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.

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.

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.