Last year, a 57-year-old man was fired from his job at a ready-meal manufacturer in Wrexham after making a supposed mockery of a visiting auditor’s “typically Irish” appearance, with his manager present.
The man was dismissed because (as his manager contended) he said in a feigned Irish accent, “Top of the morning to ya!” to the red-headed auditor. His employer claimed this was an incident of racial harassment. However, the employee said that he had been listening to Irish music at the time, and that his comment was merely “effectively channeling the musical vibe”. The judge eventually found that the dismissal was unfair and awarded the employee compensation of £16,000.
I do not claim to have the wisdom of a judge, and I did not witness the events in question, but it seems to me that, all things considered, unilaterally firing the man was an overreaction. Despite his somewhat laughable excuse for his remark, I do not think it was fair for the man to be fired for them alone. Really, the whole thing seems not to be a very serious incident.
What, then, is interesting about it? Well, suppose for a moment that the circumstances had been somewhat different. What would have happened if, for example, a white employee had been listening to reggae when a black auditor walked past with the manager, and the employee had “effectively channeled the musical vibe” then?
It seems likely that much of the United Kingdom, and well beyond, would hear about this heinous racial offence. The victim would probably find some way of monetising the atrocity online. Quite possibly the employee would find himself facing time in prison for a “hate crime” – a situation not improbable at the moment in Great Britain. I have doubts that a single judge would conclude that his dismissal was unfair. This is to say nothing of the outrage that would flood the internet.
Granted, this is a hypothetical scenario, but history has furnished plenty of similar examples. Take the 2022 case in which two black girls at a Sesame Street parade in the US were allegedly racially discriminated against by a mascot, who seemingly declined to acknowledge them specifically. The video of the scene was posted online, garnering massive support for the mother of the children against the supposedly racist Cookie Monster. Sesame Street Philadelphia issued a statement in response, in which they asserted: “The costumes our performers wear sometimes make it difficult to see at lower levels and sometimes our performers miss hug requests from guests”. However, the crowd was not pacified, the outrage kept pouring in, and the company had to issue a further apology in which they abandoned any attempt at a defence.
Never having spent time in a giant fluffy cosplay suit for a famous pop culture creature, I cannot be sure, but the supposed reason behind the incident set out in the first apology sounds quite reasonable to me. Nevertheless, no mercy was shown and the company was ripped apart online. No explanation is acceptable in a situation like this, it would seem.
And so we must ask ourselves: why do these situations only ever seem to go one way? Why is it that a black man can causally call a white man a cracker and everyone laughs it off, while a white man using the n-word (which, unlike the above slur, I cannot even spell out on a page) is the end of the world?
It is the idea that the sins of the father are to be laid upon the children. In the opinion of the people who push this idea of one-way-only racism, white people are and always will be oppressors. It should be acknowledged that it is mostly white people pushing this worldview. Nevertheless, this does not make it any less unfair.
This idea is based on the erroneous notion that Western countries are inherently racist in their treatment of “outsiders”. In truth, Western countries have historically been more welcoming to foreigners than practically anywhere else in the world. The United States was built on immigrants from all places, and while it did have a history of slavery, this was abolished remarkably quickly compared to most other countries. Anyone who has travelled outside the West will appreciate that casual racism is immeasurably more commonplace in other countries, and is not even considered to be racism by most people in those countries. This is not to condone racism, but the truth is that, of all the places in the world, the Western countries – where Caucasians are still the predominant race – are probably the least racist.
Returning to the incident with which we began, from my limited understanding of it, I think firing the man was unnecessary. The truth is that, in order to have functioning social relations, there has to be a bit of room for light ribbing, and this will inevitably touch on subjects of ethnicity and origin. I have plenty of American acquaintances not afraid to give me some atrocious attempts at Irish accents. However, I understand that this is all in good fun, and I get a laugh out of it. I don’t waste my time and theirs by lecturing them on it. There has to be room for people to make light-hearted jokes about our differences. This does not degrade anyone; it simply acknowledges everyone’s individuality in a playful manner.
People need to learn to stop being so sensitive about dumb jokes. If you read every attempt at humour as a hate-crime, it is quite likely that it is you who are the problem, not your “racist” co-worker.
______________________________
Patrick Vincent writes from Dublin
Loading ...