‘A group of Caribbean’s arriv[ing] unannounced on a boat’ is how Samuel Kasumu, social entrepreneur and political commentator, summarises the Black presence in Britain and the beginning of the immigration debate in the UK. In a poorly written article series titled ‘The Origins of Race Policy‘ Kasumu presents a counterfeit history showing no evidence of research above the level of hearsay. His work is careless, dubious and makes a mockery of the legacy of race relations in this country.
After a rather arbitrary breakdown of the demography of the UK in series one Kasumu turns his attention to the ‘so called Empire Windrush’. In his derision and emphasis that this was ‘an event that happened on one day’ he fails to show any critical awareness of this being the beginning of post war mass migration.
Kasumu distastefully plays to the stereotype of Britain being swamped by ‘Blacks on a boat’, crediting the then Prime Minister Clement Attlee with having called it an invasion. If he had any comprehension at all of the history of the The Windrush he would not imagine that Caribbean’s apprehended this boat from their resting place on a beach, with an impromptu decision to sail to Britain. He would know that the ship was the property of British armed forces, transporting Caribbean ex-servicemen and other skilled workers (granted British citizenship in the 1948 Nationality Act), who had responded to the invitations for work in the post war reconstruction period – effectively an act of recruitment. It was hardly unannounced.
What Kasumu has presented as a reflection on race policy is a short sighted caricature of Black British history which is subject to the trappings of uncritical race relations work: where is the close analysis of Britain’s Caucasian population? Or is this another project on the Black and ethnic minority ‘others’? It was an easy mistake to make considering he erased the eighteenth century when he suggested ‘there was no appetite to publicly differentiate any racial groups’ prior to 1945. He clearly has no knowledge of European history, specifically the Enlightenment Period where we find some of the earliest ideas on race. It was at this time that Arthur De Gobineau began to differentiate between ‘races’ and is credited with modern day racial demography. He developed the theory of the Aryan master race and often referred to ‘negroes’ as the lowest race in the world. I presented a condensed explanation of the conceptual development of race for Ceasefire Magazine which Kasumu is most welcome to read. There is of course Social Darwinism, eugenics, The French Revolution 1789 all of which are critical to an understanding of the history of race. I would recommend Kenan Malik’s The Meaning of Race to any beginner in its historical and political roots.
How could Kasumu attempt to write a history of race policy without understanding the development of the theory of race and its contingent relationship with slavery and colonialism under the British empire? It makes him unqualified – and quite frankly unable – to interpret the relationship between Britain and its colonies as the determinant for present day cross racial interactions.
After the dismissal of two centuries of history Kasumu drafts a chronology of race policy which is a complete train wreck of ideas:
No, it is not adequate to cite Enoch Powell’s ‘River of Blood’ speech in 1968 as the reason for Conservative election victory in 1970 because it preceded that vote. It is a simple principle in the discipline of history that sequence does not resolve cause.
No, the 1971 Immigration Act was not ‘the first time there was officially policy designed to limit immigration’. There was the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, and a second in 1968; both of which are recognised by scholars as laws devised principally to prevent non-white immigration into Britain.
No, the 1940s and 50s did not see an influx of ‘wealthy, highly educated Asian’s, who would go on to own many small businesses and take on highly respectable professions’. Stereotype much? South Asian immigration to Britain during this period was primarily by manual workers who – like their Caribbean counterparts – did the jobs white workers did not want: the unskilled jobs with poor conditions, low wages and unsociable hours, sharing decrepit living conditions. I suggest Peter Fryer’s Staying Power for a comprehensive history of Black people in Britain.
No, Samuel Kasumu cannot write such a ghastly piece of propaganda and expect to retain credibility. It is true, race policy [is] quite complex’ and there are resources available to help us make sense of it, but Kasumu’s article is not one of them. If indeed part three of his series will assess the legacy of the Stephen Lawrence case then may this come as a severe caution against any further presumptuous, cavalier or disreputable work he is planning.
Nichole Black.