The Thing About Racism...Part 2: The UK Brand

Channel 4 recently broadcast a programme called How Racist Are You? where a 40 year old exercise devised by former US school teacher Jane Elliot, subjects a group of volunteers to discrimination on the basis of eye colour. She first conducted the experiment in the 1960's with a her all white class of 9 year olds. She told her pupils that for a day, blue-eyed children were inferior to brown-eyed children. The impact was disturbing and led to verbal and physical abuse of the blue-eyed group and even lower academic performance in the 'inferior' group, amongst other things. She does the same with adults from diverse racial backgrounds, but obviously only whites are blue eyed. However, the brown eyed groups do include white and non-whites.

Elliot has conducted the exercise all over the world and Channel 4 documented her UK incursion. Taking my own experiences as well as what came out of the programme, I have noted some peculiarities of the British attitude to racial prejudice. Below I have noted these arguments and my rebuttals.

Racism is merely a subset of prejudice - Some subjects argued that racial prejudice against non-whites is like any other prejudice (i.e. weight, age, class) . Blacks are not unique and should not attempt to make their situation more severe than it really is. 

The problem with this argument is it completely ignores historical facts altogether. When one considers the 4 century slave trade, Apartheid and the Holocaust, it becomes difficult for weight discrimination to compare. At no time in history were the obese rounded up, systematically dehumanized (in their own eyes and in the eyes of their captors), routinely raped, killed and tortured, separated from family or forced to work without pay. The elderly have yet to be demonized through any country's education system then herded into concentration camps, poisoned then burned. The duration, savagery and the systemic state sponsored effort behind slavery, Apartheid and the Holocaust are unprecedented to say the least, and one would have to take great pains to remain ignorant of history in order to maintain the view that racial prejudice is not unique. It naturally follows that centuries of indoctrination and conditioning on either side of racism, as well as the kind of social and economic divide that resulted still affects us today. To say the least the white dominance that resulted from Colonisation and slavery has given them a slight headstart. The fact that media, amongst other things, has been dominated primarily by white imagery undoubtedly has had a real impact on self-perception and accomplishment amongst non-whites. Further, the intentional withholding of resources and opportunities from non-whites was a reality in the West up until recently (though it was only weeks ago a white judge refused to marry an interracial couple).

I am not prejudiced so there is no problem with racism in the UK - Subjects determined that their 'colourblindness' meant that racism is not a problem. They were outraged at the thought that they should experience discrimination when they do not discriminate. 

Using oneself as the touchstone for race relations is not only naive and simplistic but arrogant as well. It presumes that the overarching status quo and systemic influence of policies and culture have no effect or significance. It also presumes that the individual's position can magically change history and social realities. Ironically, the blue-eyed participants refused to be subject to the discrimination meted out by the exercise but couldn't seem to make the connection to what other persons might feel or experience. There seemed to be a willful ignorance that refused to see the issue from another perspective purely on the basis that they themselves simply didn't believe they deserved to be treated with such disrespect. This view is exceptionally self-centred.

Racism doesn't exist - Some subjects flatly denied that there was any racial discrimination in the UK at all. It simply didn't exist and names like 'gollywog' are just names and carry no inherent offence. They asserted that there was nothing to be offended about - nothing to discuss.

This point betrayed the greatest deficit regarding UK race relations: knowledge. Ironically, it was universally agreed that ignorance was the primary cause of racism, but it was never determined what had to be known in order to alleviate this ignorance. Sadly, colonisation and slavery are not taught in British schools and this leaves much of the white population ill equipped to deal with this sensitive issue. Generations of under education on Britain's role in the world regarding the establishment of Apartheid, the slave trade and the developing world as we know it, has left some feeling exceptionally defensive about the nation's brutal history.

That said the preceding ideas have defined the kind of racism common in Britain. It does not seek to reconcile, because it does not seek to understand. Because it does not seek to understand it does not go away. However, this does not mean that there aren't a great many white Briton's who are colourblind and completely at ease with racial diversity. This does not mean that racial discrimination isn't multi-directional. But it certainly does emphasise that no matter the direction, racial discrimination is truly hurtful nonsense.

Wives of the BNP Video

The Thing About Racism...

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.

'By the way, sorry about the slavery...now watch this shot': On Apologies For Slavery

The US senate offered apologies for slavery and Jim Crow laws recently, following the Church of England and Tony Blair's administration, who made their apologies some 3 years ago.

So what does this largely symbolic gesture accomplish? Well, practically speaking - nothing. And even though an  apology can provide some cultural healing, the very low key event greeted with marginal media coverage suggests not many people will benefit from the 'healing'. Also, the fact that the resolution comes with a disclaimer that prevents any claim against the United States takes the teeth and sincerity out of the apology.

Cold Case

One can't help but feel, with the considerations made to Native American Indians and Jews after the Holocaust, plus the pursuit of Nazi fugitives and outlawing of Holocaust denial (indeed the Holocaust is a mandatory aspect of school curricula in Germany) , African Americans (and the rest of the African Diaspora) have gotten a raw deal...again. Some say that enslaved Africans and their descendants weren't freed but 'let go', true when you are freed to a life of poverty, segregation and debt. Even though there is no difficulty in connecting the path of US race relations (indeed Global race relations) and the brutal history of segregation and exploitation, no individual, corporation or Government has ever faced justice for one of the most public and prolonged crimes in the last several hundred years.

Beyond race relations, the very prosperity of today's First World is firmly founded on its exploitation of the Developing World (that would encompass slavery and colonisation). In fact, both are products of each other with the exploitation far from over, only morphing into ongoing economic colonisation and 'economic apartheid', to borrow a term from Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine, Penguin 2007). Even though it's been 200 years since the abolition of the slave trade, the fall-out is very much evident in countries like Haiti and many African nations that have never truly become viable states. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the present instability in many former colonies is a direct result of their colonial and slave history. In some cases, even while Governments may be run by Black Africans, the money and resources still lie in the hands of the former colonials and Caucasian Africans. Klein finds evidence for this in her damning expose on 'disaster capitalism', The Shock Doctrine, describing a South Africa that moved from the overt institutional racism of Apartheid to the covert retention of the Country's money in the hands of the former 'minority masters'. Haiti, one could argue, has been paying for its insolence in freeing itself from slavery beginning with a levy 150 million francs in 1825, in exchange for recognition as a sovereign nation by the French. To be sure, the French left the fledging nation with little or no resources.

But slavery has been rendered a cold case in the history of crimes against humanity, and the recent apologies confirm this. Some argue that the passage of time and generations has left no smoking gun, no immediate victim and no red-handed perpetrator, hence seeking any sort of justice is pointless. Who would be held accountable? Who would the plaintiff be? What would be the just award for the crime? Good questions that all have very reasonable though inconvenient answers.

The Status Quo

That the rules are made by the rulers has always been the case, but to be fair  many former colonies have been independent long enough (some not so long at all) to be guilty of self-inflicted wounds, both economic and social. If there is to be some restitution for slavery and colonisation this should be taken into consideration. But we aren't speaking about the sins of the victims at this this stage, and the status quo that allows the crimes of the past to go unchallenged is what allows the crimes of the present to go unchallenged. Deal with the status quo and the sins of the past and present can be faced with some modicum of justice and equanimity. What are the crimes of the present? Continued plundering of natural resources of the Developing World (acquired in large part through colonisation) by First World corporations (with the assistance of governments on either side - especially in Africa and South America), onerous IMF and World Bank conditions and First World agricultural subsidies  that undercut local producers and economies. The consequences of these tactics are far reaching and include anything from unemployment and inflation to low exploitative wages and deforestation. Not only are economies destroyed but also local culture and social structure, according to Jeremy Seabrook's Consuming Cultures (New Internationalist, 2004).

That some Governments and leaders of plaintiff communities are complicit in this kind of 'legalised' exploitation is understood, but this doesn't absolve the accused, only impugns others. And the power of scarcity to force persons into 'selling out' shouldn't be underestimated. But that sounds like victim/slave mentality; the attitude that someone else is responsible for the failings of now autonomous groups and communities. To be sure if said communities find prosperity it will be in spite of the actions of the accused and indeed an issue of overcoming the actions of the accused rather than making use of assistance provided by the same. Still commendable if it can be done (and progress if very evident in the African American community) but doesn't mean that there aren't actual victims. Using the logic applied to the impunity surrounding slavery and colonisation, any crime  can be overlooked given enough time and neglect. Any group living in the wake of injustice can be labelled lazy blame shifters when they become the victims 'once-removed'. But this is the cheapest way out for the accused. It costs them nothing to apologise. And cost is very important because in today's consumerist/capitalist world economy, money is the first love of the body politic (ok, always has been). Wars are invented for it, blood is shed to to keep it - nothing, it seems can keep a nation of means away from its money - and other nations money.

It follows then that the US should protect its Beloved from being 'plundered' by folks who may have a right to it. But money is the unimaginative approach to justice, albeit that many find it to the most desirable. When it comes to slavery it's not just one state accountable to another state or community, but corporations are also beholden - maybe more so. Either way, tracking the profit shouldn't be that hard and finding ways to pay for the crime could be spread across methods including debt cancellation, relinquishing of resources, provision of resources without condition, and so on. The truth, however, is that the price of justice in this case is just too high to pay, partly because the crime is still in progress (and so for centuries) and the profundity of the crime warrants an exceptionally heavy sentence.

Promising Compromise

So what's the next most reasonable step? It can only be that the concerned former perpetrators and victims take the possibility of justice for damage caused by colonisation and slavery seriously. That might mean finally including the slave trade in British secondary education curricula, for example, and an effort to genuinely support affected nations and communities in sustainable ways - not handouts, but leg ups. I don't claim to have the knowledge or expertise to provide all the answers - but I'm sure that if those with the know-how actually apply themselves to the task - something could be done. A lot of expense, manpower, technology and brainpower go into war, exploitation, profit-seeking and downright criminality. Perhaps some of that ingenuity, creativity and energy can be put in the direction of healing. Apologies are decent gestures but words mean little when they weren't the problem in the first place.

EDIT: The Madoff sentencing made waves throughout the media with a hefty 150 years to his name. This blog entitled 'When Sorry Isn't Good Enough' makes a strong statement: money matters most. Mind you, the effects of Madoff's greed are real and go beyond a simple loss of cash, but there in the background is a lesson. Swift justice is meet here and it should be. But one wonders why, with situations like Katrina, Iraq war crimes and yes, slavery, the justice is either very slow or non-existent. What really matters more, human lives or dollar signs?