Is Anti-Racism a form of Racism?

[Johnysid]

About 15 years ago I was at a civic "do" and talking to a businessman who had emigrated from Asia about employment in Croydon. I mentioned that although South London was becoming equal opportunity there were distinct problems that needed to be resolved if you went 20 miles south. Up to this point we had been talking as friends but the temperature suddenly cooled. I had cast him as "other". If you think that being anti-racist is not racist then think again. You can only escape racism by treating other people as individuals. Are those who pose as against racism by being anti-racist largely postmarxist drones trying to create division and tension?

[jno]

it was an example but how does it prove that any reasoned attempt at debate is stifled?

There's always been lots of debate. It's been widely unstifled.

[Duncer]

Not in my finding. And yes, I shouldn't have used the word "any", I should have said "in my experience most attempts at reasoned debate have been stifled.

It seems deeply ironic that one of the parties most guilty of this is now apologising for it in a desperate attempt to woo voters.

[emmie]

have you ever watched or been involved in a debate on racism in Britain, it gets ugly very quickly, from all sides. It's one subject that seems to rile people, even those who are fairly even tempered.

[Duncer]

Too true, and withing minutes an accusation of racism will appear, especially if the debate is not going the way certain people want.

[emmie]

sorry to paraphrase, been there done that.

[Nini74]

Johnysid - did you discuss the equal opportunity issues down south with any other business people at the "do" or just the one who had emigrated from Asia? Did you then go and find a business woman to discuss sexual harassment? and a fat person to discuss the obesity problems of the country? whether you consider yourself "racist" or not, the point is that you raised an issue to him which he probably didn't want to hear about - imagine how many civic functions he went to with apparently intelligent businessmen and women where the first thing they want to discuss is racism......

[sp1814]

em10

However - look at the results! We are league divisions ahead of other countries in Europe and especially Eastern Europe. We have incredible amounts of social mobility (doesn't matte whether you came from a council estate because we are more of a meritocracy). Women leading technology companies, gay cabinet members etc.

Whether by thought or design we are simply getting much more accepting.

A generation ago, a good looking woman walking onto a building site may well expect wolf whistles or at the very least, a crude remark or two.

Now, people generally find that unacceptable.

I love that.

[emmie]

sp. for every good thing that's happened there are ten that are bad. I don't reckon that many women who have battled the prejudices of the workplace would agree that it has changed that much. By law perhaps, but it's still there in the underbelly of the working existence.
Still pay inequalities, still people who think that women have no place in the work environment. we have made some progress but for heavens sake this is 2012.
Seeing women walking around wearing the burkha, and veiled makes me wonder whether this is progress of simply an imported retrograde step.

[David H]

I'd say you've pretty well sewn that up. The 'banned word' lists from the people's republic councils of North London were made by white middle class leftists on behalf of Muslims, Afro-Caribbeans and Asians with little or no reference to what they wanted personally. You can't get much more patronising and high handed than that, it's all about control and imposing ideology, and they probably couldn't care less about the individuals as they are collectivists who want to engineer society the way the Russian and other philosophers told them to.

[emmie]

just one more thing, the rise of the ultra right organisations are on the rise once again in many European countries, this is not scaremongering, but a simple fact of life. With increasing poverty, unemployment, and seething undertones of racial tensions watch what happens. It's been going on for a while, and though these organisation may have little political power, that doesn't mean to say we won't go back to a similar situation that Europe faced many years ago. Perhaps it won't come to anything but i seriously don't think the riots we have seen in Britain is a one off, nor indeed in many other European countries.

[jno]

with little or no reference to what they wanted personally.

Evidence?

[sp1814]

David H - social engineering has gone on for centuries. We have been told what to think in regards to divorce laws, homosexuality, working conditions for miners, women's right to abortion, women's rights to vote, votes for the working man, whether we can drink and drive, whether we can be free to drive without seatbelts, whether we can wallop our children, whether we can exclude someone from employment because of their gender, race or (latterly) sexual orientation.

Ever law that's passed alters our behaviour and perception of the world.

The difference now is that we are still allowed to hate blacks, Asians, gays, women and the disabled, but if our actions negatively impact any of those groups, then there are consequences. In the past, it was a big old' free for all. In 100 years time, our great grandchildren may look at this generation in the same way that we look at the Edwardians (who opposed women voting), as the Edwardians viewed THEIR great grandparents (who were involved in the slave trade).

Give you a simple example. Last week, there was a documentary about David Bowie' Ziggy Stardust years. They played a clip of him singing 'Starman' on Top of the Pops. At one point, he slings his hand over Mick Ronson's shoulder an apparently it caused an uproar (feigned homosexuality).

Now, we have Louis Spence high kicking his way around his fifteen minutes of fame, Gok Wan grabbing women's boobs left right and centre and Graham Norton/Alan Carr enjoying massive ratings for their chat shows.

People just move on.

[LazyGun]

I am missing something in this post, I think. Sorry, obviously the brain is not firing on all cylinders.

You pose a question "Is anti-racism a form of racism?", Then go on to give an anecdote about a conversation you had with an asian businessman. How is the anecdote germane to the original question? Who was the racist, and who was the anti-racist?

I would agree entirely that you should treat people as individuals, rather than as a unit from a racial or cultural group. But you then go on to characterise anti-racists as largely postmarxist drones, which sounds like a cultural stereotype to me.

The majority of the public, I would have thought, are anti-racist, because, by and large, most people find bigotry offensive and unjust. That does not automatically make them left wing, or postmarxist, or drones.

I think the last question you pose is one that is obviously close to your heart, since you have posed it elsewhere, albeit in a different form, and this is your assertion that the mainstream left are attempting to foster discord and discontent in an effort to create the conditions for ,well, favourable voting i guess, since we dont do revolutions in this country, and that they have replaced the class struggle with the struggle over race - and to that end have positively encourage mass immigration into the UK to forward that agenda - That about somes it up, doesnt it?

Your posts always strike me as faintly conspiratorial. The struggle over class is seen as history, but there are plenty of other windmills for the quixotes of the left to tilt at, plenty of other inequalities that need to be changed if we are to evolve as a compassionate society. Racism would just be one facet, Not the entire story.

[Johnysid]

Nini74 - that was my point, he was British, not a racial group. I have a lot of contact with people of all races and have made similar mistakes but have finally learnt not to do it. I asked the question because there are so many people who think this sort of racism is holy.

[Duncer]

sp1814, while I would agree with the majority of your post, and I'm old enough to remember the Bowie furore, I cannot see any of the following as moving on; I see it more as how low television has sunk, and not because any of them are gay, just because they are awful, with perhaps the exception of Sir Smuttiness himself, Graham Norton.

"Now, we have Louis Spence high kicking his way around his fifteen minutes of fame, Gok Wan grabbing women's boobs left right and centre and Graham Norton/Alan Carr enjoying massive ratings for their chat shows.

People just move on."

[Duncer]

jno, reference

"with little or no reference to what they wanted personally.

Evidence? "

I have often read articles, (and I know the fact that something is in a newspaper doesn't make it necessarily true, unless it is The Sun), about things like renaming Christmas, (just one example) in case it causes offence, and spokespeople from Muslim groups, or other groups, are often are quoted as saying the renaming/rulings is/are ridiculous. I think that is what he is alluding to. My work involves secondary duties as an Ethnic Minorities Liaison Officer and I have send numerous examples of this sort of nonsense whereby rulings that minorities neither wanted nor asked for are suddenly proposed, serving to foment nothing but resentment and bewilderment.

[Gromit]

// Is Anti-Racism A Form Of Racism? //

No.
Also, anti-Sexism isn't sexist. Anti-Ageism is not Ageist. And Anti-disability Discrimination is not Discriminating disabled people.

Your followup question.
// Are those who pose as against racism by being anti-racist largely postmarxist drones trying to create division and tension? //

No. People who oppose racism are from all parties and all over the political spectrum. Decency to other people is not cofined to postmarxist drones (whoever that silly title is supposed to represent), most people are decent as most people are offended by bigotry and bullying.

[jno]

Gromit: I wish I'd said that.

[Johnysid]

Ah gromit and jno, me old left wing gangsters, one "anti" does not define the worth of another: "antifungal" may be good, unless you are farming mushrooms, "antibacterial" may be good and is not like antifungal but may be bad if you are suffering from IBS. The same applies to your human "isms".

Being against racism is good. Being "anti-racist" as a way of defining personal holiness is definitely bad. Not being racist is being entirely blind to another person's physical characteristics when talking to them, loving them or trading with them etc. Being "anti-racist" as some sort of "anti-racist" radical who seeks out offence and divides the world by imagined or real racial slights is being someone who does not want to heal but desires division. They are doing exactly the same thing as racists. Turning from "class struggle" to "race struggle" helps no-one except postmarxists.

[Kromovaracun]

"Ah gromit and jno, me old left wing gangsters, one "anti" does not define the worth of another: "antifungal" may be good, unless you are farming mushrooms, "antibacterial" may be good and is not like antifungal but may be bad if you are suffering from IBS. The same applies to your human "isms"."

I know it isn't directed at me, but I literally have absolutely no idea what this means.


More generally, I think I get the point you're making JS. What you're saying is that effectively opposing racism can't involve treating other races as 'different', 'special', or 'other' because it borrows from the same conceptual building blocks as racism. All the same, though, I think your question is badly worded...