You are browsing the archive for racism.

Dear Vagenda Editors…

October 23, 2012 in white feminism

By Lianne

Dear Vagenda Editors,

You might be surprised to know that a number of us here at Black Feminists were amazed to hear you declare in your latest New Statesman blog that “feminism is, and to an extent always has been, a white, middle class movement”.

We’re not sure the feminists of the Indian Chipko movement in the 1970s or the Southall Black Sisters would agree either.

It seems that you’re most worried about the “issues of race, class, religion, sexuality, politics and privilege…fracturing feminist dialogue,” even if your fantasy universal feminism actively marginalises the experience of anyone who isn’t you.

You play into the damaging myth that feminism is for an elite and narrow group. In reality many people who don’t actively identify as or even distance themselves from the F-word still have feminist views. Similarly many people know how intersectionality affects them and others around them, even if they don’t consider themselves to be intersectional.

In recent weeks intersectionality – or whatever you want to call it – has been deemed irrelevant and literally not worth giving a shit about. Now you’ve kindly told us it’s too academic. If we’re being honest, both come across as excuses to avoid talking about intersectionality itself and dealing with how it affects people. Given recent events, perhaps you can see why many black feminists and others are angry.

Intersectionality may be an academic term that has spilled into common usage among many feminists, but that doesn’t mean that the concept it refers to isn’t real and worthy of discussion. It’s merely shorthand for experiences that many people recognise and talk about – those points where race, gender, sexuality, ability, class and so on come together. And while language is important, most feminists only really use that kind terminology with others who know what it mean.

In obsessing over the use of one word, you not only miss the point (intersectionality could also refer to education), and imply that a vast swathe of people are stupid, but worse still you actively dismiss the views of people of colour and others.

In many respects, intersectionality actually tries to address accessibility, so it’s dishonest to impose a false hierarchy of accessible language first, then maybe followed by dealing with those minor fringe issues of racism, ableism and classism (you know, if we have the time after we’re done having a go at mythical “educated women [who] to want to keep feminism for themselves”).

Being called out isn’t nice, and pretty much everyone experiences it. Most sensitive and aware people would say ‘thanks for your opinions, we’ll take it on board’ or ‘I wasn’t aware that was an issue, I’ll bear it mind in the future’. But not Vagenda, or Caitlin Moran. What we’re seeing is childish foot-stamping and privileged feminists closing ranks to protect each other from criticism from those they are marginalising.

The real accessibility problem is not the use of one word among perhaps more academically-minded feminists, but the closing down of debate by so-called ‘big name feminists’.

We Need To Talk About Privilege

October 22, 2012 in white feminism

Image courtesy of The Feminist Wire

By Natalie Ntim

So there have a been a couple of articles and ‘Twitterstorms’ about issues affecting feminism over the past few weeks – Caitlin Moran “literally couldn’t give a shit” about Black women’s representation and Medhi Hasan waded into the abortion debate, claiming that pro-choicers “fetishise ‘choice’, selfishness and unbridled individualism”.  Now that the anger has died down, these debates have left me thinking about privilege and conversations about it – why is it so volatile and difficult for people to face up to when they’re called out on it? Why is it that sometimes, calling yourself a ‘feminist’ or ‘left-wing’ or being part of a marginalised group is seen as a get-out-of-jail-free card when you ignore your own privilege and make sweeping statements like Moran and Hasan have?

Privilege clouds people’s judgement on issues like abortion, women’s representation and violence against women. In Caitlin Moran’s case, as a white woman, her privilege means she simply can’t see why a huge group of women not being represented on TV is that big of a deal. Actually, I think that she’s smart enough to recognise her own privilege, but she won’t do anything about it. When she’s brought up on it, she won’t admit it and becomes really defensive. How can we deal with this when other women and men react in a similar way to Moran? How can we deal with this without it turning into a huge row (which is what usually happens to me!)?

The more we talk about how one person can be discriminated against for multiple reasons (e.g. being a Black lesbian disabled woman), the more slippery privilege gets – there are hierarchies within marginalised groups, where privilege is intertwined with marginalisation on a person by person basis. Would it be ok for a white atheist/secularist woman to be critical of Hasan’s Muslim faith during a debate on abortion because as a man, he is arguing about it from a position of privilege?

I know that as an educated, middle-class, straight, able-bodied Black woman who grew up in Greater London I am already in a position of privilege over others, but I am also still discriminated against and my voice, although heard more loudly than others, is still ignored  by some.  So I have lots of questions, but not many answers.  All I know is that being aware of your own position of privilege isn’t enough. We have to act to tackle how privilege changes our own perception and call out others who aren’t doing the same, whether we are lefties, black feminists or activists in other movements for equality.

Fear, The Other And A Packet Of Tesco Value Basmati Rice

August 7, 2012 in riots

By Stephanie Phillips

If you want no finer example of the real views of the majority of the population that reside on this great island then get a few your mates, provided your under 21 or at least look it, stand outside an establishment of your choice, smash a window and watch the racist, ageist, vitriol spew out from the population. Some may have seen the event, some heard about and some are not entirely sure what happened but they are all still mighty angry.

Obviously, I don’t actually recommend you commit any such act of violence or anything that could possibly get you thrown in jail. If someone randomly smashed my window I’d be pretty angry too. And obviously you don’t need to go to the extreme to bring out one person’s true nature. You just have to…well the majority of the time you just have to take up some amount of space in this world.

What made the aftermath of the riots so frightening was that they didn’t just give us an insight into what one person was thinking, they in fact let us into the mind of the nation, and this nation had a lot to say.

When backed into a corner, we lash out. The couple hundred teenagers who were involved in last year’s rioting spree became every teenager, any youthful face, any black face. The usually ridiculed Daily Mail became the acceptable voice of the nation.

This attitude erodes away at any kind of political correctness that once stood in the way of the obvious vocalisation of racist views. Comments like “ha ha, they’re attacking their favourite place, KFC. They’re so stupid, lol” or “Why would they shoplift tesco value basmati rice, they’re so stupid, lol” or “young people only rioted to get free stuff, lol” were used frequently.

It was assumed that people were rioting for no reason forgetting that another man had died at the hands of the police with no explanation still a year on. It was assumed that the rioters were mostly teenagers when they were a mix of ages. It was also assumed that they all came from council estates when in reality quite a few rioters that were caught were from middle class and upper class backgrounds.

As millions watched areas like Croydon, Tottenham and Clapham burn before their eyes on the ten o’clock news the fearful thought “That could be me. But I don’t want it to be, so get rid of these threatening youths before they get me.” It makes people do anything to feel safe again such as demand the police use rubber bullets and water cannons and that the rioters should be sent straight to jail without trial. In any other situation no one would willingly throw away their human rights to keep up the appearance of safety.

This is the most worrying aspect of the aftermath of the riot. A majority of our country now feel more comfortable than ever to unleash unsettling, racist and discriminatory views whilst simultaneously taking our human rights back decades. It will do us no good to give the police more power to use brutal force no matter what the situation is, or to rewrite our laws to allow unnecessary force such as water cannons or plastic bullets.

A year on and not much has changed. We separated that day and are yet to be reconciled. Will we ever be? Who knows.

Rage Against Racism Protest

April 22, 2012 in Events

Rage Against Racism

  • Tuesday, 1 May 2012
  • 16:00 until 19:00

Embassy of Sweden, 11 Montagu Place, London, W1H 2AL

Some people talk about change, others dream about change, but we believe in action, not words. Join the protest

We are protesting to stop the abusive racially charged characterisations of black women, to empower black women as they defend themselves against racist and stereotypical imagery, to improve race relations in the African diaspora as well as on the continent, to raise cultural competence and sensitivity to issues pertaining to Africa and African cultures, to enhance understanding and views of African people as human beings with dignity and pride. We want a robust review and implementation of anti-racist policies that impact the lives of African Swedes and those from African Diaspora communities in Europe and Internationally.

Twitter: Rage Against Racism @RacismRage
Contact: 07854475673
Sign Petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/minister-of-culture-sweden-apologise-for-the-display-of-offensive-artwork-of-black-women

Protest: Please come with your inventive placards, we expect attention!

Read the rest of this entry →

Let us talk about racism when discussing identity, belonging and multiculturalism

February 7, 2011 in multiculturalism

I read the speech of David Cameron, Prime Minister, to the Munich Security Conference with more than a little anger at the partial nature of his analysis.

He was talking about Muslim young men turning to extremism and violence because they did not feel British, and this is all he had to say about racism:

So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them.’

That is it. Not mentioning impacts of racism on feelings of identity and belonging not only shows a complete lack of understanding, but decontextualises the situation and denies the reality of the power dynamics at play.

‘…we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity. Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values…. instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone.

If this analysis is correct, I should be among the immigrants to the UK most likely to feel British. I moved here when I was five. I have never lived in areas with big Asian communities. We have always been one of very few black families in the area so I have never experienced these ‘segregated communities.’ So why did it take me until I held a British passport, age 18, to even start feeling English? Why did I, at the age of seven, automatically support the football team playing against England even though I had no idea which country it was?

The reasons, as for many black immigrants and communities, is not due to the ‘failures of multiculturalism’ or ‘living in separate communities.’ Rather, the cause is years of racism, everything ranging from the direct attacks to the daily grind of living in a country that has policies, institutions and discourse that do not take you into account,
We lived in Oldham when we first moved here in the late 80s/ early 90s. Believe me, learning to read ‘Paki go home’ and getting beaten up regularly because I was a ‘Paki’ was not a fun induction for a five year old Indian girl to the ‘British way of life.’ While at university, I had stones thrown at me on the street in Nottingham because ‘your people bombed the Twin Towers.’ My Asian male friends were asked to leave a pub in Leeds because they were making others feel uncomfortable. Obviously a group of Asian men together are terrorists plotting to blow up the country. Last year, I had a skinhead spit at me on a Sunday afternoon while I was waiting for the bus at Finsbury Park tube station in north London. I had told him to stop harassing an Asian couple, quite newly arrived in the UK. Apparently ‘their lot’ had not only stolen his mates’ jobs, but also beaten them up. Luckily the bus came before he hit me but nobody waiting at the bus stop did anything to stop him in the meanwhile. I was told afterwards that perhaps I should not have intervened because it was not safe. However, I can handle this more than the couple that was getting harassed in the first place, having experienced similar things ever since I can remember. I wonder if David Cameron has ever felt as ashamed of the United Kingdom and ‘being British’ as I did then? It is not surprising that I felt closer to this woman and man who had spent just arrived in this country than the British people waiting at the bus stop who, like me, had grown up here.

I know I am not the only black person who has had such experiences.

Saturday morning (perhaps just before Cameron delivered his speech?), I passed a group of men walking down the road singing/ chanting. I first thought it was a protest that I’d missed out on finding out about. They joined their mates outside a pub. I noticed the England flags and actually thought of going to check out the England match that had somehow slipped under my radar. That’s when I noticed the men wearing the EDL jumpers. I later found out that they were on their way to the demonstrations in Luton.
I do not think David Cameron will ever know how I felt at that moment; an instinctive physical and visceral reaction. It was broad daylight, there were plenty of people around but I was still scared. Why did he not talk about the fact that I, in the country in which I was brought up in, did not feel safe walking the streets of London this weekend? What sense of belonging are we supposed to feel?
I know I am not the only black person who feels this way when they walk past EDL or BNP supporters.

What and whom was he trying to signal, knowing the EDL were marching the same day? He says it was an unfortunate coincidence, but this is the effect it had:

Some of crowd were jubilant, saying that Cameron “had come round to our way of thinking”. Paul Bradburn, 35, from Stockport, said Cameron was “coming out against extremism”. He added: “The timing of his speech is quite weird as it comes on the day of one of the biggest EDL demos we’ve ever seen. If he wants to start sticking up for us, that’s great.”

Coalition approval ratings are down, but is going for the BNP/ UKIP vote really the way forward?

I know the EDL are not reflective of the majority of Britons. However, I can say the same to David Cameron. He talks about Islamic extremism. Why is he not talking about the racism on the streets, in our schools (it would be good to learn about slavery, the British empire and colonialism by the way), in our policies, in our institutions and perpetrated by individuals?

They point to grievances about Western foreign policy and say, ‘Stop riding roughshod over Muslim countries and the terrorism will end.’ But there are many people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, who are angry about Western foreign policy, but who don’t resort to acts of terrorism. They also point to the profusion of unelected leaders across the Middle East and say, ‘Stop propping these people up and you will stop creating the conditions for extremism to flourish.’ But this raises the question: if it’s the lack of democracy that is the problem, why are there so many extremists in free and open societies?…These are just contributory factors.

Really? The UK has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in the last 10 years, propped up Middle Eastern governments and dictators for their own ends for decades and that’s not to mention Britain’s historic and continuing role in Palestine and Kashmir. Surely anger and despair over foreign policy decisions is more than just a contributing factor here. Don’t take this from me. Michael Scheuer, the CIA analyst who led the CIA’s hunt for Osama bin Laden has said attacks are motivated precisely because of foreign policies: ‘They hate us for what we do, not who we are.’ I don’t particularly trust CIA analysis, but I assumed it carried some weight with David Cameron.

…we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream…

Integration into society works both ways. I’m guessing by speaking against these segregated communities, the Tory government is going to get rid of faith schools, free schools and even private schools as well? I cannot think of a way to divide people faster than have children spend hours every day in the company of others just like them. How well are government ministers integrated into ‘mainstream’ British society? What is the mainstream anyway? This kind of language assumes a model of the white person, with anything outside it as deviant and ‘other.’ How many close black friends do people in the government have? I am guessing David Cameron does not have many friends in his inner circle from outside a narrow white, upper (middle) class background. I do not consider that to be mainstream either.

The failure, for instance, of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage, the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone when they don’t want to, is a case in point… do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths?

Can everyone please stop using the rhetoric of fighting for women’s rights to justify any of this? Quite frankly, I have had enough of white people and black men talk over the heads of black women about black women, about our bodies, our experiences and our realities, using gender equality and culture/ tradition arguments to justify their racism, imperialism and sexism. The continuing occupation of Afghanistan is now justified in the name of the liberation of women. As Kandiyoti argues, ‘the challenge to platforms for gender equality comes not just from actors with fundamentalist agendas, but from a conjuncture where women’s rights have been opportunistically intrumentalised to serve geopolitical goals, and neo-liberal policies have severed social justice from gender equality concerns.’
Implicit in all this is a positioning of ‘liberated’ white women against the oppressed black women that smacks of orientalism. Of course, neither characterisation is true. Black men are not savages, black women are not victims and white people, including the government, are not saviours for black women. Yes, ‘the horrors of forced marriage‘ are very real, but violence against women is not limited to black communities. Let us not forget only 6 percent of reported rapes end in a successful prosecution and that 2009 showed a dramatic increase in the numbers of women killed by violent partners in the UK. This includes all women. White women are not living in some feminist fantasy utopia of equality and opportunity and black women are not all oppressed.
I do not trust that Cameon has the best interests of black women truly at heart, I really don’t. He may say he does, he may even think he does, but he really does not. If he really cares about black women, he would talk with us and listen to us seriously when we identify what we need.
The reason why some people living in this country do not feel British is not solely because of the nature of the communities in which they live but rather also the nature of mainstream British society and UK government policies. It would have been much more honest of Cameron to acknowledge there continues to be problems with racism, systemic, institutionalised and individualised, in this country. By not mentioning the role entrenched racism plays in all of this, he just ignored our lived reality and experiences. David Cameron needs to stop perpetuating a white-centric view of race relations and have a long hard look at himself, as well as at British society, institutions and policies.
Frankly, I’m just bored by this whole debate. The speech showed a lack of new analysis and seemed aimed at bolstering the popularity of the Tory led government. It seems David Cameron has missed it but we have been having this same debate about multiculturalism since 2004. There is nothing new in his speech, just as there is nothing new in what I have written here. Why do we have to keep saying the same things over and over again? Can we move forward please to the proper debate that is needed?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...