Monday, 9 January 2017

Colour Bar

From the same sort of mentality that created Agenda 21, the notion of thought crime and the concept that black people cannot be guilty of racism, that fertile jihadi breeding ground known as the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies strikes again. They specialise in awarding the kind of degree essential to otherwise unemployable zealots seeking funding from the burgeoning grievance industry, in particular that sector of the trade which slavishly seeks reparation for the sins of our hideously white ancestors. To that effect they are attempting to airbrush whites from history apparently oblivious to the fact that this would, ipso facto, render their highly honed victim status their own, damned fault.

“Entitled ‘Decolonising SOAS: Confronting The White Institution’, the union’s statement of ‘educational priorities’ warns ‘white philosophers’ should be studied only ‘if required’, and even then their work should be taught solely from ‘a critical standpoint’”

Naturally, as philosophy and the history of thought are overwhelmingly products of white origin, removing such philosophers from the syllabus would be akin to removing Newton from Physics, Michelangelo from Art, Lindbergh from Aviation... and Rhodes from Rhodesia, one experiment which has actually been tried with murderous effect. But students at SOAS are impervious to such logic, a state which can far more readily be attained if your study of thought is unencumbered by considering the people who did all the heavy lifting in that arena. Who needs to dither with the dialectic when black-lives-matter is all you need to power your pain? And who wants to ponder pure reason when the obvious conclusion to the black man’s burden is that it is all the fault of whitey?

Future innovations may involve black trainee doctors refusing to study anatomy on white corpses. Black and Asian mechanics may have to avoid working on white cars for fear of cultural association and being branded Uncle Toms. And be sure to eschew all technology created by white men which, in effect, means eschewing all technology. Way to go, you deep, dark thinkers, you. It’s hard to conceive of a more successful route to the exclusion from participation in society which you fondly imagine you are already experiencing.

I’ve never worked in an environment where people of different hues were not accepted as individuals. The British have worked bloody hard to make everybody welcome, so long as they observe the few rules we have... or had. Before the doctrine of multiculturalism, Britain used to actually be a successful multicultural society. All the constant pandering to difference does is exacerbate the difference. All the title BME does is mark out the malcontents. Don’t you know that the prejudice is in the perception; as long as you perceive that you are victims you will never break free from the shackles of your own making.

In the meantime, equalities legislation is harming the potential of companies that can’t afford to hire to quotas and doing nothing to improve the performance of those that can. In the constant crisis that is the NHS the hiring of £57k p.a. Assistant Directors of Equality and Diversity only creates more division and antipathy. I have a more than sneaking suspicion that these positions create more trouble than they solve; will hospitals in the future operate a strict colour quota system for treatment? I wonder what the students of SOAS think?


  1. A few years ago I was working as a consultant for a NHS offshoot installing IT system upgrades. It was great until I sat in the office and actually read their mission statement. This whole organisation was set up to ensure that minorities got more than their fair share of NHS services. So all it did was monitor the percentages and raise issues for the trusts if they were wrong. Destroyed my whole work ethic in 5 minutes. Good contract though.

  2. 25 years ago I was working in the head office of a large US multinational. For my sins I had to attend a monthly meeting of the technical division where the first agenda item was alway a headcount of women, blacks, Asians and other minorities. WTF? I thought then and still do.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. There is a certain arm of the public sector (whose identity should be clear from that description) that now insists EVERY "employee" must have an objective which defines the level of "Diversity and Inclusion" that individual possesses. It doesn't define how, or why or what acts are required to quantify and nor is it to be agreed. It is simply compulsory - and it is a nonsense announced by the head of that "Public Sector Arm", by letter, to everyone. It is an utter abomination, and I have challenged it.