It’s one of those phrases that makes you wince, isn’t it? As soon as someone says, something like “I’m not a racist, but…”, you know the next words you hear are going to be something like:

But those Muslins have got a lot to answer for…

And yes, they quite often would get the name of the religion wrong, just before they then go onto complain that these people are getting better jobs.

*sigh*

I’ve been thinking about writing this article for a couple of weeks, ever since The Goldfish produced her (?) Guide to Talking about Stuff without Sounding like a Racist, which I must say was one of the best pieces on the subject matter of racism that I’d seen for a long time and was very much the inspiration behind this piece.

Where do I start?

Generalising and Demonising: Asylum Seekers

The unfortunate thing is that, as nonsensical as it is to label asylum seekers in general with the “bogus” tag, there are invariably some who come here (and other places) for the purpose of finding better economic conditions, rather than actually seeking asylum. Which is why using broad sweeping generalisations is of course nonsense.

I understand that some people feel that economic migrants are a drain on this country’s resources, but as I don’t have the relevant facts and figures I’m prepared to let that one pass for now. No, what surprises me is the demonisation of these people, even if they are economic migrants rather than people seeking genuine asylum. In these circumstances, I would expect that not granting them asylum is the appropriate action, rather than treating them as scum.

After all, all they are trying to achieve is a better life for themselves and their families. Is that so wrong? Can we not comprehend the urges that would lead people to do this? Of course we can. It’s why people move within this country to look for a better job elsewhere. The few bogus asylum seekers may be attempting to cheat the system, but the desire for a better life that lies behind it is perfectly natural…

I think on the whole you’ll find that asylum seekers don’t want to live off the state. Some may, but if you’re going to criticise them for it, you should also look at those British people who are “spongers and scroungers” too.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that these people don’t want to work. Although that might be true. After all, I don’t want to work — if my employer volunteered to keep paying me without me providing any work in return, that would be fine. But — like unemployed people — when given a choice between working and being paid, or not working and having bugger-all money, I’m prepared to work.

As is pretty much everyone else — although in the interests of not making sweeping generalisations I’m prepared to concede that there may be some people who would rather have little money but get to watch daytime TV. I can’t imagine why, but it’s possible.

Again, it’s that generalising is the problem. Asylum seekers aren’t all bogus, just as the unemployed aren’t all scroungers (and conversely, they aren’t all genuine or actively looking for work).

Roy ‘Chubby’ Brown as a Mirror of Prejudice

I watched a documentary the other week on Channel 4 about Roy ‘Chubby’ Brown called Britain’s Rudest Comedian where the interviewer watched as he made some racist jokes on stage, and also followed this up with a few racist remarks in front of the camera off-stage.

When challenged by the interviewer, Chubby pointed out that it was meant to be a joke, and asked why this was deemed to be inappropriate by the interviewer, as opposed to his remarks about homosexuality or women.

The interviewer offered the feeble answer that this was because Chubby was making these remarks (mostly about Muslims and/or asylum seekers) from a position of strength, as opposed to his “war-of-the-sexes” jokes which were about someone losing the war.

Bollocks. You just sunk yer own argument with that one matey. Does this joke sound “oh, I’m beaten down”, or is it plain nasty?

My wife is so fat that when she pulls her knickers down to her knees her minge and her arse are still in them

Roy ‘Chubby’ Brown

…and this was a line used in the documentary, you note, so you’d expect that the documentary maker might have heard it.

How can that count as anything but offensive? Sure, it was delivered well, and it got a round of applause, but it’s an awful long way from being right-on…

Furthermore, the interviewer completely sidestepped the argument on whether or not it’s okay to make jokes about “puffs and queers” — presumably because he’d dug a big enough hole for himself already.

What this actually demonstrated — other than the fact Chubby Brown has a whole range of offensive material, but that’s hardly news — was the in-built prejudices of the interviewer.

It appears that he knew that racism is bad without stopping to consider why.

The reason that racism is bad is because it means people carry around preconceptions or make judgements about another person solely on the colour of their skin, not based upon their actual personality or ability.

If the interviewer had actually demonstrated an understanding of why the “-ism” was bad, then he would have applied it equally to homophobia and to sexism. Instead, he demonstrated his ignorance of the nature of prejudice — or possibly his own prejudices — by demonstrating that although he couldn’t tolerate racism, he didn’t seem to find a problem with sexism or homophobia.

PC or not PC, that is the question

This doesn’t mean I’m automatically “ultra-PC”. Although I do sometimes read The Guardian, so tick your bleeding-heart liberal box now if you feel the need.

No, I’m not ultra-PC. I do however think it’s nonsense to say that one form of discrimination is acceptable and others are unacceptable. They are either both acceptable or they aren’t. Or, equally possibly, it’s not as black and white as that, and they fall into some sort of grey area.

What I think we should all do is to examine our own prejudices, and question them. You don’t think you have any? Read on, bucko…

Do you feel that a joke about an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman is racist? You might secretly know that it is, at least a little bit, but you’d feel comfortable telling that sort of joke, wouldn’t you? You know it’s about a stereotype that doesn’t really exist, but you’d still feel comfortable telling it, wouldn’t you? I would. I’m holding my hand up now.

Now, imagine the joke has an Englishman, a Nigerian and a Scotsman, and the Nigerian is the idiot butt of the joke. Is that still funny? Is it racist? But most importantly, would you feel comfortable telling it?

I certainly don’t think I would. But that very fact means that I would treat the Nigerian and Irish nationalities differently: I already have different thoughts about them, and I’m not treating them equally.

I guess I’m not alone in this. I think because it’s because it’s an “Irish” joke, it’s seen as a traditional sort of a joke with just maybe a teensy hint of racism whereas we imagine that a joke about a Nigerian would more likely be perceived as racist. We’re consciously trying to be PC, but doing so in such a way that we actually do treat people differently because of their nationality.

Next scenario: you’re at a football match, the opposing winger is making mincemeat of your team. Suddenly he stands on the ball and falls over. What do you jeer at him?

1. Ha ha! You stupid bastard!
2. Ha ha! You stupid French bastard!
3. Ha ha! You stupid black bastard!

Most people — assuming that they were happy with the swearing — would say that the first two comments were fine, but the third one was dodgy. Some would argue that the second is dodgy as well, because it’s bringing the guy’s nationality into it.

And then some people would argue that if “French” is okay to identify a single player in a multi-national team with one Frenchman in it, then how is this any different from using “black” to identify one black player in similar circumstances? After all, there was a guy playing for Trinidad & Tobago in the last world cup who was constantly referred to as “that white guy” in every pub conversation relating to the Trinidad & Tobago team.

If it’s being used solely for identification, is it ok? But then of course how do we know when it’s just being used for identification and when “French” or “black” is the reason for the abuse?

Me? Oh, I dunno. I’d just call him a stupid wanker and be done with it…

I guess what I’m trying to say is that we all already have preconceptions, relating to race, age, gender, religion, sexuality and so on, and that the way these are applied to our day to day lives isn’t necessarily as correct and clear cut as we might like to think, but will be coloured by our perceptions of what we, and those around us, are comfortable with.

Which brings me rather nicely to…

Daddy, Look at the Funny Man!

Tom Shakespeare recently wrote about the job prospects of people with restricted growth and that got me thinking about attitudes towards disability, too.

Actually, the first thing I thought of, when thinking about the job prospects of people with restricted growth was something my Uncle Andy said to me one Christmas. It might make more sense if I told you my Uncle worked for the theatre…

You would not believe how difficult it is to hire dwarves this time of year

Uncle Andy

It’s one of things that strikes you as very likely true — I’d imagine that persons of restricted growth who are actors — and are prepared to appear with Snow White — will be harder to find than usual in pantomime season.

And then I did that Guardian-reader thing of trying to work out whether or not I should feel guilty for finding that funny. Am I supposed to find it funny? Again, that would depend on why I find it funny.

If it’s funny in a “look at the funny man” kind of a way, then no. Fortunately, it’s funny in the sense of being so obviously true as soon as you consider it but something that you would never normally even begin to contemplate…

So, attitudes to disability.

Tom suggests that while persons of restricted height have a higher chance of being employed than people with other disabilities, there is discrimination against them, particularly in the sense that they tend not to end up achieving the levels of the job that their experience, abilities and educational level would otherwise expect.

There are a number of possible reasons for this. I’d suggest Tom is right, and that discrimination — conscious or not — is probably the largest factor. However, another factor might be confidence. Anyone who has met Tom will have been struck by his energy and passion, his zeal and zest for ideas, and whether this is simply a public persona or the way he is all the time, would go some way to explain the fact he’s managed to achieve such a lot. Those with similar abilities, experience and education — but without that confidence — would have been unlikely to have achieved so much.

If restricted growth is associated with low self-esteem — and I don’t know whether it is, but if it is — then the low-self esteem may be a factor, with more confident candidates naturally achieving more. Of course, if this is the case, when you then put the question “why do people of restricted growth have low self-esteem”, you’ll probably find out that this is due to discrimination earlier in life. So, dammit, Tom’s right again.

When it comes to attitudes towards disabled people, however, as a non-disabled person I notice three distinct attitudes. Using the starting point of being sat with a small child on the bus and the small child saying:

Daddy, look at that man! Why is that man…

…the responses to this clearly define the attitudes as follows:

1. Sssh! Don’t draw any attention to it! Be quiet! You’re embarrassing me and him!
2. I’ll tell you later
3. That man is sitting in something called a wheelchair. Can you see that little stick near his hand? When he pushes that it drives the wheelchair around…

I’m not sure which is the best category to fall into, or indeed whether there are any more categories that would be the preferred approach, but for what it’s worth, I tend to fall into the third category. My perception is that most people I encounter fall into the first category: they are terrified of their child saying something to offend or embarrass so — in my opinion at least — end up drawing even more attention to whatever-it-is by doing their best to pretend it isn’t there.

For me, the right thing to do is just to explain to the best of my ability to my child in a normal tone of voice. The conversation isn’t something I should be ashamed of having: it’s natural for my child to be curious. Indeed, when I did explain (although it was a normal “wheelie wheelchair” rather than one of the joystick-operated jobbies) the elderly lady using it joined in to explain that her legs “got too tired now”.

So that felt quite natural to me. I’m sure I’ll do some things wrong — like I’m never sure whether or not I should crouch down slightly when I’m talking to someone in a wheelchair so they aren’t staring up — but in general I just try to treat people normally, without this “walking on eggshells” mentality that seems to prevail because people are frightened of disabled people.

But seriously, disabled people aren’t broken. They deserve to be treated with respect, pretty much the same as everyone else. They deserve to be treated as human beings — as who they actually are — rather than a condition, just the same as everyone else. And they don’t deserve to be treated with “kid gloves” any more than anyone else does. You are allowed to use the phrase “I see what you mean” to a blind man: although if you then apologise profusely they’ll probably beat you with their stick.

Remember, there’s no need to be frightened of them. Even if they do come after you in their wheelchair, you can just head for the stairs…