Less talk, more action

With the British royal family in the news again for racism, (see here, here and, for a bit of history, here), a national debate is going on over what constitutes ‘banter’, ‘slurs’ and ‘political correctness’.

What dismays me most about such polemics is that attention is focused on whether this person or that organisation is racist or not. The simplistic logic goes, “if they weren’t racist, then they wouldn’t say that”, or “if they say that, then they must be racist” – and off we go in a never-ending polarisation of thought.

But nothing is, to quote a phrase, only black and white. To believe it is, is to hold oneself up as lacking in all knowledge of the world and human beings, to reduce oneself to a two-year-old’s view of how the world works.

It may be that being given a derogatory nickname is part and parcel of being in the British armed forces – indeed, I would go so far as to say that getting and giving derogatory nicknames is part and parcel of being British – but what worries me most is what those nicknames are based on.

Such oft-used (British) epithets as “lofty” (for someone small), “squirt” (for a 6’5”, 200lb-er), “shit-face” (general term of endearment), “slag” (term of endearment, usually among women, similar to “ho”), “ginjar” (term of endearment referring to someone with red hair) and “bastard” are like little private jokes between the people concerned.

But other names are stereotypes: “a generalisation, usually exaggerated or oversimplified and often offensive, that is used to describe or distinguish a group.” (American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy). To wit:

  • “Paddy” – a name for a person of Irish origin, associated with potato-eating, hard-liquor drinking, race-horse gambling and stupidity
  • “Jock” – a name for a person of Scottish origin, associated with penny pinching, hard-liquor drinking and generally belligerent behaviour
  • “Taffy” – a name for a person of Welsh origin, associated with coal-mining and backwardness
  • “Paki” – a name for a person of any South Asian origin, associated with smelly-curry-eating, corner-store-managing, taxi-driving and parenting large numbers of children
  • “Chink” – a name for a person of any East Asian origin, associated with deviousness, take-home catering and cowardliness
  • “Sooty”, “Sambo”, “Black bastard” – all names for people whose skin-colour is dark brown, associated with laziness, belligerence and stupidity

Note that there is no epithet for the English, those that live in England and have held the power since the Act of Union in the early 1700s and, with that, the greatest privilege; those that are represented most by the royal family.

Note also that, unlike such fond nicknames as “shit-face”, stereotypes aim to erase individuality, to reduce the members of a group to a few roughly-drawn characteristics that are, supposedly different from those that are found in the main group. They aim, in fact, to exclude.

In addition, the controlling images embodied in the stereotypes are perpetuated by the media, making it more difficult for anyone unfamiliar with individual members of the group in question to put things in perspective.

But that doesn’t mean they can’t. However, it seems to me that so-called political correctness has got everyone so worried about being convicted or, in fact, convicting people of racism, that we are all losing sight of what we are really capable of understanding and believing, and actually doing something about.

3 thoughts on “Less talk, more action

  1. What I found interesting is how people were quick to deny that what Harry said was racist. Saying that his statements were racist is not the same as saying he is racist. Although I’m not sure how anybody can really measure his intent so that we are convinced that he is free of the same racism that is internalized by us all.

  2. Restructure! From what I’ve seen, white privilege is the same everywhere. However, in Britain, you have a situation where the majority with the power and the minorities without the power were all white at one point. A similar situation exists in Canada between the Anglos and Francophones.

    Resistance, there is an added dimension to the story. Harry is not the only person being accused of racism here. The army is also and, of course, this is not the first time: racism, sexism, homophobia – you name it, the army has been called on it. All those who sprang to his defence were also springing to the defence of the army and, in fact, probably more the latter than the former.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s