Identity Politics & The Jamaican Footballer Funding Exclusive Black Scholarships
Raheem Sterling, a footballer for the Chelsea team has instructed his Raheem Sterling Foundation to provide 14 "Black British students" with scholarships to Manchester University and King's College, London. This was welcomed by Prof Shitij Kapur, President of King's, and Nancy Rothwell, President of Manchester.
Sterling has been something of a controversial character. After being brought to the United Kingdom by his mother, a Jamaican athlete after his father's gang murder, he was placed in a special school for behavioural problems. Unlike many of his peers who believed they were promising footballers, he actually made it. He now sports an automatic rifle tattoo on his leg.
After he loudly championed black identity politics during the 'Black Lives Matter' farrago, he was awarded an MBE (Member of the Order of the British Empire) by Boris Johnson "for services to racial equality."
During Covid lockdowns with BLM riots on the streets (over an incident 4,000 miles away), Sterling appeared on Newsnight to say "The only disease right now is the racism that we are fighting." He was a leading champion of 'taking the knee' for Black Lives Matter and wanted to introduce an anti-racism task force across English football.
The irony of this all was that in his own defence, he stated that he wanted British citizens to come together to make the changes he wanted in a colour-blind way. "We need – as a collective – to take responsibility”, said Sterling then, “This is a new age where colour can’t define who you are.”
Yet if all his previous statements on this topic weren't clear enough, these scholarships now show that his racial background is what helps to motivate him. Colour does, at least in part, 'define who he is' and this is the basis on which these scholarships have been accepted by British universities: racial exclusiveness.
This is not the first black scholarship announcement. The Black rapper 'Stormzy' endowed one at Cambridge in 2018 after Oxford rejected him. These scholarships are still running today. It was, he said, part of his commitment to giving "£1 million per year for ten years" towards 'Black empowerment.'
Yet educational institutions were very quick to shut down Sir Bryan Thwaites attempts to do the same, when trying to support poor White British children, like himself, who had intellectual promise.
Every right-of-centre - or honest - person can understand the ties that bind one to uphold ethnic kinship and well-being. In a sea of competing demands, we prefer the proximate to the distant, the known to the unknown, and 'us' to the other. You don't feed a stranger's child at the expense of your own.
So, it's natural and logical for Sterling to prioritise his own people in this way. As a broadly drawn racial group, they are 4.2% of the population compared to 74% of the native population. Whether this allows a multi-ethnic society to properly function though is a much more questionable assumption.
But can we ask for a little more honesty about this situation? Many minority people have seized upon post-modern ideologies, such as critical race theory and diluted forms of it, such as that introduced officially into our culture by MacPherson's 'Institutional Racism' (Stephen Lawrence Report) as a tool to advance their own interests.
In time the knowing aspects of this process have been set-aside and the underlying ideological assumptions have become public clichés. We're now in the position that wherever a negative disparity between various minority groups and White British people can be found (disparate impact) it's now taken as proof of a structurally racist society. This is most often driven by those with African roots or their foster carers in the cultural hierarchy.
Yet as is also known by those in the cultural hierarchy, the position of White children is falling behind that of many historically recent interlopers into Britain. Meanwhile, people within these same cultural hierarchies, seek to attack any suggestion that broad trends in our society have a genetic component. They prefer the cultural ''Tiger Mother'' explanation of diligent, invested parenting leading to high-level outcomes. The use of these group discrepancies, is leveraged to attack White society, even where issues, such as gang crime or knife crime or murder, directly relate to black community behaviour.
Another serious issue is that the lowly educated, like Sterling, who experience the trickle-down effect of these ideologies as factual explanations are often doing a disservice to themselves and sometimes engendering a negative response towards us White others. On the one hand, they have a (false) explanation for why they haven't done better, on the other, they can come to develop a deep resentment toward the descendants of those who authority figures tell them have placed them in this position. White people stole our resources, enslaved us and now have inherited a society built upon this which actively sidelines us into menial roles. Such a situation can be used as a tool to extract resources from the host society. Either by those with violent or criminal tendencies to frame their criminality as a moral crusade, or others in the cultural hierarchy to press for benefits for their own community.
Instead of recognising these sectional-interest tendencies (that exists from feminists to BLM) and addressing them openly, the classical liberal response has been to negatively label all of this as "identity politics". The surface intention being, to ask listeners to deny and shut away deeply-rooted natural behaviours and come together instead around some totem such as the civic nation (above) or the individual self (below). It's all over the magazine Spiked🙄.
In any experiment, if you take a group of people more inclined to individualism (who share a common background) and put them into an arena with those who act on their group interests or tribalism, what will be the result?
In Britain (as well as Western Europe) as inheritors of a liberal tradition, nuclear families and the like, these individualistic tendencies are deeply rooted. Therefore any individualistic defence by White British people against the deeply engrained group grievance culture within minority activism is always destined to fail.
It is additionally now also taboo to call out the nonsense of 'institutional racism' or 'disparate impact' in our society. These are the starting points for cultural arbiters on any publicly mediated conversation.
Under such a situation, the advice to others "let's all stop our identity politics" is patent, dangerous nonsense.
If White British people wish to rescue their national patrimony and a future where they are not a despised minority, the only reasonable and ethical response is to call out all of this pernicious nonsense and stand up firmly for their own historical, national and group interests.
This is the only homeland of the British people and only policies which secure this for eternity are in the interests of the British people. Those policies which undermine this, are conversely anti-British.
More HERE or comment below