The perennial debate about what constitutes
racism is a deeply contentious issue and nowhere more so, than here in Britain.
Take a cursory look at online
debates about racism on any given day and you will see just what sound and fury is
unleashed anytime this issue is debated.
Of course these issues tend to generate more
heat than light and you may need to take a deep breath and become impervious to the vile racism you'll will
discover, but it’s definitely worth taking a sneaky peak.
A good place to start would be my
twitter account @LeeJasper where I endure my fair share of such debates,
usually prompted by whites accusing me of being the illegitimate son of Nation
of Islam Minster Louis Farrakhan or the UK equivalent of the fascist British
National Party's odious Nick Griffin.
The
reason they’re all bent out of shape is simple, they believe I’m the spawn of
the devil a result as my uncompromising stance on fighting racism.
But nothing and I mean nothing gets
these sad assorted trolls, Ukippers and libertarians, so foaming at the mouth,
with rabid ignorance as the statement
‘Black people in UK and EU cannot be
racist’.
Don’t believe me? Try it and find out.
After some years on twitter enduring this petty
and almost exclusively white backlash, what has becomes immediately apparent to me, is
that as a nation, we are racially illiterate, confused and in deep denial.
This stems
from two principle traits among some white people, the denial, dismissal of the
legacy of transatlantic slavery and colonialism and a deeply held shame and guilt
they feel about Britain’s past.
This profound psychological deficit
in the national character of many white Britons is
driven by unacknowledged guilt and the base irrationality of racist sentiment combined with historical denial and a reductive view of racism producing
a toxic psychology, blinded by prejudice and politics that drives them to bizarre and contridictory absurdities.
Take a look at some of the public
statements from UKIP members on immigration Muslims, or the viciousness and hate with which migrants
are now viewed by many.
We all fundamentally, deep down, know that migrants are
human beings, men women and children, families like our own, with rights of asylum and refuge. We all know that British military intervention
caused the migrant crisis and many of us deem these migrants all illegal and not
worthy of common human compassion. These commonly held views are both illogical
and stupid yet they persist fuelled by a xenophobic press and venal politicians.
Rationality, common sense, reasonable debate, objective facts all leave the room once the debate
turns to racism or immigration.
Otherwise seemingly rationale people
turn into gibbering, incoherent wrecks when discussing this issue, such is the
continued extraordinary power on the human psyche.
As a black man of African descent
and a veteran campaigner against racism for over 30 years I’ve always been
crystal clear about my own views on what racism means.
Racism is prejudice plus power
reflecting the specific historic, economic, cultural and geographic context to
which the term is applied.
The idea that the world is made up
of immutable fixed ‘races’ is one of the biggest fallacies of the 20th
century.
Race as a biological category does
not exist. Its pseudo scientific claptrap but one whose power on the human
imagination is such that it can transform whole nations to become riven with a ‘primordial’
racial violence that can become genocidal.
In that sense we can say that Black,
Asian, Roma people in Europe cannot be racist simply because we have no power
to enforce, wholesale and routine systemic, institutionalized discrimination
against whites.
In Britain and throughout the EU, it is
we, not whites, who are the majority and principle victims of systemic
discrimination and violence in the UK.
Does my definition apply globally?
No, because in Africa and Asia where black people have power, other ethnic
groups, including whites can be subjected to xenophobia and on rare occasion racism
itself.
Each application of the word needs
to be informed by its specific context.
Can Aboriginal peoples of Australia
be racist towards white Australians? Can Native Indians or African Americans be
racist towards white Americans? Can Eskimos be racist to white Canadians or
Palestinians against Jewish people?
Not in my book, all are victims, not
perpetrators of racism.
We can of course be obnoxious bigots
and can express racial prejudice and sentiments towards others, but does that
constitute racism? Not in my book.
For
example:
- We can’t order that hundreds of thousands of white people are racially
targeted by the police and a racist criminal justice system.
- We
can’t order the mass expulsion of white boys from UK schools.
- We
cannot order that white Christians be targeted smeared and investigated for their links to right
wing extremism.
- We
can’t order the mass enforcement of racist immigration controls that impose
draconian visa requirements on white Europeans.
- We
can’t order that white people are not employed in anything but the most basic and low paid positions.
- We can't rewrite the national curriculum to erase
the contributions of whites world history.
- We can do nothing about ensuring
that Eton and Oxford universities discriminate against whites.
- Nor can we
enforce 500 years of slavery and colonialism, robbing white people of their
language religion, culture and natural resources.
My own view is that the notion that
Black people and Asians can be racist in Britain is an attempt to let white
people of the hook for the reality of contemporary racism. It’s really an
attempt to alleviate white guilt about racism, by suggesting that white people
are also its victims right here in the UK.
Its a bastardised logic that suits a
predominantly, but not exclusively, right wing agenda. An agenda that seeks to
minimise and/or discount the effects of racism on Black and Asian people. Racism,
it asserts, by common definition and understanding, is simply making a
pejorative judgment about someone based on his or her race.
Do white people
have a monopoly of racism in Europe? It’s axiomatic they do, it literally comes
with the territory. This even extends to the attempt to impose their definition of our problems and then offer their preferred solutions. Its like being punched in the mouth and then being told how to react by the perpetrator.
Of course its
not just the right wing who argue such definitions, such is the national
confusion about this issue, sections of the left can be just as ignorant about
the politics of racism.
What about the
white working class, they say, they have little or no power and whilst that is
true, they do enjoy the white privilege that transcends their class. They have
also been the Labour aristocracy of the world for years at the expense of other
nations. White privilege means they expect, and will be treated differently, to
their Black and Asian neighbours.
Not only have
the working class and Britain enjoyed the benefits of economic racism, they
benefit from the white privilege that flows form being the majority culture. Look
at any aspect of social economic analysis of the lives of poor blacks and
whites and the differences are stark. Take black youth unemployment currently
heading north of 54% compared to white youth unemployment at just over 20% or
the gross institutionalised racism of the criminal justice system or indeed
health inequalities.
We may all be
on the same boat but we travel on different decks.
Looking at
racial inequality of both working class blacks Asians and whites, its
absolutely clear that white privilege provides them with many benefits.
Take racial
attacks for example: two working class neighbors, one Asian one white. The
Asian family rings the police to report a racist attack by his white neighbor
and when the police arrive, he ends up getting arrested - white privilege.
Or take
British schools, who is more likely to be excluded? Or family life, who can
ensure that their extended families living abroad can come and attend family
weddings, funerals, births or just come to the UK for a short holiday? White
immigration privilege will extend to white common wealth citizens, but not for
Black or Asian British people.
One job, three
applicants, one white, one African, one Muslim need I go on?
There is any
number of race inequality comparators that I could cite but time and space does
not allow. Even under austerity economics, Black and some Asian communities
disproportionately feel these effects.
And as a
result of the scapegoating of immigrants have become the national obsession among
the working class; we are also now being held responsible for the sins of white
bankers and the financial service sector.
Racism
transcends class, and the consensus it produces across all classes of society,
is demonstrated by extent to which a culture of normalized discrimination
manages to secrete itself into the national consciousness.
Racism remains
so strong because its existence enjoys majority support. Tackling racism in
white working class where the extreme right now thrives should be a national
priority for the left. But I digress…
Normally, when
one raises the issue of definitions of racism, the first thing that happens is
people quote the dictionary definition of racism.
Let me just
demolish the argument that argues that dictionary definitions of racism are a)
objective and b) universal in their applications. Racism is and has always been a deeply
political project.
The
Oxford definition is “The belief that all members of each race possess
characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so
as to distinguish
it as inferior
or superior to
another race or races:
This is fine as far as it goes, but critically
fails to recognise that such beliefs can be given political meaning and translate
into wholesale oppression, with the support of the state, the wealthy, the
media and by the predominant ‘in group’ regardless of class, in any given
society. The
common English definition of racism was and remains contextualized and informed
by the very racism it seeks to define.
Racism is best defined as politics plus power.
Dictionaries
are as much product of their times, as are the individuals who wrote them. It
is an obvious statement to make, but white men write most definitions of racism
that appear in dictionaries.
One can detect
racial prejudice and bias in western dictionaries when one compare just two
words “ Black” and “White”. In doing so, one begins to see the politics of
semantics, meaning and definition of language. Dictionaries are, by and large
written from a vantage point of white privilege that reflects the historic
colonial reality of global white supremacy.
|
General Pratt a genocidal racist.
Take for example the Oxford English Dictionary's first
recorded use of the word racism. This is recorded as being first used by a
US General named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902. Pratt, who is recorded as
saying in 1902,
|
'Segregating any class or race of people apart from the
rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their
growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary.'
Sounds like a genuine and committed anti racist until you look
at his views on Native American Indians. This man, Pratt by name and Pratt by
nature said’
"A great general has said that the only good Indian
is a dead one," Pratt said. "In a sense, I agree with the sentiment,
but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill
the Indian in him, and save the man."
In looking at
the usage of the word it is clear that there is virtually definition in Western
dictionaries that has not been written by a white person, usually a man. That
in and of itself speaks volumes about the real nature of racism.
When using any
word from a dictionary one cannot escape the specific historical and
geographical context. That’s why, in different parts of the English speaking world,
certain phrases can have completely different meanings.
Racism
therefore requires a sociological, not an abstract definition to make any sense
in the real word. Racism in Britain, Europe and US is systemically embedded in
the fabric of these nations resulting in wholesale discrimination. That requires institutional racism and a
nationalist racist culture to give it popular license and achieve mass effects.
Americans and
the Brits are often quoted and as being “one people separated by a common
language”.
Saying that,
it would be churlish not to concede that part of the problem is the misuse of
the word by the media and some in the anti racist moment.
It’s routine
application to white’s, who are undoubtedly ignorant bigots, but not racist is part
of this confusion.
For example I’ve
always had great respect for ex football manager Ron Atkinson, who in the
70’s/80’s led the way in playing black footballers. He was caught, some time
back, referring to a black player as a. n****r. did I think he was racist? No.
Do I think he was prejudiced an idiot and a bigot? Yes.
I know there
are laws that relate to racist offences and aggravated criminal behavior. Whilst
I agree with the laws intent, I don’t believe that everyone convicted of such
an offence is automatically can be described as a racist.
We can say
that racism in a universal phenomena, That all people have the potential, given
the right circumstances to be racist, but to then assert that anyone, anywhere
in the world be racist to anyone, is just asinine.
Black and
Asian people in US UK and Europe cannot by racist. I rest my case