Diran Adebayo
I lost my heart in…Durban
(Travel, 'The Guardian') Saturday June 30, 2001

Why? Durban certainly isn’t the prettiest town in the world, but my trip there in September 1994 was the first time I’d been to Africa. My background’s Nigerian, but I was bred over here, so the whole thing was quite emotional for me. South Africa itself is a very peculiar country. The big towns seem so first world that I didn’t feel like I was in Africa at all.Then you notice the light, so strong and bright that it seems like you’ve never seen a proper day before. 

What’s the best thing? There’s a bar there called Jam & Co where I met someone who really made Durban a special place. It’s a big Zulu hangout, full of the most amazing characters. I was drinking the local brew, milk stout, and I looked over to the pool table and saw a woman in a long trenchcoat and a big soft leather hat. She was shooting pool fiercely, taking on all the men and beating them. Her name was Bushy, which means blessed monkey. She was half-Sotho, half-Swazi. I hooked up with her and she came to be a great friend….

Malcolm X
('The Independent') Friday 8 March 2002
Diran Adebayo: A hero who gave black people an enduring legacy

Auction of Malcolm X journals causes fury

White people’s black heroes and black people’s black heroes are rarely the same thing.

The tunes that you’ll see punters lapping up at a black house party or at a club in a black neighbourhood are different to the chart-denting hip-hop or R ‘n B you’ll hear in some multi-racial spot in the West End.

This has so often proved to be the case that any new black hero being championed by the mainstream – the singer Macy Gray, say, a couple of years ago, or the novelist James Baldwin, whose 1964 book, Another Country, was covered by an entire special issue in The New Yorker magazine – will usually be greeted with a large dose of scepticism by most blacks.

“Well, if he is really saying something, something that would strike a chord for us,” runs the thinking, “then why do they like him so much?”

It was with such an attitude that I approached the perennial MalcomX/Martin Luther King question, on first hearing of them as a teenager. Like the Blur-Oasis debate, which so exercised many whites in the mid-Nineties, any student of the “civil rights” era in 1960s America feels that they have to be for one or the other.

That Luther King won the Nobel Peace Prize was all I needed to know to be instinctively pro-Malcolm.

I read him with some fear, though; the fear you have that your putative hero will turn out to have feet of clay. In his case, my worry was that he might be one of those cheerleader types; the type that panders to his audience with easy fighting talk and braggadocio, rather than the rigour and the serious analysis you need to lead a people forward.

My fears, happily, were unfounded. He remains a favourite of the those with the cheerleader tendency – the swiftest way to get the crowd with you at any black-Brit political gathering is still to reference Malcolm in your speech – but the reasons for the endurance of his status as an icon go beyond that.

Malcolm X and his allies wrested control of black American politics – and therefore of black politics throughout the Western diaspora – away from those who espoused the Christian-dominated, softly-softly approach that had dominated from post-slavery times.

He established the legitimacy of a more robust response to the racial injustices of his country. In so doing, he helped to lay a template that was then built on by the Black Panthers in America and continued with the urban disturbances in areas such as Brixton and Handsworth in the Eighties or in Oldham last year.

Malcolm X was, arguably, more internationalist and more modern in his thinking than Luther King, developing a politics that could bring in the latest American interventions in the Congo and Vietnam as grist to his mill.

In the last years of his life – and this is why the news of these private papers is so exciting – he moved to an understanding that the lack of respect shown to blacks in America was part of a wider disrespect to people of colour throughout the world.

As he said in a speech to students in 1964: “You can’t separate the African revolution from the mood of the black man in America.” A British Muslim going out to fight for the Taliban is likely to tell you the same thing.

Diran Adebayo is a novelist. He published his first novel, ‘Some Kind of Black’, in 1996.
On Babyfathers
(The Guardian) 2002
Battersea, south London, is a neighbourhood of intriguing social conjunctions. On one side, it’s pure middle-class whitesville. Dozens of restaurants line Battersea Rise, and here white professionals eat and greet, a short walk away from their £250, 000 flats. On the other (literally – the other side of Clapham Junction station), you’ll find the housing estates and low-cost council homes, where black and white working-class folk grow cheek by jowl. Uptown meets Downtown in the local shopping centre on a Saturday: successful thirtysomething women, their pregnancies delayed because of their careers, as is the fashion, with their all mod cons all-terrain prams, or their IVF-friendly triplebuggies, jostle with the proles, who sport humble, old-school ‘Mothercare’ prams. Their kids are either black or mixed-race, and the mothers sometimes stoop a little, because their prams are poorly designed and too short for them. These babies’ fathers don’t tend to be around. Not today. Maybe tomorrow, to take the young one out to McDonalds. Then gone again. This is ‘Nappy Valley’, the cutting-edge present, and very much the way of our diverging futures.

Seven years after Patrick Augustus’ novel ‘Babyfather’ put a fictional spin around an ongoing social phenomenon, and in the week that the Television dramatization of that novel hits our screens, the Babyfather/babymother culture is, if anything, more deeply entrenched. With the highest divorce and the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe, Britain leads the way in unorthodox family arrangements. Given that the black population of these isles is, according to the last census anyway, less than 3%, it’s clear that we haven’t had that much to do with this situation, nevertheless it’s also true that that the Babyfather phenomenon is a largely black, largely Caribbean, contribution.

How did it start, then, this babyfather business? Historically, the roots seem to lie in the survival patterns adopted by many African and Afro-Caribbean families where the adultman in the family might have to travel and live far away to find work, leaving his children to be brought up by their mother and grandmother. These matriarchal structures tended to be more pronounced in the Caribbean where small,poorly-resourced islands added to the vicious family dislocations caused by slavery and its aftermath, making it even harder for families to feed themselves. Somewhere along this line, with absent fathers siring children, babyfatherhood began.

“There have always been babyfathers in the Caribbean”, says Carroll Thompson, 38, the singer and Queen of eighties lovers’ rock. She is quick to point out, though, the old class divide on this matter. ‘In Jamaica, the more middle-class types tended to look down on such a thing. But for many other groups they would say,’Oh, he’s my babyfather or ‘she’s my babymother’with pride, as a mark of respect to that person.”

But she, like I, and most black folk here over thirty, was raised by both her parents. Something happened,then,between the sixties and the present, to bring us to the position where, according to the 1991 census (and you can be sure the figures will rise when the new statistics emerge), over half of all Afro- Caribbean children,and one in three African, live in lone mother households, compared to 16 percent of white children and eight percent south Asian.

What happened, mainly, is Britain. The Britain of the fifties and early sixties was a place where abortion was,by and large,illegal, where unorthodox family setups were frowned upon and where, if you got a lady pregnant, you married and, no doubt, stayed with her. Mothers, generally, collectively-minded, put up with whatever grief their husbands put them through.

But with the onset of the pill, feminism, the change in moral climate and, crucially, increasingly generous and targetted welfare provision, women put up with less. This was true, to a greater or lesser extent depending on socialization, among women across all classes and races in this country but for poorer people,and remember the black population here has been, since the fifties, largely Caribbean working-class,the problems and the attendant solutions, tend to be more brutal, more materially-minded. Why should I stay, runs the argument with a littlemoney, ‘no fix-up’ man,when I would be higher up the council queue for homes just with myself and my child? My mother brought me up on her own, so I can bring this one up too. And so such a mother, still perhaps collectively-minded,but with the diktats of the ‘Me,Me,Me’and the instant gratification society that we live in also absorbed, tells her child’s husband to leave the home. The man may still be very fond of his baby’smother ,but agree that it is better for everyone this way. He may also have grown up in a lone parent home, and so he’ll feel his babymother can do it too. As with technology, so with legal provision. Where it starts, people will follow. And aswith the law, so with the climate. People, both men and women,will do what they can get away with,and what their peers are doing, and so a trend begins to mushroom.

It’s important then,to realise that the ‘Babyfather’culture is being driven as much by the women as the men. With black women doing better and better economically compared to the black men they may have grown up, they’re meeting other (white) men that they feel have better prospects, often jettisoning that teenage love they had their first child by. Until such ones get hitched again, they’re babymothers too, albeit corporate- style.

The middle-classes are joining the ‘Babymother’brigade in other ways too. White and black female contemporaries of mine, fast giving up on finding ‘Mister Right’, but keen to have children, are contemplating all sorts of ‘new age’ fatherless arrangements. It’s across all races, all classes now. The prams in Battersea shopping centre, be they ‘Mothercare’or all-terrain, may all be babymothered soon.
On the new black middle-class
('The Observer') Sunday June 2, 2002
‘We’re all middle class now,’ retorted Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott famously when Today ‘s John Humphrys suggested he’d moved from his working-class roots. Prescott’s father rushed to disagree with his son and, no doubt, many from Britain’s black communities, for whom some connection to street and working-class life remains key to establishing their race credentials, would second Prescott senior. Nevertheless, all the statistics point to Britain being an increasingly affluent society, with higher numbers going into higher education, and, at 12 per cent, a higher proportion of those are blacks and Asians, more than ever before. Wednesday’s elevation of Paul Boateng to the Cabinet and of Tottenham MP David Lammy to ministerial office have been talked up by some media commentators as the clearest indication yet of the arrival of a new black middle class. I’m not so certain.

What makes a middle class? Three factors strike me as key: money, attitude and lifestyle. Black Britons certainly have more money than they did a generation or two ago. Many of us, the children of immigrants who often did menial jobs or else struggled to find employment commensurate with their qualifications, now wear suits to work. But this money rarely amounts to serious wealth, because this new middle class is overwhelmingly employed in the public sector. Educated black people tend to work for the local councils, in housing, social work etc; if we’re lawyers, we tend to be at the lowly paid, legally aided criminal side of things rather than the lucrative corporate tax arena.

If we’re in the media we’re mainly climbing the rungs of the public service BBC. Otherwise, there many people who earn their money chiefly through constant applications to Whitehall or the European Union to fund various black community projects up and down the land. If it wasn’t for the state, the black middle class would be in big trouble.
Serious money, the kind of money that is handed down through generations, comes from working in corporations or from business interests but most blacks remain almost excluded from this kind of employment. A list of the wealthiest black people in Britain would be no match for the British Asian or British Jewish Top 100.

The reason why the Asian middle class is so much bigger is because it stopped working for others a long time ago, believes Henry Bonsu, pundit and presenter of BBC London Live’s DriveTime . ‘Otherwise you’re always going to be crawling, rather than sprinting ahead.’

There are positive signs in the increasing number of young black men training in areas like IT in particular, the type of work that allows you to start up a company and then hire out your services to big corporations, but we remain a community of slightly insecure employees. Perhaps this insecurity is fed by the lack of a long British black middle-class pedigree. Any number of white middle-class peers of mine were only able to buy their first house, and so entrench their middle-class status, by courtesy of their grandparents’ estate or a top-up from their parents. Few of the new black middle classes can call on such aid. The real middle classes are those who have got a serious financial cushion beneath them.

This is not to say that many of us weren’t middle-class in our own native lands. The majority of Africans who came over here during the Fifties and Sixties, years of high immigration, came from middle-class backgrounds, often arriving as students, whereas the majority of Caribbeans, in particular the Jamaicans, came from rural, artisan backgrounds, a difference reflected in the fact that black British of African descent, despite making up only 20 per cent of the black British population, outnumber black Caribbeans in higher education by two to one.

But despite those differences in background, I would say that most of our parents shared a certain middle-class class or ‘immigrant mentality’; ie, whether it be through education or not, your children must work very hard and patiently to succeed in this country. That mentality has foundered in recent years against an emerging black British culture, and a wider national culture, which is ever more ‘working-class’ in its outlook. Middle-class people are very good at deferring gratification, at looking at the bigger picture, at saving their money now to win a bigger prize later; working-class minded folk are less so.

In working-class communities, where few people can point to their jobs as evidence of high status, you tend to gain status by spending money on visible things – on fashionable clothes, on jewellery, on a nice car. In poor countries, in Africa or the Caribbean, to even have the money to buy a car and gold, you need to have a good job, which probably means getting educated. Not so over here, especially given the prevailing images of Western black culture. Being ‘street’ – street-tough, street-cool, physical rather than cerebral – is what we Western blacks are famous for, and defined by.

It’s a vision entrenched as much by our current popular culture-makers, chiefly our musicians, as much as it has been reinforced by the types of neighbourhoods we’ve tended to grow in and the other working-class people we’ve integrated with there, who look to us to be that. A bravado culture has grown up among blacks living in largely black areas, a ‘bling-bling’ culture of instant money and instant gratification; all these things are inimical to the building of a sturdy middle class.

Let me give you two examples. A friend of mine, a black parent who lives in Lambeth, in south London, constantly bemoans the bad state schooling provision in his borough and worries about what’s going to happen to his children. He’s by no means rich but has always had a nice car. Last time I saw him, he had a brand new Mercedes. He’d come into some money, he told me. But rather than spending the money on private tuition for his kids, he’d spent it on flashy wheels.

There is the son of a family friend, a 20-year-old whose Ghanaian parents have asked me to ‘mentor’ him. He’d got into a bit of trouble as a youth at school in Haringey, north London, so they sent him back to Ghana, to Achimota, Ghana’s Eton, and Paul Boateng’s alma mater. To see him, his jeans slung extremely low, with his jewellery and all the other black urban trappings, you wouldn’t think he’d been to an Eton. To hear the slang he uses and the rather harsh way he talks to his girlfriend, you’re struck again by how much most black people in these areas, even from ‘middle-class’ homes, feel they have to buy into certain street attitudes. After Achimota, he returned to his north London school, where he told me that various bad-boy stances were even more deeply embedded than before. ‘My parents kept on telling me to go to school, go to school, but school is where the trouble is,’ he says.

He’d begun an IT course, but has now given that up. The reason? There’s no money being a student and he wants more cash now. It’s little use me telling him to plan for the future. He has to answer to his peers every day, not to me.

This is certainly more a boy’s problem. Black Western popular culture is based on manly attributes, so girls suffer less from the negative sides of it, a fact reflected in the figures which now show that black women earn more than black men. Black women are far more likely to exercise what we might call traditional middle-class lifestyle options – to read fiction, go on outings to the countryside or go on a skiing holiday. They’re beginning to hit the mainstream middle-class arts venues, such as the South Bank in London, albeit mainly for black occasions such as the Celebration of My Sisters annual jamboree. But you’ll find precious few still attending its regular events, like a jazz night.

The new black middle class is coming and is growing. It may well be helped by the imminent arrival of faith schools, too, for the black church movement, instrumental in the rise of the United States’s black middle class is strong here, too. But few of this new class will be living in black areas like my mentoree. They’ll be living where their white peers do – in the suburbs – and their children will be educated in mainly white schools.

Those who will be most successful will be those who can talk the talk of the club – the mainly white middle-class club – best. But unless certain values change, the mass of black Britons won’t be joining them for a long time to come.
Diaspora chic is big in the Academy but not on the streets
('Index on Censorship') 2003
I have in front of me an invitation to speak at a forthcoming Windsor conference whose theme is: ‘The Imaginary Homeland: Has Commonwealth Literature Had its Day?’ My session is entitled, ‘Britain as the last colony of the British Empire’. Various notables of the ‘post-colonial’/ commonwealth diaspora literary scene, Abdulrazak Gurnah, Aamer Hussein, Ben Okri, are due to attend, as well as older gods like Wilson Harris and Peter Porter. I know that, amidst the academics and writers and what have you, my early thirties self will probably be the youngest one there, and this will contribute to a certain sense of distance,  a lack of full commonality that  I tend to feel at gigs like these. But I expect I’ll go. Amongst other reasons, I’d be foolish not to. This is the market, you see, but increasingly I’m not sure that it’s me.

The ‘post-colonial’ school has been the main lens through which non-white Writers of any international antecedents have been discussed these past twenty years. As someone whose parents had emigrated from Nigeria, and had grown up with Heinemann’s African Writers Series as well as British classics on the family shelves,  I readily accepted  induction into the diaspora circle when my first novel was published. Like most other writers i wanted critical and commercial comforts and I wascertainly mindful of how the post-colonial school was big in the academy. Given the unlikelihood of serious novelists making big commercial breakthroughs, especially ones with ‘strange’names – I’m always mindful of GK Chesterton’s mot that the  British public will never greatly buy a book by an author whose name they can’t pronounce – it’s as well to keep the academy onside.  You have half an eye on a tenured academic post, like Gurnah’s at the University of Kent or, better still, like Caryl Phillips, overlooking New York’s Hudson River. Just the kind of thing  a writer might want in his mid years, when the demands of a family, say, have sapped his novelistic energies.

But, of course, I am as much a Briton as a diasporan.  I came into the writing game partly to record this British/black British world around me only to quickly see that such an obvious ambition did not sit easily with the dominant diaspora chic.

I should have known. Looking forliterary ‘role models’as an apprentice writer, what was most striking about various eminent diasporans your Okris, your Caryl Phillips – was that, despite them living in Britain, hardly any of them engaged on the page, with the British, black British world around them. Of course any writer can only answer to their own concerns, nevertheless it strikes me, now as much as then, that to be hailed as an important  non-white writer, one’s work has to fall into what you might call a ‘once removed’ category: either removed in place -set your work in places that are exotic to the key western market,with exotic mythologies or world views operating (Okri, Roy) -or in time – if I had a dollar for every book that has re-played the slavery experience to general acclaim (Morrison’s’Beloved’, Phillips”Cambridge’, Fred D’Aguiar’s ‘Feeding the Ghosts’ etc etc.) I’d be a rich man. No doubt this tendency has much to do with the long tradition of well-known writing in these areas, a tradition that most of the diaspora critics would have grown up in, and gained  their professorships on. They tend to champion those who easily lend themselves to  the kind of discourse that is their own bread and butter. (One should never underestimate the influence that art patrons have on the type of art that is produced. A friend of mine, a UK Chinese artist, found that, amongst all the different applications she used to send into the Arts Council to fund diverse video projects,the only ones tomeet with success were those whose themes were riffs on Chinese restaurants and ‘Takeaway’culture. So now ‘Take Away’stuff is all she does).

The tendency is also enhanced by people’s- the readers’, the diaspora mafia’s – general reluctance to deal with any sensitive matter that is right in front of them. And race- encounters between whites and non-whites -is sensitive. It’s far easier for a reader to feel pity for a slave than to be moved by the story of a 21st century young black British male when it’s these same males she fears when she  walks  out onto the street. Kureishi was different. Seeing his film’My Beautiful Launderette’ was one of the great moments of my apprentice years. Here, at last, was a diasoporan, an Anglo-Pakistani, who was setting his stuff in modern Britain, inall its multicoloured edgy splendour. Now Kureishi is more about sex than he was more about race although, as I then saw, to my disappointment in his debut novel ‘The Buddha of Suburbia’,about a certain type of racial encounter that I was less interested in chronicling. In that novel, his two main characters, the Asian father and son, spend most of their time in white circles – the Dad is a guru figure to white suburbanites while the son, when he’s not listening to David Bowie, expends his energies trying to make it as an actor in the liberal circles of the ‘Royal Court’. The book, like ‘Launderette’ before,  was a hit and it occurred to me, that, to have a black-British hit, you had to provide white lines of entry into the work. (The runaway successof  Zadie Smith’s ‘WhiteTeeth’and the Asian comedy series ‘goodness Gracious Me’ is further evidence of that). Being a progressive and rather contrary-minded, I set about, in my second novel, to writea book set in Britain that had no white points of entry, partly because it reflects a truth – lots of black people here, like the characters in my novel, see few, if any whites in their everyday lives, and partly because the reception to such a book would tell me whether or not black people had arrived as full members of the human club. White contemporary tales ,of course,with no black points of entry,are frequently seen as being ‘universal’or of wide social significance.

The novel, ‘My Once upon A Time’, deployed the noir private eye tradition  to tell a state of the nation-London story. The novel had strong Yoruba religious flavours to it too – the Yoruba religion being the one that, quiet as its kept,  in its modern guises of voodoo,santeria and candomble, informs black lives in the diaspora  as much as any any other carry over from the old country. It was an old world-new world tale and one I was very proud of, not least because I’d put down every part of me.

The novel was very well received where it was reviewed. Unfortunately, the only newspapers that didn’t review it on publication were the ones that my potential readers tend to read – the liberal left ones,the ones,interestingly, where diaspora chic is strongest. I suspect that my novel, to mix some metaphors,dropped into the cracks, between various stools. The rather sniffy diaspora-critical gatekeepers out there would not have seen enough orthodox diaspora stuff in this novel that had slang and shootings in London clubs,whilst its literateness and my own education would have precluded a certain, ‘all hail the primitive/ black guy straight off the streets’approach -that other long-standing exotica tradition. And as for Yoruba mythology -well few would take voodoo’s ancestor seriously. There is nothing like the respect for African culture, African religions,that there is for their Asian counterparts (the diaspora is not a level-playing field). And so a certain typeof black work is still released  into what feels like a critical vacuum.

I suspect too, from various times I’ve crossed paths with the diaspora mafia, that they havea certain unease when faced with the new, emerging black-British school;  that their old certainties may no longer apply in the new, upcoming world. And they’re right to feel so for one of the most striking things about my generation of black britons is how little solidarity it feels with newer Britiash-based diasporans, such as the north Africans,  the Sudanese or Somalians who came here in the nineties or the Eastern european asylum seekers. Eritrean cabbies  have told me of brutal robberies wheretheir black-British fareturned assailant has screamed at them’YouF-ing refugee!’ whilst burglaries are routinely blamed on the new Kosovans in the neighbourhood. Complaints about the refugees taking the councilhouses and slowing down their kids’progrees at schools or theri treatment ina doctor’s surgery has become a regular refrain.. Diaspora chic may be big in the acacdemy,  but not on the streets. Perhaps a sense of commonwealth, post-colonial solidarity was quite prevalent in the sixties and seventies, certainly not  now, in this increasingly British black Britain..The only black diaspora that most of my peers feel part of is their own native country,and, always, America – the place where black people are glamorous and millionaires.   

So new diasporas are emerging, old ones with their old assumptions  fading,  friends and enemies, all less obvious than before. Professional  diasporadom will no doubt adapt to survive, but it will have to some serious re-orienting if it is to keep any meaningful place at literature’s High Table.
Tribal Britons should live and let live
('The Guardian') 2005
Culture, not race, is becoming the main barrier for modern migrants

Plus ça change … It’s hard not to feel the force of the old maxim when confronted with the Mori survey for Prospect magazine which, as this newspaper reported yesterday, found that four in 10 white people don’t want an Asian or black Briton as their neighbour – while two in five Britons generally would prefer to live in an area with people from the same ethnic background. Seven years into New Labour Britain, four years after the MacPherson report and liberals thought they were licking this race problem. Now along it comes again to bite you.

Should we be concerned by the report’s findings? I think, on the whole, yes, but not for the reasons most liberals think we should be.

Although many of the questions – as well as the headlines generated – are phrased racially, respondents have answered culturally. The poll asked if “race and immigration” was one of the most important issues facing Britain today, and found that 29% believed so, three times the level of a decade ago. But most of the respondents’ resentment was aimed at asylum seekers or recent immigrants as opposed to second generation black and Asian Britons who, together with their parents, make up the vast majority of non-whites living in this country.

On London Live Radio’s phone-in yesterday, the story was similar. A white man from Chelmsford, Essex, complains about a mosque that has been erected 100 yards from his house, and that now the value of his house has plummeted 20%. A white lady from Peckham, inner-city London, says that she has no problem with the black Britons her children go to school with, but with the dirty-looking eastern European women who hassle her for money on the street.

Whether we like it or not, human beings are tribal animals. When I walk into a room, I feel most comfortable among second-generation west African-Brits. I would expect our upbringings and experiences to be similar and that they, given time, would understand where I’m coming from, in a way that the middle-class whites I went to university with and the working-class whites and British Caribbeans that I grew up around, might not. I would relax instantly too in a room of writers, for the same tribal reasons. And writers of west African background – they can live next to me any time they want.

Who we believe our tribe to be is determined by a number of factors: race, class and, most crucially, culture. This latest survey confirms that more and more people are moving beyond straight racial thinking, proving that culture is the deeper category. The main faultline now is not what colour you have to be to be British but, rather, who has British or western ways – and who doesn’t. If you have those western ways, most of the time you’re one of us.

Racial thinking remains deep in the European psyche, where race and culture are still commingled in people’s minds. The problem for UK blacks, for example, is that we are now so negatively associated with street culture that many aspirationally minded whites (and blacks) don’t want to live by us, because they don’t want their children unfavourably influenced. These parents don’t mind their kids listening to R’n’B or hip-hop, but they don’t want the full monty.

We are supposed to be moving towards “post-black” and “post-white” times. But these poll results and real life suggest that while African-American and Caribbean trappings will be seized upon by some whites as a lifestyle choice, and some western-minded black people will benefit, so much of the real work of undermining entrenched stereotypes remains to be done.

At least black Brits can battle to change their image. For many Asians, though, I believe the problem is more intractable. Asian cultures, with their different languages and religions, are perceived, post 9/11 especially, as more alien, and more threatening. Unless you’re seen as clearly British, you may be the enemy within.

In France, they’ve always preferred the route of total assimilation of their once colonial subjects. In the US, every new arrival has to take citizenship lessons but, once they’ve passed that test, they are left to live their own way, even though they don’t mix.

Britain has long had its third way: a largely hands-off approach – indirect rule in the colonies and, over here, no citizenship test but housing historically integrated, at least at the working class level. Now we need to take a leaf from the US and widen our concept of Britishness by becoming more of a “do as you please” people and giving people the space to live their lives as they wish. People may always be tribal, but we cannot halt modernity. The migrant genie is way out of the bottle and can’t be put back. It may be that we’ll never all want to live right by one other. But we can all work towards sharing the same country, more happily.
The African Psyche
('New Statesman') 2005

I remember my words, if not quite what led up to them. It was two years ago and I was in the Western Cape, in South Africa, attending this rather fancy conference, UKUZA, that linked British politicians, writers and other cultural players with their South African counterparts. It was late and I was coming back from somewhere in a cab with a co-visitor. I know I was in a good mood – for a while, I had felt more optimistic about South Africa than any other sub-Saharan country, and we’d already had two great days of inspiring, humbling conversations with locals, grand and common, who had done something truly significant with their lives, and bore the scars from Pollsmoor Prison to prove it. But I remember my contentment being tinged with a sadness, a puzzlement: how could such a strong, switched-on, political people have let that situation go on for so long, when there were so many of them, and so few of the other? As I say, I forget the trigger, but I turned to my friend, a British Caribbean poet, as it happens, and shook my head and said: “God, if they’d had, say, thirty million Jamaicans down here instead of thirty million Swazis and Sothos, they would have dealt with that apartheid nonsense in a week!”

Perhaps the trigger was a moment earlier that day. I had gone to this arts and crafts market in Cape Town, and was just walking around it, enjoying the anonymity you can have as a black visitor to a black country, and all the banter and exchanges between the stallholders. And then, as soon as I opened my mouth, the confident banter stopped. Everyone was now aware that a westerner was in their midst and the stallholders lapsed into a servile, meek mode. It upset me. Serving is one thing, but servility is another.

Meekness is a charge often laid at the door of Africans by other black peoples. I know there are many British Caribbean folk, for example, who feel that the reason why so many Africans over here are employed in the lowly-paid, small-hours industries – office-cleaning, Tube maintenance and so on – is that they won’t stand up for themselves like Caribbean people and complain about conditions. Now I don’t believe that meekness has got anything to do with such employment choices, but I do accept that there is a soft, pacific something in most African people I know, be they Ugandans, Rwandans, Southern Africans, even the loud and argumentative Yorubas (my crew). I have a friend, Brother Nye, who is wont to leave the Tube or the bus if there’s too much noise or general aggravation in it. It disturbs his spirits – very African. Or check out African music – so different from western rock or even classical. There’s no anger in it.

This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg conundrum: it is hard to say which came first. Perhaps it was there in our spirits already, but certainly some things – I suspect much more upbringing, combined with the facts of life in Africa – have conspired to produce a psyche that is ill-suited to our getting rid of bad rulers, be they Afrikaners or others, as quickly as we should.

A plea for forgiveness is already, I think, in order. I am aware that any even cursory examination will throw up plenty of good reasons for why apartheid lasted the 47 years that it did: one side had a lot more guns than the other, et cetera, et cetera. I am aware, too, that continental Africa can say that it endured gross racial injustice for a considerably shorter period – fewer than a hundred years of direct colonial rule – than its dispersed cousins in the Americas, and that both “Africas” can lay claim to great fighting traditions, from the Maroons in Jamaica and Toussaint l’Ouverture in Haiti to the Zulus in South Africa and the Ashantis in Ghana, with their anti-British warrior queen Yaa Asantewa. Moreover, I fear that I may be extrapolating too crudely from a current personal preoccupation. I’ve hit that mid-thirties age now where it really starts becoming clear to yourself what you are, and why you might be what you are. And like most, I am increasingly aware of the hand of my parents in what I have become (hell, my mouth even smells now like my father’s used to, before I brush my teeth of a morning). So, for all these reasons, I submit tentatively, but please bear with me, these thoughts-in-progress . . .

Africa came to me in the shape of my parents, and what we children understood then to be an orthodox Nigerian domestic regime, albeit of an extreme kind and albeit in north London. The home had the feel of an army camp – all of us with our round-the-clock duties, all mindful of the ultimate sanctions that could be imposed by the absolute ruler at the top of the chain of command, our father. Great emphasis was placed on discipline, obedience and respect for elders. I associated Africa with love, certainly, no matter how mangled its expression seemed to me, but mainly I associated it with negativity, with things you could not do. Being an African child meant that I could not study what I wanted to study at university, but would have to read law or medicine, on Father’s orders. Being an African wife meant that my mother never went to the cinema in all the years I was growing up, never took time off until the day she died. Being an African meant you weren’t allowed to be free. The self was subsidiary.

Travelling to Africa, the natural pull towards such values, over and above cultural traditions, is clear. Life remains such a serious, fundamental business for so many Africans, with its vicissitudes – a high rate of premature death, job fragility in countries with underperforming economies and no social security – so much in your face, that one quickly internalises the knowledge that the self is not enough. So many traits and expressions that I and my diasporic friends think of as characteristically African are survival-related, survival-friendly: stoicism, fortitude, religious belief. But such a mindset can slide so easily into passivity, into resignation, into too meek an acceptance of one’s fate.

I was in Nigeria a few years ago and went with a friend to pay a visit to his family, which lived in a nearby town. A lot of excitement attended our arrival, not principally, as I imagined, for him, but, as it soon turned out, because of me. I was the “rich” westerner, you see, who might bring them all that they lacked. The uncle needed a truck for his business, the cousins needed letters of invitation to England and what have you, and for the first time I got angry. Short a bit with my peers, but more at the uncle. It upset me oddly, I who had been brought up to respect hierarchy and elders, to see the uncle lose his dignity so, to see the deference to age so easily replaced by deference to power. And angry, too, with this oil-rich and human resources-rich country, which has so let down its citizens. Which has got a only tiny middle class, and mostly just rich and poor. Where generations of young people have studied and done all the things they are supposed to do, to no avail. I wanted my friends to have more “Me” in them. Not “me” as in “what can you do for me?”, “Me” as in, “I’m not gonna stand for this any more.”

The west, naturally, is all about “Me”. Young ones grow up with a huge sense of entitlement. “I’m gonna (and I have a right to) live my dream.” Or “You’ve offended me, I deserve an apology, I want this and this and, to be sure, I’m gonna study what I want.” If, as I believe, Africans, be they continental or diasporic, tend to be deeply non-western in a way that African Caribbeans and African Americans are not, then it is a lot to do with this lack of “Me”. But though I feel this non-westernness has generally stood us in good stead in western societies, by making us more obedient to authority (good for school results) and less likely to fall for the short-termism of self-gratification, we need a little bit of that western self-assertiveness, self-maximisation, in Africa. We diasporic Africans have been good at knuckling down, keeping the pain in and getting on with it, but if it wasn’t for our Caribbean cousins, I doubt black people would have made the political, the activist breakthroughs that we have in this country.

We need more mutant, transgressive spirits in Africa. We need a critical mass, a tipping-point number of people in a generation who are not respectful, not obedient, not deferential, who are more about “Me”, and will march against power. And if I feel more optimistic about South Africa than other countries then it is partly because, I’m someway embarrassed to say, there is more than a touch of the west in that country. In its history and culture, and in the higher expectations among the people, its women just as much as its men. But most of all, 47 years or no, they have turned it round once already. We need that people-power gene to spread and infect the whole sub-Saharan body politic.

Obama
('African Writing Online') 2008

Oh Barack. Dear, dear Barack. How do I love thee? Let me count the ways…

Number one, you’re a smoker! It seemed barely credible, in these days of the New Health and with that practice now barely legal, that one of ours could regain the world’s most powerful office. You, in your twenty-two month great adventure, have proved yourself the most inspiring cigs-man since football’s Johann Cruyff. I thought of you as a pair of young women from my local estate accosted me by the newsagent’s last weekend and asked me to do them a favour. ‘Puff on these,” I eased my conscience, as I handed over the goods, “and you may become Barack one day.”

Smoking is not important, but I read it as a sign, along with the other evidence – your one time dabblings with drugs, your lingering relationships with radical former tutors, your poker-playing, your liking of hip-hop and that clever, nuanced TV show ‘The Wire’, that you are, basically, a hip, ‘down’, college boy, a type that many millions around the globe get and have no problem with. You’re at the slightly naughtier end of that set, to be sure – you are, in Jimi Hendrix’s phrase ‘experienced’, but that, as regards your role-model prospects, is even better. For too long, the minority-thick, poorer communities of this hemisphere have been swayed by the entertainers, by the street-educators of Rap’s capitalist classes, by the streets of many of their lives; now there is blatantly another way, also achievable, also solvent, also cool enough. You, your college-professor self and your equally-qualified, wife, buttressed no doubt by the added authenticity that a country with a long-time sizeable black middle-class furnishes you, and that the rest of us in the west can only envy, have dramatically raised the relevance and the leadership-potential for us black intellectuals, black ‘elites’. Now, both street and scholar have one excuse less.

I like you too because, though I’ve had many issues with your party down the years (not least with the one you’re most often compared to, John F-didn’t have the-balls-to-invite friend Sammy Davis Jnr to his inauguration-Kennedy), as I have with your nearest equivalents on our side of the pond, I’ve always rather it was your lot than the others. I fancy I’ll welcome your foreign policy more than I did the Iraq-bombing Bush, indeed more than I did the last Democratic incumbent, the Somalia-bombing, Rwanda-avoiding Clinton. There seems to be a hope, as you’lll know, in some parts of the world that you will be somehow President-for Africa, President-for-the-south: I do not expect that – you have to be America’s President and act in its interests, but I do expect more, because you are, as I say, experienced.

Experience, inexperience. Funny things …Some years ago, at one of our big literary festivals, Hay-on-Wye, I had the pleasure of meeting one of your literary ‘greats’, the late New Yorker Norman Mailer. Across a crowded ‘Green Room’, our eyes met, as they will when one is the author of ‘The White Negro’ and the other is the only black in the house. So, we spoke and although, I’m embarassed again to say I don’t recall so much of it – Suzanne Vega wafted across and I quite wanted her autograph – we did chat about New York and I remember leaving with the distinct impresion that I – for all his New York talk down all these years – may have seen more of that city than he because I had seen all his bits – the Village, the upper East side, but he had seen little of some of mine – the Flatbush Avenues, the Fort Greenes, the Bed-Stuys. That black is so often discussed as if it’s ‘less’ when in fact, especially, I guess, at the elite end, it tends to be more.

You have that moreness in spades, and that counts for so much in a country as insular and as ethnically segregated as your own. With Hawaii, Indonesia, black and white America and, crucially, Africa, you have a fair chunk of the world in you. The Africa is key because it is likely to give you, in the many racially-accented matters you will face, a difference in spirit.

We Africans seem to have a milder take on these things. Hard to say why it might be, except the fact that our relationship with European masters was much briefer than the hundreds of years for which black peoples were subjugated in the Americas, during slavery, the plantations, and after. Our cultural practices were less disrupted, our mass entry to the West more recent, less traumatised on the whole. I’m sure you’ve noticed that subtle but clear difference between say, an African-American gathering and an Africans-in-America one, as I have between a British Caribbean- gathering and a Brit-African- one; between, dare I say it, you and your African-American wife whose still burning upset was apparent when she said that now, for the first time in her adult life, she was proud of her country. There is a deeper ease of spirit amongst Africans of direct descent. I’ve increasingly suspected that it would take an African or a biracial person, these who could to some degree stand outside the heavy history of the Americas, to see beyond, and make white America relax sufficiently for the game-changing breakthrough. And it does fit so sweetly; the African returning to America, but this time not in a slave hold; now the captain of the ship.

That you have ‘got beyond’ is a tribute to your vision and to what I really, really like about you. that you are the first person to execute a near-perfect ‘post-black’ campaign and, in so doing, solve the disconnect that has long plagued minorities and the coalitions they have forged in the west.

Here is the problem: whites, as your campaign has proved beyond doubt, don’t like race, but we do. They don’t fully ‘get’ race, and this is particularly true in countries like mine which, unlike yours, was not founded on race. Many western whites do not even see themselves most of the time as being part of a ‘race’, their race being the norm. For them, race is something that happens to other people and when it does, it is something they feel embarassed or threatened by or defensive about or uncomfortable with, or wary of or weary of or impatient with, and this is just as true among the progressive whites with whom we have done most of our dealings. The left love racism, my God, how they love racism – the great proportion of black stories that get attention or get commissioned are to do with or reduced to racism, the one black story they can examine themselves in – but they don’t truly respect race; they see it, the stuff that still has to be done because of it, as second-rate, parochial, temporary, something that all bright, right-minded people surely wish to get beyond, so we can all be happy, hanging together and having children who look a bit like you. Blame it on a commitment, to the universality of man, I guess, plus their tendancy, in concert with certain one-note blacks, to always problematize race, but for most black people, race is only a problem when it’s racism. The rest of the time, race and what goes with it is fine. It’s is normal, they understand, for human beings to bond and racial-cultural bonding, is one of the ways, in which we do it. Race, for minorities, is mainly about resources. Race is what has allowed a bunch of newly arrived, mainly illegal Nigerian and Congolese immigrants to find haven and a job at my north London barbers, One of them would have had a cousin who worked there, and so he comes first cap in hand, and soon the word spreads to his countrymen and then to fellow Africans. Race and culture what accounts for that shared-secret smile at that black party, a hundred strong , when some rare groove tune comes on that their parents had and that didn’t make the charts Race is what has made 90+ percent of African-Americans who turned out Tuesday vote for you. Race is true.

In our post-Civil Rights, post-Windrush period, when racism can no longer be relied upon to be the ring to bind us all, this disconnect is now impacting in-house. We have the emergence of our own black middle-class, still a relative sprinkle, but many of them feel they’re doing perfectly well thank you, and race-as-problem has proved no hindrance in their careers; who feel that racial calls are the refuge of the weaker ones, though race may have fasttracked them, as it may have you. Or some like me who, in various journeys through lands like yours and mine, hasn’t seen the amount of racism he might have expected to if certain stories were true, and so was not surprised at the scale of your victory yesterday; who has seen, if anything, racial suspicion, usually diffused when people meet and discover other matters to connect through. Still others who are blacks-in-Britain but not part of a black community they perceive as being too race-minded. And running beneath, the coming thing, certainly in our neck of the woods – a nineties/ noughties generation, less ideological, more materially-driven, more ‘post-racial’ in aspiration. One more inclined to believe they can have it all in a Leona Lewis-X-Factor, Olympics, inclusive Britain kind of way, just as this big Britain has begun to turn the screws on what it expects from its newer arrivals. Witness the numerous attacks we’ve been having these last few years, stepped up since our 07/ 07, from central government, from Trevor Phillips at the Equalities and Human Rights Commmision, to this year’s UK Defence Report, on the dangers and failures of multiculturalism, on the need for a revitalised, more enforced sense of Britishness. It is seductive, this velvet-glove-in- toughish-fist offer, not least because the alternative – our established, Civil-Rights-filtered black British-approach, despite certain hype to the contrary, still seems a thing that is failing too many; the many black youth underachieving at school, the many black actors and directors still getting rusty on British film sets (not). The answer, the likeliest route though all these camps, all with their claims to legitimacy, could only be ‘Post-Black’: in my Britain-oriented conception (because Britain seemed most where it was needed), an acknowledgement that the race-centric methods and philosophy we’ve employed for doing black culture since the Windrush have had their time, and the search for more viable alternatives and strategies that still have a progressive, pro-black agenda.

I have been talking up ‘Post-black’ for a while now, and I have to say nothing I’ve ever broached over many years of public fora raises the hackles of black audiences quicker. It’s because they assume I mean ‘post-racial’, some neutered, ‘sellout’ thing (proof, if any were needed that, notwithstanding our own youth-tendancies, the ‘post-racial’ lens through which white commentators have seen you has been largely yet another race matter in which whites are interrogating their own hopes and fears). But it’s not post-racial or even post-black really, I explain, just post-this black, this present way of doing things. Our new approach has to be more layered, has to speak to people who want to hear different things. Layered in the way that yours was a campaign of majority-targetted words, and quieter signs.

No, not post-racial, not just a one-stop-shop. Better, newer than that – that much has been clear by the choices you’ve made, the church you attended (and which person of colour did not know someone, after 9-11, who said, like Reverend Wright, that these were America’s chickens coming home to roost?), and that wonderful speech on race you then had need to give. You’re more this sweeping line in the sand. A hundred years ago, your African-American forbear WEB Du Bois said that the problem of race, ‘the colour line’, would define the 20th century. The 21st century’s equivalent, for black westerners at least, will be the line dividing those who are race-centric and those who aren’t.

This Post-Black era, now you’ve finally got it up and running, will bring richer dividends, wider reach, without doubt, to black artists, entrepreneurs and politicians alike, certainly on our less-race battered, and less black-populated side of the pond. It will mean some re-focus of energies, a change in some of the debates we get engaged in. If Britain is more averse now to a certain kind of black identity, to fleshen out just one possibility, then why not put ourselves at the forefront of the citizenship debates that are currently of so much import to old and new Europe? After all, us black Britons, with our newer, particular take on citizenship, should have much to offer here that’s useful to new others, or old ones remaking themselves.. I feel a film coming on: a Pole , a black Briton and a Romany, a wry , hunam comedy; funds from the big paymaster that is the European Union… New coalitions, new self-identifications. 
Any winning idea to win through must have both economic and charismatic or ‘dignity’ appeal. You with your charisma, the reasonableness that shines through you, and, darn it, all that power, are the poster-boy we’ve been looking for.

I put a bet on you, Barack, a while back at the start of your grand adventure, at lovely long odds, to do the Double – the Democratic nomination then the presidency. I only collected, you see, if both came through. So what can I say, bro? You’ve not only done this mighty thing you’ve done, you’ve solved a quiet, little, credit crunch too!

Luv ya, 
Diran.

Young, Black and Confused
(Cover Story, 'Race in Britain' supplement, 'The Observer') 2nd September 2001

A Sunday night, recently. I’ve just come back from an overseas trip and I’m on the Tube from Heathrow, heading for north London. A white working-class guy, sharply dressed – black Moschino jacket, smart white jeans tapering down to brown shoes – perches opposite me. We sit there, label-rich clothes, legs apart, balls out, as is the manly fashion – pretty similar styles, I guess.

As we pass Kensington a japing tourist pulls the emergency cord, and the white guy gets up and hurls abuse at him for the delay he’s caused. Most of our rather genteel fellow passengers look embarrassed or even frightened by the extent of his venom while he starts looking around the carriage for approval. His eyes alight on me and he smiles. Warmly, intimately. His smile says: ‘I know you, your kind. Your kind and mine are close, not like these others. Your men are tough, real men, the type who’ll appreciate the action I just took.’

I nod to him in a neutral manner, then return to my paper. But he won’t stop, this one. He struts up and raises his fist in a black-Brit ‘Touch Me!’ greeting. I fist his fist and he drops down beside and starts chatting nineteen to the dozen.

This is Brixton, man. Aren’t you afraid?

Emerging at Seven Sisters station, Tottenham, one of Britain’s blacker neighbourhoods – which is to say around 50 per cent – I see a trashy, drunken middle-aged white woman scuttling across the busy High Road for a bus. ‘Raasclaat!’ she exclaims as a speeding car all but takes off her foot. ‘Raasclaat’ is a Jamaican swear-word…

Touching fists, an instinctive ‘Raasclaat’ – this doesn’t come from tuning into Ali G ; this goes deeper.

A few days later I’m driving up a south London road with a black female friend. A nice car comes from the other direction and we both slow down to inch past each other. As he passes me, the driver, a white guy I see now, with a fine black woman alongside, gives me an earful. I don’t hear most of what he’s shouting – it takes a few moments to sink in that he’s talking to me, and then to recover from the shock of this.

White timidity around black people, you see, is something you expect in ‘street’ situations in most parts of London. Only the week before I’d been held up on a Tube escalator, thick with City commuters. I looked down to see what the problem was, to find a black street-looking youth standing disdainfully on the wrong side. People were looking vexed, but no one did anything about it. It had gone against me that day, but I can usually rely on white middle-class timidity to ease my passage around town: to cut through traffic, say, or grab the spare seat on a teeming train.

So I’m surprised. I don’t think a white lad has spoken like this to me in a one-on-one situation since the mid-Eighties. I’ve had my hair shorn that day and, with the barber’s little razor cuts adorning my dome, I’m looking at my baddest. ‘This is Brixton, man, blackhead central,’ I’m thinking. ‘Aren’t you afraid of me? Don’t you know our reputation? Don’t you read the papers?”

We decide, my friend and I, as I drive on, that he must be one of these alpha males. Top car, top job. ‘Hell, I’ve even got one one of your top women, so what can you say to me, fool?’ seemed to be the size of it. This is a worrying, hypermodern development. With white timidity no longer guaranteed, I may have to rethink my whole modus vivendi!

Not to mention my love life. With these race thoughts buzzing, I meet up with an ex for a drink. We had what I thought was a good thing a while back and now, after ups and downs elsewhere, I have decided it is her I need in my life. She’s a black girl who grew up, untypically, in rural England. A happy type.

The evening – well, the half-hour – is a disaster. I’ve hardly sat down when she starts. She’s heard on the grapevine that I want to get back with her, so she puts me straight on a few things: our old relationship brought her down after a while, drained her vivacity. Me and my circle of friends were too much on the race trip, she adds, too cynical about Britain. Race isn’t a priority for her. When we started we used to do spontaneous things together, she says – going to various places, but the places we visited shrunk after a time. Race, in short, has made me boring, she says.

As she talks, I am thinking that our conversation confirms something I have recently begun to twig – how there’s an increasing number of black and mixed-race people out there who associate other black people with difficulty, with issues about and around Britain that they themselves aren’t feeling. It’s ironic, her saying race is not a priority for her, though. This was what attracted me to her in the first place.

Confused? I am, Britain is too…

What these incidents tell me is that when we talk about race in Britain, there are no grand narratives we can easily point to. New trends and new knowledge jostle with old fears. One black boy’s ‘cynicism’ is another black girl’s ‘he doth protest too much’. Age and where you live affect your viewpoint. But, even among generally more optimistic younger people, The Observer poll suggests that almost as many think racial tension is increasing as think it’s decreasing. I’m sure that, for many of our respondents, their answers are born of what happened to them last week or last month.

That nasty look in the street… was that racism or not?

Race, certainly for those who live in multiracial parts of this island, is mainly felt, and understood, at the daily level, via those little encounters in shops and on buses; that conversation you had with an African or Indian or white English person at work or in a bar the other day, that last girlfriend or boyfriend you had, and how it made you feel differently about their kind; that nasty look from that shopkeeper – now was that race, or not?

On hearing the ‘alpha male’ anecdote above, my ex would probably say it had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the stresses of London driving; and that my black youth on the escalator was nothing to do with white timidity, and all to do with British reticence. And possibly she’d be right. Determining what is and isn’t a race issue is a tricky business.

We live in a country whose most enduring national myth is that it is a beacon of fairness. Ask Britons to think of the defining British characteristics, and many locate them in an instinctive sense of tolerance, fairness, moderation. There is a feeling I’ve often picked up from various strands of white Britain that they feel themselves above racism. This comes with a correlating discomfort when faced with something like the Lawrence inquiry. Of course they’d acknowledge that there are racist ‘fringe elements’ here, but they feel that racism is generally un-British.

Travelling through Europe, you realise that this country is nearer to peace, and all the ease and comfort which that brings, than most others. In German, Dutch, Portuguese towns, black populations are still on the fringes of their societies. They haven’t ‘broken through’ in the way we evidently have here. They can still look a bit nervous around town, a hunted look in their eyes. They still have that refugee vibe in their look, their walk. But in Britain, in the cities, black folk walk like princes and princesses, like we’ve got rights in this joint. Which, of course, we have.

Outside the black centres of population, it’s a different story, but still often a pleasant one. In Cumbria, where I spent time last year, in Edinburgh where I was this summer for the festival, you notice a certain look from many young white people. You go into a McDonald’s, and they’re there in their baseball caps and baggy trousers, and they give you this look. It’s not threatening – it’s a look of interest. The black British writer Mike Phillips noted something similar in his recent piece, At Home In England . ‘Nowadays,’ he wrote, ‘moving through the “white” areas of the country, what I feel is far from the anxiety of the past. Instead I have the curious sense that I am in areas which have stayed stuck in the past.’ This feeling, he senses, ‘is overwhelmingly shared by the bulk of residents in the districts where it is a rarity to see a black or an Asian face.’

It’s as if the people in white England know that ‘mixed-up’ England might be the future, and they are interested in finding out about this ‘coming thing’.

Curiosity, sadly, is not universal. A couple of days after 11 September, I saw a gang of young black and white Britons abusing three Muslim women in Stratford, east London. One of the effects of 11 September has been a greater Asian – especially Muslim – visibility. A visibility that contrasts with one of the intriguing facets of the Asian story in this country. By and large, and certainly compared with blacks, Asians have been invisible.

Things are changing a little now but still you hardly ever see Asians in adverts, for example, whereas we’re always popping up as one of Jamie Oliver’s friends, or singing songs in cars. We have agitated more for representation and images of ourselves. We have integrated more, while Asians have been content to do their own ‘invisible’ thing, as indeed have myriad other smaller non-white communities. I have for a long time gained a sense from white people that we are liked more than Asians, no doubt because we are seen as being less ‘alien’ – most of us are Christian, Caribbeans have British names, our foods are less ‘stinky’ than theirs (though curries of course are popular).

So when we talk about race, we’re torn between stereotypes ruthlessly deployed and seeking out the particular. And, seeking the particular, should not race talk really be class talk? For instance, most of the Caribbeans who came here in the Fifties came to do working-class jobs, whereas most of the west Africans who came a little later, my parents’ generation, came as students or to take on graduate employment. The Punjabis and Gujeratis and east African Asians, so responsible for the ‘Asian economic success’, tended to have quite different class backgrounds from the Bengalis of London’s Tower Hamlets, the country’s most deprived borough, or from the Pakistanis of Oldham. But many white Britons don’t know this, can’t tell us apart; they just see blacks and Asians.

And so, what with black people being associated with ‘the street’, my white friend from the Tube strutted over. He touched my fist because we were ‘working-class brothers’.

‘Can you still write after 11 September?’

‘Have you been able to write at all since 11 September?’ a white British poet asked me at a party a month after the attack. ‘Of course,’ I replied. ‘Why wouldn’t I?’

For her, and for so many others, you’d think this was the first time innocents have been killed, when, of course, thousands of innocents, many of them children, are dying every day, mainly in poorer parts of the world, of malnutrition, Aids, poverty, and in natural disasters. Of course, what made the 11 September events egregious was that they came in a new kind of terrorist attack, and perhaps it’s understandable that a sort of blood-link with America has been pronounced, that there’s been much talk of ‘our friends’. But it should also be remembered that for many of us Britons, Africans dying of Aids and Indians dying in the Gujerati earthquake, are more ‘our friends’.

I grew up in Manor House/Wood Green, north London, down the road from where I live now. It was a pretty working-class area and the wider borough, Haringey, is one of the most diverse in the country. I grew up around ‘native’ English, Irish, Africans, Caribbeans, south Asians, Turks, Greeks, Jews, both Hasidic and reformed. The first racial incident I can recall was a bottle-throwing spat between myself, then six or seven, and one of my brothers on one side, and a couple of Turks on the other. That apart, and some name-calling in the playground, from white kids and the odd Caribbean too, there was little aggravation. One of my brother’s friends was a Greek, another was tight with two Pakistani boys; we all knew a lot of different people.

Roots, routes (or how I discovered I was black)…

When I was 12, I won a fees-paid scholarship to a public school deep in the country. Again, no trouble. Indeed, you might say there was a lot of white love. If you’d asked me then what my self-conception was, I would have known, on a level, that I was black, but I had a much more acute sense of being from a Nigerian home. The home regime – the corporal punishment, educational expectations, emphasis on obedience and respect – was all, it seemed to me, to do with our being Nigerian. Which is to say that, until someone tells you different, what you feel you’re living in , is a culture. And race and culture are not at all the same thing.

Race is on the outside, culture on the inside. Which is why I don’t underestimate the gravity behind the thinking when a white Brit, with a sorrowful shake of the head, attempts to explain to me how my kind can never be really British: ‘It’s not ‘cos you’re black but it’s just that you don’t have the culture, mate. In your bones, you know.’ I have a less ossified view of culture, one that sees it as not fixed in a person’s or nation’s history, but as a fluid, ongoing process. Routes as much as roots. The Nigerianness of our home jostled with all the other cultures out there that took our fancy. One brother, famously in our parts, became a latter-day teddy boy, another hung out at a local soul pirate station. At 15, you would have caught me in my black eyeliner-wearing Velvet Underground period; at 18 I was rucking violently to The Smiths. More recently you’ll have found me in a hip-hop club, or dancing a rare groove two-step, and you’d probably assume I’m some orthodox black-Brit who has been that all along.

When I got older, armed with an Oxford law degree – not what I wanted to study, but my father insisted on law or medicine – I moved to Brixton, south London. I was pretty much your average lefty-liberal then. That didn’t take long to change.

My old Haringey people played a part. I noticed how quickly many of them, after our fluid, mixy-mixy teen years, began returning to their ‘home’ cultures once the real adult world had started. Financial inducements and family pressure were crucial. A Greek father would say to his son: ‘If you marry this Greek girl, this friend of our family, we’ll sort you out with a position in the family business, and a house in Southgate.’ And so my Greeks would settle down with their Greeks, Indians with their Indians. And I likewise was spending increasing time in my emergent ‘home’ culture – a maturing, increasingly sophisticated black-British vibe. If you were more middle-class, there were now bars and spots and people for you too, in places like Brixton. No doubt at some emotional level, after a long while in extremely white institutions, I was meeting a need.

I was sharing Brixton with a number of ‘right-on’ white friends and acquaintances from university, but here was the funny thing. In all my years there, we almost never found ourselves in the same social space. And though they, with their ethnic beads and accessories, and the pot they bought from the Rastaman in their pub, thought they were all part of some multicultural paradise, many knew little of what was truly going on in their communities. They weren’t noticing, from their eyries in trendy Notting Hill and Brixton, how deeply young urban Britain was changing around them. How it had become increasingly black-inflected. How average white, Greek or Asian kids on the streets where they lived, were pronouncing ‘ask’ like ‘arks’, Caribbean-style, and had a ready grasp of patois. And how, in the whiter suburbs, there were others too who wanted a piece of this new action.

I was a journalist, working in liberal institutions such as the BBC. One or two funny things happened to me there, especially at lunchtime. Going out to get a sandwich on Shepherd’s Bush Green, quite a black neighbourhood, I’d notice how many colleagues whom I’d been talking to minutes before, wouldn’t recognise me on the street. They kept their heads down on the Green and hurried on about their business, or else, even if they seemed to see me, looked at me blankly, right through me. I began to develop a sharper understanding of white timidity, of middle-class ignorance. It seemed, still seems, that we knew so much more about you than you about us, that the Right didn’t like us, and the Left didn’t know us. My twenties, in short, were all about coming to terms with the limits of liberalism.

Race, or rather the disappointments around race, can breed an increasing non-alignment in, and semi-detachment from, this island’s story. And just as Oxford student Chelsea Clinton has found she needs to be around Americans who share and understand her pain since the terrorist attacks, so I found an increasing need to close ranks in the light of things I saw happening to my kind.

In part, semi-detachment seemed to be what the powers-that-be had wanted for some time. In a key speech in 1966, Labour Home Secretary Roy Jenkins laid out the policy of ‘cultural diversity’ that has guided thinking in this country ever since. He rejected the ‘flattening process of uniformity’. People should be encouraged to hang on to their ‘native’ cultures, within a wider integrated Britain. Since then, ‘Celebrating Differ ence’ has been all the rage. Hence the growth of black and Asian publicly-funded festivals; the ‘multicultural’ programming on Channel 4 and the BBC (generally broadcast after midnight); black sections in bookshops (go past the A-Z of literature, down to that dark corner, and there’ll you’ll find us, nestling between the sci-fi and the erotica).

Diversity, championed by both liberals and any number of progressive black people keen to find a space they could call their own, has utterly failed in bringing people in this country closer together, in disseminating knowledge. Sure, it’s had its beneficial effects for many minority people, and this should not be underestimated, but it has let the wider public off the hook. The Lawrence inquiry was supposed to change all this, but much that happened in that story only confirmed our impotence. Lawrence was killed in 1993, but it took three years for the national media and the Government to take up the fight, and only then because of the happy accident of Stephen’s father Neville Lawrence, painter and decorator, working on Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre’s house.

So what precisely did the Lawrence inquiry change?

This moment of our ‘greatest triumph’ was born in an old-fashioned ‘master-servant’ moment. It could, and should, have happened before, but only happened when middle England was up for it. Moreover, this killing of a black boy by white lads was an old narrative, still true of course, but an old first-order assault of the type that was happening 40 years ago, just as racism in the police force is an old narrative. It didn’t really speak to the subtler, second-order injuries this non-white generation more commonly feels.

More and more I could see what my father, in his insistence that I studied law, was trying to protect me from. The great thing about joining one of the old professions is that, once you’ve passed the exams, you’re sorted. It’s harder for employers not to give you jobs. This is one of the main reasons why so many Asians are doctors, and so many black working-class people go into sport. Immigrants tend to look for types of work where standards are objective.

This is part of the knowledge that non-white Britons take around with them. I have been lucky enough to travel across the world, and the story is uniformly similar, uniformly depressing. In Peru, Brazil, Australia, Europe, the United States, even in the Caribbean and black America (where ‘shadism’, the preference for lighter-skinned black people, is prevalent), darker-skinned people are at the bottom of the pile.

It’s been like this for a long time now. There’s – how would you put it – a ‘situation’ going on. I’d call it a war. Like the war on terror, it’s not a conventional war, but it’s a war nonetheless. A war to restore battered psyches, a war against white supremacy.

Forgive me if this sounds dramatic, but this is why I’m unlikely to settle down with a white girl. I don’t say this lightly. I went out with a white girl for some years in my early twenties. A lovely person and, needless to say, utterly blameless in race matters. We tried hard to make it work but it proved impossible because so often for me my commitment was affected by the fact that, outside our relationship, in the wider world, I felt there was a war on, one in which I was honour-bound to play my part. Most whites and many blacks don’t think there’s a war on, and that’s fine. Some will think there is a war on, but that their white partner, say, has nothing to do with it, and that is an eminently reasonable position too. Others are ‘colour-blind’, and just believe in love, and that’s great, if you can do it. God knows, I have nothing against mixed-race relationships. My analysis may be wrong, and the conclusions I draw from it are debatable. Like the stubborn Japanese soldier who came out of his bunker years after the war had ended, looking for Americans to shoot, I too may one day emerge from my trench to find that the war stopped long ago. But not yet. Where we are at present, I think, can best be illustrated by that most mainstream of TV shows, EastEnders, and a black Briton who’s made it to mainstream icon status, Ian Wright.

In EastEnders, the Queen Vic is the key location. Its white characters spend a great amount of time there, and its black characters go there too. But the reality is that many black people barely go to pubs; we prefer winebars or restaurants-cum-bars. So much so that, when I meet a black person who goes regularly to the pub I can assume that he’s spent some formative years in a white world – perhaps in a small town somewhere, or else at one of our old, predominantly white, universities.

A different way of drinking

If the BBC was interested in portraying black London life accurately you would expect the black characters, at least occasionally, to be found in a different drinking space. The fact that they’re not can only be due to the producers’ liberal desire to present the East End as a happily integrated community – all races socialising together under one roof. In fact, when many black people catch the show, they think: ‘This is silly, this isn’t what we want. When are they gonna have their black characters doing more “black” things?’

At the turn of the Nineties, the footballer Ian Wright would often celebrate his goals by running to the corner flag, and doing a ‘bogling’ move – the ‘bogle’ was a ragamuffin reggae dance then popular in the black community. The man was clearly charismatic, and I was excited at the idea of this black Brit bringing some of the black Brit vibe to wider public attention. But the media didn’t really get behind Wright in those days. He was seen as being a bit troublesome. Still, I noticed that, as the years went by, Wright, in his public pronouncements, began to sound more and more like a little Englander.

Last year he was one of those leading the chorus of indignation against the foreigner, Sven-Gören Eriksson, managing our English team. In the intervening years, of course, Wright’s media career had blossomed, although now he seems less the underground black Brit and more the cheeky chappie of British music hall tradition. Does this not tell us something about the price that must still be paid to make it big in this country?

Still, perhaps I’m being too hard… Given the situation in the rest of Europe, and the de facto segregation that characterises much of the US, maybe Britain is not badly placed. It is in some sort of position to make this island the most progressive, happiest multiculture in the world, to be a new beacon, and to give itself a new, invigorated identity in the process. But we must do much more talking with each other. There must be much more knowledge, more widely spread. At present, though, in our still all-to-play-for present, race remains enough to kill, or at least madden, a man.

Yes, After John Terry, let’s talk about Race
('The Observer') July, 2012

As inhabitants of an unrigorous country concerned more with surface than substance, it’s time to get real.

Some years ago, in the late 1990s, I was invited by the writer Mike Marqusee to the first meeting of an embryonic “Let’s Kick Racism out of Cricket” campaign. About 20 attended, mainly white, some black – among them the former Gloucestershire and England bowler Syd Lawrence.

Speaking to the black contingent, I gained the impression that although we felt there were certainly issues around race out there, we also felt that many of these would be hard to target in this relatively genteel sport where much may be thought but little is directly said. And besides, there were other more urgent concerns, not primarily racial – chiefly the lack of cricket in state schools. And so the campaign died an early death, not for lack of white enthusiasm, which remained undimmed, but perhaps because of black indifference.

I’ve been reminded of this episode recently, reflecting on the John Terry court case (the England player was cleared of racially abusing QPR’s Anton Ferdinand). What has been most striking, at least to this observer, is how very upset white people seem to be about the “racism” that’s been exposed. In the papers and on the radio, people have been falling over themselves to express their progressive sentiments. But, as often when people protest too much, it seems to me that the loudness is as much to do with them as it is to do with anything more substantial.

For the great ship of state, it seems to me, chugs on as it ever has. UK black actors continue to head to the more career-friendly shores of the US. Increasingly black entrepreneurs are looking to African partners for assistance in pursuing their visions. Over here, we remain always “emerging” says one contributor to a recent book (Black British Perspectives) in which black artists speak among themselves.

We live in a rather unrigorous country that seems ever more concerned with the surface of things, rather than with any serious addressing of the more substantial stories beneath. And so we are all of a fuss about imposing heavy punishments on sportsmen and sports fans who say the wrong thing.

It is certainly good to take steps to reduce the amount of racial and other innuendo that some players and supporters have to endure at grounds. But being something of a Hobbesian, I have a slightly pessimistic view of the extent to which we can change people’s hearts. Violence and antipathy towards some “others”, however they are construed, seems to be necessary for many who need to counter their own insecurities.

Still, one thing this affair may do is deal a blow to one of the most tedious aspects of our surface times – our reverence of our sporting “role models”.

Growing up in slightly earlier, pre- role model times when one just had favourite sportsmen, and ascribed to them no higher function, it has been strange to see the almost total consensus about the idea that celebrated sportsmen nowadays guide young people’s opinions. After the full exposure of the abuse that John Terry and many other English footballers regularly dish out, we may begin to see some reining in of our excessive fawning over these rich, Xbox-obsessed children.

Novelist Diran Adebayo is currently writing a sports-centred memoir