Race Relations not a one-day affair

Editorial One

Race Relations Day has become a colourful ritual, bringing together minority communities to showcase their culture and heritage.

Federal and local governments, NGOs and community organisations spend substantial sums of money to put together programmes to attract crowds. Everyone goes home happy, thinking that they have understood the other community better.

We welcome the initiatives of officials, especially social and community workers, in organising the events, which have acquired a festive form; we applaud their drive and enthusiasm and urge the Government and relevant funding authorities to loosen their fists and widen their patronage.

However, what does Race Relations Day festivities achieve, apart from a mention in the mainstream media and perhaps coverage in ethnic publications? Beyond these, has the concept achieved anything tangible? Has it attempted to understand the religious differences (that often cloud relationships) and bring about better understanding and cooperation between communities? Does the Government, or for that matter any organisation has a well-defined strategy and programme to achieve the ultimate goal of a ‘Race-less Society?’

Unfortunately, the answer is ‘No.’ Apart from the annual get-together, nothing tangible appears to happen. If there is any, we would like to know.

We pride ourselves of being a tolerant and multicultural society but we are yet to become inclusive and witness the participation of various communities in community projects without being coerced or canvassed. There must be genuine and spontaneous efforts to come together and offer goodwill and friendship.

Promoting religious tolerance and the inter-faith movement is not only desirable but also essential.

Father Richard John Neuhaus said that when he founded his Centre for Religion and Society in 1984, there were only four centres of religion and public life in America; now, he thinks, there are more than 200.

Religious people are getting more vocal in all sorts of fields, including business.

Religion is also cropping up in economics. Niall Ferguson, a Scottish historian, re-examined Max Weber’s theory of the Protestant work ethic to explain why Europeans work less than Americans.

Philip Jenkins, one of America’s best scholars of religion, claims that when historians look back at this century, they will probably see religion as ‘the prime animating and destructive force in human affairs, guiding attitudes to political liberty and obligation, concepts of nationhood and, of course, conflicts and wars.’ If the first seven years are anything to go by, Mr Jenkins may well turn out to be right.

After all, religion was banished from politics for most of the 20th Century. For most elites, God had been undone by Charles Darwin, dismissed by Karl Marx and deconstructed by Sigmund Freud. Josef Stalin forcibly ejected Him, but in much of Western Europe, there was no need for force: religion had been on the slide for centuries. In Britain, the ‘long withdrawing roar’ of Anglicanism that Matthew Arnold lamented faded to a distant echo in the 20th century.

But there has been religious revival in recent years, with an increasing number of youngsters evincing interest in their religion and getting to know the finer aspects of other religions. This in itself would lead to better understanding of other faiths and develop the spirit of tolerance.

It is therefore imperative to bring together people and encourage them to work together towards the common good.

We should support youngsters’ involvement in the reconstruction of our fractured society and motivate them to design programmes that create inclusive communities.