Everyone Is Talking About It But Me

Maclean's has received a lot of attention recently for a cover story declaring Winnipeg as the most racist city in Canada.  I wasn't going to write anything about it, since I wouldn't have much to say other than link to my previous post about why I don't take Maclean's seriously.  But then a news site offered me a link to an article at Maclean's site about how everyone was talking about the story.  Whenever the media gets to the point of writing stories congratulating themselves for writing stories, you know something's gone wrong.

I really wouldn't know if Winnipeg is the most racist city in Canada.  I'm assuming they are just talking about large cities; the true title-holder is surely a small city.  Yes, I know, that's a stereotype of small communities being less tolerant.  But, I'm from a small city, and it's true.  Not to belabour the point, but I won't let the story colour my view of the city of Winnipeg, on the assumption that Maclean's put no more effort into ranking our most racist city than they do into ranking our universities every year.

I think the better question is whether it really does anyone any good to pick out a city and finger them as the worst.  I've seen a lot of the people who work towards tolerance expressing gratitude for putting the issue on the national radar.  I'm not convinced that it is such a good thing.  For one thing, as much as I like tolerance, I also like truth, and I'm not comfortable with sacrificing it to try to spur people to action. 

I thought it was telling that one activist commenting on television accidentally read the cover as "The Most Racist Country" rather than "City", before correcting himself.  That stuck out for me because in the nineties, progressive activists frequently called Canada "One of the Most Racist Countries in the World."  It's a ridiculous claim - for all our problems, we're one of the least racist countries - but it became acceptable to make the extreme exaggeration as a way of expressing frustration.  I fear we're falling into that same trap again: using justified anger at lack of progress to fuel hyperbole and inaccuracies meant to shock the public into action.

Worse, this approach rarely works.  For one thing, it's hard to get the public to buy an idea that goes so harshly against the accepted narrative.  And the public doesn't like being shocked into action, even when the shock is legitimate.  That's something environmentalists are learning, as they seem to be mixing more hope into their messages than they used to have.

And people don't react well to being singled out.  Sounding like you're going after one city isn't going to spur that city to act, it's encouraging them to tune you out.  You used to be able to attack Canada as an easy way to spur Canadians to act, since you'd be playing on our inferiority complex.  But now, for good or bad, we're developing an ego, so it's time to look for a new tactic.