The Next Step - tonythomas.org

I got a new blog home, dedicated to my conversations about British politics and the Commonwealth and more. Check me out - http://tonythomas.org/

Commonwealth Free Trade Zone, Adam Smith and the Patriotism of Ideas

The Commonwealth Free Trade Zone is inspired by the ideals of the father of classical economics Adam Smith. Adam Smith is one of Britain's greatest thinkers of all time. In 1776, he published The Wealth of Nations, a book that would transform economic theory and set the foundation for the greatest increase in wealth in human history.

Until the Wealth of Nations was published, most believed that wealth was fixed. Wealth was measured by how much land, gold or silver that a nation possessed. This understanding of wealth meant that in order for a nation to become more wealthier, they had to invade another nation and steal the land, gold and the silver. Hence, there are many stories through modern history of nations plundering other nations and/or gaining a colony; imagining that it was the only way to secure wealth for a nation. This economic system was called "mercantilism". The British Empire and all colonial empires were built on the idea of "mercantilism". 

Mercantilism arose in the 16th Century as Britain and other European nations were becoming colonial powers. Mercantilism was the dominant economic policy of the British Empire. The policy was fundamentally about bolstering the state power of the colonial empire at the expense of their competitors through trade and founding colonies. This meant that the colonial empires were constantly at war with each other in order to gain the upper hand and acquire as much land, gold and silver as possible to secure their survival and the standard of living of the wealthy. As Britain's colonial expansion grew, so did the idea of mercantilism. Mercantilism sought to protect the national economy of Britain by putting up high trade barriers or banning the imports of goods from other empires or nations. It was a form of economic warfare to gain monopolies on trade. Mercantilism policies authorised, that the colonies of the British Empire could not trade with other nations and that the colonies had to buy the finished goods produced in Britain, rather than finished goods from the colonies. The colonies were made to sell all of their surplus agricultural products to chartered British companies at the lowest prices and were taxed heavily. The colonies were essentially dumping grounds for British products and factories for the raw materials needed to create the finished consumer goods that would be sold back to the inhabitants of the colonies and the British Empire.

Mercantilism, is the economic environment that produced the slave trade and colonialism. Chartered companies were created to run the colonies in the name of the British Empire. The companies became a way for the State to bestow favours upon powerful individuals in return for patronage. These companies became increasingly powerful, having their own armies and coats of arms and managed the colonies as if they were a government. A corporate government. They would govern the colonies in the name of the British Empire and share the profits of the colonies with the State through taxation. 

The colonies were heavily taxed and difficult to run. Those that ran the chartered companies wanted to create wealth through trade but the heavy taxation and difficulties in finding cheap labour to produce raw materials made it difficult to make as much profit as they wanted. In order for the companies to run they had to seek the cheapest labour they could find in order to make a profit. They were not profitable in the way that productive companies are today and could not afford to pay good wages, so they enlisted slaves or serfs to do the labour. Those few who led the chartered companies got rich, but the companies themselves were not as profitable as they could have been. The chartered companies backed by the state were always at war with other nations that were seeking to trade with the colony, other colonial empires, the indigenous or the slaves of the colony. 

It is the trading policies of mercantilism, amongst other things that could be said to have led to the American Revolution and the birth of the United States. America was once one of Britain's colonies. When chartered companies were in financial difficulties and becoming more difficult to maintain, the British government stepped in to bail out one of its chartered companies, the East India Company. It gave the company exclusive access to America's team market at a tax rate lower than the tax rate of local tea produced in the America's. This was fundamentally a way to "dump" the tea grown by the Chartered companies, onto the America's and to monopolise the trade, impoverishing the people of the colony, whose locally produced tea now was struggling to sell in the colony because it had to include a bigger tax rate that made it more expensive. When the chartered company of the British Empire docked to unload the tea on the colony, the American traders responded with anger and threw the empire tea into the sea so that it could not be sold in America and the colony would maintain the dominance in the colonial market.

Adam Smith's big idea was that, the wealth of a nation was not fixed and that nations had the capacity to grow in wealth to an unlimited capacity. He argued that it was not gold, silver or land where wealth came from but from the productivity of the people. The productivity of the people was not simply about production but about trade. Trade created value, trade therefore creates wealth. For Adam Smith the way to acquire wealth was not through looting the gold, silver and land of other nations or creating colonies where empires can "dump" products on the settlers or the indigenous inhabitants. The way to increase wealth was to increase trade. Increasing trade would lead to increased production and this would bring better quality and a wider variety of goods to society on the whole and increase the wealth of nations. 

Adam Smith thought that Britain should have kept on friendly terms with America, prior to the revolution, by introducing a system of free trade and free movement. He argued that there were serious issues with mercantilism and that wealth was being extracted from the colonies but no wealth was going back to the colonies from the State. Adam Smith thought that taking control of colonies by monopolising trade through chartered companies such as the East India Company was a recipe for disaster. Mercantilism sought to enrich one nation at the expense of another and bought about a constant environment of tension and warfare between the British Empire, other colonial powers, the colonised and the settlers. Smith argued that the way to peace and prosperity was to have free and open trade between all nations. He did not believe that nations should protect their trade. He did not believe nations should put up trade barriers against goods from other nations or the colonies but believed that nations should limit the barriers to trade in order for global wealth to increase and thus provide a better standard of living for the world's citizens.

Smith was against protecting national industries or national production, where there were other nations that were able to produce the goods with better quality, at a cheaper rate because of specialisation in a particular area or some other productive advantage. Adam Smith was not interested in economic nationalism like the sought that we hear today in immigration debates and Labour politics. Smith did not seek to protect British industry but to allow British industries to be replaced by the industry of other nations if they were able to produce better quality or more quantity at a cheaper rate. Smith was fundamentally defending not those who controlled the means of production but the consumer, the people and the consumers rights to have good quality, reasonably priced consumer goods from anywhere in the world.

Today, the principles of free-trade have been adopted in part by Western and non Western nations but only in part. Although, it is the common belief that we live in a free-market economy, it is not the truth. The world is still run for the most part on the economics of mercantilism and not free-trade. There are still forms of economic nationalism at work in the world today. There is an organised movement that fights to keep industries in the nation alive, even if the industry has to be heavily subsidised by the state to compete. There are demands for "British jobs for British workers" and the narrative is generally that jobs in the Western world have gone abroad. 

The EU and the US put up protective barriers through tariffs to discourage business from importing produce and goods from other nations where it may be produced more cheaply and at better quality. The farmers in the EU and the US are heavily subsidised and given unfair advantages over the developing nations in order to keep the developing nations less competitive. This comes at the expense of the tax-payer and the consumer who contributes to both the subsidising of national business and the purchasing of overpriced goods. The common populist story is that free-trade damages developed nations but the non-populist reality is that free-trade increases peace and prosperity in the world. Although free-trade agreements are considered by many on the left to be the epitome of evil and the cause of all the ills of the world, it is not free-trade that is causing the issues of the poor or those in developing nations but the fact that the alleged free-trade deals that exist are not absolutely free but are buffered by economic nationalism or mercantilism that creates beggar my neighbour and colonial policies, that further the trade of developed nations by subsidising the producers of developed nations to create produce and goods in order to export into developing economies, in order to gain domination of their markets and impoverish the citizens. In turn developed nations raise trade barriers through tariffs that make it more difficult for developing nations to export to the developed nation. Instead of sharing knowledge many of the alleged free-trade agreements are not free-trade and restrict the production of say cheaper pharmaceutical drugs in developed countries.

It is not free-trade but the lack of free-trade that is the problem. The idea of opening markets in part to global trade has seen the growth of the global economy and the human population like never before. A fully fledged free-trade zone in the Commonwealth could bring more prosperity to us and our friends. Many of my fellow black academics are inspired by Marx. I believe that a well-read Marxist should know that the ideal that they champion also depends on the expansion of free-trade across the globe.

The Commonwealth Free Trade Zone seeks to bring the former colonies of the British Empire, that are now free participants in the Commonwealth into a new union of free-trade that will bring peace and prosperity to all. The Commonwealth Free Trade Zone is inspired by the noble ideals of a British icon, Adam Smith. It is both a patriotic, internationalist and humanistic vision of society. Led by British ideals of the free-market and rooted in relationships that form a big part of British history and the history of the nations that share our Head of State Queen Elizabeth II.

The Commonwealth Free Trade Zone rejects the immature nationalism of many that voted brexit and seeks to engender a more mature patriotism, a patriotism of ideas. The Commonwealth Free Trade Zone is deeply connected to the ideals of Queen Elizabeth II, the quintessential symbol of "Britishness" and Adam Smith, one of Britain's greatest intellectual icons. It is to seeking to connect the Commonwealth Realms that share our Head of State and our friends across the wider Commonwealth in a partnership of prosperity in the spirit of HRH with Smith's economic ideals. It is seeking to build on relationships with people across the world, that were considered British citizens until 1962 and to be our kith and kin by many up until Britain's entrance into the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973.

Unlike those that spout the philosophy of Hayek and Marx, both who are not British. And unlike those that are secretly French revolutionaries and want to discredit the Monarchy, the Commonwealth Free Trade Zone is thoroughly British in its philosophical roots and heritage but also thoroughly internationalist and humanitarian in its goals. The Commonwealth Free Trade Zone is the best of what Britain can be. Now is the time for a new patriotism, a patriotism of ideas. 

God Save the Queen! God Save Britannia! God Save the Commonwealth!



  

Commonwealth Free Trade Zone, Decolonisation and the United States of Africa

"For Europe, for ourselves, and for humanity, comrades, we must turn over a new leaf, we must work out new concepts, and try to set afoot a new man" Franz Fanon

The Commonwealth Free Trade Zone is a decolonisation project in the spirit of Franz Fanon. It is an attempt to "turn over a new leaf, work out new concepts and to try to set afoot a new man", out of the ashes of the British Empire. As an advocate of the Commonwealth Free Trade Zone, I believe, like Franz Fanon, that decolonisation is not simply the process of political independence but that, "decolonisation is the veritable creation of new men." The Commonwealth Free Trade Zone seeks to create a new post-colonial identity and political framework out of the relationships that were created through the expansion of the British Empire in Africa, the Caribbean, India and beyond. An identity that liberates, both the coloniser and colonised from the binary of the Manichean dichotomy of the colonial mind. A post-colonial mindset that no longer imagines black inferiority or white superiority and erases the last psychological remnants of the colonial relationship between the coloniser and the colonised; freeing both the coloniser and the colonised from "race" nationalism and wanton violence, to pursue humanitarian ideals together. 

In Fanon's theory of decolonisation; decolonisation is a process of psychological transformation that develops in phases. The first phase, is a phase of recognition of the status quo, where the colonised begin to understand and resent the colonial context. During this stage, the colonised may want to understand and embrace their ancestral identity and become interested in black history and identify the fundamental difference of skin colour as the foundation of their identity. They begin to confront the reality of how the colour of their skin excludes them from the life of the colonialist and develop a racial awareness. During this phase, the colonised may embrace black nationalist and African-centred thought, that centres their racial identity and recognises the coloniser as their antithesis. The second phase, involves direct struggle with the antithetical colonialist settler, with the sole aim of forcing the end of colonial rule. During this second phase, the colonised identify the white colonialist as the direct enemy and seek to use violence or force to rid their nation of colonial rule. At this point, the concept of "race", is the defining factor and those that do not share the "race" of the colonised are targeted as colonialists without even a tinge of a grey area. In the third stage, arises a synthesis of the two worlds, where the colonised and the coloniser look in the mirror as a free men and women. In this third phase, the colonised and the coloniser seek to free themselves from the racial dichotomy that developed during the era of colonialism and seek to rethink the world anew and undergo a radical psychological transformation. Decolonisation is not simply a process of a nation gaining political independence but a process of transforming the psychology of the coloniser and the colonised towards creating a new and inclusive humanity. As Fanon writes,

" This huge task which consists of reintroducing mankind into the world, the whole of Mankind, will be carried out with the indispensable help of the European people"

As an advocate for the Commonwealth Free Trade Zone, like Fanon, I reject the ideals of Pan-Africanism and regional blocs, such as the African Union. As well as, the concept of Black Nationalism. At this moment in time, I do not consider these ideals as viable political, economic, trade or defence policies for African or Caribbean states. I believe that the creation of an African superstate, the United States of Africa, would not make a vast impact on the world order in the way that many Pan-African and Black Nationalist ideologues claim. The collective developing economies of Africa and the Caribbean would still not be a global ranking economic force. It's economy would still be considerably smaller than the US, China, Russia and the EU. If Africa seeks protectionism and regionalism like the European Union, then other states and regions will also follow suit and African and Caribbean nations may not get access to tariff-free global markets which will only further impoverish their citizens. The United States of Africa would not be a military force of global merit and would find itself in conflict with international law and a heavily armed "international community", if it sought to pursue a nuclear agenda. The state of the collective African and Caribbean economies indicates, that they will not possess a nuclear deterrent anytime soon and there are only a handful of nations in Africa with the capacity, albeit very limited, to manufacture arms.

Africa and the Caribbean, has been shaped in the present by its relationship with outsiders. The relationship with outsiders has defined the direction of modern Africa and the identity of African states. Africa, like Europe has vast linguistic and cultural differences, it is not a civilisation but a collection of disparate and often disconnected civilisations that share a continent. African states, like EU states, have vastly different resources and self-interests and this is amplified by the economic and military vulnerability of the states which makes compromising and consensus building difficult, and progress slow and bureaucratic. There are also allegiances to different cultural formations from around the world that have come from past relationships. There is an Arabic, Anglophone, Francophone, and Amharan Africa, for example. 

The Commonwealth Free Trade Zone is not an idealist or Utopian project. It firmly recognises that the present is shaped by history and that change can only be made within the conditions that exist. There is no way to erase the past and the conditions laid by the past dictate what we can become in the present. The Commonwealth Free Trade Zone starts from the premise of responding to the world as it is, rather than the world as it should be. 

The Commonwealth Free Trade Zone, will open up markets for African and Caribbean nations of the Commonwealth to trade with other African Commonwealth nations and across the wider Commonwealth. In a system of free trade, free from protectionist tariffs, Africa and the Caribbean can grow economically. As part of the Commonwealth Free Trade Zone, smaller and developing nations in particular will be protected by the Commonwealth army led by experienced forces of developed Commonwealth nations. A shared Customs Union would make the transportation of goods much more efficient. African nations of the Commonwealth would receive technical expertise, aid, training and support from developed Commonwealth nations that would in turn create a middle class that could in return purchase products made in African Commonwealth nations and the wider Commonwealth Free Trade Zone nations such as Britain. Those members of the Commonwealth that fit the criteria for full membership of the trading zone, will have the freedom of movement to travel across the Commonwealth Realms and perhaps, the wider Commonwealth, gaining access to employment and sending money back home to support their families and the growth of their economies. Those nations who do not fit the criteria will be supported by Commonwealth nations to increase the capacity for membership.

I believe that the nations of the former British Empire are stronger together than apart, and that identity is not solely shaped by "race" but by language, shared history and political culture. Those nations that share a language, history and political culture through the British Empire must now come together in friendship, seeking ties beyond their geographical neighbours and joining in arms with their fellow citizens of the Commonwealth in the making of a New World Order.

God Save Africa! God Save the Commonwealth! God Save the Queen!

From Empire, to the Commonwealth, to the EU: How Did We Get Here? Where Now?

At the same time as the birth of the institutions that would lay the foundations of the European Union were born, there was also another set of ideas on the table in regard to the Commonwealth. The new Commonwealth was an organisation that grew out of the collection of nations that were once part of the British Empire. Today, the Commonwealth consists of 52 nations, many of whom are developing and most of whom are former British colonies. In this short essay, I will look at some of the ideas that may initially influenced the concept of the Commonwealth Free Trade Zone and look at the journey, from British Empire to Commonwealth to membership of the EU. I will look at the idea of the Imperial Federation and how the Commonwealth differs, I will look at the concept of "Imperial Preference" in trading and the economic zone, the "Sterling Area".

The ideals of the Commonwealth were inspired by the ideas of the Imperial Federation but took a much more egalitarian and inclusive approach to unification of the nations that were once part of the British Empire. Though, I disagree with the ideals of the Imperial Federation. I acknowledge it as something that we should understand in order to gain clarity about what the Commonwealth Free Trade Zone could be, an egalitarian movement for mutual prosperity and what it should not be, a reformation of British exploitation of the world.

The Imperial Federation was a popular ideal in Britain up until the breakout of WWI. The ideal of the Imperial Federation attempted to bring all colonies of the British Empire into a federation of states something like the US. Much of the idea was driven by the imperialist tendencies of the British Empire. At the heart of the notion of the Imperial Federation was an idea of British race nationalism that attempted to link the dominions together as a collection of "white colony's". The ideals of the Imperial Federation became increasing popular until in the late 18th and beginning of the 19th Century they were adopted by then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Joseph Chamberlain. Chamberlain believed in the centralisation of the armed forces of the various dominions of the British Empire and argued for a Customs Union and preferential trading between Dominions of the British Empire. At the time the scheme was abandoned as it was thought that it would, rightly so, interfere in the independence of the Dominions.

In 1932, the scheme for "Imperial preference" in regard to trading in the British Empire was adopted and the policy held until the beginning of WWII in 1939. In 1937, the policy of an "Imperial Federation" was again given serious attention by the British Government but was rejected by the Imperial Conference because of it's Imperialist nature that seem to interfere in aforementioned self-governance of the Dominions.

The Imperial Federation can be seen as the first attempt at developing Commonwealth economic relations. Today, the Imperial Federation would be rightly, rejected too but the concept of the Imperial Federation offers a precedent of trying to improve economic relations between what have become known as Commonwealth nations.

In 1931, quite a while before the concept of the Eurozone, what was known as the "Sterling Area" began to develop. The pound sterling was responsible for more than 60% of global trade at the time and was the world's most important currency and the City of London, the dominant financial centre. Nations pegged their local currency at a fixed rate to the pound sterling. The collection of nations that pegged their local currencies against the pound sterling became known as the "Sterling Area". In 1935 the economic zone was made official through legislation and became officially known as the Scheduled Territories but remained referred to as the "Sterling Area" by many. Some of the main participants in the "Sterling Area" included Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. At the time, more than 70 countries were pegging their local currencies against the pound sterling. Canada, though part of the Dominions pegged its local currency against the US dollar but created economic policies that were friendly to the pound sterling and became known as "Sterling Area Friendly".

In 1945, the Sterling Area was the largest currency bloc in the world, but WWII had severely weakened the British Empire. WWII had caused Britain to go into debt to the US to fight the cause. In the Post-war period Britain, depended on US financing to rebuild Britain after much of it was destroyed in the war. It was at this point that the Dominions and fundamentally the world began to look to the US as the new global power and nations began to look at the US dollar as the currency of global trade. The "Sterling Area" continued to exist up until 1979 but was not the same as it had been before. By 1972, the British Empire had been knocked off its perch and was a struggling former global power, without a global empire. Most of the nations had, rightly so, gained independence and Britain was looking for places to turn for economic safety and prosperity. Britain's search for economic safety began in 1963, when it first made it's application to the European Economic Community (EEC). An application that was turned down by French leader Charles De Gaulle. After the resignation of De Gaulle, Britain finally became members of the EEC in 1973.

But before becoming a member of the EEC there were a considerable number of issues that needed to be cleared up about Britain's relationship to the Commonwealth. In 1972 Britain introduced exchange controls into the "Sterling Area" which caused many to leave the economic area. France were uncomfortable about Britain's relationship with the Commonwealth, and perhaps wary of the potential of the Commonwealth to become a force, more powerful than the British Empire, where the former colonies were not forced participants but willing partners. In the end, the "Sterling Area" was phased out in 1979. Today France still has a "Franc Zone", where its former colonies use the French franc as currency or peg local currencies against it, however Britain and the Commonwealth nations do not have such an economic zone.

In 1973, when Britain joined the EEC, it was a decision not only to present Britain falsely as part of the European Community but to turn away from building relationships with Commonwealth nations. Though, it was partly an economic decision, it was also a decision driven by a Pan-European ideology. An ideology that sought to reject the relationships that were being newly developed around the world with the former colonies of the British Empire and to throw Britain's lot in with Europe.

Today, in the aftermath of the brexit vote, it is time to take a serious look at Britain and the Commonwealth's economic and trading history and examine new ways to build on the old relationships in a new paradigm, where we are partners with the former colonies and not imperialists. There is a precedent in the past for imagining, in part at least, what could be done today. There are definite issues around the way ideas such as the Imperial Federation and Imperial Preference and the Sterling Area were implemented and how they operated. There is a tinge of the old British racist and colonial attitude, but there is also food for thought about how to imagine our world, post-brexit.

Whilst the mainstream pontificate over the EU negotiations, I believe that we must look to Britain and world history and take on a more audacious project of building a Commonwealth Free Trade Zone that will bring prosperity not only to Britain but our friends in the Commonwealth across the world. Whilst the EU negotiations are important, now is the time to imagine a more audacious project than the EU that connects with our past and offers us a chance to make amends for Britain's colonial past by bringing prosperity to our kith and kin in the Commonwealth. A post-racial network of our friends and allies who share a history with us as part of the British Empire. Together, we can and must become a new Empire of the Commonwealth, not as subjects but as friends, in the birth of a New World Order, like no other.

God Save the Queen! God Save the Commonwealth! God Save Britannia!

The Empire Strikes Back: Out of the Ashes of Empire, A New World Order.

The British Empire once dominated most of the planet. The empire was so big that it was an Empire where the sun never set. The British Empire bought together a diverse array of hues, origins and backgrounds as one force, often through force, and is much of the reason that the British Isles is a multi-racial land today and why it was not conquered by fascism. If we look around us, many of the people of colour are descendants from different outposts of the empire. Their families were once citizens of the British Empire. Many of their families arrived in Britain, prior to 1962, as Commonwealth Citizens. They are not descendants of illegal immigrants but people that arrived in Britain as British subjects (just like white Britain), after the passing of the British Nationality Act in 1948. An act that is symbolised by the arrival of West-Indians on the Windrush, in the same year. That Britain is multi-coloured and diverse today, is a testimony to Britain's swaggering past greatness that gave it the name Great Britain.

We need to have a frank discussion about the British Empire, race and identity and where we go from here. Conversations about the British Empire are difficult conversations to have. For some the British Empire is something to be proud of, for others it brings feelings of shame and for some others feelings of defeat. But love it or loathe it, the British Empire transformed our world beyond recognition. As the biggest empire in human history, the British Empire had an impact on two-thirds of the planet and shaped who Britain's are today. For me, understanding modern British identity must begin with understanding and accepting the empire as the starting place in understanding who we are today. Moving forward into the future, means, tackling the issue of empire and creating a new inclusive political story, rooted in how the empire shaped Britain and the world and what we do with what we have inherited? Today, I am proposing a new global, post-racial understanding of Britain and the birth of a new Commonwealth Empire out of the ashes of the British Empire, that are the Commonwealth Realms. I am being open about the series of tragic and horrific events that led to the birth of the colonies but also accepting the possibilities that the events now offer us and the deep connections between the former colonial subjects that the British Empire fostered.

I am a descendant of slaves from Britain's slave plantations in the West-Indies. The West-Indies were set up as slave colony's where slaves produced sugar in the 1500's. At first the islands were occupied by indigenous native Indians but they were destroyed by war and the spread of European diseases. The islands were then populated by African slaves, who had been transported from Africa and African slave descendants who were now indigenous to the West-Indies. African slaves were anglicised; they were made culturally and linguistically English; given Christian names and their bloodlines were mixed. During this period they were not considered human beings but were bred like cattle to develop characteristics like strength. Over a period of 500 years they were totally transformed. Slavery ended in the 1800's and the slaves of the West-Indies became colonial subjects of the British Empire. By the 1960's when the West-Indies were made independent; they could not point to a place outside of the British Empire where they belonged. They could not return to the culture's, language's and lands that were part of the way of life of their African ancestors. It had been forgotten and though they shared skin colour with the people of Africa, they were unsure about their specific, linguistic and cultural heritages. Even in our independence, we were so connected to the idea of the British Empire that we chose to keep the British Crown as the Head of State. Over a 500 year period we had become deeply and irreversibly intertwined with "Britishness" and the "Anglosphere". But with the collapse of the British Empire there was no longer a powerful mother country that the islands were connected to. The economies of the Islands had been dependent on the relationships that the British Empire had participated in. Without the British Empire, the islands became sleepy towns with minimal scope for economic growth and without an economic centre to depend on. 

In 1788, British fleets arrived in Australia carrying thousands of convicts and claimed Australia as the property of the British Crown. The convicts were a mixture of men and women. Many of the convicts were Irish, the others were poor elements of British society, both were chaperoned by British soldiers. Australia would become a penal colony where the British Empire would send all its dissidents and criminals. Later, the continent would be further populated by British settlers looking for opportunity or missionaries seeking to convert the indigenous people. On arrival in Australia, confronted with hostility from Aboriginal tribes, the convicts, settlers and soldiers engaged in warfare with the Aboriginal peoples; sometimes carrying out massacres. Large swathes of the Aboriginal population were pushed off their indigenous homelands into reserves and missions and the mass part of the population were wiped out by European illnesses such as influenza, smallpox and measles. Many Aborigines were forcibly anglicised just like the African slaves of the West-Indies and made part of the British Empire. The convicts were given the task of building the colony and engaged in hard labour. As the penal colony grew and many convicts completed their sentences, that were mostly 7 or 14 year sentences, the ex-convicts now began to populate small towns and the colony began to develop as a nation. Like, the African slaves of the West-Indies, the convicts that had arrived in Australia in 1788 were totally transformed. They were no longer the Irish or Britons that they once were but had become something new. The Aboriginal people were also transformed and struggled to fit back into their traditional ways of life. Their bloodlines were also mixed and their way of life had become a relic of the past in the midst of Western modernity. In 1901, Australia gained independence, the Australian Commonwealth was born and Australia became a nation. But, in its transformation from colony to independent nation, Australia continued to hold the British Monarch as its Head of State. Despite the history of transportation.

And there is Canada. The land that once belonged to Native Indians that Britain colonised after defeating the French army in 1763, pushing First Nation Aboriginal people's off their lands. First Nation peoples were forced to hunt beavers and to produce beaver hats for the European markets. The indigenous culture was replaced by the legal system of the British Isles and Christianity. Land was given to Aristocrats on which the indigenous people would become serfs, producing crops for the landlords in exchange for a share of the crops and somewhere to live. The indigenous culture was mocked and many were coerced to adopt Christianity and ideals of European femininity. Many indigenous people were also wiped out by the same diseases that wiped out large swathes of the Aboriginal people's in Australia and the West Indies. The colonisation of Canada was not as brutal as that of Australia or the slavery of the West-Indies. There were agreements between the people of the First Nation and the British Empire but the empire was no less domineering in its superiority. As new settlers arrived, British subjects that were adventurers and entrepreneurs soon began to outnumber the indigenous people. In 1867 when the Federation of Canada was born, the colonial subjects chose to remain as part of the British Empire. Today, like Australia and the West Indies, the former colony shares a Head of State with the United Kingdom. Up until 1965, it's flag consisted of a Union Jack on a red background. Canada, today with 150 years of parliamentary independence is still deeply connected with Britain and cannot escape its past as part of the British Empire. Although Canada is the size of half a continent its population, the descendants of largely British settlers, is still less than the population of the small British Isles.

In independence, and then later, the end of a thriving British Empire, the colonies that shared our Head of State struggled to fit into the world as economic and military powers. After WWII, where all the Commonwealth Realms fought as one, the British Empire was severely weakened and was replaced by the US as the protector and defender of the Commonwealth Realms. Those in Australia and Canada were small vulnerable populations much smaller than the population of the UK, on gigantic pieces of land much bigger than the British Isles. Those in the West-Indies were inhabitants of very small islands, some of the most beautiful islands in the world, with an economy that struggled to exist in a post-colonial world and an identity that disconnected them from anything but the British Empire. For all three regions; the British Isles were the cultural mother country and they were inexplicably connected to the notion of the British Empire, without whom they would not have existed. Their commitment to the ideal of the British Empire has been made apparent by their desire to keep Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State.

Up until the 1970's there was still public recognition of the historical relationship between the Crown and the former colonies that were now referred to as the Commonwealth Realms. But after Britain's entrance into the European community in 1973 relationships between the now independent colonies changed, as Britain sought European protectionism and ended freedom of movement for Commonwealth citizens. In the midst of our betrayal of those that were historically connected to us, the former colonies continued to have the British Crown as its Head of State signalling a tacit desire for political togetherness and recognition that perhaps Britain would come to its senses.

In an era of colonial expansion of the British Empire, the British civilisation was transported around the world. Whole people's were wiped out through horrific violence and the spread of viruses; new peoples were born and Britain became a global culture that occupied continents. Many of the left want to fight with the ghosts of the past, churning out literature on the evils of the British Empire and the lack of moral fortitude in the actions of Britain's ancestors. Pride in the British Empire has been considered an evil. To even recognise the connections that the British Empire formed and the opportunities that it created for a new world order now, is imagined as a great act of racism. Britain and the former colonies are wrestling with left-wing guilt ridden ideology and identity politics, whilst ignoring the fact that we cannot change the past and must begin to imagine what we can do with what we have inherited as part of our civilisation across the world. 

Most of this stuff happened before we were born. Off course, it can be discomforting but it cannot be a barrier to building on opportunities that have been bequeathed to us. I am one of the descendants of the West-Indian slave plantations. I am one of those whose lineage was anglicised through brute force and transported across the globe but it is not something that I could ever change. The people that now populate Australia were imprisoned and taken across the world from the British Isles for slave labour. Most female prisoners were forced into prostitution and rebellion was brutally put down. The people that occupied the continent were brutally slaughtered and anglicised just as those of my lineage. There is no apology that could change the facts about that or who I am today. Those that committed the crimes no longer exist and those that were victims of the crimes do not exist. It is not really our issue. It is not something that Britain can apologise for, it is not something that we can change. We can take the traditional left-wing stance and condemn the actions of our British forefathers but that does not change the situation now. The opportunity before us now is to repopulate continents and create a new expression of the British Empire. A new post-racial, global expression of the British civilisation, rooted in our shared modern values of a liberal society. Now we can create a New World Order without the blood of Britain's ancestors on our hand. We will not be responsible for mass massacre or genocide but for bringing life where there is emptiness. The bible teaches us to go forward and multiply. It is our destiny to give life to these new worlds. 

World history has been a story of the rise and fall of empires, but out of the ashes of empires come new people and new empires and new civilisations. Out of the ashes of the British Empire, how do we go forward together as a collective of former colonies and a former coloniser? How do we exploit the historical actions that have given us our world today, in a way that makes amends for the past and continues our quest for Utopia? Out of the legacy of the transportation of a civilisation across the globe, that brought mass genocide, slavery and forced anglicisation, how do we create a new liberal paradise? How do we create a political story of a new and renewed empire between us, in these continents and amongst the diverse people that are now part of our civilisation through the wider Commonwealth?

God Save the Queen! God Save Britannia!

The Commonwealth Free Trade Zone: Defence and Security in a Post-brexit World

In 1939 the many nations of the British Empire and the Commonwealth Realms gathered together in an array of hues and backgrounds to protect the world from tyranny and fascism. In 1945, the multi-racial army, consisting of members from across 5 continents, successfully overcame the forces of darkness and declared victory over one of the world's most brutal forces Nazism and Fascism. In those days it was understood that the Commonwealth Realms and the British Empire were connected in defence and security. There were posters that depicted the multi-racial and trans-global nature of the then, British Commonwealth and called upon the many citizens of the empire to stand and fight for the values that we today hold so dear. Soldiers from India and the West-Indies and Africa and beyond fought side by side with the people of the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. Long before Obama spoke of post-racial politics, Britain was already putting together a multi-racial force that could defend the world. Without the international community of the Commonwealth Realms and the British Empire, the United Kingdom would not have been able to win the battle of its life against a crazed lunatic who dreamed of uniting the disparate people of Europe into a single empire (sound familiar?). If not for the international community it is very likely that today the British population would have been part of the Third Reich and speaking German. 

As we reflect on Remembrance Sunday, on all the many soldiers that died on the battlefield in a war that encompassed all of the planet. We must also reflect on the gaping hole that now exist in Geo-politics. The once mighty, multi-racial army of the Commonwealth Realms and the British Empire no longer exists in the capacity that it did before. Many nations that were part of the British Empire and the Commonwealth Realms are now independent nations. Relations between the Commonwealth Realms and the Commonwealth movement have been given less attention in the last 40 years in favour of relations with the EU and Commonwealth Day is rarely mentioned as an important day of celebration across the Commonwealth. Today, the awareness of the Commonwealth and those relationships that were so important to Britain during WWI and WWII are not given much attention by politicians, the media and the public.

Although Queen Elizabeth II is a hugely popular figure in Britain, not much attention is given to her significance beyond being a glamorous, symbolic Head of State. We rarely speak about her as the unifying figure that she is, between Britain and its past and those nations of the Commonwealth that were once part of the British Empire. On Remembrance Sunday, you get a glimpse into the fact that, soldiers from across the Commonwealth still continue to fight in defence of their figurehead Queen Elizabeth II. Thinking about the many soldiers that risked and lost their life in defence of freedom, forces you to have to reconsider how we look at Britain today, to whom it owes its allegiance and whom are its natural allies.

In the short aftermath after much of the British Empire has been dissolved many of the former colonies and the United Kingdom find themselves adrift in a dangerous world. Today, in the light of the brexit vote and comments from US President-Elect Donald Trump, regarding NATO and a turn towards US protectionism and isolationism, we are now wondering where we would turn to provide our own and the world's security if, God forbid, such an occurrence arose.

For some time there has been a desire by Eurocrat's to create a Pan-European EU army. The desire has grown more apparent in the last year or so and earlier this week European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has again spoken about his plans for an EU army in response to the comments of President-Elect Donald Trump on NATO and the importance of EU NATO nations contributing to the running costs of the defence programme. For many brexit voters, knowledge of the formation of an EU army was enough to push them over the edge to vote Leave. Many with memories of Britain's past have been uncomfortable with the idea of an EU army. 

In March 2015, not long after European Commission President, Juncker, pronounced an interest in the creation of an EU army to bolster the continent against Russian aggression. Nick Clegg, the then, Deputy Prime Minister branded Juncker, as a "dangerous fantasist", agreeing that an EU army would undermine Britain's military standing in the world. He also made it very clear, that the only two nations in Europe with military clout were Britain and France.

However, surprisingly, today, in response to the recent comments of US President-Elect Donald Trump and now European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, Nick Clegg, now the Liberal Democrat EU spokesman, has come out in support of more security and defence integration between EU nations. Stating that, 

"Our whole continents security is based on the idea that "Uncle Sam" through generations of generosity from American taxpayers and American soldiers [will come to our aid]... Europe should get its act together to safeguard our own security"

Just last year, Clegg had dismissed Juncker as a "dangerous fantasist" for his comments on the idea of an EU army. He claimed that it would undermine Britain's standing in the world and that the only two military powers in the EU were Britain and France. Now, today he has changed his mind. I am a Liberal Democrat but I do not believe that Britain should become part of an EU army. I do not believe, that our natural allies are in Europe but in the "New World", where the values of the British Isles have been adopted. The nations where we have had a political relationship, that led to a multi-racial military force, that saved the world from tyranny. Furthermore, if Britain and France are the only two military powers in the EU. It is very likely that Britain will become like the US in NATO and carry much of the burden for the EU army. The rise of a Pan-European army, as Clegg pointed out last year, would be a threat to Britain's military standing in the world.

As a Liberal Democrat, an internationalist and a champion of the "Anglosphere" and the Commonwealth, I consider the Commonwealth states and the US to be our greatest allies. I believe that the Commonwealth Realms and the many nations of the wider Commonwealth with whom we share; language, a political and legal system, a Head of State and with whom we have fought side by side with, under the British Crown, are who we should turn to as our closest allies and with whom we should become defence partners.

Britain still recruits armed forces personnel from across the Commonwealth and Remembrance Sunday shows us the many faces that have fought as part of the British Empire. From Gurkhas, to Sikhs, to West-Indians. Britain's armed forces must remain deeply connected to the Commonwealth Realms and the wider Commonwealth and they should not become intertwined with the EU militarily. 

Many of the developing a smaller nations of the Commonwealth Realms and the wider Commonwealth depend on Britain as a protector. None of the Commonwealth nations that have fought side by side with us possess a nuclear deterrent and they are reliant on Britain for their security in the same way that the EU depends on the US military power to protect it. Today, Britain and those across the Commonwealth Realms must build the Commonwealth Free Trade Zone to link the "Anglosphere" nations of the Commonwealth and to provide defence and security for those nations that were once part of the British Empire but are now left adrift in a dangerous world. If the EU must build an EU wide army then let France be the leader in the EU's military and let Britain build upon it's relationship with those that have fought arm in arm under the British Crown in two world wars.

Today, when the US is seeking a more isolationist route, we must build the army of the Commonwealth Free Trade Zone as a defender of Britain and the Commonwealth's self-interest. Britain must not choose to leave the EU but then seek to be part of its army. Britain must not simply look to the US to provide security and defence either, but must improve our military capacity and maintain or perhaps increase military spending to become the partner of our fellow "Anglosphere" nation, the US, in protecting and maintaining peace, stability and the global order.

We must recognise the special relationship between the US as not simply political but a cultural and historical relationship based on language and common heritage. Regardless of race. White Britain's and White America share a deep history. Black America and Black Britain share a deep history. Together, we are people of the "Anglosphere" and not part of the European community. With the transporting of British values to the New World 500 years ago, Britain left the coast of Europe and began a new civilisation in the New World. A civilisation that was birthed by Britain but has now become our tougher, younger cousin and has a President-Elect that has a British name with roots in Scotland.

Today, Britain must look deep into itself and come to terms with it's past and its identity. Britain must heed the words of Queen Elizabeth II on her Coronation, in 1953 and consider the people of the many lands and races of the Commonwealth our kith and kin. We must cease the myth of the European community and understand our "Britishness". We must reject the EU army for the Commonwealth army of old, that has served us so well and united the people of many races and lands against evil and tyranny.

We must not let those, such as Nick Clegg, sway the people towards an EU race army that mobilises us as part of Pan-Europeanism against the world. Britain must stand for its liberal, anti-racist values. It must stand for Queen and country and for all that it represents. Britain and the Commonwealth must make a stance as a post-racial entity not concerned with racialised political blocs like the EU. Queen Elizabeth II believed that the Commonwealth Realms and the former colonies of the British Empire were her people in 1953. In 2016, in Queen Elizabeth II's 90th year, as we near the end of the second Elizabethan Age, we must stand for the ideals, values and relationships that were so important to us in 1939 and 1953.

We Britain's, must understand our history and our people. We must know our heritage, we must know the values of our Head of State. We must know what we stand for in the world. We must know and recognise those of many ethnicity's who have contributed to the greatness of this nation across the Commonwealth Realms and the former British Empire. We must reject the idea that Europe is our continent and look to our fellow nations in the New World and across the Commonwealth as partners in security and defence. Britain must reject a partnership of old colonial powers and embrace the past-racial unity of the Commonwealth, now!

God Save the Queen! 

The Prince, Cinderella, the British Empire and Black Britain: A critique of Dr Kehinde Andrew's Ebony Article

The news that Prince Harry is dating a woman with some African heritage has caused a flurry of interest across social media and the mainstream news. The tabloid British press have been quick to trace the genealogy of Prince Harry's new date, Meghan Markle, to her familial heritage in the transatlantic slave trade. On knowing the racial heritage of Markle and the gang ridden community that she grew up in in LA, the media have made references to her upbringing in LA and perhaps her partial racial heritage, and offered the headline "Straight outta Compton". Across social media, there have been some nasty comments made by a small minority of the British public who have concerns about the partial racial heritage of Markle. Prince Harry has issued a press release asking for what he considers to be headlines with "racial undertones" to stop and for racist trolls to cease with their hurtful comments immediately. Academics and writers have taken the opportunity to tell stories of woe about the extreme racism in British society that is hidden from the public view and is now apparently coming to the surface.

Today, I have read an article by Dr Kehinde Andrews, an academic and a well known Guardian writer. His article was published in Ebony magazine, just a few days ago and attempted to tackle the issue of Prince Harry's relationship with Meghan Markle and to instigate a discussion about race relations in Britain. Whilst I commend the efforts of skilled academics who can give insight into race relations in Britain, I believe that it is correct to challenge academics, who believe, that they are contributing to improving race relations in Britain but are in fact contributing to creating an even more hostile environment with poor analysis. Analysis that often makes race relations worse and contributes to an environment of hostility.

Dr Andrews, a black British citizen with a Midlands accent, who is an Associate Professor and just launched the first Black Studies degree at Birmingham City University has taken offence over the media articles on Meghan Markle, which has led to another debate that concerns some issues that I have recently written about, in regard to Black Britain, our identity and relationship to the United Kingdom.

Firstly, I would like to examine the article in the Daily Mail that has ruffled Dr Andrew's and others feathers. The article published in the Daily Mail regarding Meghan Markle does not make derogatory comments about her. The article simply outlines her family history and makes comparisons between where Markle grew up and where Prince Harry grew up. At the end of the article, is an image of Meghan Markle with the caption stating, "she looks demure in a black dress". It is hardly a racist tirade. Neither does it express anything about the Royal family not liking "N******", as Dr Andrews put it. The fairy tale story of the Prince who meets his Cinderella is a story imprinted on Britain's psyche. The article, in my opinion, tries to make reference to the classic fairy tale story where Cinderella marries a Prince. A kind of romance made in heaven. A story that every person in the country understands and can find some escapism through.

Dr Andrews article seeks to connect the media response to Markle and Prince Harry's relationship to the history of colonialism, slavery and the British Empire as he and others do with everything and every single issue that arises in British public life. Dr Andrews offers statistics to deride the British public for admiring Queen Elizabeth II then to critique British citizens for being proud of the British Empire. Dr Andrews believes that the popularity of Queen Elizabeth II tells us a great deal about belonging in Britain. I want to challenge the robotic arguments that black academics and race relations experts keep repeating. Arguments that are extremely divisive and do not serve to improve race relations in Britain.

Yes, many years ago, Britain conquered the world. they kicked some arse. They had many ships and controlled vast amounts of territories. The British Empire was the largest empire to exist in human history, an empire where the sun never set. The people of the West-Indies, where myself and Dr Andrews have roots, were defeated and taken from Africa to the Caribbean and over 500 years became a new people. Not over 50 years, but half a Millennium.  During this time the people of the West-Indies became a brand new historical people. A Black Britain, an anglicised black. Whilst I understand that defeat can be painful; it is wise to recognise when the battle that you are fighting with the past cannot be won and there is no victory in fighting ghosts. There is a time when you have to know yourself and understand your experience now. George Foreman may be angry that he got knocked out by Muhammad Ali many years ago, but eventually, he still has to accept it. Fighters get knocked out and have to swallow their pride and accept defeat. If you are a a dark-skinned person with an anglicised name for many generations, then the struggle against the British Empire is over. You could not become something new or different without epochal change. In all social considerations, Dr Andrews and other Black Britain' are part of the "Anglosphere" and considered British. There is nothing to be gained from angrily pontificating about Britain's past empire. We, Black Britain's have been a part of the "Anglosphere" tradition and nothing else and our heritage and identity is rooted in this experience. We have never been part of a Swahili, Amharic, Yoruba civilisation or any other.

Criticising the British Empire and those that are proud of it will not improve race relations in Britain. The history of the British Empire is always going to be with us in Britain and the West-Indies, whether we like it or not. No one will ever stop talking about the British Empire. It was the biggest empire of all time. It is a big deal in human history, regardless of whether you were one of the people that were conquered by it. We must accept that there is some skill involved in conquering the world and that every reasonable mind should understand the pride engendered by the British Empire. Dr Andrew' and other practitioners of Afrocentricity are proud of Ancient Egypt as a great black civilisation but it still had slaves and colonialism. It was still an empire. Mansa Musa, the great Malian ruler is also honoured but he is the head of the Empire of Mali. Dr Andrew's will teach these stories on his Black Studies degree programme. He should let Britain tell its story too. British academics write books on Rome. Boris Johnson, for example, has written a book on Rome. Britain was conquered by Rome. They were slaves in the Roman Empire, but they still respect the magnitude of it. By studying the British Empire we can all learn something, regardless of skin. Power is power. Greatness is greatness. 

In the context of discussing ancient or past empires, you cannot be politically correct. Many academics write about the African Roman Emperor, Septimus Severus as a black icon; he ran an empire with slaves and casualties. We cannot judge old empires on the moral values of today. To continue to pursue this line of reasoning, as a practical anti-racism, is quite frankly ridiculous. I am not scared of the British Empire. It is not a reflection on me. That my ancestors were conquered is something that I have found disturbing in my youthful past, but I am not afraid of speaking about the British Empire as a great empire. It would be unrealistic to not do so. I don't believe, that every reference to the British Empire is an attack against my racial heritage. I am thinking about Britain today, and how to play a role in leading us, both black and white and beyond, into a new age of greatness in the future. I am not scared of Britain becoming an empire or reconnecting with realms of the empire in a new post-colonial, decolonised relationship. Slavery is illegal. Britain ended slavery. I don't feel threatened by public admiration for what is now an old but world renowned empire.

After chastising those who admire the British Empire, in a rage of political correctness on steroids. Dr Andrews, then goes on to critique those that admire Queen Elizabeth II and discusses how much this tells us about belonging in Britain. Really, what do they pay these academics to do? Dr Andrews, after being born and living in Britain all his life does not understand what it means to be a British citizen. It is not rocket science that the Head of State in Britain is Queen Elizabeth II. The armed forces, the police force, parliament, and the courts pledge allegiance to the Queen.  Our British Passport's are issued by the Queen. The tax collector collects taxes for the Queen. Every British citizen should know what they signed up to in order to be considered a British citizen and make strides in the society. Dr Andrews has the opportunity to opt out if he so wishes. He does not have to be a British citizen. His politics of trying to stoke resentment about the Head of State and Britain's history, does not serve to improve race relations in Britain but is simply politically divisive. Dr Andrews and others should stop misleading themselves and others about Britain's political set-up and Black Britain's identity. Attacking the Head of State and the public's admiration for her shows that Dr Andrews does not understand what it means to be a British citizen. This kind of leadership is problematic, for the many people whose futures may be nowhere else but as part of Britain. People who have to strike a balance between the past and the present, in order to exist.

Dr Andrews, amongst many black academics have been avid supporters of the EU, whilst following the liberal academic party line that a Brexit vote was racist. None, were willing to offer a critique on institutional racism in the EU. I am still waiting for the institutionalised racism report on the EU. Although Britain's public life appears like a rainbow in comparison to the EU's, the majority of black academics have written in glowing support of an EU vote. The EU is quite clearly an organisation for European racial unity, whilst the Commonwealth led by Queen Elizabeth II is a multi-racial union, that spans 5 continents and contributes to supporting to improve the lives of 2.2 billion citizens, most of whom are non-white. Dr Andrew's an Associate Professor and has just launched the first Black Studies programme in Britain at Birmingham City University but as a climbing public intellectual and voice of Black Britain, refuses to show respect to a nation that has obviously been open to him fulfilling his potential. This is the type of behaviour that leads to a backlash, as people resent a whole society being characterised as, extremely racist, by a Black Britain who is obviously more successful than many in Britain. This ungratefulness and fabricated resentment does not serve the cause of our fellow Black Britain's. 

I personally, respect the Head of State for reasons connected to iconic moments in black history. Queen Elizabeth II was a friend of one of Dr Andrews heroes; Dr Kwame Nkrumah. Ghana's first President. In the 1950's, Queen Elizabeth II is pictured dancing hand in hand with a smiling Dr Nkrumah. During the Ghanaian independence celebrations, Queen Elizabeth II and Dr Kwame Nkrumah are pictured laughing and sharing a joke. There are pictures of Kwame Nkrumah at the family home of Queen Elizabeth II, holding her children. If Nkrumah, the great African revolutionary could get over the past to engage in politics, then Dr Andrews should be able to also. Queen Elizabeth II is pictured arm in arm with Emperor Haile Selassie I, then Emperor of Ethiopia, in the 1950's at the height of apartheid. She is also pictured looking bashful as Emperor Haile Selassie I publicly kissed her hand. It is imperative that when we are making arguments, we carefully examine things with reason and rationality and not "folk philosophy" and emotionalism. 

On the issue of Meghan Markle. She has met Prince Charles and Prince Harry has gone public with the relationship. It does not appear that the Royal family have responded like rabid racists. If that was the case she would never have met Prince Charles and Prince Harry would have not gone public with the relationship. Dr Andrews claims that the press try to de-emphasise Markle' blackness, by claiming that she looks like Pippa Middleton or that she is just like Princess Diana are some of the most un-intellectual; careless statements on race that I have ever heard. It does not take x-ray vision to see that Markle does have facial similarities to Pippa Middleton. She does look like her. It is not an issue if the press say that she is just like Princess Diana. Is it not possible for people to have different heritage but share similar ideals? Come on Dr Andrew's. You are letting down Black Britain's academics, with spurious arguments that do not stand up to public philosophical scrutiny.

Dr Andrews, gives an example of the movie Belle as an indication that Black Britain's are only considered successful when accepted into "whiteness... and the pageantry of British society". Dr Andrew's is an academic, an Associate Professor, who just launched the first Black Studies degree in Britain and who boasts to black audiences in posh venues in the city, about what a great wage he earns in his post. It is quite clear that Dr Andrew's is a well-integrated Black Britain. I do not say that with disrespect. It is just a statement of fact and logic. 

Of course, there are issues of discrimination and there are racial discrepancy's in Britain. There are areas for improvement. We need to tackle high unemployment in BME communities. We need to tackle disproportionate amounts of black boys in the criminal justice system. We need to tackle the disproportionate amount of BME communities referred to mental health services. We need to figure out ways that Britain can contribute more to the West-Indies and Africa. But the level of repetition, the lack of philosophical clarity and critical scrutiny is making many Black academics redundant and unhelpful in furthering Black Britain's cause. Unreasonable arguments are leading to resentment in the mainstream.

At the end of his outrageous article, Dr Andrews asks, why would a black woman want to marry Prince Harry? He is a well-educated academic and he cannot figure out why a woman, regardless of colour, would want to marry a Prince? I mean, come on. Have a laugh or something. But the connotations are not lost on me, I understand what he is getting at, it is understandable in some contexts, but it smacks of racial fascism and lack of understanding of racial complexities in Britain and across the "Anglosphere". 

Black Britain's academics should stop publicly airing controversial opinions on race that are driven by emotion rather than reason. Meghan Markle's father is a white-skinned man. It is not some kind of betrayal as Dr Andrews hints. She is not uncomfortable with "whiteness" and she is not betraying her roots. She has immediate, multiple-heritages and should not be subjected to Dr Andrew's racial standards or that of others that seek to shame her into being the militant defender of the black race and something she is not. It's not really justice, is it? Give the girl a break!