Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I really don't think there was anything particularly wrong with the original Olowade article, what do you think was un-nuanced about that article? (Admittedly, on re-reading it, the bit about "Which also means that more than half of black Caribbean people and two thirds of black African people say they experienced no racist assault. All of this from a survey many have used to conclude that Britain is far from being a racially just society" isn't great, but I don't think it damns the article as a whole.)
I did find it interesting that the results for Other Black were so different to Black African and Caribbean, not sure why that is though. Either way, I think the study makes it clear that GRT people are affected by institutional racism, and I think it was really unhelpful to deny/downplay that.
She says that more than once in the article:
Because the corollary of one third of ethnic minority people reporting that they have experienced racist assault is that two thirds of ethnic minority people have not.
And complains about what she terms "progressives" typical response to reports such as this. That this shows we live in a racist society. Despite quoting the leader of the report who says the findings show that:
UK is immeasurably far from being a racially just society. The kinds of inequality we see in our study would not be there if we had a really just society.”
So the way I read her article she is diagreeing with what the leader of the report says.
Seems to be saying because two thirds did not report racial assault "progressives" should not make such a thing about it. In her view this is what "progressives" think:
Any racial abuse against any individual is morally abhorrent, and civil society has a moral duty to oppose prejudice
I suppose she is doing the how one sees the glass. Half full or half empty.
Myself I would agree with the leader of the report. And that any racial abuse is abhorent. Even if it is "only" one third of the respondents.
She then mixes this in with critique of the White Supremacy line of argument. Which apparently is held by the same "progressives"
I have issues with the White Supremacy line of thinking about race for different reasons. Excludes class for one. Also any political mechanism for solidarity across ethnic lines. Which in my area I can find annoying.
But is not to just chucked aside. Looking at the context of this countries history of imperialism and Id say White Supremacy is a big part of that history. Used to justify Empire over its long life. To the very end of it. Even if it was of the supposedly benevolent "trusteeship" variant. The Black working class people in my area are descendents of those enslaved in the Carribbean. And still subject to for example institutional racism in the Met.
Reading some of the actual report and I dont have a problem with the way they have introduced more categories- Roma and Jewish people for example. The have a chapter on political involvement inclusing BLM.
Nor do I think the original report is saying their is no such thing as White Supremacy. The report itself is rather dry reading and hesitent about making political judgements.
It however is not to be interpreted as saying that because two thirds of ethnic minority people do not report assualts that implies saying that this society is not that racist. Report is clear - racism is still a big factor in different ways affecting peoples lives.
The report does have some surprising results as you have noticed.Another is level of trust in mainstream poitical institutions is higher in most ethnic minorities than in white British. I would have thought it wouid be the other way around. But its not.
Last edited: