In the movies about epidemics, a standard subplot -- from Outbreak to
World War Z, -- is the attempt to identify and locate patient zero
-- the first documented case of the condition.
With that in mind, it may be possible to identify
victim zero, one of
the earliest victims of the cancel culture that is ostracizing those that do
not fall in line with Black Lives Matter on the one hand and the uncovering of
white supremacy and racists who support it on the other. The doctor and
essayist Theodore Dalrymple wrote about him in 2002 in an essay,
The Man Who Predicted the Race Riots, which is included in his
2005 book
Our Culture, What's Left of It.
The complete essay is also available online.
Dalrymple discusses the case of Ray Honeyford, the headmaster of a British
middle school, who in 1984 was "branded a near-murderous racist and ultimately
drummed out of his job." Given the stories today of the excesses and
intimidation of the cancel culture, the issues and accusations Honeyford and
Dalrymple describe sound familiar, even though they are from over 35 years
ago.
The trouble started when
Honeyford submitted an article
that was originally turned down by the
Times Educational Supplement before it was accepted and published
by the conservative Salisbury Review. He wrote about what he saw as the
flaw in multi-culturalism being used to address the problems of multi-racial
inner cities and the reactions of those who were determined to close down
debate on the issue. In the article, Honeyford wrote about how:
the race lobby has so managed to induce and maintain feelings of guilt in the
well-disposed majority, that
decent people are not only afraid of voicing certain thoughts, they are
uncertain even of their right to think those thoughts...The term ‘racism’, for instance, functions not as a word with which to
create insight, but as
a slogan designed to suppress constructive thought. [emphasis added]
Back in 1984, Honeyford did not have recourse to the term "intersectionality"
that was coined in 1989, but he was aware of the tactic of uniting
minorities as one persecuted group against white 'supremacists':
The word ‘black’ has been perverted. Every non-white is now, officially,
‘black’, be he Indian, Pakistani or Vietnamese. This gross and offensive
dichotomy has an obvious purpose:
the creation of an atmosphere of anti-white solidarity. [emphasis
added]
The use of labels extended beyond the use of the word "racism" in the effort
to smear opponents. Also like today, violent riots were peaceful protests and
the police were considered the enemy:
And there are other distortions: race riots are described by the politically
motivated as ‘uprisings’, and by a Lord of Appeal as a ‘superb and healthy
catalyst for the British people’ — and the police blamed for the behaviour of
violent thugs
Honeyford quotes a lecturer at the University of London on the need for
violence:
Blacks will fight with pressure, leaflets, campaigns, demonstrations, fists
and scorching resentment which, when peaceful means fail, will explode into
street fighting, urban guerrilla warfare, looting, burning and rioting.
Similarly, back then the attacks on Honeyford took accusations of "racism" to
the next level. There was a 'cancel culture' in effect as well. A group of
black people wrote in the Caribbean Times:
All teachers, especially those like Mr Honeyford,
should be compelled to attend massive [sic] in-service training courses
to bring them up to date with modern education theory, and practice, and to
purge them of their racist outlook and ideology. Teachers who refuse to
adapt their teaching and go on in-service training courses should be
redeployed or retired off [sic] early.
School books with a racist content... should be scrapped. Racist
teachers should be dismissed. [emphasis added]
Dalrymple writes that the abuse and threats thrown at Honeyford were so bad
that he required police protection. The intimidation prevented fellow teachers
and potential allies, who privately supported him, from coming out publicly on
his behalf. Still, attempts at the city council to have Honeyford dismissed
failed for lack of legal cause.
In the end, however, Honeyford took early retirement.
Dalrymple makes a point of clarifying Honeyford's position against
multi-culturalism. Honeyford felt strongly about the importance of integrating
students of different backgrounds, of ensuring their proficiency in British
history and the English language -- but he did not support complete uniformity
at the expense of the student's native culture or religion.
According to Dalrymple, Honeyford's model for integrating into British society
was the Jewish community:
Within a generation of arrival,
Jews succeeded, despite the initial prejudice against them, in making a
hugely disproportionate contribution to the upper reaches of national life
as academics, cabinet ministers, entrepreneurs, doctors and lawyers, writers
and artists.
The upkeep of their own traditions was entirely their own affair, and
they relied not at all on official patronage or the doctrines of
multiculturalism. This was Honeyford’s ideal, and he saw no reason why the formula should not
work again, given a chance. [emphasis added]
Maybe that was the problem with Honeyford's ideal -- what must be given up to
have that success.
In another essay, When Islam Breaks Down, in the same book, Dalrymple
writes:
The devout Muslim fears, and not without good reason, that to give an inch
is sooner or later to concede the whole territory...The Muslim immigrants to
these areas were not seeking a new way of life when they arrived; they
expected to continue their old lives, but more prosperously. [p. 287]
Along with the integration that Honeyford believes provides the potential for
success, can come a degree of assimilation, and not all minorities are willing
to concede their culture.
Assimilation is a major issue for the Jewish community in the US. But in that
regard, it may be worth pointing out a key difference between the Jewish
communities in Great Britain and the US.
The current intermarriage rate among self-identifying Jews in Britain (a
figure put at about 290,000 people), according to the report, stands at
26 percent. This is the highest level for a generation in Britain:
yes. And it reflects an upward trend, yes. But the rate has been rising very
slowly since the late 1980s, and
remains significantly and consistently lower than the equivalent
intermarriage figures in the USA.
With some 5.4 million Jews,
the United States has by far the largest Jewish community outside of
Israel. It also has the highest intermarriage rates: The most recent figures there, collected in 2013 and published by the Pew
Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, show intermarriage
rates to be 58 percent. [emphasis added]
An explanation for this difference in the intermarriage numbers is suggested
by Dr. David Graham, a senior research fellow at the London-based Institute
for Jewish Policy Research:
American society has a more open and fluid approach to identity, where the
focus is on the individual’s right to choose their religion. In addition,
Britain’s Jewish community is more religious than the U.S.’s, which of course
means less intermarriage.
That stronger sense of Jewish identity has helped British Jews, most recently
in uniting against the threat of Jeremy Corbyn.
Maybe Jews in the US can forge a similar solidarity based on their Jewish
identity.
Monday, May 03, 2021
Elder of Ziyon
.jpg)
