Earlier this week, there was a hoo-hah
about the way in
which the SNP’s Westminster leader called out Boris Johnson in the House of
Commons for being dishonest and a racist.
Given Johnson’s history of lies and distortions, the ‘dishonest’ part is
hard to argue with, but is he a racist?
By all accounts, his team when he was Mayor of London was very diverse,
which suggests a degree of openness to other cultures and races which would be
unusual for an out-and-out racist. The
accusation of racism was based on the words he has used in the past usually in
his newspaper columns. Those words
certainly sound racist, but if there’s one thing we know for certain about
Johnson it is that he doesn’t always (and perhaps even much less often than
that) believe what he says and writes and that he is rarely consistent. That is, after all, part of the basis on
which the accusation of dishonesty is a fair one.
He certainly suffers from that casual sense
of superiority which marks out people of his background and class, who ‘know’
they are better than others. But it isn’t
just brown people, black people, the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh to which
they feel superior, it is also the vast majority of those of their own race and
nationality. Johnson has never put it quite
as bluntly as his mate Jacob, but I suspect that he basically agrees with
Rees-Mogg’s suggestion
that those of us educated in the state system – the overwhelming majority of
the population – have the intellect of potted plants. Such a belief in his own superiority might
make a person unpleasant, and completely unsuitable for high office, but it doesn’t
make him a racist.
I’m not convinced that Johnson is a racist
as such; I think it’s far, far worse than that.
I believe that he is, rather, someone who is prepared to inflame and
channel other people’s racism for his own ends, whether those be related to his
‘work’ as a columnist or his political ambitions. I can’t believe that he doesn’t know or
understand the appeal which his words might have for his target audience, and
it’s not even a question of not caring about that – it’s the effect which he
actively desires. Not being a racist
isn’t at all the same as not using other people’s racism to support his own
ambitions. Those who defend him by
pointing to the diversity of his staff as Mayor are missing the point: what he
thinks and does are irrelevant; what matters is what he wants a particular
audience to think that he probably thinks.
Perhaps, just this once, words speak louder than actions. In accusing him of racism, Ian Blackford is
being far too soft on him.
Posts
2 comments:
A good post and much of which I find acceptable.
I believe the SNP remarks should have been ruled out of order ,as the hard fought for right of the Commons through the bloodshed of the English Civil war ,to hold the feet of the monarchist government to the fire ,was not designed to question what was or was not printed in a paper, but to question the business of her government.
The definition of “racist” has been very successfully changed into a code word for anything you might think is nasty. Those that talk against Islam have been called a racist in the mistaken belief that those of that religion are of one race. Many comments that are made about people, are indeed race related, but that does not make them racist.
Another “code word” is Nazi which I sure the Boy Johnson will be called as has Donald John, now one of the basic qualification of being a Nazi (it’s in the title) is hold a socialist believe ,I do not think Donald John is there yet ,but looking at his plan to spend millions of tax payer dollars on infrastructure – who knows.
Agreed, an interesting post.
Post a Comment