The effect of racism in society

[vertigo]

Last year in the UK, Ben Kinsella, the brother of a well known actress, was stabbed to death, and a review on knife crime prevention was launched. In the aftermath of this murder, a number of things happened.

The actress involved became somewhat of a social champion, campaigning for harsher penalties for knife carriers. She published a book, "Why Ben?: A Sister's Story of Heartbreak and Love for the Brother She Lost", about the trial of the killers. Today I have seen her on TV participating in a political debate, "Mending the Broken Society", about violence in society and how only the Conservatives would be harsh on crime.

What I have not seen is an assessment of to what extent racism was a factor in this murder, or to what extent racism is a factor in violence generally. Having seen the debate on TV, I decided to review the case which I had not done before.

Here is a report of the murder. I will mention the pertinent details but I reference it for background material.

In a bar in Islington (a neighbourhood of London), an altercation broke out between a 17 year old "Alfie" and another fellow, "Osman". Pertinent is that Alfie is reported as demanding "What are you looking at?". Bouncers break up the altercation, and Osman's friend Braithwaite is reported as shouting "Tell your boy if he wants trouble, I've got my tool on me and it will open you up”. Clearly this was a threat of a knife attack.

This utterance is telling. It suggests that Alfie started the altercation. "Tell your boy" suggests that someone else was being addressed, but someone else of the same sort, that Alfie was one of his sort. "It will open you up" is not addressed to Alfie but to the group that Alfie is part of. It included the person being addressed. Braithwaite's retort was directed to Alfie's friend or friends and applied to them and Alfie.

If Alfie started the altercation, why did Braithwaite reply to the group? In fact, why did Braithwaite reply at all? We can assume that Osman replied to Alfie, they were having the altercation. But Braithwaite saw it necessary to reply to Alfie's friends. He was extending Osman's remarks to them, including them.

The news report I linked to suggests that Ben was the victim of a fight he was not a part of. But Braithwaite did consider Ben to be involved.

I suggest racism can explain this. And I will confirm that racism was involved shortly. Alfie's altercation does seem to be racist. The utterance "what are you looking at?" doesn't suggest that Osman was staring at Alfie, but rather that Alfie launched a racist attack against him. Osman was not worthy to look upon him. It could be that Alfie had a knack for asking people this question when they looked at him, but I doubt it. So Alfie attacked Osman and it took the bouncers to break them up. And what did Ben do? As one of Alfie's friends, he restrained Alfie, tried to placate him, which is understandable only insofar as Alfie had started an altercation, but not insofar as Alfie had made a racial attack. An altercation in a bar is a common enough thing that people laugh it off, but racist attacks are not laughed off. They are not just a regular thing in Britain. Britain is one of the most politically correct countries you will find. There is a social obligation for those under racial attack to fight back.

I put it to you that Braithwaite extended the threat to the group because this racist attack went unanswered by the group. They acted as though it was a regular bar altercation, but it wasn't, not in the eyes of Braithwaite. They were not reacting to the racial attack.

Later, when Ben's group left the bar, the altercation started up again on the street. It is not said who restarted it, but it is a fair assumption that Alfie had something to do with it. It ended in a crowd, apparently armed with a bottle, chasing Osman and Braithwaite down the street. This did not involve Ben Kinsella but seems from the report to have involved other nonparticipants of the earlier altercation. That other people were involved may also have a racial element, but the important thing to see is that the earlier racial attack went unanswered. It was not the case that, now outside the bar, Alfie's friends again restrained him or whoever was now fighting. Rather, they left the scene with the fight continuing. Osman and Braithwaite, who were socially obliged by the earlier racist attack, were left to this unfair fight.

Braithwaite called two friends (Osman left at this point), followed Ben's group away from the scene. On noting them, Ben's friends ran away but Ben decided not to act in a threatening manner and moved to the side. He was cornered and stabbed 11 times.

Racism can never justify the response of Braithwaite, to escalate a fight into murder, but questions of justification do lessen causal reality. The racial picture we get from this incident is of Osman and Braithwaite being unwanted in this establishment by at least some part of the patronage. In this context, what would otherwise have been just a petty bar altercation became the prelude to murder. See now Ben's plea to his murderors: "“What are you coming over to me for? I haven't done anything.”

This racially sensitive analysis may come across as overly speculative and post-hoc. If the actions of Braithwaite and his crew cannot be justified, it is right to try to crack down on knife carriers such as them. But this misses the point. If the intent is to reduce violence, surely every angle should be pursued, and racism as a cauldron for violence should be a prime target.

It is sad that Ben, who was only 16, did not understand the nature of the threat. It is easy for one to ignore racism as not my problem. But it can become anyone's problem.

The murders each received a life sentence. They have appealed that the sentence is too harsh.

[Tmaq]

The kinds of 'pride issues' you describe, despite what you may have heard, are not racial, but rather cultural, issues.

Promiscuity, few people holding regular jobs, almost nobody is an entrepreneur, the manufacture and use of drugs during working hours is common, lots of illegitimate kids, lots of stupid fights over stupid bullshit, lots of dudes smacking their women....which group do you think I'm describing?

-Tom

[vertigo]

The kinds of 'pride issues' you describe, despite what you may have heard, are not racial, but rather cultural, issues.

Promiscuity, few people holding regular jobs, almost nobody is an entrepreneur, the manufacture and use of drugs during working hours is common, lots of illegitimate kids, lots of stupid fights over stupid bullshit, lots of dudes smacking their women....which group do you think I'm describing?

-Tom

No group I've ever heard of.

[Tmaq]

The kinds of 'pride issues' you describe, despite what you may have heard, are not racial, but rather cultural, issues.

Promiscuity, few people holding regular jobs, almost nobody is an entrepreneur, the manufacture and use of drugs during working hours is common, lots of illegitimate kids, lots of stupid fights over stupid bullshit, lots of dudes smacking their women....which group do you think I'm describing?

-Tom

No group I've ever heard of.

Its the 'redneck' culture; brought to the US by the Northern English who settled mostly in the south, their descendents became the hillbillies.

They spread those disastrous cultural attitudes to the freed slaves in the post-civil war era.

Those blacks moved north, and now we see 'black pride' which is actually better named 'redneck pride.'

CF "Black Rednecks, White Liberals" for the full story.

The point is only that many people mistake a cultural issue (the attitudes we've seen spread across many different groups) for a racial issue (that such attitudes are racial, not learned). From your not-super-complete description, it seems the same ambiguity applies.

-Tom

[vertigo]

So what's your point? Are you the word police?

[Tmaq]

So what's your point? Are you the word police?

Yeah, I'm the word police.

Please turn in your tongue and keyboard at the station.

Thanks.

(Or try re-reading that line, above, that starts "the point is...")

-Tom

[vertigo]

So what's your point? Are you the word police?

Yeah, I'm the word police.

Please turn in your tongue and keyboard at the station.

Thanks.

(Or try re-reading that line, above, that starts "the point is...")

-Tom

If that was your point, it seemed to have little to do with what I said, beyond a pedantic insistence that I say "cultural" instead of "racial". That many people make such a mistake seems to be entirely irrelevant to my point made in the first post, which was that racism has an effect on society. I didn't mean that culture has an effect on society, although of course it does.

[Tmaq]

So what's your point? Are you the word police?

Yeah, I'm the word police.

Please turn in your tongue and keyboard at the station.

Thanks.

(Or try re-reading that line, above, that starts "the point is...")

-Tom

If that was your point, it seemed to have little to do with what I said, beyond a pedantic insistence that I say "cultural" instead of "racial".

You were attributing people's behavior to racism.

If, in fact, its a cultural thing, then you were completely misreading them, if not defaming them.

That many people make such a mistake seems to be entirely irrelevant to my point made in the first post, which was that racism has an effect on society.

...unless it isn't racism at all, which was the point.

I didn't mean that culture has an effect on society, although of course it does.

That statement is meaningless; society has an effect on society?

What you described in your OP might be the effects of different cultural attitudes, a huge distinction compared to 'racism.'

-Tom

[jc88]

I must agree with Tmaq here. Personally, I think "racism" as a concept is wholly incomplete, in that it is an emotionally charged term that simply points to specific instance of cultural phenomena, that was accepted to be unjust to an observers morals. People use it as if it's an end all term. You might as well call someone a human instead of a racist, it would carry the same weight in a conversation with me.
IOW - Anytime someone does not like somebody, and they make a remark about them that is descriptive, you might as well call them a racist. I play alot of basketball, and if I were to say to a friend "damn dude you're like a black goddamn mamba out there dude" would I be a racist? Many people would think so, if my friend was black, and I said it angrily instead of with a smile and a pat on his back. Kobe Bryant doesn't seem to mind, and thus, in the general population the term is congratulatory and not "racial." But consider, Kobe Bryant is being called a black snake. Call him a black snake instead of "Black Mamba" and see the looks you get, just for a fun experiment

[vertigo]

You were attributing people's behavior to racism.

The behaviour I thought was racist can be classified as racist behaviour. It is classification, not attribution.

If, in fact, its a cultural thing, then you were completely misreading them, if not defaming them.

No. Racism is cultural, I didn't deny that. I was being more specific. Why should I use a vaguer term?

That many people make such a mistake seems to be entirely irrelevant to my point made in the first post, which was that racism has an effect on society.

...unless it isn't racism at all, which was the point.

Racist behaviour isn't racism? We seem to disagree on what racist behaviour is. Or perhaps you think some racist behaviour is, at the same time, merely cultural. I don't even know what that means.

So an argument happens in an outside area and the bouncers come over. But they don't throw out Alfie who was making this fight, they don't try to find out what happened, they move him and his friends into the main bar area. Does that makes sense? What does that say to Osman who was a bystander until being shouted at by Alfie? I imagine he tried to tell the bouncers what happened.

[vertigo]

I must agree with Tmaq here. Personally, I think "racism" as a concept is wholly incomplete, in that it is an emotionally charged term that simply points to specific instance of cultural phenomena, that was accepted to be unjust to an observers morals. People use it as if it's an end all term. You might as well call someone a human instead of a racist, it would carry the same weight in a conversation with me.
IOW - Anytime someone does not like somebody, and they make a remark about them that is descriptive, you might as well call them a racist. I play alot of basketball, and if I were to say to a friend "damn dude you're like a black goddamn mamba out there dude" would I be a racist? Many people would think so, if my friend was black, and I said it angrily instead of with a smile and a pat on his back. Kobe Bryant doesn't seem to mind, and thus, in the general population the term is congratulatory and not "racial." But consider, Kobe Bryant is being called a black snake. Call him a black snake instead of "Black Mamba" and see the looks you get, just for a fun experiment

Racism isn't about words, it's about attitudes.

[Tmaq]

You were attributing people's behavior to racism.

The behaviour I thought was racist can be classified as racist behaviour. It is classification, not attribution.

I see now why you were concerned about me being the word police: Because you were worried about me crowding in on your social niche.

If, in fact, its a cultural thing, then you were completely misreading them, if not defaming them.

No. Racism is cultural, I didn't deny that. I was being more specific. Why should I use a vaguer term?

Because the attitudes I described, in my original response, all of which are more specific than either, and none of which qualify as RACIAL attitudes, is what we were talking about.

Why should you use a vaguer term?

I don't know - why did you?

That many people make such a mistake seems to be entirely irrelevant to my point made in the first post, which was that racism has an effect on society.

...unless it isn't racism at all, which was the point.

Racist behaviour isn't racism?

Whether the behavior was racist or not was precisely the question. Because you failed to describe anything other than typical redneck attitudes, the correct answer is "probably not."

We seem to disagree on what racist behaviour is.

Which is why I described the relevant distinction which you mistook for a semantic issue.

Or perhaps you think some racist behaviour is, at the same time, merely cultural. I don't even know what that means.

Me either.

So an argument happens in an outside area and the bouncers come over. But they don't throw out Alfie who was making this fight, they don't try to find out what happened, they move him and his friends into the main bar area. Does that makes sense? What does that say to Osman who was a bystander until being shouted at by Alfie? I imagine he tried to tell the bouncers what happened.

I can imagine all sorts of things. Sticking to what happened, or at least, what you described, I was thinking specifically of the "what are you lookin' at" comment, which is quite clearly from the 'vacuous pride' school of fight-starting behavior, AKA the redneck culture now shared by hilbillies and frequently mistaken as 'black pride,' as already described.

Now, if you think it was a racial issue, why can't we tell from which end of the American racial spectrum your scenario originated?

-Tom

[Tmaq]

I must agree with Tmaq here. Personally, I think "racism" as a concept is wholly incomplete, in that it is an emotionally charged term that simply points to specific instance of cultural phenomena, that was accepted to be unjust to an observers morals. People use it as if it's an end all term. You might as well call someone a human instead of a racist, it would carry the same weight in a conversation with me.
IOW - Anytime someone does not like somebody, and they make a remark about them that is descriptive, you might as well call them a racist. I play alot of basketball, and if I were to say to a friend "damn dude you're like a black goddamn mamba out there dude" would I be a racist? Many people would think so, if my friend was black, and I said it angrily instead of with a smile and a pat on his back. Kobe Bryant doesn't seem to mind, and thus, in the general population the term is congratulatory and not "racial." But consider, Kobe Bryant is being called a black snake. Call him a black snake instead of "Black Mamba" and see the looks you get, just for a fun experiment :nod:

Racism isn't about words, it's about attitudes.

So you haven't tried it, then?

-Tom

[jc88]

I must agree with Tmaq here. Personally, I think "racism" as a concept is wholly incomplete, in that it is an emotionally charged term that simply points to specific instance of cultural phenomena, that was accepted to be unjust to an observers morals. People use it as if it's an end all term. You might as well call someone a human instead of a racist, it would carry the same weight in a conversation with me.
IOW - Anytime someone does not like somebody, and they make a remark about them that is descriptive, you might as well call them a racist. I play alot of basketball, and if I were to say to a friend "damn dude you're like a black goddamn mamba out there dude" would I be a racist? Many people would think so, if my friend was black, and I said it angrily instead of with a smile and a pat on his back. Kobe Bryant doesn't seem to mind, and thus, in the general population the term is congratulatory and not "racial." But consider, Kobe Bryant is being called a black snake. Call him a black snake instead of "Black Mamba" and see the looks you get, just for a fun experiment

Racism isn't about words, it's about attitudes.

Yes it is. So the question becomes, how does attitude effect society? Im not sure that question has meaning, as society has a collective attitude and the individuals within display components of that whole.

[vertigo]

I must agree with Tmaq here. Personally, I think "racism" as a concept is wholly incomplete, in that it is an emotionally charged term that simply points to specific instance of cultural phenomena, that was accepted to be unjust to an observers morals. People use it as if it's an end all term. You might as well call someone a human instead of a racist, it would carry the same weight in a conversation with me.
IOW - Anytime someone does not like somebody, and they make a remark about them that is descriptive, you might as well call them a racist. I play alot of basketball, and if I were to say to a friend "damn dude you're like a black goddamn mamba out there dude" would I be a racist? Many people would think so, if my friend was black, and I said it angrily instead of with a smile and a pat on his back. Kobe Bryant doesn't seem to mind, and thus, in the general population the term is congratulatory and not "racial." But consider, Kobe Bryant is being called a black snake. Call him a black snake instead of "Black Mamba" and see the looks you get, just for a fun experiment

Racism isn't about words, it's about attitudes.

Yes it is. So the question becomes, how does attitude effect society? Im not sure that question has meaning, as society has a collective attitude and the individuals within display components of that whole.

There are different groups in society that act differently. There is no collective attitude. There is the law of course but the law is not an attitude. Perhaps there is an attitude of law abidence in society but what goes beyond the law fractures into group behaviour, and of course there are criminals.