Monday 5 August 2024

"We're not racist, but..."

 

One of the threads running through some reporting of the disorder in English towns and cities in recent days has been the strong denial by some of the participants that they are in any way racist or far-right in their views. Sometimes there’s a ‘but’ though, and in one case reported in yesterday’s Sunday Times, the ‘but’ was that in his town (Holyhead, for those who might be thinking Wales is somehow immune to what we have seen in England) “seven out of eight corner shops are owned by Muslims”. Now it is, of course, entirely possible that the person in question is an expert and well-schooled theologian, who has questioned all the shopkeepers concerned about their religious beliefs, and whose deep study of religious teachings has led him to the conclusion that buying his milk or newspapers from a Muslim is a serious threat to his own religion and culture which can only be countered by travelling to Liverpool to join an anti-Islam protest. It does seem rather more likely, however, that he has made a judgement about their religion from their appearance.

That does, though, leave unanswered the question of why anyone might see Muslims running shops as such a bad thing that it requires people to attack the most convenient mosque. Let us take it as read that at least some of those involved really do believe that there is nothing racist or right-wing about attacking anyone who happens to ‘look like’ a Muslim, along with their places of worship, their businesses, and places where they might be living, because to do so is actually defending Britishness, or what they assume Britishness to be, from the threat posed by ‘outsiders’. Where could such a belief possibly have come from? A major part of the answer to that question must surely turn around the way in which certain politicians have normalised terms like ‘invasion’ and ‘swamping’ in relation to migration. When the propositions that immigrants do not share ‘our’ values, and that immigration threatens ‘our’ way of life become part of mainstream political debate, why would anyone expect that those whose prejudices are thus validated would see such positions as being politically extreme? It would be unfair to accuse such politicians of egging on those participating in the violence, even if their ritualistic condemnations of it are invariably accompanied by a ’but’ of their own, in this case about failing to be sufficiently harsh with refugees. But not actively encouraging the riots doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t see the potential value to themselves in the ensuing disorder. There is, apparently, no evidence to support the widespread belief that Lenin coined the term ‘useful idiots’, but somebody did, and from the point of view of the far right the rioters fit the definition.

It isn’t only the rioters who are useful to the far right – immigrants also serve a similar function, albeit even less consciously. I’m not convinced that the far right themselves are always or necessarily racists. A belief that society should be run by authoritarians in the interests of the few does not in itself require the othering of any particular group. But ‘vote for me so that I can impose my will on you and concentrate wealth even further in the hands of myself and my friends’ isn’t exactly an election-winning slogan. Identifying and promoting conflict between groups in society, blaming some of those groups for the fact that others feel relatively poor or dispossessed, and then offering to resolve the situation in favour of one of those groups is a much more powerful way of achieving the same objective. Persecution of those who have been othered is more of a means to an end than an end in itself.

An authoritarian response to rioters looks and sounds like firm action, but also serves to strengthen the belief that authoritarianism provides solutions. Resolving the artificially induced conflicts is more about getting people to understand that the interests of the ‘useful idiots’ and the othered groups have more in common with each other than they do with the right wing authoritarians who are pulling the strings.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Isn't this true of very many of us,we are not racists but certain attitudes and behaviour which is common in some other cultures are utterly alien to us and we react accordingly.

John Dixon said...

Racism is surely not about whether we might find some other people's attitudes and behaviour strange, but about whether we stereotype based on that; and also, there's a lot hanging on what you mean by "we react accordingly", isn't there?

Gav said...

Got to confess that the attitudes and behaviour of some of my own family are utterly alien to me. I do try to be nice to them though (and never ask if they feel the same way about me.)

Stereotypes can be useful, which is why we have them. Statistics and all that. The fundamental mistake is assuming that any individual within your sample matches the stereotype.

Arthur Owen,Caerdydd said...

I am anonymous (in this instance)I do not know how this happened but there we go.I do not excuse racist attitudes,in myself or others,but I find using the phrase 'I am not racist but' as a catch all condemnation a somewhat lazy statement. Arthur Owen,Caerdydd

Anonymous said...

I'm an ethnic nationalis, with lifelong left-wing views. If ethinc nationalism had not been the driving force behind Plaid Cymru, that party would not exist today. Neither would the Welsh language, S4C, and dare I say the Senedd. Cymdeithas yr Iaith was probably made up of ethnic nationalists for the greater part of its existence, apart from the talking heads at the top. However, ethnic nationalists are conflated with right wingers by now, and labelled fascists etc - see what happened to Seimon Glyn over 20 years ago when he expressed worry about the overwhelming immigration into Welsh haertlands. He was libelled by the Labour party, and hung out to dry by Plaid Cymru, whose interests was beginning to be run by Guardianista progressives, rather than by nationalists.

John Dixon said...

Anon,

The problem with the phrase 'ethnic nationalist' is that both words can have more than one meaning. 'Ethnicity' for some can simply be about things like language and culture, whilst for others it can have a distinct racial element to it, and a nationalism based on it can be an exclusive force. People can adopt a language and culture; they can't change their parentage or ancestry. Similarly, 'nationalism' can be about a desire for a particular group to be recognised, politically as well as culturally, as a distinct group, with all the institutional trappings that implies, or it can be an expression of superiority over others. One is benign towards others, the other dangerous. That particular confusion of meaning is why I prefer the term independentista. I'm not sure which meanings you are using in your comment. The first part of it led me to believe that you are thinking more in terms of language and culture, but your reference to 'uncontrolled immigration' implied something rather different. It would be naïve to deny that, when it comes to cultural and linguistic assimilation, a language such as Welsh, which has become a minority language in its own country (for reasons which are important, but not immediately relevant to this point), faces a greater challenge than a language such as English, which has become a globally useful medium. And I don't have a simple or easy answer to that (and nor it seems to me does anyone else), although there are some obvious steps, particularly in the field of education, which could be taken to increase the likelihood that people will adopt and use the language. But closing the borders, building walls, keeping people out - even if it were possible in the modern world - strikes me as a backward-looking and counter productive approach.

Anonymous said...

Notice I use the description 'Overwhelming immigration' , not 'Uncontrolled immigration', as you've quoted. Looking at census data for North West Wales over the past 40 years, and walking about places like Llanberis, Bangor and Menai Bridge, I suspect that it's an apt description for language shift. Cymdeithas yr Iaith certainly protested about it until the end of the 20th century. Welsh is now compulsory in all Welsh schools, but that's not stopped the rot. To return to my basic point, 'ethnic nationalism' is not intrinsically bad, but its rapidly becoming a pariah term.

John Dixon said...

Sorry for misreading your comment, my bad. To return to my own basic point in my previous comment, whether 'ethnic nationalism' is intrinsically bad really depends on what someone using the term actually means. Or perhaps, even more, on the policy prescriptions that they propose as a result.

Anonymous said...

Thank you. Point appreciatively taken.