Am i missing the ridiculous aspect of this?

[f4f3]

A letter from David Hockney, one of Britain, sorry, England's most bankable artist, was printed on the front page of Saturday's Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1717612,00.html

A nicotine addict, he whines on for a couple of hundred words about not being able to blow smoke from his cancer sticks over anyone he feels like. Not particularly unusual - anyone who's had to take a bottle or a dummy out of a toddler's mouth will have heard much the same complaint.

For some reason, though he sees this as being an attack on the English, and in the process of laying this out has the following little swipe at the chancellor:

"Gorrdon Brrrown is a prig P.R.I.G., a dreary atheistic Calvinistic prig, who I'm sure will never be elected in England."

In case anyone has missed the linguistic subtlety displayed, the rolled R in Brown's name is meant to emphasise that he is Scottish. I can't quite understand his use of "atheistic" (tending towards atheism, not actually an atheist) in front off "Calvanistic" which describes his religion.

I'm tempted to play the old substitution game: "Ali-eee Hussain", "Shylockian miser', "England will never vote for a black Prime Minister" sort of thing, but, the more I read his little rant, the more angry I get that our only avowedly left-wing broadsheet can give this racist moron the oxygen of publicity. If they'd put the letter in the back, along with anyone else's, I wouldn't be so annoyed - Hackney, as an addict should be allowed his opinions along with the rest of his ilk - to be honest, I'd prefer that there were still smoke filled pubs were he could spew out his nonsense without it leaving a bad smell in my nostrils, and a worse taste in my mouth. Printing this up front is, I'd suggest, irresponsible reporting by the Guardian.

Or am I, as he accuses the media, missing the ridiculous side of this?

Comments

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Actually I think here are two aspects to this story.

The first is the ungenerous characterisation of the Scots. You are of course right to see a double standard here but it's one you will see every day. Look at how Americans are portrayed in the left and not so left wing media. It's apparently fine to write as if all Americans are boorish, overweight, insular, srupid religious bigots. I've been guilty of it myself. However, if you want to see really creative racist invective I suggest a trip to Australia where the "Protection of Irish Convict Scum Act" apparently provides government subsidies for printing racist diatribes against the English. The rest of the arument against Brown is of course just plain silly. Not only have the English shown a willingness down the years to elect extremely peculiar Scots (and Welsh and Irish) PMs but surely it's a sort of dreary authoritarianism hatched in the dungeons of the Edinburgh Bastille Fettes, that lies at he heart of New Labour and alas it's appeal.

The second thing about this article is that it shows up the cult of celebrity Grauniad style at its worst. There is no intrinsic reason why the views of a painter are of any more interest on this topic than those of a street sweeper. Yet, as you point out, Hockney gets the front page for an incoherent rant that should have gone on the spike. It's rather similar to the Grauniad's assumption that three people in an Islington wine bar constitute public opinion.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I agree that there is a double standard that's persisted for the last 30 years ago over abuse directed amongst the home countries, and that aimed at or from anyone else (note our banter on the Six Nations - I almost self-censored myself over the "Bastard English" crack, and in retrospect I think I should have). This persist to a slightly lesser extent in commentary in the UK about the Commonwealth, and some of our other ex-colonies (the US) although not to others (India). In the past this has been glossed with a fair bit of humour and common sense, but I think this has worn thin over the last decade or so, and, when we do introduce religious intolerance legislation, I'm sure there's bound to be a few test cases based on views like Hockney's.

I mentioned the lensing affect of Oxbridge earlier - when you add Islington as another lens it's getting pretty narrow in there.

Of course, to avoid any charges of racism, I should point out that some of my best friends live in Islington.

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

And are of course entirely representative of public opinion.

Actually, if you can find a political issue that K and I agree on, he'll make you dinner.

(Well, there is one, but I'm deeply ashamed of believing it and try very hard to pretend in words and actions that I don't.)

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

I wasn't aware that he had any political opinions at all.

[widgetfox.livejournal.com]

He has many. In general, they are variations on the themes of 'money is a Good Thing' and 'other people are very stupid'.

Actually, there's not that much in the way of variance.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

You see - not political at all. Say hi to L_A for me!