Skip to main content

Isn’t Left, well, right?




Martin Luther King, minutes before his assasination and after his assasination, second picture taken by Joe Louw a South African and a good friend of my grandparents, Tony and Eve Hall, speaking about his experience here.

Recently – and surprisingly for the first time – I studied an overview of 20th century American History as part of a first year degree programme. I found it predictably fascinating, and in the lead up to exam period read the textbook like a sort of novel, gripped and enthralled, horrified and alarmed. A number of things struck me, not least of all touching on Harold Pinter’s Nobel Prize speech which proclaimed that the USA had ‘supported every military rightwing dictatorship since the 2nd World War’, and the evidence of which I found buried in-between sentences of more importance and only really there because I sought it out.

But the thing that struck me most and has prompted me to gain a different idea and perspective on history and politics in general was the Civil Rights movement. Perhaps it was the language of the author, but the casual and assumed way in which rights for black people was talked of as an ‘agenda of the left’, ‘prominent in leftwing movements’, playing ‘on the conscience of liberal-minded people’, seemed to me to raise a huge and obvious point: isn’t the left right?

Nowadays not a single respected politician, statesman, writer, historian, academic or anyone of any intellectual credibility would attempt to discredit or speak of the civil rights movement as a bad turning point in history. There would be uproar, they would immediately suffer an array of bad press and would probably have to become a hermit forever. A little exaggerated maybe but you see my point. Similarly celebrated is the anti-apartheid movement and the fall of the apartheid government. For years strugglers against the government suffered at international hands, they were tortured, jailed, alienated, isolated. They risked their lives and their souls and it was decades before this was internationally recognised and pressure was put on the South African government. They had to go through hell before it was acted on by the mainstream and powerful politicians. The United Kingdom, under perhaps it’s most rightwing government in history, refused to enforce sanctions when it was becoming the norm to do so. Che Guevara was one of the first to speak out against Apartheid at a U.N conference in 1964.

Internally, both the Civil Rights and the anti-apartheid movements were aligned closely with leftwing groups and parties – the Communist Party being a main player in the struggle against the South African government. In the USA, had politics as a whole been more open to leftwing ideas and not so preoccupied with the Cold War, headway would surely have been made much sooner. But, as it is, all the headway that was made was done so by Franklin D Roosevelt, JFK, Lyndon Johnson – Democrats.

Tony Benn articulated my thoughts to some extent when, speaking recently of the process of struggle and demanding what is right, said there are 5 stages: First, they ignore you. Then they say you’re mad. Then they say you’re dangerous and they lock you up. Then there’s a pause. And then you can’t find anyone at the top who didn’t agree with you in the first place.

These are only two obvious examples, but the idea can be applied to almost any struggle for human rights in history; the suffragette movement and women’s rights, gay rights, workers rights, immigrant rights. Yes, this in some ways is a narrow and obvious point, but if we are searching for morality in politics, for the right philosophy to act on and the appreciation and concern for human beings, shouldn’t we always look left of centre? My Grandfather, an anti-apartheid activist and journalist who dedicated his life to the struggle used to say to us – ‘always remember, left is right’. I have to say, I tend to agree with him, the evidence is really stacked in his favour.

By Lucy Hall

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A warm welcome

. Why blog on ARS NOTORIA? I have set up this website,  ARS NOTORIA ,  (the notable art) as an opportunity for like-minded people like you to jot down your thoughts and share them with us on what I hope will be a high profile blog. . ARS NOTORIA is conceived as an outlet: a way for you to get things off your chest, shake those bees out of your bonnet and scratch that itch. The idea is that you do so in a companionable blogging environment, one that that is less structured - freer. Every article you care to write or photograph or picture you care to post will appear on its own page and you are pretty much guaranteed that people will read with interest what you produce and take time to look at what you post. Personal blogs are OK, but what we long for, if we can admit it, are easy-going, loose knit communities: blogging hubs where we can share ideas and pop in and out as frequentl...

Phil Hall: The Taleban are a drug cartel disguised as an Islamist movement

Truly the Taleban could have arranged as many bombings and terrorists acts as they liked in the UK. There are many Pashtun young men and women in cities in the UK who still have large extended families back in Afghanistan and who could be forced into doing something they should not. But guess what. So far there have been no attacks by Afghans on British soil. Why? It is a mystery. News comes from Afghanistan and the recent UN report that the Taleban and the drug trade are intertwined and that now the Taleban, who are mainly Pashtun, are officially in command of an international drug cartel.  News comes from Afghanistan that Taleban drug lords go to Dubai to live high on the hog and gamble and sleep with women and luxuriate in all the that the freedom to consume has to offer, while their footsoldiers, peasant fighters, are deluded and told that they are fighting a patriotic religious war.  And though they are told they are fighting a religious war what really matters to t...

Our Collective Caliban

At the risk of seeming digitally provincial, I’m going to illustrate my point with an example from a recent Guardian blog. Michel Ruse, who is apparently a philosopher, suggested that, whilst disagreeing with creationists on all points, and agreeing with Dawkins et al on both their science and philosophy, it might be wiser and more humane (humanist, even) not to vilify the religious as cretinous and incapable of reason. Which seems reasonable, to me. According to many below-the-line responses he is a ‘half-baked’ atheist, ‘one of the more strident and shrill New Apologists’ and, apparently, “needs to get a pair’. And that’s just from the first twenty comments. A recent article by a screenwriter at a US site was titled ‘Why I Won’t Read Your Fucking Screenplay.’ Tough guy. I wonder how his Christmas cards read. I’m going to sound like a maiden aunt dismayed by an unsporting bridge play and can perhaps be accused of needing to ‘get a pair’ myself (although, before you...