The Event: How Racist Are You?

Comments

1. First of all let me commend Channel 4 for daring to show a programme which attempts to address a deeply divisive yet VERY prevalent issue in British society (it's certainly more than the BBC will ever do with the licence fee that I pay, but that's indicative of the very issue we're talking about here!) With respect, it's funny reading some of the comments here that clearly demonstrate the 'subtleties'of racism in the UK and tendency of the majority to defend the system, albeit under the misguided values that they themselves may hold pertaining to equality, fairness and respect for all peoples and all ethnicities. I am not a psychologist or a politician, I was a lawyer, now a historian and a teacher. The first thing you are taught in history is that "history is recorded by the victors" and that one must always question the source of an established fact, ideology, opinion, mantra, whatever, as there will always be another side which is overshadowed by that which supercedes it. Secondly, regardless of their background/ethnicity, the one thing (AND THIS IS CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTANDING THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPERIMENT AND ERGO ITS METHODS IN MICROCOSM) which the blue-eyed group (and the white members of the brown-eyed group) failed to understand was the concept of POWER! REPEAT: POWER! People have responded saying "Blacks/Asians can be just as racist as whites", and "her methods reflect attitudes from the 1960s", "who gets served in a shop after a white family etc" blah blah - HELLO! Reiterating the same arguments they did in the programme. I will attempt to break down a couple of things for those that did not see. 1.) The reason Ms Elliott's methods were deliberately harsh, punitive and engendered segregation-like conditions was to emphasise the concept of POWER. Power that the MAJORITY exercises or BENEFITS from the exercising of and which directly or indirectly discriminates against a minority. This power must have ramifications for the minority in ALL aspects of life: Health, education, jobs, finance, housing, opportunity and social mobility. This is why the brown-eyes are placed in a position of POWER over the blue-eyes to demonstrate the status quo of inequality, which is then self-affirmed by the minority blue-eyes in attempting to resist the system and speak up for the discrimination of others (regardless of their views or ethnicities). For the commentors that have said these things do not happen in 2009 Britain I will refer to the Question Time BNP charade some weeks back on Youtube - and view the comments of the majority about race/ethnicity to see how much racism exists in Britain. If the vast majority believe in a fair and equal society, yet hold such ignorant views (those of their parents and grandparents) through lack of knowledge or through the sheer fact that they do not EXPERIENCE prejudice shown to others, and since laws have been passed outlawing OVERT racism, they mistakenly believe that society is now automatically fair and as such minorities live the same experience as they do. It is NOT. FACT. You don't need statistics. It is naive to believe otherwise and indeed adds to the problem continuing. 2.) While I am by no means stating that racism does not act in reverse from other ethinicities towards whites and across cultures i.e. Blacks - Asians, looking at it from a social and historical perspective it is very easy to find out a couple root causes: the fallacy of the superiority of lighter skinned peoples over darker ones, which stems from the original Aryans - the Indo-Europeans who migrated from Central Asia into India/Europe/Middle East and invented the caste system in the first place. Also the issue of resources. In an unequal society, the pressure for resources is felt the most by those with the least access - undoubtedly these fall onto the minority groups who will even go as far as resorting to discrimintion against each other in areas where they are both minorities. Wow I've ran out of space!

   Posted by Jay Historian on 10/11/2009 17:14:57

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
2. I was deeply affected by the program and it made me think more deeply about how power even more than wealth is embedded in our systems and, more importantly, how our beliefs reinforce divisions between groups without our understanding. Thank you so much for this series it is groundbreaking and has given me, for one, something to think about.

   Posted by Halima Brewer on 08/11/2009 19:36:42

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
3. I watched the programme and was not surprised about the outcome. It was apparent from the start that the blue eye group were apprehensive about the whole experiment. For those who did not understand ,the program was an experiment. Nevertheless the defensive attitude illustrated from the blue eye group revealed that racist attitudes still exist in 21st century Britain. Many brown eye people living in this society understand this concept . Before you can tackle racism ,we all need to listen and attempt to understanding how racism makes us all feel . I think many of the ethnic majority(Anglo Saxons) in this country find it very hard to emphasis with other races about racism . This is because it challenges their own narrow minded ,sheltered belief system. I don’t think the programme encouraged brown eye people to be bullies, but was meant to be a tool for those in power (oppressor)to understand the impact of racism for those who have no power (oppressed ).

   Posted by Kente on 03/11/2009 17:43:58

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
4. Davina, if you think about it, defying the exercise is the only correct outcome. The exercise is showing that just because you have "brown" eyes and Mrs. Elliott has decided that you are going to be the prejudiced group, against the blue eyed participants, that you are more than willing to marginalise them. What this is showing us about racism is that it isn't just the white blue-eyed group that are capable of racism, it's that when the brown-eyed group have been conditioned into being racist towards the blue-eyed group, they are happy to abuse and cheat them, even though they themselves may (or may not) have suffered racism themselves. Sure the school teacher was obviously very ignorant, but so was the black lady from the brown-eyed group. I think that this exercise is very dated, in the UK now racism is very much not skin-deep. Look at the amount of racism towards eastern European workers and white immigrants. The white lady (I think she was captioned as being a shop manager) that was in the brown-eyed group seemed to be one of the only people in the exercise who did not have an obvious potential for racism! She said how she was brought up in a non-white society and knew what it was like to be persecuted and marginalised, and said she did not want to do the same to the blue-eyed group. She even stood up for the minority group when they were being cheated in the intelligence test. And she was treated by the brown-eyed group and Jane Elliott as if, if you're not part of the group persecuting them, then you should be persecuted yourself! I genuinely thought that at the end of the program the tables would have been turned, with Jane Elliott showing that she was merely acting, and it was an exercise to show the potential for people to be racist as well as showing the white group what racism is like, but alas she was not that professional.

   Posted by Philip on 03/11/2009 17:00:26

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
5. I agree with the comment left before me on this page. Ms Elliot didn't really understand British society it seemed to me and her deeply combative stance will have left little solved. The experiment was flawed, merely a shock exercise built for a different time and situation, in this case it taught the people little about the fact that intrinsic power structures are the problem and simply accused all too quickly of racism. It would have been more constructive to inquire further into those people that felt deeply the effect of racism, quite why the man didn't want to pick up his child due to his colour was baffling and suggested he felt that all white people in that area would immediately judge him or his child, and he seemed to be avoiding the problem. This is not to say it doesn't exist in Britain or isn't an issue but this method of highlighting it is very problematic.

   Posted by amh on 02/11/2009 04:40:27

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
6. I actually think that this programme is detrimental to eradicating racism in this country. It was basically saying that if you are white then you are guilty of abusing and bullying people that aren't white. This just creates a victim mentality. Both in whites (who feel that they haven't done anything of the sort) and in non-white (who think - at last someone rcognises what I've been through). Creating victims does not solve anything. Both sides need to understand each other. The whites in the programme were woefully ignorant of how non-whites feel but that is just because they clearly don't mix with many non-whites. I grew up and have always worked with people from virtually all nationalities (and faiths - although I've never met a Scientologist) and, therefore, know how non-whites feel about certain words and practices that were common place in this country 30 - 40 years ago but if you have had a mainly white existence you are unaware of these things. That doesn't mean you are racist. Equally non-whites need to accept that not every slight they receive is due to the fact that they aren't white. I know it is human nature to look at things from your point of view only but whilst whites insist that racism doesn't exist and non-whites look for insults where none were intended the problem will not go away. Programmes like this play into the hands of genuine racists and those that like to scream 'political correctness gone mad'. The idea that all whites are racist and all non-whites are abused on a daily basis is demonstrably idiotic and, therefore, can not be taken seriously. Even Jane Elliot - the woman conducting the 'experiment- couldn't justify her views or behaviour. She just made bald statements of what she viewed to be fact and said she didn't care what anyone thought of her (good or bad). Those aren't the actions of an intelligent person. If her aim was to show white people what it is like to be racially abused so that they won't commit racial abuse themselves surely she should want to have changed society's attitudes in general - after all if her methods are so good they should have done something in 40 years of trying.

   Posted by Tracie Webb on 30/10/2009 20:40:42

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
7. Stop making racism a colour issue as this is only part of the problem, trying to stop racism by assuming that it only occurs in skin colour is wrong, some of the worst racism happens between African Caribbeans and Asians. Racism is totally about equality and perceived advantage between human beings and nothing else. If you add in the worlds biggest evil which is money and it doesn't matter who or what you are YOU WILL BE SECONDARY on this planet. These are my opinions and mine alone so please do not take offence.

   Posted by Rob on 30/10/2009 18:45:21

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
8. After watching last night's programme it is clearly evident how much racism is embedded in our society. The British people are so afraid to even place themselves in the shoes of a minority group for 2hrs; they spent the whole exercise defending themselves and refusing to co-operate in the exersise defeating the purpose of the exercise and ultimately learning nothing. I was entrigued by Jane Elliot and her work and started researching about her. I watched some videos of her exercises on work employees, school kids, etc online and was impressed by how a simple task had changed people's lives for the better. In an interview she mentioned how sad she felt that this exercise is still relevent in the 21st century, and I agree with her. Until racism effects you, it will always be invisible.

   Posted by Davina on 30/10/2009 16:26:22

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
9. This programme did not affect as I have been subject and witness of an untold story of racism. I would like to contact the presenter Krishna to give some hints of the racism stnad in this era of global economy

   Posted by Andre on 30/10/2009 13:42:30

   Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
10. Dr Baffour comments on the confusion between racism and prejudice without addressing the difference (or is she equally confused?). To me, the difference is that racism connotes an inherent (i.e. unchangeable) superiority of one person over another based on race, whereas prejudice is an (usually negative) assumption that lacks a sound logical or factual basis. Consequently, it is possible to be prejudiced without being racist but impossible to be racist without also being prejudiced. Furthermore, if as she suggest, we are "wired to like people that are similar to us", inbreeding would tend to be the norm rather than the exception. Indeed, it seems we may be wired to seek out people who differ from us for that most significant of activities (from a race point of view) of procreation so as to benefit from the broader genetic variation. Our resistance to such mixing appears to be more a social construct based on fear. Finally, Dr Baffour has not addressed the question raised in the header: it seems to me that the desire to acquire or maintain relative power is a fundamental reason why racism (and sexism, elitism, etc.) exists. Remove the desire for power and there would be no reason for those particular 'isms' to exist.

    Posted by NotUnique on 30/10/2009 08:49:39

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
11. I'm white and 50, and my husband was Black. We have beautiful mixed race children who consider themselves "Brown and British". It was shameful to see a white female teacher being so ignorant on the programme when she claimed half of her class are "col..eh.. Black or Asian and many Half-Caste". Her ignorance of basic biology with her comments about being pink under the black skin is appalling. When people like her are responsible for teaching our children, there will always be racism and many of her pupils will grow up thinking they are different to a white person. For your information Madam, the expression "Half-Caste" is a derogadary term that is no longer used in polite society. I hope the programme educated someone but somehow I doubt it.

    Posted by Annie on 30/10/2009 00:56:51

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
12. The issue of oppression in the United Kingdom has more to do with relative wealth and social status that ultimately derives from it and the privilege it buys than it has or has ever had to do with skin colour, in my opinion, certainly for a relatively long time. I am well aware that well-meaning and NOT RACIST white people who honestly do not think that there is such a big deal with racism because they never see it occur and wouldn't dream of behaving like themselves do exist, however they are far closer to being the solution than people like this woman who, I feel, overstate the scale and depth of the problem in the UK. I've seen the USA firsthand, racism included and I left muttering to myself that whilst the UK has its social problems, racism notwithstanding, at least it has nowhere near the problems that the USA has. I accept that being better than ‘truly awful’ is hardly a glowing report but the people who were lambasted on the ‘How racist are you?’ programme are actually people who are not racist and in fact wouldn't stand for it even when they were being advantaged by it; these people make me proud to be associated with the UK and they are the solution not the problem.

    Posted by Gaidheal on 29/10/2009 23:22:37

    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment