Flexible Labour
However. I said I think there actually is a genuine grievance lurking behind all this rage and alienation we’re hearing about. I don’t know, I’m only guessing, but it’s my suspicion that this grievance is less bogus and worked-up than the ones that are more usually rolled out are. I don’t see this one mentioned much, if at all. Because – ? Because it’s too sensitive, too close to the bone, too uncomfortable to talk about? Maybe – but I don’t know.
Muslims in the UK are the underclass, and that’s why they’re there. They were recruited to move to the UK for that reason – to provide cheap (meaning unskilled, uneducated) labour. Just as Turks were in Germany, and Mexicans in the US. It’s not that Clement Attlee and his cabinet decided in the late forties that Britain was too pasty-white and monocultural and wouldn’t it be a great thing to be more diverse. No. One might be forgiven for thinking so, to hear people drivel about diversity now, but in fact that was not the reason. There was what is always called a ‘labour shortage,’ meaning a shortage of people willing to work for low wages, after WW II, and a surplus on the subcontinent, so a demographic re-arrangement was made. Not a terrible solution in some ways; both sides benefit; but it shouldn’t be prettied up as a way to make London more right-on and cosmopolitan, because that’s not what it was. Still less was it a way to make Bradford and Leeds more diverse.
That’s not necessarily a great source of pride. It can be – because in fact it takes a lot of courage and ambition to make such a move, and children and grandchildren of impoverished immigrants often do derive pride from that history. (Read Carl Sagan on his grandfather at the beginning of Pale Blue Dot, for example. ‘My grandfather was a beast of burden.’ It’s quite moving.) But that depends on a lot of factors, and the truth is that it can also be a considerable narcissistic wound.
David Goodhart touched on this a week after the 7th.
First, the relatively poor socioeconomic position of most British Muslims has little to do with Islamophobia or racism and a great deal to do with the fact that nearly two-thirds of British Muslims come from Pakistan and Bangladesh, often from these countries’ poor, rural areas. (Indian and Arab Muslims do better.) The starting point in terms of education, skills and traditional cultural attitudes is worse for most Muslims than it is for, say, the Hindu or Chinese minorities, both of which outperform white Britons. To expect Muslims to rise to the average level in terms of education and jobs within a generation or two is not realistic, although progress is being made.
That’s just it. The starting point in education and skills is the point, because it’s not an accident, it’s not something that just happened – it’s integral to the cheap labour aspect. This is the dirty little secret (at least, if it’s not, I don’t know why it doesn’t get mentioned more) of the economic imperative.
I have no idea whatever if this has anything to do with the bombings or bombers, but with the generalized alienation of Muslim young men that we hear about, I suspect it does. It’s only a suspicion though.
So, let’s say the history is sound enough and concede that there could be quite a wide range of feelings on it among today’s younger generation; surely, though, that would be the very last reason any of them would give for doing what they did. And if it is true to some extent, the reason it isn’t being talked about more is that it’s hardly a noble cause for which to kill and die.
On the “I wish people would stop speculating on the motives” theme from the last thread, how on earth can people be expected not to wonder why other people are killing them? Scientists try to understand the plate tectonics behind the tsunami, which was indifferent to the damage and loss of life it caused. These young men set out to kill randomly targeted victims; they had an intention. Even without the desire to engage in preventative profiling for the future or the masochistic urge to say “what did we do to make them do it?” (root causes), surely everyone even vaguely touched by these acts is bound to use whatever limited or broad knowledge they have to try to understand what is going on here. And if we misunderstand them, well, it’s just one more reason they should have chosen a means of communication less dependent on detonators. Actually, wouldn’t that be a great revenge? In retaliation for dozens of corpses, let’s misunderstand them so their effort will have been thwarted. Bloody well serves them right.
Yeah, low status and economic insecurity can make people do crazy things. And the repellent yobbishness of popular culture in the UK and US probably leads many people to accept the false dilemma of strict-religion-or-nihilistic-hedonism. Plus sneering yuppie snobbery and the dog-eat-dog attitude that still persists from the Reagan and Thatcher years, combined with shitty job opportunities….
Shit, I’m making myself depressed. I need comfort and reassurance. Where’s the nearest mosque?
Oh, definitely – that would be the last reason they would give. Or maybe second-to-last – the very last would be the one about showing off and thrill-seeking. But I’m doing some armchair psychoanalyzing here. A presumptuous thing to do, always, but then – they didn’t leave a letter, did they! They didn’t take out an ad in the papers or paste a manifesto on the side of the gherkin or throw leaflets down from the top of the Eye – so what else can anyone do but speculate?
And exactly, about wanting to understand. Why would we not be wondering? It would be quite bizarre not to wonder.
OB: “And exactly, about wanting to understand. Why would we not be wondering? It would be quite bizarre not to wonder.”
Yes and (hopefully) comment #38 on the “Make a Splash” post sufficiently atones for my mis-use of the word “speculate”.
But from that thread…cjb: “Everyone seems to be taking a shallow view of this by examining only the suicide bombers’ motives. What of the suicide bomber’s handler, whose goal is to convince young people to take their own lives and those of others?”
And here people are speculating on what their motives were *because* they didn’t leave a letter. Why not also ask: *Why* didn’t they leave a letter?
Um, I think my reference to comment #38 should be to comment #40.
“*Why* didn’t they leave a letter?”
Maybe (yes, this is speculation) their motives were so clear to them that they assumed everyone would get the message without a letter (which is true, inasmuch as we got the message that they intended to kill people randomly) and maybe they trusted that their job was to act and it was the job of those who used them to justify and explain their act. The descriptions of the surprise of the bomber who was still there after he pulled the cord (or pressed the button, whatever) is a telling clue as to how unprepared they are for anything except Kingdom Come. Trying to imagine one of them hoping he’ll fail and succeed in living longer somehow doesn’t ring true. Their teachers/handlers provided them with a script up to the point of departure. They’re expecting to be welcomed into Paradise, not to look around and see the reactions of a Tube full of people who realise someone’s just tried to kill them. My speculation is they’re the opposite of people driven by desperation, that they think they’re the Chosen, an elite unit of the vanguard of their faith and to live beyond what was planned is failure in more than just an operational sense.
I know he’s not a suicide bomber, but look at what the Van Gogh killer said in court. Steadfast assertion that he did what the only law he respects commanded him to and would do again, given half a chance. A chilling reminder of what lack of doubt can do.
My understanding is that, while people with Pakistani origins are relatively poor, people with Bagladeshi origins are shockingly poor, and seem to be more discriminated against than other South Asian groups. Of course people from an African and Caribbean background are also poor and discriminated against.
So much for speculating, hasn’t it turned out that two of the second set of bombers were the children of asylum seekers from Eritrea and Somalia. So we need to work that into our story.
I wonder if Islam works just like the culty Christian groups. Find people without many friends, feeling isolated or out of place, perhaps because of cultural differences, provide them friendship within the group, focus their whole lives around the group, and by extension the religion, then you’re their whole world, they’ll believe what you tell them, they’ll try to believe what you tell them even – now do with them as you will.
OB & Team
Damn – I’ve just dipped my toe in the infinite ocean of web-rage out there; there is a whole load of inflamatory crap being hurled about by people from all quarters who are unlikely to get directly hurt… (apart from, understandably, their feelings). I know you don’t moderate this site as such, but it is uplifting to see there are some places where a reasoned argument can be developed rather than mere outpourings of rant. Rants can be great fun, don’t get me wrong, but there is a lot riding on us getting this one right… bon effort!
Nick S,
I second that, and not just on this current topic. Naturally B&W appeals to people of a certain bent, but it is gratifying to see that those with whom I have a large overlap of opinion are among the more civilised practitioners of whatever the proper word is for what we’re doing here. I may not agree with everything that gets written here, but with very few exceptions I sense a genuine willingness to think and constructively refine the basic point of view most of us here seem to share, not just to self-congratulate and blow our perceived foes out of the water with insult instead of argument.
Sadly, this is why we are unlikely ever to have the impact of the suicide bombers. “Disagreement rationally discussed on B&W” is not something I can envision as a newspaper headline. Are you stocking up on those nails, Karl?
“Sadly, this is why we are unlikely ever to have the impact of the suicide bombers.” No, but a quiet reasoned discussion beats throwing rocks, unless it’s at Man United of course.
Actually, Nick, I do moderate as such. I’ve edited one post and deleted a couple in the past week or so. And thanks for the thanks. (I occasionally wonder, with a cringe, what the Sun must be like these days. I’m not awfully eager to find out though.)
OB
The Sun – predictably clever and hateful, “reflecting” what the ‘ordinary Bristish person’ is thinking, and shifting truckloads as a result each day..
“…Global Jihad and its regional components and their differing motivations (compare Palestine, Turkey, Madrid, and Chechnya)…”
Well, in the case of Chechnya at least, we’ve got global jihadists hijacking a nationalist, separatist movement. The large majority of Chechens, by the way, are Sufi, so they’re gonna be in deep, deep doo-doo if these Wahhabist Sunni jihadists ever take power there. BTW, global jihadists also tried to hijack the Bosnian struggle, but failed (thank the almighty Zeus).
Bosnia is one of the very few places recently where my lot (the secular internationalist left) was present in numbers – in Tuzla and Sarajevo if nowhere else. Maybe that had something to do with it.
I am profoundly depressed by the events of the last week or so – both the nationally reported ones and a number I’ve been hearing about by word of mouth. It was looking pretty good, and now it looks like a vicious racist backlash is arriving. Remember folks – mass deportations of Muslims are surely Osama’s #1 aim: he can really use those guys once they get to the refugee camps in Mirpur.
As for me, I’ve got enough points for Canada.
Chris – Bosnia whatever anyone’s feelings regarding the US overseas either then or now, for once, with Bosnia, it was the rest of the developed world – particularly the useless EU – that failed the Muslims, and the US led Nato incursions that finally put an end to the butchery and mutilation of non-combatent Muslim men women and children; perhaps the west was less of an obvious enemy there then…
Nick, you’re conflating ‘Multi-ethnic Bosnia’ and ‘Muslim Bosnia’. Lots of overlap, but not the same thing. For more, see:
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/srebrenica.justice/wab.htm
Executive summary: European Left Not All Bad.
Chris – thanks for the link. RE: Your Summary – quite so; as I read it, it was the European right, all dewey eyed with the market possibilities following the velvet revolution, who set up the Croatia (led by proto-nazi Tudjman) without effectively protecting minority rights there; the Serbs under Slobbo would only have one devastating logical response to ethnic cleansing there and the concomitant Bosnian unrest… I could rant on and on, but as I read it mostly Kohl, Major, Hurd & co were the idiots who could have prevented – caused even – much of that evil.
I came across this article
http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20021002-000011.html
Bottom line:
“Ultimately, profiling suicide bombers may be a fascinating but futile psychological parlor game.”
And, as advice:
“the best way to halt the attacks is not to study suicide bombers themselves, but the terrorists who press these young men and women into their last, ghastly service.”
I can also recommend the Comment and Analysis, titled “The Ordinary Bombers”, in the July 23 edition of New Scientist magazine. Couldn’t find any mention of narcissim in there either.
Maybe that’s because the New Scientist knows how to spell the word.
Here’s a news flash. I’m going to go on talking about what I’m interested in talking about. If people don’t like it, they don’t have to read it, but giving me advice on what to talk about is an even more futile parlor game.
I wasn’t giving advice. Heavens forbid that I would be that pretentious. I was just trying to give some counterweight to your obsessive, amateur psycho-babbling. Or is sychophantic applause all that you want here at N&C?
No, sycophantic applause is no good, I want the slavish kind.
No but seriously – what I really want is people to give counterweight and balance and an alternative and something better than and items different from my obsessive amateur everything. That’s exactly what I want – I’m desperate for it. I tell you what, Fryslan, why don’t you become co-editor with me – okay? Great. You find half the news items, you invite and edit and code half the articles, you write half the N&Cs, you do half of everything. Dilute my amateurish garbage with new improved content. Thanks so much for volunteering.
“I tell you what, Fryslan, why don’t you become co-editor with me – okay? Great. You find half the news items, you invite and edit and code half the articles, you write half the N&Cs, you do half of everything. Dilute my amateurish garbage with new improved content. Thanks so much for volunteering.”
Do I detect self-pity? Are you overworked, OB? Or is it condescention and pride? Whatever it is, it is unbecoming of you.
You are trying to find the root causes of suicide bombing. That is commendable.
You are debunking flacid arguments given by appeasers of suicide bombing. Once again, I commend you.
All I want to do is inject some other lines of reasoning concerning those root causes. Is that so egregious?
Narcissism, self-pity, inferiority complexes all probably play their part,
as well as religious delusions and nationalism. Others beside myself have suggested here that maybe the way these young men are “handled” is of paramount importance.
Now why is that “paramount”? Because it may indicate that you can pick anybody from the street and, given the right conditions, turn them into suicide bombers. Then it’s no use looking for personality defects as such. It’s no use looking for grievances.
“Simple” conditioning will do the job. And maybe it can work on societies as a whole as well. So, paying attention to the psychological profile of the bombers probably distracts from the real underlying cause.
Finally, I’m not sure why I rub you the wrong way. As far as I’m concerned there’s no reason to become antagonistic. I admire your site and read it frequently. I hope that you will forgive me for making inane comments.
Can we bury the hatchet?
Sure, Fryslan. No, of course it’s not egregious to inject other lines of reasoning. (As for why you rubbed me the wrong way in that comment – here’s a hint – “your obsessive, amateur psycho-babbling” – I think it might have been that. snicker) But I make a distinction (maybe I’m wrong in this – maybe I’m just all wet on this subject – maybe I simply haven’t got a leg to stand on – but it’s a distinction I make) between injecting other etceteras, and telling me what to talk about. I just figure I get to decide what I talk about. I figure that’s one of the perks. Along with the car and driver.
OB: “I’m going to go on talking about what I’m interested in talking about. If people don’t like it, they don’t have to read it, but giving me advice on what to talk about is an even more futile parlor game.”
First, I didn’t take Fryslan’s comment as offering OB advice as to what to write about. The use of the word “advice” was, I thought, clearly in the context of how to deal with the problem of suicide bombers.
Second, of course, you, OB get to decide what you talk about: that is one of the perks (and, since I have doubts about the car and driver, probably the only perk). But in the comments we, presumably, get to write what we want (provided it is relevant and not offensive).
And a few people (obviously including me) think that you’ve been banging the “narcissism” drum louder than the evidence warrants…
And a few people…think that you’ve been banging the “narcissism” drum louder than the evidence warrants…
I thought the whole point of Ophelia’s exercise was to get people to stop thinking of suicide bombers as brave but misguided idealists and start thinking of them as pathetic contemptible losers. If this becomes the conventional wisdom, it might have some prophylactic effect on impressionable young men. Furthermore, I thought Ophelia was just trying to counteract some of the exculpatory nonsense being spouted in certain British newspapers. Why are some people here getting so upset by that?
Brian – thank you. That is indeed part of the point. Being a bad scary dangerous evil martyr is one thing, being a pathetic dork who wants everyone to admire him is quite another. I really do think (and interviews and such do seem to bear out the point) that all this martyrdom caper has so much to do with fashion and suggestibility and copy cat-ism (if it didn’t, why hasn’t there been more of it all along?) that it actually would be useful if more people pointed out the less grandiose, more childish-selfish-trivial possible motivations. It’s my guess that they want fear and hatred, and that they do not want it mixed with contempt and derision. I think contempt is a meme-killer.
That’s why McVeigh was careful to look the way he did in that picture when he was arrested. He even said that somewhere. He knew there would be pictures, he knew everyone would be looking; he was determined to look as military and disciplined and ‘brave’ and emotionless as he could – so that everyone would think of him that way. It’s a great pity he did such a good job of it. I bet that face is a role model for a lot of wannabes.
“I thought the whole point of Ophelia’s exercise was to get people to stop thinking of suicide bombers as brave but misguided idealists and start thinking of them as pathetic contemptible losers”
Sounds to me that one unrealistic caricature is being replaced by another. Good for propaganda purposes, but keeping the general public in the dark as to what might really be the case, namely that these were actually quite normal people who were transformd by their handlers.
Why would it do that, Fryslan? Have I anywhere said these were not ‘quite normal people’? I think I’ve said rather that they probably are – cf. the mention of Eichmann in Jerusalem. I don’t think there’s anything in the least special about being vain and narcissistic and more concerned with one’s own desires than with other people’s. I wish there were, but I don’t think there is.
But Fryslan – is there anything mutually exclusive about investigating and exposing the handlers and pouring contempt and derision on the pathetic losers who succumb to their propaganda? The two tactics would seem complementary. Why should the vicious dupes of these handlers be given any more respect than you’d give to the aggrieved members of the Ku Klux Klan, which is to say ‘none at all’?
What’s the Cagney picture where he deliberately becomes a snivelling coward before being led off to the chair so the kids will despise him for his life of crime instead of trying to follow in his footsteps? Too much sitting in comfort at our keyboards chatting about it may make us forget that we’re not objective and detached observers of all this, wherever we live. We are targets, partly for nothing more than having the right to say what we do. I’m not advocating lying about it but if we continue to have freedom of speech these people are, by definition, mortal enemies of all of us. I’m not in favour of granting them the dignity they want for their acts. It may be hard to laugh at mass-murderers but they should be denied as many of their aims as possible and they most certainly want to be taken seriously. “The medium is the message,” anyone?
I think it was in the mid-Nineties during the terror wave just before the election that brought Netanyahu to power that the Israelis talked about trying to deter the bombers by burying their remains in pigskin, which would apparently prevent them from entering Paradise. I don’t know whether it’s true, but it was claimed that the British routinely did it during the ’36-’39 unrest and that it was considered effective. If they believe this shit, by all means use it on them.
Brian T. Urmann: “Furthermore, I thought Ophelia was just trying to counteract some of the exculpatory nonsense being spouted in certain British newspapers. Why are some people here getting so upset by that?”
I, for one, am not getting upset…but I think I’ve said enough on this issue.
OB: “It’s my guess that they want fear and hatred, and that they do not want it mixed with contempt and derision.”
Fear, certainly, based on statements by some who claim responsibility. Hatred, I don’t know but they could well think it would work to their advantage.
Brian T. Urmann:”…pouring contempt and derision on the pathetic losers who succumb to their propaganda?”
Too simplistic a response and quite possibly as counterproductive as the suicide bombers attempt to force action through fear.
Too simplistic a response and quite possibly as conterproductive as the suicide bombers attempt to force action through fear.
As opposed to the nuanced and productive response of listening patiently and respectfully to the suicide bombers’ grievances?
To borrow an example Ophelia used earlier: Would you also caution us against pouring contempt and derision on Timothy McVeigh and his grievances? If not, why not?
Contempt for the contemptible, I say.
Stewart, it’s ‘Angels With Dirty Faces.’ Spot on. I nearly mentioned that, as a matter of fact. It’s an interesting idea, handled in an interesting way. (Warner Brothers movies of the ’30s were often remarkably interesting cultural artifcacts. I can bore on about this subject for hours if not days.) The handling was marred by the presence of Pat O’Brien, whom I’ve never been able to bear, but still, it was interesting. His character – a priest, of course – visited Cagney’s in prison in an attempt to persuade him to pretend to be a coward in order to discourage the wannabes – and Cagney said forget it. (He changed his mind, or revealed his change of mind, at the last possible minute, on the walk to the chair. Very Hollywood.) The guts and panache and macho style were all they had. Still the case for a lot of people.
Saddam is another parallel, it belatedly occurred to me yesterday. That’s why people were pleased he was found in a hole in the ground. (But then there’s the issue of underwear and photography and human rights. It’s a human rights violation to degrade people and to show them being degraded – and yet it can serve a general human good – can potentially serve to protect other human rights over the long term, by disgracing and degrading people who violate human rights. Difficult issue, that.)