By Guy Coker
In the 1999 film “The Matrix”, the character Morpheus offered a simple choice to Nero (the protagonist). Swallow the red pill and learn the harsh truth about centuries-long human enslavement or remain blissfully ignorant with the blue pill. Coincidentally in the same year, the inquiry of judge Sir William Macpherson deemed the London Metropolitan Police “institutionally racist” for their handling of the racially motivated killing of Stephen Lawrence six years prior. His definition of institutional racism wasn’t meant to be concrete but Britain had not seen it be given shape and form before. It is significant that a powerful white, British man openly acknowledged that we did not live in a post-racial society. In some ways, we still do not. However, as much as George Floyd’s death has stirred up our emotions, I must try and objectively make sense of which reality we are living in. Britain is Nero and during this period of division, the choice must be made between which pill it will struggle to swallow.
In the film, the “agents” are sentient computer programmes designed to ensure the Matrix maintains its illusion, hiding “glitches” in the system. For the right-wing, agents are the left-wing perpetuating the narrative of “white privilege” and that minorities are still oppressed by some invisible forces lurking in our system. It is the harsh language I have seen people like Ben Shapiro use. For the left-wing, they are the nation’s structural forces that keep ethnic minorities as second-class citizens. It is what the Black Lives Matter movement and social media repeat daily. And yet, which pill would it be? Microaggressions and overt racism are real glitches in our system, I am one of many people of colour who have experienced them first-hand. However, it should not be treated as a black and white issue, nor a black versus white issue. Everyone has different experiences that cannot be ignored or taken at face value. We can only take the correct red pill to escape this Matrix, by removing the opportunity for ignorance through open conversations about our system flaws.
For example, Britain acknowledging its historical “glitches” makes it easier to explore practical solutions. This country has had an infamous role in the pillaging of Africa for human resources, labour, and commodities for centuries. It was these same resources that the government used to industrialise the exportation of millions of slaves, feeding the Industrial Revolution, and allowing Britain to fight two world wars. For the African diaspora, this was their reality and they were fed the blue pill to keep them subjugated. The system flaw is why this history is not taught. Roughly 67 of the 70 recommendations in the Macpherson inquiry have been implemented but school reform on teaching this history has not been one of them. School curriculums are no stranger to teaching historical atrocities such as those carried out in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union. Intentional or not, it is an oversight that must be corrected in the inclusion of such European colonial exploits in the National Curriculum. Part of the reason why I say is this is because it can be said that the Royal Treasury was promoting a blue pill in 2015. In a since-deleted tweet, it presented the fun fact reality that the money of the British taxpayer had now ended slavery with its money. However, once the red pill is swallowed, you will realise that people’s taxes had been unknowingly been reimbursing slave owners after the abolition of slavery in 1833. This generational wealth benefitted the ancestors of several politicians, including David Cameron. If anything, this misinformation was careless, but we must prevent further blue pills being fed in the future through education.
Even after the Macpherson report pointed out the flawed nature of the system and the progress made since then, there are still glitches. It took 19 years for Stephen Lawrence’s killers to be brought to justice, even then only two of the five killers.
When glitches persist, you have an inherently flawed system. In a debate, these glitches are thrown around as facts and figures — both can be misconstrued, twisted for a purpose. To try and avoid this, I used the information of the right-wing conservative Daily Express, feeling that I was reading too many articles from the centre-left The Guardian. Using ethnicity facts and figures from gov.uk, it revealed that the stop and search rate was much higher for black people compared to white people. One could argue that there are instances where this is more justified such as due to racial disparities in London knife crime, although less so when looking at the whole country. Moreover, this becomes more questionable if the successful detection rate is not really affected by race and how black people are treated more harshly for certain offences like drug possession. Even average income despite having a degree shows black people earning less, according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. So, is this a persisting glitch? I would consider a correlation between crime and poverty. Even in 2019, people of colour were far more likely to live in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods. To fix these system flaws, we must be more open about tackling all prejudice and poverty.
The Grenfell Tower controversy is a strange occurrence in the system. The decrepit building was located in the historically deprived northern section of the large, very wealthy Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Should it be treated as a coincidence that housing inequality in the borough had been traditionally higher for ethnic minorities? Or even that these deprived pockets used to be and possibly are still home to most of the black population? “Usable reserves” of £274m by 31 March 2017 according to the local council’s statement of accounts but it was unable to provide safe building cladding before the tower burned down in June of that year. The council was even replaced by the larger Grenfell Fire Response Team due to its inadequacy in compensating Grenfell victims. With the tower only 4.3 miles away from Westminster, how could these issues escape the government so easily? Lessons on building cladding and the stay-put policy appear unlearned after the Lakanal House fire (2009) and Garnock Court (1999). While the Scottish government made building regulation changes, some politicians thought “common sense” was not followed over the professional protocol. This a serious glitch of allowing hundreds of working-class people to reside in this unsafe building surrounded by wealth, knowing of the previous tragedies. If anything, the past was “institutionally forgotten”.
This is the exact term used by report writer Wendy Williams in her independent review of the Windrush Scandal, regarding a lack of attention paid to history. Considering the lack of official paperwork concerning the immigration of those from British colonies, the landing cards shouldn’t have been destroyed. The Data Protection Act of 1998 requires the Home Office to not keep data “longer than is necessary”. However, the combined eradication of the cards by the Labour and Conservative-Lib Dem governments turned thousands of migrants into “low hanging fruit” to be picked off by the Home Office. Amber Rudd may have just been trying to keep the promises against illegal immigration in the 2010 Conservative Party Manifesto. However, her strict deportation targets (which she initially denied knowledge of) withheld housing, employment and healthcare services to the very people that rebuilt them from the ashes of war. It bears a striking resemblance to how this generation was mistreated after 1948. The government must not forget the turbulent 1950s, where areas like Notting Hill and Birmingham were hot zones for black people to be attacked by the far-right. It may have led to journalist Claudia Jones defiantly creating the Caribbean Carnival (precursor to the modern Notting Hill Carnival) but the damage was done. The scandal reveals treatment that parallels how the same migrants were denied services 70 years ago. Ignorance of this history is the fundamental glitch, which Williams and Rudd have acknowledged, was overlooked in pursuit of policy.
It should not come down to the left or right-wing perspective of the matrix being the driving force. We should all be choosing the red pill for a common reality. Social media is trying to transform everybody into an activist, albeit through a culture of fear with accusations of “white silence” or silencing differing opinions because of “white privilege”. We must collectively become the antivirus to remove the persisting malware of racism. However, not through violence and hate but education and open civil discussion. As headteacher Katherine Birbalsingh has said, “there should be room for nuance”. Little things like the criteria behind which statues must be taken down should be discussed. Managing the moral panic around institutional racism can allow us to balance the real needs of inequalities experienced by minorities and the influence of factors alongside race. We can take steps to diversify the people in power to better reflect our multicultural society. It is through logic and reason rather than emotionally charged division that can bring us closer to a system of perfection.
