By Hugh Jardon,
What motivates racism? Why do people have a dislike of "people of other"? Through my work, I've had dealings with many people who have "issues" with "people of other". Where does deep seated dislike come from? Throughout the natural world, where do we find aggressive behaviour? In the world of nature, there are four circumstances where we see general aggression. Predators use aggression to kill food. Agression is used to secure sexual activity, aggression is used to establish a pecking order in a pack and aggression is used as a response to fear. We can assume that racist behaviour is not being used to secure food. I believe racism is caused by a combination of the other three aggression triggers. It is a response to "fear of other". We can all see when people are different. As a result, there is an animalistic fear response. This is one of the main themes throughout all racist literature. "They take our jobs" is a common refrain. The wording is designed to encourage "fear of other". The fact that immigrants are doing jobs which would otherwise not get done is rarely mentioned. Once racists actually get to know "people of other", they rationalise it by saying "He's alright but the rest of them ...".
Then there is the establishment of pecking order within the pack. Extremist groups are mainly small cabals of individuals. Unlike mainstream political parties, "action" is what impresses. Within the group, violence is seen as mainstream activity. It is a major cause of disconnect between the extremists and the wider public, who generally abhor violence. The general public run a mile from trouble. Extremists are often drawn, like moths to a candle, to it. When was the last time you saw a baying mob of racists and thought to yourself "they look like a pleasant bunch to have a night out with"?. Racists on the other hand, believe violence is a useful means to an end. Many also seek rigid structure in society. This again is driven by the need to be part of the pack and in thepecking order.
Finally we have aggression to secure sexual activity. It is quite clear that racism is often driven by sexual insecurity. The concept that "black people are stronger", "black men have a large penis", "black people are better athletes" triggers feelings of inadequacy. Whilst the general population rejoices when a British athlete such as Daley Thompson wins gold at the Olympics, the racist mind sees this as a clear and present sexual threat. Many racists abhor Britains black athletes far more than they hate "fundamentalist terrorists". Ask them how they feel about Rio Ferdinand becoming England captain and they become incandescent with rage. When they see multi racial relationships, they see it as an attack on their own sexual identity. This is why we see savage attacks by strangers on mixed race couples. Often the transgressor cannot even explain why they became so enraged by two people holding hands and minding their own business. To the racist, it is tantamount to someone waving a huge penis at them and saying "she loves me because I've got this".
The way to address racism is to educate our citizens that the myths surrounding colour are myths (sometimes self perpetuating myths). It is to make our citizens realise that British citizens are as much a part of our community as they are. It is to make them realise that these citizens are not a threat. If you are a racist, ask yourself why. Ask yourself whether the problem is within you. If you feel enraged when you see a mixed race couple, is your rage really at yourself? Only when you can deal with this, will you move on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hugh Jardon works as a councillor to people within the prison service. This is a pseudoname to protect his identity. Guest blogs are always welcome at the Barnet Eye.
6 comments:
I think there is a massive difference between extremist groups like the BNP, who are basically stupid. violent people who need to feel powerful through bullying and abusive, and the more common racism, which stems from ignorance and/or poverty - blaming the "other" for lack of jobs/ housing/ social services support. Obviously there is a range of views inbetween.
The first group needs to be tackled through the criminal justice system, with a combination of punishment and rehabilitation. The other, more pervasive forms of racism need to be addressed through engagement and shifting the social norms. It is too easy to be angry and outraged when people make hurtful comments, and to label the people who say these things as beyond the pale. My Dad always used to say that if you point out when someone is behaving dishonourably, you will never get them to change, because people always defend themselves when they are attacked or ashamed. It is unpalatable, but you need to both speak and listen to people who hold these views. In the end, you do not make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies, which is why it is so hard.
A school local to me had a big problem with racism. It has a high proportion of sophisticated, street-wise black and Asian kids, whilst the white kids were mainly first generation immigrants from Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia etc. The black and Asian kids were angry at being held back by large numbers of country-bumpkin white children with poor English; many of the white kids had never seen a black or Asian person before but believed they were somehow inherently superior, had assimilated many of the myths you speak of, and were thrown by new surroundings, expectations and challenges. The Head and her staff have worked amazingly hard and largely succeeded in integrating the groups.
I think state run Faith schools should all be banned, because integration is the only way to tackle these pernicious ideas and make a single, coherent community, which recognises and values difference.
First of all, thank you for your blog.
I think research has shown that race hate extremists depend on a sort of hinterland of less vocal racism to give them an assurance of legitimacy, so I would not treat one without the other.
If we are trying to understand racism in terms of underlying drivers I think we should acknowledge the innate (social scientists tell us) tendency for people to perceive in-groups and out-groups, as well as the common-sense Burkean view that we feel more comfortable with, and are readier to share with and sacrifice for, those with whom we have shared histories and similar values. Some Darwinians will argue, against the social construct theory of race, that there is a genetic component to competition between different groups. At any rate, it seems to me that these innate tendencies have been acceptable, even extolled as virtues, in the past but in our age have become reprehensible for a number of reasons, the easiest of which to understand is globalization and migration.
So, although the conflict between solidarity and diversity has been around forever in one form or another, we live in an age where its effects are magnified and where they are held as unacceptable by the ruling sensibility. All well and good - but the innate drivers are still there, and (taking the Freudian model as a rough analogy) denying these drivers will lead to problems of one sort or another. I think this throws up an interesting moral philosophical question - is it worth the trade-off, or even, is the trade-off justifiable?
Two very good intelligent comments to the author's blog.
A young kid arrives in England in the late 60s, his first day at one of those schools in Burnt Oak, he is sent to sit with the lone Sikh (without the Turban?) at the back of the classroom by an ex-military type teacher. That Sikh had sat there throughout his secondary schooldays but cannot take his eyes off the kid he faces, because the kid speaks his language fluently, is a different colour, white to his brown.It's the first time in his UK schooldays, he has a friend whom he can communicate with in both languages and without being addressed in the funny Indian accent as "watcha Avtar,alright you old wog, how come you don't wear a bandage round your head." The British or in those days Brits born overseas were known as "Eurasian" or "Anglo-Indian" applied to both White and Dark skins whom knew where each belonged, or Gwei lo, despite "say yan" being a nicer term in Cantonese.
When average White English working class of migrant descent in Burnt Oak (there were many, including Poles & Hungarians obvious reasons) was challenged by White British/Irish India born immigrant "back home" with, "I'm Indian" The answer everytime is "YOU'RE DIFFERENT." (The Carribean siblings usually received it behind their backs because the two boys were good in the boxing ring).
Much has changed since those early days in Britain and I am indeed a privileged Heinz 57. Surprisingly it is the children of immigrants whom within days of starting at secondary schools start to make their own connections invidiously, little difference to those days but a whole lot better and improving compared to other European Colonists like France and Belgium.
As for those kids from those Burnt Oak schols, who are grandparents with some of their mixed race grand-children, what nice people they've become.
We can write about this issue, we can talk about it in our xenophobic ways, we can stretch political correctness to the ends of positive discrimination in order to feel less guilty, but the one thing Britons will always do, as does many other nations, hide it under the skin.
It will not be driven out unless our public institutions and bodies are representative of the multi-cultural nation we are. How many minorities do you see represented in both Houses of Parliament? That is when we will become a grown-up nation.
We have witnessed a tiny tiny beginning recently with the Labour Party leadership nominations however, it was not until that "wake-up" moment for 4 well educated white men, whom never gave it a thought and then only it dawned on one of them.
Roger the credit is all yours and Mill Hill's loss. Remind us once a month or the smart ones in the BNP will keep recruiting the wood.
Jaybird your dad is 150% absolutely right and I agree with him.
Rog T said to Sam Buckett...
Your comment was left as a guest blog on the blog I run. I generally don't comment back on other peoples guest blogs, but there were a couple of comments I thought might enlighten your readers.
Your comment about shared sacrifice is quite demonstrably wrong. Look at the countries which fought against the axis in WWII. America, France, China, The Commonwealth, USA. What about the AXIS? Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Hungary.
My father flew in 40 Squadron of the RAF which was a Commonwealth Squadron, where people's backgrounds were incredibly diverse. His view was that these squadrons had a far greater sense of unity and togetherness than English squadrons, where class was far more divisive.
The comments about globalisation and migration rather amused me given the way that the population of the UK has evolved via migration and globalisation of other races (vikings, romans & normans).
Interestingly you claim here that Hugh failed to make his point. You don't actually say why or actually discuss any of the issues he raised, just gave your own, which isn't really a comment is it?
It always makes me laugh when people choose to say other people have failed to make an argument without saying why they are wrong.
It strikes me as a bit of a cop out to post a comment like this and completely ignore the points Hugh raised on the original blog.
Hugh (who sent me the guest blog which you deride) emailed me about your comment and said that he got the impression that you haven't discussed the deep seated anxieties of many BNP supporters with them. His view was that your comments were just ill informed grandstanding and as such he couldn't be bothered to respond.
13 June 2010 21:46
Samuel Q Buckett said...
I commend Hugh for trying to understand racism in terms of motivation, and it is surely an exaggeration to say that I derided his post. If you post a blog you can expect people to express different points of view (if you are lucky!)
You are of course right that good relations come about between people from different backgrounds who unite against a common foe. In fact mere exposure to people from different communities improves relations. There is a process by which cohesion comes about. My point was the highly unoriginal one that we are readier to share with and sacrifice for, those with whom we have shared histories and similar values. This chimes in with the sort of communitarian conclusions reached by John Cruddas in countering the BNP threat in Dagenham.
My point about globalization and migration was (clearly) this: at one time it was considered a virtue to be patriotic, hate the foreigner etc, but because we now live closer more interconnected lives, these former “virtues” have become "sins".
I expressed the view (on my own blog; I had no desire to be negative about Hugh on yours) that he had not been very successful in understanding race hate in terms of instinctive drives; my justification for saying this was that I preferred my explanation. I will leave it to others to judge how well-informed it is, although I confess that I have not discussed it with the BNP.
I daresay my comments are now too far beneath your contempt to be worthy of a response.
Samuel,
You said "Today's Guardian Guest Blog is the Barnet Eye, with an item entitled Understanding the BNP, which tries (not very successfully in my opinion) to understand race hate in terms of instinctive drives."
To me that sounds like deriding his views (albeit politely).
The issue I have with your statement "that we are readier to share with and sacrifice for, those with whom we have shared histories and similar values." is that it is demonstrably wrong.
Take the British Army as an example. Do you think Gurkha regiments are less willing to make sacrifice than say the Anglian Regiment? The elite regiments are drawn from across the globe (SAS, Royal Marines, Paras). Many VC winners were not born in Great Britain. Another great example of this is the French Foreign Legion.
Your statement is a good soundbite, but it doesn't stand up to critical analysis.
As to your comments being "far beneath your contempt" - don't be so harsh on yourself. There's no need to get a complex about it, it's just comments on a blog.
If that's the only part of my analysis you disagree with, I'm a happy man! But let me explain. My comments were naturally in the context of what produces racism in normal, civil society.
In times of conflict, and especially in the military, things are different. People pull together etc in ways they do not normally. I have witnessed this myself in a regiment which recruited from communities normally in conflict with each other, and have wondered whether in a perverse way something akin to this is not taking place within the EDL. Does the effect endure after the conflict ends? That's another question.
Anyway, I am sure you are not recommending conflict as a way of producing cohesion.
Post a Comment