Yes, she's conflating too many things making her overall statement untrue. If Kemi were to have said this this the best white majority country to be black in and then stopped, that would be arguable. But, of course, you are right that the countries where you could be confident that being black would not cause you any problems would be the ones where 'black' isn't a meaningful identity, just some literally inaccurate description of the skin colour of people of African descent used white, western country. ( I will always remember my extremely literal autistic 5-year-old daughter thinking I was getting confused with colours and explaining to me that her friend was not black but dark brown and demonstrating the difference with two crayons)
She is certainly wrong that we are country that sees people, not labels. We're dividing into more labels all the time. I can't spend a week on Twitter without being informed I am white, cis, fascist, wokeist, communist, liberal, atheist, terf, trans activist, leftist, remoaner, conservative, grifter, gelatinous mound of lard, Jewish, anti-white, white-supremacist, nationalist, globalist, elite, libertarian, homophobic, degenerate destroyer of western civilisation, Islamaphobtc, antisemitic, radical feminist, misogynist sack of shit.
I'm delighted if she has not ever been called any racist labels, but I assume she has someone else deal with her emails and doesn't check her social media notifications. I've seen her be called all kinds of racial slurs, including by people who consider themselves to ve anti-racist.
Thanks for reading Helen! Yes, this was the very point I was trying to drive at. I think her statement was too vague. I do understand the underlying sentiment of speech but her specific comments here do not align well with my (and many others) subjective experiences (particularly the "sees people, not labels"). This isn't a criticism of UK society per ser, I understand categorisations are necessary. However, we can't ignore that people do attach social traits to these labels.
You didn't try to drive at it. You made it well. I agreed! We also agree, I think, that we agree that many Brits of racial minority have experiences of not being regarded as 'really British" and something 'other.' Two of my grandparents experienced this. My grandfather, a Sicilian of 'Moorish' descent was born in an East London Catholic orphanage to cover up the scandal of his wealthy, diplomat father producing a 'bastard' with his teenage maid. As the experience of growing up there led him to have a very negative view of Christianity and also rather sick of being told he did not "look British", he married another outsider - a French Jewish refugee. Their shared sense of being "other' in 1940's England certainly played a part in them marrying each other even though their cultural backgrounds were very different & who could blame them.
I am very wary of forming an identity from "otherness" though. (I am thinking of your previous piece now where you discussed the pros and cons of a 'Black British' formed of people with a variety of national, cultural and religious ancestry) My thinking on this is informed by Isabel Wilkerson's "Caste," I read it expecting to be critical of it after being given the impression she compared current day black American experience to the Holocaust on Twitter. But she does nothing of the sort and what she does do is very valuable, I think. By looking at the caste system in India, Jim Crow in the US and Nazi Germany, her analysis moved the problem away from an American-centric focus on skin colour to a broader and more universal examination of one of the worst aspects of human nature and the environments that can foster them. She convinced me that it is not categories that are inherently a problem but the formation of castes and the extremes of this where those at the bottom are untouchable, subhuman and even needing to be eradicated.
This is why I think that black Brits or "BAME" Brits with a. variety of backgrounds consciously coming together to form themselves into what would essentially be a caste based on a shared sense of otherness would be a bad idea. I am not naive enough to think that the promotion of colour-blind principles will, in itself, make racism go away, but I am pretty sure that consciously creating a caste based on racial concepts of otherness will not. It risks concretising and legitimising beliefs in non-white Brits being both other and lesser - a bottom caste that can activate the worst, most callous & dehumanising aspects of human nature.
I don't claim to know what the solution is but it will be neither 'pretending racism is all fixed now and nobody notices race or ascribes moral and social salience to it" or "encouraging people to form themselves into white and non-white castes."
What would happen if I came to your church, Jide? I only know one white Christian who joined a 'black' church and in his case, it was very positive. His wife had early onset dementia and he felt lonely and unsupported by his church and it was also not helping him to grow in his faith. So, he wandered into a local black church drawn by sounds of joyful singing where he was immediately welcomed, became part of a community that also visited him often, supported him in the care of his wife, went more in depth into the faith as well as having regular social occasions. After the death of his wife, he married a member of the congregation. I am quite sure they noticed he was white and new black members probably felt a little surprised and wondered how he had come to join, but never was there any othering nor was he given the impression that anybody thought he didn't belong there.
I am not quite sure what the point of that story was except as an example of othering not happening. And we know it is quite possible not to divide people into racial categorisations, both because not doing this has been a norm at various times around the Mediterranean and because we are not hardwired to give salience to skin colours, like we are to sex or age. For one thing, there haven't been people who weren't black for long enough and for another, in our history living in hunter gatherer groups it has been useful to always have an awareness of the sex and age of people in your group because it matters in an emergency situation where some people can fight and some people cannot, some people move fast, some more slowly. This doesn't apply to race at all and so there are no mechanisms in the brain for racial categorisation.
Helen, I have really appreciated your comments. It is interesting that you mentioned churches and the deeply heart-warming experience of this man in a "black" church. Let me add that Catholic churches in the UK (and probably many other churches) are not "black" or white" - people of all ethnicities come to the Mass and it is seen as completely normal.
Thanks Helen! Some very interesting thoughts here. I pretty much agree with everything you've shared. The reason I've started being a bit more vocal on race is because I am very concerned about the matter of identity in the UK. I think the sentiment of being an 'other' is having a major influence on the formation of an established Black Brit identity. This sentiment seems grounded on the idea of struggle. I am afraid this isn't healthy.
I would agree that categorisations in themselves are not bad. It is the context in which they have been developed that proves problematic i.e. Jim Crow America or Nazi Germany. I am currently reading a book by a Christian theologian titled "Exclusion & Embrace" by Miroslav Volf. I found his below quote interesting.
"We need more adequate judgements based on a distinction between legitimate 'differentiation' and illegitimate 'exclusion' and made with humility that counts with our proclivity to misperceive and misjudge because we desire to exclude" - Miroslav Volf
When is 'Black' a legitimate differentiation and when what is an illegitimate 'exclusion'. For e.g. Helen, I don't know if you are aware that English is not an option for black people in the UK census (I think because ethnicity is a proxy for ancestry in the classification). Therefore, I find it awkward to ever claim "English". I may *feel* the culture but I am clearly not acknowledged to be so by the state. Whether this is a illegitimate or legitimate exclusion is another story.
However, yes, I have always looked to church as an example for 'colour-blindness' or at least the theological presumption that we are first and foremost of the members of the global human tribe before our 'local cultural tribes'. However, even church doesn't get this quite right (as we seen from history). But the story you've shared there is how church is meant to be (no othering).
I didn't manage to cover all you points but they were very helpful!
Jide, thank you for your thought-provoking article. And it is indeed strange and worrying that "English" (as well as "Scottish", "Welsh" and "Northern Irish") is not an option for people identifying as Black (and people identifying as Asian or mixed or multiple background) in the UK census - as if the authors of the census questions had tacitly assumed that only white people can be English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish.
You're welcome Joanna. Many thanks for reading. Indeed and maybe that's what they believe. However, if so, it would be helpful if they could articulate why and provide clarity. It's things like this that confuse people. So an ethnic minority could represent England at the highest sporting level (win tournaments and international medals) yet wouldn't be considered English by the State? There needs to be a consistency, whatever that may be.
Thank you for your reply to my comment, Jide, and I totally agree with you! I guess that the authors of the census questions assumed that people who are not white prefer to identify as British than as English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish, but such an assumption is unjustified. One should never create the impression that Englishness, Scottishness etc. is reserved for white people. And as you said, the inconsistencies are striking.
'Is Britain the Best Place to be Black?' as Cabinet minister Kemi Badenoch said in a recent speech. Well, Badenoch is a politician. Most of us don't think much of politicians, what are they good for? Firstly they are elected and also they can help to frame a discussion or 'create a narrative'. For too long the 'narrative' around race has been dominated by the political left and liberal media, papers like the Guardian, the only black newspaper in the UK The Voice, Channel 4 News, the BBC, the public sector, sports institutions like the Football Association and celebrities from the world of entertainment. The narrative has been gloomy and relentless, that life in the UK for black people is blighted by systemic and institutional racism, that this is so deep-seated that really there is nothing much that we can do about it.
Badenoch in a sound-bite is using her position to challenge this narrative and to rally those who do not like the way things are going but who are lacking a voice. Badenoch is living evidence that black people can get on; of course most of us will not become cabinet ministers, she is also a Conservative so we might not share her politics. But we can still agree that despite the problems we face there is still hope and opportunity, we can agree that we need to send an optimistic message to our young people. Some might say that Badenoch is exaggerating but sadly I would argue that there are many who seem to have a vested interest in exaggerating the extent of racism in our society, as though without a cohering opposition to racism there would be no black community.
We have reached a stage of political maturity where we need to accept and embrace the diversity amongst black people and/or people of colour. Community is something that has to be built, not presumed. Badenoch and her Conservative Cabinet colleague Suella Braverman and very different women but they are on the same side on this as is the writer of this article, (and me too).
Is Britain the Best Place to be Black? I can't answer that question, but we have hope and possibility, we might even be able provide an example for the rest of the world. The writer of this article is a Christian thinker, he will understand that we need to hate the sin but love the sinner, much of the dominant narrative from black writers and thinkers today comes close to reversing the racism that black people have endured.
Thanks Mark for reading and sharing your thoughts here. Your summary captures the overarching sentiment that I wanted to get out there with this article! I am hoping that we can see more diverse and honest perspectives from black writers moving forward.
I believe the aim was to explore the question rather than provide a definitive answer and to examine various examples of why some people may agree with the comments made at the conference and why others may disagree. In my own opinion, regardless of the cases presented for and against, the answer is largely subjective and depends on what each person values in a country. Nevertheless, it's still valuable to ask and explore these questions!
Thanks Charles for reading. I think as Ada stated, any answer to this question will largely be dependent on one's subjective experience. I can objectively state some stats that show Britain to be a relatively good place to be for a black person - in comparison to other countries. However, *best* really depends on the what each person values. I think the question requires a more philosophical than scientific answer.
Yes, she's conflating too many things making her overall statement untrue. If Kemi were to have said this this the best white majority country to be black in and then stopped, that would be arguable. But, of course, you are right that the countries where you could be confident that being black would not cause you any problems would be the ones where 'black' isn't a meaningful identity, just some literally inaccurate description of the skin colour of people of African descent used white, western country. ( I will always remember my extremely literal autistic 5-year-old daughter thinking I was getting confused with colours and explaining to me that her friend was not black but dark brown and demonstrating the difference with two crayons)
She is certainly wrong that we are country that sees people, not labels. We're dividing into more labels all the time. I can't spend a week on Twitter without being informed I am white, cis, fascist, wokeist, communist, liberal, atheist, terf, trans activist, leftist, remoaner, conservative, grifter, gelatinous mound of lard, Jewish, anti-white, white-supremacist, nationalist, globalist, elite, libertarian, homophobic, degenerate destroyer of western civilisation, Islamaphobtc, antisemitic, radical feminist, misogynist sack of shit.
I'm delighted if she has not ever been called any racist labels, but I assume she has someone else deal with her emails and doesn't check her social media notifications. I've seen her be called all kinds of racial slurs, including by people who consider themselves to ve anti-racist.
Thanks for reading Helen! Yes, this was the very point I was trying to drive at. I think her statement was too vague. I do understand the underlying sentiment of speech but her specific comments here do not align well with my (and many others) subjective experiences (particularly the "sees people, not labels"). This isn't a criticism of UK society per ser, I understand categorisations are necessary. However, we can't ignore that people do attach social traits to these labels.
You didn't try to drive at it. You made it well. I agreed! We also agree, I think, that we agree that many Brits of racial minority have experiences of not being regarded as 'really British" and something 'other.' Two of my grandparents experienced this. My grandfather, a Sicilian of 'Moorish' descent was born in an East London Catholic orphanage to cover up the scandal of his wealthy, diplomat father producing a 'bastard' with his teenage maid. As the experience of growing up there led him to have a very negative view of Christianity and also rather sick of being told he did not "look British", he married another outsider - a French Jewish refugee. Their shared sense of being "other' in 1940's England certainly played a part in them marrying each other even though their cultural backgrounds were very different & who could blame them.
I am very wary of forming an identity from "otherness" though. (I am thinking of your previous piece now where you discussed the pros and cons of a 'Black British' formed of people with a variety of national, cultural and religious ancestry) My thinking on this is informed by Isabel Wilkerson's "Caste," I read it expecting to be critical of it after being given the impression she compared current day black American experience to the Holocaust on Twitter. But she does nothing of the sort and what she does do is very valuable, I think. By looking at the caste system in India, Jim Crow in the US and Nazi Germany, her analysis moved the problem away from an American-centric focus on skin colour to a broader and more universal examination of one of the worst aspects of human nature and the environments that can foster them. She convinced me that it is not categories that are inherently a problem but the formation of castes and the extremes of this where those at the bottom are untouchable, subhuman and even needing to be eradicated.
This is why I think that black Brits or "BAME" Brits with a. variety of backgrounds consciously coming together to form themselves into what would essentially be a caste based on a shared sense of otherness would be a bad idea. I am not naive enough to think that the promotion of colour-blind principles will, in itself, make racism go away, but I am pretty sure that consciously creating a caste based on racial concepts of otherness will not. It risks concretising and legitimising beliefs in non-white Brits being both other and lesser - a bottom caste that can activate the worst, most callous & dehumanising aspects of human nature.
I don't claim to know what the solution is but it will be neither 'pretending racism is all fixed now and nobody notices race or ascribes moral and social salience to it" or "encouraging people to form themselves into white and non-white castes."
What would happen if I came to your church, Jide? I only know one white Christian who joined a 'black' church and in his case, it was very positive. His wife had early onset dementia and he felt lonely and unsupported by his church and it was also not helping him to grow in his faith. So, he wandered into a local black church drawn by sounds of joyful singing where he was immediately welcomed, became part of a community that also visited him often, supported him in the care of his wife, went more in depth into the faith as well as having regular social occasions. After the death of his wife, he married a member of the congregation. I am quite sure they noticed he was white and new black members probably felt a little surprised and wondered how he had come to join, but never was there any othering nor was he given the impression that anybody thought he didn't belong there.
I am not quite sure what the point of that story was except as an example of othering not happening. And we know it is quite possible not to divide people into racial categorisations, both because not doing this has been a norm at various times around the Mediterranean and because we are not hardwired to give salience to skin colours, like we are to sex or age. For one thing, there haven't been people who weren't black for long enough and for another, in our history living in hunter gatherer groups it has been useful to always have an awareness of the sex and age of people in your group because it matters in an emergency situation where some people can fight and some people cannot, some people move fast, some more slowly. This doesn't apply to race at all and so there are no mechanisms in the brain for racial categorisation.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027715000578
As we know that we need not give any moral or social salience to skin colour, we should always choose options which don't do that whenever they arise.
Helen, I have really appreciated your comments. It is interesting that you mentioned churches and the deeply heart-warming experience of this man in a "black" church. Let me add that Catholic churches in the UK (and probably many other churches) are not "black" or white" - people of all ethnicities come to the Mass and it is seen as completely normal.
Thanks Helen! Some very interesting thoughts here. I pretty much agree with everything you've shared. The reason I've started being a bit more vocal on race is because I am very concerned about the matter of identity in the UK. I think the sentiment of being an 'other' is having a major influence on the formation of an established Black Brit identity. This sentiment seems grounded on the idea of struggle. I am afraid this isn't healthy.
I would agree that categorisations in themselves are not bad. It is the context in which they have been developed that proves problematic i.e. Jim Crow America or Nazi Germany. I am currently reading a book by a Christian theologian titled "Exclusion & Embrace" by Miroslav Volf. I found his below quote interesting.
"We need more adequate judgements based on a distinction between legitimate 'differentiation' and illegitimate 'exclusion' and made with humility that counts with our proclivity to misperceive and misjudge because we desire to exclude" - Miroslav Volf
When is 'Black' a legitimate differentiation and when what is an illegitimate 'exclusion'. For e.g. Helen, I don't know if you are aware that English is not an option for black people in the UK census (I think because ethnicity is a proxy for ancestry in the classification). Therefore, I find it awkward to ever claim "English". I may *feel* the culture but I am clearly not acknowledged to be so by the state. Whether this is a illegitimate or legitimate exclusion is another story.
However, yes, I have always looked to church as an example for 'colour-blindness' or at least the theological presumption that we are first and foremost of the members of the global human tribe before our 'local cultural tribes'. However, even church doesn't get this quite right (as we seen from history). But the story you've shared there is how church is meant to be (no othering).
I didn't manage to cover all you points but they were very helpful!
Jide, thank you for your thought-provoking article. And it is indeed strange and worrying that "English" (as well as "Scottish", "Welsh" and "Northern Irish") is not an option for people identifying as Black (and people identifying as Asian or mixed or multiple background) in the UK census - as if the authors of the census questions had tacitly assumed that only white people can be English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish.
You're welcome Joanna. Many thanks for reading. Indeed and maybe that's what they believe. However, if so, it would be helpful if they could articulate why and provide clarity. It's things like this that confuse people. So an ethnic minority could represent England at the highest sporting level (win tournaments and international medals) yet wouldn't be considered English by the State? There needs to be a consistency, whatever that may be.
Thank you for your reply to my comment, Jide, and I totally agree with you! I guess that the authors of the census questions assumed that people who are not white prefer to identify as British than as English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish, but such an assumption is unjustified. One should never create the impression that Englishness, Scottishness etc. is reserved for white people. And as you said, the inconsistencies are striking.
'Is Britain the Best Place to be Black?' as Cabinet minister Kemi Badenoch said in a recent speech. Well, Badenoch is a politician. Most of us don't think much of politicians, what are they good for? Firstly they are elected and also they can help to frame a discussion or 'create a narrative'. For too long the 'narrative' around race has been dominated by the political left and liberal media, papers like the Guardian, the only black newspaper in the UK The Voice, Channel 4 News, the BBC, the public sector, sports institutions like the Football Association and celebrities from the world of entertainment. The narrative has been gloomy and relentless, that life in the UK for black people is blighted by systemic and institutional racism, that this is so deep-seated that really there is nothing much that we can do about it.
Badenoch in a sound-bite is using her position to challenge this narrative and to rally those who do not like the way things are going but who are lacking a voice. Badenoch is living evidence that black people can get on; of course most of us will not become cabinet ministers, she is also a Conservative so we might not share her politics. But we can still agree that despite the problems we face there is still hope and opportunity, we can agree that we need to send an optimistic message to our young people. Some might say that Badenoch is exaggerating but sadly I would argue that there are many who seem to have a vested interest in exaggerating the extent of racism in our society, as though without a cohering opposition to racism there would be no black community.
We have reached a stage of political maturity where we need to accept and embrace the diversity amongst black people and/or people of colour. Community is something that has to be built, not presumed. Badenoch and her Conservative Cabinet colleague Suella Braverman and very different women but they are on the same side on this as is the writer of this article, (and me too).
Is Britain the Best Place to be Black? I can't answer that question, but we have hope and possibility, we might even be able provide an example for the rest of the world. The writer of this article is a Christian thinker, he will understand that we need to hate the sin but love the sinner, much of the dominant narrative from black writers and thinkers today comes close to reversing the racism that black people have endured.
Thanks Mark for reading and sharing your thoughts here. Your summary captures the overarching sentiment that I wanted to get out there with this article! I am hoping that we can see more diverse and honest perspectives from black writers moving forward.
I believe the aim was to explore the question rather than provide a definitive answer and to examine various examples of why some people may agree with the comments made at the conference and why others may disagree. In my own opinion, regardless of the cases presented for and against, the answer is largely subjective and depends on what each person values in a country. Nevertheless, it's still valuable to ask and explore these questions!
Thanks Charles for reading. I think as Ada stated, any answer to this question will largely be dependent on one's subjective experience. I can objectively state some stats that show Britain to be a relatively good place to be for a black person - in comparison to other countries. However, *best* really depends on the what each person values. I think the question requires a more philosophical than scientific answer.