Agree that the press first and now government is putting pressure on people that are doing nothing that is illegal.

It’s fuelling a culture of let’s hit out at any group seeming to do well or spending money to try and invest in potentially new and innovative ways of doing things.

It drives me mad that a catch all approach is applied. Latest example is scorn in the metro of the potential introduction of iPads in Westminster. The focus is on the fact that it will cost x pounds and that politions get “cool” iPads and not at the real potential benefits that innovations within communications usd by our most powerful guardians of the country.

Loads more, it’s almost like the whole of the country is justified to be damning of any person seen to be doing well, I don’t think that’s an exaggeration…

We should catch up soon, say hi to d & s.

The need for an audience, for dance and sport, is for financial reasons only. The freedom of expression is exercised even when they are performed behind closed doors, with no one present but the performers themselves.

Art, arguably, needs and audience for it to be art, as it is the meaning infered on it by the viewer that makes it art. But, by painting, sculpting, dancing etc, the person creating is expressing something. Stop the creative process and the freedom of expression is blocked. Stop the viewing of an object and the freedom to express has already been exercised, the freedom to show it off may be infringed rightly or wrongly, but not the freedom to expression.

As far as the audience is concerned, wouldn’t that come under the freedom of association?

(apologies for the poor constructed rambling)

What is shameful is that all the authors didn’t stand as one to support Kunzru, Joshi, Thayil and Kumar. The organizers were more concerned with keeping the Show going irrespective of the fact that the uproar was about free speech, the most important ingredient in the world’s largest democracy.

It appears that the festival organizers are spineless wimps who have disgraced the Indian literary scene.

I think we’re talking about two different types of ‘culture’ here. And therefore we disagree over whether the ‘culture’ is better placed to defend against white-on-black racism or black-or-white racism. If we take ‘culture’ to mean the overt politcial conversation in the twenty-first century, then I think you’re right: We discuss white-on-black racism much more, and the language has been developed to identify and condemn such racism. Black-on-white racism in this context is unexpected and not properly understood.

However, in my post, I took ‘culture and society’ to be something broader and longitudinal. In that sense, it is undeniably orientated towards the affirmation and (for want of a better phrase) ‘bigging up’ of white people and men, at the expense of black people and women.

Your point about my post basically boiling down to “meh” or “bothered” is well made. One reason for such a comment might well be that the listener considers the speaker to be so inconsequential that the racism has no effect. If so, then you’re right to percieve a dismissive attitude (although that does send us down a rabbit hole of offence and identity politics). However, an equally plausible reasons for such an attitude might be that the content of the racist statement is inconsequential. Diane Abbott gets dismissed because she said something obviously stupid, not because of her gender or skin colour.

(The word ‘obviously’ in the sentence above is an interesting addition here. I think it is that word that betrays the supreme confidence in one’s place in society, that is the hallmark of the language of those belonging to privileged groups).

I don’t deny that there are complex relationships at play here, between the racial identities of the interlocutors, and the content of the words spoken, so I might have missed something. But if I had, it only serves to reinforce the thought I was trying to pin down in the OP, which is that there is a contextual difference between white-on-black racism, and the reverse. A difference that Abbott’s most vocal critics seemed to be willfully neglecting, leading to the unexpected spectacle of a black woman being acused of racism during the public discussion of the Stephen Lawrence convictions.

A final thought, which perhaps goes to show again how the two types of racism are different, and how the ‘culture and society’ protects the white man’s back: Just look at the actual content of the racist messages. When black people are the victims of prejudice, they are accused of being stupid and sub-human. At worst: Slaves. At best: Less capable. Contrast this with the ‘racism’ against white people: Dianne Abbott accuses us of being Colonialists and Oppressors. This does ascribe bad attributes to white people, but still places them in a position of power and superiority. As such, it is an easier slur to shrug off, and if the insult were internalised, it would not have the same effect as someone coming to believe they were worth less, as ‘traditional’ white-on-black racism achieves.

I am reading Umberto Eco’s The Prague Cemetary at the moment, so to finish, I will note is that Jewish people manage (uniquely) to be the victims of both kinds of racism. They are/were frequently depicted as sub-human, yet are also accused of oppression and colonialism (Protocols of The Elders of Zion, &ct.)

But I sort of half take your point. The society and culture may not have much experience in defending White people against black racism (as you say, why would it) but the society does have a healthy track record affirming White people (or men) as normal, healthy, and right. So the racism, when it does strike, is simply less powerful.