The racism of some anti-racists.

Certain assumptions pervade the thinking of particular progressives. They assume because they use the term ‘racist’ a lot, pander to critical race theorists, and lament the malignancy of western culture, they can’t be racist. They assume that using the term “Uncle Tom” – and its variants, including “house nigger” and “native informants” – is perfectly consistent with their credentials as anti-racists. They’re very wrong. 

Because inherent in those terms is a sinister implication: ‘if you disagree with how I think a brown person should think, you’re still a nigger’ – a slave subordinate to the interests of white people. ‘If you disagree with me, you can’t be thinking for yourself’ is the message. 

Notice how clunkily it removes agency – depersonalising and dehumanising in turn. Notice how its implications are both racist and arrogant. Racist in supposing that your racial identity should dictate how you think and what you think, rather than being contingent on those two factors. And arrogant in supposing that ‘only blacks who agree with me are doing so out of their own volition’. The idea that a person of colour can disagree without being conditioned to do so is too objectionable to these anti-racists.

The zealotry of these anti-racists means that they cannot, ironically, countenance a plural society – because brown people, believe it or not, can be progressives, conservatives, liberals and fascists. The beliefs of black and brown people do not derive from their identity like a linear well. They are human, and as human should be free to believe whatever they want without accusations of treachery. 

Liberal Muslims and ex-Muslims are tarred with this foul brush. In a Bath university conference, organised by academics who believe the greatest threats to the world are neocons and Zionists (interesting), a speaker called ex-Muslims native informants because they have the temerity to oppose Islamic extremism more stridently than they oppose the West – the same West which, as a matter of fact, has given them the freedom to criticise Islamic extremism without facing death or jail. If, as a Muslim or ex-Muslim, you don’t hate the west and Israel, and don’t despise Sam Harris with equal fervour, the value of your opinion is greatly diminished. Maajid Nawaz found this to his great surprise. 

The white author of a book and a litany of recent articles on Islam, Nathan Lean, mocked the white Sam Harris for writing a book on Islam. This is idiotic enough. What makes it spectacularly idiotic – And Lean probably knows this – is that the book is written in conjunction with Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim. Lean – understandably not trying to make himself look even more idiotic, but willing to risk looking like a twat – ignored Nawaz in his condemnation of Harris. Then, after some prompting, referred to Nawaz as Harris’ “Muslim validator“. 

Now is probably a good time to mention that Lean’s book on Islam was a critique of the “Islamophobia industry“, therefore it is reasonable to suppose he considers himself staunchly anti-racist. But how can an anti-racist use the term “validator”, blithely denying a person’s agency, depersonalising their thoughts and mind and critical faculties, decoupling that individual from their humanity? The righteousness conferred by simply stating you’re an anti-racist doesn’t preclude you from saying racist shit, and shouldn’t absolve you from the opprobrium this merits. You have to demonstrate you’re an anti-racist, and Nathan Lean has failed miserably to do so. 

Hari Kondabolu, a comedian from New York, started a hashtag called#bobbyjindalissowhite, in response to a speech given by the Louisiana governor where he said: 

I’m done with all this talk about hyphenated Americans. We are not Indian-Americans, Irish-Americans, African-Americans, rich Americans, or poor Americans – we are all Americans.

Kondabolu, apparently distraught by this shocking statement, released a set of tweets about the whiteness of Jindal which were apparently funny. 

 Like this one. 

And this one

And this one.  

This one is well worthy of a gravestone I’m sure you’ll agree. 

These tweets demonstrate that this form of racism is grounded in portraying minority views held by black and brown people as inauthentic, and consequently views dissent as betrayal. This racism has been allowed to fester for too long and it is finally flowering, and it is foul and it is ugly. It carries with it the pernicious idea – which I thought was long buried – that individuals shouldn’t be individuals but effectively stereotypes: the west-hating Muslim, for example. Let’s bury it, consign it to where it belongs; the obscure conversations of a few obscure racists. First of all, let’s start by challenging it.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “The racism of some anti-racists.

  1. “I’m done with all this talk about hyphenated Americans. We are not Indian-Americans, Irish-Americans, African-Americans, rich Americans, or poor Americans – we are all Americans.”

    That has bothered me for so long… “black” is really just a descriptor, like “white” or “bearded”, “tall”, “skinny”, “asian”. Saying “Hey, you’re black” while maybe not a polite thing to say, is just like saying “Hey, you’re bald” whereas “african-american” implies that you’re part of a group. A different group. It’s insidious and just fosters more racism.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Well written article – thanks. I find this “progressive” racism fascinating … I wonder is it because they think they are liberal thst they are on thd goid side which leads to this big blind spot. It amazes me. Even when shown that they made a clearly racist point they shrug it off like water off a ducks back.

    Like

  3. Hi Tom, thanks for an beautifully written and insightful article. I feel the need to apologise for the pointless and somewhat arrogant clarification made by an individual in an earlier comment – a clarification that Maajid himself didn’t even feel was necessary when he shared your article on Twitter. It must be disheartening to, after writing so well and succinctly about what is a difficult topic, have somebody nitpick for the sake of nitpicking, and miss the whole point of the article. Kudos to you for your polite response.

    But the purpose of my post is to ask you a question…

    Do you feel that the views and tirades of individuals like Nathan Lean and his confederates stem from an honest interpretation of what they see happening? Do they honestly believe that they are on the right side of a moral crusade? Because some of what is said…the blatant lies, the name calling, the viciousness….it seems to me that if your goal is truth and integrity, then surely your methods should reflect that?

    It would be easier to believe, given their tactics, that they have a specific agenda. But what agenda? And who directs it?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Thank you for articulating so well so much that has been on my mind of late. I am of Indian origin, and it seems that in many peoples’ eyes, that fact on its own should dictate my values, be they moral, political, aesthetic. Recently, I received this quite charming comment on one of the posts in my blog (and I quote):

    “I spent more than a year in Britain studying a technical subject in a British University. I had the opportunity to know people like you – the victims of diaspora. I feel very sorry for you. You may go on taking dips in the Thames but you won’t be able to change the colour of your skin.”

    Like

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