By Nathan Richards

After reading “Who’s Blacker than you?” it is obvious to me that the author did not read my article – they just imagined what it is I said. Their first paragraph reveals the extent to which they engaged with my piece, setting the tone for their reading. The author wrote:

Richards informs us that he is no fan of the term “politically black” and urges caution in how we use it.

Is that what I caution, really? Let’s go back and read what, and who, I was actually cautioning. I wrote:

While I am no advocate of the term ‘politically black’, I caution those vehemently opposing its use.

From the moment the author read my article under that wrong assumption, they missed the point entirely. This is a crucial point to mistake because it’s here I reveal who I’m addressing. I’m saying to those AGAINST the term, be cautious – there is a context here that you are missing – the entire article is addressed to that group. There is a history of solidarity that makes the term “politically black” historically relevant. In many ways I am mirroring the author’s historical context. I discuss the importance of political blackness over two thirds of the article, and yet like any good discussion I conceded on some concerns from those that oppose the term, some of which I share.

I say yes there are issues of who gets to speak and who doesn’t within the academy. Yes there are structures within the academy and within society that favour certain groups over others. We all know this, light over dark, East Asians (a “model minority”) over Black – these are the realities of white supremacy. This is the hierarchy that is played out all day every day. Acknowledging these realities is important, and listening to concerns is important. At the end of all this I say that we need to tackle these issues – together – and if the term becomes a problem then it can be dispensed with. It is the solidarity that is essential not the label – I problematised political blackness – I didn’t oppose it.

I used the term “ethnically black” for the sake of this article, to demonstrate that some are born into a notion of blackness as part of their cultural and ethnic identity.  This includes most generally African and Caribbean people, as opposed to people who adopt a black identity for political reasons. If we go and ask a number of Black and Asian people on the street if they are Black – a picture will emerge – one I’m sure we are all aware of.

Understanding these contemporary realities is crucial because both groups approach notions of blackness differently. For one group the fight against white racism and oppression is central, for another, blackness reflects their ethnic and cultural heritage related to their “race”. To ask the cultural group to see there blackness as indicative of oppression with white domination at the centre, is contentious. This is the reason I say the conflation of oppressed people (political) with those for who it is a cultural identity needs to be interrogated in the contemporary. It is clear that not every Black and Brown person gets the different realities.

I said for the sake of solidarity, we need to have a conversation about terms and the problem “politically blackness” is presenting. If I spoke on behalf of Muslim men, because “we’re all black”, this is possibly okay up to a point, but I would have to check myself. Brown activists speaking on educational issues within the Caribbean community also is fine, but only to a point. They too would have to check themselves – who gets to speak is a necessary consideration, and is the main concern of those that oppose the political black term.

The fact is that there are 85 black professors (African/Caribbean) and over 850 who are of Asian origin. Now if we don’t forget our post-colonial education, we know white supremacy has a hierarchy of preference. Plus we know there are varying access barriers and economic realities within different “black” groups. Add this to the fact that using the label “politically black” within institutions that favour the proximity of brown to white, you have a problem. I’m not implying brown professors, lecturers and students are using the term to their own advantage – I’m saying, institutional practice is shaping who gets to speak. This is what I address in my article – that it is the institutions that should be our key focus – and we have to tackle that collectively.

The author wrote such an interesting history, which we should engage with, yet it is frustrating because I can see my piece was read with a skewed lens. My piece is about fostering solidarity and it is primarily cautioning people about creating fractures. Discussing the conflicts in the term “politically black” is necessary. I agree that it is a useful term, but it is not infallible.

By equating my critique with “Nazism” is tantamount to attempts at silencing debate. I was respectful, even timid in my piece. I do not know how much more polite I could have been without grovelling. I never said we should split or stop trusting brown people – that would never reflect my politics.

It is good to question and ask about new terms of solidarity; a topic we should spend more time on. But to do so, we need to build a new consensus because the old one is dead.

This article is based on a collection of tweets by the author.