Racism: Hidden in plain white
Racism is blaringly nuanced. I’ve often found that it’s so politely impolite, that when you’re not on the receiving end, it can be hard to spot — especially if you’re not looking. Traditionally, language surrounding racism has been expressed in overtly racist ways, mainly through the use of sweeping generalised statements and racial slurs. While such derogatory pejoratives are still found to this day, they usually aren’t that obvious. We currently live in a climate that will have you believe racism is a thing of the past or the case of a few bad apples, which makes it increasingly difficult for people to notice when it happens right before their eyes. Language today is still used to perpetuate racism, but it has evolved into something far more sophisticated and dangerously more subtle.
Top-down approach
Following the defacement of Winston Churchill’s statue during a Black Lives Matter protest, Boris Johnson released a statement condemning the ‘violent’ behaviour while only momentarily touching on the actual racism which evoked such actions. It took defacing a statue — which is important to remember has been vandalised on a number of occasions, to arouse some kind of response (however pathetic) to the situation which at that time, was dominating the world stage. It should be pointed out that the Prime Minister didn’t speak out following the murder of George Floyd or the unsurprising revelation that ‘BAME’ people are dying at a disproportionate rate from COVID-19. Instead it took the words “[Churchill] was a racist” — a statement which is fundamentally true, for him to grace the British people with an offensive, tone deaf and completely inept response of conservatism.
A quote I found particularly memorable from his statement was ‘We cannot now try to edit or censor our past.’ which is quite literally what the conservative government has a lengthy history of doing. The burning of Windrush landing cards and cover-up of the Grenfell death toll are only a few honorable mentions from an extensive list of actions our government has taken to re-white history. The PM’s choice of words were meticulously crafted, rigorously reviewed and subsequently signed off, regardless of their snide implications and for this reason, I found his calculated response particularly insulting.
Proclaiming ‘We cannot pretend to have another history’, while throwing around words like ‘extremist’, fuels the white nationalist ideology which the conservative party so lovingly pander to. Boris Johnson, (whose actually written a 426 page book on Winston Churchill called ‘The Churchill Factor’) said in the same statement that “Yes, he sometimes expressed opinions that were and are unacceptable to us today, but he was a hero, and he fully deserves his memorial” which eerily parallels his own memoralism. Calling Muslim women “letterboxes”, and referring to Black people as “piccaninnies” with “watermelon smiles” is completely unacceptable in today's society, yet he holds the most coveted position in Britain. Boris Johnson is definitely not a hero and while it can be argued that Winston Churchill was, it’s simply not one I’m prepared to make. As a man who saw himself as superior to myself, based only on the colour of his white skin, I will not be coerced into defending his war efforts. I will instead recognise and value the soldiers, who *shock horror* were also black and brown, that fought and died for our country — not a man who from the comfort of his cozy war bunker, allowed 3 million Bengalis to starve to death. That’s the real history we pretend not to have.
Britain’s apparent disdain for melanated individuals is only further communicated by Boris Johnson’s top cabinet ministers such as Dominic Raab, Priti Patel and Matt Hancock. Their frequent use of the word ‘tolerant’ is one I find particularly troublesome. In a recent interview regarding the Black Lives Matter movement, Matt Hancock (Minister for Health and Social Care) was quizzed on whether he thought Britain was racist, which he not only denied, but went on to describe as ‘one of the most tolerant and open societies in the world’. Now for a country whose history and wealth is rooted in pillaging half the world, I would expect it to be a lot more than ‘tolerant’ of the people who fought in your wars, rebuilt your country and whose jewels your majesty wears on her crown.
The definition of tolerance is; the quality of being willing to accept or tolerate somebody/something, especially opinions or behaviour that you may not agree with, or people who are not like you. Please ask yourself this; in what capacity have I ever used the word ‘tolerant’? Mine has never been a positive one. The sheer caucasity (a term coined by Desus and Mero on their Bodega Boys podcast, meaning the audacious nature of caucasians specifically) to attach this term to non-white people is despicable. Your ancestors seemed to tolerate us when they used and abused our bodies — but perhaps it is a fitting word, seeing as not much else has changed. Our government parades this word around as though it’s something we should be proud of championing but this blatantly insulting and highly disrespectful conservative jargon shouldn’t simply be deemed as a poor choice of word. ‘Tolerant’ is a word that adheres to Britain’s continuous dismissal of racial injustice and the maintenance of a hostile environment in which racism thrives. When we witness those who hold the highest positions in government perpetuating such contemptuous language, it’s no surprise that we see it trickle down into wider society.
Your opinion won’t invalidate our lived experience
A couple of months ago, a clip from BBC Newsnight was circulating on social media with George [The Poet] Mpanga and host Emily Maitlis. Their conversation, which honestly felt more like a debate, covered the #MeToo movement and how racism manifests in the US as well as right here on our doorstep. To begin the segment, Emily hypothesised: “Is ‘Black Lives Matter’ having its ‘Me Too’ moment?” which was the first problematic statement she made, because yes, while both these movements have similarities in what they hope to achieve (liberation from the confines of oppression), they are not equal movements on equal footing and to allude to the idea that they are, does a disservice to them both.
The ‘moment’ Emily is seemingly referring to is the 2017 global phenomenon, which saw women from all over the world feel empowered to collectively share their experiences of sexual assault and harassment through the relatable hashtag, ‘Me Too’. This sparked the now annual ‘Women’s March’, attended by several millions of people across the planet. However, what many people might not know (which included myself up until a few weeks ago) is that Tarana Burke, a Black women from the Bronx, started the #MeToo movement over 10 years ago! Reducing more than a decade of work into a simple ‘moment’ is degrading, and yet another example of how WOC — specifically Black women, and their extensive contributions to society are consistently marginalised. Unfortunately, the movement today has become so synopsised by white women and their experiences in Hollywood that it’s very easy to forget the Black, working class woman who created Me Too, and who it should therefore reflect and honour. What Emily has failed to acknowledge, is the role of intersectionality. By comparing the two causes she erases the experiences of Black women who are fighting both racism and sexism. #MeToo is a movement praised for its progressive and groundbreaking work in achieving equality for women (and rightfully so) but at the same time, we need to also remember that all women won’t be equal, until all women are treated equally.
There is a reason causes for social change are called movements, and that’s because we do the necessary work in the present, while honouring the efforts of our past crusaders and our future campaigners. Just because media outlets (including social media), decided to give these causes a fleeting moment of their time, doesn’t mean said issues are magically rectified in time for the next news cycle or latest trend. Her choice of language, much like Labour leader Keir Starmer’s, belittles the achievements both causes have manifested over the several centuries they’ve been fighting for justice and equality.
Furthermore, by comparing these two movements, she also distorts the reception of Black Lives Matter protests received in this country and across the world. When women protested at the Women’s March, did they have to burn down buildings for systemic issues to be addressed? Did police officers swarm the streets inciting violence on them for peacefully protesting? Did they turn up in riot gear and charge at them with horses? Did they punch, tear gas or shoot rubber bullets at them? Did the media vilify those women out on the streets demanding justice and accountability? Did they call them sluts or bitches? The answer to these are of course no, because when the faces at the forefront of the cause are white women, they are afforded a certain privilege; the ability to perpetuate an image of themselves as harmless, fragile victims, which is what all these viral Karen videos will show you. While in no way am I saying all the white women who took part in the Women’s March were Karens, I just simply want to reiterate Trevor Noah’s point, that whiteness as an entity allows you to leverage your favoured relationship with institutions, such as the police and media, in a way the Black community are not privy to.
It must be understood that #MeToo is afforded a certain privilege the Black Lives Matter movement is not — humanity. Black protesters who are out on the street, risking their lives during a pandemic they’re disproportionately affected by, do not deserve the brutality prescribed by those who are meant to ‘serve and protect’. Black liberation has never been afforded even the most basic levels of respect it so rightfully deserves, and that is where one of the biggest barriers to progress lies. Aligning BLM with a movement met largely with no violence, undermines the harsh reality of what it means to live, or rather survive, as a Black person in a white man’s world.
Unfortunately her ignorance didn’t stop there, as later in the program Emily interrupts George who ironically, was highlighting the lack of education and sensitivity towards Black people and the oppressive history it entails even 66 years after the highly publicized civil rights movement — the one (and only) thing you could count on learning at school. She interrupted him to say the following:
“But you’re not putting America and Britain on the same footing? I mean I heard that very moving horrific account but our police aren’t armed, they don’t carry guns, the legacy of slavery is not the same. We’ve had a report many years ago looking at institutionalized racism and you would hope reversing or aiming to open that up. It isn’t the same is it?”
Now at the beginning of the interview, George introduced striking comparisons between a Black Britain’s experience of racism and that of a Black American’s. He highlighted facts such as; 40% of poor households in the UK are Black, whilst only making up 4% of the population, and that Black and Brown people account for 50% of youngsters in the prison system. George also shared the story of a man who grew up on his estate, Julian Cole, who was left in a vegetative state after an altercation with the police. The five police officers who confronted Julian, snapped his neck then proceeded to carry him to a police van across the road where he was left unattended for thirty minutes. These officers faced NO criminal charges, even when it was later discovered that Julian’s brain damage could have been avoided, had they immediately seeked out medical attention instead leaving him fatally wounded in the back of a police car, for thirty minutes.
After sharing such grim truths of what racism looks like in the UK, Emily Maitlis still felt she was entitled enough to proclaim that our experience of racism couldn’t be compared to the US, as if suffering and trauma is something that should be compared in the first place. Emily compares our experience of racism in an attempt to silence and undermine our oppression, all while forgetting the man at the very heart of this 2020 uprising. Derek Chauvin knelt on George Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. Derek Chauvin didn’t need to use a gun to murder George Floyd, just as Hannah Ross, Nicholas Oates, Sanjeev Kalyan along with the two other police officers (who identities I couldn’t find) didn’t need to shoot Julian Cole to paralyse him — or does paralysis not live up to expectations of what ‘bad’ racism looks like? Has racism only become measurable in whether or not you die as a result of it?
I personally found one of the hardest things to watch in that BBC Newsnight clip was George’s reaction. Witnessing his head fall and eyes close as he presumably processes a number of different emotions following this woman’s offensive remarks. Emily sat directly opposite him, appearing to pay close attention to his personal, in depth knowledge of a subject she will never truly understand, only to interject and devalue the very premise of what he’s saying. The only thing sadder than his reaction to her impudence was how quickly he recovered, composing his thoughts ready to defend and legitimise his suffering (yet again) because denying it has always been such a normalised part of our society.
How far have we come? Not far enough
It’s important however to note that these types of discussion are not new to how Britain approaches racism and that’s a big part of the problem. For years we have regurgitated the same dialogue, continually questioning if Britain is really racist and if so — how racist, which is unproductive and beyond redundant. Britain is racist. Britain is very racist, just as it’s always been, and simply debating that isn’t going to change it. Platforms like the BBC have a responsibility to educate their audience, but also encourage progressive ways of not only talking about racism but actively tackling it. You wouldn’t give someone a book without teaching them how to read it, so why ‘educate’ a predominantly white society on racism without showing them how to be part of the solution?
The BBC produces a number of documentaries about different social issues, but those most likely to watch them are people who are already willing to put in the work and educate themselves. Dedicating five minutes of their Newsnight show to simply debate the premise of racism in this country is an irresponsible, and truly telling way they use their platform. This discussion can no longer be segregated to an audience who are already open to changing, or at least diversifying, their thoughts and views. This is a conversation which needs an elevated level of commitment that is normalised on prime time television. It is a conversation that must be led by those informed enough to cultivate the revolutionary awakening this country so desperately needs.
Power of words
Just as our words can nourish change, they too can nourish hate. Maya Angelou once said, “someday we’ll be able to measure the power of words” and unsurprisingly, she was right. Following the EU referendum, a campaign run on lies and hostility, hate crimes in this country spiked. If that isn’t a testament to the power of our words, then nothing is. However, I wrote this piece in an attempt to use the power of my own words to encourage people to take action. To those who have read this far, I urge you to use your words, use your voice, use your vote, use your time and use your resources to demand not tolerance but acceptance, and not ill informed opinions but radical change. Invest in the media you consume. Diversify your sources of information to find outlets that coincide with your own morals and values. We can no longer allow language to be so carelessly splurged by those yielding power and influence. They must be questioned and they must be challenged for what their words bruitally represent — racism.
