Calling Time on Black Racism

Memory of the early-eighties: a school assembly. One of my classmates, who has joined the ultra-fashionable Rastafarian religion/movement, is ordered by the headmaster to remove his hat. The head has already spoken to the boy’s parents, who have agreed that their son shouldn’t wear his hat in school. My classmate refuses, claiming a religious right to cover his head. He is ordered to leave the school premises until he removes the hat. He marches up the stairs to leave the hall; at the top, he turns, raises his fist, and shouts “Jah Rastafari!”, before marching out. Cheers of support ring from the hall, but everyone else stays seated. For his Rasta salute, he is expelled. He never returns to school, and leaves without qualifications.

While he may have been unfairly treated regarding his religious choices, he was not a victim of racism. Rather, he was a victim of a black nationalist ideology that was a hangover from the earlier anti-colonial and civil rights struggles. He had been taught that “the system” (or “Babylon” as Rastas called it), was a white system, rigged against black people. He didn’t need the “white man’s knowledge” (you know – maths, science, that sort of thing) because it was designed to “keep the black man down”. In leaving school without any tools to thrive in the British economy, he was typical of many young black men of his generation. They rejected education because racist extremists had told them it was false knowledge, and that they could never succeed in white society.

This was untrue. In fact, literate, middle-class black kids, and especially those from African homes, found plenty of opportunity in the UK, regardless of the racism many encountered. Black nationalist ideology is a recipe for failure: many teenage boys would love an excuse to skip their classes and fail their exams, and afrocentric teaching gives them just that. But while this racist nonsense is rejected by most black parents, it is embraced by many confused white “liberals”, who amplify the message and patronisingly accept that when young black men fail, it’s not their fault: instead, it’s the white man, keeping the black man down via an intricate and invisible system of “structural racism”. As I’ve blogged previously, there is actually little evidence for structural racism affecting people’s economic outcomes, at least in the UK.

This imaginary “oppression” is increasingly used as an excuse for a huge upsurge in black racism. Those of us who have spent much of their lives as minorities along black communities (for 40 years, in my case) will know that black racism is not a new thing; but we are few, and the arrival of postmodern nonsense from Race Studies faculties that denies black people are even capable of racism has added fuel to the fire. While black racism has been largely ignored or excused by the black community and white “liberals”, the arrival of social media has made it increasingly hard to ignore. I have several hundred black Facebook friends – mostly in the UK but also in Africa and the US – and it’s rare that a day passes without seeing overt racism from black people that would be shouted down if it came from anyone else. Here are a couple of examples that have appeared on my timeline in recent days:


A bunch of white people died on the Titanic! Hilarious. Like most such memes, it’s based on a lie: black people were never barred from the Titanic, and in fact at least one black person was on board. Outside of the segregated southern US, colour bars were actually pretty rare; but history is now rewritten to be racialised, and a generation of black people raised on self-pitying “black history” rather than actual history is more than ready to believe this myth.

Here’s another:


There’s a nice, feel-good black business success story, coupled with a thinly-veiled celebration of an Asian business being burned to the ground. The message appears to be: black people can succeed, just like Asians! All you need to do is chase them out of black neighbourhoods! As in America, black provisions are often sold by Asians in the UK: human hair, hair and skin products and cosmetics stores in black areas are, more often than not, run by Asians, which causes resentment rather than self-examination among many. Anti-Asian racism is strong in the black community: in part, because Asian success gives the lie to the idea that non-whites can’t succeed in Britain.

Similarly, and for similar reasons, anti-African sentiment is strong among sections of the black community. At my school, this gave rise to “Ja-fake-ans”: Africans trying to pass as Jamaican to avoid bullying.

Every story that can be twisted into a black oppression narrative will be. The Ebola outbreak in West Africa prompted an equally virulent outbreak of racist conspiracy theories. First, it was a lie designed to allow neo-colonialists to invade Africa. Then, a genetically modified virus designed by the white man to wipe out Africans. Then, when an experimental vaccine was rushed into use, this was obviously a trick to poison black people. And then, as the outbreak came under control, new theories that the whole thing had simply never happened. All of this ignored the reality: that hundreds of white medical volunteers were putting their lives at risk to treat people, that European and American money funded the relief effort and the roll-out of drugs and vaccines, just as they had to tackle AIDS and malaria on the continent.

The Caitlyn Jenner episode, for some reason, prompted an upsurge of spiteful transphobia and racism from black people. One particularly odd meme originated from Snoop Dogg, who said:


Where to begin? How about the laughable idea that an R&B singer is single-handedly bringing power to the entire African continent? The actual story was that he was funding a school for solar engineers in Bamako, Mali. This claim is particularly odd given the afrocentric obsession with pointing out how damn enormous Africa is. One moment, a huge continent, the next a plaything for an American celebrity. This was far from the only anti-Jenner hate I saw from black people. White “liberals”, normally outraged by the faintest hint of transphobia, appeared to be universally silent about this sort of thing. The racism of the new left excuses black people pretty much anything because – well – the poor, oppressed dears don’t know any better, do they? The new left has accepted the core ideology of the old, white supremacist right: that black people can’t be held responsible for their actions, nor held to be equals in any true sense.

All of this comes on top of the vile #BlackLivesMatter campaign, which successfully turned the burning issue of police shootings into a racial one. While racial statistics on police shootings were initially hard to find (because, amazingly, no official count is taken), the Guardian stepped up to the plate by maintaining its own database. Via this, we discover that so far this year, 901 Americans have been killed by police, of whom 416 are white and 217 (24%) are black. Black Lives Matter is a slap in the face to the families of the rest: those whites, Hispanics, Asians and others who have lost a loved one to US police violence. Indeed, those who tried to propose an #AllLivesMatter hashtag were screamed down as racists on social media. #76PercentOfLivesDontMatter, apparently. Stupidly, this campaign has dismantled attempts to build a cross-societal backlash against police violence, and instead taken the opportunity to create another self-pity party for those who feel most hard done by. Martin Luther King is, no doubt, face-palming in heaven.

It’s true that black deaths are disproportionately high; it’s also true that black people are more likely to open fire at police officers (70% of shootings at police in New York State were by black people, according to an Economist audio report some months back). If you shoot at US cops, you’re going to get shot! There is a racism element in all this, no doubt, but it is undoubtedly smaller than Black Lives Matter claims.

Similarly, the death of Sandra Bland was breathlessly reported as the eighth black woman to die at police hands that year; the reporting failed to mention that 17 white women had died in the same period. Can you name any of the 684 non-blacks killed by American police this year? The supreme irony is that, while denouncing the media for ignoring black deaths, in fact the reverse is happening: only black deaths can be publicly mourned. The rest must go unmentioned, because to even mention their existence risks being tiresomely labelled “racist”.

Note that Black Lives Matter has nothing to say about the shooting of black people by police… in Africa, which is a daily occurrence. #BlackLivesMatterButOnlyWhenAWhitePersonCanBeBlamed, apparently.

The list goes on indefinitely… a UK government warning against washing chicken for hygiene reasons became a Facebook excuse to label whites as unhygienic. To explain context: washing chicken and meat is common in black cultures; so is a belief that white people are dirty.

Personally, I rarely give a damn about much of the casual racism directed against whites, Asians, mixed-race people and others by black people. I’ve experienced this more times than I can count, especially when in the company of my black partner: the sight of a white man with an attractive black woman is guaranteed to bring out the worst in some people; even more so now that we have a child together. This has been a background fact of my life for decades, but I know from experience that for every black person who dislikes me for my colour, there are many more who will stand up for me. But while we get hysterical every time some silly old white man says something vaguely racist, we are utterly silent in the face of more prevalent black racism.

Thankfully, there are signs that many black people are waking up to the problem, and challenging it. Several black friends of mine have begun to stand up to black racists on Facebook: bravely so, because to do so means dealing with accusations of being a race traitor, and other silly forms of abuse. Many within the black community are beyond sick of people playing the race card to excuse their failures, rather than take responsibility for themselves. Perhaps the tide began to turn with Chris Rock’s legendary “blacks vs niggaz” act, now almost 20 years old. In a recent discussion on a friend’s page, a black American woman contributed the following: “I’m tired of the race card being pulled some blacks are just misguided and stupid and create their own problems”. But the white-dominated anti-racism movement has proven itself too cowardly or simply unaware of this problem, and stays away. What’s the point of an anti-racism movement that ignores racism? This is gold dust for the far-right, which can harvest white, working class supporters rejected as “racists” by the left for merely complaining when they themselves experience racism.

Just as white supremacy was fatally holed by the election of a black President, and is sinking rapidly, so it’s time for racist black nationalism to go the same way. I have never tolerated racism in any form, and frequently stood up against it. I don’t intend to stop doing that now.

MOTW: Slovakia Rejects Muslim Refugees

Slovakia has “generously” offered to accept 200 refugees from Syria (Turkey, by comparison, has 2 million). However, this comes with a major condition: it will only accept Christians, on the basis that Muslims would “not feel at home”.

Someone might point out to the the Slovakian government that “not feeling at home” is pretty standard for refugees, by definition, of all races and religions. However, Slovakia’s fascist attitudes don’t stop with foreign Muslims. Slovakia’s own Roma population apparently doesn’t “feel at home” very much either, due to relentless discrimination and harassment.

We are reminded ever more frequently of the long history of savagery underlying Europe’s civilised surface. Stories like this are sent to remind us that, without the EU, Europe has invariably been a very dark place. Euroscepticism – whether in the “evil” Farage or “nice” Corbyn varieties – is a danger to watch closely.

Original story via BBC.

Racism and “Cultural Appropriation”

I only encountered the bizarre new concept of “cultural appropriation” within the past 2-3 years. I remember the moment well: a black Facebook friend posted a picture of some white, middle-aged women dressed in traditional African clothing. It was a sweet photo, so I was taken aback by the commentary that accompanied it: apparently, here was an example of white supremacy, once again stealing from Africa. The women were guilty of “cultural appropriation”, apparently. And that’s bad.

Here was a new and puzzling idea. The left of old was insistent that Africa was victim to the exact opposite problem: something we referred to as “cultural imperialism”. We thought that culture could be imposed by those with the money and the guns. It was a superficially obvious idea: but we failed to understand what culture is, or how it works.

There are genuine moments when a culture has been forced onto an African population: the South African attempt to teach children in Afrikaans was one example. This policy prompted an uprising by school students who demanded to be taught in English, and led to the Soweto uprising, and the famous 1976 massacre of school students. The imposition of Islam in the Sahel by the Arabian empire was, one suspects, not done entirely peacefully.

Suppressing culture for the sake of it is simply expensive and pointless. This doesn’t stop politicians, police and control-freaks from repeatedly trying.

An attempt to suppress black American music
An attempt to suppress black American music

Culture doesn’t flow by force, nor does it necessarily follow the money. The story of black American music is the ultimate proof of that. Even in pre-civil rights segregated America, black music found widespread popularity. Recording fuelled the rise of jazz, swing and rock & roll. The racist white establishment attempted to suppress this, but were unable: when something is good, people will find a way to get it; this is as true of “dangerous music” as it is of illegal drugs. For sure, it was easy (prior the civil rights era) to suppress black artists, by refusing to record them, banning them from radio and from live performances. But this couldn’t prevent white artists – Al Jolson, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly – from helping to popularise black music.

The dominance of black music, dress and language over white culture was undeniable. The African diaspora filled vacuums in Western culture: music, rhythm, dance, spoken word, new styles of humour. African culture also brought a more straightforward approach to discussion of sex; this fact alone might explain much of the resistance to black culture from conservatives.

Culture is neither imperialised nor appropriated: it flows where it is welcome, usually because it fills an existing gap. It is the self-appointed job of conservatives, racists and small-minded bullies to prevent the flow of ideas, but they will inevitably fail, in the long run.

The significance of “cultural appropriation” is that it marks the shift of racism and conservatism from the right to the left of the political spectrum. Rather than exhort people not to buy “NEGRO RECORDS”, the neo-bullies tell people that black culture is for black people, and must not be appropriated.

Over the past couple of years, I’ve seen black racists and their confused white “liberal” cheerleaders use cultural appropriation as evidence of how racially oppressed they are. Apparently, wearing African clothes, listening to hip-hop or making soul music is today’s evidence of just how much white people still hate black people. Which is weird, when you think about it.

This idea is the work of a racist minority, and certainly doesn’t reflect the views of most black people. In fact, many older black art-forms still only exist because they’ve been adopted by white people. The dub reggae scene – which I’ve frequented for many years – was once mostly black, and now mostly white. The same applies to many other music scenes, from soul to traditional African music. With the exception of current Nigerian pop superstars like Wizkid, who can fill large London venues with young, black Brits, African music is largely ignored by black people in the UK. Senegalese friends of mine are currently touring Europe, playing to appreciative white audiences. Without this appropriation of (i.e. love for) their culture, these African musicians would never get to leave Africa.

Most Africans love to see whites wearing their clothing, and would be bemused to learn that some angry black people in America and Britain see this is a symbol of racism. Furthermore, there is no such thing as “African clothing”. If I wear Nigerian clothes in Senegal (as I’ve once done), the locals don’t see the clothing as theirs, but as foreign.

One can also note that Africans and western blacks themselves have happily appropriated foreign culture. Today’s most enthusiastic flag-wavers for Christianity are found among Africans and the African diaspora. Although konscious black Christians will angrily point out that Ethiopia was an early Christian society, Christianity (and its European-made book) was brought to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa far more recently by Europeans, not Ethiopians, beginning with the Portuguese explorers of the west coast. Islam, likewise, came overland from Arabia. Just as African rhythm and spoken word filled a void in the West, so Islam and Christianity provided what sub-Saharan Africa had never before encountered: complex, stable religions, with their own books.

Sections of today’s left are continuing the work of the white supremacist right of last century.  They try to define rules that only apply to certain racial groups. Blacks can “appropriate”, whites cannot. Black culture must be left alone, white culture can go where it chooses.

The difference between the person who rails about “cultural appropriation”, and the person that organised a boycott of “negro records” is wafer-thin. The language has changed beyond recognition, but the ugly, bullying, divisive intent is the same.

The Black Oppressors

As I’ve blogged often, the intellectual collapse of the left in recent decades has left me bereft of a political home, forced to re-evaluate my beliefs in the absence of a tribe I can belong to. The idiot new left, having noticed that brown people are less wealthy than white people (on average), has made that most basic of all mistakes: confusing correlation with causation, and has decided that the economic dominance of Europeans in recent centuries is all about racism.

Continue reading The Black Oppressors

How the Middle Classes Appropriated “Oppression”

When I were a lad (yes, even Londoners had northern accents back then), and a left-wing activist, we were greatly concerned about oppression; and in the 1980s, there was no shortage of examples. The South African police had shot dead schoolchildren in Soweto in 1976, and continued to gun down innocents on a regular basis. In Latin America, US-backed dictatorships kidnapped, tortured and murdered thousands of activists. In Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, US-backed terrorists attacked civilians on a wide scale, with a special love of atrocity. In Africa, civilians were slaughtered in proxy wars between the US and USSR. Asia saw brutality on an unimaginable scale.

The left stood for the rights of oppressed peoples, but understood clearly that oppression is primarily a function of economic means, not of race, sex or sexuality. While we also opposed prejudice on these grounds, and supported women’s rights, gay rights and anti-racism causes, we knew that ultimately, oppression and poverty were inextricably linked.

But the left slowly died as the Cold War came to an end, and capitalism (coupled with social democracy) proved itself more resilient than Marx had predicted. The death of the British left can be located to a particular date: 3rd March 1985, when the miners sadly walked back to work after their long strike. For me, and many of my friends, this marked the point when our activism ended and we drifted away to live our lives.

But the organs of the left remained, and were rapidly taken over by a new breed: overwhelmingly white, middle-class and rooted in academia rather than trade unionism. This new left failed to understand the economics of poverty and oppression (never having witnessed these things themselves), so set about writing themselves a new ideology. So we found ourselves thrust into the era of identity politics.

The new left lacked the intellect of the old, and found itself making the most fundamental of all mistakes: confusing correlation with causation. So the left now sought out new groups that appeared to oppressed. Because white people held the most economic power, the moronic left reasoned that skin colour was a cause of oppression, and labelled all non-whites as victims. And since laws had been rigged against women, the left decided that mere possession of a vagina was equivalent to oppression.

While paying lip service to the oppression of the poor, the overwhelming white, academic, middle-class left no longer had any links with the working class, and so they focused on rescuing the oppressed groups they knew best: themselves. Largely, this meant that the individuals with the most “oppressions” (yes, I’ve really seen it used in the plural) were fast-tracked to the top. Those who screamed their self-pity the loudest became the most powerful, fast-tracked into political power.

But the rise of gay and black (often both) individuals was orchestrated by the white people who kept a firm hand on the reins. Black people would only be allowed into the hierarchy if they accepted that they were oppressed. Gay and non-white people who didn’t see themselves as oppressed by their colour or sexuality were labelled self-haters, and side-tracked. Non-white activists like Linda Bellos, Lee Jasper and Diane Abbott were only acceptable because they echoed the view of the white, middle-class establishment that they were oppressed.

In the intervening years, the self-pitying rhetoric of “oppression” and “privilege” has only gained further ground, to the extent that the meaning of these two words has been twisted almost beyond recognition. Almost comically, white, middle-class women appear to have decided that they are the most oppressed of all. Now, oppression isn’t something that happens to you. It’s something that you are. Now, oppression isn’t having your children shot dead, or a daily struggle to feed one’s family. No, oppression is a white middle-class woman, with a good job, having to endure the fact that men like looking at pictures of breasts. The following is a genuine tweet from just such an oppressed woman:

On tube sat next to a man reading The Sun and thus I start my day feeling a continuing sense of oppression

One wonders if Prozac might be the solution to this sort of oppression… or perhaps just a nice spliff. But I digress.

The old left tried to overturn oppression, but to the new left, this is pointless. Rather than fix inequalities, the left has decided to cement inequality into place permanently. Now, anybody labelled Oppressed must be given special privileges as compensation. In a deeply Orwellian twist, the more oppressed one is deemed to be, the more privilege they must be given in return.

Thus, the woman who finds Page 3 imagery objectionable need not merely boycott the Sun (as I’ve done my whole life). Now she has the right to demand that Page 3 is removed from the Sun. As an oppressed woman, she has won the privilege of censorship. Don’t Page 3 models also have a right to work? Apparently not – the rights of the oppressed middle-class woman are far greater than those of the working class one.

The “black community” (an almost meaningless phrase) is also deemed to be oppressed. Those black individuals who accept their oppression (and scream loudly about it) are welcomed by the left. Black individuals who doubt their own oppression, or who see the dangers in teaching black children that they’re automatically oppressed, are screamed down as self-haters.

This was most clearly shown by the recent London art exhibition, Exhibit Bwhich was forced to close after the “black community” (or rather, a mob of 200 people) blockaded it. Thus, black people are SO oppressed that they too are granted the right of censorship of anything that offends them. Never mind that the exhibition had been critically acclaimed in multiple cities before reaching London, or that black people were far from united in hating it, or that those who protested against it had never seen it.

The irony with Exhibit B is that the mob was enabled by the white elite. Their oppression (and thus, their privilege) was granted to them by white people. Their language of “oppression” and “privilege” was forged by the white middle-classes in universities around the country. Far from being “conscious” or liberated, this black minority is determined to follow a white agenda to the bitter end. The left is determined to tell black people that they are doomed to fail; and give them a handy excuse for failure – their skin colour.

So now, the left doesn’t expect black people to conform to the rules affecting whites. And so, politics has turned full circle. In accepting that black people, women, and other groups, are oppressed, the left has attempted to destroy the very thing it used to fight for: equality. Now, groups deemed oppressed by the white elite are granted special allowances. And the fight for equality takes a huge step backwards.

So is it any surprise that groups have sprung up on the right to declare men and white people oppressed? Sure, these people are laughable – but no more laughable than the claims of oppression by the left. Self-pity is the new black.

If you’re born into a middle-class existence in the UK, you aren’t oppressed. This is true regardless of your skin colour, who you choose to fuck, or the shape of your genitals. It’s genuinely sickening to watch the pity-fest that has replaced left-wing politics in the 21st century. Get over yourselves.

Richard Dawkins: Moron or Bigot?

I write this post with a heavy heart: there was once a time when I had a valid claim to be among Richard Dawkins’ greatest fans. There was a time when I would have treasured a tweet from the great man; but when my moment arrived (last Saturday), I was long past getting excited by it.

I had decided I was an atheist around the age of twelve, but on reaching my twenties, I realised I couldn’t fill all the gaps in my detailed understanding of evolution, and decided I needed to remedy that situation. The remedy was Dawkins’ book, The Blind Watchmaker, which I tore through in days, enjoying every page. A little later, I read Dawkins’ first book, and true masterpiece, The Selfish Gene, which blows away the idea that evolution necessarily favours the most violent, selfish individuals, and thus gives a little hope for mankind in a godless universe.

And then, in 2006, came The God Delusion, a highly ambitious project. This time, instead of using biology alone to undermine religious ideas, Dawkins travels across a wide range of philosophical arguments in order to destroy the basis of religious belief. Again, I bought the book almost as soon as it was available (OK, perhaps I waited for the paperback) and read it fast. Again, many of the arguments were fascinating and compelling. In his usual razor-sharp way, the author shredded any possible religious response. The God Delusion is a devastating blow to religious thinking.

But there was something a little different and disturbing about this book. For the first time (at least, the first time I had noticed), the mask of scientific impartiality slipped. Dawkins’ hatred of religion became more pronounced, most blatantly in Chapter 8: “What’s Wrong With Religion? Why be So Hostile?” On its own, this was no problem to me: I’ve never been a fan of religion either. But Dawkins was now attacking the basis of religious freedom, arguing that to teach a child irrational belief was effectively child abuse. The subtext was clear: child abuse cannot be tolerated in a civilised society, and so – if society accepts his argument that religion is indeed abusive – then religion cannot be tolerated either. It’s a position that any fascist would be proud of: “we are too tolerant to tolerate you!”

The intolerance of ideas is a deeply unscientific position, and thus an odd one to be coming from someone who has spent so much of his life promoting science. The Enlightenment – which laid the foundations of modern democracies – was based on the twin ideas of reason and freedom of thought. The fathers of the Enlightenment advocated a free marketplace of ideas as the only model for human advancement. Dawkins himself invented the word meme to model how ideas spread and mutate within such a marketplace. Either Dawkins has no faith that his own ideas could thrive against religious ones in a free marketplace, or his hatred of religion is driven by just that: hatred.

There seems to be a particular type of Twitter atheist that revels in attacking, and trying to upset, religious people. Many of these atheists were raised with religion before becoming atheists, and tend to blame their earlier intolerance on their religion rather than on their own innate wankishness. They seem not to notice that they’re just as intolerant as they used to be: they’ve just converted from being religious wankers into atheist wankers. Dawkins, since taking to Twitter himself, has attracted a large following of such people (and simultaneously lost many of his earlier admirers).

Dawkins’ Twitter rants have become infamous, and he has often been denounced as a bigot. Until recently, I haven’t subscribed to the idea that he is bigoted against any one religion or group; he clearly has a hatred for religion (and religious people) in general. But it has been hard to ignore that he, like so many “enlightened” people, has a special hatred for Muslims (although he would no doubt characterise it as a hatred of Islam rather than the religion’s followers). To my eyes, his crime has been far worse than just irrationally hating people: he has shown himself quite willing to abandon scientific principle in order to demonstrate his dogmatic view that religion is evil. Thus, he will happily tweet about the flogging of a woman for adultery (because the abuse has a religious justification) while ignoring mass slaughter in Congo or Sri Lanka (because he has no interest in rapes or murders that can’t be blamed on religion). This, from a man who was the University of Oxford‘s Professor for Public Understanding of Science for over a decade. Cherry-picking data to suit your dogma is the very crime for which he has correctly castigated purveyors of creationism and Intelligent Design.

Dawkins is also happy to spread anti-Islamic mythology when it serves his purpose. His site purports to be dedicated to removing the influence of religion, and yet carries several articles about female genital mutilation; this is clearly done to perpetuate the myth that FGM is an Islamic practise. But it isn’t: it’s primarily an African cultural one, largely perpetrated by women against their daughters and granddaughters. What do articles about FGM have to do with Dawkins’ war on religion? In reality, nothing, but they help him demonise religion as evil, and stir up intolerance. Clearly, accuracy and truth – things that are at the core of science – matter less than creating hatred against religious people. In trying to destroy religion, Dawkins has adopted the methods of religion.

Is he just naively amplifying far-right propaganda against Muslims, or does he have a far-right agenda of his own? I have long supported the former view, but evidence is increasing for the latter. One of many generic far-right Muslim-baiting Twitter accounts is @JihadistJoe. Although Joe claims to be a running a JIHADIST PARODY, COMEDY & SATIRE account, he seems to have forgotten he’s supposed to be a PARODY. Besides forgetting to tweet in character, Joe also forgets he’s supposed to be tweeting COMEDY. Joe does retweet a lot of bigoted comedy, and yes I admit, some of it is even funny if you can get past the small-minded hatefulness of it all. But Joe’s own material is as funny as you’d expect from someone who’s too stupid to know what “parody” means (i.e. not funny at all).

Dickie’s view differs from mine, however, and on Saturday he tweeted:

As a result of which, Joe acquired several thousand new followers. So Richard Dawkins, man of science, thinks that tweets such as the following are “very funny and DEADLY accurate”?

Laugh-a-minute stuff, and oh! such wonderful parody! At least, Dickie thinks so:

In response to Dawkins’ praise for Joe, I tweeted:

To which he replied:

Being attacked by Dawkins for being shit at biology would be hurtful, but being abused by one of the world’s most humourless men for my lack of humour? I can handle that. Note the “.” to make his tweet public – I was then, of course, bombarded with tweets from moronic Dawkins fans for a while; I make no protest, as I’ve frequently employed the same tactic.

So Dawkins has proven a huge disappointment to me, and many others who admired him as a man of science. Is he really stupid enough to fall for the anti-Muslim propaganda that’s become so prevalent? That seems unlikely; but he seems guilty of the anti-science crime of not questioning data if it backs his own bigoted views. And for that reason, however high his IQ might be, I think it’s fair to say that Richard Dawkins is a moron.

Does the Black Community Have a Problem?

Possibly because it’s Black History Month (US/Canada), I’m seeing a burst of Facebook discussions among my black friends on that old favourite: why do black communities underperform others? Various economic, education and health metrics still demonstrate large gaps between black and other populations, and inevitably people wonder why. The old white supremacist explanation – that black people are simply biologically inferior – has gradually faded from grace in recent decades, although this idea is often still hinted at.

Discussion among black people tends to swing between blaming others (it’s caused by racism/colonialism/the aftermath of slavery/etc.) and blaming themselves (why don’t black people invest in each other like Indians and Jews seem to do?) Meanwhile, many white liberals tend to blame racism and colonialism while simultaneously showing an almost colonial lack of faith in black societies to sort out problems for themselves.

It appears to me though that the truth is better, and the outlook more optimistic than any of these viewpoints might consider. I admit that I long supported the “white guilt” viewpoint. The Caribbean Londoners I grew up with undoubtedly suffered greatly from racism and police brutality. They also lagged far behind white people in educational achievement and economic success. There was an obvious correlation between race and disadvantage; many people (me included) therefore assumed that one was the cause of the other. But of course, assuming causation from correlation is the oldest mistake in the book.

It was my own black friends who helped set me straight on this, pointing out that they had escaped council estates, made careers and raised stable families, despite experiencing persistent racism. From their micro-perspective, the difference was clear: those whose families valued literacy and education succeeded. Those who came from families that placed little value on education did not.

The disparities between different racial groups should cast doubt on the idea that racism causes communities to fail. In the 1930s, Jews faced immense prejudice. They were also mostly economic migrants, and lacked capital. And yet many – including both of my grandfathers – opened businesses and moved out of the East End ghetto into the suburbs.

The Caribbean immigrants who began arriving in the late-1940s did not follow the same pattern of success as the Jews. But the East African Asians who fled Uganda in the 1970s did. The Pakistanis who came later did not do so well. But the West Africans who came in the 1980s and 1990s did better.

What kind of “racism” is so selective? When Indian and Chinese children do better in school than whites, but Pakistanis and Bengalis do worse, how can anti-Asian racism be blamed? And now, West Africans (mostly from Nigeria, Ghana and Sierra Leone) outperform white children but children originating in the Caribbean do not. How can this be explained by anti-black racism? In short, it can’t.

I attended the “blackest” school in the UK, where around 75% of the kids were first or second generation immigrants from the Caribbean. While some of the Caribbean migrants had come from educated, middle class homes, the majority didn’t. Many of my school friends left school with scant literacy and no qualifications. Many of their parents too were semi-literate, having come from rural island communities to take up work as bus conductors. Today, I still have friends in their 40s and 50s who have limited literacy.

This generation of black Londoners faced savage racism in the 1970s and 1980s, especially from the police; they also were excluded, by their lack of qualifications, from universities and well paid jobs. It was easy to combine the two things in folklore: to say that Babylon (the Rastafarian word for the white power structure) would never offer opportunities to black people. This was easy to believe. I believed this. To add to the confusion, black British people compared their position to that of black Americans and South Africans. This was deeply inaccurate; Britain never had racial segregation laws or traditions to overturn. The racism may have been superficially similar, but the political reality was incomparable.

But when, starting in the 1990s, many West African immigrants breezed into universities and professional jobs, it became clear that this racial model of British society was wrong. I had to question my own beliefs, forged among the afro-centric viewpoints I absorbed in my teens. When a Nigerian friend graduated as an accountant and invited me to her awards ceremony, I saw a new British reality. Expecting to see a line-up dominated by Jews and Indians, I instead saw Chinese, Nigerian and Ghanaian graduates collecting their certificates.

So does the black British community have a problem? The question is meaningless. There is no coherent black community. Grouping people together based on their skin colour is nonsensical, and indicates a racist world view. The key deciding factor in a person’s economic success in the UK is their level of literacy and education. It turns out that working class black people originating from the Caribbean have far more in common, economically, with white British people than they do with those of West African origin. The same applies to those immigrants from rural Pakistan versus those from urban India.

This doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem with racism – this is still alive and well, and the rise of UKIP reveals a strong xenophobic streak in British society. For black parents wondering how to give their children the greatest chance of success, the answer is the same as for any other parent: teach them to read and write young, to behave at school, and to develop a thirst for lifelong learning. And most of all, tell them that the colour of their skin is no excuse for failure.