#I know all European countries I just can't tell which ones are in the EU - oh I forgot:

[everythingthatsgoingon]

I'm too lazy to look it up, so I'm hoping tumblr will answer me.

In France we have 38 lists ! It's a record. Last time it was 34, and already a record.

At most 20 lists can get deputies (as lists need a score of at least 5% to get deputies). According to current polls, between 5 and 7 lists - those from the main parties, who get most if not all of the media's attention - are expected to make the cut.

There's logistical difficulties as there needs to be temporary billboards in front of every polling station with enough space for every party to put up an A1 poster - it's too much for isolated towns and villages, who realistically will at most have 10 posters up on those billboards because most lists don't have the financial means to pay for a company to put up their posters all over the country. It costs like 200 000 euros, and they already need to pay to print the posters. And most parties/list do not have a 200 000 € budget anyway. What money they have they might prioritise towards printing and distributing their ballot papers - and with budgets under 200 000 €, they can't print enough to have 1 per voter, let alone 2 and have the second sent with the "profession of faith" letters voters receive in the week before the election. They most often can't print those professions of faith to send either.

But anyway, yeah, 38 lists, meaning 3078 French citizens are candidates to fill the 81 French seats in the EU parliament. A bit more men than women, since a majority of lists have a male first candidate.

[neechees]

This isn't supposed to be a gotcha, I'm genuinely asking because my dad keeps using this as an argument when I try to explain land back stuff to him. And I'm hoping you can help give tips on how to explain it to him.

We're European, and as you probably know there's people here who are anti-immigrant / anti-refugee bc they're racist and want it to be only Europeans. My dad thankfully isn't *that* bad, but his argument is "well if indigenous ppl deserve their land back, even despite all the non-natives who moved there bc they had to, then don't the anti-immigrant EU ppl have the right to kick out the immigrants even if they fled to here as refugees?"

It's so gross and i don't blame you if you don't want to engage with it/answer this anon. I just am like trying to figure out how to answer him and of all the progressive issues I explain to my dad this is the one I'm least familiar with. So how do I explain to him why it doesn't really apply to indigenous Europeans?

I can't tell what you mean when you say "Indigenous Europeans", because Indigenous is a racialized and political category of people that have been affected and racialized by colonialism in a specific way, "Indigenous" doesn't just mean "x group of people who originally come from x area". Because you haven't specific a specific Indigenous Nation (for example, Saami), I'm going to assume you just mean that you are White Europeans who are not Indigenous. You'll have to explain that to him as well. This is also important, because I know many racist Europeans will co-opt Indigeneity in order to promote White Supremacist ideas like creating an ethnostate, and what your dad has suggested, is the definition of that. Secondly, tell him (even if you ARE Indigenous,) Indigenous people, as the same with anyone else, being xenophobic and racist towards immigrants is still bad and unacceptable, we don't get a free pass to be bigoted towards different groups of people and use "landback" as an excuse. Landback goes hand in hand with decolonizing, and you can't do that while perpetrating settler-colonial ideology and bigotry.

I don't know how many times we have to say this, but Landback does not inherently have to do with deporting anybody who isn't "Indigenous", and does not have anything to do with trying to create an ethnostate, the core goals of Landback is neither of those things. You have to emphasize this to him.

Landback has to do with sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples because as it is, we're being oppressed by the White governments that are occupying us. We are stripped of multiple rights while in our own homes. What your dad has suggested about White Europeans having the "right" to deport immigrants is already a reality, White Europeans already have privilege and power over immigrants, and many immigrants already ARE being deported and mistreated by those governments. There are race riots targeting immigrants happening in the U.K for goodness sake!

Landback is centered ideas of decolonizing and dismantling White Supremacy: Your dad's presented idea of mass deportation of any person who isn't ehtnically/racially European or is an (immigrant to there) from the country you reside in is based on White Supremacy. The category "immigrant" itself is very racialized, because when White North Americans or Europeans talk about deporting "immigrants" from the country, typically they're talking about Brown and Black people & people who aren't Christian, and I've never heard a White Canadian complain about a White French immigrant and suggest we deport them, or hear a White American complain about deporting the Irish.

As an example, trying to kick everyone else out of Turtle Island (or anywhere) for one thing would be WAAAAY too much of a hassle to even attempt, too expensive, and useless. Plus, if there was a mass exodus (for lack of a better word) of people via planes, vehicles, and ships all at once or even over time, that would have a big negative impact on the environment, which kind of goes against why people want Landback in the first place (to take care of the land and environment, we care about it). It's counterproductive to several of the goals of Landback.

So to recap, deporting any people who are not "Indigenous" or originally from one area is not the goal, your dad has made a false equivalency because 1

that's not what we want in the first place, Landback has nothing inherently to do with deporting anyone who isn't originally from a specific area or creating an ethnostate, and

trying to do it would be useless and going AGAINST the goals and principles of Landback and what is wanted

part of Landback is undoing racism and White Supremacy, and what he's suggested is promoting those things (White Supremacy and racism)

[thessalian]

Thess vs A Global Laughingstock

So for those of you who aren't aware, this bloody country is still going around in circles about the Rwanda Bill. Catch-up and updates follow:

What the fuck is the Rwanda Bill? Well, y'see, the current Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, has decided to really appeal to the racist right-wing asshole voter - the kind of nitwit that voted for Brexit because of "those damned foreigners" - by dealing with "illegal migrants" once and for all. For a definition of "illegal migrants", see also "refugees" - people who are fleeing from their country of origin because their country is unsafe. The UK Nitwit Brigade keep bitching about, "They really should stop in the first safe country they find!" and ignore anyone who explains that people are only willing to pay literal people-smugglers to cross the English Channel in very small unsafe boats for very good reasons - like, they have family here, or can speak the language, or all of the above. The whole problem is that there aren't enough safe legal routes for refugees to take to get here, so they take what they can get. Anyway, the three-word slogan currently dominating the noise from 10 Downing Street is "Stop The Boats", and after discussions about things like "literally shoving the small boats back towards France with fucking gunships, inevitably causing them to capsize and drown in the process" were shut down by "lefty lawyers" who care about human rights and, y'know, not drowning innocent people. So then came the next step: "Deport them all to Rwanda".

Why Rwanda? Fuck only knows. I'm assuming it's to do with an awful lot of money. Though weirdly, we seem to have paid them more than they've paid us.

What's the problem with Rwanda? Well, it's been deemed an unsafe country by the European Commission of Human Rights, to which we still belong - it's not an EU thing, it's a European continent thing. The only two countries in Europe-the-continent that aren't a part of the ECHR are Russia (yes, it's classified by the UN as a European country) and Belarus. Neither of which have ever struck me as all that interested in human rights on the whole, honestly. Anyway, Rwanda's run by a despot, and whatever Sunak meebles about how "It's totally safe now!", the ECHR - and our own Supreme Court - have been calling that bullshit out for awhile.

So your Supreme Court said the Bill is illegal. Why are they still talking about it? Because Sunak, apparently having glommed onto this as the thing that will save his arse at the next general election (coming at the end of this year), is trying to write amendments into this fucking thing that will somehow circumvent any and all human rights law, and somehow ignore any human rights law it can't circumvent (like, all of them). This Bill is full of things like, "Oh, our civil servants will just ignore ECHR law and process things like we tell them to!" and "We'll get 150 new justices to rubber-stamp the deportation papers like good little puppets!" and holy fuck, it's kind of disgusting.

So ... and I realise you've answered half the question, but... How is this making the UK even more of a laughingstock than it already was to begin with? Well. Currently the Conservative party that came up with this bullshit is tearing itself apart. Some want the bill as it is. There's a whole cluster of rebels who want to vote it down because it's "not hardline enough and not punitive enough" when it comes to stripping human rights from refugees (and they're also the ones insisting that we have to leave the ECHR, which is part of the laughingstock thing because I don't think we want to be in the same boat as Russia and Belarus). There are a very few moderates who are actually accepting that this is never going to work and saying "enough is enough; drop this already". Meanwhile, one of Sunak's people is going, "If you don't vote for this, start looking for another job". I am only very slightly paraphrasing. So in the run-up to an election, the Tories are fighting like rats in a sack. Add to that the fact that if this thing manages to pass the Commons, it still has to pass the Lords, who have no horse in the election race (they're appointed, not elected) ... and a lot of them are lawyers. Lawyers know very well what will happen if we keep attempting to violate (or actually succeed in violating) international law. They probably won't like that idea very much. So once again, the absolute fucking irony of the "lazy unelected shit-lumps in the Lords" maybe saving our international reputation is beyond compare. ...But that's nothing compared to what Rwanda's doing.

...I am afraid to ask. Well, apparently Rwanda has been offering us (us as a country, that is) our money back. See, we've already paid Rwanda scads of money for even setting up for this doomed-to-failure bit of bullshit, as previously stated. And apparently this is getting so ridiculous and so very obviously blatantly violating international law that the president of Rwanda of all places has offered to give back a significant amount of money just to get his name and that of his country out of the whole mess. I have to wonder at what point Rwanda just goes, "You know what, no - if you don't want the money back, fine, but we're out of this shit".

I'm still terrified for refugees. I don't know what happens with this because seriously, there's no fucking way to tell what anyone in this government is going to do from one minute to the next. But I can still hope that we don't end up leaving the ECHR, because I don't really know what happens if we do that just to be able to send poor miserable people to fucking Rwanda. I mean, beyond the UN also giving up on this whole country because the UN doesn't like the idea of deporting people to Rwanda either. I mean, given the anti-trans sentiment in this country, and the fact that they're already being assholes to the disabled by cutting their benefits if they don't work from home to "do their duty" (yes, that is exactly how the government put that) ... I'm foreign, disabled, and not cishet (though I pass, and I guess that's something but I HATE IT SO MUCH THAT I HAVE TO), and this country already hates me. Take away basic human rights, and whatever replaces it is going to fuck me over very, very hard.

Gods, this place is a fucked-up mess.

[tolerateit]

Put this down as the fastest this government has agreed on anything. It only took a day, and they agreed to change the laws to get off easy despite cancer patients dying from the shit they've been pulling. It's basically a two party system but both parties are two sides of the same coin, so they gotta protect each other at the expense of the rest of the country and its citizens.

Anyway, I'm so so so sick of this and all the other updates I've shared with you so I'm just gonna say it, this is MK. In a European shithole that's been trying to join the EU for like two decades now. Funny, right? The EU has laws and regulations and shit like this will (hopefully?) not fly. I think changing this law might be the last straw, so they can make the last necessary changes to the constitution next year after elections and we can finally join. Hundreds of thousands have been migrating away in the last decade because it's such a shithole. The moment we join, this place will pretty much empty out and honestly, it's what these politicians deserve. Not to have anyone even picking up their shit. Literally. Should hopefully happen in a few more years although at this rate, everyone might leave even before then.

TO THINK I used to dream about working in politics and diplomacy and fixing this country up! And pursuing world fucking peace?! You know what I had back then? The audacity lmao

I grew up and realized I don't wanna ass kiss any one of these rotten walnuts for brains to do anything in life, and I certainly don't want to take part in their various criminal activities (which are mandatory if you do join, and joining is mandatory to get pretty much any job here. Or even open up your own business, because they'll find a way to shut you down if you don't help them out in whatever way they see fit).

Like, can you even grasp that I only have digestive issues with the dairy products here, but I'm perfectly fine whenever I consume any of them outside of the country? I certainly can't, like what's the difference? what are they putting in it here that's making me ill? God knows what's in the rest of the food at this point.

I made a meme a few years ago, we had our own situation of a model on stage saying the country's name in a funny way like that girl did with France. I saved a screenshot of it and captioned it with the name and everything because it was funny. I've now been using it as a reaction pic on a daily basis. Any time anyone tells me anything negative, I'm like, you know what, yes that sucks, but you know what else? That's just how things are here and nothing and no one can change them, and then show them the meme. At least it gets a smile in any shitty situation.

I was wondering why it's this specific event that's triggered me so much and I found out after hearing the news about the law. My husband's been having health issues all year. It took over 30 doctors and exams and god knows what else just to get an official diagnosis. A bunch of devices for exams haven't been working for months, all across the country no less, so you gotta pay out of pocket at a private clinic that has a working one. All this because most of the good doctors have already left. And you also gotta pay out of pocket at those private clinics to talk to doctors now too, because if there are any good ones left, they're working there because it's less stressful and operates better post covid. And pays a bit more, but mostly it functions better. Thank god we've been able to afford it (freelance ftw!) There were three good ones in that process: the one that recommended the last one, an unrelated one that said your issues aren't from this organ, you can be 100% sure of that, and that last one that gave the diagnosis. And we know it's correct because I haven't seen a single complaint about that doctor on any forum. I don't think all the others we went to really even have brains, someone must have finished their schools for them given what they said and recommended. And I know that much with my degree in English. But imagine being so horrible that you literally let patients die so you can make more money?! When most of them are already poor so they resort to selling everything they own just for the chance to spend more time with their loved ones?! And you're already in one of the highest paid fields here?! On top of everything, people can't even speak up or out about it because corruption and politics run so deep they immediately threaten job loss for you and your family too. I wanna set this place on [redacted] and watch the aftermath calmly as they did to a makeshift covid hospital a couple of years ago. And I mean that literally. That's a whole other story where "no one is at fault" because they can play it that way.

God I hope this is the last time I send you one of these. But I already read some superficial reports earlier today of new fucked up issues being uncovered so I guess no dice. I hope someone protects the journalists, if this keeps going on they'll have it worse because evidence shows these politicians aren't above literal murder to get their way.

sorry for clogging up your ask box with all this, and as I always appreciate you for listening <3

you don't have to apologize at all, it is of course infuriating that these things continue to happen all across the world but it is so important that people stay angry about them! And talk about them!!! Health especially is such an important domain to navigate because it puts SO MANY lives at risk I hate that this is happening

[menlove]

here is the thing. is when Europeans, specifically, make the comment like "why do Americans say what state they're from/expect us to know regional differences/etc when they can't even tell our accents apart" abt their specific country it's like. I understand those comments when someone is from like. Africa and they're rightfully upset most uneducated Americans think Africa is a country and all the same at that. or Asia for the same reasons. or even larger countries specifically like Australia or China or Russia. but I need u all to understand that when u as a British person or some shit are offended we don't know your tiny baby regions or know the differences between your accents just how large the US is. like the distance between New York and California is greater than the distance between London and Cairo. I need you to really take that in and absorb that. we are quite literally a bunch of different countries in one country that's like. the whole point of the United States. it's similar (similar not exact I don't need essays here) to if the EU just called itself a country.

and re accents I can promise most people in the US couldn't tell you the difference between regional accents in each state either unless they live there, which is the equivalent of the regional differences in British accents. but the difference between like a southern Appalachian and southern Californian accent is literally like the difference between accents from two entirely different countries. and it's fine if you can't tell that apart but it's not exactly a valid comparison to say we're all stupid over

and the Reason ppl will get annoyed if they say they're from Michigan and you're like "so basically Texas" or whatever it's the equivalent of if you said you were from Wales and someone kept saying you were from Germany. like. there are huge and significant cultural and environmental differences in different states because once again...... quite literally a bunch of countries.

and I don't expect anyone to memorize or learn these things and I don't think anyone does bc ultimately most ppl r gonna care most abt the regions they're from but At The Very Least can yall stop acting pretentious and mean abt how stupid/self centered Americans are over this shit like I'm begging yall to get a grip and some perspective

[saruwein]

What is weird about Europe

So for some reason I've come across to a lot of EU vs North America content - mainly EU vs US though, and it's always nice to be appreciated for public nudity, the Autobahn and very old architecture. And I like seeing people learning about basic human rights and und appreciating the thought behind maternity leave, health care, and the basic human decency behind affordeable college tuition in an increasinly scholarized world. I mean for some reason you need a Bachelor's to change a light bulb appearently, at least it sure seems we're headed that way. But I want to rant about some other aspect of the EU. Things I find wierd. Our foreign policy, especially towards the global south. (which contrary to intuition: "global south" ≠ "geographic south", but rather developing countries, the US not included) THE IDEA OF A UNION OF PEACE The idea behind the EU was originally a union to preserve peace in Europe, and it might have played a large role in accomplishing just that. Especially French-German relations have gone from very adversary to overwhelmingly amicable, some xenophobic villagers excluded.

Towards the 2000s, and I can't say when it began for I was not around, its core identity has shifted towards an economical purpose - creating a large market, free movement of people and goods etc., all fancy, all cool, maybe a little neo-capitalist to my taste, but the common currency and free movement have undoubtedly enriched us culturally, too.

GLOBALISED PROBLEMS AND CONSERVATISM However with a more globalised world and increased pressure -- or maybe just sustained pressure on the golbal south, there has been a some tragedy induced migration. Partly but not excluively political refugees.

And our response - to put it mildly - has been very pooror extremely negligeant. These are people who see an EUtopia just a stretch of water ahead and they embark on a perillious crossing at their own expenses just to be able to provide a future to themselves andf their families. They are crossing from countries which have a very troubeled connection with European countries. We went there, plundered and pillaged, forced our faith on them, attacked them, and even sold them into slavery. And to this day the loss of culture is not repaid - not even mentioning the loss of life and dignity which cannot be repaid, and the f*cking conservative pr!cks have no better reaction than "SOMEONE! QUICK! SHUT THE DOOR!!" And we watch as they drown! We let them rot in camps! Instead of inviting them as guests and telling them, you know what? You're right to come here. Look, we destroyed your cultural heritage, but look at this old cathedral which we built on the back of our own suffering people and then renovated on the backs of yours. But NO! Travel is fun. Migration? Aww h€ll no! That's infuriating. And it's unjust. And it goes against each and every one of the values of the EU. GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY And to be clear here, I'm not proposing we go there and fix their problems, that is interventionism, and it may be good or bad, to me it's hard to tell whether it's ethically questionavle or ethically required - arguments can be made for both positions. But I'm saying we can't refuse the bare minimum, and that is to refuse the help of individuals who are not calling on us to fight their wars, but who come to us in need of help. All they ask is for a roof, a blanket and food, for a hearth and a home. They're willing to pay, they're willing to work, but instead of shipping them oer ourselves, we have them funnel the money into illegal shipping entepises who are connected to organised crime and warlords. We have them gamble their lives on a perilious travel and wash up on our shores. Some make it. Others don't. And then we still let them rot. And that's our responsibility. Most economical problems in the global south are connected to past exploitation or current exploitation which favours the gloval north. Our companies hire them in the conditions we have abolished in our countries to produce our wealth and our goods. And we hardly take any political action. There are Europeans who fight for some justice to be delivered, but our answer can not stay some few fighting for change when most get on with their lives and many fight against any progress. I belong to those who try to make their lives. Can you blame me? The fight has been taking ages, I'll vote for progress, but we're too few up against a conservative majority, when our answer to our obligations - in my vision of a utopian Europe should be unanimous! So yeah, this is what I think is weird about the EU. And all the appreciation for health care, for higher education, all that tatses bitter, when confronted with the reality of how the EU acts towards its neighbours. A European Union alright, a union of peace, my a$s.

[morilucidstories]

I watched a bunch of the videos. They're all really good jumping off points for learning these countries' government structures. However, none of the ones I watched explained how the countries' land is separated/subdivided which is where Anon's confusion came from. This is an issue of symantecs more than it is a lack of knowledge about other countries. Americans already know the subdivisions exist in other countries, but the names used to define those subdivisions are rarely given a focus.

I am from the USA, was raised here and taught here for 6 years in private programs for private, public, and home schooled students. I was not a history teacher, but, while working on assignments, my classes for students ages 12-17 often turned into group discussions about current events, things they read online, culture, and the history of how we got here. As someone who loves studying history and culture from around the world, I encouraged their discussions, helped fill in the gaps they were missing, and suggested different articles and books they could read on their own for more context. I can't speak for all Americans, but I can explain how this misconception came about in the students I have had because I have seen this exact misunderstanding iny classroom. Since that is my experience in explaining things I will structure this like I would if one of my students showed me the post and said they had the same confusion as Anon.

From what we see in response to Anon, it seems like the word "state" does not match how we use often it in the US. (Without looking up the definition) What is the common understanding in the colloquial use of the word "state" in the USA, and how did we get here?

When explaining how the USA is structured and how it came to be to young children, the "States" are often explained as countries that are unified under a larger shared government. The size of states in the USA are also often used to give a reference to the size of different countries, so the students have a better understanding of the scale of the places being talked about. These are used as a metaphor and not intended to affect a student's definition of the word "states," but young children aren't known for understanding or remembering nuance. And so their internal definition of "state" starts to include the size of the territory. Later when American students learn about "military states" the idea that "state" and "country" are synonyms becomes reinforced. When news about the European Union started being more talked about in the USA, I heard students and adults comment that the EU was "the United States of Europe" further showing the usage of the word "State" as "county" and strengthening how US citizens are taught to view their own States as country equivalents. (This is also one of the reasons why American's are prone to tell you which State they are from and not "the USA" when you ask them where they are from.)

So what is a "state?"

Google defines it as "2. a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. [Followed by the example:] 'Germany, Italy, and other European states.'"

This means that it is a word that can be used to describe a country just like they thought! No one is stupid for assuming which meaning of a word is being used. All language and communication is based on assuming the meaning of the words being used. When a word is normally used one specific way around us, it's very normal to assume that is how it is being used.

Clearly this word has more nuance than how most Americans use it, so let's get into that.

We know "state" also means "condition" (Example: "the state of the project was far from complete"), so we already know it can have more than one meaning. The important thing is to recognize that you are missing context needed to understand the new or expanded meaning, and to figure out where that context is missing, and where to find it.

Notice how the definition from Google says "nation or territory?" The United States of America is also a state in and of itself. Just like German is a state that has states inside it. (I'm using Germany because it's the one Anon is asking about). Just like how the States in the United States are not actually separate countries, other countries can also have smaller states inside of them. Just because the USA has "States" in it's name does not mean it is the only country to have sub "states."

In the USA we have:

Country -> State -> County -> Town/City/etc -> Road -> House/Apartment number

Because of things like this and using US States to give an idea of scale to countries outside of the US it's also common to assume that "state" has an implied size or scale. It does not. "State" denotes an aspect of how the territory is governed and definted. It does not have anything to do with size, or level of division. As another example, you know how we call the states in the north east of the US "New England?" It is a division higher than State and lower than country. Just imagine something like that but with a governing body of some type, and suddenly state is not the first thing under country.

Part of the confusion about Germany having states might come from the fact when writing a German address for mail, you don't write the state.

The USA mailing address is structured:

Name of Recipient

Number, Street Name

County, State, Postal Code

The German mailing address is structured:

Name of Recipient

Street Name, Number

Postal Code, City

Unlike in the US, the state is not a part of the mailing address in Germany. This points out that just because a level of territory subdivision exists, does not mean it has to be in the address -that is up to the specific country. (I had a German penpal for about 3 years when I was a teen, and wrote the address myself. I did double check it online before posting this because it has been over a decade since I needed that knowledge.)

I am not qualified to talk about Germany's territory subdivision structure. So I can't answer Anon's unspoken question of "what are states in Germany?" with any level of nuance. I don't want to risk spreading my own potential misunderstanding of what I do know. It would be awesome if someone who does know could explain it because I would also like to know more :3

For the TLDR and some reading that explains states in more detail I recommend this article:

The article explains the differences between what "state," "sovereign state," "nation," and "nation state."

https://www.thoughtco.com/country-state-and-nation-1433559

This is the brief it gives at the beginning:

-A state is a territory with its own institutions and populations.

-A sovereign state is a state with its own institutions and populations that has a permanent population, territory, and government. It must also have the right and capacity to make treaties and other agreements with other states.

-A nation is a large group of people who inhabit a specific territory and are connected by history, culture, or another commonality.

-A nation-state is a cultural group (a nation) that is also a state (and may, in addition, be a sovereign state).

The article goes into a lot more detail, so if you want a more clear definition of what these are and how they are different, I highly recommend reading it.

Germany has states????

hey before i answer this can you let me know if youre american real quick

[unicornprincessinthetardis]

My (often relatively reasonable) dad: ...so Enoch Powell was right, what he said has happened.

Me: and you don't think maybe he could've said it without inciting racial hatred and literally saying that in time the rivers might run with the blood of 'native' British people because of immigration, do you?

My dad: no, you're being ridiculous, it had to be said, and there really are areas of cities that are majority black or Muslim now so he was right in his predictions, and it didn't change how things were anyway

Me: *goes away to calm down and read up on the 'Rivers of Blood' speech*

[I already knew some of this but here's a précis for those unfamiliar: in April 1968, in Wolverhampton, UK, a Conservative MP, Enoch Powell, made a speech, about the proposed 'Race Relations Bill' (which subsequently made it illegal to refuse housing/ employment/public services to people on the grounds of race/colour/ ethnic & national origins).

The speech was strongly anti-immigrant, calling for 'voluntary re-emigration' and for moves to be made to stem the tide of immigration, else Britain would be 'overrun' and sooner or later white British people would find themselves fully second-class citizens, and that in some ways they already were. He also talked about a "tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic", which I take to mean immigration in the USA to the similar end of white people no longer being in charge - which in 1968 was so far from the truth, and just horrible baseless fear-mongering, playing on people’s xenophobia and racist prejudice - and compared pro-immigration/anti-discrimination newspapers to the ones that had denied and hid the rise of fascism and threat of war in the 1930s. Plus, he talked about a constituent of his, a woman who lived on a street that had become occupied by mostly black people, who lost her white lodgers and complained to the council for a tax rate reduction because she wouldn't take black tenants, and instead basically got told not to be racist, and presented it as a bad thing that she'd been treated like that.

The speech's common name comes from a phrase he quoted from the Aenid (because he was also a Cambridge-educated classics scholar), 'I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood"', although he just called it 'the Birmingham speech' and seemed to be surprised by the uproar he caused.]

Me (to self): So it didn't change things did it? How do you explain the attacks against nonwhite people where the attackers literally shouted his name and repeated his rhetoric? Oh, they would definitely have happened if he hadn't made that speech, wouldn't they? And the British people of foreign descent who were so afraid they might be removed from their lives just for not being white they always had cases packed to go? And the fact that experts says he set back progress in 'race relations' by about ten years and legitimised being racist/anti-immigrant in the same way UKIP and some pro-Brexit types have done within the last few years here (fun fact: immediately after the Brexit vote, people were being racially and physically abusive to visibly Muslim and/or South Asian people, telling them to leave because of Brexit, which was of course extreme nonsense because their presence would be nothing to do with the EU, and more likely the British Empire and the Commonwealth, but they were doing it because it seemed suddenly okay to be openly racist, because Nigel Farage and his ilk, and a legally non-binding vote surrounded in lies, said so) and others have done elsewhere, in the US and Europe and Brazil and so many other places.

Powell was interviewed about the speech in 1977 and stood by his views, said that because the immigration figures were higher than those he had been 'laughed at' about in his speech, he was right and now governments didn't want to deal with the "problem", were passing it off to future generations and it would go on until there was a civil war!

He also said he wasn't a 'racialist' (racist) because he believed a "'racialist' is a person who believes in the inherent inferiority of one race of mankind to another, and who acts and speaks in that belief" so he was in fact "a racialist in reverse" as he regarded "many of the peoples in India as being superior in many respects—intellectually, for example, and in other respects—to Europeans." (I mean, I know I can't hold him to our standards but a) that's still racism and b) he did think that mankind was divided into very distinct, probably biologically so, races, which, yes, normal for the time, but the whole 'each with different qualities and ways in which they were better than others' is iffy)

Me: *goes back to Dad to make my point and definitely not get upset* So here are some things that literally happened as a consequence of the 'Rivers of Blood' speech...

So even if he was correct to say what he did (I mean, he wasn't but you have to tiptoe around Dad and I had points to make), he shouldn't have said it the way he did

My dad: so you think the truth should be suppressed? You're only looking at this from one perspective (he thinks he knows better because he was alive at the time and my brother and I weren't despite the fact that we're both into politics and history and, y'know, not into scapegoating, behaving oddly, and laying blame because people are different to us - he and mum also have issues with trans people and we're trying so hard to change their views/behaviours but I'm not sure it's working & that's a whole different story) and there are these areas that really are Muslim-only (because informal lending and wanting to keep the community together is such a crime, right?) and they don't integrate and want to impose Sharia law (only he couldn't remember what it was called right then) and you don't know what it's like (he is an engineer surveyor and travels all over to inspect boilers and cooling systems and all sorts of stuff, and this includes into majority-Black or -Asian (Muslim and otherwise) areas in Birmingham - which is not a no-go area for non-Muslims, I'm a deeply agnostic white woman, it's my nearest big city and I wish I went there more often but it's tricky as I don't drive, public transport is bad/inconvenient, and I have no friends to go with except depression and anxiety [which are worse 'friends' than the ones that I found out only liked me in high school because I always had sweets and snacks at lunch so when I got braces and my mouth hurt too much to eat much of anything which meant I certainly didn't have snacks, they dropped me pretty quickly] so apparently he's the expert on all such matters)

What I wish I'd said: *staying very calm* well, and that's your opinion, I'm going, I've got sewing to finish *leaves*

What actually happened:

Me: have you considered that they are able to buy up areas like that because white people leave because of their prejudice against the 'influx'?

Dad: they buy up great areas because they buy in groups (I think this refers to a sort of community lending thing to be compliant with various parts of Islam? [Please correct me if I'm wrong] which is effectively what building societies/credit unions were, at least to begin with, and he doesn't take issue with those) and want to stay together. Why do they do that? Sikhs don't do that, they buy big houses and aren't bothered about being close together.

Me: different religious ethoses? I don't know... But you do know that they people who want the UK to be a caliphate ruled by Sharia law are just a minority, and that most Muslims would not want that at all, just like you?

Dad: but they still do want it, and it could happen, if there was a charismatic leader,

Me: *incredulous* you know it's about as likely for that to actually happen as for strictly Orthodox Jewish people to be able to make this country into another Israel, right? Besides, there are the police, and the armed forces, and intelligence agencies, not to mention the Government and civil service (thought I'd got a win there, he hates the unchanging upper-class-public-school-Oxbridge nature of the people who effectively really run the government, constant no matter the leaning of the elected party, but no) who have a vested interest in preserving themselves in their current state so would be able to stop anything like that

Dad: yes, but the cutting of funding to police and public services means they might not be able to stop it (I realise now that he's oddly economically left-wing but also really quite socially conservative in some ways)

Me: *getting angry* but it's still an absolute minority, most Muslims would be horrified if it really did happen, and have you ever considered that maybe they wouldn't be so ill-disposed to us and to integration if we didn't demand it of them the moment that they arrive, demand that they assimilate or go away (he often uses the phrase "yes, but they're in somebody else's country, they should make an effort") and maybe young people wouldn't be so easily radicalised and people generally mistrust the people who don't try to understand them, you know, want them to change everything about themselves (for instance, Dad is violently opposed to the burqa etc and not really a fan of the hijab - still doesn't get that it's a choice and people can do what they want because apparently 'anyone could be wearing one of those things' - burqas/niqabs, I presume - and that it must all be forced because who would possibly choose to dress like that - I have half a mind to show him those sites about Christian modest dressing (one was a shop and a lot of their range was pretty cute!) that I once found, just to see if that'll prove to him it is a choice thing) *tries to leave*

Dad: *angry* You stay there and listen to me! You're just looking at it from one perspective and that's not the truth, you're so biased and closed-minded, you only look at things your way!

Me: *furious* Really? Really? Am I? *Scoffs/incredulous exhalation* I'm closed-minded, am I?... *Storms out, shouts as I go* I'm not the one who said Enoch Powell was right!!

This is all heavily paraphrased, because I've been writing this for literal hours now and I was angry and don't remember well at the best of times, it may have been worse than how I'm writing it

Also, going to be tricky to patch up but right now I stand by what I said, because I know my perspective is limited, but at least I actually admit that and try to find out what people different to me think, rather than basing all my opinions and things on my own experiences which can't be universal, as he seems to

Other bs my dad said during the two conversations: "don't get so upset about it, it's only history" (which is bold, considering it was the 50th anniversary this year and he was literally 11 years old when it happened so probably saw/heard news coverage)... "Yes of course far right groups use 'Enoch was right' as a slogan, it doesn't mean anything"... Reiterating the 'nothing changed' thing multiple times... Dismissing the fact that Powell said there'd be a civil war because apparently just because the British/Europeans were aggressive conquerors anyone else who came in numbers anywhere would eventually have that aim and how ridiculous that view actually is... Dismissing the fact that Powell basically incited racial hatred and violence with the inclusion of an irrelevant Classical phrase which spread fear on all sides...

I could go on but I'm so tired and don't want to make myself more upset

I love my parents but I really don't like them very much lately but I don't know if I just put up with it or leave sooner or later and if I do leave I don't know where I'd go because no friends

Basically I'm so sorry for my parents' prejudices which I'm still trying to unlearn myself - I apologise wholeheartedly to all Muslim and Jewish people and honestly pretty much everyone they're prejudiced against

[uk-news-talking-politics]

I worked with Thatcher and Heath but I can't call myself a Conservative anymore

By Roger Boaden

With the Conservative party in its current state, it's not surprising One Nation Tories are abandoning it in droves. I worked for it for 30 years in a number of senior positions, including the organisation and management of election campaign tours for Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher in the 1970s and 1980s. So this is a particularly tough admission to make, but it's not my party anymore. As a Brit living in Europe, I've seen it discard people like me without even a second thought. Decisions are made about our lives that have a profound impact on people living here, but no-one in government seems to care. I thought Brexit would end this way. I've always belonged to the pro-European wing of the party, a part which has now been almost completely purged. My belief in the European project began when I was 15, taking part in the school debating society. In one debate I argued for the EEC & EFTA to join forces. Then, in 1962 I helped to lay a wreath at a cross in Berlin's Bernauer Strasse, where a young German, Bernd Lünser, fell to his death as he tried to escape the Volks Polizei, from what had become East Berlin months before. I was close to Margaret Thatcher, even though we were only face-to face-periodically. Whenever we met, she always addressed me as 'Roger dear'. When I left party employment in 1988, she had a farewell evening for me in Downing Street. We agreed about the single market before she became eurosceptic. Laying that wreath in Berlin brought it home to me that Bernd Lünser was prepared to die to protect his freedom of movement. So, for me, the free movement of people, goods and ideas across national borders has been the greatest achievement of the European project. The cavalier disregard with which Theresa May used the withdrawal agreement to negotiate away free movement for me and the 1.3 million Brits living in the EU27 after Brexit was painful. I am retired and don't need it for working across Europe in the way that many others do - 80% of Brits in Europe are working age or younger - but the emotional wrench of losing this symbolic right is impossible to describe. The decision in 2016 to leave the EU was a shock, particularly as I am now convinced it was achieved by the ruthless manipulation of personal data by billionaires from both sides of the Atlantic. Now, one of the architects of that manipulation has achieved the leadership of what was my party. He is determined to destroy the UK by leaving the EU with no deal. Like its predecessor, the Boris Johnson administration is determined to wash its hands of its own nationals on the continent as soon as it legally can. How else do you explain last week’s announcement by Matt Hancock that the government will no longer indefinitely continue to fund S1 healthcare for 180,000 pensioners, disabled people and a small number of posted workers living in the EU27? Lots of British pensioners retired to the continent after a life of work, paying UK tax and social security contributions. Getting access to UK government funded healthcare in their country of residence, which they are currently entitled to as EU citizens, was an important factor in their plans. Many just survive on the UK state pension - already the lowest in the OECD. They cannot afford private healthcare in the countries where they currently reside. Many cannot even afford to join local healthcare systems. If they were somehow able to move back to the UK, many don't know if they could access the NHS straight away. People older than me, undergoing major treatment for cancer, do not know whether they will still be able to get it a year after a no-deal Brexit. They are trapped. At best, the government is signalling that it is prepared to play politics with people's lives in order to bring the EU27 to the table. At worst, it is telling its own retirees that it will cut the cord on any moral obligation or sense of human decency the minute it possibly can. Labour are only marginally better. Last week its conference voted to support the right to vote of all overseas nationals resident living in the UK. I support that. But what about Brits overseas? We're hugely affected by changes in UK law and politics. We should be able to vote on our futures. Ironically Labour's historic reluctance to support this move has been because it thinks all overseas Brits are Tories. Hopefully this piece will help burst that idea. If someone like me no longer feels part of the present day Conservative Party, many others won't either. The Conservatives have torn themselves apart over Brexit. We need a change of government before they can do more damage.