For me, this is the straw that broke the camel’s back with regard to the formerly well respected British Broadcasting Corporation - a black Friar Tuck.

After destroying a whole generation’s enjoyment of the Arthurian legend by making the blonde, blue eyed Queen Guinevere black, quite regardless of the fact that this was an impossibility, they have now trampled all over the image of Friar Tuck.

No longer is the Friar a balding, rotund, educated man with a penchant for ale, now he has been transformed into a ‘hunky, fighting robed warrior.’

The BBC has once again treated me with contempt and further embarrassed me with their continuing Operation Get Behind the Darkies. It appears that the top brass at the BBC believe that by splashing black faces all over every programme that they air, they are somehow beyond reproach when it comes to race issues and can hide the fact that in reality they are one of the least diverse corporations in Britain, at least in upper management. No doubt the management also throw words around such as modern, trendy, uptodate and groovy.

It is easy to point the finger at the middle aged white old Etonians that run the BBC but white people in general must also bear some of the blame for this; how much longer are they going to allow their culture, traditions and even folklore be trampled over by such people? Such people I hasten to add, who are doing this not through a love of Negroes, but rather as a convenient smokescreen for their own racism.

The same people who will no doubt scream racist should a white objector point out the idiocy of their programming. Friar Tuck is white. I am well aware that in reality he did not exist, I am well aware also that Arthur did not exist, nor Guinevere but these are folklores and legends that have been around for centuries, what right have a few ex public school boys in suits to alter them purely to save face?

‘Our generation of kids won’t bat an eyelid at the fact Friar Tuck is black, but it’s important for me to get to play a role model.’

Naturally thanks to the wonderful British education system most children are oblivious to things like history. As for Friar Tuck being a role model, since when? He’s the overweight jovial drunkard, well done David for lapping up another white cast off. All the BBC have done is turn Friar Tuck black to keep the Negroes happy, well I for one am not happy.

Programmes such as Robin Hood are meant to entertain the young whilst also gently educating, instead we have a television programme so far removed from the period in which it were set, it may as well be situated in space. What do youngsters today glean from such a programme? That skin colour is irrelevant and more down to chance rather than the geographical location from which a person comes from? I am not black by a mere accident, it is because my ancestors evolved this skin colour to better protect themselves from their environment.

This is a minor issue compared to the big issue that this sort of thing disguises – slavery. Should one of Britain’s ill informed, ignorant youth do something out of the ordinary, and think for a moment about slavery, no doubt they’d consider that both British whites and British blacks were complicit in slavery, when this isn’t the case at all. Negroes came here as slaves and several hundred years after Robin Hood was set. Yet according to the BBC Negroes have always been here.

This will give our government even more cause to ditch large swaths of British history and instead teach things such as Twitting, MyFace and BoBo in schools, reserving the tricky stuff for, well probably just the historians. Gone will be the likes of Ignatius Sancho, William Wilberforce and already many children believe that Churchill is a fictional character (if not a nodding dog), despite Churchill only dying 44 years ago. Many teens also believe that Robin Hood was real and bizarrely, despite him appearing in many of the aforementioned Robin Hood’s tales, Richard the Lionheart as fictional!

Needless to say if they believe Robin Hood to be based on a real person, then likewise they’ll believe Friar Tuck to have been a black martial arts expert, rather than the portly man of God of the legends. This poorly conceived attempt to make the BBC appear Negro friendly has stripped this awful series of the last bit of credibility it may have held and also dropped the BBC beyond salvage in my regard.

It shouldn’t have surprised me however, particularly on the back of the black Guinevere, the Black Doctor Who, and the recent and even more infuriating All Black espisode of Eastenders. At the BBC it seems that 2009 is the year of the Negro.

I found the BBC episode particularly insulting, it was completely unnecessary and just another PR stunt intended to keep the Negroes happy. This wasn’t a landmark, there was nothing to celebrate in an episode tht purposely kept whites off screen purely with the intention of having an all black episode. In any event it was not an all black episode, merely an all non-white episode. This wasn’t even just centred around one family or one location, some scenes were in the public house, but just carefully crafted to ensure no white faces violated the episode. Indeed the bar had no bar staff as they are all white, so they simply ceased to exist in that episode. Black extras crowed every seat and featured in every walk by, purely to get Negroes on screen.

The BBC celebrated this as an all important milestone. I was shocked and angered that since the 1950s, that this programme claimed to deal with, we have reversed positions so much that it is now acceptable for the BBC to ban all actors of a certain colour from an episode, as long as that colour is white. Sure there may well be all white episodes, but that is by chance rather than design. The BBC set out to create an episode that featured only non whites, to me that is purely and simply racism. For even racism dressed up in good intentions is still racism.

The irony is that the BBC intended that episode to highlight the racism suffered by us Negroes as we arrived here 50 years ago, by segregating the cast and having a no whites policy. One wonders if they had a sign outside the studio that day, No Whites, No Irish and No Dogs. The fact that the BBC used racism to highlight racism appears to be lost on just about everyone, I find no mention of this anywhere else on the internet. But naturally whites dare not complain and after all Negro is most certainly in vogue at present, what with Obama (I won’t even start on that particular topic!). The upper echelons of the BBC must have been positively beside themselves at his election as now they can have far more Negro on TV, at no extra cost.

The fact that the episode also went out on the tenth anniversary of the Macpherson report, a fact that the BBC claimed to be coincidence, not only insults my intelligence but also feels like a further slap in the face.

‘A BBC spokeswoman said last night that it had never been intended as a black episode.’

And yet no white people were featured in either the Cafe, or the public house? And all the extras were black? All by accident? They also refused to confirm or deny that the episode was also written by blacks.

I am sure that many whites saw this episode as a criticism of whites, labelling them racists and criticising the conduct of their ancestors once again. Such programming is hardly the best way of promoting racial harmony, but that is just typical of the BBC, they believe that ethnicitising white characters will somehow keep the Negroes happy with the lack of top BBC officials, and either fail to realise or care about the possible white backlash. Such actions by the BBC only breed hate and resentment, but fortunately for the upper class white men at the top of the BBC, the backlash is not something that they need to worry about.

It’s been six months since my last post and I honestly believed that I had covered everything that I wanted to and discussed all of the points that had enticed me into starting a blog in the first place, but recent news has compelled me to post once again.

I have been a fan of Doctor Who ever since I was a boy. It is a quintessentially British programme that I enjoyed immensely growing up.

I won’t say who my favourite Doctor was, as it would show my age, suffice to say he was more of a Grandfatherly figure than the modern Doctors.

It may come as a surprise to some, but I am actually saddened by the news that the new actor replacing David Tennant is black.

Paterson Joseph, who whilst a fine actor, is not what I envisage as Doctor Who, and whilst modernists may claim that such a selection is needed in order to bring the series up to date and in order to make the programme more inclusive – I for one certainly don’t feel it. 

I have covered this topic before and discussed my reasoning at length, but there is more to this instance of political correctness for me than simply random programme’s using black faces. There seems to be a continuing ethnicitising of Doctor Who and I cannot understand why.

I have been an avid viewer of this series almost since its inception, and I have never seen a black Timelord in 45 years. I do remember noticing the absence of black faces, but then I understood from an early age that there the Timelords were a white race.

There were black races, such as the Movellans but it wasn’t until much later that black faces began appearing in Doctor Who and it seemed to me that once the floodgates had been opened it became a veritable torrent.

The new Doctor’s first assistant had a black boyfriend, which didn’t really strike me as odd, more a sign of the times. There were many black actors and actresses through the first and second series playing a myriad of parts, and again understandable, if alien races can have white people, why not black people too? The Doctor’s second assistant was black, this did disturb me slightly and I became concerned with the direction this seemed to be taking.

Next came the Christmas ‘Special’. I distinctly remember after Merlin thinking to myself that the BBC would never add in such historical inaccuracies in a flagship programme like Doctor Who – oh dear.

 

After viewing the promotional trailers I actually found myself trying to justify a Negro in Victorian Britain. After emancipation some did remain in the UK and it is quite conceivable that the Doctor’s assistant would be a Victorian Negro, although it is some stretch. I had many misgivings wondering why the BBC seemed to be stretching reality to the point of breaking in order to get black faces on the screen.

Then I sat down on Christmas Day and watched the episode itself and I cannot accurately convey my utter dismay as I watched the opening scenes without using a modern abbreviation – WTF. Fortunately I did not vocalise that thought as young family members were present but that is what went through my mind during the opening scenes.

Picture the scene, Victorian London, blanketed in snow with many poor Dickensian folk going about their daily business, many of whom were black! I was furious. 400 years of history glossed over and ignored in the name of political correctness and equality point scoring.

It portrayed Britain as always having had Negroes living here, as if slavery and emancipation never happened, William Wilberforce, Ignatius Sancho and others did not ever exist, they did not need to. We’ve always been here, living in perfect harmony.

There is no black culture, no time when black people in Britain were outsiders, immigrants, nothing that black people added to Britishness and Britain that improved it, we were here all along.

As I said, this infuriated me, the BBC seemed to be treating me with utter contempt, I either did not matter or they believed that I was ignorant of my own history. As those feelings slowly subsided over the Christmas period and I had not managed to get around to voicing my anger via an official complaint, I felt that I should just let sleeping dogs lie, until I received a further slap in the face – a black Doctor.

Apparently the BBC feels that it is not enough to simply erase black history, and have black faces throughout every time period, now it has also decided that all the major parts in the series must go to black people too.

You’d be fairly confident that the hierarchy of both the BBC and of Doctor Who were predominantly black and using their position to get more black faces on the screen, contrary to equality guidelines; but nothing could be further from the truth. The only ‘minorities’ making these decisions are women and homosexuals and white ones at that. In fact if you were to head into the production of Doctor Who, or any high level meeting at the BBC, it would be foolish to play spot the Negro, you would be there for quite a while – at least until the cleaner comes in (and now I sound like those whiny equality complainers that I despise).

The real question is why. Perhaps I misjudged Lenny Henry when I lambasted him for making what I believed at the time were inappropriate, unhelpful and inaccurate remarks. Perhaps when he said:

“When I started, I was surrounded by a predominantly white workforce, and 32 years later, not a lot has changed,”

He wasn’t talking about on the screen, but he was referring to what goes on behind the cameras, as in another quote that I used before:

Samir Shah, a member of the BBC’s board of directors, said this had led to a “world of deracinated coloured people flickering across our screens – to the irritation of many viewers and the embarrassment of the very people such actions are meant to appease”

He also said:

instead of dealing with the issues surrounding why greater numbers of people from ethnic minorities had not made it to the executive level of British television, broadcasters had instead put more black and Asian faces on screen, regardless of whether they were cultural fits to the programmes they were in.

The emphasis is mine.

“I don’t think that such over-representation is a brilliant idea. Another thing that’s not real is some of the casting of non-whites in fiction,” he added.

As Mr Shah points out the problem isn’t racism, it is down to the fact that the people at the top like to promote those that they believe are like them, like some sort of old boys network.

“the positions of real creative power in British broadcasting, are still controlled by a metropolitan, largely liberal, white, middle-class, cultural elite – and, until recently, largely male and largely Oxbridge.”

What infuriates me is not that these old Etonian’s, or whatever they are, are sticking together and have implemented some sort of glass ceiling for everyone else, but that they believe they simply need to stick a few black faces on the screen to keep the Negroes and other minorities happy and everything will be fine and dandy.

What’s next? A black Scrooge? A black Robin Hood or Maid Marian? A black Father Christmas? A whole new meaning to Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice?

This must be annoying white people as much as everyone else, if not more, yet you’ll have to work hard to find any criticism in the mainstream press.  It appears that nobody wishes to criticise through fear of being branded racist and ironically it seems to be left to the minorities to raise a hue and cry about this deracinating of television.

As a boy I loved the Arthurian legends, and let’s be honest, what young boy could fail to be captivated by those tall tales of magic, chivalry and swordsmanship.

Because of this I was quite looking forward to the new BBC adaptation of these legends, even though it would be primarily aimed at children.

Initially I was saddened by the news that ‘Merlin’ as it was to be called would be based on Merlin and Arthur as two boys and would not follow the old legends in any way shape or form.

Next the BBC went on to insult my intelligence and my race by having Queen Genevieve played by a Negro.

I have mentioned before that it seems to be in fashion at present to criticise movies and TV for not featuring enough black faces, Spike Lee recently criticised Clint Eastwood for not having any, or enough, Negroes in his movies. Next, incredibly the head of equality in the UK has claimed that British television is too white!

This kind of attitude in turns both angers and worries me. I am angered by the way that our so called leaders on race relations, are able to be so racist with complete impunity and I am also worried for the future. Everything that Negroes have spent the past 400 years working for in this country could be destroyed by a few idiots.

It seems that once again I have to point out the blindingly obvious to those that should know better, Britain is a white country. I am not sure why so called black leaders have difficulty understanding that simple premise. Zimbabwe is a black country, I don’t think that anyone would ever argue with that, but 1% of the population is white. South Africa is another black country, even though 9.2% of the population there is white. In Britain 91.2% of the population is white, just 2% black, yet we hear constant references to blacks being under represented, although I am not sure where.

Philips singled out The Vicar of Dibley as an all white programme, however if one should ever visit rural areas (and I do frequently), Negroes are a rarity. Just the other day I was watching a programme where Janet Street Porter held some kind of party in a Yorkshire village, there was not one single non white face there out of 100 people. Porter isn’t racist, the show wasn’t staged, this is reality in some places.

Viewers praised reality shows like the X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing and The Apprentice, in which ethnic minorities were defined by their talents rather than their skin colour.

We get back to the same argument again it seems. The Apprentice had 16 contestants. Four of the contestants were non white, which is 25%, meaning that white’s were under represented, just 75% instead of 90%. Strictly Come Dancing had 14 contestants, 2 were black – 14%, whites made up 86% of the contestants so again under represented. Asians and Chinese etc were not represented at all, but this appears to be OK, and this is what concerns me.

The programme’s that are given the Trevor Philips Gold Star all have one thing in common, over representations of blacks, the less whites the better and who cares about the Asians and the Chinese? Basically what he is suggesting is tantamount to saying that there are too many white people on television. He also apparently singled out Desmond’s as a good example, a completely black television programme which just adds to the duplicity of his statements. Even though blacks are the minority, all black television programme’s are deemed to be not only acceptable but preferred, but all white ones are are viewed as racist. He does, probably inadvertently raise an interesting point with Desmond’s that I will return to later.

Another black Caribbean man said: “They don’t portray black people doing different roles and in every aspect of every field, like doctors, lawyers and architects.”

I am sure that the ‘researchers’ must be feeding these people their lines. One only has to take Holby for example, from memory there are at least 3 black doctors on that programme.

The fact is I feel the opposite, I feel that there are too many black, particularly black, faces on television today and unless everyone lives in London, it isn’t normal. This over representation should be picked up the Racial Equality Commission and toned down, instead they seem to jumping upon the band wagon and encouraging such behaviour.

Others agree.

Samir Shah, a member of the BBC’s board of directors, said this had led to a “world of deracinated coloured people flickering across our screens – to the irritation of many viewers and the embarrassment of the very people such actions are meant to appease”.

I am certainly embarrassed as this now means that white liberal buffoons with tick boxes are panicking and fulfilling their quotas in other ways, like making Queen Genevieve black. As if blacks now need the helping hand of taking white roles.

Is this the situation that Negroes have found themselves in? Gone are the days where we have to work hard, extra hard to achieve things others take for granted, now it seems black don’t need to try, to create or reach positions of authority, they can happily survive on handouts where white people decide to give them a certain role by ethnicitising it.

I remember a few years ago there was much talk about a black James Bond. This again infuriated me with lots of white people suggesting that it was ‘about time’ for a black bond. Many of my white friends asked my opinion, probably assuming that I would think it a good idea, and were quite taken aback when I said it would be a hideous insult.

James Bond is white, he was created by a white man, based on a white man and inspired by contemporary white men. He’s an old Etonian and they don’t come much whiter than that. Making Bond black would be an insult to both whites and blacks.

My view then was that we Negroes don’t need white cast offs (Bond had gone out of fashion) or sympathy. We have our own writers actors, producers, directors etc. Rather than a black Bond there should be a black character written by a black man, based on a black man and inspired by black men.

The Jason Bourne franchise has proven that there is room is this area for a black character, although I am not in anyway suggesting that Bourne should have been, or should be in the future, black. He too was written by a white man.

Samir is right, the misdirection of having too many/not enough black faces on television is not the real point, the real concern is where are all the black writers, authors and producers? Desmond’s that I mentioned earlier was an all black programme, written by and starring talented Negroes. I can’t think of a television programme like that now. Admittedly many have black faces, but not black talent.

Furthermore ’stealing’ white characters, be they fictional or not is only going to anger white people, who seem to be the only race in Britain that can appear racist, are constantly told how racist they are and told time and again by this self elected leaders of race, that they are, by their very nature, racist.

For those who seem to think that white people will just put up with it, and are placid and content, just take a look at this site which I stumbled upon whilst searching for the Daily Telegraph story. Making comments such as:

Another white invention , TV , used against us.
There was a time when negroes were content with watching smoke signals .

I have some sympathy with them, after all I grew up disillusioned, part of a race that I felt at times wasn’t accepted or represented. Bizarrely it is now an increasing number of white youths that feel this way.

I think that his comments also raise some interesting points, firstly the state of the English education system is appalling, American Indians used smoke signals, Negroes used drums, secondly Tarzan is no longer shown in the school holidays (any viewer of Tarzan would know about the drums) and thirdly they truly feel set apart and discriminated against, whether they are or not is irrelevant, if that is how they feel that is how they feel. Finally the first three words also saddened me, ‘Another white invention.’

It makes me sad as he has a point, where are all our authors, inventors, the creators and pioneers? We now have a situation of equality that as a boy I could never have envisaged, yet Negroes seem further removed from that kind of equality than ever before. Today it seems as though we have to steal white inventions, we have none of our own. We do not lead the team, which we once aspired to do, instead we get given a place at the expense of some poor white kid, because of our colour, how ironic is that?

When I was a boy things were decidedly different in this country, it was a time of change and upheaval. Britain had emerged from WWII poorer, Empireless and weak and for those that had grown up in the most powerful nation on earth, this was quite a shocking change.

For most the Empire was an abstract concept, they knew it existed, they also knew that it belonged to Britain, but for most the peoples of the Empire were conquered peoples, subjugated and in many cases deemed to be savage or primitive. It was quite a shock then during this time of change, for the former peoples of the Empire to arrive in Britain and to live and work amongst them.

One only needs look at Enoch Powell and his contemporaries to see the sort of effect this had on people, the fear, the xenophobia and the feelings of helplessness. I understand much better than I did at the time the motivations for the behaviour of some of the white people in Britain during my youth, it wasn’t anything personal, it wasn’t even really directed at my race but it was an underlying fear of the unknown.

Ironically this continues today and even more ironically, despite being from a family of immigrants, I am no more pro immigration than perhaps the Britons of my youth were and this may be the same for many second or third generation immigrants (see video below), but I digress.

In my youth I stood out quite a bit, particularly in the early days and like many families we moved into an area that was predominantly white. I was teased both in the street and at school by other children, sometimes also adults.

I was called many names, piccaninny, wog, sambo, negro, nig nog, coon, jungle bunny, and of course nigger. Despite being the most well known, at least amongst whites, I was seldom referred to as a nigger. I was much more likely to be called wog, sambo, coon or my personal favourite nig nog (such a silly phrase that requires an equally silly facial expression to deliver it properly!). Of course as a boy these words weren’t that important, it was the way that they delivered that was hurtful.

Like many from the era I faced the daunting daily prospect of being the only coloured boy (as we were then known) in any given situation. Walking into Mr Archer’s shop or the Butcher’s with my mum and joining the queue waiting for someone to make a remark. Some days it was just dirty looks, some days it was shaken heads and tuts, other days it would be an insult. Sometimes people would look away embarrassed when I was taunted, other times I was stared at, as if they were daring me or my mother to respond.

Of course this sounds far worse than it really was, I was lucky, I was very young during the worst of it and never the victim of physical abuse or even really hatred, just petty name calling which, whilst upsetting, was much better than some of my friends and relatives suffered. Over time this overt hostility (I don’t want to say racism for reasons that I will come to later) became covert hostility over the years until it eventually petered out, I honestly can’t remember the last time that I felt I was discriminated against, even covertly.

I don’t think the people calling me coon or wog were racist, I did at the time but even just a few years later I knew that they were not. Why? Because I heard my parents using similar derogatory terms about the next crop of immigrants and I knew then, as now, that my parents were not racist.

The clip below is something that I remember well and I think it demonstrates two things very cleverly. The first is Mr Alf Garnett, he typified a certain bred of men (and women) at the time, probably a lot earlier than this was set, who had real difficulty coping with the turnaround in British fortunes. I don’t believe it was their fault, more down to ignorance and a stubborn refusal to acknowledge that things had changed, exemplified in his remarks about the ’sambo’ nearly 150 years after slavery had ended. It is amusing because of his remarks and also the absurdity of his remarks, but people like him did exist, and they did think that way.

The other is of course the attitude of the black man toward the new generation of immigrants, a surprisingly typical view at the time.

This of course (eventually!) leads me to my point. As someone who experienced those turbulent early days of immigration in Britain, whose family and friends did face racism and hatred on a daily basis, I find it very annoying when someone like Naomi Campbell trivialises it all by using her race to win an argument or worse, receive special treatment.

Naomi Campbell was picked as a supermodel at an early age and incredibly even at 38 is still one of the world’s top supermodels. She’s been at the top of her career since it started, her looks and her colour have earnt her millions. To even attempt to place herself as a victim of anything is actually quite offensive, let alone to be the poor victim of racism.

She claimed that she was treated differently because of her race, whining;

You are a racist, you would not be doing this if I was white.
It’s because I’m a black woman, you are all racist, I’m going to sue you, I’m going to f*** you.
You bitch, I want my luggage – it’s because I’m black and famous.

Racism is a word that is bandied around a lot today and it makes me cringe when I hear a black person claiming racism, I am sure that there are some people who are the victims are racism, but many who use the term who are not. It seems an automatic response for some people that if they are black (or brown), and the other person is white (or brown) and not giving into their demands, it is down to racism.

True racism is a terrible thing and should not be trivialized in this manner, or used as a stick to beat innocent people with. It is not a joke term, or an accusation that can be levelled and then taken back. It sticks. Using it as a failsafe discussion winner takes away from true victims of racism, rather than those who are just the victims of circumstance.

Campbell’s shocking outburst is a classic example of this, crying racism over a lost bag, as if they had singled her bag out purely because she was black. The cabin crew and the passengers may well have disliked her, but this was far more likely have been due to her manner, than her colour.

She also then claimed in court that a member of the BA cabin crew called her ‘a golliwog supermodel,’ which I find quite surprising as it isn’t really the most popular racism term used today. Oddly, no one else has come forward saying they heard it too. I am sure that this is just an attempt to excuse her despicable behaviour and her claims of discrimination. Such words are so taboo these days that I find it hard to believe someone would have said that, or that none of the bystanders would have come forward and confirmed it.

Then again perhaps as she was blaming racism so much that someone decided to provide her with justification. Had I been on that flight I would have had a few choice words with her at the very mention of her being treated differently because of her race. Such flippant remarks and accusations make it harder for the true victims of racism to prove their case and belittle what people went through just a generation ago.

If she’s made it up then she’s also spread a malicious lie about BA, one that, due to the nature of the accusation, they will probably be unwillingly to take her to court over.

After a long absence it seems that I am picking up right where I left off, another black celebrity bemoaning the lack of black faces in the media. This time however it is US director, Spike Lee who said of Eastwood’s film Flags of our Fathers;

That was his version. The Negro version did not exist

An extremely pointless and unhelpful comment but one that seems to pervade the mentality of many leading black celebrities. As if every historical event should be based on today’s ethnic make up, rather than reality.

Eastwood retorted:

The story is Flags of Our Fathers, the famous flag-raising picture, and they didn’t do that. It’s not accurate.

Quite right, adding black faces to a historical event would be implying that we need to be represented to make us feel better, or even implying that we do not have enough famous historical events of our own to be proud of, therefore we must muscle in on those of others. Not to mention the disrespect to the one who is replaced. How would the family of Mr Smith (I don’t know the names of the men involved) feel if he were replaced by a negro in all future representations of this iconic image? Pretty pissed off I imagine.

This attitude is becoming quite worrying, where certain leading black figures seem to feel unwanted, unappreciated or disrespected if they do not see a black face in everything that they view.

I haven’t seen many of Mr Lee’s film, but those that I have seen did appear to be quite light on white faces. Even though 80% of America is white. Clearly this compulsion to balance things out doesn’t extend the other way.

I find this kind of view of the world disturbing, particularly in light of past events; as if being equal isn’t enough, now we have to appear equal in all aspects, regardless of the fact that in the West, blacks are a minority. I don’t live in a black nation, nor does Mr Lee. I have accepted that, clearly Mr Lee has not.

After basically accusing Clint Eastwood of being racist, you can understand why he told Spike to shut his face and said that his film Bird featured a 90% black cast and his upcoming film about South Africa will not feature a white Mandela! Very smoothly handled by Eastwood who must have been extremely insulted by being smeared racist.

I am sure that Mr Lee’s voice carries a lot of weight amongst the black community in the US and now, thanks to his ill thought out comments, many blacks will be trying to spot the black face in Eastwood’s movies, or worse, forever view him as being racist.

A shame really, as the one of the pair who is undeniably a racist is Spike Lee, although I doubt that you’ll ever hear anyone call him that. He seems to be of the view that racist is a noun that only applies to white people. Just take some of his comments as an example;

The most overrated player of all time, I would say it’d be Larry Bird. Now, Larry Bird is one of the greatest players of all time, but listen to the white media, it’s like this guy was like nobody ever played basketball before him

I don’t know a lot about basketball, but I do know that Larry Bird is white and certainly the only white player that I have ever heard of. Just the tone and words he uses is clear enough to me to be from racist ‘white media’, the media is the media, giving it a colour again implies some sort of unfairness.

Basketball is a black dominated sport and maybe there are better black players, however taking away the achievements of a player, purely because of his race, and thus robbing a race of a hero is shocking and would not be countenanced were it a white person making the statement.

Imagine if a white person were to say;

The most overrated player of all time, I would say it’d be Tiger Woods. Now, Tiger Woods is one of the greatest players of all time, but listen to the black media, it’s like this guy was like nobody ever played golf before him

For me there is no difference between the statements.

Lee’s ignorance is also quite shocking, he accused Eastwood of making two films about Iwo Jima with neither of them featuring blacks, the military, like everything else in the US was segregated during WWII, there weren’t any black soldiers mixed in with the white soldiers. Moreover Eastwood’s film did contain black soldiers, clearly Lee hadn’t bothered to watch them.

Spike Lee’s film about the Miracle at St Anna has apparently upset the survivors and the relatives of the victims, although I cannot find any information pertaining to the reason for the upset, I really hope he hasn’t just added black people to the events purely for the sake of it.

I understand that some people may be offended by the term ‘Negro’, the ironic thing is, most of them are probably white. There are reasons why I use the term Negro rather than others.

Initially I had intended to write this blog from a 18th Century perspective as Ignatius Sancho, even writing as such e.g. thou shallst readeth mine blog with reverence etc, however that grew very tiresome before even the first post. I did however like the archaic word Negro.

The problem today is one of labels and pigeon holing. The other N-word has been hijacked by racists and rappers, both of whom are detestable groups who serve only their own self interests. Black man seems to hold many connotations and unfortunately most of them are negative. The word black itself is virtually useless as it doesn’t hold anything special or unique, anything or anyone can be ‘black’. A black day, black cloud, black humour, black mark etc. I’d rather use a more powerful and unique word to describe what I am, one that sums up the several hundred years it has taken me to reach this point, whilst also celebrating what I am. Afro-Caribbean just doesn’t cut it either.

Negro was the word that was first used by black people to describe themselves, they didn’t say they were black nor Afro-Caribbean, they were Negroes. The subtitle of this blog sums it up perfectly, Ignatius Sancho wasn’t just a black man, he was an extraordinary Negro. Many groups and societies set up in the early days of emancipation also bore the word Negro. Since then however we have been taught that it is a bad word, and we should distance ourselves from it. But who told us that? The name changes constantly through decades as the white man seeks to ease his conscience, whilst still labelling us as different; Negro, Coloured, Black, Afro-Carribean. I am not from Africa, nor the Caribbean.

I know that Negro is just the Spanish word for black, in the same way that Niger (or its corruption, Nigger) is the latin for black. But it is so much more than that. A car can be black, but only man can be Negro (at least in English).

Of course I could have used Africanus, but like African it doesn’t really mean anything. An Egyptian or an Afrikaner can be African, but they are not the same as me. Negro is not a nationality, it transcends that. Negroid is a race. The only real comparison is Chinese. Someone who is Chinese can be from China, but equally they can be from anywhere in the world. From Malaysia to America, the Chinese are everywhere, the most populous race on earth and that one word, Chinese instantly defines them whilst also conveying the vast heritage and culture that makes them who they are.

Equally Negro does the same for blacks, the Negroid race is the oldest on earth. It is unique and everyone else is descended from it. I am proud to be a part of it.