Is there really such a thing as 'The Truth'?

Some years ago, I noted in my book, Managing the Diversity Maze, that: "’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.”

One man gave a stark demonstration of that comment at the time: Rudy Giuliani, the one time Mayor of New York and recent presidential hopeful. Rudy went from sinner to virtual saint with the 9/11 tragedy. In 2002, 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 regarding the transient and questionable nature of 'truth'.

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 lives.

Because of his obstinate and his seemingly cold-hearted stance against the unarmed victims, the man who was to “save 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’.

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.





Confrontation and challenge
But, I am one of those who agreed with that simple statement because it really 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 confront and 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 a good deal of turmoil has followed 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 'the 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. In these awful tragic moments, the meaning of life assumes a clarity over questionable 'truths' which is almost blinding.

Next time one is hell bent on seeking 'the truth' as one sees it, one needs to remind one's self that personal perceptions and personal power dictate 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 and defend, in the face of the consequences for ourselves and others.

Is Saying 'Black Power' a Racist Statement?

Q. "Recently, in New York City, a transit worker put a 'Black Power' sign up in his booth at the train station. He was asked to take it down by a White man. When he refused the man took a picture of it and then called the media which jumped on it. I have very mixed feelings about this but I want to hear what you think first. Do you think posting a 'Black Power' sign on Martin Luther King Day denotes racism? I can't speak for anywhere else but the phrase 'Black Power' in New York was developed by us for us.  It had nothing to do with putting White people or anyone else down."


A. The key question here is: Would you feel happy and comfortable with someone who suddenly puts up a poster saying 'White Power'? If you wouldn't, then it is about mutual respect. Empowering phrases like 'Black Power' served a purpose IN THEIR OWN TIME. The problem with many Black people who might feel impotent about their life and progress is that they are not moving on in life, not evolving from one time or experience to another. They feel they have little to be joyful about so they still use tired old slogans, which exclude others; still live in the past and are seeking scapegoats for their situation, when times have moved on. They put emphasis on words, when something more tangible is needed to improve their life and perspective. We need to be more inclusive of others now, to stop the blame and take responsibility for ourselves. That's the only way to self-empowerment and true power. As to the sign being put up on Martin Luther King Day, it does the great man a disservice. Dr King did not preach division, or simply extolling ourselves. Far from it, he taught unity and co-existing together. Genuine equality, that was his dream. Not one person above another.

We cannot be demanding respect if we give none. We cannot want to be treated fairly if we are still being exclusive of others and unfair to them purely because of their colour. At the heart of respect is sensitivity. If we have none towards the feelings of others, how can we genuinely expect our sensitivities to be respected and appreciated? We do not gain self-esteem and power by putting others down, otherwise we too are dragged down by it. That phrase might have suited the past when we wished to make a point to racists and to encourage our self-belief in some awful situations. But it is quite inappropriate now, especially if we have White friends and colleagues and want to build bridges.

You are right that 'Black Power' emerged initially, from a sea of racism, as a great motivator to remind us of our talent and potential, but it is increasingly being used as a kind of superior one-upmanship against White peers. My question is, why do we STILL need to keep saying it? Aren't we convinced yet of our own power and worth? Power is subtle and pervasive. If we have to point it out, we haven't got it! Do we feel so inferior to others that we have to keep reminding ourself how 'powerful' we are, when no other culture behaves in that way? They simply get on with it and prove their worth in their creativity, innovation and their wealth. Meanwhile, we merely keep shouting words, yet living double standards in our behaviour. We are still calling each other 'niggas', our women 'hoes' and 'bitches, still using violence against one another at every turn, still being a nation of single mothers while our children are deprived of balanced parentage, and too many of our men are incarcerated in prison instead of educating themselves to take advantage of their revolutionary world and its opportunities.

Is that all the 'power' we can actually muster as a community?


Engaging in Positive Action
We develop esteem and genuine power through SELF-LOVE, high personal standards and kindness and compassion towards others. When we no longer feel the need to shout 'Black Power', to feel superior or treat others in a mean way to uplift ourself, we will be truly powerful. No one will have to tell us then. That's when we would have matured and evolved because we would have finally laid down the past and freed ourselves from its limiting and caustic effects.

We need to stop talking and start doing. Start engaging one another in positive action, in love instead of hate, because words are pointless without the actions to match. Then I might begin to believe that, collectively, we truly have 'Black Power'. We will not only be saying it then, but the quality of our life, the achievements within it, and the love we give out will be ample evidence of it. Oprah Winfrey has "Black Power" and it is not only about her money. Her influence is pervasive across American life - the universal reference point for making things happen. She makes people's careers just by engaging them. I regard myself as a very powerful Black woman too because I love who I am, I have no wish to be anyone else and am neither above nor beneath anyone. Being successful in my own small way, there is no place for blame in my vocabulary, only love. I sincerely believe I can make a difference to the lives of others, every single day, even with a simple smile. I don't need to shout about having 'Black Power'. I just prefer to demonstrate it in my actions. When you believe it, it becomes a natural part of your life. There is nothing further to prove, except to utilise the opportunities, the rewards and the enormous potential available.

In answer to your question, in my opinion, 'Black Power', would be deemed as racist now because it implies superiority over other colours and cultures. Regardless of its value to Black people, if a White person pointedly said similar in our presence, we would be offended. That does not improve understanding and tolerance or bring us any closer together. The last words go to Dr. King:

"Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it....Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend."

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.