Rod Liddle
Already a subscriber? Log in
However, let us move on to the end of their report, which, while it concedes that we no longer have signs up on boarding houses saying ‘No Blacks, No Dogs, No Static Travellers’, there is still great inequality. ‘An ethnic minority baby born today is sadly still more likely to go on to receive poor quality education, be paid less, live in sub-standard housing, be in poorer health and be discriminated against in other ways than his or her white contemporary,’ the report concludes. Well, forget the tortuous construction for a moment: is this true? And if so, is it as a result of vindictive racist discrimination by the white economic elite?
The evidence would seem to suggest precisely the opposite.
A Chinese baby born today, for example, would be much, much more likely to grow up to be better paid than his or her white contemporary. And also likely to receive a better education and live in a nicer home. The latest figures available suggest that 77 per cent of Chinese girls and 72 per cent of Chinese boys receive five or more A-levels at C grade or above — way ahead of the figure for occidental boys and girls. They are also less likely (as you might expect) to end up doing manual work and have the highest proportion of any ethnic grouping for attendance at university. Except, I should add, for the smaller ‘East Asian’ community, whose performance outstrips not only the indigenous whites, but even their Chinese cousins. If I can use the word cousins in its colloquial sense.
That’s not all. A child born to an Indian family today can expect, on average, almost precisely the same educational achievements, housing, employment and good or bad health as his or her white counterparts. Meanwhile, Pakistani kids do slightly worse, on average, than their white counterparts but are more likely to end up self-employed and less likely to be found doing menial work. Black African girls are likely to do rather better out of the education system than white British boys; they are also slightly more likely to get a job requiring qualifications than either white boys or white girls. A child born to any one of the following ethnic minority groups is far more likely than a white British child to get a job in the top managerial and professional class: Indian, Chinese, East Asian, Irish. A boy born to a white British working-class family will do worse at school than every ethnic minority other than those from the Caribbean, Bangladeshi and travelling communities (static, or the more usual kind of traveller, those who like to move about every now and again).
That brief summary of statistics may have bored you rigid; it is, I suppose, another manifestation of our continual and, I reckon, injurious obsession with race. But it does at least suggest that the CRE report is wrong not merely in substance — that ethnic minority kids are more likely to do worse in life than white kids — but also in its analysis of the problem. If, for example, black African girls do rather well at school, better than white boys, and British Caribbean boys do less well, it suggests that either teachers or the education system are very discriminating about their discrimination, to a quite unbelievable degree, or that something else must be at work here. Similarly, is it likely that the white hegemony, in the form of those who run the economic system and our schools and our property markets, decide that Indians should be given a fair crack of the whip while Pakistanis should be left to stew in their own juices — and fail. Why is it that the Chinese and East Asians do so well out of life in Britain? The logic of the CRE must surely be that if negative discrimination places one ethnic group at the bottom of the pile, it must surely follow that those at the top have experienced positive discrimination — and what’s more, at the expense of our good old indigenous white British community. Is that likely? None of it stacks up.
The argument that discrimination on the part of a predominantly white society is to blame for the underachievement of one or another ethnic group no longer has the remotest basis in fact. If there are disparities in achievement between the various ethnic communities in this country it is solely down to the cultural forces at work within those communities. Chinese kids do well at school because the Chinese community places a very high value upon education. Caribbean boys do very badly at school because of a corrosively macho anti-educationalist ethos among Caribbean boys, which is gradually transmitting itself to white boys. This is something Trevor Phillips — and other black community leaders — have recognised in the past.
The CRE’s problem is that it was set up to counter white discrimination against ethnic minorities and it cannot drag itself away from that now long redundant and counterproductive state of mind. It persists in seeing our various minority ethnic communities as a sort of weird, undifferentiated morass of oppressed people — defined, politically, by their deeply regrettable lack of whiteness. It is, to my mind, a racist assumption — but also patently false. A Chinese girl growing up in Manchester has far less in common with a Bangladeshi girl growing up in Tower Hamlets than she does with a white girl growing up pretty much anywhere. The Bangladeshi girl is about as likely to go to university as a Jewish girl is likely to end up in a pie factory in Melton Mowbray, because of the cultural imperatives of the community from which she originates. And the CRE still assumes — as is clear from that bone-headed conclusion to its report — that our ethnic minorities are equally persecuted and discriminated against and that the guilty party is the white majority. One supposes that it takes this demonstrably erroneous view because otherwise it would have no reason to exist — but then, having said that, it is about not to exist, so one might have hoped for a moment of clarity and perspective to have emerged from its death throes. But no such luck.
Also in Society
Also by Rod Liddle
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in