In my post last week, I discussed the nature of the digital world and its ongoing impact on humanity, and specifically it’s part to play in our expectations of our relationships. Primarily the impact it is having on our interactions with one another, and how it can often lead us to finding ourselves in what are commonly called “echo chambers” and how it is leading people to habitually avoid conflict over having to resolve it. I suspect this is leading to people’s diminishing skills in conflict resolution, and mutual success in ending disagreements. Yet, I also suspect it is not necessarily a diminishing of a skill but rather the discovery said skill was never truly developed. After all; in times now gone, we would go to work or school, or join a club, and in all frankness unless we became good friends with someone we would rarely know someone outside of the context of our association. We might not necessarily learn anything of their family, of their politics, or of their religion unless they were very outspoken about these matters. Now, many people “friend” or “follow” each other on social media whether that person be a fellow student, a colleague, or a fellow club member. Just by doing that we are given a window into information about people we would otherwise never access. That person whom you get on with well enough at work might suddenly become an avatar for politics you are ardently against, and it might then become difficult to distance yourself from this insight in the context of work. A person from a sports club you both frequent may in fact be a strict Christian with strong views on marriage equality, and you may be a militant atheist, and despite being perfectly amiable at the club before then now find yourself at odds due to these deeply different views on the world. A view neither of you had insight into in the context of your original meeting, and in your general association.
The reality is people are now seemingly more at odds because we simply, on average, know more about each other. Qualities and aspects of identity that can be deeply divisive lacked the power to divide because of one thing; we just did not know. Our ability to like most people we met in school, in the work-place, and so on and so forth was fed by the fact we really did not know anything about them. We now, rather badly, attempt to re-engineer this “ignorance is bliss” model in this changing world by existing in an echo chamber, or by writing off those who explicitly disagree with us as wrong and thus devalue them as human beings so that ignoring them has no emotional cost.
Something that deeply divides people of either political leaning, and those who are largely centrist, is the issue of racism. The quickest way to dismiss an individuals’ opinion on minorities or on immigration is to dismiss it as fundamentally racist. Conversely, the quickest way to undermine criticism of a country or of an individual in a political context is to cry racism if the shoe fits. Especially when it is convenient for most of the discussion to avoid deconstruction and fair appraisal of the criticism.
I shall not go into detail, for the benefit of those involved, but a recent experience by a friend of mine has made this impossible to ignore. In an online discussion about an article discussing how modern evangelical churches struggle to attract and retain Black Members, my friend made the observation that- from his experience- Evangelical churches (especially those of the very modern trends) struggle to attract minorities and can in fact alienate them and that churches do need to work harder in their dialogues with minority members and communities. Sadly, he was accused of detracting from the main discussion, the issues churches have with attracting and retaining black members, and of being racist due to “colour blindness.”
A correct assertion about the issue of racism is the phenomena of colour blindness. That a way to distract, and prevent effective discussion, about issues of race is to profess not caring about the matter of race and not seeing a difference between people based on their race. Not judging others by their race and accepting people for who they are is an important set of values to have. However, the darker side of colour blindness is when it is used to avoid effective discussion about the issues different minorities face. All minorities are at an innate disadvantage in any society, as they largely exist on the fringe, may have a distinct culture from the majority, and probably lack material resources. As such they lack political influence and power, and the protections such influence and power bring. Minorities can thus easily be attacked or used as vehicles for the political machinations of others. This is where colour-blindness is most dangerous, by talking of all minorities, in the minds of many this makes said minorities much more numerous and powerful. They become amalgamated “Other” against the “Us” that is the majority. Especially in race issues this can make it far more difficult to deal with specific problems, as talking about specific issues for a specific minority can be framed as divisive or racist talk. Especially in a cultural paradigm where many are educated not to think of issues based on race. For many white people, due to the historical legacy of the Caucasian people, they are educated to not think of matters in terms of race. The historical conversation was sadly one of comparison of greater and lesser; the White Man the destined Homo Superior and any one else an inherently inferior sub-human.
As such, people have attempted to avoid racism simply by not discussing race. However, all that has changed is the language of racism. It is now grounded in religion, and economic status, rather than the colour of the skin. People do not discuss the specific issues faced by different minorities. Now, the language of superiority may have changed; even amongst white supremacists the eugenics talk has diminished in favour of reasoning based on what they are argue are important inherent differences between the races that make race war unavoidable. Thus, they argue the need the segregation, and to divide the world according to the rule of “Who was there first” for the good of all the races. Strangely, the rule of “Who was there first” only seems to apply to the “Old World”. I am certain and thankful the genocide of the Native American peoples was not entirely successful, despite a damned good try I must sadly add.
The issue with colour blindness is thus two-fold. Unless you can discuss the specific problem, you can not identify cause and effect, and nor can you create a solution. The second is that most people belong to several minorities; not just one. The Gay Black Man faces different challenges than the Gay White Man, because attitudes about homosexuality in some black communities is not one of acceptance. This combined with other systematic differences, leads to two very different life experiences despite them belonging to the same minority; they are both gay.
To come back to the example of my friend and the online discussion about the struggle of Evangelical communities attracting and retaining black members. Was he engaging in problematic colour-blindness, or was he simply speaking from his experience? I would like to argue he was speaking from his experience; his church was very white, and it was not spectacular at outreach to minorities in general, never mind to People of Colour. The mechanism of communicating, and speaking, effectively to people from any minority did not exist; never mind the specific issues of a specific minority. My friend is not one I would describe as traditionally colour-blind in terms of race and culture; we regularly discuss the issues that Vietnamese and Asian people often have in adopting to Western cultural norms. We often discuss the specific struggles of Black people in the United States of America. He is a person I would consider very aware of the need to talk about the specific issues to craft the best solution. Was it a moment of colour-blindness? Perhaps, we can all fall into that trap no matter how educated or aware of the issues we may feel we are. However, by immediately attacking his contribution instead of opening a conversation, they immediately lost a potential ally and to justify this attack they labelled him racist. I can understand people’s sensitivity at this time to colour blindness, it is a frustrating issue to have your attempt to discuss a problem brushed away with the question “What about the other minorities and their issues?” or “Why are you supporting this instead of egalitarianism?”. I do not blame the person for their reaction on such a heated topic, and I can in fact understand the emotions; I just wish it had gone better. With that said, however, we need to beware our own sensitivity, and sadly we need to practice patience even in the face of feeling attacked or dismissed. As a white male, it would be very easy for me to give into the feeling of being attacked when the blame is placed upon the predominantly white patriarchy for problems. For me to feel my achievements are being dismissed when people talk of “White Privilege”. However, I have educated myself on the issues and I know White Privilege is a real thing with regards to gaining opportunities in several areas. I also know when White Heterosexual Men are made fun of in satire and comedy it is not a personal attack against me, and the reality is if I cannot find the funny side of such things then I am part of the problem.
Now, onto the broader issues of the changing language of racism. The Leader of the Labour Party here in the United Kingdom, Jeremy Corbyn, is currently embattled regarding the issue of Anti-Semitism in the party. Yet, where does this emerge from? Nowhere in the stated policies of the Labour party are there statements against Jewish people, or anything asking for action against Jewish people. Nor has Jeremy Corbyn himself been found to have made Anti-Semitic remarks, or to support Anti-Semitism. However, the Labour Party, including Mr Corbyn himself, has been critical of the Israel-Palestine situation; specifically, they have been critical of the Israeli Government’s, and Military’s, actions in the Gaza Strip. Indeed, many student labour supporters acted as the thrust of the campaign to boycott Israeli goods. Similarly, Labour has been the traditional enemy of large corporations, and a critic of many significant and well-known Men of business. This includes the Rothchild family. Sadly, but perhaps not to be unexpected, these stances have attracted the support of conspiracy theorists entrenched in Anti-Semitic attitudes. The Zionist conspiracy theorists who believe the Jewish people secretly rule the world, or are trying to, and those whom argue that Israel should not exist because it was a post-war creation of the British Empire and that the land should be returned to the Palestinians. One can see how such a dark underbelly may have attached itself to the Labour party. In the party’s criticisms of Israel, they see a chance for their ideas to go mainstream, and in the strong stance on corporations and monopolies they see some confirmation from the oligarchy that there is indeed a Zionist conspiracy.
To the pedants, I am certain your immediate criticism of this part has been that being Jewish is an ethnoreligious identify, and not a racial identity. However, I have used it as a current example to demonstrate how powerful language is, and the evolving language of bigotry. These Anti-Semites have latched onto statements that have been critical of Israel and people with a Jewish identity, but not the existence of the country and these criticisms of individuals have nothing to do with the Jewish identity of said people. However, because of the target of their hatred, they have latched onto anything they can use to attack the objects of their hatred.
This in turn brings me to another example. A couple of years ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, made remarks about attitudes of people to refugees. In context they were perfectly balanced, however, out of context they almost earned him some very unwelcome friends. In discussing the concerns of communities about the refugee crisis, he stated: It is "outrageous" to describe people who are worried about the impact of migration as racist.
A number on the extreme right attempted to latch onto this and argue that this was an endorsement of what they professed about the dangers of immigration and refugees. However, in context, this was very far from the truth. The Archbishop was talking about the genuine concerns people have about the impact of a sudden influx of people, such as refugees, on housing, jobs, and social services. Especially in communities where they are already struggling to provide sufficient services for those already there. In context it was an indictment of the failure of the government, and local authorities, to administer to the problems faced by British Communities. On balance, he also stated that Britain’s promise to accept 20,000 refugees was woefully inadequate for the crisis, in terms of the shared burden.
These examples, I hope, serve to illustrate a key point. Earlier I discussed people’s lack of ability to talk candidly and effectively about issues of race. Many because they have been educated to be colour blind, or that to talk about race is in of itself racist. What it is in fact racist is what you say, not the topic of discussion. It is this that actual racists are now exploiting. They are exploiting people’s inability to confidently discuss race issues. They have been doing it behind closed doors to say horrible things about others for years; it was not intelligent conversation, but they have practice in talking about it confidently. In democracies where we admire and respect the power of free speech, and sometimes slavishly worship it, they have also learnt another lesson; they must appear reasonable enough that the majority ignore their worst aspects. They do not need to convince the majority, merely make the majority believe what they are saying is largely harmless. They also have changed the dynamic of the conversation in this way. By co-opting reasonableness, they have created a distrust of attempts at reasonableness. They also do not talk in terms of Race but rather economic status and religion, even though the reason these people are a target for them is the colour of their skin and their ethnicity.
Therefore, people are now sensitive to the issues of “Colour-Blindness”. It comes across as this co-opted reasonableness, and an unwillingness to challenge the specific issues. It also serves to camouflage what these reinvented racists are in fact talking about. However, sometimes it is very important to discuss the broad issues, and the underlying problems that all minorities face. Rushing to the battle cry of racist, because we disagree with an observation, is not useful. Yet, this is what I see happening increasingly on both ends of the political spectrum.
As Jedi, how do we contend with the conundrum of discussing heated and divisive topics, which at the end of the day are about qualities a person never chose. We do not choose the colour of our skin, and we do not choose many things about ourselves. How do we say reasonable, but critical, statements about countries and issues of migration and ethnic integration without people latching onto and misusing the critical aspects? Ultimately again, it is about patience and remembering one thing about free-speech; though you are free to say many things, you are also held accountable to what you say, and you are free to be criticised. As Jedi, we must learn to take a critical eye, and not fall onto the sword that is our initial reaction. We know some statements are inherently racist; the words used can indicate as much. However, some arguments can have an underlying element of racism, and yet because the language used was not obviously racist it can be missed, and so we must look to the argument itself. We must, however, always use our criticisms as a learning opportunity. Many people are misinformed, and have their genuine fears co-opted by political agendas. If we return to the example of Justin Welby, the genuine concerns he talked about have been co-opted by the likes of Britain First and UKIP to fuel their rhetoric, and they turn these fears into antagonism against refuges and immigrants. They push the blame from the system and onto the victims of an unforgiving world. As such, we can use opportunities where people present a misinformed stance as a learning opportunity.
This criticism also must be applied to our own thinking. Human beings rely on stereotyping to make life easier, and the tragic thing is; our first impressions are often stable. Rarely do our perceptions of individuals change. If those individuals have left a negative impression, we may often see those repeating negative themes in others with shared characteristics. When we discuss race, and identity, we must always look at what we are in fact saying and the implications of our statements. Richard Dawkins described Islam as a religion of Evil. This is bigoted and implies that a follower of Islam is inherently evil due to their religion. It is not a balanced, effective, criticism of an aspect of Islamic law or belief. It is a generalised condemnation. Islam has been used to justify actions I consider reprehensible, but so has Christianity, and even Buddhism. However, would I argue those religions are evil, and that their adherents are thus inherently evil? No, because that is a nonsense judgement statement, that is not quantifiable.
In writing this piece I have tried to remain sensitive to how this topic can upset people. I have doubts I have achieved a completely un-offensive article. That is part of the process of self-critical thinking, however, and that is trial and error. Yet, also, realising you cannot perfectly predict the reactions of the entirety of your audience. Anything that does offend some one, I apologise for, but I would ask you to step back and ask why you have found it offensive. I did not write this to be offensive, or intend offense, but racism and identity politics rarely goes any where that does not cause discomfort. That is the nature of the topic, bigotry is dehumanising and painful. Also, being talked about by our skin, of what people can see, takes away from us and who we are. We are not just our skin colour; we are all so very much more than that. Yet, it is a quality that continues to divide. Until we talk about why, and why skin colour must be a factor in the problems of people, we are never free of racism.
Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You’re not going to say, “I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.” Hear what I’m saying? – Morgan Freeman (2005).