Explaining Racism - overt racism vs racism victorious

People might look at the UK, and the antics of the National Front, the British National Party, the skinheads, the English Defence League, amongst other instances of perspectival decrepitude, and view it as a nation with lots of racism.

But having lived in the UK for half a decade, and spending quite a lot of time in the UK presently, I can conclude that it would be more true to say that it is the existence of egalitarian multiculturalism and even, at times, preferential treatment of difference (or disability even) that sees the racial supremacists and cultural introverts becoming more belligerent. Putting it another way, if there were no strong egalitarian movements, these racist or racialist organisations wouldn't exist, they would be in government and the people would, at least over time, be fascists themselves. This point is missed by most whom are shallow enough to just dismiss the UK as comparatively racist because the racism can at times be more overt.

Overt racism ought not to solely refer to the actions of those whom might be inclined to toss racist placards at difference, but the absence of the ‘racial’ majority standing by the different with arms akimbo. The latter point indicates the victory of racism to the point that belligerence is deemed superfluous. This, complemented by enough economic affluence to enable the disadvantaged ethnic groups to make ends meet, and meet with some modicum of a ‘majority-defined’ idea of ‘success’, tend to quieten 2nd and 3rd class citizens as they are led to believe that egalitarianism is true simply because a few amongst them can become 1st class citizens. The middle classes comprising members of the relatively disadvantaged ethnic groups will serve as the argument utilised by all to argue against allegations of racism. Toss in a figurehead of a president drawn from the disadvantaged, some ‘house niggers’ in the opposition whom are cast as evidence of the egalitarian nature of said opposition, and all allegations of racism is tossed aside and ‘harmony’ ensues.

The first reaction in the face of institutional racism is to do one’s best despite such conditions. The degree of success which one meets with in coping with, as opposed to contending with, such a milieu; the production of a middle class comprising members of all ‘races’; and the incorporation of the disadvantaged into activist groups not particular interested in the plight of ethnic minorities, is that which contributes to the nation transitioning from institutional racism to popular racism.

At such a time, the existence of harmony where the disadvantaged have gotten used to coping with such conditions, and the absence of overt and violent racism, is used as evidence of the absence of racism altogether. And with all 'races' gaining whenever socio-political gains are acquired by activists, they are detracted from the fact that it is only when the 'preferred race' gains, that they can hope for any gain.

But, in tandem with this, ethnic groups would have been diminished enough in terms of their unique cultural persona to not deem anything amiss as there is no conflict between what they are, in character, and what the dominant group is. And so long as not all of the ethnic minorities are identically disadvantaged all of the time, and with the aid of the socio-economic class system that fragments the consciousness of a racial group of itself as a class disadvantaged, self-blame, along with community self-help (along racial lines) can be relied upon to discount those whom allege racism as ‘troublemakers’. The advantaged group, themselves fragmented by class, and appreciating the similitude between the ‘races’ in that the working class comprises members of all ‘races’, will tend to themselves ignore such allegations. This, in turn, is exacerbated by the mutual apathy that is brought about in the face of monocultural and racially preferential policies uncontended with by all as they attempt to cope with it, and the 'preferred race' themselves not having to contend with such conditions.

Over time, the entirety of these conditions on the one hand, dilute the unique personas of members of other cultures to the point that the difference between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is closed, and on the other, leads to enough underdevelopment on the part of other ‘races’, brought about by the above and discrimination, to not be able to do as much than the dominant ‘race’ whom have had their sense of self-efficacy stoked and coaxed till they feel they can do anything, including holding top positions in the political and economic realms.

There is little or no violence in such a scenario, but that bespeaks the victory of racism. So when i look at the UK for instance, or the US, pre-Obama, I can appreciate the belligerence of racial supremacists and cultural introverts as they would not exist if there was not some semblance of an egalitarian movement. But, if the egalitarian movements win at the end, such racist groups would also cease to exist. But the absence of such racists can never be taken as evidence of the absence of racism unless it can be proven to be true that egalitarian movements had existed and become dominant prior to the disappearance of racist movements.


a2,

ed