By Andrew Brons.
We must be sorrowful at the passing of Stuart McPhail Hall; he was a distraction.
Despite his name, he was not a Scot. He was born in Jamaica, in 1932, of mixed African and European descent on both sides of his family, when Jamaica was still a British colony. His parents were middle class; his father was Chief Accountant with United Fruit.
Hall’s mother was a conundrum, if that is not yet a hate speech term. She forbade Stuart from inviting home black school friends, even though he was, in his own words, “the blackest member of my family”. When her daughter fell in love with a black medical student, she forbade her from seeing him. One could say, without irony, that she and her husband did not buy winning tickets in the racial ancestry lottery.
I do not often suffer from the malaise of nurturism but the upbringing of Hall must have contributed to his becoming a man preoccupied with racial origins. Had he followed his mother’s example, he might have become a Michael Jackson who reinvented himself as a person of European ancestry. Instead he became an advocate of multi-racialism and multi-culturalism. I shall return to those concepts later in the article.
A teenage Stuart Hall arrived in Britain at the age of nineteen in 1951 – three years after the arrival of the Windrush. He was a man with a mission.
He abandoned a PhD on Henry James in 1958 and became editor of the New Left Review and later, in 1979, Marxism Today. In the same year, he became Professor of Sociology at the Open University. Well, could anybody exceed that? He saw Margaret Thatcher, not only of a political opponent of his party (Labour) but as the embodiment of a new ideology that needed to be opposed culturally and intellectually. He is credited with the invention of the word Thatcherism, which must have been a Herculean intellectual task.
He was clearly one for whom the Frankfurt School had its attractions: the idea that the class struggle should be supplemented by the campaigns for multi-culturalism, environmentalism and homosexual rights. How interesting!
He claimed that cultural identities were not fixed but fluid. How original in Post-War Britain! He claimed that Britain needed to be more, not less, inclusive. His originality is quite breath-taking.
Yet, even the most mistaken has the occasional temptation to tell the truth. Stuart Hall’s historic words were, “the idea of multi-ethnic, mono-cultural society was a contradiction in terms”.
For all of his multi-racialism, these words can have only a profound effect. They are the antidote to the multi-racial ideology of all of the British political parties: Conservative; Labour; Liberal Democrat; and, yes, UKIP.
They all affect to believe that we can absorb millions of immigrants – the majority from outside Europe – and yet remain British and retain our single British culture.
Stuart Hall was a true conundrum, like his mother. He was a black man who advocated multi-racialism but provided the key to its downfall.
3
Stuart McPhail Hall was bound to want to believe in this as he was without any fixed culture or historical and racial background. At least he recognised that there can be no such thing within a multicultural Britain as a shared British character. The Conservative, Labour, LibDem and UKIP parties all refer to communities within our nation. This immediately says that we are not one community, or culture. The name “multiculturalism” means just that. That there are many different cultures living within one country. Therefore the idea that all immigrants become culturally British can never be insisted upon or expected. The more different the culture is to our own ethnically British one the harder therefore it is to either attempt to assimilate it or see eye to eye with it regarding traditions, morality, religion and therefore law. The fact that British governments continue to allow Sharia and Jewish courts to replace British justice in some areas where their respective communities are the majority shows that we are not one coherent society any longer. Multiculturalism is bound to cause a fracturing of society, with different cultural (and usually racial) groups often becoming intolerant of one another. This leading to potential violence.
The fact is that the indigenous British are culturally very peaceful and tolerant, but some of the races with their own cultures that have been allowed to settle here are not equally so. I do not need to expand on pointing out which ones here, we are all regularly made aware of these in the media. It is a major ongoing mistake to continue with the dangerous experiment in multiculturalism that has been forced upon us by all the major parties in Westminster since the later half of the last century. Wherever in the world this kind of society exists there is grave trouble sooner or later. There are no peaceful and happy “rainbow nations” anywhere to be found, and no amount of repressive laws will ever forge one.
The Camp of the saints is here –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rVSwXloXoM
If the British are very tolerant, one good reason is that, contrary to the perversions of truth pushed by the left (‘Britain is a nation of immigrants’, ‘Britain has always welcomed immigrants ‘ etc) this country was until within living memory one of the most racially, culturally and religiously homogenous societies on earth . It hadn’t been invaded for nigh on a millennium and the relatively small numbers of foreigners who settled here, with the exception of the East European Jews at the turn of the 19th / 20th Century were in any case ethnically closely related to us.
The thinking seems to be that because we managed to be tolerant I the past, we will continue to be so in the futire.
This ignores the fact that the conditions which brought our tolerance about have been totally reversed.
This is just stupidity and ignorance on an historic scale.
I couldn’t agree more Vita Brevis. Our intrinsic tolerance has developed because of the fact that for many centuries we have been a very racially and culturally coherent nation. One race with one culture. Our tolerance is now being gradually tested to destruction by mass immigration. The pro-immigration EU has introduced very repressive laws to attempt to stop the native populations from complaining in any way. Supposed “hate” laws have been pushed through all member states to intimidate us all into silence. I have the belief that our people are still a long way from being ready to rise up against the governing parties and are just taking it all “on the chin” as it were. The biggest concern I have is for our peoples safety because certain immigrant groups, wherever they are the majority, are already showing real hatred and intolerance for our people, leading to much misery and many deaths which the government and the media are doing their best to hide.
Well I think the British are tolerant and yes it is true that in the past immigrants have made a contribution to our way of life. Indeed Michael Marks founded Marks and Spenser did he not? But my worries are that the immigrants of today are not here in Britain to build a future that would benefit them and us. They are not integrating themselves. My worry is that they are here to take from us and to give nothing back. Too many people do not even bother to learn English so they can communicate effectively. My worry is they do not care and contribute nothing to our way of life. They take advantage of our tolerance. Do they even use it against us? If the British people speak out we are branded racists. It is political correctness gone mad. What has happened to the days when we as a nation spoke as we found. Called a spade a spade and voiced our fears without fear of reprisal. These are our traditional values being dismantled in front of our eyes. What I say is we should defend our right to speak out. My worry is nobody will listen. As you can see I have a lot of worries.