National Racial Gaslighting

Nothing says ‘racial gaslighting’ quite like the findings from a recent commission on race and ethnicity set up by No 10. They found that not only does institutional racism not exist in the UK, but that the UK is actually a model for other white countries - get the cans out, we’ve completed it! Never mind those hundreds of years of slavery and colonialism, they’ve obviously had absolutely no effect on the current system. But don’t despair, they acknowledge that ‘there are still real obstacles and there are also practical ways to surmount them, but that becomes much harder if people from ethnic minority backgrounds absorb a fatalistic narrative that says the deck is permanently stacked against them’ which translates neatly as ‘We can do this, but only if you obstinate, whinging ethnic minorities stop complaining!’

These jokers believe that the term institutional racism should only be used ‘when deep-seated racism can be proven on a systemic level and not be used as a general catch-all phrase for any microaggression, witting or unwitting’. One wonders, how on earth they have managed to separate the two? If there are institutions in which a large portion of people display microaggressions, surely one must consider it to be an institutional problem? The implication that racism and institutional racism have a clear and distinctive border should obviously not be considered as a sincere possibility; racism hasn’t come about through people’s personal beliefs, it has descended from hundreds of years of human trafficking, enslavement and colonialism.

“The simple fact is that no people can enslave another for centuries without coming out with a notion of superiority, and when the colour and other physical traits of those peoples were quite different it was inevitable that the prejudice should take a racist form.” (Walter Rodney)

Of the many things that I found particularly stark about the report, was the manner in which the stop and search statistics are explained; they inform us that it is simply because the lion's share of stop and searches occur in London, which is where 60% of black people live, that has caused the alarming statistics. A black person is 9 times more likely to get stopped and searched than a white counterpart, even if you account for the higher percentage of black people living in London it cannot excuse this. The apologists continue by exclaiming that another reason for the discrepancy is due to the ethnic representations in certain urban areas with relatively high crime rates; where stop and search is used more. Whilst black history isn’t taught in schools, one thing that I managed to learn during my education was that crime increases where poverty is higher. Though at another point they do admit to the fact that ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, they feel obliged to mention that it is white people who are the most likely to have, and if you’ll excuse their ridiculous jargon, ‘multidimensional disadvantages’, the stop and search statistics for the areas where these white people are found is not given but one can imagine that it wouldn’t be comparable to the statistics for London. Why they feel the need to mention that white people are also disadvantaged is beggars belief, though, it does feel awfully similar to the, ‘I’m not racist, I’ve got black friends’ argument we’ve all grown accustomed to hearing. “We’re not racist, we’re making sure there are poor white people too!.”

This cavalier reasoning continues in the following paragraphs when they explain that ‘sadly certain types of people are what they are’; so unfortunately we will never be able to eradicate racially motivated hate crimes that cause ‘serious psychological effects. Just imagine, writing a governmental report on racism in the UK, telling the many ethnic minorities that have suffered as a result of such crimes, that unfortunately, people are going to be racist and that the system can’t possibly eradicate such happenings, but that, also, there is no proof of systemic or institutional racism in the UK… Oh, the irony.

Despite the myriad of voices that have called for a decolonising of the curriculum, the report condemns such actions as ‘negative’, and even goes as far as to state that ‘token expressions of black achievement will not broaden young minds’. It is hard to imagine that black people would consider the teaching of black achievements as mere tokens; but to consider how black people feel about the national curriculum that we force-feed our children is, apparently, beyond the scope of the report which concludes that racial bias within schools has a limited effect upon disadvantage. Whilst the statistics they have chosen may show a narrowing of racial inequality, incomes in white households remain 63% higher than that of black households, according to the ONS, though this is not (not seldom) found in the report (just wanted to show that you weren’t directly challenging the narrowing of racial inequality statistics, but that problems still exist). The ONS found household incomes in white households to be 63% higher than in black households, though this is seldom mentioned anywhere in the report.

Throughout the report the findings are uniform; it is socioeconomic problems that cause the inequality as opposed to racism. Banks aren’t reluctant to lend to people because they are black, it is simply because most black people come from lower socio-economic strata and that means they are deemed a riskier investment. It is totally different to banks being racist, right? The report, disingenuous though it may be, admits that there has been systemic racism in the UK at some point. Surprisingly, they even go as far as to imply that, as little as 50 years ago, there has been some sort of systemic racism, but qualify it by arrogantly championing the ‘progress’ that has been made since. Now, 50 years ago, ethnic minorities were, definitely, being discriminated against in ways that made it impossible for them to improve their socioeconomic status; for example, they were declined jobs, they weren’t given promotions and they were bullied out of white establishments making it much harder for them to increase their income. Such problems will have had a profound effect on their socioeconomic status now, so whilst it may not be racism that is causing a reluctance amongst banks to lend to black people, one must agree that it is racism that has caused ethnic minorities to be in a situation that makes it unlikely for banks to lend to them. The socioeconomic indicators of a particular race should not be looked at in isolation from the historic discrimination that has occurred and is obviously still occurring. It is racist to do so.

Hopefully, upon having a quick read through this dross that No 10 has released, you will feel obliged to take to the streets, for gaslighting people on a national scale must surely illicit some strong emotions. However, the freedom-loving tories, have, during a global pandemic where protesting became an offence that was finable, decided that it would be a great time to try and sneak through a bill with a slew of increased disincentives and alterations on our rights to protest; including increased police presence at protests, more severe punishments and noise limits on protesting. As you’ve probably seen, people aren’t best pleased with this sneaky behaviour, so, they  decided to organise, only to be met with unbridled violence from the police force. This is the same police that was unnecessarily violent at a vigil for Sarah Everard who was murdered by a policeman, Wayne Couzens. There was also an investigation into the police's behaviour at the vigil, but I’ll leave it to you to guess what the findings were.

Next