Racism And Islamophobic Racism

Someone asked a question the other day about Islamophobia and why that would be counted as racism, and also discussed racism as such, so I thought it might be worth talking about it in a little more depth. I’m aware I’ve done this before, but probably not from this angle. It’s also on my mind a bit after an exchange with a White acquaintance a week or so ago which is worth revisiting.

Last week, then, some people from here went to Carlisle for a counter-demonstration to the racist protest there, including my acquaintance. I made a very common statement which I expected him to agree with, that all White people are racist. He challenged me on this and I realised I didn’t have a ready answer, so it’s worth going into more depth on this matter.

I am an extremely lucky person. I was born in the developed world in just about the mid-twentieth century CE, I’m human, White, able-bodied, my first language is English and I’m middle class. I’m privileged in most of the ways anyone can be, and it’s important to remember this because of the “let them eat cake” (yes, I know nobody said that) obliviousness this gifts me with. I’m at the top of almost every pile. I’m even from the English Home Counties. Being in such a position means that to me, many issues are abstract and have little to no effect on my quality of life. I’m out of touch in ways which may very well harm others. This might sound like self-flagellation but it isn’t. It simply means that I am as valuable and worthwhile as any other person while also having the luxury of privilege, and of course many people in other categories rightly envy my position and might want to swap if that was possible. People who are less privileged than me might find it hard to understand how someone like Oprah Winfrey or Michelle Obama lacks privilege that they might have, and they do have a point because past a certain line sheer wealth cushions one from the effects of prejudice. However, a poor working-class White man is unlikely, for example, to be transvestigated to the extent Michelle Obama has been. In case you don’t know, there are probably thousands of people who see Barack and Michelle Obama as a gay male couple and Michelle as a trans woman, partly because White ideals of femininity refer to a White ideal female body. It’s very likely that Michelle Obama is protected from potential assassins, but she has to be protected like other powerful figures, and in her case the risk is greater than it would be for someone like Bill Clinton, or for that matter a poor working-class White bloke in England. Hence White privilege, and for that matter fragility, do exist.

This bit is going to be a rehash of a previous post I’ve now lost on ethnicity. The San people, also known as the “Bushmen”, of South Africa and adjacent states, are genetically unusually diverse for a human group. Interestingly, they’re more likely to be albino than any other such group, and although people always intermarry they can be thought of mainly as the sister group to the rest of humanity. One way in which this has been expressed is that it’s easily possible for two San individuals to be as different genetically as an average Irish person is from an average Sri Lankan. There’s nothing special about those two selections incidentally. I could equally well say the average Fuegan and the average Australian Aboriginal. There is also more variation within Afrika than outside it, genetically, so if we are going to divide people into ethnicities genetically, they may as well consist of a number of Afrikan races plus a single race comprising the people of the Sahara and everyone else. This is a bit of an oversimplification though, because Central Asia also has a lot of variation compared to the rest of the planet. Speaking of Central Asia, however, there is a small group somewhere in the Himalayas, if I remember correctly, which is considerably genetically distinct from others but is never regarded as a separate ethnicity in spite of the fact that the average difference between it and other races is as big as between White people and Native Americans, for example. I’ve seen a claim that it’s the Tajiks. If it is, the Tajiks to most people are basically slightly different from Persians in a similar way to the French and English being different. But I don’t know.

Some species are more diverse than others. Cheetahs and Beluga whales are known for being particularly genetically similar within their respective species. On the other hand, there’s a species of roundworm, Caenorhabditis brenneri, whose genes are the most diverse of any known animal species, being as different as lions and tigers even though they’re in the same genus as the famous Caenorhabditis elegans and in a whole phylum of animals which are very difficult for non-experts to tell apart. Humans nowadays are very genetically homogenous because of an incident, possibly the eruption of the Mount Toba volcano seventy-four thousand years ago, which by fifty thousand years ago left fewer than a thousand humans alive outside Afrika. There are some other species similarly affected at the same time such as the other great apes, macaques, the aforementioned cheetah and tigers (which I understand to be several species so I’m not sure what that means). On the whole, species are a lot more diverse than these, so we as humans, or rather Homo sapiens, are starting out from being remarkably similar to each other compared to most other species. Other species, ourselves included, can sometimes be thought of as having subspecies. As far as we’re concerned, that’s probably what Neanderthals were compared to us. That’s not the case for us any more, and hasn’t been so for many, many millennia. I have in my life been able to identify one person who was most genetically different from myself in that she probably had significant numbers of genes from Denisovan ancestors, and so far as I was concerned she was an Indonesian woman whose ethnicity as an Indonesian was more significant to her and others than her genetic makeup, even though she would’ve been dramatically unlike nearby neighbours in that country. It just didn’t matter, and in human terms the differences were really extreme.

My point, of course, is that we’re all mongrels. We’re all mixtures genetically. Moreover, the features on which we tend to focus as White people such as eye shape, skin tone, hair texture and shape of lips are not significant and don’t mean anything in terms of other features. It would be as easy to divide people up by other genetic characteristics such as blood group, tissue type or ability to digest various different compounds in food, which would have more important implications for everyone but would show groups of people which wouldn’t mean very much at all to us. There is basically no biological significance in what White people think of races. It may be true that dark skin protects it from sunlight damage but there are other inherited traits with other benefits elsewhere. Some people might have a genetic propensity not to be able to digest a particular species of caterpillar, which could be very significant in communities where they’re regularly eaten but we don’t use that to divide people up. We do do that with gluten intolerance but we don’t usually think about that in racial terms.

Hence there is no biological basis to race, or rather, its biological basis is arbitrarily decided from a biological perspective. What there is, and this is a social phenomenon, is racialisation. White people have decided that there are separate races, including White people who are in some way the “neutral” race and therefore usually have the privilege of not being aware of their own ethnicity without that being a potential problem for them. Hence we tend to be unaware of racism. It doesn’t quite work that way because, for example, English people tend to view the Irish as somewhat different and there can be prejudice against Ashkenazic Jews and White Eastern Europeans. Groups which are racialised basically have no choice but to be aware of racism. This means that our White privilege makes us able to be oblivious and therefore ignorant of the very real phenomenon of racism.

It often makes more sense to think of racism not as something people do so much as a structural and institutional problem from which White people benefit and racialised people suffer. One way this might help White people to accept our racism is to recognise that racist is simply something we are without seeing it as something which we accuse other White people of and of which we’re innocent. Apart from anything else, whether or not we’re actively racist, the point at which we decide other White people are racist and we aren’t is the end of us working to reduce our own racism and pursue anti-racism, which as White people is more our responsibility than that of racialised groups. It isn’t really the job of Black people to educate us about how we’re racist because we’re responsible for our ignorance and they suffer from it. It’s foisted upon them, and we do it to them, however passively, and passivity is tacit compliance. And again, this might sound like a guilt trip placed on myself and other White people, but it isn’t. It’s simply the recognition that we are racist and we need to do something about it.

A related feature of Whiteness is our fragility. This is also called White defensiveness, and describes our reluctance to talk about the Atlantic slave trade, European colonialism and downplaying the seriousness of racism. Another claim is of reverse racism, i.e. that White people also face prejudice. Accusations of this based on diversity-related affirmative action were once compared to the idea that having a wheelchair ramp into a building which occupies most of the width of some steps is prejudiced against able-bodied people. There clearly does seem to be “pulling the ladder up”-style racism, as with a group of a certain ethnicity then denying fair consideration to members of other, or even the same, minority groups. The Conservative cabinet in Westminster is notorious for doing this. Some research has been done into whether reverse racism exists, and it appears that it doesn’t in this respect, in the sense that it doesn’t impair opportunities to implement such policies. The idea that racism operates equally significantly or comparably between ethnicities is related to the idea that there are clear-cut biologically-based major categories of human populations between which prejudice occurs rather than the more accurate model that there are those able to escape racialisation and those who have been racialised. One thing which does happen, though, is that there can be prejudice between ethnic minorities, which serves White supermacists well through divisiveness.

Before I get to Islamophobia, I want to talk about anti-semitism as it informs the way Islamophobia is rightly understood as a form of racism. The Jewish people as an ethnicity have at least three aspects to their identity: genetic affinity, culture and faith. Jewish people are generally understood as people whose mothers are Jewish, but many people in that category don’t identify as Jewish. There are rarely also converts to the Jewish faith, which would make them Jewish, and people who marry into the faith are kind of “Jewish-adjacent” and may or may not have Jewish children. Not all Jewish people are White, and in fact it could be argued that being Jewish entails not being White, something worth analysing. First of all, skin tone varies a lot between people who are genetically 100% Jewish, such as the Beth Israel originating in Ethiopia, the Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim. These people are subject to racism within their communities. There are also straightforwardly Black converts to Judaism such as Sammy Davis Jr. Secondly, there is a sense in which they are non-White in a similar way to the Roma and the Irish are in England, i.e. there is plainly explicit and conscious racism against them because they’re not White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Their skin tone in this situation is no protection against racism. Nonetheless, there may be no genetic difference at all between them and White people. Imagine two identical twins, one of whom converts to the Jewish faith. These two people would be of different ethnicities.

It doesn’t take much thought to see parallels between anti-Semitism and Islam here. Anti-semitism can be prejudice against people who are physically identical to Gentiles. These are in a small minority but they exist. Thinking back to my time in the English East Midlands, I knew at least three White English converts to Islam and a family of Albanians who to me just looked the same as White English people and were Muslims simply because Albania is an Islamic majority country. Nonetheless these people would’ve met with prejudice because of being Muslim. Many Albanians are culturally Islamic as opposed to being practicing Muslims, so they’re Muslim in the same way as Richard Dawkins is, in his own words, “culturally Christian”. Islamophobia can operate against Albanians even in their own country. Ethnic cleansing against Albanians has been called for by Albanian far-right groups, the state sponsors the promotion of Christianity over Islam and there have been attacks against women in hijabs, who have been called “terrorists”. I probably don’t need to mention what happened in the Balkans in the 1990s CE. There’s also often equation between Muslims and Arabs. Indonesia has the largest number of Muslims anywhere in the world and is not part of the Arab world. But like anti-semitism, Islamophobia is clearly racism. Besides this comparison, when you also consider the unfounded idea that racism other than these examples is based on biological differences in any significant way, then yes, Islamophobia is a form of racism. It isn’t so much co-opted in as that other forms of racism are more similar to it than often realised.

The other thing I want to stress is that racism is something which exists in White people without us needing to commit any voluntary racist acts. We’re able to operate in the world as if racism doesn’t exist, and that obliviousness is a luxury others lack and don’t owe it to us to explain, but we do owe it to them to identify how what we do is racist and what we can do to oppose racism. For instance, a job application might enable someone’s ethnicity to be identified simply through their life history and addresses, which have then been picked up by AI and used to profile a typical successful applicant, and even though the AI may be oblivious of their race, it bakes in and perpetuates racism. There are micro-aggressions, such as praising someone on their language because one assumes their first language isn’t the same as yours. That’s absolutely not intentional but it is insensitive. You might look at a photo of, say, a church website or an environmental conservation or country rambling group and only see pictures of White people without being aware of what that might imply or questioning why that might be. There are all sorts of things.

In conclusion, although there clearly is such a thing as malicious and conscious racism, the more insidious aspects of White racism that I’ve mentioned here may have a bigger impact, and this is something which disadvantages us all because we need diversity. Otherwise, we may have something like the banana plant cultivation problem: homogenous similar strains of bananas subject to being wiped out all at once by infectious diseases to which all of them respond in the same way. Monoculture is dangerous and needs to be avoided for all of us. Diversity is a strength which racism works against.

Disappointed By ‘Dune’

I attempted to watch the 2021 (CE) ‘Dune’ last night and had high expectations. I was disappointed and gave up after an hour or so. However, I should point out I was of necessity watching it in HD rather than 4K on an 80 cm telly without surround sound, about which I was already trepid due to the fact that it seems to be very much a cinematic experience. The best, or possibly only, way to watch it is probably in an IMAX cinema.

I’ve been putting it off for a while. When it was first released, the Covid issue and other reasons why I’m tied to this house prevented me from going to see it as it was “intended”, but I heard good reports about it. Later on, the rental price was ridiculously high, at something like £15.99, which was also off-putting. I can understand the need to recoup costs in difficult circumstances, so I’m not just going to put that down, as many others have, to greed on the part of the studio. I do wonder if the strategy worked, since it’s now been reduced.

But then I ask myself, if a film relies on spectacle for its impact, is it actually worthwhile anyway? Sometimes I think it is. For instance, there’s an ’80s film I can’t track down about a woman going blind which is visually very lavish because it emphasises what she’s losing. I also understand that another SF film, ‘2001 – A Space Odyssey’, hugely benefits from being seen in its original form in Cinerama. Incidentally, a number of films made in the late ’60s and early ’70s have a “trippy” scene like the one in ‘2001’, such as ‘Charly’ and ‘Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory’, with the tunnel scene, which very much chime with the Zeitgeist and exploit the medium of cinema well. I’m not sure how the parents of the children watching ‘Willy Wonka’ would’ve felt about the likelihood that that scene may have packed the auditorium out with a load of long-haired smelly hippies, as they would’ve seen them, but there it is.

I actually feel quite strongly that science fiction cinema should be low-budget and have low production values. ‘Primer’ and ‘The Cube’ both have tiny budgets. ‘The Cube’ mainly involves a single set lit in different ways to make it look like different rooms and cost only $350 000. ‘Primer’ was much lower, at $7000. Even ‘Dark Star’ only cost $60 000, although that was mid-’70s so in 2021 dollars that would be 350,000 (I’m having trouble with the blog editor messing up number formatting here). SF is a number of things, but for me two aspects of it are crucial. One is that it’s a genre where ideas replace protagonists, or perhaps are the protagonists, as with the Big Dumb Object approach seen in ‘Rendezvous With Rama’ and ‘Ringworld’, but often in more abstract ways as in ‘The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas’. The other is that it has to be fiction whose plot depends non-trivially on the setting. I came up with this criterion specifically to exclude ‘Star Wars’, which I hate and despise, from the genre. The ‘Star Wars’ franchise has many issues, but a significant one is that it attempts to tell sword and sorcery fantasy tales in a space opera setting to demonstrate that certain aspects of the human condition are eternal and universal, and this means that the setting only exists to demonstrate that things are still the same, even though the characters don’t even share ancestry with Homo sapiens. There is nothing wrong in principle with fiction whose plot is independent of the setting or even trivially dependent upon it, although I suspect that the execrable ‘Number One Ladies’ Detective Agency’ is this so there is a risk of poor quality because of that, but it does place it outside the genre.

‘Dune’ was significantly heavily plundered by George Lucas for ‘Star Wars’ although the latter has many other elements which are not linked, such as Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, and probably Tolkien too. This is unfortunate for a 2021 film though, because it may give the viewer the impression that it’s derivative rather than ‘Star Wars’. It’s very like the tendency for children’s CGI films to be pre-empted by inferior copies being released earlier because they take less time to render than the better quality Pixar films, which happened a lot in the ‘noughties. Without the awareness that Frank Herbert invented a lot of the tropes which ended up in George Lucas’s films, ‘Dune’ looks like a rip-off of that franchise, when it very much is not.

The problem with big budgets in films is that they are often used to make them visually impressive while detracting from the quality of the script and plot. It would be unfair to accuse ‘Dune’ the film of having too many fight scenes because the book also has those, but I remember thinking that the film of ‘Prince Caspian’ was completely ruined by having a ridiculously long battle scene in it, presumably because it needed to compete with ‘Lord Of The Rings’. Herbert did take pains to force his future universe to behave as if it was like our world of a few centuries ago, by outlawing AI and contriving to make melée weapons necessary, so the presence of long, tedious fight scenes and a fair bit of associated machismo is at least in keeping with the tone of the book. This is also balanced by the rôle of soft power and women in the story, although to describe the manipulations of the Bene Gesserit as “soft power” isn’t really accurate. At the same time, there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with a film mainly being a spectacle, and it might even make sense to go further in that direction to keep cinemas alive.

One way in which ‘Dune’ bucks the trend, inherited from the novel itself, is its positive portrayal of Middle Eastern culture and the associations with Islam. Being written in 1965, Herbert’s story long pre-dates the resurgence of Islamophobia in the ‘noughties. That said, it does very much portray religion as primarily an instrument of social control, although there is also the apparent existence of psi abilities. In the film, the latter is clearly present. The author appears to treat Arab culture and Islam respectfully throughout the first novel (I say that because I haven’t read any further). It’s refreshing to see that done in a 2021 Hollywood blockbuster.

I’ve got this far without mentioning the David Lynch version! One of the many problems with that appalling version was that it had an all-White cast when none of the protagonists in the novel were White. This is addressed to some extent in the casting of Villeneuve’s version, although it would be difficult to portray the thorough mixing of ethnicities the novelist assumes to have happened in the many intervening millennia. Evolution has also altered Fremen physiology, so there are biological differences, some of which are genetically engineered, and there are also millennia-long breeding programmes which are supposed to reach their climax in the birth of Jessica’s daughter, but the problem is that she chose to have a son first.

One positive from the previous film is that it at least attempts to portray the space-folding technique used to travel between the stars, although in a very weird and off-putting way. This is completely absent from the new version, which is significant because Spice is economically central to the Imperium as a means of enabling interstellar travel. It would’ve helped to have shown that in order to emphasise the in-universe realities of its central position.

Herbert advocates a right-wing position in his novel, that the basic state of human society is feudal. He was also writing against Asimov’s ‘Foundation’ series, where sociological predictability is central and the emergence of a mutant who can influence society through their new abilities disrupts the plan for preserving civilisation. This was a quasi-socialist position, although Asimov was merely a liberal. Herbert’s reply to Asimov is to portray a society where an individual mutant, or at least a carefully bred sport whose existence depends on an individual decision to go against the plan, makes a huge positive difference to a society. The way Hollywood works is to have heroines and heroes struggle against enormous difficulties and achieve resolution through strength of character, although there is sometimes emphasis on teamwork and family values too. ‘Dune’ lends itself fairly well to this approach. The approach, however, seems to be carefully engineered to bring a situation which reproduces the social conditions of the European Middle Ages. The emphasis on families wielding power can be seen as arising from powerful companies, as it sometimes does today, but on the whole large capitalist enterprises are more democratic than that because of shares and floatation on the stock market. I don’t think it’s really explained how humanity ended up back in the position of having powerful houses, religious organisations and guilds controlling everything when it had become thoroughly capitalist by the twentieth Christian century.

All this, though, may be the reason I didn’t enjoy the film. It’s a bit like ‘The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe’ in a way. You get to the very end of the span of time during which intelligent life exists, and the economic system is still as it ever was, there has never been a utopia and so forth. Likewise, ‘Dune’ is estimated to be set something like 30 000 years in the future, which is a lot closer to the present day, but the basic social order is not criticised so much as taken as a given. I think I would prefer a world to be presented either as a utopia or dystopia. That said, it may be more realistic to recognise the future as neither, and again this chimes with what political conservatives would see as realism. Moreover, this was in the original novel. If it comes across in the film too, that would seem to be a successful adaptation rather than either a failing or a negative aspect of the work.

When it comes down to it, what I think has happened is that I haven’t really seen ‘Dune’ and may not in fact ever do so. In order to see this film, you have to go to the cinema, and possibly to an IMAX to watch it. I didn’t do this, so maybe I haven’t got any valid grounds for criticism. Nonetheless I did rapidly lose interest. My fault probably.