Feminist Research Education Development and Action Centre Reports Index

The FREDA Centre for Research on Violence against Women and Children The Media, 'Race' and Multiculturalism Yasmin Jiwani, Ph.D. A Presentation to the BC Advisory Council on Multiculturalism March 17, 1995 March 21 has been designated as the International Day for the Elimination of Racism by the United Nations. It commemorates the Sharpeville Massacre in South Africa, in which hundreds of peaceful demonstrators, protesting against Apartheid, were brutally fired upon by the police. Sixty-seven people were killed and 186 wounded. Among them were 48 women and children. What made the police fire on this group of demonstrators? What were the kinds of images of black Africans in circulation in the dominant media of the time? Historically, there is ample evidence to show how images perpetuated in mainstream, dominant media are used to justify the annihilation, domestication and containment of subjugated peoples. Clearly, in the South African case, a case in which racism was openly justified, legalized, and perpetuated by the institutions of society, the media worked in concert with these institutions to put forward a view of black Africans as people who were dissidents, people who had to be contained, and if they threatened the white power structure in any way, had to be killed. If one looks back at other horrific situations, situations in which people were killed because of their differences and what those differences meant, one notices again the powerful role played by the mass media. In pre-Nazi Germany, Jewish people were negatively characterized in the mainstream press. As Mary Mouammar has argued: The foundations for the Holocaust were laid by German caricaturists who depicted the Jews as serpents, defilers of Aryan maidens, wealthy through the exploitation of the Gentiles, and traitorous to German interests. In short, they were seen as different, and that made all the difference in treating them as less than human. (1986:15) These representations paved the way for the horrors that followed, they legitimized the genocide of millions of people by constructing these people as being less than human, as "deserving" to be annihilated. For if a particular people are constructed as a threat, then in the interests on national sovereignty and national security, it becomes incumbent on those in power to get "rid" of this threat by whatever means possible. Naturally, the media are critical agents in this process because they play a major role in shaping public opinion. Use of the media is one of the primary ways that those in positions of power can justify, legitimize, and gain support for the actions they take. This is because, as Stuart Hall has noted, the media are "structured in dominance." They are a powerful institution populated and controlled by the elite who then liaise with other elites to maintain the status quo. The media are among the richest organizations in this society. They constitute a monopoly of knowledge, and through their practices of selection, editing, and production, they determine the kind of news we receive about our nation, culture, and the rest of the world. When one looks back at the colonial past, the dominant and elite character of the media become more apparent. Between 1815 and 1914, direct colonial domination of the world expanded from 35 percent to 85 percent (Said 1979). Canada was a colony of the British Empire. A critical aspect of colonialism was the subjugation of indigenous peoples. This was accomplished through processes that emphasized the destruction of: indigenous economies, traditional lifestyles and cultures, religious traditions, educational institutions, and normative frameworks for the distribution of justice. With this destruction came the imposition of colonial ways: colonial systems of education; governance; justice; the religions of the colonized, and economics, which justified slavery; indentured labour, and subsequently wage labour. This process was buttressed by the formal and informal institutions of colonial powers. The media were crucial agents in circulating and perpetuating images of colonized people as being inferior, as savages from a bygone era, as requiring civilization, as being heathens, etc. The media thus played a pivotal role in providing the legitimation and justification for conquest and colonization. For if a people were deemed as being savage, then it was incumbent on the beneficence of the colonizing powers to civilize them; if they were seen as bygone relics of the past, then it was incumbent on the colonizers to rescue their past and preserve it for the sake of history. And if a people were deemed as being inherently inferior, then this naturally required the colonizers to take over their countries and to guide them on the path of progress. These were the messages communicated in the media of the day, through novels, travelogues, the press, and journals. (See for instance, the writings of Katherine Mayo, Rider Haggard, and others.) Naturally, there were more informed and critical currents of thought, but these were often marginalized within the dominant discourses of the day. The Present as Rooted in The Past In part, the contemporary media coverage of people of colour is rooted in these colonially inscribed filters. As in the past, the media today fulfil the following functions: 1. They shape public opinion by defining issues, setting the agenda, and framing the parameters and categories of thought. 2. They influence policy makers by supposedly presenting the view of "the people" - a view that they themselves shape. 3. They influence our socialization so that we come to know, through these images and definitions, where we stand in the social order, the formal and informal rules by which that order is governed, and how to become good consumers. 4. They forward a particular view of the world which "makes sense" of the reality around us, and which evokes within us an appropriate response - a response which also makes sense. Hence, if we are constantly confronted with images of immigrants who are criminals, who will not assimilate, and who are opportunistic, then this evokes within us the "appropriate" response that these immigrants should not be allowed into the country. 5. The media are profit-making industries. They will sell whatever we buy or wish to buy. Thus, they sell us to advertisers as potential consumers, and they serve for consumption whatever they think we desire to know. Contemporary representations are framed within these larger functional parameters, but are grounded in the historical tradition of representations of colonized peoples. The base grammar of such representations cohere around notions of people of colour as being inferior, as being less capable, less able, as having barbaric practices and traditions, as threats to the cultural, social, and economic order of the nation. The Canadian media have a strong history of representing non-British or non-French immigrants in highly negative ways. The history of Ukrainian immigration, Jewish immigration, Polish immigration, and the treatment meted out to communist individuals is indicative of the level of intolerance that inheres in our historical heritage. But this strong anti-immigrant sentiment has been infused and exacerbated by racist sentiments, which themselves are also part of the Canadian cultural identity and history. As in the past, immigrants who are people of colour are still seen as a threat. For example, in the 1920s, local commentator John Nelson wrote: British Columbia is one of the last frontiers of the white race against the yellow and the brown. It is a land where a hoary civilization meets a modern one, and where the swarming millions of ancient peoples, stung into restless life by modern events are constantly impinging on an attractive land held by a sparse thousand of whites ... a community which stands at the sea-gate of the northwest Pacific and holds it for Saxon civilization. (Cited in Buchignani and Indra 1985) By 1977, the Vancouver Sun was articulating the same sentiments (Indra 1979). Subsequent studies have revealed similar findings. Immigrants are seen as a threat to the cultural order because their own cultures are considered to be "problematic" - either as exotic residues which can be brought out of the closet and celebrated periodically, or as residues of the past which have no meaning in contemporary society (Moodley 1983; Peter 1981). More particularly, the cultures of people of colour are seen as tradition-bound, backward, and oppressive as compared to the liberal, progressive, and contemporary nature of Canadian society. Immigrants who are people of colour are often represented as being non-assimilable - not wanting to or having the capacity to be "like us." They are represented as taking advantage of the benevolence of the Canadian government by "demanding" resources to maintain their cultures (despite the fact that they are taxpayers who contribute more in taxes than native-born Canadians). More recently, this view has taken on yet another insidious twist: immigrants who are people of colour (read "multicultural") are threatening to tear apart the fragile fabric of Canadian identity. This implies that there was a strong sense of Canadian identity to begin with, and that recent immigrants are diluting and fragmenting it. Immigrants who are people of colour are also seen and represented as an economic threat, either taking away jobs from well-deserving Canadians, or sponging off the welfare system (Ducharme 1986). Interestingly, the highest levels of immigration occurred in 1913, when Canada accepted 400,870 immigrants. Yet, the press at that time did not focus on these immigrants as taking away jobs or as taking undue advantage of the kindness of Canadians. The framing of immigrants who are people of colour as economic threats is made apparent in the media's representations of Asian-Canadians as opportunistic businessmen, buying out Vancouver. In 1989, Asian investment in British Columbia ranged from 20 to 30 percent. The remaining 70 percent originated elsewhere. Yet the Vancouver Sun's coverage constructed a completely different impression. In 1988 alone, the Sun published 659 stories on Hong Kong immigrants and their investment in real estate (Bula 1989). This constant proliferation of stories served to create and entrench a stereotype which still abounds and which has undoubtedly deteriorated the social relations between different ethno-racial groups. Immigrants who are people of colour are represented as a social threat. As gangs, criminals, bogus refugees, and illegal immigrants, they are presented as threats to the social order, as being unwilling or unable to obey the laws of the land, and as having a painful disregard for the compassion and goodwill of Canadians. Story after story in the local and national media sensationalizes the stream of illegal immigrants and bogus refugees that are entering the country and of criminals who are not being deported because of the failure of the Immigration and Refugee Board. However, a recent study by David Matas of the Canadian Council of Refugees, found that from 1989 to 1994, only 38 individuals out of 122,000 processed by the Board actually defrauded the Board (Vancouver Sun, March 16, 1995). Yet, this little bit of critical information was embedded on page A6 under the heading, "Tales of refugee fraud not true, lawyer says," - this compared to the front page bold headlines usually reserved for those immigrants and refugees found to be criminals of one kind or another. Throughout most of the coverage in the dominant media, there is an "us" versus "them" dynamic at play. "They" are the illegal immigrants and bogus refugees; they are the reason we have crime; their cultures are backward and traditional; they oppress their women. By contrast, "we" Canadians have a progressive, dynamic, and egalitarian culture. "We" are honest and law-abiding, and "we" as a nation had no crime until the arrival of these immigrants of colour. Against this backdrop, multiculturalism is seen only as referencing the cultures of people of colour. These cultures are seen as being visible, since they stand out against the invisible white background of the dominant culture. And that culture is as very much alive today as it was in the past. Most of the institutions in this society are rooted in the cultures of the Charter groups - the French and the English. The judicial system, the educational system, the economic system, the familial structure, the linguistic systems - all of these are the fibres of the British/French culture, depending on which part of the country you happen to live in. But these cultural institutions are not seen as "cultures" per se. Why? Because culture is only relegated to the visible signs of food, clothing and art and the difference of these signs from the dominant cultures marks and separates them out for special attention. It is in the interests of the dominant culture to have these visible signs of other cultures defined as "culture" and "multicultural." In this way, their power to define is rendered invisible as is their institutional power to determine where these groups fit within the larger social structure. For if you have "multicultural" groups out there, then you can point to them as representing those groups who will not fit; who are non-assimilable; who are different and whose difference can then be used in strategic ways. The reality that every group has a culture - that there is an institutional culture, corporate culture, police culture, etc., and that these cultures are sustained through a variety of ways and resources, is negated and excluded by the dominant culture and its systems of power. This power to define extends to the realm of the media. For here, the power resides with those who have the resources to tell the stories. And who tells the stories about people of colour? Our negative representation in the mass media is complemented by our under-representation within media organizations. A 1986 survey of 20 English-language newspapers found that less than 2 percent of the staff consisted of First Nations people, people with disabilities, and people of colour. I don't believe the situation today has changed very dramatically. In a study of the film and television industry in the U.S. (which I cite here because 80 percent of our programming is American), only 2 percent of the writers for these productions were from minority groups. In the public sphere, people of colour make up 4.2 percent of the staff (most of them in contract positions) of the National Film Board. Of the 70 feature films made in Canada last year, only 2 were made by people of colour. The reality is that we are not telling our own stories. However, when our stories are told, they are used to frame us in ways which suit the ideological interests of the dominant media. Thus, it is not surprising to find that the only time when we are interviewed on television newscasts is when the story deals with our communities (Erin Research 1991; Generations Research 1988; Lazar and Perigoe 1989; Peac Research 1982). According to Erin Research, which compared the CBC and a private station's newscasts, people of colour were only interviewed in 3 percent of the domestic stories and most of those stories concentrated on events within their communities. Since most news is bad news, the only time in which we surface is when there are problems in our communities, and hence cumulatively over time, our communities are themselves seen as problems. The media not only define us, but they communicate where we stand in the social order. As Stuart Hall states, they communicate what "race is" and how it is understood. If we are invisible in the nation's media, and only visible as "problem people" framed in the categories of crime, deviance, and disorder, then what are the implications for ourselves and our children? Most of the research in the United States and Britain indicates that the media play a critical role in shaping the race relations climate. Studies also indicate that it is through the media that children obtain a sense of how acceptable/non-acceptable their racial identity is, and where they are located in the social structure. The findings of these studies indicate that we have to change the direction of contemporary representations if we are to be counted as citizens, and as having a valued place in the nation. However, even more dangerous than negative representations is the media's coverage and definition of racism itself. Racism is presented as: 1. An emotional phenomenon that can be rectified with the proper amount of education, exposure, and perhaps even therapy. 2. An opinion which individuals have the right to have and express in their own circles. This allows racism to continue, and to flourish in certain situation. Because it is located in the private domain, the State is reluctant to intervene. In the media, individuals who are overtly racist are often framed as being ignorant bigots who reside in rural areas and who lack education. Once again, the antidote is education and exposure. But this deflects attention away from systematic racism - the racism one encounters every day and at every level, the subtle racism which impedes people of colour from getting jobs, housing, and which demeans their sense of self (see van Dijk 1993). 3. Racism is also represented as a side-effect of too much diversity. Its root cause is located in the rising levels of immigration of people who are "different." This in itself is a racist supposition. However, the antidote to which it logically points is: get rid of the difference and stop the immigration of those who are different. Once again, the racist character and practices of the dominant society are evaded in this kind of explanation. What Can We Do about the Situation? 1. We can mobilize and articulate our complaints through the official channels or bodies, for example the CRTC, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the press councils, etc. We can intervene at station licence hearings. However, to be effective we need to work in coalitions, in large groups. But even then, these regulatory agencies adhere to the rules and practices of media organizations. They support and uphold the principles of objectivity, balance, and impartiality. These principles themselves are problematic. To present a racist view and then counterpoint it with an anti-racist view fulfils the criterion of balance, but presupposes that the two sides are culturally, socially, and politically equivalent. Are they? I don't think so. If racism is seen as a crime, as it should be, then simply by pitting a criminal and a person against crime side-by-side does not fulfil any criterion of balance, impartiality, or objectivity, save that which is removed entirely from the social world in which we live. 2. In 1984, Carol Tator and the Urban Alliance of Race Relations in Toronto, began a mail-back campaign in which they sent back all flyers they received from the major department stores - on the grounds that these flyers did not represent the communities that were being served. Within a few months, the stores responded by using models from different ethno-racial backgrounds. We can engage in a massive mail-back campaign but once again, this requires that community groups work together. And given that we are all fragmented by time commitments, different interests, and different cultures, not to mention different socio-economic backgrounds, this would be a difficult task to undertake. 3. Boycotting is yet another mechanism through which we can make our voices heard. We are consumers of the media and as such, we can exercise considerable power by refraining from consuming media messages. This again requires working in solidarity and committing time and resources which many of us do not have. 4. We can employ the legal route as has been done by the Jewish Congress. However, this is extremely time-consuming and very expensive. The media can always rely on the freedom of speech principle to evade taking responsibility over their messages. 5. We can lobby for effective representation within media organizations. This can be done through local government representatives and by talking to the editors of various papers. However, in these hard economic times we are likely to be told that there is no money to hire additional reporters. Yet we can show support for the critical and progressive writings of particular journalists who are socially responsible. 6. We can actively support progressive alternative media organizations such as some of the community newspapers and cable television stations. This would not include the North Shore News, but rather papers like Kinesis. 7. We need a mediawatch kind of organization that will monitor the representations of people of colour; an organization whose mandate would be to intervene at licence hearings and to lodge complaints with the CRTC. Such a body would be able to present research and articulate the concerns of our communities. In the end, we need to monitor the media ourselves and to look critically at the kinds of messages that are being put forward. For ultimately, as in the old Westerns, we cannot afford to identify with the wagon train that is supposedly being attacked by the Indians, but rather with the Indians on whose land the wagon train is encroaching. Bibliography ACTRA. Equal Opportunities to Perform: A Study of the Role of Performers Who are Members of Visible and Audible Minority Groups in Canadian Communications Media. Report undertaken by Rita Shelton Deverall, 1987. Armour, Monica. "The Historical Context of Racism in Canada." Currents 2(1) 1984. Bagley, Christopher. "Race Relations and the Press: An Empirical Analysis." Race XV(1) 1973: 61-89. Bannerji, Himani. "Now You See Us/Now You Don't." Video Guide 8(40) 1986: 5. Berry, Gordon L and Claudia Mitchell-Kerman, eds. Television and the Socialization of the Minority Child. New York: Academic Press, 1982. Bey, Salome. Address to the Conference on Visible Minorities and the Media. Ottawa: Department of Multiculturalism, 1982. Buchignani, Norman and Doreen Indra, with Ram Srivastava. Continuous Journey. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1985. Bula, Frances. "Accessing the Media." In The News Media and Race Relations Seminar Proceedings, ed. Aziz Khaki. Vancouver: Committee for Racial Justice, July 24, 1989. Cottle, Simon. "Race, Racialization, and the Media: A Review and Update of Research." Sage, Race Relations Abstracts 17(2) May 1992. Ducharme, Michele. "The Coverage of Canadian Immigration Policy in the 'Globe and Mail,' 1980-1985." Currents 3(3) 1986. Erin Research. Social Trends in CBC Television Programming, 1977-1990: A Content Analysis Commissioned by the CBC. Ottawa: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1991. Garrett, George. "Freedom of Expression and the News Media." A panel presentation to the News Media and Race Relations Seminar Proceedings. Vancouver: Committee for Racial Justice, July 24, 1989. Generations Research, Inc. The Portrayal of Canadian Cultural Diversity on Canadian Network Television: A Content Analysis. Ottawa: Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, 1988. Hackett, Robert A. "Coups, Earthquakes and Hostages?: Foreign News on Canadian Television." Canadian Journal of Political Science 22(4) 1989. Hall, Stuart. "The Whites of Their Eyes." In The Media Reader, ed. Manuel Alvarado and John O. Thompson. London: British Film Institute, 1990. Henry, Frances. Race Relations Research in Canada Today: A "State of the Art" Review. Report for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa, September 25, 1986. Huttenback, Robert A. Racism and Empire: White Settler and Colored Immigrants in the British Self-governing Colonies, 1830-1910. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1976. Indra, Doreen M. "South Asian Stereotypes in the Vancouver Press." Ethnic and Racial Studies 2(2) 1979. Khaki, Aziz and K. Prasad. Depiction and Perception: Native Indians and Visible Minorities in the Media. Vancouver, BC: The Ad Hoc Committee for Better Race Relations, 1988. Kube, Art. Do Immigrants Take Away Jobs? Proceedings of a workshop convened by the Committee for Racial Justice. Compiled and edited by Aziz Khaki. Vancouver: Committee for Racial Justice, November 22, 1986. Lazar, Barry and Ross Perigoe. Visible Minorities and Native Canadians in National Television News Programs. Unpublished, 1989. Moodley, Kogila Adam. "Canadian Multiculturalism as Ideology." Ethnic and Racial Studies 6(3) July 1983. Moore, Timothy E. and Leslie Cadeau. "The Representation of Women, the Elderly, and Minorities in Canadian Television Commercials." Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 17(3) 1985. Mouammar, Mary. "When Cartoons are Not Funny." Currents 3(3) Spring 1986. Peac Media Research. The Role of Non-Whites in English Language Television and Advertising in Canada. Final Report. Ottawa: Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, 1982. Peter, Karl. "The Myth of Multiculturalism and other Political Fables." In Ethnicity, Power and Politics, ed. Jorgen Dahlie and Tissa Fernando. Toronto: Methuen, 1981. Said, Edward. Covering Islam: How the Media and Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World. New York: Pantheon, 1981. Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Random House, 1978. Scanlon, Joseph. "The Sikhs of Vancouver." In Ethnicity and the Media. Paris: Unesco Press, 1977. Schneider, William. "Race and Empire: The Rise of Popular Ethnography in the Late Nineteenth Century." Journal of Popular Culture XVI(1) Summer 1977. Steenland, Sally. Unequal Picture: Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American Characters on Television. Washington, DC: National Commission of Working Women for Wider Opportunities for Women, 1989. Tator, Carol. "Mail Back Campaign." Currents 2(2) 1984. van Dijk, Teun A. Racism and the Press. London and New York: Routledge, 1991. van Dijk, Teun A. "Elite Discourse and Racism." Sage Series on Race and Ethnic Relations, Volume 6. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1993.