Black Lives Matter: which blacks are we talking about?
Amongst the black populations of the world, like with the white populations of the world, there are different ethnicities and cultures. Each of these differing cultures and ethnicities have historical narratives that are peculiar to them. One nation, Ethiopia was not colonised at all. Some others were colonised by the French, some by the British, some by the Belgians and some were taken out of Africa and brought into slavery in the America’s. Some went to the United States, some went to the Caribbean and some went to South American nations, namely Brazil.
In the light of the Black Lives Matter movement, I believe that it is important to discuss and highlight the differences between the various ethnicities, narratives and histories that make up the black populations across the globe. Discussions in the media seem to consider Black Lives Matter to be a slogan that has arisen out of the contexts of African people, as some kind of Pan-African slogan, however I believe that understanding Black Lives Matter as a Pan-African slogan is misleading.
The historical racial antagonism in the US and the UK has largely been a struggle between the fully Anglicised African slave descendants of the America’s and the white power structure and not a struggle between those Africans that were colonised on the African continent. The Black Lives Matter narrative is the narrative of those that have come into peoplehood within a white, western power structure over a period of hundreds of years and have fundamentally lost contact with their African heritage. The narrative is not the narrative of those that fled post-colonial Africa to come to the western world.
In the US, it is not the narrative of those that went to America because of poverty, political opposition, corruption or state failure in black led African nations. The whole historical debate within which the Black Lives Matter movement is contextualised is to do with those slaves that contributed to the birth of America and it’s more than 400 year old racial conversation. It has arisen from the lineage of Booker T Washington, Marcus Garvey, W E B Dubois, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jnr, Huey Newton and more. All of whom were part of the experience of black Anglicization that was at the heart of slavery.
In the UK, the story is the same. The narrative of historical racial struggle in Britain has largely derived from the experience of black Caribbean’s that make up the Windrush Generation and their descendants. Again, those of African heritage that are Anglicised and share the same names, language and cultural heritage with the wider British population but have historically been looked at as outsiders because of the colour of their skin, rather than their surname or nationality background or culture. In our case, the issue has been largely about skin because we largely share most cultural and political attributes with white Britain. Until this day (to this day!!), Jamaica, Barbados and Grenada have Queen Elizabeth II as the Head of State, like white Canadians and Australians.
The Bristol Bus Boycott in 1963 was led by the black Caribbean community in Bristol. Harold Moody, an early activist for racial justice was an Anglicised black man. The Notting Hill race riots of the 1950’s were a struggle between white power activists and black Caribbean’s who had located to the area. The Mangrove Nine, a group of 9 activists tried for inciting a riot in 1970’s Notting Hill, were black Caribbean’s. The Brixton Riots in 1981 and 1985 were the result of clashes between black Caribbean’s, that share British names, language and a Head of State with white Britain, and the police.
If we take an honest look at the names of those that are used to make the claims for the Black Lives Matter movement in the US and the UK, we see a pattern. The names of the victims are names that could have been the names of any White American or White Britain. The victim of the incident that sparked the recent protests is not a man from an African nation who came to the Americas as an economic migrant or political refugee. George Floyd is a descendant of a lineage of people that were enslaved and taken to the America’s from out of Africa and placed within an alien culture where they are a racial minority. The names George and Floyd are not culturally African. Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, Jamar Clark, are all products of the same experience, an experience that has been taking place for around 400 years. An experience that is not shared by those on the African continent or in the modern African diaspora.
In Britain, it has been the same thing. Cherry Groce, Joy Gardner, Mark Duggan, Sean Rigg; they are all people with black skins that are thoroughly Anglicised. From their names to their mother tongues, to their Head of State.
I appreciate the contributions of those from the African continent that seek to support the cause of the Anglicised blacks who the narrative refers to. I am always keen to build relationships with my African cousins. However, I am not happy with the idea of those that have not been part of the historical narrative — of forced transportation across the seas, slavery and forced Anglicisation in a plantation society where they are a minority- claiming that 400 year-old narrative as their own.
I know that my people, the Anglicised blacks of the western world, had to fight. I know that historically, we have been discriminated against for the colour of our skin and not much else. I do not believe that the discrimination that faces recent and new African continental arrivals is the same as the historical racism endured by Anglicised blacks. I believe that the many African continental voices have arrived in Britain at a later date when much but not all of the struggle against racism has been fought and in many instances, won.
Of course, those continental African’s face their own issues with the British state and society. Their names may make them less likely to get a job interview, their ability to speak English fluently and with an accepted accent are also obstacles that recent and new African continental arrivals may face. They may also have their own historical gripe against the British state because of colonialism but it is not the same issue as that which has faced Anglicised blacks who have no other mother tongue or culture to look to and have been a minority in a white society since their tragic beginnings.
The media’s attempt to confound the narrative, to frame the narrative as anything else than a historical issue between Anglicised people of different hues, is a serious misunderstanding of the historical context and narrative. The cry must not be misunderstood. We must change it if necessary. We must understand that the cry is for the black Anglicised population that have no other cultural framework to look to. It is a possibility for many of Britain and America’s citizens from Africa to go back to the culture of their respective ethnicities and speak a different tongue and have a different Head of State. They will be able to fit in, we the Anglicised blacks have nowhere else to go. We are part of western society, probably forever.
ALT
