Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: We may share a language, but that's it ...
Monday, 13 October 2008
The UK is mesmerised by the American presidential election. The result will affect all our futures. But is it too much already? Vast resources go into the coverage, leading to a fabricated, even forced, identification with the hyper-power; a euphoric mood is daily whipped up by fervently Atlanticist pundits. Question the United States and you are slammed for "anti-Americanism". There are no equivalent sneers for those who, for example, criticise Russia or India. It is as if this country is an extension of the US. It is defiantly, patently not. In fact, the more this drama unfolds, the more intensely aware we become of how different we are. The ocean between us is physical and cultural.
Two observations ensue. It will be decades before Britain elevates a man of African ancestry to the position that Barack Obama has reached. On this, the US has shown us a face that is wholly to be admired, impossible to reproduce on these isles, as yet. On the other hand, we Britons would never cheer on, to teetering heights, a Sarah Palin. One reason is ingrained sexism – why the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, is never given the respect she deserves. But also because British voters do not fall for the folksy and homely. What would we do if Theresa May started winking and acting cutsie, or Ruth Kelly brought her sprogs to hustings? It is unthinkable. The Tory MEP Daniel Hayman is critical of the "elitist, anti-populist nature of British democracy". Many of us are grateful for the serious standards maintained.
There is much to envy and admire in Jeffersonian democracy: its localism, liveliness, the way it engages citizens, the unpredictable and serious primaries. Britain does not manage as well the crucial balance between the majority will and minority entitlements. No decent democracy surrenders wholly to the first. Our system, by contrast, feels exhausted at times, stitched up by the powerful, and the result is growing dejection. It may prove lethal one day, this disenchantment. I do think, though, that some scepticism is necessary. Too many Americans believe the lies of their masters and did in the build up to Iraq. They have West Wing; we have The Thick of It and Yes Minister. I know which I prefer. And let us hope and pray that we will never have to endure the abusive and ignorant broadcasts of their shock jocks.
This spring, I went to the US for the first time since 9/11. It was good to go back and remember how exciting and inspiring is the country at its best. Yet culturally it felt more foreign than I remember, Starbucks and McDonalds notwithstanding. The shared language is diverging. Sometimes I had to ask what was meant, thwarted by the speed, vocabulary and embedded assumptions. With everyone from Stephen Fry to Simon Schama extolling the great US of A in books and TV series, it is as well to remember that many of us feel about the country more like Louis Theroux does, admiring, yet befuddled. In Italy and Spain, many Britons feel less alien, despite the barriers of language.
Reluctant Europeans we may be, but we have made common cause with EU nations on many key issues – abortion, gay rights, human rights, the place of religion in politics, international relations, climate change, and creationism. We do not have the violent, sometimes murderous, clashes of values dividing Americans. Millions of Britons no longer want this special relationship. They believe the obsession with the US is excessive. I think they have a point.
To whom do our politicians answer – us or the banks?
As financial institutions implode, political leaders tell us we are all in this together. Sure we are. Some, at least, can take breaks from the anxiety. William Hague and Ffion joined agonised (presumably) senior executives of Barclays Bank at a luxury hotel near Lake Como in Italy to discuss the crisis and how to beat the downturn.
Ffion advises the bank, which made me think. What about other such direct or indirect connections between political families and the mismanaged or vulnerable global businesses? Lord Baker of Dorking was the chairman of Lehman Brothers' European advisory council; Francis Maude and Alan Milburn have several "remunerated" directorships, as do Oliver Letwin and Lord Steel of Aikwood. Many spouses and children of politicians are similarly engaged too. Tony Blair and others, like Anji Hunter, his once right-hand woman, leave politics to be fast snapped up by conglomerates that pay eye-watering amounts of money for influence and advice.
Fine, if these ex public servants want to make bucks. But are they keeping tabs on the companies they serve or do they, for a fee, register only approval? I do wonder whether Kenneth Baker was at all aware that the collapse of Lehman was imminent? Perhaps those on the Barclays jamboree will enlighten us on exactly what these, "the great and the good", do. And to whom they are accountable.
MoD shouldn't mess with the WI's treats
Christmas is coming and we are still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter turning into a guerrilla conflict without end. Last week, a beautiful film, Jack, a Soldier's Story (BBC3), right, revealed what our young men (on £19,000 a year) are going through.
As if in a Monty Python sketch, the Ministry of Defence chooses this moment to stop boxes of treats – Cup A Soups, jelly babies, shoelaces etc, sent over by the doughty Women's Institute. Heartless, of course, but thick, too, these gents in charge. You don't mess with the WI brigade. Remember how they turned Blair to buttered toast and chewed him up at a gathering? General Sir Richard Dannatt should be quaking in his polished boots.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
62 Comments
You really have excelled yourself with your abusive comments/inuendos about anyone who is white eg 'bring her sprogs to the hustings' (Ruth Kelly), you cite Ffion Haig, Ken Clark and others - you may have a point about these people's politics or morality but not one black or mixed race is mentioned in your diatribe. By the way we are not reluctant Europeans, we just dont want the Euro yet and want to retain control over our internal affairs of State!
Posted by sk | 16.10.08, 13:16 GMT
Whenever the divisive politics of India dishearten me - in our case it's religion and caste that are the most divisive - I'm sort of heartened to find that we are not alone and that race is still a big divider in the so-called 'developed' world (comments posted here seem to prove that).
And while Yasmin may find some hope in Obama's getting as far as he has, she should remember that India has had a woman prime minister and that did not do anything for women in the country.
Posted by sherna | 15.10.08, 09:07 GMT
Reading the headline of this article made me laugh, since its basically what I think of Alibhai-Brown.
Waiting for next weeks divisive, shrieking article...
Posted by Sam | 14.10.08, 23:05 GMT
Sam - Oh so now you remove posts! Wimp! Like making fun of disabled people too eh - using words like gimp? Typical leftire hypocrite.
The democrats stupidly chose a black man to run. This in an age when republican is the default position in (religious) america. They should have chosen a white man and just accepted that some voters are racist. But of course, they like losing. McCain will win. Look who ISN'T registered: black Obama fans.
What I find utterly disgusting is the british media fawning over and supporting Obama. They are SUPPOSED to be impartial and disinterested (look it up). They are NOT supposed to support the (supposed) liberal or someone with a dark skin in some inverted racism exercise. Shame!
Obama is conservative- they don't do Sam-style leftie socialism in the USA (lucky them). And he is NOT running rings around anyone with his preachy southern churchy gospel prettyboy smiley shtick and rabble-rousing. He is inexperienced - all image and no substance.
Posted by Sudsy | 14.10.08, 18:40 GMT
Sudsy, please get back into your gimp mask. You actually sound intelligent when no one can hear what you are saying (or thinking).
Leftist blah blah blah..... clearly eight years of rabid far right helmsmanship at the bridge of the USS USA did them and the world a lot of good. Clearly it is sinking faster than the Titanic given the unraveling financial crisis. The crisis blew up on their watch -clearly they didn't realise they were moving into iceberg territory (being asleep at the wheel)!
It doesn't surprise me that the thought that someone from the centre left might be needed to steady the course leaves you disinterested.
Based on how Obama is running rings round Palin and McCain (so much so that they have to deploy desperate negative campaigning) demonstrates a keen abundance of political experience not the contrary. Quite professional.
we shall see what unfolds....
Posted by Sam | 14.10.08, 17:38 GMT
The USA is decades - centuries even - behind the UK in terms of race. We never had segregation and stopped slavery decades before the US. Race is THE big issue in the US - not in the UK. We had ethnic MPs 100 years ago. The US has only ONE ethnic senator (Obama). Of course, for class reasons we can't expect too many ethnic MPs, but if anyone thinks it's better in the US than in the UK they are just projevting their wn leftie guilt trip onto everything I'm afraid.
And Obama is NOT strictly black - and nor was Bob Marley. But then mixed race sounds so dumb. Having said that, blacks will vote for him JUST because he's black -why he's the candidate of course in the first place. I honestly think for the electorate his colour will be one factor that'll lose him the US election - in the UK it wouldn't matter.
Personally, I can't stand any of the candidates and am offended by the pro-Obama bias in the UK media, especially as he's so inexperienced. It's unprofessional.
Posted by Sudsy | 14.10.08, 17:01 GMT
Bill, the point is he is ethnically, from a minority (mixed race).
Yes he isn't president yet and may never be - but unfortunately, for the sake of the Americans (this is said in empathy, not as a threat) and the rest of the world electing the 'opposition' for a third time (given their track record and current offering); I think people can be forgiven for cheering him on or getting a bit optimistic. If nothing else, Obama seems to conduct himself like a statesman - and if he does get elected, hopefuly he will continue to conduct himself like one and perhaps be inspirational -who knows/we'll see....
As for electing someone based purely on colour - I don't think anyone is advocating that. All that was said (as you have pointed out) is that this country has some way to go yet till that happens - no need to be defensive, or is there?
What do you call yourself, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Black or mixed race or Asian? So why can't YAB do the same?
Posted by Sam | 14.10.08, 15:58 GMT
Glad we're all on the same page! 3 weeks to go...
Posted by Sara | 14.10.08, 15:31 GMT
i like the way Yasmin Alibhai-Brown includes herself in the "we", but seperates herself as a "muslim" or an "asian" when it suits her.
for the umpteenth effing time, obama is HALF WHITE AND HALF BLACK. he does NOT have "african acestry", he has a SPLIT ancestry..and anyway, he's not there yet and DESPITE the awful presidency of dick cheney, (er, sorry i mean dubya gump), the race is still a close call, why? because the multitudes of racists won't vote for him. african ex-pats have been in america for HUNDREDS of years. apart from a few small populations of west indians in liverpool or bristol, we can take their real start from the empire windrush, in the late 1950's, so they've got a way to go before they are as used to english culture as the "africans" in north america.
meritocracies are just that. unless you'd like a prime minister based upon the colour of his skin? ridiculous! (as usual).
Posted by bill | 14.10.08, 15:31 GMT
Sara -yes it was me and yes, I get your analogy about people with a similar mentalily who are not OBL :-).
My reference to Kevin alluded to the possibility that he to saw Obama as a threat beacuse of his name rather than that it might be a problem for Obama because people might miscontrue his intentions (wrongly). ie he was suspicious of Obama also, rather than in favour of him.
Posted by Sam | 14.10.08, 14:07 GMT
62 Comments