The #Bristol Protests: Why The Labels of 'Left' and 'Right' Miss The Point.

As rival demonstrations escalate in Bristol and across the UK, let's challenge the definitions of race and racism to understand what's really driving the debate.

(Image: BBC)

Protests in Bristol: The Logic Behind the Labels.

Tomorrow, a protest is scheduled in Bristol outside a hotel housing migrants, and a counter-protest is also being organised. The anti-migrant demonstration, publicised with a poster calling for a "peaceful gathering," is part of a series of similar events across the country. The counter-protest, organised by groups like Stand Up to Racism, aims to "defend refugees" and "stop the far right."

This isn't the first time such protests have occurred in Bristol. A year prior, a far-right protest outside the Mercure Hotel in Redcliffe turned violent and was met by a large group of counter-protesters who formed a human shield to protect the hotel. The event was widely reported as an evening of defiance against anti-migrant hatred, though it also led to arrests and jail terms for some of the counter-protesters who were involved in clashes. This incident, and others like it in places such as Newcastle, London, and Nuneaton, are part of a national conversation about immigration and protest.

A Deep Dive into 'Race' and 'Racism.'

I want to take a deeper dive into the terms 'race' and 'racism' themselves. I'm not an educated person in terms of qualifications, as I left school at fifteen. However, I’ve learned to base my decisions on whether they are logical and practical. If neither fits, it's a complete waste of my time and energy.

So, when it comes to tomorrow's reported protests, I can see and understand the viewpoints of those who feel justified in questioning the disproportionate number of migrants entering the country and the impact on our basic infrastructure. However, I question whether terms directed at these protestors, such as 'racist', have any value. I want to challenge the validity of these concepts as anything other than a false construct and, in doing so, question the functional purpose of groups like 'Stand Up To Racism'.

My first question is, what constitutes a 'race'? Reverting to the Jesuit-educated schooling of my past, I recall the scientific consensus being that there is only one human race: Homo sapiens. The traditional concept of distinct biological races has been largely discredited, as there is more genetic variation within "racial" groups than between them. The genetic difference between any two individuals is less than 1%, and the vast majority of that difference reflects individual uniqueness, not "racial" distinctions.

This brings me to whether the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians can be classed as racial. No, it can’t. Both Israelis and Palestinians are more accurately described as ethnonational groups. Their shared identity comes from things like culture, history, language, and a connection to a specific land. Therefore, labelling either side as 'racist' is a total misrepresentation of the truth, as is the belief of those who protest based on this misconception.

This logic extends to the anti-migrant protestors in Bristol. This isn't about race or ethnicity specifically; this country has a long history of accepting people from all over the world. The same people who work here, have schooled their children here, and have contributed to making this country what it's become since the end of the Second World War. Tomorrow's protest is about the perceived failure of successive governments to control the volume of migrants, which protestors feel prioritises them over British-born nationals. This is a critique of UK asylum policy, not an issue of racial hatred.

The Silent Majority and the Masked Agitators.

A great many men, women, and families will turn out tomorrow to protest with regard to the sheer volume of migrants, which they believe successive governments have shown absolutely no control over whatsoever. This isn't about race; it's about what they perceive as a failure of policy.

However, a critical issue arises when a small number of masked agitators and violent extremists use the cover of these large-scale events to cause disruption. These individuals are not representative of the peaceful majority. The media's focus on these few violent incidents, rather than the peaceful protestors, creates a distorted public narrative. This skewed reporting wrongly paints the entire protest as "right-wing," "violent," or "anarchic," making it easier for politicians to dismiss the legitimate concerns of the peaceful majority. The motivations of the peaceful protestors are often lost in this media-driven chaos.

The overwhelming majority of people who attend tomorrow's protests are ordinary mums, dads, and children. They are not part of any extremist group. Their participation is an exercise of their democratic right to peaceful protest and a way to voice their worries about what they perceive as a failure of the government to address their concerns. This demographic is often at the core of these movements, and it is their peaceful intent that is most often forgotten in the media-driven narrative.

Final Reflection.

From the initial report of tomorrow's Bristol protests, a recurring image emerges: that of politicians moving metaphorical chess pieces around an imaginary board. These pieces, divided into stark black and white, seem to symbolise an unyielding battle between opposing ideologies. But my deep dive into the very definition of "race" and "racism" suggests this is a false dichotomy—a game based on flawed rules. By challenging whether groups like anti-migrant demonstrators or counter-protestors can be accurately labelled, I'm left to question the entire premise of the board. The politicians, in their perpetual game, appear to have no real solution, only a strategy of endless moves that never lead to a checkmate. This leaves me to wonder if, rather than a master plan, I am witnessing a distraction, with the ship of state sailing on towards an iceberg while the players remain absorbed in a game they can never win. Ultimately, it forces me to look beyond the chessboard, to question my own biases, and to ask if the real problem isn't the pieces on the board, but the very game itself. This is because, for all of us, life is the most difficult exam; and many people fail because they try to copy others, not realising that everyone has a different question paper.