Prejudice; Tribe, class or colour?

The polarisation of poverty involves not only the colour of one’s skin, but the context of your tribe and its relativity to others in that tribe – its called ‘class’. Like it or not, there are classes in every aspect of tribal life. I may be of the European tribe, sub-tribe of say France, and therefore superior to other sub-tribes like, for example, the Greeks. My place in the wider world is determined by my tribal wealth and consequent influence. Few would argue that the bankrupt Greeks carry the international influence of the French.

Within any sub-tribe there are classes, also determined by wealth. Even wealth, passed, now perhaps depressed, can confer a lasting ‘class’ aura despite its fading. The self image of former wealth and influence is frequently distorted as in the case of once Great Britain, now the UK. The clinging to past glories has caused an incredible introverted re-examination of British values that have influenced everything from Brexit to tribal nationalism and class consciousness. As UK becomes relatively poorer its internal class systems become more exaggerated and sub tribal influences increase. The United Kingdom becomes less united every day.

There are ranks even in the classes, e.g. even in the criminal classes. In each tribe, the over reaching or social climb is mostly driven by acquired wealth, which in turn bestows the benefits of education and consequent culture. There are of course tribal cultures and belief systems that transcend wealth, however they seldom influence ‘class’. As materialism and science increase the agnosticism of the tribe, so wealth becomes more a marker for ‘class’ as it is now, not what it once was.

What then of colour? It seems that the wealthier an individual becomes, especially if he or she is of colour, then the poorer of the tribe resent that success. Colour prejudice is driven most by the poorest in society because colour is the easiest difference to spot in the tribal closet. In America and Europe the consequence of colonialism and immigration have traditionally place those of colour outside the tribal group and therefore became the object of class indignity. Now as wealth becomes the increasingly appropriate judgement instead of class, then colour becomes less relevant. My friends are doctors, bankers, professionals first, cultured second and coloured third , a very distant third.

If I was poor, then it is likely that these perceptions would be in a different order. Hence today we see a good deal of overt colour prejudice expressed about wonderful athletes who happen to be well paid footballers, some of who are exceptionally articulate, bright and compassionate. It is not the wealthy or the comfortable that express disdain, it is that poorer element of the jealous and ignorant poorest sub-tribe who shout their prejudice the loudest.

The elimination of the very poorest in all communities is perhaps the common aim across all tribes, be they totalitarian or democratic. All leaders profess to have this universal aim as their goal. Sadly the natural greed of man, sometimes called the enterprising spirit is at odds with the idea of social equality, sometimes called totalitarianism. Colour is becoming less an issue overall, unless of course you are coloured, and suffer everyday from the prejudices so deeply rooted in the white tribes of colonialism.

The fight is against racism and against poverty, it is against class and unequal wealth. Ignorance and poverty walk hand in hand no matter what tribe you belong to. Creating a wealthy and cultured community is ultimately the only way to eliminate the class system and with it, colour prejudice.

The (dis) United Kingdom.

As Rishi Sunak settles in to sort the impenetrable problems of the UK there is a sizeable minority still agitating for national dismemberment into four smaller entities or if you will three and an integrated Ireland. The wee spicey leader of Scotland is the nearest to achieving independence but none in Wales, Ireland or Scotland…

How big the UK £ pie? Will it go round?

Essentially the title encapsulates the Government’s issues. How to make the pie bigger? Surely that must come first. Clearly we need to pass round larger slices to the NHS, Education, Defense etc etc. Mrs Truss PM at the time of writing, for reasons which are easy to understand (if not agree with) was entirely focussed…

Don’t let the silence of Old Age shut you down.

Growing old is not for sissies, or so they say. There is no doubt that the onset of things like arthritis, deafness, sight failure, and other ailments are all hard to bare. Nonetheless, we must take on board that we are lucky to be old, to be still around, and that we may still have…


Truth, democracy and social platforms.

If our Government feeds us lies, we rightly complain, but if we are continuously fed on lies it soon becomes apparent that society finds it hard to define the truth. The growth of populism, has underlined this frailty in our society. Populism often takes true premises and then twists them through hyperbole or conspiracy theories.

To the so called ‘rational liberal’ these issues are simple when based on absolute truth, i.e. electoral issues are decided on the assumption that the voters (all with equal merit and rights) have free choice and that the system works without fear or favour. Vaccinations are good and technical efforts are the best available. We trust the monitoring institutions. Both issues boil down to trusting institutions. All institutions are built not necessarily on present day knowledge but often on beliefs and mores of the past. Even technical developments like vaccines are developed on ‘science’ which is in itself, human discovery. Belief systems are many and varied, from benign forms of Christianity to ever more extremes say from blind belief in the State, as in China, or blind belief in extreme Islam practice in Daesh.

The difference between free societies and totalitarian ones is that individuals in the free society are allowed to think for themselves. There is freedom for all sorts of ‘influencers’, even distorters of the truth, even people who tell lies because they are unqualified or have little or no knowledge of the subject, or indeed knowingly spread untruths for what ever purpose. This has become a major problem with vast numbers of individuals receiving their perceived facts and news via social media.

For those who consider themselves democrats (in the widest sense) then the issues of Freedom of speech versus the spreading of distorted information is a huge problem getting more acute each day. Indeed even the more benign belief systems have very fundamentally different ideas for example, regarding the sexes. Even in the most democratic nations there are extremes of views and beliefs in say ‘abortion rights’ or ‘right to life’ campaigners.

These belief systems are the consequence of religion that is often the bedrock of society, even if religions are challenged by the science of hard fact.

The question: Is it right? Is often framed in belief systems of centuries old religions. In some ‘so called’ West African democracies religious sects believe in FGM, the Saudi Arabians believe it’s OK to routinely chop off heads in public, these are just a few of the more obvious differences in the definition of ; Is it right?

The key to sustained democratic development is to have the freedom to respect belief systems, and at the same time to challenge these systems with truth supported by science and knowledge. The adjudication of what is true remains a vexed question. In the end social media or no, it is what the majority in a free society agree.

Beware, populism is on the march, fascism may seem a distant threat, but conspiracists and liars like Trump bring the demise of freedom ever closer.