Difficult conversations in the black community

When you compare black people to other ethnicities, we’re arguably one of the more open communities. Black culture is always apparent in the places that the diaspora finds itself within and we generally integrate better than other ethnic minority groups. By that token, both our successes and challenges are more visible and the latter is therefore viewable for those even outside of the community. Where other communities are very adept at keeping their problems in-house, our experience has meant the contrary.

Being from London, one of the world’s most ethnically diverse cities, I feel qualified to say with confidence that I know we aren’t the only community with challenges. I’ve seen institutionalised misogyny, racism, drug use, domestic abuse and much more as stereotypical, albeit not consistent, features of other communities that never seem to get the spotlight on them due to their insularity.

But for the black community, we aren’t afforded the luxury of keeping our problems to ourselves. Consequently, the issues some sections of our community are faced with are exploited by the media and society and used to besmirch the majority of us, even within our own eyes. The latter is significant. We can’t perceive ourselves in such a negative way, let alone allow others to do the same, without realising it’s something we need to talk about. So why is this a conversation we aren’t having?

Three Men by Rennett Stowe is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The sad reality is that even as a black man, who’s been around black people my entire life, I will be more likely to be suspicious of a large group of black youths congregating than I would with a group of white youths. That’s only for me to have to check myself for what is essentially racial profiling of my own people. Rapper and activist Akala said the same of his initial thought of suspicion when seeing a fellow black male paying in a large amount of cash at the bank, again, only to have to check himself for succumbing to racial assumptions.

Despite both being black men, society’s successful racist conditioning has caused us and others to identify with a negative perception of those in our own image. What a win for racism and a failure on our part to recognise and stem it from happening.

It could be argued that the openness of the black community places us in a better position to address this and to have the conversations that other communities instead ignore. Though we aren’t taking advantage of that and we’re suffering in our denial that this is necessary dialogue for the community.

In a controversial but incredibly hilarious sketch from his Bring the Pain HBO special, Chris Rock spoke of the distinction between most black people and the minority that feed the stereotypes we face -
“Now we’ve got a lot of things, a lot of racism in the world right now, Who’s more racist? Black people or white people? Black people! You know why? Because we hate black people too! Everything white people don’t like about black people, black people REALLY don’t like about black people. There’s some shit going on with black people right now. There’s like a civil war going on with black people, and there’s two sides. There’s black people and there’s n******. The n****** have got to go”.

Putting aside subjective views on use of the n-word, amidst my uncontrollable laughter I immediately identified with such a brilliant articulation of the frustrations I had as a black person with a few within my own community. There was us, the majority of black people who made being black a privilege and something to be celebrated. And then there was them; the minority whose foolishness and ignorance the rest of us have to suffer the stereotype for.

The sketch divided black people. Rather than being owned as an experience of most black people in distancing ourselves from negative stereotypes, some viewed it as airing our dirty laundry in public. Did those people not think it was bit late to be concerned with that given those stereotypes were already in the mainstream?

The fact is, every ethnicity has those bad-minded few that don’t reflect the masses but do push negative stereotypes. Yet rather than acknowledge the very home truths that we need to face and address in order to progress, we’re failing to reflect and act.

In countries where the black diaspora can be found, we make up a shockingly disproportionate amount of the prison population and are subject to disproportionate racial profiling by police. The US is another kettle of fish with not only institutionally racist police forces but that being accompanied by well documented police brutality that’s encouraged by the douchebag-in-chief. In the UK, the racial profiling similarly exists against a history of tension between the police and the black community.

Racial profiling by police in the UK can’t be denied. Like most black males, I’ve been stopped by the police (something many non-blacks have never experienced). Furthermore, if they’re looking for a suspect, surely we don’t all look the same. Yet what we also can’t deny is that violent crime occurring within the black community seemingly isn’t going away. And if the police wanted an excuse for their racial profiling, that’s given it right to them.

Again, it’s a minority of black people responsible. Nevertheless, it’s enough to warrant acknowledgement and urgent addressing when black youths killing other black youths happens to the extent that it is. White youths kill each other too in the same sad circumstances that are also against a backdrop of deprivation and a lack of education. But when you make up around 3% of the population, as black people in the UK do, it becomes a much alarming reality.

I’ve previously written about the legacy of slavery on the black diaspora and the aforementioned can clearly be traced back to this. Centuries of being dehumanised and perceiving ourselves as inferior has permeated the black psyche to an extent that even today, we’ve been programmed to see the price of our own black lives as cheap (while the establishment continues to push that narrative for us and everyone else). This isn’t said to justify crime within the black community but rather to explore its deep rooted causes that have worsened with deprivation. Nonetheless, this is a problem that exists now and needs to be addressed.

Sky Sports boxing pundit and boxing historian, Spencer Fearon, tweeted his support for stop and search as a tool to address the rising gun and knife crime within the black community. That’s despite black people being eight times more likely to be targeted than white people. However, his comments came following him attending two funerals of black youths in the past month, both due to gun crime.

The disproportionate targeting of black people being stopped and searched is a clear indicator of racial profiling by the police. Although in the context of violent crime in sections of the black community, Spencer Fearon acknowledges a pressing issue that can’t be ignored. Whether or not you agree with him, it’s a necessary conversation that we aren’t having and to the detriment of our community. Meanwhile, black youths are succumbing to our inactivity on the matter while bad apples are allowed to have such an adverse effect on the community.

The experience of the black diaspora around the world is similar. We aren’t having the difficult conversations necessary to progress as a community. We have successes to celebrate which we need to build upon but we also have to address the challenges that we face. Unlike other communities, our difficulties are already in the public domain which exacerbates how negative we look to others when we fail to address them.

Acknowledgment, dialogue, cooperation and action need to be forthcoming within the diaspora. Otherwise, we’ll remain stagnant as a people and continue to succumb to the actions of the minority. Every community has them, ours are just out in the open making it that bit worse for the rest of us.

The election of Donald Trump is more abhorrent than Brexit but they share the same ugly principles

In the early hours of the morning after the US presidential election, I woke up and reached for my phone. As I squinted from the glare of the backlight, with some anxiety I instinctively checked the results that were already in and immediately felt a sickening sensation in the pit of my stomach.

It was eerily a feeling of deja vu; exactly the same routine and feeling I had experienced upon seeing the results of the EU referendum.

Donald Trump was not only ahead but it looked like he was going to win. As I hopped between tabs of reliable news outlets and social media, refreshing each page in hope, I accepted that Trump was going to win the election. It was what I thought would happen but badly wanted to be wrong about. Trump was now on 244 electoral college votes while Hillary Clinton was on 215. Trump was en route to victory and it didn’t look like anything would change that.

As Clinton conceded defeat, the atmosphere was akin to when it’d become clear that the UK had voted to leave the EU in a foolish decision that was driven by xenophobia and ignorance. The mood in London (a city that had overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU) was just as subdued as it was following the referendum.

Where Brexit and the election of Trump differed was Brexit arguably wasn’t as bad a result. Not to mention, despite my disdain for many Brexiters, the Trump campaign (and his election) undoubtedly showed the American electorate and society in a much worse light.

Trump can be called many things. Racist, sexist, Islamophobic, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, narcissistic and bigoted all accurately describe the President Elect. Oh, and don’t forget his aspirations as a sexual predator and sexual abuser. On the latter, I don’t know how else you can describe a man who brags about his desire when meeting a beautiful woman to “grab ‘em by the pussy”.

One conspicuous omission from the above is ‘liar’. I’m sure Trump has told his fair share of lies and I’m sure many of his obnoxious policies will quickly prove to be too outlandish and impractical to implement, which might lead some to call him deceitful. But when it came to his campaign, Trump told Americans exactly what his plans were with his trademark candidness.

I also think Trump had the chutzpah to actually intend to implement his policies before realising or being advised that they’d be impossible. And enough of the electorate nevertheless voted for him to become President. If he finds a way to build a wall to keep Mexicans out, and manages to get Mexico to pay for it, it can’t be claimed that he didn’t tell you so.

Essentially, Trump supporters went further with the extent of the hate that they were knowingly willing to support via their voting of a candidate who actually intended to follow through on all the hateful utterances he spewed throughout his campaign. That says a lot about American society when a candidate running on that platform can win a presidential election.

America has long been disdainfully perceived globally as a nation of supreme ignorance and electing Donald Trump has only reinforced that view. It’s a perception many Americans aren’t aware of but I think many of those who didn’t vote for Trump are now realising this for themselves.

In the UK we’re still in political limbo over our exit of the EU and I’m still not convinced a hard Brexit at least will happen (especially with the recent court ruling that the government does need to consult Parliament before triggering Article 50). But for Americans, there’s little uncertainty around Trump assuming the presidency of the United States.

Returning to the UK, there is much that unites Brexit and the election of Trump in the ugly principles they’re both underpinned by. Political apathy and distrust of politicians is at an all-time high and understandably so. Governments and politicians are seen as the friends of big business, the ‘1%’ and each other while the public accept the narrative without scope for redress. With both the EU referendum and the US presidential election, sections of the respective electorate sought to give the establishment a kicking.

When Brexiters voted to leave the EU, they wanted to send a message. They wanted to tell the establishment and the career politicians that they wanted to see them with a bloody nose. Most Brexiters didn’t know what the EU did and I suspect many still don’t. Conversely, voting to remain in the EU was what the government wanted them to vote for and if the EU was worth their vote, what had it done for them? This was the emotionally driven and flawed logic of many people that voted to leave. They’d had enough and this was their chance to stick it to the politicians in Westminster and Brussels.

Voters in communities that’d had the heart ripped out of their local economies by recessions and a lack of investment saw the government and the EU as the cause of their woes and they understandably directed their anger at politicians. This was no different from US cities with declining industries where the working class had decided enough was enough. No more empty promises from politicians followed by a term of neglect. They were ready to reject the status quo of politicians and unfortunately for Clinton, she represented that.

Trump on the other hand, with his brash demeanour, populist rhetoric and cheap shots that provided a mouthpiece for all the insults the working class wanted to hurl at the politicians they felt had let them down, was the antithesis of the political class. He might have come from money, and was very much part of the establishment, but his sentiments didn’t carry the Washington narrative.

He was everything traditional politicians weren’t. And while that included being hugely unqualified for the job, voting for him meant a change from the status quo and an opportunity to give the political class a drubbing. Just as the Brexiters had had enough and were showing it via the ballot, Trump supporters were doing exactly the same.

Their vitriol was at a level where even if the consequence was an unqualified buffoon leading their country, thus compounding the disdain and derision of America, it was a chance they were willing to take. While I shared some of the reservations many Americans had over Clinton (and would have preferred Bernie Sanders as the Democratic Party candidate) it’s nonetheless a big statement when you can’t beat Donald Trump. This was the extent of the failure that the political class had effected.

"You don't like immigrants? Me too! Let's be friends!"

The same could be said for the Brexiters who were willing to damage the British economy and similarly make the UK a laughing stock on the world stage (although they were were too insular and high on misplaced jingoism to realise that). Anything associated with xenophobic morons like Nigel Farage et al should be an overwhelming loser yet it wasn’t the case. What an L we took in the EU referendum indeed.

While there needs to be some empathy for the aforementioned groups (more so to understand how politicians and society facilitated this mess), the undertones of prejudice and hatred that led to the respective results are harder to understand.

I’ve always maintained that not everyone who voted for Brexit is a racist but every racist voted for Brexit. And the same can be said for Trump supporters. The Leave campaign in the UK was driven by an undeniable xenophobia. The logic was that immigrants were clearly taking our jobs (jobs that many Britons don’t want to do) and they had to go. Although beyond xenophobia, this was about racism.

British born ethnic minorities like me were just as unwelcome even though the UK was our home where we were educated, work and contribute to society. For many Leave supporters, Brexit was their way of telling us to ‘go home’ (even those of us who were born here). They even managed to get some ethnic minorities like Tory MP Preeti Patel to get in on the act. If we do get shipped off to who-knows-where, she’ll presumably be on the last boat to leave but she won’t be so smug then.

It was no different in America. With every group that Trump offended, I was incredulous that he managed to maintain, if not grow, his support. Yet every time he managed to insult a minority group, it was perceived as a willingness to champion the white, working class male. Many had come to feel disenfranchised and resented what their country had become with ‘unnecessary legislation giving minorities equal rights’. Consequently, many repaid Trump in votes.

Add that to the group of voters who held a deep rooted disdain and distrust for politicians, and those who held some prejudice for at least one minority group, and that’s a lot of votes.

Those groups certainly aren’t mutually exclusive and if you represented them in a venn diagram, there’d be a sizeable number in the intersection; something that knowingly or otherwise helped Trump to the White House.

Trump promised to ‘make America great again’ but what he really meant, as supported by much of his rhetoric throughout his campaign, was he wanted to make America white again. And that resonated with many racist voters. The EU referendum and the presidential election showed that race relations in particular hadn’t really improved. Rather the racists didn’t have anyone speaking out for them.

With the likes of Farage, Trump et al championing the sentiments of the downtrodden racist, and doing so in the mainstream, they made it OK to be open about one’s racism. No longer did their views need to be caveated with “some of my best friends are black/Muslim/[insert minority group here]” and like the Death Eaters in Harry Potter following Voldemort’s resurgence, they weren’t going to hide their true identities or their views.

Following the EU referendum, there were reports of racist and religiously motivated attacks by people who felt emboldened by the result. And the same has happened following the election of Trump with hate crimes effectively being committed in the name of the President Elect.

In the days after the presidential election, social media has been rife with posts documenting such attacks. Journalist Shaun King has received countless reports of these and his Facebook page paints a picture of the extent of just how emboldened Trump supporters feel following his election. To return to the Harry Potter analogy, the Trump supporters have their Voldemort and they’re extremely roused as he prepares to enter the Ministry of Magic.

Historians have long referenced the ‘special relationship’ in articulating the connection shared between America and the UK. Culturally and politically, that’s long been the case. Furthermore, the EU referendum and the presidential election have shown they share more than that in an ugly yet and strong undercurrent of prejudice.

On the possibility of the triggering of Article 50 being blocked or a soft Brexit, and in what seems like a veiled threat combined with a blatant attempt at stoking existing divisions in the UK, Nigel Farage said it could result in “political anger the like of which we have never seen in this country”. With the tensions exposed in the UK, he could be right and America could be facing the same scenario. Heated anti-Trump protests have already taken place and I expect there will be more.

Both countries have shown not only how divided they are but how fragile their facades of tolerance are when given the opportunity to deviate from this without reproach. However, more worryingly is how little they’ve seemingly progressed from a history that can be characterised by generations of abject prejudice. On reflection, perhaps we didn’t move as far away from it as we once thought.

I thought Brexit wouldn’t happen and was heading for the long grass (but now I’m not so sure)

After the referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU, I felt anger and disappointment at the ignorance, insularity and xenophobia that led to the result. For the first time in my adult life, I also felt ashamed to be British; to share an identity with those who were prompted to vote leave based on the aforementioned. My beef isn’t with those whose rationale (albeit not shared by me) to vote leave was based on what they they thought was best for the country rather than the above.

While my anger didn’t subside (and actually grew with reports of racist attacks by people who felt emboldened by the result) in the following days, I increasingly thought that Brexit wouldn’t happen. I even referenced it in my analysis of the referendum and what it said about British society. As the lies of the leave campaign quickly emerged (such as the £350 million a week that they claimed post Brexit would be diverted to the NHS), the number of so-called ‘Bregretters’ (leave voters who subsequently regretted their decision to vote leave) grew. And with such a narrow result, an identical referendum a week later would have resulted in a reversed decision.

The unprecedented complexities of leaving the EU began to become obvious along with the negative impact on British society and the British economy. Since the referendum, Britain has edged closer to an Enoch Powell wet dream and it’s palpable. Sterling has also slumped following the referendum and only recently a ‘flash crash’ saw it fall 6% to $1.1841. On the day of the referendum, it was $1.50. The Bank of England will be investigating the cause but I suspect they’re wasting their time or in denial. If it wasn’t already clear, Brexit isn’t deemed good for business and it isn’t deemed good for the economy either. Overall, Brexit isn’t good for Britain.

I had thought the acceptance and realisation of this amongst politicians and within public opinion would strengthen the argument for why Brexit would be abandoned. After all, the referendum wasn’t legally binding. Alternatively, I thought a Brexit in name only might be pursued. Such a route would placate the Brexiters with a departure from the EU but pragmatism would nonetheless retain access to the single market with the ‘compromise’ (as idiots would see it) of freedom of movement and labour coming with it. Basically a soft Brexit that for all intents and purposes represented the status quo albeit with a few tweaks that the government could claim were a victory for those racists who voted “to get their country back from immigrants”.

I couldn’t see how leaving the single market and unraveling decades of legislation would be something that the government would run with. It’d be a mammoth task; the extent of which would very quickly become apparent. Furthermore, given such a significant decision, I couldn’t envisage parliament not getting a vote on the decision to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and certainly what any post-Brexit Britain would look like. At that point, I expected parliamentarians to reject a Brexit with the knowledge of just how bad it would be for Britain and public opinion to support their decision.

I wasn’t even sure if Brexit would get that get that far. Even leave campaigners such as Boris Johnson called for an unhurried exit as they realised what a palaver they had foisted upon the country. I thought there was a good chance that Brexit would be kicked into the long grass with the Brexiters blindly high on their somewhat Pyrrhic victory for long enough to not realise that we were still actually in the EU but merely with more overt and comforting xenophobia to distract them from reality.

I still think any of the above scenarios that don’t see a ‘hard’ Brexit could happen. Alas, I increasingly feel less confident about it and primarily for one reason - Theresa May and her now loyal following of prejudiced and equally ignorant right wing Tories.

"... and then I told François he could take access to the single market and stick it where the sun doesn't shine!"

I’ve never been a fan of Theresa May. As Home Secretary, I thought many of her policies and rhetoric had undertones of racism. She oversaw the vans carrying billboards telling immigrants to ‘go home’. Stop and Search operations aimed at illegal immigrants were also not only reminiscent of the 80s where non-whites were subject to aggressive racial profiling that led to racial tensions, a generation of distrust for the police (that hasn’t really disappeared) and race riots. So for May to become Prime Minister at a time when racial tensions in the UK had been exacerbated by the leave campaign, and latterly the referendum result, didn’t bode well.

"here's a racist policy I made earlier..."

May’s first soundbite as Prime Minister was “Brexit means Brexit”. It was an expected attempt at portraying herself as a leader who had listened to the people and would follow their wishes without any ambiguity. Yet even so, most leaders following a referendum of this nature would have voiced similar sentiments.

As May settled into her role, there were signs that perhaps she really did mean Brexit means Brexit. But there were also indicators that Brexit wasn’t happening anytime soon When David Davis, Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, told Parliament his details for what Brexit would look like he outlined…. well, nothing. He even gave us the clarity that Brexit “means leaving the European Union”. Thanks for that Dave.

Meanwhile, increased reporting of post referendum xenophobic crimes continued and there was a tangible sense that anti-immigrant and racist sentiments no longer had to be kept behind closed doors. Following Team GB’s success at the Rio Olympics, Heather Wheeler MP felt it was OK to celebrate the efforts of the now defunct British Empire as Britain’s own success. When you consider the Empire was essentially the legacy of slavery and brutal colonisation by Britain, Wheeler’s tweet can only be considered as racist, stupid or both.

The referendum result had made it fine to say you didn’t like immigrants, regardless of if they were from within the EU or beyond, and you got the sense that such views were the oil of the Brexit train that until recently, hadn’t really built up speed.

That was until the Tory Party Conference, an event that was akin to the Nazi’s annual Nuremberg rally post 1933 when the Nazis had become the only legal party in Germany and therefore felt untouchable and high on power. The similarities with the Nazis are also extended to the racist undertones of every major speech. Poet, author and commentator Michael Rosen even wrote an apt poem, ‘I was listening to a pogrom on the radio today’ that brilliantly captured the essence of the Tory Party Conference. The Tories were embracing their tag as the ‘nasty party’ and anti-immigration champions and they were doing it with pride and absolute hubris; the latter being what I fear the most is leading us to a hard Brexit.

"Yes, that really is my name..."

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt told of a reduction in foreign doctors and May reiterated this in telling the conference that foreign doctors would be allowed to stay “until further numbers (of home-grown doctors) are trained”. The arrogance beggars belief that it’s suggested foreign doctors are doing us a favour by working here. Home Secretary Amber Rudd gave a deeply inflammatory speech in which she announced a policy where UK businesses would need to publish the number of foreign staff they employ and added that foreign workers should not be able to “take the jobs that British people should do”. Rudd’s speech was likened to Mein Kampf which is probably the line that the Tories are going for. What a time to be alive in Tory Britain.

May herself, not wanting to be outshone by her Tory peers, was the showstopper in essentially indicating a hard Brexit with her dismissing any compromise on freedom of movement in exchange for access to the single market. Even with the Tories’ beloved backers of the financial services sector standing to lose money and jobs with such a move, May is seemingly willing to cut off her nose to spite her face. Despite my disdain for the attitudes and some characters within the square mile, they may be one of the few groups that can effectively lobby to save us from a hard Brexit.

Other unlikely saviors may come from Tory MPs who are urging May not to relinquish Britain’s access to the single market. The more a hard Brexit becomes May’s target, the more pressure she can expect from all MPs and the public in providing a parliamentary vote on Brexit but also transparency in the process which both May and Davis have told MPs they should not expect to be forthcoming. Indeed, even to invoke Article 50 without a parliamentary vote would not be in the spirit of British democracy.

EU leaders aren’t going to let Britain play the big man of Europe on this occasion and if anything, they’ll look to punish us. François Holland has said that “there must be a price” to deter other EU members seeking to leave the EU while retaining the benefits and it’s likely the EU will make Britain pay that price dearly. I don’t blame them but Theresa May and her rabble rousers are seemingly too arrogant to avoid that happening.

I still think there is a good chance that Brexit won’t happen or at least not a hard Brexit that causes a fundamental shift. Although at present no one is facilitating that. This could be the fight that the Labour Party needs to galvanise itself and just as May referred to the referendum as a “quiet revolution”, the stance of the right could be what the rest of British society needs to actually revolt against what is happening. MPs too need to hold May to account as if Brexit happens with no say from Parliament, it really will be a mockery of British democracy and an even bigger consequence for the future of Britain.

Channel 5’s Gangland wasn’t about uncovering gang culture, it merely perpetuated ignorant and negative stereotypes of black youths and the black diaspora

As part of a two-part documentary, Channel 5 recently aired the first episode of Gangland (at the time of writing, the second episode is yet to be aired). Gangland was advertised by Channel 5 in fairly broad terms as essentially an exposé into London’s gang culture. In fact, here’s exactly what Channel 5 said on its website:

Gangland is an original two-part documentary that gains unprecedented access to London’s most notorious young gangs, as they document what life is really like as part of a contemporary gang.

Like many people who decided to tune into Gangland, I expected balanced journalism that would explore the factors that led some youths to gang culture, the failures of society and the individuals in gangs that prefigured their involvement of said life and cautionary tales of those that have since renounced being in a gang through their own expectedly dire experiences or indeed lucky escapes.

Given it was set in London, I also expected the programme to cover gangs of all ethnicities in reflecting London’s ethnic diversity. All of this I thought would be presented against a backdrop of life in a gang that would reflect Channel 5’s social responsibility as a mainstream broadcaster, but also with an approach that showed the seriousness of gang culture in the city.

Alas, perhaps I asked for too much as all Channel 5 delivered with this show was an epic failure that perpetuated ignorant and negative stereotypes of black youths. That’s right, only black youths. Aside from the white girlfriend of one of the protagonists (who felt he was going to beat a case due to no evidence - yet Channel 5 have hours of footage of him incriminating himself), every person interviewed was black.

Gangland’s producer, Paul Blake, spoke of his motivation in making the documentary in the Guardian. The Guardian wrote ‘Blake spent over a decade trying to get a documentary made which would give voice to the thoughts and motivations of gang members’. Blake added “this documentary was born from the fact that I am a black man, born in this country, and I was just pissed off that no one cared about these young black kids who are dying”.

Perhaps that was his motivation and maybe even what he presented to Channel 5 before they requested he amend it to what we saw on our screens. Unfortunately, it isn’t what was achieved with Gangland.

For anyone aware of gang culture, the majority of what was aired on Gangland would not have tallied up with that perception. As a friend said to me, it was like watching a parody for the most part. If you’re in a ‘notorious’ gang and willing to come on a terrestrial channel, barely, if at all, disguising your appearance, and never disguising your voice while talking unimaginably recklessly in incriminating yourself and your peers, you really aren’t about that life. And if you really are in that lifestyle yet still talking like that, then as DJ Khaled would say, “you played yourself” and everyone else around you.

The black youths (because just to remind you, Channel 5 either couldn’t find any non-black gangs or gang members because they seemingly don’t exist in London) who were willing to brandish guns while talking about what they were willing to do, started off as uber cringeworthy. It was akin to many of the American rappers we’ve seen in the UK doing their very best to convince us they’re “from the hood” or a bad caricature of World Star Hip Hop. Attack the Block (and I don’t say that with any kudos for that film either) had more credibility than their utterances and I couldn’t take them seriously. But I quickly went from cringing to being flabbergasted at what I was watching.

One alleged gang member, safe in the knowledge that Channel 5 would never betray his location or any other personal information by which he could be located and identified, spoke about how he’d save a bullet for the police. All the while, they brazenly exposed operations as they spoke more and more with zero caution for themselves and anyone connected to them. Section Boyz might have said ‘trapping ain’t dead’ but those that appeared on Gangland appeared to be trying to bring it to death’s door via Channel 5 along with lengthy prison sentences supported by copious amounts of evidence. The lifestyle they purported clearly isn’t one to be glamourised but their incautiousness beggars belief.

The documentary portrayed the black community as idiots and individuals for whom the price of life is cheap. The reason I don’t caveat that as ‘black gang members’ rather than the black community is because if you aren’t acquainted with black people and perhaps live in a largely ethnically homogenous part of the UK, you might think all black people were like the image shown on the documentary as every person on the show was black.

It’s not as if the mainstream media don’t already drive a racist narrative to the extent that the black diaspora is still faced with prejudice based on such portrayals that we spend our lives refuting. Just look at the media’s annual reporting on the Notting Hill Carnival in contrast to the class A drug-fests that are many festivals yet the latter rarely gets bad press. I commented to a friend that I hoped my in-laws weren’t watching Gangland as they might think whenever I said I was cooking hard food for dinner I might have actually meant drugs rather than breadfruit and green banana.

Gangland left me angry and confused at those who agreed to be on the show but also at Channel 5. I don’t expect Channel 5 to do any favours for the black diaspora but I do expect a broadcaster to show some social responsibility and they have failed in achieving that with Gangland. The documentary wouldn’t actually be amiss on Fox News in a UK special presented by the vile Katie Hopkins.

Of the participants of the show, they were young and presumably eager for a platform to portray themselves in a way that they felt was credible. That in itself is incredibly sad that they’ve mistaken a life of violence and reckless talk as something to pursue and perhaps had no mentors, elders or voices of reason and experience in their lives to show them otherwise and more so so advise that featuring on this documentary was a terrible idea. Any ‘serious’ members in a gang, past or present, would have promptly advised them of that. Nonetheless, I should add that I’m not excusing those that appeared on the show.

The only credible individual of the documentary was Quincy, a former gang member who sought to be a cautionary tale for the life he once lived. Yet even the final edit of the programme seemingly tried to suppress that message. Furthermore, the ignorance that filled the remainder of the broadcast was what Channel 5 deemed more appropriate to air.

Gangland was an opportunity to raise awareness of real problems in London on a platform of balanced, investigative and analytical journalism that explored causes, motivations and solutions. Instead it became a showcase for 60 minutes that lacked credibility and furthered the media’s often racist narrative of negative stereotypes of black people.

The EU referendum result was deeper than how the UK perceives the EU

During the EU referendum campaign, and in the aftermath of the result, it’s clear that the referendum was deeper than just views on our relationship with the EU. It was about the attitudes of the UK electorate and just how divided we are as a country. The leave vote wasn’t driven by a well articulated campaign that promoted awareness of the EU as a supranational body and how it might not benefit us. Nor was it driven by a plan for how life outside of the EU would look, particularly when juxtaposed with the status quo. Instead, it was driven by ignorance, insularity, xenophobia and undertones of prejudice. That is the crux of how we ended with the electorate voting to leave the EU.

The EU isn’t a perfect institution and it’s a fairly convoluted and bureaucratic one at that. Moreover, many people can’t claim to fully understand it and I would include myself in that statement. Though headline arguments in favour of EU membership such as economic benefits, cultural and historic ties to Europe (the EU was formed in an effort to foster stronger ties post world war 2 in a bid to prevent Europe going to war again), freedom of movement, free movement of labour and EU laws that protect human rights, employment rights and quality of life (which I would struggle to trust a Tory government to preserve) were solid arguments in favour of remaining in the EU. In opposition, the leave campaign’s objective arguments to refute the above were predicated on.... well, nothing. Casual racism doesn’t count.

What exactly did you win? A gloomy economic outlook for the UK and the promotion of xenophobia? Huzzah!

It is important to remember that not everyone who voted to leave is racist. But anyone who’s racist certainly voted to leave. Furthermore, many people who voted leave had reasons that despite not shared by me, had rationale that was void of any prejudice and what they felt, rightly or wrongly, was best for the country. Nevertheless, such views were in a minority, even within the leave campaign and the utterances of politicians who supported a Brexit.

I'm not holding a grudge against anyone who voted differently from me and decided to vote to leave the EU because they felt it was genuinely the best option for the country and based on a well reasoned argument. I am, however, holding a grudge against anyone who voted leave based on xenophobia, selfishness and any opinion they based on something they read in The Sun.

Immigration has been a major driver toward Euroscepticism as an enlarged EU inevitably means further non-British EU citizens in the UK. The UK has traditionally been seen as an attractive location to live and work and many EU citizens come here to do just that. In doing so, they contribute to the economy and work in sectors where there’s a clear demand. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a job for them. They assimilate British culture and contribute economically, culturally and socially to the UK.

Conversely, while we can’t pretend that there aren’t some EU citizens who are attracted to the UK due to it having a more generous and accessible welfare system than their own, they are not in the majority. Yet the right wing media and politicians have fed us with this via racist and politically motivated drivel that many people lap up as the manna for their prejudice. These are British people. Though prior to the referendum, and in contemporary history, they had not made their sentiments so clear and on such a prominent platform that would show how divided the UK is.

Oh wait, is Boris Johnson not part of the establishment you wanted to give a kicking?

Many voting leave saw the EU referendum as a vote on immigration. Think immigrants (regardless of if they’re from within the EU) are taking our jobs, welfare and social housing whilst showing our country no respect? Then vote leave! This is what many perceived the referendum to be asking them and what the leave campaign peddled. In an age of the internet, where one can research essentially anything, I doubt many people sought to find out what the pros and cons of EU membership actually were. Rather they relied on propaganda that even a day after the result has been shown to be a lie. Furthermore, they wanted to give the establishment a kicking (forgetting that Boris Johnson et al are part of the establishment), say no to immigrants and ‘regain control of our country’. All utterly stupid and unfounded reasons, particularly when made with such consequences.

On the issue of immigration, it will remain a contentious subject whether in or out of the EU. Nonetheless, the fact is economic migrants make a huge and necessary contribution to our economy and workforce. Nor will our borders now close as the UK gradually becomes a homogenous white nation again. That’s something ethnic minorities campaigning to leave the EU like Tory MP Preeti Patel (whose parents are Gujarati Ugandans) were blind to as the desire of many leave voters. When they say they want immigrants out Preeti, even though we were born here they mean you and I too.

"What have I done?..."

Politicians have failed to generate a sensible and pragmatic debate on immigration, preferring to use it as a political hot potato. No wonder a section of the electorate felt this was their way to add their voice and frustrations to a dialogue that hasn’t really started. The problem is, they chose to do it at the least practical time. Immigration was the leave campaign’s trump card and they knew it. Dress it with some propaganda and spurious arguments, while targeting ignorant and largely uneducated people, and they probably won’t even question why they should do anything but vote leave. And 51.9% of them didn’t. Not to mention, not once did the leave campaign include a plan before or after the referendum to set out life after a potential Brexit. Indeed, Boris Johnson’s rhetoric encouraging an unhurried exit, and his demeanor during the post result press conference, was that of a man not only without a plan but also with the realisation of ‘what the ---- have I done?’ As Del Boy would say, what a plonker.

"What a plonker!"

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed to be British; a significant statement as a British born, second generation West Indian, who nonetheless encapsulates Britishness as part of my identity. I am ashamed to share an identity with cretins who hold the views that prompted them to vote leave. Idiots who see right wing tabloids like The Sun and the likes of Nigel Farage, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, who have all resorted to undertones of racism throughout this campaign, as credible sources of information upon which to base their decisions. I’m ashamed to live in and be born in a country where such feelings exist to such an extent.

Like many non-Americans around the world, I’ve long perceived America as a nation comprising some superb ignorance and insularity. Their abysmal and disheartening lack of gun control against a backdrop of a countless horrific gun related tragedies and Donald Trump becoming a presidential candidate supports that view of American society and the American people. Britain hasn’t quite experienced such levels of poor judgement (although we have allowed Boris Johnson to position himself as the potential next Prime Minister so perhaps we have after all) but with the referendum vote to leave the EU, we now have our own watershed moment in contemporary British history that illustrates the obtuseness and stupidity in our society. Indeed, Britain isn’t far behind in sharing some of the attitudes that the rest of world mocks America for. As an American friend rightly commented, this is truly a case of ‘like father like son’.

The divisions that long existed in the UK are now more conspicuous than they have been in recent time. Those who voted to leave voted on the sentiments that UKIP, a racist party, have campaigned on since their creation. Let it sink in that half the electorate share UKIP’s views. Just as progressive Americans and progressive states such as New York and New Jersey, live alongside those who get their information from Fox News, we have become a nation so polarised that we are a country of two narratives.

I am angry, sickened and disillusioned with the result and those who voted to leave with little regard for the consequence but more so what their decision represented. In a hilarious but on point video (NSFW) that captures the sentiments of most people who voted to remain in the EU, Rants N Bants articulates what most of us are thinking; we don’t want to be associated with a nation that possesses such attitudes. Albeit in some jest, many are even calling for London to breakaway from the rest of the UK. Scotland and Northern Ireland (who both largely voted to remain), have also already highlighted the tensions the referendum result has raised for their respective inclusion in the UK. The leave vote was also heavily supported by older electors with little regard for subsequent generations’ futures. Selfishness and insularity has played a big part in this referendum.

"I went one referendum too far..."

For now, we are still in the EU. No amount of celebrations from Nigel Farage can change that. It’s also not likely to be a hurried exit for the UK as there isn’t a plan and the government will need and want to stall as long as possible. David Cameron announcing his decision to step down in the wake of the referendum result adds a leadership battle in the Conservative party that will further divert attention from a hasty Brexit. Good, bad or indifferent, no one knows what happens next. What we do know is sterling has taken a kicking after the result, Moody’s has cut the UK’s credit outlook to negative and the EU is not looking for an amicable separation. The leave campaign wanted isolation and to move away from the status quo and now it seems like they’ve got it.

However, while somewhat fanciful, I’m not entirely convinced that an exit from the EU will happen, at least not with the separation envisaged by the leave campaign.

Firstly, the referendum result is not legally binding. It’s essentially a gauge of public support for an issue. And despite the support being in favour of leaving the EU, it was with 51.9% of the vote. Support, yes, overwhelming, no. Secondly, to put the wheels of a Brexit in motion, article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty will need to be invoked which Cameron intends to leave for his successor. Some would argue that setting that in motion would also warrant agreement from the UK Parliament rather than merely going on the referendum result for such a significant issue. Yet most MPs support remaining in the EU. Therefore particularly given the narrow margin for the vote to leave, they may decide to go against the referendum result in any vote in Parliament and not vote in favour of doing so.

For the UK Parliament to go against the referendum result, it’d set a huge and dangerous precedent and undermine the referendum as a democratic process. Although amidst the referendum result having an immediate and adverse impact on the British economy, and a tangible sense of regret amongst many leave voters who either voted to leave as a protest or were taken in by propaganda that’s since been found to be a lie, it would give MPs voting against leaving some credence as being in the public interest.

A petition calling for a further referendum already has in excess of 2 million signatures at the time of writing and David Lammy MP has called for Parliament to ignore the referendum. People are rightly not ready or willing to accept the result and Parliament may not either given how quickly it’s become apparent what a bad decision it actually is. That could result in legal action via judicial review from the leave campaign and it would all get quite messy which is one thing that seems fairly likely regardless of what happens.

The referendum result has exposed how divided the UK is and how much ignorance, xenophobia and selfishness there is within the country alongside the inclusivity that it must be stressed does exist throughout the UK. With my London-centric perspective, perhaps it’s just less than I previously gave the country credit for. Attitudes that have perhaps been suppressed since the first wave of post war immigration apparently never really disappeared and generations later, it has to be questioned if these attitudes are simply inherent to some sections of British society.

Whether or not we proceed with a Brexit, our relationship with the EU is altered forever. We have rejected strong relations with the EU, and all that it brought us, as the UK has cut off its nose to spite its face. Posturing via the ballot box might have seemed a good idea for the leave voters at the time. But they’ve created a mess that no matter to what extent it can be resolved, has damaged our relationship with the EU and each other and created a perception of the UK as a country that comprises many of the attitudes we’ve long criticised other nations for holding.

Muhammad Ali wasn't just the greatest boxer, he was one of the greatest period

There’s been an outpouring of tributes following Muhammad Ali’s passing. As a sporting icon and a figure from popular culture, this isn’t uncommon. Yet Ali was a boxer, an athlete from a sport that has been equally celebrated and lambasted for its gladiatorial nature. A sport that is unashamedly the hurt business and ignorantly deemed an arena where the fighters are too stupid to realise that they endure pain for our enjoyment. A sport that has seen its biggest stars elevated to the dizzy heights of success only to unceremoniously be brought crashing down when they’re superfluous to requirements and no longer a cash cow for the money men of the sport (who’ve never laced up a pair of gloves let alone thrown a punch themselves). Yes, he was a boxer, but the above didn’t apply to him; he was special. He transcended boxing, sport and even popular culture. He was the greatest but without the hyperbole that such labels often attract. Therefore it’s little wonder his death has been met with a response that is befitting of a legend.

As a boxing fan there’s a lot that could be said of Ali’s ability in the ring but little that hasn’t already been said by others. Indeed, when encouraged by fellow fight fan and Muhammad Ali admirer @davidcdennis to pen this post, this was my concern. Ali’s footwork, hand speed, movement and athleticism remain second to none. His heart, mettle and conditioning in soaking up punches from an incredibly ferocious puncher in George Foreman (who most modern fighters would have ducked in fear of his punching power for the duration of their careers) to claim the W against all odds, spoke volumes of his character in the ring. Moreover, it served as a reflection of his tenacity as a man outside of it. Despite me regularly and repeatedly revisiting Ali’s fights online or reading fight reports as if he fought at the previous weekend rather than decades ago, his boxing prowess isn’t what he stands out for either. Instead, it’s what he represented which is what his legacy is undoubtedly driven by. It’s also why he’s honoured by so many who may never have even seen any of his fights.

Ali represented the struggle of the black diaspora but also Muslims at a time when both minority groups struggled to achieve respect and acceptance in America (arguably they still do). Although this wasn’t from a position of pity for Ali didn’t need anyone’s sympathy. Even as Parkinson's amplified the juxtaposition between Ali in his later years with the demeanour we once saw of a young, outspoken, athletic man, he always rejected any pathos others may have tried to inject into his story.

Ali was the architect of swagger, slick oration, charisma and sublime intelligence that wasn’t seen in a black boxer let alone a sportsman period. And certainly not on the platform that he occupied. No interviewer could bamboozle him if they tried and he could articulate his argument with a flair and authority that would leave his audience in awe even if not in agreement. In an era where the boxing writing and broadcasting community was dominated by white, middle class men, many of whom would have looked down on a black, southern fighter, Ali turned the equilibrium of their interaction on its head. He was the smartest and most eloquent in any room and during interviews not only did he know it but he exuded it. Though there was something that tempered his confidence in not crossing the fine line into the realm of unpleasant arrogance.

As an instant black icon, Ali gave the diaspora pride and credibility. He was one of the prominent voices of black, Muslim and social consciousness in an era where it meant so much and was so needed. He knew he was a handsome black man and made sure to share it. In doing so, he unashamedly celebrated the black image. This was at a time when subconscious self-loathing was widespread amongst black people as a result of enduring racism and the shadow of slavery and latterly segregation. Ali ignored the memo of the day that being black was to be dirty and inferior and replaced it with his own narrative that black was beautiful; a narrative that has been central to the ongoing healing of the black diaspora. Ali undoubtedly inspired a generation of youth and countered the racism that was rife during his peak via his very being.

The integrity of Ali was unparalleled. He refused to evade conscription during the Vietnam war but even more vociferously refused to go to war. As a Muslim, he cited he was a conscientious objector which was rejected. Nonetheless, he represented a reminder of Islam as a compassionate religion and he continued to do so throughout his life. Again, Ali’s identity was in contention with his time but he was unapologetic for it. Similarly, against a backdrop of inequality and prejudice in America, Ali’s logic in support of his opposition was “I ain’t got no quarrel with those Vietcong.” And he was right as they didn't have a quarrel with a black, Muslim man either; he could find that without leaving America. While some saw it as unpatriotic at the time, history has judged his opposition more favourably. His actions, which cost him three years of his career with inactivity when his boxing licence was revoked, showed the principled stance that was lost on so many Americans at the time. As a social commentator, Ali was also equally earnest and forthright which compounded his influence in his generation and beyond.

Subsequent to his boxing career, Ali’s humanitarian work and compassion came to the fore. Despite being a quality that might appear to create a dichotomy with boxing, the latter was even apparent during his career and Ali rarely had real venom for his opponents. But more fool those those who thought that would detract from his performance in a fight. There was a contrast between the persona of the brash boxer and the compassionate humanitarian, qualities that weren't mutually exclusive for Ali.

Muhammad Ali might be remembered as the greatest ever boxer. But his true legacy is of being one of the greatest period.

Are ethnic minority Tories a paradox or a representation of progress within the Conservative party?

When most people think of British politicians and the British political class, they think of white, middle-aged, middle-class men with a stronghold of support from Middle England. And broadly speaking, they’d be right. Although within contemporary history, there has been a shift and albeit limitedly, progress has been made in bringing further diversity to politics. Women have become a feature of British politics with a female former British Prime Minister in Margaret Thatcher and a female First Minister of Scotland in Nicola Sturgeon. In 1997 when Labour were elected to power, 101 of their MPs were female which prompted the Daily Mail to coin the somewhat misogynistic label of ‘Blair’s Babes’.

For ethnic minority politicians in the UK, their increase has been less prolific but still visible. Where ethnic minority politicians have been most noticeable has been within the Labour Party, which is hardly surprising given their track record on promoting and legislating equality for all minority groups. That’s in contrast with the Conservative Party’s historically hostile reception towards immigrants and its resistance to equality for any minority group other than the ‘1%’ who comprise many within the party and bankroll them. As a result, and unsurprisingly, minorities have typically aligned themselves with the Labour Party or the left.

Firstly, let’s not pretend that the Labour Party and the broader left is, or always has been, void of prejudice or always promoted equality. The female sewing machinists at Ford’s Dagenham plant were initially not supported by their trade union in their 1968 strike for equal pay. Furthermore, while Labour and the trade unions have a long and proud history of supporting ethnic minorities, many post-war immigrants were met with hostility by many within the trade union movement. Factions echoing the irrational and unfounded fears of some of their members claimed that immigrants were taking the jobs of the indigenous white British. This was despite an acute labour shortage following the war. Such undertones could also be be felt within the Labour Party at a time when broader British society and politics was arguably subject to much institutional racism.

Nevertheless, it was Barbara Castle, a Labour MP and the then Secretary of State for Employment, who intervened in the the Ford machinists’ strike and a Labour government that was responsible for the Equal Pay Act 1970 that the strike action helped to bring about. It was also a Labour government that was responsible for the Race Relations Act 1965 which many Labour backbenchers actually argued didn’t go far enough. Indeed, while it hasn’t been without blemish, the Labour Party and the left has a long and celebrated history of promoting equality for all minorities, which can’t be said for the Conservative Party. Even as recently as 2013, the Conservative Party was split over same-sex marriage with 136 voting against it while only 127 were in favour. Historically, equality hasn’t really been their forte.

During the 1964 general election campaign, Conservative parliamentary candidate Peter Griffiths used the slogan “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour.” He was subsequently elected. In 1968, Conservative MP Enoch Powell gave his infamous and inflammatory Rivers of Blood speech, harshly criticising immigration from the Commonwealth and race relations legislation. Despite not openly to the extent of Powell’s utterances, the Conservative Party retained undertones of prejudice that merely fanned rather than quelled the flames of institutional racism within British society at the time.

Conservative MP Oliver Letwin’s remarks and attitudes on the black community, recently released in a 1985 memo discussing the Broadwater Farm riots in Tottenham, show that racism within the Conservative Party was enduring. The lack of proportionate censure from today’s Conservative Party suggest that such comments might not go amiss now either, an assertion that Zac Goldsmith’s casual Islamophobia and dog whistling in his smear campaign against Sadiq Khan actually supports. And juxtaposed with the recent suspensions of Ken Livingstone and Naz Shah from the Labour Party, which David Cameron also called for, where was David Cameron’s reproach for Boris Johnson's racist and colonialist rhetoric on Barack Obama or much of Zac Goldsmith’s Islamophobic and divisive mayoral campaign?

The modern Conservative Party has sought to lose the tag of ‘the nasty party’ and reject the racist elements of its history. It can also boast a number of ethnic minority MPs such as frontbenchers Sajid Javid, Priti Patel and and Sam Gyimah. The Tories have undoubtedly progressed from the days when even an ethnic minority backbencher would be unthinkable and that should be lauded regardless of one’s political persuasion.

It’s also important to emphasise that not all Tories, regardless of ethnicity, are racist. Many are committed to equality and positive race relations even if their party’s history may suggest otherwise. Nonetheless, for many ethnic minorities, including me, the party’s still-raw history of racism towards our immigrant grandparents and parents and those of us that were born in the UK, along with its poor track record on race relations and equality in general, make it difficult to support them as a party. After all, some of those sentiments are apparent in today’s Conservative Party. Yet oddly, this isn’t the perception amongst all ethnic minorities.

For many immigrants, there is an experience and a narrative of arriving in a new country with very little but a can-do attitude and working hard to make a better life for yourself and your family. That narrative is fulfilled to varying extents but there are many diaspora communities who have shown admirable and impressive graft and business acumen that has resulted in successive generations steadily climbing the often greasy pole of social mobility.

Ugandan Indians refugees arriving in the UK

Take the Gujarati community, many of whom were forced to leave East Africa to rebuild their lives in Britain. Many become proprietors of newsagents and convenience stores in the UK, working long hours with a stakhanovite work ethic while family would often comprise their staff. Though subsequent generations have moved away from small business retailers and into roles such as finance, medicine and dentistry. They aren’t the only ethnic minority group with a similarly story either. Regardless of race, it’s the very narrative that is celebrated and encouraged by the Conservative Party - work hard, create jobs, don’t rely on the state and you’ll be successful.

Many second and third generation ethnic minorities from immigrant families share less of the experiences of the generations before them. Racism is less overt than it once was and class has superseded race as a social determinant of how we identify ourselves and with whom we identify with. Take a British doctor of Gujarati descent. His parents may have faced racism upon coming to Britain in the 1960s where they may have worked in an unskilled sector. As working class ethnic minorities, they would have been typical Labour supporters. Whereas his experiences are acutely different to that of his parents with less required graft and subtle and less barriers to social mobility, he will likely see himself as middle class with a life that is more aligned to the Tories.

Capitalism and social mobility often has a way of making an ethnic minority metaphorically lighten the hue of their skin tone in how they perceive themselves. That’s reflected in how they might vote too. I’ve seen ethnic minorities deem a decent job and a good socio-economic status to equate to needing to vote Conservative because it’s who they feel the type of person they now identify with should vote. They no longer feel aligned to the tales of the parents but instead that of Middle England and the political class. Perhaps such perception is valid. After all, I can’t dictate how someone identifies themselves. What I can be sure of, is that Middle England certainly don’t identify with them and they’re barking up the wrong tree if they think differently. No amount of money and well-spoken delivery will change that either.

Ignorance too has played a role in the growth of ethnic minority support for the Tories. During the previous general election campaign, a middle class Asian female Tory voter that I know foolishly claimed that they were voting Conservative because “Labour had ruined the economy” and proceeded to attribute the global financial crisis to Labour. Was that the same Labour Party that hadn’t been in power for five whole years? The Conservative Party’s ploy of blaming everything under the sun on the previous Labour government must have had some effect as some voters were clearly stupid enough to recycle the same trite argument for the coalition government’s failures. Said individual also works in finance which compounds her ignorance. Even sadder is that as a woman and an ethnic minority, she would have personally benefited throughout her life from legislation introduced under previous Labour governments.

It’s lamentable that some ethnic minorities have such short memories when it comes to the Conservative Party, their values and how they treated our grandparents and parents when they arrived in the UK. A generation later and with a bit of money and a decent job, some ethnic minorities are voting Conservative but can’t even articulate why other than an underlying belief that Conservative policies might make them a bit more cash while trodding on the less fortunate in society - the same people their parents may once have been only a few generations ago.

The Conservative Party might be deemed the party of business and enterprise which ties into the immigrant narrative for many. But we need to ask ourselves, are they the party of ethnic minorities? Alas, while those features needn’t and shouldn't be mutually exclusive, for some factions within the Conservative Party they probably are and would-be ethnic minority Conservative voters need to remember that.

I need to emphasis that I’m not suggesting ethnic minorities can’t or shouldn’t vote for the Conservatives if that’s where their values lie. Democracy affords us the opportunity to support and vote for whoever we desire and that can’t ever be criticised or restricted. Moreover, it isn’t right to hold today’s Tories to the ills of their history and it would be unfair to imply that as a party they haven’t made any progress in representing the ethnic minority electorate. Though we need to ask ourselves how far and how meaningful that progress has been. We also need to consider how representative ethnic minority Tory MPs are of the broader ethnic minority experience and the party’s failure to robustly tackle the institutionally racism that is still present in today’s Conservative Party. Consequently, while ethnic minority Tory voters represent some progress for the party, there is still something quite paradoxical about them. Fortunately for the Conservative Party, they don’t seem to see it for themselves.

Oliver Letwin’s remarks aren’t just a product of their time, they’re a product of the Conservative Party

The recently released memo revealing Conservative MP Oliver Letwin’s remarks and attitudes on the black community are not a good reflection of the Conservative Party. And certainly of Letwin himself. Although while they may have been made thirty years ago, how much can we assume has actually changed about the views of Letwin and many within the Conservative Party? Well, relatively speaking, thirty years isn’t that long and given the old boys club that is the Conservative Party, probably not very much.

Letwin’s views aren’t just racist, they show the class prejudice that is at the centre of the Conservative Party. Thus, they characterise the party and its attitudes. In response to the memo, Trevor Philips said “I don’t think these remarks would have raised a single eyebrow at the time” and amongst all the mainstream parties, perhaps they wouldn’t have. What stands out though is how they could easily be the content of Conservative Party policy discussions today.

Just consider what was put forward by Letwin (along with Hartley Booth, another Tory MP at the time) regarding the Broadwater Farm riots and others that occurred at the time. It wouldn’t be amiss today from the same party it emanated from thirty years ago ­­–

"The root of social malaise is not poor housing, or youth 'alienation' or the lack of a middle class....Lower-class, unemployed white people lived for years in appalling slums without a breakdown of public order on anything like the present scale; in the midst of the depression, people in Brixton went out, leaving their grocery money in a bag at the front door, and expecting to see groceries there when they got back...Riots, criminality and social disintegration are caused solely by individual characters and attitudes. So long as bad moral attitudes remain, all efforts to improve the inner cities will founder...Riots, criminality and social disintegration are caused solely by individual characters and attitudes. So long as bad moral attitudes remain, all efforts to improve the inner cities will founder...[Lord] Young’s new entrepreneurs will set up in the disco and drug trade; Kenneth Baker’s refurbished council blocks will decay through vandalism combined with neglect; and people will graduate from temporary training or employment programmes into unemployment or crime."

If in years to come released papers showing policy discussions around the England riots in 2011 (which started in Tottenham, the location of Broadwater Farm) have the same sentiments, I wouldn’t be surprised. Furthermore, it would show just how little attitudes in the Conservative Party haven’t changed within contemporary history.

The undertones of racism have long been present in mainstream British politics but especially within the Conservative Party. During post-war immigration to the UK, all British political parties exhibited xenophobia but none more so than the Tories. Indeed, I’m often flummoxed by the short memories of many ethnic minority supporters of the Tory Party, who feel that the Tories will protect and further their social mobility, when they fail to reflect on the party’s history of policies and attitudes that smack of racism. After all, Margaret Thatcher, subsequent leader of the Conservative Party, referred to Enoch Powell’s 1968 Rivers of Blood speech as “strong meat”; not merely highly inflammatory racism. I doubt the many East African Asians and other immigrants arriving in the UK in the same year would have considered it in the same terms. Yet some subsequent generations of said communities are today Tories who ignorantly feel the party reflects their middle class status.

To be clear, I don’t think all Tories are racist. While I’m clearly not a Tory myself, I know many people who are and they’re undoubtedly committed to equality and positive race relations. Ideologically we just don’t agree on everything while somethings we do. I do, however, think that the party machinery of the Conservative Party hasn’t rid itself of racism, nor do I think it’s made much effort to either.

The image of the ‘nasty party’ is one that publically, the Tories have seemed to want to dispel. But returning to Letwin’s remarks, they pretty much support that perception. Letwin may have apologised, albeit with no real contrition. At the time of writing, David Cameron, as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party, has made no comment let alone shown reproach in reference to the utterances of a senior and influential member of the party. And he certainly hasn’t condemned Letwin, retrospectively or otherwise. Unsurprisingly really from a man who shows little understanding of the racist and prejudiced rhetoric that has long existed within his party and indeed British history.

The right-wing media too has had little vitriol for Letwin and his remarks and there is a disheartening lack of public outcry with the same effect. Though as a figure of public life, I feel Letwin should resign. If Cameron sincerely wanted to rid his party of the tag of the nasty party, and show his commitment to leading a government where racist views had no place whatsoever, he would have requested Letwin’s resignation himself. Alas, the ‘nasty party’ image probably appeals to the section of the electorate, British society and business whose favour Cameron is keen to court.

The Letwin story should be huge news. A senior, high profile and influential member of the Conservative Party who’s made these remarks, and who is currently serving in the Cabinet, should be met with widespread censure. But as he’s a Tory, perhaps it doesn’t seem so out of place. That and his comments are directed at black and ‘lower class’ communities, groups who are seen by many as inferior to others within British society. Indeed, had comments been revealed with such prejudice toward other communities and minority groups such as the Jewish Diaspora, women or the disabled, would the response have been so lukewarm, even after thirty years? I doubt it and rightly so. Similarly, I doubt Letwin and other high profile Tories have completely rid themselves of such views either.

The Conservative Party may have tried to modernise and appeal to a broader section of British society. Nonetheless for many, they’ll continue to be the nasty party that Cameron et al have at times sought to refute. The lack of distance between Letwin’s thirty-year old remarks and many of the attitudes that are still present in the Conservative Party and some of its supporters today, proves just that.

The unlikely taboo of interracial relationships

Despite improved race relations and the progress of multiculturalism, for some, one area that should remain sacrosanct to such progression is interracial relationships. Consequently, and as an undeniable feature of modern society, interracial relationships have remained an unlikely taboo for some.

Being in an interracial relationship, I’ve been fortunate to not have experienced tangible resistance from either family and certainly not with any hostility. There have been undertones of cautiousness on both sides but that’s been largely based on ignorance of the other’s culture and how to respond to it. And with my partner’s community being fairly insular, initially, I literally represented the unknown for her family.

With some people, and behind a smokescreen of disingenuousness, we’ve both observed unspoken sentiments of disapproval toward our relationship. It’s a minority view but not one held by individuals who we have any real relationship with or respect for. Nor is it a view that has ever been articulated – which is just as well as said individuals’ opinions are of no value to us. Though admittedly, knowing that you are the source of any disapproval from even the smallest factions of your partner’s family or community is not a pleasant feeling.

Particularly if any opposition stems more from your partner’s side than yours, it’s easy to see yourself as the indirect source of any potential anguish for them or the reason for them needing to become more resolute in their convictions. It can also lead to a feeling of helplessness and regret; not of your relationship but of what you feel you represent on some level in causing an issue. Conversely, for the other person, an unwarranted feeling of resentment toward their family and community, and a sense of guilt that they come from a background that exhibits prejudice wrapped in backwards ideals, is an unescapable emotion.

Nonetheless, neither of us will ever lament the fact that we aren’t of the same ethnicity simply because it doesn’t meet blanket approval. Both of us are proud of our respective heritage and nothing will change that or cause us to suppress either culture within the relationship. We embrace each other’s culture which is something both our families appreciate and has arguably mitigated any challenges we may have faced.

Thankfully, we haven’t experienced the problems encountered by some interracial couples. I know of interracial and interreligious couples whose families and wider communities have not been receptive to their relationship whatsoever. For some, that’s meant having to choose between their relationship and their family – with the ultimatum being directly or indirectly made by the latter. In response, some couples have shown great courage that I have the utmost admiration for and they’ve pursued their relationship at the risk of being ostracised by either family. Whereas for some, their family was too great a sacrifice to make. Especially against a backdrop of prejudice from a family, many would argue that pursuing the relationship is the right thing to do in such instances. Although, regardless of the decision, it's undoubtedly an emotionally charged predicament.

Interracial relationships and people of mixed race have become commonplace in modern society and the prejudice they were once met with has certainly receded in recent years. The Melting Pot Generation – How Britain Became More Relaxed About Race, a report published by think tank British Future, also found that in contrast to 50% and 40% of the British public admitting to being opposed to interracial relationships in the 80s and 90s respectively, that figure was 15% in 2012. That’s a huge improvement. But with a population that exceeds 60 million, 15% can’t be discounted as merely a handful of people with archaic attitudes.

The 2001 UK census reported that 2% of all marriages were “inter-ethnic”, a figure that will surely be shown to be growing once the respective data is released for the 2011 census. In the interim, and as a measure of the increasing number of interracial relationships in the UK, the 2011 census data shows that the mixed race population is amongst the fastest growing and forecast to become the largest ethnic minority group in the country. In America, the 2010 census also reported that “interracial or interethnic” cohabiting married couples grew by 28% between 2000 and 2010. With such a trend, how have interracial relationships therefore managed to remain taboo for some?

It may not always be overt, and in many cases is culturally or even generationally institutionalised, but prejudice is what underpins opposition to interracial relationships. Yet many who hold said opinions would probably argue to the contrary. Some would claim that their opposition is based on their perception of the lack of viability of an interracial relationship and a fear of their culture becoming diluted. They’d allege that’s in contrast to a relationship where the couple at least share their heritage if nothing else. Many would also pledge their commitment to multiculturalism, citing their indifference to colleagues, neighbours and even friends of a different background. However, for them, the intimate sphere of a relationship is a line that that indifference cannot and should not cross.

Granted, and potentially coming to the fore in raising children, some interracial couples may experience challenges of different cultural expectations or different cultural values within the relationship. Where applicable, language barriers with each other’s families, not to mention a possible frosty reception to the relationship, can also present problems. Although in a multicultural society, aren’t these problems mitigated by multiculturalism itself? And when taken outside the context of race or indeed religion, aren’t differing views challenges that all couples may be faced with, regardless of their respective backgrounds?

The assertion that interracial relationships signal the end of a culture’s identity is unfounded. Multiculturalism shapes new identities and, as a frequent by-product of interracial relationships, the mixed race population provides a growing ethnic group that with it brings new hybrid identities and cultures. Though that needn’t cause a culture to become extinct. In a diverse society, cultural identities can just as easily become eroded within a couple of the same ethnicity and heritage. Therefore to pin that on interracial couples is a charge that is tinged by ignorance, prejudice and irrational fear.

Beyond their prejudice, those who maintain an opposition to interracial relationships may see it as a gradual attack on their own race, culture and accompanying values and identity. But in maintaining their view, they’re unwittingly or otherwise resisting the virtues of multiculturalism and holding a belief that has little reasoning behind it. Furthermore, ironically, the very values and identities they unnecessarily seek to protect and preserve will likely outlive their own backwards and narrow-minded ideals.

For interracial relationships to remain taboo for some is a sad reality that goes against the grain of a racially diverse society. Fortunately, it is a view that is becoming increasingly rare and typically met with disgust and disdain. Yet despite the progress made in race relations, the prejudice that fuels this opposition hasn’t been completely eroded; until it is, there will always be individuals who simply don’t agree with interracial relationships.