nepean_redskins

It would seem that some people are profoundly confused when it comes to racism, the meaning of words and how communication occurs. 

On the one hand, some people decry what they call political correctness, employing a twisted defence of intent whereby those subjected to their abusive language cannot complain unless, in his or her heart of hearts, the speaker meant to do harm.

On the other hand is a doctrine that racism can only flow in one direction.

Both views are wrong and both do harm in their own unique ways.

Recently, examples of each have been in the news.

Musician Ian Campeau filed a human rights complaint this week against a Nepean football club’s name, a name also used by a professional team in Washington.  

Mr. Campeau, who is Anishnabe, asked “What’s going to stop them from calling my daughter a redskin in the schoolyard? That’s as offensive as using the n-word.” 

Indeed, imagine any sports team with the latter moniker, or any of the other derogatory terms for people of various ethnicities. It wouldn’t happen, except to Indigenous people.

Steve Dean, who heads both the National Capital Amateur Football Association and the Nepean team, said there was no intent to offend anyone and claimed to have validated his position with “members of the aboriginal community,” adding “There are two opinions on this.”

There are, of course, far more than two opinions. 

Perhaps because I grew up in the ’70s, I tend to support George Carlin’s view on language, offensiveness depends entirely on intent. But George was a smart guy who understood that meaning is the biggest part of intent and that meaning includes both definition and context. To use a word without understanding its meaning is to use it carelessly, without regard for how it will be heard.

Despite controversy over its etymology, the R-word has a clear historical context where it was used as a racial stereotype with derogatory intent and its definition reflects the same fact. The Oxford English Dictionary says it is a “noun, dated or offensive, an American Indian.”  That is its sole meaning.

Whether the football club invented some other inoffensive definition for the word with no historical context really isn’t relevant because whatever the club thought it meant by that word, others are going to hear the actual meaning and it will give offense. More than that, it will do harm — it will diminish self-esteem — among a group of people trying to overcome centuries of abuse.

Yet more interesting to me is the effort to validate the club’s interpretation of the term by asking the Ottawa Aboriginal Coalition for an opinion, more than a year after Mr. Campeau had raised the issue with them and more than 30 years after choosing it. 

The Coalition replied to the request by saying that it believed the club when it said it was not trying to offend and then suggested two ways of helping people understand their intent, producing literature on how they came up with the name and teaching kids about the implications of racial insensitivity. 

The football club did neither of those things. In fact, as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, the club has yet to apologize or respond in any other way than to deny the racism in its name and logo.

Instead, it is trying to use the lack of condemnation from the Coalition as a defence on the theory that if you can find an Indigenous person who isn’t offended by your racism, what you’ve done is fine. 

For its part, the Coalition acknowledges it has no authority to approve or disapprove of anything on behalf of the Algonquin (the Indigenous people of the Ottawa region) or on behalf of all Indigenous people. It wasn’t saying go ahead, it was trying to build a positive relationship by offering helpful advice on how to ameliorate the situation. 

If the football club understood Indigenous culture, it would have understood what the response meant. But then, if it understood Indigenous culture, or the English language, it would know that the R-word is an offensive, and yes, racist term.

The other news item on this issue pertains to the use of the phrase “white do-gooders” by Manitoba’s Deputy Premier and Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Minister, Eric Robinson.

Mr. Robinson was commenting in a private email about a group, Osborne House, which held a burlesque night as a fundraiser for a shelter for victims of domestic violence.  Like Mr. Campeau, Barbara Judt of Osborne House has filed a human rights complaint.

Mr. Robinson apologized, saying “I’m regretful for a couple of things: the term ‘white’ for one thing, white do-gooders. I am also regretful that the event occurred.”

Some people, however, have gone on the offensive in response to Ms. Judt’s complaint, forming a Facebook group called Stamping Out the Myth of “Reverse Racism” in Winnipeg. Like Mr. Robinson and me, they find the fundraiser offensive.  But they have taken the issue in another direction, prompting a discussion of whether racism exists when aimed against the dominant group in a society. 

The Facebook page references a couple of blogs about the topic.

One such article says, “Let’s start from the beginning. Your first step is to accept that ‘a hatred or intolerance of another race’ is not the definition of racism. The dictionary is wrong. Get over it.”

Another, somewhat more intellectual, take is that “Reverse racism isn’t real because we live in a culture that supports and enforces whiteness as the norm and PoC (people of colour) as other.”

Personally, I refuse to get over my fondness for the dictionary. I find it pretty much indispensable. 

I also refuse to deny racism when it is used against those with power. It helps to remember that different societies have different power dynamics. Think about Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia when thinking about the power of racism among those of the same colour. We don’t all live in a white normative culture.

Fundamentally, reverse racism is a meaningless term. Which ethnic group is being discriminated against or from which ethnic group that discrimination comes is irrelevant to the question of whether an idea is based in notions of racial superiority.

Not only does racism against any group give offense, it does harm. Although the harm done is greater in effect when applied to oppressed peoples, we must remember that racism of any kind harms the cause progressives are supposed to support — social justice — because a world in which any racism exists is an unjust world.

Again, the definition of the word matters, as does the context. These are what give it meaning. Rather than try to change the meaning of racism, or invent terms like reverse racism, it would contribute to communication to say what one actually means using words according to their definition and in appropriate context. 

If we did, we might actually move the conversation forward.