- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Who’s the Bigot, Mr. Brown?

Gordon Brown may have torpedoed his last chance to be prime minister in his own right when, in the privacy of his limo, he called 66-year-old Gillian Duffy that “bigoted woman.”

What had widow Duffy done to deserve the slur?

After taking the Labor Party leader to task for several minutes, Mrs. Duffy raised the immigration issue — “These Eastern Europeans, where are they all flocking from?”

Brown responded that a million East Europeans had entered Britain, but a million Britons had emigrated to the continent.

The exchange over, Duffy was pleased with having been televised with the prime minister and said she would vote for Brown. Until, that is, she was told that Brown, overheard on a microphone he was wearing but forgot about, called her that “bigoted woman.”

The shock on Mrs. Duffy’s face showed genuine pain.

That the episode was disastrous for Brown even he agrees. But it raises a larger question. Who is the real bigot here?

Assume Duffy is upset that millions of East Europeans strangers and Third World peoples have moved into her country and neighborhood, and she wishes she had back the Britain she grew up in.

Is that bigotry? And, if so, why?

In his last year as prime minister, Winston Churchill, concerned that an influx from the Caribbean would turn Britain into what he called a “magpie society,” identified immigration as “the most important subject facing this country” and, according to Harold Macmillan, wanted the Tories to adopt a policy and slogan of “Keep Britain White!”

If this makes Churchill and Mrs. Duffy bigots, are the Japanese all bigots because they refuse to allow immigration? Countries all over the world restrict or forbid the kind of mass immigration we and Europe have embraced.

Does the desire of a people to preserve its unique and separate ethnic identity and cultural character, de facto, constitute bigotry?

Are the Israelis bigots because Bibi Netanyahu demands that in any peace agreement with Palestinians it be stipulated that Israel shall forever remain a Jewish nation? Are the Muslim Uighurs and Tibetans bigots because they want to end the migration of Han Chinese into their homelands, secede from China and set up ethnonational states of their own: East Turkestan and Tibet?

If “Africa for the Africans” was a wonderful slogan in the 1950s, why is “Britain for the Britons” a bigoted idea today?

During the 1976 campaign, Jimmy Carter said in Philadelphia he respected the “ethnic purity” of the neighborhoods and would not use federal power to alter their character.

Carter was saying that organic communities created by people of a separate ethnic heritage and cultural character — the Little Italys, Polish neighborhoods, Chinatowns — should be respected and left alone.

At the beginning of Black History Month 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder, in his “Nation of Cowards” address, said: “(O)utside the workplace, the situation is even more bleak in that there is almost no significant interaction between (black and white). On Saturdays and Sundays, America … does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some 50 years ago.”

America, Holder went on, “is more prosperous, more positively race conscious and yet is voluntarily socially segregated.”

Did not Holder have a point?

Washington, D.C., where John McCain got 6.5 percent of the vote, is the most liberal precinct in the Electoral College. No Republican presidential candidate has ever gotten 20 percent of the vote.

Yet D.C. remains largely self-segregated. Hardly any white children can be found in D.C. public schools. As one conservative wrote sardonically, when it comes to the spouses they choose, the schools their kids attend, the neighborhoods they live in and the churches they go to, the white liberal elite pretty much replicates the social patterns of the Ku Klux Klan.

Of Brown’s insult of Mrs. Duffy, Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party, said we got a “window into the character of the prime minister.”

More precisely, we got a window into the mindset of Brown. Just as we got a window into the mindset of Barack Obama when he said, in that closed meeting in San Francisco, about working-class whites in Pennsylvania, whom the world has supposedly passed by:

“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Brown’s statement, and Obama’s, reflect a prejudice, a prejudgment against those who resist and reject the multiethnic, multicultural world they embrace as progressive and seek to bring about.

Of Mrs. Duffy it may be said: You may not like what she thinks, but she says what she thinks.

As for those who think her a bigot, most lack the courage of their convictions. Brown revealed that by running away from and apologizing for saying what he thinks.

Patrick J. Buchanan is founding editor of The American Conservative and author, most recently, of Churchill, Hitler, and the “Unnecessary War” [1].

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM [2]

Comments Disabled (Open | Close)

Comments Disabled To "Who’s the Bigot, Mr. Brown?"

#1 Comment By Chris Moore On May 3, 2010 @ 9:25 pm

“when it comes to the spouses they choose, the schools their kids attend, the neighborhoods they live in and the churches they go to, the white liberal elite pretty much replicates the social patterns of the Ku Klux Klan.”

And yet Duffy is a “bigot” for not wanting to rub elbows with outsiders any more than do the liberal elite. But because she has the low class to say this out loud, she is a pariah in the universe of the liberal intelligentsia.

The irony is that the same kind of venal snobs looking down their noses at Duffy, the Tea Partiers and the Arizona “rubes” are of a type with the graspers that profiteered off of colonialism, Communism, left-liberalism, neoconservatism, and today the Big Government-Big Business axis.

In the modern, post-Christian West’s system of morals and ethics, the scum clearly rises to the top.

#2 Comment By Matt On May 4, 2010 @ 6:34 am

This was a true ‘gaffe’, where a politician accidentally states what he really thinks. If there is any fight left in the English, Labour will come in last behind the BNP in the polls.

#3 Comment By Greg Panfile On May 4, 2010 @ 6:57 am

If it is post-Christian to love one’s neighbor as oneself… which would require not favoring one’s own ethnic or cultural group… what, exactly, then, is Christian? The mind boggles.

#4 Comment By Jack Ross On May 4, 2010 @ 8:36 am

Of course I’m glad to see Brown getting his comeuppance. But I must say there’s a difference between his moment and the Obama San Francisco moment – the latter was part of a prepared speech, meaning he was pandering to what I’ll be the first to call a very prejudiced audience.

As with his dealings with the Israel Lobby, for instance, Obama is engaging in craven flattery, not speaking from his own prejudices, as Brown clearly was in an unguarded moment. Obama has already more or less shafted the loony liberals, let us hope the shafting of the other thus follows.

#5 Comment By Chris Moore On May 4, 2010 @ 9:16 am

News flash to Greg Panfile: loving one’s neighbor is not what these cheap-labor seeking, open borders opportunists have in mind. Driving down wages, socially engineering society AWAY from Christianity by displacing it with State moral authority, pitting tribes against one another and fashioning minorities into a powerful political block to vote the welfare-warfare state ever more power — that’s what the Left-establishment elite have in mind.

And don’t even get me started on their partners, the murderous, warmongering neocons. (Oh, but how open-minded of the liberals and the “compassionate conservative” Bushcons to give Israel-firsters free rein to start wars in the Middle East).

The mind boggles at post-Christian liberalism’s utter credulity. But then, it is exactly what it was engineered by the State to be: easily used, manipulated and duped.

#6 Comment By Pons Seclorum On May 4, 2010 @ 12:27 pm

“Are the Israelis bigots because Bibi Netanyahu demands that in any peace agreement with Palestinians it be stipulated that Israel shall forever remain a Jewish nation? Are the Muslim Uighurs and Tibetans bigots because they want to end the migration of Han Chinese into their homelands, secede from China and set up ethnonational states of their own: East Turkestan and Tibet? If “Africa for the Africans” was a wonderful slogan in the 1950s, why is “Britain for the Britons” a bigoted idea today?”

Do not forget to include those most bigoted Mexicans to this list of nativist hatemongers since they forbid the entry of immigrants who could upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.”

#7 Comment By Judas Peckerwood On May 4, 2010 @ 3:06 pm

“…are the Japanese all bigots because they refuse to allow immigration?…
Are the Israelis bigots because Bibi Netanyahu demands that in any peace agreement with Palestinians it be stipulated that Israel shall forever remain a Jewish nation?”

Yes, the Japanese and Israeli leaders responsible for these policies are indeed bigots. But it’s not “because” of the bigoted acts they commit, Pat –– you’re confusing cause and effect again.

#8 Comment By Vidor On May 5, 2010 @ 9:18 am

Answering the questions:

1. Be a bigot.
2. Mrs. Brown. (And you, Pat Buchanan.)
3. Yes. Because hating people just because they’re different than you is bigotry.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. No.
7. No.
8. Because wanting to kick all the non-white people out is bigotry. Also, suggesting that opposition to imperialism in Africa was bigotry is really stupid.
9. Sure.

#9 Comment By Vidor On May 5, 2010 @ 9:19 am

Sorry, “Mrs. Duffy” to #2 above.

#10 Comment By Pons Seclorum On May 5, 2010 @ 1:17 pm

So Vidor answers ‘yes’ to the question “Does the desire of a people to preserve its unique and separate ethnic identity and cultural character, de facto, constitute bigotry?” but ‘no’ to the questions “Are the Israelis bigots because Bibi Netanyahu demands that in any peace agreement with Palestinians it be stipulated that Israel shall forever remain a Jewish nation? Are the Muslim Uighurs and Tibetans bigots because they want to end the migration of Han Chinese into their homelands…?” I suppose open-border lefties don’t have to make sense–just noise–but I do wonder how Vidor would go about explaining his disconnect.

“Also, suggesting that opposition to imperialism in Africa was bigotry is really stupid.”

Why? As an advocate of open-borders the world over, did not these European imperialists–or were they merely migrants?–have, according to you, the inviolable right to settle in any land regardless of what the previous inhabitants had to say about it? From your perspective on immigration, Vidor, weren’t Africans in the wrong for resisting the wholly open-borders paradigm?

“Yes. Because hating people just because they’re different than you is bigotry.”

Why blindly assume that all nativists are motivated by hatred? Even Bill Clinton acknowledged that people “can be proud of who they are without despising who someone else is.” I doubt Mrs. Duffy despises those Eastern Europeans who reside in their homelands which she would have to were she motivated solely by hatred.