Skip to main content

2011 UK Census Analysis Racist?


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.

ed



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…