BBC's Panorama broadcast an undercover expose on racism within the Bristol inner city housing estate of Southmeade recently. It was frightening to say the least. A pair of BBC reporters posing as a married couple spent 8 weeks on the estate and in that time experienced 50 racial assaults of various kinds.
They were stoned, called names, the man was punched once and an 11 year old threatened to rob and kill the woman. These were just a few incidents.
But I wonder about the effectiveness of these exposes. Such things, as the female reporter noted, conjure feelings of isolation, fear, suspicion and anger from both sides of the issue. Mind you, the declaration by Equality and Human Right Commission (EHRC) head, Trevor Phillips, that all was well in race relations in England, has the potential to water down a serious problem. It certainly wasn't a cathartic investigation though perhaps necessary. One must wonder what is next, as to leave the viewer stewing either in his anger at the prejudice or justification thereof simply won't do.
If there is one major problem regarding this issue in the UK it's that it can only be discussed in certain fora. Like the Panorama programme or in the media through official channels like the EHRC. But it seems that open discussion between non-white and white groups in more informal settings is a no-no. We see advocates of equality like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and of course, Martin Luther King as part of US culture and history, but no such figures exist in British culture - save in the former colonies. Again, public agitation for equal rights amongst non-white ethnic groups seems to be frowned upon. One can only go through the sanctioned, official channels. There is a distinct discomfort with a broad-based discussion of the issue, even though there are certainly moments when acute and stark points are made. These points seem only to be momentary.
The thing about racism is that it is, and must be, completely oblivious to itself. A racist will never refer to himself as such. The BNP's (British National Party) policy on refusing membership to non-whites is currently being challenged, and defended, and the position of the party seems to be easily rationalized. But like the US Louisiana Judge who refused to marry an interracial couple (because mixed race children would suffer - ironically at the hands of folks like himself, in my opinion), racist reasoning, or lack thereof, makes perfect sense to itself.
But for every racist that exists, a discussion has occurred to bolster their position. A discussion that has gone unchallenged by any other reasoning because it only occurs amongst the proponents thereof. One woman reasoned (in a programme called Wives of the BNP) that because her father died in Jamaica (a heart attack) and his body was robbed of its belongings, that all immigrants are undesirable. An undoubtedly painful experience that led to a proportionally unreasonable conclusion.
There may be wisdom in the cautious, controlled approach, however. Since the Brixton riots in 1981, the British Government has been keen to avoid a repeat of anything similar. That would entail not just subduing the violence, but the confrontational environment that can lead to the same. Some practical elements are sacrificed along with the impractical. Not a perfect compromise but prudent in some sense.
The drawback is of course the simmering frustration that can build up due to unexpressed concerns and under-acknowledged prejudice, and the circle starts again. Fear and prejudice begets fear and prejudice. Who is at fault is not as important as who will help solve the issue; that being all of us. Seeking out the views of the 'unprejudiced' is difficult as hardly anyone considers themselves thus. But those willing to dialogue are perhaps the ones from whom we hear the least. Certainly, just as the racist view is based on generic, broadly drawn stereotypes and flawed reason - we could walk away thinking that this flawed reason is that of the average white Briton, but that too would be a harbinger of prejudice.
But for every racist that exists, a discussion has occurred to bolster their position. A discussion that has gone unchallenged by any other reasoning because it only occurs amongst the proponents thereof. One woman reasoned (in a programme called Wives of the BNP) that because her father died in Jamaica (a heart attack) and his body was robbed of its belongings, that all immigrants are undesirable. An undoubtedly painful experience that led to a proportionally unreasonable conclusion.
There may be wisdom in the cautious, controlled approach, however. Since the Brixton riots in 1981, the British Government has been keen to avoid a repeat of anything similar. That would entail not just subduing the violence, but the confrontational environment that can lead to the same. Some practical elements are sacrificed along with the impractical. Not a perfect compromise but prudent in some sense.
The drawback is of course the simmering frustration that can build up due to unexpressed concerns and under-acknowledged prejudice, and the circle starts again. Fear and prejudice begets fear and prejudice. Who is at fault is not as important as who will help solve the issue; that being all of us. Seeking out the views of the 'unprejudiced' is difficult as hardly anyone considers themselves thus. But those willing to dialogue are perhaps the ones from whom we hear the least. Certainly, just as the racist view is based on generic, broadly drawn stereotypes and flawed reason - we could walk away thinking that this flawed reason is that of the average white Briton, but that too would be a harbinger of prejudice.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment