Racism, Reconstructed Multiculturalism And Antiracist EducationMike Cole, University of Brighton. AbstractTo the long-standing debate over the relative merits of multicultural and antiracist education, Short and Carrington have added a new dimension. It is their contention that, in order to challenge racism, educators should promote a reconstructed form of multiculturalism in addition to conventional antiracism. Their argument is that a new form of racism has emerged in which culture assumes a pivotal role, and accordingly that a revised form of education is required to deal with it. While accepting the crucial role that culture plays in racism in contemporary societies, I question, in this paper, Short and Carrington's virtually exclusive concern with cultural racism, which is based on a relatively uncritical acceptance of Martin Barker's concept of the 'new racism'. Instead, I offer a reformulation of the concept of racism which incorporates both biological and cultural elements, but which also includes seemingly positively evaluated characteristics in addition to the more obvious negative ones. This paper notes a number of problems with Short and Carrington's concept of reconstructed multiculturalism and concludes with a critique of their associated liberal pluralist conception of 'the unity of the nation'. Short and Carrington (1996) have suggested that, in the light of what they perceive to be the emergence of a new form of racism, a new form of education - reconstructed multiculturalism - is required to challenge it. Their argument runs as follows.
There are a number of problems with these propositions and I will deal with each in turn, under the following headings: 1. 'Race' and Racism 2. Reconstructed Multiculturalism and Antiracist education. 3. Cultural Racism and the Unity and Stability of the Nation. 'RACE' AND RACISM? 'Race' as a concept is problematic. Robert Miles has argued cogently against the notion that there exist distinct 'races' (1982: 9-16). After a review of the literature, and following Bodmer, he gives three reasons for this. First, the extent of genetic variation within any population is usually greater than the average difference between populations. Second, while the frequency of occurrence of possible forms taken by genes does vary from one so-called 'race' to another, any particular genetic combination can be found in almost any 'race'. Third, owing to interbreeding and large-scale migrations, the distinctions between 'races', identified as dominant gene frequencies, are often blurred (Miles 1982: 16). If 'race' has no genetic validity, it still has use as an analytic concept (in comparing and contrasting 'race' with other equality issues, for example). In addition, it does, of course, also exist as 'a social construct' in discourse. It is therefore still necessary to use the term. When this is the case, for the reasons outlined above, I would argue that it should be put in inverted commas. Since the early twentieth century, there have been major changes, in the way in which 'race' and nation have been conceived. Colonial Empires, once legitimated by racism, have been broken up. The nineteenth-century doctrine of scientific racism (genetic or biological inferiority) has been discredited - though not eliminated, thus making the explicit expression of forms of nineteenth century racism in the formal political arena difficult (Miles 1993: 71) In an influential book (The New Racism, London, Junction Books, 1981), Martin Barker claimed to have identified a 'new racism'. This is interpreted by Short and Carrington, as being no longer concerned with negative stereotypes or hierarchies (as was old or biological racism), but connected to the desire of the Radical Right to protect the cultural integrity of the nation (1996: 65). It is thus a cultural racism. Despite Short and Carrington's assertion that 'the old racism' persists and prevails (1996: 67), the whole tenor of their paper suggests the predominance of cultural racism. Short and Carrington's belief that cultural racism has now become the norm is based on a relatively uncritical reading of Martin Barker's book. Robert Miles, for one, has provided an important critique of Barker's concept of the 'new racism'. Of major relevance here is the fact that the empirical object of Barker's analysis, in being confined to the texts and speeches of leading members and supporters of the Conservative Party, leaves out a considerable range of ideological production, such as the biological racism of neo-fascist political parties and certain forms of working class racism, which are based on biological or scientific racism typical of the nineteenth century. Moreover, the Conservative Party's new leadership of the 1970s and 1980s was engaged in a political mobilisation in a context where biological racism was a significant ideological force, but where there were pressures not to articulate it in the formal political arena (Miles 1993: 73). As Miles puts it (drawing on the research of Reeves 1983):
That overt biological racism is still a potent force in British society is witnessed by the continued persistence of 'monkey chants' on the terraces of football stadia and the periodic successes of the fascist parties such as the British National Party, including its local election victory and subsequent defeat in East London, in the early 1990s. The above discussion is not intended to underestimate the importance of the phenomenon of cultural racism. On the contrary, rather than seeing racism as pre-eminently biological (e.g. Mason 1994) or pre-eminently cultural (e.g. Short and Carrington 1996), my own view is that racism might be more accurately described as a matrix of biological and cultural racism (c.f. Cole 1996a, 1996b). Short and Carrington are right to highlight the significance of cultural racism; they are also correct in emphasising the importance, in any discussion of educating against racism, of a consideration of anti-semitism (1996: 73: see also Short, 1994; Short and Carrington, 1995; Cole, 1996a, 1996b). What is lacking in their analysis, however, is a precise definition of the overall parameters of the concept of racism. This is necessary, both for conceptual clarity, and in order to enact effective (educational) initiatives against racism, whatever form it may take. I will now attempt to formulate such a definition. This will entail a re-evaluation of both conventional definitions with respect to the biological/cultural distinction and the hitherto exclusive concern with characteristics that are defined in an obviously negative way. I will deal with each in turn. First, however, it should be remembered that racism can be both intentional and unintentional. A distinction needs to be made between those people who, by their words or actions, openly advocate, or promote in various ways, notions of biological and/or cultural inferiority on the one hand, and those, on the other, who out of ignorance are being racist without realising it. Intentional racism needs to be dealt with in a more combative way; unintentional racism in a more gentle and understanding way. Education, it should be stressed, has a role to play in challenging both intentional and unintentional racism. Biological and Cultural RacismI have suggested that racism might best be thought of as a matrix of biological and cultural racism. In that matrix, I would argue that racism can be based purely on biology (as in the statements 'black children are not as clever as white children') or purely on culture (e.g. in Peregrine Worsthorne's (1991) words, 'Islam...has degenerated into a primitive enemy' (cited in Richardson 1992: xi). Quite often, however, it is not easily identifiable as either, or is a combination of both. A good example of the latter, in fact, is the quotation cited by Short and Carrington as an example of cultural racism, where Margaret Thatcher referred to the people of the Falklands as 'an island race' whose 'way of life is British' (Short and Carrington 1996: 66). Here, we have a conflation of notions of 'an island race' (like the British 'race' who, Mrs. Thatcher believes, built an Empire and ruled a quarter of the world through its sterling qualities (Thatcher 1982, cited in Miles 1993: 75) and, in addition, a 'race' which is like 'us' culturally; 'their way of life is British'. The racist term 'Paki' is another case in point. Relatively unrelated to Pakistan, it has become a generic term for anyone who is perceived to be from a specific alien stock (biological racism) and/or is believed to engage in certain alien cultural practices, based, for example, around religion, dress or food (cultural racism). The fact that it is being written by racists as 'packy' in the singular and 'packies' in the plural (The Guardian 17/2/95) is indicative of how far it has become removed from the geographical area of Pakistan. Indeed, 'the Paki shop' has almost replaced 'the Indian shop' as a ridiculous description of small local shops, often situated at the end of a row of houses (corner shops) owned by people whose origins lie in the Indian sub-continent (1). Even when 'Pakistani', rather than 'Paki' is used in perhaps unintentional racist discourse, it is highly unlikely that it is used in a knowledgeable way to refer to an (ex-) inhabitant of, or British-born person, with connections in that particular South Asian country (2). Negative and seemingly positive characteristicsRacism has traditionally referred to a situation, where people are seen as causing negative consequences for other groups or as possessing certain negatively evaluated characteristics. While this has seemingly been the dominant form of racism throughout history and must be retained as a central aspect of racism, I would argue that it is necessary to extend this definition to include 'seemingly positive characteristics' (c.f. Cole 1996a, 1996b). This is because negatively evaluated characteristics include such instances of biological and intentional racist discourse as 'black children are not as clever as white children', but excludes such seemingly positive though biological statements as 'black children are good at sports'. While this latter assertion can lead to individual and/or group short term group enhancement (an unmerited place in the school football team for the individual or enhanced status for the group as a whole in an environment where prowess at sport is highly regarded), it is potentially racist and likely to have racist consequences. This is because, like most stereotypes, it is distorted and misleading and typically appears as part of a discourse which works to justify the channelling of black children into sport, rather than academic activities. Distinguishing between 'seemingly positive' and 'ultimately damaging' discourse is also important with respect to anti-semitism. Nazi propaganda portrayed Jewish people as alien and morally subhuman and, therefore, a threat to the Aryan 'race'; a description which was part of a process that led eventually to the holocaust. However, Jews were also characterised as a clever 'race', and (at least implicitly), superior in terms of ability. Thus, along with perceived threats of German 'racial degeneration', were fears that, through having superordinate skills of organisation, the ability to dominate and act collectively as one entity, the Jews were able to control the world. This 'clever', 'super-able' stereotype, a perception, which, on the surface, could seem positive, led to allegations that Jewish people were part of a conspiracy to take over the world, a notion which was also in part responsible for the holocaust (3). To take an example pertaining to contemporary Britain, people of Asian origin tend to be stereotyped as having a 'strong culture', an attribute which is used to pathologise people of African Caribbean origin, who are in turn stereotyped as having a weak culture or as having no culture at all! While this may serve to enhance the status of the former at the expense of the latter, in the context of racist discourse, it can result in accusations that people of Asian origin are failing to integrate or are 'taking over', and are therefore a threat to 'our way of life', which can lead to violence and other forms of hostility against people of Asian origin. Racism is thus redefined as follows to include both seemingly positive characteristics and biological and cultural racism. Racism is a process, which can be intentional or unintentional, whereby social relations between people are structured by the significance of human biological and/or cultural characteristics in such a way as define and construct differentiated social groups. Such groups are assumed to have a natural, unchanging origin and status. They are seen as being inherently different and as causing negative consequences for other groups and/or as possessing certain evaluated characteristics. Since these evaluated characteristics are stereotypes, they are likely to be distorted and misleading. If they are at first seemingly positive rather than negative, they are likely to be ultimately negative (cf. Cole 1996b, Cole 1998) (4). Reconstructed Multiculturalism and Antiracist Education.What then is the role of educators in challenging racism? Short and Carrington's paper forms part of a long- standing debate on the relative merits of multicultural and antiracist education (eg Modgil et al 1986; Hessari and Hill 1989 Ch.2; Cole 1992a, 1992b Leicester 1992a, 1992b; Troyna 1993; Cole 1996a). Short and Carrington argue that antiracists have neglected cultural racism, but provide no evidence for this. Certainly, in my own teaching, I have been aware of the cultural/biological matrix, as I suspect have most other antiracist educators. That antiracists have concentrated their efforts on racism rather than multiculturalism is of course true. Short and Carrington are right to point to the dangers of traditional multicultural education in stressing difference and thereby intensifying racism (1996: 74). They are also right to point to the dangers of new multicultural education in stressing similarities and at the same time ignoring differences (ibid) (5). Short and Carrington's solution to these shortcomings is what they describe as a reconstructed multiculturalism, the parameters of which they attempt to tease out in their paper. They begin by making a suggestion about how to deal with controversial aspects of other cultures. The example they give is the ritual slaughter of meat by Muslims, included as part of a programme on Islam in an 'all white' primary school. Their solution, as 'action researchers, (and presumably one which they feel teachers might adopt) to this 'dilemma' is to stress that children may find some aspects of Muslim culture unacceptable 'and feel the need to argue for their proscription [however] it is wholly wrong to go further than this and discriminate in any way against other aspects of Islam' (1996: 74-5). This is highly problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, given the degree of racism directed at the Muslim communities in Britain, the use of the term 'discriminate' and the implication that it is acceptable to 'discriminate against limited aspects of Islam' are most unfortunate. Second, their example is unqualified and decontextualised. This, in turn, has two aspects. First, while the need for open and rational discussion if religious debate is to take place in schools, is to be fully supported, it needs to be conducted in the presence of experts (it is all to easy to impart false and misleading information). This presence need not, of course, be physical. Information technology, the Internet, CD Roms and so on provide exciting possibilities for receiving information first hand. Second, practices like ritual slaughter need to be contextualised and seen in the light of the way animals are treated in society as a whole. This should include the question of the morality of killing of animals in general, and might also include, for example, how animals are kept and transported - in this country in the supposed context of Christian morality (obvious examples, being the transportation of calves and the practice of battery farming). Certainly, many, if not most, vegetarians and vegans would see the killing of animals for any reason, and in any way, as immoral (6). Reconstructed multiculturalism, according to Short and Carrington, focuses in particular on children's misconceptions before imparting new knowledge and understanding (1996: 75). This is, at face value, an appealing proposition. However, it can be subject to the same criticisms as both traditional and radical or new multiculturalism. While I would argue that at the present time in Britain educators should adopt antiracist, as opposed to multicultural education, it is the practice, rather than the principle of multicultural education, which is problematic. Put simply, just who are these primary school teachers, for example, who are able to interpret the intricacies of Islam and presumably all the other world religions in a meaningful way to young children? Given a society, a) where racism was less of a serious problem; and b) which had a work-force of teachers who were both representative of the ethnic diversity of the society and knowledgeable about that diversity, then multicultural education would be more of a viable proposition. Even then, complex questions about religion (as discussed above) might best be left to experts. Again, however, the important and increasing contribution of Information Technology, in making accurate and authenitic information, pertaining to multicultural Britain more possible (see, for example Cooner and Loveless 1997) needs to be stressed. Cultural Racism and the Unity and Stability of the Nation.Short and Carrington cite with enthusiasm the work of Tariq Modood and, in particular his distaste for an antiracism which 'narrowly focusses [sic] on colour and class and fails to engage with cultural racism' (Short and Carrington 1996: 67). Modood (e.g. 1992) adopts a position of nationalism, of hostility to Marxism, and utilises the sociological paradigm of functionalism. He has an unproblematic vision of progression towards a viable ethnic pluralism, with education having the basic role of induction into the common society in the quest for a morally strengthened order (Cole 1993a: 23), so his worries about class-based analysis are understandable. While, as I have argued throughout this paper, antiracism should not deal solely with the questions of colour, I believe that social class should be central to the antiracist perspective. It is not without coincidence that Short and Carrington cite Modood's work, since, like him, they adopt a perspective of nationalism and liberal pluralism. In fact, complementary to their very laudable reason of forestalling the question of repatriation (Short and Carrington 1996: 67), a reconstructed multiculturalism is advocated to make children recognise that cultural differences 'do not necessarily constitute a threat to the unity of the nation', that 'the social fabric of the UK has long been able to withstand the cultural variations stemming from different religious affiliations, as well as those relating to social class, ethnicity, region and generation' (1996: 75) Despite their assertion that a 'curriculum which embodies a nationalistic and patriotic leitmotif...is an inadequate one in many respects (Short and Carrington 1996: 75), Short and Carrington believe that the National Curriculum can be utilised to counter the Norman Tebbit's fear of dual loyalties (Short and Carrington: 75) (7). Their nationalism is also revealed elsewhere in the paper, when they refer, as if it were unproblematic, to 'British Asians', 'British Afro-Caribbeans' and 'British Africans' (ibid: 68; for critical analyses of nomenclature in Britain, see Anthias 1992; Mama 1992; Cole 1993b, 1996a, 1996b) (8). Reporting on a research finding among a group of 7 and 8 year olds, that indicated that many thought Jews were not English, Short and Carrington comment, '[a]s a number of the children thought that...most Jews spoke Hebrew at home, their perception of this ethnic group as alien is hardly surprising' (1996: 74). While it is important to address children's misconceptions, surely another crucial point, not addressed by Short and Carrington here, is to teach children that even if someone does speak another language at home, they should most definitely not be considered as 'alien'. All this seems to indicate that the position adopted by Short and Carrington is in stark contrast to the internationalist and class-based position, adopted by antiracists. Bland statements about unity and the social fabric of the UK, in a society divided increasingly on lines of social class, 'race' and gender (Rowntree 1995: Borrie 199x; see also Hill 1996a) are unconvincing to those who advocate antiracist education, and therefore reconstructed multiculturalism, as described by Short and Carrington, could not be adopted (contrary to their claims) alongside antiracist education. I will conclude with an example of how the different approaches might work in practice. Ten years ago, British primary school teachers attempted projects on the Australian bi-centennial. A Reconstructed Multiculturalist approach in Britain would stress the multicultural nature of Australia and would portray accurately the way in which the different cultural groups, including the Aboriginal community, have contributed to the society, producing an interesting variety of musical styles, of art and of music. Children would be encouraged to challenge the interpretation of Australian life which stresses 'Britishness', and instead to remember that, in addition to Anglo-Australians, there are Aboriginal Australians, Greek-Australians, Chinese-Australians and so on. The emphasis would be on the common contribution made to the social fabric of the Australian nation and to its unity, by the various minority ethnic groups. With respect to religious beliefs, similarities as well as differences would be mentioned. Children would be encouraged to engage in an open and rational debate, and it would be stressed that if they felt the need to argue for the proscription of limited religious or other practices, they most not discriminate against other aspects of the religion or culture. In the antiracist classroom, on the other hand, the focus would be different. Children would learn that, although some people view what happened two hundred years ago as 'a discovery', Aboriginal people and their supporters view it as an invasion. Given access to a comprehensive range of resources pertaining to life in Australia, children would discover that, in reality, multicultural Australia is a society rigidly stratified on lines of class, 'race' and gender, with Australian-born and English-speaking male immigrants at the top of the hierarchy and women of the numerous Aboriginal communities at the very bottom, some living in conditions, approximating to those of 'the developing world'. They would learn about the struggles of Aboriginal women and men and their demands for equality, they would learn about 'land rights' and the economic and ecological arguments pertaining to these rights. ConclusionShort and Carrington are right to stress the importance of the need to correct misconceptions in children about cultural practices within minority ethnic communities. Though a laudable aim, to be fully effective, a reconstituted education system is needed, where members of minority ethnic communities are fully represented in the teaching profession, where attention to debate and critical thinking is paramount, where a common curriculum goes beyond the bounds of a narrow nationalism (Hillcole 1991, 1997). In such a scenario, multicultural education might be more of a viable proposition. A new education system will also entail a radically re-oriented teacher education system (Hill, Cole and Williams 1997; Hill 1998) where adult students of all ages are educated, rather than trained, to challenge the racism and to appreciate the cultural diversity of the world in which we live, in all its manifestations. Short and Carrington are also correct to highlight the phenomenon of cultural racism. However, as we work toward the goal of a new education system, we should as a priority, as part of a broad based push for equality, alert the next generation to the dangers of all forms of racism; intentional and unintentional, biological and cultural, racism, based on negative stereotypes, or on seemingly positive ones. In the context of a European Union, where imagined dreams of nation and 'race' are becoming more widespread, where racism and anti-semitism remain rife, and in a wider Europe and indeed world, torn apart by assumed 'racial' and ethnic divisions, this task becomes ever more urgent. AcknowledgementsI would like to thank Anna Cole, Helen Haji-Alexandrou and Dave Hill for their comments on this paper. Any inadequacies, of course, remain mine. Notes1. 'Indian shop' or 'Pakistani shop' would make some sense if a shop referred to as such sold predominantly Indian or predominantly Pakistani produce. This is, of course, not the case. 2. It is difficult to say on which occasions references to 'pakis' are intentionally racist or unintentionally racist. It depends very much on the way the references are made and on the context in which they occur. The important point, here, is that educators and others must get across the fact that the term is highly offensive and that they must educate against its use. 3. Thus, writing in 1941 for Das Reich, a German weekly conrolled by Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, Elizabeth Noelle-Neuman declared, with respect to the United States: Jews write the newspapers, own them, and have close to a monopoly over the advertising agencies that open and close the doors to advertising for each newspaper. They control the film industry, own the big radio stations, and all the theatres. Due to their cleverness [my emphasis], Jew journalists are not the most noisy advocates for war. When they reach for public opinion, they don't move as a group, but instead come from various directions (Cornwall 1997: 21) 4. This definition is derived in part from the work of Robert Miles, and as the result of communications with Smina Akhtar. My thanks to both of them. 5. James Lynch (1983, 1987) has advocated focusing one's teaching on beliefs, values, and practices which various minority ethnic groups have in common, rather than on differences (see also Leicester, e.g. 1986, 1992a). For an interchange of views on new multicultural and antiracist education, see Cole 1992a, 1992b; Leicester 1992a, 1992b) 6. Clive Bates, in a letter to the Guardian made his point succinctly; first, peace loving vegetarians are force-fed with diseased offal, then driven to madness and death by its contagion. Now there is talk of bovine genocide, because the horror might affect the human species (The Guardian Outlook 23/3/96: 26). There were more than 11 million cows in the UK's beef and dairy herd at the time, but apparently, the possibility of killing the entire herd was regarded as impractical by the industry, partly because of what to do with the carcasses! (The Guardian 23/3/96: 5). 7. For suggestions on how to utilise the British National Curriculum to promote equality in the interim period before a new Common Curriculum, see Cole, Hill and Shan (eds) 1987 and Hill and Cole (eds) 1998 8.The extent to which the notion of being 'British' is relevant to antiracists is limited (historically) to struggles against a racist state to defend the legal rights of resident minority ethnic individuals, groups and communities, and the inhabitants of colonies and ex-colonies to British citizenship on a par with white indigenous communities. Beyond that, antiracists would want to distance themselves from any other association with the historically imperialist and ongoing essentialist concept of 'Britishness'. For an excellent analysis of the myth of the 'nation state', see Anderson (1993) BibliographyANDERSON, B. (1993) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London, Verso) ANTHIAS, F. (1992) Connecting "race" and ethnic phenomena, Sociology Vol. 26, No. 3: pp. 421-438 BARKER, M. (1981) The New Racism (London, Junction Books) BORRIE, Commision on COLE, M. (1992a) British Values, Liberal Values or Values of Justice and Equality: Three Approaches to Education in Multicultural Britain in: J.LYNCH op cit COLE, M. (1992b) INTERCHANGE COLE Replies to LEICESTER in: J. LYNCH et al ibid COLE, M. (1993a) Widening the Cricket Test, The Times Higher Education Supplement March 26, p. 23 COLE, M. (1993b) 'Black and ethnic minority' or 'Asian, black and other minority ethnic: A further note on nomenclature, Sociology Vol. 27, No. 4: pp. 671-673 COLE, M. (1996a) Equality and primary education: what are the conceptual issues?', in COLE, HILL AND SHAN op cit. COLE, M. (1996b) 'Race', Racism and Nomenclature: A Conceptual Analysis' in U. MERKEL (Ed) Football, Racism and Xenophobia in Europe, Aachen: Meyer & Meyer COLE, M. (1998) race and racism in M. PAYNE (Ed) A Dictionary of Cultural and Critical Theory (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers) COLE, M., HILL, D. AND SHAN, S (Eds.) (1997) Promoting Equality in Primary Schools (London, Cassell). COONER, T.S. & LOVELESS, A. (1997) Information Technology in COLE, HILL AND SHAN op cit. CORNWALL, T. (1997) In Goebbel's Shadow, The Times Higher Education Supplement, September 19 HESSARI, R. & HILL, D. (1989) Practical Ideas for Multicultural Learning and Teaching in the Primary Classroom (London, Routledge) HILL, D. (1998) Implications for Teacher Education in HILL, D. and COLE, M. (eds) op cit HILL, D. and COLE, D. (1998) Promoting Equality in Secondary Schools (London, Cassell) HILL, D., COLE, M. and WILLIAMS, C. (1997) Equality and Primary Teacher Education in COLE, M., HILL, D. AND SHAN (eds) op cit HILLCOLE GROUP (1991) Changing the Future: Redprint for Education, (London, Tufnell Press) HILLCOLE GROUP (1997) Rethinking Education and Democracy: A Socialist Alternative for the Twenty-first Century (London, Tufnell Press) LEICESTER, M. (1986) Multicultural Curriculum or Anti-Racist Education: denying the gulf, multicultural teaching, Spring LEICESTER, M. (1992a) Antiracism versus the New Multiculturalism: Moving beyond the Interminable Debate in: J. LYNCH et al op cit LEICESTER, M. (1992b) INTERCHANGE LEICESTER Replies to COLE in: J. LYNCH op cit LYNCH, J. (1983) The Multicultural Curriculum (London, Batsford) LYNCH, J. (1987) Prejudice Reduction and the Schools (London, Cassell) J. LYNCH, C. MODGIL & S. MODGIL (Eds) Cultural Diversity and the Schools, Vol. 3, Equity or Excellence? Education and Cultural Reproduction (London, The Falmer Press) MAMA, A. (1992) Black Women and the British State: Race, Class and Gender Analysis for the 1990s in: P. Braham et al Racism and Antiracism (London, Sage) MASON, D. (1994) On the Dangers of Disconnecting Race and Racism, Sociology 28, (4) pp. 845-858 MILES, R. (1982) Racism and Migrant Labour (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul) MILES, R. (1993) Racism after 'Race Relations' (London, Routledge) MODGIL, S. VERMA, G. MALLICK, K. & MODGIL, C. (1986) Multicultural Education: the Interminable Debate (Lewes, The Falmer Press) MODOOD, T. Not Easy Being British: colour, culture and citizenship (Stoke-on-Trent, Runnymede Trust and Trentham Books RICHARDSON, R. (1992) Preface to MODOOD, T. Not Easy Being British: colour, culture and citizenship (Stoke-on-Trent, Runnymede Trust and Trentham Books ROWNTREE SHORT, G. (1994) Teaching the Holocaust: the relevance of children's perceptions of Jewish culture and identity, British Educational Research Journal, 20, pp. 393-406 SHORT, G. & CARRINGTON, B. (1995) Anti-semitism and the primary school: children's perceptions of Jewish culture and identity, Research in Education, 54, pp. 14-24 SHORT, G. & CARRINGTON, B. (1996) Anti-racist Education, Multiculturalism and the New Racism, Educational Review, pp. 65-77 TOMLINSON, S. & CRAFT, M. (1995) Ethnic Relations and Schooling: Policy and Practice for the 1990s (London, The Athlone Press) TROYNA, B. (1993) Racism and Education: Research Perspectives (Buckingham, Open University Press) |
|
|