In this interview, Adrian Jones, a local expert and participant in the Black Systemic Safety Fund speaks with Dr. Tamanda Walker, a member of the social lab’s learning partnership team, to discuss representation, diversity, and who and what we mean by the word 'black' in the context of Black-led systems change initiatives.
Tamanda: Hi Adrian. It's great to have the opportunity to spend some time together and talk about what it means to do, not just systems change work, but specifically 'Black'-led systems change work. As a participant in the Black Systemic Safety Fund initiative, can you tell me more about what it was like to be part of an explicitly Black-led initiative to address systemic inequality?
Adrian: My first impression was formed when I entered the social lab space with the process facilitators and the other participants for the first time. I walked in and immediately saw a whole lot of Black leaders. ...And I thought, "Wow, this is powerful." I've been in the game for thirty-odd years, and we, as Black people, rarely get opportunities to come together, to think and collaborate as leaders of local organisations, and to have our expertise acknowledged and paid for. So, I was pretty inspired by the collective power, capability and talent in the room. It gave me hope and curiosity about what we could achieve and do differently by working collectively.
Tamanda: Yeah. Many people involved in the process have mentioned that it was a shift in the status quo just to have Ubele and Impact convene a room full of Black experts to address local issues. Thinking about who was in the room is perhaps a good place for us to start our discussion around what it means to do Black-led systems change. ...You came on board and did some valuable work with us as a learning team. As part of your involvement, I know you also interviewed many of your fellow participants and peers about their experience of the process. When I was reviewing the transcripts from your interviews, I noticed that you asked your peers lots of questions about who was in the room and who might have been missing. Could you tell me a little bit more about that? What made you ask those questions in particular?
Adrian: Well, it's interesting because as much as I've just talked about how powerful it was to walk into a room full of Black leaders, it wasn't as straightforward as that. I would say that the people who were brought together were majority Black. But, overall, there were some absences from within the Black community. Additionally, some people in the room were not Black, if I can say that; there was a smaller group of people who identified themselves as brown or even white, rather than Black, but who shared in our aims and desires for more Black-led systems change work.
Tamanda: Okay, tell me more about that. Who was in the room, and who did you feel was missing?
Adrian: In terms of who was missing, I think overall, those of us who were Black represented the Black majority. I don't feel our collective represented the Black minority. ...I could stand corrected on this, but to the best of my knowledge, there wasn't representation of Black gay men and women; there was limited representation from an LGBTQ perspective. Or, at least, if it was there, it wasn't really surfaced and discussed openly, which is a shame because you cannot really ignore the unique safety challenges that exist for Black LGBT people. Even black spaces can be very, very lonely places for those people, so those are groups which simply don't have a safety net. ....Similarly, I don't think we had much representation in terms of disability. And, unless it's sickle cell or lupus, if you're disabled, you're in the minority within the Black community, and you're at such a disadvantage. If you are disabled, or you have a long-term health condition from childhood, then your family may struggle disproportionately to get the care that you need, your education may be affected, and so on. And all these things contribute to a lack of safety. Yet, beyond those people dealing with hidden disabilities - people who are neurodiverse, and so on - those voices weren't represented. And I think physical disabilities, for example, come with a different set of experiences, which has different implications for safety.
Tamanda: Yeah, for sure. I totally hear you on that intersectionality point. And I think there is also something about the idea of 'Black' when it comes to ethnic and national origin, too. Something to unpick there, from the conversations we've had previously, about the fact that Black people are not a monolith, which often gets lost in multi-racial collectives…
Adrian: Yeah, definitely. Speaking frankly, I thought that when I walked into the room, I would be faced with a sea of only Black people, Black people from different parts of the world in terms of culture, country of origin, and ethnicity, for example. But, in reality, I think there were some glaring absences. ...For example, there was heavy representation of organisations with leaders from Caribbean, and specifically Jamaican, backgrounds, and maybe some of the other islands. In terms of African nations, there wasn't much representation, which is a problem because, historically, in education, for example, it was often the case that Nigerian and Jamaican kids were separated. The same was true in our neighbourhoods and broader society growing up: African and Caribbean families historically were not friends, and that has played out in ways that could be unsafe depending on who you were or where you sat. ...In a place like Lambeth or Southwark, I feel there needs to be an explicit attempt to bring in organisations and people representing different parts of the African continent. Big Eritrean, Ethiopian and Somalian community groups are very active locally. Yet we only had representation from one of those groups. …There are also quite a lot of Zimbabweans, and some smaller South African organisations present in our local community, so it would be good to have greater representation from some of those groups in future.
...On a related note, I also expected to see more dual-heritage people in the room. And though there were a few people who identified that way, dual heritage, or biracial, or mixed race identities weren't openly discussed in detail or represented in the room, even though people from those backgrounds may have fundamentally different safety challenges - for example, being rejected by or facing hostility from both Black and white communities at times. That, too, is a safety issue given that mixed-race children are one of the largest growing populations in the country right now. If we’re looking at Black safety, that becomes an important thing to reckon with, because you have to figure out: Do mixed-race people come into that explicitly? And, if so, where do they fit?
Tamanda: Yeah, definitely. Well, I suppose it comes back to this reality that Black communities are endlessly internally diverse, both on the continent and across the diaspora. Given that’s the case, how do we deal with and consider that within our recruitment processes in a single project like this, with limited resources?
Adrian: There are so many different things to consider, and eventually, you're bound to leave someone out. Whether it's deliberately and intentionally or it's unintentional. ...But the question is who and why? ...I’m not clear how this project's recruitment and selection process worked, because I wasn't involved in that. …But, I wouldn’t want us to fall into the trap of saying that the system needs to change, and we know what's best for us, while falling into the same trap of inviting, selecting, or having the same Black-led organisations come forward that the system already caters for or interacts with in some way.
When you look at the idea of 'Black', and then the idea of 'safety', those are two very powerful concepts. So if you're going to embark on a project looking at Black safety, and you put four hundred to five hundred thousand pounds on the table, and you bring a collection of twenty organisations into a discussion, it’s right to expect to see significant diversity within the Black community represented, because we're looking at Black people from a Black perspective. You need to have this sense that, 'We're going to own this. And, in doing so, we're going to widen the lens through which Black safety, and blackness itself, gets explored and defined.' ...When I looked around the room, I knew quite a few of the organisations, which was nice. But I think we missed an opportunity for more diverse representation. And I would want to make sure that widening out the opportunity to other local Black organisations is something we focus on in future processes like this.
Tamanda: Definitely, I hear that. Switching directions a moment, you also mentioned that this project included people who didn't identify as members of the Black community but expressed solidarity, shared values, and a broader alignment with the project's themes. Can you tell me more about that?
Adrian: Yeah, simply put, we had funders and process participants in the room who were from Asian and even white backgrounds; people who believed in the project and the work but were not members of the Black community. I remember early on, there was a comment from a woman at Impact on Urban Health, who was white: We were joking and asking her, how do you feel about being the only white person in the room? ...And she answered that we made her feel comfortable and it was okay. ...Which was good. Because the thing about looking at Black safety within Lambeth and Southwark is that it has to include other people as well. We need that.
In addition to funders, it was also good to have local experts who were white people from settler colonial contexts like Brazil in the room because they brought in new angles and ways of looking at issues like colonialism. ...For example, we had some women from a local domestic violence organisation present, and that was important because the Latin American community is significant locally, so we really needed that perspective on one level even if, on another level, it would have been even better if we had a Black woman from the Portuguese Latin community attend as well, because that voice was never really heard. So, in a way, we missed out on a rich story there, even though we were working with people who really cared. When you look at safety, coming from a Latin American perspective, safety for Black women is on the floor. ...So the fact that there wasn't any representation about domestic abuse within the Black context, I think that is a massive area that we as Black people need to address in a project like this.
Tamanda: Those are some really helpful reflections on who was involved and also who was missing overall. And I guess your reflections cut right to the heart of this question about what people mean when they say Black in the context of a project like this. How is the word black itself being deployed and defined? All of this is not a new conversation or question in racial justice work in this country, of course. There's been plenty written and discussed on the subject, and I guess some of these debates have resurfaced since 2020 as Black Lives Matter gained ground. Before you came into this process, though, when you were invited to be part of a process around 'Black safety', did you imagine that Black would mean people of African descent?
Adrian: Ermmm... I'm not sure really…
Tamanda: Okay, let me elaborate more on what I'm asking and trying to make sense of. One thing I noticed as a learning partner across the time I've been involved with the project, was how people have swung in their use of language. There have been times when people have talked about Black safety, and clearly articulated that this project was by, for, and with Black people of African descent. And then, over time, I've also heard people using this other language of Black and racially minoritised, which goes beyond people of African descent. And, sometimes, this swinging is something I’ve observed within the space of a single interview, which is not super surprising to me as a race scholar, even if it's notable. ...Then, as you just mentioned, we also had people from settler colonial contexts, who identified themselves as white or white-passing, but nonetheless are ethnic minorities. They come from cultures that are not the majority culture in the UK, though they're still visibly white, and they've talked about that in the room. ...So, for some people, particularly older generations, who've been involved in black-led systems change or anti-racism work in this country, when they say black, they include all, or at least the majority of those people. They mean Black and racially or ethnically minoritised, including Asian or ‘White Other’ ethnic minorities. ....Increasingly though, especially since BLM, we've seen a wave of activists and especially Black communities saying, “Hold on a second, we're not all the same. When I say ‘black’, I mean Black people of African descent, and not that wider group f people.” So I guess I'm just curious about your expectations and assumptions - what black meant in your head - before you turned up in the room. Who did you imagine ‘black’ referred to within this systems change project and social lab process?
Adrian: Oh, I definitely thought it was people of Black African descent, including people of dual heritage. Also, since you mentioned racially minoritised people, I should say that towards the end of the process, the language of ‘black’ and ‘brown’, came into the room more and more. And I noticed there was a subtle shift in perspective and language. I don't know if that was deliberate. But at that stage, we had gone past looking at what 'Black' is. We were looking at the projects we were doing, so the term 'black and brown' wasn't really addressed. But it was allowed to stay in the room. ...Which I haven't got a problem with. But when we're talking about Black safety, we know it's for Black people of African descent. ....So, to me, it was strange, but is something that needs to be addressed in future because suddenly we had different languages come into the fray.
It felt as though we had people from different heritage backgrounds in the room - which is good, because you get different perspectives on things at one level - but the essence of the project was Black safety, which meant our focus should have remained firmly on Black safety for people of African descent. And not shifting back towards that broader category of 'racially minoritised' or 'Black and Brown'.
Tamanda: I mean, on one level I'm unsurprised, first, that the Black and Brown language crept in. It's really common when you open up the space in that way. I'm also unsurprised that no consensus was reached around how to define ‘black’ in the context of the project, even though I personally think it's a conversation we shouldn’t be afraid of. It's actually essential we surface it.
Adrian: Yeah, personally, I don't think we nailed having that conversation and agreeing how we were defining ‘black’ or ‘blackness’. And if we did nail it, then we all have to question ourselves: When other language came into the room, why was it not challenged? That's possibly an uncomfortable conversation to have, but then the whole process was uncomfortable. So, we should have been able to bring that up again.
Tamanda: Yeah, it sounds like it.. ...Shifting along again: Earlier, you spoke about the opportunities that emerged because we had a more diverse group that went 'beyond Black' - for example, hearing about others who were not Black but understood the settler colonial experience. You’ve also mentioned in the past that there were certain things of value in having a lead facilitator who spoke openly about the fact that they were racially minoritised but didn’t necessarily identify as Black, at least at the outset of the process. I'm curious to know how you think the project might have been different, for better or for worse, if it had only been Black people of African descent in the room and as facilitators. If you can even answer such a difficult question.... [laughs]
Adrian: I suppose there was an element of compromise in having different people in the room. ...From my perspective, everyone there was very open in their thinking, and so forth. However, there was that compromise in having organisations working with ethnic minority individuals but not sending Black representatives. ...And I know the project was for senior leaders, managing directors, CEOs, and whatever. But it makes you think, why are Black people not represented at those levels within your organisations so that you can send them? ...And then there was the element of having a funder in the room, which we all felt was good. ...But it wasn't a funder who was Black and of African descent. They identified themselves as brown. ...So they all had good points to contribute and make everyone think about and discuss.... however, it wasn't OURS. Or at least it wasn't totally OURS. ...So the question then becomes, does it have to be totally “ours”, for it to be a good project? No. ...Does it have to be totally ours for us to say we've given the Black community the best representation we could? ...To me, I think, we didn't offer the Black community the best representation we could have. Because even on that front we compromised - for good reason - but the point is we compromised. ...The truth is, I don't know what it would have brought up if we had Michael and someone else of African descent. But I do feel that maybe we missed a trick. ..You have to have the best people in the room. I get that. But then, you have to ask, how deep did we dig to find the best people in the room? Did we dig deep enough to find the best Black facilitators in the room? Did we dig deep enough to find the Black funders who would contribute towards the programme? There was Rianna and Errel who contributed. But those people were not part of the core team. ....So, in summary, if it was just a Black room, I believe it would have been different. Obviously, there would have been different individuals. However, there wouldn't be that element of compromise. ...I love the individuals that were involved; they were great. But if you ask me, ‘If it was a PURELY black room, would it have been different?’, then I have to say, 'Well, we didn't do that, did we?’ No one can say we did it in the truest sense.
Tamanda: Yeah, and I think this cuts right to the heart of a question: Do Black-led systems change initiaitves need to be Black-only - as in of African descent only? Or is Black-majority enough? And if Black-majority is enough, what is the tipping point, and what are the bottom lines around how many Black people of African descent are included relative to others who might see themselves as politically black, for example? Or as people who express solidarity with Black communities regardless of their own racial or ethnic backgrounds?
Adrian: Yeah, you know. I would probably say this: In terms of Black safety, it's always a compromise. Whatever way you look at it, as Black people, we always have to compromise. And that's not really a great starting point for Black-led systems change when you want to rip up the existing playbook and start from scratch. ...I'm happy to stand by that. And I'm sorry if I offend people. It’s a conversation I’m happy to have widely because I think it's the one we need to have. Otherwise, this cycle just keeps going on and on and on. ...It doesn't mean as a community that we can't have input from other people. We definitely can have input from people. But could we have that input in different ways? That’s the question.
Tamanda: Yeah, I completely agree. ...I think it's interesting that you're using this language of compromise. Because, one thing I was reflecting on and observing the whole way through this process was how this work on Black-led systems change was similar and different to the work I did at Black Thrive Global, for example, where people were much more uncompromising about what they meant by Black, even though we did work with white and other racially minoritised people. The definition was that when we were talking 'Black', we were unequivocally speaking about people of African descent. And the main things I think I noticed as a comparator to the other Black-led systems change work I've done was that being uncompromising changes what happens in terms of representation and who ends up in the room. As soon as you apply an uncompromising vision of what it means to be Black, you are forced to think in new and more detailed ways about intersectionality within the Black community: Who amongst Black people is included and who is not? So you, you kind of break open this tendency to see black people as a monolith. You start to have more nuanced conversations about who isn't represented from within the black community. So all the groups you mentioned earlier on - Black disabled people, Black queer people, Black women, men and nonbinary or trans people, older or younger Black people, Black people of different ethnic or national origins either on the continent or in the diaspora, and so on. And that automatically changes the nature of who is in the room - or at least create space for that discussion. Sure, there will still be absences, but they are both more obvious and more proactively dealt with and discussed. ...And by the way, we still got a lot of things wrong, so this is just me noticing what's happening in these different spaces.
And then there is this other thing, which is that even though people were being uncompromising in this project from the outset when talking about 'Black safety' - with a focus on people of African descent, based on what you shared - the make-up of the room means there seems to me to be this constant dance still. A lot of time and energy gets spent on justifying who and what we mean by ‘black’; on having the conversation about these issues, or even choosing not to have the conversation. ...So there's a compromise there, too. In the Black-only led space, there are still difficult conversations that have to happen - some of which are surfaced and some of which are not - but they are different. For example, in a Black majority space, we are more likely to have that conversation around the historic beef between African and Caribbean people in this country. Or issues of gender inequality amongst Black people. Or the prevalence of homophobia in our communities. And people don't want to name that in front of people who they're not 100% sure come from the same community. Others we feel will get it and have our backs rather than weaponise it against us. For me, the conversation gets stuck at who or what counts as 'black' at the expense of having all these other conversations, which are really quite central to the theme of safety, as you’ve already pointed out. ...So, while I can see that tonnes has been gained by having a wider group of people in the room, I also feel that there are potentially missed opportunities to have some of those other kinds of conversations that I've been able to see, observe or even facilitate myself in Black-only spaces. ...I personally feel there are pros and cons to both narrowing and widening the cohort of people you are referring to when you use the word ‘black’. But the point is, you're always signing up to something, depending on what definition of blackness you choose and deploy. And you need to be very aware of what it is you are signing up to…
Adrian: What you said there was so profound. This project was based on Black safety. But on a definition that you choose. …To me, this whole thing comes back to that old adage of, 'You're black when you need to be. So when the white population or system rejects you, now you're black. ....So, we who are always Black, because our skin colour dictates it, tend to say, you can join our party. We're not people who historically say, 'Actually, no, you can’t be part of our struggle. Your struggle is elsewhere. We tend to say, 'No, come and join our struggle, whoever you are.' Which helps on one level. But also, it doesn't help us in some ways, honestly. It doesn't help us because we, as Black people, don't necessarily advance. The collective advances. But we still get left behind.
Tamanda: Yeah, exactly. It can help to build a wider base of support and solidarity amongst people who share values, or may share some experience of racism. But sometimes it means Black people with darker skin - and people of African descent maybe - can become invisible. ....Especially when some people - including mixed race people - behave in ways that mean they pick and choose when it suits them to be Black. ...There's so many layers to this, because we can speak of mixed people in that way, and then we also see data showing they are also struggling. .... But the reality is, there's this whole load of ways mixed race people get to be selective about their blakcnss in ways that can be problematic. And some mixed people - myself included - can be lighter skin than somebody who say, I don't know, like a Bangladeshi Muslim, who's from a darker shade, or a Dalit person with a darker shade. You know, I mean, so, yes, is what I always say to people when you start because race is socially constructed you will quickly find yourself trying to make sense out of NON-sense, and you will very quickly end up in tangles. And yet, some fundamentals have to be addressed, which is that, by and large, if you have darker skin and if you're Black, you are going to have a bigger problem. And you're likely to become more invisible as soon as you expand the meaning of that definition because you are sharing your space with people who have more power.