The issue is not one of historical guilt, it's one of definition. People think 'racism' means prejudice or discrimination or hatred or feelings of superiority or a person of one race being treated badly by a person of another race but that is not the case. Racism is all those things + power.
That power component is essential.
Therefore, by definition, while prejudice or discrimination or hatred or feelings of superiority or a person of one race being treated badly by a person of another race are all potentially a two-way street, racism itself, in a given country or region, can only be a one-way street due to the power dynamic. In the UK historically and currently almost all the power is on one side, and it's that power which allows racism to be meaningfully felt. It's the power component which means that the other 'suffers' racism rather than just being theoretically aware of it.
I appreciate that this might seem like a semantic issue but it's not; the point is that we need to first accept that there's a power component in racism before we can properly tackle it. For years the general definition and people's gut feeling of what 'racism' means has failed to understand that.
This also means that much of the most essential work to combat racism has to take place at the structural level, to break down and neutralize that power gradient.
I hope that's a bit clearer.
The second point is that 'colour blindness', long sold as the desirable state of affairs has actually been shown to be functionally retrograde. The idea is that we should not even notice the colour of the people we meet and work with. It sounds fantastic and utopian, but in reality what it tends to do is undersell or even ignore the functional and structural components of racism that are going on.
Rather than try and ignore the race or colour of people around us, it may be better to be aware of it and keep an eye on whether people are being negatively affected by structural and unconscious racism, in a bid to fix problems rather than not notice they are there.
As part of this it's also worth bearing in mind that not even black people are always aware when they are undergoing/suffering structural racism. You'd assume that black people are acutely sensitive to racism and will always be aware of it. Not so. The structure is all-pervading and so dominant and unnoticed that, for example, black people sometimes end up acting structurally racist towards other black people (in corporate and institutional settings, for example) without even knowing it.
We've moved a long way from Origi and the banner.
Ok, well I wasn't going to comment on the
power component, but since you've quoted me and served it up as an *
overlooked addendum to the points I was making, I'll weigh in.
*[it wasn't]
Amongst people with
very little power within groups of any racial spectrum, power is not the primary thing which drives their attitudes and activities, and lacking power or influence is something which fucks over people of many assorted hues and backgrounds....even white people.
The
power component, as it contributes and pertains to racial imbalance, is a consideration for those who actually have power, or indeed influence etc.
Law makers, shot callers, administrators, employers etc...to name but a few.
I don't think, as you say, that for years people have failed to process or define 'racism' correctly because of disregard for the
power component. I think many people just resolve to address racism as it realistically manifests itself in their own social sphere, and for many people, this just boils down to living peacefully alongside diverse communities where 'nobody' really has any power, and 'everybody' faces social disadvantages.
These communities need an injection of "people" power if anything and any lobbying should be undertaken on that broader basis.
You say
THE issue was not one of historical guilt.
Well this was 'one' issue, and it was the one I opted to focus on as a relevance within my own sphere and was worthy of voicing.
THE issue is....well....
THE issue is something politicians say on Newsnight when they want to steer things towards what concerns themselves rather than the issue raised by their inquisitor.
So
THE issue is all of these aforementioned things + the
power component?
With all due respect though.....
not to me it isn't.
The issue for me is to treat everybody I encounter with respect and equanimity. However the power component sits, did sit, should sit etc is not something I factor into this resolve. It doesn't shape it, inform it, or in any way influence it.
Just like I won't wear historical guilt, nor will I assume sympathy or bend the knee for any one under-powered societal group over another.
So for me, a very proud 'non-racist' the two-way-street outlook remains intact because I'm no more responsible for [current] racial under-empowerment than I was for the historical abominations cited earlier.
These things [mentioned] may well serve the cause of identity politics but they are absolutely useless to a free-thinking person in framing their personal outlook towards their fellow men. If I've arrived at a healthy state of being when it comes to respect and regard for ALL men, then it's because I've steered well clear of history and politics in framing my outlook and have always resolved to take people as I find them...
personally....not as a representative of a certain social demographic.
Also, the notion of racially abusing or disrespecting somebody is so alien and abhorrent to me, that the "two-way-street" element remains nought but a psychological or social principle that is never likely to swim into focus on any personal level. It's much more likely to occur within social media and create outrage and drama amongst those who seem to openly court "outrage" and "drama"..
