Out of the Ashes: Britain after the riots - REVIEW

When I found out that David Lammy had written a book on the riots I was shocked. The riots took place in August and three months later a book is written and published, when David Cameron and so many others are still trying to work out why the riots spread to other areas and what exactly happened in the case of Mark Duggan.  I made my feelings known via twitter and caught the attention of his publisher who kindly sent me the book to read. Here are my thoughts...

As I held the book in my hand I turned over and read the back cover. My eyebrow instantly raised and numerous questions began formulating. “David Lammy MP predicted the riots of 2011 a year before they took place”. I do not recall Lammy making this explicit forecast and even if he did it just seemed strange to begin an overview of a book in this manner. The tone has an air of “I told you so” though who is this aimed at? The next sentence led to the same reaction “Following the violence he spoke passionately for his constituents”. I and many others remember that televised speech well. Unfortunately Lammy’s passion came across as patronising. As he spoke the dynamics were clear, he was the angry father and those who rioted in Tottenham were the naughty children. I acknowledge having to speak live in such circumstances is not easy, but for me that didn’t help morale at all.

November 9^th I was walking to work and David Lammy walked past me. I stopped him and introduced myself. I have never bumped into an MP and here he is, 3 days into me reading his book. Random, coincidence or synchronicity? Who knows. He was warm, open and engaging and told me he looked forward to reading my review.

David Lammy born in Tottenham and now the MP for this area speaks openly about his childhood, the riots in 1985 and 2011, Mark Duggan, society today and the potential solutions for society tomorrow. He has done what no other MP, to my knowledge has done and that is to connect the dots to give a wider perspective on various issues from family life, environment, class, behaviour, to the punishment and education system. I do not agree with all of his suggestions but nevertheless they have value.

His detailed account of Mark Duggan’s death is clear, supported by references and a description that brings to life the atmosphere along with the various emotions and confusion. Mark Duggan was killed by CO-19 (another firearms departments within the Met) as part of an Operation Trident investigation and not by local police, which Lammy raises as it’s a fact, whilst acknowledging that the relationship with the public and local police has improved since the first riots. Lammy seems to understand the impact past situations have had on this community, unfortunately it didn’t translate well through his speech because he chose to focus on “Don’t judge this area again please” tone, over the general overwhelming consensus among the people that another injustice took place. It’s all about balance and sensitivity which Lammy seemed to get wrong on this occasion.

 David Cameron was on holiday and returned on the 4^th day of rioting.  Young people feel like the government do not care about them and Cameron’s actions appeared to reaffirm that notion and not just to the young, but to the many. Lammy therefore played the tough talking role that perhaps was more suited for Cameron.

Commenting on today’s culture Lammy said...

 “The riots were an explosion of hedonism and nihilism. People with little to lose lashed out at authority and took what they wanted. The violence and the looting were driven by a sense that, for a few nights only, people could do whatever they pleased. Lives and livelihoods were treated as collateral damage in pursuit of self-gratification”.

I fully agree with his points however I would also argue that over four nights the rioters reflected the corrupt elite.The looters were opportunistic thieves which puts them in the same category as the greedy bankers and MP’s who abused the expenses. Society needs to change but from what end? The government or the people? Who reflects who?

At this point I think it is extremely important to mention that Lammy topped the list of parliamentary expenses. According to data from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, David Lammy claimed £173,922.06 in 2010-11, more than any of the 449 other MPs in parliament. Bearing in mind that Tottenham/Haringey is one of the most deprived boroughs in London, what does this say about Lammy?

I too agree that those who took part in the riots did so, not out of protest to the death/murder of Duggan, but an over-identification of hopelessness, abandonment, injustice and frustration. The wave of chaos was more than a copycat act. Spreading rapidly like a virus it reminded me of Malcolm Gladwell’s book The Tipping Point where he classified various situations, including riots as "the moment of critical mass, the threshold, and the boiling point”. Numerous factors are taken into consideration to explain sociological and behavioural changes. As a result the riots, in my opinion was a "Tipping Point" moment due to collective identification. A wave of many sheep thinking they were above the law, due to the in action of the law. Instant gains was the goal whilst consequences, morals and values were no where to be seen.

 Malcolm Gladwell

Structured into 9 headings/chapters this book comments on Lammy’s observation on society today, which feels as though this was the route he was heading in before he “Re-focused.” Lammy makes some great points and his ideas overall are good because he has gone deeper to understand the cause behind the symptoms.

There is a chapter called Rights from Wrong and as I finished reading this book I was invited to watch the premiere of Riot from Wrong, a documentary by Fully Focused Productions whose aim was to “Search deeper though listening to the voices that they feel are not being heard”. 

The documentary is balanced, insightful, hard hitting, emotional, creative, informative and investigative in a Michael Moore-esqe way. The footage includes interviews with Mark Duggan’s aunt and brother, community activist Stafford Scott and Jason Nwansi, Michael Mansfield QC, David Lammy and views from those who gained (looters) and those who lost (victims). It also includes exclusive footage showing a Rodney King style beating of a 16 year old girl by the police. This documentary is powerful beyond measure and enlightening. The target market is everyone and due to its medium it will reach everyone, which is an important acknowledgement.

Lammy’s book is interesting and this “review” is longer than expected as it lead me to my own thought processes. However inspite of his transparent expressions about his upbringing and society as a whole, I still feel I don’t know who David Lammy is. The person I briefly met and the person who comes to life through the words on the page feel different and I think this is because he is writing as an MP and not as a person who happens to be an MP. Slight, but major difference.

During the riots of 1985, Lammy watched the events unfold on TV at school. He knew what was happening and why, though at that age felt unable to articulate himself and “defend” his area to his peers and friends. He went on to say “A quarter of a century later, I was representing Tottenham for real”. This line made my eyebrow raise again ,as it seems to have a “See I’m down with the kids” tone, which doesn’t sit well.  Lammy also makes parallels to this years riots and the Broadwater Farm  riots of 1985 and as result I think I should also do the same. 

Source:http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remembering-Cynthia-Jarrett/140040599357910

Broadwater Farm Riots 1985

Mark Duggan

Tottenham riots 2011

In 1985 Cynthia Jarrett’s death occurred at the hands of the police which led to the first Tottenham Riots. In 2011 Mark Duggan was killed by the police which led to the summer riots. The difference appears to be the two MP’s immediate responses in the aftermath of the riots. Bernie Grant demonstrated more understanding and empathy of his constituents and the reasons they rioted, whereas David Lammy’s initial televised response did not. It is for this reason that for many Tottenham residents, David Lammy will always be living in the shadow of Tottenham’s former MP the late Bernie Grant. 

 In reference to understanding the brutality and injustice that a lot of his constituents were facing from the police. Bernie Grant stood in Parliament and said  what “The police got was a bloody good hiding”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2011/aug/08/anger-tottenham-broadwater-riots-1985

Whether you think it's right or wrong there is always a reason behind a riot!

David Lammy is an MP who is a Member of the Public and appears passionate about finding positive solutions that benefit not just Tottenham but society as a whole. However in order for this to be effectively communicated he, unfortunately has to unlearn the collective clone-like MP traits that distance and not engage.

The inquiry into Duggan’s death is still ongoing, as is the changing accounts as to what EXACTLY happened. Witnesses are coming forward with new information; looters are being found and charged. Shops are still boarded up and people who lost their homes are still rebuilding. Were the riots triggered by police brutality on a young girl? Tottenham and other areas are not out of the ashes just yet. The title and subheading of this book is very much premature and fuels the opportunistic tone which was my concern at the beginning.

Lammy’s book is interesting as he appears to understand the sociological, environmental and economical factors that contribute to the ills of society. However this seems to be contradicted due to him topping the expenses claimant list. Society is broken and will remain that way if those in power continue to have a disconnection to the people they are there to serve. 


Additional Notes:
David Lammy's book is not for profit. All proceeds will go to charities in Tottenham, however these charities are currently unspecified.


Out of the Ashes:Britain after the riots by David Lammy
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Ashes-Britain-after-riots/dp/0852652674/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325520817&sr=1-1

© Lisa Bent 2012

Ying and Yang

I felt the need to write this article after hearing Historian David Starkey’s comments“ The Whites have become Black” which he expressed on Friday 12^th August on Newsnight. The riots and looting that took place regionally involved all races yet somehow Starkey’s finger of blame is being directed solely with one group of people. Black people and their “perceived” culture.  

Starkey is a historian and one who clearly picks and chooses what aspects of findings he wants to use to push his argument and agenda, which is narrow minded and offensive. Yes Black culture has been influential in England but also across the world in positive ways from food, music and clothes, though Starkey seems to blame black culture for the change in language and so much more. He said "This language which is wholly false, which is this Jamaican patois that’s been intruded in England, and this is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country".  Now we all know this statement is not true so I do not feel the need to break it down to discredit his argument. 

He went on to say “Listen to David Lammy, an archetypical successful black man, if you turned the screen off so you were listening to him on radio you’d think he was white." I am not sure what point he was trying to make but clearly anyone who speaks like him must represent who he believes he is, which is intelligent, educated and civilised. Making the David Lammy comparison would also imply that he is somehow different from other Black people. The overall tone was Us vs. Them, maintaining the greater than (Superiority) and Less than (Inferiority) tone. "The Whites have become Blacks.” As I repeat this again and again to find some sort of clarity of what he means, I hit a dead end each time. What does he mean? He mentions Chav’s so am I to assume that chavs are the new Blacks? Either way his comments are offensive in the same way as...

Starkey also said it’s not about skin colour it’s culture and then proceeds to mention Black culture. Culture is ideals, beliefs, art, literature etc of particular groups. The group he is choosing to focus on is Black, so how is his statement not about skin colour and therefore ‘race’?

Language is important and so are labels. Both are powerful in both conscious and unconscious ways. Recent developments in the analysis of DNA, confirms that the concept of ‘race’ is a constructed one, with no objective basis in biology. This concept as well as the notions of ‘Black’ and ‘White’ were imposed by the colonial powers. Rustin (1991) said, “It is both an empty category and one of the most powerful forms of social categorization” (Rustin, p.57). Categorising a group of people puts people in brackets and furthers the tone of hierarchy and rank. Colour terminology for ‘race’, the categorisation of people based on the colour of their skin, serves the same purpose.  Black and white it isn’t, as no other group of people are defined or referred to by skin colour and no other colours in the spectrum of colours, has such diverse symbolic, metaphorical, cultural connotations attached to it (Lago & Smith, 2003).

Like the Chinese Ying and Yang symbol, black and white are seen as direct opposites of each other. However there strengths are individually celebrated and when viewed as a whole this symbol represents harmony and balance. In society these colours, which “identify” the ‘race’ of a group of people, seem only to encapsulate the separateness, conflict and a good vs. bad dualism.

It is this good Vs. Bad dualism that Starkey promotes within his Us vs. Them stance. Philosopher Martin Buber spoke of I/It and I/thou which furthers my point.   I-Thou is a relationship of mutuality and reciprocity, while I-It is a relationship of separateness and detachment. As a result Starkey chooses to see “Black culture” as the problem here, even though the rioters and looters were off all ‘races’. He chooses to see what he wants to, and what he sees taps into the belief he already holds. The other members on the panel Dreda Say Mitchell and the author of Chavs Owen Jones made some great comments offering a diverse and wider perspective to Starkey’s narrow minded view, but were continually interrupted.

Starkey claimed it was the "destructive, nihilistic gangster culture'' which he said ''has become the fashion” to help explain the looters actions. The levels of consumerism has risen and with it greed. How can this “nihilistic gangster culture” be dumped at the door of one specific group? The rich and poor divide is widening, socio and economic factors need to be included as the rise in celebrity culture and so much more. When did being a gangster become synonymous with being black or part of the black culture? “Gangster culture” has been around for decades. Cowboys and Indians, Scarface, The Godfather, The Krays and even The Mitchell Brothers in EastEnders for example, all have glorified violence, wealth, control and power, so isn't this more to do with media glorification than black culture?

Psychologist Ellis (2004) said “When white society ignores their own basic feelings and need, black society have been programmed over centuries to take care of white society needs” (p.4). Alleyne extends this point by expressing “Black people continue to carry the transgenerational and intergenerational pain of their collective past, but also the burden of the other’s hidden shame and their own silent witnessing” (Alleyne, 2005, p.295). ‘Race’, difference and diversity stares us all in the face, yet as individuals we have all been conditioned to avoid it, and so the question of why never gets the attention it deserves. ‘Race’ is hard to look at especially within its historical context, this is an important acknowledgement and for me begins to explain why people with views like Starkey find it easier to place the blame elsewhere.

Lowe (2008) hits the nail on the head by acknowledging ‘race’ as paranoid-schizoid splits. Projective identification created centuries ago, deemed whites as the desirable superior aspect of the self and blacks as the inferior undesirable aspects hence the good vs. bad dualism. Gomez (Cited in Lowe) said “Demons are easily made when we identify with one side of a split’ . . . we are prone to externalize what we cannot bear within, terrified of seeing ourselves like the groups we repudiate”. (2008, p.20).

                                                            

                                                                              1. self                           2.Other  

 Pic: Individual 1. projects or expels ‘internal’ objects from within itself whilst the other ‘internalises’ or has

 them projected ‘into’ them.                                   

It is easier to lay blame with the Other than to turn the same finger to self to look at self. As I said there are many factors involved within the events that took place over a week ago. Starkey’s comments are lazy, offensive and an abuse of his knowledge.

Given that relations between black and white groups over several centuries have been typified by oppression, exploitation and discrimination, how might contemporary relationships be transformed into creative (rather than further damaging) experiences? Referring back to the Chinese Ying and Yang symbol, both the perceived opposite aspects of self need to be embraced.

However Sampson (Cited in Alleyne, 2004) illustrates “The Other [Black person] is an essential presence without whom the protagonist could not be who they claim to be” (Alleyne, 2004, p.50), the risk therefore may be too great. Society, ‘race’, psychotherapy and so much more, as we know it would be revealed to be nothing more than a construct based on false beliefs. So whilst discussion need not come from a place of blame but open mindedness, understanding and acceptance, the risk may be too great to bear. It is this which stops progression.  

This is not about Black culture it is about Blame culture. Blame perpetuates a dysfunctional cycle. To move forward everyone needs to look at all the factors involved and that includes the government and police who are currently finger pointing each other. If they all came together the solution of how to move forward could be found. Those who committed acts of crime need to look at themselves and take responsibility for their actions. Everyone had a choice and in that moment they made theirs. What occurred extended beyond class, and 'race' and it is important that those who comment on these events remind themselves of this. 


References: 
Rustin, M. (1991). Psychoanalysis, racism and anti-racism. In the Good society and the inner world. London: Verco.


Lago, C., & Smith, B. (Eds.). (2003). Anti-discriminatory practice. London, UK:Sage.


Ellis, B. (2004). Using Macrocosm to understand the Microcosm. Black therapist, White client. Politics in the therapy room. 


Alleyne, A. (2005). Invisible injuries and silent witnesses: The shadow of racial oppression in workplace contexts. 


Lowe, F. (2008). Colonial Object Relations: Going underground Black-White Relationships. 

Alleyne, A. (2004). The internal oppressor and black identity wounding. 

© Lisa Bent 2011

Too hard. Too fast. Too deep.

For the past couple of weeks I have been trying to get my head around David Cameron’s The Big Society ethos and after much consideration I have come to the conclusion that not only is it a buzzword and a patronising one which discredits all the hard work charities and other public and non for profit organisations have been doing over the years, it is also another “I want to leave my mark on society” which seems to be the ego led drive of so many Prime Minister’s.

Speaking in the Cabinet Room 18th May 2010 the PM said he wanted his vision of a “Big Society” of community work and social enterprise to be one of the “great legacies” of his Government. The aim is "To create a climate that empowers local people and communities, building a big society that will 'take power away from politicians and give it to people.'                    (http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/topstorynews/2010/05/big-society-502).

        Picture source: http://redlandslabour.org.uk/?p=281

I agree with Matthew Wright who says MP should stand for Members of the Public not Parliament. The world they live in seems to be very disconnected from the public who they are meant to be representing. If he really wanted the people to have more say then why haven’t I and many others, been asked about the social issues that we are currently going through from the cuts to UK’s involvement within the war against Colonel Gaddaffi? The government can track my movements via my Oyster card, through the hundreds of camera’s across London and through the Google car spies, so “I passed by and you weren’t home” isn’t going to wash.

The government has slashed funding dramatically to the extent that a lot of organisations that do amazing work have had to close. MOSAC is one of these agencies and one which is close to my heart. As a counsellor I worked with parents and carers of children who have been sexually abused, the work here is extremely important and vital for families going through such emotional difficulties. This non for profit company like so many others, was set up to fill needs and demands that the government overlooked or did not provide. Due to the cuts MOSAC now only has an online presence, which is good but nothing can substitute for one to one interaction in an empathetic, supportive and holding environment.

Everyone pay’s taxes into society’s pot to help it function. Though I am now questioning the purpose as society isn’t functioning. Cuts to the police force means a lack of police presence on the streets, lack of safety for those who live in gun toting areas where these idiots seem to be in charge of the streets with no concern or regard for those in the cross-fire or the repercussions of their actions.  Community service over prisons, ever-changing rules on drug laws and so I ask you what is the deterrent?

The divide between the rich and poor will increase as will crime, joblessness, homelessness and squatting. I am sorry to be so bleak but this is inevitable and I am extremely concerned that the government seem to have overlooked the dominoes effect of their too hard, too fast and too deep cut throat slashing. The obvious seems to be missing as figures, numbers and money seems to be blinding their long term vision, as they try and plug this deficit that I for one never created or benefitted from. 

Picture source: http://current.com/news-and-politics/77272961_extreme-rich-poor-divides.htm

Many “third world” countries have been in debt for years due to countries charging extortionate rates further bleeding them dry. Money was a thought/ concept manifested into being and a value attached to it. What if we all just started from scratch, no debt, deficit and one currency? Imagine that? ....

Those who have abused benefits have now had the rug pulled out from under their feet. Whilst I feel this has been overdue I do not agree with how the government are going about it, after all this is the same system that numerous MP’s also abused. Expenses is the rich man’s dole, different but the same, united by loop holes in the law. The government created this nanny state and it is the government’s duty, in my opinion to wean them off it. Weaning is a slow process that involves interventions, tools and techniques to help the abusers of the system not only give back to a society that has propped them up like a crutch for years, but also to help raise self-esteem and confidence so that they can function within the workforce. As a read this back, it all sounds so pampered, people in other countries with far less hustle everyday. There is no help from their government. Their motivation is to provide, survive and aim for a better life.  All I can do is shake my head...acknowledge and continue...

The rug pulling technique is a double whammy and one which will get much worse before it gets better. It is the government who enforce these rules though it is the people on ground level who will feel it the most. As alcohol and drug abuse rises so will mental health issues. Who will help when the services will be even more stretched in the months and years to come? And how will hardworking non abusers of the system feel and cope with the changing community that they live in? The working class and middle/upper class divide will widen but so will the working class and those who are non-working. 

Cameron went onto say …

“Today is the start of a deep and serious reform agenda to take power away from politicians and give it to people...we know instinctively that the state is often too inhuman, monolithic and clumsy to tackle our deepest social problems. We know that the best ideas come from the ground up, not the top down. We know that when you give people and communities more power over their lives, more power to come together and work together to make life better – great things happen.”

Yeah this sounds great but this is not reality right now. I think Cameron is at least 20 years ahead of himself, evidenced through the weekly debate regarding religion, church and state that The Big Questions seem to highlight every week and get no closer to any kind of agreement or understanding let alone discussions on how to move forward and work together in harmony through the acceptance and respect of different views and of others in general.

Febuary 24th 2011 Cameron began his £2 million a year quest to find out what makes people happy. Happines is of course a subjective experiance and so meanings will differ. The general consenus of what the community don't want is...

                                       
                                             Picture source: http://www.wearedorothy.com/art/big-society-poster/


If the government start with eradicting this, then im sure the answers to what makes individuals and society as a whole happy will be clearly evident.

Related Posts:
1.Rat + Bird = Fish?
2.Evolution = Revolution?
3.The Right to Die: Who has the Power?

© Lisa Bent 2011