Racism,climate activism,and the politics of apology: the image exclusion of Black youth activists

Racism, denial, and the politics of apology

Racism continues to be a concern in climate activism. Scholars have highlighted problematic and under-representations of black women activists in media reporting (Gammage, 2015), overly harsh litigation against resource-poor activists (Murombo & Valentine, 2011), and restrictions on gatherings (for example, how and where protests can occur). Other concerns include the unacceptably high number of murders of activists in the global South (Menton & Le Billon, 2021), problematic participation processes and online harassment and surveillance (Ganster, 2019). Black youth activists experience undermining because of their age, are female, and do not represent who they claim to represent (Rafaely & Barnes, 2020). This does not suggest that white youth activists do not have similar experiences. However, the magnitude and racialised framing of this undermining is particularly pronounced among Black youth.

In response, a crucial feature of black youth activism has been to draw links between their personal experiences of racism to systemic climate racism in society (Barnes, 2021). Systemic climate racism here refers to the political, regulatory, and economic factors that unfairly discriminate against black, indigenous, and marginalised people (Williams, 2021). Systemic climate racism includes, but is not limited to, discriminatory zoning policies, poverty that makes black populations vulnerable to adverse weather events, higher unemployment rates, violence, and lack of access to adequate health care (Sealey-Huggins, 2018). Thus, rather than conceptualising individual and systemic racism as different, scholars and activists have rightfully pointed out the need to interrogate the link between ‘racist actions and racist structures’ as vital to understanding climate racism (Williams, 2021, p v).

Racism accusations can potentially bring negative publicity to organisations, particularly those that espouse progressive values. There is, therefore, an investment in trying to rectify these allegations through an apology. Apologies are complicated and sometimes include denial of overt racism and an explanation for what ‘really’ happened (Holling et al., 2014; Van Dijk, 1992). A growing body of literature suggests that a meaningful apology should not be forced (for example, through public pressure), cliched, or only interested in impression management (Eisinger, 2011). In apologies, we can identify the degree to which the accused genuinely understood and acknowledged the allegations, accepted responsibility and was regretful. We can also assess to what degree the accused intended to commit the act (James & Stanger-Ross, 2018).

We can also assess the extent to which the accused commits to repair the situation through, for example, symbolic, cultural, and financial repair for the victim (Hatch, 2006). The accused often focus on themselves and image preservation (for example, undertaking diversity training), sometimes referred to as apologia (Gold, 1978). Of course, meaningful apologies include impression management, but crucially, apologies should focus on the victims. In post-conflict societies, the apology should help to promote reconciliation and healing, not work against it (Murphy, 2011). Apologies are not necessarily for closure but to encourage dialogue and transitional justice (James & Stanger-Ross, 2018).

Given the link between individual and systemic climate racism mentioned above, there is debate about the role of personal apologies concerning systemic racism, sometimes referred to as representative apologies or ‘many-to-many’ apologies (Cohen, 2020; Weyeneth, 2001). All three activists in this paper alleged that their image erasure represented systemic climate racism. In such cases, who should make apologies to who? Who can claim to represent the group making the apology? Can individuals or organisations apologise to entire groups? Can people apologise for historical traumas they were not personally responsible for? What are the moral rights and duties that frame representative apologies? Although there have been studies on apologies for societal injustices such as slavery, residential schools, apartheid, and politically motivated sexual abuse, there has been little work on the link between personal and representative apologies concerning climate change.

Importantly, apologies for racism may reveal the mechanics of (white) privilege and, ironically, reinforce racist ideologies (Harris, 2019). For example, in explaining their actions, it is common for the accused to deny racism, ‘we are not racist, but . . . ’ and then refer to the outgroup in racist ways or imply that the marginalised are inferior (Augoustinos & LeCouteur, 2004). There may be othering of marginalised groups in apologies, and there may be subtle ways in which the views of the accusers are discredited and their accusations undermined. Silence in the face of racism allegations may allow racist ideas to thrive, thereby reinforcing racism (Sue, 2016). Notably, the tendency to apologise for individual racist acts may serve to sidestep systemic racism (Wasserman, 2010). In sum, apologies can be usefully analysed for their meaningfulness, and how they may reinforce the racism they are apologising for.

Case studies of ‘apology’ for digital exclusion

For Vanessa, the ‘apology’ was an apology for the editorial mistake, not for racism. Associated Press initially denied the allegations and explained why Vanessa’s image was ‘cropped’ out of the photo. That is, there was an unsightly building behind Vanessa, and the picture was improved by removing the building (and Vanessa). However, after much public outcry, on 24 January 2020, Associated Press released the following statement from the executive editor, Sally Buzzbee:

We regret publishing a photo this morning that cropped out Ugandan climate activist Vanessa Nakate, the only person of color in the photo. As a news organisation, we care deeply about accurately representing the world that we cover. We train our journalists to be sensitive to issues of inclusion and omission. We have spoken internally with our journalists and we will learn from this error in judgment.

On 26 January 2020, Vanessa tweeted, ‘Am sorry but this is not an apology. And the statement feels wrong’. On 27 January 2020, Sally Buzzbee tweeted,

Vanessa, on behalf of the AP, I want to say how sorry I am that we cropped that photo and removed you from it. It was a mistake that we realise silenced your voice, and we apologise. We will all work hard to learn from this. Sincerely, Sally Buzbee.

To worsen matters, the Associated Press tweeted the last part of Sally Buzzbee’s apology a day after and referred to Vanessa as simply an African climate activist. ‘@AP executive editor apologises to African climate activist for photo crop that removed her from image where she posed with other activists’. Vanessa replied, ‘Anyway my name is Vanessa Nakate. Thought I would add that’, showing again how Associated Press were racist by not using her name. Associated Press indicated that they would send their staff for diversity training and had a town hall meeting to discuss the incident and diversity in a separate statement.

For Tonny, Greenpeace Germany issued a statement immediately after the allegation. They explained that they selected four photos where Tonny is ‘not recognisable’. The choice of words is noteworthy. Tonny was not excluded or cropped out; she was not recognisable. They state that Tonny was included in a database of photos distributed to the media about the event. ‘We have not cropped any photos, nor have we adopted a photo that has been cropped. We have not retrospectively removed Tonny Nowshin or anyone else from a photo!’ The reference to cropping out is viewed as a sign of intentionality. In other words, they admit it was a ‘mistake’ (similar to Associated Press for Vanessa) but do not apologise for racism. They mentioned that they were grateful that Tonny raised the issue, would learn from their mistakes, and would ‘deal’ with their unconscious racism. In their own words, they regretted that ‘. . . when choosing the photos we only thought about who is shown–but not who is not visible on it’.

Elise Yard received a statement of regret. The Guardian published a short five-line blurb under their “corrections and clarifications” section. The correction stated, “We regret that Elise Yarde, an Extinction Rebellion activist and community worker, was not pictured holding her protest placard.” It said: “Climate inaction = racism”. The Guardian did not address the racism allegations nor deny racism. It did not explain what happened, as with the two apologies. The closest to an apology was the inclusion of the word ‘regret’, but the statement did not indicate what they regretted. It also did not address Elise directly, as the other apologies did.

In sum, none of the activists received apologies for overt racism but statements of ‘regret’. For Vanessa and Tonny, the exclusions were framed as ‘mistakes’, while The Guardian published a ‘correction’ for Elise. They received apologies for erasing voices and the hurt this may have caused, but not for racism. The closest to acknowledging racism was an acknowledgement of unconscious racism from Greenpeace Germany, to Tonny. Importantly, none of the organisations acknowledged the systemic climate racism in the activists’ allegations.

Method

Findings

The privilege to control the narrative: Privilege operates through being able to frame the ‘real’ problem on their terms. In Vanessa’s case, the explanation and associated apology were for the ‘error in judgement’ and for silencing Vanessa’s voice. They apologised for their lack of sensitivity to inclusion and diversity in their reporting, not racism. The Associated Press neither acknowledged nor admitted to racism, did not take responsibility for intentionality, nor showed any indication of how they planned to repair the situation for Vanessa. Instead, they focused on themselves in their repair. Importantly, to correct the mistake, they focused on the biases inherent in the (white) minds of the employees as the leverage point for repair. The assumption is that the individual (white) person/s responsible for the ‘mistake’ could be taught to be more sensitive to inclusion issues through diversity training. In other words, they are not inherently racist, and their lack of sensitivity to inclusion caused the cropped-out incident. Importantly, they can be taught to be more inclusive through diversity training. Through town hall meetings within the organisation, employees can also learn from their mistakes and engage in ways to avoid such things happening in the future.

The above features were more pronounced in the Greenpeace Germany apology, which went to greater lengths to deny intentional racism. They argued that they did not intentionally remove or crop out Tonny, so they cannot be racist. They indicated that their problem is that they only focused on who to include, not who was excluded, and their explanation was framed around unconscious racism that white people ‘suffer’. In other words, systemic and historical factors have led to White people having unconscious biases that make them naturally insensitive to inclusion and diversity. Although they apologised to Tonny and other people of colour, like the Associated Press, the apology centred around the explanation of a lack of sensitivity, not the racism that Tonny alleged.

The Guardian published a statement of regret. The implication was that it was a mistake not to publish the picture of Elize’s placard in the original publication (I return to the theme of the privilege of silence below). In terms of repair, they did grant Elize what she asked for – to write a piece on racism and climate change in the Guardian. They also published the original picture. Silence plus granting Elize what she asked for meant they could sidestep allegations that they did not repair the mistake or give Elize what she wanted.

The activists were compelled to defend their positions in online comments and media interviews. In fact, the activists, particularly Vanessa, were vilified for sticking to the intentional racism allegations. Online commentators and journalists did their best to prove that the allegations were not racist. Commentators offered alternative explanations; for example, the activists were not as famous, oversensitive, emotional, and attention seekers. Activists, however, deployed their agency to demonstrate how having to defend racism accusations was indicative of the way black women are treated more generally (see Barnes, 2021). Nonetheless, the onus was on the activists to defend their positions, while the white organisations had very little work to do after their ‘apologies’.

The privilege of ‘unconscious’ racism. The repair work by Associated Press and Greenpeace Germany drew on psychologised framings of the psychological causes of the exclusion by using terms such as ‘soul searching’ and ‘introspection’, with the apology symbolising a turning point to becoming more sensitive. Importantly, both organisations referred to the ‘unconscious’ biases of their (white) staff that influenced the unintentional erasure. Greenpeace Germany specifically mentioned ‘unconscious racism’ in their ‘apology’. The unconscious explanation does a lot of work, absolving responsibility but also providing a leverage point for change.

Locating racism at the unconscious level takes away responsibility for intentional racism. It is something that white people ‘suffer’ from because of their inherited systemic and historical privileges. They are typically unaware of their unconscious racism and were made aware of this. In fact, both Greenpeace Germany and Associated Press thanked the activists for pointing out their unconscious racism. Drawing on the unconscious acknowledges individual discriminatory acts but simultaneously absolves the actor from responsibility for intentional racism. They are positioned as co-victims of historic and systemic racism through reasons beyond their control. Others may be racist (for example, Greenpeace Germany intimated that the Associated Press were racist because they erased Vanessa’s image, but they did not, they merely failed to include it). Moreover, it is useful when black people to point those out to assist them in revealing their unconscious racism. White individuals are rendered vulnerable to the same discriminatory systems, so it cannot be that they are intentionally racist.

White vulnerability to unconscious racism also makes them open to reform, for it is always possible to change how people think and behave. By bringing unconscious racism to the fore, it is possible to acknowledge them and work to change those attitudes and behaviours. The way to do this is to put in the difficult psychological work to become more enlightened and inclusive. Of course, given that this racism is unconscious and not immediately apparent, they need help from diversity experts (for example, through diversity training), their colleagues (for example, through town hall meetings to learn from each other), and black people to identify this when it happens. It is left for others to help them atone. So, not only do the black activists have to do the work to defend their positions, but they also have to help the white individuals not be racist. The focus on deficits in individual white attitudes also detracts from institutional racism that may have facilitated the acts of digital erasure, for example, editorial policies that focus on inclusivity, hiring policies, and even disciplinary processes related to racism. None of these was mentioned in the apologies. Importantly, systemic racism allegations were ignored entirely.

The privilege of silence. The organisations denied intentional racism but also ignored the claim that their erasure experiences were representative of systemic racism in society. To remind the reader, Vanessa pointed out that the erasure of her image was symbolic of Africa’s erasure from climate action. Elise pointed out that if racism were not acknowledged, millions of black people would die because of climate change. Tonny claimed that systemic racism and the climate crisis have the same roots and must be addressed together. However, all three organisations failed to adequately respond to systemic climate racism in their ‘apologies’.

Choosing what to apologise for is inherently privileged. The choice of silence is also a privilege. It is unclear why the organisations did not acknowledge systemic racism, possibly because they do not see this as their institutions’ problem. It was individual mistakes that caused the problem. It is a societal problem outside of the institution. After all, the central allegation was racism directed towards institutions. How are they expected to apologise for the wrongdoings of society, including their ancestors and other racists, on such a broad scale? A likely explanation is that the activists claimed that the digital erasure experiences were intentionally racist at the individual and systemic levels. Acknowledging intentional systemic racism would weaken their denial of individual racism, so they avoided it.

The black activists cannot be silent as the stakes are too high. All three activists went to great lengths to point this out in their allegations. They mentioned the difficulty of introducing the claims when the option was to remain silent about their racism experiences would mean the status quo remained. However, because the activists strongly believed that their experiences represented systemic racism that has underpinned climate injustices, they had no option but to break that silence. It was not an option. Silence can be a life-or-death matter for many marginalised activists in many contexts. The stakes are also high for the people they to represent. The fact that white institutions can choose not to comment, let alone acknowledge this link in their apology, is inherently privileged.

Silence invalidates the activists’ claims but also conveys that this issue is unimportant or irrelevant. Given the dominant whiteness narrative inherent in these organisations, the denial of racism and silence on systemic racism reinforces racism. Silence shows a lack of solidarity with the activists rendering them vulnerable to criticism from racist and conservative sectors of society. Vanessa, for example, was vilified by people who felt she was wrong to claim her exclusion was racist (Rafaely & Barnes, 2020). Similarly, many similar social media comments were directed at Tonny and Elise, finding fault in their claims, and included racist and sexist comments.

The privilege to focus on yourself, not the victim: The apologies and corrective actions associated with them focused on the organisations. In other words, the motives for the repair were primarily designed to limit reputational damage and give the impression that they had apologised for wrongdoings when they had not. Importantly, they had taken corrective actions inside the organisation, for example, through diversity training, town hall meetings and psychological work to repair unconscious bias. Repairing the hurt caused by the acts is an integral part of the apology. Importantly, the repair work should focus on the victim and the corrective actions within the organisation. However, the repair was primarily focused on the organisations.

Notably, the activists were left to do repair work on their own. Elize wrote a piece for The Guardian on racism and climate impacts and responded by using the experiences in her activism (see Yarde, 2021). Granted, The Guardian gave her the opportunity to write the piece, but it was still left to Elise to write the article. Similarly, Vanessa conducted numerous interviews and talks and wrote a book about the incident and how it shaped her activism (Nakate, 2021). For Tonny, the repair was to write about the link between systemic racism and climate injustice (see Nowshin, 2021) and make this a feature of her activism. The lack of apology for individual or systemic racism opened the space for considerable questioning of whether the image exclusions were racist. The activists spent substantial energy justifying their claims of racism as part of the repair.

Another dynamic was revealed in the aftermath of Vanessa’s experience. In the absence of a meaningful apology for systemic racism from the Associated Press, Fridays for the Future organised a press conference (attended by the primarily White press) to focus on climate change in Africa in a show of solidarity with Vanessa and to address the lack of attention shown to the continent. The event included a line-up of African speakers who spoke about climate change in Africa. It was clear that the press was more interested in Greta, who had to remind them that the event was not about her constantly. The questions were superficial, and the event received little attention. The event came across as shallow, but the unintended effect is that it looked like African climate change issues were being saved by White activists, Activists (and other organisations). The absence of a space for genuine apologies and reparations meant that racism and bias against Africa were allowed to thrive. The activists had to work to justify racism in the allegation’s aftermath. At the same time, the responsible organisations and individuals were left to do their reflection, inner psychological work and healing.

Discussion

This study focused on ‘apologies’ for the digital exclusions of three black women activists. None of the apologies could be considered meaningful. Previous studies have focused on undermining experienced by activists more broadly. Studies of Vanessa Nakate and the cropped-out incident have focused on the difficulty of introducing racism claims (Rafaely, 2021), the intersectional undermining she experienced (Rafaely & Barnes, 2020), and how she deployed her agency in response to the cropped-out incident (Barnes, 2021). This is the first study to compare the image exclusion of the three activists, not just Vanessa. More specifically, it is the first to focus on the nature and form of apology, mainly how (white) privilege is written into those apologies. The findings support a rich body of literature on apologetics and racism denial by the media (Hatch, 2006; Van Dijk, 1992).

The findings are important for several reasons. It shows the value of apology analysis to reveal how privilege operates. While the nature of apology in the context of climate injustices can demonstrate regret and, to some degree, remorse, but fail to address the racism allegations and sidestep victim reparation. Second, it shows how privilege is written into the apologies and how this may subtly promote racism and geopolitical undermining (for example, in Vanessa’s case). Third, it focuses on representational apologies (organisations asked to apologise for systemic racism), their silences and what this might mean for mobilisation.

The study has implications for a small but growing field focusing on psychology and climate justice (Adams, 2021; Fernandes-Jesus et al., 2020). The apologies drew on psychologised discourses of the unconscious, transcendence, and enlightenment. As critical psychologists, it is crucial to disrupt narratives of individualism and psychologization (moving from unconscious racist to enlightened non-racist) to justify discriminatory acts. It is important to disrupt narratives of white victimhood and silence about systemic racism (that is, racism is beyond individuals and organisations). It is important to identify how overt and subtle racism is reinforced through moral repentance discourses. Equally important is to identify opportunities for mobilisation when racist acts occur, for activists to be aware of how an apology may undermine them, and, importantly, to determine strategies to counter the apologia. Importantly, organisations need to take responsibility for acts of digital erasure, show genuine remorse, and focus on repair for the victim(s) and not only impression management. Organisations need to, by the very least, acknowledge the role of systemic racism and climate change and the links between everyday exclusions and broader societal injustices.

The limitations are that the study was based on just three case studies. However, I purposefully selected them for their similarity and because they are different enough (location and the nature of the apologies) to enable valuable comparisons. Therefore, the case studies allowed me to identify patterns (for example, silence and apologia) across contexts. The study could have also undertaken a more in-depth analysis of the themes. However, I aimed to explore how privilege was written into apologies. Future studies could examine these themes in more depth. Future studies could also explore other forms of racism concerning climate action. This analysis risks positioning the activists as passive recipients of the acts and their aftermath. However, the activists showed notable agency to resist and reframe their experiences. Future studies could investigate agency and mobilisation further. Last, the analysis risks simplifying race representations – black victims and white oppressor organisations. However, subtle racism often operates in complex ways. For example, much of the vilification of Vanessa came from the African media, activists also drew on and reinforced individual racism discourses in their allegations, and interesting alliances, for example, the XR (United Kingdom) who has been accused of racism were the ones who initially made the allegations in Elise’s case. Future studies could explore the construction and co-production of racism in climate action.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the value of analysing apologies to reveal White and racism enablement. Given the findings from this study, calls for apologies from the global South for larger-scale systemic racism (and associated reparations) are unlikely to be straightforward. Critical psychologists must pay attention to the role and function of racism apology in climate action. Hopefully, this study will stimulate future studies on the role of apology in climate justice.