Sometimes the racist aspect of an incident is not the worst part
I’m not racist but…
Actually I better start that sentence again, since those words are usually a prelude to a racist statement.
Right, take two. I am against racial discrimination and vilification because I’m against all forms of bullying and abuse. Last week on a Hobart bus, a man made news for reportedly unleashing a tirade of racial abuse at a woman of Indian heritage, when she interceded on the behalf of a teenage girl he was behaving in a creepy and predatory fashion towards.
As I made very clear elsewhere, I am both saddened and embarrassed that I have enough ignorant and hateful countrymen (and women- I’m equal opportunity in my disgust) that members of other minorities have had to endure harassment and intimidation based on their race or religion. I should be very clear that I was pretty disgusted when I heard about the incident. However, I did find the focus on racism in this particular case to be rather blinkered, as there was a little bit more to this story.
Missing the point?
Firstly, there was comparatively little mention of the more sinister behaviour towards the teenage girl- behaviour that rang more alarm bells to me. While I initially heard about this on the radio, I followed up by actively looking for any articles in the paper and reading them as well. Overwhelmingly the focus of any media attention and talkback radio was on racism. It was only after reading the third article, I discovered the woman was also physically pushed in the chest, an act of physical aggression that I would have thought was more serious than verbal abuse, especially given the recent public focus on stamping out violence against women.
It is also important to recognise that this woman was not exactly the victim of racial discrimination per se. Racial vilification certainly, but not discrimination. The abuse she received was certainly unacceptable- and would have been if there was no racial element to the language- but she was not actually targeted as a result of her race. She would have had a similarly unpleasant experience were she of Anglo-Saxon heritage. From the best of what I can understand, she became a target because she had the courage to stand up for someone she saw as vulnerable. Again I must stress that this doesn’t paint the incident in any better light. In some ways it is worse that no one else did the same for her (I will talk about the other passengers later). Moreover, racial or not, a 20 minute tirade of any sort of abuse is unacceptable.
So what?
To me, only a minor element of this incident seems racist. The worst behaviours- creeping on the younger girl and physically pushing and seeking to intimidate the woman who intervened were not racially motivated and were more concerning. You may be thinking, ‘so what?’ or something similar at this point so let me expand on this. The problem in focusing so heavily on whether something is racist is that we become, ‘The boy who cried racist.’ The focus on whether something is racist, can supplant the questions of whether something is right or wrong. Arguing that something wasn’t racist is assumed to be the same as arguing it was ok, forgetting that it is possible that an action be not racist and still completely unacceptable. It’s like when groups like Reclaim Australia incite fear and hatred of Muslims and are accused of racism. They smugly reply that Islam is a religion not a race, whilst never feeling the need to actually consider whether their actions are actually fair. Another really good example of this was the Adam Goodes booing episode. Moreover, this zealous approach to any hint of racism can give rise to what I call, ‘conscientious racists’.
‘Conscientious Racists’
Conscientious racists are sensitive to the politically correct restrictions on what they can say and the perceived injustice of positive discrimination designed to alleviate society’s inequalities. As Sam Newman demonstrated, they don’t see themselves as privileged or fortunate to be born in Australia and to have had the benefit of our subsidised education and health system for their whole lives, whilst never needing to ask for things more significant than a menu to be translated into their native language. This sense of unfairness becomes a chip on their shoulder and manifests in their behaviour and attitude towards minority groups and races. They don’t overtly discriminate against other races or criticise people for their race, but they are often pretty gleeful and disproportionate in their condemnation when they think they have a chance to legitimately criticise individuals from other races. Again I go back to the Adam Goodes situation as the best recent example which showed this. When they are called racist for their choice of target, this reinforces their sense of injustice and censorship, while never needing to reflect on whether their behaviour is actually fair or reasonable.
What if they have a point?
I should add a caveat here that you don’t have to be a bigot to question the consistency of our laws around racial vilification. I have heard it said many times that you can call someone pretty much anything in contact sport or an argument unless you bring their colour, religion or sexuality into it. As opposed to racism as I am, I can’t disagree with that statement and I suspect we are yet to get the balance quite right. It actually baffles me that people think other forms of serious abuse are kind of acceptable.
Noting inconsistencies in our legal frameworks does not make us a conscientious racist. It is how we choose to respond that defines us. These inconsistencies do not justify the kind of petty reactions that are common. I don’t think it is reasonable or mature to take out your frustrations with society on individuals of other races who, after all, didn’t actually write the laws. Still, I think I can understand the cognitive processes that lead to it and just because I think it is wrong, doesn’t mean it won’t happen. I certainly think excessively and exclusively focusing on racial elements of incidents like the one on the bus fans the flames of resentment over ‘special treatment.’ This entrenches their views and behaviours even more.
Why didn’t the other passengers do anything?
I will finish with a quick discussion of bystanders. There was some public criticism, both implied and directly stated, of the other passengers on this bus for not stepping in to intervene in this situation. In particular the breakfast radio took a number of calls discussing what passengers and the driver should have done. While I would like to think I would have taken action myself, I think we must be cautious in criticising people, if we were not there to see the whole situation. Everyone is entitled to consider their own safety. Perhaps male passengers felt that a female passenger was better suited to defusing the situation, whereas another male would have turned it into a physical fight. Or maybe other passengers felt it was under control. Without having actually been there and actually experienced it, people can’t say for sure how they would have acted.
In case you think I have Kevin Rudd’s prolixity and just skipped to the summary
Racial vilification is not acceptable. Neither are other forms of verbal abuse. Nor is the kind of lecherous and intimidating behaviour that was described in this incident. The reporting of this story made it sound like racism was the underlying cause of the incident and the most significant aspect of it. The best understanding I can glean was that the only element of incident that was racially influenced was the choice of epithets for abuse. The pushing and intimidation would still have happened, as would the creepy behaviour towards the younger girl. The abuse would have happened too, he just would have chosen different words. The media should be better than this. Sensationalising the racial aspects of incidents like this does not improve the treatment of immigrants to our country. In some ways it can make it worse.
Actually I better start that sentence again, since those words are usually a prelude to a racist statement.
Right, take two. I am against racial discrimination and vilification because I’m against all forms of bullying and abuse. Last week on a Hobart bus, a man made news for reportedly unleashing a tirade of racial abuse at a woman of Indian heritage, when she interceded on the behalf of a teenage girl he was behaving in a creepy and predatory fashion towards.
As I made very clear elsewhere, I am both saddened and embarrassed that I have enough ignorant and hateful countrymen (and women- I’m equal opportunity in my disgust) that members of other minorities have had to endure harassment and intimidation based on their race or religion. I should be very clear that I was pretty disgusted when I heard about the incident. However, I did find the focus on racism in this particular case to be rather blinkered, as there was a little bit more to this story.
Missing the point?
Firstly, there was comparatively little mention of the more sinister behaviour towards the teenage girl- behaviour that rang more alarm bells to me. While I initially heard about this on the radio, I followed up by actively looking for any articles in the paper and reading them as well. Overwhelmingly the focus of any media attention and talkback radio was on racism. It was only after reading the third article, I discovered the woman was also physically pushed in the chest, an act of physical aggression that I would have thought was more serious than verbal abuse, especially given the recent public focus on stamping out violence against women.
It is also important to recognise that this woman was not exactly the victim of racial discrimination per se. Racial vilification certainly, but not discrimination. The abuse she received was certainly unacceptable- and would have been if there was no racial element to the language- but she was not actually targeted as a result of her race. She would have had a similarly unpleasant experience were she of Anglo-Saxon heritage. From the best of what I can understand, she became a target because she had the courage to stand up for someone she saw as vulnerable. Again I must stress that this doesn’t paint the incident in any better light. In some ways it is worse that no one else did the same for her (I will talk about the other passengers later). Moreover, racial or not, a 20 minute tirade of any sort of abuse is unacceptable.
So what?
To me, only a minor element of this incident seems racist. The worst behaviours- creeping on the younger girl and physically pushing and seeking to intimidate the woman who intervened were not racially motivated and were more concerning. You may be thinking, ‘so what?’ or something similar at this point so let me expand on this. The problem in focusing so heavily on whether something is racist is that we become, ‘The boy who cried racist.’ The focus on whether something is racist, can supplant the questions of whether something is right or wrong. Arguing that something wasn’t racist is assumed to be the same as arguing it was ok, forgetting that it is possible that an action be not racist and still completely unacceptable. It’s like when groups like Reclaim Australia incite fear and hatred of Muslims and are accused of racism. They smugly reply that Islam is a religion not a race, whilst never feeling the need to actually consider whether their actions are actually fair. Another really good example of this was the Adam Goodes booing episode. Moreover, this zealous approach to any hint of racism can give rise to what I call, ‘conscientious racists’.
‘Conscientious Racists’
Conscientious racists are sensitive to the politically correct restrictions on what they can say and the perceived injustice of positive discrimination designed to alleviate society’s inequalities. As Sam Newman demonstrated, they don’t see themselves as privileged or fortunate to be born in Australia and to have had the benefit of our subsidised education and health system for their whole lives, whilst never needing to ask for things more significant than a menu to be translated into their native language. This sense of unfairness becomes a chip on their shoulder and manifests in their behaviour and attitude towards minority groups and races. They don’t overtly discriminate against other races or criticise people for their race, but they are often pretty gleeful and disproportionate in their condemnation when they think they have a chance to legitimately criticise individuals from other races. Again I go back to the Adam Goodes situation as the best recent example which showed this. When they are called racist for their choice of target, this reinforces their sense of injustice and censorship, while never needing to reflect on whether their behaviour is actually fair or reasonable.
What if they have a point?
I should add a caveat here that you don’t have to be a bigot to question the consistency of our laws around racial vilification. I have heard it said many times that you can call someone pretty much anything in contact sport or an argument unless you bring their colour, religion or sexuality into it. As opposed to racism as I am, I can’t disagree with that statement and I suspect we are yet to get the balance quite right. It actually baffles me that people think other forms of serious abuse are kind of acceptable.
Noting inconsistencies in our legal frameworks does not make us a conscientious racist. It is how we choose to respond that defines us. These inconsistencies do not justify the kind of petty reactions that are common. I don’t think it is reasonable or mature to take out your frustrations with society on individuals of other races who, after all, didn’t actually write the laws. Still, I think I can understand the cognitive processes that lead to it and just because I think it is wrong, doesn’t mean it won’t happen. I certainly think excessively and exclusively focusing on racial elements of incidents like the one on the bus fans the flames of resentment over ‘special treatment.’ This entrenches their views and behaviours even more.
Why didn’t the other passengers do anything?
I will finish with a quick discussion of bystanders. There was some public criticism, both implied and directly stated, of the other passengers on this bus for not stepping in to intervene in this situation. In particular the breakfast radio took a number of calls discussing what passengers and the driver should have done. While I would like to think I would have taken action myself, I think we must be cautious in criticising people, if we were not there to see the whole situation. Everyone is entitled to consider their own safety. Perhaps male passengers felt that a female passenger was better suited to defusing the situation, whereas another male would have turned it into a physical fight. Or maybe other passengers felt it was under control. Without having actually been there and actually experienced it, people can’t say for sure how they would have acted.
In case you think I have Kevin Rudd’s prolixity and just skipped to the summary
Racial vilification is not acceptable. Neither are other forms of verbal abuse. Nor is the kind of lecherous and intimidating behaviour that was described in this incident. The reporting of this story made it sound like racism was the underlying cause of the incident and the most significant aspect of it. The best understanding I can glean was that the only element of incident that was racially influenced was the choice of epithets for abuse. The pushing and intimidation would still have happened, as would the creepy behaviour towards the younger girl. The abuse would have happened too, he just would have chosen different words. The media should be better than this. Sensationalising the racial aspects of incidents like this does not improve the treatment of immigrants to our country. In some ways it can make it worse.