Cultural Racism
Culture and race are often conflated in society nowadays. People went from believing that we were innately different due to our biology to our cultural practices are natural features. There is no biological difference between people, so they move onto culture.
One of the pervasive forms of cultural racism is when a white person (from the majority group) asserts that the inequalities are a result of non-racist processes. This helps to obscure and shield structural racism from being seen and addressed. Cultural racism is subtle and implicit in comparison with biological determinism. As a result, white people may perpetuate racist structures and their privilege without seeming racist or intending to be racist.
Ghassan J. Hage is an academic that contributes to debates on multiculturalism in Australia and has been published widely on the topic. Multiculturalism is a political policy which assumes cultural diversity benefits society as a whole, adopted by countries such as Canada and Australia. New Zealand, however, has chosen to adopt biculturalism instead, as it acknowledges Māori as the indigenous people of the land as opposed to just another minority.
According to Hage, there is a general assumption that when there is multiculturalism, there is tolerance. It is assumed that multicultural nations have made a break from a racist past. Unfortunately, if we look beyond the surface, we see that this is not the case. Hage compares different versions of multiculturalism by using an example from a children’s book, The Stew that Grew by Michael and Rhonda Gray. The book presents an allegory of Australian cultural diversity which can also be applied to New Zealand. According to Hage, it is an allegory fraught with an ideological paradox: ‘far from celebrating cultural diversity--or rather, in the process of so ‘doing actually embodies ‘a White nation fantasy in which White Australians ... enact ... their capacity to manage this diversity’ (Hage, 1998, p.119). He explains that although the stew is presented as the palatable blend of all the cultural influences which went into its making, it is not a mix where all cultures are equal: The Anglo character Blue is in charge of the cooking throughout ‘; the ‘ethnics’ are reduced to the function of adding flavour (Dudek & Ommundsen, 2007). This allegory is the overarching description of what I was trying to explain to my ex in this discussion.
I got into a heated discussion with an ex after I posted a quote from an article, after the Christchurch shootings in March 2019.
“Al-Asaad says we need to address violence in its many forms including colonisation, Islamophobia, racism, gender bias, family violence and hate towards the rainbow community so others don’t think they can commit violence.” You can’t help but wonder if this country was really honest about its history and identity if it wasn’t so blatantly Europeanist, white and colonial in its mindset and culture, would people like him feel confident enough to plan and carry out attacks like this with such impunity? “The answer is probably no.” (Parahi, 2019)
The institutions did not change when biculturalism came into effect, as adopting this policy required no change to actual structures or institutions. “I, as the manager of this space, am allowing you, an immigrant, to do what you want, within reason in my space”. Did I mention it was my space? Understand and never forget that this space was offered to you. Therefore, it can be taken away just as quickly if you anger me or do not act accordingly. Do not take too much space, I only want you here to add spice to my life and help me through caretaking but nothing more because you cannot have more power than me. The only things adopted from the immigrants enrich the life of the majority, usually from the realm of consumable items. It is a power relationship disguised, by the celebration of diversity. The quote above that sparked our heated debate tries to touch on that. As evident by my exes’ response, it was the “wrong” thing to do.
The discourse of multiculturalism mostly looks like the majority established as the managers of the national space. There is much underlying discontent festering under the guise of diversity. When someone (me) challenges the power by speaking up or merely participating equally, I get met with hostility and a visceral reaction. Simply put, I have no control in this space. I am not allowed to participate, evaluate or call out anything. My ex emphasises his power as manager of the national area by moving me from tolerable to intolerable because I am not supposed to have an opinion or ability. I am supposed to be grateful to be saved from my pitiful existence overseas. This is intolerance and racism masked as multiculturalism/biculturalism. They want immigrants for their usefulness, but they must be kept at a lower level than themselves.
My ex responded to the quote I posted saying:
“It was a [well-meaning] quote, but the guy essential[ly] blamed NZ culture for the attack which I didn’t find particularly constructive and somewhat skin to the white [supremacists] blaming Islam for the atrocities of Isis. Ha and possibly misdirected as it was an Australian who just came to [NZ] to carry out the attack because we are a ‘soft’ terrorist target”
To which I responded
“… It’s certainly not the first time I’ve seen a white institution make decisions according to the norms of white culture, and in doing so, marginalise the needs of minorities. I hope the terrorist attacks in Chch prompt some real soul searching from our people, institutions, and government agencies because for the moment, regardless of whether we think everyone should be treated equally, our democracy won’t enable our institutions to act accordingly unless the privileged majority start holding them to account. When people say that racism is alive and well in NZ, this is an element of what they’re talking about. Yes, we should all live in harmony holding hands and singing Kum-bay-yah, but until our institutions continue to implicitly deprioritise the needs of minorities then (and I’m sorry I have to say), THIS is who we are NZ.”
My ex responded by beginning to distance himself and feign ignorance. He blames the system and distances himself from the problem. This is a common reaction when White people are directly confronted with structural racism. The minimum amount of racial stress is intolerable (DiAngelo, 2019), so he attempts to reinstate the fundamental white equilibrium by reasoning and distancing himself.
He says,
“I completely agree there is racism in NZ, but it not who we are and blaming our culture is potentially missing the real threat which [is] extremists.”
My ex was pretending to agree with me about the presence of racism, but he was using othering tactics to distance himself from the problem further. To him, this is an isolated extreme act of prejudice rather than a symptom of the broader structural issues of racism in society (DiAngelo, 2019). To him, they are always intentional acts based on the conscious dislike or intolerance of someone.
“I largely agree with what you’re saying. I do not agree that it is right to blame our culture, which has had a tolerance for what is being described as casual racism. Letting a shitty racist comment slide from a guy or girl at the pub is not culpable of this atrocity. I completely agree that we have racism and more needs to be done about it but using this tragedy to attack mine and my fellow [kiwi’s] culture is not the way forward which is kinda what that [guy’s] quote does. It’s [gut-wrenching] enough to have 50 people from our community murdered before being blamed for it. His intention is [well-meaning] but by misdirecting the blame and anger is similar to saying that because [he] is [Muslim], they are somewhat responsible for 9/11. It’s simply not true just like a psychopathic [Australian] that has spent bugger all time in NZ is a product of our culture is not true.”
He attempts to reduce white supremacy to an extremist group issue as opposed to addressing it as the pervasive issue it truly is. White supremacy is not just an identity. It is embedded in most global institutions.
I responded:
“Completely understand where you’re coming from too. But I just really feel like I want to help you understand what many people go through and have gone through that you might not be privy to. All the sentiments of ‘this is not us’ are rejections of the idea that we’re all complicit in a society that allows intolerance to grow to a catastrophe like this. People mourn and respond when it escalates to violence. But most Pākehā can’t acknowledge the building blocks that lead to this, the small concessions they make every day that contributes to this. They can’t see and respond to it when it happens in front of them, which means they sure as hell aren’t aware of it when they do it themselves. By definition, you probably have no way of knowing about the (distinct but related) experiences of women, people of colour, minorities and Tangata Whenua in New Zealand. When we say that we experience systematic discrimination, or that they feel afraid, or that they’re hurting, or that society is broken and you can’t see it because the cracks don’t affect you, or affect you in a different and lesser way (yes, male suicide rates are high, all those usual kneejerk responses), then you have no grounds to do anything other than listen and say, OK, what can we do to help fix this? To speak to what you said about the comparison to blaming all Muslims for the actions of extremists. There is a world of difference between a group of people asking THEMSELVES what they could have done to prevent this, which is what I’m advocating and BLAMING another group of people, characterising them all as “the enemy” and so on. And that acknowledging that patriarchy and white supremacy and nearly every other social construct tend to benefit you (so long as we conform to the roles they create for you of course) doesn’t mean that you need to be “ashamed of being white” or whatever it is that the conservatives are so afraid of, it means that we can work together to fix things for all of us. Lastly, these acts of white supremacy are not just limited to Pākehā. I have seen countless instances of non-Pākehā people dragging themselves, or each other, down in a way to appease and to get closer to whiteness. I know that it’s an easy way of advancing your position, and it’s a natural temptation when you’re feeling hard done by. Particularly with East Asian people, we’re allowed to gain certain privileges and positions in Pākehā society by behaving in specific ways and ‘working hard’ and ‘assimilating’. But this does nothing to break down the structure that put us there in the first place. The guy that commented… He’s just as kiwi as you are. The other people who have been speaking to their experiences are just as kiwi as you are.”
He responded:
Ok, there is a problem we need to find a solution to. Events like last week should not be able to happen. You’ve said the racism that is supposedly part of our culture is the building blocks of extremist events like this. Surely you can see how this is blaming our culture and (because I disagree) insulting? But that doesn’t matter it was not my point if you didn’t say that or didn’t mean to say that it’s ok! I only wanted to say I do not agree with the guys quote that blamed NZ culture for the attack. I’m not using you coming to NZ against you. I’m pointing out that you’ve been welcomed ]into] NZ & enjoyed this country & its diverse culture, so it irks me that you’re now using this tragedy to attack it. I thought I [might] be misinterpreting what you were saying so got my old lady to read it and she was quite offended. Maybe we both misinterpreted. You don’t need to justify a thing to me. I’ve always listened and tried to be supportive, but I’m finding it particularly difficult at the moment. I’ve just read as far as “did you know that Maori make up 15% of our total population but 51% of our prison population? That’s a terrible indictment on our society”, and I’m tagging out. Yes I know the overrepresentation of Maori & Pasifika in our prisons this is not a new issue and it is one that the country has taken great steps to address over the past 20 years. There is a lot of work to be done, but something you may not be privy to is that NZ even 10-15 years ago was a very different place with a lot of progress in that time. Asking me that is condescending as is your insistence on explaining the issues with my country as though I am unaware of NZ’s flaws! NZ is a country I am very proud to call home. The community is pulling together to help one another, and Jacinda is responding in an inspiring way. You can sit on your laptop in the Philippines being outraged and criticising us, but I’m damn proud of who we are, and I’m going to do what I can to help my community in a positive way. Also, I need some space, so I’m switching off my messenger.
He uses racism as a verb, rather than a noun, describing the state of a society and its psychology. Whereas racism is not an action. It is embedded in our cultural and societal structures. Since white culture is inherently individualistic, any notion of calling out the truth is seen as an attack based on their colour, without acknowledging the uniqueness of the individual in question (DiAngelo, 2019). Instead of encouraging understanding and conversation, people become defensive and do not address the issues. Thus, perpetuating racist institutions. BIPOC are often told they are the ones being racist by mentioning structural inequality. By re-posting the quote, he felt personally attacked. So much so, that he felt the need to tell me he disapproved. My ex felt the post, and consequently, the discussion was a personal attack as opposed to contextual points. When I started discussing structural racism, he took it as an attack on his moral character as well as his fellow countrymen. My attempt to show him the reality objectively is seen as attacking the country that he allowed me to enjoy.
He had conceptualised hearing about racism as being told that he is racist. Throughout the conversation, he never failed to remind me that I was part of the others. He made it clear that I was invited to enjoy this space, but this was an opportunity no longer available to me as I dared to speak up. He also often mentioned how grateful I should be which his attempt at grasping his place as manager of the space while reminding me of my place. My efforts in showing structural racism through facts and statistics fell on deaf ears. He admitted to switching off from reading, and this is his white privilege coming through as I do not have the luxury of “tagging out” from my reality.
He ended the conversation with elements usually seen with “white women tears” (DiAngelo, 2019). He says
“you honestly can’t understand how you telling me my culture is responsible for the murder of 50 people [is upsetting and insulting]? You’ve just repeatedly argued with me because I didn’t like a comment that I perceived as blaming NZ culture for the attack. This whole conversation is upsetting, and I’m angry you don’t understand or want to acknowledge why”.
Instead of genuinely attempting to understand the painstakingly long factual responses I wrote to him, he reverted to using his emotions to decentre the issues at hand. Then, it became about his feelings and not the injustices or structural racism I was trying to discuss. Suddenly, I am the perpetrator of violence. As a result of this, instead of trying to learn about proper allyship and how to make an effective change, most people distance themselves, get angry or feign ignorance. They allow their own cultural (individualistic) ideas to colour what they hear.
I went from being a lamb in his eyes: small, cute, in need of protection from him and inferior to him, to a wolf he wants to eradicate (Hage, 2000). The whole space is organised, as per the quote, inherently Europeanist. If we are truly honest with ourselves, there is a reason as to why people like him felt confident enough to plan and carry out attacks with such impunity. The criminal justice system, social institutions, media representation favour white people and their culture as the gold standard (not just ethnocentrism, but steps beyond). White people are irrefutably in the place of power. We are all living in a society that was built on the backs of people of colour, for the benefit of white people. Recognise that injustice didn’t stop with the ancestors. White people are still presently benefitting from the very systems that marginalise people of colour. Feel convicted to reconcile today’s injustices. Those who say the past is the past are beneficiaries of past wrongs and choose not to acknowledge the inequities in history. Acknowledging there is a problem, and then moving forward together is the way to combat it.
References:
DiAngelo, R. (2019). White fragility: Why its so hard for white people to talk about racism. London: Allen Lane, an imprint of Penguin Books.
Dudek, D., & Ommundsen, W. (2007, December). Building cultural citizenship: Multiculturalism and children’s literature [Editorial]. Papers: Explorations into Children’s Literature, 17(2). Retrieved July 26, 2020, from https://go-gale- com.helicon.vuw.ac.nz/ps/i.do?id=GALE|A178401334&v=2.1&u=vuw&it=r&p=AONE &sw=w
Hage, G. (1998). White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society. Annandale, NSW: Pluto Press.
Parahi, C. (2019, March 17). Is the Kiwi way of life under threat after the terrorist attack in Christchurch? Stuff. Retrieved July 26, 2020, from https://www.stuff.co.nz/the- press/news/111339270/is-the-kiwi-way-of-life-under-threat-after-the-terrorist-attack-in- Christchurch Culture and race are often conflated in society nowadays. People went from believing that we were innately different due to our biology to our cultural practices are natural features.