THE HORSE THAT BOLTED BY MAYFAIR

   THE HORSE THAT BOLTED BY MAYFAIR

  by

Reginald Young (The Horse) and

  M. A. Soormally

General / Sociology / Politics

 For  Nazma, Mo, Tatiana and Liberty.

Copyright  ©   Reginald Young   1995.         

All rights reserved.

 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.

   A catalogue record for this book is available

from the British Library.

  First Published in the United Kingdom

  by  Reginald  Young 

  March 1995

  Printed in the UK

ISBN    1  899968  00  8

Acknowledgement.

A million thanks to all those individuals whose modesty prevents their names being published, but whose patience, love, friendship, advice, humour, scrutiny, discussions, debates  and sacrifice were essential in the arrangement and production of this article.

Without the vigilance, intelligent discipline and prompt response of the police, the right to speak without inciting hatred, aggression and fear, the safety, peace and security of animals, individuals including tourists, speakers and the audience would not be possible at “Speakers' Corner”.

Boundless appreciation extends to all the animals, children, parents and individuals with extraordinary knowledge and understanding, who did not abuse, manipulate nor tyrannise the Horse but whose friendship, patience, self-expression, self-reliance and dignity were inspiring, encouraging, and educational through arduous, complex and hazardous occasions.

Note

This article has been revised and extended from an earlier pamphlet  composed in September 1994.

Contents

1.      Acknowledgement.                            

2.       Hyde  Park - history.                                        

3.      Introduction & Kick Off                    

4.      Tensions.    

5.       Further  Questions.                                   

6.       Characters  &  Identities.                  

7.       Identity  tables.                     

8.       The Options Game.                        

7.       Key  Ideas.                                       

            HYDE  PARK

-  Some  events up to the 19th century.

1536 -  Henry VIII obtained land for hunting.

            During the 16th and 17th centuries hunting, military  reviews and other open-air amusements
            were popular in the park.

1730 - The Serpentine was developed.

1783 - Public execution by hanging  at Tyburn was ended.

1855 - Demonstration to reform the Sunday Trading Bill

           Marx was among the demonstrators.

1866 - The Reform League Rebellion.

1872 - The right to assemble, organise public meetings and free speech was  acknowledged and authorised.

INTRODUCTION

This pamphlet does not represent any particular political or ideological point of view, nor is it intended to convert the opinions of any individual or solve any problems. What is attempted, however, is to highlight the following issues;

(a) Freedom of speech at “Speakers’ Corner”, Hyde Park, London, is an invaluable asset and credit to the democratic political culture of the United Kingdom.

(b) Individuals visiting “Speakers’ Corner” are not immune  from the identities associated with the hatreds, prejudices, bigotry, ideologies and controversies that is raging and inflicting immense suffering and pain to individuals, families and communities as increasing  inhuman conflicts in the modern world are rationalised and justified as fascism, racism, tribalism, casteism and nationalism.

(c) Individuals who adopt an identity do not necessarily respond positively by recognising their personal responsibilities to communicate with or appreciate the relative right of “other” individuals ( categorised exclusively ) to adopt an identity in peace and harmony. Instead, identities are expediently utilised to manipulate, finger point, fulfil privilege and nepotism, put down, justify aggression, opportunism, hatred, fear and insecurity.

(d) The democratic potential for free expression of ideas at “Speakers’ Corner” depends on the ability and willingness of individuals to be tolerant, disciplined and civilised.

(e) The uncivilised individuals and their identities mentioned in this article are not representative of most regular members of the Horse's audience  who are assertive by showing compassion, kindness, love and criticisms with  encouragement.                                  

Hyde park is well-known all over the world as a place of leisure, entertainment, and a meeting place of all sorts; protesters, the homeless, sexual perverts, outsiders, amateur politicians and philosophers, and a play ground for the trendy elites.

The Marble Arch end of Hyde Park  renowned as Speakers’ Corner  was the outcome of bloody battles by social democratic activists and civil rights advocates against the status quo demanding the right of assembly, free speech, right to demonstrate, particularly the right to reform the Sunday Trading Bill during the mid-nineteenth century.

In fact, the first person to successfully achieve the reputation as a radiant speaker was Harriet Laws an energetic activist of the suffrage movement demanding equal political and social rights for women.

In the first three days of May 1890 Mayday was declared at Speakers’ Corner  by organisations and parties representing the working class movements, social democratic movements, women’s movements, and trade unions from various geographical regions as far  afield across the Atlantic.

The survival of Speakers’ Corner near Mayfair in the centre of London , a global mega-metropolis, is a phenomenal feat  in spite of the development of television, the rise and demise of industrial capitalism, the technological revolution in communication and transportation, and the rising new social movements  responding to the negative consequences of modernisation such as the peace movements, ecological, animal rights, women’s movements, gay and lesbian rights groups, squatters, ravers, and travellers,  racists, fascists, nationalists, anti-Semitic and Islamic fundamentalists’ groups.

THE HORSE KICK OFF
Speakers’ Corner is popular on Sundays.

 The following event is an account of what  took place one Sunday early November 1993.
 It was after two o’clock in the afternoon. The weather was warm and dim.

Standing under a tree on two milk crates was a demure, bronzy looking middle aged male speaker surrounded by an audience of approximately thirty-six people eagerly anticipating what he was about to say.

“ Hello everyone,” said the speaker as he nervously fondled his belt between his thumb and fingers.

“I shall make a short introduction before I introduce today’s subject, which are racism, fascism and nationalism”.

These have never been easy subjects in the park. Tempers tend to fly and abuse is all too common. The audiences often consist of people from all walks of life. Taking racism as an example, there are often those in the audience who cannot take part in an analysis of racism without being racist. There are also those who think they have the monopoly of talking about racism because they perceive racism against them but not the racism within themselves. One even comes across ‘black’ middle-class persons flashing piles of money around and talking about how racially oppressed they are. But more frequently, there are those who think abusive language is funny.

The speaker starts by identifying who he is.

“I do not know who I am” he says.

The crowd looks perplexed. And so they should be. This is one form of identification many of them do not appear to have come across before. Although, this being Hyde Park, it could mean anything, the speaker does not look like he is joking.

 He carries on

“I do not represent men.”

“I do not represent blacks”. 
                                       

Stranger and stranger. Nowadays, when it comes to people standing on platforms and talking in Hyde Park, it is quite rare to find those who fit under the common sense description of ‘black men’ not representing ‘black men’. Also, most speakers in Hyde Park tend to speak in favour of certain groups or ideologies anyway, for example, Moslems, blacks, socialists or Christians.

“I do not represent any political party, but I like parties, I enjoy partying”.

Smiles were radiating from the cheerful faces of the audience as the speaker paused in recognition.

“I do not represent any religious sect but I am very compassionate towards religious persons, for religious persons claim that God is on their side, yet they feel lonely.”

“If God is on my side, I will be quiet, for there is no reason to speak.”

One wonders what the religious people, if any, in the meeting must have felt. They must be well aware of the incredible amount of proselytisation that goes on in the park.

“In order not to make religious persons feel lonely, I have adopted a religion called Horse Power or its equivalent”.

 “I do not consider it blasphemous when religious persons do not conserve energy”.

“Also religious persons are liars and cowards, for, they claim that there is a better place in the cosmos than this fragile planet Earth, but religious persons are not willing, nor are they in a hurry or are prepared to die to meet their gods. Instead, they prefer to cut your throat in order for you to meet their gods before they do, in order to take your money, land and children.”

This is no doubt a fitting tribute to the millions who have been tortured or killed by religious people in the name of benevolent gods that they never saw or heard.

“This is not a religious meeting, please do not believe in what I am saying, but try to understand what I’m talking about, for I may not know what I’m talking about; you are on your own, it’s up to you to make sense of your own reality or to construct your own meanings.”

Now this is odd.

What kind of a speaker is this who does not speak to convince the audience, and who invites them to construct their own meanings? Whoever we have here has definitely no talent to make a good politician or priest.

“Now to the subject of racism, fascism and nationalism!”

Suddenly, even before the subject was embarked upon, the silence of the crowd was broken by shouts of:

“Who do you think you are?”                                    

“A horse, I am a horse.” replied the speaker.

“We are Africans, we are professionals, we are business men.”

It has almost become a tradition these days in Hyde Park for African intellectuals to present their credentials at each and every possible occasion. Just what in their psychology makes them do this is not very clear.

“You are a slave, we sold you.”

This is an odd statement. It is not usual for Africans to admit that Africans were involved in the slave trade as owners. Could it be they slipped up in trying too hard to abuse?

The three young men who made the interruption were quite well-dressed and they seemed restless as they took turn in casting abuse at the speaker. As this happens, the crowd started to grow. It is funny how abusive language always seems to pull in more people into the audience.

The speaker was calm and smiling.

It was a calmness which reflected experience with this kind of abuse, and it was a smile directed at the audience, almost urging them to contemplate what these three characters were saying.

They continued their abuse while approaching the speaker menacingly.

“You are a bum!”

“You are a monkey.”

“You are a homosexual!”

Abusive language has always had one distinctive characteristic when it comes to name-calling, and this is very evident here. That is that the abusive words used by an abuser often says more about the mind of the abuser than that of the abusee.

“O-OOOOOHH! I-I-I L-L-u-u-u-v-v Y-O-O-U-U” heckled a young male.

A loud laughter erupted from the audience.

The young Africans angrily continued

 “We are superior to you!”

“You are stupid!”

“You have no right to speak!”

“We are superior to you!”

“Shut up and get down!”

“You would not get away with this rubbish in Africa!”

It must be remarked at this point that the speaker had not started on the subject yet. This is not a case of these individuals being mature enough to allow the speaker to talk before making comments.

“Am I allowed to respond?” asked the speaker.
“Let him speak!” shouted someone in the audience.

 The speaker replied

“As for being a monkey, I consider it a great compliment to be called one.”
“Monkeys are environmentally friendly!”
“Monkeys educate people on TV how to drink tea!”
“It is expensive to capture monkeys, whereas humans volunteer to be guinea pigs!”
“Without monkeys scientific knowledge or medical science would not be possible!”
“Besides, monkeys are not racists, fascists, national chauvinists nor afrocentrics!”
“I love monkeys!”
“And thanks to you, monkeys are safer in zoos than in most regions in Africa!”

There was unrestrained loud laughter vibrating throughout the crowd. The three Africans did not look too pleased, as they did not expect their abuse to be complimentary.
They also looked puzzled, as if they were deciding whether they had just been insulted.

shrill voice cried out to the speaker
“I am Jewish, I am white, and I am an Israeli!”
“I am against racism, I support blacks!”
”You must fight racism!”
"You are black!”
“They are black!”
”Why do you argue with the blacks?”
“You should not argue with blacks!”
“It is not right!”

This was the voice of a young Jewish woman, looking slightly outraged at the speaker. Her premise was simple: blacks should unite. One cannot help but wonder here whether she never argues against other Jews. But we shall never know.

“Yes, you are right, we are black, black and white unite!” shouted the young African males as they interrupted the young Jewish female making her declarations.

Turning towards the young Jewish woman, the speaker angrily asked

“What do you mean I am black?”

“What is black?”

“You are not talking about physics.”

“You are using the term black to construct the idea of race.”

“In other words, black is racially constructed with racist connotations.”

“I don’t think black.”

“I don’t feel black.”

“I am not determined by the colour of the skin.”

“I don’t believe I am black.”

“I am not black.”

“In fact, I am white with anger and brown off with these negative racial constructions.”

These clear statements seemed to puzzle many in the audience. There were whispers of “Is he blind?” and “But he is black”. One has to remember that this is an ongoing interaction, and as such, the audience is not at leisure to remember and reflect on all that is being said. Their luxury, however, is the reader’s privilege.

“Who are you?” asked the young Jewish girl, who clearly was among those baffled.
“I am a horse and I have no identity problems with horses, only humans” replied the speaker.

The Jewish woman stayed silent, as if deciding whether she had been the victim of a joke or whether she had missed something central to the theme.

“He is mad!” the young African males shouted in disgust.

“How could he say he is not black?”
“We are black, anyone can see he is black!”
“He is brainwashed by the whites!”
“He has no identity!”
“He has problems!”
“He’s definitely mad!”

These statements seemed to gain favour among a certain part of the audience who also saw the speaker as black. They were relying on common sense, unlike the speaker who was using horse sense. Reviewing the discussion up till now, one can well see how hard it can be sometimes to interact with the crowd. As we shall see, it did not get easier.

Focusing on the young Jewish woman, the speaker patiently continued

“For the benefit of all of us, please do not assume that every one is at your level sharing your perceptions and feelings. Also, be very careful when you introduce Semites (Jewish and Israeli identity) as a means of understanding racism, fascism and nationalism. And presently I am not sure whether these so-called Africans in the audience know what is meant by the term Semite nor the full implications of Semites.”

Further hostile interruptions by the young African males who continued shouting

“You are ignorant!”

“We are educated, you are not!”
“Who says we don’t know what is Semite?”

 Calmly and confidently, the speaker leaning forward in the direction of the young African males inquired:

“OK. tell us, what is Semite and who are the Semites?”

“The Jews! the Jews are the Semites!” yelled the young Africans.
"And the Arabs?” the speaker interrupted.
“Are the Arabs Semites?” repeated the speaker.

Silence descended upon the audience held in suspense. Now everyone was eagerly looking on as the vocal Africans suddenly lost their voice.
This awful silence was abruptly broken by riotous screams from some young males standing on the left side of the speaker.

“We are Arabs! We are Semites!”
“The Jews are whites! The Jews are murderers and bastards! They are our enemies!”

These Arabian males had unfortunately never heard of Sammy Davis Jr.. We can also wonder what Arafat would say to them if he were in the audience.
The young Jewish woman tried to speak but  her voice was overwhelmed by the raving abuses of the young Arab males. This is the second time she is shouted down. When the young African males were arguing with the speaker, the young Jewish woman intervened to try and unite them with ‘blackness’, and this was much appreciated by the young African males. It is interesting to note that, now that the young Arab males were attacking her, the young African males did not feel at all obliged to return her the favour by trying to unite her with the young Arab males with ‘Semitism’.
The audience overcome by confused amazement was silent in their absorption with the commotion between the young Jewish woman and the young Arab males. The speaker again had that enigmatic smile on his face which seemed to say “Look at this. Do you see?”

Meanwhile a tall young man wearing leather jacket and Levi’s jeans raised his hands and shaking them violently at the speaker yelled:

“I am white, I am a British nationalist, and I am not a Jew.”

“I am for my people.”
“Why don’t you support your black people?”
“You are letting your people down.”
"You are a traitor of your race.”

Well, well, Africans, Jews and British nationalists joining together to criticise the speaker. Now why would these people spend so much time criticising and insulting the speaker simply for deciding to be a horse? If the Africans, Jewish woman and the British nationalist have one thing in common, it seems to be that they all felt uncomfortable, almost insecure with the speaker not assuming a black identity. Surely, their positions are not so weak as to be exposed simply by the speaker refusing to be black.
In addition to this, the young Jewish woman was now on her own. One could say she was in . . . no man’s land. The African and Arab males saw her as ‘white’, and the British nationalist subtly excluded her because of her Jewishness.

“We are right, he is mad, everybody sees he is black and he is so stupid he does not recognise what he is.” remarked the young  African males.

 They were beginning to sound like a record skipping.

The speaker uneasily intervened:

“My genetic structure was not designed by race, religion, tribe, caste, class, nation, nor territory.”

It is interesting and important to observe here that this statement from the speaker was selectively ignored by his antagonists. Again, this statement seemed to unsettle them.

At this moment the young Arabs were blaring abuses at the young Jewish woman. This is yet another typical feature of  Speaker’s corner: men are always either attacking or defending women, but they rarely allow them to speak. The speaker took the opportunity to drink what appeared to be water.

A hand was raised to gain the speaker’s attention, it was the British nationalist about to ask a question.

The speaker appealed for calm.

“Please, please someone wants to ask a question.”

“What is your question?” asked the speaker pointing to the British nationalist.

“If there is a race war, which side would you fight on?” asked the British nationalist.

An apparently clear-cut question.
A sudden silence emerged from the audience. Their eyes were on the speaker, awaiting his answer as if it would at last reveal his position.

“Good question!” shouted the young African males.

They looked towards the speaker too, probably waiting to hear whether he was an ally or enemy.
So did the Jewish woman and the Arabs, also keen to know whose side he was on.
Now, if the speaker had simply said that he was on the side of the blacks, everyone would have been happy. The Africans would have been happy to have an ally. The Jewish woman would have been happy that he is uniting with his ‘black’ brothers. And the British nationalist would have been happy since this defines his own ‘race’. In fact, everyone would have been happy that racism had been reinforced. Funny old world.
Instead, the speaker looked at all of them, smiled and remarked

“If there is a race war, I would buy a couple of bottles of Southern Comfort, lock my door, and get drunk. I would never waste my energies defending any individual identifying with any culture, race , religion or ideology that legitimises wretchedness in the form of female circumcision, cruelty to animals and children, racism, sexism, tribalism, casteism and elitism. Nor would I attack any innocent individual solely on the grounds of being or labelled different in biological specification, socioeconomic stratification, or ideological orientation, besides . .”

The speaker was abruptly and rudely interrupted by shouts from the young African males, the young Arabs, and the British nationalist.
In disgust, the speaker picked up the milk crates and ran towards the Marble Arch exit when someone declared:

“Look! Look! There! The Horse is running away! WE  are  the  majority! We've won! We're right!  He's Lost!”

So it ended with the Horse running away without apparently even having been able to embark on the subject of racism, fascism and nationalism. At least, this was what all the persons in the audience saw. They saw a flurry of insults flying about a speaker who did not make any sense at all and who did a runner in the end.
The horses in the audience, on the other hand, understood the point clearly.

REGINALD  YOUNG

(The Horse)

"Galloping to find a place to dream, question, explore, learn and live compassionately without prejudice, fear, hate and abuse."

TENSIONS

Why did the young African males adopt many identities to exclude and oppose the Speaker on one hand, and on the other, attempted to include him into a black identity?

Why did the young African males ally with the British nationalist to oppose the speaker?

Why was the young Jewish woman excluded by the Arab males who claimed to be Semites?

Why didn’t the British nationalist who claimed to be “white” unite with the young Jewish woman ( who subscribed to a “white” identity ), when she was being attacked by the young Arabs?”

Can Semites be racist, fascist, or nationalist? If so, is anti-Semitism racism or anti-racism, fascism or anti-fascism? What are the possible ideological and political implications for individuals and social movements campaigning against fascism or/and racism?

 Why didn’t the Speaker subscribe to a Black identity?

Can the individual adopt an identity without excluding or negatively evaluating the “other”  as individuals who have adopted or categorised with an identity?              

Can the individual subscribe to a racial identity without legitimising the idea of race or racism as an ideology and be a non-racist at best, or worse an anti-racist?.

What are the differences and limitations  of  ageism, elitism, sexism, racism, nationalism, and fascism, and what do they have in common?.

Is anti-racism a reaction  or an adequate  response to the effects of racism?
Does anti-racism provide a viable alternative to racism?
Is anti-racism non-racism?
Can anti-racism policies combat successfully elitism, fascism, sexism, nationalism, tribalism, casteism and anti-Semitism?

Further Questions

It must be said beforehand that it is quite likely that some people, especially certain social scientists who have introduced and perpetuated the concept of "race"  in social science, will find the previous tensions and following commentary quite banal. It is commonplace now for such people to label as banal those analyses of human relations which do not assume the ideology of ‘race’.

The same label may be be used by people who assume identities such as "black"  or "white"  to exclude others. These social scientists stand out more than the rest because, claiming to be scientific, they are not expected to introduce or legitimise unscientific concepts. This short commentary, however, is not even aimed at them. It is aimed at those who wish to leave ideologies and prejudices behind and use reason.                                          

These were real events with real people. In this spirit, these questions and comments will leave aside theory, philosophy and bogus science in an attempt to be as empirical as can be.

 Are identities or "races"  determined by biological make-up?

Are they determined by anything?

The speaker chose his identity and refused to be labelled "black".

Do all "blacks"  unite regardless of other considerations?

The Africans used the concept of "blackness"  to "claim"  the speaker on their side, yet they used "professionalism" ("elitism") to exclude him.

Does "blackness"   bind more strongly than "anti-racism"?

The Africans used "anti-racism"  to join with the Jewish woman and the nationalist against the speaker.

If one’s identity excludes others, and one wishes to include, why not just give up the identity?

The Jewish woman first used "whiteness"  to differentiate herself from the Africans and the speaker. In order to unite with them, she had to call upon ‘anti-racism’ .

Is it possible for two persons to be united under one identity and divided under another?

If so, does this cause tensions and contradictions within such a person?

The Arab males used "whiteness"  to exclude the Jewish woman. Yet, they could have used "Semitism"  if they wanted to unite with her.

Does "whiteness"  bind more strongly than "non-Jewishness"?

When the Arab males were using "whiteness"  to attack the Jewish woman, the British nationalist did not use the same concept to unite with her against them.                      

Are "blackness"  and "whiteness"  religious beliefs?

 None of the audience participants questioned or criticised the speaker when, on more than one occasion, he gave reasons as to why he did not consider himself ‘black’.

The ‘Options’ Game: a Game for Opportunists

It all seems to be about options. The Arabs could choose to exclude the Jewish woman using ‘whiteness’, or they could include her using ‘Semitism’. The British nationalist also had the option to include her with ‘whiteness’ or exclude her with ‘Jewishness’. The Africans  could choose to include her with ‘anti-racism’ and exclude her with ‘blackness’. The same Africans could choose to include the Arabs using ‘blackness’, saying that Arabs are not ‘white’, or they could exclude them again using ‘blackness’, saying that they are not ‘black’ enough. They could also include the speaker using ‘blackness’ or exclude him using ‘elitism’ or ‘Africanness’. The Jewish woman could also play the same include/exclude game by using ‘anti-racism’ and ‘whiteness’ (with the Africans) or ‘Jewishness’ and ‘Semitism’ (with the Arabs) or even ‘Jewishness’ and ‘whiteness’ (with the nationalist). (See Tables 1 and 2)

From all this, it seems that people enjoy having options. Options to include, and options to exclude, according to their purposes or intentions or fancies. Today’s included can well be tomorrow’s excluded. Everyone had enough options to play whatever game they wanted. So why did the speaker limit his options drastically by choosing to be a horse? Does he not put himself at a severe disadvantage by doing so? Could there be a logical reason for his peculiar behaviour?

CHARACTERS  AND IDENTITIES

a) Young female - Jewish, white, Israeli.

b) Young males  - Arabs, Semites.

c) Young males - African, Business men, professional, black.

d) Young male - British nationalist, white, not Jewish, (or anti-Jewish?).

e) Speaker - Horse.

f) Audience - Tourists,  males, females, various occupations, status and

  ideological orientations.

TABLES

To Include	Africans	Jewish Woman	Arabs	British Nationalist
Africans		Anti-racism	Blackness	Anti-racism
Jewish Woman	Anti-Racism		Semitism	Whiteness
Arabs	Blackness	Semitism		Anti-Racism
British Nationalist	Anti-Racism	Whiteness	Anti-Racism

Table 1

To Exclude	Africans	Jewish Woman	Arabs	British Nationalist
Africans		Blackness	Blackness	Blackness
Jewish Woman	Whiteness		Jewishness	Jewishness
Arabs	Semitism	Arabness		Semitism
British Nationalist	Whiteness	Jewishness	Whiteness

Table 2

             KEY  IDEAS:

Race:
Since the idea of "race" was first introduced in the English Language during the early sixteenth
century, it has adopted several meanings usually referring to the make-up of the body (blood, eye,
hair and skin colour) and cultural differences (language, dress and religion) which individuals, human
population groups and nations  are perceived, categorised, defined and identified. For example;
"black", "black man" and "black woman", "black people", "blacks", "black nation" and "black
society", "black culture", "white", "white man" and "white woman", "white people", "whites", "white
nation" and "white society"  and "white culture".                                                

Racism:
An ideology which upholds various (awful or falsified) notions of "race", racial classification" and
"racialised" or "race" defined emotional expressions that is employed by individuals to perceive,
analyse, evaluate, rationalise and justify  their prejudices, actions and policies in relationships with
other human individuals, identified with, belonging to different social groups  classes, status and
environments or experiencing unequal, unfair, degraded and inferior treatment. For example; "We are
Africans!, You are a slave!, We are superior to you! You are a bum!, You have no right to speak!",
"We are Arabs!, The Jews are whites!, The Jews are . . . bastards!".
Anti-racism:
An ideology which supports ideas, attitudes, policies and actions against racism. For example; "I am
Jewish, I am white, I am against racism".

Non-racism:
A term chosen by the (Horse) to describe the ideologies, analyses, policies, attitudes, emotions and
actions of individuals who are excluded form the two-sided meanings of "racism/antiracism,
enemy/friend, good/bad" and who do not promote the ideology of racism nor anti-racism and are not satisfied with the terms "race", "racist",  "anti-racist" "anti-racism", "anti-racial", "multiracial", "race relations" and "human race"  as truthfully describing, defining and representing their
intentions, feelings and interests.
"Non-racism" is not "anti-racism". "Anti-racism"  is not "non-racism".
The "enemy"  of your "enemy"  is not necessarily your "friend".
Anti-racism  does not reveal individualism, fascism, anti-semitism, sexism, nationalism, casteism,
tribalism and elitism. For it is possible for an individual to adopt an anti-racist policy (anti-racism)
towards the racist policy (racism) executed by another individual,  group or institution, while
simultaneously promoting, legitimising, reproducing or practising an ideology which endorses race as
a concept and racist policies (racism)  etc.For example; - the anti-racist  slogan - "Black and White
unite and fight racism".
Sexism:
An ideology which upholds numerous ideas, attitudes, assumptions and prejudices by making
references to the body (sex) and culture (gender, dress) that is used to describe, define, judge and justify the unequal, unfair and degrading treatment of individuals. For example, the individual who
claimed to be "Jewish"  was not treated equally as other individuals with their identities.
Elitism:
An  ideology which promotes the perception, ideas and beliefs that a minority of gifted, talented or
educated individuals are superior to the majority of the people and will always or should rule over the
majority. For example, "We are professionals, We are businessmen, We are superior to you", "You
are a bum".

Fascism:
An ideology which promotes perceptions, ideas and attitudes that describes, define and justifies blind
acceptance to a bossy personality, hateful, aggressive and dreadful treatment of an individual's
nature (disability, sex, or race), group, (occupation, class or ethnicity) life style and country (nation).
For example, "We are professionals", "You are a bum!", "You are a homosexual", "You have no right
to speak".
Nationalism:
An ideology that supports the perception, ideas and beliefs employed by individuals to create an
imaginary sense of belonging to a distinctive group to exclude, judge and degrade  the "other"
as  individuals identified as belonging a different crowd. For example, "We are Africans", "You are a
slave", "You are a bum".
Anti-Semitism:
An ideology which promotes perceptions, ideas and belief used by individuals to define, exclude,
judge and degrade other individuals by referring to culture, ethnic and national features. For example,
"Jews are White", "Jews are bastards".
Afro-centrism:
Ideas, beliefs and assumptions that the outlook, history, culture and institutions of Africa are superior
to those elsewhere. For example, "We are Africans!", "We are superior to you!", "You would not be
able to get away with this rubbish in Africa!".
Euro-centrism:
Ideas, beliefs and assumptions that the outlook, history, culture and institutions of Europe are
superior to  those elsewhere.
Anthropocentrism:
Ideas, assumptions and perceptions which claim that humans are superior to other animals or life in the galaxy. For example, "We are Africans, We are professionals, We are businessmen", "You are a
monkey".
Essentialism:
The assumption, belief or idea that things have an ingrained fixed, sameness, unchanging and  eternal
life. For example, "You are black", "They are black" "Why do you argue with blacks?".  Here the
term "black"  implies that the individuals described, defined and categorised as "black" are supposed
to have the same ideas, regardless of their unequal life styles, creeds and changing movements.
Biological determinism:
Ideas supporting the view that the perceptions, behaviour, personality, condition and fate of
an  individual is ruled by or compared to the parts of the human body (colour of skin). For example,
"I am white", "You are black", "Whites are rich", "Blacks are poor","black culture", "Blacks are
oppressed because they're black".
++++