Is it in the blood? - the reply Frith refused to publish

30 Apr 2008 19:32:26

Robert Henderson

The volume of the criticism and the exigences of space make
it impossible for me to address most of the points raised in
the August issue. Consequently I shall concentrate my fire on
the article contributors, Mike Brearley and David Gower, and
two of the letter writers, Adrian Rollins and David Hammond,
who raise points of particular interest. But before I do that
let me offer a few comments about the subject in general and
the article in particular.

My purpose in writing was not to give gratuitous offence,
but to raise subjects which for an unconscionable time have
been placed beyond the reach of coherent public debate. Nor
is a refusal to discuss them in the long term interests of
blacks and Asians. Suppression of opinion may, like
appeasement, be a tactic, but it can never be a strategy
for it merely puts off an evil day.

It is an extraordinary fact that many cricket commentators,
including the editor of Wisden, have spoken and written
against the employment of immigrant players by England
without provoking a storm. Indeed, the remarks made by
Mathew Engel in this year's Wisden are arguably more
categoric than anything I have written.

As for the article's content, nowhere have I stated
categorically that either coloured players in general do
suffer, or any coloured player in particular has suffered,
from a lack of commitment. I have merely suggested it as a
possibility. My reference to Lewis and DeFreitas '...why
players such as DeFreitas and Lewis should not share the
mentality he [Goodwin] ascribes to the general West
Indian-derived population' is not a categoric statement of my
own belief but a reasonable point arising from the
discrepancy between Goodwin's claims of disaffection and his
assertion that 'surely no one would doubt that the players
[England caps of West Indian Ancestry] are proud to represent
England'. The article queried the commitment not only of
coloured players but also that of white mercenaries such as
Lamb and unequivocal Englishmen: '...perhaps even some of
the unequivocally English players lack a sense of pride in
playing for England.'

Whatever the cause, there is firm statistical evidence to
support the view that coloured players in England caps do not
perform well. [insert table]. As can be seen from the table
the overall performance of black and Asian England players
since 1975 has been consistently poor. I invite readers to
offer their explanations of why every single black and Asian
player selected for England in the past twenty years has
failed to make the Test grade.

To particular critics. Mr Rollins asked what do I know
about "Brixton, Hackney or any inner-city area heavily
populated by black people? The answer is a great deal. I have
lived and worked in such districts for most of my adult
life. (I am 47 and first came to London in 1965). This
experience has encompassed both South and North London. (I
currently live close to where the white schoolboy, Richard
Everitt was murdered by a gang of Asians.) Moreover, I have
the invaluable experience (denied to most) of years of work
as an Inland Revenue investigator in areas of substantial
black and Asian settlement. This alone has provided me with a
range and quantity of coloured contacts incomparably greater
than any white man could achieve in a private capacity.

But my relevant experience does not end there for I also
know the middle class side of the black and Asian coin,
having been at a private school and a university which were
both extremely mixed in race and culture. I wonder how many
of my white critics could match my practical knowledge of
blacks and Asians? Mr Brearley living in I believe Hampstead?
Mr Gower comfortably ensconced in the countryside?

As for Mr Rollins' concern about my drawing attention to the
racial imbalance of the Haringey college run by Reg Scarlett,
this imbalance is of obvious importance to my case, for the
absence of white pupils demonstrates prima facie the
separatist tendencies of blacks. A further dimension arises
because the college receives public money. Imagine the outcry
if few or no blacks and Asians attended a publicly funded
college in a very racially mixed area. Moreover, this outcry
probably would be headed by Mr Scarlett who is vociferous in
his claims that blacks and Asians do not get a fair crack of
the cricketing whip in the English first class game (this
despite the fact that coloured players form more than ten
percent of the first class county groundstaffs, a percentage
which greatly exceeds their proportion of the population -
approx 6%). The absence of adverse media comment over the
years about the racial imbalance of the Haringey college is
beautifully indicative of the one-eyed attitude taken to race
in this country by both politicians and those who control
the media.

The first point to note about Mike Brearley is that he is not
a disinterested party, being married to an Asian. Hence, he
could scarcely be expected to say anything other than he has.
His mentality may be judged by the fact that he actually
invents an excuse for parading his liberal credentials by
saying that his ambivalence at times about his commitment to
this country may "as he [Henderson] suggests, arise from
guilt." Nowhere in the article did I say or imply that home
raised whites fail to commit themselves to England because of
guilt. I merely pointed out that incessant denigration of
their culture and history could demoralise some Englishmen.

Mr Brearley claims that I am confused in my use of the words
blood, instinct and biology. In fact, nowhere do I refer to
blood. I submitted the article to David Frith under the
heading 'Racism and national identity'. The title 'Is it in
the blood?' is the editor's.

As for instinct and biology, Mr Brearley really should
understand (because of his philosophical training)) that
some words have both a common use and a technical or
academic use. I sincerely doubt whether many readers
honestly thought that I meant anything by biology and
instinct other than a loyalty so inbred by cultural
conditioning that it becomes second nature.

But even from Mr Brearley's academic standpoint there are
difficulties with the words for both are man-made constructs
and consequently subject to redefinition and interpretation,
particularly by academics. The intellectual history of
instinct is that it has moved from a simple idea of innate
behaviour instilled by God (e.g. Descartes) through the idea
of instinct as a 'prime mover' (e.g. Freud) onto the
genetically determined (e.g. Lorenz) before rather going out
of favour at the present time, which if it examines the
matter at all tends to do so with the intention of untangling
the innate, reflex and motivational aspects of apparently
instinctive behaviour rather than searching for a single
grand explanation.

Mr Brearley's concept of biology as a nicely separated
subject excluding mental and sociological events is simply a
result of the rigid intellectual compartmentalisation which
has been the curse of western thought for at least a
century. Unless a man wishes to deny a causal linkage
between mind and body, for example, the production of the
hormone adrenaline in circumstances of heightened awareness,
it necessarily follows that a man's mental and social life
is the product of his material existence. Hence, in a general
sense everything a man does is biological. Where, I wonder,
would Mr Brearley place the study of animal behaviour? As
part of biology or outside biology? If inside, why should
the study of human behaviour be then excluded? Certainly,
there is no academic consensus that human behaviour should be
excluded from biology. Edward Wilson's famous 'Sociobiology'
makes this very point.

As for David Gower, readers may judge his confidence in his
own arguments by the fact that when I wrote to him offering
to appear on his Radio 5 programme to debate the matter, I
did not even receive the courtesy of a reply. Mr Gower
proceeded to "discuss" the question on air without a single
word in my support being uttered. (This, I believe, is what
the BBC terms "balance".)

But there is vastly more to Mr Gower's position than meets
the eye. Four years ago I circulated an article, which
David Frith published as 'A fundamental malaise', to many
prominent cricketers and cricket correspondents. This piece
stated my objections to foreign players in the England side
in no uncertain terms. Readers unfamiliar with the article
may get an idea of its flavour from a short quote: "The
qualification for England should be the same as that which I
would consider a sane basis for the citizenship of any
country, namely the imbibing of a culture".

Mr Gower wrote to me that 'A fundamental malaise' contained
"very keen observations" and said that he was sure my "points
[the ill effects of foreigners in the England side] must
certainly be relevant". Readers may wish to ask themselves
whether Mr Gower has since undergone a Pauline conversion or
has decided that his media career is more important than
his beliefs. (He would, of course, become a non-person as far
as the media is concerned if he stuck to his beliefs). The
sincerity of his present outrage may be judged by the fact
that he wrote to me between the publication of 'A fundamental
malaise' and 'Is it in the blood?' thanking me warmly for
writing an article in his defence. In other words, I did not
become persona non grata with Mr Gower until the media
howling began after the publishing of 'Is it in the blood'?

David Hammond is worth a mention as an example of the
substitute-abuse-for-argument school of critic. He writes
"nobody with even a modicum of knowledge or intelligence can
refer to the 'myth' of oppression and exploitation." In fact,
the manner in which slavery and colonialism are both taught
in British schools and portrayed in the media is mythical,
for the presentation is so partial that all hope of an honest
understanding of the subjects is lost. For example, the
British slave trade is taken out of its historical context,
depicted as uniquely evil regardless of the fact that most
societies at most times have practised some form of legal or
customary unfreedom whether it be full blown chattel slavery,
serfdom, debt bondage, indenturing or a caste system, the
necessary complicity of black slave dealers is ignored or
explained as white corruption of naturally decent blacks and
the primary role taken by the British in the suppression of
slavery generally might as well never have happened for all
the attention it gets.

As for my claim that camaraderie is best generated within a
team of like individuals, it is unreasonable to dismiss out
of hand the suggestion that a man's race or culture may have
an effect on the social dynamics of groups. At the spine of
human social behaviour lies a very strong bias in choosing
companions. Human beings select their associates, when
given the chance, by a form of selection known as
assortative. (Most mammals also practise such selection when
choosing a mate) This is an ugly piece of jargon which means
in plain English that like tends to go to like.
Overwhelmingly people choose mates and friends who resemble
themselves in matters such as race, physical type, culture,
education and class. One of the strongest causes of selection
is physical race. Assortative selection alone is a massive
potential barrier to the development of team spirit in a
mixed side.

Nationality, in the emotional rather than legal sense, is not
something which can be put on and taken off like a coat. It
is a fearsomely intricate product of social experience, part
of which is the response of others. Qualifications based on
legal definitions of nationality, birth or residence are
practically irrelevant in the context of national sporting
teams, for the emotional commitment and sense of oneness,
which are an essential part of a successful national side,
cannot be gained so mechanically. And that is often true even
where a conscious decision to emigrate permanently has been
made by a player's parents. A sense of national place is
demonstrably not simply derived from living in a country -
as Wellington said to those who insisted on calling him an
Irishman, 'Just because a man is born in a stable it does not
make him a horse.'

The concerted media attempt to shout me down is not merely
shameful but positively dangerous, for if free expression may
be denied to one man it may be denied to any man. It is time
to end the "anti-racist" shouting and begin honestly
addressing painful realities. One thing needs to be
understood above all: you may have a multicultural state, but
you cannot have a multicultural nation. It is an oxymoron.

Let me end with a quote from Milton which I think should be
pinned to all editors desks and engraved on all men's minds:

' ... though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon
the earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously
by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let
her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the
worse, in a free and open encounter...' (Areogapitica)

--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

01 May 2008 07:35:41

Toby