Skip to main content

“Where Are You From?” Asked the English Man

I could have written the comment below reflecting on a conversation I had with an English man when the British Prime Minister Liz Truss resigned. It was part of a very short exchange in a coffeeshop in north London.

The English man said that Boris Johnson was better after all. I jumped in saying that he was a racist, and that the problems in Britain were not about one man, but about the form of the political economic policies. classes, etc. The man disagreed with me, saying : “But everybody wants to come to this country. You, where do you come from?” 

I asked him to stick to the argument rather than speaking about where I come from. He refused. Our short conversation ended abruptly there.

***

“Where are you from?” is not necessarily a racist question, but for those of us with brown skin, it’s a loaded one. We answer it uneasily, unsure if the conversation is going to unravel into something more distressing, as the encounter between Lady Susan Hussey and Ngozi Fulani did on Tuesday at Buckingham Palace.

Hussey, the late Queen’s former lady-in-waiting, asked Fulani, chief executive of the domestic abuse charity Sistah Space, “What part of Africa are you from?” and refused to accept Fulani’s answer that she is British and is from Hackney. She demanded: “No, but where do you really come from, where do your people come from? … Oh I can see I am going to have a challenge getting you to say where you’re from. When did you first come here?”

Hussey is 83, but that’s not really an excuse: she’s had longer than most people to learn that this hectoring line of questioning isn’t acceptable. She could have taken a leaf or two out of Queen Elizabeth’s book: she would politely ask guests at receptions, “Have you come far?”, and would accept whatever they told her in return.

The Queen clearly understood that “Where are you from?” is an alarming question for British people of colour. We don’t know what the intent of the question is: what is lurking beneath the surface? Why does the questioner want to know where we’re from? Is it simple innocent curiosity, or is it designed to put us in our place? Do they want to make assumptions about us based on stereotypes about our heritage? Are they racist?

Aware of the latter possibilities, people of colour born in the UK will answer, sometimes defensively, “Britain”, because it’s true. Often Britain is all we’ve ever known. I was born in London and have lived here for my whole life. I have never even been to Iran, India, Kenya or Tanzania, the countries of my mother’s heritage, so it feels inaccurate to say I am “from” there. Even when people ask “But where are you from originally?” I feel that originally I’m from London. My birthplace is my origin.

For lots of younger people “Where is your family from?” will also lead to the answer “Britain”, because some families have now been here for three generations.

So maybe, instead of asking where we’re from, you can live with not knowing. And, if we have British accents, you can accept that we’re from here, exactly the same way that you’re from here. I know that the “Where are you from?” question feels important, but too often in Britain today it’s asked in the wrong way, for the wrong reasons.

Source: The New Statesman

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Qarmatians (Al-Qaramita)

By Nadeem Mahjoub Documentary film-makers G. Troeller and M. C. Defarge once asked a cabinet minister in South Yemen, why socialistic ideas were so readily acceptable in that part of the Arab world. He replied: “Because we have been communists for a thousand years! My mother was Qarmatian.” Official Muslim scholars and clerics, and many so-called moderates (whether individuals or groups) oppose sedition ( fitna ). Tensions and contradictions in society should be solved peacefully and even if the ruler was unjust and impious, it is generally accepted he should still be obeyed, for any kind of order is better than anarchy and sedition. “The tyranny of a sultan for a hundred years causes less damage than one year’s tyranny exercised by the subjects against one another.” Revolt was justified only against a ruler who clearly went against the command of God and His prophet.” 1 Here we look at not what happened in the minds of people who call for calm, oppose dissent and preach the re...
Varoufakis "speaks of how great it was to have the support of Larry Summers, Norman Lamont, and other figures on the Right, but it was support for whom, for what, and in whose class interests? Class analysis is far from the foreground of the picture sketched out here. Closed rooms and class war
"By 2003, the Libyan government had entered into relations with the International Monetary Fund, privatizing a number of state-owned enterprises. In 2004, Libya opened up 15 new offshore and onshore blocs to drilling. Campbell also chronicles the burrowing actions of the “Western-educated bureaucrats [who] worked to bring Libya into the fold of ‘market reforms,’ and the deepening commercial relations with British capital.”  In 2007, British Petroleum inked a deal with the Libyan Investment Corporation for the exploration of 54,000 square kilometers of the Ghadames and Sirt basins. It also signed training agreements for Libyan professionals, helping create a base for neoliberalism within the government. By 2011, 2800 Libyan professionals were studying in the United Kingdom, learning “Western values” of destatization and thus the removal of the possibility for production and power to be responsive to the demands of the people.  Libya under Qadhaffi was mercurial, but against ...
John Gray, the Guardian, 03 March 2015: "To a significant extent, the new atheism is the expression of a liberal moral panic." "There is no more reason to think science can determine human values today than there was at the time of Haeckel or Huxley. None of the divergent values that atheists have from time to time promoted has any essential connection with atheism, or with science. How could any increase in scientific knowledge validate values such as human equality and personal autonomy? The source of these values is not science. In fact, as the most widely-read atheist thinker of all time [Nietzsche] argued, these quintessential liberal values have their origins in monotheism." "The reason Nietzsche has been excluded from the mainstream of contemporary atheist thinking is that he exposed the problem atheism has with morality. It’s not that atheists can’t be moral – the subject of so many mawkish debates. The question is which morality an atheis...

Capitalism

Some of this reminds me of how five or six years ago in a class of seven students in a UK elite university three of them (two Germans and one British) were in favour of a "benevolent dictator" (in the Arab context). The bloody horrors of Pinochet showed how capitalism will react when it's threatened

Europe's Refugee Camps

"Just three and a half years after the signing of the refugee deal, these camps have become symbols of Europe's failure to protect those who knocked on its door for help. These camps, with Moria chief among them, are now places where already traumatised people are stripped off their dignity." The invisible violence of Europe's refugees camps
"A second position argues against transition, which is transitology itself. It is well known—especially among economists—as the sudden mobilization of a considerable mass of experts who are generally foreigners,generally Western, who come to preach the good word and to propose ready-made models of democracy. The science of the transition has become a financial windfall, a market. And the word transition has of course become a reflex of language, a term of reference, a call for tenders ( appel d’offres ) to which the whole society was supposed to respond.  Consequently, the reticence that one can express is the following: our history is framed, transition is a heteronomy. Every democratic revolution is henceforth supposed to take a unique, imposed path, which is, at the same time, indistinctly democratic and liberal (or neoliberal). A more or less non-“negotiable” package.  It is necessary to highlight the imposed character (and imposed from the outside) of this coming to t...

London

 When you own a country, you do with its wealth whatever you want while your brothers and sisters (Arabs and Muslims) from Lebanon’s “failed state” to Syrian refugees are suffering. You also stretch your arms to help reshape the geo-strategical board of the MENA region. You get support from the heart of “free market democracies” interested in selling you properties and weapons, and they protect you. An Arab revolution that does not spread to overthrow those rotten pigs and employ the Gulf resources for the majority of Arabs, cannot be called a revolution. Sheikh Khalifa’s £5bn London property empire