6 May 2021
The Racism ‘Debate’
Not Allowed
By Lynda Goetz
Last week I wrote about the art of debate and polite discourse and in particular, the importance of young people learning this. In the 1st April edition, I wrote about Race Relations, including in that a mention both of the Batley Grammar School dispute (the investigation is still ongoing) and the report of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. Today, in a combination of both those subjects, I want (yet again) to bang the drum on the matter of tolerance and the importance of free speech, but also on the issue of the progress made by humankind and the optimism that should engender.
Tim Scott, the only Black Republican in the US Senate out of 50, made, according to The Washington Post, an ‘electrifying’ speech when giving the official response to Joe Biden’s first speech to Congress. Not only did he suggest that liberals are using race as a political weapon and defining all White people as aggressors, but he went as far as to say “Hear me clearly: America is not a racist country”. Like Tony Sewell, Black chairman of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, who had concluded in his report that Britain is not an institutionally racist country, Scott’s speech immediately caused a Twitter storm with unpleasant invective and insults being lobbed in his direction.
Scott, like Sewell, was immediately vilified by Black activists who view him as an apologist giving racial cover to White resentment. On Twitter, Scott was compared to figures like conservative commentator Candace Owens, who has spoken of George Floyd’s drug use and criminal history. “Trotting out sycophantic Black folks who will serve as apologists for White supremacy is a tried-and-true tactic that racists have used for centuries,” said Bishop Talbert Swan, president of the Greater Springfield, Mass., chapter of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). Sewell was referred to as a ‘coconut’ (black on the outside white on the inside); Scott had to suffer a derisive reference to Uncle Tom as the hashtag #UncleTim was used to refer to him on Twitter after his remarks.
Scott, who said he has personally experienced “the pain of discrimination” — being pulled over for no reason and followed around in stores — said too many people suggest the country has gained no ground when it comes to civil rights. “From colleges to corporations to our culture, people are making money and gaining power by pretending we haven’t made any progress,” he said. Scott was able to “articulate that America has moved forward,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who called Scott’s racial critique “beyond outstanding.” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said Scott’s words could make it easier for people to offer competing views about racially charged issues without the discussion becoming a question of character. “Every argument [it] seems like we have in this country deteriorates, with somebody’s finger pointing and accusing somebody of being a racist, and that’s just — I mean, it’s a, it’s a cop-out,” Thune said. “And it detracts from having a really honest discussion, and frankly, maybe even an argument about the big issues of the day, if as soon as you disagree with somebody they’re a racist.”
Vice-President Kamala Harris, interestingly, backed-up Scott’s words on Good Morning America, although with a substantial qualification. “Well, first of all — no, I don’t think America is a racist country,” she said, “But we also do have to speak the truth about the history of racism in our country and its existence today.” Her caution in responding to Scott was an acknowledgement of the sensitive, often volatile nature of the debate on race.
Mr Scott’s speeches however are characterised by messages of optimism. He always talks about how far America has come, not how bad things are now. As an example, pointed out Nick Allen in The Telegraph, ‘he describes how, as a child, he would watch his grandfather reading the newspaper daily at the kitchen table. Only later did he discover his grandfather was actually illiterate. The old man had been forced to leave school aged eight to work in the cotton fields. Holding the newspaper was just an attempt to set an example to his grandson’. “My grandfather, in his 94 years, saw his family go from cotton to Congress in one lifetime,” Mr Scott told America. “So I am more than hopeful.”
In the wake of the death of George Floyd a year ago, Mr Scott is leading Republican efforts to find a compromise with Democrats on sweeping police reforms. “He is one of the most inspiring and unifying leaders in our nation,” Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, said in a statement. “As Senator Scott likes to say, he is living his mother’s American dream.” Scott himself said, “I am a black man, I am proud to be black. I happen to be a conservative because I came to the conclusion, a long time ago, that conservative policies and principles are the way that we set people free – free to be whoever they want to be.”
The negativism of the Left and their intolerance of any dissent from their viewpoint is not only damaging to free speech, it is damaging to our view of human progress. In our attitude to race, as in so many other things, we have come a long way. As an interesting programme on BBC 4 (The Violence Paradox) this week set out to show, we have also come a very long way in terms of our acceptance of violence, or rather non-acceptance of it. Whilst this may not obviously appear to be the case, when we think of the two world wars fought in the twentieth century and view in news reports evidence of violence from around the globe, mankind is, as a whole, definitely less prone to violence than it used to be.
Although some 75 million people died in World War II, this, representing as it did some 3 percent of the world’s population at the time, puts that event several rungs down the ladder in terms of the most violent episodes in history. Top of the list is the terror wrought by Genghis Khan, who during his conquests managed to kill some 40 million, representing around 10-11 percent of the population. In a few hundred years, we have also moved from considering violent torture and death as a normal part of the rule of law to an abomination which should not be countenanced (although that is not to say it doesn’t happen); likewise, duelling and fighting as a way of resolving disputes; domestic violence and rape as ‘normal’ events. The research done on the shape of early human skulls has also shown evidence of higher levels of testosterone compared with modern man; testosterone, of course, being the male hormone known, inter alia, to be responsible for aggression.
As for our attitude to sex, sexual relationships and gender, this too has evolved dramatically, even during the course of this century. However, in this, as in so many other issues currently, the majority attitudes and views risk being steamrollered by an aggressive minority. Lord Wide, a former senior Old Bailey judge, commented this week that the Law Commission plans drawn up on the matter of extending hate crime laws relied too much on a narrow range of campaign groups espousing “contentious and controversial” sociological theories. Those who challenged such views were too often subjected to vitriolic abuse on social media and elsewhere and their views drowned out by vociferous campaigners.
As Professor Pinker pointed out during the course of the program on violence, whether mankind continues down this route of reduced violence, we cannot yet know, but we should be optimistic about the progress made. In the many other matters preoccupying society today, the same is true. We should not be complacent, but we should at least acknowledge that we have made progress and continue to do so. The speed of that advance should not be forced, nor should it be decried and whether we are discussing race, violence, feminism or transgender issues we should not just be listening to the angry voices of those who wish to be permanently insulted, offended or victimised, but also to the more moderate voices of those who are prepared to concede that whilst nothing is yet perfect (nor ever will be), we are indeed moving forward.
