Commentators

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 7° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Howard Jacobson: Nick Griffin looks as if he'd be light on his feet. So here's what to do with him

The BBC already deals with the BNP leader so it knows where to find him

The following is by way of addressing a thorny problem – what should the British Broadcasting Corporation do about the British National Party and what should the British National Party do about the British Broadcasting Corporation. The BBC argues that as long as the BNP garners substantial votes it has a right to appear on Question Time. And the BNP argues that when its leader is invited on to Question Time he is lynch-mobbed. Whatever happens in the future, there will be no pleasing the British public, some of whom will never stomach the idea of Nick Griffin being allowed to express his views on the BBC, while others will continue to argue that after his party's success in the European elections he is as entitled as the next politician to do his thing. After long consideration, I believe I have a solution to the impasse.

Invite him to take part in Strictly Come Dancing.

Allow me to explain how this would be of benefit to both parties, and ultimately to the country. Nick Griffin, first. It goes without saying that he is unhappy. Who ever yet met a happy racist? Not only is the language of racial exclusion in a general way bad for you – bad for the heart which thrives on love, bad for the soul which shrivels in proximity to malignity and gall – it leaves you friendless, if you discount your own party, and you must discount your own party because where's the relief in mixing with people whose souls are as shrivelled as your own?

This loneliness was apparent on Question Time when, after Bonnie Greer teased him about the quality of his university degree, he blushed like a schoolboy and turned to her in an expectant spirit of merry banter – of which, of course, he won't have had much experience in the BNP. Reader, his crestfallen expression when she refused his proffered hand of friendship – white supremacist ideologue to liberal black writer – was such as would make the stoniest hearted weep.

Clear it all was at that moment, anyway, clear for all to see: the isolation and social gaucherie that had driven Griffin to seek out the stunted fellowship of other introverts and join the National Front at the age of 15. Five or so years later, pursuing a not entirely dissimilar logic, he was a student at Downing College, Cambridge, my own alma mater, as I have already mentioned in this column.

Why I find it necessary, every time Griffin's name crops up, to confess that he and I went to the same college I leave others to investigate. Perhaps I too am looking for a friend. It's not impossible he mentions me whenever talk turns to Downing College at BNP branch meetings and he wishes aloud that we'd been contemporaries. Maybe he would have liked me to teach him some handy Yiddish expressions – "You're a shlemiel, Nick!", for example – in return for listening to him hold forth on the subject of pigmentation.

It's hard to imagine Griffin at Cambridge. I don't remember any member of a fascist party in the university in my day, though I am of an earlier intake. Could be that fascism as a discrete ideology wasn't necessary in an institution that was already just the tiniest bit unwelcoming to people of the wrong social or ethnic persuasion?

Writing about the obstacles put in the way of the scientist Rosalind Franklin, the American academic Mary Wyer notes that elite educational institutions could be difficult places "for Jewish men and women to study and to work at" in the immediate post-war years. I'm not saying it was still tryingly difficult for me in the 1960s, but there were residual suspicions you could smell on older academics, particularly medievalists who revered Thor and Odin and hadn't forgotten what the Jews had done to Hugh of Lincoln in the 12th century.

By Griffin's time, most of this would have vanished and it was more likely to have been he, as a paid-up member of the National Front, who met with hostility. Did he intend his views on racial purity to be known, I wonder. Was he seeking notoriety? Who were his acquaintances at Cambridge? Which tutors befriended him? My moral tutor invited me to his rooms at the beginning of every term, called me Finklebaum or Horowitz, and asked what I'd been up to in the vacation. Had I said I was a member of the National Front and was keeping busy, thank you, he would not have registered emotion. "Excellent, excellent, Fishbein," I hear him saying. "Do come to me with any problems." So what would Griffin have encountered?

My own guess is that by going to Cambridge as a National Fronter, Griffin was looking to surprise and interest people. It's possible he chose Downing in a fit of faint-heartedness, since Downing, as a college closer to the railway station than to King's Parade, has always been a bit out of things – like him. What is more, the Downing College crest is a griffin rampant. Could a man called Griffin have accidentally attended a college whose coat of arms was a griffin? Reader, I think not.

Griffin attended Griffin College, in my view, in order that people would make the connection, express surprise, and invite him to their rooms for sherry, where he would discourse to them on heraldry and such other aspects of white English culture with which he was conversant. Though nobody, I suspect, until me, ever did make the connection.

Sad? I'll say it's sad. So why not welcome him back into society? Make a fuss of the man not the politician. Put him to music. He looks as though he'd be light on his feet. We have seen how he covets the friendship of a black woman; I'd guess he hankers no less for the companionship of a gay dance judge. He could even win. And then, robbed of its gravitas, where would the BNP be? They might have to relinquish the Lambeth Walk at party conferences and take up the bossa nova.

As for the BBC, it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing as I suggest. It already deals with Griffin so it knows where to find him. It would honour its obligation to give airtime to any rabble rouser who can successfully rouse a rabble, and this without doctoring the audience which, for Strictly Come Dancing, will cheer anything. Above all it would meet BBC Entertainment's most vaunted ambition, which is to be edgy. Then go for it, I say. Next time, Dawkins singing his favourite hymns on Songs of Praise. And a suicide bomber introducing the Lottery.

More from Howard Jacobson

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Not one of your best
[info]topoftheheap wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 12:24 am (UTC)
Cod-psychology. Some stuff about Cambridge. Yawn.
Good idea HJ
[info]littlefluff wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 02:26 am (UTC)
Come on in Nick, the water's lovely.
mandy vs nick
[info]benjones91 wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 06:29 am (UTC)
peter vs. griffo ANY day....then wel see who comes out most repulsive, any self respecting gay would OWN that foul beast at dancing/humanity....i know, no racist beats me when the groove goes on ;)
Griffin
[info]charlesdanwood wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 08:04 am (UTC)

Griffin is less of a white supremacist than Jacobson is a Jewish one.
Is this supposed to be funny?
[info]rogersbrother wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 08:13 am (UTC)
Not funny, just silly and sarcastic. Though I expect the British National Party will welcome the publicity. If Mr Jacobson is so opposed to the BNP perhaps he should bear in mind the dictum that 'there's no such thing as bad publicity so long as they spell the name right'. Why not find something else to write about?
[info]blugg wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 09:09 am (UTC)
Frankly I find the bias against anything Howard Jacobson writes on these pages inherently prejudicial and indeed racist. Even when he writes on a topic concerning popular culture (as he often does) this still brings out specific political bile and vitriol. You read things into what he writes that simply are not there. What *you* write about *him* says far more about your issues and politically myopic views than it adds any insight into what he is actually writing about. Look to *yourselves* and your purblind intellects.

If he writes anything with a political dimension to it you say it is a crap piece of writing. If he writes anything without any political slant to it, you find something political in it or miraculously magic the word 'Jew' into it. (No, I am not Jewish.) Or on other occasions infer misogyny in him because here is a writer who dares to write about men and women with an equally critical eye. I mean, how dare he?

A famous cinematic racist and character with deep seated personal issues once said: "All the animals come out at night". But they don't anymore, it is night twenty four hours a day on the Net. Where you can find him casually dispatching judgement on this that and everything with a heightened understanding of the world and existence, glaring in its lucidity, like a madness. Hugging his keyboard to his breast, snug as a gun. For now here he is online, regally offering his pronoucements, blogging and commenting away in his underpants. And like him you rage against this that and everything, hold the world and people in it to terminal account for not conforming to your view of it. Yes. You've guessed it. You are him. Yes. You. You and Travis Bickle have a lot in common.

A superb piece of humorist writing from one of the finest humorists and novelists in the country. Aye, there's the rub. It is pearl among swine, Mr. Jacobson. Pearl among swine.

humourless
[info]earl_of_chatham wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 01:34 pm (UTC)
"It is pearl among swine, Mr. Jacobson. Pearl among swine."


Actually it was as tedious, predictable and humourless as your own posted offering. It was revealing about Jacobson's insecurities, but worthless about Griffin


"Could be that fascism as a discrete ideology wasn't necessary in an institution that was already just the tiniest bit unwelcoming to people of the wrong social or ethnic persuasion?

Writing about the obstacles put in the way of the scientist Rosalind Franklin, the American academic Mary Wyer notes that elite educational institutions could be difficult places "for Jewish men and women to study and to work at" in the immediate post-war years. I'm not saying it was still tryingly difficult for me in the 1960s, but there were residual suspicions you could smell on older academics, particularly medievalists who revered Thor and Odin and hadn't forgotten what the Jews had done to Hugh of Lincoln in the 12th century."

Yawn
Re: humourless
[info]ganef wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 04:47 pm (UTC)
"....medievalists who revered Thor and Odin and hadn't forgotten what the Jews had done to Hugh of Lincoln in the 12th century."

Yippee for the old blood libel. Not an gram of evidence to support this tosh.
[info]guv111 wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 10:33 am (UTC)

Anti-semetism isn't racism, it is the hatred of a religion.
Jacobson's racism.
[info]jpsartre2 wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 09:32 am (UTC)
On the subject of the "racist" Griffin to which Jacobson refers, is this the Jacobson who supports the blatantly racist policies of the blantanly racist state of Isreal?
Re: Jacobson's racism.
[info]blugg wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 10:17 am (UTC)
'On the subject of the "racist" Griffin to which Jacobson refers, is this the Jacobson who supports the blatantly racist policies of the blantanly racist state of Isreal?'

Now there you go. You went for it hook, line and sinker, didn't you?

Is 'Isreal' meant to be some sort of insightful pun? Or a Freudian slip, perhaps? Or just a typo? Hmm. On balance, considering the intellectual possibilities available, think I'd put a tenner on the typo. You must have been passionately angry in your conviction and belief when you typed it. That is blantantly clear.

The questions were rhetorical, by the way. We are all mouth and no trousers on here, my friend. Go and put some on. Got mine on now. ("That would infer that you didn't have them on in your first post. Ha! Gotcha! hypocrite!") Anyway I am going to enjoy a rather blousy Saturday. In the colloquial, windy sense wot i just made up, I mean. God forbid I should suggest anything as politically incorrect as chasing after some skirt in these hallowed pages. Yes. I'll do that then.

Indeed, hell is other people, Mr. Sartre.

Re: Jacobson's racism - what??
[info]r_cavendish wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 10:18 am (UTC)
Brilliantly funny and witty piece - as to be expected by the brilliantly funny and witty writer, Jacobson. Thank you Howard, keep em coming on a Saturday morning. They are excellent reads to kick start the weekend.

Of course, some moron called jpsartre turns a comment around to 'Israel' - what???? The irony 'jpsatre' - your sobriqet makes me lament how the mighty have fallen.
Re: Jacobson's racism.
[info]bob_idle wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 07:17 pm (UTC)
This is the question that needs to be asked. Does Mr Jocobson support Israel while making fun of the alleged racism of Nick Griffin? Considering his published articles in this paper and elsewhere it looks like Mr Jacobson is a supporter of Israel. So mocking other people for their alleged racism is not something he should be doing.


Re: Jacobson's racism.
[info]madjeffgreen wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 10:01 am (UTC)
Actually the BNP support Israel 100% against Hezbollah.
B'nai B'rith ADC also have affiliation with BNP, strange I know, check it out.
Re: Jacobson's racism.
[info]ganef wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 04:45 pm (UTC)
"B'nai B'rith ADC also have affiliation with BNP, strange I know, check it out."

I did and its a load of rubbish you spout.
Sophistry, democracy and free speech!
[info]mannygoldstein wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 10:18 am (UTC)
Another oh, so clever article about Nick Griffin and the BNP but the real issue is always the same, namely what place does democracy and free speech have to do with the British political system?

As an elected representative of a legal political party, why does Nick Griffin have to justify himself again and again?

Like him, his views and his party or not, any attempt to bar him is an attack on free speech. Do the British public actually believe in free speech or only if the views stated are acceptable?
Who Do You Think You Are?
[info]ruby_pink wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 10:36 am (UTC)
I read a tweet suggesting they should have Griffin on Who Do You Think You Are? I thought it was an excellent idea - clearly they'd find much to embarrass him on that.
Complete nonsense
[info]earl_of_chatham wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 10:59 am (UTC)
"Not only is the language of racial exclusion in a general way bad for you – bad for the heart which thrives on love, bad for the soul which shrivels in proximity to malignity and gall – it leaves you friendless"


Peter Kellner of YouGov said: "It is unusual for white Britons to have any close friends who are from the ethnic minorities."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jul/19/race.world
Re: Complete nonsense
[info]guv111 wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 10:37 am (UTC)

"Not only is the language of racial exclusion in a general way bad for you – bad for the heart which thrives on love..."

This begs the question, why are most old people so miserable, racist, selfish and nasty?
Message (from beyond the grave) from J.P.Satre.
[info]jpsartre2 wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 11:03 am (UTC)
I am delighted to see R_cavendish and blug above cannot answer my point with anything more than insults. Canvenish claims “some moron called jpsartre2 turns a comment around to 'Israel' - what???? The irony 'jpsatre' - your sobriqet makes me lament how the mighty have fallen.”

Calling people “moron” without a good explanation is itself about the most moronic argument possible, which indicates that those using this argument are themselves morons. Re Cavenish’s allusion to the contrast between the French intellectual J.P.Sartre, and my allegedly moronic point, this does not hold much water if the exact nature of the “moronicness” is not spelled out.

Charlesdanewood above has tumbled to the hypocrisy of Jacobson accusing others of racism. But for the benefit of the cerebrally challenged, I’ll spell it out in monosyllables, far as I can.

Jacobson is a keen supporter of pretty well all things Israeli. Israel is a state which is racist by nature: that is this country is more or less reserved for members of the Jewish race or adherents to their religion. And then there is the small matter of treating Palestinians like sh*t.

Personally I’m in favour of different countries maintain their traditions, culture, etc. That is, I have no objection to Jacobson’s wanting to preserve Israel for Jews and their religion. But he cannot do that and at the same time make rude remarks about white, British, Anglo-Saxons who want to do likewise.

Re: Message (from beyond the grave) from J.P.Satre (Not the real deal)
[info]r_cavendish wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 11:20 am (UTC)
Your post itself is all we need to understand moronic thinking - The message from beyond the grave JP is clearly you just dug your own.

If you need further explanation - just read Jacobson's paragraph referring to 'Shlemiel'. Enough said. Go Google it.

This is not the forum for a back and forth about 'Isreal'. Accusing Jacobson being a racist on a par with Nick Griffin is childish silliness. And simply just not true.

Once again Howard, thanks for the read.
Re: Message (from beyond the grave) from J.P.Satre (Not the real deal)
[info]geiseric wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 01:00 pm (UTC)
jpsatre2 gives us reasoned arguement, r_cavendish gives us personal insult.
Re: Message (from beyond the grave) from J.P.Satre (Not the real deal)
[info]charlesdanwood wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 01:35 pm (UTC)

That's because r_cavendish is a Zionist. All they can do is name call as they have no argument.
Re: Message (from beyond the grave) from J.P.Satre (Not the real deal)
[info]r_cavendish wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 07:57 pm (UTC)
Charlesdanwood - Any reasoned adult would certainly not try to debate 'Isreal' in the same breath as the BNP. Anyone who ignorantly suggests that the democratic nation state V british fringe party leader are one and the same is unable to understand the basic tenants of each.

If you refer to being a zionist as someone who supports the self determination of the Jewish people, then I definitely am a zionist.


Re: Message (from beyond the grave) from J.P.Satre (Not the real deal)
[info]charlesdanwood wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 10:40 am (UTC)

Thanks for that gem of a Zionist lie that Israel is a democracy...

Article 7(a) of Israel's Basic Law stipulates that "A candidates' list shall not participate in the elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include... negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people."

This tells us two things about Israel: firstly, what it is not - a democracy and secondly, what it is - a Jewish supremacist state.

Shalom
the lunacy never ends
[info]earl_of_chatham wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 11:20 am (UTC)

Bonnie Greer appears to be a crackpot


"The Black Madonna is considered to be more powerful than the traditional Madonna, and is particularly noted for her miraculous powers, which range from restoring lost memories to resuscitating dead babies..........."
"Practically every nation in Europe has its own Black Madonna. She has played a powerful role in the shaping and defence of Europe and European culture
http://www.newstatesman.com/200012250052

We didn't just come to Britain 50 years ago - we are central to British culture. The black madonnas in Walsingham and Willesden for instance were patron saints of all the kings of Europe until Henry VIII burned both of them during the dissolution at Chelsea in the 16th century.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/reflecting-skin.shtml
Re: the lunacy never ends
[info]msmint wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 12:32 pm (UTC)
That we have this nutter Greer running The British Museum says it all. Bring on the General Election!
Re: the lunacy never ends
[info]topoftheheap wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 02:45 am (UTC)
King Arthur was black and that is why white supremacists destroyed and endeavoured to hide all traces of his HQ, Camelot. Re: The Knights of the Round Table, "Round" does not describe its shape, but is a corruption of "Rwandan"; few people know that in the eighth century a force of armed knights from Rwanda conquered swathes of the West Country; even today you will find large numbers of swarthy, curly-haired people in that area, and many with the surname Black. King Cnut was black, which is why he is portrayed as an ineffectual nutjob rather than an innovative and successful ruler. Mary Queen of Scots was black, and recently-discovered photographs show that Charles I, and his cousin Charles XII of Sweden, had unmistakably African features. What fate befell them? If you don't know, you can surely guess.
Re: the lunacy never ends
[info]madjeffgreen wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 09:59 am (UTC)
I'm sure dat Prince Charles am black too.
He always likes to get down wid da brudders. Nowaimin?
Re: the lunacy never ends
[info]earl_of_chatham wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 10:11 am (UTC)
Well topoftheheap the claims that are made are in fact just as absurd as your amusing bit of satire

King Kenneth of the Scots - black

http://www.100greatblackbritons.com/bios/niger_val_dub.html

Black Prince - black obviously

Also King Offa was a Muslim
Oxbridge the devil they know.
[info]snotcricket wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 12:37 pm (UTC)
Mr. Jacobson neglects to point out tmany of our politicians whatever their persuasion are of an Oxbridge background & mostly from the middle class upward.

While they criticise/argue or worse with each other in the public domain they have a connection to each other with an interest in the status quo that is not spoken off, or perhaps its just self denial.

Spies, writers, politicans all, yes the Oxbridge set would have us believe they know best as their intellectual pomposity knows no bounds, well no bounds we lesser mortals would understand.

Old Nick certainly ensures a payday for the many from his own club who pontificate about this ridiculous individual.
hugh of lincoln
[info]hhr1290 wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 04:17 pm (UTC)
13th century, not 12th.
Why are problems not addressed
[info]gordonmarr wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 05:00 pm (UTC)
Writer is very smarmy about the subject of the BNP, there is a problem that the media are in denial about that is the immigrants and aylum seekers who are getting more out of our society than the poorer 15 million indigenous people. Why have I not heard a word about resolving the poorer people's problems? Does the problem exist? or, Is it a figment of the potentially 4 - 6 million BNP voter's imaginations? My pension is 128 pounds per week for 3 people with no extras; So how come legal or illegal immigrants and asylum seekers get a lot more? the silence is deafening.
I am a pensioner and I will give my vote to BNP because nobody is listening in Westminister including my MP who just parrots of the Labour party line.
Griffen or Blair, spot the difference.
[info]triffid2009 wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 09:44 pm (UTC)
If Blair can launch racsist wars at the behest of his masters in Washington, and still have his disgusting views aired, why on Earth shouldn't this compartively harmless crackpot have the same right?
[info]neutralvoice wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 08:09 am (UTC)
This article is too long and boring. It could have been cut to a third of its current length without damage. Also it bears all the hallmarks of personal vendetta. But the days are gone when you could tell people what they were supposed to think.

Nowadays, if anyone wants to know about BNP views or policies, they only need to go to bnp.org.uk and then they can make up their own minds.

I daresay this comment will be moderated out, but I thought it was worth a try...
Well done
[info]guv111 wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 10:10 am (UTC)

Well done for giving that odious little man more oxygen of publicity. You must be very pleased with yourself.

The next time Griffin appears on television, it would be good if he were confronted with a socialist rather than the forces of the Establisment and big business as he was on Question Time. I'm sure that, hopeless as he was, there will have been quite a few people out there who actually rooted for him, just because of who he was up against. In its quest for audience figures, the BBC is swimming in very dangerous waters, and if the BNP build on their successes in the European elections, we Licence Fee payers will know exactly where to lay the blame.
[info]vgnwtch wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 12:21 pm (UTC)
I revere Thor and Odin, and I am often accused of "political correctness gone mad" by people who don't when I point out the ways in which anti-semitism, racism, sexism, and homophobia are still embedded in our culture. Many of those of us who revere pre-Christian European deities are implacably opposed to injustice and inequality, and rather pro critical thinking.

My understanding is that Griffin's father was a well to do Conservative MP involved in the BNP, and got kicked out of the Tory party for it (eventually). If the profiles I've read are to be believed, his father took him to his first National Front meeting when he was a teenager. Makes me wonder whether his grandparents were involved with the British fascist movement of the pre-War years. How far back does it go? Griffin's oddness and really embarrassingly clearly telegraphed need for approval reminds me of the huge body of research on how authoritarian/conservative/right-wing beliefs correlate with insecurity and fear. The SCARF model shows that people do crave Security, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness - but it seems that people falling in different places on the political spectrum have different perceptions of what those mean and how to achieve them.

There are a lot of frightened people out there, processing their fear in wildly unhealthy ways. And we need to find ways of addressing those fears that a) undermine the false logic of bigotry, and b) provide healthy alternatives that are palatable to them, leading them towards solutions that benefit us all.
[info]msmint wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 01:41 pm (UTC)
Anway!! As someone has already said..
Cod-psychology. Some stuff about Cambridge. Yawn.
[info]snotcricket wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 04:00 pm (UTC)
And your point is?

Columnist Comments

andrew_grice

Andrew Grice: Enough of the philosophy, Mr Cameron.

Think-tanks play an important role in politics. But they have their limits.

christina_patterson

Christina Patterson: Very nice - but forgiveness is overrated

Sometimes, as Lydon sang, in his post Sex Pistols band, 'anger is an energy.'

mary_dejevsky

Mary Dejevsky: Why not call Blair now and wrap it up?

The enquiry already seems like a sideline as the queues dwindle.


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion