Countdown to the Royal Wedding - Day 5: Is the British Royalty Relevant Anymore?

The impending wedding of Prince William to Kate Middleton might propel her family into the privileged aristocratic band of Britain, but it might not do much for the main family she is joining, the Royals, due to apathy and a sense of increasing irrelevance by the public. This new couple would have to do something dramatic to change its approach and direction and, as William's father will be king before him, and the Queen has settled in for a long haul, don't expect any changes soon. Expect business as usual after the novelty of the wedding has passed.

The queen and the expanding members of her family.

The Royal Family is rapidly becoming an anachronism in today's classless world of high tech reactions, individual expressiveness and instant soundbites. The Queen still gives out medals and public honours based on the 'British Empire', yet where that empire exists these days is entirely beyond anyone to fathom. Paradoxically, she is head of a commonwealth which is highly multi-racial, yet there is not a single Black person in her entourage, no Black advisers and certainly no Black staff in her palace. In fact, if you wish to test the invisibility of minorities in Britain, the way they are treated as second class-citizens, have a close look in Westminister Abbey on April 29th 2011.

The Royal wedding will give the clearest indication of just how multicultural this nation is because the event will be practically all-white in representation, apart from the Commonwealth Heads of State who have been invited. Furthermore, this Commonwealth is weighed down under the oppressive symbolism of an unjust 'empire' that obstinately continues to take pride of place in our language, no matter how offensive it is to certain sections of the British community. There is no move to get rid of the archaic, divisive and racist symbolisms which divide her subjects, despite her important role in the Commonwealth she rules over.

Prince William, the most popular member of the Royal Family, expertly working the crowds.


In the dark ages
Quite simply, the British Royal Family has had its day. Constant exposure in a new vulnerable way, the treatment of Diana, Charles' long-standing affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles, the lip service paid to diversity, and the seeming uselessness of their presence when the age of deference and awe has long gone, is killing the institution slowly. We might not be too keen on a Republic, like our American neighbours, but, even with Internet publicity, they are still mainly fodder for tourism and the curious rather than any real value to the public.

Heir to the British throne, Prince Charles, and his family.

The problem with the royal Family is that it has not changed with the times. Members are still trying to apply traditional, unequal ways of behaving to a situation which has long dispensed with tradition and inequality. Diana offered a golden chance of bringing the monarchy up to date with current expectations, but her demise meant that her sons offer the best hope of change. In a world where blog is king, there is no place for silence from our Royal Family anymore on the issues of the day, otherwise they rule themselves out of our rapidly advancing world simply by omission. That could explain why, except for the Queen, William and Harry, their popularity has dramatically declined and only a few people turn up to see them at events. We need a caring, expressive Royal family who is not just there for the tourists, but one who, through its own lead, will begin to justify the £10+ million per year the public purse has to supply to keep them in the dark ages.

In its present form, the Royal Family is definitely irrelevant, having the trappings without the substance. As a strong Royalist who has no desire to see Britain become a republic, to me it would be nice to see a leading Family which is more in tune with our modern age, more approachable, more inclusive and far more appreciative of their changing role in a diverse age. A Family that is no longer guided by an invisible and outdated colonial empire, but reflecting a modern society based on respect for the individual, regardless of class, race, creed or birth.

Prince Harry with kids abroad, the only time one sees Royalty with Black people - always as helpless victims!

Countdown to Britain's Royal Wedding - Day 6: The National Mood

On Friday 29 April (celebrated as public holiday), just under a week from today, the second in line to the British throne, Prince William of Wales, will be married to Catherine Middleton, affectionately known as Kate, in Westminster Abbey. They met at St Andrews University in Scotland, where they were both students nearly eight years ago, and have been in each other's company ever since, just like any other normal couple. Except, they couldn't be more exclusive, being our future king and queen.

Kate Middleton will go to bed a commoner on Thursday night, without even any aristocratic pedigree or links behind her, unlike past commoners, and wake up a Princess of the Realm, at the highest level, taking precedence in rank over the rest of the Royal family except for the Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, the Duchess of Cornwall and William. That's one fantastic transformation in the history of our country. Unlike Princess Diana, who could claim all kinds of connection to royalty and who was the daughter of an earl in her own right, Kate Middleton is a commoner in every sense of the word as we know it, yet with the obvious bearing, sensitivity, charm and charisma to fall naturally into the role of a royal princess. As someone as educated and articulate as her fiance, and who shared the same student world for some years, she will bring a fresh perspective to her role as a new princess.

The nation certainly approves of William's bride. But there is something different in the air about this royal wedding which is unlike any other: a mixture of anticipation, resignation and clear apathy. The country is in an economic turmoil and while, on one hand, there is a lot of joy and goodwill for the couple, and some anticipation of being part of the big day and its pageantry (a kind of welcome distraction from our troubles), the excitement of the occasion is definitely lacking, the souvenirs are not selling as much, and the resignation to the event is almost palpable to feel. For example, in my home town in Berkshire, a natural conservative base with royal leanings, there isn't a single event marking the wedding on Friday. Yet, with Charles and Diana, there were street parties everywhere to involve the nation in a spirit of communal celebration. People are definitely happy for the couple, but the happiness is muted for a variety of reasons, four in particular.



1. These are hard economic times with many businesses complaining that they can hardly find the money to pay staff for being off work for yet another public holiday, and also that the wedding will rob them of attention and patronage from clients. With the wedding holiday being added to the Easter and May 1 bank holidays, it makes the next week particularly disruptive for businesses.

2. William and Kate have been almost living together since they met, so the ceremony is really just a rubber stamp on a de-facto situation. It doesn't carry the mystery and awe of past royal weddings when brides had to be virgins and not have cavorted with anyone else!

3. The changing status of the Royal Family does not carry the loyalty, attention and support from the British public that it once did. Most of the Family is seen as irrelevant to British life in these times. Many people are likely to be complaining about the potential cost of the wedding than wanting to see the wedding, especially if they are suffering economic hardship now too.

4. While many of the public would like to see the succession skip a generation and go straight to William on the Queen's death, they know that William will have to wait quite a while after his father, so that takes some excitement out of the wedding itself.

So, altogether, the national mood does not really welcome a royal wedding and there is no noticeable dancing in the streets because of it. Instead, there is fear and insecurity in the air, which has engendered a deeper kind of resignation that the event is going to happen anyway, so we might as well all make the most of it. Furthermore, the couple are likeable in their own right, they promise something different for the country's future, and so it would be a little churlish not to wish them well for their big day.

An Open Letter to the British Coalition Government on The Concept of Equality

Dear Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg,

The 2012 Olympic Games will be hosted in London, which, no doubt will be a source of pride for the nation. The Games are a model of diversity in all its global forms. It is also very modern, especially with all the technology at the heart of its administration and the evolving rules to accommodate new and sensible changes in practice. The Games may have originated in Athens, from which the long journey of the symbolic Olympic Torch still begins, but the face of this important international event has become more inclusive, more fair and more rewarding for smaller countries to participate in. If a tiny country like Jamaica, thanks to Usain Bolt and his colleagues, could lead the rest of the world in the medals in Beijing, being placed just after the big guns, anything is possible. What might it do with the resources of those top countries? Better still, what might the UK do with a motivated and fully inclusive team in 2012? Which brings me to the point of this letter.

The concept of 'equality' (in terms of everyone being entitled to experience the SAME reality) is a social construct: idealistic and impossible. Nothing is equal in Nature in that context, and humanity is an integral part of Nature. That is why we can never eradicate social inequality because man's natural diversity, and the desire to feel significant, valued and worthy, will always prompt him to find ways to differentiate himself from others. What needs to be fully understood is that we are already made equal, but different, in our value. It is man's refusal to accept value in diversity, the natural fear of difference - and the desire to level everything down to one acceptable common denominator instead - which is preventing real social equality from becoming a reality, and nowhere is there such a contradiction than in the UK, as demonstrated by the following random examples.

1. It is a contradiction in terms to have an unelected head of the country (the Queen, with all the inherited trappings of power) and then to talk about true equality. If the monarch's presence - and an unelected House of Lords - cement a three-tiered highly unequal social system, how can equality work in the rest of society? It's like piously giving one message to one powerless section, while the powerful assiduously practises another! The stark reality of equality in Britain is a continuous message of some people being more equal than others, enshrined in the Royal Family and the nobility. This makes a nonsense of valuing people when there are clear tiers of worth. Incidentally, though London has over 36% of its population from minority communities, you would be lucky to spot anyone black around this Royal Family when they're in the UK! Mixing with anyone of colour, or employing them even, appears to be reserved for when they are abroad, yet both Buckingham Palace and St James' Palace sit right at the heart of London.


Criticism Without Solutions
2. Mr Cameron, you recently said that multiculturalism (in Britain) isn't working. This is the worst thing you could have said to your country because such negative statements do not build anything. They only destroy what is already there, and what could be possible, while giving a firm slap of disapproval to the many individuals working tirelessly to ensure social harmony and success. Quite simply, the future of the nation depends upon that harmony. Anyone can criticise current attitude, behaviour or practice, if they have a solution to change the status quo. But to make such a statement, yet not offer any solutions as to how things could be remedied, is yet another example of using fine words to appease the more powerful and privileged sections of society, while instilling fear, angst and dread in the rest of it. Your words were like dropping a grenade in the middle of a crowd, yet not expecting it to blow some heads off! If multiculturalism isn't working, where is the inclusiveness among the population? How does one change things for the better? There is no problem without a solution, so what is your solution, Mr Cameron?

Britain is already multicultural, take it or leave it. Our current social state is not a 'project' that can be started, then evaluated, then stopped if we don't like the results. We are now stuck with it, whether we like it or not. The minority population is now expanding more rapidly than the majority. We have to make the best of multiculturalism so that it benefits as many people as possible. This can be done through a simple but powerful little word: RESPECT. But at the heart of respect is SENSITIVITY, and there's the key problem.

The reason why multiculturalism isn't working (and that's a pretty sweeping statement which flies in the face of what is happening in many parts of the country) is primarily because:

* There is no national leadership around it;

* No firm guidelines on appropriate public behaviour;

* No consistency across society to instill individual confidence and reassurance:

* And no sensitivity being applied right across the board to the various communities.

Everyone appears to do what they like, and to accept anything, for fear of anyone else being upset. Thus some communities end up being treated more sensitively than others, mainly to appease in many cases, and to avoid any hassles. But wherever there is perceived injustice, there will be discontent and a feeling of exclusion, no matter who perceives it as relevant to them.

Britain is a wonderful country, as many of its multicultural citizens will testify. It is not for outsiders to impose their values on it, or for politicians to denigrate the essence of that society for political expediency. It is the duty of politicians to promote inclusiveness, purely because of the fact that, once elected, they represent every single person in their constituencies, not just the ones with the loudest voices, the right cultures or the right skin. They simply cannot choose some and reject others.



Outdated Honours System
3. While the Olympic Games march on to its inevitably modernised version, Britain is still stuck back there in an invisible empire, even though the last vestiges of that empire disappeared over 60 years ago. Minority communities are still excluded from being fully British by a pretty racist and exclusive form of accolade - the Public Honours System - which still glorifies an empire which is long gone and divides a multicultural community in the process. Worse still, the word empire means two completely different things to different sections of our society. For whites empire is about glory, power, heroism, conquest and control. For blacks and Asians, who were yoked under its highly unequal colonial system, it represents repression, discrimination, cultural imposition, lack of value, lack of identity, exclusivity and unworthiness. The real irony is that every time someone black or Asian receives such an award, they are actually being asked to celebrate and uphold the very injustices done to their forefathers! Once again, a total lack of respect for multicultural Britain.

Mr Cameron, this country can be made far more inclusive simply by replacing the word Empire in the Honours with the word 'Excellence'. That would take away that divisive term and unite the UK's multicultural population through the unified striving for excellence that would make Britain great again. At a stroke it also unites the old awards and the new ones, in that the current MBEs (Member of the British Empire), for instance, would also sit alongside the new Members for British Excellence, without them being excluded or sidelined in anyway. The initials would still be the same without removing any of the value from past awards. I have always resisted any public honour, or nominating anyone for it, because of this glorification of an invisible empire. However, I can now say, quite openly and truthfully, that I would be the first in the queue for an award - and even keen to promote it - if they became more inclusive! Prime Minister, it's the present that matters, not past glories. The past brought us to where we are, but it's the present that will decide our future. If that present is mishandled we all will reap the dire rewards.

4. There is a general mindset, both corporate and individual, that fears difference of any kind. A mindset that refuses to accept the validity of diversity and its strength in preference to an artificial levelling concept of equality that is meaningless, irrelevant and patronising to those it applies. For example, anything applying to white males appear to be the norm. No one questions their suitability in the corporate world for any position. However, mention anyone else in the frame, especially women and minorities, and immediately terms like 'merit', 'best person' for the job and 'not lowering the standards' are pronounced with gay abandon. Ipso facto, only men 'merit' anything automatically in the workplace, only they are the best ones for the post and only they will uphold the standards of recruitment! Anyone deviating from them has to be questioned and kept out to keep the status quo in place. Yet the number of men who currently gain their positions because of whom they know, and their gender, rather than what they know, is simply legion!


The Limitations of Laws
What we have in the process of our evolving society is rapidly expanding technology having to contend with old mindsets around age, difference and diversity; fearful mindsets that are trying vainly to cope with current needs and failing dismally. The most important point relating to such mindsets is this: Laws do not give equality. Laws merely provide a framework for its process and a source of information for its compliance. Laws do not make people equal because they are equal already in their own right. The only thing that gives true equality is an acknowledgement and acceptance of difference: respect to that difference without trying to level it to suit the most powerful sector, and sensitivity to all parties involved, not just one group against the others.

We need a new mindset that says anyone merits whatever they are given, until proven otherwise. A mindset that readily accepts diversity, seeks to learn from it and to celebrate it - a diversity that is fully inclusive of whites as well as blacks, men as well as women, and old as well as young, to name a few.

Those four examples dealt with equality on a general public level, but what of the inequality on a personal level?


5. Let's use that honours system again, where the honours are awarded to gays like Sir Elton John. He is a knight of the realm, and he is married with a partner. Naturally, David Furnish cannot be called Lady John, as would have happened with a heterosexual couple. But why hasn't there been an equivalent so that Sir Elton's family, and others like him, do not lose out on enjoying their achievement? What about The Right Honourable, for partners like David, or a brand new title that addresses the needs of gays in this respect (that sensitivity again), instead of just paying lip service to their legal marriage without the rights that are naturally accorded to their straight counterparts. It's sensitive, personal INCLUSIVE elements like that which make people feel valued and equal, not contrived situations which deny their inclusion and have little relevance for them. An individual feels equal not when a law says so, but when his/her life has relevance, meaning and significance to him/her AND to others. The army of virtually invisible minorities in Britain are a long way from feeling any relevance or significance in their lives, despite their ongoing contribution to the country and their loyalty to it. Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg, if you want to know how invisible minorities are in Britain, have a look in Westminster Abbey on April 29th. You really won't be disappointed.

With the orgy of cuts going on at the moment, it is easy to believe that as long as everyone is treated equally, i:e the same, then the cuts are justified and the most vulnerable won't suffer. Except that cutting 10% of £1000, in a household where that income is barely enough (the worst paid people in Britain already being Bangladeshis and Pakistanis), is not the same as 10% of £50,000, where that family is already well off! Equality does NOT come through sameness, applying everything right across the board in one great majestic sweep of fine intentions. Equality comes through appreciating and accepting the diversity of our world, and valuing people as they are, with due sensitivity to their needs and what matters to them - and in a spirit of compromise. Not just imposing upon them what we think is right in order to make them fit our vision of the perfect world.

Again, equality is not trying to make others into what we wish them to be by ignoring their difference. True equality comes by enabling diverse peoples, through their own perspectives, to see their value, their worth and what is truly possible, by working together with others in a spirit of mutual respect for the common good.



I have twinned the Olympic Games with the concept of equality and multiculturalism because when the UK was bidding for the Games, it shamelessly cavorted its multicultural community to impress the international Olympic Committee. There was no talk of multiculturalism failing at that time! In fact the cynical message to the rest of the world was how well it was working in Britain which made it the best place for the Games!

The diverse Olympic Games will be staged in our capital in 2012. But how truly diverse will Britain be when it welcomes the members from all those countries? How fair and sensitive will it be to its own people? Will it still be stuck back in its unchanging white empire as politicians welcome the diversity of the Games while hypocritically trumpeting the failure of multiculturalism to score cheap points?

Or will it simply be unequal business as usual after the grand PR displays have faded, the torrent of empty words become an echo, and the victorious but tired competitors have gone home?

Sincerely,

Elaine Sihera (Ms CYPRAH)

Author: Managing the Diversity Maze

Breaking News!!...Royal Wedding: Kate Middleton to wear revamped Diana wedding-dress!

The news has been leaked from Buckingham Palace that Kate Middleton, the fiancee of Prince William, and soon to be his bride on April 29, will not only be wearing the engagement ring of the late Princess Diana, but will also be wearing the back-up dress that the Princess herself made for her wedding exactly 30 years ago.

Princess Diana was so concerned that her wedding dress should remain a secret, the designers, Emmanuel, had to make TWO dresses to throw nosy media off the scent. She wore the main dress up the altar to stunning effect in 1981, but the second dress was never required. That's the one Kate Middleton will be wearing, particularly because of the recession, apparently to avoid unnecessary expenses relating to the event. The wedding dress is usually one of the most expensive items of the occasion, so wearing a dress which is already made and waiting to hand would cut thousands of pounds off the final bill, and won't make the bash appear too extravagant.


According to an anonymous spokesperson at the Palace, "Miss Middleton suggested it herself as a mark of respect to the public in these economically trying times, and it was avidly agreed to by the Prince, especially as it was made for his mother."

As that dress has never been seen, and is apparently being 'modernised' to match Miss Middleton's taste, it will be guaranteed anonymity until it is worn. The public are waiting with bated breath to see it.

When asked his opinion, David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, thought it was an 'excellent idea'. He said the Coalition government was very proud of the bride-to-be, who is already displaying the empathy and common sense "so essential of a future queen".

He went on to add that, "Only fools in April would not agree with such a wise decision!"

Why Swingeing Cuts And a Big Society do NOT go Together

Britain's Prime Minister, David Cameron, delivered a rousing speech to Conservative party faithfuls at their annual conference when he called them to arms with 'Your country needs you', and emphasised the Big Society where everyone looks out for one another on a voluntary, cooperative and empathetic basis. All fine words indicating fine ideals and a desire to unite the nation in a time of impending austerity and sacrifice, but they are highly inappropriate to the current situation.

It means that Mr Cameron's vision will remain just that for some time because of common human factors that he and his team have not really taken into account. And the most hidden and destructive factor is FEAR. David Cameron would be better off appealing to people as individuals with whom he shares their concern and anxieties, while he is threatening to relieve them of their basic livelihoods in the dreaded cuts, rather than trying to force them to look outward at a time when that is not emotionally possible. When we are threatened, individually, it is a natural instinct to retreat and defend, not join with others, simply because everyone else becomes a potential scapegoat.

In any kind of economic or social upheaval, fear is the dominant factor, which is entirely understandable. If a family is worrying about losing their jobs, not getting enough benefits which are going to be slashed, about the economy being in recession and depriving them of opportunities, the last thing they will care about or wish to know about is someone else's problems. The reason why a Big Caring Society might work during war time but won't in economic downturns is because the two situations are vastly different.


Fighting a common enemy
War is caused by external forces, enemies of the state, who present a threat to every person within that society. It stands to reason that their very survival is at risk which will require each person to join forces to repel the enemy who could indiscriminately destroy them. No one is excluded. When there are economic problems, people do not care about the big picture because the concern moves from the macro (national) to the micro (the home) where the main priority is each family for itself. Instead of joining forces, people will be more concerned with who is getting more than they are, who is to blame for such problems and who should accept responsibility for their precarious situation. There will be no unity of approach or action under such conditions. Protecting one's position from erosion and further attack assumes priority while reason and common sense take a back seat because of that fear.

Economic downturns always carry blame and a need for scapegoats because jobs are not just things we do for money. They are also the essence of how we perceive ourselves in status, rank, responsibilities, sense of achievement, self-worth and identity. Any threat to all that is not conducive to unity and cooperation because people who are riddled with anxiety, with doubt and low confidence, will be ruled by fear of the future, and fear is a limiting emotion, not a constructive one.

Couple that fear with the stark fact that the government expects people to volunteer their time free of charge, that there will be no real money to motivate action, and one can kiss the Big Society goodbye! How are people worried about day to day issues supposed to bear the expenses themselves of doing the government's job for it? That's like pouring salt into an already open wound! For example, I am semi-retired and have volunteered in the past for whatever took my fancy, especially in empowering others. But I would think twice before helping with anything that would leave me anxious and out of pocket - worse off than I am. That would be rather foolish, especially if my income is steady and unchanging. Who makes up the shortfall?

Basic questions like that will be the kind asked by most families in Britain today. They will not be about anyone else because in times of economic crisis, thoughts are likely to turn to scrutiny of the role of the better-off in society, the unequal gaps between communities and ultimately to the government. Playing one big happy family in a Big Society would be the last thing on their minds while they are fretting and cogitating about their fate.

I think Mr Cameron needs to go back to the drawing board for this one, or simply leave it until there are clear signs of recovery. Perhaps then the idea of joining hands together in celebration of renewed good fortune might actually lead to the Big Society he so desperately seeks. It really is a question of timing than anything else in getting what we desire and the Big Society is an idea whose time has, clearly, not yet come.

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."

Will the Coalition be Reforming the British Honours System?

Now that the new Coalition government seems to be sweeping the country with their reforms of one kind or another, will they also be tackling the last vestige of white supremacy while they are at it? The last insult to a multicultural society?

Last June, the usual crop of public honours recipients was announced in London. The Queen's Birthday and New Years' Honours Lists "reflect and pay tribute to outstanding achievement and service right across the community" says the blurb, but often one wonders which community it's dealing with because the people who do receive the very top honours are seldom the ones who would be recognised by the general community.

The awards system, which still carries the obnoxious tag of 'Empire', and glory in its colonial legacy and traditions, is still alive and well when it should have been pensioned off years ago. With whiffs of honours for sale, it is about time this particular heritage is retired gracefully and something more reflective of modern society and true merit introduced in its place. Britain prides itself on its equal opportunities and diverse multicultural society, yet, just casting a glance at the Knights and Dames honours, as in every past year, men outnumber women by nearly 3 to 1 and very few minorities achieve the very highest ranks like Commanders of Knights. From the spread of honours, one can assume that men are more deserving than women and Whites more deserving than Blacks. Nothing that has lasted so many years can still serve a different society today in an efficient way, and in the same form, when we have advanced in amazing ways and with constantly changing perspectives.

I mean, a lady running her business successfully for over 50 years gets a mere OBE. Yet still active in her nineties! What on earth does she have to do to get the CBE or Damehood? Another 50 years?

I would scrap this outdated and exclusive honours system if I were David Cameron. It is getting really tired and irrelevant now in the way they are still awarded on class lines and still refer to that great 'Empire' which has an invisible location to the British public. Where exactly do we find this British Empire? Perhaps if we stopped hanging on to the past and looked to our future we would be even greater than before. To award a member of a minority group with a reminder of a discriminatory, racist and repressive colonial regime is disrespectful and offensive in this global age.

We are now desperate for an inclusive MODERN awards system that one does not have to pay money for, which will apply right across the board to everyone in our multicultural society; one which will reflect the national pride we should feel for Britain TODAY, not yesterday. An award system to help bind the country together as one in a spirit of achievement and togetherness, not keep people artificially apart and stuck in yesteryear! Is that the best we can do now to recognise our people?

These awards are an anachronism in today's technological 21st century world. The quicker that is realised and acted upon, the more the credibility of the British honours system will be restored and the more reflective of its multicultural society it will gradually become.

Why I LOVE my new Prime Minister, David Cameron!

On the 6th of May, 2010, when the British general election results were announced, I was secretly pleased that the Conservatives had not received enough votes to form a government, while being keenly disappointed that the LibDems had actually lost seats. I had hoped that they would have had a massive increase in their seats in Parliament due to what the polls had been saying before the election. I was also torn between whom their leader, Nick Clegg, should support to form a coalition, as Labour seemed a more natural choice of partner compared to the Conservatives, whom I've always disliked, but I also wanted a fresh team after the 13 years Labour had already enjoyed.

In the event, the Conservatives rightfully won out over Labour, especially as they had the most seats and David Cameron became Prime Minister. The country waited with bated breath for the new political coalition to get off the ground, while dire predictions of its imminent demise frequently peppered the air! I preferred to wait and see, with some scepticism, especially after the shock of seeing how the coalition was actually arranged, who actually benefited from it, and the direction it was to take. Until now.

This week, the United Kingdom, this great country, found its international voice again, no longer muted by fear, factions or the folly of an unjust war. No more diplomatic niceties or flim-flam. It gave a very loud and clear message to the world that Britain - the national corporation - was back in business again, and firmly on the side of justice, no matter in what quarter, and I felt extremely proud to be British. On his trip to Turkey, Mr Cameron left no one in any doubt about the smelling carcass of a stagnant Middle East situation. He accused Israel of turning the Gaza strip into an "open prison camp" by blockading vital supplies to the area and then warned that "Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp". Indeed.

That was music to my ears because anyone who could actually condone what has been happening in Gaza, to turn their back on a people who are suffering deliberately through the insensitive and cruel efforts of another country, cannot have much humanity in them. Such action has been plainly wrong, no matter the reason for it, and was crying out for some real leadership on the issue. It took guts to ignore the diplomatic niceties of hypocrites and say it like it is, and I applaud him for it. No, not just applaud him. I love the guy's sincerity and courage in setting a new marker on international behaviour. He's got it spot on in view of the lawlessness that seemed to have overtaken our world, especially in view of some of Israel's recent cavalier action.


Building a New Perspective
As I wrote in 2006 when Israel attacked Lebanon (12 Lessons in Life): "We do not overcome evil by becoming evil ourselves. In that awful moment of madness, we lose our self-respect and our integrity, falling from the moral high ground of justice to land with a thud on the same low level of injustice perpetrated by our oppressors."

By saying a simple truth, which our American allies, through their backing of Israel seem unable to say, David Cameron can help everyone to build on a new perspective of justice without fear, and start a real healing process in this fractured situation. But that wasn't all.

Yesterday, in view of the leaks about Afghanistan, Cameron went to India and again spoke out about another thorny issue: the two-faced nature of Pakistan's diplomacy regarding terrorism, telling them that they cannot play it both sides and then expect the right results. He said they were "promoting the export of terror" and it was intolerable for that country to "look both ways" in view of all the atrocities associated with terrorism. Sensible words from a sensible leader!

In the current global economic climate, strong leadership is necessary to take us out of the downturn and into a better period of growth and stability. I have always admired Cameron himself ever since he took over as opposition leader, though not his party. I felt the Tories were usually for big business and not exactly welcoming of minorities! I used to wish he was leading Labour or the LibDems, so I had mixed feelings with the election results. Today I feel awfully proud to have a Prime Minister who seems unafraid to tackle the real issues and to say it like it is. That means a lot to me because achieving real justice is never easy. It is about compassion, trust and sacrifice, hence why it is always easier to blow with the wind than to stand up for one's beliefs.

The BBC's headline on the India trip said "Candid Cameron ruffles diplomatic feathers". Well, that's great news. Time for some feathers to be ruffled, or even plucked, because the current status quo is not yielding much by way of solutions.

The Telegraph lauded Cameron's visit with President Obama saying how the Conservatives and coalition government should be proud of him and his performance, as he was clearly the stronger leader in the exchanges. I say we should all be very proud of him because, at last, we have a real Prime Minister who is not afraid of taking the initiative, making decisions, even tough ones, or speaking out. A true leader in every sense of the word. Watch the mood of the country now changes from uncertainty to confidence. With such a transparent Prime Minister, it can only lead to more trust and self-belief.

Suddenly the future looks very bright! :o)

(Tonight the BBC is airing a programme "5 Days That Changed Britain" on BBC 2 at 2100 GMT, regarding the general election and the frenzied activity to form a coalition after the results became known. It should be very interesting viewing.)

Telegraph: A new foreign policy is taking shape under David Cameron but is it Tory or Lib Dem?
(A steely determination can be detected in the Coalition's attitude, argues Benedict Brogan.)

Five Lessons From The 2010 FIFA World Cup

The FIFA 2010 World Cup has ended on a high with lots of credits to the host, South Africa. The party is over and the clearing up has now begun, along with the reflection on what happened, remorse by the 'losers', regret on what could have been and new resolve for the future. The next four years will be one of soul searching and debate by all the world's teams as to how they can do better.

However, there seems to be five major lessons to be taken from the tournament and, in order of importance, they are:

1. The TEAM is the essence of winning anything, not the individual.
Long before the World Cup began we heard how great players like Ronaldo(Portugal), Rooney(England), Messi(Argentina) and Kaka (Brazil) would shine in the competition. We would be exposed to their genius and marvel at it. They would inspire the rest of their teams to victory. Like hell. They were all sent packing by virtual unknowns such as Gyan (Ghana), Klose (Germany) and Andres Iniesta(Spain). What was significant about these winning players was their complete acceptance that the team mattered much more than the individual and they all supported each other. Each was but one player in it, no matter how they individually performed.

For example, Cesc Fabregas (Spain) set up the winning goal that Andres Iniesta crashed into the net. Then he quickly removed his shirt to show the memory of a player who should have been with them but had died of a heart attack in August 2009 - Daniel Jarque. At that supreme moment of triumph, the team did not forget one of their own and the simple inscription on the t-shirt ("Dani Jarque, always with us") ensured that the dead team member shared in that amazing moment too. A greater team spirit one could not have witnessed. Since Spain's victory, as before it, the focus has been on the whole team, not just the guy who scored. He merely completed the hard work and effort of his other teammates. Iniesta did not do it all by himself. He just happened to have the skill for making that goal just as his teammates exhibited their skills in other aspects of the game. When there is too much emhpasis on any one team player it demoralises the others who are likely to believe that their skills are not appreciated, which then affect team cohesion, communication and performance.

2. With the increasing use of technology and a growing global audience, the World Cup competition, as we knew it, is over
The 2010 World Cup was on a different level and scale from what it used to be when it was dominated by the usual South American and European teams. The World Cup has grown so big, with so much potential for national identification and promotion, it is no longer just the pinnacle of a popular game but a real source of national pride. Every country will now want a piece of that global action and they will be fighting very hard to get it. It means that the usual teams (like England, Brazil, Argentina etc) who would have expected to head for the finals almost automatically will now have a hard battle on their hands as countries like the USA, Ghana, Spain and Netherlands (those who have been in the background) begin fighting for centre-stage. Making it to the quarter-final, let alone the final, will be a very hard task for some teams in the future, as competition for the 32 coveted spots in the World Cup finals begins in earnest.


3. Good football will always win out
It was clear that Spain and the Netherlands had different playing styles. For the Netherlands it was a more aggressive approach, stopping the Spanish progression by fair means or foul, while for the Spaniards the aim was to get that goal through a natural rhythm of playing and passing. The Dutch style led to a lot of fouls, yellow cards, a sending off, and the odd vicious encounter while the Spaniards took home the prize with their persistent and professional play. Winning or losing at this level of the sport should be done with dignity and mutual respect. Not conducted like a market brawl, because only one team can ever win.

4. Technology is needed for ensuring that any decision relating to a goal is the right one
England was disallowed a perfectly good goal at a crucial point in their game. Who knows what might have happened if they had drawn level with Germany? One cannot underestimate the motivating power of coming from behind to level the stakes. A goal is the ultimate objective of football. It cannot be left to chance anymore because referees are not supremos. They are fallible human beings. Time for technology to do its job where goals are concerned. One cannot put total emphasis on getting goals in this competition then pretend that a goal doesn't really matter at crucial moments of the game.

5. Anything is possible when we have self-belief and feel ready for it
For the past six years since South Africa was awarded the World Cup games to host, the army of naysayers has been casting the most dire predictions about the outcome: the stadia wouldn't be ready, violent crime would be rife, the public wouldn't support the games, Africa wasn't ready for staging the games...and so on. Today South Africa can boast hosting one of the most successful games of all time. In fact, attendance at all the matches totalled 3.15 millions, second only to the American-held World Cup of 1994 which had 3.58 millions; the vuvuzela which is now worldwide was introduced; the welcome of visitors was second to none and the sheer scale of the organisation and the professionalism was breathtaking to see. South Africans today can feel proud of themselves having asserted the country globally as a future venue for any event, which can only help them economically in the long run, while also affecting the perception of the continent as a whole.

The 2010 FIFA World Cup was an impressive display of gamesmanship, a fine example of sports at its best; a unifier of countries and a showcase for individual and team potential, not to mention the economic benefits it now affords at all levels of organisation. Long may it continue.



Photos courtesy of FIFA.com