If you met me, you’d figure out fairly quickly that I’m Australian.
You will probably infer from that, that my skin is prematurely sun-damaged, that I’m a goof surfer, that I get irrationally excited to discover Vegemite or mangoes as part of a breakfast spread, that I think Christmas Day should be celebrated out of doors and preferably over BBQ or at the beach, and that I’m loose with the curse words. Which are pretty benign assumptions, although not all accurate. (I can’t surf. And I don’t eat meat.)
But if you assume that I am the same as 30 million other people, or that I’m prone to excessive social drinking, overstaying my couch-surfing welcome or think that detaining ‘boat people’ is legit, I will rail. I will rail against the prison those stereotypes create for me.
The trouble is, there’s not much I can do to shift your perception once you’ve got me in that box.
That’s the trouble with racism.
It’s so culturally ingrained that everywhere you look, something will reinforce your prejudice and make you feel that your position is legitimate and defensible, and that anyone who challenges you is one of those “knee jerk” politically correct liberals.
That’s also the trouble with Nick Davies’ column in the Question last week.
The media’s influence is incredibly powerful.
I didn’t see the film Miss Representation, about the media’s portrayal of women being full of stereotypes that undermine and handicap women and girls, but a friend’s take-away has stuck with me. When media perpetuates stereotypes that undermine people, we need to call it. Call attention to it. Name it. Red flag it. Wave it down. That’s the only way, the slow slow slow way, that we will make a shift, towards a world in which we all have the breathing room to be ourselves.
To have a media platform from which to broadcast your opinions or ideas is an incredible privilege. There’s an inference that you are an expert, that you know a bit more than others, that your ideas can be relied on. Sure, I like to start an article with a provocative statement. Absolutely. I put a lot of work into my articles and I want people to read them… Sharp pointy words or a provocative opener definitely helps.
But perpetuating the racist stereotypes that have burdened First Nations since first contact is not okay.
And I call it.
To call people poker-faced game-playing bluffers, based on their race or cultural heritage, is a misrepresentation. And it’s not okay.
The Wellness Almanac 
I agree with you Lisa. I was in the running for that position apparantly, well I was asked to write a test column one week… It would have been a much different angle than Mr. Davies. Check it out if you haven’t already: http://bit.ly/vzwl1Z
Thanks Steve. I think it’s healthy to be presented with different opinions and different perspectives. (Otherwise we’ll all get stuck in a filter bubble where our own biases just get reaffirmed by selectively sourced informatin.) Differences of opinion are especially valuable if we can respectfully disagree, or call out a statement that we think is a burdensome stereotype. I hope that I was able to convey that I think the statement “I’ve always said First Nations bands are better at poker than we are” is loaded and worth reconsidering, without it being perceived that I’m calling Nick a racist.
I have always personally been challenged by opinion columns – because they aren’t required to fact check, get sources, or follow any other journalistic/reporting practices, but often actually convey more authority to the reader, than factually accurate reporting does.
I don’t know enough about both sides of the issue to comment on the length of time first nation people have occupied the greater Whistler area and thus the strength of their suit which seems to be where most of the flack he took came from, however I did read Nick’s(entire)article three times to try and see the racist inference. Reading “the First Nations bands are better at playing poker than we(the municipality etal)are” seems significantly less derisive than your suggestion that he has just reduced an entire group of people to “poker-faced game-playing bluffers.” And how is he basing it on their race? But you do bring up an interesting point. How does one express an opinion in the negative about any member(s)of a specific group of people without the whole group getting taken down? Do we just refrain from speaking? How could have Nick opened that article in a way that would have gotten you to read his piece and weigh the issue rather than get tripped up in his opening line? After all you have just labeled a guy a racist. But then again we all know what lawyers are like…..
Yeah, those lawyers… Haha.
Thanks for your comment, Jeff. All good questions. How do we talk about these issues? Hopefully by keeping on talking…