Racism and Imperial Nostalgia at the BBC: an open letter to Andrew Marr
Priyamvada Gopal | 13.06.2006 16:57 | Anti-racism | Culture | Globalisation | Cambridge
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/06/wanted-loyal-natives-to-discuss-empire.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/starttheweek.shtml
PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY TO INTERESTED PARTIES
Open Letter to Andrew Marr, Presenter, Start the Week on Radio 4, the BBC
Dear Andrew,
This is an open letter that I am going to ask the people--many of whom are
prominent academics-- I have copied in to circulate as widely as possible,
to draw the attention of people to the egregious manner in which you dealt
with the follow-up this morning's show on 'The Legacy of Empire'. I am
appalled and shocked at your biased introduction to the evening phone-in.
You use dismissive words like 'blarney', 'aggressive', and 'too much heat'
to describe an impassioned discussion of a painful and traumatic legacy
that didn't fit the genteel upper-class British converation over 'tea and
cucumber sandwiches'model. This then set the tenor for the phone-in that
followed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/starttheweek.shtml
PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY TO INTERESTED PARTIES
Open Letter to Andrew Marr, Presenter, Start the Week on Radio 4, the BBC
Dear Andrew,
This is an open letter that I am going to ask the people--many of whom are
prominent academics-- I have copied in to circulate as widely as possible,
to draw the attention of people to the egregious manner in which you dealt
with the follow-up this morning's show on 'The Legacy of Empire'. I am
appalled and shocked at your biased introduction to the evening phone-in.
You use dismissive words like 'blarney', 'aggressive', and 'too much heat'
to describe an impassioned discussion of a painful and traumatic legacy
that didn't fit the genteel upper-class British converation over 'tea and
cucumber sandwiches'model. This then set the tenor for the phone-in that
followed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/starttheweek.shtml
(You can listen to both the programme and the phone-in via this site)
PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY TO INTERESTED PARTIES
Open Letter to Andrew Marr, Presenter, Start the Week on Radio 4, the BBC
But worst of all is the patent attempt to bring in a 'positively disposed
to Empire' Indian woman to neutralise what you saw as the 'aggression' of
the Indian woman you had invited to be on your morning programme. It is
obvious what that is trying to accomplish and completely unworthy of
someone in your position. It is, after all, an old colonial strategy: pick
the good native to neutralise the bad one quickly 'The British empire was
good on the whole,' she announces, to Andrew Marr's relief. What this
person's credentials are to opine on Empire and India other than 'being' of
Indian descent and 'married to a white man' are completely unclear. Is
everyone of British descent qualified to discuss the Norman Conquest, the
Magna Carta or even the Normandy landing? She tells us that the Empire
means a lot to Indians because her grandfather salutes her white husband
(!). Empire is 'anachronistic' for young Indians, apparently. Each of her
questions/comments to callers betrayed, I'm sorry to say, as a teacher,
ignorance and little other than a desire to smooth over any rough edges
from the morning. As though there were no connection between sectarian
violence and the Partition! And as though a critique of Empire precludes a
critique of the Indian state which often works with what it inherited from
the colonial state: please see the work of most people copied in on this
letter. We find it possible to do both self-criticism and a critique of
colonialism, and what is more, to see the connections in a complex
historical and political frame. Next time, at least find a scholar of/on
India--rather than a young woman from the office next door- if you want
some damage control done. That is, if you are bothered about being serious
at all rather than getting an agenda through.
I realised from your mode of operating today and how you handled the
programme (including the nervousness about real debate as opposed to some
facile smorgasbord 'point of view' dance) that your own pro-colonial biases
are pretty apparent. Nevertheless, I would have expected a more general
*show* of fairness (and that favourite BBC buzzword 'balance') from someone
in your position. Apparently not. Several have written to me condemning the
shameless plugging of Ferguson's racist text and the way in which the whole
programme was not about the legacy of empire, but that text and its release
this week. People will be interested in the following nuggets from the text
the BBC wishes to launch as a definitive account of Empire:
'Like attracted and continues to attract like; those who are drawn to 'the
Other' may in fact be atypical in their sexual predilections'
'When a Chinese woman marries a European man, the chances are relatively
high that their blood groups may be incompatible, so that only the first
child they conceive will be viable'
'Human beings do seem predisposed to trust members of their own race as
traditionally defined'
We are supposed to react to this kind of thing with a lack of forcefulness
or passion, and just to the whole Oxbridge boys back-slapping tally-ho
routine. And if we don't, a nice native will be found and then wheeled on
to say 'No, no, guys, it was all great really!.
I regret coming on at the last minute. As an academic with serious
interests in the matter, I thought I'd be participating in a real
discussion, not a book plug, a sham and an apologia for the past. (Those of
you who are simpy copied in to this letter should know that the original
programme had three white scholars, two of whom are pretty openly
pro-empire, and one token black man, until the BBC were told at the last
minute that they should ferry in an Indian woman so they could look
'balanced' and 'fair'. Then they didn't like what they heard: the pliant
Oriental woman they had hoped for didn't turn up, so they quickly ferried
one in for the evening to recover lost ground.
Nevertheless, I shall take some heart from the scores of emails that have
flooded in to me thanking me for challenging Ferguson's biases and
egregious theory. You really think that we should take two centuries of
exploitation, war, famines and immiseration and do some sort of clinical
'balance sheet'? Well, we did. And as Robert said, it came out negative.
Doing another 20 pro-empire programmes with a gaggle of Indian women
willing to echo what you want them to say aren't going to change that, but
do go ahead and give it your best.
I told Victoria I would be happy to come on again. Allow me to withdraw
that offer firmly and unconditionally. I'm an academic, not a paid monkey.
Shame on you!
Dr Priyamvada Gopal
University Senior Lecturer
Faculty of English
Cambridge
(You can listen to both the programme and the phone-in via this site)
PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY TO INTERESTED PARTIES
Open Letter to Andrew Marr, Presenter, Start the Week on Radio 4, the BBC
But worst of all is the patent attempt to bring in a 'positively disposed
to Empire' Indian woman to neutralise what you saw as the 'aggression' of
the Indian woman you had invited to be on your morning programme. It is
obvious what that is trying to accomplish and completely unworthy of
someone in your position. It is, after all, an old colonial strategy: pick
the good native to neutralise the bad one quickly 'The British empire was
good on the whole,' she announces, to Andrew Marr's relief. What this
person's credentials are to opine on Empire and India other than 'being' of
Indian descent and 'married to a white man' are completely unclear. Is
everyone of British descent qualified to discuss the Norman Conquest, the
Magna Carta or even the Normandy landing? She tells us that the Empire
means a lot to Indians because her grandfather salutes her white husband
(!). Empire is 'anachronistic' for young Indians, apparently. Each of her
questions/comments to callers betrayed, I'm sorry to say, as a teacher,
ignorance and little other than a desire to smooth over any rough edges
from the morning. As though there were no connection between sectarian
violence and the Partition! And as though a critique of Empire precludes a
critique of the Indian state which often works with what it inherited from
the colonial state: please see the work of most people copied in on this
letter. We find it possible to do both self-criticism and a critique of
colonialism, and what is more, to see the connections in a complex
historical and political frame. Next time, at least find a scholar of/on
India--rather than a young woman from the office next door- if you want
some damage control done. That is, if you are bothered about being serious
at all rather than getting an agenda through.
I realised from your mode of operating today and how you handled the
programme (including the nervousness about real debate as opposed to some
facile smorgasbord 'point of view' dance) that your own pro-colonial biases
are pretty apparent. Nevertheless, I would have expected a more general
*show* of fairness (and that favourite BBC buzzword 'balance') from someone
in your position. Apparently not. Several have written to me condemning the
shameless plugging of Ferguson's racist text and the way in which the whole
programme was not about the legacy of empire, but that text and its release
this week. People will be interested in the following nuggets from the text
the BBC wishes to launch as a definitive account of Empire:
'Like attracted and continues to attract like; those who are drawn to 'the
Other' may in fact be atypical in their sexual predilections'
'When a Chinese woman marries a European man, the chances are relatively
high that their blood groups may be incompatible, so that only the first
child they conceive will be viable'
'Human beings do seem predisposed to trust members of their own race as
traditionally defined'
We are supposed to react to this kind of thing with a lack of forcefulness
or passion, and just to the whole Oxbridge boys back-slapping tally-ho
routine. And if we don't, a nice native will be found and then wheeled on
to say 'No, no, guys, it was all great really!.
I regret coming on at the last minute. As an academic with serious
interests in the matter, I thought I'd be participating in a real
discussion, not a book plug, a sham and an apologia for the past. (Those of
you who are simpy copied in to this letter should know that the original
programme had three white scholars, two of whom are pretty openly
pro-empire, and one token black man, until the BBC were told at the last
minute that they should ferry in an Indian woman so they could look
'balanced' and 'fair'. Then they didn't like what they heard: the pliant
Oriental woman they had hoped for didn't turn up, so they quickly ferried
one in for the evening to recover lost ground.
Nevertheless, I shall take some heart from the scores of emails that have
flooded in to me thanking me for challenging Ferguson's biases and
egregious theory. You really think that we should take two centuries of
exploitation, war, famines and immiseration and do some sort of clinical
'balance sheet'? Well, we did. And as Robert said, it came out negative.
Doing another 20 pro-empire programmes with a gaggle of Indian women
willing to echo what you want them to say aren't going to change that, but
do go ahead and give it your best.
I told Victoria I would be happy to come on again. Allow me to withdraw
that offer firmly and unconditionally. I'm an academic, not a paid monkey.
Shame on you!
Dr Priyamvada Gopal
University Senior Lecturer
Faculty of English
Cambridge
Priyamvada Gopal
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
Will you keep your word, Dr Gopal! Please do that for ever!
13.06.2006 18:18
Dear Dr Gopal
A very brief question: will you keep your word?
Please do and shun the racist fabricators for ever !
We human beings must rise above the level of the racists and stay there.
So far well said and thank you for at least making the effort to alert some of us who would not have known of some of the inner goings on inside that particular outfit.
London 1818 hrs GMT / 1918 Hrs UK
Tuesday 13 June 2006
Muhammad Haque
e-mail: lawmedia@hotmail.com
Homepage: http://www.khoodeelaar.com
Beware the light-weight journo!
13.06.2006 22:22
He got more than he bargained for with you, Priya. Good on you!
Alan Stinchcombe
e-mail: astinchcombe@hotmail.com
It was balanced!
14.06.2006 05:17
Paul
STW is for book-plugging
14.06.2006 12:29
You've been had, and you'll just have to put it down to experience. The next time someone strokes your ego by inviting you on a programme, make sure to check out the programme first. For that matter, check out the radio station - R4 is the station of the English middle and upper classes, and most of its listeners are usually Right of centre, if not plain barking, so R4 just replicates their reactionary prejudices on air. There's no point whingeing at length on Indymedia about it after the fact as the damage has already been done. Do your homework first.
Gerry
Gerry
e-mail: gerry.gerbil@gmail.com
Scrap the BBC poll tax
02.07.2006 00:07
The BBC is a relic from Britain' s imperial past, when everyone knew their place, and the government knew what was best for everyone. No wonder it is so pompous and arrogant.
simon
Ferguson's Empire
09.09.2007 16:01
I have been reading Niall Ferguson's article on The History Boys in the FT Magazine, which mentions you. I am glad of the chance to make a comment.
I did learn some things from the book, but what struck me most of all was the amazing deductions from the facts even as he gave them. Most of all about the famines which were as deliberate killings as any carried out by Hitler, and as Ferguson implies but does not state, exceeded them in numbers. This was true of the Irish Potato Famine, and the casualties from disease of the British soldiers in the time of the Crimean war attacked by Florence Nightingale.
I base my case on Romesh Chandra Dutt's "Economic History of India", and ask where else can such knowledge be available to the general public? His claim was that there never was a shortage of food in India as a whole, but just the money to pay for it and the transport. The history of Britain or her empire cannot be adequately understood without John Clapham's "Bank of England" and other economic histories. Ferguson does not refer to Clapham while asserting, and quite rightly in my view, the importance of setting up the Bank.
Ferguson asserts many people making a living as historians make errors, but he does not think to apply this to people making a living as economists. Very little history applied would surely lead to some hesitation.
Michael Moore
e-mail: mooretheridge@gmail.com