Hutnyck, Dog-Tribe, and the ADF
-
The ADF responds with frustration to the impunity of fascists and their crimes against racialised people in the UK. They criticize the fact that there was “not even a fine for the Tower Hamlets Nine”. Where British police respond with impunity for the fascists, they disproportionately target Brown people with police violence, some, defending their rights at riots, and others, being targeted for doing nothing other than simply existing. Brown people defending themselves and their rights to live safely is seen by the state as an “infection” as the ADF sing: “Youth Connection, stop this infection, defending, defending, defending, the community”. Their defending of rights is seen as something negative and something that the UK needs to be rid of. The level of impunity that the fascists are granted compared to brown people is seen in the lyrics: “One rule for black, another for white” suggesting that the law is different in based on whether your skin is white or not. White people, even the violent fascists, can live with impunity from the crimes they commit against racialized people, and it is this what the ADF are criticizing in this song.
Dog-Tribe was seen as controversial not only for its vivid violent imagery, but also because it challenged the status quo. The status quo of Britain is that racism is bad, and people shouldn't do it. Dog Tribe not only criticizes race related murder (which is the governments limit in addressing this issue), but it also blames and seeks revenge against the white people committing these crimes. Dog Tribe seeks more than a “slap on the hand” for racists, but rather punishment and consequences. Yes, many Brits think racism is bad, but an anti-racist framework challenges the status quo and targets racists for their crimes and call them what they are: racist crimes that merit punishment. Of course, any targeting of white people challenges the status quo and is therefore controversial. “The labour argued this amendment but abstained from voting on the passage of the bill as a whole, suggests that they were more concerned with being seen to support anti-racist legislative tinkering than to defend the rights of the general population or specific communities.” (Hutnyck, 61).
-
You make a great point about Dog Tribe challenging the status quo in Britain. The controversy of this video is absolutely born out of the British public's reaction to the explicit shows of violence, and racist attacks on brown or Asian youth. There is a degree of discomfort that comes from being confronted with one's own participation and complacency in racism- which is avoided when racist crimes are met with (as you've described) a "slap on the hand." On another note, the prevalence of symbols like the "scarf with Islamic insignia" and the Keffiyeh also cause discomfort to the White British viewer (Hutnyck, 58). These are symbols of resistance to imperialism and colonialism which have been imbued with a narrative of violence, danger and "islamic fundamentalism." This is due to the underlying fear that the status quo, which serves the white upper middle class, will be disrupted. By censoring and creating fear around these kinds of responses to racism, and to the racialised "other," imperial and colonial entities ensure the maintenance of the status quo.