Race and ethnicity - Gunadarma



Race and ethnicity

Race[pic] and ethnicity are modern concepts. They have their origins in the global expansion of European societies, which gathered pace from the late fifteenth century onwards. The process of rapid social change that followed culminated in the transformation of European societies from primarily rural-agricultural to urban-industrial formations. This was also a period in which ways of thinking about, and explaining, natural and social phenomenon also began to change as science, in recognisably modern form, gradually developed.

[pic]

Their growing exploration of other parts of the world brought Europeans increasingly into contact with other human societies, ranging from small isolated groups of hunter-gatherers to large, complex states and empires. What appears to have struck explorers most forcefully, particularly those from England, were differences of physical appearance between themselves and others. The most striking of these seems to have been skin colour and it is notable that an early distinction emerged between those who had what was described as a 'black' in contrast to a 'white' skin.

This characterisation was of considerable importance because of the way in which the colours black and white were emotionally loaded with concepts in the English language. Not only was the contrast one which denoted polar opposites but while 'white' represented good, purity, and virginity, 'black' was the colour of death, evil, and debasement. As a result, it is frequently argued that great care needs to be taken in the use of language in a multi-ethnic society if the reproduction of the negative connotations of blackness is to be avoided.

|Thinking points: |

|Think of the nursery rhyme 'ba ba black sheep', the use of the terms 'black board', 'black market’ ,’black mail’ |

|Do you agree that language can be discriminatory? Or do you think it is 'political correctness gone mad'?Spend a few |

|minutes jotting down your ideas. |

Race as an ideological Construct

It has been argued that race is an ideological construct[pic]. Robert Miles (1982; 1993) argues that its use serves only to legitimise it, giving comfort to those who would wish still to maintain that there are indeed real biological differences[pic] between groups of humans.

The race concept that emerged in the race science[pic] of the 19th and early 20th centuries linked physical variation with personal, social, and cultural competencies. It was this that enabled science to be enlisted as a justification for differential treatment. Thus race was always more than just a way of thinking about and describing human difference. It was a social relationship characterised by unequal distribution of power and resources. Beliefs about race, and the stereotyped[pic] images of others which they entailed, were among the symbolic resources which were mobilised by dominant groups in their efforts to protect their positions of power.

Sociologically, then, race does not refer to categories of human beings (whether biologically or socially constituted). Rather race is a social relationship in which structural positions and social actions are ordered, justified, and explained by reference to systems of symbols and beliefs which emphasise the social and cultural relevance of biologically rooted characteristics. In other words, the social relationship race presumes the existence of racism.

The term 'racism[pic]' is almost as contentious as race. It is a concept denoting attitudes, beliefs, and ideologies and social actions and structures.

| | |

There has been an increasing tendency in recent years to use the term to refer not merely to the propagation of ideas about biological race but more widely to apply to any expression of inter-group hostility or ethnocentrism[pic].

Some have argued that the old style biological racism has increasingly been replaced by a ‘new racism'. Proponents of the idea that there is a 'new racism' draw attention to the increasing frequency with which political arguments in favour of the exclusion of migrants, or the segregation of members of different population groups, appeal to notions of cultural incompatibility and to the allegedly mutually disruptive and negative consequences of forcing such cultures to mix. These ideas can be found in, for example, arguments about so-called minority (or group) rights in South Africa and more recently the debate about asylum seekers and refugees[pic].

This can be seen in the way peoples experience of health services was different compared to the host communities in the UK. Take a look at this clip of a person who came to the UK from And his experience of racism in the NHS

| | |

Things did change and here we see an account that reflects the developments made in the NHS in particular.

| | |

|Thinking points: |

|To what extent do you think racism still occurs in Britain?[pic] |

|What impacts do you feel migration had on people's health?[pic] |

The NHS and Race

The National Health Service (NHS) was founded on the principle of providing appropriate and accessible health care services to the British population. Since its inception in 1948, changes in the demography of the British society, in part brought by post war immigration and settlement in response to acute labour shortages and by more recent influxes of refugee populations, have created new and additional challenges to those involved in health care. Specifically they need to respond to ethnic diversity in the provision of health care services, while previously occupying a marginalised position in health policy and service delivery, has come increasingly to the fore.

In addition, there is a growing recognition of the inequities and inequalities evident in health and health care provision and how these may impact upon the experiences of minority ethnic communities, with the result that increasing attention is being paid to the need to provide services which avoid discrimination and promote equality of opportunity (Smaje, 1995).

The response to the arrival and settlement of migrant communities in Britain after the Second World War provides the framework within which contemporary 'race relations' are usually understood. A core feature of this response was the belief that Britain had suddenly become 'multi-ethnic', and that the host population had been faced with the novel challenge of ethnic diversity.

Ethnicity

The term 'race' is often used in a way that purports to identify differences between human population groups. This usage has been discredited scientifically. The only legitimate sociological usage is one, which identifies race as a particular kind of social relationship constructed in, and through, racist reasoning.

An alternative way of thinking about human diversity is one, which invokes the concept of ethnicity. There is no single, universally accepted definition[pic] of ethnicity. Most academic commentators would stress some sort of cultural distinctiveness as the mark of ethnic grouping.

Ethnicity[pic], is more a matter of process by which boundaries are created and maintained between ethnic groups

|Thinking points: |

|Why monitor ethnicity in NHS services?[pic] |

|You may want to visit these web sites to assist in your thinking: |

|chi.nhs.uk |

|audit-.uk |

 

Measuring/assessing ethnicity is not simple, consider the following:

• What would you class as your ethnic group?

Ethnicity is situational. The implication is that people have different ethnic identities in different situations. Their salience is affected by such factors as the distribution of desired resources and the objectives of the people concerned. Thus it is possible to be simultaneously English, British, and European, stressing these identities more or less strongly in different aspects of daily life. Similarly, the same person might identify as Gujerati, Indian, Hindu, East African Asian, or British depending on situation, immediate objectives, and the responses and behaviour of others.

Ethnicity in Britain 

In Britain, ethnicity seems to signify an allegiance to the country of origin and implies a degree of choice and a possibility for change. This highlights two observations.

• First, the emphasis on choice and change could easily lead to a naive view that the 'absorption' or ‘assimilation' of newcomers or migrants is only a matter of time. A related implication is that the responsibility for continued patterns of disadvantage is to be laid at the door of those who stubbornly refuse to change - to adopt 'our ways'.

• The second aspect concerns the tendency for the term 'ethnic' to refer only to those who are thought of as different from some assumed indigenous norm. In this connection it is interesting to note that the sole category in the ethnic classification system utilised by one a police force was - 'Ethnic'. Talk of and ethnic 'look' in the world of fashion is only one example of the way white British people are apt to see ethnicity as an attribute only of others - something that distinguishes 'them' from 'us'. One might perhaps add that the apparent denial of their own ethnicity (which is, perhaps, more properly seen as an English, rather than a British phenomenon) also seems to be associated with distinctively individualistic views.

Thus English people are apt to conceptualise themselves as individuals, while outsiders are seen as members of groups. The greater the degree of cultural difference between themselves and others, the more likely they are to see 'groupishness' as a characteristic of the behaviour and motivations of those others. In these circumstances the attribution of ethnicity to others may become part of a process of denial of legitimacy to claims on resources by those concerned. Also the political and popular discourse often uses the term 'ethnicity' in ways which suggest distinctions based primarily upon physical markers such as skin colour and not infrequently, and erroneously, as a surrogate for biological race.

Ethnic Minority 

All to often the popular understanding is that a 'minority group' refers to a groups size in respect of numbers. Indeed, looking at the categories suggested in the previous page, ethnic minorities make up about 6% of the total population of the UK.

However, the term indicates that minorities are those groups in subordinate positions irrespective of their relative size. There are, however, difficulties with this option. There is a danger, particularly within formally democratic political systems, that the term 'minority' may embody the implication that the designated group is numerically, and hence politically and morally, less significant than the 'majority'. Moreover, this terminology is confusing and, to some, offensive since it involves, for example, using the term minority to refer to women - a majority of the population in Britain - and to black people in South Africa - an overwhelming numerical majority.

In Britain the term 'minority' is rarely used on its own but is usually qualified with the word 'ethnic'. This term is widely understood in Britain to denote a category of people whose recent origins lie in the countries of the New Commonwealth and Pakistan; in other words, in former British colonies in the Indian subcontinent, the Caribbean, Africa, and, sometimes the so called Far East. Two points seem to be significant here.

• The first is that, despite the implicit reference to cultural difference entailed in the term 'ethnic', not every group having a distinctive culture and constituting a minority in the British population is normally included. Thus, the large communities of people of Polish, Ukrainian, and Italian origin to be found in many British cities are rarely thought of as constituting ethnic minorities.

• The second point, which follows from the first is that, in fact the criterion which distinguishes those to whom the term normally refers is skin colour.

|Thinking points: |

|How would you define the term 'ethnic minority'? |

|How do you think the term ethnic minority is used in Britain today (think about national documents and governmental reports|

|- which groups of people do they use it to refer to?)[pic] |

| | |

| |Assimilation, Multiculturalism, Anti-Racism and Community Cohesion |

| |The governments that have shaped policy since the 1960's have adopted various strategies to attempt to deal with the issue |

| |of migrant communities to this country. These are: |

| |Assimilation |

| |With the arrival of the African Caribbean and Asian migrants, the assumption of the governments throughout the 1950s and |

| |into the 1970s was that provided their children were given support with the English language in schools, the migrant |

| |population would; learn 'to become like us'; that is, they would be assimilated. |

| |The assimilationist model was based upon an inadequate understanding of the social psychology of group identity; and in |

| |particular of the resilience of ethnic identities in context where the minority community is marginalised and faces |

| |hostility. When a minority community begins to adopt the cultural practices of the dominant ethnic community and is still |

| |rejected by the majority population, then assimilation is hardly a viable political or cultural option. |

| |Given this scenario, it seems hardly surprising that the xenophobia and racism present in the majority populations should |

| |have reinforced any tendency of the minority communities to attempt to retain their unique ethnic values and culture. |

| |Multiculturalism |

| |Responding to the failure of assimilation, multiculturalism emerged as a policy which allowed for the recognition of ethnic |

| |diversity in Britain. Multiculturalism has provided a framework within which ethnic diversity may be recognised by policy |

| |makers; and respect for different cultures may be encouraged between individuals. It has, however, been severely criticised |

| |for its failure to address inequalities of power and resources between the majority and the minority populations. |

| |Thus within multiculturalism the identity and need of the minority ethnic communities have tended to be determined in a |

| |political process where their difference has been the perceived problem. Through the late 1970s and into the mid 1980s |

| |multiculturalism was critiqued by members of minority ethnic communities, who deeply resented its implicit paternalism. |

| |Perhaps after the early 1980s, anti-racist strategies emerged as an alternative to multiculturalism. |

| | |

| |Anti-Racism |

| |This model of recognising the conflicts of interest within multi ethnic Britain and of addressing systematic processes of |

| |inequality within British institutions was never widely acceptable. It developed the insights derived from the concept of |

| |institutional racism which informed the 1976 Race Relation Act, and made visible that 'nice people' may be involved, through|

| |their routine professional practice, in generating discriminatory outcomes. As a model for responding to the inequalities |

| |and discrimination within multi-ethnic society, anti- racism was a direct challenge to this members of the indigenous |

| |dominant white community who felt comfortable with Britain's tolerant credentials. This started considerable debate in the |

| |political and governmental circles. It attracted a range of critiques from many on the left and from minority ethnic |

| |communities who found it strong on rhetoric and weak on delivery. |

| |Community cohesion |

| |Today, we see a reversal of the policies of the 70's 80's and 90's. With the increasing development of international |

| |political unrest, asylum seekers and refugee situation taking the forefront of local and national media attention[pic] and |

| |the growing terrorist fear since the attack of september 11th a new policy has emerged – that os community cohesion. |

| |The publication of the Cantle report[pic], titled Community Cohesion, defines the government's strategy for maintaining |

| |order in those towns in northern UK where riots had taken place in Summer 2001. In December 2001 Home Secretary Blunkett |

| |announced that the government was considering an oath of allegiance for immigrants and that English language tests would be |

| |introduced. Blunkett's provocative comments signalled that, from the state's point of view, the 'multiculturalist |

| |settlement', which has dominated race relations thinking in Britain for two decades, is no longer working: The old |

| |multiculturalist formula of 'celebrating difference' - itself a response to the riots of the early 1980s - is to be |

| |replaced. |

The death of multiculturalism

By Arun Kundnani

1 April 2002, 10:00am

The official response to the summer 2001 riots in the northern towns of the UK is now taking shape.

December saw the publication of the Cantle report [1], titled Community Cohesion, which defines the government's strategy for maintaining order in those towns. [2] At the same time, Home Secretary Blunkett announced that the government was considering an oath of allegiance for immigrants and that English language tests would be introduced.[3] We were told that practices such as forced marriage and genital mutilation had been allowed to continue because of an over-emphasis on 'cultural difference' and 'moral relativism'[4]. Blunkett wanted a new framework of core values, which would set limits to the laissez-faire pluralism of the past. The Mail and the Telegraph had, it seemed, found their great white knight to slay the demon political correctness.

Of course, each of Blunkett's proposals, when taken individually and out of its political context, was eminently reasonable. Of course, cultural difference cannot be used to legitimise oppression of women. Of course, knowledge of the English language is a factor in social inclusion. And, yes, migrant communities cannot live in the same way that they did decades ago, in the countries of their origin. But in the context of responding to riots which had sprung from the police's failure to protect Asian communities from racist violence, Blunkett's comments seemed to be a case of 'blame the victim', rather than an attempt to deal with the real issues. And how could a lack of ability in the English language be a factor in causing the riots when the participants were born and bred here? Blunkett argued that, if their first-generation mothers could not speak English, this might, in some way, have contributed to deprivation in the second generation. But it was a highly tenuous link. Wasn't Blunkett just appeasing racism? Worse, he was attempting to use immigration policy as a way of disciplining black communities, thereby explicitly reconnecting the issues of race and immigration - something that no leading Labour politician had done for at least thirty years.

But the Cantle report and Blunkett's provocative comments were more than just regression. They also signalled that, from the state's point of view, the 'multiculturalist settlement', which has dominated race relations thinking in Britain for two decades, is no longer working. The riots of summer 2001 were a wake-up call. And events since September 11 have sounded the death knell for multiculturalist policies. The establishment needs a revised strategy to manage and preserve a racially divided society, as effectively as 'multiculturalism' did in an earlier time. The old multiculturalist formula of 'celebrating difference' - itself a response to the riots of the early 1980s - is to be replaced. The new strategy is 'community cohesion' and the Cantle report is its blueprint.

British multiculturalism

'Britain is a multicultural society' - the phrase is bandied about religiously, but the meaning is rarely examined. The whole panoply of multiculturalist clichés - black communities are always 'vibrant', always making 'positive contributions', always to be 'tolerated' - serves more to obscure than to clarify. These glib pronouncements are now reaching the end of their useful life.

From an anti-racist perspective, multiculturalism was always a double-edged sword. At times, it was an effective riposte to the anti-immigrant politics of Powellism that began in the late sixties, challenging the myth of an ethnically pure society. Against this New Right popular racism, multiculturalism stood for demanding the very survival of non-white communities on these islands. But, as the politics of black communities became radicalised, mere survival in Britain was not enough. Those who were born and grew up here wanted to remake society, not just be tolerated within it. The uprisings of the early 1980s were the most obvious expression of this shift. And at this point, multiculturalism changed from a line of defence to a mode of control.

Multiculturalism now meant taking black culture off the streets - where it had been politicised and turned into a rebellion against the state - and putting it in the council chamber, in the classroom and on the television, where it could be institutionalised, managed and reified. Black culture was thus turned from a living movement into an object of passive contemplation, something to be 'celebrated' rather than acted on. Multiculturalism became an ideology of conservatism, of preserving the status quo intact, in the face of a real desire to move forward. As post-modern theories of 'hybridity' became popular in academia, cultural difference came to be seen as an end in itself, rather than an expression of revolt, and the concept of culture became a straitjacket, hindering rather than helping the fight against race and class oppressions.

Ethnic fiefdoms

While multiculturalist policies institutionalised black culture, it was the practice of ethnicised funding that segmented and divided black communities. The state's strategy, it seemed, was to re-form black communities to fit them into the British class system, as a parallel society with their own internal class leadership, which could be relied on to maintain control. A new class of 'ethnic representatives' entered the town halls from the mid-1980s onwards, who would be the surrogate voice for their own ethnically defined fiefdoms. They entered into a pact with the authorities; they were to cover up and gloss over black community resistance in return for free rein in preserving their own patriarchy. It was a colonial arrangement, which prevented community leaders from making radical criticisms, for fear that funding for their pet projects would be jeopardised. Different ethnic groups were pressed into competing for grants for their areas. The result was that black communities became fragmented, horizontally by ethnicity, vertically by class.

Worst of all, the problem of racism came to be redefined in terms of cultural protectionism and the cultural development, of Asian communities in particular, was stunted. They were allotted their own parallel cultural bloc, where Asian leaders were allowed a cultural laissez faire, largely free from state intervention. The community leadership tried to insulate their clans from the wider world, which they saw only as a threat to the patriarchal system on which their power depended. The cost to Asian communities was huge, measured not only in political subjugation, but also in cultural stagnation.

This state of affairs meant that Asians lived a double life, forced to wear one face within their community and a different one outside. Ethnicity was recognised in the family and in the community, but banished in the public spheres of school, work and politics. As multiculturalism matured, the political ambitions of Asians focused on challenging this public/private division by winning cultural rights in the public sphere. But the culture being fought for was largely defined in terms of a fixed identity, unchanged in its transmission from 1960s South Asia to 1990s Britain.

The crisis in multiculturalist policy

In the event, the political energies of black communities were diverted on to the terrain of cultural rights, while the extreme Right continued its attacks on 'political correctness'. The state stumbled along, balancing the demands of the two groups while allowing the underlying structure of the 'parallel cultural blocs' model to remain intact. Some on the Left, especially those associated with Race & Class and CARF, had, early on, identified multiculturalism as a danger to anti-racism - in that the fight against racism, in Sivanandan's words, was being transformed into a fight for culture. But these voices were drowned out by the rising tide of identity politics.

Today, the multiculturalist 'settlement' is in crisis. First, the successful campaign by the Lawrence family, after the failed investigation into the murder of their son, to get the existence of institutional racism in the police force recognised, showed how the terms of debate could be changed from cultural recognition to state racism. Second, since 1997, a government that is explicitly 'multicultural' has also launched a frightening attack on asylum seekers. Multiculturalism, it transpires, is perfectly compatible with anti-immigrant populism. Third, and most important, among Asians, culture is no longer a cage within which opposition can be effectively contained.

Until recently, Asian culture connoted passivity, entrepreneurship, hard work and education. Asians were the 'model minority'. Pundits predicted that they faced a 'Jewish future', that is, increasing economic success combined with cultural conservatism. But that has not happened, except for a small number. Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities, especially, remain mired in poverty. And the rebelliousness normally associated with white and African-Caribbean youths has infused working-class Asians. Their old image of passivity has given way to one of aggression and criminality, an image seemingly confirmed by the summer riots, and then heightened by the 'war on terrorism'. The columnists of the Mail and the Asian bourgeois intellectuals (such as Tariq Modood) are now united in their fear that Asian youths have been infected by white working-class 'laddishness', and that they are no longer reliably well-behaved.

Worse, the propping up of a conservative minority culture is no longer a viable option for the state. Rather than being an effective way of integrating communities, cultural identities, particularly Muslim identities, now seem dangerous. The 1980s solution to riots - a higher dose of 'culture' - now appears to make the problem worse. Whereas before, black youths were assumed to be rioting because of a lack of culture (what was referred to as 'ethnic disadvantage'), now youths were rioting because of an excess of culture - they were too Muslim, too traditional. For the state, the laissez-faire allowances of earlier had to be ended and cultural difference held on a tighter rein. The 'parallel cultural bloc' was now seen as part of the problem, not the solution.

'Self-segregation'

The Cantle report is the government's race manifesto. It provides a new formula, in which the separate cultural development that had been encouraged for decades is to be subsumed to the demands of 'community cohesion'. A set of core values is to put limits on multiculturalism and black people are required to develop 'a greater acceptance of the principal national institutions'.[5] Racism itself is to be understood as an outcome of cultural segregation, not its cause. And segregation is now seen as self-imposed.

The ultimate problem is identified as 'cultural barriers', rather than institutional racism or deprivation. The landmark recognition of institutional racism in the Macpherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence is diluted. The racism of Oldham police, which led up to the riots, is played down. It seems that the Greater Manchester police force, which was declared institutionally racist by its own chief constable in 1999, is now no longer a part of the problem. Instead, the same measures that have been proposed for the last twenty years are once again wheeled out: diversity training and ethnic headcounts.[6]

According to the Cantle report, it is not so much institutions as attitudes that are the focus of change. Like its conceptual cousin, 'social exclusion', 'community cohesion' is about networks, identity and discourse, rather than poverty, inequality and power. By implication the 'political correctness gone mad' argument finds official endorsement - cultural barriers have, apparently, been left to fester, leading to a refusal to engage in open debate.

On a local level, the new solutions are as banal as the analysis: cross-cultural contact, inter-faith dialogue, twinning of schools, fostering understanding and respect. Not so much celebrating diversity as kissing-and-making-up; reconciliation without remedial action. The report laments the decline of civic pride but offers these towns nothing to take pride in - no hope of economic development or revival of local democracy, just more 'neighbourliness'.

On a national level, a new Community Cohesion Task Force has been set up and Blunkett has initiated a 'national debate', by suggesting that immigrants take an 'oath of allegiance' to the British state and adopt British norms. The debate is meant to clarify the rights and responsibilities of a British citizen. But nobody seems to know what these are. In addition, the forthcoming white paper on nationality and immigration is expected to place extra requirements on immigrants for English language skills. And what is effectively a new policing measure - the introduction of the ID card - will most probably be dressed up as a 'citizenship card' to fit in to the new cohesion agenda.

Already contradictions are being thrown up between the old and new models, most notably around Islam's relationship with Britishness. By the logic of the multiculturalist consensus, faith schools were to be encouraged and, under Blair, won government support. Encouraging a Muslim identity in schools was seen as likely to produce responsible, respectable citizens. But from the new perspective of community cohesion, Muslim schools are dangerous breeding grounds for separatism. The government has yet to resolve such competing claims. Similarly, the question of Imams in prisons: before they were seen as an effective way of bringing wayward Muslim youths back into the community; now they are dangerous ideologues indoctrinating anti-western values.

The cohesion strategy can also be seen as part of a wider anxiety in government about Britain's Muslim population. This first became evident a few years ago when Home Office crime research started to focus increasingly on young Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, as potential criminal groups. Then in the 2001 census, the religious affiliations of the population were counted for the first time, a move widely thought to reflect the need to measure the size of the Muslim population. Following September 11, British Muslims have been criminalised further, with racial profiling in policing becoming acceptable as part of anti-terrorist operations.

Opportunity for anti-racists

The far Right has received a boost following Blunkett's December speech. Ray Honeyford - the former Bradford head teacher who had tried to make a heroic right-wing stand against multiculturalism in the 1980s - came out of the woodwork, to claim that he had been vindicated after all these years.[7] And indeed many of his old arguments resonate with the official government line of today. Likewise, British National Party leader Nick Griffin argued that the self-segregation line had been stolen from him (a view which credits him with too much originality).

But the fact that the old multiculturalist settlement has been unhinged can only be a good thing for anti-racists, as it leaves the way open for a revival of the left-wing critique of multiculturalism begun in Race & Class twenty years ago.

[1]See Arun Kundnani, 'From Oldham to Bradford: the violence of the violated', in The Three Faces of British Racism, Race & Class (Vol. 43, no. 2, 2001), pp.41-60.

[2]Community Cohesion: a report of the independent review team, chaired by Ted Cantle (London, Home Office 2001).

[3]'If we want social cohesion we need a sense of identity', interview with David Blunkett by Colin Brown, Independent on Sunday (9 December 2001), p. 4.

[4]Brown, ibid., and David Blunkett, 'It's not about cricket tests', Guardian (14 December 2001).

[5]Community Cohesion, op. cit., p. 19.

[6]Ibid., p. 42.

[7]Ray Honeyford, 'Ghettos are the problem: grammar schools the answer', Daily Telegraph (12 December 2001).

The Institute of Race Relations is precluded from expressing a corporate view: the opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

Among the key issues which can be uniquely addressed only by adopting a multidisciplinary perspective are the following:

• What processes and factors are responsible for the formation of national, ethnic, cultural and religious groups and communities?

• How are these factors visible in the cultural practices of these groups?

• How do these groups and communities construct, negotiate, communicate and express their identities, and what is the relationship between dominant and minority identities within different artistic, linguistic, political, historical, cultural and geographical settings?

• What are the political, economic, cultural and psychological causes and consequences of migration, and how do individuals, communities, societies and nations respond to migration and cultural diversity?

• How are conceptions and practices of citizenship being reshaped under the pressures of globalisation, migration and multiculturalism?

• What are the competing visions of Europe and European identity, and how does European identity relate to cultural, linguistic, national and ethnic identities?

| |

|Britain's Population Today |

| |

|The 1991 Census was an important breakthrough in establishing the picture of ethnic diversity in Britain's population. |

|The 1991 Census was the first to include a question on ethnic group. As a result the Census produced the first hard facts on |

|Britain's minority ethnic population - their numbers, age distribution, household size, settlement patterns, and |

|socio-economic circumstances. Data from the Census have been invaluable for understanding continuing inequalities and |

|providing a basis to develop and measure policy to achieve equality of opportunity. |

|Detailed information on Britain's minority ethnic groups is also available in the national surveys carried out by the Policy |

|Studies Institute. The PSI's fourth such survey, which covered 5,196 Caribbeans and Asians and 2,867 whites, was published in |

|1997. |

|Who the people are |

|The 1991 Census showed a population which included three million people from minority ethnic groups, 5.5% of the population. |

|The largest minority ethnic groups are Indian, black Caribbean, and Pakistani. In 1991 nearly half of Britain's minority |

|ethnic population had been born in the UK. The Census figures may leave out some people of mixed ethnic parentage (some of |

|whom may identify as "black other") - the PSI found that 39% of children with a Caribbean mother or father had a white other |

|parent. People born in Ireland make up 1.5% of the population - 4.5% including their children. The British Jewish community is|

|estimated as 285,000. |

|Ethnic Groups |

|(000) |

|% |

| |

|White |

|51.874 |

|94.5 |

| |

|Indian |

|840 |

|1.5 |

| |

|Black Caribbean |

|500 |

|0.9 |

| |

|Pakistani |

|477 |

|0.9 |

| |

|Other groups |

|290 |

|0.5 |

| |

|Black African |

|212 |

|0.4 |

| |

|Other Asian |

|198 |

|0.4 |

| |

|Black other |

|178 |

|0.3 |

| |

|Bangladeshi |

|163 |

|0.3 |

| |

|Chinese |

|157 |

|0.3 |

| |

|Total |

|54.889 |

|100 |

| |

|[pic] |

|Where minority ethnic people live |

|Newcastle |

|Pakistanis |

|Middlesbrough |

|Pakistanis |

|Greater Manchester/Oldham/Lancashire |

|Bangladeshis and Pakistanis |

|Liverpool |

|Black Africans |

|Birmingham/West Midlands |

|Black Caribbeans, South Asians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis |

|Cardiff |

|Black Africans |

|Leeds/WestYorkshire |

|Pakistanis |

|Scunthorpe |

|Bangladeshis |

|Leicester |

|South Asians and Indians |

|Peterborough |

|Pakistanis |

|Luton |

|Pakistanis and Bangladeshis |

|Slough |

|Indians and Pakistanis |

|[pic] |

|Largest minority ethnic groups in the London Area |

|North London |

|Black Africans and South Asians |

|Inner London |

|Black Caribbeans and Black Africans |

|West London |

|South Asians |

|East London/Tower Hamlets |

|Bangladeshis (nearly a quarter) |

|South London |

|Black Caribbeans |

|[pic] |

|The overwhelming majority of the minority ethnic population live in the Cities - nearly 60% live in South East England, with |

|45% living in Greater London. While fewer than one in 10 of the majority ethnic groups live in Greater London, half of |

|Caribbeans, and African-born Asians live in the South East region, as do 53% of Chinese and one in three Indians. |

|The other regions where the minority ethnic population tend to live are the West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside and North |

|West England. |

|In Scotland, minority ethnic people make up 1.25% of the population. The largest groups are Pakistani, Chinese and Indian. and|

|the main settlement is Glasgow, where they make up 3.2% of the population, although people from minority ethnic groups now |

|live in every region of Scotland. |

|Although most of Britain's minority ethnic population live in the main urban areas, they live alongside the majority ethnic |

|community rather than in segregated "ghettos". These main urban areas have greater disadvantage, with higher rates of |

|unemployment, lower household incomes, more overcrowding and poorer housing conditions. |

|There is a noticeably small minority ethnic presence in the countryside and the most rural parts of Britain - including South |

|West England, East Anglia, Wales and Scotland - apart from a sprinkling of health service, retail and catering workers, such |

|as doctors, nurses, pharmacists and people working in local convenience shops or Chinese and Indian restaurants and take |

|aways. While 13.1% of the majority ethnic population live in rural areas, only 1.67% of the minority ethnic population do so. |

|There is some evidence that race discrimination and prejudice may be more common in rural communities, and this issue has |

|become a concern for the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) and public agencies delivering services in rural areas. |

|Family and age patterns |

|Because of their demographic profile, there are currently proportionately more children and fewer elderly people among |

|Britain's minority ethnic communities than in the majority ethnic community. Nearly a third of the minority ethnic population |

|are tinder 15 and only 3% are pensioners, compared with 17% of the majority ethnic population. |

|Britain's minority ethnic communities are therefore younger, with an average age of 27 in 1995: it was 38 for those from the |

|majority ethnic groups. |

|Patterns of family life vary between Britain's ethnic groups. South Asians generally have strong family ties and are more |

|likely to be living with parents or adult children. Two-thirds of elderly Asians live with their adult children compared with |

|only 13% of their white counterparts. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis live in the largest households, with an average of 5.7 |

|people; they are more likely to be married and to have more children than other groups. Caribbean adults, including those with|

|children, are more likely to be living on their own; one in five are lone parents. These patterns are changing with new |

|generations and increased social and geographic mobility. The extended family may become less of a feature for Asians, for |

|example. and there could be more Caribbean pensioners living alone. These developments will have consequences for social |

|policy, such as provision for the elderly. |

|Living with disadvantage |

|Minority ethnic families tend to be poorer than those from majority ethnic groups. Figures from the Family Resources Survey of|

|25,000 households in 1996, as well as the PSI report, showed that Pakistani and Bangladeshi families were the worst off. |

|Because of their larger size, Pakistani and Bangladeshi households with a wage earner were often worse off than white |

|households with no wage earner, such as pensioners or lone parents. Black and Indian households also had lower incomes than |

|white households. More than four in five Pakistani arid Bangladeshi households live well below the national average income - |

|82% of Pakistani and 84% of Bangladeshi households had an income below half the national average, compared with 28% of |

|majority ethnic households. The poverty of these two groups is a result of a combination of factors - high rates of male |

|unemployment, low rates of women's economic activity, low wages and large households. |

|Ethnic monitoring and race equality |

|The importance of collecting facts about ethnic minority groups and measuring progress towards equality is now widely |

|recognised. Most major public bodies and increasing numbers of employers and service providers - from government departments |

|to football clubs - now include ethnic monitoring as part of their equal opportunities policies to measure ethnic minority |

|inclusion and participation in the socio-economic and cultural life of Britain. |

|Equality programmes designed to redress racial disadvantage are now used in: |

|private sector business and commerce; |

|central government; |

|local government; |

|education; |

|policing; |

|the judiciary; |

|non governmental organisations. |

|The programmes tend to focus on staff employment, development and training, and delivery of goods and services to customers |

|and clients. |

|Whatever the programme's focus, ethnic monitoring has been a key factor in helping British institutions to take action against|

|racial disadvantage. |

|Immigrants and asylum seekers |

|The numbers of immigrants now entering Britain from non-European Union countries has declined from the peak of the 1950s-80s. |

|In 1996-97, 60,000 people were accepted for settlement in the UK. This figure is projected to increase to around 80,000 a year|

|in 1999-2000 and to fall slightly in the following three years. |

|There were 28,000 applications for asylum in the UK in 1996, of which 2,200 were granted asylum and 5,100 exceptional leave to|

|remain. The main applicants were from Nigeria, India, Somalia, Pakistan and Turkey. |

|[pic] |

|Promoting Good Race Relations; |

|The Legal Framework |

|When the first new immigrants arrived in Britain from the Caribbean in the 1950s they found that not all doors were open to |

|them - literally. |

|Although invited here to staff Britain's services and industries, many found that they were not always welcome. "No coloureds |

|here" was often the response when they were looking for a place to live, work or relax. Sometimes they faced physical attack |

|too. |

|There was a growing feeling by policy-makers and immigrants that such treatment was not acceptable in a modern democracy. This|

|was the background to the first race relations laws which were passed by Parliament in the l960s. |

|The Race Relations Act 1976 |

|The Race Relations Act 1976 marked an important step in combating racial discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity.|

|The Race Relations Act makes it unlawful in Great Britain to discriminate on racial grounds in employment, training, |

|education, the provision of goods, facilities and services and other activities. |

|"Racial grounds" includes colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. |

|The Act distinguishes two main types of racial discrimination: |

|direct discrimination - treating a person, on racial grounds, less favourably than others are or would be in similar |

|circumstances; |

|indirect discrimination - applying a requirement or condition which puts people from a particular racial group at a |

|disadvantage compared to others. |

|It is unlawful to instruct or put pressure on others to commit racial discrimination. It is also unlawful to victimise anyone |

|who makes a complaint of race discrimination or supports another's complaint. |

|The Acts applies to England, Scotland and Wales. The Race Relations Order from 1997 in Ireland, applies similar legislation. |

|The Act outlaws racial discrimination in employment and education and in the provision of goods, services and premises. It has|

|helped pioneer good race relations. |

|Under the Act it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of colour, race, nationality, citizenship, ethnic or national |

|origin in recruitment, selection, training, promotion, access to benefits, facilities and services and in relation to |

|dismissal or any other detriment. |

|Related law |

|Racist behaviour and action is subject to the criminal law and other specific laws. |

|The Public Order Act 1986 makes incitement to racial hatred an offence. This covers the production and circulation of printed |

|and other material. This Act also outlaws threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour causing harassment, alarm or distress. |

|New offences of racially aggravated violence, criminal damage and racial harassment were introduced tinder the Crime and |

|Disorder Act 1998. |

|In some other areas it is possible to use legal powers - such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - to deal with racial|

|harassment and abuse. |

|The Football (Offences) Act 1991 makes racist chanting at football matches an offence. |

|The law in Scotland |

|The Race Relations Act 1976 applies throughout Great Britain, including Scotland, which has a separate legal system from |

|England and Wales. The Act will continue to apply under the Scottish Parliament, which will be first elected in May l999. The |

|Commission for Racial Equality will continue to function throughout Great Britain. |

|The Scottish sections of the Crime and Disorder Act follow those for the rest of Great Britain, introducing a new offence of |

|race harassment. |

|The common law has been used in Scotland in cases where racial motivation is an aspect of a crime being heard before the |

|courts. |

|Commission for Racial Equality |

|The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) was set up under the 1976 Act. Its duties are: |

|to work towards the elimination of racial discrimination; |

|to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations between persons of different racial groups generally; |

|to keep the working of the Act under review. |

|The CRE has powers under the Act to issue codes of practices, to carry out formal investigations, and to issue |

|non-discrimination notices after findings of unlawful racial discrimination. The CRE has conducted nearly 100 such |

|investigations, resulting in significant changes in employment practices or housing allocation policy. |

|The CRE also has a duty laid down in this Act to consider requests for assistance from members of the public who wish to bring|

|legal cases alleging unlawful racial discrimination. If the CRE considers the complaint to be within the scope of the Act, it |

|can provide investigative, expert and legal representation at no cost to the individual. Cases are taken to employment |

|tribunals, the employment law courts or to the civil law courts, where a judge sits without a jury for all non-employment |

|cases. |

|This casework is then followed up by the CRE with relevant good practice publications. |

|The codes of practice provide guidance on the operation of the law; failure to observe a code may be admissible in courts or |

|tribunals. The CRE has issued codes covering employment, education, housing and the health service. |

|While the CRE takes the lead at national level, Racial Equality Councils are on hand locally to assist in cases of |

|discrimination and to promote race equality. There are 87 Racial Equality Councils funded by the CRE and local authorities. |

|There is now also a CRE for Northern Ireland, set up in 1997 under the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order. |

|Much of the CRE's work is educational, advisory and campaigning, encouraging organisations to change their practices and |

|behaviour to develop racial equality. The CRE's race equality standards for employment, local government, and services for |

|young people aim to help organisations measure their progress towards race equality. |

|Racial Equality Councils |

|Local Racial Equality Councils, jointly funded by the CRE and local authorities, work in partnership with the community, |

|employers and institutions at local level to promote racial equality. The Councils handle individual casework, build community|

|support, work to influence local institutions and employers, and campaign and promote education to influence public opinion on|

|racial equality. |

|Recent initiatives include: |

|the Leadership Challenge, launched in 1997, invites British leaders to declare their commitment to the principles of diversity|

|and racial equality and to take practical measures to promote racial equality in their organisations in May 1998 Prime |

|Minister Tony Blair accepted this challenge in the name of the government; |

|Let's Kick Racism Out of Football, involving football players, clubs and the police in tackling racism in the sport - this |

|campaign has now become the independent Kick It Out campaign, backed by the Football Association. A parallel campaign was |

|launched in 1998 by the Rugby Football League, in conjunction with the CRE; |

|Roots of the Future educational exhibition promoting Britain's ethnic diversity - it was visited by nearly 500,000 people n |

|1997; |

|Race n the Media Awards which promote excellence in the handling of race issues in all parts of the media; |

|Visible Women, seeking to raise the profile of ethnic minority women's potential and the specific problems which they face. |

|Race Relations Forum |

|A Race Relations Forum was set tip by the Home Secretary in June 1998. The Forum advises on issues affecting minority ethnic |

|communities and acts as a voice for minority ethnic interests in the heart of government. |

|Social Exclusion Unit |

|The Social Exclusion Unit was set up by the government in December 1997 to co-ordinate and improve government action to reduce|

|social exclusion. Race is a specific remit of the Unit, which is working to ensure that no groups are excluded from government|

|policy and practice. |

References

Samje C (1995)

Heath, Race and Ethnicity:

Making Sense of the Evidence. King's Fund Institute: London

Gerrish K, Husband C, Mackenzie J (1996)

Nursing for a Multi-Ethnic Society:

Open University Press: Buckingham.

Geipel J (1969)

The Europeans: An Ethnohistorical Survey:

Longman: London.

Mason D (1995)

Race and Ethnicity in Modern Britain:

Oxford University Press: Oxford

Kundnani, Arun (2002)

The Death of Multiculturalism:

Institute of Race Relations.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download