Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on April 12, 2018, 07:15:03 PM
-
As delivered by the Emperor Palpatine (who thinks it isn't racist')
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43745447
-
As delivered by the Emperor Palpatine (who thinks it isn't racist')
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43745447
I think it is very racist indeed, and horrified that it is being broadcast again. >:( It is pandering to the likes of UKIP and other far right groups. I have already come across people on other forums saying how right Enoch Powell was! :o
-
I think it is very racist indeed, and horrified that it is being broadcast again. >:( It is pandering to the likes of UKIP and other far right groups. I have already come across people on other forums saying how right Enoch Powell was! :o
So if anyone published Neon Kampf they are pandering to right wing groups?
-
So if anyone published Neon Kampf they are pandering to right wing groups?
You mean Mein Kampf? In which case, I think it would be pandering to right wing groups, when racism appears to be rearing its ugly head again these days, more so that it has in many years.
-
You mean Mein Kampf? In which case, I think it would be pandering to right wing groups, when racism appears to be rearing its ugly head again these days, more so that it has in many years.
So you think Mein Kampf should not be published?
-
Whether people approve or not Mein Kampf is published, anyone can buy it on Amazon.
Reading is one thing, hearing a stirring speech is quite another; I don't know how I feel about the 'Rivers of Blood' speech being recited on the radio except I won't tune in.
I just read a transcipt of the speech for the first time from a link on Reddit. The sentiments expressed by Powell seem dated to me, his prophecies haven't come true, some of the comments are interesting.
https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/7exsxu/full_transcript_of_enoch_powells_rivers_of_blood/
-
So you think Mein Kampf should not be published?
You can buy it but it shouldn't be broadcast, as it only gives a boost to neo Nazis, imo.
-
Five, ten years ago I would have agreed with the broadcast. Even two or three, maybe. In the current ‘hostile’ climate fostered by Theresa May towards migrants - including those that were already here when Powell made his speech - I think this is stupid.
-
Whether people approve or not Mein Kampf is published, anyone can buy it on Amazon.
Reading is one thing, hearing a stirring speech is quite another; I don't know how I feel about the 'Rivers of Blood' speech being recited on the radio except I won't tune in.
I just read a transcipt of the speech for the first time from a link on Reddit. The sentiments expressed by Powell seem dated to me, his prophecies haven't come true, some of the comments are interesting.
https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/7exsxu/full_transcript_of_enoch_powells_rivers_of_blood/
But stopping a stirring or indeed enormously boring speech is related to what you think is acceptable. The idea that the voice is somehow a completely separate thing from the words led to the lunacy of Gerry Adams being voiced by an actor who sounded usually a bit better than Adams.
-
Five, ten years ago I would have agreed with the broadcast. Even two or three, maybe. In the current ‘hostile’ climate fostered by Theresa May towards migrants - including those that were already here when Powell made his speech - I think this is stupid.
Isn't it precisely at times when the issue is significant that we should confront it?
-
Isn't it precisely at times when the issue is significant that we should confront it?
I didn’t say that it shouldn’t be confronted. But given what we know about the way in which we are influenced by how words are delivered as well as content, I’m not sure that an actor delivering them as if he were on the stage is the way to go. Perhaps the way forward is to get Ricky Gervaise to do it.
-
So if anyone published Neon Kampf they are pandering to right wing groups?
Neon Kampf? Is that for people who've seen the light?
-
Neon Kampf? Is that for people who've seen the light?
He’s remembering the colourful spandex that was popular during the 80’s. Especially when teamed with a mo in the style of Tom Selleck.
-
He’s remembering the colourful spandex that was popular during the 80’s. Especially when teamed with a mo in the style of Tom Selleck.
:D
-
I have been listening to a phone-in on the Stephen Nolan show on Radio Five Live. Before that I probably would not have listened to the broadcast, but as a result of the comments made, I shall make a point of it. And if it is broadcast, it should be broadcast in full. As soon as anyone omits parts, it changes the whole and becomes a person's selective choice and therefore their very prejudiced view.
One caller said that young people should not hear it, but that is censorship at its worst. I understand the speech is to be interspersed with comment and discussion.
-
I think it is very racist indeed, and horrified that it is being broadcast again. >:( It is pandering to the likes of UKIP and other far right groups. I have already come across people on other forums saying how right Enoch Powell was! :o
LR, it is being broadcast on BBC Radio 4 called Archive on 4. It is not being used for rabble-rousing purposes - it is not likely to attract a large audience. It is being presented as an element of modern history of considerable academic and cultural importance. It is right that people who are concerned about and interested in the state of modern Britain can hear the speech in its entirety and consider its impact and the lessons we have learned from it.
To prevent its broadcast smells of censorship and authoritarianism - like the Vatican Index Librorum Prohibitorum. The lessons of history should be there for everyone to learn from them, not swept under the carpet.
The fact that people on other forums are talking about Powell's speech makes it even more important that it can discussed rationally.
-
I have been listening to a phone-in on the Stephen Nolan show on Radio Five Live. Before that I probably would not have listened to the broadcast, but as a result of the comments made, I shall make a point of it. And if it is broadcast, it should be broadcast in full. As soon as anyone omits parts, it changes the whole and becomes a person's selective choice and therefore their very prejudiced view.
One caller said that young people should not hear it, but that is censorship at its worst. I understand the speech is to be interspersed with comment and discussion.
I agree that the whole speech has to be heard. In fact it is vital. Otherwise it is easy to say if the worst lines ‘ah, but they need to be seen in context...’
It’s not that it is being repeated in full, or discussed that makes me unsure, but the use of an actor, and one who is sympathetic to Powell. Maybe it’s because I relate it to actors producing the great Churchill speeches, for example. We know that it often isn’t what is said but the way it is delivered that matters (Blair and Hitler both masters this in different ways). I’d feel happier if it was read by the programme presenter.
HH is right that not many people may tune into the programme itself but these days it’s a breeze to grab the speech from the programme, put it together and share it, and at that point it can be used as propaganda and shared among far right groups digitally.
-
I have been listening to a phone-in on the Stephen Nolan show on Radio Five Live. Before that I probably would not have listened to the broadcast, but as a result of the comments made, I shall make a point of it. And if it is broadcast, it should be broadcast in full. As soon as anyone omits parts, it changes the whole and becomes a person's selective choice and therefore their very prejudiced view.
One caller said that young people should not hear it, but that is censorship at its worst. I understand the speech is to be interspersed with comment and discussion.
I listened as well.
I was a bit puzzled that Nolan's guests were both young Black Londeners - and roughly agreed on each point, though the lass was pretty confused at times.
I agreee wholeheartedly with your point, Susan.
I detest and loathe the speech in every possible way, but do not accept it should be censored.
Powell I admired for sticking with his principles....even though I totally disagreed with almost all of them.
I well recall him and Tony Benn locking horns many a time on "
Any Questions", and, whilst I didn't accept their point ov iew, I nevertheless admired polititians ho stuck to what they believed rather than changing their principles to suit the electorate.
I woun never have actually either supported, or voted, for either, though.
-
I think it is very racist indeed, and horrified that it is being broadcast again. >:( It is pandering to the likes of UKIP and other far right groups. I have already come across people on other forums saying how right Enoch Powell was! :o
What has UKIP to do with racism LR, only I have every reason to be against racism of any kind, whatever stone it happens to be lying under, UKIP's anti immigrant issue as I understand it was about the sheer numbers of immigrants as opposed to where their colour registered on the Dulux chart.
Accusing organisations of racism is a lefties way of shutting down the issues they don't like by going off on this racism tack they do it time after time and it's often very successful at diverting an argument they don't like away from the original agenda.
I'm not arguing in favour of UKIP or against it's just as a whole UKIP isn't a racist party, having said that I'm sure you can find an individual racist in any party you might wish to target, obviously, to me, the lefties are fully aware of this.
Regards ippy
-
Five, ten years ago I would have agreed with the broadcast. Even two or three, maybe. In the current ‘hostile’ climate fostered by Theresa May towards migrants - including those that were already here when Powell made his speech - I think this is stupid.
I think, as long as it is presented in context in a proper journalistic setting, it will be fine. I don't think it will serve us any good to hide from our history.
-
but the use of an actor, and one who is sympathetic to Powell.
Sorry, but I can't find anywhere where McDiarmid says he is sympathetic to Powell and certainly not to the views expressed in the speech.
-
UKIP isn't a racist party
If you say so. The facts point in another direction altogether.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11467713/No-dogs.-No-blacks.-No-Irish-is-now-Ukip-policy.html
https://leftfootforward.org/2015/02/is-ukip-a-racist-party-these-15-comments-would-suggest-so/
I could go on but when you have the Telegraph and a left wing organisation agreeing what would be the point.
-
Sorry, but I can't find anywhere where McDiarmid says he is sympathetic to Powell and certainly not to the views expressed in the speech.
I was going by the OP.
-
If you say so. The facts point in another direction altogether.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11467713/No-dogs.-No-blacks.-No-Irish-is-now-Ukip-policy.html
https://leftfootforward.org/2015/02/is-ukip-a-racist-party-these-15-comments-would-suggest-so/
I could go on but when you have the Telegraph and a left wing organisation agreeing what would be the point.
No, UKIP isn't a racist party, it's transatlantic and economically liberal, which is even worse. Farage is a bastard. So is May. Believe it or not I have more sympathy with Corbyn.
-
I was going by the OP.
The only reference that I can find to the actor associated with the OP are the following sentences in the BBC link.
Marking 50 years since the speech, Archive on 4 plans to reflect its enduring influence and significance. The full text will be read by actor Ian McDiarmid, who played Powell on stage in the play What Shadows but is probably best known for playing Emperor Palpatine in the Star Wars films.
Does playing a character in a play based on a real individual make an actor sympathetic to the views of that individual?
-
The only reference that I can find to the actor associated with the OP are the following sentences in the BBC link.
Does playing a character in a play based on a real individual make an actor sympathetic to the views of that individual?
As regards the OP, what I was referring to was this
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/actors/ian-mcdiarmid-interview-enoch-powell-not-racist/
-
Or can be read here:
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-daily-telegraph/20170905/281539406104218
Though, the views of the actor are probably a minor side issue.
Have not heard the programme yet, but I expect it to be interesting. The speech was important and, I think, did affect the course for subsequent developments regarding immigration and "multi-culturalism" - though not as Powell might have intended.
-
The only reference that I can find to the actor associated with the OP are the following sentences in the BBC link.
Does playing a character in a play based on a real individual make an actor sympathetic to the views of that individual?
No, clearly it doesn’t. I’ve heard actors say they’ve discovered that they sympathise with a person usually regarded as unsympathetic, but many speak of playing monsters who remain monstrous.
I think though that if McDiarmid doesn’t regard the speech as racist then there’s a degree of sympathy there, but I don’t know where NS got his info.
-
Maybe this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41174659