How We Might Move On From Racism

 

I like to spend time listening to people whose opinions differ from my own. During the financial crisis, I went to engage with the protesters who were camped outside banks; I've been to several Black History Month events; and I've even spent a weekend camping with environmentalists. All those experiences have been very useful in trying to understand how these groups think and what their motivations are. I've written a lot about socialism and environmentalism on this blog, but not much on racism, which is what I intend to do here.

The first thing to say about racism is that it is clearly a learned phenomenon. When young children are put together to play, they don't show any signs of racial discrimination. We are not born racist; it is implanted from other humans. What struck me from my conversations with people at the Black History Month events is how preoccupied they were with skin colour and racial wrongs from the past. I’m sure that is even truer of more hostile groups like Black Lives Matter – there is a propensity to see the world through the unhelpful, divisive and counter-progressive lens of group identity and ethno-tribal polarisation. Personally, I tend to live as much in the present as possible, I try to treat everyone as though they are loved and infinitely valuable, and I couldn’t care a jot about the things (like skin colour and ethnicity) that seem to cause so much prejudice. I care about you as a person, and am interested in you as a unique individual – not as a secondary group member to which you may happen to belong.

Now, I’m not saying the past doesn’t matter, and I’m not saying this country has no present day racism to contend with. But it seems clear to me that continually going on about past legacies, and remaining preoccupied with skin colour and so-called racial identity is only perpetuating a stratification that most people have moved on from (and most prejudice that appears racist probably isn’t racist anyway – see my blog here). This point is compounded by the fact that people who are preoccupied with what others have done to people like them in the past are generally preoccupied with what people have done to black people, as though that particular category of racism is the primary one in history. But the reality is, history is replete of all kinds of injustices committed by every kind of skin colour and ethnicity: white on black, black on white, black on black, Asian on black, white on Asian, and so on, dating back thousands of years.

We are living in a time when the anti-racists are behaving a lot like the historical racists, and the anti-fascists are behaving a lot like the historical fascists – and we need to move forward. As Marcus Aurelius said: “The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury.” Suppose a magic switch was flicked, and everyone woke up tomorrow morning with no awareness of past ethnic, racial and religious injustices. Black and white people, Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Muslims, and so on, would no longer see each other through the prism of past troubles, but simply as different people co-existing alongside one another. I’m not saying that cultural identity and heritage isn’t important. But if we stopped making so much of past racial prejudices and began to refrain from preoccupations with skin colour and group identity, we’d prime ourselves for a future of diminished racial tension.

What about the Lady Susan Hussey and Ngozi Fulani debacle?
I think Lady Hussey's line of questioning could have been better, of course - but the same can be said about Ngozi Fulani's response too, which looked to be opportunist, disingenuous and self-serving. Lady Hussey was stitched up by Fulani, and then subsequently thrown under a bus by the Royals, including her own Godson, Prince William - who, if the media account is accurate, responded ignobly in this. After her 60 years of loyal service, Lady Susan Hussey deserved far better than this - and I think this has reflected very badly on the Royals.

To be fair to Ngozi Fulani, I have sympathy with the fact that it must be difficult to have your nationality questioned when she was born in the UK. And I'm sure it's not always easy to live in a nation in which your skin colour is the minority one. But it would have been very easy for her to have responded to Lady Hussey with more grace and understanding, and not to have capitalised on a poor dialogue in such an egregious way. Not that we should be surprised - from past activity, it looks very much like Ngozi Fulani is a racial grifter, in the same way that Dianne Abbott, Affua Hirsch, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Kerry-Anne Mendoza are racial grifters. To see what I mean by racial grifters, here's a quote from a blog post of mine from 2021:

"It seems clear that most tribal groups that peddle extremist propaganda (whether that's extreme left or right wing movements, environmentalists, woke social justice warriors or feminists) are doing so because they want to seek attention, find some meaning and purpose in their life, assuage their own insecurities and moderate their own self-dislike. And in order to this, they have to artificially construct injustices that aren't really there, or inflate the ones that are already there into something much more severe and unrepresentative of reality. An analysis of radical extremism that fails to consider what the participants personally get out of it is an anaemic analysis - and it is absurd that people go about their business as though this consideration doesn't matter. It really does matter; because if you find what's lurking beneath their virtue signalling and agenda-driven search for purpose, you'll find something dark and horrible (I'm sure it's in most of us)."

Ngozi Fulani and the aforementioned group are racial grifters in the same way that Owen Jones, Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Loach are poverty grifters; and in the same way that Greta Thunberg, George Monbiot and the numerous wacky environmentalist hysterics (Extinction Rebellion, Just-Stop-Oil, etc) are climate grifters. They make their living and their reputation on the attempted prolongation of the thing to which they claim opposition, seizing every opportunity to cry foul and attribute malice or bigotry where none exists or is intended.

And this leads us full circle to the opening points. Unless social and cultural grifting is shown up for the pernicious creep that it is, we are doomed to keep repeating the taints of the past, from which the vast majority of folk in the UK have moved on.

A Deeper Look At The Recent Census On Religious Belief

According to the headline-grabbing census, there has been a 5.5 million drop in the number of Christians in the UK, equating to a 17% fall in the number of people who identify as Christian. Apparently, it is the first time in a census of England and Wales that fewer than half of the population have described themselves as Christian. Humanists and secularists have been buoyed by this census, celebrating the news that, on the surface, we seem to live in a post-Christian society. But surface-level thinking is often deceptive, because it doesn't delve down into the real depths of the water.

Once we dive in, we'll find several key points being missed. In the first place, census results are only as good as the questions being asked. Belief and faith are complex propositions attached not just superficially to what people say, but to how people act, the values they adhere to, and the obvious deeper spiritual longings that play out alongside those actions. In the second place, for the past 100 years there has been a clearer distinction emerging between the identity of a British person as a cultural Christian and as a practising Christian who accepts Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. This distinction has been more carefully eroded away in recent decades, I'd suggest, where the number of people who call themselves Christian may have decreased as a proportion of the population, but the ones that do call themselves Christian continue to profess an active faith in the Lord Jesus, where the real decline is probably more in the demise of 'cultural Christianity'.

In the third place, despite what people claim to believe in a census, we cannot live in a post-Christian country, because Christ IS the Truth. All claims of post-truth of any kind, Christian or otherwise, are false by matters of degree. That is, people always have and always will act as though Christianity is true - in their underlying values, in their regard for truth over falsehood, for good over evil, for love over hate, for right over wrong, for marriage over divorce, for kindness over meanness, for grace and forgiveness over hostile resentment, for peace over war, the list goes on. Even if they don't consciously ascribe those qualities to a Christian underpinning, the fact is, Christ is the origin and the source of all goodness in the world. 

In one sense, of course, we've never had a Christian country in the world, because no nation has ever faithfully reflected scripture to the level that it could justifiably call itself Christian. But despite that acknowledgement, when it comes to human morals, behaviour, values and decisions, we are always acting out the Christian truths or departing from them, whether we like it and know it, or not. The cause of everything that's wrong in human society finds its origin, somewhere down the line, in not adhering to the values Christ espouses; and the cause of everything that's right in human society finds its origin, somewhere down the line, in adhering to the values Christ espouses. It is profound, but it is true - Christ's truth, love, grace, wisdom, goodness and sovereignty are the metric we use for all our value systems, because their origin is in the Creator of the universe. Irrespective of what the census reveals, we can be a post-Christian country only in what we claim to believe, not in how we structure our life and our acted-out values, because they are Christian. A swimming fish can claim to be dry, but it cannot convince those fish who swim alongside it who know full well they live in the ocean.

Finally, to make the point even clearer, let's return to the nature of asking questions, and see what the census would look like with questions fit for the depth and gravitas of a Christian faith. Consider if everyone in the UK answered the following questions:

1) Do you value truth more than falsehood?

2) Can you imagine a standard of values higher than values you could attain?

3) Do you fail every day to live up to the standards of Jesus?

4) Are you imperfect, and in need of forgiveness for the wrongs you've committed in your life?

5) Is a society that values good over evil, love over hate, right over wrong, marriage over divorce, kindness over meanness, grace and forgiveness over hostile resentment, and peace over war better than one that does not?

6) Would a God who lived as a man on earth, suffered and died for our sins in an act of supreme love and grace, and rose from the dead to give us eternal salvation, be a God with whom it would be good and beneficial to have a relationship?

These are all questions to which the vast majority of the population, thinking clearly, would answer a resounding YES!

Christianity and its concomitant truths and values are always alive and well in the world, because we are all created to know Christ, and we impute onto our lives a framework narrative in which we act as though Christianity is true. We act as though Christianity is true when we do good and bad, because both times we are showing the truth of the gospel - its truths shine a Divine light when we do good, and its truth pervades and nudges with the absence of light when we plunge ourselves into darkness. 

It is a shame that so many people in the UK now claim to have no Christian belief. But the good news is, every unbeliever in the UK is only one visit to church away from discovering Christ in action, or one profound book away from uncovering the gospel, or one influential Christian friend away from having their perspective changed, or one honest prayer away from having their life transformed by Christ.