Looking Forward to a Year of Writing and Advocacy

Looking Forward to a Year of Writing and Advocacy

What do Martin Luther King, Adam Smith and Ben Ansell have in common? 

In January I spent time thinking about where best to focus my writing and advocacy in 2024. As inspiration, I read pieces by Martin Luther King, Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations), and Ben Ansell (Why Politics Fails). I didn’t expect the readings to have common themes but they did. Each said, in different ways, that the white middle class values power, advantage or the whip-hand (literally, in the context of Wealth of Nations) over justice, equity or economic stability.

It’s true we are no longer fighting for freedom from bondage or the right to vote, but we recognise that the fight for racial equality is ongoing. Ansell argues that today the middle class uses wealth in equally pervasive ways to maintain their advantage; e.g. by gaining access to the best schools and in the process excluding others.

Some of my articles last year point to the power of the middle class to subvert racial equity sometimes through actions but often – and more powerfully – through inaction that maintains advantage. These articles reflect my fear, not of the far right but of the ‘near middle’; the white middle class who as King put it:

“prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension 

to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.”

My New Year’s reading clarified for me that we can only achieve equity with equal access to finance; and that inequality itself poses an existential threat, because it stops us from working together when we need to deal with our biggest challenges, like climate change. There can be no solidarity in solving these threats without equitable access to wealth.

Through my advocacy work this year I intend to encourage the ‘positive peace’ that King speaks of. This involves posing difficult questions to the middle class that will require answers, not peaceful avoidance or silence. In particular these questions need to be asked of the leaders of funding bodies who, through their funding choices, can catalyse the more equitable distribution of finance.

These funders cannot seek to control the outcomes of their funding but they can provide access to it. Equitable access to wealth creation is an outcome in itself and the single best way to produce Smith’s robust economy, King’s open democracy and Ansell’s idea of politics that  produce more equitable outcomes in education, health, employment, housing and criminal justice.

As King suggests, tensions are an inevitable part of the process to a social peace. I will sharpen my pencil and write with love but not fear.

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Name

Explore more content across my blog

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Wider systemic injustices

We Need To Talk About Race Kevin Osborne

Race & identity

A Personal reflection on getting old! Kevin Osborne

My personal journey

Reflecting on the impact of MeWe360 - Kevin Osborne

MeWe360

Where I sit on white middle class activism

Where I sit on white middle class activism

I have combined my two latest articles into one place because I think the first gives important context for the second – but for those short of time the articles can be read independently of each other.

 

My journey from shame to activism

Growing up, my instinct as a black child was to belong. If I (a foreigner) was compliant, then perhaps they (the white community) would accept me. As such activism was an anathema.

Being an outsider meant having no right to social or political dissension. I would have been ashamed to be called an activist, and I was embarrassed by those in my community who dared raise their voice for racial equity.

 

Prejudice as a natural instinct

Like many children, I internalised racism. This happens because children categorise others based on distinguishable physical characteristics, like colour and gender. The tendency is natural, but quickly turns to racial or gender prejudice if left unchecked. Children as young as three associate race with traits like intelligence, honesty and attractiveness.

As children adopt stereotypes, they start to use them to understand established social hierarchies in society. They then position themselves within them, according to their own physical characteristics – as someone who is black, white, female, male,  black female, white female, and so on. I wanted to belong to the in-group: white boys. Being a black boy put me in the out-group.

Without early intervention, these social hierarchies become normalised and accepted as natural. Some people have less because they are less; some have more because they are ‘better than’ and so deserve more. Deprived of good quality conversations about our differences and sameness, children internalise prejudice and can unwittingly work against both their own and others’ interest.

From there are sown the seeds that undermine our social fabric – now and in the future – and jeopardise our very survival.

 

How in-group bias plays out in social activism

Racism is a distortion of human relationships, created by in-group bias and inequitable distribution of power. It poses an existential threat by creating competing priorities just when we need to work collectively.

As an illustration, social activism on the political left, where people share liberal values of equity and inclusion, is never completely free of racial bias or inequality. It’s an issue I’ve highlighted in previous articles and podcasts.

It’s not incidental that an issue like climate change receives more investment, media coverage and political and public engagement than racial inequity. There’s been more progress on this in a decade than on racial equity in the last half century. It’s because the white middle class (from the left and right) prioritises climate change and has the power to drive this agenda forward at pace.

Those of us who agree that both a net-zero economy and racial equity are important will divide, broadly speaking, along racial and socio-economic lines when pushed on which we should prioritise.

For example, many of the poorest – a disproportionate number of whom are black – would prefer to have their basic needs met before investing in upgrades on inefficient heating systems or polluting cars. This has been Rishi Sunak’s recent argument for delaying emission reduction targets.

We are less able to deal effectively with an existential threat like climate change if we are divided. So we must treat the division itself as a primary threat. The more equitable a society and a world we become, the more robust we will be in dealing with crises that demand collective action.

So black people’s voices are needed in the climate change debate. Our perspective adds something new to the argument, based on our own biases. Bias is not wrong; but a diversity of biases (or perspectives) creates greater equity which makes us stronger.

 

What does this mean for me as an activist?

Activism at its best seeks the sharing of different perspectives, new knowledge and a more equitable distribution of power. Any quashing of a person’s ability to be active is a burn to the individual and to society. In this sense good activism, even when it disrupts, is very much pro-social rather than anti-social.

Coming back to my antipathy to activism as a child: I experienced discrimination living in a society where in-group bias, combined with unfair distribution of knowledge and power, distorted my thinking. The natural tendency for me to have a bias towards the black community was subverted. I preferred white people, so much so that I silenced myself to win approval and was ashamed of those in my community who did the natural thing – using their voices to ask for what was rightfully ours.

Having found activism through writing, I use it to disrupt the status quo to create greater unity. Being an activist isn’t an act of separation from society, it’s a statement of belonging. The more I write the greater my sense of being part of – rather than separate from – society.

 Activism has connected me to who I am, and to who we are. We are black, but we are the same. We are women, but we are the same. We have a disability, but we are the same. We are refugees, or economically-deprived or gay, but we are still the same. We demand equity as human beings, and it is nothing to be ashamed of. It is necessary for our very survival.

 

 

My uncomfortable stance on climate change

 

If I had to put it into words, what drives my activism is the racially equitable distribution of money/wealth by any legal means necessary. This often involves holding seemingly competing ideologies, and I regularly find myself on what feels like the ‘wrong’ side of the political argument. Good long-term policies can have unintended short-term consequences and too many of these disproportionately affect Black and Brown communities.

Take Rishi Sunak’s recent U-turn on a range of policies designed to achieve the UK’s net zero targets. He has ditched some and delayed others by 5 years to 2035. Given the inequitable distribution of wealth in the UK, I instinctively support this policy shift because of its immediate benefit to Black communities. Unlike many of his critics, I’m less concerned with his possible motivations than with the practical outcomes; especially for those who can least afford the initial costs of reducing their carbon emissions – who are disproportionately from Black and Brown communities.

An equitable transition demands that those who have most pay most. An effective transition means that we remove polluting vehicles from the system altogether, and not export pollution to other parts of the UK or the world, by reselling old cars on the open market. To have both an effective and equitable solution we need to fully subsidise the cost of transitioning for those who can least afford it. Current efforts to do this are underfunded and simply leave too many people behind. For example, while the wealthiest move to low emission cars and continue to drive in London, those least able to replace their old cars are faced with daily charges of up to £12.50 per day. Their only other option is to absorb an up to a £3k loss if they apply to the Mayor of London’s scrappage scheme; which provides a grant subsidy (typically less than the value of the car) when someone chooses to get rid of a polluting car.  For those without cars – again, disproportionately Black and Brown communities – there are few benefits without better or free public transport.

I’m torn by my position on this because on the one hand I am allied with a policy that is short term and politically expedient, but on the other, from a race equity lens, one that feels more realistic and fairer. I’ve heard the arguments about the longer-term negative implications of this policy change, including on the least wealthy; but long-term thinking is a privilege. Financial survival means that those who have least don’t have the luxury of thinking beyond the next pay cheque; spending thousands to reduce their carbon emissions is a social necessity too many just can’t afford.

In terms of transitioning to net zero, wealth divides us into those who can and do, those who can but don’t, and those who simply can’t. For this last invisible group, the imposition of inequitable net zero transition policies is (at the very least) a significant inconvenience and at worst a financial tipping point into destitution.

The ideal would be to stick to the original net zero targets and properly subsidise the investment in transition for those who can least afford it. Beyond the initial transition costs there would need to be an investment in new technology to make sure that any ongoing costs associated with running and maintaining any new eco-tech (e.g. an electric car or a heat pump) are kept as low as possible.

Effectively we would need to invest in accelerating the eco tech revolution and protect the poorest whilst this is happening. We are not yet there.

Whatever Rishi Sunak’s reasons for the change to net zero targets, the principle of ‘taking the poor with us’ in the transition to net zero is the right one. Even if that principle is maintained for disingenuous reasons, I’ll support it, whatever side of the political fence it leaves me on. For the poorest the practical outcome of financial survival is more important than the political manoeuvres that deliver those outcomes. Those debates and any subsequent participation in the political process are, unsurprisingly, left to those who have the money and time to engage.

This brings me back to what drives my activism; a more equitable distribution of wealth leads to greater participation in political discourse and in the political process; and political engagement makes for a fairer, more cohesive, and more democratic society, which benefits us all.

 

 

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Name

Explore more content across my blog

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Wider systemic injustices

We Need To Talk About Race Kevin Osborne

Race & identity

A Personal reflection on getting old! Kevin Osborne

My personal journey

Reflecting on the impact of MeWe360 - Kevin Osborne

MeWe360

The arts divided cannot stand

The arts divided cannot stand

The UK’s growing Black, Asian and minority ethnic population* inevitably means that the racial funding gap** in the arts will widen over time. To close it we either need to double down on cuts to large London cultural institutions or come together as a sector to argue for a significant increase in government funding to the arts.

In November, Arts Council England (ACE) announced a significant increase in the proportion of its NPO budget going to racially diverse organisations, from 2.4% to 8.4%. As a result, from next year ACE will distribute its funding more closely in line with the size of the Black, Asian and minority ethnic population, which at the start of the spending review was c.14%.

But by the time ACE announced its spending plans, updated census data put the UK’s ethnically diverse population at 18.3%, and in London 63.2% of the population identified as being from an ethnic minority. This demographic shift means ACE needs to more than double its investment in ethnically diverse organisations to achieve racial equity.

To pay for this increase, the difficult decisions ACE made to make cuts to major London-based institutions like English National Opera (ENO) and the Royal Opera House would need to be consolidated and further cuts implemented.

 

Can we close the racial funding gap and continue to fund incumbent institutions? 

ACE has left the door open to future funding of organisations whose grants were reduced or cut in the last spending review. As CEO Darren Henley CBE said,

We’d like to work with ENO so they are in a strong position to reapply for NPO next time, from outside of London with Coliseum as a key part of their provision.”

Reinstating funding to the likes of ENO while continuing to meet its commitment to racially equitable funding would require a significant increase in ACE’s current budget to c.£2.1bn. This is how it breaks down per annum:

  • The amount required to bridge the racial funding gap in NPO funding from 2023 – £44.1m pa
  • The projected increase in the racial funding gap at the next spending review (2026-30) due to continuing growth of the Black, Asian and ethnically diverse population – £4.92m pa
  • The reinstatement of funding to London organisations – c.£22.4m pa
  • Inflation, estimated conservatively at 5% – £22.3m pa

Total: £93.72m p/a

This represents a 21% increase in ACE’s current budget, from the current level of £446m to c.£540m per annum. So, across the next four-year funding period from 2026-30, ACE’s budget would need to exceed £2.1bn. 

A 21% increase in ACE’s budget is ambitious given the economic climate and can only be achieved if the arts stand together in their call for more money. Achieving the funding needed to close the racial funding gap and maintain the financial support to large incumbent arts institutions will not be possible if there is infighting between ethnic groups and/or artforms.

 

We are all in this together?

There are three years until the next spending review. Unless the arts sector – black and white, classical and non-classical, London and regional – come together to fight for increased funding, we won’t be able to achieve racial equity without further cuts to incumbent organisations.

Within any such collective action, the onus of achieving an additional £93.72m per annum must be shared, and those with most power and influence should shoulder more responsibility.

The recent Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Select Committee meeting scrutinising ACE’s spending review demonstrates the power of the large classical music organisations. Through their lobbying, they were able to haul ACE executives in front of a committee of MPs to explain spending cuts to organisations like the ENO and the Welsh National Opera.

No such scrutiny has ever been undertaken regarding the racial funding gap, something which has led to excellent organisations being cut or, worse, excellent new initiatives never seeing the light of day.

In the lead up to the last spending review, large incumbent arts organisations had little if any interest in actively supporting racial equity beyond their walls. They must now lend their political heft to the campaign for racially equitable funding in the arts sector more broadly, while lobbying for increased overall funding.

Given the scale of the ask we must be clear about our priorities. Any increase to ACE’s budget must first be spent on closing the racial funding gap.

 

Why the racial funding gap needs to be top priority 

As the UK continues to become an ever more multi-racial society, our leaders will inevitably become more diverse. How we give all leaders the funding to build the future charities, social enterprises and businesses they aspire to – and the UK needs – becomes an increasingly pressing question.

Reversing recent cuts to major arts organisations without first achieving racially equitable funding would be to prioritise incumbent classical music institutions – who already receive 80% of ACE’s music budget – over racial equity.

We cannot sweeten the pill or minimise the implications for those who argue for exceptionalism over racial equity. Exceptionalism – sometimes coded as ‘excellence’ – is an outdated device for the exercise of power and privilege. If we are genuinely all in this together then it’s incumbent on large institutions to share limited resources equitably.

So, I call on leaders of the major arts institutions to support the campaign for racially equitable funding in the lead up to ACE’s next spending review. It is their responsibility not only to campaign for the preservation of their own organisations but also to struggle for the right of all communities to reimagine and build the arts organisations of the future.

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to close the racial funding gap in the arts. Our shared belief must be that in doing so we will fully harness the UK’s leadership potential, drive an even more excellent, inclusive, culturally relevant and robust sector.

Now is the time for the major arts institutions to demonstrate that we really are all in this together, by fighting for increased funding, or accepting with equanimity any cuts needed so that resources can be shared fairly. It is this second condition that is important in demonstrating the togetherness or not of the sector.

Accepting cuts is necessary; to close the racial equity gap in the arts is the ultimate sign of unity. Anything else would represent division and an arts sector divided against itself cannot stand.

 

 

*We recognise the diversity of individual identities and lived experiences and understand that various terms used in this piece to describe ethnicity are imperfect and do not fully capture the racial, cultural and ethnic identities of people that experience structural and systematic inequality.

 

** The racial funding gap is the difference between what a funder distributes to ethnically diverse communities and what this funding would be were it in proportion to the UK Black, Asian and minority ethnic population.

 

This article was first published in Arts Professional on 19 January 2023 as part of a series of articles that promote a more equitable and representative sector.

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Name

Explore more content across my blog

create equity, equitable funding, uk, funding gap, racial equality, equity, finance, public funding, investment, kevin osborne

Create Equity

race, identity, inequality, equity, social justice, campaigning, kevin obsorne

Race & identity

A Personal reflection on getting old! Kevin Osborne

My personal journey

Reflecting on the impact of MeWe360 - Kevin Osborne

MeWe360

Addressing racism in football: punishment vs rehabilitation (article)

Addressing racism in football: punishment vs rehabilitation (article)

We can punish fans who racially abuse Black players. We can kick them off social media, ban them from football matches, sack them, fine them. But we cannot move society towards greater tolerance through punitive actions alone. Nor can we completely silence racist speech. As things are currently structured, it will inevitably find expression somewhere.

Over a decade ago I shared some personal stories from my childhood which illustrate how racist ideas of Black inferiority and white supremacy are endemic. 

I am in the school library (aged 15) talking to Martin about football. I say how ‘crap’ the England team is. Martin responds: ‘What have Black people ever contributed to us?’ I know what he’s asking. Any answer I give is to save face. (Pele? Michael Jackson?) I don’t question his view that Black people have not contributed – it is true that we have contributed nothing of worth, otherwise, surely, I would have been taught about it? My trust in the British education system is absolute.

 The weekend before that conversation, this happened:

I am at home alone engrossed in England playing Scotland. In the final minute, Scotland scores a winner. The whistle blows and I feel sick. My cousin walks in and she’s shocked that I’m crying. ‘Don’t you know those England fans would tear you limb from limb if they met you on the street. Don’t cry for England, Kevin.’ Now I sob. The game is lost and in an instant she has ripped apart what fragile identity I was holding onto. She has said what I had always felt: I don’t belong.

 

This sense of not fully belonging is at the heart of the present-day experience of Black football fans. We want to belong, and we trust that we can. We emotionally invest in being fans, but the additional pressure felt by many Black supporters as Rashford, Sancho and Saka took their penalties was a different and separate experience from white supporters. In a visceral way, they were representing us, the Black community; they were shooting to win a football match, but also for our collective sense of belonging. The rejection that followed, even if only by a few white fans, inevitably felt to the players and many Black fans like a rejection by the country. 

Our belonging is tenuous because it is conditional on performing, on not stepping out of line from the expectations set by society. When the unwritten rules are broken, the connection you thought you had with the world around you breaks with it. I considered Martin to be my friend at school, but his ability on the one hand to accept me, but to then completely reject me when I criticised the England team, was emotionally jarring. 

I spent many years dissociating myself from my passion for football. For a long time, the only way I could enjoy a match was by not committing myself emotionally to the outcome. I knew the sense of tribalism that football evoked and was fearful of the racism and rejection that accompanied it.

Only now can I watch a match – and commit emotionally to my hoped-for outcome – without this fear. This freedom comes from remembering that racism, while being an individual act, is cultivated by society. 

With this perspective, the hurt I experienced at Martin’s rejection – and from the fans after the Euro 2020 final – can be felt but without being undermined by it. I am able to see him (them) not only as a beneficiary of the system by virtue of being white but also as a product of the system. We had both absorbed the same message: one of Black inferiority. Despite out-achieving him academically, in sport and in music he could crush me with a single question. No matter how much I achieved, he had an ace card through his sense of innate superiority and belonging. It was never an explicit message, but we both understood it. We absorbed it through the education system, it was embedded by the media, and then spread through the population at large.

This does not excuse what Martin said, or what a few racist England fans did after the Euro 2020 finals, but it frees me from the emotional rollercoaster of the experience. This may be the seed from which a longer-term solution can grow. 

So, returning to my question: do we punish or ‘de-radicalise’ racists in football? We certainly need to recalibrate our response. While messages of support for players are vital in providing succour in response to these highly emotionally charged experiences, punitive action, no matter how satisfying it might feel in the short term, only exacerbates the problem in the long term if not delivered hand-in-hand with rehabilitation and re-education.

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Name

Explore more content across my blog

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Create Equity

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Race & identity

A Personal reflection on getting old! Kevin Osborne

My personal journey

Reflecting on the impact of MeWe360 - Kevin Osborne

MeWe360

Sarah Everard – Taking a wider perspective on discrimination (article)

Sarah Everard – Taking a wider perspective on discrimination (article)

The kidnap and murder of Sarah Everard (like the murder of George Floyd) dominate the news and social media as it rightly sparks upset, the telling of personal stories, outrage, and calls for things to change. When you have a specific manifestation of any discrimination the calls to action sometimes overrides the deep-seated causes and the entrenched structures that make real change hard. It’s important to step back and take a wider view.

Many of us try and fight sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia in relation to our own identity and lived experience. Personally, I think all discrimination shares the same roots, whatever someone’s personal experience. It is the same virus: abuse of power by white patriarchy.  

all discrimination shares the same roots, whatever someone’s personal experience. It is the same virus: abuse of power by white patriarchy.

I wonder if our desire to fight discrimination mainly through our personal lens is to do with our individual capacity to empathise or acknowledge our own unconscious bias on other issues. It’s perhaps natural and obvious that I would find it easier to fight racism, as someone who has experienced it, than to empathise with other forms of discrimination and perhaps to challenge my own unconscious prejudices on some of these other issues.

Until everyone who is fighting discrimination unites to acknowledge the parallels and fight the roots, we are all just fighting for a fairer share of a rotten and infected pie as one tragic event knocks another off the political and media agendas.

“The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”.
Audre Lorde

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Name

Explore more content across my blog

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Create Equity

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Race & identity

A Personal reflection on getting old! Kevin Osborne

My personal journey

Reflecting on the impact of MeWe360 - Kevin Osborne

MeWe360

Racial Fluidity (article)

Racial Fluidity (article)

A few weeks ago I shared post on my LinkedIn, exploring the concept of racial fluidity. This sparked quite a lot of interest and there were some stimulating responses, so much so that I am organising an informal group discussion about it in late February / early March. Here’s the LinkedIn post: 

“There is an increased presence of identity politics in my life. I have noticed my response to the language of gender fluidity and my resistance to the use of new pronouns. I want to do the work to understand my emotional resistance to it and shake it off.

I find it helpful to see gender fluidity through the lens of race. The concept of racial fluidity has formed – maybe, as with gender, racial identity is part of a spectrum?

Whether we define gender as biological, physical, cultural or emotional states of being, it is obviously fluid. Similarly, if we define race by these measures, it must also be fluid.

If an NHS form can offer ‘I prefer to use my own term’ for gender and sexual orientation, why not for race? If you have resistance to this idea then perhaps, like me, you have work to do too? ”

Here is a comment thread between Akin and me:

Akin: Our ‘common values’ are currently in flux. Also our society is less monolithic ( certainly cultural, socio-political and religious) than it was say, a hundred years ago. So, pretty much everything is up for grabs. This is the one of the reasons why our society is currently divided. When Neitzsche said “God is dead”. It seems he meant it as a warning of the consequence of the loss of a common ‘beacon’, but what we heard instead was a celebration. Potentially, racial fluidity might be the next battle ground 5-10 years from now. When I say racial fluidity, I mean ‘self identifying’ as a different race to the race that you were born. That’ll be fun! My personal question is as a society, who is in the driving seat of our common values and who is navigating? This is crucial as our values is what binds us together. My fear is that It is always tends to be the same small pocket of people who control what we see, when we see it and how we see it. They are the new clerics.

Me: ….Part of racial fluidity is ‘self identifying’ as a different race. But for me it’s also about just us acknowledging racial fluidity as a reality, whether we choose to self identify or not. I.e. that most of us, in one way or another, sit on the spectrum between ‘black’ and ‘white’. My last post ‘Letter To My 16 Year Old Self’ illustrates this. I’m wondering if a general acceptance of racial fluidity, as a fact of life, would have allowed me (and others) a more ‘free’ (comfortable) process for exploring racial identity; one that would be less driven and navigated by others and as a result less loaded with shame. Just a thought. Thanks for your response.

Akin: but ‘racial fluidity’ isn’t a fact of life (unless we make it one. Again, what do we define as race? ). People are bi-racial, tri-racial. Thats a fact of life. Could you Kevin self identify as Chinese? I am not sure. Esp If you don’t have any Chinese admixture and ancestry. Again, we aren’t the total sum of reality. We are a part of society and are a reflection of society at that point in time. Every society has its own quirk. Where I grew up in Nigeria, a white person who is fully absorbed into the culture and speaks the language would be pretty much considered African and Black and treated as such, knowing that the acceptance is not in any way erasing their ‘whiteness’. They do not swap one race for the other, or jump between races They are fully adopted in one, while ‘retaining’ the race of birth.

Me: Yes, it does depend on how we define race, which is a whole debate, as definitions change from place to place. For that reason, I mainly speak about the UK / European experience which I know. I was using the criteria for race mentioned in my original comment and which I think, apply to gender ID. The criteria are up for debate. My assertion is if they apply to gender they also must apply to race. And if gender fluidity is a fact of life in the UK then so must racial fluidity. That said, you example of how things operate in Nigeria is really interesting and would perhaps prevent the need for race fluidity as a concept, as people are just accepted whatever their colour, heritage etc if they naturally assimilate. This approach would probably be the ideal. I can see how it would happen in Nigeria / Africa but I’m less optimistic about this happening anytime soon in the UK / Europe. We will likely need to go down the identity politics route at least initially (because it’s already being adopted ) perhaps as a step towards what you describe happens in Nigeria.

Akin: What is race? I have heard some people define everything from muslims to french people as a race. My thinking is that the definition of ‘race’ should or could be framed around it’s original definition at its conception ( from round about the enlightenment ), because that is the construct that we are still grappling with today. It’Il be odd to suddenly change the rules of a football game into basketball rules, while still playing the football game. Using that definition ( or one not too far from it) I think race and gender are totally different. Certainly from a scientific point of view there is very little similarity. Certainly, the history that underpins our experience and understanding of race and gender aren’t the same. Sure there are similarities (esp in the realms for the struggle for equality). But oranges and apples are both fruits, but no one would argue they are the same fruit. I understand we are made to believe what applies to one applies to the other, but that’s a totally different conversation. When this Covid thing is over, it’ll be interesting top have a proper conversation about the subject of identity politics and the broader picture of how we navigate forward as a people.

Me: Again, really interesting about whether race or gender or any other identity label has remained a static concept or whether they have been a moving targets over the generations as knowledge has changed. Would love to set up a conversation. I’ll have someone at my end try to organise a small group conversation to chew the fat on this. Perhaps on Zoom in first instance. Will see what if any appetite there is. Thanks

Akin: that would be cool.


Shortly after the post was published, there was an interesting conversation on the BBC Today Programme on Jan 14th, – The segment starts at 1:49:50 and is about 7 minutes long –  about the need to ask for both your sex and gender on the census; i.e. is important to include a question on biological sex or is it enough to just ask about the gender that people identify as?

It’s only a matter of time before the same question is asked about race, which will be an interesting debate.

This is a topic that interests me, and I want to keep exploring. If you have any views or suggested reading on the idea of racial fluidity I’d love to hear from you. Find me on Linkedin, Twitter or Instagram, mention me on your post and tag  #racialfluidity let’s keep the conversation going!

Sign up for updates from Kevin Osborne

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Name

Explore more content across my blog

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Create Equity

White Strike for Climate Change (Podcast) Kevin Osborne

Race & identity

A Personal reflection on getting old! Kevin Osborne

My personal journey

Reflecting on the impact of MeWe360 - Kevin Osborne

MeWe360