Let’s dispel the myth of the post-racial society
Kwaku
TAOBQ co-ordinator
How times flies. It seems not so long ago when almost everyone was
cheering on as Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009 as the first
African-American US president. And now he’s just about back on the re-election
trail. I’ll leave the arguments of whether or not Obama’s presidency as an
African-American or “black” president has been markedly different from his
European predecessors for another day.
However, what I wish to deal with here is one of the early
legacies of his presidency, which is the “post-racial society” (PRS) term. I’m
not sure about the genesis of the term. But the chances are that for most of
us, its use became prevalent following Obama’s election in 2008.
But before we rewind, let’s me point to two incidents that
happened in August 2012, just before I wrote this piece.
Firstly, a Spanish magazine, Fuera de Serie, in its infinite
wisdom decided to run a feature article on Michelle Obama by running on its
cover the superimposed head of the first lady over an 1800 Marie-Guillemine
Benoist painting of an enslaved African with one breast exposed has some people
crying foul. The question one has to ask is: Would such bad taste be meted out
any of Obama’s European predecessors?
And in the land of the free, at the Mitt Romney-endorsing Republican party convention in
Tampa, an African camera woman for CNN covering the event was taunted and
racially abused by two peanut-throwing European men. Thankfully, the men were
ejected from the building. It seems that nothing has changed, even with an
African at the country’s helm sitting in the White House.
Back to the subject at hand - generally, what the pundits and
advocates of this rosy society wish to conjure, is a society where race is no
longer important or a significant determining factor. In order words, get on
with things and stop shouting racism when you hit a stumbling block, such as
not getting that job or university place, even though you are suitably
qualified.
I imagine that broadly speaking racism isn’t an issue that
exercises the minds of most Africans on the African continent, although this
may not be the case particularly in parts of southern and eastern Africa, where
there are significant pockets of Europeans. What is however quite common, is
what could be classed as insidious racism, often manifested in the sickening
deference some Africans show Europeans, simply because they retain that
unquestioning post-enslavement/colonialist mentality that a person is superior
simply by being European.
Also, all of Africa may be supposedly “independent”, but that does
not stop there being pockets of “whites only” fiefdoms. Even Ghana, which was
once at the forefront of the liberation of the continent and which is in the
throes of celebrating its 55th anniversary of “independence”, has a recent
“whites only” story. Last October, a Ghanaian lady in the company of
non-Africans dined at a fish restaurant in the capital city Accra. But when she
asked for membership, she was told by the management that “it's only for white
people.”
That might be an unusual story from Ghana, or indeed Africa, but
not in the diaspora – I’ll focus on the US and Britain, where these types of
stories are not so uncommon. Hence, the need to continually debunk new,
nice-sounding terms which belie the old reality, which is that racism still
exists.
It may be over half a century since the American civil rights
activism, which heralded laws that enshrined racial equality and affirmative
action programmes to provide a more level playing field, but the scourge of
racism hasn’t gone away.
The story some wish to tell is that there’s an African in the
White House, who has possibly the most powerful job in the world. World leaders
defer to him, whilst ironically, some media personalities at home speak
disrespectfully about him perhaps because he’s African, others mock his very
non-Anglo name, and “birthers”, including some military personnel, question his
authority by casting doubts regarding his status as a natural born US citizen.
Never mind that as far back as the late 1860s (not 1960s), the US
amended its constitution and enshrined laws – the 13th Constitution amendment
of 1865 abolished enslavement, whilst the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th
amendment of 1868 and several subsequent acts, focused on racial equality.
But in spite of all these laws, earlier this year, restaurant
workers filed a class action against their employer, citing, among others, the
1866 Civil Rights Act, and also launched an e-petition demanding a change in
the discriminatory employment practice of the chain of US restaurants where
African-American workers are kept in the lowest paid jobs and excluded from
serving in the high profile parts of the top restaurants, because their
ethnicity/race do not fit the exceptional image promised guests.
One of the chain’s top restaurants is in Washington DC, where
Obama resides, and ironically, the chief executive of the chain is
African-American.
This is a country where no matter how high some Africans may have
come within education, business and politics, racism still rears its head. In
2009, a prominent African-American history scholar was arrested by police
following an incident in which he had to break into his home. The stories of
wealthy African-Americans being approached with a “May I help you?” from high
class shop or restaurant staff, which can be a code for “you are not wanted
here” abound. So too are stories of African-Americans, rich and poor, being
followed around in shops by staff and sometimes even by European customers, who
think their only business for being in there is to steal.
Only last year, a British family caused a furore and were at the
receiving end of a law suit from an aggrieved waiter, when it was revealed that
they had instructed a US five-star hotel that they “did not want to be served
by a black person”.
It’s amazing how despite its major role in the trans-Atlantic
enslavement and subsequent colonisation of Africans on the continent and in the
Caribbean, Britain has this benevolent, “fair play”, “mother country” image among
many Africans.
Because of our lack of history, it’s so easy not to realise that
racism has been rife in Britain for a long time, and that the fight for civil
rights is not something that only took place in the US or South Africa. From
the early 20th century, when Africans came to Britain, they faced racism, which
was for most of them in sharp contrast to the image painted by the former
colonial power.
Consequently, several organisations were formed by Africans to
address the issue of racism in Britain, and colonialism in their home
countries. Examples are the African Association (later known as the Pan African
Association) founded in 1897 by Trinidadian law student Henry Sylvester
Williams, and WASU (West African Students Union), which was formed in 1925 by
Nigerian law student Ladipo Solanke, and had Kwame Nkrumah as one of its later
executives.
In the 1960s, when the world’s media was focused on the civil
rights activism in the US, Britain had its own. However, it’s so much under the
radar that the US civil rights is part of the British history curriculum,
whilst African British civil rights struggles are not.
Consequently, few people have heard of Asquith Xavier, who with
his trade union, successfully fought the “whites only” colour bar at London’s
Euston train station after he was refused to transfer there as a guard. On July
15 1966, he was offered the job and the station’s management announced the
abolition of the colour bar.
Open racism was rife then, asnd it was not unusual to see notices
pasted on boarding houses and other rental accommodation, stating no Irish, no
blacks, no dogs!
Britain’s first Race Relations Act of 1965 came about as a
consequence of African-led activism by organisations such as the West Indian
Standing Conference, and the Bristol Bus Boycott, which was led by community
worker Paul Stephenson, whose father came from West Africa. The boycott ended
on August 28 1963, when the bus company announced it had abolished the colour
bar, which had prevented non-Europeans from being employed as bus drivers and
conductors.
Stephenson’s move had been influenced by US activists such Rosa
Parks and Martin Luther King. Interestingly, in a recent article still on the
New York Times website, an Oxford University history lecturer, erroneously
stated: “Mr. Stephenson’s bus boycott was actually a strike by drivers seeking
better working conditions rather than a copy of Montgomery’s passenger
boycott.”
How could this respected historian get it so wrong, and conflate a
boycott against racist employment policy into that of drivers striking for
better conditions? Could this be a stretch of PRS revisionist history? We owe
it to ourselves to learn more of our history, and not leave it to Oxford dons.
Keeping with the Oxford University connection - last year, the
university was highlighted in the news from two different quarters. In April
2011, British prime minister David Cameron, told a public meeting: “I saw
figures the other day that showed that only one black person went to Oxford
last year. I think that is disgraceful. We have got to do better than
that."
The university countered by stating that its admissions figures
for 2009 included one "black” Caribbean out of 27 “black” students
admitted for under-graduate study that year. David Lammy, an African MP and
Labour party’s shadow higher education minister, revealed that more than 20
Oxford University colleges had not made any offers to African candidates for
undergraduate courses in 2009, and that one college had not admitted a single
African student in five years.
At the end of last year, an African chef accused Oxford
University’s New College of bullying him out of his job. The basis of his
racial discrimination case, to be heard later this year, is that after twenty
years working for the college, the head chef’s post became vacant. He became
acting head chef, but lost the permanent position to someone he alleges was not
even short-listed.
How dare these proponents advocate we’re in a post-racial society?
What planet do they live on?
When it comes to the world of high finance, Africans may be, but
they are both under-represented and hardly seen. Recently, I read about an
African broker in a British investment firm, who was told that his boss
“doesn’t want to send a black guy to one of the clients”. Apparently, seeing an
African representing his investment firm would “shock him”.
What perhaps is becoming less shocking is the recent proliferation
of mixed heritage couples seen in the media, particularly in British TV
commercials. It paints a rosy image of a multi-cultural, multi-racial Britain.
This image may have had another boost, if it was not for the resolve of some
African TV producers who tried to sell their sitcom about an African family
living in London to one of the big TV companies. They turned down an offer
which entailed not just getting a new and better known cast, but also changing
the family to one of mixed heritage.
If we live in a post-racial society, why is it that it’s expected
that we can all watch sitcoms where the whole cast is European, but not one
where the central family is African?
This summer, the world will be seeing a lot more of London because
the British capital city will be hosting the Olympics. The London Organising
Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games states that “during the bid
process, diversity was a key reason why London, one of the most multicultural
cities in the world, was chosen to host the 2012 Games.”
Nice words. However, although there have been procedures put in
place which are supposed to provide a fair compliance regime, critics see it
more as window-dressing. Because in spite of the official diversity and
inclusion mantra, many African-led businesses believe they’ve been
discriminated against.
Voice Of Africa Radio, the only legal African radio broadcaster,
which is based in Newham, one of the key east London Olympics boroughs, says
it’s been discriminated against by not being awarded media accreditation to
cover the games that will be taking place literally on its doorstep.
Interestingly, CompeteFor, the portal through which the Olympics
contracts are bid by small businesses, states that just over six percent of
so-called BAME (Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic) led businesses have been
successful. Engage Enterprise,
a London organisation that deals with BAME procurement issues, has launched a
petition at engage-enterprise.com/burning-injustice.html to feed concerns of
African and ethnic minority-led businesses to Government and the Olympic
authorities.
Even deputy
minister Nick Clegg isn’t buying into the PRS myth. Last November, he spoke
about the discrimination against ethnic minorities by British banks. He said: “If all black entrepreneurs
and businesses could borrow, compete and grow on equal terms, our whole economy
would grow faster.”
One dangerous result of believing the PRS hype is to drop the
baton of those who fought for the civil rights we enjoy in Britain. Yes, some
Africans have risen through the system – we’ve had Africans as
attorney-general, government ministers, and even chief executives of some of
the the biggest public companies. But for all the progress made, Africans
continue to die in the custody of the state.
Particularly since the end of last year, the anti-racist fight,
which has traditionally focused on accommodation, employment and education, is
now focusing on the issue of deaths in custody. Organisations seeking justice
for victims include the likes of Friends of Mikey Powell Campaign for Justice,
Campaign 4 Justice 4 Smiley Culture, Sean Rigg Justice & Change Campaign,
Justice For Brian Douglas, and United Families And Friends (UFFC), a
multi-racial collective that highlights such deaths on its website
(uffc-campaigncentral.net), marches and other activities.
PRS advocates would have us believe that the focus has moved on from
racism, thereby creating a disconnect with the anti-racist fight of the past.
However, besides the families and friends of the death in custody victims, some
of those on the forefront of this activism asking for answers and
accountability, have taken the baton from the likes of Solanke and Stephenson.
This includes the likes of former London Mayor race and policing advisor Lee
Jasper, now chair of London Race & Criminal Justice Consortium, and Matilda
MacAttram, director of Black Mental Health UK.
Last December, most of these players, along with a coalition
including church leaders, came together to campaign against deaths in custody.
Jasper, who opened that meeting informed the media that “it is absolutely
critical that we have a full, open, public and transparent judicial enquiry
into deaths in custody.”
An Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody report
published late 2011 revealed that between 2000 to 2010, almost 6000 people have
died while in the custody of police and prison officers, or detained under
mental health or immigration laws. Whilst this statistic is not made up
exclusively of Africans, racism is a dominant factor in the case of many
Africans within those figures.
“Government figures show that black men and people who use mental
health services are the most likely to lose their lives while in custody,” says
MacAttram, one of the supporters of the UFFC’s e-petition for 100,000
signatures in order to force a Government debate on the call for an independent
judiciary inquiry into suspicious deaths in state custody.
I’m not one that makes a living from the so-called “race
industry”, harps on insistently about racism, or sees racism in every bad turn.
So I’d wrap up by mentioning an incident involving Britain’s only African
super-model Naomi Campbell. Last year, she is said to have threatened to sue a
confectionery company for running a print and poster ad campaign for a
chocolate bar with this strapline: “Move over Naomi, there’s a new diva in
town.”
The super-model felt it was insulting and racist, saying: “I’m
shocked. It’s upsetting to be described as chocolate, not just for me, but for
all black women. It is insulting and hurtful.” She received an apology. But was
it racist?
In the past, Campbell has spoken out against racism within the
fashion industry, such as less opportunities and discriminatory pay rates for
African models. In 2009, she said in an interview that "the American
president may be black, but as a black woman, I am still an exception in this
business. I always have to work harder to be treated equally."
Whilst I agree with her sentiments regarding the fashion industry,
I’m of the opinion the chocolate ad was playing to Campbell’s much reported
diva image. NA readers are welcome to express their views on my simplistic view
in not recognising what they, like Campbell, might see as a racist slight.
Let’s
wake up to the PRS myth. However, I also urge that we step up our game – not
just in sports and entertainment, but in all spheres. That way, the racists
will have less upon which to hang or propagate their pitiful views.
