Laksiri Jayasuriya’s article, “Old Racism, New Racism,” uses emotion and logic to make the reader understand that just because racism is changing does not mean it is getting better. A lot of the themes Jayasuriya talks about in her article can be found in the 1960 Harper Lee novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. To Kill a Mockingbird follows a lawyer named Atticus Finch who defends a poor black man named Tom Robinson who was wrongly accused of rape. Much of the book delves into the fact a once respected Atticus becomes the object of the towns hate just because he takes on a poor black man’s case. A big theme in the book is that Atticus’ children cannot understand why the town doesn’t agree with their father and why the other children in town are hostile to them because of it. This relates largely to Jayasuriya’s article on old and new racism. Jayasuriya uses logic and emotion to explain that just because racism changes, does not mean it is any better than before, and that all racism, regardless of whether it is over skin color or nationality, needs to end immediately.

Just because something has changed does not mean it is any better. Laksiri Jayasuriya’s article emphasizes this point over and over again. Her article details how racism has evolved but not improved over the years in Europe and Australia. She opens up her article by giving a brief introduction on what she believes old racism to be. Old racism is what everyone else but the majority looks like. People would judge someone on the way he or she looked, and if that person didn’t look the way that was most socially acceptable then they were treated as a lesser. Contrary to popular belief, race is not what one is, but what others perceive one to be. Someone is only “black” because someone else deemed them to be. Jayasuriya explains that that is exactly what old racism was. New racism though, is a whole different story. Two big motivations for new racism are nationality and social class. Shortly after World War II was when old racism took a backseat to new racism, and it has never looked back. Citizens of certain European countries began to forget their differences with each other and began to focus their hatred toward those coming into their respective countries. The reason for this was because as a country, men fought side by side in the war; whether they were white, black, or whatever “race” they were, this lead to much more comradery in countries. Although it made countries much closer and friendlier, it only made them more hostile towards outsiders, so after the war when immigrants began to come into countries of the Allied Powers, for example France, the racism changed directions and began to be aimed toward them. Asian immigrants that had nothing to do with the war, or were not even Japanese, became a large target because people decided they were different, and that they were the bad guy. A lot of times this led to places like China Town or Little Tokyo, because immigrants could only live amongst themselves. New racism finally reached its peak when social status began to be incorporated in the ways people were treated. Those who spoke properly, had money, or just dressed well, received some form of respect. Immigrants who were just starting out in a new country were typically poor, and also had trouble learning the language of the county they had moved to. This led those people to become the enemies of the self-appointed elite, and also people who had previously been the target of old racism. Now, people who used to be the target of old racism were the ones conducting new racism on others. This was even worse because now there was an even larger group ganging up on the minority. Even though new racism may not fit what most people consider traditional racism, it carries the same themes we see in old racism; Hatred without good reason, segregation, discrimination, and prejudice. My own view is that old racism is still more prevalent in today’s society or at least around me. Though I concede that new racism is a big issue and should be taken seriously and that old racism has been declining, I still maintain that old racism is much greater and more wide spread. For example, there are many countries where immigration rates are low making it impossible for those countries to progress to new racism. Although some might object and say these counties sans many immigrants are not racially diverse in the first place, I would reply that for example, although Canada has a middle to low range immigration rate, it is a fairly diverse country overall. Whether it be old racism or new racism the issue is important because it negatively affects many people in the world today and sooner we eradicate both the better.

Laksiri Jayasuriya wants her audience to understand why changing “types” of racism isn’t progress or even anything a bit better than before. She does this by informing the reader of the changing opinions of people over time, and how quickly people can decide that they don’t like a certain group of people. She wants the reader to understand how the majority groups can pick and choose very easily who to include and who to ostracize. “The point is that “difference” is no longer constructed in terms of racial or biologically determined group differences, but in terms of culture and ethnicity. These differences are all the more salient when they overlap with visible physical differences such as skin pigmentation, hair texture or eye shape,” (Jayasuriya 1). The tone in the previous quote is almost as if she is stating the obvious. She gets readers to feel like they should already understand why this isn’t okay by putting the word difference in quotes and stating features that no two human beings share. For example: even though one’s skin pigmentation might be very different than others, everyone is unique and no two people have exactly the same skin color, so why discriminate because of it? She also elicits emotion in the quote. Yes, there are people who fall under the old racism category, and yes there are people who fall under the new racism category, but how about the people who fall under both? These people face twice the hate and lead even tougher lives. Jayasuriya gets the reader to feel for these groups of people who receive mistreatment purely not because of the person they are, but what they look like and where they came from. The thought of old racism ending or being replaced sounds like it could be progressive or a step forward until you learn of new racism and see it is just trading one hate for another type of hate. “With the emergence of post-war policies of mass immigration and consequent social demographic changes, the concept of “race” was replaced by that of ethnicity, and the langue of racial difference was replaced by cultural difference and cultural distinctiveness,” (Jayasuriya 1). What the author of the article is trying to say is that just because we changed does not mean we are on and upward trend, we are moving along the same horizontal line.

Many of Jayasuriya’s thoughts and beliefs can be translated to the Harper Lee fiction novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. The story is about a white male lawyer named Atticus Finch who is assigned to defend poor, African American, Tom Robinson in a case where he was accused of rape. Many of the townspeople along with Atticus’ friends are astonished that he begins to fight with his whole heart for a black man. Atticus and his children become ridiculed for it. At the trial Atticus uncovers many holes in story of the women who accused Robinson. The trial goes on for a while and it seems as if Atticus presented enough evidence to prove that Robinson was not guilty of rape. Despite all the signs pointing to not guilty, Robinson is convicted anyway. He is sentenced to death and is murdered, with much of the town applauding the verdict. Harper Lee wrote this novel for many of the same reasons that Laksiri Jayasuriya wrote “Old Racism, New Racism.” Both authors believe in equality and looking at someone on the inside rather than the outside. The difference between the two is they use very different techniques to get their point across. Lee, a white woman, uses satire, irony, and emotion to get the reader to root for Atticus in her fiction novel. Jayasuriya, a minority from Australia, uses logic, sarcasm, and emotion to get the reader to understand why both old and new racism isn’t okay in her academic article. Both methods are effective and both methods help the reader understand the main point of each work: Racism is wrong no matter what. 

 When Tom Robinson, a poor African-American man, is put on trial for the rape of the town drunk’s daughter, Atticus Finch takes his case. In the story we see that Atticus, a white upper class male, starts his defense for Robinson, he beings to receive all the hate and verbal attack as if he was a part of the minority. This emphasizes the fact that no matter the color of your skin, or how you speak, if you are just kind or civil to someone considered different, you will receive the same “racism” they receive. Although Laksiri Jayasuriya never mentions how even people who associate themselves with minority races can be treated the same, her ideas hint at it. She talks about how racism evolves and how any form of racism isn’t anything better or worse than before. Directing hate at someone who stands up for someone who is different is racism. It doesn’t matter if the person is white or black or any other color. Jayasuriya may never have said this specifically but her thoughts fall right into place with the ideas of the novel. "She was white, and she tempted a Negro. She did something that in our society is unspeakable: she kissed a black man. Not an old Uncle, but a strong young Negro man. No code mattered to her before she broke it, but it came crashing down on her afterwards,” (Lee Chapter 20). The reason Tom Robinson is on trial is because people would rather believe that he raped a woman than accept the woman was attracted to a black man. “Racism is no longer a question of equality but rather one of inclusion/exclusion, of belonging and acceptance,” (Jayasuriya 2). This quote fits with Lee’s because if Robinson was just accepted for who he was, a poor, African-American working man, then there would be no trial, because if he was just accepted, there would be no shame for trying to kiss a black man. If Tom had been white, the girl’s father wouldn’t have been embarrassed of the situation, he wouldn’t have taken Robison to court accusing him of rape, and Tom wouldn’t have ended up dead. Sure, in this instance it was a fictional book and it did not really happen, but throughout the course of history so many people have been killed for no other reason than their race, religion, or nationality. 

“Exclusion, as in matters of immigration policy, is no longer justified in terms of “race” but on a variety of grounds such as desirable cultural characteristics and/or social acceptability.” One of Laksiri Jayasuriya’s main arguments when talking about new racism is that a big part of racism now is not color, rather it is where one came from and how they fit into society. She is not saying that color is not important, rather she is explaining that color has taken a backseat to this new idea of disliking someone because of their geographical background. This relates strongly to a character named Boo Radley in To Kill a Mockingbird. Radley is not African American, nor is he from another country. The reason Radley isn’t well liked is because he doesn’t mold to the social norms in the town. He is so shunned and ostracized that he never leaves his house. Harper Lee challenges the idea of exclusion because of your social status by making Boo Radley a hero in the story when he saves Jem and Scout. Jem and Scout served as metaphors for “uninformed racists” because they were frightened of Boo and were too scared to ever interact with him. Despite Jem and Scout serving as metaphorical racists, they also served as a metaphor for hope. Jem and Scout were able to overcome their fear for Radley, just like people today can put their differences aside and choose to not discriminate. Jem and Scout were only scared of Radley because people told them to be. If people today formed their own opinions instead of just going off what they are told there would be less hate in society. This is what Harper is trying to explain with the Boo Radley story line. Not only are Jem and Scout scared of Radley, Harper uses irony by naming him Boo and it makes the readers weary of him as well. That way, in the end when he saves the children, the reader, realizes along with Jem and Scout that it is silly and unnecessary to judge someone on their social status.

Laksiri Jayasuriya is not the only person to come up with the concept of “new racism.” Paul Sniderman also wrote a journal called “New Racism,” but his thoughts are much different. “The thesis of covert racism: racial prejudice is now regarded as socially undesirable, so people favor disguised, indirect ways to express it. They will not say they are opposed to blacks getting help from the government because they are black; they will instead say they are opposed because blacks are not making a genuine effort to solve their own problems – the kind of effort everyone should make,” (Sniderman 424). What Sniderman is saying here is that people are still the same “old racist” that Jayasuriya is talking about, what is different is that they have new ways to express their racism. He gets his audience on board with his idea by making it seem like the people he is talking about are crass and obnoxious. He does this by inserting a pause before stating, “the kind of effort everyone should make.” Instead of making it about color, people make it about a character trait, and they give that character trait to the whole race. They do this so they don’t seem prejudice, but it is exactly the same. If you compare Sniderman’s article with Jayasuriya’s they don’t seem to agree on the way racism is changing over the years. Jayasuriya says that yes, it used to be about color, but now it is about nationality, and social status, and one way speaks, etc. Sniderman is going in a different route. He believes that nothing has changed. Sure people are discriminated against for many different ways, but the color of your skin is still the main reason. He argues that the only thing that has changed is how people express their racism. What they do seem to agree on is that no matter how or who it is directed towards, racism is never the answer.

Not only does Paul Sniderman’s article relate to “Old Racism, New Racism,” it also relates to To Kill a Mockingbird. "Which, gentlemen, we know is in itself a lie as black as Tom Robinson's skin, a lie I do not have to point out to you. You know the truth, and the truth is this: some Negroes lie, some Negroes are immoral, some Negro men are not to be trusted around women—black or white. But this is a truth that applies to the human race and to no particular race of men. There is not a person in this courtroom who has never told a lie, who has never done an immoral thing, and there is no man living who has never looked upon a woman without desire,” (Lee Chapter 20). This quote from the novel expresses Sniderman’s point exactly. The townspeople in the story say they want to convict Tom not because he is black, but because all black people lie so he must be lying about raping that woman. Although they carry the same ideas, the authors use different strategies to get to their respective audiences. Atticus cannot sound like the people he is talking about are obnoxious and crude like Sniderman, because that is who he is trying to convince. Instead he, and Harper Lee, use a truthful and honest quote from the heart. Atticus and Lee do this by saying yes some negroes lie, and yes some negroes are in fact immoral. He even goes as far to say that some may not be trusted around women, the whole point of the case. The reason the Atticus does this is to earn the juries trust, to make it seem like he is not biased. Then finally, he says we all lie. He says that you can be immoral no matter what race you are. These strategies are done to first earn the trust of the jury, and then to hit them with even more truth so that they will be even more open to it. Although they use different ways of convincing their audience, both Lee and Sniderman effectively get their readers to understand that grouping a race together and saying they are “lazy” or “lie” isn’t any better than discriminating against the race in general. No matter what race you are everyone is flawed in some way, shape, or form

While it is easy to see Laksiri Jayasuriya and Paul Sniderman’s arguments about racism in the fictional novel To Kill a Mockingbird, obviously they are talking about what they see in the real world. An example of Jayasuriya’s new racism would be president elect, Donald Trump. Last May he lost a ruling against his for-profit university and he blamed it on the fact that the judge was Mexican, and that Mexican’s don’t like him because of the wall he plans to build. He didn’t argue that the judge was wrong, or that maybe even he was wrong, he argued that the judge ruled in favor of the opposition solely because he was a Mexican. Just like Jayasuriya’s idea of new racism, Trump did not discriminate because of the color of the judge’s skin, he discriminated because of where the judge came from. Not only does Trump display Jayasuriya’s ideas, he displays Sniderman’s as well. In the 1990s and early 2000s Donald Trump was quoted many times discriminating against his black casino employees in Atlantic City, New Jersey. “I think the guy is lazy, and it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” This fits right into Sniderman’s idea of grouping different races into these characteristics. Trump is not showing classic racism here, in the fact that he is not saying he “hates” black people, or black people are “inferior.” The way he is being racist is a disguise to make it seem like he isn’t. He is hiding his racism behind phrases like “laziness is a trait in blacks” and “It’s not anything they can control.” This is exactly what Sniderman considers new racism. If both Jayasuriya and Sniderman’s ideas of new racism are very visible from the man who will be the future president of the United States, imagine how much new racism is going on behind the scenes. 

Racism is racism, whether it be old or new. Laksiri Jayasuriya’s article “Old Racism, New Racism” is an interesting take on how over time racism has evolved. Once purely about   the color of your skin racism has grown into much more. Where you come from, your social status, and how you speak or interact with others now determines whether one is discriminated against. Harper Lee’s 1960 novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, is a story about a white man who is not afraid to speak out against a racist town. Paul Sniderman’s article, “New Racism” is a different take than Jayasuirya’s in that he believes the main form of racism is still based on the color of one’s own skin. What he says is new is that people are subtler about how they express racism. For example, instead of saying “black people shouldn’t get work because they are black” they say, “lazy people shouldn’t get work, and black people are lazy.” Jayasuriya uses emotion and logic to get the reader to take her side of the argument. She uses logic because she knows it is hard to argue with facts, and emotion so that the readers will feel for the people that the racism is directed towards. Lee uses satire, irony, and emotion to get the reader to understand the main point of her story. By giving a lighter feel to a heavy topic such as racism, she is able to get the reader to root for the story’s hero, Atticus, and to realize judging people by the color of their skin is wrong and can lead to horrible things, like Tom Robinson’s death. Sniderman uses a tone that makes the racist people he is taking about sound even more crass and unappealing. This makes the audience realize how hateful these people are and take Sniderman’s side on the matter. All three pieces are relatable in today’s society, which we see every week in the media with characters like Donald Trump. Even two of the pieces are academic and one is a fiction novel, all three author are able to strongly get their point across to the reader. No matter how someone looks, how someone acts, or where they fit into society, treat everyone the same.
