FT journo John Burn-Murdoch unpicks all the usual subjects 'claims' about what the census data shows... https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1599678301647560704
One of the shytest claims was the shock horror that the Country is now less than half Christian. All the racist fearmongers presumed this was because of the 17 trillion Muslims who arrived last week, but actually the growth in other religions has been tiny. The percentage of Christians has declined predominately because so many former Christians are now atheists.
There has been panic in this country about the arrival of new blood for centuries. I understand people's concerns, and I appreciate that there are economic issues with taking in more and more people. But in terms of the racial and ethnic mix of the country, I have no problem at all, especially with the propensity for people of the Abrahamic religions to become moral atheists. I am unsure why certain ideological beliefs are not thrown in with religion, such as Communism. I am more worried about sects like that, seeking to undo society so that they can rebuild it in their god's image, than I am about any of the World's other religions. As for Muslims, my experience is overwhelmingly of good people, including excellent friends, and I have met few, in my whole life, that caused me any concern. Indeed, I probably met more Irish Catholics, during the times of the troubles, that worried me more, and many of them were friends of the family! It is a great shame that good people are lumped in with the bad. That people are allowed to conflate Islamists with Muslims; but unfortunately it is beneficial for extremists on both sides to do so. Those on the extreme right want to stir up hatred by creating an environment of fear, and extremists on the left stir up hatred through identitarian ideologies, telling people, of all colours, that considering us all to be kin is racism in itself. It is so absurd. But I believe that those influenced by the right can be brought round, particularly by regular contact with new British Muslims, dispelling the myth that peoples of different colours are somehow different from each other, where as the left is teaching people that their character and plight is tied to the colour of their skin, as if it is god's word that it is so (it certainly isn't the science). Integration has worked with the Jewish community in the UK, it has worked with the Italian community in the UK, with the West Indian community, with the Indian community, even the first wave Pakistani community. It takes time, and unfortunately some pain, but historically it tends to sort itself out, and sometimes the antagonism is a driver for better understanding, but always it is used to stir things up. That said, we must keep an eye on our infrastructure and, as with every other country in the world including EU member states, do what we can to control our borders. I don't care how many people come in, as long as it is done legally and practically. People shouldn't be imported to keep wages down for greedy corporations, but they should be permitted where there is a critical shortage, whilst other steps are taken to improve conditions and train new workers, including Britons of all kinds. And for the record, I was saying that the immigration arguments of all sides during Brexit were a canard. Every mainstream political party and persuasion wants immigration. Anyone who thinks they don't has a screw loose. Not saying it is a good or bad thing, just that you should never automatically trust a politician when they say anything about immigration. I therefore do not think much of it as an issue, because it is going to happen. But then, I live in sunny Hertfordshire, have a minority heritage, enjoy a very, very diverse working and social environment, and am on the middle class borders, so I don't have to worry, do I? Oh, and I have just sponsored yet another friend, of African heritage, in their naturalisation to the UK. I must be one of the least effective racists in the whole of the world. Life is good.
Your point that good people are lumped in with bad is very valid. But when you say Irish Catholics concerned you more than Islamic peoples be carefull as you may be lumping Irish Catholics in with Irish Nationalists
As we well know, religion in the north of Ireland didn't define who were evil during the troubles. Violent, deadly and indiscriminate sectarian attacks were carried out by men and women of all persuasions. To identify one group or religion as the problem is, at best, ignorant. Unfortunately Irish Catholics, in particular, have suffered their own racism and know such racism still comes from some in this country.
Correct, but I wanted to include the religious connection, because Islam is a religion and not a race. It was an interesting situation, because they were the nicest possible people, but get them talking about the troubles and their passion was clear. I never felt threatened and it wasn't the intention, but I was shocked by the language they used and the strength of their opinions, that they would fight for Ireland. There was perhaps some romance about it, but support for the cause occasionally fell short of condemnation for the actions of the IRA. Then there were collections for the volunteers at certain London pubs, but there I think your point is much more pertinent.
Spot on. I agree almost completely. Lunatics and fine people on both sides. But my experience, growing up with many friends in Watford's Irish Catholic community, is all I am qualified to comment on. I could then say, though, that it is equally if not more ignorant to describe only religion in the North of Ireland as the root of the problem. Religion across much of North America, the Republic, and much of mainland Britain was also highly culpable. So focussing only on NI, as your post specifically does, suggests very strongly that it is the native (yes, native) Ulster Protestants that you consider to be the problem, despite your otherwise good words. My implication is as fair to make as yours.
There was something I noticed when the BBC first broke the story about the census that I thought was very dangerous and a stupid way to frame statistics (that now i've gone back to find it, looks to have been changed which is good). For every demographic they used a percentage change EXCEPT for charting the increase in Muslims in which they used raw numbers. Meaning it was more likely to cause outrage to see there was an increase of 1.2m Muslims, whereas as a percentage the increase in those 10 years was just over 1% and much less likely to cause uproar.
Agree with pretty much all that you wrote, except for this bit which stands out from the rest by its lack of insight or attempt to comprehend. Every political party and all its members want to change society and make it fit in with their ideals. There are no exceptions. Everyone who votes one way or the other, presumably has the same motivation - e.g. someone voting SNP would like to "undo" the UK and build a Scotland that operates in a style to their liking. Contemplating the "society" that communists would like to undo, it does seem like quite a reasonable ambition. Look at the waste and corruption. Look at the misery of people around the globe - so many living in abject poverty - and contrast it with the super rich with their mansions and yachts and blasting themselves off into space. I saw one man here from a hedge fund who 'earns' £1.5 million per day. We are all aware of the divisions. The health service doesn't serve. The police service is corrupt and sometimes it seems for women and minorities in particular, are more of a danger to ordinary people than they are a help. The schools are falling to pieces and good education is for the rich people only. I have often mentioned the obvious waste of millions and millions of lives, stranded without proper education, without a doctor, without secure food and water. How many Einsteins and Gallileos and multiple geniuses who could help advance the human race are being lost to this stupid basic struggle to survive never mind do anything else? When you stand back and look at the mess, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have a desire to undo it and try a different and more logical way of organising things. We live in an age of robots and drones and all sorts of technological miracles, but at the moment we can't even provide everyone with secure shelter, food, education, sewerage and clean water supply and medical services. Look at the perversion of little weakling charidees which don't even merit the accolade of 'sticking plaster' - and even those populated with businessmen who swindle out the donations with their super high wages and first class travel. Capitalism is super outdated - it belongs back in the 19th and 20th centuries. In the times of steam engines, production line factories and bosses in top hats. It might have been a way of advancing humanity then, but it is quite obviously failing and is unsuited to this technological age. I would have though that much is self evident before everyone's eyes. It is not dealing with the problems facing humanity. Take climate change for one. Nobody could argue surely that it's all going well. The four horsemen of the apocalypse have never had such good times. And it quite obviously cannot be the same for ever. We've had other systems of organisation of society in the past - feudalism etc. Things change. They use different terms for things and I don't know if I am a communist or a socialist or a Fidelista, but I do think things should radically change. I would like to see one world and no money. That would be the ideal start. That is abandon all frontiers and borders between all countries and recognise that as a human being born onto this world, you have the right to go wherever you want. Then, 'no money' simply means abandoning and declaring worthless all currency. That is all those offshore billions and bankers and insurance types sorted very easily. Now they are the same as the rest of us. All that's left to do now, is organise production to meet our needs (whilst taking into consideration environmental impact etc) and since we now have so many more productive workers - we saw how 7 out of 8 workers in the country got laid off and furloughed for many months and we didn't even miss them - it shouldn't take us long to sort that out. All those advertising men and accountants and landlords and agencies and business consultants and insurance agents can get their shirt a bit sweaty and properly earn what they consume. With work properly organised and robots etc put to HELP humanity advance, rather than being mainly limited to R&D into AI soldiers and killer drones etc, I shouldn't suppose we'll have to work more than a couple of days a week. You'd be able to work in something you liked and were good at too - nothing to do with money or earnings. I sometimes like to ask capitalists how they see the future. How will it be in 300 years time say? Would things still be the same? Will a large portion of humanity still be living in poverty and working for the benefit of these dukes and lords and CEOs and hedge fund managers? Look at the changes in society between 1722 and 2022 and tell me you believe that is a possibility. Things obviously and plainly have to change.
Any discussions about the role of 'religion' in current divisions should keep in focus the historical element insofar as for many such divisions, 'religion' was often the totem for the far deeper separations that lay behind it. The divisions are often deep-rooted and stem from a time when 'religion' was indivisible from politics, the economy, culture and all possible manifestations of self-identification.
I totally sympathise with your comments and thoughts, but I think, unfortunately, that Communism has already gone through the death and disaster stages that you describe us going through now. I imagine, if you asked someone where they thought we would be under Communism in the next 30 years, let alone 300, the response would be equally as unfavourable. How long has any Communist state lasted before it started baring comparison with fascism? even if that fascism was considered to be benevolent? Certainly, to me, the Soviet Union had more to do with fascism (everything for the sate state and the military, and commerce and trade goverened by state dictat) than it did socialist ideals and power to the people. Communism has tried, people have died, and it failed. Our current system is imperfect, but it does maintain a sense of autonomy through the (illusion?) of democracy and influence on your own destiny, and even if that is not necessary for us to live under governance, it is a very important part of the human psyche, our self esteem and wellbeing. Homogenising the world will, in my honest opinion, never work, because we are not all the same, even within our own families, so how can we expect it to work on a global scale? It will not work in a Communist regime, as history has shown. But at least with a democratic system there is a sense of being able to change things, or being free to criticise our leaders when their behaviour disatisfies us. The elites of capitalism are directly comparable to the elites of Communism, in their greed and thirst for power. Whether they hail from old blood or new, makes no difference to me; they are the problem. In my opinion, the people we need to reel in are the extremist, power hungry would be state and world leaders, and as history has shown us, those people come from both sides of politics, many of them swinging from one side to the other. Socialist ideas are great, until you include selfish human beings. Equally, Capitalist ideas are great, until you allow selfish human beings free range to exploit. My idea of Capitalism, and I appreciate it does not tally well with the ideas other people have, is literally a fair day's pay, for a fair days work, and a fair price for a fair product. Those would be my mottos with regard to commerce and trade. If Cuba is a Socialist paradise, it is relatively unique. Friends of mine were out there recently, and they had mixed feelings about how happy the people were. I appreciate that the poverty IS a product of US interference. I would love to visit the country, but alas I have none of the wunderlust in me (barely enough to get me to Scotland every now and then), and that ambition is likely to suffer the same fate as my career as a singer songwriter! But I also wonder how things would change if the country was flooded with riches (or even allowed simply to interact fully with the world around it), how much of that would be passed on to the people, and how happy the people might be if it wasn't seen to be done fairly. It is speculation, but perhaps Fidel and Raul's version of Communism has not just been the source of their woes, but also the system that has coped best (or most well) with the country's plight. I think it is important that we at least have the illusion of being able to fall back on a power changing vote, and that if we all think it is time for a revolution, we can discuss it, protest over it, and have the power to orgainise it. I am not sure if any country needed a revolution more than Russia at the start of the last century. But what it got was, in my opinion, worse than what it had, and millions of people died for it. For me, the problem is not a specific ideal, or a specific system. The promises that Tony Blair gave (rather than the reality he delivered) about a third way, were exactly what I envisaged was needed, and still do. Capitalism with a conscience. I don't think it has ever really been tried, and like Communism, I wonder if it can ever really be achieved, but I think it has the greater potential. If we are going to say that any system we may choose is unacceptable if it causes loss of life, occasionally fails, and occasionally brings golden eras (Ah, the music and fashion of the eighties), then we really don't have any worthy option. I think the society we have IS a good framework, particularly in the UK. The desire to have a free health service, the desire to help those that need help, the desire to have a say in our destiny, and the desire for people to live as freely as they may. I think it is a reasonable model, but that we are living in a broken version of it at the moment; broken by extremism from all sides. Driven, predominantly, by a greed for power and money, but, I am very sad to say, I think that poor mental health is also a driver at the moment, though I do not think it can be sustainable as a political influence for much longer (pretty sure people were saying that in Germany in 1930). So, for me, more extremism isn't the answer, even if, ironically, something radical has to happen!* *to get rid of the extremists
Yes you're quite right that communism in its various forms has failed. That much is clear. However the styles of 'communism' have varied hugely. There's no comparison between the systems of Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea, USSR, East Germany, Yugoslavia under Tito etc. All say they're Communist. All have their failings, mainly caused by power-hungry and greedy personalities and leaders. The same elite you mentioned, who often jump from one side to the other and serve themselves rather than the people. That is one of the reasons why I admire the humility of Fidel. He continually ordered that there be no statues or streets named after him. He seemed always genuinely concerned for the very best for his people despite continual US aggression. He gave the Cuban people for the first time in their history, the right to the self-determination you mentioned. He also never changed or sold out for millions in a Swiss bank account. He was absolutely consistent throughout his life. When he retired, he wrote an occasional column for one of the newspapers and always signed it 'compañero' Fidel. More or less, citizen or fellow person. Always a great humility about him. In the list of communist countries I mentioned, one thing they do have in common is that they all advanced tremendously during the early years of their revolutions. The great leap forwards! Cuba went from being an island full of, outside the capital, illiterate, half-starving wretches living on leased land owned in the US, to players on the world stage. Look at their role in Angola Africa and the defeat of apartheid - on the way, smashing the centuries old idea of white military supremacy. When they left, they didn't take ownership of lands and oil and diamonds etc - like the colonialists. First time in african history I think. They took only the bodies of their dead soldiers, teachers and doctors. Then there was the literacy campaign allowing them to declare 100% free from illiteracy. Or the sending of teachers, doctors and nurses around the world to help poor people directly - not charity. The biggest contributor to stopping the ebola in Africa recently, even sent doctors to Italy in the pandemic as well as dozens of other poor countries. Cuba has excelled in sports, arts, music, literature, biotechnology, green initiatives and the conquest of a very large part of the racism from before. They have had Cuban astronauts up in space, long before the UK did. That was a poor little island and a colony of the Spanish and the USA for so many centuries. Similarly Russia and China made huge achievements from being backward agricultural countries before their revolution to being serious world powers now. There were major advances and big contributions to the advance of humans. And all done through cooperating rather than competing. It's so obviously so much more logical and achieves so much more. For example, imagine universal free sharing of scientific data and cooperation between scientists and researchers. We saw at least a little of that in the pandemic over the vaccines. They published the mix up freely I believe. When things get desperate, even they recognise that cooperating for advancement is so obvious it can't be ignored any longer! As you say though, there is a recurring theme after the initial surge, where the same power hungry and greedy people seem to come through. That Wild Swans book is a good example, where the true and good initial 'communists' are tracked down and murdered or disappeared by those who are now Comrade number one. Stalin is another example. Corruption creeps in. Lack of democracy and the suppression of criticism. How you can prevent that change for the worse is another question. A future system doesn't have to be a mirror image of any of those other systems. My idea of one world and no money hasn't been tried or tested at all. There's no practical reason I can see why democracy shouldn't continue and even be greatly improved - there being no money, candidates can't be bought or motivated by the accumulation of riches. No more lobbyists, parachuted candidates or revolving door between government and business. Current nations could become like a rung up from counties. Another tier of government, with a world government being the top tier with delegates from each country or region. But you'd be able to cross the old borders like the schengen zone or crossing from Herts to bucks. Just a sign by the side of the road. As for democracy - what is democracy exactly, is a long discussion which has gone on in all human history. Guaging the sentiments of the people and translating the majority views into actions? That doesn't really happen anywhere I'm aware of. Certainly not here, with an occasional and pretty meaningless vote for some fella in a suit who the party sent.
Christmas party tonight so no time to reply yet. But fair to say we seem to have similar sentiments, just very different ideas about how they may be achieved. You do paint a rosey picture of Cuba that comes across, immediately, as a little naive and love struck to my cynical mind. But your words are encouraging me to take a little more intetest. I won't promise too much, but if time permits I will have more of a delve...
I would definitely say to understand the Revolution, you have to understand the history of the island. You can't look only post 1959. Same with China and Russia really. I would very strongly recommend this excellent series of podcasts, which really give an in depth history of the context of the Revolution. I would say this is a fair podcast, objective and not biased. It originates from the US. A good start is here; https://open.spotify.com/episode/6U...i=eKAb4ezdRfmRViSO8BD11Q&utm_source=copy-link Which summarises 500 years up to the Revolution in 1 hour. Cuba is much, much older than 'bicentenial' USA! In fact the history of the whole Caribbean region is fascinating. I'm obviously most interested in Cuba, but as the 'key' to the gulf of Mexico and the major staging point for the Spanish empire ships from South America before they crossed the Atlantic - its history is fascinating. The slaughter of the taino and caribe indians by the conquistadors. I'm reading 'a brief history of the destruction of the indies' written by a franciscan priest eye witness. The Spanish rode about having competitions to see who could split a man in 2 with a single sword blow. They brought hunting dogs and let then loose on them. The indians hung themselves and smashed their children's heads on rocks rather than live under the Spaniards. The excesses were beyond horrific. They talk about the genocide of the holocaust but it seems to me that the genocide of the indians is forgotten and it was millions. Haiti, the slave revolt, the first black Republic, the US interventions throughout the region. The horrors of people like Trujillo in Dominican Republic or Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier in Haiti. Bolivar and the independence struggles. It's a very interesting area to examine.
One of my French friends in Vilnius (he was one of the last batch to do compulsory 'civilian military service') was hoping to go back and 'do' a PhD (and lent me some of his vast library) on Toussaint Louverture (wiki has a surprisingly good summary of his life) who must have been the original "complex" revolutionary...
