Showing posts with label british. Show all posts
Showing posts with label british. Show all posts

Monday, 27 January 2014

The trouble with politicians part II: some fixes to 'broken politics'

Most people can't stand the state of politics, and some of us also complain about it (me included). But how about some answers rather than just problems? Here's a few of my thoughts about how we could get people to feel that they're actually involved with decisions and that MPs aren't some strange species different from us:

1) Ban whips and spin doctors
Why do we need people who tell the naughty MP that is conscious objections aren't in his best interest and he should do as the party tells him to do?

2) Make parliamentary voting utterly anonymous
People of the same party often go to the polls together to the same booth. It always comes out in the media if someone votes against the status quo, which makes me rather worried about how it's undertaken. Something is badly wrong there

3) Give people a choice about tax money
I can understand that some who handles the country's money every day knows more than I do about where funding etc is needed but I don't support drone attacks and subsidies for very rich companies that control basic and essential services. At least let me have a say in that!

4) Let the people elect the Prime Minister/cabinet members
The average person can only choose who represents their constituency. All other decisions are made by party members. I would say the vast majority would not have picked David Cameron as PM. Not Mr Osbourne as the chancellor. It seems bizarre to me how little say we have about that.

5) Have an impartial platform for MPs and the public to have their say
If the media are in such cahoots with the government, there must be another way that actions of government can get to us without it being coloured by media bias. The public don't get enough say and as I doubt that the common man will have an easy way in to government anytime soon, how about letting them say what needs changing? Whatever we have right now at any rate is not getting that message across clearly.

I hope in that jumble somewhere are some coherent ideas that can be implemented. Even if there aren't I shan't give in to the hysteria that nothing will change and we can't do anything about it.

The Vedic Underdog

The trouble with politicians

If there was ever an issue that polarises, alongside religion, it is the dreaded subject of politics. Many avoid this to avoid agitating others. Others try not to talk of it at all, for they find it boring or or they feel like they're helpless to do anything to change it. To confess an interest in it to most of the general public is to label yourself a dullard. Very few have made it interesting in the past; those who I'd put in this elite club include 'Rage Against the Machine', 'Spitting Image' and 'The Daily Show'.

So what has caused people to care so little about how services are provided and controlled in their country, and above all how it is run?

For many the answer seems to be politicians. Once affectionately described by Charlie Brooker as being 'less popular than shingles', for those that do discuss politics, to whatever degree, and are dissatisfied with what's happening they are first in the firing line of abuse. After all, as these people say, they make all the decisions, so it must be their fault.

However I do not agree with this. This will not sit well with most people, who see them as growing rich from exploiting us with no scruples whatsoever. For me though in the environment we have created, this is the only way they could have evolved. As far as I'm concerned it is the system that is the problem; the mutual agreement needed to get legislation into place has paved the way for it. Not that some have not made it worse but needing a vote to change laws or make new ones does not help. For a better idea of the procedure, just take a look at this: it's very time consuming and in certain parts niche; when a committee is put together to look at it there are at most 20 MPs looking at it.

For starters needing a certain number of votes in order to put something into action you need a group of people to back it. Like for example...a political party? Yes, your own conscience should sway you but in reality what happens is if someone doesn't 'tow the party line' they lose much of their power (say a place in cabinet) and may in extreme cases be kicked out of their party.

The first time it came clearly apparent to me was when I visited the House of Commons about a year ago and saw MPs discussing train ticket prices. First thing that was apparent was how empty it was; most of parliament weren't there. 'Fair enough' you may think initially, but by the time to vote on it came everyone was in there, and I mean everyone. I even caught a glimpse of the Chancellor briefly. Considering most of them weren't there for the discussion they can't have possibly heard arguments for or against. They'll still vote though! No doubt to whatever their party's stance on it is.

All of this is likely to make anyone who truly wanted to make a difference disheartened I'm sure; they can't do anything swimming against the tide in an environment where bucking the trend isn't just advantageous: it is critical. So what next for this individual? He or she may be pushed to explain what has been happening in parliament to the media. The media who have a particular disdain for politicians and do their utmost to make them appear as vile as possible. Just watch a Paxman interview and you'll see straight away what I mean.

I have never understood why the media aren't held more accountable for the way they meddle in affairs rather than just report on them. The Leveson inquiry was just the tip of the iceberg when it is all put into context. That said the media and the powers that be have worked together on occasion. But who is pulling who's strings?

Then there is the influence of big business, which is huge and yet is not spoken of readily in the media. It's like they control their profits too...hmmm....

You don't have to look too far for examples of that. It wasn't so long ago that George Osbourne described large corporation's tax dodging as being 'immoral' (big business link there by the way) and yet very little has been done to the contrary beyond some silly posturing. If I didn't know any better I'd say they have something to gain by not doing anything, wouldn't you?

I'm going to blame this on Maggie I'm afraid. Perhaps the unions did need reform but to get rid of them completely does mean that the common man doesn't have the mouthpiece to get his say into the ears of government. What is going to do, become an MP?

There's a reason why common people don't run for government; they can't afford to. Think of the time they'd have to take off work to write manifestos and run a campaign: no employer is going to be that sympathetic when it will cost them money (a theme that reoccurs far too often in this post for my liking!). They could leave work and campaign and then pray that they'll be elected. I doubt they'd be able to afford an expensive advertising scheme either so that puts them on the back foot as most voters are going to find out about candidates through posters and TV and other media. The pay IN the House of Commons may be good, but getting there is costly. Not that much of the cabinet have any need of being paid at all (regardless of source they're not far off the truth here).

All in all how on earth is the common man to stand a chance in such a world? Well as far as I can see, he won't!

So there you have it, assorted thoughts on the trouble with politics and politicians. If anyone wants some solutions, check out this post.

Thursday, 5 July 2012

Comfortably foreign: the liberty that insults


I shall like to open with words written by Americans themselves:

‘Those who die are justified by wearing the badge of your chosen whites’

From “Killing In The Name” by Rage Against the Machine

‘We fought your wars with all our hearts,
You sent us back in body parts,
You took our wills with the truth you stole,
We offer prayers for your long lost soul.
The remainder is,
An unjustifiable, egotistical, power struggle,
At the expense of the American Dream,
Of the American dream, of the American Dream, of the American Dream’

From “American Dream Denial (A.D.D.)” by System of a Down

This will, most likely, be the last post I do on the New World for a while yet, and I meant to do it yesterday but…I didn’t. So here it is now.

Well some of you will be aware of what it was yesterday. You’ll also be aware about how I’d been writing posts in the days preceding it. Now for my opinion of the day itself.

Calling that day ‘ “Independence day”’ is more than just a joke, it’s an out and out insult to other nations. It’s made out to be a big fight for freedom but when I scratch the surface just a little I realise how that is a big lie. Rather a bunch of lies. I shall address each on in turn:

Lie 1: The British taxes were too high and they killed those that rebelled

First let me get started on the reasons behind this ‘ “War of Independence”’ (my, there are not enough quotation marks in the world to show my sarcasm here): the official reason is high taxes. I looked (briefly) into this. Yes, the colonies didn’t want to pay taxes on a type of sugar called molasses. Yes, that’s right one typing of sodding sugar! Suddenly despite speaking the same language, following the same faith and sharing huge amounts of culture suddenly didn’t matter. As I’ve been told repeatedly ‘distance makes us different’, something which I find absolutely ridiculous. Second, there was a…killing of people. The word massacre should not even be used and I will explain that shortly. For now let me just say that when I was reading up on this total non-event the British were fingered for killing 5 people during a protest, one of which was found alive a day later and another was shot hundreds of miles away. Oooh, the tyranny!

Lie 2: The British government were infringing on the colonist’s liberties

IT WAS QUITE THE OPPOSITE!

The real reason for ‘ “Independence”’ is far far more straightforward. By 1776 the British were making leaps and bounds towards the abolition of slavery and were looking to right some of the wrongs they’d done to native tribes by giving them land and space. The Europeans (MAINLY BRITISH, ACCEPT IT!) didn’t like this and so they wanted to be free from this. Not to mention how the Pilgrims came over because they hated the freedom of religion that was being touted back in Old Blighty. Yay freedom!

Lie 3: The rebels defeated a major military force at the height of its power

I’ve read that there were battles, yes. But several things have to be remembered: firstly the government in London sent a small army rather than a main force because they didn’t care so much about the outcome. Then there was a mad king to deal with. But for my money I’d say the Brits didn’t care that much about losing there because they’d ‘civilised’ the land already, killed off the savages (for the most part) and introduced noble Europeans with their fine Christianity to the land. Compare that to the Sepoy Revolution in India in 1857 where, in 3 days a major British force marched from Burma to central India through sandstorms to protect this vital asset of the Empire. Hence my reservations.

Lie 4: A new nation of justice and liberty for all was created

Biggest lie of all. I’ve mentioned slavery already but here’s some figues for you. In the UK slavery was abolished in 1808. It wasn’t until 1865 that the US followed suit. In the 1812 war, possibly the stupidest war ever fought, the native tribes of the north sided with the British against the Americans. For FREEDOM! The outcome of the war? Well, The Brits and Americans began to trade with one another (so soon after ‘ “Independence”’) and the Americans decided to wipe out the native tribes in the south. Nice one, guys.

I don’t find this day offensive as a Brit. And many Brits don’t care, and will even celebrate it alongside their American friends. It’s as an Indian that my offence comes. It took one and a half centuries of bloodshed for the British to end their tyranny, which treated all Indians as lowly slaves and has left huge amounts of psychological damage on the psyche of the nation to this day. And that was for financial reasons too! The people who fought for independence of that nation were truly brave and risked their lives. In comparison the Americans had to do nothing. It’s all pathetic, it’s all a joke. And don’t get me started on how many nations have had their civil liberties taken away in the name of ‘democracy’ by the US. Hawaii is most possibly the finest example of that. In more recent years the war on terror has been dished out by both for financial gain.

Meaning Britain and America are now the same. In the most disgusting kind of way.

Free Hawaii.

Regards,

The Vedic Underdog



Tuesday, 19 June 2012

My freedom hurts me (or, the terrible price we pay for free speech)


I haven’t written on here in ages not so much because of laziness (though no doubt that has been a factor) but because I’ve been battling health issues. I still am, but I’m powering through because my restless mind keeps coming with mental vomit that I need to release.

OK, that may sound disgusting but that said there are many things that have disgusted me in recent times and so I shall try and vocalise them clearly. But that got your attention didn’t?

Don’t lie!

Now on to what this post is really about. The diamond jubilee occurred about 2 weeks ago in this country, sprouting mixed feelings. The traditional nationalists have been all over it and then there have been those that have a good old dollop of British cynicism about the whole thing. The monarchist - republicanist debate has been going on for a long time and I shan’t go into it here beyond saying that I find both sides have valid arguments. But there is one façade amongst the republicans that does not sit well with me.

It all started a few days before the actual jubilee bank holiday was upon us and someone decided to post up a meme. The meme had a picture of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh laughing, over which someone had ‘wittingly’ written ‘Haha, you’re poor.’ I found it a little stupid and offensive.

Not so much because they were mocking the royals (more on that later) but because of their insinuation; that the people who made it and those that share it ARE poor, and that they’re living it up and we have nothing. I’m not buying that! You’re sitting at a comfy desk sending it via your laptop or smartphone, you have plenty of food and free medical care. Yes, things are tight but news flash: YOU’RE NOT POOR! YOU’RE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING POOR! And you can argue about how the upper 1% controls everything and death to capitalism blah blah blah (though when explained coherently I don’t have a problem) but when you’re a bit jealous that they have a big estate but you aren’t going hungry every night I find it hard to believe you. How about trying to help the actual poor rather than taking a pop at people that you’ll never meet and have very little influence on your daily lives??

Next time you’re trying to make a ‘social point’ on facebook or anything else (which for the most part seems like trying to earn brownie points or a badge of honour in front of your friends, looking like you actually give a damn about someone else just by sharing a stupidly made picture on a social network), how about going for something a bit more hard hitting, or at the very least with a little more fact behind it? I find it all rather ridiculous.

Now on to something similar: mocking the royals. This increased a lot in the weeks and days leading up to the jubilee, with Brits and people pretending to be ‘liberal’, ‘revolutionist’ and ‘hip’ getting involved. One friend even posted up an infamous Sex Pistols song. I don’t need to tell you which one. Some of it had a point about how they control land and questioning how much political power the royals actually have, and I have no problem with that.

Sadly not all of it actually had a point. Some of it was rather like the example I discussed above, poking fun at something without actually thinking for a second about its monumental stupidity. From people who are older than me and in most cases should know better before you play the ‘idiots on the web’ card. When you’re making fun of their accents, appearance and what they should and shouldn’t do you’ve gone too far. At some stage you’re just mocking an innocent family or innocent individuals with their flaws as much as the next person. I’m reminded now of a particular joke the comedian Frankie Boyle did that was lauded by ‘liberals’ (and I dispute that tag enormously) as being satirical, hard hitting and modern. IT WAS NONE OF THESE THINGS! It was nothing more than a comedian pretending to have the balls to talk about anything basically trying to get a laugh out of the ageing process. Give yourselves a pat on the back if you thought it was satire. You couldn’t have been further from the truth.

For those of you saying he was exercising his freedom of speech, you’re right he was. But guess what so am I by criticising it. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else. At least I gave reasons!

I just find that people take shots at the royals because, in the words of correspondent Jenny Bond, they’re such an easy target who will never fight back or say anything in retaliation. Congratulations, you’re all big hard hitting satirists, picking on such a soft scapegoat!

It is far too easy to look cool by mocking the Queen, and I for one am tired of it.

In short, if you have something valid to say about whether the royal family should stay or not, I’m ready to listen. If you’re just going to make fun of them, go away. You’re worse than useless because it means absolutely nothing. Now go get something to eat from your fridge and think about how ‘poor’ you really are.

Regards,

The Vedic Underdog

Wednesday, 6 July 2011

Where *am* I from?

This post is for all you mixed culture people. And I don’t mean those of you that are half this, quarter that and one 500th something else (unless you’re close to all those roots), I mean people who are quite literally between cultures within themselves (i.e. not simply through genetics).

I shall open with some central European humour. A Hungarian is drinking from a lake. A Slovak sees this and yells in Slovakian: ‘Stop! Don’t drink from the lake, the water is poisonous.’ On hearing the shouting the Hungarian stops drinking and asks the man (in Hungarian) what he just said, to which the Slovak replies ‘Oh, I just said that the water is cold, so drink slowly.’

Yes, I’m sure you’re splitting your sides to that one. But this joke was told to me by someone who is between cultures himself, an ethnic Hungarian living in Slovakia. This is common; apparently, Hungarians are the biggest ethnic minority in a number of central European nations. And being of one ethnicity living in a country with a different one has had its effect on him. ‘To the Slovaks I’m a dirty Hungarian, and to the Hungarians I’m a dirty Slovak. And somewhere between the two is me’, is what he had to say of it. And whilst I can not complain to have had someone describe me this bluntly, my own experiences aren’t so far off.

I’ve grown up as an ethnic Indian in the United Kingdom and by the grace of my parents been well versed in the language, culture and customs of the land of our origins. Whilst that has had many, many advantages, there have, unfortunately, been a number of issues with it too.

Don’t get me wrong, for the most part it’s great. I am equally comfortable in either country because I speak both languages fluently. Most of the time in India people can’t tell I’m from abroad. Their arrogance leads them to say they can tell when they do know, but 99.9% of the time on the street etc they haven’t a clue. Most of the time I don’t like to bring it up; I remember catching a train once with my cousin, sitting down and chatting for a while with him and the passengers after which he divulged I was not from India, something which irritated me but did lead the passengers to praise my grasp of the language, saying that they would not have known unless told that I was from elsewhere (which was a turn up for the books).

But it has also been a hindrance too. It does make it difficult internally for you to decide upon an identity when you’re slap bang in the middle of the two cultures. This does not necessarily happen if you are of one ethnicity living in a country with a different one. Often, people fall into two camps; either they spend all of their time with their own community and don’t integrate at all with the rest of society or they completely embrace the host nation, losing any heritage or cultural integrity, both of which are more harmful than taking the middle ground, as both indicate either fear (of losing or gaining something culturally) or all round discomfort of some aspect of the life you have. What’s happened with me is I’ve straddled the two, trying to take in the good aspects of both ways of life to enrich myself. But by doing so you have to be prepared for the pitfalls.
For starters people can’t put their finger on you (because many need to put people in boxes for them to make sense of you). As a result they approach you differently. Some Indians, particularly the younger ones, are intimidated by me. They find my straddling terrifying. As a defence mechanism they try and put the country I live in down, or they their inferiority complex makes them show off. They will speak to me in English (even when there is no need to do so) and then correct me when I speak Hindi for the most minor of faults (there was one time when I was told that ‘namaskar’ should not be used after noon. This is not true at all, and was nothing other than a display of arrogance). This is described in more detail in the English disease of Indians.

In the UK, almost instantly after hearing that my roots are from abroad, everyone immediately thinks I have an Indian accent (one that I didn’t have the second before I told them). I have lost count of the number of times white people have told me that my English is very good. Well, of course it’s good, you morons, I’m a native speaker!

Then there is the stigma of introducing yourself. It’s nearly impossible to get right; if I go for the ‘I’m British’ route and say nothing else, I am accused of not respecting my origins (which can lose you a lot of respect with certain people) or you can go for the ‘I’m Indian in origins’ route, which has its own problems. Firstly people may think you’re a foreigner despite the British accent and treat you differently but it’s also used as an argument that descendants of immigrants have no love for the nation they grew up and therefore should leave. Yes, I’m talking about the BNP.

So there you are, stuck between a rock and a hard place. I’ve learned to accept that ultimately neither nation will fully see me as just a person. I am, for those that actually like this aspect of me, a novelty, one way or the other. For the Indians, a guy who grew up in the west but can keep up with the best of them conversationally but still not quite one of them. For the Brits, another immigrant who should be mollycoddled and mocked because his parents came from a ‘poor’ nation who has had the privilege of being ‘civilised’. Most hold their tongues and don’t actually say that last bit, but their sentiments on how things are done over there and of my religion etc give it away.

Yet, for all my anger and irritation, I am thankful for being this way. Many British people of South Asian origin tell you an anecdote about the first time they went back to the land of their parents and spoke their ancestral language broken only to be interrupted by relatives who spoke ‘the Queens English’ and so they sheepishly switched to that themselves. I can say, with great pride, that I tell the OPPOSITE story; my relatives, assuming that I couldn’t even say hello in the language start with English only to receive a response in perfect Hindi, after which we sheepishly switch to the local language. The feeling is wonderful and I have to thank my parents profoundly for the gift they give me. Another time one of my cousins who grew up abroad asked me if we were told by our relatives in India that we spoke English too fast, to which I responded ‘We never spoke in English so we never found out.’

We straddlers have an important role to play in the development of the modern world; to help the melding of different customs and ideals of the world.
Multiculturalism is a beautiful thing when done correctly, truly the way to advance the human race. But the balance is very important. If you surrender yourself and your roots to your surroundings, you’re merely assimilating and there’s no exchange, just capitulation. If a few individuals, in whatever form, keep that culture preserved then they give a beautiful resource to the rest of the world, which the world can tap into in its purest form at any time. That needs to survive in assimilation. Otherwise you get a ‘melting pot’ that is of no use to anyone.

I felt this most astutely in my travels to the US, arguably the biggest melting pot of all. For me, it’s a bit of a graveyard of cultures. So many Germans immigrated there but the American ‘pretzel’ is horrific and bland, nothing like the noble ‘bretzel’ you get in Germany. Not to mention all the other food that’s been changed beyond repair *shudders*. On top of that, so many people over there are so keen to raise their kids ‘American’ (cos it’s the greatest somethingorother in the world apparently) they forget all about the beauty of the nation they came from. The result? You have all these people with really interesting names and interesting relatives but none of them have a clue about it. Knowing so much about the land of my fathers (and mothers), it does sadden me to think they’ll not know about that when it has enriched me so much as a person.

In short, I hate the way I am seen and some of the internal confusion that being of two cultures gives you, but I can live with it when I have gained so much. हिंदी एक बोहुत सुंदर भाषा है, और मुझे बोहुत आनंद है के मई उसकी प्रयोग कर सकता हूँ | Besides, we’re the ones that will help ensure the gems of wisdom, literature, etc from our adopted nation are passed on in the future. But we’re also open to other experiences, other ideals too. And that isn’t celebrated nearly as much as it should be!
So what am I? I am a person, first and foremost. But if you need classification, I’m British Indian (or Indian British if you prefer). In every sense of the word.
I may not fit in, but who cares? I’ll be at the crossroads of true progress one way or the other. Suck it, Griffin and Cameron!

Regards,

नमस्कार

The Vedic underdog
वेदों का व्यक्ति