Can Pupils Learn 'Britishness'?

The short answer is: No, they can't.

You have to 'feel' something about a country to really appreciate it, and that takes time. One can learn the history of it, learn about the lifestyle, the crime, the values, but one can only appreciate what the country truly represents by being part of it for a while. We have to feel comfortable about that particular country, being in alignment with its aims, values and mores, before we can truly feel a part of it and what it represents for us. Otherwise one simply pays lip service to an ideal while feeling exactly the same. Worst still, one will also be caught in a kind of limiting limbo, while hankering after 'home'.

Another important element is the whole concept of 'Britishness'. With its obvious fluidity and continually changing mores, who defines it for whom? Politicians, civil servants, sociologists? What do we leave out of those lessons and what becomes acceptable? Reggae is now an embedded part of the British culture, despite its Jamaican heritage. Will that be part of any information, question or discussion provided, or will it be some outmoded monocultural interpretation of the essence of Britishness? And what about the elements of Britishness that will not make it to the lessons but which are regarded as equally integral to those who adhere to them and value them?

This is a cultural minefield, the effect of an evolving multicultural society, that only very courageous people would dare to tread.

Personal Experience
On a personal note, it took me 10 years after arriving in Britain 40 years ago to actually 'feel' British. Until then, I strongly resisted getting a British passport, despite my ex-husband's constant encouragement, hankering back to Jamaica at every opportunity, with strong loyalties to match. I was the epitome of Lord Tebbit's yardstick for measuring British loyalty. I certainly felt little loyalty to Britain because, during those early years, the only cricket team I ever wanted to win was that of the West Indies!

The main effect of this split loyalty was that every time my British Sikh husband and I travelled anywhere with our family, he and the children would be whisked off to the fast queue while I was held back for a good old search for any ganga I was perceived to have, the dreaded 'weed' I might have carried back with me! Didn't matter that his suitcase could have been full of it too as he passed without scrutiny. I was Jamaican so I would be guilty. I soon learnt to give him all the extra bottles of rum we had that would have attracted attention! Being searched with little respect was so regular as to be ad nauseam. Having a Jamaican passport condemned me to the ritual of immigration racism and handy stereotype which I felt powerless to change. I certainly didn't feel 'British' when I was clearly excluded and being treated differently.

Then one morning 10 years later, I just didn't wish to be Jamaican anymore. I wanted a British passport. I had gradually realised, on subsequent visits back to the homeland, that I had little in common with the folks back 'home'. My perspectives had changed dramatically, yet with a slow realisation. I thought like a Brit and did things like a Brit. Fellow Jamaicans used to point at us in some mirth noting how we 'acted funny'. My children and immediate family also lived in Britain and I felt I truly 'belonged'. Until that Eureka moment of acceptance, that feeling of being at one with one's homeland, any talk of teaching 'Britishness' is sheer pie in the sky.

Today I adore Britain, I enjoy living here, and certainly wouldn't live anywhere else. Yet it took 10 years to have such a contented feeling of confidence and belonging in order to leave Jamaica behind. Sadly, many people never make that transition, depending on their experience. If it is negative, and they feel excluded, they tend to hanker forever after the perfect 'home' they left behind, one that would have been moving on with time, in reality, but had fossilised in their heads in an idealistic way - a situation that tends to have a tragic effect on their children's sense of self, identity and belonging too.

Pupils can learn what a narrow perspective of being 'British' is all about, from a dubious monocultural perspective, but they can never learn what it is to be truly British in the essential emotional terms of appreciation and love in that superficial process. Only time can teach them that. Nothing else.

Big Brother's Unhealthy Secret Weapon

In a few days the Big Brother suspense will be over. The ever clamouring chink of cash tills would have been both swelled and silenced by the final dash to the telephones to acclaim the hot 'celebrity' favorite. The winner would have been decided and, in this case, the only surprise will be that the winner will not be White.


Shilpa Shetty has to win this competition for two main reasons. First, having been made the whipping-girl of the competition, if they took her out of the programme now, it will suddenly lose all its attention and revert to the boring reality sitcom it was. There will be little left worth watching. Second, Shilpa will be paid off for being in that position by getting the prize. Then everyone will be silenced by the charge that she won it, so all is well. But all is not well in reality land.

Channel Four was brought in with a remit for ensuring minorities were well served and championed in the programme output. Yet Channel 4 is behind such a vile programme purely for money and attention. The main questions are two: Where does it stop using someone as human fodder for entertainment purposes? And, even more disturbing: What message is Channel 4 sending out to all these youngsters watching the programme about bullying and, quite obvious, racist bullying of the worst, subtle kind.

Let's be clear about the nature of the bullying, in case anyone is still unsure. As race and diversity expert, I am saying categorically that the bullying Shilpa Shetty is being exposed to is racist, pure and simple. There might be obvious class allusions in it but to refer to someone's difference in pointed cultural ways, like calling her a 'pappadom', telling her to go back to her slums and other pointedly cultural differences is to be racist. Then to have this one person in the firing line who has no emotional support from someone similar to her, as her tormentors have, is disgraceful in a programme that has reached an all-time low.

The Biggest Weapon
With this kind of behaviour, the housemates are deliberately reinforcing the biggest weapon in Big Brother’s armoury to unseat contestants: an unhealthy and discriminatory dislike of difference! From the moment each set of new occupants take centre stage in the Big Brother house, the secret weapon comes into play. That is why those who were genuinely different, like Ken Russell and Leo Sayer, walked out early. If you watch all the Big Brother programmes, those who are most individual and quirky leave first and they usually include all the minority candidates. That's why we have reached the 6th series of Big Brother with not a hope in hell of Black candidate winning, except to be used for racist fodder. Only this time, they have gone too far.

A similar thing happened to Narinder Kaur in the second series who perked up the show tremendously, but did not last too long either. Narinder was beautiful, bubbly, bright forthright and confident. She proved far too outspoken, and too much of a threat to the other women, and the more vulnerable men, for her own good. As she complained in the diary room, they would not even pay her the courtesy of saying her name correctly. She wondered whether they had ever dealt with an Asian before. The mother of the main perpetrator, Helen, could not see what Narinder was whinging about. The fact that she dared to expect the courtesy of being accorded her correct name and revelled in being different made her presence untenable to the others (whose names suffered no such distortion!) and she was gone in a flash.

This is just an entertainment show, right? Harmless fun watching people naked in every sense of the word, baring their souls, their fears and their aspirations? Wrong. This surrealistic low-brow drama is primarily a reflection of our unhealthy prejudices and dislike of diversity and I wager £1 that no Black person will ever win Big Brother without suffering racially first. White contestants have the privilege of not going through that kind of disrespect and ignominy. But that White majority privilege ensures they can mete it out to others with impunity. That is the main problem with such a programme which seeks to be 'multicultural'. That very diversity is the key weapon for getting rid of each contestant.


Personal Power and Bigotry
One is never certain to what extent Black people, gays and others with that extra ‘obvious’ difference are preys to the personal power and bigotry of people who wish to exercise their prejudices. This makes nonsense of the pretence that all housemates have an equal chance of winning the money, and makes any other similar claims rather spurious. People tend to select in their own image, their own likeness, their own gender – unless that person has special appeal – and conformity to their own beliefs and values. When those are missing, difference becomes an irritant, instead of being welcomed. The cult of superiority then sets in as diversity loses its attraction and becomes threatening. It is only tolerated when the person involved deprecates themself, is entirely non-threatening or becomes the court jester so that every one can laugh at their expense.

Shilpa obviously valued herself much more, took herself too seriously, wanted to be treated with the respect she felt she deserved and was also too beautiful and rich for such a situation. That did not augur well with either her fellow inmates or the public. Yes, the public has played a huge part in the way this has gone. Notice how the attention increased the minute the racist slants began when they should have turned off their TV in droves. If this was a situation in reverse, where Black housemates were being pointedly racist towards their White colleagues, it would not have been tolerated on British television.


Channel 4 needs to decide whether it wishes to push bullying and racism as healthy forms of life in our multicultural community, to encourage prejudice among the population in a thinly disguised form of respectability while condoning subconscious malice, or whether it really wishes to truly entertain ALL of us, instead of a favoured majority who already benefit from the advantage of White privilege. This channel cannot have it both ways and the only way the public, especially minority groups can stop this disturbing charade is for decent, respectable people NOT to watch it anymore. Money talks, so hit them were it hurts. Most important, it is time for visible minorities to stop taking part in this cynical and manipulative programme that simply uses them as racist fodder to increase its revenue while the prize always goes to the racists themselves. That is so shameful, but can only be stopped by the participants themselves.

Big Brother 7 is now being auditioned. I trust it will be boycotted by all intelligent Black and Asian members of the public, depriving it at one stroke, of its oxygen of racism.