My speaker at my fast approaching last-Friday-of-the-month discussion evening for this May (the 31st) will be Gerald Hartup (who has just started something called Liberty and Law – no website as yet – which sounds interesting). The subject, a tricky one, will be “How to Talk About Race, Culture, Immigration, Asylum, etc.”. I don’t want the evening to degenerate into a nitpick about the current British government’s current asylum policies, from the point of the view of the current British government, and with the assumptions that underpin the current British debate about these matters. What I want us to think about is: What should those assumptions be? I want us to think about meta-context, to coin a phrase. We’ve had plenty of discussion along such lines here, as you may have noticed.
I think I already know one of the rules for such discussion, which is that you should always talk about these matters with the mind-fix in place that maybe there’s an actual, honest-to-God asylum seeker listening to what you’re saying. This is one of the big facts behind Political Correctness. “Now we have to worry about the feelings of Afghans and Somalis and Slovaks.” Damn right we do, and a good thing too. Part of the `right wing’ thing is that you don’t have to do this and shouldn’t have to do this. But you do now. One of the things I most like about writing for something like Samizdata is that, what with all these hundreds of hits we have every day, this mind-fix isn’t entirely artificial. Such people really might be reading in, such is the potential reach of the blogosphere. And someone might definitely be reading in on this who falls into the category of those who can say in all honesty: “Some of my best friends are asylum seekers.” I really like that.
Example. Another speaker I’ve already fixed is the estimable David Carr, who’ll be doing September of this year (the 27th), giving us an update on what’s happening in the Middle East. One of the reasons I fixed this event with such enthusiasm was that David’s talk last year on the same subject was good in particular in the exact way I’ve just referred to.
David’s sympathy – his “bias” you could say – is with the Israelis, but there is bias and there is bias. There’s the kind which causes you to be blind to facts or to conceal facts or even to just make up non-facts, and to be blind to the feelings of anyone except your own folks. And then there’s the kind of bias which consists of admitting that yes, this is where your “bias” is, but nevertheless managing to describe things accurately and fairly. I recall with particular pleasure that present at that meeting which David addressed was another British guy who had spent quite some time in the West Bank, among the Arabs there. His “bias” was a very different thing to David’s. Yet when it came to the facts of the matter – who did what when, what all the biases of the various actors in the drama were, and so on – this Arab-friendly man and David were in complete accord. I can’t say we managed to actually solve anything Middle-East-wise that night, but that particular degree of agreement I found very pleasing.
If this coming Friday is as good, I’ll have no complaints. Email us if you are interested in learning more about these meetings. The London SWPosh area has just had a mysterious power cut lasting a quarter of a second (a phenomenon I’ve never experienced before). I’m all okay, but Perry’s phone connection has temporarily collapsed, so send emails to me at if you want to be sure of getting through.
