Just Lines Drawn In The Sand

This month’s blog is inspired by Channel 4’s recent spate of programmes that explore multicultural Britain. Specifically, a two-part documentary called ‘Make Bradford British’, which was aired earlier this month, and attempted to define “what it means to be British” with the backdrop of a town which is apparently the most racially segregated place in the UK. I say ‘attempted’ because what the programme really did was to put 5 people - who were either racist, closeted racist, pretending not to be racist, or failing at pretending not to be racist - in a house with two Muslims and a black man, examining the many and varied ways in which they could racially insult each other. It was sort of like Big Brother for middle class people, in that it used the premise of intellectual discussion as a crumbly façade to protect the truth that it was basically just a quasi-farcical fracas of lots of people getting upset and shouting at each other.

Other recent multicultural themed highlights included the wittily entitled ‘Proud and Prejudiced’, which follows the life of Tommy Robinson (the leader of the  English Defence League, a far-right anti-Islamist street protest movement), as he tries to persuade us that he’s not just a racist football hooligan by dressing up as a rabbi and throwing stones at “ethnics”. This is particularly unconvincing, especially when you’re told that his real name is actually Stephen Lennon, and that he has pseudonymised himself Tommy Robinson after a famous - you guessed it - racist football hooligan.

In a nutshell, the British media is absolutely obsessed with ‘multicultural Britain’ and discussing specifically whether it’s “worked” or not. To me, this is about as pointless a discussion as whether the fact that humans have evolved to breathe oxygen has “worked” or not - in that there simply isn’t a viable alternative, and those who seek to find one are likely to meet suffocation. 

So why go on about it so much? Well, I expect it’s because most people tend to get quite passionate about their cultural values being challenged, which just so happens to make rather good telly. Whether it’s the Muslim lady from Make Bradford British doubling over in grief after just being told by a pub full of ignorant punters that she’ll “never fit in with us lot”; or the lurid, misguided, fist-pumping of one of Tommy Robinson’s High Street EDL speeches – whether on the giving or receiving end, nothing seems to inflame people more than a good ol’ bit of racism. This all stems from the fact that we seem to have a built in function to wildly and unreasonably deplore any threat to the way we’re used to things being done. In the same way that you might throw a perfectly good cup of tea down the sink because it was made by putting the milk in first, you might also do your best to avoid conversation with a perfectly nice and normal Chinese man, simply because of your preconceptions.

No doubt this very base instinct is in place to prevent us from engaging in potentially dangerous activities like rubbing lemon juice in our eyes or eating the mud off the bottom of our shoes. This being said, we all know that human instincts are often irrational, potentially dangerous and, indeed, socially shunned. For example, despite our inbuilt instincts, reasonable members of society don’t attempt sexual intercourse with every single person that they find attractive; nor do they automatically resort to violence to resolve every dispute. The explanation for this is simple: we have come to learn over the years that habitually acting on such feelings will often lead to negative consequences, which will ultimately be counter to our welfare. Simply, it’s evolution. Applying this concept to multiculturalism, I think it could easily be argued that prejudice, intolerance, racism and discrimination of all kinds are actually counter to our survival as a species.

Allow me to elaborate. In the past, geographical and infrastructural constraints meant that we were forced to live segregated from each other. As such, we developed a number of different and varied cultures, resulting in (loosely speaking) the existence of our modern day countries. This system worked for us back then, as we were unlikely to ever really encounter anyone from different cultures, due simply to the distance between us. The problem was that when we did start meeting each other, we felt so threatened by the sheer disparity between our cultures, that many countries decided that it would be a better idea to try and force the whole world to be like them. Unfortunately, as history tells us, this led to thousands of years of constant warring for power, which still continues to this day. This being said, the difference today is that we are so much more interconnected. Thanks to social and technological progress it is possible for people from all across the world to more freely integrate and live together in the same place. Furthermore, the invention of the internet gives us a previously unparalleled ability to learn about and accept the differences that previously separated us.

So when someone goes against the idea of multiculturalism, in my view they are simply denying the inevitable, preferring the perceived security of their antiquated views. The question of “what it means to be British” doesn’t matter; indeed, any colour, creed, culture, or religion - all these things are irrelevant – ultimately, we all need to learn to accept that our commonalities far outweigh our differences. And whereas in the past banding together with our kin and holing up behind our borders and boundaries may have been the best way to survive – today, I believe that this is quite the opposite. Drought, famine, disease, homelessness, overpopulation, the environment, natural disasters – don’t you think we have enough problems as a species as it is without having to add human conflict to the list?

But what do we do about those who remain intolerant? How will they be persuaded away from their often deep rooted views? There is much scientific debate on this topic and I won’t try to make any grand statements that take anything out of context. Having said this, it is my belief that humans are basically social beings and, as such, conditioning far overpowers creed, or even instinct. For example: someone might be of Indian heritage, but if they were taken from birth and raised in a household in the UK, they will grow up to think and behave like a British person – and vice versa. As such, it is possible for people to be reconditioned. To put it bluntly, it is possible to cure prejudice; not through brainwashing, or anything sinister sounding like that, but through pure and simple education. 

Once people learn that the survival of our species depends on our collaboration, rather than opposition, maybe then we will see a revolution in values that renders discussions about whether we can live together obsolete, and instead focuses on how we’re actually going to go about doing it.

 “Fear begins to vanish when we realise that countries are just lines drawn in the sand with a stick.” – Enter Shikari