Racists and Culturists

Not so long ago it was acceptable to attribute variations in human ability and achievement to variations in ethnicity. The nineteenth century’s eminent thinkers were content to attribute specific mental traits to specific ethnic groups. Some races, it seemed, were not equal to others. Some were brighter or dimmer, kinder or slyer or more indolent, more violent or less capable of sexual restraint.

Consequently, Europeans (who by good fortune discovered themselves to be the brightest race) used these beliefs to justify their conquest and subjugation of other races. Some races needed saving from themselves. Some races were too feeble-minded to drag themselves out of their primitive state. They were certainly too backward to exploit the riches of the lands God was benevolent enough (yet oddly naïve enough) to have bestowed upon them. The technological superiority of Europe could be explained as a product of biological superiority.

After the racially motivated atrocities of the Second World War such views fell from polite conversation. They are still with us of course, but they are far less likely to be voiced. Now if one has a hunch about the inferiority of a particular ethnic group it is safer to blame the culture of that group, rather than its genes.

This is not say that all who decry Islam are just closet haters of Arabs and Pakistanis, or that all those who criticise Israel are just closet haters of Jews. Some are and some aren’t. Some people genuinely do fear other peoples for their culture alone, rather than their biology. For all his delusions, I doubt Tony Blair is a racist in the biological sense. He is pro-capitalist, pro-western and pro Judeo-Christian – to the extent that he is desensitised to the killing of anyone who challenges the influence of these cultures. People of other worldviews can go to hell, and he spent his time in office sending them there. But I doubt biology plays a part. You can be any colour you like with Tony, as long as you subscribe to his mind-set.

This is clearly not the case with the BNP or the EDL, regardless of their protestations. Theirs is old-style biological racism with the thinnest coat of culturist whitewash. Five minutes in the pub would be long enough to discover that you were in the presence of the master race (as so often with master-races, appearances can be deceiving.)

Between these two poles lies a mass of confusion and inconsistency. Many racists and culturists swap clothes freely, as the argument swings. Most people who attribute social evils to race never quite spit out what they mean at root. One moment it sounds like a criticism of biology, the next a criticism of culture. For the sake of clarity then, it might help to spell out the differences. To take a fictional example, one might imagine the rantings of an Eastasian racist:

The people of Eurasia are born lazy.
The people of Oceania are born violent.

Clearly these are biological traits - genetic, fixed, and irredeemable. While not a recipe for genocide, this it is certainly a key ingredient. These are the first steps in the relegation of a section of humanity to a subspecies, the transformation of humans into animals, and, if history is the judge, the same treatment as animals. They may end up feared and isolated, or patted on the head and an attempt made to train them. Breeding with them might be frowned upon, and any offspring born of such a union find themselves spurned. They might not be accorded the same property rights as full humans, and their land considered ripe for exploitation by the more ‘advanced’ races. At the extreme end they may be rounded-up and enslaved, or rounded-up and exterminated.

Alternatively, the more sophisticated Eastasian xenophobe might take the modern ‘cultural’ line:

The people of Eurasia are merely victims of a worldview that causes them to be lazy.

The people of Oceania are merely victims of a worldview that causes them to act violently.

This certainly is less damning. The implication is that if babies from Eurasia and Oceania were brought to the safety and civilization of Eastasia they would develop and prosper as well as any Eastasian child. For all the cultural loathing, at least everybody remains human. One might hope that this key difference would suggest better treatment, and in some respects it might. Presumably this culturist stance would rule out slavery and mass extermination, at least on racial grounds. It implies that everyone should receive equal treatment before the law, and that no-one should be considered less-than-human on grounds of race.

It seems odd to conclude that hating people for their beliefs is any better than hating them for their skin colour, but that could be just because hating people is always wrong. So we could wind it back to ‘mistrusting people'. Is it better to mistrust someone for their beliefs than mistrust them for their skin colour? Here I suppose the answer has to be yes, at least in some cases. A person’s skin colour doesn't govern their actions. It is our thoughts that determine what we do - how nice or nasty we are to others. We can justify mistrust of someone if we believe they harbour harmful thoughts. If we don’t like someone’s ideology we can strive to keep them out of positions of power and influence. This is the heart of political struggle.

But of course if your judgement of another person’s culture is based on ignorance, then your views can be every bit as dumb as a prejudice based on skin colour. You can be every bit as bigoted in selecting cultural traits as you can be in picking racial traits. Furthermore you can be just as fascist in your treatment of those harbouring ‘enemy culture’ as you can of those harbouring ‘enemy skin colour’.

In contrast to the nineteenth century, the invasions and occupations of the early twenty-first century were not justified on racial grounds. This was a ‘clash of civilisations’ not races, or so we were told. Aside from the lies about hidden weaponry, these were wars against regressive culture, toxic politics, the ‘mediaeval mind-set’. Yet when you look at the consequences the differences are trivial. A country is invaded and its civilian population is slaughtered. Anyone resisting is imprisoned and tortured. A regime is installed conducive to the wishes of the invaders, and the country’s riches are syphoned away. An everyday story of nineteenth century racism, just without the racism.

If your possessions are stolen, is it of any comfort to be told it was done because of your ideology rather than your biology? Would a grieving parent care that their children were killed in a dispute over culture rather than race? While it is possible to criticise culture in a way that is never permissible with race, it is the thin end of a wedge. ‘Culturism’ can be every bit as bigoted as racism, and its consequences can be just as awful.

Children’s Career Aspirations - an exchange with CBBC

Dear BBC,

I would like to complain about the contribution CBBC appears to be playing in creating unrealistic aspirations in its young viewers.

As you may have heard, a recent study has detected a marked shift in the career aspirations of British Children over the past 25 years. According to the Daily Telegraph, “Twenty five years ago, youngsters wanted to become teachers, bankers or doctors. But pre-teens today are hoping to find fame through sport, pop music or acting”….”And what they watch on TV is now rivalling their parents as the biggest influence on children's choice of careers”….”Becoming a sports star like footballer Wayne Rooney is the top ambition of today's pre-teens the dream of 12 per cent” or “following in the footsteps of X Factor winner Leona Lewis and making it big as a pop star.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/6250626/Children-would-rather-become-popstars-than-teachers-or-lawyers.html

Now look at a selection from last Saturday’s CBBC schedule, much of which I sat through with my step daughter. (The listings and comments are taken from the Guardian website)

07:40 MOTD Kickabout
Football show featuring stars from the worlds of sport and entertainment
08:30 The Slammer
Four imprisoned entertainers perform for their freedom,
10:00 School For Stars
[speaks for itself]
10:30 The Big Performance
Choirmaster Gareth Malone coaches a group of 10 shy children to perform in public, before they face the challenge of singing for an audience of 40,000 at the London Proms in the Park
11:55 Newsround
Current affairs reports aimed at a younger audience [that is, current affairs heavily weighted towards sport and celebrity]
13:30 Dani's House
Comedy show about the misadventures of a highly strung 17-year-old actress……………

Is it not fair to say such a schedule fuels this worrying trend in childrens aspirations? Isn’t it time CBBC set a good example, and moved away from celebrity culture?

Thank you for your consideration. I await your reply.

Best wishes,

Martin Johnson
Brighton

....................

Dear Mr Johnson
Reference CAS-1061839-S78PDQ
Thanks for contacting us about CBBC.
I understand that you feel programme such as ‘Newsround’ and ‘Dani’s House’ encourage children to want to become pop stars or footballers instead of doctors and teachers. I note that you feel this is the wrong example to be setting for children and you think we need to move away from celebrity culture.
We set out to provide children with a wide variety of programmes in order to cater for their different ages, tastes and needs. We believe we are constantly in the forefront of children's programming, and offer the widest range of imaginative and informative programmes but we do appreciate that not every programme will appeal to every child.
Over the years there has been a substantial change in the style and presentation of children's programmes. However, such changes tend to be a reflection of changes in society. The BBC must remain in touch with its audience and responsive to its needs.
Please be assured the programme makers take their responsibility to our young audience very seriously. Indeed, every effort is made to meet the expectations of parents and children in our audience during this programme and all content is subject to our strict set of Editorial Guidelines.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/
Nevertheless I do appreciate that you feel our programme promote celebrity culture therefore please be assured that I’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks once again for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards
Claire Jordan
BBC Complaints

.........................

Dear Claire Jordan,

Thank you for taking the time to answer. I’m not sure why you chose to highlight ‘Newsround’ and ‘Dani’s House’ – my case is hardly weakened by ‘School For Stars’ or ‘The Big Performance’. These four programs alone constitute over 90 minutes of fame obsessing in one morning schedule. You suggest that there is “a wide variety of programmes” catering to “different ages, tastes and needs”. Can you please send me an example? Where is a program that celebrates any plausible or socially useful role such as doctor or teacher or refuse collector? Where is the truly aspirational scientist, rather than the stereotypical nerd scientist of ‘Dani’s House?’

You also suggest that the “BBC must remain in touch with its audience and responsive to its needs.” But surely there is more to children’s needs than their immediate desires, particularly when those desires are fostered by a celebrity obsessed media. Rather than the need to cry at auditions, or the need to cling to an illusion of fame, what about the need to contribute to a humane society?

No doubt CBBC could serve the immediate desires of many teenagers if it racked-up the sex and violence – just like the evening programming – but quite rightly this would be considered detrimental to the outlook of children. As there is now also compelling evidence to suggest that the media is having a negative effect on the career aspirations of children isn’t it time to put celebrity in the same box? Isn’t it the duty of the state broadcaster to buck the celebrity trend, rather than foster and exploit it?

I’d rather not be added to an ‘audience log’, I’d rather my concerns were addressed.

Best wishes and waiting to hear.

Martin Johnson,
Brighton

....................

Dear Mr Johnson

Reference CAS-1083455-1YBSTM

You complaint has been forwarded to me as the Controller of CBBC.

I’m afraid that I can’t agree with the assertion that CBBC is ‘Celebrity Obsessed’.

We cover a wide range of programming on CBBC and the values that underpin our content include empowering and inspiring children; helping them make sense of the world around them; providing them with positive role models; introducing them to worlds and individuals they may otherwise not experience, and crucially providing them with moments when they can just laugh out loud and be silly.

I take a different view on the shows you mention and do not believe they are focused on ‘fame obsessing’ - on the contrary the values I mention above are evident in many of them.

In The Big Performance choirmaster extraordinaire Gareth Malone takes ten shy children who love to sing but are terrified of performing in public due to the fact that were bullied in the past. He takes them on a journey to restore their fragile confidence and to finally perform in front of the nation on Children In Need night linking up with other children’s choirs across the UK. I’m extremely proud of this show and believe it will have inspired and empowered many children watching at home.

In School for Stars the message is that it takes real motivation, commitment and sheer hard work to succeed in any field. The programme-makers skilfully explain the importance of attainment in both the academic and performance fields and provide an antidote to the idea that success is achievable by just desiring it.

Newsround will continue to cover sports and entertainment in addition to news stories that matter to children and I believe we get that balance right. Over the last year we’ve travelled the globe to help our audience understand the big news stories - we have been to Kabul to explain what it’s like to be a child growing up in a warzone; provided context to the earthquake in Japan; looked at the impact of the drought in Africa. On the domestic front we provided extensive analysis of the summer riots; the problems in the Eurozone; the newspaper-hacking scandal. Our award winning specials have covered subjects as diverse as autism, cancer and how young people’s lives are affected by their parents’ relationship with alcohol.

You asked for examples of shows that ‘celebrate a plausible or socially useful role’ - there are many but I have listed just a few examples below:

Steve Backshall inspiring the next generation of wildlife experts and adventurers in Deadly 60 and Live ‘N Deadly.

Helen Skelton from Blue Peter undertaking immense physical and mental challenges and living up to her mantra ‘impossible is just a word’.

Horrible Histories engaging children with the themes and narratives of history and encouraging them to find out more for themselves.

Richard Hammond passionately bringing science to life in ‘Blast Lab’.

Dick and Dom exploring the work of wildlife rescue centres and vets in Dick and Dom Go Wild.

Six children training with the Metropolitan Police to see what it takes to be a policeman in Cop School.

Coming up we have a number of new series including ‘We Could Be Heroes’ where we follow children training with the emergency and rescue services. We also plan to shine a light on the subjects of biology and medicine in a new series fronted by two very exciting young doctors.

I hope my reply addresses your concerns and if you want I’m very happy to continue this conversation with you on the telephone.

Best wishes,
Damian Kavanagh
Controller CBBC.