Dear Editor,
Re: “Be very careful about using the “R” word,” Letters, March 23.
Ray Arnold’s criticism of the misuse of the term “racism” is well taken.
There is an unfortunate tendency among some in anti-racist circles to use that term, rather than deal with the substantive arguments articulated by those who oppose immigration, affirmative action, multiculturalism policies and the like.
Indeed, I could be accused of reducing complex issues to a simple, but effective word, having once publicly accused the letter-writer of looking like a “bigot.”
However, within our local context, it is often difficult to parse different strands of thought.
The “culturism” to which Mr. Arnold refers has a fraught history. “Culturism” is a reactionary movement which aims to counter the rise of the multiculturalism movement of the past 50 years.
The argument of “culturists” is that multiculturalism policies undermine or devalue the “founding” or “majority” cultures in which these policies have taken root.
Unfortunately, this perfectly valid ideological position has been hijacked by those on the far right.
In its most extreme form, “culturism” is a proxy for a type of insidious racism.
There is a whole host of new, often social media-based organizations (Council of European Canadians, Immigration Watch Canada) that blur the fine line between criticizing multiculturalism and immigration, and outright bigotry.
The same phenomenon has unwittingly occurred on the Richmond News website.
Prior to its merciful closing of the article comments sections, there were a number of choice remarks that caught my attention: “I reiterate, ASIANS are the worst drivers in BC and something best be done before more innocents are killed!”; “As the demographics have changed the last few years so the lack of pride has followed, Goodbye Canada.”
Racist? Perhaps not. But when you put these comments together with the story about a Chinese person being asked if he would like to eat a dog (“Dog-eating slur needs to be addressed”), the “Fight Gridlock: Cut Immigration” protest by Immigration Watch Canada, the “Dirty, stolen money” graffiti in Terra Nova, or — to add a personal anecdote — the swastika I saw in Steveston, the impression one gets is of a simmering undercurrent of racism.
Our inability or unwillingness to use nuanced language, or engage seriously with the arguments raised by community activists like Ray Arnold, Kerry Starchuk and others does a disservice to public debate.
It can be difficult to separate legitimate editorial commentary and activism from the excrement that emerges from the comments sections of the various news outlets in the Lower Mainland, especially when all you have to do is scroll down the page.
In this particular climate, with the ongoing debate about Chinese language signs, “monster” houses, shadow-flipping and so on, it is logical that nuance is lost on some of us.
Mr. Arnold’s letter is a timely reminder that words matter. “Racism” should not be used as a bludgeon to silence opponents when more subtle language can advance debate.
Lee Blanding
Richmond
