Saturday, 18 May 2013

UKIP: Friend or Foe of Black Britain? - Interesting article from the Voice


UKIP: Friend Or Foe Of Black Britain?

NO CLOWN: UKIP famous black member, Winston (left) and UKIP leader Nigel Farage
DURING THE 2010 general election I stumbled across a leaflet for the UKIP parliamentary candidate for Tottenham, Winston McKenzie.
‘A Jamaican-born black immigrant in UKIP?’ I thought. This should be interesting. I rang him and asked for an interview. He initially refused. Then he called me back and said “You know what Nels, let’s do this.”
He requested that I interview him at his church after the service ended. After sitting through a three-hour church service I hadn’t bargained for (due to the incorrect usage of the words ‘starts’ and ‘ends’) the interview commenced. It quickly became clear to me that I had underestimated Winston and bought into the UKIP stereotype perpetuated by David Cameron. Winston was no loony, clown or fruitcake and I somehow doubt he was a closet racist. He was sharp, articulate, convincing and UKIP to the core. He truly believed what he was saying.
At the time of the interview UKIP were nobodies on the national, non-EU related, political scene. Half-jokingly I mentioned in a 2012 wrap-up article that UKIP did not need to win a single seat in Parliament in order to be treated like a party that has just been asked by her Majesty to form a government. My words were true enough then to be credibly stated in jest. Now they are looking practically gospel. UKIP is boldly dictating government policy on our relationship with the EU, immigration and other major issues without a single voice in the House of Commons. As leader Nigel Farage stated on The Telegraph’s excellent weekly podcast, UKIP has gone from speaking about who runs the country to how the country is run.
It cannot be credibly denied that this is truly people power. But does that include black people? What does the target audience of this publication stand to gain or lose by the rise and rise of a party to the right of the Conservative Party? What do the children, the fruit of generations of immigrants that have given much to this country, stand to benefit from the emergence of a committed, well-funded, likeable and certainly electable anti-immigration party? Let’s take a look.
UKIP purports to be a non-racist party. Which, of course, should not be mistaken for an anti-racist party (I’m happy to be corrected on this). However their flagrant anti-immigration (anti-foreigner?) stance renders their ‘non-racist’ selling point less than credible. But in reality, as all of the major parties fight to appear tough on immigration it is difficult to determine how UKIP is discernibly more racist than, say, the parties that bought us John Cherry or Phil Woolas or the Iraq war.
FEW CLUES
If we want to know how one set of minorities will be treated by UKIP a few clues might be found in how they treat another set. UKIP formed the backbone of the opposition to the movement for equal marriage. They performed a similar role in the campaign to ban the hijab and the niqab. In fact UKIP has played a front line role in most recent populist movements against oppressed minorities and social groups. With that said, as far as I am aware they have been remarkably silent on the black community. But the treatment of Muslims and homosexuals cannot help but cause alarm.
UKIP proudly claims to be anti-political correctness. This negates the fact that one person’s political correctness is another’s bullying and discrimination.
Political incorrectness at a national political level has very real and negative consequences for ordinary people, especially minorities.
UKIP’s position on tax, a 31 per cent flat rate, would serve me very well. But even in my most selfish fat cat moments I do not for a second believe that the concept of fairness is consistent with the idea that a person on minimum wage should pay the same rate of tax as a percentage of their earnings as a person on a large salary.
UKIP’s signature policy is a total and immediate withdrawal from the EU. The UKIP stock response to the question of how Britain would compete with the likes of China, US, and the EU if we withdrew from the EU is that we would trade with the Commonwealth. To a community with roots, family and interests in the Commonwealth this is appealing.
Choice breeds enhancement. The more political parties are forced to compete for our votes the better. Some of UKIP’s policies could certainly have appeal in the black community. Our community is not the uncomplicated block vote many consider it to be and as such is open to competition. This is where the interests of black Britain and UKIP converge. The problem is that UKIP has not set out its stall as far as black Britain is concerned. We don’t know what they stand for or where they stand. Which in turn begs the question: are UKIP friends or foes of black Britain?
It would be very nice to hear Mr Farage’s answer.

Comments (12)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
UKIP voters don't care about negroes, or any other non-European peoples, they care about Britain. Minorities (where, in some places, are in fact majorities) are too well listened to, Diane Abbott for example, they have had enough of that. I don't think anybody takes McKenzie very seriously, nice chap and all that, but if you look at UKIP, it's not about Winston at all.

UKIP don't, like most, care about minorities, in fact that sect is positively viewed as Socialist by definition: minorities leading the majority, so forget about rolling out the black carpet, if you will.
2 replies · active 616 weeks ago
Not true machokong, UKIP cares about all the people who live in this country. You don't have to be white, anglo-saxon to be "British" or "English" or "Scottish" or any other national identity.

I recently mediated a heated debate between two community group volunteers about equality in the context of specifically targeting minority groups for extra effort in engaging them so it's something I've given some thought to recently. There is nothing wrong with spending extra time and resources trying to engage members of minority groups that are generally disenfranchised (whether it's their own choice or not) as long as it's so that the views of that group are equally represented, not to promote them above the views of any other group of people. So with that in mind, there's nothing wrong with UKIP reaching out to any minority group and making extra effort to engage them if the intention is to get the same level of involvement from them as everyone else.
UKIP has expanded considerably to absorb a lot of new people, but I can tell you that your views are not going to be entertained in the long run. Most have had enough with trying to engage minorities, enough I tell you. In fact I should imagine the whole thing will go into reverse.

A strand of UKIP thinking, behind the scenes, is now turning to Culturalism to solve the immigrant crisis and while you might sleep soundly paying your BBC license and happy that everybody who is here now can stay I can tell you it will not end that way.

Britain, or "British" is something made up of four elements: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island. Anything else is not British or Britain. If Africans are for example Welsh then Wales is not Welsh and ceases to exist.

Thus the issue (read: crisis) we have today of what it means to be "British".

I know the official party line, but not to be left behind as events unfold I highly advise you to read up on Culturalism. It's not about hate, it's about understanding there is a difference between people and with that recognition you'll find the hate melts away. However, a Negro will never be English, or English, as it's been for thousands of years, will mean nothing.

culturisthub.org
Racism is the word of the century, lets make it last century.

Let's embrace freedom of speech and let people who are easily hurt get hurt and grow up.
Patrick Hutton's avatar

Patrick Hutton · 617 weeks ago

National identity isn't about race. It's about belonging. Which is why racists and oikophobes are to be detested and opposed.
1 reply · active 616 weeks ago
National identity is about race, even if everybody in London were "British" would that really make London British, no, because a lot of them are not European, you fool.
It's not now about the colour of peoples skin it's about the colours of peoples hearts

I hope UKIP do not have a policy that relates to the colour of peoples skins, we are the British together end off

We have come to far for this 1970's concept , stop talking about colour & race and more about nationallty

I am 100% sure that the old lady who come from Jamaica in the 50's is as bemused as the rest of us when she go's up the shops at Dagenham Heathway and no one speaks her language
2 replies · active 616 weeks ago
Rubbish, for 1000's of years the world has evolved, peoples belong to their respective lands, this is why Chinese people look and behave the way they do and French as French.

Heidi Klum is a blonde haired blue eyed German, a German to be sure, or European. Now, she mated with Seal, an African to be sure (yes, I know he has a British Passport), it is obvious from their children how Europe will look if we carry on along this stupid idea of letting in non European peoples.

This trend can never be undone and it will change the look of people and the way they behave, Negroes are different from Caucasians, as well as Asians, there no doubt of it, look at the world. It's not an issue of hate, it's one were we recognise that you belong where you are and I where I am or everything will be the same and the complete destruction of Culture takes place.

The English countryside will never be English with 50% Negroes and Asians in it, never, so why 10% it will only grow and thus we have people lying to themselves.

culturisthub.org
No Kev, we don't have a policy that relates to the colour of peoples' skins. Whoever Machokong is, he or she doesn't speak for UKIP or the membership.
Paul Giles's avatar

Paul Giles · 616 weeks ago

A shared national identity is the essence of UKIP's message. This shared identity can be built on some combination in some degree of: shared race, shared religion, a common language, common values, common aspirations, shared history or a common enemy. Any change to any of those things needs to happen slowly enough for the collective to digest them. Most of us don't want race to be a crucial factor, but rapid changes to the racial balance, especially those that entail parallel changes to the consensus on values, are dangerous. We need to be able to say that in a way that doesn't encourage the racial purists, and that doesn't demonstrate or provoke hostility towards new (and welcome) citizens.
Machokong are you for real

You have to be a plant by someone to discredit UKIP, your comments are stupid

Humans mating are you sure

Post a new comment

Comments by