Two decades of advocacy left the dominant race relations paradigm untouched

Evidence

The task of an operation such as the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia is to do what is doable and say what is sayable, in the circumstances and constraints of its time and history, and with the human and material resources available to it. This chapter has in effect implied that the commission on Islamophobia was as successful as could be reasonably expected. The fact remains, however, that the dominant race relations paradigm was not at the time affected, and still has not been materially affected 20 years since the commission’s report was published. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 749

Categorization

• XREF: Directly speaks to the central contested question of whether Islamophobia belongs inside or outside the race paradigm, connecting to the racialization turn in the 2017 Runnymede report. — connects to: The commission’s Islamophobia work left the race relations paradigm untouched — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 754; Economic and sociological paradigms of race correct each other’s weaknesses but both remain inadequate; Pluralist race theories remain descriptive rather than properly analytic (+1 more)
• DEEPTHINKING: A candid institutional self-assessment: success judged internally (doable/sayable) while its core goal — shifting the race relations paradigm to include anti-Muslim racism — failed outright.

Related

• The commission’s Islamophobia work left the race relations paradigm untouched (similarity 0.93)
• The Runnymede Trust’s founding paradigm was colour-based race relations, not religion. (similarity 0.88)
• Trustees resisted an Islamophobia commission as a radical break from the colour-based race paradigm. (similarity 0.87)
• Separating Islamophobia as ideology from racism undermines anti-racist struggle (similarity 0.86)
• Mainstream race-equality bodies resisted framing Islamophobia as a racial issue (similarity 0.84)
• Mainstream race-equality groups narrowed Islamophobia to mere religious discrimination (similarity 0.84)
• Anti-racist organizations historically avoided treating religion as within their remit (similarity 0.83)
• Muslim groups embraced the report while race-equality institutions ignored it (similarity 0.83)
• Britain has failed to officially define Islamophobia decades after Runnymede’s report (similarity 0.83)
• Racism scholarship long confined itself to biological black-white and antisemitic models (similarity 0.83)
• Racism has empirical grounding that Islamophobia still lacks (similarity 0.83)
• British anti-racism discourse centred on colour until the early 1990s (similarity 0.83)
• Anti-Muslim discrimination should be fought through existing anti-racism frameworks (similarity 0.83)
• Muslims were told anti-Muslim racism cannot exist because Muslims are not a race (similarity 0.82)
• The Runnymede Trust acknowledged Islamophobia as racism in 1994 (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Economic and sociological paradigms of race correct each other’s weaknesses but both remain inadequate #expands (0.88)
• Pluralist race theories remain descriptive rather than properly analytic #corroborates (0.82)
• Racism scholarship long confined itself to biological black-white and antisemitic models #expands (0.72) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 583