Someone in the audience remarked.
"What
does she know about children anyway?" Declared a middle aged male.
"I
want to be a child!
I want to
play!
I want to
be happy!
I don't
want to fight any nationalist war!" Declared one humorous chubby looking male.
"Now
we have two infants to contend with!
Mr. speaker do you see what you have
done?" Commented a young male holding a can of strong beer in one hand and
a sleeping bag strapped across his back.
The
audience exploded with cheers and laughter.
The
speaker overcomed with uncontrollable laughter was forced to dismount the platform while grasping his stomach with
both hands in a crouched position.
When the
amusement was over the speaker mounted the soap box with a smile on his face
and announced:
"So!
You think
I'm mad!
Ugh?
I was
sincere when I asked our young friend if she had any idea of what nationalism
is for I certainly do not pretend to know!
Well! Since the child nor I do not know what is
nationalism would you please do us the honour and explain to us what is
nationalism?
Ladies
and gentlemen, our friend from Sri Lanka will explain to us what is
nationalism!"
The
speaker leaves the question of nationalism open to the audience and turned
compassionately towards the direction the female infant and remarked:
"My
dear friend wouldn't you like to hear what an adult has to say in regard to
nationalism?"
After a
minute silence someone from the audience shouted:
"We
don't have all day, please tell us Miss
Sri Lanka what is nationalism?".
The
Srilankan nationalist was muttering in silence then abruptly walked away in
disgust.
"Please
don't walk away without giving an answer to our young sister?".
Don't you
love children?". Shouted the speaker appealing to her motherly instinct.
She
returned swiftly to demonstrate her caring nature.
The
speaker resumed his commentary:
"We
have learnt some meaningful lessons from
our social intercourse".
"The
child does not know what is nationalism but is that bad thing?
Probably
the insignificance of nationalism to a child could be an unexpected benefit at
least children would not initiate national hatreds, national exclusions and
conflicts.
Moreover,
what's wonderful about children is they do not practice torture under the flag
of nationalism, don't drive cars that pollute the environment and do not vote
for sadistic nationalist politicians.
That
could be a good starting point to avoid national conflicts.
The child
does not know that the child knows.
In this
case an ignorance of nationalism is bliss.
By your negative
response to the question of what nationalism is, you have demonstrated that you
do not know that you do not know.
I know
that I do not know what nationalism is.
So why
don't we relax, be modest, open our hearts and our minds and be prepared to learn
from any source including a child.
We must
listen to the voices of the children.
For they
share the universe with living species.
They
suffer as the first casualties of wars including national wars.
We must
liberate the children within us so that
the children outside us will possess a future of peace, love and happiness that
is free from nationalism, national chauvinism, national hatreds and national
conflicts?" Declared the speaker.
The
audience was in a solemn mood.
"Thank
you!"
Declared
the mother of the infant female as she held the tender hand of the child while looking
at the speaker with a smile on her
proud face then gracefully turned and walked away from the
audience.
"My
I ask a question?" Inquired a young female as she broke the dead silence
in the air.
"Yes!
Please do!"
The speaker encouragingly replied.
With a
glint in her brown eyes and slightly tilting her head smiling enticingly she inquired:
"Where
are you from?" She inquired.
"The
future!" Replied the speaker
smiling.
She
laughed then abruptly shuffling her posture in an erected manner and squinting
her eyes she retorted:
"No!
What I
mean is, what country did you come from?
Where
were you born?
Where are
your roots?" The young female
persistently interrogates.
"Do
you want me to be honest?" Responded the speaker.
"Yes!
Please
tell me!" She replied impatiently with excitement.
"I
don't know!" The speaker answered
smiling and hoping she would not persist with any more interrogations
for he thought he had given her a
genuine truthful answer.
But to
his astonishment she responded with more questioning.
"What
do you mean you don't know where you are from?
You must
know!
Everybody knows where he or she comes
from!" Raising her voice and feeling confident by now that she has managed
to embarrass me continued to question me.
"Are
you ashamed to tell me where you are from?" Questioned the young female as she tries to
embarrass the speaker.
The
speaker felt a pain surging through his body as the bitter memories of a
misunderstood lost, and alienated childhood flashed in his mind. He suddenly
realised no matter where he goes, what he does and whatever his dreams are he
is still being treated as senseless
immature child that is excluded from the reality of "normal"
individuals with their identities and sense of belonging to family, community
and country.
The
speaker had to think swiftly of ideas to
provide a response while controlling his momentary relapse into contemplative
mode without allowing the irrational, emotional and spontaneous feelings to
overcome him for he does not know whether
she will be interested in the details of how he had survived an unusual
background.
In a low tone of voice the speaker queried her
interrogation:
"Why
do you want to know where I'm from?
Are you a
police woman?" Questioned the speaker jokingly.
There
were smiles and laughter in the audience.
After a
short pause the speaker continued.
"Are
you an environmentalist?
Are you
from ancient Greece?" Interrogated the speaker.
"No!
What do
you mean?" She inquired with bewilderment.
"Do
you have the time to listen for an answer?
Are you
sure you won't go away?" Asked the speaker politely.
She put
her shoulder bag on the ground in front of her feet and sat with her legs
crossed gazing up at my eyes and said:
"I'll stay!
You go
ahead and explain yourself!"
At this
moment other members of the audience decided to join her by sitting in the
ground.
The
speaker felt relieved and pleased for this opportunity to speak to an audience
without the usual disruption.
"First
of all when I asked you whether you were an environmentalist I wanted to find out the ideological
perspective, if any, that is implicit in your questions.
For
example environmentalism is a mechanism for evaluating negatively in a
deterministic manner the personality, creative potential and behaviour of an
individual by using aspects of the environment such as place of birth, climate,
geographical location and cosmic bodies (stars).
In other
words individuals are perceived as alienated personalities lacking creative
independent automatic selves, no will power of their own and are impotent
victims of external structural or macro processes.
Furthermore,
individuals are perceived and treated if they are as lifeless as plasticine
capable of being moulded by their past and uncontrollable factors from their
environment.
The
reference to ancient Greece was to provide a historical example of
environmentalism.
To the
ancient Athenians any individual that was born, lived, located or came from
outside the city walls was a barbarian, alien or uncivilised.
Normally
the stranger's personality was perceived to be made unnatural by the weather,
heavenly objects and distant landscapes.
Neo-environmentalism
is employed by some social commentators to explain the human condition, the
unequal socio-economic status of individuals or communities and the lifestyles
of individuals and communities.
For
example the "northerners" are richer or better because they came from
or are located in the northern region.
The
poorest economies that are underdeveloped are located in the tropics therefore
under development and deprivation are explained in terms the consequences of
climatic conditions not historical, political, or socio-economic factors.
Environmentalism
disregards the will power, imagination, creative potential and dynamic changing
activities if individuals living in the now, the present time.
So who am
I?
Am I a
recording in the atmosphere?
Am I
where I am?Am I what I see?
Am I what I say?
Am I what
I hear?
Am I what
I think?
Am I what
I act?
Am I what
I write?
Am I what
I eat?
Am I what
I feel?
Am I what
I love?
Am I what
I fear?
Am I an energy
source?
Am I
where I'm from?
I am not
a prisoner of the past.
I live in
the present.
I live in
the now!
Now is
for ever.
Now
creates the opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past and connect, make
or break a possible better future.
Now is my
pain,
Now is my
healing,
Now is my
redemption .
Asked me
about now.
At this
moment I think I'm a horse.
Some times when Individuals ask questions such
as "Where you are from?" or "Where are your roots?
The
intention may not be to obtain
information to label, stigmatise, or negatively evaluate the personality or
actions of individuals!
It is not
wise for me or anyone to make any assumptions about individuals visiting
Speaker's Corner asking interogative personal questions including 'Where are
you from'.
Hence the analytical discussion and negotiation of the meanings implicated in the statements made by individuals who ask interrogative questions concerning the past.
Hence the analytical discussion and negotiation of the meanings implicated in the statements made by individuals who ask interrogative questions concerning the past.
It would
be a wonderful experience at Speakers' Corner if people were recognised as
individuals.
Living in the now!
Loving and respecting each other
unconditionally in the present and not
evaluating each other according
to the past, place or origin!
When you
approached me you were smiling.
To me
that was a sign of being friendly.
I thought
that your behaviour was civilised for you and I have never met before.
Here we
are strangers that happen to meet by chance in Speakers Corner, London, Europe,
Planet Earth, having an interesting social intercourse, communicating in peace
and without fear nor coercion from any authority group or individual.
Why
shouldn't this encounter be considered as normal?
If it is!
Why
should I interrogate you as if your presence was undesirable and risky?
Why
should I question the opportunity for you to exercise your right to be you?
Why
shouldn't I accept you the way you conduct yourself as a civilised person?
Why
should I neglect your living reality now, in the present, and interrogate you for information to negatively
evaluate, judge, label, identify and associate
you with some mythical notions of place, time or space to construct,
justify, or legitimise difference thereby excluding you?
It has
always been my policy in Speaker's Corner not to Question any person that
treats me in a civilised manner.
Perhaps
I'm naïve.
All
social relationships involve a risk factor.
I am
prepared to take a risk and learn from
experience than to alienate the potentiality of friendship.
It has
often been said that time is a precious commodity.
If anyone
is generous, compassionate and kind enough to share their time and space with
me at Speakers' Corner. Then I consider that person as a friend. I will embrace
him, her or it with welcoming arms.
In other
words friendly love makes me a part of
all those that I meet irrespective of their biological specification, geography
and ideological orientation.
As Mencius
says. "Friendship is one
mind in two bodies."
Please be
patient while I read you a Quotation from the Bible taken from Exodus 23:9
"Love the stranger,
because stranger have you been in Egypt, and therefore you know the soul of the
stranger".
The only
individuals I question who they are or where they're from are those individuals
that are threatening or attempting to deny me my right to live in peace,
security and liberty.
For it is
not normal in a civilised world that any individual should endure tyranny or
any form of abuse.
Liberty
is essential for a good life, a good life is basic to cherish
liberty.
May I
read you one more quotation from the wise of antiquity.
"Death is better, a
milder fate than tyranny." - Æschylus quoted in
Agamemnon, I, 1364
Even at
this moment in time I do not even Know your name but it is not important for us
to have a civilised relationship. It does not influence me in having a
meaningful conversation with you.
Let us be
fair and play the game your way.
Since you
construct us as if our historical experiences or sense of belonging to
different spaces determines our reality in the present, I would like to make a
comment on difference and its implications on social relations.
You are
different from me.
I am
different from you.
You are
different from us.
We are
different from them
We are
all different
It is the
same difference
Every one
is different except me". Expounded
the speaker.
There
were smiles, laughter, whistles and loud cheers from the audience demonstrating
their appreciation for the wit and wisdom
of the speaker.
"For
most individuals existing in their common sense world view, it is not knowing
what difference is or signifies.
It's a
question of how difference is manipulated, managed or exploited.
Do we for
example;
Manage
it?
Include it?
Integrate
it?
Tolerate
it?
Exploit
it?
Exclude
it?
Hate it?
Fight it?
Colonise
it?
Exterminate
it?
In other
words given the political will that
individuals apply in their everyday survival plans, is it possible for
individuals to define, promote and legitimise their assumed differences while simultaneously avoiding the potential risks of inclusion/exclusion
and the resulting conflicts involved in their socio-economic
relationships?" Explained the speaker.
The
speaker paused anticipating a response from the audience.
The
audience appeared attentive and silent.
There was
no response so the speaker continued.
"We're
British!
They're
French!
We're
patriots!
They're
Nationalists!
We're right!
They're
wrong!
They are
rational!.
Americans
and the French cannot understand us!
Being
British is a feeling, a spiritual experience.
A feeling
for the landscape.
It's like
hunting foxes across the English landscape.
The
French are foxy!"
The audience responded with a mixture of
laughter and sounds of objections to the ironic statements made by the speaker.
"Why
don't you like the French? Said one young male sitting in the third row on the
ground among the seated audience.
"Forgive
me, why do you think everyone is laughing?" Asked the speaker.
"Are
you French?" Inquired the speaker.
"Yes
I am!" The young male egotistically
replied.
"Please
let me explain". Concerned about being taken too literally by the young
male or new arrivals joining the audience, the speaker often abruptly
interrupts the speech to explain to the audience his way of speaking.
"This
is not a religious meeting, So please don't believe in what I'm saying for I
have no idea what I'm talking about.
The subject
presently under discussion is nationalism and how the nation as an imagined community is
constructed to justify the exclusion/inclusion and abusive behaviour.
The logic
of us and them.
In other
words, the logic of us and them is normally used as an inclusion or exclusion
mechanism to define who we are in
relation the other.
Anyone
that is not one of us is perceived or constructed as one of them.
Therefore,
accordingly the prejudiced
nationalist imagination
constructs anyone that does not belong to our nation or is not one of
us, must be French.
It is not
important what being French or British symbolises, what is important is how
references to non-Britishness are used to define Britishness.
In this
case, anyone that is not British is labelled French.
As
regards to the British national imagination the references I make to the French
have no relevance to France as geo-political reality.
It
has more to do with how the prejudices
of the British national imagination constructs the other as an alien to make
sense of what is perceived, constructed or assumed to be so-called British
national identity.
Remember,
you are not in France, you are in the United Kingdom and in the UK there is a
style of humour used in the English language called irony.
For
example, when we say public schools we actually mean private schools.
When we
say we're going to the Public house we
do not mean we're going to the French, American
Re-"Public" or any other space where the public at large
occupy.
What we
actually mean is the tavern or
bar". Explained the speaker.
There was
laughter from the audience.
The
laughter of the audience was interrupted by the shrill voice of a young female.
"Monsieur!"
Called the female infant.
"Are
you French?" The speaker inquired.
"Yes Monsieur!" Answered the female child.
Viva the
Republic!
How is
the French Republic?
Ladies
and gentlemen I'm in trouble, it used to be very easy talking rubbish at
Speakers' Corner but nowadays there are too many intelligent females and children
present in the audience challenging my absurd stereotypical constructions.
The end
of the world is nigh!
The
French are coming!
Correction!
The
French have already invaded our kingdom!" The speaker responded with his
usual ironic style.
The
speaker raised his hands towards the sky in jest and shouted
dishonestly:
"God
please save us from the French but don't take away our French bread and wine,
it's the only pleasure we have since the beef fiasco."
By now the audience was roaring with laughter.
"The
French have won the world cup they've
beaten us at football.
The
French are world champions! Declared the speaker before slowly turning to the
female infant and asked.
"Now,
my dear friend from the French Republic, are you happy?" Asked the speaker.
Her
mother leaned towards her to translate my words into French.
"Yes!"
She replied smiling.
"Do
you love to sing?" Asked the speaker teasingly.
"Yes
Monsieur!" Responded the young female enthusiastically.
The
speaker was amazed when he saw the female child walked away from her parents
towards the platform where he stood.
"Ladies
and gentlemen please welcome a song from the French Republic!" Declared
the speaker.
The
speaker stepped down and helped and
assisted the female child to mount the platform.
She stood
still with her hands at her side and her eyes glancing at her parents she began
to sing in the French language.
At the
end of the song there was a ruptous applause.
The loud
applause attracted so much curiosity
that audience began to increase at a
rapid rate. People were coming from everywhere to find out what the excitement
was all about.
"Bravo!
Bravo!
Thank you
Madam!" Said the speaker clapping his hands smiling and politely bows as
he offered his hand to assist the female infant to dismount
the platform.
The
female child was happily hopping towards her parents.
The
speaker immediately mounted the platform and urged the audience to give another
round of applause.
On behalf
of the crowd the speaker also thanked
her parents for making the female infant so artistic, assertive and marvellous.
The
speaker watched with awe the young female from France as she walked leisurely
between her parents holding their hands as an appreciative audience waves them
farewell.
"Romans,
Britons and Friends, Beware!
Now we
know why the French are dangerous - they can sing better than they can play
football!". Declared the speaker.
Suddenly
from a distance came the enchanting
voice of a young female.
The
speaker stood still and observed the
young French female running eagerly in the direction of the platform .
"Monsieur!"
"Monsieur!"
"Monsieur!"
Shouted the infant female.
The
speaker stepped down from the platform
wondering why she had returned.
As the
speaker bowed close to her she stretched
out her arms and embraced his head and kissed the left side of his face, then
quickly let go and ran as fast as she can to rejoin her parents reassuring
arms.
The
speaker was overwhelmed with joy and
tears.
An
understandable expression after over twenty-five years of performing at
Speakers' Corner, surviving abusive behaviour and other social hazards, then
suddenly came an angel in the form of a female child from France that
demonstrated sensitivity, artistry, love, kindness, compassion, joy and brought
comfort to the troubled soul of a sad and lonely speaker in the heart of the
London, the capital of the United Kingdom.
This is revelation in action.
It took a
Female child to teach the speaker that femininity is beyond the rationalism of
political feminism or adulthood.
The path
to healing and redemption is realising, loving and believing in the child within us.
The
speaker ascended the soapbox feeling relaxed and energised after the French
remedial experience anticipating the next encounter.
"Mr
Speaker!
I am an
Arab!
A Muslim!
I live in
France!
I speak
fluent Arabic, English and French!" Shouted a young male wearing tight
Levi's jeans and a leather jacket.
"What
do you have to say for yourself Mr Arab and Muslim?" Asked the speaker.
"The
French are racists!
They are
killing my Arab brothers!
The
French are evil B*****ds!
I hate
the French! Shouted the young Arab male.
Are all
the citizens of the French Republic racists?" Interrogated the speaker.
No!
I am
French!
I am a
student from France.
I am
touring Britain.
I came to
London yesterday by train.
I am not
a racist!
I fight
against racism and fascism!
Hundreds
of thousands of students, workers and citizens demonstrate against
racism."
Responded
a young male carrying a back-pack solidly strapped to his back.
"You
say you are French.
This Arab, Muslim gentleman says he too is
from France and that the French are racists, so why is there a disagreement?
Am I to
understand the French citizens are not united?" Asserted the speaker.
"You
are British!
Are you a
racist?
Does
every British citizen agrees with you?
Are all
the British citizens united with the same point of view?" Retorted the
young student to the speaker.
"At
this moment I do not know who I am and I do not care to find out.
Anyway
let's not deviate from the issue at hand.
What is
the meaning of French?
How is
the idea of being French constructed?
Who
defines what is French?
Is Le Pen
French?
Does he
speak for France?" Questioned the speaker.
"Yes!
Le Pen is French but he does not speak for all
the French people!" Replied the
student.
"Le
Pen is a racist!
The
French are racists!
Le Pen
hates all immigrants like me!"
Shouted the young Arab male.
"I
do not agree with Le Pen!
I hate
him!
He is a
racist!
I fight
against his racist views!
I fight
and campaign for the rights of immigrants to live in France!" Declared the
young student that is visiting London from France.
"Wait
a minute!
I am
confused!
Hold on
to your reins!
You heard
what this Arab and Muslim person said!
You say you are French like Le Pen!
You also say you hate Le Pen!
Furthermore
, you say that you campaign and fight for the rights of immigrants including
this Arab, Muslim young male!
Why? Why?
Why do
you denounce, fight and willing oppose your fellow compatriots including Le Pen
for the "rights" of immigrants who exclude, target and despise
you simply because you happen to be a
French citizen?
Why
doesn't this young Arab Muslim immigrant who lives in France recognise your individuality
and your "anti-racist" policies?
Why does
this young Arab male with his prejudicial attitude stereotype, stigmatise
and categorise you as belonging to
the same community(culture, national) as Le Pen despite your opposition to
Le Pen's policies?
Why are
you attacking Le Pen unconditionally while this individual that is
standing next to you claiming to be an Arab, Muslim and an immigrant is stabbing
you in the back with his anti-French bigotry?
Why are
you as an "anti-racist" activist campaigning for
immigrants' "rights" while the so-called immigrants with their fat-headed
ethnocentrism exclude you with their ethnic, religious and national
identities simply because you have a French identity?
Can't you
see the lack of harmony, abuse and betrayal that's being caused by identity
politics?
Can't you
see while you are attacking a fellow French citizen in the guise of
"anti-racism" you unintentionally give help to this so-called
immigrant as he indulges in his "anti-French prejudices, to undermine the unity, harmony and peace within the French imagined
community while he legitimises the construction his exclusive "imagined
ethnic and national communities(being an Arab or Muslim)"?
Please do
not misunderstand me!
I'm not
politically nor ideologically motivated!
Be
careful it is not wise to judge anyone with prejudiced assumptions!
To
understand abuse does any individual have to agree to any form of identity or ideology? " Inquired the
speaker.
A cold
silence filled the atmosphere as the young French student and attentive members
of the audience contemplated what the speaker had just said.
There was
not a sound coming from the audience included the individual who claimed an
Arab, Muslim and immigrant identity.
Suddenly
the stoned silence was broken by the voice of a young male.
"I
am German!
I do not
agree with the French!
We must
help the immigrants!
They live
under poor, insecure and inferior conditions!" Announced the young male from Germany.
"I
agree totally with you!" Shouted the young Arab male as he approached the young male from Germany to
seek encouragement.
The
speaker paused with anticipation as he observed with eagerness the changing
manoeuvres of the young Arab male towards those individuals who were participating in the discussion.
Meanwhile, the young Arab male was having an
exclusive passionate conversation with the young German male.
Curious
heads turned in the direction of the two young males engaging in the isolated
discussion.
The speaker
whose mother tongue is English couldn't communicate in any other language such
as French, German, Arabic nor Japanese and was momentarily excluded from the
conversation taking place between the
young Arab male and the young German male.
Suddenly,
the young male from Germany raised his right hand to attract the speaker's
attention.
The
speaker acknowledged the raised hand.
The long
mysterious silence was broken.
"Mr
speaker!
Do you
speak German?" Asked the young male.
"No!
I don't!" Replied the speaker.
"Shall
I tell you what we were talking about? Request the young male from Germany.
"Please
do!
Please go
ahead! Responded the speaker with an uneasy anticipation.
"I
was being persuaded by my 'Arab friend' here to respect the good deeds of
Hitler, for standing up for Germany and
attacking the French." Explained the young German male to the speaker.
The young
Arab male had a look of nervous embarrassment on his face as he opened his
mouth slightly and bowed his head glancing in the direction of the speaker.
The
speaker eyelids widened instantly with astonishment raised his posture and head
with a smile and declared:
"Ladies
and gentlemen!
I have my
limitations!
I have
learned a valuable lesson today!
I have
learned the hard way that the so-called immigrants are not innocent victims
of circumstances, not passive, incompetent, impotent and inferior individuals as portrayed by the media and some self righteous individuals manipulating
the so-called "immigrants rights" card for political opportunism.
In fact,
on the contrary, today we have observed an interesting example of a cunning
performance by an intelligent well-educated young male that is labelled "immigrant" who migrated from a
non-European environment, speaks many languages fluently(English, French and
German) including his native tongue.
He was
able skilfully to exploit and manipulate the national, cultural and social prejudices, stereotypes and stigmas
reproduced by well intended individuals
from Europe who sincerely believed in pursuing anti-racist policies by
giving unconditional support to immigrants so-called "rights"(legal
or illegal).
We have
noticed the "immigrant" who claimed he reside in France;
1) Manipulating
one French citizen against another under the slogan of "anti-racism"
while excluding them both by being loyal to his Arab national
identity(anti-French, non-European nationality).
2) Attempting
to manipulate a citizen from Germany to be anti-French,
anti-German(non-fascist) while excluding
European nationalities by being loyal to his Arab national
identity(anti-French, non-European nationality) and Muslim identity(excluding
all other religions and ideologies that is not Islamic).
3)
Legitimising neo-fascist values(ethnocentrism, energetic nationalism, religious
fundamentalism) while cherishing the
sympathies of unwitting individuals crusading against racism and
fascism." - Pronounced the speaker.
Unfortunately
or fortunately the young male who proclaimed his "Arab",
"Muslim", "Anti-French" and "Anti-European"
identities did not have the time to listen to the speaker's commentary as he
had more urgent appointments elsewhere to fulfil.
However,
some members of the audience(students, fans and "other researchers")
did appreciate the speech and seized the opportunity to write down a few notes.
The
speaker dismounted the rostrum took a drink from his flask, followed by a few
mouthfuls of fresh drinking water, adjust the Union Flag across his shoulders
and mounted the platform with fresh enthusiasm.
"Hey
you!
Take that
flag off your back!" Shouted a black shinned male accompanied by two white
skinned females.
"Why?"
The speaker asked.
"It's
the flag of Babylon.
You're a
blackman!
The flag
doesn't suit you.
The flag
belongs to the white man!
You must
be stupid to wear that piece of dirty cloth". Uttered the black skinned
male.
There
were sounds of disapproval among the audience.
"This
is the Union Flag, it's the symbolic
representation of the British nation of which I'm a legal member as a citizen".
Replied the speaker.
"You're
mad!
I'm a
Rastafarian!
I hate
the flag because it represents Babylon and white people!"
The white
men are devils!
As a
rastafarian I believe in repatriation!
One
day all blacks will return to Africa,
their original homeland!". Declared the rastafarian.
"In
that case I'm an outsider, orphaned at birth with no sense of belonging to
family, tribe or caste.
As a
bastard I was adopted by the British nation!
The British nation state welcomed my
illegitimate status and granted me citizenship with certain obligations and
rights such as freedom of speech, right to vote, work, leisure, education,
health care and security.
All these benefits just for giving allegiance
to the sovereign, fulfilling my social responsibilities in respecting the law
and the legal rights of my fellow citizens and finally a little imagination to belong to the national
community". Responded the speaker.
"If
the white men are devils, why are you in the company of two white females?
Questioned the speaker.
"Because
I have a big black dick (penis)! Retorted the rastafarian male.
"Is
that all you have? asked the speaker jokingly.
"I
have a big dick to put into big mouth like yours". Replied the
rastafarian.
At this
moment the white skinned females were becoming jittery and intervened to defend
their black skinned male friend.
"You
talk too much!
We don't
like blackmen who talk too much". Shouted the white females as one of them
grabbed the rastafarian by his arm to reassure him while the other white
skinned female moved away as she gazed inquisitively in the speaker's direction.
"Instead of talking so much why don't you
step down from that soap box and get a
gun and kill the whites". Bellowed the white shinned females.
The heads
of the audience turned in the direction of the white females with distressed
expressions.
"Are
you serious?
What you are suggesting is that I kill the
white man while you are having fun f**king the black man?
What kind
of fool do you think I am?" Queried the speaker in an angry voice.
There was
a loud applause from the audience.
"Why
don't we make love instead of war?" Asked the speaker in jest.
"We
are white women!
You are not black enough for us!
We are
feminists!
We fight
against racism!
All you
do is talk! Talk! Talk!
Shouted the white skin females successively.
"I
am confused!
You say
you're a feminist but you do not challenge the sexism or sexist abuse of the
rastafarian male towards me. You say you fight racism but do not challenge the
racism or the race hate remarks against
whites by the rastafarian male.
Let me
get the gist of what you just told me.
You say
you are white, feminist, anti-racist and anti-white.
In fact that's the summary of your views as a
so-called white feminist and an anti-racist champion.
In my confusion I can see a fusion of
problematic issues such as:-
(1) Binary
construction (Us and them logic).
(2) Fallacy
of difference (The assumption that what is different is necessarily
better).
(3) Single
issue politics(Racism or sexism instead of racism and sexism and other
possible isms).
(4) Anti-politicking fallacy (The fallacy
that the enemy of my enemy is my friend).
(5) Identity
politics (Individuals are perceived as objects determined by their
identities,
not as creative free will participants in social relationships or
processes).
(6) Essentialism (For example, identities and
their differences are perceived or
explained as fixed, eternal,
disconnected and determinants of individual
behaviour).
(7) Racialisation
(The inclusion/exclusion of values according to race perception or
construction.
For example "White" and
"feminist" could mean a "white" feminist
construction(racialisation feminism),
which is to recognise feminism or
gender issues inclusively/exclusively purely within a so-called "white
race" parameter while denying feminism or gender issues within
"black" or "non-white races" parameters(perceptions,
definitions, cultures, communities and groups etc.)
In fact
according to your racialised, essentialised and reified perspective racism and
sexism is can only recognisable within the so-called white race parameter.
In other words the apparent
contradiction of proclaiming you're white and feminist yet endure the sexism of
a so-called black skinned fascist rastafarian could be explained as a narrow
single issue political awareness within a binary framework using difference
theory perspective. You can inclusively recognise and combat sexism within the
so-called white race by racialising sexism or feminism but exclusively you fail
to recognise sexism much less combat it in a different, non-white or so-called
black race.
Furthermore your definition of
racism is too narrowly constructed and is based on the outdated colonial
paradigm that mistakenly equates racism with so-called white skins.
Hence
anti-racism is anti-white skins or inversely, white skins are not recognised as
victims of the racism by black skins.
That's why you say you're anti-racist yet in
practice permitting the racism of the black skinned rastafarian male while
expressing anti-so-called white sentiments.
Moreover
you're using sexism(sexist policy by essentialising gender) to combat sexism)
and employing racism(racial stereotyping or essentialising) to combat
racism". Clarified the speaker.
"What
kind of white woman are you that hate white men
and go out with a black Fascist
male who hates whites?" Shouted a white skinned male in the
audience.
"Let
her go! She hates
herself!" Shouted another white skinned male.
The black
skinned rastafarian male left the audience with an unexplained haste along with his two white skinned companions.
"Ladies
and gentlemen here is another example of when black and white skins unite
sexism, racism and fascism is reproduced making circumstances difficult for
me". Asserted the speaker.
"Why
do you hate blacks?" Asked a loud
voice from a group of black skinned males standing like a pose wearing knitted
woollen hats with bold white letters that spelt "BROOKLYN" below the
crown across the hats.
"Who
are you and where did you get that idea from?" Questioned the speaker as
he scrutinised the young black skinned males.
"We
are from Brooklyn". Answered the young men.
"So
you have been well informed by your peers in Speakers' Corner!"
This comment of the speaker was referring to
the black fascists who've had a campaign against the speaker's deconstruction
of race, racism and race relations for a period lasting over two decades.
"I don't hate or love anyone simply on
the basis of the colour of their skin. As far as the so-called blacks are
concerned I don't have any feelings of hatred nor love.
I am not
"black" dependent!
I do not
suffer from any form of "black" addiction!
I am not
a racist!
I do not
even know who I am!
Moreover,
the so-called blacks hate each other anyway.
Likewise
the so-called blacks hate my individuality and independence.
Anyway, I
certainly do not like anyone who do not like me.
What is
important is that I love myself and I believe in my self.
Furthermore,
I'll tell you why I find so-called blacks problematic in terms of ideology and
identity politics.
As an individual I find
stereotypical constructed classifications problematic especially when I have
experienced exclusion and abuse from individuals engaging in identity politics
while pursuing calculating self interests within ethnic and race
relations situations by constructing or manipulating assumed identities such as so-called black Jew, black Muslim,
black Christian, black Hindu, black racist, black nationalist, black
afrocentric, black socialist, black Marxist, black socialist, black culture,
black woman, black man and black leg(knob stick, scab or strike breaker).
For me there are a multitude of
differences, divisions, contradictions and tensions involving individuals engaging with a complex dynamic
dialectical socio-economic process that are veiled under the perception,
identity and grouping labelled black that
render the term 'black' or so-called 'blacks' redundant and as a false
representation of reality at best and
the myth of group homogeneity at worst".
Furthermore,
I do not appreciate the negative connotations associated with the term black
when used in the following state of affairs:-
a) The
black market
Please
tell me why is it that the so-called
blacks do not like the black market, the informal economy with its negative
factors such as prostitution, low pay, lack of stringent health and safety
standards and regulations, crime, child labour, disease, poverty, deprivation
and poor sanitary conditions?
b) As
a racist terminology
The word
black is employed as a colour code for race construction by racists.
Phenotype - In this case the colour skin
is used as a criterion, marker or sign to perceive, identify and categorise
individuals as an imagined population group with discrete, essential and
determinist qualities.
I am not a racist for I do not imagine,
identify, belong, defend, promote, prefer, nor legitimise any individual,
community, lifestyle or idea that is racially constructed. In short I am not
black. I am not a member of the black race.
The
colour of my skin does not determine nor represent my consciousness, feelings,
or actions.
c)Black
leg
A term used to describe a strike breaker
also called knob stick or scab
d) Black
body
A black body is a body that is saturated
with radiation.
e)
Discrimination.
When I say I don't like blacks, I mean I do
not practice preferential treatment towards individuals wearing black or
non-white skins. Besides preferential treatment is a form of negative
discrimination and as such is illegal". Explained the speaker.
The
speaker paused and stared at the audience.
Silence,
confusion and surprise overwhelmed the audience as the speaker was explaining
his unpopular idea of not liking blacks particularly when he appears to have a
non-white brown complexion and is contradicting the common sense stereotypical
assumptions of the audience who buy into
the phenotypical constructions of race, political correctness policy which does
not permit points of view that denounce the so-called blacks as culprits of
racist abuse instead of perceiving black skins as impotent victims of
racialised abuse.
Furthermore,
the speaker is defiantly defending his case from the boisterous attacks from
three angry black skinned afro-American males overpowered with rage.
The
police were closing in from behind and around the speaker.
The
Brooklyn lads eventually settled down.
The
speaker continued:
"My friends! The speaker addressed the
Brooklyn boys
"You
are not our friends!" Interrupted the boys from Brooklyn.
"We
live in a democracy!
I
recognise and respect your democratic right to be what you want to be!
If you
chose to be black or to identify with a black race then good luck to you!
It's your
right to be what ever you want to be!
All I
request is that you implement your logic by recognising that I too have a
mutual right in a democracy to be whatever I want to be and if I chose not to
be black or not to identify or belong to a black race then it's my right.
Let's live and let live!
Blacks
are bad news as far as I am concern!
I don't
like blacks!" Asserted the speaker.
"Good
on you!" "Good
man!" "Well-said
Mr. speaker!"
"I
am not a racist! I agree
with the speaker!". Said one young male
"Be
quiet!
You are a
white man!
All
whites are racist!" Disputed the Brooklyn lads
"If
the speaker is not black and don't like blacks, then I am not White and don't
like whites!" Responded a male wearing a white skin.
"Have
you Brooklyn boys forgotten what Martin Luther king's said in one of his famous
speeches that one must not judge a person by the colour of his or her skin but
by the content of their character? Questioned the speaker in support of the
complementary remarks made by the white skinned male.
The
audience applauded as they gaze disapprovingly at the young men from Brooklyn.
"Why
do you go out with white women?" Interrogated one of the Brooklyn males
attempting to make difficulties for the speaker.
"If
I answer your question do you promise not to be enraged? Asked the speaker.
"Go on!
You have
no answer!" Replied the Brooklyn
lad.
"Excuse me while I have a drink".
Responded the speaker as he removed a whiskey flask from his trousers right leg
pocket with his right hand.
Tilting
his head slightly backward as he took two sips from the flask moving his head twice.
Removing a handkerchief from his left side
trousers's pocket with his left hand and simultaneously returning the whiskey
flask to the trousers leg pocket, he casually wiped his lips took a deep breath
looked at the Brooklyn boys and declared:
"I
go with white women because I'm a honkey lover!
I enjoy
having a bath with the white woman in pure white gold.
Since water is not scarce the white woman can
have a clean body to caress and kiss all night long.
Likewise,
I have a fondness for shaving the white woman's vagina, stroking the clitoris
with yoghurt and honey while I take pleasure from cunnilingus". The
speaker spelled out.
Suddenly
there is bustling in the crowd where the Brooklyn boys are standing.
There
were signs embarrassment on the faces of both males and females present in the
audience.
With
waving fists and threatening body posture towards the speaker the Brooklyn boys
started an uproar:
"That's
dirty!
You're
nasty!"
"You're
a disgrace to the black people!"
"You
are a traitor to the black race!"
"You're
an animal!"
"You
should be ashamed of yourself for licking the white woman's pussy!'
"You
are not a real black man!" Responded the voices of disgust from the
Brooklyn boys.
A torrent
of accusations and abuse coming from the young Brooklyn males as they took it
in turn to harass the speaker.
There was
tension in the atmosphere as the audience stared in the speaker's direction
curious for a response.
"I'm
a horse and a radical feminist lesbian I find the clitoris erotically appealing
. . ." - Declared
the speaker.
"OoooH!
Boo! Heey!
The speech was abruptly interrupted by shouts and screams from a troupe of restless females located at
the rear of the audience on the left flank of the speaker.
Looking
in the direction of the females the speaker inquired;
"Who
are you?"
"We
are white women!
We think
you are awful!" Replied the females.
"Yes! He is mad! Get rid
of him!" Shouted the Brooklyn lads expressing solidarity with the females.
"Get
down!" Yelled the troupe of females.
"You
must be joking!" Declared the speaker.
"If
you don't have anything interesting to say, we will leave!" Proclaimed the
females.
"Please
be patient!
You have just arrive at the meeting.
Let me
describe what's going on.
This is
not a religious meeting.
Please do not believe in what I'm saying.
Try to understand what I'm talking about for I
have no idea what I'm saying.
Before you arrived I was challenged by these
Brooklyn lads who objected to me dating so-called white women.
Unfortunately,
you arrived late during my response to their antagonism and reacted to what you
had heard spontaneously without
understanding what's going on.
Don't assume anything at Speakers' Corner.
You would
be amazed at what you can discover here sometimes if you observe carefully.
I'm no
wiser than you are.
This is a
delicate moment in the dispute.
You may
not agree with what I was saying but as far as I'm concern what I say in my
speech at Speakers' Corner is of less importance than why I say it .
It is a
strange coincidence that while I was protesting and demonstrating my
disgust at the racist, sexist and fascist remarks of the boys from Brooklyn you
happen to express your complaint at me. I was defending my natural, civil,
moral and legal rights to socialise with
any human being I wish including the so-called white woman.
I was
praising her beauty, her desirability, celebrating her sexual freedom and
dignity.
I was
liberating the clitoris from the contempt of misogyny, sexism, racism and fascism.
Why do
you object?" Explained and questioned the speaker.
"Can't
you find your own women? Shouted the females.
"This
is interesting, you claim to be so-called white women and here you are sharing
the same phallocentric, sexist, racist and fascist values as the young Brooklyn
males from across the Atlantic Ocean. In Speakers Corner whenever Black and
white unite I'm in trouble. When black and white unite sexism, racism and
fascism are reproduced or legitimised.
This is
another example of the nonsensical
anti-racist slogan Black and White must unite and fight racism."
Commented the speaker
"Get
down!
You can't
win!
Even the white woman don't like you!"
Yelled the Brooklyn lads feeling confident after hearing the views of the
females.
The
speaker swiftly turned at the Brooklyn boys and asked. "Do
you like black Women?"
"Of
course we do!
We are not homosexuals like you!" Replied the Brooklyn males.
There
voices of objection coming from the audience.
"Do
you like white women?" Inquired the speaker.
"No
we don't!
We are
not dirty like you." Replied the Brooklyn lads.
"Please
tell me if you love women so much, how
do you justify loving one woman and hating the other simply because of the
colour of her skin?" Questioned the speaker.
Loud cheers
from the audience.
"
Men and Women are free to socialise in the USA
surely you must have dated so-called white women at some time in your
lives!" Proclaimed the speaker.
"Yes
we do!
We only
go with the white woman for fun!" Responded the young males from Brooklyn.
"Do
you have fun with black women?' Asked the speaker.
"It's
not the same with the black woman!
She is our sister!
She's black!
She's like us!" Explained the Brooklyn
lads.
"Are
you sure you're not daydreaming?
Is the so-called
black woman aware of what's going on?
Does she
agree with you? Questioned the speaker.
"Yes!
The black
woman is part of our black community!
The black woman don't go out with honkey
lovers like you!" Responded the Brooklyn males.
"That's
a blessing in disguise!". Whispered the speaker in a low voice.
"What's
that you're saying?
Speak up
we can't hear you!" Suspicious of
the speaker's low tone of voice the Brooklyn boys abruptly responded by
throwing two burdensome questions at the
speaker as they lean forward.
Trying to
avoid a possible confrontation the speaker continues to speak by raising the
volume of his voice:
"Let's
be honest!
Lets come clean!
I realise
that you think the so-called
black woman is the bearer, the maker or
the mother of the black race. Being a
masculine, misogynist, patriarchal, racist and fascist male, you define
the so-called black woman as a means of reproducing the black race to satisfy
your egotistical prejudices and racist aspirations.
Consequently, any role included in the
relationship with the so-called black woman is defined by the perception that
her body is comparable to a baby factory. In other words you pretend to love
her but in your masculine, misogynist, patriarchal, racist and fascist concepts
of love there is no comprehension of the
politics of feminism to liberate the individual from the cruelty of patriarchy,
sexism, androcentrism and biological
enslavement. Expediency dictates your pretentiousness, disguise and immorality.
If it is
true as you claim that the black woman
is aware of the reproductive potential she possesses?
While
you're enjoying your sexist fantasies is
it possible for the black woman to
actually exploit you as sperm bank, just as you're capable of exploiting her as
a baby factory or are you both exploiting each other?
Your
dislike for the so-called white woman is not the whole truth.
Your
dislike for her is simply based on the fact that she is unable to reproduce the
black babies that you desire to form the so-called black race.
Her body
is not exploitable as a black baby factory but as an object of penetration only
pleasurable to your penis.
Finally the reason why I find myself
in opposition to you and the troupe of so-called white females simultaneously
is despite your various differences both
of you buy into the same masculine, patriarchal, phallocentric, androcentric,
racist and fascist conceptions of the role of the human body as politically passive and can only function
as an instrument of reproduction". Commented the speaker.
On the
faces of the audience there were expressions of confusion, bewilderment and
disappointment.
The
Brooklyn males left the audience in a deferent mood than when they arrived.
On their
arrival they looked tall with their puffed up chest and high shoulders.
On their
departure their heads were tilted, shoulders drooped, chest sank and limped as
walked away.
"Mr.
speaker you don't seem to like anybody!
Why do the blacks give you such a hard time?
Can I buy
you a cup of tea?" Asked one curious kind male.
"Do
you have any whisky?" Responded the speaker as he smiles.
Suddenly
a voice emerged from the audience.
"We
blacks were the original race!". Shouted a black skinned male.
"What
is black?
Who is
Black?
Are the
aborigines Of the Australian continent included?" Interrogated the
speaker.
"Yes!"
Replied the black skinned male.
"No,
there are not!
I'm from
India and I know they're not!"
Interrupted a young male.
"The
aborigines of Australia are ethnically different genetically, culturally and ecologically from
the sub-Saharan Negro that you descended from.
You are
ignorant and stupid!
You do
not know what you are saying.
All
blacks are not the same!
In Africa
nations are divided into tribal groupings.
In India
social division is arranged into different castes and ethnic communities.
In the
Caribbean region is divided into different Islands.
Modern
western societies are divided into
different classes, status, regions and religions!" Explained the male from India.
Having
lost the argument the so-called black or black skinned male suddenly changed his identity.
"I'm
a Moor!" Responded the black skinned male.
"You
are what?" Questioned the speaker.
"A
Moor!" Repeated the black skinned male.
"Oh
no! Not Moor
rubbish!" Responded a member of the audience.
Laughter
broke out among the audience.
"We
Moors have civilised Europe!" The black skinned male continued.
"What
do you mean?" Questioned the speaker
"We
moors were responsible for the origins of European civilisation."
Proclaimed the black skinned male.
"I
have heard a similar argument before
from the black fascists (fascists who wear black skins) who claim that
the first civilisation was made by the so-called black race.
Do you
believe as black fascists do that all civilisation came from the blacks?"
Expounded the speaker.
"Yes!"
Replied the black skinned male.
"So
you are a fascist after all despite your Moorish identity!" Commented the
speaker.
"There
are no black fascists!
Fascism is
for whites!
It's a
European problem!
Fascism
is a white man's problem not a black issue!" Retorted the black skinned
male.
"What
is Fascism?" Interrogated the speaker.
There was
complete silence as the speaker waited for a response then continued to clarify.
"We
don't have the time to discuss the subject fascism adequately at Speakers'
Corner.
However,
various studies have been done in the subject of fascism by scholars and
investigators who risk their own lives by joining fascist social movements to
obtain first hand experience.
Also
there are many theoretical models that have been used to identify, explain and analyse fascism.
Presently
you are the only case study available for us to begin a discussion of the
subject of fascism.
So I'll
give a brief, general and crude definition of fascism with references to what
you've been saying.
First: The word fascism came
from the Italian word fascismo which is derived from the fasces.
The
fasces is a bundle of rods with a protruding axe that was carried before the
consuls as the symbol of state authority
in ancient Rome.
Second: Fascism was formed in 1919 as a social movement that eventually took
power under Mussolini's leadership in
Italy.
Third: Some characteristics of fascism are:-
a) Authoritarianism.
As individuals - the authoritarian
personality, being bossy or blindly obeying
authority.
For example your blind obedience to
the tyrannical oppression of the whom moors you claimed civilised Europe.
As social authoritarian movements - there
were Nazism in Germany, the Falange in Franco Spain, the Iron Guard in Rumania
and the British Union of Fascists led by Sir Oswald Mosley in the UK.
b) Charismatic
leadership or hero worshipping.
For example your identification and
admiration for the colour of the skin of
the rulers or ruling elites of the Moorish civilisation.
c) Ethnocentrism,
racism or national chauvinism.
For example in your case,
identifying with , belonging to and defending robustly the so-called
moors as an ethnic or racial grouping.
moors as an ethnic or racial grouping.
d) Vigorously hostile to all parties, social
movements or sympathisers of the working
classes.
For example, your preferential
treatment in adoring the ruling elites of the
Moorish civilisation while ignoring the plight of the abused slaves
under the coercion of the Moorish
administration.
e) Fascism
is a consequence and feature of capitalist socio-economic relations.
Since capitalist socio-economic relations
dominate the global economy, it follows that fascism is not eurocentric, not
unique to socio-economic relations within
European political geography but exists beyond the regions of Europe,
wherever capitalist transnational corporations and the socio-economic processes
of capitalist modernity have brought modernisation and progress, thereby
affecting the consciousness, life style and welfare of individuals, communities
and societies all over the globe. For
example, as an individual in a capitalist global market you are caught up in
the web of the crises, contradictions and conflicts within the world capitalist environment.
Existing
in a state of alienation your response to the dangers and life threatening
risks of the socio-economic features of global capitalism is to escape into the
distant imaginary past to reinvent the glory of
the myths and legends of the so-called Moorish civilisation to
mask, relieve and evade the pain, the present reality and responsibility to fulfil your historic
mission in championing the cause for peace, justice and equality instead of
ignoring the plight of the oppressed present or past.
f) Black
fascism or fascism denied
Practised by individuals advocating,
legitimising or reproducing the values and policies of fascism while
simultaneously denying the existence of fascism on the basis that it is a
European or white race phenomenon thereby excluding individuals that identify
with the so-called black race, culture and institutions.
For
example, Subscribing to fascist values listed above from (a) to (e) and
indulging in denial mode by saying "There are no black fascists!
Fascism is for whites! It's a European problem! Fascism is a white man's problem
not a black issue!"
g) When I
use the term black Fascism I do not use the term black as hyphenated expression
(i.e. black-fascism), or as an adjective describing a particular special or
unique form of fascism nor as a label to stigmatise any individual; or group
involved in anti-politics.
I use the term black fascism to
describe individuals who wear black
skins and buy into, produce and reproduce the features of fascism (as described
above) while at the same time using the colour of their skin as an object of
consciousness to construct an imaginary racial boundary or racialised grouping,
parameter and criterion to racialise, distort and redefine the terminology of
fascism to justify excluding their uncontaminated groupings from the
influence of fascist values while including the other or so-called white
Europeans groupings as intrinsically predisposed to fascism, in their
interpretation.
Unfortunately eurocentrism has
influenced the perspective, definition and evaluation of fascism of some
so-called anti-fascists in the UK who shared the same outlook by racialising
fascism when implementing anti-racist or
anti-fascist policies thereupon discriminating, selecting or targeting only the
so-called fascists wearing white skins while defending, protecting and
encouraging the invisible fascists wearing black skins veiled by the rhetoric
of being so-called victims of racism and fascism." The speaker outlined.
"That's
enough of Fascism!
The
racislisation of fascism or blackification of fascism!" Commented the
speaker.
After the
long commentary the speaker dismounts the platform for a short while and walked
towards the basket fastened to the bicycle leaning on the fence to retrieve a
bottle of water to quench his thirst,
then mounted the platform to continue with the speech.
"Lets
return to the Question of black civilisation!
Please
interrupt and correct me if you think I'm
wrong.
According
to the black Fascists the first civilisation was that of ancient Egypt!
Am I
correct?" Inquired the speaker.
"Go
on!" Agreed the black skinned male
"Also
according to the black fascists the ancient Egyptians were black".
Commented the speaker.
"Yes!
They
were!" Replied the black skinned male as he continued to elucidate.
"The
blacks taught the Greeks!
The
Greeks taught the Romans!
The
Romans taught the west civilisation!
Does
western civilisation include the
USA?" Questioned the speaker.
"Yes!
Every
body knows that we the blacks taught the Americans!" Retorted the black
skinned male.
"Mr.
Moor can I respond to your black historical claims without interruptions?"
Pleaded the speaker.
"Mr.
speaker we want to hear you!
Speak to us and ignore the moor!"
Declared a young female in the audience.
"We
want no moor rubbish!" Commented a young male.
Laughter
and cheers erupted in the audience.
"Thank
you!" Declared the speaker as he paused for the laughter to cease.
"Mr.
moor would you say America is a racist country?" Interrupted the speaker.
"Yes!
The
Americans are bastardised Europeans who enslave blacks.
Stole our
lands and kill millions my people.
Americans
are evil!" Retorted the black skinned male.
"Don't
you think you're stereotyping and over generalising?
Are all
individuals living in the USA belong to the same class, status or ethnic
grouping?
Are all
individuals wearing a black coloured skin belong to the same class, status or
ethnic grouping?
Lets make
it simple.
According
to Dr Marx it is social class or classes who are owners or controllers of the
means of production resources, distribution or exchange that are engaged in
socio-economic relations which exploit, not the colour of skin, nor national
identity, nor group membership, nor gender identity and not even regional identity.
What do
you mean by my people?
What do
you mean by We blacks?
Who are
our or my people?" Expounded the speaker
"You
and the blacks!" Shouted the black skinned male as he interrupted the
speaker.
"Did
I tell you I was black?" Interrogated the speaker.
The black
skinned male remained silent to the speaker's question.
"I
am not black, so-called blacks do not speak
for me and I certainly do not speak for the so-called blacks!
Lets
return to the main issue you promise to let me speak and respond without
interruptions.
Obviously
you do not love America
By the
way is that coca-cola you are drinking?" Observed the speaker as he draws
the attention of the audience to the apparent hypocrisy of the black skinned
male.
The audience jeered at the so-called moor.
"If
your statement is true that the Americans are evil and America belongs to the
western civilisation and if it is also
true that the Americans and western civilisation were taught by the Greeks who
were taught by the great black civilised ancient Egyptians?
Then as a
black racist, nationalist and fascist are you proud to know that the ancient
Egyptians who according to your racist historical claims were so generous and kind with their civilised
values so as to pass it on to the Greeks who likewise pass theirs to the Romans
who eventually educated the evil Americans to enslave , rob and kill your race
while giving you the pleasure of enjoying coca-cola at the same time?".
Questioned the speaker.
"You
speak like a tomahawk cruise missile!
Hit the moor!
Give the
moor more missiles!" Shouted a male in the audience.
There was
Laugher from audience.
"If
you are so proud of the ancient black civilisations contribution and
participation in the historical process
of evolution of the present evils or social hazards in American society
including, drug addition, mugging, rape, crime, aids, gang warfare, racism,
sexism, suicides and mass murders.
Then Are
you prepared to assume or accept your historical responsibilities that have
been passed on to you from your so-called black ancient civilised brothers to
pay compensation or reparation to the casualties of western civilisation,
including black and white skins?
In short
what I am saying is, according to you Mr. moor, the evils of modern western
civilisation are rooted, originated and caused by the ancient blacks including
the moors". Expounded the speaker.
There
were shouts coming from individuals located at various places in the
audience
"Arrest
him!
Take him
to the Tribunal!
Put him
on trial for being an accomplice to crimes against humanity!
Sentence
him!
Hang him!
Electrocute
him with moor electricity!
Long live
coca-cola!
Down with
the moors!
Down with
the black civilisations!
We want
to be happy!
We want to be free from the blacks!
Speak! Mr.
Speaker Speak!
Send the
Moor more missiles!" Shouts from the audience ridiculing the so-called
moor.
The audience
erupted with cheers and riotous laughter.
"Mr.
Moor!
Are you
aware that your so-called black brothers - the pharaohs of ancient Egypt
legitimised a slave system?
Are you
aware that slaves existed in ancient Egypt under the rule of the pharaohs?
Are you
aware that because of slavery in ancient Egypt Moses became the first
anti-racist, anti-anti-Semite and anti slavery campaigner when his uttered
those famous words 'Let my people go'?" Interrogated the speaker
"Hallelujah
brother!,
Praise
god!
Praise be
to Moses!
Speech!
Speech!"
Shouted a middle aged male in the audience.
"Shut
up!
Let Mr.
speaker deal with Mr. moor!" Responded a young male
"Mr.
moor are you a millionaire?" Inquired the speaker.
"No!"
Replied the black skinned male.
"Are
you a landlord?" Questioned the Speaker.
"No!" Replied the black skinned male.
"Are
you a descendant from the pharaoh's royal blood?" Interrogated the
speaker.
"No!" Answered the black skinned male.
There
were shouts and interruptions from
audience by some individuals who were not impressed by the so-called moor.
"He
is a bum like most of us!
He's a
wage slave!
He is a
proletariat!
I know
him he is a son of slaves that were brought to the plantations of the British
West Indies after being sold by his black African brothers.
That is
not all!
Most
important he is a wage slave in our free democratic western civilisation
dominated by transitional corporations including coca-cola". Shouted some
members of the audience who couldn't wait to express their displeasure at the
so-called moor.
"Lets
make some comparisons between the ancient black civilisation and the evil
modern western civilisation". Commented the speaker.
"Do
you Mr. Moor own a motor car?" Inquired the speaker.
"Yes!" Replied the black skinned male.
"What
model?" Interrogated the speaker.
"A
ford Escort!" Answered the black
skinned male.
"Is
it new?" Asked the speaker
"No!
I can't
afford a new motor car!" Responded
the black skinned male.
"Its
a banger! (A second hand old car)". Shouted someone from the audience.
Laughter
broke out in the audience.
"Are
you happy with your car?" Interrogated the speaker.
"Yes!"
Replied the black skinned male.
"Do
you vote?" Inquired the speaker.
"Yes!"
Replied the black skinned male.
"Which
political party do you vote for?
Conservative, liberal or Labour?" Questioned the speaker.
"It
makes no difference all political parties are the same but I vote labour".
Retorted the black skinned male.
"If
all political parties are the same, why don't you vote for the conservative or
liberal party?" Responded the speaker.
"I
only vote for Black candidates and at the moment my black candidate is running
for the labour party". Explained the black skinned male.
There
were jeers and shouts of disapproval
from audience.
"He
votes for the colour of the candidate's skin and not for the policy of the
political party!
What an
idiot?" Proclaimed a young male
smartly dressed and wearing sun
glasses.
"I
am a trade unionist and former member of the Labour Party.
This
young man who calls himself a moor is typical of the ordinary British voter.
The
Labour party is not interested in policy voters from the ethnic minorities.
All the
Labour Party want is the black vote.
Any black
vote to win the elections will do!
Never
mind the policy or quality of candidates!
Black
candidates representing black voters makes good labour party race relations
politics.
He is
a supporter of the "New labour Party!"
Commented a middle aged adult male.
"New
Labour!
What's
that?" Asked the so-called moor
"Don't
worry he is complementing you as a post modernist voter". The speaker
joked at the so-called moor.
There was
laughter in the audience at the speaker's sense of humour.
"Are
you a British citizen?" Inquired the speaker.
"Yes!"
Replied the black skinned male.
"That
means you have the right to work and play!
The right
to free health care, free education, access to public housing services and the
right to free speech!" Commented the speaker.
"Yes!
Of
course!" Retorted the black skinned male.
"Lucky
bastard!
If he
loves his black civilisation so much why doesn't he go to live in Africa with
his poor hungry black brothers?" Proclaimed an angry young male.
There was
murmurs and laughter in the audience.
"Be silent and Let the speaker
continue!" Someone shouted from the audience.
"Thank
you!" Said the speaker in appreciation.
"Now
lets examine the benefits of the ancient so-called black civilisation.
Did the
Pharaohs understand the meaning and value of citizenship along with its rights,
responsibilities and obligations?
Did the
Pharaohs believe in democracy?" Interrogated the speaker.
"The
Pharaohs are not liberal democrats!" Shouted a young female in the
audience.
"Did
the pharaohs organised general elections?
Did the
pharaohs promoted free speech?
Were The Pharaohs civil rights activists?
Did the
Pharaohs organised a welfare state?
Did the
Pharaohs believe in charity?" Questioned the speaker.
There
were loud outbreaks of laughter from some members of the audience.
"Mr.
speaker you must be joking the Pharaohs were mean selfish bastards who
took all the stolen gold with them into
their graves to increase their economic opportunities on their migration
to the other worlds". Commented a young male.
"Down
with the Pharaohs!" Shouted some members of the audience in unison.
"Did
the Pharaohs outlawed slavery?"
Did the
Pharaohs promoted equal rights and opportunities for women and slaves?
Did the
pharaohs tolerate Trade Unions?
Did the
Pharaohs invented electricity?
Did the
Pharaohs watch TV?
Did the
Pharaohs ate sliced bread?
Did the
Pharaohs communicated by radio or telephone?
Did they
travel by steam trains, aeroplanes or even the titanic?" Interrogated the
speaker ceaselessly.
"No!"
Replied the black skinned male.
"I
can't hear you!
Say it
louder!" Commented the speaker as he provoked the so-called moor to repeat
his answer.
"No!" Shouted the black skinned male in a loud
voice.
"Does
the evil western civilisation produce more material goods for the ordinary people than the glorious black civilisation
of ancient Egypt?" Asked the speaker.
"Yes!"
Replied the black skinned male.
"More!
Speech! Speech!
No more
Moors!
Down with
the Moors!
Down with
black civilisations!" Shouted a young male in the audience.
"If
you were living in ancient Egypt under the rule of the Pharaohs would you have
the opportunity to earn enough money to
buy a second hand Ford Escort car on hire purchase?" Interrogated
the speaker.
"No
Waay!" Shouted a male in the
audience.
"You
are a traitor of the black race!
You're an
Uncle Tom!
Why are you entertaining the Whites?
Why are
you putting down the blacks in front of these whites?" Shouted a black shin male who was accompanied
by a group of four young black skinned males pushing their way through the
audience to confront the speaker.
Fortunately,
the presence of the police acted as a deterrent preventing the black skinned
males from causing serious misbehaviour.
"I
am not a member of any race or racialised group!
I have
never been a member of any so-called black organisation!
I never
made a pledge of loyalty, sign a treaty or even been a member of any
organisation connected with the so-called black race.
I believe in me!
I love
myself too much to be a racist, nationalist or a fascist.
If by
loving and believing in myself and not identifying with the so-called black
race
I am
accused by you of being a traitor!.
Then so
be it!
As a
racist you find it difficult if not impossible to appreciate any individual
that asserts his or her individual sovereignty by rejecting, challenging and rebuffing
any attempt to be defined, labelled or categorised by racialised jargons.
An
anarcho-communist can conclude that your identification, allegiance
and defence of the ruling dominant elites of ancient Egypt is a betrayal of
your class interests.
A
betrayal of your dignity!
A
betrayal of liberty!
A betrayal of justice!
A
betrayal of all proletarians!
Even
Moses and the fleeing slaves of ancient Egypt would not tolerate your hero
worshipping of the evil Pharaohs as they
cross the Red Sea to freedom". Expounded the speaker.
"Take
him away!
He is a
slave!
He is the
enemy!" Shouted the voices from the
audience.
"Economically,
Socially and Politically class
inequality within pre-modern and modern societies promote class exploitation,
injustice and oppression that bring about class contradiction, conflict or
class struggle.
The fight
against casteism, tribalism, elitism, sexism, racism, nationalism and fascism involves socio-economic class struggles
in one form or another.
Class war
challenges fascism in three respects:
1) in
terms of sexism, the patriarchal power structure.
2) In
terms of racism and nationalism, the ethnocentrism, bigotry and chauvinism of
group identity politics.
3) In
terms of leadership, the abuse of power by tyrants, bureaucracy and
undemocratic regimes.
The main enemy of all exploited and oppressed
working classes and their organisations in modern capitalist societies is
fascism or more appropriately neo-fascism.
In other words anti-fascist activists would
reason that as far as the wage slaves and all other socially deprived and
disadvantaged individuals are concerned, it is the fight against the abuse of
power, control and tyranny of the socio-economic classes of domination in a
society that will create more opportunities for democratic reforms, better
health and safety standards, environmentally friendly policies and hope for a
happier world, not Race or ethnic conflict, Sex or gender conflicts, National conflicts,
Caste conflicts nor even tribal conflicts". Commented the speaker.
"Have
a drink Mr. speaker!" Advised someone in the audience.
The
speaker stretched across into the basket strapped on to the bicycle, grabbed
the bottle of water and drank a couple of mouthfuls then continued to speak.
"Thanks
to the engineering wonders achieved by the labour power of the working classes
under the regime of Tailorism and the production techniques of Fordism that
created an opportunity for you to earn a
modest wage as an semi-skilled employee to
purchase a second hand Ford Escort motor car capable of travelling at high speeds beyond the wildest imagination
of the ancient Pharaohs in their fastest
chariots, in comfort and relative safety on smoother, longer and more robust
roads or motor ways.
How do
you justify your existence, today you are standing before me in Speakers' corner part of the evil western
civilisation, drinking coca-cola and claiming to own a ford car while abusing
me in the name of the Moors and the so-called
black ancient civilisation of Egypt?" Commented the speaker.
"Mr.
speaker why is the moor silent?" Inquired a young female with a smile on
her face.
"I
am concerned about his silence". Responded the speaker as he continued to
clarify.
"He
does not defend the prevailing mode of production that existed during the reign
of the Pharaohs, his so-called black legendary heroes of the ancient
civilisation of Egypt.
For
instance it could be argued that despite the
limitations of the mode of
production of ancient Egypt which was basically agricultural, at least it was
environmentally friendly when compared to modern industrial agricultural
production methods that poison the life of the soil which is the source of all
wealth including the human health.
The Moor
only defends the colour of the Pharaohs' skins without questioning or
challenging their social policies.
Another possible explanation for his
silence is his awareness, despite his Moorish imagination, of the negative
effects the motor car is imposing on the environment, socially the stress
caused by traffic congestion, the health risks, and ecologically the abuse of
the landscape by building more roads, pollution, the increasing consumption of
water and polluting of the water table by
pollutants from the motor ways.
The moor is trapped between the
social injustices of the ancient civilisations and the social injustices of
modern civilisation combined with the negative features of the modern
industrial material civilisation such as alienation, depletion of the ozone
layer due to anthropocentric sources and genetically modified food production.
For the
Moor the only future out of his so-called
black ancient civilisation's past is to become part of the modern white
evil western civilisation.
For the
Moor knows very well that the glories of ancient black civilisation will not
pay his rent, would not feed the starving black-skinned children of the world
and would not find a cure for the AIDS epidemic in world-wide". Declared
the speaker.
"Tell
us more Mr. Speaker!" Demanded a
voice from the audience.
"First: As a human animal he has betrayed his
historical mission to liberate himself by attempting to escape into the black
myth or mirage symbolised by the so-called black ancient Pharaohs.
Second: As a political socio-economic individual the
Moor has betrayed himself, the working classes, the individuals who are
struggling to survive of exploitation
and oppression, the peace activists, environmentalists, social democrats,
feminists and all those individuals dreaming and hoping for change to live in a
world with happiness, a world without hate , fear and insecurity.
I cannot
hide my pain!
I cannot
go on!" Declared the speaker.
There was
a short pause as the speaker observes the faces of the audience.
The still
silence was interrupted by the speaker.
"Is
there any question from the audience before I dismount?" Inquired the speaker.
Raising
his hand, a male accompanied by a female replied: "Yes!"
"OK
my friend! Lets hear
your question!" Responded the speaker.
"There
is a campaign to provide £70 billion as reparation for the descendants of past
slavery.
Do you
think the descendants of the indentured labourers from the Indian sub continent
should qualify? Asked the male wearing a very dark skin with oriental features.
The faces
of the black skins with afrocentric features in the audience were gazing at the
questioner with suspicion and looking at the speaker with anxious anticipation.
"Good
question!" Responded the speaker.
"The
question of slavery, the transatlantic slave trade, the benefactors of the
economics of slavery and the victims as casualties is a complicated issue with
global implications.
I'm not
adequately equipped in Speakers' Corner to give a fair assessment.
However, I shall make a short vulgar
comment.
Wealth as
capital under the historical specific capitalist mode of production is the
total accumulated wealth created from
previous obsolete mode of productions including modern mode of productions that have been
incorporated into a global system that
was historically evolved from ancient to
modern imperialism in all its forms including political, economic, social,
cultural, biological, military and ecological factors.
Because global capital is connected,
integrated and fused in a complex socio-economic relation managed, owned and
control by a minority of powerful elites through a intricate web of property
arrangements, private, public, state, family, tribe, caste, traditional,
institution, religious, body, sexuality and reproduction, it belongs to the
Earth and as such it should be distributed or managed to sustain the well-being
of all life on Earth for future
millenniums. Somehow I don't think this is the vision of the reparation
campaigners.
During the early nineties'
reparations for slavery was raised by black skinned racists, nationalists,
fascists and afrocentrics.
The
afrocentric discourse on slavery was not economic or historical based. It was
ideological, cultural or racial constructed.
In other
words the colour of the slaves was reified as abstract values veiling the
labour power of the workers.
Black
skin was associated with slaves and slavery.
The
consequence became the cause.
The black
skins (blacks) were perceived as slaves. The slaves were perceived as black
skins. (blacks)
Dr. Karl Marx in his document
'Poverty of Philosophy' discussed how the surplus value of cotton created by
the labour power of the cotton picking black skinned slaves in the Southern
States of America were transported to the textile mills in England where
additional surplus value created by the employment of labour power from white
skinned child slaves who added to the
total commodity value of the textile product.
In other words it took Dr. Karl Marx a
nineteenth Century scholar to debunk or deconstruct the racialisation,
reification or the blatant racist historical interpretation of the
socio-economic relation of slavery constructed by twentieth/twenty first
century afrocentric scholarship.
To Marx it was labour power and
land that were the primary sources of
wealth creation not the colour of labour power, nor the colour of the skin, nor
nationality, nor ancestral mythology.
To Marx
it was socio-economic class defined as private property ownership that was the
primary mode of exploitation not colour of skin, cultural, racial and national
identity.
To Marx it was the Nineteen Century
capitalist wage system incorporating chattel slavery that was the big SIN
NOT the colour of SKIN as alleged by afrocentrics.
So in terms of slavery who is going to give
reparation to the child slaves and their descendants in England, Wales and
Ireland?
According to Sir Harry H. Johnston "In 1667
an act was passed for 'the better ordering and governing of negroes.' It commences, 'Whereas the
plantations and estates of this Island cannot be fully managed and brought into
use without the labour and service of
great numbers of negroes and other slaves . . . '
All through the second half of the seventeenth
century there were of course many English, Irish, and Welsh
indentured apprentices (practically slaves) and political prisoners who were sold as slaves by the British Government
and were worst treated than were the negroes." page 212-213, 'The Negro in the
New World', 1910.
Who will pay reparation to the
descendants of English, Irish and Welsh indentured apprentices and political
prisoners?
Who will
pay .....???
"What
about the Indian indentured labourers that were forced to the Caribbean?"
Interrupted the oriental male.
"I'm
coming to that!" Explained the speaker.
"The
case of the indentured labourers from the Indian subcontinent was unique for
not only was labour power the source of
wealth, intellectual property was also exploited.
The forced migrant indentured labourers
brought to the British colonial plantation ecology the rice technology or
agriculture that subsidised the valuable
staple grain diet crucial to the health of the labour power that created the
wealth of the plantation economy.
In other
words it was better and cheaper to cultivate paddy fields in the colonies than
to import food from elsewhere which was not only costly in price but was made
hazardous during transportation across oceans by the adventurous activities
of pirates, wars and natural conditions.
Who'll
pay reparation to the descendants of the
forced indentured migrant labourers from the Indian sub continent?
Who'll
pay for . . . .???"
"Excuse
me I am Russian!
Am I a slave?" Interrupted the female
companion of the oriental male.
The speaker
looked surprised, paused and replied.
"Slavery
is not a privilege!
No one
escapes!
Everyone
is included, related or connected in the
perpetuation, legitimisation and the reproduction of the socio-economic
relations of exploitation and oppression.
The
labour power of the peoples of Russia have made their contribution to global
imperial wealth.
Who'll
pay the reparation to the descendants of the working peoples of Russia?"
Expounded the Speaker.
"Thank
you!" Responded the female from Russia as she looked directly at the
speaker. She turned and joined her companion then both walked away from the
audience smiling.
"Who
will received this reparation for slavery?
Will it
be the dictators of Africa?" Queried a black shinned male who wore a frown
on his face.
"I
don't know!
Perhaps it will be as affirmative action!
Sounds like a good idea but difficult to
implement justly in practice!"
Commented the speaker.
"Well! That's slavery!
According to some historians slavery
existed in the social history of Africa even before the arrival of the
so-called Islamic and Christian colonisers." Announced the speaker.
"You
know nothing of Africa!
Get down!
You have
no right to speak about Africa!
You are
not from Africa!
I am an
African visiting London!" Shouted a black skinned male accompanied by
three other black skinned males.
"Yes
you are right!
I am not from Africa!
Tell me!
What am I missing?
AIDS, hunger and war?
If I was
from Africa and I had any dignity, I would rather kill myself rather than become
a frustrated neo-fascist like you!"
Responded the speaker.
You are a
traitor!
The white
man forced us Africans unto slavery!
The
whites are evil conspirators against the black African race!" Shouted a
young black skinned male.
"White
skins were enslaved too!" Shouted a white shinned male wearing spectacles.
"You
are a white man!
You are
just saying that to defend this West Indian slave that is talking rubbish!
Shut up
and Get down!" Retorted the black skinned male.
"Did
you hear that Ladies and Gentlemen?
An
immigrant who claims he is visitor from Africa is commanding me to 'Get
Down!'
Remember!
This anti-democratic expression towards me is
not coming from the NF, BNP or the KKK but from an immigrant from a so-called
oppressed underdeveloped region of the world!
In any
case, If I had bought into the essentialised racialised stereotype identity of
being a so-called 'West Indian slave' you liberally labelled me as, I would
liberate my identity by shooting any so-called African on sight for creating,
reproducing and legitimising slavery.
But . . .". The speaker was abruptly interrupted by one
of the companions of the afrocentric male.
"I'll
shoot you first!
I am a
guerrilla!" Interjected a black skinned male accompanying the afrocentric
male.
"You
would shoot the speaker because he opposed the system of slavery?
What kind
of a human being are you?
Where is
your sense of justice?" Queried a young female.
"What
do you expect from a fascist from Africa?
That's
one of the reasons why there is so much suffering in Africa today!
There are
too many fascists and not enough revolutionaries!" Replied another male in
the audience.
The speaker unmoved by the interruption
continued with the speech.
" . . . Ladies and gentlemen!
That act
will not be emancipating me as a civilised person for I am more educated and liberated than you
will ever know!
For your information, I have been defending
the democracy (the right of free thought and speech) for over thirty years at
Speakers' Corner, Hyde Park, London without hurting a tree, a mountain gorilla
and taking a human life.
Whereas
in the cause of African nationalism, tribalism, sexism and elitism millions of
individuals have been maimed, slaughtered or abused.
The
so-called 'whites' have sacrificed
their blood and life for the right for
me to speak in London, England.
I'll be
damned If let any afro-neo-fascist scum deny me the right to be myself, to
express my dignity or my inalienable right to speak.
London
will always be central to the marginalisation, reproduction and colonisation of
your condition.
The fact
that you're right here with me in London, the home of the 'Mother of
Parliaments' abusing me in the make belief of 'defending Africa' is ample
evidence of the prevailing state of alienation
rationalised by the 'Afrocentrism'
based on 'Eurocentrism'!" Asserted
the speaker.
"Blacks
and whites belong to one human race!
I am not
a racist!" Shouted the afrocentric male.
"Don't
talk nonsense!
If you
are not a racist why did you call that gentleman "white"? Refuted a
middle-aged male.
"A
very good point, sir!" Said the speaker in response.
"Now,
Tell me Mr. Afro!
What is
the fundamental difference between 'my race' and 'your race'?
'His
race' and 'her race'?
'Our
race' and the 'human race'?" Questioned the speaker.
There was
no answer so the speaker continued with the address.
"The
concept of race is constructed, reproduced and legitimised whatever the
parameters employed to define its boundaries. Whether it is micro defined
("my race" or 'your race') or macro defined as the 'human race'.
The
common denominator is the term "race".
Being a
'human' racist in a macro racist.
Being a
'Human' racist is not fundamentally 'anti-racist'(in the macro sense), only an
"anti-racist"(in the micro sense).
Micro-racism
excludes humans.
Macro-racism(human
race) excludes other animal species categorised in the animal
kingdom." Stated the speaker.
"You
are a bum!
You are
ugly!
Look at
your torn hat!
Women
will choose me not you!
I am a
business man!
You are
from Brixton!
You sell
drugs!
You are a
criminal!
Don't
talk about Africa!
Don't talk
about Africa!
Don't
talk about Africa!
Talk
about Europe!
Not
Africa!
If you
ever come to Africa we will kill you!'
Blurted the Afrocentric male as he and his colleagues
retreated from the front of the audience to exit the gathering ranting emotionally.
"I
need a break!" Announced the speaker before he dismounts
the platform to drink some water.
On
returning to the platform the speaker was confronted by a group of black skins
male and female.
"You
are a traitor of our black race!
Don't you
ever come to Brixton!
You are
against our black revolution!" Shouted a bald headed black skinned male
wearing a military camouflaged battle
dress.
"Reality
is against your so-called black revolution!" Responded the speaker promptly.
The
audience was roaring with cheers and laughter.
"Why are you putting blacks down?
You
coolie!
You
Paki!" Shouted a black skin male.
On
various occasions the term "coolie" was used as a derogatory remark
to label the speaker. Literally, the term "coolie" means an unskilled
oriental labourer.
Historically,
during the colonial era oriental labourers were forced to migrate to the British colonies in the
Caribbean and the American continent. Since the colonial socio-economic
structure was stratified by gender, race, ethnicity and class.
The
dominant colonial ideology constructed and justified the dominated exploited
labour power from the orient in a stigmatised, stereotyped and racialised way.
In other words, exploited Labour power in brown and yellow skins were labelled
"coolies" while exploited labour power in the black skins were
labelled "slaves", "Negroes" or 'niggers'.
Likewise
exploited labour power in the white skin was labelled "white trash",
"white niggers" - "whiggers", "red necks" or
"honkies".
Individuals
that use the colour of the human skin to construct an imaginary race based on
an afrocentric model usually employ and legitimise the colonial paradigm in
perceiving, identifying and labelling non-black, brown, yellow or non-white
skins as the racialised 'other'. In this case "coolie".
The
speaker is perceived to fit in this category because he has a brown skin and an
oriental non-negroid features.
Black neo-fascists, racists and nationalists
have revived this crude stereotypical colonial racialised construction to
define the "other" to justify prejudicial or abusive treatment.
It is
ironic that so-called victims of racialised socio-economic relations wearing
black skins who are called "niggers" are labelling so-called
"other" victims of racialised socio-economic relations wearing brown
skins "coolie".
In this
instance the literal meanings the term
"coolie" is used as a nick name for a subordinate status and the term
"Paki" is used as a nick name for a national identity.
To the
afrocentric fascist black skinned male what the terms "coolie" or
"Paki" literally means is of
no consequence it seems, only the usage
of the terms in constructing, identifying and contemptuously labelling the
racialised other is important.
In other
words the terms "coolie" and "paki" are codes for
racialising, stereotyping and labelling individuals that are perceived to be
the "other" that is ostracised from the afrocentric and eurocentric
parameters of inclusion or exclusion.
"I'm
proud to be black!
Blacks
have superior genes than whites!"
The black skinned male continued to proclaim.
Get down
or I'll knock you down!"
Threatened a young black skinned male
accompanied by a group of black skins who were obviously embarrassed at the
audience contempt for the idea of a so-called black revolution.
"No
you won't!.
If you
don't like what the speaker is saying then go to another meeting!"
Declared a young male who intervened on the speaker's behalf.
"If
this is a demonstration of your superior genes then give me inferior genes
anytime!
Look
around you and observe the superior civilised, feminine, and intelligent
behaviour of the so-called whites whom you claim to possess inferior genes.
These
so-called whites with their inferior genes are better dressed than you are,
show more compassion and appreciation for democracy.
If you
want to be regarded as a kind and loving person you should go to the laboratory
and remove those superior genes for they
are of no use to you.
As a
political animal you give me no choice but to champion the rights of individuals possessing inferior genes in opposing your fascist, racist and
tyrannical standpoint." - Declared
the speaker.
Cheers
and applause erupted from the audience.
"When
you leave Speakers' Corner I'll kill you b*****d!" Threatened the black
skinned male.
"Ladies
and gentlemen I am being threatened for making a speech!
So what I'll do since I don't want to compete
nor am I macho enough to have a confrontation!
I'll step
down and give way to another speaker!
Ladies
and gentleman may I introduce the new speaker who will be educating us about
the theories of fascism". Announced the speaker as he dismounts the
platform and stood with the audience waiting for the abuser to demonstrate his
bravery by making a speech.
This is a
technique used by the speaker to test the arrogance of individuals who
demonstrate aggressive behaviour in the audience towards the speaker during his
speech. Usually the abuser soon discovers that it is no easy task to confront
an audience on a platform.
"Go on!
There it
is!
The
platform is yours Mr. tough guy!
Let's
hear what you have to say about fascism!". Shouted a young male from audience teasing the abuser to mount the
platform and make a speech on the subject of fascism.
"Go
on Mr. speaker!
Please
continue to speak!
Don't put
yourself down!" Encouraged one young female in the audience.
"You
are nothing!
Just look
at you!
Why do
you insult the blacks?" Shouted the black skinned female.
"Why
do you defend his abusive behaviour?
Is he your boy friend?" Asked the
speaker.
"What
if he is?
We are
all black aren't we?" Responded the
black female.
"What
do you mean we're all black?
Are you
including the audience and the speaker?
If so why
don't you listen to the speaker instead of attacking him!
Go on!
Lets be
friendly, Lets shake hands!" - Interrupted
a young male in the audience addressing the black skinned female and her
supportive group.
"Is
that the best you can do?
Let's
shake hands!" Suggested the speaker
in a humorous mood as he stretches out his right hand towards the black
skinned female.
"You
don't deserve to touch me!
"He
is a better man than you!
He has a
motor car!
All you
have is an old bicycle!
I don't
like men who ride bicycles!
You're
not good enough for me!
You are a
bum!
I only
like professional men!" Shouted the
black skinned female.
"I
don't know you!
What have
I done to hurt you?
I really
don't understand your hateful responses towards me!
If you
can't cope with the fact that I'm not a racist, then frankly Madam, I
don't give a damn.
Speakers' Corner is a big place!
There is room for everyone!
If you are not happy with what I'm saying you
are free to go elsewhere and organise your own meeting or listen to another
speaker of your choice". Declared the speaker.
"I'm
not going anywhere!
This is
free speech!
I'm free
to say what I want!
You go
away!
Someone
should knock you down from that platform!
You
shouldn't be allowed to speak in Speakers' Corner!" Shouted the black skinned
female.
An
elderly male approached the audience hastily shouting:
"I
own this park!
Who do
you think you are!
I am not
afraid of you!
Everybody
is afraid to challenge you!"
Shouted a
senile male of medium height with grey hair
plaited at the back of his head and waving a walking stick violently in
front of the speaker's face.
"Nobody
owns the park!" Interrupted a young male who disapproved of the
uncivilised behaviour of the old man waving his walking stick at the speaker.
"I
am a Jew!
I visit this park regularly!
I have
been in the army!
I was a
soldier!
I have
fought for democracy and the right for you foreigners to speak in this park.
Don't you come to my country and tell me what to do!
Go back
where you come from!
You black
son-of-a-bitch!
We don't
want you to preach to us about anything!" The old man continued with his
aggressive heckling. The speaker dismounted his rostrum and kneeled before the
old man looking up at his face and
petitioned.
"Since
this your country and you fought for it!
Why don't
you stand up on a soapbox and make a speech?
Please,
go on!
You
earned it!
It's a
free country and it's yours!
There is
enough space at Speakers' Corner for anyone who wants to make a speech!
Why do
you abuse me just because I was exercising my democratic right to speak?
The right
you claimed you fought for!
You
should be proud of the fact that I have the opportunity to stand up on a
rostrum at Speakers' Corner to exercise the very right to speak that you so
proudly boast you fought for!
Go on!
It's your
country!
It's your
Speakers' Corner not mine!
Speak Mr.
Jew! Speak! Speak! Speak!"
- Responded
the speaker as he walked away from the old man and sat on his rostrum feeling
very sad.
Seeing
the speaker sitting down on his rostrum with elbows resting on his knees and
bowed head held between his hands a middle aged black shinned male with a
Caribbean accent seized the opportunity to make his move:
"Why
do you pick on the old man?" Shouted the black skinned male as he waved
his fists violently over the speaker's head.
The
speaker stood up and gazed at the heckler with the calmness of a stone.
The black
skinned male continued with his agitation:
"You
come to the park talking rubbish!
You're
just a useless bum!
In the
West Indies we'll put you away you f**king b*****d! F**k off!
Get out
of the park!" Shouted the heckler contemptuously.
The
speaker calmly mounts his platform and said:
"This
is London!
England!
The
United Kingdom where freedom of speech is legal and tolerated!
If you
think I'm breaking the law why don't you report me to the police?
If you
want to express your point of view or have a discussion you are free to do so
but under no circumstances am I going to allow you to terrorise me into silence.
Speakers'
Corner is big enough for you, the old man who claimed to be a Jew and anyone
else for that matter!
I am not
a slave to any one!
I am not
afraid of any one!" Asserted the speaker emotionally.
"Hey! Mr. speaker!
I can see what's going on!
That
fascist old Jew threatened you.
This
Blackman came to help him.
The Jews
have been colonising and exploiting blacks for centuries.
Why does
this blackman defend the fascist Jew?" Questioned a middle aged male.
"The
blackman is probably a Jew, too!" Shouted another male.
"You
are a racist!" Shouted the black shinned male to the middle aged male.
"Your
race card wouldn't work on me!
I am not
afraid of you!
I will
not be silenced by you calling me a racist!
I am not English!
I am not a wimp!" Responded the middle
aged male.
"Who
are you?" Asked the black shinned male.
"Never
mind who I am!
I've been
studying the Jews and their tricks for years!" Responded the middle aged
male.
"His
friend is an anti-Semite as well!" Shouted the old Jewish male.
"Don't
insult me!
I am a
free and independent person!
Why is it
when you Jews are caught in the act of evil doing you always claim you are
victims of persecution by your
perceived foes who are all a bunch of empty-headed-dim-wits ganging up on you
unjustly?
Why do
you always use the anti-Semitic card to blackmail, threaten and intimidate your
adversaries?
You turn
your venom towards me because I said the black man is probably a Jew."
Responded the male.
"Yes
I am a Jew! A black
Jew!
So what!
I'm proud
to be a black Jew!
We Jews
always stand up for each other!
We are not like you gentile scums!"
Interjected the middle aged black skinned male.
"Mr.
speaker!
How do
you know that these individuals are telling you the truth about who the
are?" Asked a young male.
"What
do you mean?" Asked the speaker.
"What
I mean is, their claim to being Jewish might just be a ploy to wind you up!
They are
probably a couple of boring frustrated homosexuals looking for some
attention." Replied the young male.
"Watch
it young man!
Who are
you calling a homosexual?
I am more
man than you are!" Shouted the old Jewish male as he waved his walking
stick furiously at the young male.
"You're
homophobic aren't you?
I'll deal
with you later!" Shouted the black skinned middle aged male.
"No
you won't!
You
homosexual Jew! Mr.
Speaker!
Do you
see how the black man and white man are united against me!" Responded the young male.
A young
female raised her hand to obtain the speaker's attention in the midst of the
controversy. The speaker acknowledges by focusing in her direction and
signalled her to speak.
"Mr.
Speaker this confirms what you said on a previous occasion regarding identity
politics and the problems of sloganeering coalitions.
You said
don't assume anything when the slogan 'black and white unite' is
advocated for the nature of the unity might veil diverse interests, motivations
and intentions under the perceived identities.
For
instance when individuals proclaim 'black and white unite' their
interests may be:-
a) Political (conservatism, liberalism, nationalism or racism)
a) Political (conservatism, liberalism, nationalism or racism)
b) Religious (Jews, Muslims, Christians
and Hindus)
c) Sexuality (homosexuals, heterosexuals
and SM's)
d) Crime (gang members etc.)
e) Misogyny (sexism, masculinity and
patriarchy)." Asserted the young
female.
Cheers of
approval erupted from the audience.
"Mr.
Speaker you must stand up and face the music!
DON'T GIVE IN TO:-
Blacks with their race card!
Liberals
and leftist with their anti-racist card!
So-called
liberals and leftists with their anti-fascist card!
Jews with their anti-Semitic card!
Homosexuals and their homophobic card!
Religious
fundamentalists with their anti-humour, anti-devil and universal-truth card!
Women
with their sexual identity card!
Refugees
with their prosecution and deprivation card!
Immigrants(legal
or illegal) with their 'human
rights' card!
Workers
with their exploitation card!
Young or
old with their ageism card!
Citizens
with their nationality card!
Mr
Speaker, you are revealing the commotion, one-sidedness and abuse that can be
created by applying dogmatically the binary logic to perceive, interpret
reality and to ultimately implement
policies.
Here is some money, now go get
yourself a drink and relax, you've earned it.
I've seen
enough abuse today!" Proclaimed a young male wearing a smart suit.
"Things
that oppose each other complement each other in some way!
So-called
alleged victims are capable of being the victimisers!
Blacks
with their race card can perpetuate ill-treatment!
So-called
blacks can be racists while simultaneously claiming to be victims of racism and
anti-racists!
A
perverse racist anti-racism!
(E.g. When an individual perceives, identifies or
legitimises the imaginary concept of a so-called "black",
"white", "brown", "yellow" or "human"
race and uses the misleading idea of "race" as a tool to
explain the his or her particular diverse experiences within the many-sided
complex socio-economic relationships of the prevailing global environment. In other words, at best individuals perceiving to be members of a particular "race" opposing other individuals
who also perceive themselves as members of a particular "race" and at
worst, at the same time pretending to be "anti-racist"(disagreeing
with the idea of race? Or competing as members of a particular
"race"["racial", "racialised grouping]?).
Liberals
and leftist with their anti-racist card can reproduce and foster racism!
So-called
liberals and leftists with their anti-fascist card can sanction fascism!
Jews with their anti-Semitic card can abuse in
the name of Semites, Semitism or Ant-Semitism!
E.g.
Are individuals who perceive themselves to be "exclusive or
inclusive" members of an ethnocentric grouping however
categorised, including Semites or
advocating the ideology of Semitism,
neo-fascists? thereby legitimising
neo-fascism?
Homosexuals with their homophobic card can
sanction mistreatment!
Religious
fundamentalists with their anti-humour, anti-devil and one-truth card can
perpetuate indignities!
Women
with their sexual identity card can reproduce and legitimise abuse!
Refugees
with their prosecution and deprivation card sanction harm!
Immigrants
with their 'Human Rights' card can reproduce and legitimise unfavourable
environments!
Workers
with their anti-exploitation card can legitimise injustice!
Young or
old with their ageism card can perpetuate malicious deeds!
Citizens
with their nationality card can legitimise favouritism!" Expounded the speaker.
Some
members of the audience who were interested in the subject matter the speaker
was discussing had seen and heard enough abuse being hurled at the speaker and
started to depart from the gathering.
"Ladies
and gentlemen!
The time
has come for me to decide whether I should endure the abuse of so-called free
speech or end this suffering caused by the tyranny of those who demand the
right to free speech.
The end
of my speaking is near!
Thank you
for sharing your time!
Thank you
for being patient!
I love
you and leave you!
I salute
you!
When I've
had my drink, I shall run as fast and far away as I possibly can!
Farewell!"
Announced the speaker before he finally
dismounts the platform to enjoy a well-earned intermission.
On this
occasion the speaker was lucky he was not physically attacked as has happen
before.
Some
members of the audience approached and surround the speaker to find out what
was going on, to show compassion, greet the speaker while others just
stand, stare and eventually move away
merging with the remaining crowd.
Dismounting
the speaking platform is similar to deflating an emotionally charged balloon,
collapsing a biological column, regressing into a passive, undignified state
of alienation and cringing into a
condition of loneliness, social insecurity
and solitude.
It is the moment of vulnerability being
aware of one's limitations physically, economically, materially, and
organisationally. Feelings of thirst, hunger, tiredness and fear take
control of the speaker making him sorrowful. Unable to face assuredly the
gaze of mysterious strangers that encircle him the speaker hurriedly gather his
belongings and mounted his old bicycle with haste, departing with the two milk
crates he had improvised as a platform while waving farewell
to friendly listeners.
After securing the platform for the next
speaking session in a secluded place
behind a couple of public telephone booths the speaker made his way home.
This is
not the only occasion the speaker had to take flight.
Sometimes
it is better to have fun and run.
Than to
be fearless and fight.
Especially
when one is a lonely horse.
The
negative forces are too many.
Experience
is a good teacher.
At times, especially during the early part
of the day during speech making, the speaker usually encounters provocation
and aggressive abuse from so-called
hecklers.
In such
stressful situations a tremendous responsibility is imposed on the speaker to
remain calm and control the situation.
If the speaker makes the mistake of
becoming angry, being upset or
retaliating tit for tat, his behaviour will be perceived as aggressive,
abusive and a threat to the peace.
When this
happens the police intervenes by cautioning or expelling the speaker from
Speakers' Corner, not the provocateurs.
The provocateurs excuse their behaviour by
claiming that "this is Speakers' Corner, speakers and hecklers have equal
rights to express their views".
Unfortunately
these equal rights includes emotional
and psychological abuse.
Because
of the controversial style of this particular speaker he is not perceived or
treated as a victim of emotional or
psychological abuse.
The Speaker had to learn very fast how to
discipline his emotions under provocation, excitement and anger while
simultaneously responding with delicate flexibility to the emotional and
rational needs of various
individuals among the audience
interacting with him.
In the past the speaker had made mistakes
and paid a heavy price in the form of imprisonment for being
"seditious", suffering deep
emotional wounds, victim of physical abuse, and a liminal status.
Life's
not easy for a lonely horse.
One has
to keep running to stay out of trouble.
Hence the
reputation "The horse that
bolted by Mayfair".
THE BOLTING HORSE RETREATS!
"Cycling
at a leisurely pace while considering which route to take through Hyde Park which will eventually lead to the main road toward a resting place called home.
The site
of young and old romantic couples holding hands, kissing or embracing each
other while sitting on benches or just
strolling along side by side at a leisurely pace, are the few pleasant
distractions.
Feelings
of emotions become overwhelming as the memories of the walks, talks and good
times shared with friends are recalled.
For this
evening I'm going home alone.
Pain in
my heart.
Tears to
my eyes.
Seeing
the lovers walking in harmony with the rhythm of the moving leaves clinging to
silent trees make me feel joyful and divinely safe somehow.
What a
wonderful lesson I've learnt today.
Thanks to
lovers I see caring and sharing for each
other.
Is Love
the answer?
Is Love
the remedy?
It's good
to know in the depths of one's heart that there's someone somewhere who
understands especially when words fail to speak .
Suddenly,
I begin to see better, feel healthier
and realise the park is full of energetic life.
The
trees, non-polluted air, people picnicking with their families, squirrels
playing, ducks and swans swimming gracefully in the lake, pets and their owners
enjoying their walks, joggers seemed tireless, skaters playing hockey with
rhythmic ease while beginners learn and mingle
happily with their mentors.
As I
approached the exit of Hyde Park I can hear the groans and roars of the
engines moving their passengers to and
fro along the paths of the traffic flow.
At a
crossing point a Range Rover stopped for me to cycle across the main road.
The
female driver smiled at me as I passed by.
I returned the gesture and continued my
journey being vigilant of the risky noisy fast moving traffic.
Cycling
along the high street watching the dinners eating and drinking in expensive
restaurants, speechless window shoppers looking at the immodest costly garments
worn by dummies, bustling smartly dressed young men and women chatting with
obsession into their portable phones
stuck to their ears while disregarding a young homeless male sitting with his
sleeping bag outside the doorway of a vacated building. Perhaps he is hoping for some generous act from some
strangers who will offer him some cash to buy a meal or some cider to
temporarily ease the suffering.
Who is that lonely person with the sleeping bag?
Who is that lonely person with the sleeping bag?
What's
his name?
Is he in
love?
Are his
friends and family aware of his
predicament?
Has he
lost his way?
Is he a
casualty of love, addition, unemployment or alienation?
Why
couldn't he seek accommodation at one of the many homeless hostels available in
London?
Is he a
social scientist doing his research among the homeless?
Is he a
refugee from so-called ethnic conflict in Europe?
Why is he
drinking extra strong beer?
Why is he
so calm and peaceful?
Why is he
sitting by the busiest congested commercialised part of the main street?
He wasn't
protesting!
Right
now, this evening, I'm an insecure nomad in a global metropolis.
I must
focus on reaching a place to rest my weary head.
On the
streets of London there are movers, shakers, hustlers, hunters, law
enforcers, houseless vagrants, tourists
or wanderers just killing time.
Whoops! I
must stop now and pull over to the curb to give way to the approaching
recurring warning sounds. Is it an ambulance, a police car and a fire fighter's
vehicle racing to a risky destination to save a life or someone in trouble.
For a
moment I thought this is reality and Speakers' Corner was just a bad dream.
In this
changing reality I am invisible.
None of
the names that highlight the buildings on the main street are mine.
On the
busy soulless streets of London there is no peace, no contact,
just busy
commuters bumping into or avoiding each other and passengers trapped in slow moving bubbles
labelled cars.
Not like
the characters I met at Speakers Corner today.
The
unusual contradictory style of the female Christian preacher appreciating a
bouquet of flowers from me while
sermonising about god and nationalism.
Strange,
most of her audience are males and most of them are not Christians and most of
their reactions are a mixture amusement and abusive protestations.
Sometimes she is compelled to walk away to
secure a breathing space from the overpowering physical encroachment of sexist
aggressive males that are taller than her.
She's defiant orator amidst outrageous sexism at
Speakers' Corner.
The
unpredictable encounter with the Scottish nationalist.
What was
his game?
Did he
expect to succeed in manipulating racial and national stereotypical labels to
justify identifying, excluding and
abusing the speaker?
Did he
assume he had the unanimous support of the crowd?
Was he
surprised and overwhelmed by the excluding responses of English and British
national identities?
Was he
exploiting Scottish national identity to express perceived historical
grievances that resulted from the inter-national relationship between Britain
and Scotland?
Does he
love his friends and family with the same patriotic zeal?
Were the individuals who assumed the English
nationality "horse"-playing, opportunistic or expedient in responding
the interaction between the speaker and Scottish national chauvinism?
A
wonderful opportunity was lost because
the "HORSE" was misunderstood.
In addition
the prevailing tensions, complications and controversies of Speakers' Corner
would not be incomplete without the existence of metaphorical black spots.
Bigoted individuals locked into the cages of
identities and in particular racialised identities expressed in so-called
"blacks", "blackness" or codified in ethnic, regional, cultural and historical mythologies.
Race consciousness, racialisation
and race prejudice are devices used by abusive individuals to manipulate the
colour of the speaker's skin as if it
was super glued to the existence of some black cosmic fantasy determining the
personality and behaviour of the speaker.
There is
no unique epistemology that has been established and defined as black epistemology.
As far as
the horse is concerned "race", "racism",
"racialisation" and "race relations" are different distinct
phenomena that have a dialectical relationship in an ever changing complex
dynamic psychological, social and ecological environment.
Encounter
with the individual pretending to be a "Moor" character may be
rational in race relations custom but the racialised rhetoric is a suitable
palaver for a black comedy.
The prejudice of the character who
claimed to be a "Jew" will shock any "liberal" or
individual who essentialises and radically
opposes anti-semitism unconditionally.
A pattern
of manipulation seems to permeate single issue politicking by opportunist
individuals who expediently exploit their so-called victim status to justify
abuse.
In other words, individuals claiming to
be alleged victims of "sexism", "racism",
"nationalism", "fascism" and "anti-semitism" are
capable of and have been known to perpetuate blatant abuses on other
individuals under the justification of
"democracy", "multiculturalism", "free speech",
"political correctness", 'civil rights",
"anti-politicking"(anti-racism, anti-fascism etc.),
"justice" and even "equal opportunity".
A case of
a thief shouting "thief!"
All the difficult situations in
Speakers' Corner fade into insignificance as I recall the civilised, artistic
and energetic expression of a child from
France, the sense of humour of individuals participating in the debates, the
warm friendly smiles of well wishing persons and the amazing scenery of people
loving and interacting with nature in the Hyde Park.
Approaching
the front door of my residence I gladly put my hand into my trousers pocket,
held the key firmly, placed it into the lock, turned it gently and declared:
"Enter
the Horse!"
I pushed
my bicycle to a secure place in the kitchen.
Pour water into the kettle and switched on to boil.
Unpacked
my items.
Made a
mug of tea.
Sat into my arm chair relaxing sipping hot tea.
Feeling
warm inside I decided to hit the sack.
Lying on
my back looking at the ceiling.
Somehow I
don't feel lonely as I did this morning
when I awoke.
Thinking
to myself about the experiences, impressions and memories that are still fresh
in my mind.
I started
to smile.
The
smiles turned into laughter when I consider how trivial the seriousness of the
events that occurred at Speakers' Corner today.
I took
myself and role playing in Speakers' Corner too seriously instead of investing
more time in meeting more friendly people.
I was a
foolish.
I could
have been physically hurt.
Tears
cool the burning pain in my eyes.
On the
other hand if I had played it safe and did not speak.
I
wouldn't not have learnt how ignorant, limited and vulnerable I am.
I
wouldn't meet so many intelligent, active and artistic individuals from all
over the world, good or bad.
If I did
not speak I would not feel, think or realise I'm alive.
My heart is restless!
My body compels me to sleep!
My soul is alive wandering in a dream
safari!"
- From the Horse with love
KEY IDEAS:
Exclusion/Inclusion
Is a dialectical process. (I.e. practice inclusion
is to practice exclusion
simultaneously)
simultaneously)
The
process of constructing a category, label and identity to implement a policy
of discrimination (preferential
treatment, segregation and victimisation) to manage differences among
individuals, groups, environments, regions, cultures, ideologies, lifestyles,
status, social classes and social relationships etc.
E.g.. The
employment of ideological forms such as "racism",
"sexism",
"elitism", "nationalism", "fascism", "casteism",
"tribalism" and other "isms" to justify unequal, unfair,
unjust, degrading treatment of individuals, communities, environment and other
forms of life in the galaxy.
Race (a)
a) Word
-scientifically discredited term
b) Idea
- imaginary.
- The concept was introduced into the English
language since the 16th century. ("Of the Way and Race of Saints" - John Bunyan, 1678).
- The changing perceptions about the nature of
physical and cultural differences over time have modify the meanings of race many times usually
referring to the make-up of the body
(blood, eye, hair and skin colour) and cultural differences (language, dress and religion) which individuals, human population groups and
nations are perceived, categorised, defined and
identified.
c) Ideology
- the concept of race is exploited to justify abuse, exploitation and the prevailing
inequalities of the socio-economic relations within a given society or globally.
d) Socially
constructed category - used to identify,
distinguish, label or/and exclude differences
based on physical characteristics (hair type, colour of skin and eyes,
stature etc.
e) Social
group - people with common ancestry.
f) Social
class - people sharing the same
interests and characteristics (e.g.. the race of authors}
g) Collective
- human race
h)
Biological type - animals or plants with common traits that classify them
from other members of the same
species, forming a geographically isolated group or sub species.
Race: (b)
Race: (b)
Since the idea of "race"
was first introduced in the English Language during the early sixteenth
century, it has adopted several meanings usually referring to the make-up of
the body (blood, eye, hair and skin colour) and cultural differences (language,
dress and religion) which
individuals, human population groups and nations are perceived, categorised, defined and
identified. For example; "black", "black man" and
"black woman", "black people", "blacks",
"black nation" and "black
society", "black culture", "white", "white
man" and "white woman",
"white people", "whites", "white nation" and
"white society" and
"white culture".
Racist
Any individual, group, culture,
value, discourse, institution and act that legitimise the perception, construction, identification,
reproduction on the idea of "race" as an inherent, essential and determinant factor within the geography of
human social relations.
(E.g.. I am not a racist for I do
not imagine, identify, belong, defend, promote, prefer, nor legitimise any
individual, community, lifestyle or idea that is racially constructed.
In short
I am not black.(I am not a member of the black race)
The
colour of my skin does not determine nor represent my consciousness, feelings
or actions.
Racialisation
Racialisation
The reification,
essentialisation and legitimisation of the unscientific biological notion of "race" as an intellectual
tool to categorise, interpret and analyse human social relations.
A process
by which individuals assume, perceive, rationalise, interpret, evaluate
and conclude that the events, actions,
relationships, personalities, movements, groups
and identities are determined, fixed, separated and perverted by the
imaginary notion of "race".
More to do with how "race"
is used rather than what it means.
Black / Black skin
Black / Black skin
The term
"black" can defined as the following categories:
a) Colour
Without light. Completely dark.
b) Code
Used as a substitute for an
imaginary unscientific construction of the idea race.
c) Concept.
Used as a reified object of
consciousness to construct an over simplified ideal type as a real
object imbued with inherent natural qualities.
object imbued with inherent natural qualities.
d) Race
Ideologically constructed and used
to categorise, label or justify a biologically determined
concept of population grouping identified by phenotypical characteristics (colour of hair, eyes
or skin).
concept of population grouping identified by phenotypical characteristics (colour of hair, eyes
or skin).
e)
Skin complexion
A descriptive term describing the
complexion of the skin of the individual and not to any
subjective meanings constructed by the subject being described or the observer.
subjective meanings constructed by the subject being described or the observer.
f) Black skin as a terminology
This article employs the
term "black skin instead of "black" to make the distinction
between individuals wearing black coloured skins who do not use the colour of
the skin to construct, identify or justify an imagined "race"
(non-racists) and those individuals wearing black coloured skins who do buy
into racialised subjective models (racists). In this way allowance is made for
individuals to be responsible for voluntarily constructing their own identity, racialised or otherwise,
without the risk of stereotyping or labelling by the observer or writer.
In other
words when an individual defines his or her identity as "black",
meaning a member of a racialised
entity called or labelled the
"black community", this implies the legitimisation of race
construction. Such an individual is subscribing to a racist perception,
ideology of racism or is in fact a racist. Not all individuals wearing black
coloured skins identify themselves as "black", meaning members of a
so-called "black race".
Since it
is possible for individuals to construct the idea of race. It is equally
possible for individuals to deconstruct racialised conceptions.
Racism is
not an inbred feature of the human personality.
So with
the descriptive discourse when the term "black skin" is used the skin
is allowed speaks for itself.
With the
conceptual discourse the term "black" or "blacks" is
employed as an ideological construction consequently alienating the dynamic
creative history making potential of the individual.
g) common sense
g) common sense
In common sense usage no distinction is
made between the above defined categories. Instead the term "black"
is essentialised, reified, racialised
and codified simultaneously to describe, explain or analyse changing
complex dynamic dialectical social relationships with the inevitable
consequences of stereotyping, justifying biological determinism, circular
arguments or problematising by creating
ambiguities.
Racism:
An ideology which upholds various
(awful or falsified) notions of "race", "racial
classification" and "racialised" or "race" defined
emotional expressions that is employed by individuals to perceive, analyse,
evaluate, rationalise and justify their
prejudices, actions and policies in relationships with other human individuals,
identified with, belonging to different social groups classes, status and environments or
experiencing unequal, unfair, degraded and inferior treatment.
An ideology which
supports ideas, attitudes, policies and actions against racism.
Non-racism:
A term chosen by the (Horse) to
describe the ideologies, analyses, policies, attitudes and actions of
individuals who are excluded form the two-sided meanings of
"racism/anti-racism, enemy/friend, good/bad" and who do not promote
the ideology of racism nor anti-racism and are not satisfied with the terms
"race", "racist", anti-racist" "anti-racism",
"anti-racial", "multiracial", "race relations"
and "human race" as truthfully describing, defining and representing
their intentions, feelings and interests.
"Non-racism" is not "anti-racism".
"Anti-racism" is not
"non-racism". The
"enemy" of your
"enemy" is not necessarily
your "friend".
Anti-racism does not reveal individualism, fascism,
anti-semitism, sexism, nationalism,
casteism, tribalism and elitism. For it is possible for an individual to adopt
an anti-racist policy (anti-racism) towards the racist policy (racism) executed
by another individual, group or institution, while simultaneously promoting,
legitimising, reproducing or practising an ideology which endorses race as a
concept and racist policies (racism)
etc. For example; - the anti-racist
slogan -"Black and white unite and fight racism!".
Sexism
An ideology which upholds numerous
ideas, attitudes, assumptions and prejudices by making references to the body
(sex) and culture (gender, dress) that is used to describe, define, judge and
justify the unequal, unfair and degrading treatment of individuals.
Elitism
An
ideology which promotes the perception, ideas and beliefs that a
minority of gifted, talented or educated individuals are superior to the
majority of the people and will always or should rule over the majority. For
example, "We are professionals, We are businessmen, We are superior to
you", "You are a bum".
Fascism
An ideology which promotes perceptions, ideas and attitudes that
describes, define and justifies blind acceptance to a bossy personality,
hateful, aggressive and dreadful treatment of an individual's nature
(disability, sex, or race), group, (occupation, class or ethnicity) life style
and country (nation).
- 'BLACK FASCISM - definition and comment
In short the phenomenon black fascism is
the racialisation of fascist values and
policies by individuals perceiving, identifying or belonging to the so-called
black race, liberals and so-called anti-fascist individuals entertaining a
eurocentric outlook.
Since
fascism was a feature of early global capitalism, black fascism can be
explained as a contemporary phenomenon of contemporary global capitalism. In
other words black fascism is a form of neo-fascism.
The
following factors are related to the status of black fascism:-
a) Eurocentrism - Perceiving, defining, identifying
fascist values and policies as a phenomenon involving particular stereotypical
individuals, cultures and national communities within the boundaries of the
European continent.
For
example the media had over represented the imagery of Fascism in Europe before,
during and after World War Two to such an extent that it has become a common
and popular belief that fascism is an exclusively European a phenomenon.
Historically the images of Stalin (USSR), Mussolini(Italy), Hitler(Germany) and
Franco(Spain) This is a eurocentric view.
Accordingly
eurocentrism neglects the individuals, institutions, cultures and social
movements that legitimises national, regional and international fascist values
and policies situated outside the geographical boundaries of Europe.
b) Racialisation - A component of the
ideology of racism employed by individuals to perceive the colour of skin as a
determining factor in interpreting, rationalising, evaluating, influencing and
justifying abusive behaviour sanctioned
by fascist values and policies.
The
consequences of racialisation involve the distortion of Fascism, confusing
racism with fascism, problematising single issue politics and anti-fascist
polices (E.g fascism is a "white" or "European"
issue".)
c) Environmentalism
- Assumptions, ideas, theories and beliefs that fascist values and policies
are located, determined and identified with environmental factors such as the
climate, geography and national boundary.
With (a), (b) and (c) established Fascism
has been and is continually being defined as a European phenomenon involving
individuals, social movements and institutions that are perceived as belonging
to the so-called "white race".
This outlook has influenced by the
policies of individuals, political parties, social movements and institutions
across the ideological spectrum globally including racists or "race"
conscious individuals, liberals, conservatives, social democrats, leftists,
fundamentalists, environmentalists, anti-fascist political parties and social
movements along with their sympathisers and even humanists.
This state of affairs benefits enormously
individuals, social movements and institutions
practising legitimising and promoting fascism or fascist policies that
are not perceived, identified or located within the regional boundaries of
Europe.
In other
words, at best, individuals wearing
black skins or non-white skins, belong to and identify with non-European
or non-white culture, social movement and institutions national or global
are perceived as incapable of being
fascists or implementing fascist policies and at worst, are given support,
resources, sympathy and protection simply because they are considered helpless victims of fascism or fascist
policies by anti-fascist activists.
At last
the perversion of principles has been achieved as the so-called perceived
victim of fascism becomes the fascists blatantly victimises individuals while
denying the existence of fascism within the perceived racial, cultural,
national or regional grouping.
So black
fascism has less to do with the colour of the human skin and more to do
with the perception, exclusion or
inclusion and denial of fascism or fascist policies implemented by individuals,
institutions, groups, communities and regions located in non-European
environments and excluded from eurocentric definitions or perspectives to
justify perpetuating abuse in the geography of social relations .
Nationalism
An ideology that supports the perception,
ideas and beliefs employed by individuals to create an imaginary sense of
belonging to a distinctive group to exclude, judge and degrade the "other" as individuals
identified as belonging a different crowd.
Anti-Semitism
An ideology which promotes perceptions,
ideas and beliefs used by individuals to define, exclude, judge and degrade
other individuals by referring to culture, ethnic and national features.
Afrocentrism
Ideas, beliefs and
assumptions that the outlook, history, culture and institutions of Africa are
superior to those elsewhere. For example, "We are Africans!",
"We are superior to you!", "You would not be able to get away
with this rubbish in Africa!".
Eurocentrism
Ideas, beliefs and
assumptions that the outlook, history, culture and institutions of Europe are
superior to those elsewhere.
Anthropocentrism
Ideas,
assumptions and perceptions which claim that humans are superior to other
animals or other life species in the galaxy.
Essentialism
The assumption, belief
or idea that things have an ingrained fixed, sameness, unchanging and eternal life. For example, "You are
black", "They are black", "Why do you argue with blacks?". Here the term "black" implies that
the individuals described, defined and categorised as "black" are
supposed to have the same ideas, regardless of their unequal life styles,
creeds and changing movements.
Biological determinism.
Ideas supporting the view that the
perceptions, behaviour, personality, condition and fate of an individual is
ruled by or compared to the parts of the
human body (colour of skin). For example, "I am white", "You are
black", "Whites are rich", "Blacks are poor",
"black culture", "Blacks are oppressed because they're
black".
"Galloping to find a place to dream,
question, explore, learn and live
compassionately
without prejudice,
fear,
hate
and
abuse!"
No comments:
Post a Comment