Against Conspiracy.

It strikes me that in a city the size of Birmingham there are probably a few hundred people who have been the subject of action of the authorities, whether UK based authorities or those overseas, for the purposes of state control, social management or however we prefer the notion of illegal government activity to be termed which is supposedly carried out in the name of national security. I don't find it unimaginable that there is action carried out, not necessarily by the police or employees of the public sector, in order to incapacitate individuals, frame them or otherwise cause inconvenience to the individuals who live in the UK. While I may think this, I imagine that to most people this will appear to be rather insignificant conspiracy that is relatively poorly conceived. I imagine that

there is reason to consider how statistically likely it is that during your life either you, someone you know of or a member of your family may be subject to illegal action that the police are under no obligation to investigate, that is to say, the statistical basis of conspiracy theory. There are possibilities of a great many people being subject to government action, say in a city the size of Birmingham, perhaps there is a possibility of several hundred if not several thousand people having been subject to state action that will not be investigated by the Police that may only be illuminated by cases brought in front of the European Court of Human Rights.

May be one day I'll get some form of resolution on the matters that I've put before the police and hopefully there'll be no need to go as far as the European Court. I do wonder whether the term 'conspiracy theory' should be thought of in terms of unprofessional conduct. If anything a conspiracy theory is one which is not supported by the authorities, as a result, for an individual to have discussed an explanation, explanation being a term for a description that links together action or incident with causal relations, a conspiracy theory should perhaps only professionally in the light of political correctness be considered as a 'non-government supported explanation of events'. Perhaps this could reduce unprofessional attitudes towards some clients and open up more legitimate discussion on the issues that are linked to behaviour change and managing client groups. Perhaps, paranoia does have some links to those who are convinced of 'non-government supported explanations of events' and there could be greater clarification of this issue area to improve the rights of offenders, improve the mental health of offenders and thus as a result reduce the risk of re-offending.

The notion of a non-government supported explanation of events may be interesting to examine - perhaps what could be used on a regular basis may be explanations that are assessed by Primary Care Trusts as legitimate throught their Public Relations Departments - are these to provide the version of reality that we're to find is the healthy balanced truth...?

Final day of Spanish Lessons.

Finally, I've finished the Spanish tuition I started over two weeks ago. I don't feel like I can converse though I do recognise about 50% of what I hear. It's really been an ordeal being sat and taught in quite a traditional method though apparently my accent is quite good. Not really any compensation when your vocabulary is about ten words. Tomorrow, off to Quetzaltenango or something like that at least.

Something crossed my mind when I was about to leave India when I was reading Madness and Civilisation by Foucault and it crossed my mind earlier today again. It related to the fact that there was a 'cure' for leprosy in the 1960s-80s that appeared to have finally assisted with the irradication of the disease. This appeared to happen shortly after the publishing of Madness and Civilisation and for me personally it did spawn a conspiracy theory. Personally, I think certain families are subject to more covert regime action than others, most of which would not be of a criminal nature, and thus not be investigated, and to a degree I think that the concepts of mental illness are in place largely to discredit the sufferer from stating what may or may not have happened to them. I think the issues of citizenship are dealt with using bolder lip-service than most and there are significant improvements to be made in the developed world. The reason I state that in relation to leprosy is that Foucault states that the asylum was to a degree born from the forms of segregation that were used for lepers and even the same buildings then were used to house the mentally ill. What struck me as a possibility was that there could have just been a programme of genetic cleansing in Europe, a realisation that disease was a good form of regime management, so why not continue to use the asylum.

I didn't do any research of any note into the possibilities that I was considering and while I would state that facilitated leprosy or mental illness for the purposes of regime management could be a possibility, apparently leprosy only affects about 5% of the population which makes the chance of there having been one of Europe's first genocides - could this have taken place? If the 5% statistic from the unreliable wikipedia are correct then perhaps this could be a real possibility. May be if I was Israeli I would have learnt pretty much everything there is to know about genocide, I can't say. It is pretty much a twentieth century term for extermination of a religious or ethnic group although the longer history of mass extermination may reveal more telling aspects of humanity.

For some time this struck me as being rather unusual in relation to Foucault and I don't imagine that the paranoid thought of leprosy being used for regime management purposes is ever going to gain any credibility - it's most likely the 5% with the susceptible genes sunk towards the bottom of the caste system and in some respects may have remained there. May be the Christian action in South India to release those who still experience the problems related to caste is under-rated in terms of it's importance - could there be more? Perhaps there could be greater appreciation of Indian culture for not irradicating leprosy as it was in Europe - through extermination?

I guess this genocide may have permeated the culture having been seen as a 'popular move' and led to other programmes of genetic cleansing across Europe which let me sadly say, may have had quite a significant level of support. Perhaps this should be one of the issues that is raised within Yad Vashem, Israel's holocaust museum of what may have been the most unjust interpretation of evidence that has taken place in the history of humanity - that genetic cleansing was a positive process. It is perhaps a failing of contemporary journalism that programmes of genetic cleansing may be in place, however, we tend not to state that this may also have taken place in the UK and been a significant part of our history. If monuments to the dead are so important in our culture should we have some monuments to those who were possibly killed for the health of present populations? I guess this is some form of conspiracy that will not gain any support and while I think there could be some form of nominal process and perhaps I should only dedicate the two oak trees near the centre of Sarehole Mill Recreation ground in Hall Green Birmingham - because to be quite honest journalists don't seem to give a f**k about informing the public adequately and politicians seem content to leave us disconnected from our history and culture. I can't imagine anyone would care.....

On the subject of leprosy-like activity being used to manage regimes, I've found some classic 80s fashion on youtube - Did Daryl Hall and John Oates look good to you at the time? Oh, you wish not to be a leper too, eh?

Language, slavery and nationalism: can we get insights from etymology?

Some references to the differences in Basque language to that spoken elsewhere in Spain may indicate a potentially interesting set of issues(see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_language). It is assumed by linguists that variations in language can be linked to issues of migration of social groups and that trends in the form of language will be linked in a systematic manner to a defined space according to the population within that space and their heritage, which is interlinked to other populations from linked geographical areas, that language is spatially influenced if not defined.

There are deemed to be such strong trends in language use geographically, that it is possible to infer population movement according to the variation in language use and conversely, it is possible to identify what is termed a ‘language isolate’ may exist.(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_isolate). The general term of ‘migration’ may be of interest in this case, there is an assumption that there is free movement of people across Europe, and for this to have taken place for some significant time – if any beginning point could be meaningfully established.

What does the term ‘language isolate’ actually mask other forms of social activity – perhaps as there are the groups who have an almost Russian language in the north of Spain because they were uprooted and sold to the Spanish business elite in a white-on-white slave trade. We as a nation tend not to have a great awareness of slavery outside of that which took place involving the indigenous African population. There may have been a great many ‘migrations’ which were not carried out through personal choice and perhaps there are equally as strong divisions in the white population as there are between some black white groups. Perhaps there could be other explanations of why Basque culture is different to that elsewhere in Northern Spain as well but this may provide a point of reference.

To an extent it could be argued that there may have been the birth of the slave industry as a result of stability of sea travel which led to a different form of slavery to that which was employed when road travel was the main form of slave trading. Perhaps there were a number of synonymous incidents of slave uprisings which led to the decline of interest in white-white slave trading and the spin doctors of the 15th century managed to convince us that we were all being well managed.

This may seem a little ironic bearing in mind Bernie Grant’s comment to Tony Blair regarding his mothers maiden name – Blair. Were Mr Blair’s forefathers the owners of Mr Grant’s? The contemporary master of spin may have had a long family history of being involved in spin related activities. This may still need to be challenged. I personally feel there is some significant bias in the methods used by the media in highlighting the nature of the problems of slavery – there were injustices connected to it but there should always be a responsible comparison made to the living conditions of the time for the white British population to indicate exactly how poor living conditions were for all at the time. Also, a great many forms of slavery may be overlooked to a point where they may as well be written out of history. Descendants of Indian slaves reside in Fiji and were deported from Uganda in the 1970's – yet the main image of slave in contemporary society is black, of African origin.

The coverage of the Beckford family, a south-west family of slave traders, in the relatively recent documentaries on the BBC may also reflect a bias. There were actions sanctioned by the British government when most of the white population were not treated much better than slaves themselves which involved the initiation of the international slave trade. While I may fear great many of the people who run Britain today, who largely control the media, are descendents of slave-master families who shape our history and want to spread the guilt of their forefathers families across the whole nation themselves rather than organisations still in existence take responsibility for what took place. Lloyds Insurance (Lloyds of London), Lloyds TSB and Barclays have all strong enough links to establishing themselves through slavery to be more directly held responsible for any reparation if this does get strong public backing.

Perhaps the concept of nation was developed to legitimate slave trading to a rather ill-equipped population who would not have the education to challenge this type of notion. Have we all been misled regarding ‘nationalism’ being the most important part of our identities, as British subjects, when this could be more readily be linked to masking foreign policy malpractice? Nationalism in this sense makes us relatively easy to govern rather than aware. If this is the case perhaps we should be engaged in a process of developing a post-colonial national identity based upon racial, cultural and social harmonies linked to British heritage, rather than cultural pride in our history per se. If it was a means of controlling the British population and making an unmanageable situation manageable, this should be acknowledged.

I assume that there are a number of reasons why reparation movements don’t get off the ground in the UK and one of these may be diverse – if any do I hope they are balanced and minimise negative impacts. In answer to the question posed I guess I would gravitate towards the opinion that there is little chance of insight from etymology because it is shaped by a strongly manipulated version of social history which will continue to affect us.

‘The Testicle Shadow’ – should we be compensating people in China?

Having seen the relatively recent changes in attitude towards the environment and the introduction of off-setting carbon impacts through payment into a fund which would support development work, presumably overseas, to offset the carbon impacts of travel, it has crossed my mind what real changes are likely to result from this action. What seems likely to be the major qualm I would have about these means of generating revenue is that this is a further means of taxing those who are probably conscientious enough not to cause unnecessary pollution through leisure driving whilst those who maybe do take a lot of leisure trips don’t get penalised. Others may criticise the project work undertaken as being unlikely to achieve the objectives that need to be met in terms of carbon balancing. But as an extra 'conscience tax' it is not suitable and could be incorporated into tax which is already paid on fuel - the government could offset carbon use for us without extra voluntary contributions and spread the burden.

Carbon off-setting as a concept is interesting. Perhaps there could be some change through having the right concepts in society which can lead to major changes in ‘culture’ and to an extent can change the way that we live and use resources. This to an extent does reflect the notion that if we change language we will change the way we think and act as a result which isn’t necessarily correct. However, having the right terminology in place may assist with saving the planet. The ‘ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT’ appealed to me to a degree when I was reading social policy several years ago, because it is a means of assessing environmental impact of individuals and areas perhaps even the size of London, which have an ecological footprint the size of the UK. There may have been a long history of selecting linguistic terms which were aimed at promoting greater care for the environment and were dropped into life through the mass media and the etymology of the situation may be interesting. The role of the government in supporting notions of equality despite differences in material wealth and reduction of environmentally degrading action is significant in this position and they may be in a position to sponsor the development of concepts through academic funding and then to develop links between academia and the media allowing an illusion of non-state-dominated social management to emerge. Having said that I tend only to come across the term in the Guardian and on Radio 4 so I presume that there aren't many page 3 girls offsetting their carbon impacts through their overseas photoshoots.

Off-setting carbon use may not be that poor an idea if only there were some way to get those who undertake leisure travel to pay up. Arguably, there is a meaningless distinction between work and leisure travel – leisure travel is important to our well-being to a great extent and maybe shouldn’t be taxed. It should perhaps be excessive leisure travel and excessive work travel when there was no alternative to the means of fossil-fuel driven transport used. Should an average family expect weekends away five times over the course of the year and do some carbon off-setting on trips that they take above this level? Maybe one overseas family holiday every year and then off-set carbon use above this level? Will this actually appeal to the self-crucifying middle classes who wish to thank the individuals overseas who they will never meet or know – how poetic. Perhaps what is wrong with most of this is that it’s all too nice. It needs national government action.

If there were greater threat relating to the role that we all play in environmental degradation then perhaps there could be a greater response. One means of doing this may be to consider the sacrifices that are put upon the population of China. The restrictions that limit family size may have a significant bearing on the impact of environmental damage each family inflicts. If you value your testicles, or those of your partner, then perhaps you should consider your civil liberties and the liberties that others are denied for the sake of maintaining environmental quality. You may think this is only a racist joke, however, there could be some very significant aspects to the need to consider the freedoms that we may experience in the west. Perhaps this is another reservation that I should state over this type of action – that the underlying issue in Britain of the government having fostered as sense of racial supremacy has not been dealt with and we get opportunity to ‘sponsor’ those who are less well off financially than our-British-selves. The multi-dimensionality of social exclusion does give some implication that the resource-poor/time-rich may have some approaches to living that we may benefit from as their resource-rich/time-poor counterparts. This implies that there could be means for a non-financial payback through spiritual growth or other means of relating to the world through expertise thatmay be gained from counterparts.

Maybe there could be a testicle tax on the types who have blatant disregard for the pollution they cause? We offer payment because of the size of our carbon emissions and the size of our ecological footprint and we should not perhaps be too ashamed of covering the cost of our testicle shadows. Perhaps one of the Blair Babes could suggest this to the likes of Jeremy Clarkson who appears to have little regard for the environment and the self-indulgent leisure driving habits. Maybe I should be given government sponsorship to sire some children owing to massive amount of cycling I’ve done….

Perhaps a Western man who can’t cycle should have a vasectomy at the age of twenty-one? Maybe this is one way of stopping parents doing the ‘school run’ and getting kids cycling again. I don’t know about you but I’m going to get my bicycle clips out early this year. Maybe the political parties should get on with offering to offset carbon use without any further voluntary contributions?

Redefining 'political correctness': should the British use a less politicised term of ‘common humility’?

There is more than a slight backlash against the movement of political correctness within the UK media as a whole and this is one area where the media seem in tune with the British public at large – what tends to be accepted in the UK is that there is no apparent alternative to the movement that ‘political correctness’ has become, when it may just be the beginning of a revitalised approach to human relations and how they are termed in everyday language use.

There may not be a single source, of course, of political correctness as a movement, though as the history of the situation gets formed, it may be possible to assume that there was a need for a perhaps international common framework to discuss and describe number of forms of disadvantage that resulted in lower social and economic status for an individual. This may as a result be an example of the process of globalisation of culture which marks the interchange between Britain and the US socially and economically. This may of course not be the case, there doesn’t seem to be an exponent from the US who would argue that the same terminology should be adopted in the UK or elsewhere in Europe that may have been seen to be suitable in the USA.

The backlash against global processes may reflect a resistance to the processes of globalisation as a whole, which may not be visible but is taking place in a great many forms through the discussion groups which were used to select appropriate terms to use within an organisation to avoid discriminatory action. Arguably, those who have disliked the new terminology of political correctness have not been connected to the processes of selecting the most appropriate language for an organisational context. There may be solid grounds to reject the use of terms of courtesy based upon language which does not connect with the social history of the users of the terminology. The process of managing this form of social change and ensuring that there were positive impacts all round are considerable. All of this creates a position where there may be a need to reject elements of the globalisation of culture and seek a national, regional or more local solution that are part of a more prominent movement which helps get those who feel resentment to the ‘politically correct’ on board.

Deconstructions of political correctness may include a more complex picture of competing interests that incorporate what I am stating. Would they indicate that it were a movement that it provides a means of avoiding discriminatory language which can not only restrict the development of the person that it is being used to describe but also to ensure that any one who is working with them may not be accused of discriminating against them? This also could be in the interests of an employer who may not wish to be involved in either providing substandard working conditions where harassment may take place but also may avoid the risk of prosecution through negligence over not addressing this type of matter. In whose interests does political correctness take place as a process may also be worth asking as there may be some benefits for the vulnerable groups who are not discriminated against, although perhaps there is a greater benefit for those who get to grips with how the terminology can be used so they can progress in their careers.

There may be good reason to question the beneficiaries of political correctness – as a movement political correctness may not have addressed any unequal power relations but only offered window dressing to those who were looking to absolve themselves from engaging in any meaningful form of social change. This type of change in language use is little more than a lubricant to capitalism and maintains distinct power relations rather than challenges them in any way. It would be interesting to examine who the major beneficiaries of political correctness have been so far. It does assist in some ways with the sense of a meritocracy and sense of social and economic freedoms.

The meritocratic nature of Blair’s Britain may be subject to further analysis at an appropriate point. We may then find that there are ‘relationally challenged’ individuals that are those who do not have a great opportunity through extended family or others who are ‘aesthetically challenged’ when looks are fully recognised as being a particularly significant issue in the preferences of employers. Maybe one day….

If social and economic power relations are not being challenged and there is an aversion to the US approach of political correctness which may be due to financial and public image reasons being central to undertaking the process of cultural change then there may be scope to undertake a more British approach. Finance and public image may not be matters necessarily central to British culture and there could be reason, despite common ground with the US, to separate and form a more British movement. This has been undertaken by the left wing councils of the 1980'S and not respected for what it was - maybe it is time to review this.

Discourses of deformity – is there reason to engage in ritualised Charles bashing or should we offer our time to consider the London skyline?

The recent issues raised by Prince Charles relating to the London skyline may seem a little like asking if Londoners may eat cake – it is interesting from the national coverage that there have been a number of issues left out of the discussions – one of which is the considered need for a city to have a ‘skyline’, that is a profile view which reflects the character of the commerce and industry of the locality. This is largely an American issue and may not be that significant in terms of the nature of British cities, largely within the context of international debates and considering London as a global city, it is a relevant discussion. When I was in Australia a fellow backpacker scoffed at Adelaide because it was shown on a postcard with all the captial cities of each of the states of Australia as being the only one without a noticeable skyline as if it were not a place of the least significance as a result. I presume, perhaps wrongly, that this is linked to the development of big cities and the macho comparisons between cities as having greater prowess than each other because of the manhood of the skyline. However, for most people in London there are far more significant issues, in terms of the impact that decent town planning can make on quality of life through offering local services, a greater sense of safety in public space and suitable space to exercise in public. Unfortunately, maintaining a heritage of this type of matter has not been a preserve of the Royal Family – at least not in terms of how the mass media wish us to perceive them.
I have stated this before – there are a multitude of perspectives to take on the city as a geographical phenomenon. To an extent there may be some mileage in seeing the city as an organism which grows and changes to suit the challenges made to it. Reference to social ecology and the need for a discussion on how much of a living organism. The animal that may have run through city space for millions of years is now a pest to be exterminated. While I don’t wish to encourage foxes and rats within cities we are considering the urban zone as something which it is not meant to be. Does Prince Charles criticise forests for not having level trees? Maybe we as a nation should only support development projects in the Amazon which are likely to leave it tidy?
There can be a reframing of the buildings which have dominated London’s skyline for centuries can take place as part of a movement of updating the city rather than damaging it. Is this another difficult stage in the process of recognising that Britain is no longer a leading light in technology and what really hurts is that British engineering and design are not what they once were? Is there not scope to consider the changes made to the Louvre in Paris and the additional extensions which were meant to compliment the existing framework of the buildings? Is his highness employing any adequate frame of reference to evaluate whether or not the buildings which are being added to the London skyline are making any significant addition to the way London is seen? There can be a conflict between the modern and the post- modern – should this debate be reconsidered alongwith other thinkers not just within the bodies that his highness has assembled to restrict development Does this not reflect a healthy balanced and developing economy which is directed by several significant forces – perhaps they are too American and this is what the problem is?
It does make interesting reading having read some Goffman recently and the remarks on stigma – there is reference to the imoral individual as being a “….blemished person, ritually poluted, to be avoided particularly in public places….” (Goffman, 1987; p11) this does make me wonder what intention there was in drawing upon discourses relating to less than physically perfect individuals (read London being ‘pockmarked’) who presumably would be excluded from society (the international community) if they weren’t to improve their appearance. I did want to check the original speech from the text as there were also reports in the media regarding buildings in London being ‘dwarfed ’by the likes of Canary Wharf. It does seem unwise to select a discourse of deformity when challenging the development of a city like London which should be welcoming, supportive and innovative in terms of how it deals with disability.
A city is not some form of sculpture unlike the perceptions of architechts who may see it that way – it may in some respects be influenced by Plato’s observations of humanity working towards the ideal and everything in life being in some ways or other being a less than perfect representation of the ideal form. It does make me slightly concerned when looking at how good the architechture is in London whether or not Prince Charles has any significant regard for the likes of Coventry, Birmingham and Sheffield city centres. Are there just as strong moves to preserve what is left of the architechtural heritage of these places?
The centre of Birmingham now apears to be significantly better and has been described as having an American theme in the regeneration that has taken place. The design of the new Bull ring around St. Martin’s Church which resembles the flesh of a fruit around the stone at its heart, that is St. Martin’s, seems like quite a good example of urban design although it is questionable in terms of how effective views of Selfridges are at promoting the city from the other side of the shopping centre. As an emblem of the city centre it does seem like just as good a symbol of the city and is perhaps all that is necessary – perspectives on the skyline are just not necessary. Does the stone at the heart of the fruit interest the Royals in terms of how St Martin’s has become a strong symbol of the surviving city? Will they walk down from the New St. Station, which was literally buried, to the view over the bullring shopping centre on a clear day and wonder if the shopping centre was meant to symbolise the flesh of the fruit around the stone, the continuation of life, St Martin’s church.