#07 - Is it wrong to claim "not to see colour" and how do we promote diversity in our places of work without being performative and tokenistic?
Language Matters Memo, a monthly newsletter from Sadia Siddiqui, focused on fostering more progressive and inclusive language.
Hello and welcome to the August issue of The Language Matters Memo. This month's mini-essay explores what’s wrong with saying: I don’t see colour. I also share my responses to three of the most common questions I’m asked about diversity and inclusion in the workplace. Before I get into those topics, I have a book recommendation for you.
I came across this book by eavesdropping on the author, Sheela Banerjee, describing what she did for a living to another stranger. In my defence, I was in public, and Banerjee's description was enough to compel me to buy the book. I'm so glad I did, as it led to one of the most worthwhile and wholesome reading experiences I've had for a while.
Before I share my thoughts - here's a brief synopsis of the book:
Our names are so mundane that we barely notice them. Yet each contains countless stories of tradition and belonging. In What’s in a Name?, Sheela Banerjee unravels the personal histories of friends and family through their names. And while tracing their heritage across centuries and continents – from West London to British India, and from 1960s Jamaica to pre-Revolutionary Russia – Sheela also tells the story of twentieth-century immigration to the UK. Blending history, memoir and politics, What’s in a Name? is a celebration of Britain’s rich multiculturalism, an ode to friendship and a testament to all the stories held within our names.
Banerjee was born in Britain against a backdrop of simmering racial tensions. Just a few months before her birth in 1967, the British MP Enoch Powell gave his poisonous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech warning white Britains that the country would soon be awash with foreigners. Despite the rhetoric and the daily experiences of racism, Banerjee’s parents, who are Indian and of Bengali descent, were determined that their child would thrive in the country of her birth. Her parent’s names were regularly butchered by British acquaintances who did not have the time, patience or inclination to learn how to pronounce them correctly. It was consequently important to protect their child from this indignity by giving her a name everyone could pronounce - eventually settling on a Bengali take on the name ‘Sheila’.
The first few chapters of the book chronicle Banerjee’s early life and experiences at school, university and early career in the media, as well as her complicated thoughts on her name. Banerjee also introduces us to the key friendships she has made throughout her life so far. These friendships and our introduction to them are the beating heart of this book, as Banerjee uses their names as a portal into their family histories.
Through the book, we travel to Tsarist Russia, 1960s Jamaica, post-colonial Cyprus and most interestingly, for me, British India. Banerjee cleverly transports us back to these diverse places whilst demonstrating these countries’ connections with modern-day multicultural Britain. It was a fascinating journey, and I learned so much about Jewish immigrant lives in East London at the turn of the century, to the rituals and traditions of naming children in Greek and Cypriot culture.
The book's blurb describes names as 'mundane'. This is the one thing I have to disagree with. If we’re lucky enough to be born into a loving home, our names are the first gift bestowed upon us by our parents, and with that name comes all the hopes and dreams they have for our future lives. Names are incredibly important - irrespective of whether they are popular and considered ten a penny or completely bespoke - they are ours and give meaning to our experience of the world.
It was a privilege to be allowed access to the stories behind Sheela, Marcella, Liz, Denise, and Hugh’s names. Their beautiful stories will stay with me for a very long time.
You can buy What's in a Name? by Sheela Banerjee here.
Is there anything wrong with saying ‘I don’t see colour”? Surely that’s a good thing?
Photocredit: @ohhappydani
This is a phrase I heard a lot growing up and still hear occasionally from well-meaning friends and colleagues. As a statement, it sounds well-intentioned - a claim that we're all the same irrespective of our outward appearances.
Whether we’re aware of it or not, the claim ‘to not see colour’ is a subtle manipulation to avoid discussions concerning race, as it effectively shuts the conversation down by claiming that the issue at hand - race - is something we cannot, in fact, even visualise.
Does race and conversations about race really matter?
Biologists and those in the anti-racism space often highlight that race is a social construct applied to select groups and has no grounding in biology, given that all humans, irrespective of race, are 99.9% the same. Race was primarily constructed to justify colonialism and enslavement by highlighting the 0.1% difference.
Whilst we might want to believe that we’ve moved on from these times, there’s no getting away from the fact that we live with the ramifications of enslavement and colonialism to this day and because people do see colour, our race and ethnicity have a significant bearing on how we move through life, the benefits and privileges we are afforded and in extreme cases our life expectancy and outcomes. How else would we explain that young, Black men in London are up to three times more likely to be unemployed than their white counterparts irrespective of their qualifications, and the rate of maternal mortality is 3.7 higher in Black women than white women? There is no escaping the fact that our skin colour impacts our daily lives.
But what if we are good people and recognise that although there are injustices in the world, we don't want to see them and want to treat others as equals?
Okay, let's break this down.
"I'm a good person."
Somewhere along the line, we’ve internalised the idea that good people cannot be racist because we view racism (just like homophobia, ableism and ageism) as overt and blatant statements of prejudice.
In reality, prejudice against other's identities is often subconscious and presents as biases one may not even be aware of. It's impossible to live in a racialised, heteronormative, gendered society without internalising a worldview clouded by that reality. Rather than focusing on claiming not to hold prejudicial views, we should acknowledge that everyone has biases and actively unlearn them. This is the only way we'll be able to align what we profess to believe with the actual practice of our lives.
“But I really don't see colour”:
Scientific studies show that someone's race or ethnicity is among the first things we notice about someone. Numerous studies show that children can make race-based differences at six months and internalise racial bias and preferences from two to four. By 12 years, many children are set in their beliefs. It’s scientifically impossible to claim not to see colour.
What's the impact of saying “I don't see colour” on people who are racialised?
The statement "I don't see colour" tells others that this person is uncomfortable talking about racism and that their comfort is more important than an instance of racism. It signals that they do not plan to do anything to combat racism as it does not personally impact them. It's also predicated on the belief that to be different is to be of an inherently lower status.
When people claim “not to see colour”, they are demonstrating that they have no critical understanding of the way racism shows up in our society and the impact it has.
That would be impossible to avoid unless it's to your benefit that you do so, right?
For the person on the receiving end of the statement, it's incredibly discombobulating and insulting to be told that an aspect of their identity can be treated as being erasable or unimportant. It can lead to the individual questioning how they present themselves and internalised issues with their own identity.
What should you do or say instead?
Listen and empathise with the experience someone is sharing with you. Your comfort is not the priority here.
Consider why you would think this was a compliment/something acceptable to say.
Ask yourself if you would say the same thing to someone else with an identity that is different from yours:
I don't even register that you’re a woman!
I don’t even see you as being gay!
I don't even notice that you're a wheelchair user!
Sounds pretty bizarre, doesn't it?
Questions people want to ask about race and ethnicity in the workplace (but feel nervous about asking)
Below are responses to three questions that regularly crop up in the Q&A section of my Language Matters Live training sessions. They are all excellent questions, and I always welcome the opportunity to discuss them. I hope sharing them here will help your personal and professional inclusion journey.
Question: Is it performative to suddenly start putting people of colour in our ads and internal communications when we didn’t feature them before?
In a modern, progressive and inclusive society, people should see themselves represented in everyday culture, from movies to TV ads to medical journals. Before the Summer of 2020, this wasn't something some brands/organisations were overly concerned with, which meant marginalised communities were overlooked and excluded.
That said, representation is one thing, and inclusion is quite the other. If your organisation is happy to put POC/women/a person with a disability/someone from the LBGTQI+ community on a poster but isn't actively creating opportunities within the organisation for people with these identities. In that case, they are absolutely being performative. Diversity is a fact; inclusion is a choice, so organisations must ensure they are cognisant of both when making and evaluating their plans.
Question: We talk about D&I, but our company is still really white. How are we ever going to change that?
This is a big question, and employers often put this down to being a pipeline problem - namely, the candidates aren't out there/aren't studying the right subjects. There are countless studies* that dispel the pipeline myth, so we need to look inward.
Does your company operate a referral system? Does your organisation have links to specific educational establishments? Maybe they only take graduates from Russell Group/Ivy League Universities. These are just two ways your organisation upholds the status quo. You need to restructure how you recruit because you will get the same result if you keep doing it the same way. Consider placing recruitment ads in places and spaces where you don’t usually advertise, review the language you use to ensure it’s inclusive, and think carefully about the make-up of the interview panel and how you can irradicate their biases.
Question: If we suddenly start talking about supporting Black businesses, will that look weird? Is that actually racist?
No! Initiatives like Google's #SpendBlack and 'Black Pound Day' exist because Black business owners are four times more likely to be rejected for loans. When a loan is secured, they pay higher interest rates than other businesses. These initiatives help readdress that balance by introducing shoppers to businesses and brands they may not know, thereby helping traditionally disadvantaged businesses. The initiatives are rooted in creating racial equality, and that's something to be celebrated.
That's it for this month. I hope you found this issue useful, and if a friend passed this newsletter on to you, why not subscribe by clicking the button below so you get next month's issue straight in your inbox?
Until next month!
Sadia.