Britain has an ethnic problem: the English

[redwing]

I oft wander if Australia's future looks like that of Britain, America or elsewhere?

From Canada's Globe & Mail

Britain has an ethnic problem: the English

Let?s face it: Britain has an ethnic problem. Its patchwork of peoples, once the envy of the world, has become frayed, its harmony devolving into anger and xenophobia. And, we should be honest, the problem is rooted in one ethnic group ? one large but troubled people who are failing to integrate into modern postindustrial society.

While some of its more ambitious members have found success in politics and business, this community is falling behind educationally and economically as a whole, self-segregating into ethnic enclaves, becoming increasingly prone to violence, rioting and substance abuse. More troubling, in recent years they have begun to vote for ethnic extremist parties that threaten to undermine basic British values.

Who are these people? The English. Once a tolerant, welcoming people who thrived in scholarship and commerce, they have become a drag on British society.

They have become Britain?s problem group. Government figures show that ?white English? students are now outperformed in school results by British children of Bangladeshi, Ghanaian, Indian, Sierra Leonean, Chinese, Sri Lankan, Vietnamese and Nigerian ancestry.

This was not always the case: A decade ago, it seemed as if Britons with darker skin colours were trapped behind the English in education and income. But it?s all changed: In 2009, Bangladeshi-British kids soared ahead of the English; black African kids caught up with them in 2010 and Pakistani kids are on course to pass them this year.

Unlike the island?s other ethnic groups, low-income members of the English community seem determined to stay poor and uneducated. Britain?s Department of Education has published figures listing how many low-income children achieved passing grades in secondary school in 2012. Sixty per cent of black African and Bangladeshi students did, about half of Pakistanis and black Caribbean kids did, 40 per cent of Indians did ? and only three in 10 ?white British? (mainly English) kids did, putting them at the bottom of the list.

On top of this ? or perhaps because of it ? the English are now self-segregating into isolated, and sometimes impoverished, uni-ethnic enclaves. Some 600,000 white English people moved out of the mixed-ethnicity districts of London between 2001 and 2011 for less integrated areas, while other ethnic groups moved into areas of higher diversity.

Continues on Clicky Link

 

[Sylvester]

I agree with the author of the article. Westerners in general have got all fat, lazy, and arrogant...and feel self discipline, reliable character, and education are something they are born above. Nothing explains the obesity epidemic better.

While progressives slag off at anything related to the self discipline and consistent values traditionally associated with Western religion, and industriousness is outsourced to 'inferior' people overseas, children of the West continue a slide into slovenly uselessness.

 

[Deltaberry]

America does not have the same problem as UK. US is a new country founded by migrants, which encourages and attracts talent of all ethnic background, from all over the world, and assimilates them.

UK can't do that because it is the native world of English (just as China is native to Chinese, Japan is native to Japanese). That's why the UK can never open its society to embrace the world's talent, and will never be a power to be reckoned with again in our lifetimes.

There's no reason why Australia and Canada can't do what the US has done because we are a migrant country too. Unfortunately here we wiped out too many of the natives that we forget it is a migrant nation. Only countries that embrace change and aren't afraid of other people have a future.

 

[Esel]

'Britain?s Department of Education has published figures listing how many low-income children achieved passing grades in secondary school in 2012. Sixty per cent of black African and Bangladeshi students did, about half of Pakistanis and black Caribbean kids did, 40 per cent of Indians did ? and only three in 10 ?white British? (mainly English) kids did, putting them at the bottom of the list'

This quote from the article seems so unlikely I went looking for the source. I cant find this evidence anywhere. I think it's wrong. I think this whole article is misinformation and hyperbole.

In the Economist article (linked from the original article above) only two ethnic groups out perform white/british and they are Indian and Bangladeshi.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/11/daily-chart-8

The other ethnic groups (black African, black Caribbean, mixed race and Pakistani) are all doing worse than White/British.

It is interesting how ethnic groups perform differently but I think this article is badly written and misinformed or I've missed something.

Id love to see similar figures for Australia but I don't think the data exists.

 

[sanj]

Esel - this article was linked in the original article too http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/22/white-british-children-outperformed-by-minorities

 

[weg]

Appears to me like the nationalities excelling are more likely to place a higher value on education and/or are less likely to be of a low social class.

 

[Esel]

Ok, so I miss-read the original article. his alarming statistics on achievement, (40% and 30% of Indian and British children achieving passes) only applies to low income groups. Which is why it contradicts the guardian article which points out how well Indian students are doing.

So British children are performing at about the average, but poor British children are performing below the average of other poor children.

and all ethnic groups perform better when they aren't poor. Indian children go from being one of the lowest achievers to one of the highest.

Seems like the most obvious way to raise achievement is to lift children out of poverty and increase the numbers of refugees and other migrants.

 

[Esel]

Appears to me like the nationalities excelling are more likely to place a higher value on education and/or are less likely to be of a low social class.

I think the first part of your statement has to be true but I disagree that they are less likely to 'be of a low social class".

This list seems to be first to third generation economic migrants and refugees who came to the UK with virtually nothing. If they have wealth now its only because some groups have been in the UK for longer to generate it.

Chinese,
Sri Lankan,
Nigerian,
Bangladeshi,
Ghanaian,
Indian,
Sierra Leonean
Vietnamese

I think Irish might be the 9th ethnicity not mentioned in the guardian article.

 

[geoffw]

On the other hand, having money isn't without its own problems

 

[weg]

I think the first part of your statement has to be true but I disagree that they are less likely to 'be of a low social class".

This list seems to be first to third generation economic migrants and refugees who came to the UK with virtually nothing. If they have wealth now its only because some groups have been in the UK for longer to generate it.

Chinese,
Sri Lankan,
Nigerian,
Bangladeshi,
Ghanaian,
Indian,
Sierra Leonean
Vietnamese

I think Irish might be the 9th ethnicity not mentioned in the guardian article.

I said not of a low social class (meaning not having bogan behavioural traits) as opposed to 'not low socioeconomic', and by that meant social regardless of economics.

Many ethnic groups are poor but are socially functional.

I just didn't explain myself well.

 

[Esel]

I see what you mean Weg.

The data certainly suggests that parental values and aspirations are more important than wealth. The UK has a much smaller proportion of children in private schools than in Australia, and I expect most of the children in these high performing ethnic groups don't go to private schools.

 

[chilliblue]

America does not have the same problem as UK. US is a new country founded by migrants, which encourages and attracts talent of all ethnic background, from all over the world, and assimilates them.

UK can't do that because it is the native world of English (just as China is native to Chinese, Japan is native to Japanese). That's why the UK can never open its society to embrace the world's talent, and will never be a power to be reckoned with again in our lifetimes.

There's no reason why Australia and Canada can't do what the US has done because we are a migrant country too. Unfortunately here we wiped out too many of the natives that we forget it is a migrant nation. Only countries that embrace change and aren't afraid of other people have a future.

United Arab Emirates are the best example of a country that is thriving with migrant workers making up approximately 90% of the total population.

 

[sanj]

United Arab Emirates are the best example of a country that is thriving with migrant workers making up approximately 90% of the total population.

I wouldn't call it thriving. A lot of those foreign workera have close to zero rights and are treated terribly. There is also very little integration of many of these groups with locals.

 

[Esel]

United Arab Emirates are the best example of a country that is thriving with migrant workers making up approximately 90% of the total population.

UAE has a highly unequal and exploitative society. Lots of human rights abuses and miserable migrants. Not a model we could follow in Australia.

 

[Esel]

America does not have the same problem as UK. US is a new country founded by migrants, which encourages and attracts talent of all ethnic background, from all over the world, and assimilates them.

UK can't do that because it is the native world of English (just as China is native to Chinese, Japan is native to Japanese). That's why the UK can never open its society to embrace the world's talent, and will never be a power to be reckoned with again in our lifetimes.

There's no reason why Australia and Canada can't do what the US has done because we are a migrant country too. Unfortunately here we wiped out too many of the natives that we forget it is a migrant nation. Only countries that embrace change and aren't afraid of other people have a future.

I don't recognize your description of the USA or UK. The US seems to have far greater social and economic problems than the UK. Also, the UK has always sought and received large numbers of migrants from all over the world and not just migrants who speak the same language, practice the same religion and make great coffee (im looking at you 'multicultural' Australia).

 

[BayView]

Seems like the WASPS in most westernised countries are getting fat on lamb, while the "less fortunate" and "hungry" countries come in, work harder, sacrifice more, appreciate their newer improved environment, and so on.

 

[cu@thetop]

Probably get flamed for this but why is it that the whiteys are falling behind- if the article is correct in that assertion? This is also hitched up (in the original article) with a reference to denying benefits to new arrivals and limiting immigrant numbers as "anti-immigrant nastiness". This from a Canadian. His last quote (from the linked article) is a pearler:
"Ethnic English numbers are growing, and if they?re allowed to gain any more influence in British society, they could be trouble."
I agree England ain't what it used to be. The suggestion the locals are "trouble" would be funny if the author wasn't serious.

I suppose the question is "How can a people become marginalized in their own land?" One may ask the Aboriginals the same question but at least as far as England goes there seems to have been ethnic continuity (of sorts) for over 1000 years; although an argument that given the Roman, Norman invasions along with years of intermingling with the Irish, French et al perhaps there was no ethnic homogeneity.

The authors comments- if correct- seem to support the assertion of this marginalization given the establishment of whitey enclaves- declining whitey social successes (at school etc) and general disgruntlement.

Yet the author seems to lay the blame at the feet of the locals for being who they are. Did the whiteys receive any state funded language skills or tuition that no doubt were available to people of "minority" extraction? Is it complacency? Perhaps. Is it a disengaging with a society where the agenda is now set by the most vocal complaintants?

You see- my view is that it is not necessarily a matter of skin colour as regards the "xenophobia" referred to (if existing at all). I think it is that new arrivals- with a perception of a generous welfare system- know they are onto a good thing and will use what resources are available- and this is a bit at odds with the traditional English reserve and self sacrifice so often attributed to UK whiteys. Of course there will be resentment when the new arrivals don't play the game and jump ahead. It is a clash of cultures- but to be critical of the UK whiteys not bending over to integrate to new culture of cultures I think is quite ignorant of the author. When the UK gov attempts to redress the imbalance by limiting immigration they are "xenophobic".

An elderly friend of mine will be having his leg lopped off due to a cancerous growth this month. Seen as an outpatient in the Public hospital system in Qld it was regrettably too long between available appointments so when he was seen last month again for the check up the growth was too far advanced. So what? I hear you say. Well this guy (originally Danish) worked and paid taxes for the last 50 + years yet has available to him only the stretched resources of Qld Health which have failed him. He may not be too resentful about the whole thing but to be truthful I get annoyed thinking about it. The relevance to the Canadian git article- locals have a right to be annoyed when resources are applied to new arrivals in preference to those who helped establish the resources.

How this applies to Australia I will let you decide.

 

[Tony3008]

My very very limited experience in the UK was that the Indian attitude was on the lines of "we might have things stacked against us so we have to try harder", whilst with some other groups it was "we'll have things stacked against us so why bother". My local post office was run by a couple who came to the UK as Ugandan Asian refugees expelled by Idi Amin. They arrived with next to nothing worked 7/14, lived simply and spent out putting their children through private education; the kids are now a pharmacist and dentist.

 

[Esel]

Yep, refugees like the Ugandan Indians mentioned by tony often seem to have this attitude so why are Australian's so desperate to keep refugees out?

 

[Tony3008]

The Ugandan Asians are a somewhat special case in that Idi Amin expelled them because of their business success - "get rid of them and the wealth and business success will be ours" being his message, rather than "why are they successful and what can we learn from them?".