Thursday, 19 March 2015

Not just Race, Trevor, but Equality ..

One of my oldest pocket-money purchases is a book published by the Natural History Museum in 1965 entitled 'Races of Man'. Yes, reader - I was a tedious junior, preferring museum bookshops to Marvel comics. "Man" it announces "is a polytypic species, that is one consisting of several sub-species or races". The book has been on the banned list for many years for printing that heresy; ever since then anthropology has ranked alongside paedophilia as amongst society's biggest no-nos. Today's squeaky-correct academics look back on their colleagues from the 1960s like a Guardianista may look back on the Aryan supremacists of the 1930s

It's almost as if the world's head zoologist had decreed that all voles were equal, and in future all reference to long-tailed, red-toothed, tree or water voles or God forbid red-backed voles was forbidden as Volist. Tonight on Channel 4 Trevor Philips, the UK's head Zoologist who for years effectively did just that, explains why he was wrong. It will be worth watching. 

Of course in the 1960s there was real race discrimination in employment, housing and other fields; London Transport, for example, in a last-ditch attempt to recruit bus and tube drivers and conductors in accordance with their agreement with the TGWU produced recruitment posters that stated "We only employ Whites" shortly before they and the Union gave way to the inevitable and allowed Afro-Caribbeans to fill the thousands of vacancies. They won't tell you that story at Transport House.

Racial discrimination, like other 'taste' disciminations including sex and religion, is paradoxically most often found in organised labour and public bureaucracies than anywhere else. It is hard to understand that even up to the late 1970s Harland & Wolff, at the behest of its unions and with the full agreement of government, unions and socialist parties, banned all Catholics from employment as part of an effort to prevent any economic advancement amongst Northern Ireland's Catholics. Again in the late '70s A film processing labs used cheaper Asian women rather than the more expensive white men that traditionally had a monopoly on this employment; the result was the bitter Grunwick dispute, in which the TUC demanded the dismissal of, er, all the Asian women. They won't tell you that one either in Congress House. 

Capitalism, you see, doesn't discriminate on taste grounds. Mom 'n Pop businesses aside. Capitalists will always employ the person that best serves the needs of the firm, whatever their personal characteristics - race, sex, colour, creed or nationality. The best cure for taste discrimination in employment is not to fetter firms in their hiring decisions. And all of that anti-discrimination legislation from the 1970s was needed mainly to reform the public sector - the Health service, schools, councils and civil service. In my own borough, for example, until the 1980s half of all the council's binmen had the same surname - and the other half were probably related by marriage, a job 'on the refuse' being a family affair. It suited the council - IR or Industrial Relations were excellent, the family rarely went on strike and discipline and efficiency were exercised through patriarchal family links. They won't tell you that one down at the Town Hall, either.  

Now that we finally seem to be growing out of the race nonsense, isn't it time we did the same for the risible devotion to forced equality of outcome? 


Anonymous said...

Yes Raedwald, it is very odd that in one breath we are taught (even though we can see a difference) that all human beings are the same... I can see at least four distinct varieties...

Whilst in the next breath, we are told that god is dead and Darwin's theories about "survival of the aptest" are the truth... No argument.

So it follows that science says that there are different kinds of human beings which adapt to their environment or die out, but politicians say there aren't, we are all equal... Not even complementary... EQUAL. It's all a bit confusing really.

Personally, I would like to be regarded as an individual... I don't care what pigeon hole they want to put me in.

Anonymous said...

Equality laws discriminate - simple as.

Multiculturalism, is the bane and antithesis of any sort of cohesive society, Like with the Frankfurt school - all misanthropic and liberal PC dogmas, particularly Multiculturalism should be rubbed out.

Endless stupid Employment law, equality doctrine, rules and red tape the march of bureaucracy and pin head paper clip assessors. All of it breeds mediocrity and economic inertia - and all of it designed to strangle competition and laissez faire free market commerce. All of that ladies and gentlemen: is discrimination against all common sense and reasoned enlightenment.

The New luddites aka Socialists discriminate against logic and the universe.

Prawnster said...

I don't think Eddie Shah owned Grunwick but he did run The Messenger in Lancs which acted as a phalanx in destroying the power of the printers. Murdoch capitalised on this by moving The Times to Wapping.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

Grunwick = Eddie Shah?? Wasn't it George Ward?

My recollection of the dispute is that the Asian ladies joined a union and were promptly sacked for doing so, and the TUC was on the women's side. The post office workers brought the firm to its knees by refusing to handover mail. I don't recall the unions asking for the Asian women to be sacked.

Raedwald said...

Apols - don't know what put Shah in my mind. Now amended.

SW - SOME asian ladies joined a union, the others were quite happy to continue working for what Grunwick was paying - the TUC wanted to impose a minimum rate of pay in line with white male earnings, which effectively meant dismissing asian women happy to work for less.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

Hmm. Nasty employer sacks people for organising. Not a side I'd be willing to join.

Mike Spilligan said...

...but also, SW, a different nasty employer sacks people for not being willing to join a union.
Sorry, I can't give a reference - it's late and I haven't the time to research - but I wanted to comment before Radders moves on.

Dave_G said...

Sadly if your name is Farage and you suggest such policies you get your @rse handed to you on a plate by the compliant and biased media.

Anonymous said...

Raedwald said:

'Capitalists will always employ the person that best serves the needs of the firm, whatever their personal characteristics - race, sex, colour, creed or nationality.'

The logical conclusion [from that] is there are no nations under capitalism, just rather large business parks. How very 'modern' and 'progressive' and final.

There was me thinking this land was built from nothing and the only way we got from nothing to something was a very fine (Island) race of people; who worked billions and billions of hours; suffered economic oppression for most of their history; fought and died many times for their homeland and, gave the world Shakespeare.


mike Spilligan said...

Anonymous said: "....and gave the world Shakespeare."
And deep-fried Mars bars.

Anonymous said...

mike Spilligan said @ 20.36

'And deep-fried Mars bars.'

I wish it were that funny, but its not. The unfolding tragedy is to do with the value the political class place on the people:

Their 'modern Britain' is just business park full of debt slaves of indeterminate origin. Lovely.


Anonymous said...

Doesn't matter - when China starts feeling frisky and using its muscle all you lot will become whatever they say.
Mass procreation the new atomic bomb.

john cheshire said...

If you tell your inferiors often enough that they are your equals, eventually they will begin to believe they are your superior. I suspect the reason for that is they know there is a difference between you and them but they've had it drummed into them that they're not inferior so that can only mean, to them, they are superior. And the consequences of this communist fantasy of equality can be seen everywhere.

Demetrius said...

Back in the mid 1950's the Anthropology part of the LSE library was a comfortable and warm corner less busy and where you were less likely to be accosted by pesky wannabe politico's. Although not one of my study areas, it was easy to browse around the basic literature. Margaret Mead where are you now?