Poster for June 6 Port-talk

White and black apples in a cart

I was watching the news with two white friends last Friday, when a story came on about a woman who had been blinded by her boyfriend. The man and woman, both white, had been involved in fights before, but this time he "went too far," according to the woman. It was a really sad story. There was a particular moment that was really heart wrenching - when asked how she felt about what happened, the woman responded that she felt like a ghost, as she is totally blind and can't see anything (not her two children, and not even her hands). Tears began to flow from both eyes, and she said sorry to the interviewer as she dabbed them with a handkerchief. 

This is the kind of story that makes me want to do something (write an article, contribute to a cause, be on the lookout for signs of domestic violence, etc). I don't know how my friends felt, but I was sad and angry at the same time - sad for the woman, and very angry with the man. Nobody has the right to hurt, talk less of blind, another human being! I was so angry that if I had come across the man later that evening - which was very unlikely given that he had been arrested - I would have likely approached him and given him a piece of my mind. 

But as I reflected on my conflicting emotions, something occurred to me. My white friends spoke more about the sadness of the woman's condition, than the injustice of what her boyfriend did. It was almost as if they had accepted (rightly, I guess) that there are sick white people in the world, and that these things happen. I found myself wondering what their reactions might have been had the man been black. Would they have reacted the same way by focusing more on the victim than the assailant? I do not know. But I do know what I saw and heard during the London riots last year - white friends of mine mentioned to me that black kids often end up as gangsters that cause trouble, and that the police should come down hard on the rioters to deter other would be gangsters.

And that's when it occurred to me that when a white person commits a crime, most whites tend to see that person as the bad apple in the cart. The system deals with him or her, and the rest of the apple cart remains safe (at least till the next bad apple turns up). However when a black person (or a group of black persons) commits a crime, conservative whites tend to see that as justification of their suspicion that all the apples in the black cart are bad. And their response is almost always to ask that society deal with the individual apple(s), as well as all apples in the cart (the former through the formal justice system, and the latter through informal, institutionalised racist practices). 

My friends that I watched the news story with are not conservatives, but sitting and watching the story with them, I could not help but wonder how our discussion could have gone had the perpetrator been black. Because he was white, we spoke about the individuals involved. But I suspect had he been black we would have spoken about the races or "communities" involved, and I might have had to once again explain to white friends that black people are not all the same (like I found myself doing several times during the London riots). My white friends also know that white people are all different; it's obvious from years of interacting with other whites at home, school, work and play. They also know this from history and the media. Yet even some of my educated white friends are totally ignorant about the differences between black people. And the same problem applies in larger discussions in the media - note for example the common references to Africa, even when speaking about issues that are specific to certain countries (see an earlier post about this here). 

I believe this ignorance leads to the lumping of black people together when issues are being discussed, which in turn makes it easier for conservative white Brits and their minions (Nirpal Dhaliwal, for example) to do something as daft as trying to criminalise all black people in England for the actions of Mark Duggan and the 1,000 people (representing less than 0.07% of the black population in England) who showed up at his funeral (see Dhaliwal's article here, and see my response here). 

This kind of negative rhetoric does not help matters. For better or worse, blacks and other minorities are now part of multicultural England. And blacks (including African Americans, black Canadians, black people from the Caribbean, and black people from 55 African countries) have so much to contribute to The Big Society (with different types of music, cuisine, art, dance, literature, etc). But it is hard to make these contributions if the larger society keeps putting all black people into one cart, and labelling that cart as being likely full of bad apples. We are all in the same cart, and there are bad white apples, as well as black, amongst us all.

My response to a reductionist article in the Evening Standard about the "black community" in England

Referring to Nirpal Dhaliwal's article in the Evening Standard of March 29, 2012, titled "Where is the black outrage over Thusha's shooting?" (which you can fine here), his argument seems to be as follows: (1) young black men should not dress or act in ways that make them look suspicious; (2) the "black community" should accept and welcome stop-and-search for its own good, as it reduces the level of black-on-black crime; (3) the "black community" should also accept the fact that there will be occasional casualties like Mr. Duggan, as the Met strives to save black communities from themselves.

I have four major issues with this line of argument. They are as follows:

1. Who determines what is deemed suspicious? Is a white boy with "a hoodie, gold teeth and jeans slung low" suspicious? Depends on where you are! Are Sheiks in turbans suspicious? If Mr. Dhaliwal got his mind out of his obviously Eurocentric worldview he would know that the larger society (western in this case) decides what is suspicious (ask Muslims about their experiences after 9/11, or ask Jews what they have experienced through the ages). So should all Muslims cut their beards to appease whites? Should all Jews change their names to avoid anti-Semitic behaviour?

2. What is this "black community" that he refers to so often? Are all its members of the same educational background and income level? Do they share the same political leanings? Do they all speak patois? There are over 1 million black people in England. Surely Mr. Dhaliwal cannot be suggesting they are all part of this black community. Is Jermaine Defoe a member of this community? Is Tidjane Thiam a member? I do not understand why people like Mr. Dhaliwal refuse to accept the diversity and multiplicity amongst black people. Not all of us like reggae music or rap. Not all of us vote Labour. Some of us have different sexual preferences. There is no black community, but there are communities made up of predominantly black people. Not the same thing.

3. I can't argue with the fact that carrying out stop-and-search on suspects may deter crime. I recall seeing a woman called over by the police at Euston station because the police dog caught a sniff of something in her bag and followed her. I didn't go on an outrage, and was glad the police was keeping an eye out on potentially troublesome people. And it's fair game if the police do this in areas that have a record of high crime, regardless of the skin colour of the people in the area. So yes, searches may reduce the prevalence of crime in all high crime areas, and not just those with lots of black people. But here comes the rub - how do the police determine who is a suspect when there is little to work with besides what they see (going back to point 1)?

Which brings us to (4) - black people of all persuasions and stripes rally around issues like that of Mr. Duggan because deep down we know it could have happened to any of us, no matter how posh we are, or what we do for a living. All we have to do is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is not to suggest Mr. Duggan was an angel, but the way he was killed raises a lot of questions. Would it have happened that way if he was exactly the same, but white? I don't know.

However I do know of young black children who have been blamed by teachers in schools for fights they didn't start. I have seen white teachers come down harder on black children for infractions white students get away with. So black people rallying together to address the institutional racism that they experience at school, work, and even play should not be misconstrued as advocating for Mr. Duggan's lifestyle. And neither should the lack of such rallying for Thusha be construed as indicative of black people not wishing her well, or not willing to support the fund raising drive (how I wish we could get a breakdown of donations by ethnicity from HSBC!).

To recap, there is no central planning agency that decides how black people should respond to issues like that of Mr. Duggan's killing. Just like everybody else, we all have different views on things. As such, there is no black community that even we can point to as representative of all of us - we come from different countries, backgrounds, and have different aspirations. It may surprise Mr. Dhaliwal to hear that just like Indians and Pakistanis, we don't all get along. Searches to deter crime in high-crime areas are perfectly fine, as long as they are applied across the area's populace equally, and suspects to stop and search are picked on a mix of relevant criteria, and not just colour. Lastly, young white males dress just as "gangster" as young black males, but anecdotal evidence suggests they are often viewed as oddities, and not as suspicious characters. Why? Because the colour of the skin seems to say more about what is deemed suspicious than the clothes. Case in point, using one of Mr. Dhaliwal's examples - a black man in a doctor's white coat and stethoscope meeting a patient for the first time may be incorrectly perceived as being less competent than an accompanying white doctor simply because of his ethnicity, even if the former is the latter's superior.

Race matters, Sir, let's not pretend it doesn't. What we need to do is to see the complexities involved so we can deal with them, and reductionist articles like yours will not help matters.

When do-gooders do bad (1)

"Africa's worst drought in 60 years," screams the banner. ActionAid is seeking donations - as low as £2 a month - to "help a child like Sadia now." We have no clue what country Sadia is from, but there is no doubt as to her continent of origin - Africa. I have a problem with ads like this. A major problem.

For a while I couldn't put my finger on what my problem with these types of ad was. I just knew there was something not quite right about the "cases for support" made by the likes of UNICEF and ActionAid on behalf of "Africa." Donors love that name (Africa), and fall over themselves to use it every chance they get; every self-respecting donor agency has a presence in Africa. But what is Africa?

Some basics. Firstly, Africa's a continent, not a country. That sounds like stating the obvious, which makes me wonder about ActionAid's claim that they are raising money for "Africa's worst drought in 60 years." Is the drought affecting the entire continent? We are not told.

Secondly, Africa is a pretty big continent. To get an idea of how big it is, you could easily fit the US, Spain, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Eastern Europe, Japan, India AND China into its land mass (see here). Once again, is this drought affecting the entire land mass? We'll have to ask ActionAid to clarify.

Thirdly, Africa is pretty diverse, with over 1 billion people in 61 territories, who have different cultures, speak a multitude of languages (Nigeria alone has over 200), run different socio-political systems, and have different climates. Once again, is this drought affecting all these people? ActionAid does not specify, at least not in the ad.

I did some further digging, and "Africa's worst drought in 60 years" is actually in certain parts of four East African countries, and has affected 13 million people of the entire population of about 130 million in the affected countries. It is clearly an unfortunate state of affairs, one that has likely been exacerbated by failings of the respective governments to adequately prepare (especially when such droughts have happened before). It is heart-warming and encouraging to see people from all over the world chipping in, and I applaud the work being done by agencies like ActionAid to mobilise donations. But I have major issues when donors use sensational banners like those of "Sadia" (who likely comes from an East African country).

I am of the opinion that such ads do more harm than good. I'll explain. If you are reading this, you are likely in the West. So imagine you are on Amazon looking for a christmas gift for a friend, parent or lover. Then you see Sadia's ad. The ad has been designed to grab your attention and tug at your heart - "Africa's in pain, help out with only two quid a month." It works. You do the calculations in your head - that's less than you spend on one drink on Friday evenings, so having one less drink on Friday will make a difference in "Africa." You whip out your card and sign up. You have done your bit for "Africa".

To be continued...

Iron Bat

When I was younger I wanted to be Iron Man. No, don't laugh. I really did want to have megawatts of energy come out a cavity in my chest. Hmmm, that doesn't sound quite right the way I just said it. Anyhow, moving on...

Actually, now that I think about it, I wanted to be Tony Stark being Iron Man; I wanted to be the human in the suit, not the suit itself, you see. Okay, so what I said earlier makes sense now - the megawatts of energy would come out of a cavity in the breast plate of the suit. I hope I'm not losing you as I have a word with myself. Lol.

Back to Iron Man...After changing allegiance from Marvel Comics to DC (don't send hate mail, Marvel fans), I dumped Iron Man and wanted to be Batman (or Bruce Wayne being Batman). Tony had money, but Bruce was in a totally different league in other ways: he had way cooler gadgets, and he had that whole mystery thing going for him. The only minus was the exterior underwear. But hey, nothing in life's perfect.

Looking back now, I realise I limited myself to the characters and stories created by others. Why couldn't I be Bruce Stark, and fly around in an iron suit in the day, AND roam the streets of Gotham at night? Or better yet, be Tony Wayne, and have the suit AND the cape and cool gadgets (sans the external underwear and the silly side-kick)? I let others determine the fantasies that played in my head, and never questioned them because "that was just how it was."

I wonder if I'm doing the same today. Am I, are we, silently going along with scripts others have written for us? Are we thinking outside the boxes society "suggests" we play in? Would we know what to do with ourselves for a decade, if we had all the time in the world, and didn't have to work for money, and could do anything we wanted? Are we truly living, or are we just getting by? Are we being Bruces, or Alfreds?

PS. In support of Occupy Wall Street. A luta continua.

View from my window

Looking out my window, I see a road with several cars, the surrounding buildings, people moving on the side-walk, and a few trees shedding their rusty leaves. So much man-made stuff, so little nature, I say to myself. But is that correct? Is that the truth? Let's revisit that list of things I see, shall we:

The road I see was definitely put there by man, but in the process, he may have had to call on nature for at least two resources - gravel and asphalt; the former is readily available in quarries, and the latter is a by-product of petroleum. How about the cars on the road? The major parts of a car are made of steel (chassis and body), plastic (dashboard, other interior elements, and wire coverings), glass, cloth, and rubber. Each of these is a step, two or three removed from a natural resource. Ditto for the fuel that drives the cars (petroleum). The buildings? Let's see - they are made of bricks, glass, wood, roofing sheets, etc. Same goes for them.

In essence, all I see came from the earth, and will "return" to the earth (the people included). The view may not look "natural", and it's unlikely any college resident would rank it as high as the garden in the Square, but still, everything I see is earth derived; all these things (and the people I see as well) owe their existence - and maintenance - to the earth. I think this partly explains why beautiful architecture amazes me - to see someone do something absolutely stunning with what the earth has given is truly inspiring, especially when I could never do the same.

But back to the issue at hand - everything I see can be traced to a natural resource from somewhere in the world (gravel from England, petroleum from Nigeria, wood from Brazil, etc). We have taken from the earth and built cities and civilisations, and like a good mother, the earth has kept on giving. What irresponsible children we make when we do not care adequately for her, and by extension, for ourselves.

Connecting the dots...

One can't always tell what will matter in the future. Last year I signed up to do volunteer work teaching mathematics to children in a nearby primary school, and a year later, I met and spoke with the Queen because of that decision. Who would have guessed? All my work on the college council meant nothing, as a new team was elected under a month before The Queen's visit! Lucky buggers! Reminds me of how Joseph ended up being Pharaoh's number two, despite his downs and downs in his early years in Egypt; one just can't tell how things will turn out. I like the way Steve Jobs put it - you can only connect the dots looking backwards.

The beautiful thing about connecting the dots is you may not have to change your location or vocation when you connect them; you may be in the same exact situation, one you'd grown used to, but all of a sudden you get it, and everything makes sense. Things seem right, and you appreciate what you have a lot more. It's like C.S. Lewis said, and I'm paraphrasing big-time here, when he said something like "we arrive where we started from and recognise it for the first time." That's what happened to me yesterday.

We went back to the primary school for the first time this school year, and started working with a new set of students. Same school, same classroom, same subject, just younger students. But things had changed for me. Not in some radical, out of the world way. It was just a quiet, unassuming realisation that what we do with the kids really does matter. Even if we only help one child develop their skills in mathematics, it does matter. It matters enough that two of us from the group were introduced to The Queen. It matters enough that we had pictures of the other group members on a board for her to see. We would not have been introduced if what we do doesn't count.

And it mattered all the more yesterday because two of us worked with an incredibly bright boy from a minority background, who likes mathematics and history, and also plays the violin (he's been playing for three years). He loves to learn, and he totally engaged both of us for the entire 90 minutes we spent with him. It was such a joy seeing things through his eyes. I have had experiences like these in the past, but yesterday I connected the dots, and I understood, at a very visceral level, what many people have said about how doing things one enjoys can make a way for one in the world.

Whatever you enjoy doing, do more of it. Become prodigious - produce, invest time, just do it. There's no way to be certain where doing so will take you, but at least you'll enjoy the ride. And if you do end up in a fantastic position, you'll enjoy that, as well as the pleasure of being able to look back and connect the dots. And I guarantee that'll bring a smile to your face, like it did to mine yesterday.