Black History Month by Strand91

Ramtin Hajimonshi

Linnéa Strand

Alvina Hoffmann

Eric Klopfer

Angela Buensuceso

Raphael Coin

Maria Ferraz

Gustave Kenedi

Alberto Marino

Lorin Raychinova

Wai Chi Wong

Fernanda Águila-Marín

Gabriel Coupeau

Helene Løken Eiklid

Jacinta Ruscillo

Tom Wilkinsson

President

Managing Editor

Content Editor (Europe)

Creative Editor .

Editor-in-Chief

Content Editor (Africa)

Content Editor (North America)

Creative Editor

Vice President

Content Editor (South America)

Content Editor (Asia)

Creative Editor

Treasurer

Content Editor (Debate)

Creative Editor

Special report 3

On the Purpose of Black History Month?

Race and the American Criminal Justice System

Black History Month: Segregation Through Differentiation?

Apartheid: 20 Years on, has Anything Changed?

Not Ready: is This What They Meant?

Art: Freedom of Expression?

After 50 Years the American Civil Rights Movement Must Keep on Moving

The African Americans’ Path to the Promised Land

On the Notion of a ’Glass Ceiling’

With the ongoing Black struggle for liberation, this issue of Dialogue is dedicated to a special report on the Black History Month. To this end, we explore a range of topics from "Race and the American Criminal Justice System" to changes in post-apartheid South Africa. While these articles may analyze Black struggle, others question Black History Month all together. Nathan Hunter's "Black History Month: Segregation through differentiation" discusses the implications of positive discrimination. Likewise, in "On the notion of a 'Glass Ceiling'" Pedro Gonçalves challenges the hindering affects of social barriers for Black liberation. Nevertheless, one notion is clear: we may remember and promote Black struggle and liberation this month. However, as Joy Moses, Senior Policy Analyst at the Centre for American Progress argues in her article: "it is clear that the movement must continue until full equality is achieved". Happy reading!

Webpage www.kclpolitics.org.uk

Twitter www.twitter.com/KCLPolSoc

Facebook KCL Politics Society

By Ayoade Zahrah Bamgboye

or some, rather, for most, October is just another month on their calendar. It signals another step towards the Christmas holidays, or a birthday, or Halloween. For others, it is a month to celebrate an array of rich cultures that are, in my opinion, unconscionably shoved under the umbrella term ‘black’. Black History Month has been celebrated in the UK since 1987, and the exact objective of its conception is still unclear to a lot of people. What is Black History Month really about? How does it help to change misconceptions about the ‘black’ community in Britain? Is it beneficial? Does it contribute to advancement? Thinking of Black History Month, I think of Valentine’s Day, and how the concept of loving others or treating them with affection becomes of vital importance only on the 14th of February each year, every other day, it is not imperative, just optional. Similarly, Black History Month is intended to be that month designated for challenging existing stereotypes about people of African descent. Events are held throughout Britain, ranging from plays to talks, commemorating the development of Black people thus far, and with the end of October marks the end of a deliberate concentration of events looking back to the struggles and triumphs of Blacks. If you ask a range of people whether they knew of, or thought about Black History Month, many negative responses would come as a result. It is often described as unfair, and the phrase ‘pity month’ is used. These reactions are, however, surprising, since it is also widely imagined that Black History Month works first and foremost as a tool of enlightenment for those who

may have been completely unexposed to the systematic, institutionalised subjugation that Black people have faced around the world. As we have seen, this is clearly not the case. So what is it really about, or what should it be about? There is only a dismal picture painted so far. Nevertheless, for those who are still not entirely aware, Black History Month is rich in its organisation of events that provide great contextual information about pivotal events in the history of people of African descent, as well as more contemporary issues that are not discussed enough. Some examples include a musical adaptation of the case of the Scottsboro boys at the Young Vic, a discussion on racial prejudice within the LGBT community, and Gospel music shows. Undoubtedly, such events can go a long way in painting a positive image of Blacks, and changing the narrative. However, attempting to pigeon-hole the travails and triumphs of a whole race into one month in the year is not beneficial in breaking stereotypes and propagating the advancement of Blacks. It should not be an objective to sensationalise race issues for one month and subsequently allow it to fall by the wayside for the remaining eleven. The stark misconceptions and downright incorrect beliefs that I encounter all too frequently, not only from individuals of other races, but Blacks themselves, show that more needs to be done to combat ignorance on the topic of race and minority . We must begin to use our history to explain our present and sculpt our future, instead of

almost obsessively dwelling on events that may result in continued stagnancy. We must ask new questions as different issues arise with a changing economic, political and social environment. We can use Black History Month to start a valuable dialogue on the issues that we currently face. Using our history to mark the trajectory and establish causal relationships, we will be closer to explaining the “hows” and “whys” of the present reality, and this should never cease to be the objective of discussion.

discussion needs to be initiated. One that will truly set the ball rolling towards greater understanding and a clearer perception of Black people. Finally, I hope to see a greater analysis on the changing conception of racism itself. Racism seems to have taken on a more subtle, disguised form, greatly differing from the blatant racism that was inscribed into constitutions and social norms decades earlier. There needs to be discussions on what ‘neo-racism’ entails, and how it can be tackled. Hopefully, in the near future, Black History month will help to shed light on the complexities of being ‘black’ in Britain and everywhere else, sparking a discourse that will change the current shallow understanding of the Black community.

“Black History Month is intended to be that month designated for challenging existing stereotypes about people of African descent “

So where do we go from here? Perhaps a more incremental campaign for fighting stereotypes is in order, treating issues that are more contemporary, even if they happen to make people feel uncomfortable or uneasy. Perhaps a more in-depth analysis on the term ‘black’ will also go a long way in understanding issues of race and identity within the Black community. We should use Black History Month as an avenue for a much needed debate on the politics of race and identity with regards to Blacks, as well as an analysis of the socio-economic status of Blacks in the United Kingdom and the world, and the factors that affect it. There is also a need for closer observation of the effects of positive discrimination action, such as the use of quotas based on race in university admissions or job applications. A deeper analytical

AYOADE ZAHRA BAMGBOYE is a seond year International Politics BA student at King’s College London.

By Nick Swyter

he American public erupted this summer after George Zimmerman was found not guilty for the February 2012 murder of 17-year old Trayvon Martin. Since then, slews of civil rights organizations have organized protests in retaliation. What makes the Trayvon Martin incident so controversial is that many believe that Zimmerman profiled Martin, an unarmed minor, because he is black. Controversy escalated after mainstream media outlets reported the story with an emphasis on the racial element of the encounter. Regardless of whether the death of Martin was motivated by race, the explosive public reaction to the murder and verdict demonstrates that many Americans firmly believe that the criminal justice system is unfair to the black community. The discussion of the role that race plays in criminal justice is frequently dominated by high-profile cases such as TrayvonMartin’s. Sensationalist media often use these high-profile cases to support the argument that blacks are treated differently in the criminal justice system. An example of a sensationalized story is the comparison between the four-game suspension ofthe white NFL quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, to the 21-month prison sentence of the black NFL quarterback Michael Vick. Roethlisberger was suspended for his role in the sexual assault of a woman, while Vick was imprisoned for pleading guilty to running a dog fighting operation. While flashy examples such as Martin and Vick are relevant talking points in a greater discussion about race and criminal justice, they don’t adequately represent the treatment of blacks as an entire population. To accurately assess whether blacks in America are treated differently, the reality of what the black population endures at a macro-scale must be at the forefront of the discussion, instead of celebrity cases. Examining the treatment of blacks as an entire community in the American criminal justice system paints a more accurate reality of the challenges they face. Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow argues that even though the United States abandoned discriminatory laws known as “Jim Crow” after the Civil Rights Era, modern institutional racism has reignited a caste-like system in the United States. Alexander identifies the War on Drugs and unequal enforcement of the law as two contributing forces to in-

stitutional racism. According to the International Centre for Prison Studies (ICPS), the US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. America has more than 1.6 million behind bars today. Even though the country only accounts for 4.5 percent of world’s total population, they account for 23 percent of the global prison population.It is estimated that 768 of every 100,000 Americans are in prison. A prison population that accounts for less than one percent of the entire population may not seem concerning, but the racial breakdown of the prison population and its impact on those groups is startling. According to Learn Liberty, 38 percent of American inmates are black. Only 13 percent of the American population is black. Latinos make up 23 percent of inmates, but 16 percent of the entire population. Whites make up 34 percent of inmates, but 64 percent of the total population. Alexander argues that the disproportionate representation of blacks in the criminal justice system has hindered the minority group from propelling itself from its historical placement at the lower end of the economic spectrum. According to a study published by the Russell Sage Foundation, one in four black children will experience the imprisonment of a parent by the time they turn 18. The same study says that black men are more likely to go to prison than to graduate with a four-year college degree or complete military service. The economic impact of these studies is that prison sentences disqualify many black men from high-skill jobs, and even reduces their chances of securing low-skill jobs, inhibiting the community’s ability to advance from their traditionally lowerincome roots. The impact of mass-incarcerations also has political effects. When such a high proportion of black males are incarcerated, many surrender political freedoms. One of the most obvious effects of incarceration is that it severs the chances of any individual’s ability to be a competitive candidate for any public office. Additionally, mass-incarcerations eliminate many of the basic political rights that were won by the black community after the Civil Rights Era. Huge portions of black males are disenfranchised, as

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Examining the treatment of blacks as an entire community in the American criminal justice system paints a more accurate reality of the challenges they face â&#x20AC;&#x153;

incarceration eliminates their right to vote. The black communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to influence public policy and advocate the needs of their community is hindered because so many of them are unable to participate in the political process.

The reasons for the high American prison population and its unequal racial representation in relation to the national population are undoubtedly complex and multi-faceted. However, a contributing factor that Alexander identifies is the War on Drugs. In 1980, when the War on Drugs was in its infancy, the number of drug offenders was about 41,000. In 2011 the amount of drug offenders was about 490,000. The total prison population has also risen from about 315,000 in 1980 to about 1.6 million in 2010. Although the War on Drugs is a contributing factor to the rapid increase in the national prison population, it is not the sole reason. According to the Sentencing Project, 48 percent of federal incarcerations in 2011 were due to drug charges. In state prisons, which account for a greater portion of the prison population, drug charges account for 17.4 percent of incarcerations. Based on the disproportionate representation of race among inmates, some may argue that certain races are more represented in prisons because members of their group are more likely to commit crimes. One of the core arguments made in the The New Jim Crow is that whites and blacks consume drugs at similar rates, but blacks are incarcerated at a higher rate due to an unequal enforcement of the law. According to an article by TIME, black youth are

ten times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes than whites. The article also cites a Duke University study that demonstrates that black youth are less likely to have a substance use disorder than Native Americans, whites, Hispanics and people of mixed heritage. The study states that five percent of black youth between the age of 12 and 17 have a substance use disorder, compared to nine percent among whites. The impact of mass-incarcerations and the War on Drugs is not exclusive to the black community, but the entire nation. In 1980, $6.7 billion of state expenditures were dedicated to corrections. By 2010, that number rose to $51.1 billion. Dedicating massive amounts of public funds to drug law enforcement is becoming more difficult to justify, considering that the War on Drugs has not significantly curbed the rate at which Americans consume drugs. According to a study from the Office of National Drug Policy Control, the prevalence of drug use in the 12 th grade in 1975 was about 45 percent. By 2011, that number dropped to 40 percent. A New York Times article states that the price of hard drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin have all dropped significantly since 2001. The War on Drugs has not succeeded in wiping drugs off American streets. It has hemorrhaged public funds from states and the federal government and has become a contributing factor to the disenfranchisement of minority communities. NICK SWYTER is a third year Broadcast Journalism and International Studies BA student at the University of Miami. He is also the 2013 Pulitzer Center Student Fellow of the University of Miami .

“You're going to relegate my history to one month? (…) I don't want a Black History month. Black History is American History. Stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man. And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man.” - Morgan Freeman

By Nathan Hunter

n an interview with Mike Wallace in 2005, Morgan Freeman famously voiced his opinion against Black History month, arguing that it is the emphasis on the division between blacks and whites that prevents the end of racism and discrimination to Afro-Americans. Timely for this year's Black History month in the UK, this article will analyse and disagree with Morgan Freeman's critique of this form of positive discrimination as well as argue that on the one hand, positive discrimination is a necessary evil which, empirically speaking, readdresses the grave ethnic inequalities in society; and on the other hand opens a much needed dialogue which may help us continue to overcome racial tensions.

The alternative method suggested by Morgan Freeman is neutrality. By not acknowledging the difference between people due to their skin colour, one could take small yet steady steps towards racial/ethnic equality. This argument can be illustrated by looking at the “blue eyed” example: under the Third Reich the colour of one's eyes was used to categorise people into different social groups, which brought on a dramatic inequality in terms of societal perception of these groups. In modern times, this inequality doesn't exist, and this is due to the fact that we are neutral towards eye colour. By getting rid of Black History month, by not calling one another by the colour of their skin and by stopping the dialogue on Black integration, we may finally strive toward equality.

“On a more humane level, neutrality as an alternative to positive discrimination dutifully serves to maintain racial prejudice and forces a once oppressed cartel to suffer in silence“.

The critique Morgan Freeman highlights can be summed up simply by stating that in order to reach racial equality, using racial inequality is counterproductive. Black History month can be taken in two ways: either Black History is being unequally highlighted in comparison to history of other ethnicities, or that Black History is once again being undermined, since White History occupies the other eleven months of the year. In both cases there are negative consequences: either there's an increase in racism and xenophobia or the black population is singled out and branded as being equal to 1/12 of their white counter parts. If racial equality is our goal, then surely this form of positive discrimination is not the way forward.

This article has presented Morgan Freeman's views and the arguments supporting this opinion. It shall now disagree, arguing that positive discrimination is a vital evil and that neutrality is no better than the absolute acceptance of racial inequalities.

Theoretically speaking, positive discrimination initiatives such as Black History month and the Equality Act of 2011 are vital in order to try to readdress the racial balance in education. As Ken Livingstone put it:“In order to enrich the cultural diversity of the Greater London area, it is imperative that Londoners know more about African influences on medieval and renaissance European music so that accepted ideas about European music is changed. Despite the significant role that Africa and its Diaspora have played in the world civilization since the beginning of time,

Africa's contribution has been omitted or distorted in most history books”. In other words, formal education tends to neglect both African history and its role in shaping European history. This way, unequal emphasis through non-formal education allows for a greater racial equality in terms of historical appreciation.

subconscious; accepting an inequality between Blacks and Whites is embedded in our history and its roots are too deep for us to simply forget about the issue. Thus, ignoring deeprooted prejudices which affect the lives of millions of citizens throughout the western civilization is not a policy to promote equality.

Empirically speaking, data suggests that positive discrimination measures have - and continue to - readdress the inequality issue. The Equality Act and Black History month are two examples of many initiatives put in place in order to tackle the issue at hand. To view the positive changes one could focus on the change in human capital, which is empirically visible through university attendance. From 1996 to 2008, the percentage of Black or Black British (African) students has tripled, and this ethnic minority has now become the most over represented ethnic group in universities – 1.3% of the 18 – 24 population are Black or Black British, whereas as 3.2% of university students belong to this ethnic minority.

The great American poet Guante perfectly characterised neutrality as a policy: “If you are neutral, you are neutral in the same way that a bullet is neutral. You are a razor blade, a length of rope. If you are silent – you are complicit.”

On a more humane level, neutrality as an alternative to positive discrimination dutifully serves to maintain racial prejudice and forces a once oppressed cartel to suffer in silence. We must admit that, even though we may not actively seek to categorise humans into social groups of different value by no other variable than the colour of their skin, this crime belongs to our

This article does recognise the potential negative effects of Black History month, it acknowledges that fighting inequality with inequality seems counterproductive, and that highlighting the racial separation may also contribute to further inequality. However, this article emphasises that theoretically, empirically and humanely speaking, the benefits of this form of positive discrimination by far outweighs its downfalls and that neutrality as an alternative is complicit in the crime of racial prejudice in its ignorant silence. NATHAN HUNTER is a second year International Politics BA student at King’s College London.

By Kimberley Moyo

n South Africa, racial segregation had been a part of daily life way before the implementation of the Apartheid system in 1948. Black South Africans and individuals who weren’t ‘quite’ white constantly had their human rights curtailed for many centuries. So if this had always been the condition of the relationship between whites and non-whites in South Africa, what makes Apartheid so unique? What makes it abhorrent? What was so wrong about this new form of racism? Apartheid differs greatly from the other types of racial inequality that prevailed in the Colonial era in the sense that it was a systemised regime with statutory justification. Although South Africa had gained independence from Britain in 1910, was judicially independent from the British metropolitan as of 1934, the yoke of colonialism and racism had been maintained and finally officialised in 1948. ‘The law’ had explicitly legitimised the marginalization of Black people; they had been legislatively defined as an inferior category of people only three years after Hitler had murdered 6million people because he deemed them racially insubordinate. Had we not learnt anything? The introduction of Apartheid after

one of the most harrowing periods of history really diminished what he had accomplished in 1945. But what happened in South Africa in 1990 and later in 1994 left the whole world standing in awe. On paper, South Africa satisfies all the characteristics of a promising country. ‘The Rainbow Nation’ has a history that embodies the true essence of hope. On the 2nd February 1990, presidential observers, political commentators, White Afrikaners, the marginalised Black people of South Africa and the world’s press all gathered together anticipating the release of Nelson Mandela. What came instead on that day was the verbal dismantling of the Apartheid regime by the president of that time, Frederik Willem de Klerk. The world watched. In his opening address to Parliament that year, de Klerk commanded that the laws that had legitimised racial segregation were to be repealed immediately. As a result, a genuine air of optimism swept the nation after de Klerk’s speech but real assurance came nine days later when the world witnessed the final steps of

Mandela’s long walk to freedom. Mandela, the White individuals who detested Apartheid and the Black South Africans had finally reached their destination: an official obliteration of the racial divides that had crippled the nation for forty six years. So nearly twenty years after the dissolution of Apartheid, has anything really changed? I would argue that change immediately occurred when de Klerk announced that the Apartheid laws written by his presidential predecessors would be repealed. Change occurred the very moment black demonstrators, celebrating the release of Mandela, flooded Greenmarket Square waving the colourful green and gold flags of the ANC (African National Congress) party; flags that the White Afrikaner National Party had once identified as a symbol of rebellion. Change occurred when the masses of people gathered together in Trafalgar Square, most of them young and white, demonstrated their delight of Nelson Mandela’s emancipation. Change happened when Mandela and de Klerk, two men from two different races, creeds and cultures stood side by side, hand in hand in front of nation that had been under an official system of racial segregation for more than forty years, declaring that Apartheid was over!

some of the world’s freest nations: America and Japan. This is quite impressive for a country that is situated in a continent where corruption, a lack of accountability and ‘presidential monarchies’ are the norm in the political world. Although South Africa is comparably better, it is still politically flawed. There are noticeable structural deficiencies in South African institutions; the ANC which has been in power since 1994 (although the leaders have changed due to the ‘democratic’ elections) have manipulated the South African people to remain as the party in power. The ANC, a party that regards itself as ‘The Parliament of the People’ due to the fact that it was the only real party that truly represented the subjugated Black South Africans in the Apartheid Era, keep the oppressive spirit alive to get votes. How can anything really change if the party that fought to bring Apartheid to its knees invoke the horrors of the racially dividing system to gain votes? How can the non-white South African people truly be equal to their white counterparts if they are constantly reminded that they are not?

“Although the country is substantially richer, this disproportion of wealth suggests that the legacy of Apartheid survives“.

But are these symbols of change sufficient enough for us to claim that the racial, political and cultural landscape of South Africa has really changed? I will look at South Africa’s political and economic spheres to discover whether change has really taken place. Almost twenty years after the Apartheid regime disintegrated, there are a few things that show positive change in SA after the apartheid. Economically, things have definitely changed for South Africa. In comparison to the Apartheid, the nation today is fairly economically ‘liberal’. Its success is marked by its status as Africa’s largest economy. This, combined with its new identity as a member of the BRICS society, is enough to present an image of what could potentially be the world’s first African superpower. However, with most of the population (which is predominately black) mired in abject poverty and most of the wealth retained in the white minority, how far has change actually occurred? Although the country is substantially richer, this disproportion of wealth suggests that the legacy of Apartheid survives. From a political dimension, South Africa’s 1997 “Chapter Two” Bill of Constitutional Rights satisfies what it means to live in a ‘democratic’ society. In a continent where it is the norm for ageold tyrants to cling onto power, South Africa has defied this African political trend as it is now considered as the continent’s biggest democracy. Unlike its neighbour Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe has solely pauperised his people for almost 34 years through electoral rigging, South Africa has an electoral system of proportional representation and has an electoral process that is at par with

Although economic development is a positive factor- the nation’s racial divides are not maintained because the people are still bitterly divided; it remains because there is a lack of political accountability and change. The wealth that is retained by the White South African minority is wealth that was gained during colonialism; it has not trickled down because the ANC has not implemented the correct institutions for the Black South Africans to rise. I would argue that it is not really a matter of white or black and how superior one race is to another in South Africa, but is a matter of the divide between the unskilled and the skilled or the wealthy and those living in poverty. It just so happens that the Afrikaners are the wealthy individuals in South Africa whilst the majority, as I mentioned earlier, are the Black South Africans. I would conclude by arguing that the legacy of Apartheid lives on but not in the way it did during those forty six years, this is a new Apartheid… an economic Apartheid. Perhaps South Africa needs another 1990 moment so that "The People Shall Share in the Country`s Wealth" and "The Land Shall Be Shared Among Those Who Work It".

KIMBERLEY MOYO is a second year Politics of International Economy BA student at King’s College London.

By Keith Sonia

t became clear in late 2006 and early 2007 that then-Senator Barack Obama would announce a bid for the presidency of the United States in 2008. Media outlets began running pieces questioning whether or not Americans were ready to elect an African-American president. Polling from the period suggested only small pockets, amounting to the low single digits, would refuse to vote for a black candidate based solely on race. The hype was intensified after Obama, riding a wave of momentum that began in Boston during the 2004 Democratic convention, delivered a keynote speech that elevated him from a little-known Illinois state senator to a genuine rising star in the United States Senate. However, it was not until he was able to earn a stunning victory in the Iowa caucuses of 2008 that the pundits and prognosticators began to believe he could overcome a genuine titan of American politics, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the Democratic primaries of 2008.

That primary battle largely focused on the angle that Clinton was a creature of Washington while Obama was a naïve up-start, not ready to assume control of the country. While both campaigns attempted to avoid negative connotations about race or gender, former president Bill Clinton got caught up in controversy when comparing Obama to the Rev. Jessie Jackson following Obama's victory in the South Carolina primary. Furthermore, the controversy surrounding Obama's former minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, ensured that race remained a critical facet of the election. During the general election, Sarah Palin, then-Governor of Alaska and John McCain's running mate, accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists,” and Fox News described the fist bump that has now become an Obama trademark as a “terrorist fist jab.” While McCain confronted attendees of his own rallies

and explicitly forbade bringing up Rev. Wright as a campaign tactic6, the view of Obama as the ‘other’ – the one with radical socialist views, who ate dog in Indonesia and whose father was a Kenyan national – was being cultivated. According to Robert Draper’s 2012 book Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the House of Representatives, top Republicans met on Obama’s inauguration night in 2009 to mastermind a plan to derail the new president with a previously unheard of strategy of relentless obstruction. While this may seem like merely political strategy that an opposition party might employ against any rival, one wonders what it may have been like had Hillary Clinton, or even another insider like Joe Biden, had been elected president. Instead, typical legislative agendas were replaced by rejections and a seemingly synchronized attack on the legitimacy of Obama's presidency. While the legislative sausage factory was exposed in all of its glory during the debate over the Affordable Care Act in 2009 and 2010, one of the more interesting aspects of the story is that Republicans pitched a very similar law in the early day's of the Bill Clinton presidency, and Republican Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts signed an extraordinarily similar proposal into law in that state. Why then, were Republicans in Washington, conservative commentators, and the Tea Party movement that formed shortly after Obama's inauguration, so uniform in their animosity towards the law?

Is the official policy of the Republican Party one based on racist core beliefs aimed at the current US President? No. Is every conservative a racist? No. But the uniform obstruction tactics they use, which, at the time of writing, has resulted in the United States government to shut down and risks a debt default that would bring the world's financial system to its knees, the gross lack of decorum and the over-the-top descriptions of the president's background or political philosophy, all indicate a not-so-subtle hint of disrespect that could very well be grounded in race. It's been easy for Obama to joke about it, often doing so at lighthearted events like the annual Correspondent's Dinner in Washington. For the joke to even exist in Obama’s rhetoric, however, shows there is a dark truth behind the vocal group making it relevant. So, perhaps this is what they always meant when they asked if America was ready for a black president. Clearly, the population is, as Obama has won two elections despite a desperately divided electorate. But are members of the Congress ready? Those who have been there for decades, or those who have emerged as Tea Party heroes – have they been sent to Washington to defeat the illusory socialist in the White House; are they ready for a black president? For every Senator Tom Coburn, a conservative Republican Senator from Oklahoma who often refers to President Obama as a close friend, there is a Jan Brewer, a Joe Wilson, a Brent Bozell and a Donald Trump. While many would argue that President Obama has earned scrutiny for his handling of a wide array of issues, many more would argue that he has faced hurdles no other executive in the history of the country has ever had to deal with. And though we cannot know for sure the reasons why, the issue of race is a plausible cause.

”(…) the gross lack of decorum and the over-the-top descriptions of the president's background or political philosophy, all indicate a not-so-subtle hint of disrespect that could very well be grounded in race.”

Why was previously unknown Congressman Joe Wilson, a Republican representative of South Carolina, during a joint session of Congress, so staggeringly disrespectful to the rules and traditions of Washington decorum, when he yelled, “You lie!” during Obama's address? Why was Governor Jan Brewer, Republican representative of Arizona, photographed sternly wagging her figure in the face of the President of the United States on an airport tarmac during a presidential visit, as if Obama was a pupil in her proverbial classroom? Why have shows like Fox & Friends and other conservative outlets made references to Michelle Obama as being the president's “baby mama”? Or that the president looks like a “skinny, ghetto, crackhead”? Why was the media so wrapped up in the circus surrounding Donald Trump, businessman-turned-reality TV star, questioning the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate, to the point where a clearly angry Obama had to walk into the White House Press Briefing Room and present his American birth certificate?

KEITH SONIA is an International Relations MA student at King’s College London.

By Sara Barqawi

our standard, traditional history holds its emphasis on economic and political changes and continuities. If we look at the early history of the abolition of slavery, there’s an assumption that slavery was abolished for humanitarian reasons. Revisionists have contested this, using statistical data showing that the slave trade was abolished due to its unprofitability. Nicholas Draper’s book, The Price of Emancipation, reveals the significant pay-outs in compensation equated to approximately twenty million pounds, approximately ten of which stayed in Britain. It was paid to claimants ranging from harmless old ladies to Prime Minister William Gladstone, and even helped fund the railway in Britain that is still used today. This type of history, as interesting to some people as it may be, does not tell the story of those who are silenced. Although cultural studies of visual, literary, musical and theatrical art became more prominent in the 1960s, its presence or absence is revealing. It tells us what people want to be a part of public memory. In this vein, art is both a reflection and a reaction to society that can enrich our understanding of black history. This is why we have Black History Month today. Ironically, when supposedly ‘civilising’ society, white English people had no idea about the everyday goings on in Britain’s peripheries. This was not helped by the art produced during the period. Visual art is embedded in society; its presence or absence is telling. The etching pictured (entitled 'A Negro Festival, drawn from Nature in the Island of St Vincent’ from an original picture by Agostino Brunais), is an excellent example of metropolitan ignorance. The artist has not depicted any sign of harsh plantation conditions, but rather presents the slaves at leisure and dancing. The fruit in the foreground is a physical manifestation of a pretense that opulence and fertility exists within plantations. Such pieces of art led people in the metropole to believe in the philanthropic pretense of slavery. Not all were so naïve. Contemporary cartoons showed politicized sorts that satirized society; not everybody was blasé towards the inhumane treatment of slaves. Having said this, the paternal society

”Negro Festival, drawn from Nature in the Island of St Vincent” by Ago

in question hardly featured black people in portraits, for that suggests status and recognition of the individual. The clear fact there is only one portrait of Mary Seacole, the mixed-race contemporary of Florence Nightingale, which has the extraordinary story of being bought by an art dealer at an Oxfordshire car boot sale, is juxtaposed with the public’s greater knowledge of Nightingale. The latter has been celebrated throughout the years, yet Seacole’s similarly admirable persona was not preserved or kept in public memory. England forgot about Seacole, whereas Nightingale is remembered through commemorative statues and her very own museum in the grounds of St. Thomas’ hospital. Indeed it would be unrealistic to commemorate every pioneer, however, to neglect Seacole, even in school history textbooks, speaks volumes. If we look at any educational system today, one would find a large majority of literary texts studied at school to be British in origin. Mimetic of the British Empire’s geographical positioning, the English language was the capital of the literary world. Historically, something similar happened in the British Empire;

Greater cultural hybridisation has increased the public’s appreciation of societal differences, but it hasn’t taken away prejudice. As part of the Camden Fringe festival, the Tristan Bates Theatre showcased Rafiq Richard’s one-man play, Walk Like a Blacker Man. In the play, 16-year-old Raf is torn between his mother’s Bangladeshi and his father’s Jamaican culture. He embarks on a journey expressing love for his newfound Jamaican roots. In this household, he discovers brothers, who are “blacker” versions of him, and thus versions that he longs to be. He develops a dislike for his Bangladeshi roots. But by the end, he begins to identify similarities with himself and members of his maternal family, and consequently becomes fulfilled by the idea that he is immersed in the Caribbean, Bangladeshi and English culture. A great deal of people you speak to in Britain today may identify their place of birth and rearing it as the place where they are ‘from’, leaving out their ethnic backgrounds, as the idea of belonging to a place is relative. Because of integration and migration, ‘belonging’ to a place is no longer just physical and is just as imaginary as nationalism itself. Through Raf’s story, we are reminded that almost everybody is a hybrid; the question of ‘purity’ of race, or any feeling of racial superiority makes me feel embarrassed to be human.

ostino Brunais, circa 1800

what better way to ‘civilise’ than by making English works the literary archetype? By the 1960s, Africa was on its way to decolonization, with it coming the rise of African nationalism and the language shift in literature within African nations towards the mother tongue as an assertion of pride, as well as keeping African heritage in public memory. This quest was pushed by Chinua Achebe, whom it pained for his works to be linguistically oppressed, and questioned the relevance of novels written by those with a contrapuntal voice. This shift is crucial in showing the decline in white imperialism and removing of some of the shackles placed by it, however, there are two indicators that this is incomplete. The first is that for a text to have international recognition or any prominence, it is almost always translated into English, in order to increase its readership. The second is that even with the rise in the study of European texts in both secondary and higher education, English literature is still more widespread.

All theatre is necessarily political, and some is more political than others. In fact, Augusto Boal pioneered ‘invisible theatre’, which works on the principle that if theatre is taken outside of the context of a performance space, it can be confused with reality, but used to make a point. Being part of an invisible theatre company, he took from history Rosa Parkes’ story and manipulated it to fit the modern day climate on a tube in London. It was as simple as staging a white boy telling a black boy to give up his seat. Sure enough, onlookers defended the black actor, and a fight broke out. Such a scene acknowledges the regretful truth of present-day racism, but at least it is now depicted as a modern problem people try to tackle – literally. “Emancipate yourself from mental slavery; no-one but ourselves can free our minds”. Racial inequality is not physical, it is imagined. Equality has not been achieved as the black and white barriers and resentment from within society have yet to be reconciled. History shows us that art can be both a weapon and a vessel for change, but it is up to us to let expression to be truly free.

SARA BARQAWI is a second year History BA student at King’s College London.

By Joy Moses

ast summer marked the 50th Anniversary of the historic March on Washington and Martin Luther King’s legendary I Have a Dream speech. What followed was an unprecedented period of Congressional activity that forever changed a nation and the lives of African American people. Thus, 2014 is also the beginning of a series of 50th birthdays for the various pieces of landmark legislation designed to turn dreams into reality. During the 1963 march, significant focus was placed on public accommodations, education, employment, voting and political participation, and adequate housing. With anniversaries being a natural time for reflection, it is important to think about how far we have come in these areas over the last half century while also thinking about the challenges that lie ahead. Public Accommodations One of the most noted objectives of the Civil Rights Movement was to end the second-class citizenship status of African Americans in public accommodations. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the most significant victories following the March on Washington, prohibited such discrimination in or at public places like lunch counters, restaurants, movie theaters, waiting rooms, hotels, buses, and trains. Progress in public space has been undeniable with the disappearance of “whites only” and “blacks only” signs and the most blatant forms of discrimination. But pockets of concern continue as private citizens periodically file lawsuits in the courts and, on

occasion, the U.S. Department of Justice becomes involved in accommodations cases. For example, in 1999 the DOJ filed a lawsuit against Adam’s Mark Hotel Chain, which was found to have charged higher prices to black guests, steered them to rooms in the back of the hotel, and denied them access to certain services. Education The Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education declared that separate but equal schools were unconstitutional although this didn’t immediately end the practice. Nearly ten years later, the marchers and the movement were still seeking a day in which white children and black children could sit next to each other in the same schoolhouse. With continued policy development and litigation throughout the country, significant progress was achieved. By the 1980s, the percentage of black children attending majority minority schools dropped from 77 percent to 63 percent. The black-white test score gap narrowed as black children made significant gains. High school graduation and college completion also began an incline that continues to this day. But there have been setbacks since. In the years following Brown, a series of Supreme Court decisions that included Milliken v. Bradley (1974) and San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) limited the effectiveness of school desegregation plans and declared that quality education is not a fundamental right. The schools began to re-segregate — in recent years, 74

percent of black children have been attending majority-minority schools, the figures resemble what existed during the civil rights era. And the achievement gains made by black students slowed and became somewhat uneven from the 1980s forward. Employment With a history of slavery (not being paid for their labor) and economic exclusion, employment and decent wages figured significantly on the list of March on Washington demands. Progress was made as Congress acted to create Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited employment discrimination and initiated a War on Poverty that included new investments in job training and employment services. During the late 1960s and 1970s the wage gap between blacks and whites decreased from $8,901 to $7,285 (in 2011 dollars).

“The wage gap still exists and, over time, black workers have persistently been more likely to be jobless. ” Yet there is still so much more work left to do. Since the 1960s, changes in the U.S. economy have equated to fewer job opportunities and depressed wages for workers with limited education (a disproportionate number of African Americans fall into this category). The wage gap still exists and, over time, black workers have persistently been more likely to be jobless. For black men in particular, the rate reached as high as 20 percent in the aftermath of the Great Recession before decreasing to around 13-14 percent. In these modern times, federal elected leaders have failed to act. It has been 15 years since Congress last did a significant overhaul of the Workforce Investment Act, the nation’s largest employment program. Investments have dropped from 1970s highs of nearly $40 billion (in 2013 dollars) down to $8 billion at beginning of the Great Recession in 2007. Also deplorable is that the federal minimum wage is now lower (in real terms) than it was in 1964. Voting and Political Participation During the Jim Crow era many southern states used various strategies to prevent black citizens from voting — including literacy tests, poll taxes, intimidation, threats, and violence. Successful movement led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which radically changed the status quo through such measures as requiring jurisdictions with the greatest ties to discrimination to get the approval of the Attorney General of the United States before making any policy changes affecting voting. The steps forward were evident in the 11 former Confederate states — in the mid-1960s only 43 percent of African Ameri-

cans were registered to vote but by the time of the reelection of President Obama in 2012, 74 percent of black citizens in those states said they were registered voters. In 1970, there were 1,469 black elected officials in the United States but by 2011 that number was over 10,500 and included the monumental achievement of electing the nation’s first black president. Last year there was a significant step backwards. In Shelby County v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down significant portions of the Voting Rights Act, leaving advocates with the significant challenge of getting Congress to pass new protective legislation for minority voters. Housing Civil rights struggles and urban unrest or riots of the 1960s put a spotlight on the need of adequate housing. Congress took steps in a positive direction by passing multiple bills targeting the issue, including legislation creating the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, new opportunities in public housing, and rent subsidies that could be used in the private housing market. These efforts have faced some significant bumps in the road. Public housing came to be associated with urban ghettos and failure — policies resulted in insufficient maintenance and repairs while concentrating large numbers of poor people in small geographic areas. Many properties were demolished in favor of alternatives like mixed-income housing, but the process resulted in a net loss of affordable housing units. Additionally, housing subsidies have historically been underfunded, creating long waiting lists with 1 in 4 of those eligible not getting any assistance. The impact on black Americans is evident. Far too many are unable to afford housing with one researcher summarizing his findings by saying that “just as incarceration has become typical in the lives of poor black men, eviction has become typical in the lives of poor black women.” Black families and single adult males are for more likely to experience homelessness than their white counterparts. Reflecting and Moving Forward What is clear is that the efforts of a previous generation opened significant doors that have improved the quality of life and life chances of those who came after them. Equally it is clear that the movement must continue moving until full equality is achieved and access to the American dream is the reality for all citizens. JOY MOSES is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Poverty and Prosperity Program at the Center for American Progress.

By Desislava Alexandrova, Mariya Boteva and Dayana Vidolova

he fight for rights and freedom of the African Americans started long before the Civil War. Their desire to be free was rooted deeply in their faith and their Christian beliefs were one of the main reasons behind their unity and strong drive. One of the oldest examples of this is the novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) by Harriet Beecher Stowe. Although it was written by a white woman, the novel still depicts the reality of how Christianity influenced the black slave community of the 19th century. The novel was revolutionary and changed American history forever. Uncle Tom’s Cabin was seen as an important catalyst for the Civil War between the Southern and Northern states in 1861, which ended in slavery being abolished. Even President Abraham Lincoln allegedly said upon his meeting with Stowe, “So this is the little lady who made this big war.” Stowe’s novel

tells the story of Uncle Tom, a suffering black slave who uses his Christian faith and values to change circumstances and hearts around him. Stowe herself was of Protestant Christian faith and felt strongly that the Bible held passages against the use of slavery and wanted to fight hard to abolish it. She used her fictional character Tom to depict Christian love and show people who were proslavery that being of faith meant to love every human being equally despite their race. Stowe’s main aim when writing Uncle Tom’s Cabin was to convince readers of the vital need to end slavery.

“Through studying the Bible, many African Americans came to realise that according to God’s word, all people are equal and deserve freedom ”

The novel served as a response to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which made giving aid to runaway slaves illegal. Stowe’s main religious imagery in the book, with reference to Bible verses, conveys slavery as being evil, anti-Christian and intolerable in a civil society. The novel was widely read in the 1850s, leading up

to the outbreak of the Civil War. When slavery was officially abolished in the United States in 1865, statistically, the popularity of Stowe’s novel decreased. Interestingly enough, the tables were turned in the 1960s with the awakening of the Civil Rights Movement. Uncle Tom’s Cabin began being widely read throughout the US as an interest in anti-slavery fiction reappeared. This depicts the impact and influence Stowe’s novel had on the anti-slavery movement as people turned to it again to find hope and inspiration in a new “war.” This new “war” came to be known as the struggle for Civil Rights. The roots of the Civil Rights Movement can be traced back to the times of slavery. Back then, the level of literacy among the African American population was very low and only a few had access to books. Those who did mostly read the Bible, which led to spreading the concept of Christianity among black people. With time, many of them started identifying themselves with the Israelites, who were enslaved by the Egyptians. Through studying the Bible, many African Americans came to realise that according to God’s word, all people are equal and deserve freedom. Long before the Civil Rights Movement, African American authors wrote about their Christian faith and the freedom that God’s word granted their people. Paul Laurence Dunbar’s poem, “An Ante Bellum Sermon”, is an example of how black people perceived themselves as the enslaved Israelites waiting for their Moses to come, liberate them, and take them to the promised land of freedom. But when Moses wif his powah Comes an' sets us chillun free, We will praise de gracious Mastah Dat has gin us liberty; An' we'll shout ouah halleluyahs, On dat mighty reck'nin' day, When we'se reco'nised ez citiz'-Huh uh! Chillun, let us pray! Paul Laurence Dunbar Martin Luther King was a representation of the modern day Moses who appealed to the American people and said “Let my people go” the same way Moses said it to the Pharaoh almost 4000 years ago. The Egyptians that had enslaved the Israelites can be seen as the southern white Americans who denied the blacks their rights. It was his deep Christian faith and dedication to his people that drove King to change the course of history. Moreover, because the blacks identified with the Bible, they started identifying with Martin Luther King and his ideas. The teachings of the Bible became the strongest argument of the blacks in fighting segregation. King believed in the equality displayed in the Bible that all men are equal in front of God, “For there is no partiality with God.” (Rom 2:11) The New Testament taught the

African Americans that Jesus had “ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” (Rev 5:910) Furthermore, he believed that it is people’s universal rights to be free, as John claims that, “if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” (John 8:36) And the Apostle Paul encouraged the Galatians “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” (Gal 5:1) In the preacher’s eyes and heart this meant that he couldn’t watch his people be enslaved because God Himself had promised freedom and liberation. This became King’s call, his duty, his dream, to “let freedom ring.” No wonder he used so much biblical imagery throughout his famous speech ”I Have a Dream.” It was at the March on Washington for jobs and freedom in Washington, D.C., on August 28, 1963 where Martin Luther King, Jr., standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial, delivered his historic ”I Have a Dream” speech. It came to be regarded as one of the finest speeches in the history of American oratory. The march, and especially King's speech, helped put civil rights at the top of the liberal political agenda in the United States and facilitated the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is said that the speech's most famous passage—in which he departed from his prepared text - was possibly prompted by Mahalia Jackson, one of the most influential gospel singers at that time and a civil rights activist, who shouted behind him, "Tell them about the dream!" King's faith was strongly based in Jesus' commandment of loving your neighbour as yourself, loving God above all, and loving your enemies, praying for them and blessing them. His non -violent thought was also based on the commandment to turn the other cheek, which was senn in the “Sermon on the Mount,” one of the most famous sermons in Scripture, where Jesus teaches his disciples the ways of God. For Martin Luther King and the other Civil Rights fighters, the Bible was their greatest weapon; it was the very same text that the oppressors used against them, but now, it was put into its context and it seemed the battle could be won. Driven by the belief that after Pharaoh frees them, they will leave the desert, and the 20th century Israelites – the African Americans - will be “free at last”. And 50 years later, after the iconic speech of Martin Luther King, the first African American President of the United States, Barack Obama, and all who are now enjoying this freedom can exclaim, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

DESISLAVA ALEXANDROVA, MARIYA BOTEVA and DAYANA VIDOLOVA are second year Political Science and International Relations BA students at the American University of Blagoevgrad.

By Pedro Gonçalves

n both the US and the UK there are on-going discussions around the topic of whether or not racial inequality in the workplace is indeed a phenomenon, and, to what extent is it a serious problem. Although racial inequality is the term used in the general discussion, it is largely applied to those of Afro-Caribbean descent. In particular, the discussion highlights that people from these ethnic origins are underrepresented in industries such as the financial services and government. Those who are involved in the discussion and also support the notion of a ‘glass ceiling’ - which is a result of racial inequality in society - argue that there is institutionalised prejudice against individuals from Afro-Caribbean descent. They point out that society is somewhat 'white dominated' and its structure is constructed in a way that largely benefits this dominant group. Such views are supported by statistics: “72 percent of white Americans own their own homes, compared with 46 percent of black Americans,” while “the total median income for a white family was

$64,427 in 2007. The total for a black family was $40,143, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.” (Reuters, Jan 2009). Sceptics of the notion of a glass ceiling for ethnic minorities tend to draw on theoretical arguments about the existence of a structure of equality of opportunity in society. Racial inequality in the workplace, although evident in empirical data, is a result of broader societal issues unrelated to discrimination against one's ethnicity. Furthermore those who recognise the issue and take it seriously have proposed policies such as affirmative action and the introduction of quotas for universities and companies so that there is fairness within the educational system which directly impacts the workplace. It is important to clarify that for the purposes of this article, the concepts of 'glass ceiling' and racial inequality in the workplace will be used interchangeably, although in academic debates they are very different. Even though both sides of the discussion present strong evidence that support their cases, it is important to

remember that statistics may be biased and numbers do not always constitute absolute truth. If people from ethnic backgrounds didn't have as many opportunities, perhaps Oprah Winfrey wouldn't be one of the richest black women in the world, and Barack Obama wouldn't have become a professor of Law and the President. Yes, underrepresentation is evident, but attributing this to institutionalised racism and society's structural problems is erroneous and counterproductive. On a further note, the naive belief in pure equality, which has been translated into policies such as affirmative action, sounds almost as contradictory as it is inefficient. If one believes in equality of opportunity, forcing organisations into accepting a quota of different ethnic groups contradicts the very idea that skin colour, ethnic background or cultural traits are unimportant. It is unproductive because it emphasises the issue more than it solves it and it takes away the opportunity of those who are truly qualified for a task.

“The issue is one of perspective and attitude rather than society's structural arrangements.” The debate remains fervent amongst people of AfroCaribbean descent. Within student groups in universities for example, the general conversations that express resentment towards financial services and government institutions are common; talks about difficulty to reach top jobs in the City of London or Wall Street are often heard and students remain hopeless in the face of a lack of 'black role models' and give attention to isolated cases of occasional prejudice. Indeed, to deny that structural barriers exist is to be overly optimistic, however to accept that as the norm is not only far too pessimistic, but counterproductive as it blows the issue out of proportion. Whilst there may be an under representation of blacks within top jobs in the UK and the US, and whilst we may hear of stories of equally qualified individuals applying for a job and the one from an ethnic background not securing the place, this in itself is not the issue. The issue is one of perspective and attitude rather than society's structural arrangements. Instead of accepting this unfairness in our society, and expressing resentment at the system in which we live, it would be more productive to focus on the opportunities that do exist. Whether they are fewer or harder to take on is not exactly the issue, because opportunities do exist, formally at least, employers are constantly seeing the benefits of a diverse workforce. Diversity has become such a key aspect of successful companies that it has generated opportunities for businesses such as Rare Recruitment, and NGO's such as Sponsors for Educational Opportunity (SEO) to operate. Their aim to scout for talent amongst ethnic minority

groups and empower them to take on the jobs so desired by individuals. Although this might not be enough, the focus of individuals ought to be on striving (harder perhaps) towards those job positions, and once they obtain them, it is up to them to set the standards and the culture of 'fairness'. Their conduct may either disprove or reinforce preconceptions about their ethnic backgrounds affecting their work performance. Constructivist theories of international relations, for instance, follow that individuals shape institutions and institutions shape the environment in which they operate. Based on that, if enough individuals change their perspective about the unfairness of society and become people who would rather 'see the glass half full rather than half empty', we would begin to change the system from within and to spread the right perspective on racial inequality. Yes, this glass ceiling may indeed be a reality, however to see it as a structural issue of society is not a solution. The reality is that this is a more trivial issue than it used to be and in both financial services and government institutions, recognition about the need for diversity is more at the centre of concerns than ever before. The focus of discussion should thus be: how best can the glass ceiling idea be deconstructed in the workplace as to benefit underrepresented ethnic backgrounds? The issue of racial inequality must be trivialised and the focus on performance of the individual be exemplified by those who secure the top positions so desired. PEDRO GONÇALVES is a third year International Politics BA student at King’s College London.

ÂŠ KCL Politics Society 2013 | www.kclpolitics.org.uk