The Meaning of Whiteness and Immigration

As the BBC prepares to air a series of television programmes concerned with the supposed alienation of the white working class, a definition of whiteness and what it is to be white in Britain in the 21st century will emerge. Judging by last night's farcical debate on Newsnight, the satisfaction of such a definition is likely to be debatable.

It is not my intention to define whiteness in Britain in the 21st century just yet; for the moment, I'll leave that to more established scholars, academics, commentators &c. to grapple with, before offering my opinion. Prior to my hearing about the BBC's forthcoming programmes on whiteness, I submitted a features article to my newspaper (scheduled to be published this coming Monday (March 10 2008)) with regard to immigration, under the title "The Linguistics Barrier of Immigration: Breaking Social Segregation Along Lines of Language". For the benefit of persons who are not students in Liverpool, and don't have access to a hard copy of LX News, the article, which I consider to be more of an editorial, is reproduced here. As usual, all comments are welcome:

The issue of immigration into the U.K. is constantly on-going. It seems every other week the government is announcing a new initiative to help people who have arrived in the country from less developed nations. Migration into the U.K. from Asia and Africa has been added to in recent years by people entering the country from new European Union member states such as Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.

One of the most noticeable results is a sharp increase in the number of languages now spoken here. In towns and cities across the U.K. languages as diverse as Tamil, Hindi, Cantonese and Telugu (how many native British people have even heard of that last one?) are regularly spoken amongst the various ethnic groups. Somewhat worryingly, it is estimated that 70% of people living in Britain speak English monolingually. With so many other languages comprising the other 30%, the inevitable consequence is social segregation along lines of language.

Change is necessary. There has to be a sharp linguistic shift in coming years, otherwise the small communities currently being forced -- by linguistic barriers -- to keep themselves to themselves will be isolated. The growth of completely separate societies in British cities is simply not compatible with national unity. A national identity cannot be forged in this way.

The national media constantly stresses what it is to be British. The traditional definition is no longer a viable one. I personally doubt that it ever was. One of the first things people point to is the language. The “to be British is to speak English” mentality is a naïve one at best. It negates the marginal languages of Cornish, Gaelic, Irish and Welsh, even though the people who speak these languages (monolingually or otherwise) are accepted as being “British”.

The cultural benefits of having people from different parts of the world living in the U.K. do not, hopefully, need to be explained. Their varying customs and traditions all contribute to what it is to be British in the 21st century. Furthermore, they compliment the Anglo Saxon customs which have existed here for many centuries, and make Britain a richer place to live.

For the full cultural benefits to be reaped, however, the linguistic barriers which are currently in place need to be broken down.

As part of broad citizenship tests, the government announced last month that the testing of migrants’ English language skills would be one of many tests for migrants to “prove their worth”.

At the same time, the availability of English lessons to new migrants is falling. Being able to communicate meaningfully in English is an important skill, but it should not be made compulsory as part of a process to achieve official citizenship status. If English was strongly recommended to new migrants, and benefits were given to migrants who achieved a certain level of ability in English, then socially at least the tension could be eased between communities. By making English compulsory, the government makes it appear that the mother tongue of the migrant, which they have spoken since birth, is not welcome in the U.K. Such unnecessary hostility from the government only heightens tensions and increases the alienation of the communities.

By learning to read and write English, the migrant does not lose anything. The migrant is still able to communicate with people from their country of origin in their original language, but the addition of English means they can participate in activities outside their own community. The English language, it should be remembered, does not replace in any way the original language of the migrant. The migrant can only benefit from learning English, and the benefits are multiplied by the fact that English remains one of the most widely spoken languages in the world.

Many students from abroad who study at U.K. universities usually have either a good or excellent understanding of English when they arrive in Britain. To speak on a general level, the foreign student community is a good example of the possibilities of migrants having knowledge of English in addition to their mother tongue. In lectures and seminars, foreign students more often than not display a brilliant command of the English language, sometimes putting people of Anglo Saxon blood to shame.

Once they are out of that formal situation, though, they often revert to their first language. I spend a lot of time on the lower ground floor of the Aldham Robarts LRC at John Moores University, and it is fascinating to hear students communicate in such an array of languages.

Yet the hypocrisy of the Anglo Saxon mentality scars relations between white British people and immigrants from foreign lands.

There is a general consensus that migrants should learn English if they want to live here for any period of time. Yet in places such as Benidorm, Torremolinos and the Algarve there are large British Ex-patriot communities that thrive in isolation from the rest of the place. You can walk through the streets and see shops marketing “traditional British fish & chips,” and ale houses boasting to be “traditional Great British pubs”. The people who live there are all English. The only language they speak is English. The vast majority usually have only a rudimentary understanding of Spanish or Portuguese, Moreover, if you want to meet a Spanish or Portuguese citizen, then you have to literally take a bus ride to another part of town. The double standard is shocking.

A future national identity rests upon the banishing of the language barrier. Once it has been eradicated, migrants will find it easier to understand “British” customs and the “British” way of life. Whether or not British natives will ever adapt in order to understand the culture of migrants’ homelands remains to be seen.

Yours, wherever you may be,
Daniel C. Wright

Will Richard Wrights Please Make Themselves Known To Black Boy

This morning BBC Radio Four's Today programme reported that a Reach investigation concluded black boys needed more black role models within their own communities. (Read how the BBC website reported this here.)

What I think is needed is a wider range of people to look up to from a variety of fields. It is okay to have entertainers as role models. The number of rappers who openly glamorise gun crime is very small. Recently, some rappers have even rapped for peace and equality. In Brazil, the only tangible way to escape the slums is to become a professional footballer (football just happens to be enjoyable). Well, in Britain, while a lot of global rappers would like to believe that hip hop is the only way to escape the ghetto, this is not actually the case. Going to school, getting an education and getting a good job is the most viable way to make something of one's life. Role models are needed within the black community to make this appear to be the reality that it is.

Even back in Claude Brown's Harlem, there were local heroes, but they were most usually the biggest hustlers and the guys who could stake a viable claim to have killed the most men and had sex with the most women. But it is worth remembering that the places in question are Moss Side, Brixton &c. in the 21st Century and not Harlem in the 1930's. But the example of Claude Brown is an important one to bare in mind. The fact that he emphasised that crime was the only way out of poverty is a paradox because he made a success of his life through writing.

For the black middle classes to become more involved at a local level, I think the first step has to be taken on a national level with regard to this issue. People like Benjamin Zephaniah must first make themselves known nationally, then maybe something might happen at local levels in black communities throughout Britain.

As the authorities would like to believe:
There's a big town 'cross the whiskey line
And if we turn the right cards up
They make us boss the devil pays off
And them folks that are real hard up
They get their local hero
Somebody with the right style
They get their local hero
Somebody with just the right smile
(c) Bruce Springsteen (ASCAP)

Yours, wherever you may be,
Daniel C. Wright.

The Scramble For News Is Getting Easier

I went onto Google this morning and decided to make a personalised home page. I created two tabs: one called news, the other called sport.

On the news tab, I tried to put as wider ranging content as I possibly could, in terms of covering as much of the planet as possible. It wasn't hard.

On this blog, three elements to world news are easily accessible down the left hand side: the purely Western viewpoint is supplied by the Washington Post; the BBC gives the moderate, impartial, Western stance; and Al Jazeera supplies the experienced coverage of the Middle East / Arabic world so lacking in Western news coverage.

Being "in the know" has always been a primal desire of Man. Back in the dawn of civilisation, Man did not need to know on a day-to-day basis what was going on, other than what immediately effected his dwelling and his source of food.

By the start of the last century, the newspaper (certainly in Great Britain and the United States) was king when it came to supplying news to the people. Since then, the mastheads of seemingly well established publications (the New York Herald, the Morning Herald &c.) have disappeared from newsstands, never to be seen again.

Television news soon came in, not long after radio broadcasts (from the Home Service here in Britain) meant citizens no longer had to wait for the next days paper to find out about world affairs. News reels meant citizens could visually comprehend the news. It became more real. Television news could soon be watched in the comfort of the living room, and at set times: 12:00, 18:00 and either 21:00 or 22:00.

But people still had to wait. The development of multi-channel television brought with it twenty-four hour news, whenever people wanted it. Not only was news now on-demand, but it was global. Fox News -- in the United Kingdom! BBC News 24 -- wherever you may be! Al Jazeera -- outside the Muslim sphere! And recently, Russia Today -- in English!

But the news was still mediated. The controller still decided what we saw and what we heard about. And to a certain extent, this still exists with the Internet, but to a lesser extent. The newspapers have gone 'digital'. They had to, or cease to exist. The editor is still in control, but the consumer has a choice of news sources like never before. A choice which can never matched by television. A choice which finally balances out the regulation of news sources.

This choice is compounded by what I am doing now. People can comment and have their say on topical issues. The comment page of the [London] Times still has a certain aura, a certain dignified respect, but now the ordinary citizen can write on his or her blog, can e-mail the websites and can text the twenty-four hour news channels.

Exactly how useful some of the content on the Internet is, is debatable. Mindless ranting on one blog about the turmoil in the Middle East is far less useful than the letter written to the editor of the Daily Telegraph by an aid worker who has spent 25 years in the Gaza Strip. But the ranting blog is still valuable; at least that person is actively thinking about current affairs issues and taking an interest.

There are more and more websites which let you choose your own content. The content you can choose usually repeats itself from site to site: The Washington Post, The NY Times, The BBC, Sky News, The Sydney Morning Herald, USA Today, La Gazetta Dello Sport, &c. &c. But this is good. It is easy for citizens to grow accustomed to a publication which originated on the other side of the world. I, for example, can now scan every major news publication in the world in seconds. I have greater freedom in what I read, and when.

And what also makes me smile is the fact that the full impact of the Internet is still yet to be felt. The Internet is a massive tool for democracy. The Internet makes segregated dictatorships unworkable in the twenty-first century. The Internet brings freedom to the most closed-off countries in the world.

Yours, wherever you may be,
Daniel C. Wright