I felt the need to write this article after hearing Historian David Starkey’s comments“ The Whites have become Black” which he expressed on Friday 12th August on Newsnight. The riots and looting that took place regionally involved all races yet somehow Starkey’s finger of blame is being directed solely with one group of people. Black people and their “perceived” culture.
Starkey is a historian and one who clearly picks and chooses what aspects of findings he wants to use to push his argument and agenda, which is narrow minded and offensive. Yes Black culture has been influential in England but also across the world in positive ways from food, music and clothes, though Starkey seems to blame black culture for the change in language and so much more. He said "This language which is wholly false, which is this Jamaican patois that’s been intruded in England
He went on to say “Listen to David Lammy, an archetypical successful black man, if you turned the screen off so you were listening to him on radio you’d think he was white." I am not sure what point he was trying to make but clearly anyone who speaks like him must represent who he believes he is, which is intelligent, educated and civilised. Making the David Lammy comparison would also imply that he is somehow different from other Black people. The overall tone was Us vs. Them, maintaining the greater than (Superiority) and Less than (Inferiority) tone. "The Whites have become Blacks.” As I repeat this again and again to find some sort of clarity of what he means, I hit a dead end each time. What does he mean? He mentions Chav’s so am I to assume that chavs are the new Blacks? Either way his comments are offensive in the same way as...
Starkey also said it’s not about skin colour it’s culture and then proceeds to mention Black culture. Culture is ideals, beliefs, art, literature etc of particular groups. The group he is choosing to focus on is Black, so how is his statement not about skin colour and therefore ‘race’?
Language is important and so are labels. Both are powerful in both conscious and unconscious ways. Recent developments in the analysis of DNA, confirms that the concept of ‘race’ is a constructed one, with no objective basis in biology. This concept as well as the notions of ‘Black’ and ‘White’ were imposed by the colonial powers. Rustin (1991) said, “It is both an empty category and one of the most powerful forms of social categorization” (Rustin, p.57). Categorising a group of people puts people in brackets and furthers the tone of hierarchy and rank. Colour terminology for ‘race’, the categorisation of people based on the colour of their skin, serves the same purpose. Black and white it isn’t, as no other group of people are defined or referred to by skin colour and no other colours in the spectrum of colours, has such diverse symbolic, metaphorical, cultural connotations attached to it (Lago & Smith, 2003).
Like the Chinese Ying and Yang symbol, black and white are seen as direct opposites of each other. However there strengths are individually celebrated and when viewed as a whole this symbol represents harmony and balance. In society these colours, which “identify” the ‘race’ of a group of people, seem only to encapsulate the separateness, conflict and a good vs. bad dualism.
It is this good Vs. Bad dualism that Starkey promotes within his Us vs. Them stance. Philosopher Martin Buber spoke of I/It and I/thou which furthers my point. I-Thou is a relationship of mutuality and reciprocity, while I-It is a relationship of separateness and detachment. As a result Starkey chooses to see “Black culture” as the problem here, even though the rioters and looters were off all ‘races’. He chooses to see what he wants to, and what he sees taps into the belief he already holds. The other members on the panel Dreda Say Mitchell and the author of Chavs Owen Jones made some great comments offering a diverse and wider perspective to Starkey’s narrow minded view, but were continually interrupted.
Starkey claimed it was the "destructive, nihilistic gangster culture'' which he said ''has become the fashion” to help explain the looters actions. The levels of consumerism has risen and with it greed. How can this “nihilistic gangster culture” be dumped at the door of one specific group? The rich and poor divide is widening, socio and economic factors need to be included as the rise in celebrity culture and so much more. When did being a gangster become synonymous with being black or part of the black culture? “Gangster culture” has been around for decades. Cowboys and Indians, Scarface, The Godfather, The Krays and even The Mitchell Brothers in EastEnders for example, all have glorified violence, wealth, control and power, so isn't this more to do with media glorification than black culture?
Starkey claimed it was the "destructive, nihilistic gangster culture'' which he said ''has become the fashion” to help explain the looters actions. The levels of consumerism has risen and with it greed. How can this “nihilistic gangster culture” be dumped at the door of one specific group? The rich and poor divide is widening, socio and economic factors need to be included as the rise in celebrity culture and so much more. When did being a gangster become synonymous with being black or part of the black culture? “Gangster culture” has been around for decades. Cowboys and Indians, Scarface, The Godfather, The Krays and even The Mitchell Brothers in EastEnders for example, all have glorified violence, wealth, control and power, so isn't this more to do with media glorification than black culture?
Psychologist Ellis (2004) said “When white society ignores their own basic feelings and need, black society have been programmed over centuries to take care of white society needs” (p.4). Alleyne extends this point by expressing “Black people continue to carry the transgenerational and intergenerational pain of their collective past, but also the burden of the other’s hidden shame and their own silent witnessing” (Alleyne, 2005, p.295). ‘Race’, difference and diversity stares us all in the face, yet as individuals we have all been conditioned to avoid it, and so the question of why never gets the attention it deserves. ‘Race’ is hard to look at especially within its historical context, this is an important acknowledgement and for me begins to explain why people with views like Starkey find it easier to place the blame elsewhere.
Lowe (2008) hits the nail on the head by acknowledging ‘race’ as paranoid-schizoid splits. Projective identification created centuries ago, deemed whites as the desirable superior aspect of the self and blacks as the inferior undesirable aspects hence the good vs. bad dualism. Gomez (Cited in Lowe) said “Demons are easily made when we identify with one side of a split’ . . . we are prone to externalize what we cannot bear within, terrified of seeing ourselves like the groups we repudiate”. (2008, p.20).
1. self 2.Other
Pic: Individual 1. projects or expels ‘internal’ objects from within itself whilst the other ‘internalises’ or has
them projected ‘into’ them.
It is easier to lay blame with the Other than to turn the same finger to self to look at self. As I said there are many factors involved within the events that took place over a week ago. Starkey’s comments are lazy, offensive and an abuse of his knowledge.
Given that relations between black and white groups over several centuries have been typified by oppression, exploitation and discrimination, how might contemporary relationships be transformed into creative (rather than further damaging) experiences? Referring back to the Chinese Ying and Yang symbol, both the perceived opposite aspects of self need to be embraced.
However Sampson (Cited in Alleyne, 2004) illustrates “The Other [Black person] is an essential presence without whom the protagonist could not be who they claim to be” (Alleyne, 2004, p.50), the risk therefore may be too great. Society, ‘race’, psychotherapy and so much more, as we know it would be revealed to be nothing more than a construct based on false beliefs. So whilst discussion need not come from a place of blame but open mindedness, understanding and acceptance, the risk may be too great to bear. It is this which stops progression.
This is not about Black culture it is about Blame culture. Blame perpetuates a dysfunctional cycle. To move forward everyone needs to look at all the factors involved and that includes the government and police who are currently finger pointing each other. If they all came together the solution of how to move forward could be found. Those who committed acts of crime need to look at themselves and take responsibility for their actions. Everyone had a choice and in that moment they made theirs. What occurred extended beyond class, and 'race' and it is important that those who comment on these events remind themselves of this.
References:
Rustin, M. (1991). Psychoanalysis, racism and anti-racism. In the Good society and the inner world. London: Verco.
Lago, C., & Smith, B. (Eds.). (2003). Anti-discriminatory practice. London, UK:Sage.
Ellis, B. (2004). Using Macrocosm to understand the Microcosm. Black therapist, White client. Politics in the therapy room.
Alleyne, A. (2005). Invisible injuries and silent witnesses: The shadow of racial oppression in workplace contexts.
Lowe, F. (2008). Colonial Object Relations: Going underground Black-White Relationships.
References:
Rustin, M. (1991). Psychoanalysis, racism and anti-racism. In the Good society and the inner world. London: Verco.
Lago, C., & Smith, B. (Eds.). (2003). Anti-discriminatory practice. London, UK:Sage.
Ellis, B. (2004). Using Macrocosm to understand the Microcosm. Black therapist, White client. Politics in the therapy room.
Alleyne, A. (2005). Invisible injuries and silent witnesses: The shadow of racial oppression in workplace contexts.
Lowe, F. (2008). Colonial Object Relations: Going underground Black-White Relationships.
Alleyne, A. (2004). The internal oppressor and black identity wounding.
© Lisa Bent 2011
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar