One of the main stories today was about David Cameron's recent use of the phrase "bunch of migrants". It's clear that David has a rather dim view of immigrants especially considering he's made this faux pas before, so it really shouldn't be a surprise to people. Then again, I don't think people were surprised by it, just a little offended.
I, on the other hand, am not bemused by Cameron's language - I'm more bemused by how the media has managed to spectacularly upstage the reason why the Prime Minister said "bunch of migrants". Whilst I don't want to go so far as to imply conspiracy, it is rather odd how the media has managed to do just enough to ensure that people forget the intent behind what Jeremy Corbyn says, whilst making a meal out of the soundbites they can capture out of context.
Cameron was directly attacking Corbyn for his recent visit to Calais, where the Labour leader was appalled by the conditions of the camps and the reaction of the French authorities to the situation. Instead of listening to his opposition and engaging with them on the subject, presenting the appearance of a concerned (de facto) head of state, he chose instead to disparage his opposite number across the despatch box. Calling out the Prime Minister for his use of the word "bunch" is attacking semantics. Who cares what word he used? The individual statement means nothing, it's the reasoning behind the entire statement that we should be concerned about.
MJ and BS
The next story on the list from Metro was about Michael Jackson, and the casting of a white man to play him in an upcoming movie. In light of the talk about the whitewashing of the Oscars, I'm sure this story is probably coming at a bad time for Joseph Fiennes and the production company making the TV movie about the late singer's life. If this film was about MJ when he was black, then I'd agree with all the outraged fans (and surprisingly, no, I'm not being sarcastic there).Yet, we have to acknowledge that if this film is about Jackson's life after his skin lightened, then casting a black actor only to have his skin toned whiter could be considered a reverse-racism of the actors seventy or eighty years ago who used to apply "blackface" so they could play black people. Plus, I'm still confused about the whole black-white thing - is having dark skin cosmetic, or cultural?
The word racism was designed to describe situations where somebody is suggesting a difference between two people with distinctive visual differences - borne out of where in the world their ancestors came from - and then implying inferiority as a result of that difference. Racialism is the same, except it doesn't imply inferiority, simply claiming there to be a difference that has no effect on status.
Yet people seem intent on reclassifying the term "racist" to fit any situation where inferiorities are implied between cultures - which is not the same as race. All this serves to do is avoid discussion between things upon which we can make claims that takes its cues from philosophy, rather than the scientific basis upon which we can say this:
"There is no such thing as race."
One Twitter user wrote:
"I hope the spirit of MJ comes back and moonwalks all over this BS. MJ was always proud to be black, no matter his skin colour."
Er... what? If we want to make the claim - the SCIENTIFIC claim - that the colour of your skin is only skin deep and has no reflection on who you are; your cultural affiliation; what you believe; etc., then comments like the one above have no place in a world where we are trying to break down these barriers. Black and white is a descriptor of skin colour, in the same way big and small can be descriptors of a person's nose or bulbous and flabby can be descriptors of a person's double chin. Michael Jackson may have been black once, but he wasn't by the end of his life.
I recognise that there are cultures that people define as "black" and "white", but far from wanting to ignore the problems that arise from these divisions, I do recognise them as problems that need to be overcome by creating a more integrated society rather than perpetuating the idea, "hey, you with the black skin, you stand over there and try and get that ball in that net, whilst we with the white skin stay over here and whack smaller balls with sticks."
Swede Justice
That was supposed to be a play on "swift justice", but it doesn't really work does it?The final thing that caught my eye in today's Metro (which, at the time I'm writing this is fast becoming yesterday's Metro) was the story about the Swedish National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson, who said he felt sympathetic towards a migrant who killed refugee worker Alexandra Mezher. Naturally, social media erupted, branding Eliasson a monster for his comments. Let's take a close look at what Eliasson said:
"Well, you are of course distraught on behalf of everyone involved. Naturally, for the person killed and her family, but also for a lone young boy who commits such a heinous incident. What has that person been through? Under what circumstances has he grown up? What is the trauma he carries? This entire migration crisis shows how unfair life is in many parts of the world. We have to try to help solve this best we can."
At the time he was speaking, the suspect in question was being detained in a psychiatric clinic in Sahlgrenska University Hospital, which at least suggests that the police thought him mentally unstable. Anybody who believes that Eliasson was being unreasonable should also be advocates of locking criminals up and throwing away the key... but that's not how the criminal justice system works, especially in the Western world where we favour rehabilitation over out-and-out punishment. This is particularly the case in Scandinavian countries, where their "top-security" prisons are more like community homesteads.
For the most part, people who commit criminal acts suffer from various mental afflictions, it's just that they're either too insignificant to be provided psychiatric assistance or they don't steer personalities radically enough; but they do still cause internal conflict within the individual. Ignoring these problems invariably leads to re-offending; violence; depression; and prison suicides. One of the best things we can do for first offenders is provide them with the support they need to recognise the fault and find a way to fix it. Throwing them into a dark cell for a fixed number of years without cause for reflection and change is no help at all, to them or society as a whole.
Eliasson at least seems to recognise this, and rather than simply exact some state-based vengeance upon the boy, wants instead to ensure that he never does it again - without resorting to throwing him in jail for the rest of his natural life.
Perhaps this opinion, rather like Fienne's casting as Michael Jackson, is simply bad timing as Sweden (and the rest of Europe) reacts to and debates the migrant crisis. Nevertheless, for those who attempt to maintain a steady mind despite the chaos, his comment - along with any others that continue to advocate the values that have defined Western civilisation - is very welcome.
Slang Cameron:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/pmqs/12124618/PMQs-live-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-David-Cameron-go-head-to-head-on-January-27.html
Ralph Fiennes will Beat It:
http://pagesix.com/2016/01/27/fans-outraged-a-white-actor-is-playing-michael-jackson/
Sweden's Police Commissioner:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/638650/Outrage-as-police-chief-shows-sympathy-for-migrant-who-killed-refugee-centre-worker
No comments:
Post a Comment