Common sense about colour

PERSONAL COLUMN

SIMON RAVEN

In order to avoid loss of temper, let us base this discussion on propositions so simple and self-evident that nobody, whatever his back- ground or opinions, can misunderstand or disagree with them.

1. Coloured people are fundamentally the same as all others. If we prick them they bleed, if we tickle them they laugh, and if we poison them they die.

2. There are, however, certain very plain differences between coloured races and the (so-called) white ones. Some of these differ- ences are physical, e.g. the shade of skin, the texture of hair and the cast of feature; others are 'cultural,' which is to say that most coloured people have been brought up in dis- tant countries where everything from diet to climate to mores is alien to the average white.

3. The physical differences give rise, on either side and in varying ratio, to delight, dis- gust, affection, lust, contempt, hatred and fear.

4. The `cultural' differences give rise, on either side and in varying ratio, to suspicion, admiration, curiosity, resentment and pride.

5. Nobody knows (though some people pre- tend to) .what causes the less pleasing of these reactions (e.g. disgust and fear). They are clearly irrational; beyond this, all we can say is that they are prominent and intense.

6. Until the cause is known, there can be no• cure. • So much for general propositions. Now let us state a few more, equally simple and equally self-evident, which have to do with •a particular situation—the presence of coloured people in our own country.

• a. Coloured people who come to the United Kingdom are for the most part neither refugees nor political exiles; they have left their own homes to come here of their own free will.

b. Many British people despise or detest coloured people, wherever they may be. This feeling is reciprocated. (See 3 and 4 above.) c. Many British people are indifferent to coloured people, or positively wish them well, provided they stay in their own countries or stay out of the way when in this.

d. There are now too many of them here to stay out of the way, however hard they may try to. • e. In any case, this country is already over- crowded by the white population alone.

f. There will therefore be increasing and un- avoidable confrontation between white people and coloured.

g. Given the propositions .3 to 6 and a to c above, such confrontation will lead (has already led) to grave trouble.

h. Such trouble will be mitigated (has been mitigated) only by men of good will on. eithee side, by men, that is, who do not share, or force themselves to suppress, the feelings of hatred and so forth to which I have referred above.

Now, from these irrefutable propositions one.

salient fact emerges: it is, all a matter of numbers. Do the white citizens who, when

actually confronted with coloured immigrants, will be friendly or at least tolerant, outnumber those who will not? If se, by bow many?

And if not, by bow many?. It is quite beside the point to preach sermons about what people ought to feel or how they ought to behave:

the relevant questions are, what do they feel, how do they behave, and what, on a majority reckoning, do they want? Because if (if) the present majority in this country does not want to share it with a steadily increasing number of coloured immigrants, then to com- pel them to do so (whatever the theoretical rights and wrongs) is to court calamity. This is not only a moral problem, it is a practical one and best considered as such; for if—if, I say—more than a certain percentage of the population is hostile to the existing policy on immigration, that policy cannot, for much longer, be made to work.

There is just one way of finding out whether or not the population is in fact hostile to the existing policy, and that is not by expressing pious hopes on the one hand or by spreading venomous scandals on the other, but, quite simply, by asking. This is an issue which will affect every man, woman and child in the entire country for his or her whole life, an issue about which, therefore, strong and often dangerous views are held; surely, then, it would be prudent (to say the very least of it) to find out as precisely as possible what those views are and how many people bold them?

The most effective way to do so would be by public referendum. Although this would be a laborious exercise, it would be no more troublesome than taking a census, and the matter in hand is quite as important as any census because it concerns the structure of the society in which we must all live. Like the ballot, this referendum should be secret and anonymous, so that everyone may state his position without fear or favour. Obviously, if we are going to such pains, we would wish to gather the fullest information, and at the bare minimum the questions asked should be these: Are you satisfied with the existing policy, which allows the limited immigration of coloured people?

If not: Do you advocate the admission of immi- grants in unlimited numbers? In numbers still limited but larger than at present? Or in num- bers smaller than at present?

Do you advocate that for the time being at least the admission of immigrants (except for the dependants of those already here) should cease altogether?

If so, would you make exception in the case of doctors? And in that of others offer- ing special services?

Do you advocate that measures be taken, if any be possible, for the reduction of the immigrant population already here?

If some such catechism were to be carefully and fairly framed (1 fully realise that the one above may be faulty) and if the completed forms were to be submitted on the same system as voting papers, then at least we should know where we stood. At the moment, champions of all shades of opinion are claiming majority support. Some of them must be wrong and it is high time we knew which.

As for action on the strength of this referen- dum, clearly it should be planned to accord with the general sense taken. If more than 60 per cent of the electorate were in favour of certain measures, such measures should be earnestly considered; if more than 80 per cent, it would be mandatory to adopt them.

However, the scope for action (in whatever direction) is limited by various practical realities which must be firmly borne in mind by all. Some things can definitely be done (if desired), others definitely cannot (however much desired), and about many there must be considerable doubt. Thus: i. Conipulsory deportation is out of any possible question. Let alone considerations of decency, the thing is plainly not practicable without organisation and expenditure which are totally beyond our present means.

ii. It is possible, however, to offer financial assistance to those who would wish to leave but for thb lack of it.

iii. It is also possible to forbid the entry of further immigrants, provided reasonable notice is given.

iv. But it is not possible to forbid dependants to join immigrants already here. This would mean breaking a promise, and to break promises (never mind the ethics) is to destroy confidence and to forfeit cooperation.

v. It should be possible, on the other hand, to sort out 'bogus' dependants and deny them entry.

vi. If those who advocate unlimited or in- creased immigration carry the day, they must be prepared to face daunting problems of housing and of accommodation in every sense.

vii. White people cannot be held to owe a debt of guilt to coloured ones (or vice versa) oil account of alleged ancestral wickedness. I cannot accept responsibility for the crimes of my great-great-grandfather, who may have en- slaved Africans, any more than I can take credit for the virtues of my great-grandfather, who may have manumitted them viii. There is a lot of talk about what 're- education' may achieve. Very few people over twenty-five years old are `re-educable' on this issue or any other.

To sum up. The 'colour problem' is urgent in this country because it has already led to dissension and could lead, as it has in America, to bloodshed. Since it is a matter which ex- cites many and concerns all, any solution, to be viable, must be substantially in accord with what- the majority wants. We live, after all, in a democracy. Let us, then, try to find out what the majority wants, and then let us try to ensure that this, in so far as it is practicable, is what is done. We cannot please everyone in the country; but the more people we please, the less friction we shall have.