MIDSOMER MURDERS, RACISM AND THE ENGLISH COUNTRYSIDE

so, midsomer murders is not racist (and homophobic) by default or by accident. it's racist (and homophobic) by design. click for article.

Brian True-May, the producer and co-creator of ITV1 drama series Midsomer Murders, has been suspended by production company All3Media following controversial comments made about the show in the latest issue of Radio Times.

True-May told RT, "We don't have ethnic minorities involved. Because it wouldn't be the English village with them. It just wouldn't work. Suddenly we might be in Slough… And if you went in to Slough you wouldn't see a white face there. We're the last bastion of Englishness and I want to keep it that way."

this is depressing, but also unsurprising to me as someone who has watched almost every episode of the show. most of the people i know who watch midsomer murders have commented on the overwhelming whiteness of it . i mean, i can remember maybe two people of colour (both women) in the whole thing? a writer in a competition who didn't have a speaking part, and a barrister/QC who did a great job but was "wrong" about the defendant. and as for queers - he compared it to incest and blackmail, but i note is not mentioned in the linked article - i am also unsurprised. i've often been amused by how many gays there are in the villages of midsomer - even though most of them end up dead/charged with murder.

i'm posting this here because i think it's a great demonstration of how "the countryside" in england is actively constructed as a white (straight) space. i've noted this before with regard to walking, and it's something that continues to frustrate/intrigue me (i guess that the intrigue might be more a sign of privilege, though, since i'm not having to contend with racism on a personal level when i go out walking). the construction of the countryside in this fashion is not only material in terms of who has the time, energy, money, transport, family inheritance to get there and/or live there - it is also a product of popular culture and representation. if you don't see PoC/BME people in the english countryside in films, on TV, in books, in travel writing, then that is a space that's being constructed as white, unwelcoming, a space that such people are not meant to occupy, and this is so for white and PoC/BME viewers and readers.

often when such things are pointed out, people (often the privileged ones - white if we're talking about issues of race and ethnicity, straight if we're talking about issues of sexuality, male if we're discussing sexism, cis if we're discussing trans stuff) will claim that this is just "a reflection of reality" - that "those sort of people" simply aren't there, that's why they're not represented. and that's why this story is so interesting and important - it demonstrates absolutely that this is not just a reflection of reality, but rather a deliberate construction.

"I'm trying to make something that appeals to a certain audience, which seems to succeed," said True-May. "And I don't want to change it."

it's a fantasy that has very real effects. consistently portraying "the countryside" as a white space (or as a straight space) means that non-white (non-straight) viewers/readers have fewer options for relating to that space, are less able to envisage themselves as being welcome in that space, and are maybe less likely to actually go out into that space. in this way, i think true-may's claim that midsomer is "the last bastion of Englishness and I want to keep it that way" is not just about a nostalgic (?) attempt to (re)write the countryside as white-on-screen (straight-on-screen), it's about actually trying to keep non-white (non-straight) people out of the countryside.

i also want to note that the producers of midsomer murders have obviously been pursuing this racist/homophobic agenda for the entire length of the series, but true-may wasn't suspended until he made it explicit. it's an interesting situation. him making that agenda public doesn't change the 'actual' content of the series up to now (though it does change people's readings of that content, which probably amounts to the same thing). so why didn't ITV do something about it before? the racism (and homophobia) of midsomer murders is so very, very clear without true-may's comments. that it takes an interview like this for anything to be done about it is indicative of how acceptable racism actually is - so long as it's passive (they're just not there, rather than being evil), unspoken (nobody mentions it onscreen), weasel-out-of-able (it's a reflection of reality). [ETA: i guess what i'm trying to say here is that, before true-may's comments, it was probably pretty easy for a lot of (white) people to think the whiteness of midsomer murders was accidental or incidental. but that kind of "accident" can only happen and/or go unremarked or unrebuked in a racist society.]

i've typed this all up before breakfast, and i'm quite hungry so i'll leave it there.
do you have any thoughts on the matter?

ETA: charlie brooker has something to say.

DREAMING IS PART OF PREPARATION

We have plans for the rest of the year. Clearly defined plans for now, next week, much fuzzier plans for November, December. This change of focus (to continue with the imagery) is punctuated by a few signposts and events, some more flexible than others. Things to do, in vague order: "mum's birthday in April", "apply for a visa", "my birthday in June", "save some money", "finish painting the house" (we finally started painting the hallway yesterday!), "dad's birthday in August", "finish and submit this dissertation", "prepare to leave the country" . . . then: "arrive in the UK", "D's mum's birthday in October", "go for a walking holiday", "go WWOOFing", "find work and somewhere to live".

*

Possibly in preparation, possibly as a way of escaping the world of dissertation in my head, I have become a little addicted to reading the blogs of individuals and families who are travelling or changing their lives or merely trying to live in sustainable, green, eco-friendly ways. There are things about these blogs that I really appreciate - discussions of the practicalities of living this way, the ups and downs of a changing/travelling lifestyle, the feelings of freedom and of connecting with people and environment, the philosophies that drive people (some more fully thought-out than others).

One thing I've noticed, however, is that few of these bloggers spend time considering their own privileges: how they feel financially secure enough to take off for a year of WWOOFing and wandering; how their whiteness and heterosexuality means they encounter little harassment on the streets of the towns they pass through; how the exchange rate and their dollars or euros or pounds means they are incredibly rich in comparison to the people they are living with; how they don't have to negotiate being trans or being physically disabled or chronically ill when thinking about accommodation or work or travel. Sure, these things are sometimes mentioned in passing (and some financial aspects in more detail), but it seems that most political, ethical and philosophical thought is reserved for discussions of sustainability, environmental impact, green living.

In some respects this is completely understandable, but at the same time it makes it difficult for me to feel like I can be part of this imagined community - in some respects I am invisible, things that are of everyday practical importance to me are irrelevant, my kind of activism and ethics seems out of place. It reminds me a bit of discussions I've read about racism and classism in vegan/sustainable living communities. I start thinking, is it important for me to ask people to interrogate their own beliefs when they argue that we shouldn't need social networking sites, we should talk to our neighbours, to real people? Apart from enjoying the irony of blogging such thoughts, I feel like saying this devalues the immense importance of online connections to those of us who are marginalised by heteronormative, cisnormative, white privileging, ableist, capitalist, nationalist society. At the most basic, it is hard to talk to your neighbours when you are not sure if they will physically assault you because of who you are. Online networking allows us to find other people like us with less physical danger (if, of course, our domestic spaces are not ones of violence, and if we have access to a computer and the internet).

And I think, do the people who say living off grid is their ultimate goal understand how privileged they are to not need specialist foods, medicines, equipment to live their lives? I will probably never be able to live a life that is free from entanglement with international pharmaceutical industry (see Michelle O'Brien's essay "tracing this body: transsexuality, pharmaceuticals & capitalism" for more on that).

Do the people who want to live with mum and dad and two young kids on a totally isolated farm spare a thought for how they are going to provide freedom for their kids when they get older? I'm sure that these thoughts are there - the bloggers I read are not as irresponsible as all that. And of course, there are pros and cons to all lifestyle choices. But as a person who lived in an isolated house for the first 18 years of my life, relying on my parents to drive me if I wanted to go anywhere or see anyone . . . it can be alienating, suffocating. As a queer teenager, the country offered me very little in the way of support - and this is despite my parents being accepting, despite having queer family friends, despite knowing a couple of other queer kids, despite knowing that it was fundamentally OK to be queer. In some ways I am glad I didn't know/feel/identify as trans when I was a teenager, because I don't know how I would have dealt with that. [N.B. I would ask a different set of questions of parents who plan to live in towns and cities - there is no decision that's 'right' for everyone.]

But! I have gone off track. What I wanted to say is that this style of thinking is very seductive. The images of self-sufficiency and good honest work carry immense nostalgia - for me, some of this is bound up with my parents' own project of self-sufficiency, their (hippie) ethics, my dad's nostalgia for his grandfather's farm in New Zealand . . . it stretches way back. The possibility of living a low-impact life in the countryside gives off powerful feel-good vibes. The idea of being part of this back-to-basics, respect-the-environment community has its appeal. Perhaps my dreaming is in preparation for doing something similar one day.

But it's not as simple as following your dreams. In as much as we are following our dreams in moving to the UK (etc.), I want to be a bit more reflective regarding the political meanings, circumstances and implications of our decisions.

FAME! AN UPDATE!

my photo of a sea kayaker in a big sea is now up as part of a matador trips photo essay, collated by hal amen.

i feel i should warn you that the first image in that essay is of people climbing uluru. yes, he says under the photo "despite pleas from local indigenous groups", but the article he links to is of the "they're gonna stop us climbing the roooock!" persuaion (though most of the comments are ok). i have left a comment detailing why it is NOT OK, SO JUST DON'T DO IT, so i hope that people take note.

in other news, does australia have a government yet?

RACE AND WALKING

It often strikes me that walking (and particularly long-distance walking in Australia and the UK, walking in the country, walking for leisure) seems to be a very white pastime. I've been thinking about this for a while, now. Walking gear is advertised by white models, walking trails are advertised with pictures of happy white people, the author photos at the back of guidebooks show white faces smiling out at the reader, walker-friendly B&Bs are run by friendly old white couples. I have not thought very deeply about what this means (I have the privilege of not having to think about it whenever I go walking), but I was still interested to read an article in the spring edition of Walk Magazine called Rural Minority Report.

The issues that are addressed in the article (which is about the UK, as the Ramblers is a UK organisation) include:

* The perception of the countryside being "a place for the rich, white upper classes. All the land belongs to farmers and any black man caught trespassing will be shot".
* A "real knowledge gap" within urban-dwelling PoC communities (i'm a little leary of the acronym BME used in the article) about the countryside.
* A lack of visibility of POC using or being in the countryside. "One criticism levelled at British tourism boards by racial-equality campaigners is that much of their advertising features white people enjoying the outdoors, further alienating BME groups by reinforcing the notion that certain places aren’t ‘for them’."
* Racism. "While overt racism is rare, non-white faces in some areas still provoke a reaction".
* "[R]eal physical barriers prevent[ing] people accessing the countryside" - that is, lack of public transport, the cost of public and private transport, and the difficulty of deciphering public transport timetables especially for those people for whom English is a second or third (or fourth, or fifth) language.
* No habit or family history of going to the countryside.

I think the article is slightly problematic in its approach (quoting white people telling stories about PoC is one example that sits uncomfortably with me and another is the emphasis on the 'worries' PoC have, with less acknowledgement of the actual racism they experience) but I am glad that at least the issue of racism in walking and racism in the countryside is being addressed.

It's something I have also noticed when watching walking documentaries. As much as I have enjoyed Julia Bradbury's Wainwright Walks, and have been very happy to see an active, not-dolled-up woman talking to other women in the countryside (I'm sure the show has even passed the Bechdel test a few times), I've also noticed that most (if not all) of the people featured in the interviews have been white. It was also interesting to see (and later read) Griff Rhys Jones talking to some black walkers in his show Mountain:

It was startling and dreadful to notice how incongruous black walkers seemed. I realized that I had seen so few black people out on the hills and had sort of accepted it unthinkingly.

"But that's what we believe," Donald said. "People think a black man out walking looks odd. So how do you think a black person feels? We have to get people to realize that they can get out there and walk and that's why we go together in a group." (2008:198)

~*~

I'm usually quite apolitical on this blog, I think, but it's important to recognise that travel and walking are not apolitical activities. Anyway, maybe this is some food for thought for your next walk - unless you're a PoC, in which case you probably already think about it when you're walking (much like I am very aware of being queer and trans).