Yes. Quite. For the simple reason of pitting ‘white’ vs ‘others’ without distinguishing between white British vs white European at crucial points of the ‘analysis’ on the BBC - which has a tendency to give ‘Editor’s Pick’ ratings for xenophobic comments. (click on image below)
In the first para, 86% were said to be ‘white’ in 2011 with 45.1 describing themselves s ‘white British’.
However, when it comes to the graph indicating ethnic change from 2001-2011, there is no distinction between ‘white British’ and ‘white European’ or ‘white Other’. All we have are distinctions on the basis of colour.
...Britain is a ‘white country’ despite the ethnicity of its white inhabitants. In other words, ethnicity only matters if you’re not white.With this colour distinction made between ‘white’ vs non-whites, the analysis immediately moves on to stating that ‘fewer than half of London’s residents were white British’. This will tend to reinforce the notion that the rest were non-white - which may not be true given the large number of people of European origin in London.
The analysis tends to colour over the fact that immigration in the UK can see significant increases due to the influx of ‘white’ Europeans as opposed to those of ‘non-white’ origin.
I recall a portion of the book that is required-study for those intending to become UK citizens or apply of Indefinite Leave to Remain (Permanent Residency) giving a population breakdown between various ethnic groups whilst lumping all those whom are ‘white’ together, whether they be americans, australians, western european, or eastern european, vs non-whites. That was a pretty racist presentation, perhaps designed to reinforce the idea amongst applicants that Britain is a ‘white country’ despite the ethnicity of its white inhabitants. In other words, ethnicity only matters if you’re not white.
That ain’t right.