Of course, Racial Justice activists just want to be treated as equals, get a little respect from other people. This can’t be guaranteed, though, even if you’re white. Some Black activists seem to assume that any unpleasant behaviour they encounter is motivated by racism. The reality is that some people are unpleasant little bastards. They’re probably just as nasty to white people, although they’ll pick the insult to suit the victim. My 16 year old daughter, paranoid about her looks, was called “Facking Ugly” by some little toe-rag, yesterday. He didn’t pick a racist slur, because they’re both “white.” He said the thing that would make her cry. It worked. 

It is a sign of our increasing racial segregation that many activists of colour seem to assume their white brethren are having a high old time, living a life of luxury and respect, simply because they are white. They can no longer identify enough with their white neighbours to realise that most of us are struggling in some way. Although white people won’t have to deal with racism very often, they may have multiple other problems, prejudices, disabilities that stop them from having a life of ease. Only tiny minority experience the life people of colour envy and they’re not experiencing it because they’re white.

I guess impulsive self-indulgence, disguised as “speaking out” is unsurprising. We rely on a medium compromised and saturated, since its earliest days, by American, Silicon-Valley capitalist assumptions and aspirations.  Internet entrepreneurs are the pioneers of the new frontier. Baked into their products is the heroic individualist creed they grew up with. 

These assumptions include the meritocratic idea that inequality is inevitable – a necessary driver of aspirations and achievement in a country of self-made men. Western settlers wished to make a garden out of a worthless wilderness. In the tech world, this has become the belief that all change is progress, and that destruction and remaking of systems is automatically a good thing, even if the existing systems work pretty well. This is “disruptive innovation.” 

But it’s not the rebellion its admirers claim. In truth, It’s the re-imposition of orthodox Victorian consumer-capitalism. 

I know it sounds obtuse – deliberately contrary: who resists progress?! It’s our most sacred value. But why should we reinvent the wheel? Is it because it generates obsolescence where there was formerly durability, and thus fosters the appetite and consumption and that allow fortunes to be made?   

The self-made millionaire, by developing his business and his brand and his monetary value, is an analogue of the self-realising renaissance man. Pacifying the wilderness means exploiting it and its inhabitants, including our fellow humans. 

In her excellent series Elon Musk: The Evening Rocket, on BBC Radio 4, Jill Lepore, supported by Princeton Professor Jacob Dlamini, suggests that Silicon Valley accepts, without question, extreme inequality. (“sometimes when I think of what Silicon Valley is imagining, some of it seems to revive these notions of very very strict hierarchies.”) The super-rich can separate themselves completely from the destitute masses they have built their success upon, and ignore their existence. This, she claims, is not just reminiscent of various science-fiction dystopias (The Time Machine; Metropolis), it is similar to the mind-set of South Africa’s apartheid regime, in which Elon Musk, one of the most influential, pioneering innovators in the tech industries, grew up. 

“Ideologically, one of the successes of apartheid [was] making white south Africans believe that everything they achieved was through individual initiative, and everything they ever got in life was through their own hard work. Never mind that, in some ways, the system was designed to give them all the benefit and to give them all the resources to get on in life… That’s how apartheid justified itself: you know, we are creating a class of successful white people… there’s a strong case to be made for the connection between the apartheid dystopia and this idealised vision of a world where the elites don’t have to share their oxygen with lesser beings.” – Professor Jacob Dlamini.

Imagine this scenario: you and a friend are in a new town and you visit a pub. The place goes silent as you walk in. It’s full of Neo-Nazis; there’s a massive Nazi flag behind the bar; old-style skinheads straighten up from the pool table, hefting their cues. The barman says, “We don’t serve P***s/ N*****s/Faggots/Paddies [take your pick] in here.”

You pause for a moment, weighing up your options. Then you look the barman in the eye and you say, calmly and deliberately, “Fuck You.”

A glorious reaction.

And then they kick you to death. Or, at least, half to death.

I’ve given you a flippant scenario: melodramatic and filmic, but all around the world people are beaten, hospitalised, even killed for being, in some way, the wrong race at the wrong time. You’ve got to be careful. Far from being heroic, the reality could be permanent damage, crippling pain and fear and humiliation, cursing yourself for being such a reckless moron; at worst, lonely terror as the last blackness envelopes you, bereavement and grief; never to see friends, parents, children again; never to achieve your goals, or even to see another sunrise touch the treetops outside your bedroom window. 

And yet…

My problem is that I cannot shake out of my head the notion that this would be a glorious, heroic thing to say – the indomitable spirit, all that Invictus shit: a feeling of elation at that moment of defiance.

I think this is because we have been so thoroughly convinced of the rightness of self-expression, as part of our eudemonic aspirations, that we have forgotten that just because something feels satisfying to say, doesn’t mean it is the right thing to say. 

Appropriately, it feels wrong to state this, but that is evidence of how deeply we have been brainwashed by the cult of individuality. 

This has wide-ranging implications for how we conduct ourselves in all sorts of situations, especially in the arena of the internet. There, all aspects of consumerist individualism are amplified, and silly, immature posturing (as I imagined above) is actively encouraged. If it feels satisfying, it is good and right, we are told. We are “speaking truth to power”, even though the trolls we are challenging are insignificant little gobshites, driven by a rage of impotence. It is “our truth” and we must express our truth, no matter how intolerant and mean-spirited, because self-establishment is the purpose of life. 

The sort of antagonism that used to be reserved for riot policemen and neo-Nazis is now levelled at anyone who questions Social Justice methods. Personal antipathy has become part of the playbook. It is applauded and encouraged while a reluctance to upset people is derided as weak. 

This is, I suppose, entirely orthodox enlightenment thinking. If the individual human spirit, and its development, is the ultimate good, then the greatest demonstration of virtue becomes pursuing your personal goals with iron will and determination. Each human consciousness is singular and unique, so these cannot be shared or collective aspirations. You can sympathise, but you can’t really aim to be the best version of somebody else.

This isn’t a problem when we are all moving in the same direction towards similar ends, but conflict is inevitable in this world of multitudinous individuals, and not to be shied away from. As your cause is just, and inextricably linked with your own self-development, conflict is to be actively sought and highly personal attacks are admired. Dominating and undermining another self becomes the most effective way of overcoming their resistance and so progressing your cause. It is not your responsibility to look after the fragile identities of others. They must look after themselves, fight their own corners. 

A concern for social harmony is seen as a tool of oppression because it is used to discourage people from standing up for their rights. Social Justice warriors see themselves like the fearless young workers and soldiers on Nazi and Stalinist posters.

Being nasty to people has become heroic.

Recently, activists have pursued the goal of racial equality with particular vigour. Using Critical Race Theory, their strategy is to take the fight to individuals by directly accusing them of involvement in racism. Non-woke citizens are unconsciously reproducing racism’s assumptions and tropes, activists say, and are thus propping up the system. Simply living in a racist society, without disrupting its structures, makes you complicit. In fact, the more successful, productive and socially useful an individual or organisation is, the more complicit they are likely to be, because they are helping this society to function effectively.

What makes the activists’ approach particularly effective is that they can now harness enormous numbers of supporters through social media. This can be seriously alarming for all potential targets. Individuals live in fear of being singled out and ostracised, shamed and condemned. We need to belong and be accepted, and we will rush to join a witch hunt to avoid being burned as witches ourselves. Leading the witch hunt makes us even safer. Much online condemnation is virtue-signalling to protect ourselves. 

Businesses and other organisations are staffed by such vulnerable private citizens, who can no longer shrug their shoulders and blame the system. In addition, businesses are so geared to maximising profit, that they can be destroyed by even a partial boycott, . Civic organisations, especially governmental ones, must be seen to represent the wishes of the people to have legitimacy. The leaders of both are increasingly being held personally accountable for the practices of their institutions (how else can they justify their vast salaries?)

This approach has reaped emphatic rewards. In a consumerist society, commercial enterprises have become the most flagrant racial virtue-signallers as they try to increase or retain their market share. Their endorsements and ad campaigns are depressingly influential, despite being nakedly insincere. Their appointments herald a new age of racial equality. The prominence all this gives to social agents of colour has markedly enhanced the status of these groups. There are more people of colour presenting television programmes or publishing novels, histories and social-political commentaries. There are more books about the Black and Asian experiences of racist Britain, more post-colonial, non-white histories; more popular sociological studies. More Black actors are getting major roles in theatre, television and cinema. And this is all brilliant.

HOWEVER, I’m not sure the ends justify the means, because traditional campaigning methods have already reaped substantial rewards – marked progress towards racial equality – and would continue to do so. I also don’t think the modern social activists’ gains are secure. In fact, I fear the methods may be fundamentally weakening our core values, so that these proximal successes do not betoken genuine advancement and thus long term universal gains, solidly built on firm moral foundations. We have seen fierce push-back against our projects, and not just from the fascists, so I worry this progressive edifice may eventually collapse in on itself, into tribal conflict.

If you were to arm fundraisers so they could demand money at gun-point, you might see an initial increase in charity donations without creating a more generous society. In fact, you might be fostering catastrophic resistance, resentment and hostility below the surface.

I worry this might be happening, here.

As more and more social interactions have moved online, society has become much more atomised. We have become used to communicating with thousands of people without having any real connection with them. This has fostered an environment of cruelty and bullying. Due to the internet’s anonymity, users who feel powerless can experience the cheap, power-trip thrill of trolling without fearing any negative consequences to themselves.

Trolls exploit the vulnerabilities of their victims for maximum impact. In a racially unequal society, being from a racial minority is one such vulnerability. I think most racist trolling is opportunistic and tribal, not a statement of a genuine belief in a racial hierarchy. Most trolls seem too unreflective to have comprehensive belief systems.

As you know, I think British racism, unlike American, has its roots in a tribal resentment of foreigners by a self-identifying “indigenous” group. Whatever they say, defensively, about their racial qualities, I think their behaviour is driven by a sense of their own weakness and inferiority. That’s why they feel threatened. 

Problematically, though, the more aware people are made of racial differences and inequalities, the more likely they are to exploit them to gain or consolidate status and power, and beat down those they feel threatened by. I believe the earliest racial awareness programmes in British schools led to an increase in racist bullying.

Persecution fantasies are a strange thing. Why should we find it so comforting to imagine being treated badly? (or is that just me?) Here’s my theory:

Our societies are largely post-religious, but our ethical systems are still simplistic. They probably have to be, if they are to be robust and usable.  Our lives are busy. Moral judgements are improvised as situations occur. 

Perhaps, in these summary codes, the working definition of “Bad People” is “those who do harm.” Logically, good people would be their binary opposites: the victims of that harm, rather than just those who do good. It’s not always easy finding ways to do good effectively, and it can be hard work, so being persecuted has become short-hand for being virtuous. 

Minority groups, especially people of colour, don’t have to resort to fantasy to establish themselves on the moral high ground. They have experienced real racism and discrimination. 

It’s difficult for white people to challenge the accusations levelled against them by these particular activists of colour. It might occur to you that they are highly talented, well-educated and successful people, that Afua Hirsch admits her friend with the boob rash “wields enormous power in the TV industry”, and that, therefore, their complaints sound more like annoyances than life-limiting examples of oppression. You might think, “Hell is other people”: they are tiresome whatever your racial heritage. But such scepticism feels shameful, something to be suppressed. 

This isn’t because we want to congratulate ourselves on our politically correct virtue, as Right-wing commentators often claim. It’s because to deny people the validity of their own experiences goes against our core humanist principles. We are a species cursed with a sentience that is individual and isolated, but blessed by a capacity for empathy that allows us to reach across the chasm between us. (or possibly, blessed by isolation – the resilience it allows us – and cursed by empathy.) Central to that empathy is a recognition that other people live as vividly and intensely as we do ourselves. It is our duty to trust and believe them, unless we have concrete and/or systematic evidence to the contrary. This is especially true on the matters of interior experience, because, of course everyone is the ultimate authority on their own experience.

As the primary purpose of language is communication of self, rather than factual truth, we have the capacity to lie, so it is also our duty to be as straight and honest as possible, not just with others, but with ourselves as well. Lying too frequently is existentially damaging: we start to lose our identities. 

All this means that racial justice activists have an easy time establishing their arguments, no matter how vociferously attacked by the right. Liberal Humanists are eager to accept them as a statement of their own values. 

Ironically, though, if people are receptive to your narrative of oppression, they undermine it! If everyone accepts and respects you and your truth, how are you being discriminated against? Perhaps this is why Racial Justice activists get so exasperated by their allies.

Otegha Uwagba isn’t the only person feeling the stress of the modern fashion for confrontation. It’s exhausting for everyone. Here’s Afua Hirsch, reviewing the progress made towards racial liberation in 2020 (The Guardian, 01/01/21), “being exhausted became a state-of-the-black-nation fact…tiring as hell.” 

It’s interesting that, when everybody was struggling with life dominated by Covid-19, and the fear, confinement, isolation, grief, and vulnerability it brought with it (its financial and general anxiety further amplified by Brexit), Afua Hirsch is claiming exhaustion as an exclusively black experience, and referring to black people as a separate nation. 

Like Otegha Uwegba, she is putting the blame for this elsewhere – on white people. And it’s not just white supremacists who are at fault, it’s friends and allies, as well: “It was exhausting when institutions, white friends and co-workers refused to acknowledge the murder of George Floyd; it was exhausting when they did…this demand that black people explain racism, from those who have not previously made the effort.”

Earlier in the article, she’d written, “Until this year, even attempting a conversation about anti-blackness, structural racism – or, God forbid – whiteness was often liable to provoke the most extreme hostile and defensive reactions…. A black woman who wields enormous power in the TV industry…has developed a massive rash all over her boobs. ‘It’s years of bullshit – racism, micro-aggressions,’ she told me in a matter of fact tone. ‘I have never had eczema before. My doctor said it’s erupted now because I’ve finally given myself permission to acknowledge the toxic stuff I’ve been putting up with during all those decades of my career.’”

Of course, I do not have access to these women’s experiences, or their doctors. I only have their words, but this seems a worryingly alienated perspective. These British women are living through what may be the most stressful period of British life since the blitz, yet they attribute their suffering to racial antagonism. By implication, they cannot imagine that “white” people might share their suffering. 

This assumed division of experience is perhaps a more savage criticism of British society than the specific accusations they level at white people. How have they travelled so far from their fellow citizens? What relentless othering has led them to believe that they have so little in common with the rest of us?

Overcoming any natural reluctance is morally principled. It demonstrates discipline and admirable, self-sacrificing strength of character to prioritise an idea over one’s immediate feelings and impulses. But overcoming a reluctance to hurt and upset others, a core human value, is an error. It is unkind and it will not lead to deep-rooted and long-term change for the better. For that we need inclusion and persuasion.

Cold, theoretical dogmatism denies the personal, and the personal is also part of a principled Humanist stance. It is acknowledging the individual worth of your opponent: an ethical conclusion. Morality is complicated. 

Constantly pursuing conflict is psychologically damaging for the activists themselves. It is distressing and exhausting. It wears them down, drives away their friends; it leaves them traumatised and lonely. When Otegha Uwagba says, “I am determined not to prioritise white comfort over truth” (see my previous posts), She is really deciding to sacrifice her owncomfort in the service of the truth – an admirable commitment. But…

She admits it affects her negatively: “My muscles ache constantly…I become aware of my heart beating unusually hard in my chest… I can feel myself literally vibrating with rage… I can physically feel…the constant thinking and talking about racism draining my health.” (p34) Significantly, though, she lays the blame for this squarely at the feet of other people. Claiming the sociological concept of “weathering” as a racial experience, exclusively, she says, “White people are eroding my body” (p35). 

Weathering is an explanation for the lower health outcomes in marginalised social groups. (Thank you, Wiki!) Reasons for this probably include restricted access to quality healthcare and diet, but also to the sheer stress of meeting daily challenges, one of which, for people of colour, is racism. 

It is a useful way of thinking about statistical differences, but the concept of weathering allows for multiple factors and its results are determined over whole populations and life-spans. Otegha Uwegba’s own life appears to contain some factors that might mitigate the effects of racial tension, such as a high level of education (she’s an Oxford graduate, I think), and a successful professional life. She is unlikely to experience weathering simply caused by white people (or an individual white person) resisting suggestions that they are all complicit in racism. That would validate a hypothetical scenario where Ms Uwagba says, “You’re all racist shits, you white people” and a white person says, “no we’re not!” and then Ms Uwagba retires to bed with a headache and a shortened lifespan. 

This writer’s physical afflictions seem to have begun since the death of George Floyd, when she decided to take up arms and seek out conflict. Perhaps they are the symptoms of stress and tension, a consequence of her own decisions to push herself too hard, to indulge her own distressing anger. 

It’s probably unproductive to make her illness a further complaint against white people, after which she sits back and expects them to do something about it. She should pro-actively tackle it herself: practice mindfulness (I’m serious, here!), pace herself, allow other people to do some of the fighting. Walk away from some arguments and annoying comments, resist the urge to get angry.