Arendt on Racism

Following yet another mass shooting in the United States, @DanielTorday quotes Hannah Arendt on the purpose of racism.

Hannah Arendt: “Racism has proved to be the the most ingenious device for preparing civil war that has ever been invented.”

Racism is not a mental illness.
Racism is a long-developed plan to destroy a culture from within. pic.twitter.com/FyZ6IXfcoG

— Daniel Torday (@DanielTorday) May 15, 2022

Arendt's legacy on the question of racism is complex and disputed, and there is much commentary on a controversial article she wrote in 1959, criticising some of the measures enacted by the Eisenhower administration to protect black students attending a white school in Little Rock, Arkensas, and affirming the right of white parents to send their children to all-white schools.

However, if we can overlook her naive and wrong-headed opinions about American racism, there is still a valid question about what kinds of anti-racist measures might be most effective in defusing the situation and reducing the risk of civil war. While I completely reject the argument that the victims of oppression should be encouraged to keep their heads down and avoid provoking their oppressors, there is still an important question about how best to achieve and maintain racial justice and social harmony, and how to challenge racist rhetoric without causing its supporters to double-down.

Meanwhile this is how news media presents the perpetrator of the Buffalo shooting. 

Noting that in AP copy, 18-year-old Michael Brown was an “18-year old Black man,” while 18-year-old Payton Gendron is a “white teenager.” pic.twitter.com/53Jt1vWuqf

— Dr. Thrasher (@thrasherxy) May 15, 2022

---

Hannah Arendt, Reflections on Little Rock (Dissent, 1959)

Connor Grubaugh, Hannah Arendt on Anti-Racism as a Totalitarian Ideology (Tablet, 18 November 2021)

Edward Helmore, It was by design: Black residents try to come to terms with horror of shooting (Guardian, 15 May 2022)

Julian Honkasalo, Hannah Arendt on the origins and consequences of ideological racism (Kone Foundation, 16 March 2017)

Kevin Miles, Anti-Black Racism in Arendt, and Philosophy’s Dangerous Commitment to Purity (APA Blog, 7 July 2016)

David Smith, Little Rock Nine: the day young students shattered racial segregation (Guardian, 24 September 2017)

Jason Stanley, Buffalo shooting: how white replacement theory keeps inspiring mass murder (Guardian, 15 May 2022)

Lynne Tirrell, Words matter. Trump bears a responsibility for El Paso (Guardian, 10 August 2019)

Michael Tomasky, The Buffalo Shooting Is the Latest White Rage Backlash, Brought to You by the GOP (New Republic, 16 May 2022)

The Purpose of Slogans

Some people may interpret the Black Lives Matter slogan as implying that racial injustice is greater than other forms of injustice. Those who experience other forms of injustice are encouraged to resent or even resist the Black Lives Matter slogan. Thus campaigners against different forms of injustice are divided rather than united.

No doubt this effect is most welcome to those who don't want any of these campaigns against injustice to succeed.

Ten years ago on this blog I discussed a talk by Amartya Sen on Reducing Global Injustice, in which Sen expressed his opposition to all kinds of injustice and refused to single out any one kind of injustice as greater than other kinds - whether gender or race or ethnocentrism or whatever. He argued that different forms of injustice were simultaneously incomparable and interconnected.

I was and remain convinced by this argument.

But I don't think it follows from this that campaigns against one form of injustice are necessarily wrong, simply because they ignore other forms of injustice. It may be tempting to counter "Black Lives Matter" by saying "But what about disadvantaged white lives" - but this whataboutery plays into the hands of those who would deny the existence of racial injustice altogether. 

I believe that those who suffer a particular form of injustice should be free to campaign against this form of injustice, without being obliged to simultaneously campaign against all other forms of injustice. Of course there may always be risks in such campaigns: risks of being misunderstood, risks of being deliberately misrepresented, risks of being divided from those who ought to be on the same side, risks of what Mark Fisher called snarky resentment, even risks of physical attack. But if the recommended alternative is to keep one's head down and suffer in silence, many will think that the fight against injustice justifies taking these risks. 

---

 

Mark Fisher, Exiting the Vampire Castle (OpenDemocracy, 24 November 2013)

Wikipedia: Whataboutism

Related posts: Global Injustice and Moral Challenge (July 2010)

Spelling Crimez

According to news reports, a ten-year-old child recently got a visit from the police after writing that he lived in a 'terrorist' house. 

Given that the family was Muslim, the Internet jumps to the conclusion that there was some racial stereotyping going on here. A day or so earlier, the Prime Minister had announced a fund (or at least partially reversed previous cuts to such funding) to teach Muslim women to speak English (which would presumably include learning the correct spelling of such words as 'terraced').

If the police were serious about gathering intelligence about potential extremists in the community, and if they believed that this was a genuine lead to an extremist family, you'd have thought they would want to treat the boy as a valuable source of information, rather than immediately alerting the family that they were under suspicion. What purpose does a home visit achieve, apart from shock and awe.

The authorities have responded to the news reports, claiming that the home visit was not prompted solely by a single misspelling, there were a number of issues arising from the child's schoolwork, and that it had not been regarded as a terror incident. The home visit had been done by a social worker, accompanied by a PC.

According to the boy's cousin, the boy is now scared of writing, or using his imagination. Arguably that's not a good use of police time, when a bit of well-timed sarcasm by a schoolteacher can achieve that outcome much more efficiently.


Update. Apparently what the boy actually wrote was this.

"I hate it when my uncle beats me. I live in a terrorist house with my uncle."

So what happened within the family after the social worker (accompanied by the PC) leaves? And what happened within the community when the media sensationalized the story? Can anyone use some imagination?

---

Rahila Bano, Muslim boy, 10, probed for 'terrorist house' spelling error (BBC News 20 January 2016)

Mario Cacciottolo, How much of a problem is speaking English for some Muslim women? (BBC News 18 January 2016)

Aisha Gani, Lancashire police criticise BBC over 'terrorist house' story (BBC News, 21 January 2016)

Lancashire 'terrorist house' row 'not a spelling mistake' (BBC News 20 January 2016)

Bill Jacobs, 'We've done nothing wrong' - Teachers and police respond to 'terrorist house' 'overreaction' (Lancashire Telegraph, 21 January 2016)


Updated 21 January 2016

What's in a name?

Richard Terrence Peter Hollingworth was until recently a district judge, as well as adjudicating immigration cases. Faced with a case involving a victim whose name was Patel, he shocked prosecutors by demanding that she should attend court the same afternoon, because someone with that name and ethnic background probably worked in a shop or off-licence and wouldn't have any difficulty taking time off work. "She won't be working anywhere important."

I'm sure judges make stupid remarks all the time, but on this occasion the prosecutor (rightly) made a fuss, and the judge is now (rightly) sacked. Although the racism is unpleasant, that is not the only shocking element of the story. The point about being a judge is that you are not supposed to jump to conclusions, racist or otherwise. Although judges may well believe privately that working class jobs are less important than proper jobs (like, for example, law) they shouldn't base their decisions on these beliefs. And the notion that someone working in a shop (or off-licence) can easily take time off at short notice shows gross ignorance about how the other half live. Let's not jump to conclusions, but when an Englishman has three or more Christian names and an old English surname this can be an indicator of class background.

As it turned out, the victim of Mr Hollingworth's racism doesn't work in a shop. She is 20 years old and studying law. She was horrified to learn about the judge's remarks.

If Mr Hollingworth had said "oh, she's only a student, studying isn't a proper job", he'd probably have gotten away with it.

Perhaps now Mr Hollingworth can go back to college and study law properly. Or he should try working in an off-licence. At least from now on he won't be working anywhere important. As the Hollingworth family motto says, "Disce ferenda pati: learn to suffer what must be borne".

---

Immigration judge Peter Hollingworth faces race remark investigation (BBC News, 7 December 2014)

Nigel Bunyan, Judge resigns after making racist remark about victim (Guardian, 7 December 2014)

Ben Tufft, Immigration judge Richard Hollingworth forced to resign after racial slur: 'With a name like Patel, she won't be working anywhere important' (Independent, 7 December 2014)

News Release: Judge Hollingworth (8 December 2014). Judge Peter James Michael Hollingworth, 63, who sits as a judge in the First Tier Immigration and Asylum Tribunal and also as a Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts)  wishes to make clear that he has no connection with Judge Terence Richard Peter Hollingworth, 63, who sat in the same courts and who you reported as having resigned from the Magistrates’ Court and being under investigation as an Immigration Judge. 

Wikipedia: Hollingworth Surname
Wikipedia: Bourne and Hollingsworth

Satoshi Kanazawa

@PsychToday descended to new lows of #badscience and #titillation this week when it published Satoshi Kanazawa's latest blogpost on the physical attractiveness of black women, complete with some pseudoscientific tosh about evolutionary psychology and testosterone. Following a storm of protest, Psychology Today has removed the offending blogpost (although it is still available elsewhere, for example on Quora); its other bloggers (Daniel Hawes, Nathan Heflick, Scott Barry Kaufman, Robert Kurzban, Mikhail Lyubansky, Melody T McCloud,  Michael Mills, Stanton Peele, Steven Reiss, Gad Saad, Sam Sommers, and others) have felt the need to gang up on Dr Kanazawa, as if that somehow redeemed the reputation of the website. Commentary and criticism elsewhere includes BBC News, Nanjala Nyabola (Guardian). PZ Myers names Kanazawa "among the many reasons that I detest evolutionary psychology".

This is not the first time that Dr Kanazawa's pseudoscientific musings have provoked criticism from his fellow bloggers at Psychology Today. In November 2008, Christopher Ryan argued that Sloppy methodology is the Achilles Heel of evolutionary psychology. I myself took issue with Dr Kanazawa in my piece on Footballers Wives and Evolutionary Psychology.

But is it just Dr Kanazawa who is at fault here, as some of his more cautious critics suggest, or is there a fundamental methodological flaw at the core of evolutionary psychology? Dr Ryan has also recently criticized Stephen Pinker, suggesting that he may have used misleading data in his TED talk on the origins of war (Stephen Pinker's Stinker). For his part, Stanton Peele believes that "Satoshi Kanazawa's racism perfectly embodies evolutionary psychology".

Dr Ryan's generously illustrated blog features posts on human sexual behaviour and the female form, which he compares with other species - notably the bonobo. What he seems to be claiming is that the similarities between human and bonobo are explained not by their common genetic heritage, but by the existence of some evolutionary advantage of these characteristics.

Sounds plausible enough, but then pseudoscience can make all kinds of speculative explanation sound plausible. For example, someone might try to construct an argument to the effect that large breasts change shape more with age and maternity, therefore breast size makes the visual effects of ageing more obvious and helps men to choose younger and more fertile partners with fewer previous offspring. (That might sound ridiculous, but the logical structure is not very different from other arguments I've seen. See my post on the Purpose of Baldness.) But how on earth do we ever choose between conflicting theories, how do research bodies decide whether to fund this kind of research, and what kind of evidence is deemed relevant?

There is a simplistic POSIWID argument behind a lot of evolutionary biology and psychology, which goes like this. Here is an interesting and perhaps puzzling characteristic; therefore it must have some evolutionary purpose (expressed in terms of selective advantage); so the researchers just need to work out what it is. They then corroborate our hypothesis by carrying out a quick study, often using American psychology students as the subjects.

There are several methodological problems with this approach: firstly, in the way the characteristic is framed in the first place, secondly in the presumption that each characteristic must have a clearly identifiable purpose in its own right, thirdly in demonstrating purpose by identifying outcomes that can be correlated with the characteristic in question, and fourthly in inferring evolutionary processes from present-day observations alone. Kanazawa might just as well argue that Michael Phelps does everything he does in order to get laid. Beyond parody.

From Malcolm X to Barack Obama

Many of us expected some kind of statement or action by Al Qaeda after the election of Barack Obama. But I don't know whether anyone expected anything quite like the statement that appeared yesterday [Al-Qaeda vows to hurt Obama's US, BBC News 19 November 2008].

Malcolm X contrasted "field negroes" who hated their white masters with "house negroes" who, he said, were loyal to them [Message to the grassroots]. Referring explicitly to this speech, Ayman al-Zawahri described President-elect Obama as a "house negro". (Mr al-Zawahri actually used the arabic expression "abeed al-beit, which means "house slave", but this was rendered as "house negro" in the message's English subtitles.) What possible effect is this message supposed to have, in America or in the rest of the world? Or has AlQaeda lost the plot?

• Al-Qaeda plays the race card against Barack Obama … no, seriously (TrainWreckPolitics)
• Al-Qaeda's most epic fail ever (The American Prospect)
  

What effects is it likely to have? Firstly, it has prompted several bloggers to refer sarcastically to the crazy rightwing myth that Obama is actually Malcolm X's love-child. Sounds like Star Wars to me - Obama as a Jedi knight, overcoming the black ideology of his symbolic father. I guess AlQaeda would read the symbolism the other way around - Amerika as Sith. In any case, AlQaeda and the American Right are both attached to the kind of simplistic mythological worldview promoted in films like Star Wars, and perhaps Mr al-Zawahri will be happy to see anything that reinforces this worldview.

The second potential effect is reflexive. People often inadvertently reveal their own weaknesses and shame when criticizing others. Perhaps this is because they focus on those characteristics they are most uncomfortable or ashamed about in themselves. As a result of contrasting President-elect Obama with "honourable Black Americans", Mr al-Zawahri is inevitably going to find himself and his terrorist pals contrasted with "honourable Arab Moslems". And perhaps at some level he thinks this too.

Paradise Wildlife Park

My local paper has a wraparound cover this week advertising the Paradise Wildlife Park in Hertfordshire, under the politically incorrect headline "Paradise - it's all white".

Perhaps the consciously intended meaning of this headline was the fact that the zoo features a number of white animals, including white lions and white tigers.

The advertisement contains several pictures of children enjoying the facilities at the zoo. All of the children in these pictures are white. Is this a coincidence? Does it matter?

We are increasingly accustomed to "political correctness" - and this sometimes seems to entail compliance with some inauthentic and unconvincing vision of modern Britain, achieved by including token representatives of minority groups. Any gross failure to conform to this stereotype - for whatever reason - seems to stand out as an act of deliberate or inadvertent defiance.

My local paper serves a large borough of West London, containing people with a wide diversity of ethnic backgrounds. What message are the non-white families going to get from this advertisement? That they are not welcome at this Zoo?

Perhaps those responsible for this advertisement - including those at the local paper who accepted and printed it - will deny any conscious racism. But that's not the point. Racism is not only manifested as overt bigotry - it may also be manifested through unconscious choices. That's an excellent example of POSIWID - what matters here is the effect.

After all, racism is rarely acknowledged in ourselves. Racism is always other people, isn't it?

Bigot Brother

The producers of Celebrity Big Brother (Channel Four and Endemol) must be secretly delighted with the latest scandal, in which Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty is apparently being bullied by three white working class females. [BBC News, Shetty Profile] 

 "Is this racism or class warfare? You decide. Viewers can phone a premium rate number to express their preference for multiracial tolerance."  

As if. As if "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" would want to put more money into Endemol's coffers. David Cameron has advised right-minded people to switch off instead [BBC News]. (In the past such advice from a Conservative Party leader would have doubled viewing figures, but those days are long gone.)  

Update: Apparently the phone-in profits have been given to charity. So that's all right then. 

The rest of the media are enjoying the scandal as well, discussing the offensive behaviour at great length. In yesterday's Times, columnist Carol Midgley wrote some sensible things ("Far from 'not tolerating' bullying, the brains at Endemol have deliberately caused it. And it is not just Shetty who is the victim.") but then spoiled her article by using an offensive racial term to describe one of the contestants. (I am shocked, shocked that the Times subeditors permitted this term.)

Carol Midgley Pedigree v pit bull: Big Brother's cynical face (Times, January 17th, 2007)

Today's Times reminds us that "what we see on Big Brother is only one of many possible stories" - in other words, so-called "reality" is selective and ultimately subjective. According to Burhan Wazir, the scenes selected for broadcast by Endemol will have done no harm to Shetty's career, but have probably destroyed the careers of the three Z-list celebrities portrayed as having bullied Shetty.

Burhan Wazir, They're in big bother (Times, January 18th, 2007)

Above all one Jade Goody, a previous winner of Big Brother. Endemol executives must be thinking of the immortal lines of Eminem: "We created a monster, now everyone wants ter see Jade Goody evicted ..." 

One of Shetty's first starring roles was in a film called Main Khiladi Tu Anhari (1994) [Review by Philip Lutgendorf]. I understand this is the Hindi for something like "I'm good-looking and successful, and you are an ignorant slob." Quite so.  

Wikipedia: Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells