In her moving and well-written book, Afua Hirsch seeks to explain her own experiences of race and identity. Her targets include racist thinking, stereotyping and oppressive colonial ideas, as well as the impact of the British Empire and slavery. As one would expect, her accounts of the racism and discrimination she has encountered are moving and shocking. Her examination of the past is often revealing.

Hirsch’s strategy is to argue against notions of ‘Western civilisation’ with its belief in the alleged inferiority of the non-European, non-white and non-Christian. 

She also targets what she describes as this “era of colour-blind racism” to quote Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and the “polite smiling people who claimed not to see race”. This is a key argument advanced by Hirsch in her book: she states that we cannot get to a post-racial future by ignoring or not noticing ethnic identity. Indeed, near the end of the book she claims that:

“Any sensible person would, I think, like to see a post-racial future. In my particular version, heritage would be preserved and identity recognised as an emotional bedrock for all members of our species”.

A sense of Identity for Hirsch would therefore include the right to define our own identities – but not be defined by them. This is an interesting if rather slippery idea. From a position of feeling oppressed and treated unfairly by British society, Hirsch now cherishes and values her complex sense of identity and origins. A sense of belonging is a vital human requirement, Hirsch argues; in Brit(ish), she details the emotional pull of Ghana and Africa as a part of her identity as well as her (sometimes negative) experiences of growing up in a largely white, middle-class Wimbledon. Class and ethnic identity intersect, Hirsch claims. 

Hirsch claims that while someone who is black will often be asked where they are from, white people often look taken aback by being asked about their origins. Well, maybe, in the context of race, I guess. Rather strangely, when going to work at Voice magazine, Afua Hirsch claims that she “knew very little about blackness”. I will return to these ideas in a moment.

However, the Origins section is one of the real strengths of Brit(ish) as a book.  Equiano gets a mention as well in this chapter. Along with Ottobah Cugoano, Equiano founded the abolitionist Sons of Africa; they reviewed and refuted racist pamphlets supporting slavery. There are shocking details here about how people of African origin were treated or represented, too. This is interesting historical material that deserves to be more widely known.

In chapters such as Origins, she is able to argue effectively for a more accurate version of history, including the abolition of slavery, a version that many in the UK have not been aware of. Many historical accounts published in Britain have a skewed view of slavery and empire. The violent mistreatment of slaves by slave-owners is heart-breaking and disturbing. And even in more recent times, films rarely capture the complexity or accuracy of historical events concerning Britain’s activities abroad. However, I am not sure Richard Attenborough’s movie Gandhi saw the British Empire in a positive or glamorous light as Hirsch seems to imply. 

Hirsch also deals with anti-Semitism as well. Immigrants to Britain have often been scapegoated; the book contains good historical research and it makes fascinating but shocking reading about the experiences of immigrants.

And Hirsch is honest in Brit(ish) that some types of multiculturalism have not worked well.  

Yet, Hirsch’s ideas do not always head in a good direction and some of her ideas should be questioned or at least debated further.  Oxford University is described as having “an aggressively white curriculum”. Aggressively white? What does that even mean?

Yet, for Hirsch:

“Saying we should ‘move on from the racism born of the transatlantic slave trade is like saying we should move on from class. We should, but it’s not going to happen any time soon”. 

And Hirsch makes other strange observations. She quotes Ella, a Classics degree student at Oxford University:

“As a subject, it’s inherently racist, it’s inherently Eurocentric. Even the title ‘Classics’, when you’re only talking about Greece and Rome – it erases so many other cultures”.

Really? Afua Hirsch seems to quote Ella’s view approvingly. Yet, this surely must be questioned. There is nothing ‘Eurocentric’ about discussing and studying such major civilisations that contributed to human achievements, progress and yes, civilisation. And no, studying Classics does not ‘erase’ other cultures. Thank goodness notions of ‘Blackness’ or ‘Whiteness’ would have been largely meaningless to ancient Greeks and Romans in a racial sense. 

For Afua Hirsch, “colour blindness” is not the right strategy to counter racism, she argues. “Blindness…is not a good strategy for seeing what is there. Race is there, as lived experience…” .  This can be seen as a direct criticism of liberal anti-racism. It remains a key element of Hirsch’s thinking. She sees race everywhere. And are only negative, racist things really the key to understanding something called Western civilisation? Many would argue not – things are actually more complex historically.

The book Brit(ish) is designed to be part of a conversation leading to a better future. It certainly deserves to be read and discussed further. Yes, notions of identity and our place within the sphere of ethnic identity seem difficult to escape from, and for Afua Hirsch, the baleful influence of the British Empire looks large, even today. While few would deny that some things still need to change and be challenged, we surely need to arguably find new ways to discuss an exit from ethnicity – and a post-racial future- in more positive, optimistic ways.

Buy Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging here.