Why Madonna is right to adopt another child from Malawi

(picture courtesy: www.smh.com.au)


The Save the Children Fund has added its weighty voice to the debate as to whether Madonna should adopt another child and has spoken out against her, citing the fact that children should be cared for by 'extended families in their own home community'. Yes, that is true, and lot of things should happen in our world to make it a fairer place for many orphans, poor kids and kids without any kind of future, but they do not happen because we don't live in an ideal world. Moreover, one fails to see how an adoption could be criticised which would help one little motherless girl to have the kind of life 99% of us in the world dream about. No one can put the world's ills to right by themself, but if we all did just one thing to help a child, the dramatic difference would be immediately noticeable rather than doing only what is regarded as perfect or desirable.

It takes all kinds of action to change situations like those in Africa where the need is greatest, not just one ideal approach. In this case, Save the Children has got it very wrong because of one primary factor they have overlooked in their wisdom: the emotional health of the child Madonna has already adopted, David Banda.

David is a black child who will be spending his early formative life in an all-white family. His emotional health in forming his own identity is very important and that can only be helped by having a brother or sister who REFLECTS him, his heritage, his culture and his origins. When there is no reflection of us in our community, it sets up conflicts of identity, especially where our parents are clearly different, and can often cause internal dissonance until it is resolved, most often shown in either a rejection of the self (a desire to be white, for example) or a rejection of the parent(s).

Our daughter had a crisis of identity when she was between 12 and 13 years old. Though she had very loving parents (a black mother and a Sikh father), she was one of very few mixed race children at her grammar school which had a 98% white intake. The result of that, being virtually invisible in her school and feeling undervalued, was that she wanted to be white. It didn't matter what confidence, love or appreciation we gave her, the peer group she mixed with were all white and she felt unreflected and an outsider. She wanted so much to belong that being white, in her eyes, was the only way she could do it. She became introspective, uncommunicative and withdrawn for a few anxious months. Her confused state reflected itself in her writing which gradually revealed her problem. "Why did I have to be born black when all my friends are white?", she once wrote. It was a terribly tragic time for our family as we were unsure how to deal with this low self-image. yet we were very successful professionals and role models to her. We managed to bring her through those doubts and she resolved her identity and self-esteem in her own way by the time she was 15. However people underestimate the effects on children of being minorities in majority communities, the perceived lack of value, significance and self-reflection that haunt their routine lives, especially when all they see are white peers reflected in books, the media, as heroes and as the ones who matter.

That new addition to Madonna's family will do far more for David's sense of self and value than anything else Madonna could offer him. Both he and the new child will be reinforced by one another, just as his white sisters reinforce each other. Save the Children might want children to be supported in an ideal way, but this is not an ideal world. This is a cruel world where too many of our kids are suffering. One less child to suffer has got to be our aim, not the perfect manner in which it is done. As long as a child is not being exploited anything else to help them has got to be encouraged.

Madonna is doing the right thing for the wellbeing of her whole family and I wish her well in her aim.

Should Gordon Brown be putting his own house in order before he visits Obama?

Today Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of Britain, makes a much publicised trip to visit President Obama of the United States. The opposition Tory party is leading by an average of 12 points in the polls just now, sympathy for its leader, David Cameron, is also at record high because of the sudden and tragic death of his disabled six year old son last week; the bailout of the banks, especially when one of its chief executives will be getting £693,000 ($930,000) annual pension after leaving his bank in such parlous state, is fuelling fierce debate in the country, and the waning appeal of the Labour Party itself means that this trip couldn't come at a better time for Mr Brown himself. For a few days, at least, he will be able to bask in the reflected glory of America's newest wonderkid, sending the kind of signals back home, especially to mixed society, of sharing the President's objectives, values and ethics.

Gordon Brown might have placed an emphasis on discussing economic issues with the President, but for him and his Party, there are more pressing matters back home which the trip is hoped to influence: like the Party's re-election after three terms already. Elections have to be held by May of 2010, but can be held at the discretion of the ruling Party anytime before then. So we are on a kind of ongoing 'election alert' where every visit and every trip is crucial in the fight for votes, and no trip is as important as this one because of America's tremendous achievement in electing its first Black president. But Labour isn't where it is at. The Labour Party has lost its way, being rather backward with technology, with welcoming new ideas and reluctant to engage the public in real discussions on anything that is not stage managed. It means that they end up listening to the same old voices and remain in the same old pickle, being in great danger of losing the plot altogether.

There are two important areas that Gordon Brown needs to sort before he takes his place beside Barack Obama, if he really wants to be taken seriously. They are transparency in his own backyard and the invisibility of minorities.

First, try this little exercise. Go on to www.whitehouse.gov and try to make some contact then move on to Number10.gov.uk and do the same. There are no email facilities for making contact with Downing Street. The only ways are writing and making a video which is then replied to (a select few), by video too, by Mr Brown himself, in a kind of narcissistic orgy of self promotion. It really is only about him and little to do with real interaction. It means that the vast majority of Britons would not be making contact with their Prime Minister. I sent a fax instead, as I was instructed to do three weeks ago. To this day there has been no acknowledgement nor have I gotten a response either. Nothing. Nada, Nein, Nil. Take a look at the videos that are featured on the website. How many Black people are there? The only ones featured are at the ubiquitous receptions or events but none asking any questions or getting replies. Yet all the way from Britain, no matter what I have sent to the President's new website, there has been an acknowledgement or reply, usually within a week. The difference between the two websites is stark. The White House website is for genuine dialogue with the American people. To assess their views, mood and aspirations. The British No.10 website is for show and image. A few select voices might get through to it but it means that the vast majority of the public would have no voice, especially members of minority communities who are not even aware of such a facility.


The Invisibility of Minorities
Living in 21st century Britain as a member of a visible minority has a strange feel to it because there is nothing visible about it. People of colour are still as invisible as ever, across every walk of life, especially the media and government. They are either used as handy tokens to prove some dubious point about diversity or not at all. Gordon Brown's own cabinet has just ONE Black member (the Attorney General) and she is not even of full Cabinet rank. In fact, if the Cabinet were truly representative of its diverse society, there should be at least 3 minority ministers. It is a depressing fact that while Mr Brown cosies up to the President, he doesn't have a single Black person in America in a senior position in the diplomatic consulate. Of all the 21 people listed on the Ambassador's page, they are all White. Any American could be forgiven for believing that Britain is an all-White country by that monocultural representation. But that is absolutely indicative of the mealy-mouthed double standards in operation by the government. Image, spin and show, with little to support them.

Blacks are invisible across education, commerce, the military, advertising, government and, above all, the media, which are responsible for influencing public opinion. A rare species inside the White media is the black 'expert'. You will hardly ever see one of those. Expertness automatically carries a White tag. Only people of a particular colour are endowed with the gift of being advisers, commentators, experts in their craft and opinions worth having. Just have a look at the staff of any top British newspaper and the people who blog or comment for them. That tells it all about our multicultural society! The effect of such invisibility is to starve minorities of continual exposure by depriving them of a voice. It means minority communities remain starved of cash as well because being any kind of expert or adviser carries more publicity, bigger fees and personal publications.

Minorities get no publicity and, being robbed of a voice, they get little money too, which helps to keep them in the inferior status they are perceived to have. In fact, if one wants to see the invisibility of minorities in stark relief, just take a look at the most senior staff of the Mayor of London's office. Boris Johnson and his four deputy Mayors are all White (and male), power dictated by colour in a city with 30% Black residents! Yet the good Mayor boasts of London's commitment to diversity and equality daily. Obviously fine words compensate for the absence of real action! The tragedy of that omission is the real message it is giving Black Londoners of both their value and their ability to govern. In effect, minorities are always being talked about, or reported on, but hardly ever speaking for themselves, which maintains their impotent state and low sense of self.


Political window dressing
More important, I see the ease with which the American public now discuss the possible candidacy of Bobby Jindal (before his debacle!), and other minorities, for president in 2012 without batting an eyelid regarding their colour or gender (how American perspectives have shifted in just a couple of years) and we still struggle to get basic minority MPs in the Houses of Parliament, let alone even consider any of them for that top, coveted post of Prime Minister. I cannot imagine a Black Prime Minister in my lifetime because minorities are still on the periphery of political life, heavily dependent on being 'allowed' to stand as candidates by the different predominantly White local constituencies. In this way, the biased system keeps perpetuating itself to produce more of the same in relentless monotony.

With the election of Barack Obama, the USA has put its slave past firmly behind it. Racism will not magically disappear because of his presence, but people's perception will gradually change towards one another, and it's perception that dictates how we interact. Britain has not a hope in hell currently of achieving similar success because it has to begin a genuine open dialogue with ALL its people to engage them in any political process.

Obama has made transparency and unity his watchwords for governing. Britain has a long way to go to be 'transparent', if the Downing Street website is anything to go on. Furthermore, minorities are invisible to the political, administrative and economic life of the UK which makes genuine social unity and equality a myth. It means that Mr Brown's visit with President Obama this week is all the more superficial and hypocritical for political expediency, and really just tired window-dressing.

Do many White Britons really get it about the offensive nature of Racism? Why the BBC was right to sack Carol Thatcher

Carol Thatcher, the daughter of a British Prime Minister, made a remark about a French tennis player, saying how much he looks like a 'golliwog' a 'half-golliwog' and a 'golliwog Frog' (frog being a derogatory, xenophobic term for the French). The BBC immediately sacked her from The One Show. Apparently, to date, nearly 3,500 people have complained about her being dropped by the BBC and only 133 for the decision.

In the eyes of some of the predominantly White media, that shows how 'silly' and 'pc' it all is, a storm in a teacup, how Britain is losing its way etc. But it is truly painful, as a Black citizen who loves Britain, to see how racism is taken for granted simply because White Britons have the power to behave as they like and often exercise that power in the form of branding everything to do with essential mutual respect as mere 'pc'. It is fascinating that one does not hear any reports of Black Britons publicly calling their White peers any kind of racist names. So is that the preserve of White folks?

Let's get one thing straight. Racism is an ignominious and offensive form of action. It takes a particular mindset to be racist against another. Racism robs someone of their value and their dignity, it derogates their race and identity and it treats them as undeserving and inferior to everyone else. Above all that, we are talking about the absence of MUTUAL RESPECT when we practise any kind of racism, yet we all seek respect for what we value, for what we cherish and what we hold dear to our hearts. We also give three strong messages about ourselves when we use racist terms against others.

First, that we are so low in esteem that we have to boost our ego, to get our kicks, to feel superior at the expense of another person who might be far less fortunate than we are and whose only 'crime' as the butt of selected 'in jokes', is the colour of their skin. No one can change their skin colour to what others might wish it to be, so to use racist terms against another is to define the actual value we too place upon ourselves. Simply because if we really love ourselves, and value who we are, we would understand how someone else feels about themselves too, the pride and joy in being a unique individual.

Second, the language we use identifies us and our mindsets, where we are coming from and where we are going. It shows what we value and care about by the words we actually choose to utter. Most people do not go round using a term like 'golliwog' to describe a Black person, especially in 21st century Britain, because the word was deemed publicly offensive some time back because of its questionable roots and its deliberate unflattering caricature of a Black image. When we easily use racist and derogatory words, we say a lot about how we perceive others who are different, how we regard people who might not share our skin colour and how we easily relegate them to be undeserving of our respect and inclusion in order to maintain our feelings of superiority.


Personal fears as barriers
Third, we allow fear to dominate our perspective as we foster a deliberate 'them' and 'us' mentality where people are identified in a purely derogatory way: by the colour of their skin, no other factor included. It shows a lot of personal fear because racism is the worst form of exclusion. Fear is a terrible thing when it comes to dealing with others because it allows for unnecessary barriers in appreciating who they are, it focuses on their differences negatively while completely ignoring the similarities we might all share. When we are not sure of how to deal with difference, we usually select the most obvious feature to transform into something worthless.

But there are other more practical concerns with this incident. This Frenchman is a guest in our country. Do we get our kicks from bashing visitors now instead of protecting them? What does it say about us and how we view our European neighbours, while pretending that we are much more advanced in racial matters? How would we like one of our treasured stars to be racially abused in another country?

Many White Britons still don't understand the nature of racism and why it is simply wrong to use racist terms. It has nothing to do with being 'pc', a term mostly used by people with power to excuse bad behaviour against more vulnerable members among them. Racism is the worst action in a mixed society because it is the majority group, the White section, that has the economic power, that controls the media (how many Black faces do you see or voices do you hear in Britain's media, especially in the positions that really matter?), that has the political clout, that makes the laws, sets social standards and controls the country's resources. It means they have the power to do whatever they like against anyone who might be different simply through sheer numbers, history and exclusivity. Being openly racist is also a part of that power, especially in the absence of minorities in positions of authority to give alternative inputs.

In a year when the first Black person has been elected to be President of the United States, and to lead the Democratic Party; when the first Black person has also been elected to lead the Republican Party, it is time Britain moved into a new exciting phase of its own and ditch the racism. We are well behind America now and it is time we stopped behaving as if we are so inclusive, so respectful of each other or so understanding of our heritage, if we can still easily condone racist acts. Time to stop the racist smugness and start the healing process. Time to get out of the 'golliwog' and racist era and join America in celebrating difference. Time to be much more genuinely inclusive of minorities by ensuring their voice and valuing their contributions instead of simply derogating them because we can. Perhaps we might even learn to truly appreciate ourselves as a nation in the process.

It might only have been a simple word. But words define who we are, what we wish to emphasise and how we truly value ourselves and others. For a privileged lady, whose mother set such a remarkable example for this country, Carol Thatcher's action was thoughtless and shameful and should be condemned as such by every person who is proud to be British.

Thank you, BBC, for your very prompt and professional action.