This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/29/reaction-to-rotherham-typical-british-blame-game
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| The reaction to Rotherham is a typical British blame game | The reaction to Rotherham is a typical British blame game |
| (5 days later) | |
| Never has universal agreement looked more adversarial. If there is a single soul in Britain willing to suggest that the sexual abuse of 1,400 girls in Rotherham is not a societal failure of great seriousness, then they are keeping pretty quiet about it. Unfortunately, the people who are talking the loudest seem mainly to be interested in drawing attention to their own long-standing rectitude and by extension the long-standing lack of rectitude of their real or imagined ideological enemies. | Never has universal agreement looked more adversarial. If there is a single soul in Britain willing to suggest that the sexual abuse of 1,400 girls in Rotherham is not a societal failure of great seriousness, then they are keeping pretty quiet about it. Unfortunately, the people who are talking the loudest seem mainly to be interested in drawing attention to their own long-standing rectitude and by extension the long-standing lack of rectitude of their real or imagined ideological enemies. |
| It's an article of faith among British institutions that "impartiality" or "fairness" or "justice" is arrived at via the presentation of opposing views. It's the basis of our governmental and judicial systems. It's the guiding principle of our foremost media institution, the BBC. The idea generally seems to be that there are two sides to every story, one wrong and one right. But there are usually as many "sides" to any story as there are people telling it. This is certainly true in the case of Rotherham. | It's an article of faith among British institutions that "impartiality" or "fairness" or "justice" is arrived at via the presentation of opposing views. It's the basis of our governmental and judicial systems. It's the guiding principle of our foremost media institution, the BBC. The idea generally seems to be that there are two sides to every story, one wrong and one right. But there are usually as many "sides" to any story as there are people telling it. This is certainly true in the case of Rotherham. |
| For some, Rotherham happened because too many people thought they'd be accused of racism if they challenged the criminal behaviour of individual Pakistanis. This certainly indicates a difficult problem, whereby people are more troubled by the idea of being accused of racism than they are of being racist. It's the absolute definition of racism to allow your responses to people to be governed wholly by their ethnicity. Perhaps what is needed in Britain is a more sophisticated understanding of racism than the view that's in the ascendancy at the moment, which appears to be that it's something the "PC brigade" invented in order to intellectually terrorise an otherwise blissfully colour-blind and harmonious population. | For some, Rotherham happened because too many people thought they'd be accused of racism if they challenged the criminal behaviour of individual Pakistanis. This certainly indicates a difficult problem, whereby people are more troubled by the idea of being accused of racism than they are of being racist. It's the absolute definition of racism to allow your responses to people to be governed wholly by their ethnicity. Perhaps what is needed in Britain is a more sophisticated understanding of racism than the view that's in the ascendancy at the moment, which appears to be that it's something the "PC brigade" invented in order to intellectually terrorise an otherwise blissfully colour-blind and harmonious population. |
| Closely linked to this story is that of "multiculturalism", whereby all sorts of unsavoury activities have been allowed to flourish unchallenged in immigrant communities, because we all had to respect each other's differences. My own perception was that the dangers of multiculturalism had been fully acknowledged back when it became plain that radical Islam was finding enthusiastic adherents in Britain, which we know it still is. I'm minded to imagine that these men considered themselves to be fighting their own little jihads; their war not to establish a caliphate but influenced by their idea that decadent westerners, even children, were getting what was coming to them. Multiculturalism's most miserable miscalculation was that respect would always be mutual. | Closely linked to this story is that of "multiculturalism", whereby all sorts of unsavoury activities have been allowed to flourish unchallenged in immigrant communities, because we all had to respect each other's differences. My own perception was that the dangers of multiculturalism had been fully acknowledged back when it became plain that radical Islam was finding enthusiastic adherents in Britain, which we know it still is. I'm minded to imagine that these men considered themselves to be fighting their own little jihads; their war not to establish a caliphate but influenced by their idea that decadent westerners, even children, were getting what was coming to them. Multiculturalism's most miserable miscalculation was that respect would always be mutual. |
| It's pretty clear to me that the limits of that Great British value, tolerance, have now been tested to destruction. Forced marriage? "Honour" killing? Female genital mutilation? It's hard to believe that apologists for such activities were ever taken seriously. But until we invent the time machine, it's probably best to be glad that the tide has turned. If there ever was a tide. | It's pretty clear to me that the limits of that Great British value, tolerance, have now been tested to destruction. Forced marriage? "Honour" killing? Female genital mutilation? It's hard to believe that apologists for such activities were ever taken seriously. But until we invent the time machine, it's probably best to be glad that the tide has turned. If there ever was a tide. |
| For others, Rotherham happened because Britain fosters a "rape culture" that treats rape like no other crime and stigmatises victims while excusing perpetrators because of deep-seated misogyny. Under this interpretation, the primary reason why criminals were not pursued in Rotherham was because they were men, not because they were of Pakistani heritage, and the girls were not believed because they were only females. Sadly, it would appear that the "PC brigade" have had considerably less success in bringing this message to the institutions of South Yorkshire than they have with their anti-racism message. | For others, Rotherham happened because Britain fosters a "rape culture" that treats rape like no other crime and stigmatises victims while excusing perpetrators because of deep-seated misogyny. Under this interpretation, the primary reason why criminals were not pursued in Rotherham was because they were men, not because they were of Pakistani heritage, and the girls were not believed because they were only females. Sadly, it would appear that the "PC brigade" have had considerably less success in bringing this message to the institutions of South Yorkshire than they have with their anti-racism message. |
| For me, the absolute apotheosis of rape culture would be a world in which women couldn't leave the house unless they covered their bodies completely, because they carried full responsibility for the sexual behaviour of men. That may seem to bring us neatly to Islamism. But I'd like to pause first in the Victorian era in Britain, when modest dress was expected of respectable women, and the sexual exploitation of vulnerable children was endemic. Go figure. | For me, the absolute apotheosis of rape culture would be a world in which women couldn't leave the house unless they covered their bodies completely, because they carried full responsibility for the sexual behaviour of men. That may seem to bring us neatly to Islamism. But I'd like to pause first in the Victorian era in Britain, when modest dress was expected of respectable women, and the sexual exploitation of vulnerable children was endemic. Go figure. |
| And actually, now that I've landed in Victorian Britain, I'm going to stay for a while. In Victorian Britain, childhood was a luxury only the wealthy had. Today, for many children, adulthood is a distant prospect, something they will be eased into gradually, after university. Many of the girls who were exploited in Rotherham were from deprived backgrounds and would not have had that relaxed perspective on their futures. | And actually, now that I've landed in Victorian Britain, I'm going to stay for a while. In Victorian Britain, childhood was a luxury only the wealthy had. Today, for many children, adulthood is a distant prospect, something they will be eased into gradually, after university. Many of the girls who were exploited in Rotherham were from deprived backgrounds and would not have had that relaxed perspective on their futures. |
| It's sad, the idea that in this wealthy country they were lured with free kebabs, car rides or vodka into the company of adults who wished them harm. It's sad that they were so full of longing for such things. It's sad that their wish to escape their childhood was met so seamlessly by people who were happy to oblige them so ruthlessly. These girls could not have expected much from their childhoods, or much from their lives. Unemployment is high in Rotherham, especially youth unemployment. Bad things happen in pockets of deprivation. Regional and class inequality is clearly corrosive. Yet it was to exploit and promote regional and class differences that mass immigration was embraced in the first place. | It's sad, the idea that in this wealthy country they were lured with free kebabs, car rides or vodka into the company of adults who wished them harm. It's sad that they were so full of longing for such things. It's sad that their wish to escape their childhood was met so seamlessly by people who were happy to oblige them so ruthlessly. These girls could not have expected much from their childhoods, or much from their lives. Unemployment is high in Rotherham, especially youth unemployment. Bad things happen in pockets of deprivation. Regional and class inequality is clearly corrosive. Yet it was to exploit and promote regional and class differences that mass immigration was embraced in the first place. |
| South Yorkshire's Pakistani community was first invited to Britain mainly to provide cheap labour to a steel industry that couldn't keep its prices competitive internationally, not to feed a grand experiment in multiculturalism. Mass immigration is essentially an economic phenomenon, not a cultural one. Labour has certainly sought to exploit the economic inequality of migrant workers by offering cultural support in lieu of economic support. That, in a nutshell, is what Labour means when it sighs about its carelessness in "neglecting its core voters". Labour has long concentrated on trying to mitigate the difficult consequences of unfettered capitalism (the migration of the poor), while enthusiastically encouraging its seemingly easy ones (the migration of the rich). The irony is that both strategies have been cheered on by the Conservative party's core – shareholders keen on cheap workforces and low taxes – who win on both scores. | |
| What's really wrong with Britain is that everyone is too busy slagging off other people's "isms" without understanding that everybody's "isms", and certainly many interpretations of those "isms", have flaws and weaknesses, as well as some strengths. The list of "isms" that could credibly be mentioned in a dissection of What Went Wrong in Rotherham is quite long – racism, multiculturalism, Islamism, sexism, misogynism, neoliberalism, socialism, capitalism, statism, liberalism, libertarianism, colonialism, postcolonialism, feminism, welfarism, blah, blah, blah. | What's really wrong with Britain is that everyone is too busy slagging off other people's "isms" without understanding that everybody's "isms", and certainly many interpretations of those "isms", have flaws and weaknesses, as well as some strengths. The list of "isms" that could credibly be mentioned in a dissection of What Went Wrong in Rotherham is quite long – racism, multiculturalism, Islamism, sexism, misogynism, neoliberalism, socialism, capitalism, statism, liberalism, libertarianism, colonialism, postcolonialism, feminism, welfarism, blah, blah, blah. |
| But what you end up with is a pseudo-intellectual bunfight in which one guy can pretend they have all the clever answers while the other guy, the enemy, has made all the stupid mistakes. The right blames the left. The left blames the right. Labour blame the Tories. The Tories blame Labour. The rich blame the poor. The poor blame the rich. The anti-racist blames the racist. The racist blames the anti-racist. The misogynist blames the feminist. The feminist blames the misogynist. The free marketeer blames the statist. The statist blames the free marketeer. On it goes. | But what you end up with is a pseudo-intellectual bunfight in which one guy can pretend they have all the clever answers while the other guy, the enemy, has made all the stupid mistakes. The right blames the left. The left blames the right. Labour blame the Tories. The Tories blame Labour. The rich blame the poor. The poor blame the rich. The anti-racist blames the racist. The racist blames the anti-racist. The misogynist blames the feminist. The feminist blames the misogynist. The free marketeer blames the statist. The statist blames the free marketeer. On it goes. |
| Is it any wonder that things never get put right in a country where no one ever makes mistakes but just sees others making terrible mistakes all around them, with every thought that they have and every word that they utter? One basic thing went wrong in Rotherham: people who should have known better strayed far from the idea that "everyone is equal under the law". It is a good idea. It is an idea we can all agree on. And maybe, if we stop insisting our own pet ideologies have all the answers, we can start unpicking why it is that the law so very often appears to serve some people better than others, then asking if there are one or two ways to start changing that. | Is it any wonder that things never get put right in a country where no one ever makes mistakes but just sees others making terrible mistakes all around them, with every thought that they have and every word that they utter? One basic thing went wrong in Rotherham: people who should have known better strayed far from the idea that "everyone is equal under the law". It is a good idea. It is an idea we can all agree on. And maybe, if we stop insisting our own pet ideologies have all the answers, we can start unpicking why it is that the law so very often appears to serve some people better than others, then asking if there are one or two ways to start changing that. |
| • This article was amended on 2 September 2014 to clarify that South Yorkshire's Pakistani community came to work mainly in the steel, rather than the textile, industry. |