On Racism and Bigotry
I have avoided commenting about the Robert Kilroy-Silk affair, which seems to be dominating the British wing of the Blogosphere.
In my option, far too many rightwing bloggers have been praising the piece of ignorant drivel from Mark Steyn, surely the Robert Fisk of the right, which reads all too much like an attempt to stir up racial hatred within Britain. I point you to the fiskings (or should that be Steynings?) of that article by Harry, and by Bobbie of PolitX.
When Eric Olsen praised the same article, and I claimed in the comments thread that many warbloggers were racist, he exploded. It looks like I hit a raw nerve....
since I have made such efforts to disentangle the threads of religion, politics, culture and, to my bafflement, race, is it possible to criticize Arabs or Muslims on political, cultural or religious grounds without being racist?
By choosing your words very carefully, and making it abundantly clear you're not demonising all Muslims or all Arabs, and not making blanket generalisations. Just like I have to convince my left-wing brother that not all Americans are a cross between Jerry Falwell and Kenneth Lay.
Note that critics of Israel's security policies have to take the same amount of care, to avoid accusations of Anti-Semitism.
As for 'Racist Warblogs', any blog that repeatedly uses deliberately insulting terms like "Religion of Peace(TM)" or "ROPMA", and makes it clear they hold all Moslems and all Arabs in complete contempt counts as racist in my book. I suppose you could argue that hating a religion rather than a race isn't technically racism, but to me that's just splitting hairs; the rhetoric and the emotions are similar, and the end results are depressingly similar; exhibit A: Northern Ireland. exhibit B, the disintegration of Yugoslavia.
Oh, and Tom Paulin is an idiot. Having seen him appearing in the panel of critics on BBC2s "The Late Show", this sneering elitist twit is the sort that gives critics a bad name; he's capable of making Germaine Greer sound sensible by comparison. But his nasty Anti-Semitism doesn't justify other people's racist outbursts. Two wrongs don't make a right.
A few words to explain where I'm coming from, and why I feel as strongly about thus subject as I do. As you know, I come from Britain, where we have about a couple of million Muslims out of a population of sixty million, most of them descendants of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent in the 1970s. I grew up in a town, Slough, where Muslims form perhaps 10% of the population (that's a guess since I don't have the actual figures, the actual figure may be higher or lower). In general we haven't experienced much really large-scale racial tension (especially in Slough), but there have been isolated problems in the past couple of years in a couple of northern towns with very high levels of unemployment; in these towns the white supremacist British National Party have been deliberately stirring things. What I don't want to see is a rising anti-muslim sentiment among the Anglo-Saxon population, because once the Muslims start to feel under siege it can only increase support for extremists within the Muslim community. I think you would agree that would be a Very Bad Thing.
When I read articles by Mark Steyn and others implying that Britain is somehow halfway to Shaira, it sets alarm bells ringing in my head; it's the same rubbish I've heard from ignorant saloon-bar bigots for years. All that ridiculous scare-mongering of that kind from a mainstream newspaper achieves is to embolden the real hardcore racists. For years, every time there's been a well-publicised racist outburst by some public figure, there's been a sharp spike in racially motivated assaults. In these times, such rhetoric could easily get people killed.
Posted by TimHall at January 18, 2004 12:00 AM | TrackBackI've been planning to make wingnuts and whackadoos the topic of a blog entry of my own in the near future... the most dangerous ones, IMO, may not be the ones who are upfront and blatant about their hatred, but the ones who have a carefully-constructed suite of arguments offering an inherently detestable premise in reasonable-sounding language, such that they can feign shock and indignation when you call them racists or haters. "Why is it that can advance their own interests and agendas, but when whites do it it's called racist?" is their usual line of defense.
Case in point: you may have noticed the recent flareup on the Pyramid message boards, where it turns out that we have a very calm and diplomatic white supremacist fully-armed with "scientific" arguments to support the premise that blacks are inferior to whites, but gosh, if you think that makes him a racist or a white supremacist then you are obviously a close-minded self-hating white person brainwashed by PC propagandam...
Posted by: Amadan on January 18, 2004 10:04 PMYes, I have been following that one.
I advocated invoking Godwin's Law the moment Leo O'Wingnut first claimed that blacks had lower IQs. The idiot thought I was trying to defend him, because he was too dense to realise I was calling him a Nazi. I think it was my only posting in the thread. Anyone that can get you, Tony Smith and JNM ganging up against him is a true wingnut.
With Eric Olsen, he's taking violent exception to the fact I'm calling a combination of religious bigotry and cultural chauvenism racism. To me, if it looks like racism, and smells like racism, it's racism.
Posted by: Tim Hall on January 18, 2004 10:22 PMThe problem with the concept of racism is that as it is identified in modern society, it criticizes truthful opinions, rather than malice, or at least often makes no distinction between the two.
For example, to say that a person is black, is therefore distinct from a person who is white, and can therefore be said to be distinct because they have black skin, is a simple truth. No-one would deny that, notwithstanding other differences (i.e. not just skin colour). However, for example, to opine that black people are less intelligent would be viewed as racist. Why? Ultimately, the statement is either true or false, but even if it is false, it can't make the person racist. This is because a statement of a belief of fact or of a situation is not in itself 'prejudiced'. "Facts" can't be racist!! In both above examples, that's to say allegedly non-racist and racist statements, these are simple assertions about the differences in race.
The reason the first is 'not' racist and the second 'is', is because the first isn't pejorative or in anyway significant or damaging to black people - in this case. So what if they have a different colour skin? It's just a colour, after all. However, the second is viewed as racist because it can be seen to be detrimental. But because it may be detrimental through what it says, it doesn't mean it's racist; surely by that same degree, anything that was complimentary would be racist? No, the point about racism is that it makes no sense as a label unless malice is present in the claim or comment.
If you hold the opinion that based on experience, data or evidence you feel that black people are less intelligent that white people, then you should be allowed to think that as a point of fact. After all, we're allowed to think that there are certain medical differences between races without being accused of racist opinions (e.g. blood types, sickle-cell, etc).
The fact that the label 'racist' makes no distinction between a statement derived from malice and one derived from an honest, thought-through opinion shows the problem with the whole issue. Because quite simply, if it was on the basis of evidence your GENUINE opinion that blacks were less intelligent than whites, you shouldn't be classed with the same people who willingly go out to persecute people solely on the basis of their race. Otherwise, we're on the very dodgy ground of saying that one thought is as bad as one horrific action.
Around the mid-80s people in the UK were nervous of calling blacks black; this was because they thought they might be perceived as racist. Why? Because the underlying rule is that it's not truthfulness that is considered or even looked at in the race debate, it's whether the race in question could be looked down upon were people to be influenced by your opinion. So favourable opinions are in, disfavourable, or even neutral[!] ones are out.
The point above demonstrates that even the most ardent 'non-racists' are not genuine, because even they get caught up in their own silly rules and oppressive dogma. They get confused because they don't know when you can be truthful and when you can't; any condemnation of anyone on the basis that they were being truthful is inherently wrong as it is misdirected. No good comes out of such deception and concealment.
Lastly, the viciousness with which people are accused of racism and shunned accordingly is so a) calculating, b) enjoyed and c) pursued incessantly by its progenitors that it possesses all the hallmarks of the black and white thinking of so-called racists. It also closely mirrors the attributes of fasicm. If you make a point-by-point comparison of the attributes of the anti-racists and the so-called racists, you will find they match; after all, they both:
1) Show extreme intolerance
2) Ignore rational debate
3) Blur truth and emotion into one
4) Deflect criticism by changing direction or 'shouting down'
5) Enjoy the punishment of their foe
6) Address the whole issue on an all-or-nothing basis (the hallmark of intolerance)