Two years ago I was nominated by well meaning colleagues and admirers for one of the first people's peerages. It placed me in a very difficult situation, not wanting to appear too churlish to my supporters, yet not exactly welcoming the thought of this accolade. I remembered feeling really depressed about it, especially when such an honour would have filled many people with delight. But it filled me with dread because of its connections to the empire and our racist, oppressive past. I was rather negative about it, even saying that the mere mention of the House of Lords, when there were ladies too, was so very sexist in view of my work. Not surprisigly, I didn't get a sniff of the award.

September 2003 was not the first time I had waxed lyrical about the fossilised relic called an honours system. I have been doing it for 5 years, while being deliberately sidelined by the august establishment who appeared to believe I was just speaking for myself. Almost every year there has been an editorial in New IMPACT on the subject, which has fallen on deaf, White ears. Yet, it is very important that this issue is addressed and clarified, otherwise many more embarrassments are going to follow. Openly dismissing the award as a legacy of colonialism, Benjamin Zephaniah said that the very name, Order of the British Empire, reminded him of "thousands of years of brutality...of how my foremothers were raped and my forefathers brutalised.".

With one of the most admired and respected figures in the Black community rejecting these awards, and with exactly the same view as thousands of other noteworthy individuals, it should be interesting to see what happens from now on. The editorial published last September echoes this view almost to the letter and is reproduced below...

POETRY, HONOURS & AN ARCHAIC EMPIRE

My love of the printed word led me into teaching and my love of poetry ignited my own attempts at expressing my deep feelings in verse with varying degrees of success. My favourite writers are many, but my favourite poets are few. Poems which appeal seem to be divided into three stark types: love, death and routine life. So it is no surprise that the poets who have fired my imagination are mainly Keats, Byron, Andrew Marvell (for love), Sylvia Plath, Chinua Achebe, Derek Walcott (life) and W H Auden and Wilfred Owen for death.

I remember over 30 years ago studying the works of those poets, thinking how archaic some of them sounded, but still relishing their form, structure, content and inescapable appeal. Some were truly timeless, like the war poems of Auden and Owen, but others made me wonder about their value and significance. I got the feeling then that we were studying poetry not because of the relevance to our lives (I was Black in a White world of writing), or because of their merits, but because they were written per se by a particular poet. Ipso facto, no matter how crass the poem sounded or how obscure the meaning "one which often related only to the time the piece was written, a time which was alien to our lives" it was regarded as a masterpiece, simply because it was written by a known poet like Shelley or Keats. Examples which spring to mind are Ozymandias by Shelley, The Great Lover by Rupert Brooke and Andrea del Sarto by Robert Browning.

You name a compilation and these poems will be proffered in it as great works but, for the life of me, I do not see their relevance, meaning, or message. No doubt some enthusiastic, erudite boffin can tell me what I should have seen or how wonderful they are, but poetry should move people; make them feel as though they understand what it is about and also engage them in a meaningful way. If one has to sit with a microscope to examine meaning, form and reference, its usefulness is immediately lost. One cannot appreciate what is obscure and irrelevant.

RELICS OF A BYGONE AGE

These archaic poems may be considered excellent relics of a bygone age, depicting the passion and flavour of the times which evoked them, but they are of little use to the feeling, appreciation or emotion of the current times. You know they are supposed to be great, that they should give you some sort of experience in the reading of them but they just fall flat. Exactly the same with the British honours system.

I have a little hobby horse relating to the public honours which I ride every now and then: I would not accept an honour with the word empire in it. Hence it is marvellous watching all my noted friends and colleagues getting gongs around me while I am blissfully untouched in the middle, quietly notching up a record for never being honoured in my lifetime!

However, my stance is beginning to make some of them feel uncomfortable. Goodness knows, they have worked hard for that recognition. But they, too, not only feel a sense of ambiguity, but also a growing sense of unease, at naturally wanting to be recognised for their contributions to British society, yet getting it in a form which is an anathema to their beliefs and loyalties. This recognition, though welcomed on one hand, deprives Black recipients of any genuine feeling of pride. It is being doled out by an arrogant establishment, one steeped in its own superiority and racism, which shows no desire to link the current honours system to the needs of a multicultural society.

Where in heavens name is the British Empire which these awards are based on? I wish someone would point it out to me. Could it be that I cannot see it because I am Black, being a place privileged to behold only by the White majority?

It seems that colour defines the perspectives on this thorny issue, even in a multicultural Britain of the 21st century; a time when we are no longer against each other and are supposed to be part of one nation. The words obviously mean different things to different sections of society. The mention of the British Empire for BLACK people conjures up images of repression, oppression, obscene racism, discrimination, superiority of one people above another, cultural imposition, colonialism, exploitation, total disrespect and death. Something to forget at all costs. For the WHITE majority, the same words echo power, conquest, cultural superiority, colonisation, a license to be racist and oppressive and to kill with impunity those deemed to aggressive, ignorant and rebellious. Something to celebrate with pride.

The supreme irony is that all the Government has to do to make the honours system more inclusive is to change the E in the title of these awards (to Excellence? Endeavour? England?). This would applaud every deserving person in Britain without negating the honours received by earlier recipients, or reinforcing one section above another.

HONOURING PAST RACISTS

With the independence of India in 1948, the British Empire was acknowledged to be officially over. Yet more than half a century later we are still living back there, afraid to move from the past to unite our country in the present. Still existing on past glories and honouring past racists, yet lacking the confidence to acknowledge new heroes and to take pride in them; clinging on to old discriminatory traditions, values and labels to boost our flagging egos. With the death of the Queen Mother, who was regarded as the last Empress of India, it is really time to let that tired insulting word pass into history.

We respect people in a diverse society when we pay attention to their individual needs, concerns, anxieties, hopes and ambitions and on mutual terms, not just imposing our own. As with poetry, one cannot appreciate something which is clearly obscure, irrelevant and offensive, regardless of its value in a past time. And this honours system might be an excellent relic of the empire Britain enjoyed, but it does little to build pride, harmony, appreciation or feel-good emotion for minorities in the 21st century.

ANNUAL INSULT

From Prime Minister Tony Blair, to each cabinet minister, through to junior ministers, if you were to ask every single one of them if they respected visible minorities they would immediately assure you that they did, and would go to lengths to try to demonstrate it too. But obviously not in this primary regard: now becoming an annual insult which recognises minorities with an honour that denigrated their foreparents and robbed them of their dignity. An honour, even though only in name, still reflects the division, racism and control of one superior group above another; an honour minorities should be grateful to receive while it reinforces their perceived inferiority.

All Black Britons seek is a balance in perspectives, treatment and regard, of both bad and good; an acknowledgement of their presence in this country in a positive way. Not only with regard to past histories, but to future glories which they will be able to both share, and contribute to, with dignity, pride and a strong feeling of inclusion.

ABOUT ELAINE SIHERA

Elaine Sihera is the leading authority on diversity development and practice in the UK. Recently awarded the Leadership in Best Practice (Micro) at the Multicultural Awards for Competitiveness and Enterprise by the University of Luton, she is also the founder of the annual Windrush Achievement Awards, the British Diversity Awards and the author of Managing the Diversity Maze. A motivation and confidence guru, as well as a columnist for Black Britain Online, Elaine's latest book (Money, Sex and Compromise), on the dynamics of relationships and why they fail, will be published in February 2004. Elaine will also be giving the inaugural annual Diversity Lecture on February 2nd entitled "The Problem with Diversity".

Elaine can be contacted through Mike Burden, Communications Officer at Anserhouse of Marlow (Tel: 01628 481585) or her PA, Nazia Maroof on 01628 481581. Click here to visit the Anserhouse website.