Playing the ‘playing the racism card’ card
Playing the 'playing the racism card' card is a useful tactic when there's a likelihood of being labelled as a racist, due to saying things that some people might consider racist. Instead of simply not saying those things, launch into a world-weary "You can't even say anything nowadays without someone crying racism" passage, pointing out that you really aren't racist, no matter what words you come out with and how you arrange them, therefore you're not.
It is usually coupled with the idea of the "Uncomfortable Truth". This is the idea that rather than see the Uncomfortable Truth, your enemy (in this case, liberals) decides to play the racism card instead. You thereby portray them as the ones who are taking the easy option and being prejudiced, whereas you are working hard to expose the Uncomfortable Truth and are simply a victim of them playing the racism card. What Uncomfortable Truth, you might ask? Well, when it comes to a subject like Muslims, the Uncomfortable Truth is that Muslims can be extremists - but rather than face up to this Uncomfortable Truth, liberals simply Play The Racism Card when anyone dares mention it.
Richard Littlejohn understands these things well, and uses them to good effect in his latest column (link doesn't go to the Mail website), neatly eviscerated by Five Chinese Crackers:
Littlejohn obviously wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants t o be Islamophobic without being called Islamophobic. It's the old 'I'm not racist, but...' argument.
He can manage this because he bases his ideas about people on crude stereotypes. Whenever he comes into contact with someone who doesn't fit into a neat pigeonhole, he has to do some sort of 'not like the rest of them' contortion to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would result from having reality contradict his prejudices.
That Littlejohn's article should be illustrated with photos of women with their faces covered and a male Muslim protester holding a placard saying "ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD" is no accident, and fits in neatly with the tone of the article. Hey, I'm not anti-Muslim, but look! Here are some women with their faces covered! Here's an apparently Islamist looking angry! Come on! What more evidence do you need? Littlejohn claims to think there's a majority of decent Muslims and he's bending over backwards not to be racist, so what better way to illustrate that than with those images?
Yes, he does claim he's bending over backwards not to be racist. While saying:
Most of the Muslims I know are from Pakistani or Turkish backgrounds. What they have in common is that they all identify as Londoners. Then again, I’m fortunate to live in a part of the world where people of all races and religious persuasions rub along well.
The same can’t be said of some neighbourhoods in towns and cities, especially in the North of England, where the indigenous population has been supplanted by a hostile Muslim monoculture.
It is an incontrovertible fact that a sizeable number of Muslims pursue a separatist agenda and simply refuse to integrate into British society. Or that many mosques and madrassas in this country play host to extremist preachers of hate who aim to brainwash impressionable youngsters into joining the global jihad.
The 'indigenous population' dog whistle... the 'sizeable number of Muslims'... the 'refusal to integrate'... it has a whiff of something about it. But no, not racist. It's just those others who are refusing to integrate, pursuing the separatist agenda, it's the "incontrovertible fact" - or, as you might prefer to call it, the Uncomfortable Truth. It's not much more than a cigarette paper away from the language of the EDL/BNP types who'd tell you that some northern cities have been 'lost' to whites, but seeing as he's telling you he's not being racist, how can he be being racist? Only someone who's Playing The Racism Card would say that. He can't be saying racist things; he's told you that he's not.
Most of us don't have to bend over backwards not to be seen as racist because we don't go around saying racist things; ah, we don't go around confronting Uncomfortable Truths on behalf of our readers, though, do we? Good old crusading Littlejohn; thank goodness he's there to say the things the pansy liberals won't face up to! And no, it's not racist to point out that some Muslims are extremists; on the other hand, it is not racist to use the phrase 'indigenous population', but it's a pretty handy dog-whistle when you'd rather not say white.
I think Baroness Warsi is right to say that having a whiff of anti-Muslim sentiment is seen as acceptable. Newspapers such as the Daily Mail have made it so with a constant slew of stories emphasising a certain kind of Muslim behaviour, though they seem unwilling to take very much credit. Doubtless at those dinner tables Warsi is talking about, people will introduce the sentiment with the Littlejohnian disclaimer that they're very much not being racist; that there is just an Uncomfortable Truth to be said; that people will Play The Racism Card as much as they like. Are they fearlessly seeing things as they really are, or just playing the 'playing the racism card' card? They can deny it all they like, but I know what I think.
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
January 22nd, 2011 - 12:44
One uncomfortable truth for the Littlejohns of this world is that when their white, middle-class readers are old and unable to care for themselves, they’ll be looked after by young immigrants on lousy wages. Why? Because in many cases their white relatives will be too selfish and callous to bother. Which suggests the ‘indigenous population’ could do with an injection of decent foreign blood to humanise it a bit.
January 23rd, 2011 - 12:56
Sorry to go off-topic for a second, but I really have to challenge you on that. My mother-in-law cares for my husband’s grandfather who has Alzheimers, but she often has to put him in respite care and is considering putting him in care for good. She certainly isn’t lazy, selfish or callous- she’s a pensioner herself and struggles to cope.
People put their relatives in care for all sorts of reasons, and while I don’t doubt that some do it for selfish reasons it’s extremely unfair of you to tar all with the same brush.
Back to the article- spot on as always, Anton
. I also find the distinction of Northern cities curious. I live in a Northern city (Scotland, in fact) with a large Muslim population and I really don’t see the hostility from my Muslim neighbours that Smellyface reckons we all face daily. They are all decent, friendly and honorable people. What would he know anyway, in his Florida mansion?
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:45
Appropriately enough, since the original comment was a crude stereotype itself examples that don’t fit in the pigeonhole like your mother-in-law or many, many other people (I’m in the same situation myself) have to fit into the ‘not like the rest of them’ exception.
January 22nd, 2011 - 13:02
Good post – sorry, should have mentioned that!
January 22nd, 2011 - 13:14
Absolutely spot on!
January 22nd, 2011 - 13:38
This bit of his rant got me: “Most of us just think anyone who wears a burka in Britain is barking mad and wonder why someone who so utterly rejects our society and our liberal values would want to live here.”
Surely, the notion of a liberal society is that someone can wear a burka, if they so choose? Individual freedom and all that.
And as much as I enjoyed your post, I’m not sure I like “Littlejohnian”. It gives the man too much credit! Makes it sound like he can form a coherent argument for a start. Now, ‘Cowellian’ I can accept.
p.s. nice one on the newstatesman blog, will be having a look
January 22nd, 2011 - 13:38
“Then again, I’m fortunate to live in a part of the world where people of all races and religious persuasions rub along well.
The same can’t be said of some neighbourhoods in towns and cities, especially in the North of England”
Doesn’t he live in Florida? When was the last time he was in the North of England?
January 22nd, 2011 - 15:41
I read that article (ugh); Littlecock is definitely trying to imply that he lives in London. How stupid does he think his readers are?
Wonder if the Gazette has a computer program that changes it to ‘I’m not racist, but…’ from ‘I am racist, and…’ Like a spell-checker.
January 22nd, 2011 - 17:07
I’m glad that you and many bloggers are using http://www.istyosty.com/ .
Read the Daily Fail without upping their hits figure.
At the last dinner with friends, we talked about RLj, Jan M and Mad M, so nearly anything is acceptable at table these days. However, if ever your stuck with a “I’m not a tosser, but……..” type, try asking something like this: -
“What about King Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table? In between quests, the Knights sequinned vests and impersonated Clark Gable. And don’t tell me that’s not true because I’ve seen the video.” or
“Captain Morgan was on the payroll of Queen Victoria – I saw that on the Discovery channel.” or
“I had a 6x in the donkey today and it felt great.”
January 22nd, 2011 - 17:32
You are conflating religion and race here, no doubt as the odious Littlejohn also does. It is important to keep in mind that they are not identical though – it is quite possible to object to a religion (or indeed all religions) without being racist.
January 23rd, 2011 - 14:20
I’m aware that race and religion aren’t the same; however, prejudice is often against people of another race but based on ‘religious’ reasons.
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:48
That’s not to say it’s necessarily based on reasons. Some people just don’t like people outside of their village.
January 26th, 2011 - 21:16
Do you have any evidence for that assertion? Just asking.
January 27th, 2011 - 08:42
Yes, lots. But that would be for another post. Just telling.
January 22nd, 2011 - 18:35
Shame he lives in the US, I’d love to see Littlecock deported.
January 23rd, 2011 - 00:08
I actually think the threat of Islamophobia is greatly exagerated and as over hyped as the threat of Islamic extremism.
Both those who warn about the dangers of Islamophobia and Islamic extremism play on people’s fears and mistrust about others and a belief that there are certain people who cannot be trusted to hear certain views without turning into crazy racists or extremists (ie: We need to protect young Muslims from hearing from people like Adjem Choudary or they will be guaranteed to turn into rabid suicide bombers or we need to protect the masses from hearing from the likes of Geert Wilders or they will turn into Muslim hating fascists).
Whilst some on the right-wing peddle the view that Britain/Europe is awash with Islamic extremism that seeks to “take over” the Western world some on the left-wing push the view that Britain/Europe is awash with anti-Islam racism that aims to destroy Islam as a religion.
However there is no doubt that the right-wing tabloid press (especially the Daily Mail) peddle a lot of anti-Islam/Muslim bullshit. However the impact of that bullshit is greatly over exagerated and the non-Muslim population of this country are not being turned into knuckle dragging racist thugs seeking to beat up the first Muslim they come across just because they’ve read some bullshit in the papers about Muslims “banning” Christmas!
January 23rd, 2011 - 15:59
Can we stop equating a distaste for a religion with racism. Sure, many racist disguise their racism by saying they’re just against islam. However, being anti-muslim isn’t the same as being racist. Not at all.
I have nothing against anyone due to their racial background. Good, nice, decent people are always worth knowing.
But followers of Islam, similar to many followers of christianity, are simply backward thinking people and I have no wish to support their disgusting ideology.
I am most definitely anti-islam. Just as I am against all religions that dictate what is right and wrong to the rest of us. I am against all religions that believe only they know what is moral or immoral.
In a GALUP poll not one of the muslims questioned said that they believed homosexuality to be okay. Not one of them. In East London a gang of 30+ Muslim youths stormed a gay pub, assaulting customers and trying to intimidate people, saying, “This is a muslim area! Get out!” This is utterly wrong. But, oh no, we’re not allowed to criticize them for the fact that islam is teaching them to be like this!
Whether muslim or christian, or whatever religion, these are people who believe in something that does not exist and use that as an excuse to vilify and bully other people.
I am not “islamophobic”. I simply know what a pile of shite it is and don’t see why I should be bullied into supporting it under the pretext of not being racist.
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:02
But a lot of people who do express a lot of distaste about Muslims are racist.
And yes, some Muslims are extremists, and some Muslims are anti-gay.
No-one’s asking you to support a religion you don’t agree with.
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:10
Yes, I did say that a lot of people use a dislike of islam as a cover for their racism…
But the very existence of the word “islamophobia” is designed to prevent criticism of religion. So much so that anyone who criticizes islam is called islamophobic and is then immediately assumed to be racist.
You say “some muslims are anti-gay”. Opinion polls conducted by reputable companies conclude that the vast *majority* are anti-gay. Some of them violently so.
I detest Littlejohn and have no time for his agenda of prejudice and hatred. But the reaction to that does not have to be to support an ideology that is equally vile and hateful.
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:13
No-one is asking you to support it. I don’t find Islam as vile and hateful as Littlejohn, I’m afraid. I really don’t. I really think there is a middle ground between ‘supporting’ something and calling it ‘vile and hateful’. Quite a big middle ground.
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:19
You’re not gay, I take it. You don’t feel the horror that I feel when hearing about boys as young as 16 in islamic countries being hanged simply for being gay. And a recent opinion poll conducted by Galup finding that a majority of British muslims supported that. I abhor islam and all it stands for. Anyone who believes in that crap is an idiot. I have athiest friends of Asian family background who are wonderful people. I’ve had muslims finding out that I am gay and telling that I don’t deserve to live. You do the maths.
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:26
Most British Muslims support the death penalty for homosexuality? I can’t see that in the Gallup survey.
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:26
Can we stop equating the most extreme elements of a religion with anyone who believes in it? And can we stop repeating the assertion that religion and cultural affiliation can so easily be separated?
(Also – funny how you so rarely hear that argument about Judaism.)
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:05
Personally when challenging someone’s racist or xenophobic actions i find the only way to not get bogged down in a debate with them is to only remark on their words and actions, as opposed to the person as a whole. If I accused Littlejohn of being a racist he could quite plausibly deny it all day by stating all the good things he has done for his fellow man, despite their race, but only by challenging the things he has done or said, ie claiming that what he said was racist, and that can’t be denied at all, can any sort of progress be made. If you think Littlejohn is a racist that is fine, but by labelling him as a whole you are debating on his level and on hhis terms and you won’t get anywhere.
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:06
But I haven’t called Littlejohn a racist. (I don’t think you’re saying that I am though.) It’s a fair point that sometimes avoiding ‘hot button’ terms like racism is a good way of stopping other people from getting easy parachutes; Littlejohn can just pull his ripcord and say “You called me a racist, I lose” and float down to Dogwhistle Island.
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:24
Yeah I wasn’t saying you did call Littlejohn a racist, now reading it back I should’ve probably asserted that. I was just remarking on how sometimes playing the racism card in one way backfires, while when done properly can’t really be argued with.
Also I’d like to say in general bravo, another quality post
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:22
I live in Kirklees – Huddersfield is pleasantly multicultural for the most, but Dewsbury has long been home to the far-right. Certainly, schools are more black and white (literally) in Dewsbury, but that’s mainly down to racism against Asians/Muslims, which has helped make some communities more insular. It’s stupid to generalise and even more stupid to blame bigotry (and its outcomes) on its victims. Littlejohn’s thinking is (as always) lazy, mendacious and ill-informed.
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:34
I’m unable to further reply above. Is this because you do not wish to address the issue properly?
As Johann Hari, Independent journalit says, “If Muslim women and Muslim gays are going to have any kind of decent life, the [Muslim] liberals need to receive solidarity and support – but slap-dash charges of Islamophobia intimidate people who could offer it … end[s] up defending the nastiest and most right-wing part of the Muslim community – the ones who are oppressing and killing the rest.”
Being against islam is actually doing what is best for humanity as a whole. That is a fact. People like myself who are against islam are told they are terrible people for it. But if we lessen the influence that islam and other religions has on all of us, there is a better life to be had for the majority of human kind no matter what their racial background may be.
So called “islamaphobia” is a great ruse designed to stop criticism of an evil ideology. And you are aiding and abetting it.
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:42
I’m afraid I don’t see Islam as evil. I just don’t. I agree a more secular world would be a better world, but that is just my opinion, and it’s not possible or desirable or correct to just say that we’re right and they’re wrong, they must change, their entire history and culture needs to change, etc etc; things don’t work as simply as that, and furthermore taking an oppositional stance against people on the basis of strongly-held beliefs and cultural values simply leads to more entrenched positions and less chance of any progress. There are many fundamentally good reasons why religions exist to perpetuate cultural tradition and history and to dismiss that by calling someone else’s religion ‘evil’ does no-one any favours.
I still maintain there is a position that can be taken which is between saying a religion is ‘evil’ and supporting it. You do not. I don’t think we’re going to make any progress on this now, I’m afraid.
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:48
No, we are not going to progress, are we…?
I will just leave it with this point. The use of the word “islamophobia” will always be incorrect and inappropriate and it should be discouraged by writers such as yourself who are open minded and serious in their thinking.
This word allows the most disgusting elements within islam to continue to oppress and kill. It labels people as racist when they are not.
If I am islamophobic then I am proud to be so because to be so is for the betterment of the human race as a whole.
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:51
Ok, we’ll leave it there, then.
January 25th, 2011 - 09:00
Murray
Is homophobia an islamic problem? is misyogyny an islamic problem? no.
It isn’t just or all islamic countries that have the death penalty for homosexuality. a lot of christian countries do. yesterday, a rabid anti muslim woman wrote what can only be described as a violently homophobic article. she’s jewish.
the persecution of women is an international, societal issue. it isn’t confined to muslim countries. last night on panorama i saw a woman stalked and murdered because she had left her partner. in which country are 100,000 women raped every year? yes, the UK. is the congo muslim? no. and yet it is the scene of what can only be described as a genocide against women.
in the anglican church, we see men and women turning to catholicism in disgust, at the potential of the ordination of women and gay people. in the catholic church, we see gross abuses.
so, to say ‘being against islam is better for humanity as a whole’ is just ridiculous! being against hate and violence and intolerance is what matters. these are not islamic problems, they are problems that we see in societies everywhere.
January 23rd, 2011 - 16:51
There’s something bizarre about the idea that merely deconstructing what a columnist writes in a newspaper is somehow “aiding and abetting” an evil ideology.
January 23rd, 2011 - 17:38
islam is pretty wide, from being pretty liberal, to hardline and fundamentalist – you don’t see the people in tunisia that are rioting (due to wanting more freedom!) all covered up or wearing traditional clothes, but if you want to demonise a religion it’s much easier if you focus on the more unpleasant parts of it.
In Africa some christians murder homosexuals, but it would be seen as very strange to describe the whole religion as murdering homosexuals when it is the actions of a minority, in a few specific locations.
People (quite rightly) specify that Islam is a religion, and not a race – but it’s still possible to be prejudiced against a religion in the same way as you can about different races – the outcome is very similar.
One thing that is ignored is the difference between culture and religion. 2 people may both share the same religion, but culturally be miles apart, with totally different viewpoints and attitudes.
January 23rd, 2011 - 21:14
It must be pointed out that Richard Littlejohn’s views on Islam are not motivated by concern about any other groups that Islam might oppress (ie: homosexuals, women) but about his barmy (and possibly racist) belief that this country is awas with Islamic extremist seeking to turn us into a Sharia Law run Islamic state.
January 24th, 2011 - 11:14
Too right.
January 24th, 2011 - 12:47
def worth pointing out. Littlejohn isn’t interested in better rights for gay people or women after all.
January 24th, 2011 - 11:05
that’s another very good point – there are some EDL types who suddenly decide they are disgusted by the treatment of chickens, when it coincides with halal meat – but prior to this had no problem with battery farmed hens. The same people become seriously passionate about feminism and the way Muslim men (apparently) treat women – but never really thought about feminist issues before….People who clearly dislike Muslims suddenly become defenders of Muslim women from the (supposed) menace that is Muslim men – very insincere.
The mention of race/religion is interesting – I think that because racism is seen as being the worst thing a person can do (within reason) no one is willing to admit to being racist – so a lot of people hide their racism behind a dislike of a religion – I almost think it’d be better if people could say “i just don’t like asian people” rather than having to hide and disguise their prejudice behind some often faulty dislike of a religion….
I’m not suggesting that people should act on their racism, but I do think if people were allowed to voice their racist views they wouldn’t have to try and hide them behind a thin veneer or fake rationality.
January 24th, 2011 - 17:59
My view on religion is that religion per say is not evil nor is it a bad thing. If it gives comfort to people in times of trouble (famine, poverty, war etc) and brings people together then it’s all well and good.
It’s people who can be evil and when evil people use something like religion hurt others then they should be challenged. Whether it’s anti-abortion Christians threatening abortion clinics with violence or Muslim states in the middle East oppressing homosexuals it should be challenged and confronted.
I do not believe that because some people use religion is a means of hurting others all people who believe in a religion are bad. Just because some Christians hate gay people that does not mean all Christians are gay haters and just because some Muslims hate Jews it does not mean all Muslims are Jew haters.
I also do not believe that pointing out and calling to task those of a minority faith who use their beliefs to oppress others means you are not sympathetic or supporting the struggle of those people of that faith against imperalism, oppression by Western governments and racism.
For the Socialist Workers Party believe that if you criticise Muslim preachers who preach hatred towards gays and Jews you are not supporting Muslims in their struggle against Western imperalism and racism and that you are even siding with racists/fascists against all Muslims.
Or if you protest against gays being executed in Iran you are condoning an invasion of Iran by Britain/America.
That’s just rubbish!