Differing forms of racism leave us all in a grey area
THE word ‘racist’, both an adjective and a noun – means having a prejudice, discrimination or antagonism towards or against a person or people, which is based on their race or if they belong to a minority or marginalised group within society, but it does not in any way preclude the word from being used in reference to people with white skin as they are just as likely to be victims as anyone else, for exactly the same reasons.
We are privy to such racism in the Gold Coast Bulletin Letters to the Editor and Chatroom on a daily basis – and it’s directed almost in every instance towards those from New Zealand and Great Britain, and yet there’s no huge outcry from readers, no protests, nobody’s contacting the Human Rights Commission citing personal offence or offence on behalf of others.
We recently saw hundreds of thousands of people protesting around the world at the situation involving George Floyd, the black man in America who died at the hands of white police officers. Here, protesters also rallied in response to the deaths of indigenous people in police custody around Australia.
We saw banners proclaiming “Black Lives Matter” everywhere, and in the UK, Premier League players wore shirts displayed with those same words in place of their own names, and players “took the knee” in support of both George Floyd and anyone who has been a victim of police brutality and racism.
Somehow it all went pear shaped when a white, 24-year-old fan, took responsibility for his part in a banner with the words “White Lives Matter Burnley” written on it, which was flying behind a plane over the Etihad stadium prior to the match between Manchester City and Burnley.
The result? The fan was instantly dismissed from his job, and Burnley Football Club stated that those involved would be banned for life.
The reason for both decisions was that neither his employers or Burnley FC condones or tolerates racism in any form. Fair enough, I don’t have a problem with that at all, but by taking the actions they did they were both guilty of exactly what they said they were totally against – “racism” in its purest form. Except this time it was “reverse racism” which is apparently okay.
For simply changing a single word on a banner, from ‘black’ to ‘white’, the whole Black Lives Matter campaign has been changed because racism is racism and it means exactly the same.
I am unable to understand how the rules or interpretation of something can be so different, when they’re based on exactly the same inalienable rights of individuals, except for the word ‘black’ being changed to ‘white’. Is one a racist slur while the other is a simple statement of fact?
What ends up happening is that any impact made, any headway in trying to change things for the better, gets bogged down with semantics.
GAEL BEALE, GOLD COAST