The Sussexes are on the wrong side of the race debate
In using the empty language of Critical Race Theory, they prove that they don’t really understand Britain at all
Thomas Sowell, the inimitable African-American intellectual, was thinking in general terms when he wrote that “much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good”. We have seen this theme across the board, from enterprise to policy. But nowhere has it been more debilitating, more dangerous and more divisive than in the discussions surrounding race. In Britain, a remarkably broad section of society has now succumbed to the empty language of Critical Race Theory (CRT), and this, in a twisted irony, threatens to roll back the meaningful progress of race relations in the post-war era.
There was a time, not more than five years ago, when Britain might have avoided falling into this pit. The rhetoric of CRT had in the mid-2010s begun to circulate American universities, fuelled by that country’s particularly contentious race politics. We could have continued on our own journey, gradually improving integration, gradually eradicating discrimination – such as in the Metropolitan Police following the murder of Stephen Lawrence. But if the wholesale importation of America’s Black Lives Matter movement didn’t put an end to those hopes, then the Harry and Meghan saga certainly has. We have not escaped, but are on the verge of replicating the vicious American model.
In the Sussexes’ documentary, as elsewhere, the problem with the adoption of CRT is not that it raises the matter of racism, but that it asserts discrimination without proper explanation, since the language of CRT remains unquestionable. It uses pseudo-intellectual phrases, such as “structural racism” to pre-empt debate. It has a habit of using many words just before “racism” (institutional racism, unconscious racism, tacit racism, petty racism) in the knowledge that the R-word, when stated by or on behalf of a non-white person, is too sensitive to reproach.
In the broad definition that the term “structural racism” has taken on, practically any historical institution in the West can be defined as guilty of it. Financial institutions more than two centuries old will likely have engaged with the most prominent industries of their times; industries which did not meet the high moral standards of today, including the trade in African slaves. Monarchies in countries that were involved in that heinous trade will undoubtedly have historical connections to it, by virtue of their constitutional status. But to label them as “structurally racist” today would be to prevent them from ever being able to redeem themselves – a critical element in the system of justice.
Yet that is no accident. The language of CRT provides no path to redemption because many modern “race scholars”, many of whom have a financial interest in racism as a subject matter, do not believe in justice. What a waste of good faith. And what a waste of words which once had meaning. For the phrases now bandied about were appropriated from a place, or document, in which they had a specific meaning.
Institutional racism, for instance, was defined in the MacPherson review – held following the racist murder of black British teenager Stephen Lawrence and the Metropolitan Police’s handling of it – as “the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin”.
If this is the specific accusation being levelled at Buckingham Palace, then we should evaluate it on the basis of evidence. And if no evidence is provided, I will struggle to see the documentary as much more than a cynical ploy to exploit racial division for personal means.
Monarchies in countries involved in the slave trade have historical connections to it. But to label them ‘structurally racist’ is to prevent them from ever being able to redeem themselves