Too much outrage and too little thought has polarised the debate to the point where it is denied any consideration of the complexity it deserves. Baggini points out that words may be racist, but spoken by people who are clearly not racist - the trouble is, that there is a sizeable and very audible minority who seek to skew the argument along the lines of "if you don't oppose racism, you must be racist". If this is accepted, then any analysis beyong "racist - boo! Non-racist - hooray" is impossible, and this tends to a distorted picture.

It is an adult subject, and it deserves a lot more grown-up consideration than most of the hokum that has been bandied about in recent weeks.

I second what Jason said.

Another point is the importance of private property rights. With property, the owners can set the rules of social intercourse since it adds to that idea that we all are entitled to decide with whom we associate and on what terms. Once that changes with state intrusion, civility is affected. Ownership also encourages responsibility, which feeds into this issue.

As soon as that changes and the state encourages, then issues like race or gender intrude.

Ecxellent article!

Or rather excellent article!

A good article. The hysteria over racism is, of course, one of the phenomena that aides division. I think a general feeling of acceptance of the (usually fairly minor) differences between cultures is something we can achieve, maybe just as soon as government stop trying to legislate and brainwash us towards it.

So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code.

I think on the issue of human relationships, of all kinds, between neighbors, friends, brothers, and between people's of different ethnic backgrounds, history has shown us again and again that human nature and instincts work better than any policy, regulation or even ideology ever fostered by a paternalistic society, organization or state. Yugoslavia may illustrate this better.
To talk and promote tolerance is good, but no enough and neither necessary.
Perhaps it is time for England and North America to go back to basics and find support on what has provided it efficiently before: Carta Magna. It regulations human relations of all kinds.

My general sentiments along this line, to modify the Twain quote, is we should learn to be properly disinterested. A real interest by an individual exists by what they can comprehend and the actions they can take. Our interests, by any operant definition, are closely bound to us as individuals.

It is when individuals refuse this reality and create all sorts of transcendental systems or metaphysical constructs (whether or not tagged as a religion proper) to guide themselves by. They are so enamored of their delusions that they make a "brother" out of people a thousand miles away, and create a duty between them.

So racists and anti-racists are cut from the same general cloth. Racists devine some way to create an interest between themselves and others like them, while arch-typical anti-racists force the issue that we are all duty bound each other regardless of differences. Both disregard the principal of disinterest.

Personally I have found that being as disinterested as possible has left me in the position of truly taking people as individuals. It simply stands to reason once you make an US, or automatically have a THEM. Creating 'interest' our of whole cloth invariably creates the US/THEM dynamic that is not based in human action and real individual interest. These are the interests that have to be maintained by dreamy eyed transcendentalists by force.

Perhaps most simply put, embracing everyone is a mentally impossible action.

I tell people that they can't always get love, but they can always get respect.

Yugoslavia may illustrate this better.
To talk and promote tolerance is good, but no enough and neither necessary.

I'd have thought Yugoslavia provided a pretty good example of why tolerance is a necessary social virtue, and that human instincts are not necessarily to be trusted.

The cultural borders in the article between the "pakis" and the "gorehs" are not the signs of a functional multi-cultural society, but rather a Balkans-in-waiting. Neither Guardian readers nor libertarians seem to realize that the fundamental forces which drive society are not economic, but rather ones of loyalty. If the gap between the cultures is as wide as described, then tribal loyalties shall inevitably tear the political balance apart.

I utterly disagree Rob. Anglosphere civil society is assimilative in nature and has been for a very long time indeed, it is only its political institutions that are getting in the way.

People are primarily motivated by self interest and opportunity, not loyalty to some collective. Attachment to a pre-extended social or political collective only lasts as long as that collective brings benefits. We are well past that point and well and truly in what Hayek called 'extended society', society abstracted to the point that old notions of ethnic identity and class have weakened hugely (you have but to look at the massive scale of miscegenation in the UK to see how dead the idea of a ethnic/racial collective identity really is). Being British (or American or Australian or Canadian) depends on a set of memes, not a set of genes and in the long run, the Anglosphere memes of various forms of cosmopolitanism are the strongest.