Haven’t had much to talk about lately, and it’s a bit late in the evening, but I do feel compelled to talk about this spectacularly finely-crafted piece of utter bollocks at Stumbling & Mumbling:
Casual empiricism suggests European social models, more than “Anglo Saxon” ones are at least consistent with racism, if not productive of it. Racist chanting is common at Italian or Spanish football grounds, but almost unheard in England.
Not entirely true, that - I remember wincing when England fans chanted (amongst other ditties) “I’d rather be a Paki than a Turk” at England’s home match against Turkey in 2003 (which the FA got a hefty fine for). And there are still some grounds in the country where non-white spectators might not feel entirely safe. But anyway, that’s a minor quibble compared to the next sentence:
And where are the French or Italian equivalents of Condi Rice or Colin Powell?
But both Rice and Powell first flourished in non-market institutions! The Army in Powell’s case, academia and political institutions in Rice’s. And they were probably helped in the first place through affirmative action and other consequences civil rights movement - distinctly non-market mechanisms. Also - this demands a parallel question - where’s the British equivalent of Rice or Powell? Currently, every single member of the Cabinet is white. If you want to use that as proof that “markets are not racist” argument, then fine. But then, please tell me how many FTSE 100 companies have non-white chief executives.
Could it be that competition and markets, rather than state intervention, are the best fighters against racism? If so, the smaller the market, the more racism there’ll be. Markets are colour-blind. Social networks are not.
The simplistic assumption underpinning this is that all racism is blatant, based on simple differences in colour and, as long as it’s not happening in our faces constantly then it is fine. While it is great that football fans no longer fling bananas at black players and sitcoms no longer feature browned-up actors playing Indian “buffoons”, it does not mean we live in a perfect racially harmonised country. Scratch beneath the surface and you can encounter all kinds of murkier, more subtle, racism - the usual sentiments masquerading behind weasel words and contorted doublethink. It’s not too hard to find someone who will extoll the virtues of Trevor McDonald, before outpouring their hatred of asylum seekers.* The complexities of the situation behind the Birmingham riots last week (another reason not to gloat at France’s current troubles) show that it’s not a simple case of different racial groups, but also of anger, mistrust and misinformation, stoked up by ongoing poverty and deprivation.
Markets are not “colour-blind”. They depend on people, and people making choices subject to information. People are not automata who will “rationally” process every input and make the best decision every time, but more often than not make their decisions based on their own prejudices, believing what they want to believe, and choosing accordingly. If a market comes to be dominated by racists making racist decisions, then it will act racist, just as any other kind of social organisation would do.
Of course, the converse applies too (a market dominated by anti-racists will be anti-racist), and I am not ruling out markets as a means of achieving better racial harmony. What I am saying is that they cannot be taken as laws unto themselves - well-tuned machines that smoothly and efficiently operate at a level above and separate from the behaviours and irrationalities of the people within it. Tackling racism (and other forms of discrimination) depends on focusing on attitudes and prejudices within the system (whatever kind it is), rather than trusting it to automatically work by its own means.
* I was going to add “your nearest taxi cab, for example”, but this is perhaps a harsh generalisation.
