How Do You Know When It's Love?

We all have asked this question. We ask because we want guarantees. We ask because we don't want heartbreak. But if it is love...

1. You won't be scared...eventually.Yes when it's serious it can be scary. The deeper you are the harder you land. The potential for pain and disappointment increase proportionately with how bad you got it. But, when you're in love you get over that because love is willing to take the risk. And once it's willing, it's no longer afraid.

2.There is no future...there is a future. When it's real you simply can't imagine life without that person. Now, wanting what's best for them means being willing to let go - but that doesn't mean you're gonna be happy about it. Don't get this mixed up with wanting to keep them tied up your basement - that's something else entirely. Still, if you're happy being bored with them - that's a good sign.

3.They are home. No they won't always be home, but you always.feel at home with them. No need to impress, no anxiety and silence is ok. It's the kind of comfort that doesn't need roses to feel romantic. You like who you are with them.

4.You don't need a reason. There's no need to check the list of 'things you want' off because intuitively they are there. While romance is all nice, real life without the fancy decor is good enough to enjoy them. At the same time you don't need a special occasion to splash on some bells & whistles.

5.The more you know them, the more you like. That's a good sign that you like what's beneath the skin, not just the skin.

I knew this guy who once said, 'you can fall in love with anybody' I now know that was a steaming pile of verbal manure. You can't fall in love with anybody. You hardly have a choice who you fall for, though you do have a choice about what happens after. But that's not what these thoughts are about, that's part II.

The Thing About Racism...Part 2: The UK Brand

Channel 4 recently broadcast a programme called How Racist Are You? where a 40 year old exercise devised by former US school teacher Jane Elliot, subjects a group of volunteers to discrimination on the basis of eye colour. She first conducted the experiment in the 1960's with a her all white class of 9 year olds. She told her pupils that for a day, blue-eyed children were inferior to brown-eyed children. The impact was disturbing and led to verbal and physical abuse of the blue-eyed group and even lower academic performance in the 'inferior' group, amongst other things. She does the same with adults from diverse racial backgrounds, but obviously only whites are blue eyed. However, the brown eyed groups do include white and non-whites.

Elliot has conducted the exercise all over the world and Channel 4 documented her UK incursion. Taking my own experiences as well as what came out of the programme, I have noted some peculiarities of the British attitude to racial prejudice. Below I have noted these arguments and my rebuttals.

Racism is merely a subset of prejudice - Some subjects argued that racial prejudice against non-whites is like any other prejudice (i.e. weight, age, class) . Blacks are not unique and should not attempt to make their situation more severe than it really is. 

The problem with this argument is it completely ignores historical facts altogether. When one considers the 4 century slave trade, Apartheid and the Holocaust, it becomes difficult for weight discrimination to compare. At no time in history were the obese rounded up, systematically dehumanized (in their own eyes and in the eyes of their captors), routinely raped, killed and tortured, separated from family or forced to work without pay. The elderly have yet to be demonized through any country's education system then herded into concentration camps, poisoned then burned. The duration, savagery and the systemic state sponsored effort behind slavery, Apartheid and the Holocaust are unprecedented to say the least, and one would have to take great pains to remain ignorant of history in order to maintain the view that racial prejudice is not unique. It naturally follows that centuries of indoctrination and conditioning on either side of racism, as well as the kind of social and economic divide that resulted still affects us today. To say the least the white dominance that resulted from Colonisation and slavery has given them a slight headstart. The fact that media, amongst other things, has been dominated primarily by white imagery undoubtedly has had a real impact on self-perception and accomplishment amongst non-whites. Further, the intentional withholding of resources and opportunities from non-whites was a reality in the West up until recently (though it was only weeks ago a white judge refused to marry an interracial couple).

I am not prejudiced so there is no problem with racism in the UK - Subjects determined that their 'colourblindness' meant that racism is not a problem. They were outraged at the thought that they should experience discrimination when they do not discriminate. 

Using oneself as the touchstone for race relations is not only naive and simplistic but arrogant as well. It presumes that the overarching status quo and systemic influence of policies and culture have no effect or significance. It also presumes that the individual's position can magically change history and social realities. Ironically, the blue-eyed participants refused to be subject to the discrimination meted out by the exercise but couldn't seem to make the connection to what other persons might feel or experience. There seemed to be a willful ignorance that refused to see the issue from another perspective purely on the basis that they themselves simply didn't believe they deserved to be treated with such disrespect. This view is exceptionally self-centred.

Racism doesn't exist - Some subjects flatly denied that there was any racial discrimination in the UK at all. It simply didn't exist and names like 'gollywog' are just names and carry no inherent offence. They asserted that there was nothing to be offended about - nothing to discuss.

This point betrayed the greatest deficit regarding UK race relations: knowledge. Ironically, it was universally agreed that ignorance was the primary cause of racism, but it was never determined what had to be known in order to alleviate this ignorance. Sadly, colonisation and slavery are not taught in British schools and this leaves much of the white population ill equipped to deal with this sensitive issue. Generations of under education on Britain's role in the world regarding the establishment of Apartheid, the slave trade and the developing world as we know it, has left some feeling exceptionally defensive about the nation's brutal history.

That said the preceding ideas have defined the kind of racism common in Britain. It does not seek to reconcile, because it does not seek to understand. Because it does not seek to understand it does not go away. However, this does not mean that there aren't a great many white Briton's who are colourblind and completely at ease with racial diversity. This does not mean that racial discrimination isn't multi-directional. But it certainly does emphasise that no matter the direction, racial discrimination is truly hurtful nonsense.

Wives of the BNP Video

The Thing About Racism...

BBC's Panorama broadcast an undercover expose on racism within the Bristol inner city housing estate of Southmeade recently. It was frightening to say the least. A pair of BBC reporters posing as a married couple spent 8 weeks on the estate and in that time experienced 50 racial assaults of various kinds.

They were stoned, called names, the man was punched once and an 11 year old threatened to rob and kill the woman. These were just a few incidents.

But I wonder about the effectiveness of these exposes. Such things, as the female reporter noted, conjure feelings of isolation, fear, suspicion and anger from both sides of the issue. Mind you, the declaration by Equality and Human Right Commission (EHRC) head, Trevor Phillips, that all was well in race relations in England, has the potential to water down a serious problem.  It certainly wasn't a cathartic investigation though perhaps necessary.  One must wonder what is next, as to leave the viewer stewing either in his anger at the prejudice or justification thereof simply won't do.

If there is one major problem regarding this issue in the UK it's that it can only be discussed in certain fora. Like the Panorama programme or in the media through official channels like the EHRC. But it seems that open discussion between non-white and white groups in more informal settings is a no-no. We see advocates of equality like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and of course, Martin Luther King as part of US culture and history, but no such figures exist in British culture - save in the former colonies. Again, public agitation for equal rights amongst non-white ethnic groups seems to be frowned upon. One can only go through the sanctioned, official channels.  There is a distinct discomfort with a broad-based discussion of the issue, even though there are certainly moments when acute and stark points are made. These points seem only to be momentary.

The thing about racism is that it is, and must be, completely oblivious to itself. A racist will never refer to himself as such. The BNP's (British National Party) policy on refusing membership to non-whites is currently being challenged, and defended, and the position of the party seems to be easily rationalized. But like the US Louisiana Judge who refused to marry an interracial couple (because mixed race children would suffer - ironically at the hands of folks like himself, in my opinion), racist reasoning, or lack thereof,  makes perfect sense to itself.

But for every racist that exists, a discussion has occurred to bolster their position. A discussion that has gone unchallenged by any other reasoning because it only occurs amongst the proponents thereof. One woman reasoned (in a programme called Wives of the BNP) that because her father died in Jamaica (a heart attack) and his body was robbed of its belongings, that all immigrants are undesirable. An undoubtedly painful experience that led to a proportionally unreasonable conclusion.

There may be wisdom in the cautious, controlled approach, however. Since the Brixton riots in 1981, the British Government has been keen to avoid a repeat of anything similar. That would entail not just subduing the violence, but the confrontational environment that can lead to the same. Some practical elements are sacrificed along with the impractical. Not a perfect compromise but prudent in some sense.

The drawback is of course the simmering frustration that can build up due to unexpressed concerns and under-acknowledged prejudice, and the circle starts again. Fear and prejudice begets fear and prejudice. Who is at fault is not as important as who will help solve the issue; that being all of us. Seeking out the views of the 'unprejudiced' is difficult as hardly anyone considers themselves thus. But those willing to dialogue are perhaps the ones from whom we hear the least. Certainly, just as the racist view is based on generic, broadly drawn stereotypes and flawed reason - we could walk away thinking that this flawed reason is that of the average white Briton, but that too would be a harbinger of prejudice.

Cool British Words & Phrases You Can Use (or not)

Stuff I 've heard and picked up. Give up a try if you like.

Bit: part, piece. Being who he was Cheney thought the best bit of the movie was where the puppies got eaten by the troll.

Bits & Bobs: Odds & ends, bits & pieces.  Searching high and low for WMD's all that could be found were innocuous bits and bobs.


Chuffed (to bits): Happy, delighted, pleased. Not entirely sure if 'he could' Obama was chuffed to bits to have won the Presidential election.

Doddle: Easy, a snap. With practically the entire Western media at their command invading Iraq was a doddle for the Bush Admin.


Dosh: Money. I don't have any dosh. Seriously, I don't. Other terms for Money: wonga, readies, spondulicks

Faff: Mess around, goof, play about. Considering himself all powerful, Cheney loved to faff about with human life. Faffing around with peoples money, Madoff found himself in the Big House.


Gob: Mouth. Obama wanted nothing more than for Biden to shut his gob.


Gobsmacked: Speechless. Gobsmacked at Kanye's tirade, Taylor simply stood by and watched.


Gutted: Hurt, disappointed, rueful. Offering repeated and bumbling apologies, Kanye was gutted upon considering his actions at the MTV awards ceremony.


Innit: Isn't it. 'Dat new song is really swish innit?', said Daz.


Jeremy Kyle: Jerry Springer. Jeremy Kyle often does lie detector and paternity tests on his show, but has more gravitas and credibility  than the his US counterpart Jerry Springer.


Kit: Clothing, shirt, equipment. Celebrating his goal against Chelsea Rooney pulled his kit over his head.


Manky: Filthy, rancid, stinking. Taking baths irregularly and seldom using deodorant some folks in this part of the world are rather manky.


Minging: Ugly, homely. If the US comedy Ugly Betty were British it would be called Minging Elizabeth. Prince Charles' second wife is a minger.


Put (My) Hands Up: Accept responsibility. Backed into a corner Letterman put his hands up and admitted his indiscretions. 


Snog: Passionately kiss. He wondered how he would bring himself to snog Miss Bowles. Snogging is repeatedly mentioned in the Harry Potter series.


Swish: Cool, trendy. Having fleeced millions from innocent investors Stanford bought a rather swish sports car.


Uber (Oober): Very, ultra, extreme.  Donning his shades and leather jacket, Bill Gates went from being uber geeky to uber cool. Not!


Wodge: A sizeable chunk/slab/portion of something like cake or money. He relished the huge wodge of cash afforded to all banking CEO's.