United by "our mutual mistrust of the Chinese": really?

Jan Raath suggests that racial divisions can be overcome -- by turning mistrust on another minority.

Am I missing something? Or is Jan Raath's piece in today's Times, headlined "Chinese bring Zimbabwe's black and white together", actually quite offensive?

In the column, he tells the story of the Harare suburbs' fundamental transformation since numbers in the white community collapsed from 112,000 to 12,000 (replaced by a black population that "exploded" from 340,000 to 1.6 million). At a residents' association meeting, tensions between black and white members of the association are eased by "our mutual mistrust of the Chinese", which serves as "the catalyst for a comradely encounter".

With little irony, Raath describes how a complaint about the building of an illegal dormitory for Chinese workers "broke the ice" at what was, up till then, a fraught gathering. He writes:

The residents laughed, cheered and clapped. The manager knew all about the Chinese. He had been there to tell them they had no planning permission, but none of them could understand him. Laughter. Construction would be stopped and the building would be demolished, he said. The whites cheered and clapped him too.

This feeling of exultation is shared by Raath, who approvingly writes that the episode "opened the gates for us to vent our grouses". He concludes his vignette with an observation from a middle-aged woman at the meeting, who says: "You know, they've got an abattoir near the airport. For dogs and pythons."

The moral of his piece is that racial divisions can be overcome by banding together -- to designate yet another ethnic minority as "the other". Raath seems amused by stereotypes about eating "dogs and pythons", as well as the planning association manager's struggles to overcome the language barrier.

It's no surprise that the complaint that triggers the love-in is phrased in the language of white, male paranoia: "When my wife and daughter are swimming in my pool, these Chinese stare at them over the wall." Not too far removed, really, from the irrational fear of the "foreign sexual threat", as voiced by Mosley et al in the 1950s.

The piece may be intended as a faithful account of a minor meeting, but to present the events as an example of racial harmony is nothing less than daft.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

Yo Zushi is a sub-editor of the New Statesman. His work as a musician is released by Eidola Records.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Like it or hate it, it doesn't matter: Brexit is happening, and we've got to make a success of it

It's time to stop complaining and start campaigning, says Stella Creasy.

A shortage of Marmite, arguments over exporting jam and angry Belgians. And that’s just this month.  As the Canadian trade deal stalls, and the government decides which cottage industry its will pick next as saviour for the nation, the British people are still no clearer getting an answer to what Brexit actually means. And they are also no clearer as to how they can have a say in how that question is answered.

To date there have been three stages to Brexit. The first was ideological: an ever-rising euroscepticism, rooted in a feeling that the costs the compromises working with others require were not comparable to the benefits. It oozed out, almost unnoticed, from its dormant home deep in the Labour left and the Tory right, stoked by Ukip to devastating effect.

The second stage was the campaign of that referendum itself: a focus on immigration over-riding a wider debate about free trade, and underpinned by the tempting and vague claim that, in an unstable, unfair world, control could be taken back. With any deal dependent on the agreement of twenty eight other countries, it has already proved a hollow victory.

For the last few months, these consequences of these two stages have dominated discussion, generating heat, but not light about what happens next. Neither has anything helped to bring back together those who feel their lives are increasingly at the mercy of a political and economic elite and those who fear Britain is retreating from being a world leader to a back water.

Little wonder the analogy most commonly and easily reached for by commentators has been that of a divorce. They speculate our coming separation from our EU partners is going to be messy, combative and rancorous. Trash talk from some - including those in charge of negotiating -  further feeds this perception. That’s why it is time for all sides to push onto Brexit part three: the practical stage. How and when is it actually going to happen?

A more constructive framework to use than marriage is one of a changing business, rather than a changing relationship. Whatever the solid economic benefits of EU membership, the British people decided the social and democratic costs had become too great. So now we must adapt.

Brexit should be as much about innovating in what we make and create as it is about seeking to renew our trading deals with the world. New products must be sought alongside new markets. This doesn’t have to mean cutting corners or cutting jobs, but it does mean being prepared to learn new skills and invest in helping those in industries that are struggling to make this leap to move on. The UK has an incredible and varied set of services and products to offer the world, but will need to focus on what we do well and uniquely here to thrive. This is easier said than done, but can also offer hope. Specialising and skilling up also means we can resist those who want us to jettison hard-won environmental and social protections as an alternative. 

Most accept such a transition will take time. But what is contested is that it will require openness. However, handing the public a done deal - however well mediated - will do little to address the division within our country. Ensuring the best deal in a way that can garner the public support it needs to work requires strong feedback channels. That is why transparency about the government's plans for Brexit is so important. Of course, a balance needs to be struck with the need to protect negotiating positions, but scrutiny by parliament- and by extension the public- will be vital. With so many differing factors at stake and choices to be made, MPs have to be able and willing to bring their constituents into the discussion not just about what Brexit actually entails, but also what kind of country Britain will be during and after the result - and their role in making it happen. 

Those who want to claim the engagement of parliament and the public undermines the referendum result are still in stages one and two of this debate, looking for someone to blame for past injustices, not building a better future for all. Our Marmite may be safe for the moment, but Brexit can’t remain a love it or hate it phenomenon. It’s time for everyone to get practical.