Kwanzaa - Why?

I have been finding it hard to get into blogging – nothing has moved me to write on this blog lately. All kinds of things have sort of passed me by, MPs expenses, the on going debate in the US about healthcare reform and all I could find to move me was this article http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/were-dreaming-of-a-black-christmas-1821713.html

I find the practice, rather than the principle, of Kwanzaa slightly ludicrous.  I turn my nose up at Kwanzaa for various reasons.  Firstly it’s holiday created for a mainly African American audience, so why does it use Swahili words to describe itself and the things associated with it?  How many African Americans can trace their roots back to East Africa, let alone speak Swahili?  Apparently the use of Swahili is a nod to it is Pan Africanism.  Huh?  Am I missing something here?  Swahili is spoken in at most five out of fifty five African countries, each speaking a slightly different version of it.  If the creator of Kwanzaa really wanted to use a Pan African language they should have chosen English or French, which are spoken (officially) in more countries and could arguably be considered more unifying. How about Yoruba? It is after all the native tongue of at least 3 times as many people as Swahili.

I would also love to find out the percentage of African Americans that can name, let alone have visited, any of the countries in which Swahili is spoken.  I somehow doubt it is as high a number as those who celebrate Kwanzaa (currently estimated at 40 million and growing).  And what is with the arbitrary addition of the final letter a to the name? I find it interesting that, allegedly, a proportion of the very people who are using the official language of Kenya to celebrate their holiday were against Barack Obama being referred to as African American during his 2008 campaign because he was not one of them.

I have always been puzzled by the animosity with which a lot African Americans greet things they consider African (it is only comparable to the reaction of Black Britons of Afro-Caribbean descent). They look down upon us from their hallowed status as Westerners.

I have always poopooed Kwanzaa as a made up Black American holiday and though atheists would argue the same about Christmas or Easter at least, via their commercialisation, they have become inclusive.  How inclusive is a holiday that sells itself as a black holiday?  If the KKK or the BNP came up with a holiday to celebrate Whiteness or Britishness, there would most likely be uproar. Yet the limp wristed liberal readers of the Independent think it is on to promote an openly racist tradition because it is of African American origin. This is a holiday that was started by a man that, allegedly, thought it was ok to torture members of his own organisation and has no basis in African culture. Why are people so ready to support it?  The mind boggles.

The fact that this is considered an African American holiday – soon to be embraced by Black Britons, apparently - as well as the ignorance portrayed in the subjective embracing of African culture whilst rejecting Africans themselves as “other” is not only hypocritical, it negates the central principle of the holiday, which is apparently unity.

Changing the definition of a noun

Earlier this week I was surprised to learn that the word “immigrant” has become a racial slur. Being unreasonably proud to be an immigrant, to have my roots embedded elsewhere, I was quite taken aback by this new development. I made the discovery purely by accident while reading an article about an altercation that occurred after a football game last Saturday. Some players from the premiership team Manchester United were warming down after a game against Chelsea, when they were involved in a scuffle with the grounds staff. One of the players, Patrice Evra, is a black Frenchman, and was apparently called a “F£$%ing immigrant”.

I suppose the expletive and the tone of the remark, made the spirit in which it was intended obvious, as Evra can been seen, in photos taken at the time, hands forward, tongue sticking out, going for the offending grounds men.

I have previously written about racism in sport and I will not go over old ground. I will simply make a few comments about the reaction to this event, then move on to more pressing matters.

Needless to say, two camps have sprung up, each fighting it’s cause convincingly; there are those that believe the whole thing should be ignored and those that believe it should be dealt with in the most severe manner possible, punishing both the man in question and Chelsea football club, who, together with Manchester United, had wanted to cover the whole thing up. Manchester United grew a conscious over the weekend and decided not to go ahead with the planned joint statement denying anything untoward occurred. Instead, they went and complained to the FA, earning the ire of their premiership rivals in the process. And not surprisingly this is not the first time that a member of the Chelsea staff has been implicated in a situation like this; in 2006 a steward was accused of hurling a racial slur in the direction of Samuel Eto’o, that unfortunate recipient of many a racially motivated insult, during a champions league fixture.

I don’t need to tell you where I stand; it is imperative that the spirit with which the phrase, allegedly directed at Evra, was meant is stamped out of football. The FA must take a stand, after all this is still going on when people are busy chanting the words and wearing t-shirts declaring, “Kick it out”, which is the official UEFA slogan for the campaign to end racism in football. But hey, we have had this discussion.

The interesting thing about this whole foray is that Evra, the insultee, has sort to distance himself from any allegations of racism, probably because he went home, calmed down and realised that being called an immigrant is not, in the great scheme of things, such a bad thing. What I want to know is, when did the ignorant take the word and make it their own?

An immigrant is defined in the Oxford online dictionary as “a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.” The great scholars of Oxford University don’t seem to have realised that there is a more sinister definition of the word, a definition created by the government and media in this country. For the three years I have lived in this country there have been headlines vilifying immigrants, turning us into the bogeymen of the UK.

Immigration to the UK is as old as there have been people inhabiting these Isles, though in those days it was not as peaceful as it is now, with Vikings, Normans, Romans and other people invading and occupying the lands that are now known as Britain. Apart from becoming more peaceful it has, in recent years come full circle. Whereas historically settlers had been predominately from Commonwealth countries, they are now mostly from Europe.

The old settlers were easy to spot, the majority being either Black or Asian. They were also easy to insult, as there were several slights available for people of differing colours. The new wave of settlers blend in more easily and have required the creation of new slurs or the resurrection of more historic ones, being as white as (most of) the people who would like to make them feel unwelcome.

The arguments against immigration are the same old ones that have been used against new comers since the first man left his home to visit the people across the river. There has been great debate as to the nature and amount, if any, of immigration that should be allowed. The government has begun to pander to this talk often shifting the goal posts for immigrants by changing the rules. This however, doesn’t really affect the people who have caused this new uproar, as they tend to come from nations that have recently joined the EU and who thus do not require entry permits into the country.

There have been calls that economically the UK cannot absorb the number of immigrants currently coming to its shores. There are, apparently, no jobs for British people let alone the new comers. There is also the claim that the newcomers, being desperate, are taking jobs at lower pay than the natives, driving down wages.

This is, off course, just another xenophobic argument. The United Kingdom has an aging population and a relatively low birth rate. If no immigrants were allowed into the country the size of the working age population supporting the older generations would dwindle meaning that there would be greater pressure on a smaller proportion of the population to support the economy. Many of the immigrants that come to the UK are highly skilled, reflecting the changing needs of the economy.

Immigrants have been blamed for the dilution of English/British culture, but that would be assuming culture is a static thing, which clearly it is not. Tea, for years considered the traditional drink of the English, is not native to these fair isles. Nor is the potato, the required vegetable in the ubiquitous English dish, fish and chips.

As always immigrants have been blamed for the increase in crime though a study last year showed this was not the case and statistics show that the overall crime rate has been falling. And in the midst of all this apparently half of the central and eastern European immigrants have gone home.

So, why this hostility? Well, it is the usual thing, isn’t it? The fear of the unknown fed by irresponsible journalists and capitalised upon by equally rash political parties, has resulted in an innocent noun becoming a vicious insult.

The Rainbow nation...14 years on

I have recently learned of a home video that has destroyed the myth of South Africa as a “Rainbow Nation”. Sometime during last month, a group of white Afrikaner students filmed themselves forcing some elderly black people to eat food that they had urinated in. They also gave the black people bottles of beer, which they were forced to gulp down before being told to perform athletic feats to show their physical prowess, being black and all.

Though the video is said to have been circulating for almost a month, I have not seen it and it is unlikely that I will. I heard about it from a South African colleague who appeared greatly ashamed by the whole thing, I think he felt by telling me he was somehow distancing himself from the students. Absolution through confession, so to say. He did, however, take the opportunity to complain that there was nothing rainbow about the rainbow nation, as it has obviously left out some of its citizens, namely the white ones.

The students, who are residents of a whites only hostel, say they made the video in protest against the proposed integration of university living accommodation. Regardless of their reasons for making the video I must say the fact that they thought this was a valid form of protest speaks volumes about their upbringing, and about attitudes towards racial equality in South Africa, fourteen years after the official end of apartheid.

The video is the climax of several events highlighting the racial tensions in South Africa, including a shooting spree by a young white man in a township that resulted in the death of several black people, including women and a child. Then, off course, there was the famous lion feeding, where a white farmer and his three black employees beat a black man and threw his body to some lions. The blacks claimed to have been under the instructions of their employer. And finally the “black only” meeting of journalists which Jacob Zuma, current ANC president widely tipped to lead the country next year when Thabo Mbeki steps down in 2009, happily attended and stated that he saw nothing wrong with. He has alo been quoted as saying that South Africans should realise that sometimes people want to be with people with whom they share experiences a comment which has had the majority of White South Africans predicting the end of the “Rainbow Nation” policy.

Form all this it may be inferred that the South Africans have been living a lie for all these years. Their Rainbow Nation is a sham. The resentment on both sides, that Nelson Mandela attempted to alleviate through the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, is understandable. The blacks, oppressed for decades on their ancestral lands by people who only began to call themselves Africans in the last century, are resentful for all the pain and suffering, the lost opportunities. They are also resentful towards the continued superior attitude of some of the white people as well as the fact that those that they view as the aristocrats of the ANC have not given them the prosperity that they expected. The whites are resentful of what they call reverse racism, the advent of Black empowerment enterprises and affirmative action. Many feel that the blacks have stolen the country that they built out of nothing and protected against the failures of other African countries such as inherent corruption, poverty and illness.

How do you reconcile a country that has been split along racial lines for over a centaury? Clearly not by sweeping peoples pain under the nearest carpet. The “hug each other” approach has failed to address the inherent racism that continues to be passed from generation to generation in some sections of society. This policy has also been embraced in France, where one is French before one’s ethnicity and one is expected to let go of ones original cultural heritage. The policy, which has been the pride of France for many years, has had devastating effects on young immigrants who would like to be allowed to pursue their individuality. And 2005 and 2006 there were riots in the banlieues of Paris showcasing their frustration. Despite the current calm they continue to feel excluded.

And in South Africa we see the frustrations of the young whites cause them to flee their country, seeking citizenship in their ancestral homelands. Many take advantage of German, Dutch and English ancestors to begin new lives in the EU, away from country that has been taken from them. A few of these bring their prejudices with them, but they are better suited to life in countries where non-whites are minorities.

The young blacks who cannot flee or take advantage of the new opportunities presented to them due to lack of education, a hangover from the apartheid days, or proper guidance, as a result of the growing number of adults dying of AIDS, the frustration manifest themselves in criminal activities and violence, with gangs of young men going about “jack rolling” (“recreational” gang rape), committing murder and staging armed robberies in an attempt to get what they view as a piece of the pie.

So what is the solution? There are several things that have been suggested, such as an improvement of the education of the elderly black South Africans, who are seen as a vulnerable group, as well as the younger ones, structured accelerated land reform policy as previously promised, a system of welfare payments that allows people to re-educate themselves and gives them money so that they are not drawn to crime, harsher penalties for rape and other violent crime.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, though these measures would improve that quality of life of many of the citizens, it will not make them like each other or create great understanding and that, it seems, is the biggest problem.

Black beauty?

It was London Fashion week last week and as per usual, among the catwalk shows and outrageous clothing, a debate was raging. Last year the argument was about the use of “size 0” models; this year it surrounded the lack of Black or Asian models on the catwalk, a topic that has long been discussed and discarded in Europe.

The question “why” has often been answered by fashion industry with the argument that ethnic models are harder to sell. In other words the clients don’t want them. Their clients, the clothing and cosmetics companies as well as the magazines, argue that their customers cannot relate to ethnic models, despite the fact that the populations of large European cities such as Paris and London are more than 20% ethnic. I suppose what they really saying is that their products are not marketed at ethnic minorities; that is not where the "big money" is.

Regardless of their reasons for it, it is obvious that the fashion industry is biased against ethnic minority models. Naomi Campbell, the most famous of the Black European models and the most vocal against discrimination in the fashion industry, has been quoted as saying she had a little help form her friends all the way. Other models would have to threaten to boycott catwalk shows if designers refused to use her before she was led backstage and she contends that she would never have graced the cover of French Vogue if Yves Saint Laurent had not threatened to pull his adverts. Yves Saint Laurent, who was the first designer to use black models in his catwalk shows way back in the 1970s, has long been a supporter of ethnic models, as has Dame Vivien Westwood. The scenes during last weeks fashion shows proved that they are in the minority as hundreds of white models walked the catwalk, with one or two ethnic minorities trailing them.

So is the real reason that there is no demand for ethnic minority models or is it simply that we in Europe are racist? Many advertising campaigns have been “white washed” so to speak. Ford was greatly admonished in the 1990’s for removing the faces of its black employees from a picture contained in an advertising drive when it was run in Spain. Last year Santander, a Spanish owned bank removed Lewis Hamilton from its campaign pictures in Spain. There was outrage in France when it was alleged that L'Oréal had described the women they wanted to front a 2000 advertising promotion as 18 to 22 and "BBR," the initials for "bleu, blanc, rouge," or blue, white, red - the colours of the French flag a designation know by French agencies to mean white.

It is easy for us in the UK to be smug about the number of black faces in our advertising but how “black” are they? When I first saw the Marks and Spencer adverts featuring Noémie Lenoir, the Black French model I did not realise that she was black, so close is she to looking like a white woman. Everywhere you look there are women who could pass for white passing for black models. How often do we have Alek Wek gracing the cover of mainstream glossy magazine?

As much as we would like to point the finger it is not just Europe where the majority of people believe that true feminine beauty is white or as close to it as one can get. I remember being at school in Kenya when a girl was described as only capable of being pretty in the eyes of other black people albeit by a white girl. There were a lot of black people nodding in agreement as she said it. Then there was the blond never could tan girl, who in reality was as plain as could be but somehow became the definition of beauty.

This is not a new thing, if you read descriptions of beauty in English literature there is often mention of milky white skin. Look closely at the descriptions of the beautiful body and there is little mention of behinds that are often a feature of the black woman’s body.

Black women the world over use skin lightening creams and straighten their hair in a bid to have “good” hair. We go on extreme diets in order to attempt to conform to the definition of beauty that we see around us, that is marketed to us by the very companies that refuse to use black models. We are complicit in the message that white is beautiful.

In the face of societies perception of beauty perhaps the argument for using white models is not that black beauty does not sell; conceivably it is simply that the majority, even some black people, do not believe it exists.

A Rose by any other name?

About a month ago a gentleman called me “coloured”. To put this in context he was a 71-year-old Irish man who was trying to be friendly. He did not realise I might possibly be insulted. I wasn’t, I understood how at his age he could be confused by the nomenclature surrounding non-white people, even I am not sure what everyone is calling themselves at the moment.

The most interesting thing for me has been the observation of differences in attitude towards certain appellations across Africa and Europe. When I first arrived in London for example I worked with a girl of mixed heritage from Cape Town in South Africa who referred to herself as “coloured”. She could not understand why people were offended or taken aback. When I lived in Kenya people like her were widely referred to as “half caste” and it wasn’t until I read about the caste systems in India that I realise this may be offensive. No one ever batted an eyelid at the reference.

In Zambia they are “point fives”, the implication of which I did not consider until I saw a letter to the editor of a newspaper written by someone of mixed race heritage from Zambia iterating that they are a whole being. In Zambia I can understand where this name comes from as the word for a black person in most of our languages could also be translated as person. So my ancestors saw themselves as people and then had to define these beings that though similar to them were still very different.

Indians too, have been called all kinds of things most of them unrepeatable but some of which in some circles have become acceptable. I remember once being shocked as one of my black workmates referred to someone as a “coolie”. When I tried to explain to her that this was rude, tantamount to using the N word she told me she told me it was a compliment. It meant that the person was lighter skinned and had “nicer” hair than most other black people.

In a discussion of names black people are tops when it comes to causing confusion because in the end we call ourselves so many things we confound the whole world, including ourselves. There are many people who cannot understand why it is ok for black people to use the N word to each other and yet be offended when someone else uses it. I had an Indian friend at boarding school, who was very into hip-hop and used it all the time. She was almost lynched when she made the mistake of using it in front o group of black girls outside of school.

It is never easy to tell what will offend and what is acceptable. I made the mistake of referring to some Zambian girls as Negroes. Their looks could have stopped my heart. So in the end if everything is acceptable to someone, what exactly is unacceptable? Although there are some things I would prefer not to be called, I tend to feel that I am more than what people call me and will take things in the spirit that they are meant and try to react accordingly.

After all I am more than the designation thrust upon me by others.

Racism, once again

There has been a media uproar at the treatment that Lewis Hamilton, the black British Formula one driver, suffered as he was practicing in Spain two weeks ago.

For those of you who don’t live in the UK and have no interest in formula one, Lewis Hamilton is the 21-year-old racing sensation who captivated the country in his rookie season last year. His entry on to the Formula one stage gave a chance to the British hope of once again achieving F1 glory. He is also the first black driver in the 56-year history of formula one. Though in the end he only managed to come second in the drivers contest, he brought F1 into the limelight again especially among black people, most of who had previously had no interest in the sport.

So what happened to him? Seven fans of Spaniard Fernando Alonso were seen dressed in dark, curly wigs, with blacked-up faces and wearing T-shirts bearing the words “Hamilton’s family” at the Montmelo circuit near Barcelona. Some other fans shouted racist abuse at the him, taunting him. Formula One’s governing body, the FIA, launched an investigation and threatened to ban Spain from holding grands prix in Barcelona and Valencia.

This is not the first time Hamilton has been racially abused by the Spanish. In Oct 2007, following tension between Hamilton and Alonso, then team mates at McLaren, Spanish F1 fans posted racist anti-Hamilton messages on websites. When there were complaints Spain's head of motor racing, Carlos Garcia, claimed Britain was a racist country and said it was paradoxical that British fans were supporting a black driver.

In my opinion it is unlikely that the FIA will do anything about the abuse. After the media have forgotten it we will all just carry on. Why do I say this? Well, this is not the first time that a black sportsman has been abused in Spain.

There was outrage when Luis Aragones, the coach of the Spanish national football team, was caught on camera in October 2004 calling Thierry Henry, the French footballer then star striker at the premier league team Arsenal, a "negro de mierda". For those of us who don’t speak Spanish it was translated in all the papers as “black s***." Aragones was unmoved by the outrage, claiming he had done nothing wrong. Nor did he apologise to Henry.

In November the same year, during England's friendly with Spain at the Bernabeu Stadium in Madrid, Ashley Cole, Shaun Wright-Phillips and Jermain Defoe were subjected to sustained monkey chants and racial insults. In February 2006 Barcelona and Cameroon striker Samuel Eto'o threatened to walk off the pitch after being subjected to relentless abuse in a match at Real Zaragoza. I watched this game on television and I can tell you Eto’o was, rightly, not a happy man. This was not the first time he had been racially abused and he was tired of it and frankly so am I. I cannot imagine how he felt when Zaragoza were fined just £450.

When will FIA, UEFA, FIFA and the other sporting bodies realise that they cannot continue to ignore the problem, they cannot continue to allow this behaviour to go ahead unpunished. And let us not pretend it is just in Spain or Black people who are abused. There have been numerous abuses in France and Italy including an incident in the 2006 Champions league campaign when Dida the Brazilian and AC Milan goalkeeper had a glow stick throw at him in Italy. Indian and Pakistani cricketers suffer the same treatment in Australia and South Africa, some even accusing the umpires of being racist showing that the problem is not simply the ignorance of the fans. What we should be asking now is why are these people allowed to get away with this, why is this not something that is dealt with severely?

I think it is best to look at who runs these sports and therein lies the answer. Essentially in Europe most of the governing bodies are still old boys clubs run by white men, with a few token minorities thrown in for the sake of appearances. And no matter how hard they try white men find it difficult to understand what it feels like to be discriminated against, because it is rare that they experience it in any form. A prime example of this lack of understanding presented itself this morning when one of the men in my office gave a speech stating that he thought Hamilton should just ignore it and carry on, he could not understand why Hamilton would be hurt by this kind of abuse.

If the people making the rules and handing out the punishments cannot empathise with a situation they are unlikely to react to it in an appropriate manner. They may take it seriously but in the end they cannot understand what the best course of action would be, because they cannot understand the feelings of those who are being hurt. So the solution is to strive to change the make up of the governing bodies before we can expect to see them acting with appropriate strength and decisiveness to rid sport of racism.