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.

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.

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.

Does religion have any relevance in modern society?

In an increasingly secular society, religion has lost much of the relevance it once held. Throughout much of Europe, religion and the state were once on par with each other. Rightly or wrongly, society would look towards the Church for guidance on matters of morality and governments too would look to the Church for direction and endorsement of government policy. In Islamic states and Muslim majority countries, this has been more enduring. Nonetheless, the role of religion in modern society has receded. Yet has this been to an extent that it no longer holds any relevance?

The 2011 census showed 14.1 million people in England and Wales identified themselves as having no religion. That’s around a quarter of the population. Of those that responded as following an “other religion”, the highest ranked ‘religion’ was Jedi Knight which came higher than more established religions such as Rastafarianism, Jainism and Scientology. If the census data is anything to go by, religion isn’t playing a role in as many people’s lives as it once did.

Religious celebrations have transcended religion and entered wider culture in the regions where they are most prominent. Christmas isn’t exclusively celebrated by Christians and more people exchange gifts than those who are aware of or celebrate its religious significance. Likewise, in India, Diwali isn’t celebrated merely by Hindus, Sikhs and Jains and the festivities are enjoyed by most of the population. In both instances, this isn’t a bad thing and shows how inclusive modern society has become. Although it also indicates the rise of secularism and illustrates how religion has become secondary to wider culture.

Religion has long been used as a social grouping to the benefit or disadvantage of states, individuals and religions themselves. But with social identifiers such as race, class and economic status that are typically more pertinent to people’s everyday lives, religion has become secondary in this context. Furthermore, religion has often been slow to move with the times and find contemporary relevance, instead attempting to apply teachings and beliefs in a context that isn’t applicable to modern society.

The Church’s recent frosty discourse over women bishops and gay marriage illustrates just this. That isn’t to belittle or reject their beliefs and principles over either. But there’s a distinct inability for the dialogue around both to consider that the teachings of the Church would have been authored at a time when it would not have been faced with either issue. Similarly, the patriarchy and misogyny that is present in many long established religions (largely by virtue of the time in which they were founded) hasn’t been fully rejected to suggest their views are befitting of modern society.

Where religion shows it is unable or unwilling to apply its teachings in a modern day context, it merely alienates non-believers and worshippers alike and this is largely the reason why it lacks the relevance it once held. However, despite fewer people aligning themselves to a religion, the ability of religion to shape the thoughts and actions of those who follow it remains strong. Particularly amongst those of a generation where religion played a greater role in shaping society and permeating culture, religion has the power to dictate to the minds of many. Throughout history, this hasn’t always been used for good but most religions have used their ability to influence for many benevolent causes and moral guidance. If religions were able to further this, while applying their respective teachings and principles in a modern context, surely religion would experience a resurgence in its relevance and provide viable alternatives to the rise of secularism.

It’s important to remember that religion is separate from faith. Religions are designed by man and how man interpreted his faith and how it should be practiced. Faith instead relates to belief, putting aside the constraints of religion. Religion therefore articulates, according to a respective religion’s architects, how one should live and apply their faith.

While faith is personal and somewhat intangible, religion can be (and throughout history has been) modified to what those with the power to do so decide. So why do religions so often struggle to adapt to become relevant in modern society when they aren’t as abstract as they’d like to suggest?

By their very nature, many religions are conservative. They propose things are done in the way they’ve always been done and often reject any questioning of that. And if they are willing to be subject to questioning, the responses can be – but not always – meaningless for anyone seeking legitimate answers. My experience as a child, and that of my peers from various religions, has largely been that questioning of religious practices was initially responded to with superficial answers. And upon further probing, they would often be frustratingly met with submission to the fact that there were no concrete answers to offer. In retrospect, when it comes to faith, that’s understandable. Although when it comes to religion, it’s something many have unwarrantedly come to expect.

There isn’t a total disconnect between religion and modern society. Even for many who consider themselves agnostic or disconnected with the religion they were brought up with, religion finds its relevance reasserted for rites of passage out of convention and tradition if nothing else. Therefore while it might be waning, religion hasn’t completely lost its relevance.

Despite fewer people aligning themselves with a religion, religion still offers an opportunity for organised worship and an articulation of faith that for many is invaluable. In every religion, there are morals and principles that can be applied to everyday life for the betterment of society and individuals. Religion isn’t always instep with modern society but it can serve a purpose in providing timeless moral guidance in a number of areas. The challenge facing religion is to modernise its approach and to pragmatically apply its teachings to contemporary living. Otherwise, secularism will further erode the relevance religion has in modern society and could consign it to a shadow of what it once was.