Things being in their place is of utmost importance
Chinua Achebe is the first the first published writer I read who leveled the reasonable proposition that Joseph Conrad was a bigot of the highest order, or, in his own words, ‘a thoroughgoing racist’. I have never read Heart of Darkness and I don’t feel the need to (if people call themselves ‘well read’ having never heard of Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, I will call myself ‘well read’ without bothering with Conrad).
An Image of Africa, Achebe’s review of Heart of Darkness, is excellent. It was in this essay that I came across the statement, “For Conrad, things being in their place is of utmost importance.”
To explain, Achebe quotes from Conrad’s celebrated work:
“And between the whiles I had to look after the savage who was [a] fireman. He was an improved specimen; he could fire up a vertical boiler. He was there below me, and, upon my word, to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat, walking on his hind legs. A few months of training had done for that really fine chap”
Achebe shows that Conrad throughout his novel refers to people who are ‘in their place’ – namely Congolese citizens ‘stamping their feet and clapping their hands’ and, as shown above, the natives who he finds to be a little more lost. In witnessing a black person light a boiler his narrator finds confusion and Achebe finds evidence to support the deduction that for Conrad all things, and all people, have a place.
I remembered this because today, I read a throught provoking surmise of the problems George Lucas is having with Red Tails:
“Black Male War Heroes vs Black Men in Dresses”
This was a subtitle in the January 2011 Black History Walks newsletter
Red Tails, a movie now famously self funded by George Lucas (perhaps to make amends for Jar Jar Binks), features an all African-American cast of good looking young men. They are sat in the cockpits of airplanes in World War Two – a time when America fought against fascism but wouldn’t allow black people to ride in front of a bus. I remember in Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbour, Cuba Gooding Jnr. was the cook. Now, he’s Top Gun.
Why did George Lucas, Hollywood don, struggle to get this made? The industry universally said it was ‘risky’ and for reasons unknown, it still cannot get a British distributor.
We know black movies aren’t seen as inherently risky by Hollywood. Think about the representation of black people in the following successful movies that studios can’t wait to invest money into:
Big Momma’s House 1,2, 3,4,5, 6…..
White Chicks
The Nutty Professor
And, how can I not mention The Help? *sigh*
Maybe the film industry thinks things being in their place is of utmost importance too.
There is more to emancipation than the opposition of racism -
“There is more to emancipation than the opposition of racism” Paul Gilroy
This is a quote that I found memorable because I see it’s truthfulness most days. It is especially evident in black footballers.
I only ever hear black footballers draw attention to their blackness when they are reminded of it by a racist. It is rarely a topic of conversation when they are interviewed or when they are seen to be charitable. It is rarely an identity asserted when talking about their pathways into professional sport.
I would argue the same goes for observers too. For them, the premiership is 25% black when there is a race furore. When there is none, it is simply 100% of everyone. Black footballers are footballers first, but so obviously black when treated differently (treated differently in public, that is).
Diversity was meant to be good to us. Multicultralism was meant to be the zenith of our ordeal. But there is nothing multicultural about our best paid professional footballers. White or black our footballers use the same language, have the same education, the same taste in cars, clothes, cuisine, and quite glaringly, women.
Nice. I bet they can't cook rice though.
You should never judge a book by it’s cover but if you show me your life partner, I’ll hazard a guess at your character. Spray tan, fake hair, trashy handbags, fake tits. A bit ropey looking. What do these women have that they want their children to inherit?
I think Paul Gilroy may dislike the entity that our footballers have become. Absorbed in anti-racism, they think people ‘seeing past their skin’ is enough. It’s a tragedy because they have learnt to see past their own skin too. A wealth of high achieving black figures in society doesn’t mean much to me if those figures don’t think anything of being ‘black’ in the first place.
To return to my earlier point.
I only ever hear black footballers draw attention to their blackness when they are reminded of it by a racist.
They rightly denounce racism at the point it is met, but never relish in pro-blackness at any other point of time. Cornrows and locs do not count.
Yesterday evening maybe a million men fell in love Thierry Henry all over again. He made those men ‘see past the colour his skin’. Louis Saha, due to his poor form, prompted at least one gentlemen to decide he had looked far enough.
This post is about anti-racism and how it does people of colour in Britain no good. By encouraging us to ignore race, we are being told to ignore ourselves. To get us to this stage within two generations is a victory for hegemony indeed. Our race is more than just skin. Our race is history, culture, victory, struggle, science, family, food, life…
I don’t want Louis Saha to tweet about a racist that calls him a n*****. Any black person that hasn’t been called a n***** on twitter hasn’t made their ethnicity obvious enough. I want him to tweet about the times he feels a bit of black, or cultural pride. When he remembers people who went through the physical abuse who he did not have to. When he wakes up and looks in the mirror and loves the colour that is staring back at him.
Oppose racism, yes. Fight ignorance – do it every day. But save some time to celebrate yourself too. If we don’t celebrate ourselves, no one else will.
I recently had a conversation with a friend who lamented the lack of Somali individuals in the public eye. I would advise her to be careful what she wishes for. For all the black footballers (not of Somali descent) cumulatively earning millions and being gifted combined audiences of many millions more, I don’t think we have made any progress. I think things have got worse.
Pardon me, brother, while you stand in your glory
I know you won’t mind if I tell the whole story
Pardon me, brother, I know we’ve come a long, long way
But let us not be so satisfied for tomorrow can be an
An even brighter day
It is not worthwhile going into the rights and wrongs of the recent race furors – other people have blogged so I don’t have to. What I do find interesting is the idea that the debates of the first week of 2012 may mean something to British society as a whole.
Matthew Ryder has written a piece in the Guardian today entitled, ‘The Lawrence case has at last made us confront the complex nature of racism’. It is subtitled, ‘Its legacy is profound and given us valuable new ways of thinking. We must not waste these insights’.
Seeing racism as complicated is not a ‘new way of thinking’. It is the way people with common sense, objectiveness and intelligence have always thought. It is only ‘new’ if you have been turning a blind eye to white privilege for the past five centuries. But it is very refreshing to see so many people open their minds to a more complex approach to the issue.
Racism is as innocent as simple as someone touching my hair without asking, or asking me which buses go to Peckham. It is a cutting as being told to ‘go home’ or being told frankly by a colleague from a small northern village “you won’t go down well where I come from.” Racism is not about whether or not the person is racist, it’s whether they do or say something that is clearly driven by a difference in race or ethnicity – harm intended or not. And if you are finally learning this, welcome to my world.
Welcome to my world if you posted tweets and Facebook statuses in memory of Stephen Lawrence and in praise of Doreen. Because I bet those were the first race-related updates you ever bothered to share with the world. Welcome if you were embarrassed by the indignation of many white people who thought they were victims of a racist attack last Thursday. And welcome if you scratched your head at Kenny Daglish’s vain attempts to stand by Suarez, even after he was found guilty.
Finally, intelligent debate about the nature of race and racism could be found amongst the usual reactionary drivel penned by white middle class commentators, complaining about political correctness and chips on shoulders.
Michal Rosen’s opinion piece hit the proverbial nail on the head:
http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/start-of-2012-seems-to-have-put-race-at.html?spref=tw
Common sense could be found here too:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/01/diane_abbott_ra?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
This intelligent debate mostly came from people who actually get listened to and more promisingly, it was actually read by people who perhaps haven’t already been converted.
For the first time in a long time, I’m starting to feel optimistic about the transition of intelligent racial debate from intellectual and anti-racism forums into a more popular arena.
And how do I know this change is slowly happening? Well, I posted a Facebook status update about David Starkey when he said black youth were leading white youth astray. And no one engaged in the debate with me. I plugged Duwayne Brook’s and Simon Hattenstone’s book Stephen and Me on Facebook when I read it last year, and no one took me up on the offer to read it.
On January 3 2012, my timelines were awash with everyone’s opinions on race relations in theUKtoday. My posts were liked and commented upon. My tweets were ‘RTed’. And it was a constant topic of conversation at work too.
This is not to dismiss the gigantic volume of misplaced opinion and derogatory name-calling that was unleashed on Twitter after Diane Abbott told ‘white people’ about themselves. It is to acknowledge that it is my hope, with regards to the conversation and recognition that Diane Abbott might have had a point, that we have started 2012 as we mean to go on. I would quite like Britain to see the racism that has been in front of its nose all along.
Michael Rosen Response to Diane Abbott-Gate
Lawrence, Suarez, Abbott – where are we?
The start of 2012 seems to have put ‘race’ at the top of its agenda. The slow and awful unfolding of the Stephen Lawrence case drew into its sphere the Suarez-Evra case from football and now the Diane Abbott tweet. One way I can make myself miserable is to read the comments on the Guardian’s Comment is Free forums. Good luck to people who can resist the temptation to go there or to comment.
Sway ft Lupe Fiasco Still Speedin’ Remix
Best UK rapper? Definitely most intelligent and mature and as commented on by a viewer ‘Does he have a 3rd lung?’
The CIA, Kwame Nkrumah and the Destruction of Ghana
Who was Kwame Nkrumah? ‘He was a visionary upon whom the hopes and dreams of a continent and a Black world rested. And he was a victim of the United States of America, capitalism, and the same program devoted to the destruction of the Black race that is still in existence today.’ Read more…
Black History Month: Common – They Say
It’s Black History Month (in the UK at least) so here is the first of a few postings to celebrate the best of blackness, past, present and future. It could be argued that with Common, we are celebrating all three at the same time. Still going strong, this is a classic from Be with a message too many of us still haven’t heeded yet:
They say "Dude think he righteous" I write just to free minds, from Stoney to Rikers Amongst the lifeless, in a world crazy as Mike is On my paper, whether its weed or Isis They say "life is a game," so I play hard Writin for my life cause I'm scared of a day job They say "Sef kept the hood together" I tell the young, "We can't play the hood forever"
Capital City of Congo in 1668
This is a picture of Loango capital city of Congo as seen by Dutch observer
Olfert Dapper in 1668:
From: http://illastate.blogspot.com/
Starkey doesn’t think imitation is the finest form of flattery
Let us be honest, David Starkey only said what some white people have been thinking for years. That the dress, accents and intelligence of young, innocent white people are vulnerable to the indoctrination of poor black urban youth. It is easy for these people to see a white teenager wearing baggy jeans and a LA Lakers cap on a bus and think ‘he’s trying to be black’.
It is easy because the people who conclude this reject several things:
- That the white teenager is wearing that attire of his own accord. Instead he has been ‘hypnotized’ and ‘seduced’ by black people because he thinks black people are so cool. (These racist commentators are in fact projecting their own strange ‘positive stereotyping’ on the poor kid). Yes, poor white kids were so well dressed before blacks came along!
- The idea that representations of violent, materialistic or highly sexualised white culture influence people the same way violent, materialistic or highly sexualised black culture does.
- The notion that black people have had a positive influence on wider society and contributed more to the world than music, sport and fashion. When the behaviour of white teenager meets approval it is intrinsic, but when it meets disapproval, it is alien.
- That black people can make decisions that are unreflective of their race e.g. the belief that black men wear baggy jeans because they are black, and not because it’s a social norm unrelated to culture. White people can wear whatever they please and escape these demeaning categorizations.
- That black culture is diverse, complex and as similarly influenced by white culture, because of our shared colonial history and stakes in society (a shared language, shared religions and so on).
I am not denying that there are certain fashion trends that have roots in black cultures. I imagine Starkey is referring to garments associated with the LA/NY hip hop scene, perhaps LL cool J’s Kangol hat and so on. These associations do not make their adoption inherently black in the slightest. Suits were invented by whites, am I trying to be white if I wear a suit or wear Christian Louboutin shoes?
I am black but I have no right to leave my house dressed like Dappy from N Dbuz. Because wearing those clothes would not make me black. They would make me young, counter cultural, working class or sympathetic to the working class, inner-city, liberal…any number of things. But the last thing it would make me is black.
Skateboarders, BMXers, snowboarders and skiers all wear mega-baggy clothes and cover themselves in tattoos and plaster themselves in huge high street logos – why aren’t white teenagers accused to trying to be like them? And whey aren’t these individuals criticised for their influence?
People of all backgrounds, have always appropriated habits they consider to be ‘black’. That is fine because these things they steal are essentially meaningless. We’ve appropriated ‘white things’ too. This is fine as well because we know there is more to whiteness than skinny jeans. It’s a shame these people won’t show us the same courtesy.
As for violent, destructive, nihilistic behaviour being labeled as ‘black’ – where does one start in critiquing this commentary?
Was violent, destructive, nihilistic black culture to blame when Anders Breivik planted a bomb and murdered over 80 young people?
When a white person commits an act of violence it’s considered exceptional; when a black person commits an act of violence it’s considered customary.
Individuals like Starkey hear white children talk using slang they don’t understand. Having never been in a working class, multicultural environment they call their enunciations ‘fake’, ‘made-up’ or ‘inauthentic’. Starkey as a historian should already know that the working classes have always spoken differently to the upper classes, and this speech is not static. It evolves as it is added to one word at a time, as people contribute to its tapestry. This speech absorbs what it likes (“nyam some chips”) and rejects what it tires of (“you chief”). It is not static for the finest of reasons, everyone is welcome in working class society. Posh people have spoken in the same way for centuries. Not every one is welcome in their world.
It is wrong to question white youths for indulging in cultures with people they share a space with. I would find it more extraordinary if they didn’t appropriate words and mannerisms from the many cultures that makes up their locale. And it’s even more wrong to see that appropriation in the negative things they do, and none of the positive. Not to mention the inherent racism that lies in the idea black people who reject these superficial connotations of blackness are rejecting blackness on the whole and ‘behaving properly, like a white person’.
The truth is, people who think like Starkey rob black people of the right to define themselves. In their heads, we are already dressed up in Sports Direct clothing and H Samuels chains, and they relish every opportunity to shake their heads and feel corroborated when presented with black persons who suit their moulds.
It must break their hearts when presented with white people who act in the way they only expect black people to behave! To see their own, imitating a people feckless to them and betraying their good, honest, hard working stock.
What rubbish. All the white kids throwing bricks at the police, nicking flat screen TVs and burning down businesses would have been doing it with or without the so called influence of black people. There was violence in music, films and video games far before they let black people into the world of music, films and video games. Young people were obsessed with labels way before black people were allowed to endorse them. And black people did not bring poverty to these areas, they had always been poor and neglected.
Starkey and his peers live in a segregated world. A collective culture with people bound by economic circumstance where race once used to divide, is confusing to him. Whether you call his views racist or dismiss them as merely a ‘senior moment’, you have to call them plain ignorant and wrong.
