Do you always say "yes" when you really want to say "no"?

The two main reasons why we might say 'yes' when we want to say 'no' are a lack of confidence and a desire for approval.

When we lack confidence we are deprived of the willpower to be assertive, to be consistent and to actually seek what we want because we fear the consequences of what saying 'no' might bring. We are not strong enough to stand up or our own rights and so allow others to dictate the pace. We also lack the skills to deal with someone who might be more socially adept, or someone we fear, we respect and admire or who have influence over us, so we are more willing to say 'yes' for a quiet life. That might please other people, but it is likely to leave us feeling frustrated and dissatisfied with our lives. While saying 'yes' might make someone else happy, if we are yearning to say no, we do ourselves no service and engender a lot of stress and confusion in the process.

The second reason, a desire for approval, stems from being in controlling environments: either with parents, spouses and even bosses. Wherever there is control, there is a desire to please through fear, isolation and repression. As we are likely to be expected to do as we are told, the only way we can feel included and valued is by pleasing the significant others around us. That might work for that particular moment in time, or that situation, but it really keeps us feeling inadequate and unhappy with ourselves and makes us even less empowered each time we go against our own needs and desires.

Only by facing the consequences of our actions can we then say what we mean and stick by it. However, the more we seek approval by simply pleasing others the less fulfilled we will feel and the more frustrating life will appear to be. Most important, we soon lose our own integrity because it is difficult to be honest when we are not even being honest with ourselves.

Why do people chase after their desires?

People go after unlimited desires simply because it is programmed within them to do so. Desires serve a very subtle but effective function and are essential to our development, our ability to create, to innovate and to grow. They are the key to our existence. We are programmed to chase unlimited desires because the achievement of every one of them demonstrates our potential, our capacity to make things happen, the ability to build our world and reinforce our self-belief. Remarkably, at the same time, we are evolving through the fulfilment of those desires, developing in awesome, new ways we never thought possible. As we evolve, the results of our actions ensures that we we desire new things as we mature and progress on our individual journey.

If we did not chase desires, or we just chased a few and stopped, we would not reach this technological stage of evolution that we now enjoy. We would have reached a plateau where nothing much would happen. We would stagnate as we lose sight of our purpose and potential. But the mere fact that we are never satisfied with life, that every fulfilment leads to even greater yearning is a clever ploy by God, Nature, the Universe or whatever, to ensure we continue to grow until the day we die; that we never rest on our laurels because we are always moving our own goalposts to new heights of excellence. Desires ensure we have no time to sit and stare, that we are always striving to develop our world and ourselves. Without desires, and the curiosity and yearning to achieve them, we would still be back in the dark ages as primitive beings, being satisfied with what we have without the motivation to do any different.

Desires make or break us. We cannot live without them because they shape us into whomever we wish to be and ultimately become. We gradually materialise into our dreams that are formed from desires. In turn, desires keep us on track, every step of the way, through chasing their fulfilment. A lack of desire means no motivation while we settle into a never changing rut, but chasing our desires mean we are always changing too.

10 Things I Hate About the World We Live In

The things which annoy me tend to be those that rob us of our humanity, which do not build, but merely destroy, and which detach us from our world, like the following:

1. IGNORANCE...Lack of knowledge has the most debilitating impact on our world because, without knowledge, we are at a loss to develop our potential to fruition. Ignorance keeps behavior and appreciation of others at the most basic level and simply robs us of a life.

2. Lack of SELF-LOVE...This is the biggest cause of problems in relationships. People lacking in self-love tend to be selfish, insecure, self-absorbed because it really is only about them. Lacking self-love means that one also lacks the love to give to others, which then sets up a vicious cycle of emotional pain.

3. WAR...This is the most destructive force in our life, often destroying more than it builds, yet solving very little in the long run. War might be an awesome exhibition of violence and power but the negative consequences it has, the havoc it wreaks and the sheer destruction it entails leave huge questions about how appropriate war is for resolving anything between nations or peoples.

4. VIOLENCE...particularly between youths and gangs, is pernicious, especially when gangs engender a sense of belonging among the youth and teaches them how to behave. Like war, violence solves nothing except to rob both the perpetrator and the recipient of their lives, in one form or another.

5. POVERTY...A lack of money and other basic essentials of life rob us of the opportunities we could have to make that life more enriching. Poverty is lethal because of the other negative things which come out of it: the main ones being ignorance, loss of self-esteem, loss of hope and violence.

6. INJUSTICE...Any injustice anywhere encourages injustice everywhere. We lose or humanity when we put up with blatant inequality and injustice to others, especially when they are weak and vulnerable.

7. Lack of RESPECT...At the heart of respect is sensitivity and a loss of respect is so obvious in our world today, in the way we treat each other, our expectations of each other, imposing our views on others and the selfish way we tend to live detached from one another.

8. Misuse of POWER...Power corrupts when it is misused and, if nothing else, the invasion of Iraq has demonstrated the impact of misused power for selfish reasons; the devastating way it affects the lives of many innocent and unsuspecting people.

9. GREED..The world has more than enough to go round for everyone. Nothing is more unattractive than seeing people, no matter how much they have, chasing money or material things for their own sake, when so many others have so little.

10. Lack of COURTESY...My mother taught me that 'Courtesy costs nothing, give generously' and I have lived by it ever since. The lack of courtesy in human interaction is now so sad, when a simple smile, thank you, and compliment can truly make someone's day, yet cost nothing at all to give.

How Ambitious Are You?

Four hundred years ago, Sir Walter Raleigh, British explorer extraordinaire, successful courtier and poet, fancied by Queen Elizabeth the 1st, suffered a crisis of conscience. He loved the Queen and she liked him too, but not being royal caused him much anguish regarding any kind of romantic liaison between them.

In a moment of whimsy and heartache, he used his diamond ring to etch the following lovesick statement on his window pane: "Fain (willingly) would I climb, yet fear I to fall." The Queen, seeming a little impatient with his dithering and obvious lack of confidence, wrote underneath, "If thy heart fails thee, climb not at all"!

Much closer to our own age, nearly 120 years ago, another poet, Scotsman Robert Browning, was more forthright: "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"

These two examples illustrated a marked difference in the degree of love ambition the two men possessed. Despite his great courage elsewhere as an adventurer, Raleigh felt inadequate because all he could see was the possibility of failing, not the thrill of the chase or the glory of winning. Browning's ambition was boundless, without false barriers, and gave him love and immortality.

Your reaction to the title of this article is likely to depend upon your gender. In our modern times ambition is an ambiguous concept which lends itself easily to contrasting gender applications and sexist malice. For example, men seem more comfortable in accepting ambition as a natural and expected part of their life. Ambition is considered an essential ingredient for the dominant male in his quest for success. He is likely to be seen as a rising star and potential high achiever; one to watch and nurture. A woman similarly endowed is often regarded as 'pushy', 'aggressive' or 'butch', words that are not exactly complimentary and are deliberately meant to imply an absence of the more 'softer' feminine traits.

Negative Labels

For women, too much ambition is perceived as a negative attribute, suggesting notions of self-fulfilment and importance way above their 'station' in their bid to compete with men. In view of this perspective, many females are often labelled 'ambitious' and 'very intelligent' at unsuccessful interviews, the words suddenly assuming a derogatory nuance because of their female context.

This attitude could have much to do with the general understanding of the word itself. Ambition is often confused with the need for power, but that is only one small aspect of it. Ambition is actually tied to realising the extent of our capabilities while coming to terms with our innermost desires. Personal potential cannot be achieved by doing nothing and hanging back. We have to constantly go forward, testing ourselves to the limit at every opportunity, pushing against individual boundaries, to ensure complete self-fulfilment.

Much frustration is caused by people who are ignorant of their own potential and, for numerous reasons, are secretly afraid to find out. Like Raleigh, they are too hung up on that possible failure instead of concentrating on the experience itself and the gains to be had. In this way, their growth is stunted from the very beginning. Others might give an air of nonchalance, and contemptuous disdain for their ambitions, while masking secret, unfulfilled, frustrating desires.

At some point, we have all come in contact with the seemingly quiet type who gets on with his or her job and wishes for nothing else, outwardly disdaining material things or promotion, emphasising how 'happy' they are in what they are doing and need nothing else. Or they might detach themselves from ambitious goals. Such people appear to have no need to join the rat race, having rejected the cultural and societal norms around them. Instead, they keep their distance from anything which even hints at advancement for its own sake.

Well, that's what we are supposed to see, but look again closely because there is no such free spirit.

The Simplest Way to Fight Discrimination in the Workplace

Racism is obviously still alive and well in the wider society, especially the workplace. Legal requirements might stem the tangible, open forms of racism, but they are useless against subversive discriminatory practices which have been woven into the fabric of working life: like bullying, put downs, poor assessments, lack of advancement, lack of fair conditions, proper training, negative labels and name calling, having to carry the burden of 'merit' and feeling isolated from the group. Those are common forms of 21st century racial discrimination.

Discrimination comes out of personal prejudice: simply having the power to put such prejudices into action by discriminating against others, whether openly or covertly. It begins from the recruitment stage, because we tend to recruit in our own image and likeness. Put simply, human beings gravitate towards their own kind for validation, reinforcement, security and comfort. This is no different in the recruitment process. That is why many workplaces remain strongly monocultural and gender biased, mainly reflecting one ethnic/gender grouping. As the majority society sets the standards and has ownership of commerce, racial discrimination begins from the advert stage. From the moment the candidate's CV arrives in front of the interviewing gatekeeper, a minority person is being judged in a different way from their colleagues.

First, they will be judged on their name and ruled out. Then if they make the interview, they will be judged on voice, personality, culture, presentation and perception, that do not match with or conform to expectation. Worst of all, they will be judged on a spurious thing called 'merit'. This word is never used in association with White males but it is always a burden that minorities and other underrepresented groups have to carry. White workers automatically 'merit' a position or seem entitled to it without question. They are used as the invisible yardstick by which all others are judged, hence why they would fail to see any discrimination themselves. However, minority ethnic staff, women and other underrepresented groups, have to prove they 'merit' it, to justify their presence. At the same time, recruiters miss the supreme irony that, as we always recruit in our own image and likeness, many men are hired purely through their gender and very little else!

The Limiting Notion of Merit
The notion of 'merit' is precisely the way minorities are kept out and White males hang on to their power. They let in just the odd 'deserving' minority to give the impression of equality and fairness. He/She is then surreptitiously co-opted into helping to maintain the biased and discriminatory status quo through tokenistic merit rituals and the desire of the proud new appointee to justify their new role and to hang on it at any cost. The real tragedy is that so long as minorities carry the 'merit' concept like a millstone around their necks, they will always be perceived as second best, regardless of how good they think they are.

If the applicant is successful, he/she is likely to be given unpopular tasks, or tasks which might keep them busy but lack the status to attract coveted advancement. Like principals of colleges in Britain, only 4 are minorities out of over 400, yet 16% of students are minorities. This is mainly due to the fact that most minority teachers are given the kind of low status subjects which do not lead to promotion. Later on in the job, when the assessments are due, somehow the minority worker's productivity or approach will never be perceived to be quite up to standard. As most assessors will be from the majority group, who also hold the keys to scarce resources in such a competitive arena, minorities tend to lose out there most of all. That is why so many are on lower grades never seeming to be competent enough for supervisory or management posts.

Add to that the subtle bullying, name calling and the lack of training opportunities and the scale of discrimination begins to reveal itself, but not in ways which can be tangibly proven, which makes its underlying effects even worse. How do you tackle such ingrained imbalance which is regarded as not really being there when those affected feel its effects very clearly? Very difficult, on one hand, where you have narrow minds and closed hearts. Yet the answer to discrimination does not lie in any useless policies or fancy documents. It actually resides in each individual in the way they TREAT one another.

Basic Needs of Every Person
Every human being, without exception, seeks four things in their life, depending on personal aspirations. Each of us seeks to be SIGNIFICANT, APPRECIATED, VALUED and INCLUDED. Being significant is connected to our desire for achievement, being appreciated and included is crucial to our sense of belonging and being valued is tied up with our self-esteem. Minorities would place simply being 'included' as their top priority primarily because they tend to be alienated from the majority society and on the periphery.

Fighting racial discrimination in the workplace does not need paper policies and flowery words of intention, otherwise we would not still be asking this question in 2008, especially in view of the millions of words that have proliferated to combat discrimination down the years; words that have seen so little action. What is needed is a different, much simpler approach, one which emphasises responsibility, respect and accountability from every single employee, not just senior personnel or the policy makers. If every person in the workplace sets out to treat their colleagues in ways which help them to feel significant, as if they matter; to feel appreciated, especially for a job well done; to feel valued, especially as key workers who have a stake in that business/service delivery, and to feel included because they are valued, there would be a dramatic shift in how people feel about themself and their potential, and how they are perceived, regardless of race, gender, age, etc. It means everyone, not just minorities, will be treated with value and fairness, instead of change being left just to the managers, or the White majority, while the general worker is left untouched to continue their subtle and negative actions.

True diversity is the acknowledgement of difference, the full acceptance of it and the celebration of it. Stemming discrimination and valuing diversity is thus an 'inside job', it starts from within us, in the form of the appreciation and respect we have for ourselves, and that dictates how we feel about difference. Unless we feel good about ourselves, and respect ourselves, we cannot feel good about others. Thus, most of the time, discrimination is the end result of basic fear and insecurity - fear of loss in all its forms, and, above all, fear of difference. For example, in the case of the radio ham, Don Imus, who was fired from his job, there has to be some self-doubt and low feelings of worth to call women who are trying to better themselves 'hos'. As Imus has proven, no amount of fine words and intentions in a policy will reduce that fear without the genuine will to change. And not from top-down either, but from the grassroots right up to the plush office of that detached executive in charge.

Why The Growth of Racism Has Little to do With Racists

The rise of the far right, the rise of fundamentalism and terrorists networks, and the continued support for Israel, even when they too commit atrocities, have one thing in common: they are dictated almost exclusively by one version of 'truth', by unaccountable privilege and by a basic lack of human respect which form a natural breeding ground for bullies, racists, extremists and disdain for the natural rule of law. They are also a direct product of the fragile and debilitating Israeli-Palestine conflict where each side acts in a mindlessly violent way while claiming to wear the mantle of 'truth'.

However, what is the real truth in this case involving two opposing sides where it is clear that one is more powerful than the other and has used its might to ruthlessly enforce that power? There is little doubt that, had the Palestinians being similarly armed with both the right weapons and allies, this conflict would have been resolved a long time ago.

Truth in any major situation, where the stakes are high, is thus an elusive concept, governed totally by four key elements: power, privilege, money and colour. As three of those elements are changing constants, today's truth would have been yesterday's 'lies'. Nelson Mandela, Martin McGuinness, Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro – now all respectable, politicians, though 'terrorists' of old are living testaments to that.


Loss of Moral Fibre
At the moment, the 'truth' according to Israel is the one in force and that 'truth' is being accepted, condoned and promoted by powerful allies in a world which is rapidly losing its moral fibre, its sense of values and sense of direction; a world where the rule of law, the legitimacy of it and the application of the law is being constantly flouted and ignored by those whom 'truth' favours, or who are powerful enough to disregard it. In fact, there is a kind of international lawlessness developing which is masking an enormous amount of racism and bias under the guise of 'justice', to the extent that the only real terrorists now appear to be the Al Qaeda network. No other terrorists, particularly if they are White, seem to matter at all.

The rise of the far right, and fundamentalists, is indicative of the power of the privileged to use their media and economic resources to ensure only their 'truth' is acknowledged and accepted. Such prevailing 'truths' are also strong indicators of growing personal anxieties, our changing values regarding each other and the ensuing racism in the world order caused by increasing public selfishness, apathy and a widening economic gulf between the rich and poor.

Thus racism is not limited to racists, nor is it controlled by them. Racism thrives because the political and privileged elite dictates the pace through their unassailable 'truths' while the majority do nothing, their silence and inaction fuelling the covert bias, continuing oppression and gross injustice to powerless minorities. A growing White minority across Europe feels powerless, disenfranchised and anxious about their lives and prospects, seeing scapegoats in racism and xenophobia as the answer, while a complacent majority looks on disinterestedly until they are forced to take notice to preserve both themselves and their freedom. The world also looks on uncaringly too while many atrocities are committed by both Israel and Palestine, unable to see that this conflict will engulf us all on cultural and racial, lines if it continues unabated. Additionally, Israel, of all countries, should have realised by now that one cannot destroy a people into submission. History has shown repeatedly that they will only rise again, more powerful than before.

Irrefutable 'Truths'
The only irrefutable truth is that people in Palestine and Israel are dying needlessly and a resolution is now imperative. The state of this ravaging conflict has continued so long and is now so dangerous to Middle East stability and world peace, the blame has to stop on either side for the conflict to be resolved. The historical counter accusations and carnage are well documented for all to see. What is needed now is for Israel and Palestine to cast aside continued vengeance for their dead and concentrate on the living; to nurture the environment in which as many of their people can reach adult fulfilment to ensure both country's existence. It means mutual respect accorded, not just from the powerless to the powerful, as well as an acknowledgment by the privileged White countries that power carries even more responsibilities than it does rights.

Power comes not from mere arms but from knowing how to use one's influence, position and armoury in a spirit of compassion. The truth of the powerful, White, rich and privileged nations says that the world is threatened by 'Black' countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Palestine and Iran which should be bombed out of existence, especially when the lives of their population are worthless in the face of such 'truths' which seek justification for racist acts. At the same time people from culturally diverse countries appear to have few rights. The Afghanis being held in Cuba, the thousands of Iraqi people killed without a murmur, their lives being more expendable than American ones, and Palestinian towns razed to the ground, in response to the equally obnoxious suicide bombings - regardless of the human and economic costs. These are just a few of the most obvious and disturbing examples.

Igniting the Sleeping Majority
It takes only one conflict too many to rapidly diminish a nation's resources, so talk of igniting a war against other countries like Iran might well ignite the sleeping majority into action. If the Philippines and Cory Aquino taught the world any lesson it is that, where politicians are perceived to be inactive, ineffective, biased or unjust, the people usually take the initiative in some way to correct that imbalance.

The rise of the extreme right is thus a wake-up call to every person within the decent law-abiding majority of whatever race, colour, creed or culture across the world. We can all rise with purpose, take note and act individually or collectively against the mushrooming tentacles of inequality and racism. Or we can ignore the alarm and go back to sleep, oblivious to the ominous consequences while remaining cosy in our comfortable bed in a dreamworld of false security.

The choice is entirely ours.

Happy Birthday, NHS...From a Very Grateful User Sharing Your Moment

The NHS is celebrating 60 years this year, and so am I. We were both born in 1948, one of the most amazing years in history when some significant world events took place. We merged together when I joined it as a trainee nurse between 1967 and 1969. I came to Britain to be a nurse in Kings Lynn General hospital and left partly because of racism and partly through discovering that I wanted to teach instead. I had mixed feelings of my time spent in it, but I also have friends who benefited from it and have enjoyed a good life from the qualifications they got.

I will not be one of those who will ever knock the National Health Service. I have travelled to a few countries and I have yet to see a national FREE health service that is working so well for the population. The NHS could always be better, as nothing can ever be perfect. There will always be room for improvement. But at 60 years old, this Grand Dame is doing just fine.

I have been a Type 2 diabetic for nearly 10 years now. Every single tablet I have taken has been free of charge, and there were years when I was on 10 tablets daily, 3650 each year. They all had to be paid for, but, thankfully, not by me. Then there are the regular check ups, attendance at diabetic clinics, my feet to be checked annually and my eyes to be checked regularly, and still not a penny from me.

Then 18 months ago the unthinkable happened. My body began rejecting every medication I was given, including insulin, and my world fell in. I was so ill some days, it was unbelievable. And the NHS came into its own during that time. Once a reluctant doctor realised that I was like no one he had treated, he swung into action. I was prescribed six further drugs which had little effect. They all had to be paid for too. But I had no worries about that. I could concentrate on getting well. I didn't have to fret, like my American friends, about having health insurance. Still no change in me as the months rolled by. Then I was referred to a consultant who was very sympathetic when she held my hand and said: "We have one more medication to try and, if that doesn't work, sadly we have nothing currently to help you because you are unusual."

Gulp. It sounded like a death sentence. Just for once I wanted to be like everyone else. I gritted my teeth in determination.

The new injections were designed to stimulate my pancreas to produce its own insulin. The first trial month was fraught with worry. The results were inconclusive (assessed by another consultant) so I was asked whether I wished to continue. I closed my eyes and refused to think of the horrible side-effects I had experienced, trying to block out how low they made me feel, while I concentrated on the potential for making me better. I heard my voice from a distance saying, Yes, I would like to continue.

I just got the good news, barely another month later, that I am definitely on the mend. My progress was 'very good'. I even lost 5 lbs in weight too. Clearly not out of the woods yet, but I can start to smile again, thanks to the NHS.

I came out of the hospital, sat in my car, cried a little bit with gratitude, and pondered where except Britain could I have two consultants, two doctors and one nurse working closely with me to find a solution, all trying to give me the best health care possible and absolutely free of charge. Nowhere else on earth, I decided, as I dried my tears, smiled broadly and headed home. It was good to be alive and feeling valued.

A Very Happy Birthday, NHS. May you see many, many more! :o)

From an incredibly grateful fan.

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.

Do we really need a Black History Month?

As one who has spent the last 14 years promoting multiculturalism from the rooftops in the UK, through the only book on the subject and two annual national diversity awards, I have been pretty saddened this year 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.

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, 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. Let's take some glaring examples of disrespect.

Origins of Disrespect

1. Exclusive labels: October has a special significance for minorities. 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 also 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 to encourage 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. Where is the sensitivity (respect again) for the pointedly White exclusion in those labels? Yet, in a diverse society, such cultural sensitivities are very important if we are to learn about, value, and appreciate one another.

2. Negative media coverage. Black History Month emerged because of a lack of positive attention to minorities (respect again!) by the media. Minorities in Britain are virtually invisible in every aspect of life except crime. We hear about them ad nauseam in relation to terrorism, guns, gangs and street crime but hardly in any other dimension. The only time you hear about minorities is when something negative is being reported. Black History Month was introduced to counteract that media exclusion, to give much needed positivity and visibility. Yet, there should be no need for a Black History month at all because there is just a flurry of activities in October (and February in the USA), 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 tragic cuckoos, they coo loudly once, then go back inside their clocks for another year. What minorities need is to be treated ordinarily, like the majority community, with balance and value.

For example, the focus on celebrities is pervasive in our society. But where are the minority celebrities and achievers? The ones well known in their communities but are ignored by the mainstream press? Where are the minority guests on chat shows? On discussion panels? On entertainment programmes? Where are the minority writers to give alternative viewpoints? Such an exclusive and racist approach keeps minorities in the public eye as extraordinary and non-contributing beings who are simply taking from society. It uses them in situations that bolster national fear (immigration and crime) while ignoring the vast majority of law abiding, legal citizens quietly playing their part in their communities. 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, the promotion and the service contracts.



Lack of Recognition
3. 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 a basic lack of recognition for them, with hardly anyone speaking with any cultural knowledge? 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 without any responsibility for the divisive consquences of their actions. The BBC has been recently accused of racism by a prominent writer in 21st century Britain. That is very sad today. The real worry is that if the BBC is still lagging behind in its own objectives, a service which is supposed to be serving, and representing, the whole community, what can one expect of lesser organisations?

Diversity and multiculturalism can work harmoniously when all parties are prepared to compromise, and accord each other respect. We cannot simply demand respect for ourselves while giving none because no country can thrive with a divided nation. If we really love our country, we strive together to make it a great place to live. However, we cannot respect what we don't understand or appreciate.

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, 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, and the rich diversity of our nation, through the cultural exchange of knowledge, particularly encouraging involvement and patronage by White sponsors and patrons. That is the only way to make all people feel included, to engender loyalty and pride, and the main way to change White perception of their Black neighbours.

It is also the only way for all British citizens, whatever their origins, to feel significant, appreciated, valued and included. In effect, to feel respected.

Why Ken Livingstone was Wrong to Apologise for the Slave Trade

The 200th commemorative anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade was marked by Ken Livingstone with a suitably emotional and tearful apology on behalf of London and its part in it. The capital's Mayor wept openly as he told the audience about the atrocities millions had to endure during their transportation from Africa and the legacy of that singular act of inhumanity.

Having thought deeply about it for a few days, I believe he was wrong to apologise.

It is easy to seek current retribution for past wrongs. It has become increasingly fashionable to demand an empty apology, one that applies guilt by proxy, hoping that it will somehow make things better 200 years down the line. But apologies are just words which make the people who utter them feel good and those hearing them feel vindicated, but offer no guarantees of the sincerity to match or the political will to bind those words to future actions. For an astute politician as Mr Livingstone, that was a master stroke of sensitive PR which is bound to garner him a few words of admiration, on top of the expected votes of appreciation.

However, regardless of his feeling of sincerity, apologies are mainly palliatives for those wishing to blame others for their problems in a selective way without really doing anything to change the miserable status quo many of them might still endure today. Apologies do nothing for the endemic racism, the continuing invisibility of minorities in Britain, the embedded inequality between communities, the lack of confidence, pride and self-esteem among Black people, or the alienation felt by their youngsters to the extent that they would wish to continually destroy themselves - the real legacy of slavery through displacement, lack of identity and a lack of self-worth.

There are also other important reasons why there should be no apology for the slave trade, or any other historical atrocity.
First, regardless of how inhuman the act, we cannot take it upon ourselves to apologise for the values and beliefs of people of a bygone age. That is to imply our superiority over their judgement based upon limited knowledge of the reasons for their actions or the mood at the time. They were the best judges of their time because they LIVED in it and based their decisions on the nature of THEIR society, whether it is agreeable to us or not. Just as we are now living in the 21st century and are making decisions based upon what is appropriate to us and the knowledge we have, so every age bases its actions on the beliefs, resources, information and aspirations they have. They behaved in the only way they knew how, until new information, new values, developing reason and being challenged taught them otherwise.

For example, the fact that Bush and Blair were wrong to go into Iraq will not be decided in 200 years time by a different world. We will make that judgement now, based upon our values of what is ethically right and wrong for us as a people in this time and space. If we do not admit any wrongdoing over the tens of thousands of lives lost in that country and the parlous state it is in, should we expect a future American president and a future British prime minister, who might not have any experience of 'terrorists', to publicly apologise to the future Iraqi people for what is happening now? To use their limited judgement in a different era, a different mood and different objectives to judge our actions now? That would be very silly because they would be taking upon themselves authority which they do not possess over our age, dictating to us what they believe to be right by THEIR ethical standards and interpretation of our actions, while ignoring the world we are inhabiting now and its dangers. Not only would they not understand the fears that drove the decision to invade, but they would also deprive us of the right to decide our own destiny. Any apology for Iraq should be made by current leaders, in our time and age, because they carried out the deed and were sure of the reasons why it was necessary, not by some self-righteous people in 200 years using their inappropriate ethics to judge us.

Livingstone broke down in tears as he apologised for his London's role in the transatlantic slave trade. ©Daily Mail

The Value of Each Age
Each period of time has led us, in turn, to this one through exploration, education and innovation. Every era is thus a natural phase in our evolutionary development, teaching us something new every step of the way as mankind advances. No age is better than the other because every age is essential to our unique emotional and professional journey, continuing stages which have brought us to where we are. We cannot judge a past age by our standards because that age did not have our knowledge, beliefs, social mores or resources. We are learning all the time, improving on past actions, with the hope of not repeating the mistakes we make along the way. To use our current knowledge to denigrate the actions of a bygone age and apologise on its behalf is rather arrogant and foolhardy because without the curiosity, experiments and mistakes of that age we would not be where we are now.

Improved information and education ensure our growth, one which should give us a greater understanding of, and appreciation for, the limitations of the past. Seeking apologies for past acts might sound honourable but this is simply applying guilt by proxy, being made purely for appeasement or a superficial notion of 'justice' without any real value. For example, why on earth would I apologise to my best friend now because my great grandfather might have killed her great grandfather? The fact has to be acknowledged by us, but the most important thing is the friendship we now share and the journey we are prepared to make together in the spirit of forgiveness and mutual appreciation. We cannot build anything or improve our lives if we are both in resentment and recrimination mode. Furthermore, apologies do not denote remorse or real regret because the pain, magnitude and true consequences of any act can never be understood by anyone outside that age. They can only be guessed at with compassion.

Apologies are also highly selective. We only apologise for those atrocities which carry the most condemnation or voice. What about all the other violent acts and unjustified killings in history? Who is going to apologise for those? And why are only European peoples being asked for an apology regarding the slave trade? What of the African chiefs and leaders who sold their people in slavery? Who is asking current African leaders for an apology? Or doesn't their part in it matter too?

So Ken has publicly apologised. What now? What is the point of an empty apology without anything else to change the status quo of inequality and disrespect, of resentment and recrimination, of continuing prejudice and discrimination? Apologies are inappropriate in these instances because it is not the apology that is important, but actually moving on in the future being kinder and more understanding people because of what happened. Apologies merely accord history more precedence over the present and future while preventing any real practical changes in perception or respect. The words soon replace the necessity for healing actions.

What matters most now is a clear acknowledgement of past atrocities by everyone, especially the part such acts play in hampering the progress of a community, and a genuine desire to learn from them to prevent repetition and to appreciate the enormous cumulative consequences down the years for those involved. The most important time should be the present, that's all we are guaranteed, no other. Instead of apologies, there should be the sincere desire to make the present and future a much more richer experience for all concerned in a spirit of reconciliation, real equality and genuine justice.

That can only be achieved through greater visibility, affirmation and reinforcement for people of African origin, utilising their talents, appreciating their contribution to British society and encouraging personal education and emotional development. However, along with such external actions, many displaced Africans (like African Caribbeans) need to relinquish the slavery mentality they still have, the lack of self-belief that plague them, the sense of impotence and victimhood which embraces them and the huge barriers to achievement that exist mainly inside their heads which no amount of apologies can ever eradicate.