In most senses of course this is a fact which obviously underlies the reasoning of almost all those who consciously consider the question of Race as a political issue or historical fact whether in the case of African subsistence Farmers who consider themselves exploited by the arguably disproportionate wealth gap between so called developing nations and those which are European, or are managed by Europeans, as well as in the case of neo-nazi political extremists who consider themselves unfairly done by in the market for unskilled Labour, are both making this conscious observation but from different perspectives.

Many would probably say that the extent to which something is or is not an issue in Britains's political landscape today depends very directly on the nature of the nature of Britain's political system, wherein the political Dinosaurs of the Class and Media based politics of the sixties and seventies are now arguably wallowing haplessly as their digitally inspired demise beckons and new Infotech makes it possible for people to communicate more effectively: I certainly hope so. In the short term it all looks like an appalling mess and the confusion as to what to do must surely resemble the mood of uncertainty prevailing at the beginiing of the 19th century when the impetus provided by Napoleon and the Enlightenment dragged Europe kicking and screaming into a new Era. It is obviously to be hoped that this will improve the quality of Government Services given time but it is indeed disturbing at least I think so, that so few Politicians seem to be aware that they are going to need good answers in the immediate future for such questions as, what is going to happen to our traditional understanding of the employment market with for example the likelihood of advanced robotics making an impact within two decades whilst those claiming to practise democracy spend their time rubber stamping monarchical/oligarchic directives and generally sucking up to established interests and trying to make everything look like a successful model of 19th century capitalism whilst completely neglecting to consider the argument that it was short lived and fundamentaly flawed in many obvious respects not the least of which is that it clearly hasn't led to consensus and understanding in today's world or anything of the sort.

Many will be justifiably gloatingly looking forward to depriving professional political activists and agitators of much of their obvious dysfunctional role in the swinging opinionate pendulum of Britain's two party state. Insofar as the issues of Immgration to Britain and the ethnic background of British citizens is or has been an issue of sorts, I should firmly state it is my personal view that we should consider the issue in the general context of WW2 and it's aftermath insofar as, it is possible to view the typical debate formations on post war ethnic/social issues separately and aside from the fact of WW2, in that for instance it is possible to argue reasonably that racial issues can be looked at in a purely postmodern context I prefer however, to consider the fact of WW2 as a major social upheaval signifying a failure of Imperial Colonialism which continues to define potentially worthwhile avenues of debate having given a massive and unprecedented stimulus to political, racial and ethnic self awareness of a huge number of varied interest groups across the Globe.

This is of course unsurprising since most informed Historians and Academics would probably say that WW2 was such a big event that it will probably continue to define much of the nature of political reality and the thinking of serious politicians until at least well into the the following century. Be that as it may I don't purpose so much to make obvious comments here and now for example about the hypocrisy of a profiteering US in the 1940's and since which had discovered so much sympathy for the plight of stateless Jews so soon after murdering so many Native Americans, as I do to examine the current state of race relations in the English speaking World particularly in the British Isles in the present and most particularly with regard to examining the realities underlying official attitudes and commonly held notions on the subject of the evolving ethnicity of this, and other nations in the world today: most of all however I have the end in mind of examining exactly what it is that defines the attitude of the Government toward it's non ethnic citizens and what is its prognosis of the likely future evolution of domestic society in this regard. That the question does require investigation is surely amply evidenced from such facts e.g. as :there are an estimable half million illegal and invisible immigrant workers in the UK and that the Government seems paralysed and unable to deal with the question from an organisational point of view and it should also be pointed out that any meaningful analysis has to be firmly viewed in the context of general human overpopulation of a magnitude that has never before been even contemplated let alone the subject of any worthwhile strategic planning.

It is easy to support the view that there has been and is something of a conspiracy among world leaders and the global establishment such as might be considered a real and an inevitable feature of the post war world to promote integrational perspectives, whilst not wanting to simplify analyses that in general ought to be detailed if they are to be worthwhile this can easily be portrayed as the result of declining interest in pure forms of nationalism among the more general population. Occasional instances of disaffection among those competing for the work that immigrants tend to be more willing to accept seems to be considered a small price to pay for a general perspective on human relations that has so much more obvious general appeal. I think it interesting to note that people don't often realise that this sort of thought can often occur remarkably unconsciously and underlines the importance of there being an accepted scientific basis for or understanding of human behaviour that can be generally understood at a simplistic level rather than being an instance of complex systematised thought being a basis for planned actions. Some few years ago now I was talking to an elderly neighbour and his wife, (they were both in their eighties actually) who had of children but a sole daughter whom had been indecent enough to marry a West Indian Jazz musician whom so it seemed, was unable to provide them, or rather mostly her with the kind of society that someone of their background and achievements could typically hope for: they were definitely the sort of characters that One would consider at least middle class you see. She, (now deceased) asked me if I was at all colour prejudiced seeming to expect that I should or would reply in the affirmative; my response that there are better subjects available for consideration at any time than the matter of acquiring or acknowledging prejudices and that having been strongly socialised against the stupidity of imagining that any dogma about another individual's inferiority was actually going to render him or her thus, that the idea was ludicrous, that I held intolerance as a cardinal sin and was far more likely to discriminate against someone on the basis of various miscelleanous observable facts if I ever had to become discriminative, rather than on the basis that they might happen to belong to any ethnic group not indigenous to Europe or Britain. I say this without wishing to sound caustic or snobbish but because as far as Britons go my economic capacity for charitable behaviour of any sort is negligible and any inclination toward altruistic behaviour rather submerged beneath mounting age, consistent failure, the fact of my being disappointment with working class politicians or at least the stereotype of such, (which is another story however) and the slow death agonies of the Windsorian monarchy which I feel ought to be blamed for most of the anomie, hopelessness, duplicitous double dealing and downright pauperising iniquity of life in Britain today. Criterion that immediately leap to mind in considering an individual's predilection for behaving discriminatingly include obviously the question of gender, the question of phsyical fitness and perhaps such issues as that of social class.

It was with some modest surprise and indignation that I found myself adding that I much preferred the company of any intelligent, ethical, moralistic person to that of persons otherwise aligned or inclined, especially if they can buy their own drinks and that sort of thing, that the question of ethnicity was quite irrelevant to me in evaluating individuals except insofar as different ethnic groups tend to be socialised into the norms and values of their respective cultures: perhaps also in respect of the fact that ethnic background as a general denominator is fairly determinant of economic situation and status. This I would imagine is in fact true of many who are forced to speculate on such issues with even begging becoming 'illegal' in Bliarite Britain and in saying this I suppose it is also quite true that most Britons even today at the beginning of the new millennium would plead financially unable to indulge any genuine empathy for others. I think their problem (or perhaps rather mostly hers) was that the dusky son in law wasn't the urbane sort of creature with first rate social skills that might have realised the sort of social ambitions that a venerable bourgeois Lady would typically aspire to and that his blackness, was rather a constant reminder of this than something she found intrinsically objectionable.

It is of significant interest that unlike most people below the age of say forty or so, the older half of the population can remember being born and growing in a society which was effectively composed of an exclusively indigenous Caucasian population with only very rare token exceptions such as that of the Sikh Maharajah who was interned at Elveden Hall early in the century. Having made this observation One supposes that if you are a member of any of the minority ethnic groups in Britain today that people do still exist who have no experience of growing up in anything resembling a multicultural society, may not have given the matter any thought whatsoever and might have absolutely no thoughts at all about the fact that it is no longer the case. This is a worthwhile perspective insofar as we tend to assume that the question of race has to be examined from a pre defined perspective it being patently obvious to anyone that race is a question which does monopolise a considerable proportion of various nations' resources in terms of things like media time and the capacity for a nation or a society to make useful calculations. Whilst there is no doubting the seriousness or at least the potential seriousness of genuinely racial/ethnic issues it is not by any means the only, or the necessarily most plain reason for serious social conflict; as for example the fact of hundreds dying regularly in Nigerian riots over what are at least 'prima facie' so to speak religious issues illustrates only too well.

At a mundane behavioural level few have historically considered it worthwhile to consider such huge issues as the question of how many people are there living in the world today as relevant at all toward the general fact of their own individual existence and obviously the question has never really been relevant until the last few decades. Only a relative handful of seriously influential individuals would have begun seriously considering the question of how a continually expanding population would impinge on human behaviour during the 1940s and few of those would have believed that the question would have become so overpoweringly important within a half a century.

In attempting a meaningful exposition on the issue of race as it typically presented in it's problematic cultural/ political context and any meaningful evaluation of why what has happened to different ethnic groups over the last few centuries I feel One has to firmly establish a distinction between what are purely racial/ethnic issues and what are racial/ethnic issues such as are for example, linked to a particular economic problem, environmental situation, or social issue. Thus, in the first instance we can consider such questions as: what is the correct sequence of evolution of different ethnic types of 'homo sapien' and what are the relevant historical facts? What are the philosophical rights and wrongs of making any sort of prejudicial value judgement of persons on such a basis as genetic parentage and ethnic background? Do people really tend to behave on racially divisive lines without any other obvious motive than the fact that there are several main ethnic groups with differing physiological characteristics? In the second category we would consider such questions as to what extent we might consider eg a certain Asian minority to have specific problems and perhaps genuine grievances in a given city; or as to whether or not a given indigenous tribe in South America are really facing deadly threats from landowners and so on or any such situation involving tension between differing ethnic groups and/or allegations of the superiority or inferiority of a given ethnic groups' life chances and general economic situation.

I say this in view of the fact that there have been some very odd comments circulating recently about the relative fitness, strength and ability of black (specifically Negro) soccer players by the likes of Glen Hoddle and John Barnes; there certainly are a lot in the Premiership, and some well advised comment about limiting the numbers of foreign players, insofar as for example you might as well call the present Arsenal team Luigi's Eleven for all the relevance it has to either England or the East End with a majority of foreign players in a typical starting line up and a high proportion of them being dusky skinned. This isn't to say that this is necessarily a bad thing or otherwise but rather to merely point out that organised sport does have serious social/political aspects, requirements and perspectives and it is inescapable whatever Ones' personal opinions are that the demand for ethnically British team places in competitive sport is not for example serviced quite so readily by the fact of there being no restrictions on the employment of foreign players in English Soccer leagues. Strictly speaking ethnically British athletes are of poorer quality and need to be protected from competition if any ethnically British athletes are to represent Britain, it being the case that they are increasingly unable to win Olympic medals except in joke events like pistol shooting and beachball. The fact that Negroes from the ex colonies especially in the Caribbean are physically larger and fitter than the average Caucasian is obviously due to the fact of slavery having made the fittest survive and needs no elaboration or elucidation: neither does the remark that starved Africans will win most of the endurance events. The obvious concomitant scope for conflict is hardly worth debating and is rather to be viewed as a fact of life. One might as well argue agaist the existence of Carnivores, bad weather and the smell of excrement, it's just pointless speculation. For some questions there are no easy answers: in such a World as made the Mediterranean the 'cradle of civilisation' and eventually permitted the cold stimulated denizens of the northern part of the European continent to build numerous ocean going ships with which to explore the Globe the fact was going to be that ethnic Europeans whilst forming only about 1/16th of the actual human population of the World would come to render the decision making capacity of other ethnic groups almost superfluous and there was never going to be any simple means of obviating the scope for conflict in such a situation.

Such interesting facts as for example that Negro immigrants and their progeny do tend to do well in athletic pursuits as the result of their harsher evolutionary path have raised hackles to a certain extent in this country since the sixties and this rightly causes a certain debate about their Britishness. For example in a country where the population is supposed to be Caucasian, can such a thing as 'institutional racism' really be said to exist when players and sportspersons who are not ethnically British are trying to be so? Is it not just an empty slogan of champagne socialists who have never had to share a housing estate with lawless West Indian Immigrants and have no intention of marrying a comparative illiterate for example that has led to the paying of so much lip service to notions of integration that are if not ill conceived and improperly analysed are certainly too often dishonestly presented ? In challenging such an assumption or assumption it might be reasonably pointed out that it is arguably the case that rather than people really thinking nowadays in terms of Britons being supposed to be this or that that it is rather the case that most front rank nations have adopted an overt multi ethnic policy of some sort. Too often when the subject is discussed the real issues are swept under the carpet and we are left in doubt as to whether a commentator means intermarriage between individuals from different communities and ethnic groups when the term integration is used, or whether they are suggesting the integration of individuals couples, families, or communities of other ethnic groups: it obviously being the case that the one is more difficult to manage than the other and that people prefer to fudge the essence of the issue. I would probably tend to suggest that the issue of race insofar as it is a matter of some contention in our society has been the subject of too much wishful thinking and that in general people have tried to gloss over too many aspects of any serious debate about race insofar as anyone trying to run a School or a Health Service for example really needs to know how demographic structure will evolve, what society will be like in five, ten or twenty years time, and have for example made fatuous asseverations about how racial problems will be solved when we all become Coffee coloured.

One amusing if less than thoroughly serious observation is that should there for example be a pill available tomorrow which would render all members of the species Homo Sapien as one ethnic group that the first to complain vociferously would likely be those members of the less materially successful ethnic groups who like admiring 'white' film stars and so on; I will readily admit such an observation is not really fair in view of staggering and ludicrous degree of inequality in the World today but the point is as far as I am concerned is that we need to value and understand our individuality and that there are too many trendy New Labour windbags who are too keen on advising others how they can alleviate racial tension whilst pursuing purely self interested agendas. Moreover I would also suggest strongly that it is a far better policy in seeking to promote racial harmony in general to worry about things like Aids and poverty in Africa, China and India and the likely trends in population movement and so on in the coming decades than it is to worry about comparatively cosseted ethnic minorities in Britain. I myself wouldn't say that I don't esteem such things as athletics medals at all, definitely not, but they aren't really what makes the World go round, those who attain them are all too often lacking in any other saving grace or quality than being physically strong an attribute that has become seriously downgraded in value since the invention of cartographic science, the Crossbow, the Firearm and the Atomic Bomb, lack cultural sophistication and attract the hatred of the mass of unfortunates whilst they are using their weight of opinion. This fact which has always been true is exacerbated by the fact of the homo sapien species in general having been so successful and having expanded in numbers too obviously too near a magnitude of maximum capacity and besides that, athletics stars come and go rapidly and for example are comparatively easily led and manipulated by those who are literate and can hold political power. I myself was never in a position to compete for anything of the sort and to a significant extent justifiably resent being asked to take an interest in the fortunes of those who have .

This seems a convenient way of bringing the subject round to some of the dafter and even amusing (especially if you haven't a sick relative and need to communicate effectively with an Asian Doctor) aspects of race relations in modern Britain. One can see from such events as the fact of the proposal that English language skills among foreign Doctors working in our monolithic NHS ought to be something of a priority which was mooted a couple of years ago, having rapidly elicited protestations of 'racism' that the issue is at least taken seriously by those in positions of some real power. I really felt that the brief flurry of debate as took place over the issue was overshadowed by the cynical 'use,' which the traditional left sought to make of the issue or at least those who are presently, by whatever innovation in control of what is the left of the British political spectrum (if indeed such a thing can be said to exist at all in the Bliarite era). Some time since then I have had the misfortune to have been exasperated to say the least by hordes of foreign 'medics' with insufficient grasp of the language to make use of what they knew, whilst seeking to come to terms with the decline and death of a helpless relative and take distinct offence at the suggestion that it is 'racist' to consider an adequate linguistic ability indispensable. I mean to say One could be the best informed Virologist in the world but without the ability to communicate such knowledge One might as well not have it at all and what I have to say to any Politician seeking to dump me with loads of crap company of any colour on the basis that anyone other than myself stands to get any credit from it, is basically get lost, I haven't any resources, I can't afford a House, a Car, a Girlfriend or even an adequate diet and your self interested and unwholesome scheming has already cost me far more than I could reasonably afford, so fuck off!

It seems worth reiterating that there are sound political strategic imperatives for allowing the immigration of significant numbers of dusky citizens from the ex colonies into the UK in the post war era and the 21st century, and obviously not the least of these is of course the fact of the issue of moral atonement over the question of slavery and exploitation of genetic Africans. One appropriate response to that is obviously that the majority of those descendants of ex slaves who complain of this historical fact and have managed to prosper at all in the modern state, (admittedly this very arguably isn't many) are paradoxically in the position of owing their literacy and prosperity to the fact of slavery having taken place. Insofar as it is almost certainly the case that they would still be living in a fairly stone age condition if this or no interaction between these different races and cultural groups had not taken place, and after all, it is hardly the fault of Elizabethan pirates that the patriarchs of African Negro societies were more often than not at least as keen on selling members of their tribes as such representatives of European civilisations were to to buy them and profit from the business of slavery. The unconventional French historian Fernand Braudel has interestingly calculated on a fairly authoritative basis, that not only have the Moslem nations enslaved significantly larger numbers of Negroes than Christian Societies over the centuries but in fact still do.

Aside from all that, there is a genuine interest value in having different communities from the Commonwealth established in the UK. Individually genetic mongrels are physiologically stronger than thoroughbreds and this principle of strength in heterogeneity can also be so in respect of the psychology of individuals of mixed race or cultural background and in the case of nations seeking to adapt effectively to circumstances, in that happy or at least relatively untroubled immigrant communities will provide various forms of assistance to a nation in economic decline or embroiled in conflict that would be unlikely to be forthcoming from a persecuted or exploited minority. A fairly good example is the fact of the British Empire having decided to fight Nazism and defend Polish sovereignty in 1939 when many thought that we ought not to bother; the nation found many 'friends' from Eastern European nations who made vital contributions to British superiority in signals intelligence which eventually did more to win the war than anything else even if it was too late to prevent the concomitant loss of life, property and reputation.

The local football team Ipswich Town were playing a Uefa Cup tie somewhere in the troubled region of the southern Carpathanians about ten years ago now and the appearance of one or two of the Town's Negro soccer stars (one of whom was Dutch) elicited a considerable amount of Monkey hooting, barracking, Nazi salutes and the like and these chaps were moved to say (I know this because it was published in the press) that the Stars in question felt their feelings were hurt by the occurrence and wanted apologies from the particular Czech? Club: I don't quite recall all the details. Anyway the point is that strictly speaking racial abuse is always bad of course: however in this case whilst it may be a modest exaggeration to say a number of factors conspire to make the allegation that the players deserved anything much in the way of sympathy look almost ridiculous the fact remains that an awful lot of people would be happy to be insulted for the money these players were on, as a matter of fact people are queuing up to be insulted for that kind of money. I don't recount the story with the intention of belittling the upset caused or the importance of principle but rather with the intention of pointing out that that the sympathy and assistance that such high profile characters got makes an interesting contrast with my own experiences of prejudice and bigotry not necessarily of the purely racial variety, in which our establishment pays a great deal of lip service toward the notion of general tolerance but I find all too often that it seems to exist only as a means for leftists posing as morally responsible to take advantage of those doomed to be ruled by a nominal two party system and is the subject of a huge conspiracy of ignorance on the part of those who really matter in society as a whole. It is a very tempting proposition to agree that movers and shakers are not facing up to long term issues and hoping that irreconcilable contradictions will simply go away. I think the point worth making here is that it is easy to find numerous instances of overtly made utterances obviously meaning the opposite of what is literally stated and that while racist chanting at sports fixtures for example is probably often the result of something worth calling racism, it can in fact not only be good natured, but also well intentioned.

In the first place I think the fuss made about racial barracking in football is rather to do with members of ethnic minorities in inner cities who face a genuine potential threat of sorts, from racist gangs associated with or who like to try and associate themselves with various soccer clubs; human nature and crowd mentality being what it is and the danger that hooligans would be more likely to pick on some hapless West Indian teenager and hospitalise or cripple such an individual if racist chanting and so forth was not officially discouraged is in fact real if not particularly so in urban working class districts where it is worth noting, the indigenous can hardly be said to bear much responsibility for, and have not noticeably profited from Colonialism, certainly more so than in middle class districts which comparatively illiterate immigrant populations obviously find more difficult to colonise in sufficient numbers to elicit any hostility from an in any case typically more enlightened tolerant and educated bourgeoisie.

What made this case seem faintly ridiculous in some respects is the fact that this was in a really badly depressed and poverty stricken part of Eastern Europe and I really feel that the nature of the attention lavished on our black stars really rather reflected overwhelmingly that it was unusual, if not unprecedented to see or meet a member of such an ethnic group in such a place, let alone one who earned half the Town's annual income every month or whatever ludicrous disparities of wealth and poverty the precise figures would reveal, rather than the suggestion that a crowd of disease ridden eastern bloc spectators with black teeth and cheap shoes had taken a poisonous and malicious dislike to such and such a character on the basis that he was a Negro. To my mind most of the crowd would be at least as justified if not more so in claiming that the mere fact that he was such a high earning flunkie constitutes a considerably greater hurt and injustice in terms of the fact of being doomed to live in such a poverty stricken part of the world with God only knows what kind of a derisory life expectancy than does the fact of an unquestionably wealthy and privileged sports star finding them chanting at him about his unusual skin pigment: which as I say I'd put down to the novelty of the sight of a Negro Soccer star. Though having reiterated this it is true that Neo nazism can have a surprising currency in such depressed parts of Eastern Europe (people will be naughty and do what they're told not to) and I would be quite interested having made these observations to hear a little more from anyone who saw the game.

The fact is that Serfdom was practised in parts of Eastern Europe until after abolition of slavery in Britain or at least until about that time and that many British blacks (even the unquestionably poor ones) could well do more for their cause in simply making themselves aware of such things as the fact that they are in most cases significantly better of than workers in exclusively Caucasian communities from the old eastern bloc for example, than in enacting out all the old familiar clichés about race as they relate to everyday life in modern Britain. The issues are different in Eastern Europe not just because whilst the Nazis did offend many people, they were also the only source of order for many others and after thirty or more years of Stalin and Communism which was in many respects just as bad for just as many if not more, a lot of youths from behind the Iron Curtain find neo-nazism a convenient means of being naughty and demonstrating anti-authoritarianism rather than being particularly interested in racism or right wing politics.

I myself have suffered in a childhood in northern parts of England in many ways material poverty and official incompetence and malice of probably at least as significant a magnitude as the ethnic minorities in the comparatively prosperous southern town in which I have lived as an adult find it routinely fashionable to protest about. I personally esteem the virtues of tolerance and respect for others above all virtues and am therefore passionately anti-racist finding it hard to believe that anyone who is not mentally defective to at least some extent can seriously entertain the view that one race is genetically any less capable than another unless they have been socialised into such belief from early infancy, not in the least because the scientific evidence is overwhelming. Or, that disparities in achievements, are the result of anything other than factors of environmental and social evolution and that so called racial problems occur as the result of poverty and because there's little else obvious to talk or fight about. I can recall many cases of the first visitations of Asian shopkeepers into northern towns in the early seventies, the interest caused by their appearance among small children and curious adults who had really never seen a black person of any sort in the flesh. It really is an immense shame that this capacity to add to the wholeness and vastness of our culture that such interaction can create, has come about via the painful medium of centuries of colonialism and the unforgiving exactions of social, economic and political evolution but that's life isn't it.

Some ethnic minorities it might be said are perfectly or comparatively happy living in their own relatively closed societies and find the thought of deliberately seeking to intermarry with the ethnically British ludicrous or even repugnant: Muslims in particular have their Religion's own particular self perpetuating esotericism and as a result presently outnumber practising Christians of any particular denomination in the UK. I can remember being quite struck by the fact of having heard one of a group of youths of perhaps Pakistani origin being interviewed on Television after the latest round of rioting in the midlands a few years ago saying that they wished to 'integrate,' into British society and complaining that they were being 'cold shouldered,' by the local white society: again this is a question worth clarifying and perhaps with a view to suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect a homogenous society not to discriminate against those who are 'different' to some extent or other though of course this depends on exactly what is meant by discriminate, insofar as the verb is simply about making choices. By this token we can examine the term 'institutional racism' in the way it is presently being bandied about and say that the present evolution of the debate indicates rather a failure, if not the failure, of typically propounded integrationalist philosophy and rhetoric than it does that so called racism or discrimination of majorities against minorities is some kind of unnatural aberration, and possibly conclude that we should expect this is a natural if not a desirable part and parcel of our existence.

The big talking point really today, insofar as these issues attract a large amount of attention is the fact of race as it is linked to crime and the question of large West Indian and Asian populations having rapidly established themselves as identifiably 'British,' ethnic minorities since the nineteen sixties and the inevitable tensions that occur as a result of say for example what is often described as marginalisation having taken place rather than integration: such factors vary considerably according to different ethnic groups it being the case eg that West Indians have that much less of a parent culture than Asians and are more likely to try and identify with British culture and the English language than Asians who have their own cultures, religions even alphabets. Now I have to take issue with the conventionally understood sense of the word marginalisation to a certain extent or at least seek to separate the issues of social and economic marginalisation and point out that some minorities are in fact quite happy living within their own micro-british societies in the UK and so have in fact a postive desire to be socially marginalised. The point of making such a distinction is to say that with particular regard to the question of my own existence in a Town where afro-caribbeans have become a strikingly significant ethnic minority within the last generation or two, where it is obviously the case that a large minority has as you might expect, in being composed almost exclusively of virtual illiterates who are of strikingly alien appearance, that if one considers they should be generally integrated that they have arguably rapidly become subject to various forms of marginalisation. It is an irresistible observation that this minority has become fairly effectively controlled by characters who have predictably copied the worst habits of the areas of poor housing, high crime and so forth that they have moved into and that in many ways, especially given that we do in fact live in a corrupt Orwellian latter day sort of Oligarchy rather than some kind of high minded Huxleyan Republic or a genuinely caring conservative mixed economy, there is only a very limited amount of government by real consensus and that as a consequence the only people who can really keep order in poor urban housing zones are all too often the Gangsters: at least until cheap hi tech security gadgets became affordable in the nineties though to say so is rather straying away from the subject of Race and into Sociology though again this might be viewed as necessary for a genuinely worthwhile exposition. For what it is worth, my view is that such problems could easily be significantly remedied with comparatively little of the right sort of socialisation and that they are not quite as insurmountable as they may seem but I personally see the question of crime and attitudes toward it in 21st century Europe as a matter which is going to be dominated by the question of drugs and drug prohibition owing to the fact that it has placed vast fortunes in the hands of criminals and continues to fatally hamstring the efforts of first world governments to create order, a sense of social responsibility and any real trust in the holy cow of so called 'democracy' in repect of which, I have to say as a comment on the issue of government by consensus that there is in fact a clear majority in favour of legalising drugs and that Governments are failing to provide inspired leadership, are simply distrusted as pauperising media tricksters especially in the first world where money can be used to cover up institutional failings: we often hear that this has led to highly disturbing levels of drug reated crime in modern Europe wherein such phenomena as Gangsters are a symptom, not the cause, of the failure of government at the centre to provideany leadership that is genuinely popular. Furthermore, my own experience and world view tells me that it is the little people in history who really deserve a mention and that if we were to examine the last 'people's century' according to many Presenters we in fact find that aspirant middle class wannabees with good education can quite easily replace that ruling class element which is supposedly necessary for a nation to function, and that a self perpetuating international political establishment is due for some serious embarrassment over the issue in the same way perhaps as it was over the issue of sexual morality in the mid twentieth century.

My first reaction to the recent tribulations of Asian youths on northern housing estates was, apart from conceding that they obviously seemed to be deprived working class youths, was to consider that integration is exclusively a question for the individual and that there wasn't much point in telling a TV camera man about the principles involved, which he obviously already understood and that the focus ought to be on more specific social and economic issues that ethnic minorities face when they seek to live with some or any dignity: individuals cannot be commanded to socialise with other individuals. To my mind a Government cannot easily encourage nor discourage integration of any sort of alien or semi alien individual into domestic society without offending against the individual's right to choose his or her company, and that whenever someone chooses to talk to another person it is entirely a matter for the individuals concerned and no real business of anyone else. The Government can and should facilitate the ability of all individuals to interact well as and when appropriate or possible but it is duty bound first, to protect not prejudice the individual citizen's right to speak with whom it wishes and not with people it doesn't. This includes ensuring as far as possible that anti-racist laws which militate against the fact of individuals suffering discrimination on the basis of their ethnicity should be properly enforced in the spirit and manner in which they were intended and should actively discourage at least the economic marginalisation of communities as, where and when possible because just as we have witnessed in the last generation, such communities tend to become breeding grounds for crime and racists are able to portray these coloured immigrant communities as consisting of individuals whose 'race,' has inherently criminal dispositions. Here again whatever we might conclude, it is certainly possible to make a convincing argument that placing these considerations under the subject of race is highly illusory and that the legitimate desire for 'integration' into the culture and society of a parent and perhaps partly colonial culture stems principally from it's superior economic condition.

In examining the question of integration the first thing that springs to mind is why? In terms of purely objective fact, why should it be logical for members of one ethnic group to want to mix with others, should not the desire for non-integration on the part of members of one ethnic group be considered just as logical and legitimate? We could say interestingly for example that red and black Ants don't live together, why should red and black people? The answer is of course that people are in most ways more gregarious than Ants, but I feel the point worth bearing in mind is that our World has serious conflicts and problems which do need to be examined properly and objectively. In examining the question of integration and so called racism here again I have to take issue with conventional post war notions of what is fair and right. For example I find it thoroughly unreasonable that anyone should be accused of racism on the basis that they want their child or children to resemble themselves and do not wish to have a child that is a half caste or in any way unlike it's Parents and Grandparents. I say this in respect of the fact that it is obviously the case that this form of ethnic/marital integration is viewed as a legitimate objective by many of the dusky races from the ex colonies and I cannot help but feel that it is a bad thing that individuals will feel they have failed if they do not. One has to be happy with what One is and it has to be viewed as unhealthy if members of one ethnic group have come to consider that something is wrong with their vanity if they feel that they cannot find happiness or fulfilment except by pairing with members of another one. In the case of afro-caribbeans wishing to intermarry among Europeans it is an impossible goal to fulfil for their ethnic group as a whole given the present demographic structure of the human race: aside from the fact that such a prevalent attitude can only lead to conflict and despair the question arises as to how can anyone seriously respect people who have no respect for themselves? Or to put it another way: if you have a problem with what you are it's no-one's but your own. The goal cannot be achieved except by extermination of the majority of living Negroes and strictly speaking it is a racist philosophy: it cuts both ways you see. Positive discrimination is a form of racism and I endorse that which simply says we should try to be objective about individuals and treat people as people whenever we can. Such phenomenoa as the possible extinction, adaptation or evolution of ethnic groups among modern man has its precursor as an evolutionary pattern insofar as there are some very interesting archaeological/anthropological discoveries being made about the process in Spain where it is believed that for a time the lighter boned homo sapien coexisted to a certain extent with tribes of it's more atavistic and physically superior Neanderthal forbears before wiping them out. One worthwhile conclusion besides the fact that hunting indigenous females in packs is unlikely to prove a worthwhile survival strategy is that it seems fair to say in this respect is that many white communities in western Europe like what they have in the way of society and/or material themselves rather than it being the case that they have any actual racist dislike of black, yellow, or red people. Another is that it would profit the living better to learn about such things than to worry about what our descendants might look like and that modern science proffers many incredible possibilities, of which the destruction of the entire species in a holocaust is merely one. For example it could prove possible to give all the Negro women living in Africa babies like Dolph Lundgren with massive IQ's but would they want to know who their genetic parents are? Would they attach any importance to the fact of them being bonded to someone other than those individuals who had nurtured and protected them whilst defenceless? One supposes that it is a more important question as to whether they could they be persuaded to set out to solve the world's problems: if other kinds of children were made illegal we would soon have solutions for many prennial bugbears.

Practical realities and possibilities in the question of race have to be firmly divided from wishy washy pie in the sky liberalism of which there is a good deal about left over from the nineteen sixties and which can easily do more harm than good as we have pointed out. I therefore consider that a worthwhile examination of the likelihoods and possibilities for the next twenty or thirty years a far more useful way of spending time than in making fatuous and transparently insincere asseverations about humanitarianism and equality. It perhaps needs to be said that Liberal idealogues have pointlessly, and in the case of many who are vulnerable to the accusation of promoting class hostility, self interestedly and for obviously questionable motives sought to overpromote promote the children of those who were at one point willing to acknowledge that only those with superior skills will get superior Jobs; my point is that this needs to be said and that the the kind of citizens who have some real justification for complaining about nepotism and unfair discrimination and that there isn't something unholy about the fact that immigrant families don't tend to spawn people who get accepted for positions involving professional responsibility. The question of being realistic about life and employment chances has had certain of the dependent variables adjusted by the last thirty years of mass production and scientific innovation, Governments are fighting shy of talking about this and afraid to discuss anything beyond cliches about traditional work ethics when they know damn well that it is increasingly the reality that machines will be doing more and more of the work and that in simple terms they are going to be trying to keep people happy with what is to hand rather than having, things in particular to do. It is worth saying, so many older and more influential people than myself don't actually realise that for all the anguish of the twentieth century as millions laboured in drudgery, and competition for territory and material ignited the World Wars, Genocide, and Weapons of mass Destruction, they have real trouble imagining that there will be no general demand for work in the medium to long term and that in many ways such as there is now has been manufactured for publicity purposes when it comes right down to it.

Having said a little about how much harm liberalist lip service can do in terms of promoting specious ideas about racial harmony which are not going to have any real benefits for society in general, it might be worth pointing out more bluntly why this is the case. We have examined how traditional left wing views can be insulting and patronising to members of racial minorities and have pointed out how confident the left wing parties are that they will capture a sackful of votes at the least excuse to mention the word racism. I personally have no doubt that many British citizens with noticeably dark skin who have taken the trouble to at least try educating themselves and haven't bothered to acquire an inferiority complex about the fact they have no parent written culture of their own, whilst this is specifically a reference to the dark coloured members of the British nation, it can apply in principle to all whose family background failed to bless them with a sound basis for the acquisition of literacy, a virtually indispensable prerequisite for prosperity: such thinking members of society must be profoundly insulted by the obvious attempt to take them for granted and view them as electoral cannon fodder which for example, the attempt to say that language ability in the NHS was unimportant and that it was racist to make a fuss about it most certainly was.

There are many such instances of patronising ethnic minorities with worthless ideological bric a brac not all of which are quite so egregious but all of which are a poor alternative to some reasonable and realistic equality of opportunity and here again it is perfectly possible to argue that the question of race is irrelevant and being mistaken for that of social class in terms of simple social analysis. For example it has become very trendy to call the children of ex colonial Negro immigrants British which they are simply not; whilst my view is that people are far from logical and that logical labels can be more unimportant than is easily considered it nevertheless ought to be remembered that the word British, is a noun used to describe that ethnic group which is indigenous to the British Isles and only in it's generalised secondary meaning, which is that of members of the British political nation, can it really be accurately applied to members of other ethnic groups. The same principal would apply say for example in the case of a Pop Star having moved to a particular Town and having made himself a big success in say Leeds; within a few years the local papers are all crowing on about this great singer as a Leeds lad, and again this is inaccurate and an excessive unreasonable use of poetic license in many ways. It is commonly the case in British English, that if you refer to someone as being of a particular city or district you are referring to their place of birth or the place where the person in question principally grew up and was educated, not to that person's place of residence: so the purpose of my point here is merely to be accurate, not to patronise, insult or belittle. In the case of Race to say that someone is Black and British is a contradiction in terms and that the only immediately worthwhile observation that can be made about various sorts of Asian and African racial types is that they are not British. But don't get me wrong, it has been several centuries now that various European explorers, in particular the British who dominated the World with their colonial Empire started telling people about their society and the fact that certain of the ethnic groups they encountered now live here in large communities rather bespeaks of a successful integration of some sort rather than an unsuccessful one: I am highly critical of those who undermine hard won trust and good will with selfish or otherwise unconstructive intent in respect of the work that many British have shouldered in seeking to confront the simple scope for conflict in the fact that they are part of a European numerical minority that had found itself as an ethnic group, in possession of such simple overwhelming advantage compared to others as the Industrial age waxed into the twentieth century.

It does in many cases need to be said however interesting, meaningful or worthwhile any attempted imposition of moral standards on race relations may be, that in evolution things do happen in terms of boom and bust: the only logical destiny of healthy populations is their eventual destruction and that the summit of evolution in the form of literate, philosophic, moralistic homo sapien only got where it is today as the result of innumerable exterminations and catastrophes. I suppose this is in some ways to point out that the optimism of the 1960's is unlikely to be realised in terms of a real general cessation of ideological, ethnic or economic hostilities between nations as any general immediate reality, or the evolution of a heterogeneous coffee coloured homo sapien, and that any further large scale integration of ethnic groups as they have taken shape in the 20th century will continue to be painful. as much is all too plain from crime statistics and the continuing genocidal agonies of African ex colonies in particular. My point here isn't to belittle the values of altruism, or the validity of eliciting or even perhaps imposing genuine ethical behaviour insofar as this may be possible, but rather to say that such speculation has to be honest and realistic if it is to have any real value to those who wish to enjoy their lives in peace and equity, perhaps even with a measure of prosperity and fulfilment, though it is also the case that definitions of such are also evolving with spectacular celerity, at least in the first world.

What does perhaps all too often seem a valid criticism of the behaviour of the West Indian community in Ipswich (rumoured to have the highest proportion in England) is that the younger males typically get together in gangs behave badly and lower the quality of the social games it is possible for young, literate, socially active people to play and are arguably responsible for much serious decline of community spirit, most significantly by imposing atavistic and unwanted norms and values legitimising the use of violence and the use of force to achieve the kind of social goals that should be obtained by interpersonal negotiation: I speak of such things as the spectre of new Bars being taken over by smirking, illiterate black musclemen with gold jewellery, nicknames, a propensity for poisonous extroversion and an obvious interest in the vice trade. This obviously militates against the likelihood of finding good company, conversation, interesting scenarios and broadly speaking is to point that no-one is going to bother to throw a decent party if some Lefty Councillor is going to insist that we have to let all the poorly educated and impoverished Young West Indians behave like thugs in order to demonstrate our concern and sympathy for their generally inferior situations. Once the leading social lights have had to accept this and/or disappear, cheap and tasteless macho behaviour permeates and propagates among the rest of society which does no-one any good in the long term. This is a convenient juncture at which to point out that whilst the Caucasian variety of eye, hair, and skin colour is in fact an adaptation to the weather which does not bestow any additional capabilities, that no other major ethnic group has anything like so much diversity within itself and in saying I do get bored with rehearsing arguments and observations that ought to be viewed as having commonsensical and obvious conclusions, it does seem surprising that for all the fuss that does get made about the issue of Race very little gets said about this and related facts such as that the appearance of Europeans varies enormously over very short locations: I cannot off the top of my head tell you if this is objectively appreciated by immigrant populations in the UK to the extent that Franks, Spaniards, Germans, Scandinavians, Italians are all markedly different in appearance and that one can tell a European's location of familial derivation to a very high degree of accuracy by small but evident variations. Of course exactly the same thing would be likely to happen in any district with a comparatively large and rapid influx of exclusively working class immigrants of any sort. It is true that historically in Britain in the case of Italians and Belgians fleeing persecution that they brought their own skills and an understanding of European culture and class structure: Irish being the only comparable sort of case to that of most ex colonials in the modern era. If there is a problem in my home Town it does stem from the fact that the Labour Council (now threatening to fall apart after thirty years) had pandered much too much to the West Indian minority or has sought to overmanipulat it and that whilst their vocal visible presence may have helped the Laour party hold on to power it has upset traditional checks and balances and the population has grown fairly disenchanted with the spiralling murder rate and various unwholesome concomitances which historically had been dealt with by a democratic consensus that did not used to vary so significantly from one election to another: to put it another way, what is of the argument that the left in Britain is far too keen on the introduction of numbers of new voters for purely electoral purposes.

I consider that the predominant factor in the general philosophy underlying post war attempts to define acceptable policy in dealing with ethnic minorities was the simple desire for peace and reconciliation in the years after WW2. The world and especially Europe had grown tired of conflict, militarism, intolerance and hypocritical leaders, this is reflected not just in policy toward ethnic minorities after a racial holocaust, but in the welfare state in general, the NHS and Education systems where we find many statutes and regulations acknowledging a sort of moral absolutism even when they obviously cannot possibly be afforded such as the fact that something like a thousand million ex colonials are eligible for British citizenship. The logical swing of the pendulum was represented by the Thatcher era in it's surrender to the ineluctability of individual human greed, US style capitalism and more acknowledgement of the virtual inevitability of nationalism in some form. Mrs Thatcher managed to get herself elected broadly speaking by pointing out that much altruistic social policy had become unrealistic, too expensive for a functioning nation and those expecting the pendulum to swing back have witnessed since Bliar came to power: a continued and distinct lack of acumen in government; a Labour party and electorate who have been duped into paying for a foreign war that if they don't vehemently oppose has become far too much of a red herring for an establishment seeking to extol the virtues of a democracy which is largely non existent or without any real value to the unfortunate members of society he has duped into accepting his incompetent administration with mendacious egalitarian woffle; that the Labour party is saying almost exactly what the Tories did in terms of ideology and economics in the early eighties is without question though as to whether or not it is actually doing so is a matter of continued debate. What it's apparent abandonment of the interest groups which put it into power and pursual of a remunerative re-election for the PLP and certain favoured individuals like Bernie Ecclestone and John Eastoe might mean is almost anyone's guess: that the Labour politicians who profited from the 'sleaze' issue at the last election were only concerned about a lack of moral standards in public life for as long as it took to install themselves in positions of influence and power is also significantly undeniable.

What this might mean for the questions of race, immigration and asylum is, in the short term very difficult to evaluate. In general those pursuing moral absolutism with phrases like 'the value of human life' are going to find themselves increasingly viewed as quaint if not simply stupid liars for in a world where human life is quite patently worth very little except to the individual concerned and is constantly becoming even more cheap, owing in the 21st century largely to the lack of unexplored continents where surplus populations of one sort or another might be accommodated: there is only so much room on this particular orbiting starlet and to put it bluntly people, especially those without skills of real material value to others are a waste of space and anyone who argues otherwise is whistling dixie. I myself prefer dogs as friends, (if not as lovers) they can actually be trusted: the precise fact of the matter is that very, very few individuals are actually of any notable value at all to the rest of the human population and it is in any case far more profitable to keep sheep, or used to be at any rate.

By way of a recapitulation of what has been said, it ought to be pointed out that there is an awful lot of conflicting evidence which could easily be put together to present hugely varying portrayals of the extent to which people are or are not objective about the ethnic background of citizens with whom they regularly interact in many contexts and One supposes that it would be generally fair to say especially in more prosperous first world nations that people were increasingly ready to; but in stating that we are being failed by self interested soundbite politicians who fail to distinguish important nuances such as the difference between social integration and the promotion of actually intermarrying, we have found many such cases of the neglect and abuse of terminological propriety with the result that all too much debate on the subject was effectively meaningless and signified only in many respects that people and indeed peoples had been thoroughly shaken up by the massive conflict that was WW2 and were still largely quite happy to concur in a general liberal shift of opinion in this respect without worrying too much over the particulars, even twenty, thirty, forty and as much as sixty years later though the question as to what extent this might be profound rather than symptomatic is obviously difficult to answer.

This is a sensible vantage point from which One can consider the fairly obvious fact that Tony Blair's New Labour has been preoccupied with events and trends abroad that are directly related to the pursual of a foreign policy that might effect some political stability on the Countries from which individuals are obviously seeking to emigrate for political and economic reasons and that this can in the long term be the only true solution to the problem of large scale asylum seeking and economic migration into Europe. I think this fact was obvious to the media and the political establishment a long time ago and that the process by which people have been told to like what they are getting in the way of domestic debate is hardly less than a conspiracy. In validation of the suggestion that we are being generally lied to by politicians and lawyers about simple realities one only has to examine the simple fact that since the 1970's we have consistently been told that Government is necessarily in a constant state of crisis, that debts can never be met, that problems can never be solved, that they must have more control and more finance if they are to achieve anything at all and that they cannot meet their obligations. Consider that a few simple indicators such as the fact that in the '70's a Colour TV for example (haha perhaps I'm not allowed to call them that) was definitely a household luxury, whereas now even an unemployed and antisocial mental defective on welfare expects to own one. It is a fair conclusion that we are being lied to about material prosperity, it has increased immensely since the seventies. Why is it that all we hear is that the Government can't get things to work at a time when there must have been an immense increase in material well being for material values to have changed so enormously? Part of the answer as I have obliquely suggested above lies in the field of human behaviour and the self perpetuating tendencies of an international political establishment to preserve the sort of dependence that different interest groups had on one another in the late 19th century heyday of Industrialisation not by any means all of which is the result of deliberate or conscious contrivance.

What does this mean in terms of popular perceptions of racial/ethnic issues? Well however happy someone might happen to be with events of the last forty or fifty years or more whether it be as a result of financial/material success, co-ed schooling, racial integration or the NHS I am rather prompted to also examine the suggestion that we are faced with a very big gulf between how the Government likes to present the issue of racial integration and how it is seen in the public mind, since we have to consider this as the mind of Mr average not Mr interest group. I am afraid that politicians don't appreciate just how much things have changed since the nineteen fifties and that all they are doing in many respects is failing to appreciate the danger of increasing perceptions that they have nothing worthwhile to add to the concept of consensual democracy as the latest infotech continues to rewrite the rules of political journalism which in turn only tends to focus on fairly tasteless political realities, such as the suggestion that the question of racial integration is the subject of much official hypocrisy as obviously is much else; but in this case my personal experiences tend me to consider that we have been enouraged to indulge in much empty headed and worthles conjecture from an official point of view to put it very generously, and that matters were in many cases best simplified by saying that the Government ought not to be so opinionated and that it is for individuals to intermarry if they wish not for governments to concern themselves with as part of any policy. Rather more unseemly in this respect is the fact that it seems difficult to avoid commenting that human nature being what it is, the reality is far different from the wishful thinking of Cabinet Ministers, and that an informal counter conspiracy of sorts has been very effectively underway for some decades insofar as any left wing politicians have been self interestedly glib in seeking to take advantage of individuals with proselytising, empty exhortations and worse; for example I couldn't tell you that off the top of my head though my observations have to be considered in the light of someone who others were planning to embroil in conflict with a very right wing County establishment, that I knew of a single professional person who actually had succeeded whilst making a point of stating that he or she wanted to deliberately promote members of ethnic minorities other than those who were obviously good enough for certain roles, which was effectively none or a mere token handful back in the seventies, and that as a matter of fact it was unquestionably a characteristic of those who did succeed in the last thirty years, not only that they were those who did not obviously sympathise with the goal of active general racial integrationalism but defintely tended to be those who opposed it. Since this Government has proved at least from my personal point of view as worthless and exploitive as it has, (which isn't incidentally to suggest that any other would be necessarily less so) and has obviously started to look already aged and ineffective (if it ever looked anything else) I have no real reason to think that this actuality will be likely to change. On a more optimistic note it is probably worth pointing out that individuals with some sort of heterogenous cultural, linguistic ethnic or political background are probably increasingly influential in shaping world events and that they tend to break the rules of known predictable anthropological behaviourism. It has been many centuries since a dour Spaniard called Trajan impressed the snobbish Latin rulers of a world in which the Germanic ethnic group were considered savage, odorous and at best just about capable of being trained as Soldiers: part of the reason for making him Emperor was the fact that he was an outsider and might be able to rise above traditional factionalism. Such historical instances underscore the suggestion that considerations of class, creed and race can all be overcome in fashioning a society, a nation, a federation a future world.

In the final analysis there's only so much that can be said about equations involving numbers of organisms in available living space and I suppose what we will probably see in the next few years is a 'volte face' on the part of the Government on the asylum issue, probably sometime before the next General Election, or the one after that, though it very much depends on what attitudes the Press are going to promulgate and how the public reacts to asylum seekers in coming years which of course depends on how they behave, which in turn depends significantly on how they are encouraged to behave. I myself don't give a Monkeys and could hardly fare worse under the post invasion regime of a foreign government than I have during the course of trying to mind my own business in seeking diligently to lead a good and blameless life in East Suffolk over the last quarter of a century: when it is the reality that I am in many ways seeking to emigrate and do not foresee that I will stay here long term if I can reasonably help it. under the humiliating if comparatively prosperous condition compared to many, in which I am forced to exist. Corruption of a sort that may be financially convenient for the domestic government doesn't really help people in the third world, it just undermines confidence and the capacity for effective action: I have personally had more fellowship of one sort or another than I can stomach from officials of my own nation and if my personal Britishness was supposedly ever worth anything to me I'd like to have it properly explained in detail.

It is worth reiterating that people are obviously made evil or otherwise by their life experiences and that any of the forces at work prior to an individual's birth have little or no relevance to his or her personality and predilections, whilst we can't always be so objective during processes of reaction and interaction it is worth observing that there are numerous excellent reasons for taking a dislike to someone, other than the fact of him being a foreigner or black or whatever sort of alien you might care to imagine. We could argue if we wished that we should have a vote as to who could best serve society by offering to have themselves melted down into candles and soap, presumably the obese and the unpatriotic would attract many nominations, those who have done nothing whatever for anyone of their own nation except demand extensive social security rights the financial value of which would probably maintain a whole Indian village for decades would again acquire many detracting nominations. Perhaps many even of those who imagine themselves secure in some dank corner of Europe from the chill wind of fear and intolerance blowing, it might seem ever more sharply through the World nowadays, find bad mouthing poor unfortunates on grounds of their race a callous and hasty refuge from ignorance: individuals with little or nothing to live for, who have crossed perhaps half the world looking for a space to squat in, water to drink, some basic sustenance and perhaps freedom from fear. I really think the fact of our nation being a target for asylum seekers genuine or otherwise ought in some respects to inspire a more worthy pride than that occasioned by iniquitous aspects of our Imperial history. As for the arguably shabby short term financial motivation or necessity of refusing anyone such 'charity' for want of a better word; I can only say that the majority of my compatriots are outrageously fat, to say nothing of being disgustingly spoiled, profoundly iniquitous in many cases and that some genuine hardship would do them all an immense power of good.

The appearance of Barack Obama in 2008 only shows how much people are still guided by prejudice in our oh so enlightened era with political commentators having apparently given up on discusing politics with a general surrender to prejudicial stereotyping presenting a quite unwholesome spectacle to anyone needing Schools, Hospitals, Banks, Shops and Petrol Stations. I had been thinking very much about how Tony Blair was palmed off on the people of this Country and how absent any worthwhile insight seemed to be on his part; I really think Ken Livingstone hit the nail on the head when he said that Blair simply didn't understand the issue of social class and I personally felt his excessive public school friendliness to be a particularly nasty lie and possibly more damaging than Thatcher's inept coolness on matters associated with Class and Ethnicity. In the United States there is a black middle class which doesn't exist as such in Britain where there are only odd exceptions to the rule that non ethnic citizens especially those of African origin are all quite illiterate working class. What a lot of people don't understand about racial minorities in this country perhaps is that people aren't as stupid as they might seem and that for instance rather than being ready to get up in arms about the fact that there are few non ethnic citizens yet working as Policemen, Doctors, Social Workers and other Jobs with significant responsibility attached, many non ethnic females are positively aghast at the thought of putting their own men into such positions and are for instance in fact quite happy with white policemen who are good at their Job and the general remark that standards have to be maintained for the benefit of all.

More African Americans are in Prison than in College.

British Negroes are very arguably somewhat better off than the average, person in the World today.

Golly

If the argument is carried to it's logical conclusion we'd all be teaching palatably bogus histories about our lineage in the Universities and getting thoroughly misled in the process. Perhaps I should complain about Teddy Bears portraying Caucasians as simpletons. Perhaps Winnie the pooh is racist propaganda portraying white people as honey thieving parasites. Like this one, those big ears and ratlike features for instance betray obvious criminal tendencies ................

Some things are worth complaining about..................

No that isn't right because it implies that we should or that one ought to have complaints. It's a better idea to say.............

erm