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.

What's in a Name?(3) The Enslavement of our Children

Does the way Black children are behaving have anything do do with the slavery of their ancestors and their own achievement? With Britain currently commemorating the 200th anniversary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade, it got me thinking about the real legacy of slavery on Black people, particularly in how we perceive ourselves, the names we use and the way our low self-esteem affects our children.


Once I attended a meeting in London of very keen, Black education professionals, who had each paid £75 for the privilege of discussing a particular report and its potential impact on the community. I waited eagerly for its content. However, my one abiding memory of that meeting was the negative way three very vocal 'sisters' totally hijacked the proceedings to question who had written the report and what colour that person should have been. For the next two hours, absolutely nothing was discussed until the terminology was sorted out and the colour of participants was fully checked and analysed: a total waste of delegates' time, money and talents. Months later, I am still trying to work out what we achieved on that day because we never did get to the actual findings! I am sure my experience is not unique and could explain why often so little is achieved within our community.

Black though we may be, if we have never been to Africa, we are no more 'Africans' than the descendants of the early Britons across the Pond who fought with the UK for their independence and are now very much Americans. They cannot call themselves Britons when they have very little physical or cultural ties with the mother country, and don't even speak the same language. Names are extremely important when they are associated with a sense of wellbeing and a definite history. However, people who cling to the past, long after it has lost its meaning, tend to be stagnant in their ambitions, fearful in their thoughts and fossilised in their actions. Having a sense of continuing frustration, yet not sure how to deal with it, they gradually find it easier to look towards another utopia, to see it as the answer, even when it is alien to them and is merely just a dream. Thus the place they left decades ago, like Bangladesh, Jamaica or India, is still 'home' even forty years afterwards. This view stops them facing their new reality, keeping them exposed as very obvious minorities, forever on the periphery while they abdicate responsibility for their future and blame the past for any present predicament.


Inscurity and Underachievement

The notion of a home far away also harms their children's present and future. It implants a constant reminder of instability and impermanence and is one of the biggest causes of insecurity and underachievement. If their parents are going 'home' sometime in the never never, why should they bother to work here? Why bother with making real friends? With buckling down to school work if you are going to be uprooted suddenly to 'go home'? Sadly, 15 or 20 years down the line, when the parents are still in Britain clinging to their outdated memory of 'home', the children would have completely lost theirs through apathy and alienation. In the meantime, the 'home' they fondly hang on to has changed beyond recognition. Trapped in time and fossilised in their brain, the cherished perfect past is a far cry from the actual reality; one which is a vibrant, moving form of constantly changing mores; one which would be almost as alien to them as to anyone else.

We stop developing when we live in the past and hang on to it for its own sake, while being constantly bitter and vengeful. In this way we learn nothing from it to safeguard or improve our future. Black people are of African descent, and that is labouring the obvious. Though we need to know our history and our roots, that knowledge should enhance, not retard, our progress. We have chosen, or been given, a different future which we must develop to the fullest in the brief time available. If you feel strongly about any country, more than you do about the place you live in, then DO something about it! Why not visit that place, examine its prospects and help to build it up? Share your expertise with the community to enable others to benefit from your contributions while you gain a sense of fulfilment.

Hankering daily after somewhere else, while we do little to improve our current existence, makes life needlessly difficult and frustrating. It becomes a good excuse, and a handy ploy, to prevent us ever facing our own reality. It also keeps us stuck in the paradise of our dreams while the paradise we could help to build disintegrates around us. A country divided cannot thrive. Its people has to work together, not against each other, to give it life and success.

It really doesn't matter what we call ourself. We can only extend and conquer the earth when actions take precedence over words; when we know who we are and wish to be, when we accept that identity fully and head off into the future to give it life. Only then will we be able to deal with any obstacles in our way; to feel confident about our potential for making a difference to ourself and our environment. Repressing our ambition under a daily concentration on labels, names and theories indicates real fear and little self-esteem as we replace deeds with semantics and a lack of vision.

Key Questions for Our Future

Whether you are an African who has never been to Africa, an Asian who left your country years ago, or a Briton who is going nowhere else, here is a little challenge to tease out your true identity: Apart from mere words, what have I done for Africa lately? For Jamaica? For India? For Pakistan? For Britain? For Me...?

The answer will not only be truly enlightening, it might actually point you in the right direction for the greatest achievement of all time: liberating yourself from the semantic slavery which has chained you for long enough to the aimless sinking ship of negativity and regret. There really is a connection between the death of seven Black youngsters in six weeks, the state of the Black community and how it views itself and the apology demanded from the British government over slavery. They are all linked to our self-perception, sense of impotence and genuine frustrations. We have got an apology from Tony Blair about what happened hundreds of years ago and the legacy it has left.

Fine, so what now? Only self-confidence and high self-esteem can propel our children to greater self-love and achievement. Unless we love and respect ourself, our children have no hope of loving or respecting themselves too. They will always be ashamed of who they are and keep taking it out on each other. Many of us are still back there wallowing in self-hate and slavery. But it's time to start taking responsibility for our lives so that we can give our children the reinforcement, strength and pride to take reponsibility for their lives too.

An apology from the politicians might force some superficial accountability and assuage some egos, but it is an empty gesture which reflects the past and does little for us and our future. The real question is: When are WE going to forgive ourselves for our distressing past and actually discard our slavery mentality to realise the wonderful, talented beings we are? This is fundamental to the progress of Black children, to their feelings of security and value, and to leaving our own positive legacy, no matter where we are settled in the world.

What's in a Name?(2) The Language of Slavery

How does the language we use uplift or degrade us? With Britain currently commemorating the 200th anniversary of the Abolition fo the Slave Trade, it got me thinking about the real legacy of slavery on Black people, particularly in how we perceive ourselves, the names we use and the language used to describe anything black.

Even today, every word in the English language connected with the word 'black' is full of nastiness, darkness and foreboding, and I won't even quote Shakespeare to prove it. Courtesy of my thesaurus, the colour white is 'virginal, unblemished, immaculate, innocent, pure'. Black is 'dark, murky, funereal, evil, villainous, wicked!' They may be just words on a page but they reflect the anxiety of the people who gave them meaning and demarcated human beings into roses and rejects. Worse still, constant daily usage ensures their transformation into lethal psychological weapons for those affected by it.

With enlightenment and time, that instant identification with past masters has begun to fade among Black people. Admiration and hero-worship have gradually given way to suspicion and anger through the gradual acknowledgements of painful truths. For the first time ever, the full horror of the slave trade and Britain's part in it, and its financial benefits from it is being openly discussed, not from a sanitised blameless corner but through education of man's inhumanity to man. African Caribbeans, or African Americans, are fighting back, actively seeking that lost childhood to recapture their worth, self-esteem and true identity. But it is an uphill task because of its entrenchment in our psyche. We may have lost too much too quickly and are in danger of leaping too far to the other side.

Under the guise of 'discovering' themselves, there has been a definite slide towards aligning with Africa, where many Black Britons have never been, and with which they have little incommon except the colour of their skin, instead of the country of their birth or residence; the one that nurtures them and protects their interest. Asians do the same by refusing to let go, even when they know that they are never going back 'home'. Scared of losing their roots and traditions, they trap themselves and their families in a cultural time warp which eventually stunts their growth, slows their evolution and heightens their feeling of insecurity. In this way we all label ourselves like useless packages which are being knocked from pillar to post in a wilderness of denial.


Turning to Africa for Comfort
Instead of a solidarity in being Black, acknowledging a common past and linking together for a better future, wherever we are, many eagerly turn to Africa (or Mother India) from whom they descended for their comfort and validation. Many Blacks wear their African label proudly, while turning inwards on their brothers and sisters to put them down, to revile their efforts and to mock their successes. Someone has to be blamed for the legacy of servitude and self-hate. Their peers and colleagues easily become the identifiable enemy while the real culprit (lack of self-belief, lack of self-love and lack of forgiveness) stalk wantonly inside them, eating away at their consciousness, hopes and ambitions, rendering them helpless, vulnerable and emotionally sterile. Then we wonder why, as a people, we are not more successful, we are dogged by crime and delinquency and we feel so bad within ourselves. But wherever there is little self-respect, we cannot have the respect of others.

The names we choose for ourselves do matter. They are clear signs of personal confidence, self-perception, basic identity and future potential. Personally, I prefer British Black. I might have descended from a slave but I do not have to be one in my thoughts and mentality. As Bob Marley sang: "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourself can free our mind." I cannot go back in time to right any wrong, and another White person cannot do that either, but by treating myself with love and respect, I can command the respect of others too; by teaching my children to love themselves and respect themselves, they will also be able to free their thoughts from the negative past to boldly go into the future to claim their birthright. By celebrating my presence and the gift of life, I can make my own legacy and a huge difference to my world.

Being a Black Briton, is a conscious decision. I am not a member of an 'ethnic minority' because minority emphasises being out of the majority; on the periphery of the mainstream looking on longingly, but never allowed the opportunity to join that privileged majority. Being 'Black' also emphasises that, though I may not be a member of the White majority, I am equally proud of who I am and where I hope to go. I used to be a Jamaican, representing the land of my birth. Deep within me I will always have a fondness for, and a sort of wonder, that a tiny little island has had such a phenomenal impact on the rest of the world through creativity, music and sports! Jamaica represents my history, and a very proud one too. Regardless of how my ancestors got to Jamaica, someone elsewhere decreed that I should be a Jamaican and I am very proud of that roots.

Yet, at a time when racist folks continually threaten to make life uncomfortable for all Britons, and others talk of 'apology', 'repatriation' and 'compensation, there will have to be one person standing aside from all that to take a different view - me. I have no wish to return to my past because there is nothing happening back there. The past is important for placing us in time and noting the significant moments in our history, but a concentration on the past robs us of both a present and a future. If we are busy back there, we cannot be busy here too. It is a short step from simply finding scapegoats for feelings of inadequacy which then prevent us looking at ourselves. The past is useful for changing the present and developing the future in a more enhancing way. It is not for wallowing in self-pity or harbouring futile thoughts of revenge.


Loyalty to Our Country
Whether I like Britain or not, this is now my home, not Jamaica, not Africa not anywhere else. My ancestors could not choose to go to Britain. They were forced to be here. But I had the choice of going to America, Canada, Europe - mostly anywhere I wanted to, and I chose the UK. I adore this country and wouldn't live anywhere else. That was a conscious choice and has remained so. This is where I live, and where I now celebrate the 40th anniversary of arriving in London from Jamaica; where I have spent many wonderful years, where my children have to live when I am dead and gone and where I wish to contribute my skills to enable us to enjoy a fulfilling life. The fact that I am finally sure in my mind who I am, what I want and where I am going has helped me to move on to another important plain: to other important things like future achievements, a rewarding career reflecting my purpose in life and the support I can give to my children and any grandchildren by being close at hand for them when they need me.

Importantly, I am now able to focus upon my own self development in a way which would be denied me if I had to be continually worried about who I am, where I am and where I want to go. Self knowledge comes gradually over time but if, after 15, 20 or 25 years spent in one place, those questions are still causing anxiety without a real sense of belonging, there is major psychological stress and dissonance which needs to be addressed. In fact, one thing has always fascinated me about the semantics of identity, especially in America. All the weak minority groupings attach a prefix to who they are: like Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans. The White ruling class, the one with the power and the resources, the media and the control, have jettisoned any overt claim to their roots and simply settled for being Americans! Are they the only true Americans then? Could that be the secret of their success? I suppose if we are not serving two masters there will be only one set of instructions. European Americans have moved away from trying to prove their existence because, having proven it already, they now flaunt it proudly.

Black Britons, and to a large extent, Black Americans, are still trying to prove themselves and it will carry on in this new millennium for a very long time. This could explain the deep divisions among them, the basic lack of self-respect reflected in the language they use for their women, the obsession with the 'right words' and labels, an even stronger obsession with things African - but from a distance - and a negative, inward looking perspective which helps to rob their children of their birthright and the security needed for them to belong. Many Black people are stuck in a groove of semantics to such an extent, most of their energies are dissipated on what they should call themselves, and what people are saying about them, instead of what they should actually be doing with their lives and the positive legacy they could leave.

What's in a Name?(1) The True Legacy of Slavery

With Britain currently commemorating the 200th anniversary of the Abolition fo the Slave Trade, it got me thinking about the real legacy of slavery on Black people, particularly in how we perceive ourselves and the names we use.


Names should be positive terms, but they can be cultural baggage. If you belong to a 'minority' group, what do you call yourself? The choice is easy if it has a definite historical, geographical or religious base. However, what if you are from the Caribbean but insist on being called African? Or an Asian who left your birthplace decades ago but still hark back to it as 'home'? Does all that really matter.

Take any name we call ourself: man, woman, doctor, priest, African, Caucasian, Asian. They all have one thing in common. They represent a specific persona as an individual, a member of a social and cultural group, and set us apart from everyone else who does not share the same background or characteristics. Names and titles are important for establishing individual identity, maintaining tradition, emphasising a particular skill or lineage, marking our place, unmistakably, in a historical and geographical context. Names are usually positive. We are meant to be proud of who we are and what we call ourselves. However, for Black people outside of Africa (like African Caribbeans) that is not always the case.

Black people living abroad have been desperately trying to come to terms with themselves for a very long time because of their chequered past and broken links with their countries of origin. Judged by their colour first, before anything else, it has been a painful demoralising process which some have managed to overcome but to which others have helplessly succumbed. Yet the answer to their anxieties lie in their eventful past. Whether they call themselves Melangian. African, Afro-Caribbean, African American or simply Black, there is a continuous search for a lost childhood, a huge gap in their past when everything happened but very little was spoken about it. Black people everywhere share this unique history.


Dirty Secret
They have been the only race, in modern times, who were forcibly ejected en masse from their place of birth and dispersed all over the world to be the slaves of another race of people. That one conscious slice of being Black, which continually haunts them, will never be understood by a White person in any number of lifetimes. It is such a powerful, pervasive and debilitating emotion, a kind of dirty secret scanning years of discrimination and entrapment, that Black strangers passing by only have to look at each other briefly in the street to share something instantly familiar, oddly binding and utterly unspeakable which hovers relentlessly through time.

It is not easy to appreciate, or empathise with, this legacy of slavery, because it is a legacy of displacement, not only in purely physical terms, but also in emotional, historical and psychological ones. For Black people of the African Diaspora there is a continuous sense of statelessness, of not belonging; of lacking the roots and experience of a promising childhood which was rudely torn apart, summarily dispensed with and utterly destroyed by slavers; cut short by something vastly alien, bewildering and shocking.

As a consequence of this brutal act there has been a marked absence of glory in anything black. No Black heroes, no great victories or inventions (those have been kept hidden). I was really surprised to learn, through the musical Black Heroes in the Hall of Fame, that the traffic lights were invented by someone Black! All my life, robbed of role models, I naturally assumed the inventor was White, my childhood having taught me that only White colonists did great things.


Serving and Obeying
Like a form of imprinting, White Europeans were the first 'parents' Black slave children saw, received their value from and had to serve and obey in a kind of sub-human state. This affected them not only for the rest of their lives but down the ensuing centuries through the generations that followed. How can one ever talk of true equality when one group started off being the slave of another, being deprived of basic human rights and freedoms, and their own dreams and hopes? If you start with a disadvantage, which follows you down the years, how do you recover from it to enjoy real parity with the masters who exploited you to build themselves and their fortunes? It is very difficult. That is why there has always been this desire, in the absence of anything positive about being Black, to use the White culture as a role model in all spheres. One only had to look at the way singers form the 50s presented themselves to the public, how 'White' they were made to look, or tried to be, in order to be 'acceptable'.

For a long time, devoid of ancestral role models and any sense of self, the lost children of Africa looked to the White race for inspiration, as well as guidance in decorum, style of dress, hair care and general behaviour. They did learn how to assimilate a different culture, in their desire to be recognised and to belong, but they lost something valuable in the process - their own identity, sense of worth and sense of direction. Black people saw the White aura and tried to capture it. They admired White inventiveness and tried to emulate it. But these White role models saw only their colour and forever damned it, especially through their language. This has left many Black people confused about their roots: stateless, nameless and, at times, unwanted caricatures of another race.

Do We Really Need A Black History Month?

It is February again, that time of the year when America celebrates Black History Month, just like the month of October in Britain. But do we really need that kind of celebration? Is it really helping understanding or, could the annual nature of it, like a cuckoo in a clock, and its exclusive label rob it of its validity and significance?

As one who has spent the last 14 years promoting multiculturalism from the rooftops in the UK, through the only book on the subject in Europe, and two annual national diversity awards, I have been pretty saddened to hear government ministers and others trumpeting that 'multiculturalism isn't working' or we 'cannot celebrate diversity because it encourages difference' and keeps us separate. But both statements are based upon ignorance and fear which does not really help a diverse community to move forward together.

Every human being desires four things in their life to feel good about themselves as individuals:
a. To be significant
b. To be accepted
c. To be valued
d. To be included
What I call my SAVI empowerment concept.

It means that the behaviour of every person in our world is related to at least one, or all, of those requirements because they all underscore respect. Minorities in a majority world desire 'significance' and 'inclusion' most of all, exactly what they have been broadly denied in the UK through their routine exclusion from high office, the media, arts and politics.

There is nothing wrong with celebrating diversity or encouraging multiculturalism. What has been terribly wrong is a marked absence of respect on both sides of the cultural divide which makes appreciation difficult. The word 'respect' is glibly shouted by everyone in times of crisis, especially in seeking those SAVI attributes, but it seems to be only in connection with our own needs and viewpoint and very little to do with others. We all seek respect, we feel we are denied it, we accuse each other of not giving it. But in reality, we are simply in love with the idea of the word itself, not its implementation. This could be because we really do not understand the meaning of this important word.

Respect is not a single word that we assign as a cure-all to any situation. Respect has six dimensions within it. Genuine respect starts with curiosity of another, then taking the time to give attention, then having a dialogue with them, and with sensitivity for their feelings. These actions should lead to empowerment and healing. Since 9/11, in particular, there has been little respect shown on both sides, particularly in the blanket targeting of Muslims, the insensitive way many have been treated and, for their part, the violence accompanying any criticism of destructive beliefs and behaviour. Vociferous minorities would also deny the same free speech they enjoy to any form of criticism or debate which concerns them. That is not respect. Even worse, an absence of respect has been alive and well in our daily lives, despite denials to the contrary, which makes it difficult for one side or the other to cry foul.

Let's cite a few routine examples which get to the heart of the matter.


Origins of Disrespect

1. Black History Month. This is October and, as usual, it is Black History Month to celebrate Black heritage and culture. This is not just a showcase but an educational opportunity for the White majority to learn about their minority neighbours. It empowers Black people to take pride in their identity and thus a wholesome cause for celebration. There are also many pointedly 'Black', 'Asian' or 'Muslim' organisations which were created for both a positive identity and to guard against isolation, primarily because of their exclusion from the mainstream. Nothing wrong with that at all. However, how would members of minority groups feel if they suddenly saw signs and promotion for a 'White History Month', 'White Women Forum', the 'White Professional Association' or the 'White Entrepreneurs Club', labels which are clearly racist and exclusive? They would rightfully be up in arms. But where is the sensitivity (respect again) for the pointedly White exclusion in those labels?


2. Negative media coverage. There should not be a need for a Black History month at all. There is a flurry of activities in October (February in America), a month saturated with events where everyone tries to be heard, to be significant and valued, and then nothing else for the other 11 months. Like cuckoos, they go back inside their clocks. That is very sad. But Black History Month emerged because of a lack of positive attention to minorities (respect again!) by the media. The only time you hear about minorities is when something negative (like the veil issue?) is being reported.

Minorities in Britain are virtually invisible in every aspect of life except crime. We hear about them ad nauseam in relation to terrorism and street crime but hardly in any other dimension. For example, the focus on celebrities is pervasive in our society. But where are the minority celebrities? The ones well known in their communities but are ignored by the mainstream press? Where are the minority guests and achievers on chat shows? On discussion panels? On entertainment programmes? Once again, they are deprived of significance and value through invisibility but take centre stage when it's negative. Such an exclusive and racist approach keeps minorities in the public eye as extraordinary and non-contributing beings. It uses them in situations that bolster national fear (immigration and crime) while ignoring the vast majority of law abiding, legal citizens playing their part in society. Minorities are also used in a cynical way to show national pride abroad, as with the Olympics, when multculturalism was suddenly cool and essential, but are largely excluded from the preparations and nearly all the service contracts.


Lack of Recognition

3. Absent Media Faces. Today I visited the website of a top national newspaper and, of its 24 writers paraded for the public, only one was Black. I won't even mention television and radio because commercial radio, in particular, is dismal when it comes to representation of their diverse audience among radio staff. Is it any wonder that the views in the media are so skewed against minorities when there is hardly anyone giving an alternative view? Especially when the service provided for them is so negative and exclusive. That is why there is very little sensitivity (respect again) to minority views and feelings. Being on the negative end of any reporting, they are fair game for people seeking sensational headlines.

4. Separate existence. We talk a lot about the need for integration and the separateness of communities, but it has not been minorities who have cut themselves off from the majority, especially in our schools, it is the other way around. Many Whites have a negative view of minorities, fed by the media, and actually move away from areas with a significant minority population to 'preserve their culture'. The result is virtual apartheid in certain localities. That is very sad because neither side is making the effort to learn about one another or mix together. So how can there ever be a better understanding of difference? It really takes both sides to compromise, to engage in dialogue and to be sensitive to each other's needs and perspectives. But simple racism has spawned a lot of lip service while discrimination and exclusion run riot.


Diversity is here to stay

Diversity and multiculturalism can work beautifully when all parties are prepared to compromise, and accord each other respect, but it has to be genuine in every sense of the word. We cannot simply demand respect for ourselves while giving none to our peers because no country can thrive with a divided nation. If we really love our country, we strive to make it a great place to live. There are rights and responsibilities attached to being citizens of any country and merely stressing the rights without the responsibilities is folly and can only lead to isolation, discrimination, resentment and divisions. Clear guidelines on what it means to be British is crucial if the country seeks the respect of all Britons, if it hopes to make them feel empowered and to bring about healing. The Government also needs to add, equally clearly, that if life in Britain is not to one's liking, a life which we freely choose, there are many other countries one can go to that could be more suitable. That should be the bottom line for unity while ensuring due respect for those who choose to celebrate being British, regardless of their culture.

Starting from that base, Black History Month should be scrapped and minority heritage and culture celebrated ALL year round, just like that of the White majority, but under a diversity label. For example, what about Our Diverse Music in January, Our Diverse Literature in February, Diverse Arts and Crafts in April, Dance in May, Diverse Foods in June?...You get the drift. It means that, instead of just focusing on minority crime and negative issues around minorities, the White media can actually begin to pay some proportional attention, throughout the year, to the positivity of being a minority, particularly encouraging involvement and patronage by White participants, sponsors and patrons. That is the only way to make all people feel included and to engender loyalty and pride. It is also the main way to change White perception of their Black neighbours and for all British citizens, whatever their origins, to feel significant, appreciated, valued and included.

No Such Thing As 'The Truth'

With Rudy Giuliani having thrown his hat into the presidential ring, his time as mayor of New York suddenly loomed large, particularly with three disturbing incidents and his reaction to them. In 2002, after 9/11, Rudy was riding high. He was dubbed the Mayor of the World by the New York Times magazine which made him its Person of the Year. And, in my opinion, if anyone truly deserved such an accolade, it was the mayor of New York. He could not have been more of a father to his citizens when they needed him most, nor could he have been more caring and compassionate to shocked New Yorkers blasted by the carnage. Yet Rudy is living proof of the power of perception, including his own, to either vilify or sanctify, according to the moment.

As I watched him tirelessly leading the city throughout September and beyond, I was extremely inspired by his unselfishness, humility, obvious compassion and quiet approachability. The cold-hearted mayor I had heard about up to a few months before seemed many miles away, bearing little relation to the man who now commanded so much respect and genuine authority, representing two completely different versions of ‘the truth’ according to one’s perception, expectation and frame of reference.

In fact, many other Black people in New York would have had some trouble adjusting their lens to double check that this new saintly figure was the same mayor who presided over three particularly brutal incidents and even backed his policemen in doing two of them too.


Zero Tolerance of Crime
According to the Times magazine, in 1997 Abner Louima, a Haitian man, was sodomised with a mop handle by policemen in a Brooklyn-precinct bathroom. Two years later, an unarmed street pedlar named Amadou Diallo was killed when police in the Bronx fired 41 shots at him in a dark lobby. In 2000, barely 18 months before 9/11, “an unarmed security guard named Patrick Dorismond, who had been trying to hail a cab outside a midtown bar, was shot to death after a scuffle with undercover cops”. “Giuliani denounced the policemen who brutalised Louima but defiantly backed the ones who killed Diallo and Dorismond.” In their cases the juries actually cleared the policemen of wrong doing. Giuliani had declared zero tolerance on crime and would not let a little matter of skin colour block his objective, which gave a licence to others to rob African Americans of their rights and even their life.


“After Dorismond was killed, Giuliani’s instinct to defend the police” led him to attack the unarmed Black victim and “he authorised the release of Dorismond’s juvenile record” to “prove” his propensity for violence. “The dead,” Giuliani argued, “waived their right to privacy. Even close friends and supporters were appalled.” The man who had “saved New York city” saw his popularity ratings plummet to new lows. But therein lies the capacity of power to change perception of what constitutes ‘the truth’. As I said in my book, managing the diversity maze, ’Truth’ is governed by privilege. It always looks so right when one has the power to support it. Thus ‘the truth’ of “Black people, women and others who suffer under such inequalities will seldom share anything with the ‘truth’ of the exploiters because they are both coming at that singular ‘truth’ from two different positions of privilege: one group has it and the other has not. That is what keeps equality from ever becoming a reality and cements its unequal foundations, regardless of the superficial flurry of activity and proliferation of fine words to prove otherwise.”

With the support of the majority White community behind the law enforcers, crime assumed a particular colour. Giuliani had to show how a tough mayor should act towards those who were perceived to be the most troublesome, especially if they were easily identifiable. According to the magazine, “New York City was getting better, but the mayor seemed to be getting worse”. It was easy for him to feel unassailable. Inflated by his own idea of ‘the truth’, he seemed uncaring as to the consequences of it.

In mitigation, he told the reporter, “People didn’t elect me to be a conciliator. If they just wanted a nice guy they would have stayed with Dinkins” (the former mayor). “They wanted someone who was going to change this place. How do you expect me to change if I don’t fight with somebody?” he asked. “You don’t change ingrained human behaviour without confrontation, turmoil and anger.”

And this statement of his truth is absolutely right. Except, if it came from a Black male, it would have been regarded as somewhat dangerous; disturbing enough to merit the attentions of the security forces who would have questioned his intent and been wary of his actions. But he is White, which carries its own might, and that’s all right. He has both the colour and the power to give credibility and life to his version of ‘the truth’. A Black male talking about ‘confrontation and anger’ had better watch his back! There would be no ’truth’ in that.


Sense of Frustration

But, I am one of those who agreed with that simple statement because it was ‘the truth’. From the day I took on this thankless task of changing hearts and minds, I have felt that unmoving attitudes cannot be changed with just fine words and flowers. One has to be armed with something stronger: like 'confrontation, turmoil and anger'.

Change always starts with confrontation and challenge: confronting the self to change personal perceptions; confronting others as well as the issues no one wishes to acknowledge or which everyone pretends do not matter. To challenge basic injustice and discrimination in order to get at this elusive 'truth'.

Once there is confrontation there is turmoil. Any form of negative challenge disturbs the status quo and unleashes the worst anxieties within us. Anger swiftly follows, both from resentment at being challenged and from frustration on the part of the challenger at the lack of change or the slowness of it. However, once confrontation begins, it is like a pandora’s box which either generates argument and debate or unleashes a riot of indignant emotions and actions.

In the light of my book, managing the diversity maze, Rudy Giuliani’s simple statement answered a lot of questions about my own ‘truths’ and objectives. This book certainly confronts the issues head on, starting from the Establishment to the individual, and I expect a good deal of turmoil to follow in the ensuing reality check. But then, I have never shirked from the task! People who benefit from the status quo will seldom ever change unless it continues to reward them in some significant way.

I admire Rudy Giuliani a great deal now because some time in 2000 he had the humility to question his version of ‘truth’ regarding one section of the community and also the courage to face up to the negativity of the fact. With the two brutal murders fresh in his mind, he pledged his remaining time in office to “breaking down some of the barriers” he felt he had placed between himself and visible minority communities. “I don’t know exactly how you do that,” he said, “but I am going to try very hard.”

He did succeed in some measure and reached his zenith with 9/11 because he began to confront his version of ‘the truth’, not a comfortable thing to do, but a necessary one in dealing with difference. Rudy will be fine as a president because he has seen so much death and destruction, everything else would have paled into insignificance. In these awful tragic moments, the meaning of life assumes a clarity over questionable 'truths' which is almost blinding.

Next time you are hell bent on seeking 'the truth' as you see it, just remind yourself that personal perceptions dictate our individual truths. That the nearest thing to a universal 'truth' happens only when majority perceptions merge in agreement on the same versions of 'the truth'. But even then, one has to be careful to ensure that this 'truth' is not being ruled by vested interest, is not being stifled by unbending traditions, is not holding commonsense to ransom, is not being used to bolster injustice and is not being held hostage to the latest fad for some select group. In other words, in our search for the truth, we will always meet some road blocks or false versions of it. The test is to tease out which truth we are prepared to hang on to, in the face of the consequences for ourself and others.

NOTE: Managing the Diversity Maze is available from Amazon or can be ordered from any good British bookshop.

Does Obama's Audacity Carry Lessons for Britain? (2)

(This is a comment on my article below on Barack Obama and my reply to it.)

Elaine, I agree with everything you have said. This article is on the ball. It also goes to show that you don't always have to marry outside of your community to be successful. To me that is the most salient point. While love is more important than race, the fact that he has chosen a Black woman to be his wife speaks volumes. A lesson that Black leaders in the UK need to embrace as opposed to scorn in the name of acceptance. Delroy Constantine-Simms


Thank you so much for taking the time to read and comment on my article, Delroy. It is appreciated.

While I see the point you are making, and thank you for making it, about Barack's choice of a wife, White members are 'his community' too. We cannot disown one half of his heritage to suit ourselves. Just because he looks more 'black' than 'white' does not mean he should just relate to the Black part of his life. He is both Black and White, and disowning the White part means disowning his dear mother! We seem to expect this kind of action from any mixed-heritage, successful person in our community. They are then put in an unenviable position of being treated negatively, as extraordinary beings on probation of 'acting Black', instead of ordinary humans with their own feelings. Yet we do not lay this extra emotional burden on White peers. They are not judged by their choice of mates. They are just left to prove themself.

I think it is time for us to leave such colour codes out of love. People fall in love for all sorts of reasons across personal, professional and geographical lines. Though he obviously gravitates towards a Black wife, with a White mother as a role model he could equally have settled for a White wife too. Would that have made him less of a passionate, caring human being to other Blacks? Would you have marked him down for that and treated him with less respect? Are we still feeling so inferior as a group that we can still regard any mixed partnership as a threat? I am speaking as the product of a White grandfather and the ex-wife of a Sikh. That has not made me any less conscious of being a Black woman in my world, neither has it tempted me to disown my very fair mother to show how 'black' I am!

Time to extricate ourselves from superficialities in the 21st century, Delroy, if we are going to fight the real battles of exclusion that we still face. We are too wrapped up in colour when we should bear it in mind, yes, but realise that colour is only one major part of our make up: the rest are gender, religion/beliefs, class, self-love and aspiration. In fact, self-love, aspiration and self-confidence are far more important in our life journey than colour because they have given us successes like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Denzel Washington, Halle Berry and, above all, Oprah Winfrey, the richest Black woman in the world. Her colour did her no favours, along with being the victim of violence and sexual abuse, but she rose above it to show that, no matter what colour you are, achievement, money and power speak far above that.


Main Reasons Behind Failure
The same absence of self-love, confidence and aspiration has incarcerated millions of Black brothers and sisters in prison. People who would rather blame their White peers for their current underachievement while they deal in drugs, rob, kill and maim, instead of raising their aspirations and getting an education to progress their life in a more self-fulfilling and self-empowering way. We love to show how 'black' we are at certain times but loathe ourselves at quiet moments- like our hair, our physical features, our luck - because years of slavery, repression, imposition, exclusion and confusion have robbed us of our identity and our soul. Our obsession with failure, blackness, and discrimination is what has kept us down. They have stopped us from seeing what is possible and blighted our success. We fail to see a balance in our life by always pointing out the negatives when they should also accompany the positives in some way.

People like you can change perceptions, Delroy, but you have to adopt a new approach for a new millennium. Not still harking back to the past and living there, judging everything on negative colour lines while the present rushes past us and denies us a future. Point out discrimination and grievance, by all means, but let's stop turning on our brothers/sisters and give them some slack. We cannot return to the past to change a single thing but we can learn from it in some way to make our present and future more glorious than anything before them. Barack Obama has done that. It is all about the present and the future for him.

But that choice is ours. Only by changing our way of seeing the world, those personal perceptions which harp on negativity and seek scapegoats, can we even begin to take advantage of the opportunities available, let alone fulfil our true potential.