<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: England, only a nation for whites?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/21/england-only-a-nation-for-whites/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/21/england-only-a-nation-for-whites/</link>
	<description>Left-wing news, opinion and activism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:26:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anthony Barnett</title>
		<link>http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/21/england-only-a-nation-for-whites/#comment-4061</link>
		<dc:creator>Anthony Barnett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:34:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/21/england-only-a-nation-for-whites/#comment-4061</guid>
		<description>Hey Matt, I hope the context made it clear that &quot;Any argument&quot; means any argument about being English. We were not discussing skin colour but whether this difference can be made a defining one for who is and is not a member of  a nation.  &#039;Gibson&#039; can&#039;t allege that there is &#039;an English race&#039; but wants a biological definition. Superficially, please excuse the dreadful unintended pun, skin differences seem natural and allow you to make an &#039;&#039;argument&quot; about the English  having to be white, as if this is all open and just about &quot;recognising difference&quot; as you say.  But think about it: if you accept this what is the nationality of a black baby born of white parents, who had one black ancestor? You are into &#039;essence&#039; and &#039;inner purity&#039; and the realities of fascism. As I say, we all know where this leads.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Matt, I hope the context made it clear that &#8220;Any argument&#8221; means any argument about being English. We were not discussing skin colour but whether this difference can be made a defining one for who is and is not a member of  a nation.  &#8216;Gibson&#8217; can&#8217;t allege that there is &#8216;an English race&#8217; but wants a biological definition. Superficially, please excuse the dreadful unintended pun, skin differences seem natural and allow you to make an &#8221;argument&#8221; about the English  having to be white, as if this is all open and just about &#8220;recognising difference&#8221; as you say.  But think about it: if you accept this what is the nationality of a black baby born of white parents, who had one black ancestor? You are into &#8216;essence&#8217; and &#8216;inner purity&#8217; and the realities of fascism. As I say, we all know where this leads.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Munro</title>
		<link>http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/21/england-only-a-nation-for-whites/#comment-4056</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Munro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:12:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/21/england-only-a-nation-for-whites/#comment-4056</guid>
		<description>&quot;Any argument about skin colour soon forces us back to inner purity. We know where this leads.&quot;

That&#039;s absurd. It&#039;s like saying that a belief in the NHS will inevitably lead to a belief in Stalinesque purges, year zero and the destruction of intellectuals, the middle classes and anyone that wears glasses.  
I&#039;ve never understood this argument that recognising difference (in skin colour ir anything else) inevitably leads to the imposition of a hierarchy.  The human brain is hard wired to recognise difference (from itself), that&#039;s it, not better, not worse, just different.  The imposition of hierarchy is a social construction which is manipulated by politicians and idealogues, there is nothing inevitable about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Any argument about skin colour soon forces us back to inner purity. We know where this leads.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s absurd. It&#8217;s like saying that a belief in the NHS will inevitably lead to a belief in Stalinesque purges, year zero and the destruction of intellectuals, the middle classes and anyone that wears glasses.<br />
I&#8217;ve never understood this argument that recognising difference (in skin colour ir anything else) inevitably leads to the imposition of a hierarchy.  The human brain is hard wired to recognise difference (from itself), that&#8217;s it, not better, not worse, just different.  The imposition of hierarchy is a social construction which is manipulated by politicians and idealogues, there is nothing inevitable about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DonaldS</title>
		<link>http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/21/england-only-a-nation-for-whites/#comment-4053</link>
		<dc:creator>DonaldS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:51:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/01/21/england-only-a-nation-for-whites/#comment-4053</guid>
		<description>I guess you could say that among the least of Jack Gibson&#039;s idiocies is that he knows fuck all about Scottish football.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess you could say that among the least of Jack Gibson&#8217;s idiocies is that he knows fuck all about Scottish football.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

