questions bout middle class-ness

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
dissident
Offline
Joined: 29-09-03
Jan 7 2004 12:45
questions bout middle class-ness

i've come across quite a few threads bout class and politics (on another board mainly) recently and this has led me to ponder a bit. people who hold certain political beliefs yet have a certain background seem to be quite a target of fun and derision on those threads and while i can see why this is in many cases (the word 'lifestyler' seems to spring to everyone's minds at this point, along with stuff about living in squats and sneering at people who work for a living), i've got a few questions about people's politics and their class (in the british sense of the word, not the simple marxist 'workers/bosses' sense) and what clashes that can present.

1) does class (in the british sense) matter within politics (i mean in terms of being working class/middle class - even i can see that being upper class/a boss is a biiiiiiit of a problem if you hold certain beliefs wink)?

2) is your class defined by your family background/upbringing, or by your personal circumstances (once you're an adult/not reliant upon parents/guardians)? if your family background (eg. parents' jobs) is seen by some to compromise your political beliefs should you take action to distance yourself from your background/your family? if you've been to a public school does that limit how seriously can take your political beliefs?

3) can someone who's middle class be accepted as an anarchist? if so, what would they have to say/do in order to be accepted as such? what would stop them from being accepted as such?

4) if someone who was middle class wanted to do something worthwhile in political terms, what's the best thing they could do? (ie. should middle-class "@s" just hand over their money to @ groups and then bog off and leave them to get on with it?!)

sorry if these are stupid questions or if they seem a bit provocative, they're not meant to be.

interested to hear people's answers.

and yes i'm middle class in case you hadn't guessed lol! wink

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Jan 7 2004 16:06

class is a subject that bothers me a lot. usually because there are an awful lot of middle class people who believe there are no distinctions any more. i think the differences have become more blurred, and very confusing. here are the definitions that i give, you may or may not agree.

upper class - the sort of people who speak posh, go to private schools, and whose families have held money/land/titles for generations.

upper middle class - people who earn a lot of money (say, over £50000 a year) and are attempting to emulate the upper class. they copy their habits, (private schools etc) but the wealth has only been around for the last generation or so. all the kids from their families go to university, regardless of talent, intelligence or even wanting to go. the kids will probably be able to move into their own property when they leave home. everyone drives from age 17 and most will have new cars.

lower middle class - these people earn over the median level of income (around £21000) but not the large sums that the upper middle do. They are more likely to think of themselves as working class, as the parents probably were, but the kids almost all go to university ('thats what everyone does') and most of them will have funding from their parents to have a nice gap year abroad. the kids will live with their parents (barring their uni time) until they can afford to buy their own place (usually with their parents help). everyone drives from age 17 and most will have a car (second hand for the kids, new for the parents).

working class - these families earn under the median level of income. their family has never bought a new car, even on credit. most of them have never even had driving lessons. the kids will either live at home but help pay the rent/mortgage (sometimes the family will buy a house by pooling their resources), or they will be renting from private landlords. the kids from these families will rarely even do a-levels, let alone go to university.

underclass - these people live in poverty (a recent guardian article reckons that 22% of the UK population lives in poverty). They do not drive and can rarely budget for public transport. They rent from council or private landlords, who rip them off. They hardly buy anything new, including clothes and furniture. Some may be working, some may not. They are unlikely to have a-levels.

I think that what bracket you fall into depends both on your background and your current situation. it's definitely very complicated. my biggest issue with the middle classes is their (general) inability to realise there is a problem. there is an assumption that if you're poor then its your fault for being lazy or useless. they take university for granted and moan about the possibility of paying fees, meanwhile almost 60% of the UK population feels lucky to get through a levels. they moan about universitys taking in less wealthy pupils with poorer results, without even trying to take into account all the privilidges they have that make those results easier to get (peace and quiet, books, computers, parental support, teacher support, transport, not having to do a part time job as well, extra tuition at home, revision packs, not having to babysit or look after older members of the family.... an endless list). they go out at least a couple of times a week and drive everywhere, when you and your mates cant even afford the bus fare to the pub, then wonder why you're so stressed and why class is such an issue for you. they genuinely seem to believe that we all have the same chance in life. they are much less likely to be prosecuted for using their drugs.

sorry for the mini rant, but these are the things that get to me. i'm glad that some of you can see through the system.

dissident
Offline
Joined: 29-09-03
Jan 7 2004 16:35

i don't quite agree with your classifications random - by your definition i'd be upper class, but i'm a long way from To The Manor Born. i'd class most of the people who fall under your 'upper class' definition as upper middle class - it's not really about whether you're 'new money' or old money in the upper middle classes whereas it certainly is for the upper classes. but yeah, good definitions in general tho smile

all the stuff you say bout the middle classes and their attitudes is totally fair enough - anyone with those attitudes would certainly be a hypocrite to assert anti-authoritarian/@ beliefs.

however, there are a lot of people who might come from middle class backgrounds (and whose parents might think a lot of the things you've listed above) but who don't think those things themselves. i can understand why you have a problem with middle class people if the above is your experience of them so far - but labelling all middle class people as being guilty of these things is a little unfair perhaps?

edit: thanks for responding. i'd be interested in your answers to my q's above about middle-class people being politically active ...

DayDreamer
Offline
Joined: 29-09-03
Jan 7 2004 17:22

"3) can someone who's middle class be accepted as an anarchist? if so, what would they have to say/do in order to be accepted as such? what would stop them from being accepted as such?"

I think this is in a way, though not in all ways, an unaserable question as it implies that there is someone who is in a position to decide who is an anarchist and who is not, as though anarchism belongs to a certain group of people who are able to make judgement as to wethers others are anarchists or not. In practical terms yeah this is kinda a bollocks thing to say and I can imagine examples of where this could go wrong but in theory at least ideas belong to everyone and if someone feels and thinks a certain way then maybe that can go beyond the way they have been defined by external influences.

My main problem with issues like this is that if someone is saying "You're not an anarchist coz you're middle class" then where does that leave the person being told they are not an anarchist? Should they say "allright then" and not try and go beyond their external definitions. Should they accept that they are 'the enemy', embrace this role, and know nothing they are going to do is going to make any difference? Seems a bit daft to have a theory based on freedom becoming a clique. But then again I would say that wink

Thinking in the most idealistic way, Anarchism is a theory which should in theory be attractive to all. In a way it is about looking at your life and saying 'what is me, and what isn't. what is their about my personality nature than is truely in tune with my heart and soul and what are things grafted on, drummed in, hammered home'. Therefore in theory at least background etc. doesn't matter because you are moving beyond it all.

But that is just a load of idealism I know and I can see many a gaping flaw in what I have written but there you go.

dissident
Offline
Joined: 29-09-03
Jan 7 2004 17:33

yeah good post. i guess that's kinda my attitude as well (but then as you say, we *would* say that wouldn't we, lol surprised ). i dunno i guess i've just got a bit disillusioned about anarchism and anarchists since encountering quite a lot of hostility towards me because of my class. (i mean class as in my family background, not class as in my job - i'm not exactly a City trader).

so gwan then - who's gonna be the first to come along and go 'oh boohoo poor little middle class girl are we suposed to feel fucking sorry for you' then?! wink

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Jan 7 2004 18:43

i wouldnt say that all middle class people had those habits at all! unfortunately there are a lot who do, but in the middle you'll always find people who are very socially aware.

i dont really understand your questions to be honest. i think your opinions are valid no matter what class group you come from, and they are yours to develop as you please! i wouldnt worry about acceptance, as long as you do what feels morally right to you then you'll find your niche. unfortunately there will always be people who ostrasize you, its happened to me in the reverse (too common for the likes of thee!).. if you want to do something worthwhile politically, pick what gets up your nose and do what you can to make it better. a good start is simply to try and educate yourself and the people around you.

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Jan 7 2004 22:44

i think it don't matter where you came from, it's where you're goin. smile

GenerationDecay
Offline
Joined: 5-11-03
Jan 8 2004 01:13

Your background will always influence why you view the world in the way you do. Some people (generally working/underclass) will hold radical politics as a direct rebellion against the way they and those closest to them have been kept down, had shit lives and are generally trapped in a cycle of poverty. On the other side (generally middle-class), there are the people who have been fairly comfortable materially, but who come over to radical views because they recognise how unfair the world is and they themselves feel alienated for doing so.

This doesn't matter a great deal, as someone said early its not where you come from, its where you're going. It can make a difference in the way you view certain issues though.

Tommy Ascaso is also right that the anarchist movement as a whole is mostly middle-class. This has always posed a problem for me personally, as I often find it difficult to relate to people within it, their perspectives on life etc. I can't really pin down the reasons for this, and there is know reason why it should be like this, but its just the way it is. Its probably just on a personal level though, its not that I have a problem with middle-class radicals at all.

Just think we need to be aware of the potential issues and different perspectives that can arrive from different backgrounds.

GDxx

Kidda
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 8 2004 14:51

i think one of the reasons the issue of ''middle class anarchists'' is such a raw nerve for some if that it creates images of little rich kids telling everyone else how bad the world is from the sidelines, rather than from their own experiences.

Theres a really bad classic 'lets go on to a working class council estate and preach to the unconverted about how bad they are being treated' amongst SOME anarchists, which is patronising and infuriating if your being told how shite it is to live as a working class kid by someone who's never been there themselves.

and then you have the ''lets smash stuff up because its really cool and makes us feel hard'' minority who seem to be as seperated from the real world as you could possibly be, because for many ''working class people'' running around smashing shit up/fighting coppers/smashing bosses brains in with a robbed Maccie'D's sign isnt an option and to see people running around mindlessly shouting that stuff just gives them a extremly bad impression of anarchists and what anarchism is about. ((we might see ourselves as individuals, but i believe when people look at the actions of 'anarchists' and 'anarchism' in the mass media they have a broad negative stereotype and assume the majority of us are like that))

To be honest i dont really think it matters what class a person is from

if they arent blinded by the stereotypical bigotry that their particular class is usually full of (( i know a lot of middle class cunts and a lot of working class cunts, yet i know some ace people from both ''classes'')) just as long as people are real to where they've come from and where they want to go.

If you havent experienced something it doesnt mean you cant have an opinion on it, but it does mean you cant talk from experience which does put up a lot of barriers i think as a lot of the anarchist movement in this country does contain a lot of middle class anarchists.

dont agree with your class system there random, judging myself on that i dont actually appear to have a class, i can take little bits from lowermiddle class/working class and under class and yet im still no clearer to identifying myself there, but i can see where your coming from.

Time we really cut out all the bullshit and the posering and just started being real. Yeah we know the world is in a shite state of affairs, and we know who are the worst off, instead of preaching to people, what we guna do about it?

Da_Original_Dis...
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Jan 8 2004 20:38

in a nutshell kidda, in a fucking nutshell!

Im also in the 'Its whats inside, not wear you reside' mindset, but that dont mean i think cause somones a midle class Anarchist theve got it right inside.

Quote:
'lets go on to a working class council estate and preach to the unconverted about how bad they are being treated'

That realy realy gets under my skin, i couldnt think of anything more fucking backwards for a grand or two. Its exactly why our movment is as un -influential as it is, and i truly belive the people with these ideas are the ones who have had least amount of contact with never mind experience within working class/people.

These people need to reasses their ideas fast, if you really think the kids on that estate at DESi(and i read n heard this a few times) were really enjoying you being their and got our cuase all because they made some comment about the filth wich is simular to your thinking your more alienated than the we could ever be.

blackmasks
Offline
Joined: 27-12-03
Jan 8 2004 20:41

The class issue within the anarchist movement seems to be a bit :?

If someone asked me what class i would class myself, then id happily answer (lower middle for all those nosey types) But both my parents and all thier families have come from dockers communities in liverpool, so my upbringing has been influenced by those factors. But why should that matter? Surley if i want to make the world a better place, for people who are maybe not as well off as me, then that should be something that is applauded, not looked down upon. Within a movement Class should mean nothing to each other...however within society and the fight, thats obviously a different matter

dissident
Offline
Joined: 29-09-03
Jan 9 2004 10:05
Da_Original_Dissident wrote:
Quote:
'lets go on to a working class council estate and preach to the unconverted about how bad they are being treated'

That realy realy gets under my skin, i couldnt think of anything more fucking backwards for a grand or two. Its exactly why our movment is as un -influential as it is, and i truly belive the people with these ideas are the ones who have had least amount of contact with never mind experience within working class/people.

i agree with you and i for one certainly wouldn't even think of doing anything like this - it's a kind of vanguardism in a way innit?! but this is partly why i asked one of my original questions :

"4) if someone who was middle class wanted to do something worthwhile in political terms, what's the best thing they could do?"

cos there do seem to be certain things which everyone ageres teh british @ movement needs to do more of - eg. reaching out to the working class with stuff that actually addresses their needs and concerns - which anyone from a middle-class background won't be welcome in. as i understand it, the fundamental point is about operating within your own community rather than wading into someone else's and telling them what they 'want' - so does this mean middle-class @s should be addressing the needs and concerns of the middle-class where they live?!?! eek tongue wink

aw i dunno. it just seems to be a bit of a logical fallacy that's all. seems to me that if you're middle class then you're slag-off-able *whatever* you do. which is kinda fair enough in a way. ok i'll shurrup now ... embarrassed

Kidda
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 9 2004 10:49

never forget that this system uses everything it can to keep us seperated, class being a big one. We cant let ourselves become filled with the same distractions, i dont care if the person stood next to me waving a black flag on a demo is middle class/working class, as long as the rest of the year they are stood next to me doing grassroots stuff on the same level as me.

Its not all that important if someone is a middle class anarchist, as long as they recognise that fact and realise that their socialisation is in many ways a lot different from a working class one. Its the ignorant fucks who are obviously ''middle class anarchists'' walking around trying to ignore the fact they are, and then patronising people left right and center that are the problem imho.

everybody is important, no matter what age sex race gender or class they are from, isnt that the whole point of anarchism anyway?

keep smiling wink

ClassWar
Offline
Joined: 24-10-03
Jan 9 2004 11:11

People's class background also grates against one another. This occurs even if you have common interests or a reason to work together. It is one reason why cross-class alliances in politics tend to always enter choppy waters at some stage.

The BNP, having recruited many working class members in Lancashire in recent years may not have suffered from this yet, but they will. Especially with a posh boy like Nick Griffin in charge.

As an example closer to home I understand most of the arguments about sustainable transport, clycle lanes and Critical Mass put forward by

many of the Hackney anarcho/green/crustie cycle types and always have done.

But I still think most of those people are wankers, and can never really feel comfortable or relaxed with them. And probably vice versa. Because they nearly all come from middle class backgrounds.

Style is temporary - class is largely permanent.

dissident
Offline
Joined: 29-09-03
Jan 9 2004 11:31

kidda - good post smile

NietscheWasAGod...
Offline
Joined: 29-12-03
Jan 9 2004 15:23

I don't like talking about class, but then I'm middle-class, so I'm bound not to. It is a bit out-of-date when you consider that the vast majority of builders [working-class] earn a fuck of a lot more than teachers [middle-class]. Also, thinking that "left-wing" means pro-working class and "right-wing" means pro-middle class gets in muddy water when about 80% of working class people support the death penalty, compared with a much smaller % of middle-class people. I think race is more relevant to politics than class and I'm sure a lot of you would feel repelled if anarchists started talking about Whites as if they were the enemy constantly in the battle against the state. I covered some of this in my thread abt Godwin, so I'll stop now.

celtic67
Offline
Joined: 17-12-03
Jan 9 2004 15:44

Back when I was a vegan for about 6 months I'd probably have stuck with it if it wasn't for the fact every other vegan I met was such a middle class wanker. Honestly man I don't know about how politically reasonable this is but I have to admit it just annoys me when I hear posh accents go on about animal rights. I know I'm probably being quite obtuse here and not being completely egalitarian with my attitudes but I'm just being honest. I remember it was that that put me off the SWP aged 16...I got to the big conference thingy, listened to a couple of speeches and slowly it dawned on me that every speaker had a posh accent. They were all going on about the Miners and fighting for freedom but they all looked and sounded like University proffessors. Then I met some class war guys selling punk tapes who were happy to point out that everyone was, as I had thought, a wanker.

I reckon you're working class if you're completely dependant on your job or welfare to live. There's a big swathe of people with a big difference in salary but at the end of the day we're all just a redundancy and an unforseen illness away from breadline poverty, and that goes for teachers and builders.[/i]

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Jan 11 2004 17:35

NietscheWasAGodwinist

Out of date?? Builders working class? teachers are middle class? I suggest its YOU thats ouit of date.

It pisses me off so much because the ONLY people who think there is no 'class' any more are middle class. The upper are glad to be where they are. The lower are only to aware of it. But the comfortable centrally heated middle class are split - some of you get it, and the rest are in denial. Is this because of some deep down SHAME?

RACE AND GENDER ARE BOTH CLASS ISSUES.

The Upper Class is entirely made up of White Men. Women are only part of it if they are married to it. Its the men that give the social status to their wives. "Blacks need not apply" is the sign on this door.

The Middle Class is dominated by White Men. Again, women (usually white) can be married to it, or they can (if theyre lucky) work within it for less pay than a man in an equivalent position. Of course you will find other ethnic groups in this class, but they are a small number compared to the white majority. And dont answer this with a "well i knew a couple of black guys in Uni/the office." SO FUCKING WHAT? Their were hundreds of people at your Uni. Your office is full of white people.

The sooner we all realise that gender and race issues are used by 'The Man' (white) to divide us, the better. And I am not suggesting there are no white men in the lower classes, because there are thousands of them. They are left to sink by the greedy bastards in that nice house up the road.

RACE AND GENDER ARE BOTH CLASS ISSUES.

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Jan 12 2004 11:39
random wrote:
The sooner we all realise that gender and race issues are used by 'The Man' (white) to divide us...

Riiiiiiight...

:?

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Jan 12 2004 12:01

It doesn’t matter what racial/gender composition the ruling class has. It just doesn’t. That some women thought the goal of the feminist movement was to have more women bosses, judges, politicians is a fucking joke.

The Republican party could be entirely staffed by Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice clones, but it wouldn’t make a fucking difference. The are all my enemies; women or men, black or white.

ClassWar
Offline
Joined: 24-10-03
Jan 12 2004 12:16
pingtiao wrote:
It doesn’t matter what racial/gender composition the ruling class has. It just doesn’t. That some women thought the goal of the feminist movement was to have more women bosses, judges, politicians is a fucking joke.

The Republican party could be entirely staffed by Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice clones, but it wouldn’t make a fucking difference. The are all my enemies; women or men, black or white.

Which is why Michael Moore was such a dipstick to call his book "Stupid White Men"!

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Jan 12 2004 13:55

alexa, i used 'the man' to refer to the ruling elite. which you would have to agree is mostly male, mostly white. i dont understand your problem with this usage.

pingtiao, of course it matters. your example doesnt stand. the republican party isnt full of clones (although it might as well be). its full of white men. you cant pull out the only two examples you can think of where this isnt true as an argument.

if we united behind our majority against the elite, we would see that despite our differences, black, female, white, male, we are all united in class. thats my point.

race cannot be more relevant to politics than class. black and white are united in the class issue.

pingtao, i take objection to your line "That some women thought the goal of the feminist movement was to have more women bosses, judges, politicians is a fucking joke."

feminism is about equal rights. there is a majority of 52% of women versus men in the uk. yet women constitute a tiny percentage of those jobs you mention. we are not less capable, so why are we discriminated against in this manner?

one of the goals in the feminist movement is exactly about getting women recognised as equal achievers and thereby getting more women into the roles you mentioned. what did you think it was about? the right to grow hair in our pits?

wheresmyshoes's picture
wheresmyshoes
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Jan 12 2004 16:16

this is a really interesting thread.

i have been thinking about class and class difference a lot recently and decided i proberly agree with anarc-communism the most but i i find the very black and white defenitions a bit too straight forward.i personaly would class myself as lower middle class because both my parents come from middle class backgrounds but my dad doesnt work and my mum's a subsitute teacher whereas we dont really have any money.but i think the deffinitions are a bit arkward because i've been poundering this for quite some time but i think its important to take into account that work and money doesnt just make your class,it is also the culture that you were brought up in or live in.like for example,your parents wanted you to go to uni,had a more wider view of the world,more books around the house,took you to art galleys and stuff like that.i by know means am saying that workng class people dont read books or dont care about uni but from what ive seen and experienced from myself and my friends,people who like me,have know money they still culturaly are on a diffrent levelthan that econemecly, i sounds like i'm being a bit of a snob but because enconormcialy you could call me working class but culturaly you could also call my middle class i think i can kinda see where two sets of people are coming from.

plus i dont have a car but my working class has a brand new one but yet he said he still classes himself as working class.i find the ''i'm more working class than you'' or whatever between people a bit stupid at times,like 'i live in the ghettos and people sell crack on the streets yeah and live in a crappy council esate with one room'i think people should stop trying to prove themselves so much to be a certain class and like someone said before just get on with it. 8)

i hope everyone understood what im going on about cause im a bit tired and my spellings a bit off today.

captainmission
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Jan 12 2004 18:28
random wrote:
RACE AND GENDER ARE BOTH CLASS ISSUES.

WRITING SOMETHING IN CAPITALS DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE!

But, don't you find this arguement a tad reductionist. Yes women are generally worse off economically than men and capitalism relies heavily on womens unpaid labour, but is that the soul extent of patriarchy? Most the time different forms of oppression fall into mutual support of each other, but at other times the grate against each other- there have been pleanty of case where women have used the economic oppotunities given to them by captialism to overturn some gendre heirarchy. ok its not perfect and it isn't going to bring about da revolution. But it has allowed people to make concrete improvements to there lifes.

I have noticed there's a tendency in alot of leftist politics of this 'class comes first' mentality- as in its ok to be a woman/black/gay/whatever as long as you first and foremost you admitt you're a worker. Ultmately meaning your issues as women/black/gay/whatever most come second. Ok so you may believe on a structural level power is basically economic in nature (though i'd disagree with you) its experienced subjectively- as in some people will experience some aspects of power more than others and priorities them differently. Reducing it all to economics ignores these issues. For example during the Toxteth and Brixton riots in the early 80's the left basically took the stance your taking- the problems that black people were facing were class problems and refused to acknowledge any role racism played outside of the class issue. They ended up loosing any support they had amongst the black communities for failing to take any account of there experiences.

Quote:
The sooner we all realise that gender and race issues are used by 'The Man' (white) to divide us, the better.

oh this old chestnut- 'da evil capitalist rulers invented racism and patriarchy (and all other oppression) to keep us fighting amongst ourselfs'. Ok so different froms of power support one another most the time. It's just this idea class society is the root of all evil. Well historically patriachy predates class based society (as do military and religious heirarchies), so if anything....

CLASS IS A GENDRE ISSUE!

...that is class is a development of patriarchy, but that'd be horrible reductive wouldn't it? As for racism well suppose it did come about at roughly the same time as capitalism, also played an important ideology for supporting colonalism. However in the early debates about racism it was usually the church that argued for the difference of the races and the sub-human-ness of non-europeans whilst economist took the position of defending the equality of all humans due to are capacity to labour. When we move on to other forms of oppression this arguement becomes even more tenuous. I've been told many time homophobia is a ploy by the capitalist class. Well if it is its a quite an unsuccessful one since queers seem pretty evenly distrubuted across all classes and homosexuality has often been used as a sign of ruling class devience in popular struggles- even today the Nigerian branch of the IWA argues against their state on the basis its a hot bed of homosexuality.

As in racism and sexism contain elements of class opression i'd agree but reducing both of these to nothing but class issues is just a form of imperialism

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Jan 12 2004 19:03

i didnt write it in capitals so it would seem more true. i just wanted to make sure that people got that point and it didnt just blend into the background of my post.

i dont see class as being purely an economic issue. it affects everything.

race and gender (and sexual orientation) is not less important than class. but i do feel that class unites us all against the 'elite' and that sometimes we could be using this to more advantage instead of squabbling between ourselves. and by 'squabbling' i mean attacking and seperating because of race etc. you seem to think this means im not supporting these groups of people, but i would gladly stand beside black men as much as i would stand beside white women (which is who i am), im suggesting people who have prejudices would do better to forget them and stand beside us all against the 'elite'. at its core, racism and sexism are both fed by the class issue, and to 'refuse to acknowledge' that would just be stupid.

also just because we have used the 'opportunities given us' to our advantage doesnt mean we have to accept them you know. its a case of 'if you cant beat em use their rules against em', but should the opportunity arise to do it differently...

butchersapron
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jan 12 2004 19:35
random wrote:
...even today the Nigerian branch of the IWA argues against their state on the basis its a hot bed of homosexuality.

Do they?

dissident
Offline
Joined: 29-09-03
Jan 12 2004 20:43

y'know, i might have got the wrong end of the stick here but i'm SURE i was trying to say something pretty similar to captainmission's last post at last summer's ayn gathering, and everyone seemed to disagree with me <still feeling the lack of a confused smilie!!!! sad)

GenerationDecay
Offline
Joined: 5-11-03
Jan 13 2004 01:20
Quote:
As in racism and sexism contain elements of class opression i'd agree but reducing both of these to nothing but class issues is just a form of imperialism

WTF?? :? (ps thats the confused smilie dissident grin )

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Jan 13 2004 12:00

What's your source for that info about the nigerian IWA (the Awareness League)?

That's a pretty serious accusation...

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Jan 13 2004 12:23

alexa i never said it hes trying to wind me up i think. if you dont believe me check out my message history - see its not there.

butchersapron how did you do that? im intrigued.

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Jan 13 2004 12:30
random wrote:
alexa i never said it hes trying to wind me up i think. if you dont believe me check out my message history - see its not there.

butchersapron how did you do that? im intrigued.

Ah I see where there's been a mix-up - captainmission said that in his post. But in that same post captain quoted you so BA mixed up the quote block in his post - he wasn't trying to wind you up it was just a mistake.

My question was aimed at captainmish