​“I only date black women from now on.”
 
That is what an old acquaintance said to me as we bumped into each other at the gym and got chatting.
 
I was taken aback by his statement. Some time ago, I had briefly met his girlfriend – a beautiful, petite white girl and they seemed to have a good vibe between them. Curious, I asked him why he's decided only to date black women from now on. His response:
 
“Because only a sister can truly understand what a brother is going through.”
 
After he said this to me, it occupied my mind for the rest of the day. Are black women the only type of  woman who can understand what it means to be a black man? Then I realised that this isn't the first time I've heard this. A few brothers have told me this before. But for me, it wasn't sitting right.  
 
Before I go on, a little disclaimer: I’ve got nothing to hide. I am in a relationship with a white woman who is Italian and is the mother of my daughter. In the past, I have been with black women, but my decision to be with a white woman has nothing to do with me no longer finding black women attractive. The sisters are as fine and sweet as fresh honey. But, in my case, I just never met a black woman who was compatible enough with me.
 
In my personal experience, and I am sure it's the same for other black men who are dating,  engaged or married to women outside their ethnicity, they wouldn’t agree with the statement that only a black woman can understand a black man.  
 
And any black man who believes this is setting himself up for disappointment.
 
Black women understand black men better on a cultural level
 
This post is not arguing against black love. So please don’t throw any salt at me, my brothers and sisters. Nor am I putting mixed relationships above black love. Whoever you chose to be with, love is love. What I am arguing against is the belief that only a black woman can understand a black man which is untrue when we think about why two people fall in love in the first place.   
 
Now, I’ll concede that, on a purely cultural level, then yes, a black woman may understand a black man better than other ethnicities. I am a Yoruba Nigerian man, so a Yoruba woman will completely understand why I love jollof rice, pounded yam and Supermalt. I could bet my life that she’ll be able to cook egusi soup better than a Polish woman too.
 
But ‘cultural understanding’ is the only trait where black men can say black women will automatically be superior to any other ethnicity of women. Even with this argument, it will only apply to a black woman raised in the same ethnic group as him. I hardly doubt a Nigerian man will have a lot in common, culturally, with a Jamaican woman, if you see my point.
 
Class and personal beliefs are more important than skin colour
 
There is an excellent observation from one of the central characters in  Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s brilliant novel Americanah (which I’ll be reviewing soon):
 
“A white boy and black girl who grow up together in the same working-class town in this country [England] can get together and race will be secondary…”
 
The above quote is poignant and accurate concerning my own experience. In America, I would guess this wouldn’t be the case since race is such a big deal over there. But in England, your class is your societal mark, so race usually takes on a secondary role. A working-class Ghanaian boy from Plaistow probably won't connect so much with an upper-class, privately-educated Ghanaian girl from Fulham. He would probably have more in common with a white girl who grew up in the same area and went to the same school as him.
 
" What I am arguing against is the belief that only a black woman can understand a black man which is untrue when we think about why two people fall in love in the first place. "

When it comes to people we form a strong bond with easiest; it is often (but not always of course) with people that share the same or similar values as us and have been through comparable life experiences.
 
Even if a man moves up the classes in English society, he’s more likely to have more in common with a woman, irrespective of her race, if she came from the same class as him and moved up as well. They are more likely to share a similar worldview having both come from the same social background and both experiencing social mobility. Race is an afterthought.
 
I remember, during my days as a single man on the market, going on a date with a highly educated, posh girl who was Nigerian. We struggled to give our conversation any spark, even though we were both Yoruba. Later, when I went on a date with an Indian girl I had met on tinder, we developed a quick rapport because she had grown up in East London like myself.
 
Also, and I am aware this is a generalisation, but there is some seed of truth to it, women tend to date and marry upwards. So, if you're a working-class Nigerian boy who is a plumber, then it's highly unlikely you're going to marry a Nigerian woman who is a barrister or even have much in common beyond the fact that you’re both Nigerian.
 
Black women and women, in general, go through a different life experience than men
 
Black women are beautiful, bold and strong but black men should be careful to not automatically assume black women will understand the issues black men face just because their skin colour is the same as their own. Bear in mind, the experiences black women go through are a little different than what black men go through.
 
While both black men and black women are more likely to be victims of racial bias and racism, I’d argue that black women's experiences of racism and prejudice are worse just because they are women.
 
Black women have their unique issues just as black men do. While black women might be able to emphasise with the struggles of a black man, it doesn’t mean that she will by default just because she has melanin in her skin. Back to my earlier point, a black woman born into wealth will not understand the struggles of a black man born into poverty.
 
I am not claiming to be some Lothario that has dated every race of woman on this planet. But I've had my fair share of experiences, and I believe that it is a woman's character a man should assess rather than the colour of her skin.
 
Of course, we all have our preferences. Many black men are only attracted to black women or desire to marry a black woman because of cultural and personal reasons and who am I to tell you that's wrong nor am I saying it is. Do you, of course.
 
But black men should not fool themselves into thinking that just because a woman is black or just because a woman is from the same ethnic group as him, that she has some innate ability to understand him and no other woman from any other race can.  Dating a woman only because she's black, under the assumption that she'll automatically understand you more since you're a black man, reduces her to the colour of her skin rather than the individual person that she is. 

And in my opinion, love should never been so skin-deep.

Feel free to leave a comment below if you would like to share your opinion on this issue

If you're interested in keeping up with the latest topics on my blogs and updates on my upcoming books feel free to subscribe to my newsletter

​As someone who loves history (I sometimes wish I had studied it at Uni), I try and see how the past has knitted the fabric of our present and possibly our future to.
 
Take Brexit. If you’ve been following it (how could you not, it’s bloody everywhere), there has been much discussion around the Irish backstop. I am not going to go into detail (you can learn about it here) but the significance of the Irish backstop is rooted in the British colonisation of Ireland.
 
When you look at the history of the world, particularly that of British colonialism, you notice a familiar narrative. I've been looking into Nigerian's modern history (for a book I plan on writing one day), and it's striking how the colonisation of Nigeria (or more accurately, the British lumping together of various ethnic tribes in the Niger River) and Britain's settlement in Ireland bare three striking similarities.
 
1.     Both countries divided into two opposing regions because of British colonisation 

During the Berlin Conference in 1884, the prominent European nations, overexcited by imperialism like it was a new hobby, carved up the continent of Africa like they were sharing a pie, albeit one filled with resources like oil. In this ‘Scramble for Africa,' Britain effectively took control of the Niger River region, ruled it indirectly and split the various indigenous groups into two – the Southern Nigeria Protectorate and the Northern Nigeria Protectorate.
 
By dividing Nigeria like this, Britain unwittingly created an unbalanced country. The South became richer, boasting a mostly Christian populace consisting of the Yoruba and Igbo ethnic group (although they are various other ethnic groups.) By contrast, the North, which is dominated mainly by Islam, is poorer, consisting of the Fulani and Kanuri ethnic group who speak Hausa. The Muslim-dominated North, some critics argue, was much more resistant to European influence because of their firm adherence to Islam.
 
Since becoming independent in 1960, there has been much civil unrest and conflicts between Nigeria’s Northern and Southern tribes, stopping Nigeria from fulfilling its potential. Because the British haphazardly created the country with little regard to the very different ethnical groups, a united Nigeria was always going to be difficult to achieve.
 
Centuries before Nigeria’s creation, Ireland was Britain’s first colony. Before British colonisation, Ireland was staunchly Roman Catholic.  To increase its control over Northern Ireland (known as Ulster), Britain sent Protestant English and Scottish men to settle in the area and eventually they outnumbered the Catholic Irish.
 
But Britain’s colonisation of Northern Ireland created a region divided between the Protestants (loyal to Britain) and the Catholics (who wanted an independent Irish state). Similar to Nigeria, where the Christian-dominated Igbo and Yoruba Southern tribes had a better quality of life than Islam-dominated Northern tribes, in Northern Ireland, the Protestants had better jobs and better opportunities than Catholics.
 
In 1921, 39 years before Nigeria gained its independence from Britain, and after many battles and bloodshed over hundreds of years,  Ireland gained its independence from Britain by effectively splitting into two countries – Republic of Ireland (an independent nation) and Northern Ireland (part of the UK). But while 78% of the Republic of Ireland is mainly catholic,  Northern Ireland is almost evenly split between Catholics and Protestants, creating hostility and resentment, similar to the Christian and Islam divide in Nigeria.
 
2. A major civil war has taken place in both countries which can be linked back to British Colonisation
 
The bloodiest and fiercest civil war in recent Nigerian history was the Biafran War that lasted between 1967-1970. When Nigeria gained its independence in 1960, it was a country loosely glued together by Britain and fraught with rivalries between its various tribes. There was a period of tribal tensions followed by a military coup in 1966 by the Igbo, leading to another counter-coup from a northern-led rebellion and then subsequent massacres of the Igbo people. Against this blood-stained backdrop, an Igbo-majority declared its independence from Nigeria, claiming Biafra as their new home. The prospect of Nigeria splitting into two, in a fashion similar to Ireland, resulted in a civil war between the Nigerian army (later supported by the British Army who supplied weapons) and the Biafran army. Although Nigeria was victorious and the country remained unified, there were over 100,000 military casualties, and between 500,000 and 2 million Biafran civilians died of starvation. 
 
When it shaped Nigeria, Britain had ignored the ethnic composition of the various tribes within the Niger River region, inadvertently planting the seeds that would become of the roots of Nigeria's most tragic civil war to date.
 
Although Northern Ireland’s civil war, ‘The Troubles’, was not as cataclysmic as the Biafran War, it is no less tragic. Lasting between the late 1960s and coming to a fragile truce in 1998 with the Good Friday agreement, The Troubles, like the Biafran war, was territorial rather than religious. It was a battle between the unionists, who were mostly Protestant and wanted to Northern Ireland to remain as part of the UK, and nationalists, a Catholic minority who wished for Northern Ireland to become part of the Republic of Ireland thus uniting Ireland. Causalities from the war, mostly concentrated in Belfast although it did spill into England, exceeded 3,600 with as many as 50,000 suffering serious injuries.
 
"Similar to Nigeria, where the Christian-dominated Igbo and Yoruba Southern tribes had a better quality of life than Islam-dominated Northern tribes, in Northern Ireland, the Protestants had better jobs and better opportunities than Catholics. "

Unlike Nigeria, Ireland was ruled directly by the British through the insemination of Protestant Brits and Scots. But this divided the region, causing conflict over centuries as the Irish Catholics effectively became marginalised in their own land while the Protestants prospered. It is not surprising that the Irish Catholics could not cooperate with Protestant unionists as they fundamentally wanted different outcomes for the future of Northern Ireland, with the former wanting a complete separation from Britain. Nigeria had a similar scenario with the Southern Igbo tribe fighting for a united Biafran republic that was separate from Nigeria - a country manufactured by the British.
 
3.  There are still ongoing divisions in both countries because of British colonisation
 
During my recent trip to Belfast for a Christmas party (side note: I don't think you'll ever taste a pint of Guinness as smooth and pure as they come in Belfast), I took part in a tour showing the locations that played a significant role during The Troubles. I was startled that the division between Protestant and Catholics, while no longer inciting outright violence against each other, was still present in the hearts and minds of the populace. There remains a physical manifestation of the divide with the "peace walls." These are 25-feet steel walls that stretch across the neighbourhoods in Belfast, separating the Nationalist Catholics and the Loyalist Protestants living in the area, mitigating any hostilities.
 
In Nigeria, the ethnic, cultural and religious divisions between the North and the South, Christians, and Muslims, is still evident, leading to current conflicts. The rise of the violent terrorist group, Boko Haram, in Northern Nigeria, is seen as retaliation and intolerance to Britain bringing its Western sensibilities and Christianity to Nigeria.  
 
"It is not surprising that the Irish Catholics could not cooperate with Protestant unionists as they fundamentally wanted different outcomes for the future of Northern Ireland, with the former wanting a complete separation from Britain. Nigeria had a similar scenario with the Southern Igbo tribe fighting for a united Biafran republic that was separate from Nigeria - a country manufactured by the British. "

I am by no means suggesting that if Britain had never colonised Nigeria or Northern Ireland, then both countries would never have experienced any kind of deep-rooted divisions and violence that have blighted them over the past 100 years. That wouldn’t be true. Tribes within the Niger River region were fighting each other and selling each other into slavery long before the British came with their Bibles and rifles. However, Ireland has been stubbornly resisting English colonisation as far back as the 16th century.
 
If you take anything away from this article, I hope it’s an understanding that the past will always provide a canvas in which the present and future will be painted on. As Northern Ireland faces the prospect of Brexit and Nigeria readies itself for its 2019 General Election, it is essential to look at how these two countries were moulded by British rule in the past, to help us determine how they might shape themselves in the future. 

Feel free to leave a comment below if you would like to share your opinion on this issue

If you're interested in keeping up with the latest topics on my blogs and updates on my upcoming books feel free to subscribe to my newsletter

 
When you’re black, British and wealthy, the media spotlight will be on you. Depending on how you behave, you will receive one of either two types of treatments from the media:  one of contempt or one of praise. No other two people better encapsulate this than Raheem Sterling and Anthony Joshua.
 
Even as we approach the end of the year, Raheem Sterling can’t seem to catch a break.
 
Firstly, there was the whole uproar around the MI6 assault rifle tattoo on Sterling’s leg, drawing criticism from the media and absurd demands from anti-gun campaigners that he should have it lasered off. 
 
Then came the World Cup in July. Despite Sterling’s stirring efforts in Russia, England fans and Jose Mourinho himself condemned him for another goalless performance for the England Squad.
 
Raheem Sterling’s year couldn’t get worse, right?
 
Nope.
 
On December 8th, the attacking midfielder received a torrent of abuse at Stamford Bridge from Chelsea's fans during Man City's 2-0 loss to the hosts.
 
Now let’s look at Anthony Joshua.
 
The British mainstream media have lavished Anthony Joshua with so much praise and goodwill, he recently retained the world heavyweight title, that at this point he could accidentally punch the Queen and the media would legitimately laugh it off. Recent press stories have focused on Anthony still living with his mother in his flat or his humbling mid-life crisis now that he’s heavyweight champion.  
 
And make no mistake, Anthony Joshua doesn’t have a squeaky-clean past. In 2011,  the GB boxing team suspended him for possessing cannabis with the intention to supply. But his history has not affected his ‘golden-boy’ reputation with the media.
 
So why is the British media so harsh to Raheem Sterling but so love in Anthony Joshua? After all, they’re both black, British and wealthy.
 
 
A Black British man’s wealth must always measure up to his performance
 
To be clear this post is not about football racism and why racism is still an issue for black footballers in 2018. And while this does play a role in how the tabloid press treats sterling, more qualified people than myself have examined that particular issue.
 
Instead, this post is examining how performance, humility, and class are massive factors in how wealthy black British people are treated by the British press – which is mostly made up of British, middle-class men.
 
I like Raheem Sterling. He's a bit younger than me, but he's like most of the boys I played football with in my local park growing up. But, to be honest, his ignorance surprises me.
 
Raheem Sterling accused the tabloid newspapers of racism because of the negative way in which they reported a story about a black footballer buying a house for his mother. This story is in contrast to the more positive light the same paper published about a white footballer, from the same team, buying a house for his mother. Sterling has made an acute observation on how the British press reports on wealthy black men and wealthy white men, but it’s a lot more complicated than the British media ‘fuelling racism.'
 
It’s no secret that ethnic minorities in Britain, especially black people, have to work twice as hard in general to succeed due to racial bias. This unspoken expectation doesn’t just disappear just because you’re a footballer.
 
Even though I  personally feel Raheem Sterling is a highly skilful footballer, a significant and vocal group of football fans and many of the white middle-class journalists in the media think Raheem Sterling has not worked hard enough or accomplished enough in their eyes to justify his football wages and lavish lifestyle. But this alone isn’t the full picture. Young black footballers like Danny Welbeck have been criticised for underperforming but don’t’ face anywhere as near as much media backlash as Sterling.
 
What gets the British media riled up about anything Sterling is his ostentatious displays of wealth, particularly on social media. Do you remember, in 2016, when he showed off his crystal-studded sink after many criticised his performance against France? In general, the white British middle-class and, by extension, the British media, do not like the wealthy flaunting their wealth. It is in bad taste made worse when they don’t even feel you deserve it.
 
Now we can probably blame some of Sterling’s colorful displays of his fortune on the fact that he comes from a working-class background. From my experience, working-class black boys often need to overstate their wealth with eye-rolling displays of luxury to illustrate to their detractors and admirers that "they've made it." I understand it because it's what rich Black American athletes do and black Americans have always been a role model for black British working-class kids because they’re so visible in the media. Just take a look at Floyd Mayweather’s ridiculous Instagram account. But America loves its loud black athletes because everything in America is loud. Not the case in Britain.
 
To the average white middle-class and middle-aged journalist, Sterling is acting like someone who does not appreciate his wealth and, more insultingly, his refusal even to show humility when he has underperformed, in their minds, is a big factor as to why the British press constantly have their crosshairs aimed at him.  
 
 
 If your rich and black, you better learn to eat humble British pie
 
Although slightly older than Sterling, Anthony Joshua, by contrast, understands the subtle relationship between wealth, blackness and middle-class Britishness. Unlike Raheem Sterling, Anthony Joshua has eaten that humble British pie.
 
Having won the heavyweight title, Anthony Joshua could easily post pictures of himself eating caviar from a diamond-encrusted plate while receiving a shoulder massage from a bikini-clad model. But he doesn’t. Anthony Joshua understands that to win and keep favour with the British media; he must show himself as a humble and thoughtful athlete. Loud and lavish won’t make you friends with the British press if you're black and wealthy. 
 
It’s funny because Anthony Joshua grew up working class like Raheem Sterling, but unlike Sterling, Anthony Joshua has an acute understanding of how he ‘should' behave, so he doesn’t invite criticism from the media.


"To the average white middle-class and middle-aged journalist, Sterling is acting like someone who does not appreciate his wealth and, more insultingly, his refusal even to show humility when he has underperformed, in their minds, is a big factor as to why the British press constantly have their crosshairs aimed at him."  

Despite facing a jail sentence in the past, Anthony Joshua has managed to craft an image of himself as a wholesome, hardworking and skilful athlete who still lives with his mum in their humble flat despite rolling in riches. Even if this image is disingenuous, merely a persona that has been carefully crafted by Anthony Joshua’s PR and brand team, he has not strayed from the narrative, and it feels sincere and genuine to his character. Even if he were to lose his next bout, Anthony Joshua has built up so much goodwill with the British media, that it would not tarnish his reputation.  
 
Raheem Sterling does not have the same goodwill from the British media because he hasn’t built the persona of a grateful and humble black British working-class kid who is now rich.   
 
Being black and wealthy in America is different than being black and wealthy in Britain
 
As I mentioned earlier, black American athletes or black American celebrities are allowed to be loud and brash with their wealth. America is a country of noise, bright colours, and big personalities and this is also inherent within its media.
 
Middle-class British culture and the middle-class British media are opposed to garish displays of one’s wealth. It’s dirty, unwelcomed and even insulting.
 
So, if a black working-class boy, like Raheem Sterling, shows off his lavish lifestyle on social media while underperforming in the eyes of British sports journalists, it is not surprising that the British press snaps at him like blood-thirsty piranhas. To them, anything Sterling does, like having a gun tattoo on his ankle, invites criticism and scorn.
 
Sterling isn’t so much a victim of racism by the British media, although I’ll concede that this plays a part. But also, it’s because his attitude to wealth and humility is at odds with how the British media expect its wealthy, black British men to behave.
 
If you look at Anthony Joshua and other wealthy black British men outside sport like actors Idris Elba and John Boyega who are adored by the British media, what’s the one thing common between them?
 
They’ve never posted a video of their jewel-encrusted bathroom on social media. 

Feel free to leave a comment below if you would like to share your opinion on this issue

If you're interested in keeping up with the latest topics on my blogs and updates on my upcoming books feel free to subscribe to my newsletter