BAME Elites and the Racialisation of Culture - Rahul Karnik

During the debate over BBC's decision to drop the songs 'Land of Hope and Glory' and 'Rule Britannia' from the Last Night of The Proms, a number of Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) individuals lent their voices to either side of the debate. The row itself was a figurative storm in a teacup. The BBC subsequently U-turned and announced that anthems would be sung by a small vocal ensemble. The well-executed result begged the question as to why singing was dropped in the first place. 

But the finer points of the row have not been forgotten, and it is likely that the next saga in the ongoing ‘culture wars’ will bring out similar arguments. 

One prominent anti-anthem voice was Chi-chi Nwanoku, broadcaster, double-bassist and CEO of the Chineke! Foundation, which runs an orchestra exclusively for young people from BAME backgrounds. Speaking to the BBC, Nwanoku said of the anthems: 

"We find it offensive. Of course I know other people are going to want to cling to it, but I know why they want to cling to it...These songs are jingoistic echoes of empire and, depending on what side of the fence you're sitting on, you either feel joyous, emboldened and patriotic and immediately identify with all the sentiments of it...For any conscious black person who is aware of their history, the empire and colonialism, for example, they will struggle to enjoy the patriotic jingoism of these songs."

It is worth analysing Nwanoku's comment here, as like many opinions cast during the height of the storm, it portrays an underlying attitude held by some prominent (and indeed influential) BAME voices. Nwanoku begins by saying “we find it offensive”. This is clearly not the use of the royal 'we', but a group on whose behalf she is acting as a spokesperson, namely non-white people (or perhaps more specifically black people). She immediately frames the issue as one of a divided population: them (white people) and us (non-white people), the oppressors, against the oppressed. 

Nwanoku next claims to “know” why exactly “they” want to “cling to” the two anthems that are “jingoistic echoes of empire”. The implication appears to be that white people (or perhaps just certain white people) not only celebrate the empire but see it as part of their identity. All other possibilities for wanting to sing the anthems, such as communal pride, or even ironic appreciation are rejected.

The sides of the 'fence' that Nwanoku describes are apparently the only two reactions to ‘Rule Britannia’ and ‘Land of Hope and Glory’ that an individual could possibly experience. Either they will identify “with all the sentiments of” the anthems (including, presumably, the outdated and imperialistic sections) or a struggle to identify with their “patriotic jingoism,” a term that portrays Nwanoku’s own opinion. Having a nuanced opinion, weighing up both the positives and the negatives of the anthems is implied to be an act of indecision, of sitting on the fence. According to her, it is impossible to appreciate the lyrics of the anthems without identifying with the most controversial colonial-era sentiments within them. 

But arguably the most damning description in Nwanoku’s statement is that of the “conscious black person who is aware of their history.”  If a black person is ambivalent towards these anthems, or even appreciative of them, are they not “conscious” of their history? Are they not allowed to partake in shows of patriotism? If they do, is it implied that they are complicit in their own oppression? It is difficult to read this statement otherwise.

One can make many criticisms of both anthems and their lyrics, and simultaneously appreciate elements of them. But framing the issue as one of “jingoistic” white oppressors against a group of non-white victims and claiming to speak on behalf of an entire racial grouping (whilst second guessing the motivations of the other) is as arrogant and insulting as it is reductive. Furthermore, using one's power and media platform to make others question their own consciousness, self-esteem or perception of the world is deeply dangerous both to individuals and to ‘race-relations’ as a whole. 

In isolation, such statements may rightly go unnoticed. Nwanoku’s sentiments are, however, reflective of a larger trend: the weaponisation of media, culture and education to promote racially charged identity politics. Provided with an uncritical platform, the most polarising and divisive BAME voices are often permitted to craft a narrative of a Britain with racism deeply embedded in all of its national traditions. It goes well beyond classical music and the Proms.

Think of the increasingly frequent media contributions of personalities such as Afua Hirsch and Kehinde Andrews, that depict all of British culture and society through the lens of race, and regularly throw around contested terms such as ‘whiteness’ and ‘structural racism’. Consider the production of a BBC Bitesize video, aimed at school children presented by basketball player-turned-psychologist John Amaechi, who espoused contentious theories of racial 'privilege' as if they were fact. Or even the recent BBC comedy offering, Frankie Boyle’s ‘New World Order.’ This supposed comedy show notably featured a rant about “Trump tower,” “capitalist structures” and “killing whitey” by Oxford-educated comedian Sophie Duker, to sycophantic nods from the other panellists. Here, as in the other cases, little to no counter-narrative was offered, and these assertions were broadcast unchallenged. 

And yet there is no evidence to suggest that this view is shared by minorities in Britain beyond a narrow BAME elite. It is an unrepresentative clique steeped in the divisive ideology of critical race theory, and with access to influential platforms such as the broadcast media, educational institutions, and workplace HR departments. Without any substantive challenge, the views of this elite are detrimental to social cohesion, free thought, and most importantly, progress. The platforming of diverse opinions from black and minority ethnicity individuals, a range of voices that directly challenge this elite, is needed now more than ever.

Rahul Karnik