Bob Piper has been a Labour Councillor for the Abbey
Ward in Sandwell, West Midlands, for nine years. He is a lifelong supporter of Aston Villa Football Club and a follower of Yorkshire County Cricket Club.
The views expressed here are mine in a personal capacity, not those of the Labour Party, Sandwell MBC, Aston Villa or Yorkshire County Cricket Club. Get it! Mine... just mine!
Love of your country is a strange thing, isn't it? By an accident of birth you were born on whatever plot of land you were, and that, together with your parents background, tends to define what we call our nationality.
Of course, we have an affinity with other people born in the same area, be it a town, city, region and the country itself. As an individual I was born in England and get moist-eyed when our Olympians win their medals or we win the ashes, or even way back when, win a football tournament. But I'm also a brummie by birth, and despite living in Sandwell for nearly 30 years, I'm always conscious of being regarded as an outsider. And even within Sandwell there are those who regard themselves as Smethwickians and are highly suspicious of anyone who hails from West Bromwich, a couple of miles down the road.
But, back to the point. Whilst I regard myself as English, and to a lesser extent I suppose, British, I don't get particularly excited about being 'European' in the way that some people do. Too many 'unshared' things I suspect, culture, temperament, language, food, etc. and although we speak broadly the same language and share much of the same culture, I certainly don't have any particular affinity to the United States of America.
Which brings me to the latest venture by Tim Montgomerie (of Conservative Home) and others, America in the World. I should say from the outset that I don't have any real objections to the concept. There are lots of these sorts of sites, the Friends of Israel, Friends of Palestine, Cuba Solidarity, sort of thing, sometimes run by exiles, but sometimes just run by people who feel an affinity to a particular corner of the world that has an appeal to them. But also, they exist as a defence mechanism; a sort of 'Hands off Nicaragua' mentality, or in the case of this particular site, something to counteract what they describe as 'Anti-Americanism'.
The one thing that worries me about these 'solidarity' sites is, like those old communists who wouldn't hear a word against Stalin even when the rest of the world knew he was a brutal and murderous dictator, they over egg the pudding. Almost like one of those women who live with partners who regularly abuse and beat them, they immediately become all defensive when anyone criticises the of their object of affection.
Take, just as one small example, the page on The United States in Latin America, designed to combat myths about the US relationship with its southern neighbours. In response to the 'Myth'...
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's rejection of neo-liberalism and the Washington consensus represents the wave of the future
...we are told this by Tim and his chums....
President Chavez has certainly directed some oil revenue to Venezuela's poor in the form of non-productive hand-outs and wealth transfers, but the reality is that the Chavez regime has not reduced extreme poverty and income inequality.
We are also told as further evidence against him that Chavez has links with what America in the World clearly regard as some pretty dodgy characters, including Russia's Medvedev and Putin.
And this really sums up the contradiction in a lot of the content of the site. Does America in the World really think that President Bush has eliminated income inequality in the US? Do they not know that there is a long list of murderous and unsavoury characters that the US government has allied itself with in the last couple of decades in pursuit of their own strategic interests? Have the Presidents of Chile and Colombia, promoted as the good guys by America in the World, done anything to combat the shocking income inequality in those countries? I think not.
As I say, I have no problem with these people associating themselves with somewhere they identify with and want to promote... but I don't think they do themselves, or the place they admire, any real credit when they view things through rose-tinted spectacles.
I broadly agree Bob - I guess there's always a risk of selective blindness when it comes to the object of your affection. The counter I suppose would be if you want balance go to news organisations - these sites exists specifically to counter the sites that push the opposite line so balance isn't their purpose.
On the specifics about Chavez and poverty you answer your own point. Of course Tim & Co. don't think Bush has addressed income inequality and neither he nor they are claiming as much. But since Chavez justifies closing down TV stations, postponing the election, altering the constitution and arresting demonstrators in service of those aims I think Tim and anyone else is quite entitled to point out when he's not actually doing it..!
newmania said:
August 19, 2008 11:33 AM | permalink
I know what you mean about English and British. I regret that Brown has politicised the concept which, to have any use at all, has to be above politics. I wonder if the Olympics will have an affect in Scotland though. Independence in Europe is the SNP idea which to me sounds like , freedom for flies in spider’s webs . Europe is not really a tribally based concept from which nations derive. Its boundaries are close to what was Christendom, or the West but there is no love there and never will be . I wonder if the Scots will notice that .If the oil runs out, which it is , and the English get the point that they are not actually cheated by Scottish funding ( they are not ), I can see the Union limping on. The Conservative Party are showing no sign of giving into the English calls for democratic parity and , of course , if we have a Conservative government it will be shelved for the English at least. It must surely be clear to the Scots that they could hardly do better.
On America...well yes but lop sided assaults on the US from the left need to be counter balanced. People said it was immature to say , as I used to ..” If you like the Soviet Union so much go and live there...” Why ? There continues to be a ferocious anti US instinct as well as considerable dislike of Israel. A balanced view would surely conclude they are better than their enemies.
Cassilis, it is not legitimate to point out that Chavez hasn't reduced income inequality (when he has actually, despite not doing enough to address the issues of poverty in the barrios) when you champion other pro-US administrations that have done much, much worse.
I didn't want this to turn into one of those tedious pro or anti Chavez threads... but...he didn't 'close tv stations' he refused to renew the license for A tv station which openly promoted an illegal armed coup. How long do you think a tv station would last in New York if it promoted the violent overthrow of the US government? He didn't 'alter the constitution' he held a referendum to do so, and the people voted against it. Compare that with Britain and the Lisbon Treaty for an exercise in democracy. And as for 'postponing elections'... you're having a laugh. Like him or loath him, you have to admit that Chavez has won more elections than anyone else in the world in the last 8 years!
If an Empire with over 700 military bases in over 100 countries needs help, then the rest of us are really screwed. This is an ancient right wing tactic of assigning victimhood to the dominant group to pre-empt discourse about that dominance. Very much like the Stalin fans and equally obnoxious and ethically bankrupt.
Which brings me to the latest venture by Tim Montgomerie (of
August 19, 2008 11:30 AM | permalink
I broadly agree Bob - I guess there's always a risk of selective blindness when it comes to the object of your affection. The counter I suppose would be if you want balance go to news organisations - these sites exists specifically to counter the sites that push the opposite line so balance isn't their purpose.
On the specifics about Chavez and poverty you answer your own point. Of course Tim & Co. don't think Bush has addressed income inequality and neither he nor they are claiming as much. But since Chavez justifies closing down TV stations, postponing the election, altering the constitution and arresting demonstrators in service of those aims I think Tim and anyone else is quite entitled to point out when he's not actually doing it..!