“Your surgeon is South Asian.” “Your fastest athlete is Black.” “Immigrants contribute so much to our economy.”
These familiar refrains surface whenever immigration, race, or national identity enters public debate. They are offered as praise and as evidence of tolerance, yet they rest on a troubling assumption: that some people must justify their right to belong.
The intention is to show that diversity is something to celebrate, and that those who look or sound different are an asset rather than a burden. But there is something deeply uncomfortable about having to make this case at all. Why must we demonstrate our usefulness before we are afforded the same dignity as everyone else? Why must our humanity be accompanied by a list of achievements and economic contributions?
The implication is that our presence is conditional: that we are welcome so long as we are both productive and exceptional, and that our right to belong rests not on our humanity but on what we can offer in return.
And what of those who are not surgeons, athletes, or entrepreneurs? The woman serving coffee, the man stacking supermarket shelves overnight, the bus driver who waits an extra second as someone runs for the doors: are they any less deserving of belonging because their contributions are less visible? Must someone change history, save lives, or break records before they can be considered part of the country they call home?
This is where the language of contribution fails us. It reproduces the very hierarchy it seeks to challenge, one in which minorities must continually prove their value to a society that takes the belonging of others for granted. It reduces us to our perceived utility: we become taxpayers and economic assets before we are allowed to become people. Our presence is defended in terms a Treasury spreadsheet could understand.
But people are not economic indicators or electoral talking points in a debate over whether Britain has room for us. Most of us live lives that will never make the news. Representation matters, but it should not become a condition of acceptance. We should not have to point to the exceptional achievements of a few to defend the ordinary existence of millions.
Consider who is never asked. Nobody requires white Britons to list their achievements before accepting their right to live here, or to justify their presence through their contributions to the public purse. Their belonging is assumed; ours is too often treated as a matter for public discussion.
Dignity is not a prize awarded to those who have accumulated enough qualifications, medals, or accolades. It is not earned; it belongs to everyone before they have achieved anything at all.
Photo by James Eades on Unsplash.
Related
Why must we justify our presence to you?
“Your surgeon is South Asian.” “Your fastest athlete is Black.” “Immigrants contribute so much to our economy.”
These familiar refrains surface whenever immigration, race, or national identity enters public debate. They are offered as praise and as evidence of tolerance, yet they rest on a troubling assumption: that some people must justify their right to belong.
The intention is to show that diversity is something to celebrate, and that those who look or sound different are an asset rather than a burden. But there is something deeply uncomfortable about having to make this case at all. Why must we demonstrate our usefulness before we are afforded the same dignity as everyone else? Why must our humanity be accompanied by a list of achievements and economic contributions?
The implication is that our presence is conditional: that we are welcome so long as we are both productive and exceptional, and that our right to belong rests not on our humanity but on what we can offer in return.
And what of those who are not surgeons, athletes, or entrepreneurs? The woman serving coffee, the man stacking supermarket shelves overnight, the bus driver who waits an extra second as someone runs for the doors: are they any less deserving of belonging because their contributions are less visible? Must someone change history, save lives, or break records before they can be considered part of the country they call home?
This is where the language of contribution fails us. It reproduces the very hierarchy it seeks to challenge, one in which minorities must continually prove their value to a society that takes the belonging of others for granted. It reduces us to our perceived utility: we become taxpayers and economic assets before we are allowed to become people. Our presence is defended in terms a Treasury spreadsheet could understand.
But people are not economic indicators or electoral talking points in a debate over whether Britain has room for us. Most of us live lives that will never make the news. Representation matters, but it should not become a condition of acceptance. We should not have to point to the exceptional achievements of a few to defend the ordinary existence of millions.
Consider who is never asked. Nobody requires white Britons to list their achievements before accepting their right to live here, or to justify their presence through their contributions to the public purse. Their belonging is assumed; ours is too often treated as a matter for public discussion.
Canada and the EU are becoming more than just friends
Dignity is not a prize awarded to those who have accumulated enough qualifications, medals, or accolades. It is not earned; it belongs to everyone before they have achieved anything at all.
Photo by James Eades on Unsplash.
Share this:
Like this:
Related