‘Mixed-race people are the most visible sign of racial harmony’

[Aptrgangr]

‘Mixed-race people are the most visible sign of racial harmony’

The future’s bright for mixed-race Britons, but some people are still stuck in the past. By Anvar Khan

IF YOU are half-Japanese you are Haafu; if you are African Indian you are Dougla; if you are half Samoan you are Afatasi. All round the globe a fat and happy glossary of terms for multiracial persons is emerging; but those of us of mixed race are suffocating in this fleshy, welcoming, rainbow-coloured group hug. Of course, such affection and attention is well overdue. While other countries - and even continents - are respectfully trying to describe their racial mix, Scotland is not evolving in this area: Paki is still pretty much the umbrella term.
Both black and white have a sense of their own history but there is no real trace of the mixed-race peoples of this racially polarised world. The past has not honoured us. There is no Martin Luther King Jr for mixed breeds, but there is Jimi Hendrix. What we have in terms of beginnings dovetails somewhere between slavery and immigration, but old-fashioned terms like Eurasian, mulatto, Half-Chat and Mud blood now seem outdated. We started out as "children of the plantation", of course, those embarrassing reminders of forced sex who were excommunicated as half-caste (meaning half-cooked, like sloppy clay in a broken oven). In the overwhelmingly white Britain of the 1960s we emerged as the triumphant result of sexual indiscretion and supposed racial deviancy.
Now mixed-race people are the fastest growing minority in America and the UK; our previous form forgiven like a bad-mannered moment at the dinner table of a wealthy patron, kindly forgotten now that we have status.
I believe that the treatment of mixed-race people by society mirrors the state of race relations. We are the most visible sign of racial harmony you can get. If we are acknowledged then there is a racial truce of sorts. We were ignored until the 2001 Census swept a searchlight over the cities and gave us a few boxes to tick. Now we may finally have our say.
And I have quite a lot to say on behalf of my tribe, which is why I have written a six-part series for BBC Radio Scotland called The Truth Is Never Black Or White. When it comes to debate on race issues, black, Asian and white have jealously guarded their right to speak about colour. The multiracial minority has been robbed of a voice for too long. Blacks and Asians are politicised. Mixed-race people are not - yet. We haven't shown our hand. We remain mysterious, a doodle in the margins.
The persistent stereotype of the mixed race person is someone who is "caught between two cultures"; a tragic mongrel doomed to suffer repeated rejection by two sides which are unable to overcome their own racism; a lonely outsider, a schizophrenic who suffers extreme self-hatred; a racial and cultural casualty. Naff off, please.
There is the theory that a person who comes from a mixture of races is genetically superior; that they get "the best of both worlds" as it is so often touchingly put. Naff off all of you again. We have to move on from perceiving mixed people as social and sexual experiments. The pace of racial integration defies such simplistic judgements.
Little research is available - we have barely been introduced after all - but it is assumed that those of mixed race swither, hither and thither, between their parents' cultures. This intense, meandering adventure can last your entire life. You can wake up one morning suddenly excited about your heritage, as one of those who took part in my documentary did. Richard Ng, 38, was tired of feeling dishonest. Fed up of pretending to be fully Western in order to fit in, he began exploring his Chinese roots.
Those of mixed race suffer from racial envy; we covet the certainty of identity of those who say: "I'm black and I'm proud." We have reservations about anyone who says, "I'm proud to be white", because, in contrast to the empowering slogan of blacks, white people only say that when they are racist.
Patriotism is a difficult area. You are supposed to feel passionate about where you are born. Mixed-race people have doubts about their entitlement. We are stubborn. Few of us treacherously decide we are just one thing.
And so a mixed-race person must be racially diplomatic in order to survive, and this is learned within the home. I am half-white Scottish and half-Pakistani. My parents decided I would be brought up as a strict Muslim. I had only white friends and had to explain I couldn't go out at the weekends. At home I tried to tell my mother and father that, as I was half-white Glaswegian, I should be considered Scottish. I was put in the position of negotiating my own freedom - the freedom to be myself.
Women in mixed-race partnerships often subsume their own racial and cultural identity for no bigger a reason than to keep the peace, so my mother was not an ally. Relatives staked their cultural claim without conscience; one white uncle offered me a pork sausage roll and an Asian uncle phoned from Islamabad to offer me a husband. I said no to the butty and the booty. I was never a pleaser.
There is no perfection, no such thing as a virginity of racial experience. Yet still people insist that there is such a thing as being properly black or Asian. Gallingly it is under this dumb, bovine will, this imaginary sense of racial propriety that a mixed-race kid has to manage to sustain some individual integrity. This is why the term multiculturalism is a bloated corpse.
Yet it is the beloved soundbite of the "race industry", of those who make it their absolute business to advise the arts and media on what is racist and what isn't. Of course politicians and community leaders agree that "we live in a multicultural society". Everyone pays the term lip-service, but no-one knows what it means. If we live in a multiracial society, say so. If we have many cultures practising within this society, be correct. The term "multiculturalism" is just a lazy adjective becoming more barren by the year.
If men and women of a different colour are deciding to set up a home and life together then race is old hat. If ethnic minorities have decided to be less loyal to their parents' culture then barriers fall. There is both racial and cultural integration.
Multiculturalism is a po-faced and patronising term indicating a reluctant tolerance of Britain's racial mix. It suggests we are a messy and complicated society at odds with each other. Clearly this is not true. And if we must be labelled according to our religion and our colour then multiculturalism is rather disrespectful of the mixed race identity because it values those who have a straightforward ancestry.
They say it means nothing now but the term to use is "British". Integration is the tell-tale sign that there is such a thing as shared cultural experience. Mixed-race relationships formed now between second or third generation immigrants will succeed because both partners are not culturally incompatible.
One of the people I spoke to for the series, Zenab Eve Ahmed, 40, is half-English and half-Pakistani. She had to deal with an Islamic father who disowned her because when she left home she decided that culturally she felt more white than Asian.
IT's not what you are racially that counts. Joy Carter, 36, a black Nigerian adopted by a white couple, classes herself "white British". Her boyfriends are white. There is no culture clash. As well as multiculturalism, there is another dodgy perception designed to protect and serve the ethnic minorities that can do just the opposite. Political correctness has achieved nothing. The jury's still out on whether shouting "nigger" means you are racist or plain stupid. Furthermore, foster and adoption agencies still hungover from the pro-segregation philosophies of the black power movement of the 1960s, still do not want to place black kids with white parents and vice versa. Apparently a white parent can't "understand" the black racial experience. Tell that to Carter.
No-one is more disgusting to mixed-race people than the individual who thinks they can decide where we "belong", who thinks they have the right to appropriate our mixed experience and put a minstrel's black face on it. Discrimination against the mixing of races continues and, like racism, it is the result of the racial arrogance of a few. Such policies steal life-changing opportunities from black, white and mixed race children.
Only those of mixed race can challenge these policies. Anyone else is called racist. This prejudice never makes any sense when you are the livid product of interracial love. Like many mixed race kids I too constructed my own fairy tale. I was told so many times that I was "exotic" and "unique". I figured God wanted everyone to mix.
Now I see society rolling towards a luxuriously shallow conclusion. The current "look" in global fashion and advertising is multiracial. My colour is no longer political dynamite, my militant attitude no longer a grenade thrown in the face of my well-wishing, pure white or sheer brown relatives. We are now the zeitgeist, thanks to people like Alex Kapranos, KT Tunstall, Jennifer Tilly, Shirley Bassey and Ben Kingsley.
Meanwhile, Nazma Islam, 16, from Dundee, who is half Bengali, is sick of being called a Paki and asks if it will "get better". It will. Ready or not, Scotland, Britain, the world the future is various shades of brown.

Source

[Menydh]

The future’s bright for mixed-race Britons

Yes, if it means that England it will look much like Brazil. Only that without the beaches and the good weather there, it will be like the favelas of São Paulo that it will look like, violence included and even increased.





Of course, not all of England. Other parts will look like suburbs in Pakistan.

In the picture, BNP advisor Arthur Kemp's future wives after he converts to Islam and writes a sequel to MOTT called Titans of Middle East: A History of the True Aryans

[Whiteruthenian]

Ready or not, Scotland, Britain, the world the future is various shades of brown.

I immediately thought of Brownshirts. The brown plague is on the move again? Be it so.

[Kernunnos]

Relax, see the comments.

A couple are mine, guess which ones.

Sunday Herald: Life: People, Lifestyles & Living Today

[Reltih]

BS.
Note the author's name. Some paki or indian. One must not be mislead and understand the article as it is -cheap propaganda or silent brainwashing. Everyone will care and stick first to his own race.

[Reltih]

Breha , you're undoubtedly Gio Bresan there.

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Obshtestvena syvest

Breha , you're undoubtedly Gio Bresan there.

Yeah, Gioàn is my name.

[Gladstone]

Posted by: matt, 908-281 on 10:16am Sun 11 Mar 07

Multiculturalism= Cheap labour/Replaced indigenous population. Who benefits? The same class of people that were running the colones when the British empire was around. Instead now they are the "pc liberal elite" They are the puppet masters of the masses.

People are getting wiser as to these things...

[Kernunnos]

BTW Who says that it is a real armony? Yugoslavia under the titoist rule was marketed on the ideology market as an example of harmony brought by the advanced social engineering of communism. Now capitalism, another son of Illuminism like communism, is doing the same, simply the economic advancement recipe is different, free market instead than communist economics. But under the lid the same tensions are simmering, peoples are shifted and occupy the place of others or mingle with incompatible ones. There is no real armony again, only mutterings silenced by the morbid thought control exercised by media self-censorship under democracy. Intellectuals go routinely against common sense and the will of people, so as to mantain their status of pampered courtesans. In the meantime ruine is prepared again.

[Gladstone]

Originally Posted by Breha

Intellectuals go routinely against common sense...

While like most here I don't care for his red leanings, George Orwell certainly had a valid point when he concocted his famous truism that...

"Some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them."

[Señor Malo]

Well, in his book "Race" John Baker said that some anthopologists proposed to hybridize the whole mankind in order to make races dissapear ....

[Gladstone]

Originally Posted by Breha

BTW Who says that it is a real armony? Yugoslavia under the titoist rule was marketed on the ideology market as an example of harmony brought by the advanced social engineering of communism. Now capitalism, another son of Illuminism like communism, is doing the same, simply the economic advancement recipe is different, free market instead than communist economics. But under the lid the same tensions are simmering, peoples are shifted and occupy the place of others or mingle with incompatible ones. There is no real armony again, only mutterings silenced by the morbid thought control exercised by media self-censorship under democracy. Intellectuals go routinely against common sense and the will of people, so as to mantain their status of pampered courtesans. In the meantime ruine is prepared again.

Many great points there. This purposely brought about 'mixing' is the same under the reds as it is the capitalists. Though under the former it was called 'fusion' and the latter 'integration' they mean the same thing. Compare these two articles

Nationality Policy in the USSR and in Bulgaria: Some Observations

Ali Eminov

Wayne State College

Soviet Nationality Policy to 1985

Until recently the long-standing goal of Soviet nationality policy had been the eventual merger or fusion of all nations and nationalities in the Soviet Union into a single Soviet socialist community. This merger was to be accomplished in two stages. During the first stage, through participation in a common polity and economy, members of various nations and nationalities were to draw closer together (sblizhenie). During the second stage they were to merge (sliianie) into a single socialist community.(1) Attempts to manage cultural diversity based on these notions have been called syncretic amalgamation. According to Cohen and Warwick (1983:11), "syncretic amalgamation represented an attempt to dilute or eradicate existing cultural identities through the creation of completely new bonds or cases of collective solidarity" through high levels of governmental interference in social relations. Syncretic amalganiation in its revolutionary form attempted to replace existing group loyalties with bonds deriving from class consciousness so that parochial loyalties are superceded by regime ideology. Cohen and Warwick (1983:11-12) elaborate:

In practice, fusionist policy generally made allowances for the existence and even temporary cultivation of traditional cultural practices, provided that such activities (were) essentially of afolklore or pro-regime character.
The rationale for the temporary cultivation of ethnic institutions was that once different groups became aware of their own identities through the development of their languages and cultures, they would become aware of the superiority of an international identity and willingly substitute proletarian internationalism for parochial nationalism. However, such policies in the Soviet Union and elsewhere in Eastern Europe contributed to the strengthening rather than diminishing of ethnic loyalties, ethnic chauvinism and ethnic antipathies, in the process dampening the enthusiasm of leaders for fusionist policies. One result of this was the adoption on the part of these same leaders of "an evolutionary strategy to achieve revolutionary goals" by replacing the more "blatant sanctions of utopian normative appeals by more persuasive appeals and material incentives" (Cohen and Warwick 1983:12). The authors continue:

The expectation still remained that traditional cultural ties (would) eventually decay as a result of modernization, but it [was] acknowledged that this [would] be a very extended and gradual process. Moreover, although the merging of long-established identities(could) be encouraged and guided, this process require[d] methods more mild and subtle than those utilized by the earlier fusionist policies (Cohen and Warwick 1983:12).
This process of ethnic amalgamation was not based on the study of actual developments among various nations and nationalities in the Soviet Union; rather, it was determined a priori by party ideologues and presented as a historically inevitable process. Developments on the ground were expected to fit ideological requirements. Even though the persistence and resilience of parochial identities could not be denied, party ideologues kept insisting that the process of ethnic amalgamation was well under way."(2)

THE BLENDING
OF THE UNITED STATES

By Rochelle L. Stanfield

For years, Jorge DelPinal's job as assistant chief of the Census Bureau's Population Division was to fit people into neat, distinct racial and ethnic boxes: white, black, Hispanic, Asian or Native American. As the son of an Anglo mother and a Hispanic father, however, he knew all along that the task was not always possible. "My identity has evolved as being Hispanic, although I'm only half-and-half," he explained. He said he thus understood the frustration of interracial couples who have always been expected to assign just one race to their children when they fill out government forms. "They're saying, 'Why should we have to choose between the parents?'" the Census Bureau official said.

For the 2000 decennial census, that will no longer be the case. For the first time, the census forms will allow people to check off as many races as apply. As a result, the Census Bureau should obtain a better picture of the extent of intermarriage in the United States.

In the absence of such a direct method, a few years ago veteran demographer Barry Edmonston used sophisticated mathematical modeling techniques to calculate how intermarriage is changing the face of the United States as part of an immigration study he directed for the National Research Council of the American Academy of Sciences. His research was summarized in a report entitled The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. But as the Canadian-born, white husband of sociologist Sharon Lee, a Chinese-American, Edmonston really needed no computer to understand the transformation under way in this society. He and his family are living, breathing participants.

The face of America is changing -- literally. As President Clinton has said, within 30 or 40 years, when there will be no single race in the majority in the United States, "we had best be ready for it." For his part, Clinton is preparing for that time by talking about racial tolerance and the virtues of multiculturalism. Others are debating immigration policy. Almost all discussion focuses on the potential divisiveness inherent in a nation that is no longer a predominantly white country with a mostly European ancestry.

But afoot behind the scenes is another trend that, if handled carefully, could bring the country closer together rather than drive it apart. This quiet demographic counter-revolution is a dramatic upsurge in intermarriage.

"Demography is a very intimate deal," notes Ben J. Wattenberg, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) in Washington. "It's not about what activists say; it's about what young men and women do. And what they're doing is marrying each other and having children."

Edmonston's study projected that by 2050, 21 percent of the U.S. population will be of mixed racial or ethnic ancestry, up from an estimate of seven percent today. Among third-generation Hispanic and Asian Americans, exogamy -- marriage outside one's ethnic group or tribe -- is at least 50 percent, he and others estimate. Exogamy remains much less prevalent among African Americans, but it has increased enormously, from about 1.5 percent in the 1960s to eight to 10 percent today..."

What's interesting is that both with the reds and the capitalists, and or their convergance multi-culturalism, variants of slavery is a major part of the economic system. For instance under Stalin's Gulag from about 1930-1953, many millions served in the forced labor camps. Similarly the capitalists have their streamlined system of slavery called 'cheap labor', the United States by itself 'importing' three million cheap laborers in the year 2004 alone, more than any other country on the face of the Earth. This ought not to be surprising as the era of the American and French Revolutions (1776 & 1789 respectively) was one steeped in slavery, theTrans-Atlantic slave trade being at it's heighth, and at least some (many?) of the financiers of the US Revolution were slavers, as probably was the case with the French as well.

The below is a description of what slavers were doing to the Irish in the 17th century Carribean slave trade, which included breeding the Irish slaves with the African slaves, but it could just as well describe what is being done to Europeans at present, and in time most (if not all) peoples with cheap labor and its ideology of multi-culturalism.

The planters quickly began breeding the comely Irish women, not just because they were attractive, but because it was profitable,,, as well as pleasurable. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, and although an Irish woman may become free, her children were not. Naturally, most Irish mothers remained with their children after earning their freedom. Planters then began to breed Irish women with African men to produce more slaves who had lighter skin and brought a higher price. The practice became so widespread that in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” This legislation was not the result of any moral or racial consideration, but rather because the practice was interfering with the profits of the Royal African Company! It is interesting to note that from 1680 to 1688, the Royal African Company sent 249 shiploads of slaves to the Indies and American Colonies, with a cargo of 60,000 Irish and Africans. More than 14,000 died during passage.

And thus the slavers...

...systematically planned the genocide of the Irish, for commercial profit, and executed a continuing campaign to destroy all traces of Irish social, cultural and religious being.

The slave owners at times would have a slave or two who was especially useful in controlling the other slaves, and would be rewarded accordingly with special treatment by their master for their services rendered. In the context of multi-culturalism, the ideology of cheap labor, this is the role that people such as Anvar Khan perform when they write articles such as this one.

The lie of the millenium was the 'abolition' of slavery in the 19th century...when in reality one variant of slavery was merely exchanged for another.


Anthropology of East Europe Review 9(2)

The Blending of the United States -- Rochelle L. Stanfield

Caomhánach - Article - Irish slaves in the Caribbean

[Susi]

Ireland isn't part of the British Empire.

But I guess using "British" as a regional term is okay.. ish..

I think having many races is better than having few.