Blowing off steam…
Excuse me while I blow off steam at a report in yesterday’s New York Times (may require subscription) about the latest terrorist attacks in Britain. The authors casually refer to Britain’s ‘disenfranchised South Asian population’.
Disenfranchised??? According to my dictionary, ‘disenfranchised’ means ‘deprived of the right to vote’, or ‘deprived of rights as citizen’. So in what sense, literal or metaphorical, are South Asians in Britain ‘disenfranchised’?
Unless they are very young or very recent immigrants, they certainly have the vote (which in Britain depends on residence, not citizenship). Indeed, they may have more than one vote, as the South Asian communities tend to follow the old Ulster maxim ‘vote early and vote often’. Nearly all the recent cases of electoral fraud in Britain have involved South Asians, especially in the abuse of proxy and postal votes. Never mind if your granny is in Pakistan (or dead), that is no reason why she shouldn’t vote. And your local Mullah will probably be kind enough to deliver your postal vote for you – just leave the details blank!
Nor can it be said that South Asians are lacking in political influence. They have fewer Members of Parliament than their proportion in the population, but they make up for this in the influence they exert on other Members. This applies especially to Labour Members from the North and Midlands of England, where the Muslim vote is a powerful factor.
Of course, not all South Asians in Britain are Muslims. In fact the largest single group are Hindus of Indian origin. But they just do their work and make no fuss, so they are not a factor in politics.
Added on 3 July: This was written in haste, and there are a few errors. See the Comments page for corrections. They don’t affect the point of substance that it is absurd to describe South Asians in Britain as ‘disenfranchised’. But as it happens, the main suspects at present are not South Asians at all, but Arabs from comfortable backgrounds (doctors, etc.). Fortunately they also seem to have been wildly incompetent. Let’s hope it stays that way.
Added on 6 July: According to the latest reports, 5 of the 8 key suspects are Arabs, and 3 are Indian Muslims (from Bangalore).
>>They have fewer Members of Parliament..
I read somewhere that about 20% + of Doctors and Accountants in Britain were South Asians but only about 5% of Barristers were.So the political process (as well as some professions and political parties) is under representing South Asians.Britain should have an Asian Prime minister by now.But of course Politics is not a meritocracy.
Two of the cell members were even doctors — real practicing MDs (including a “brilliant neurologist,” whatever that means)… so much for “disenfranchisement.”
_article_id=465481&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in
david, you have to remember, when brown people go wild, they aren’t responsible. they’re like animals, not capable of having any agency. their violence has to be due to what white people have done to them.
btw, here is the UK census page on ethnicity. i think it can be said that the largest single brown group are pakistani muslims. the religion page shows that indians are split between hindus and sikhs.
Two of the cell members were even doctors — real practicing MDs (including a “brilliant neurologist,” whatever that means)… so much for “disenfranchisement.”
rule of thumb: elite members of marginalized groups are scary.
Or bizar.
Disenfranchised no way. Alienation though, I can believe, but even then it’s basically self-imposed. The mental strain of all the purposeful distinctions between Muslims and non, making people with a potentially dangerous ideology so disconnected from society that they start living in that extreme and artificial ideology.
disconnected from society
this is key. american muslims tend not to fit this pattern as much. reasons:
1) ethnically fragmented (e.g., a pakistani muslim neighborhood makes sense, a pakistani, nigerian, malay and albanian muslim neighborhood makes less sense)
2) well educated. muslims, on average, are no more or less educted than the general population. immigrant muslims in particular are educated, and education tends to go along with professions where you interact with and deal with people of other groups. my impression is that in the UK muslims tended to do factory work (with other muslims) or run small businesses (where they hire their own family members). there is a lot more interaction between a doctor and his patients than between the corner shop owner and his patrons on a human level.
3) dispersal. there aren’t strong regional concentrations aside from what you’d expect from an immigrant and black community. this is related to #2, professionals tend to be more geographically mobile, by inclination and necessity
I read somewhere that about 20% + of Doctors and Accountants in Britain were South Asians but only about 5% of Barristers were.So the political process (as well as some professions and political parties) is under representing South Asians.Britain should have an Asian Prime minister by now.But of course Politics is not a meritocracy.
This page suggests that South Asians make up less than 5% of the UK population, so I am at a loss for how you support your assertion. Are you simply speaking out of your arse?
This page suggests that South Asians make up less than 5% of the UK population, so I am at a loss for how you support your assertion. Are you simply speaking out of your arse?
1) a lot of people in the london area confuse the demographics of london with the UK as a whole (you see this regular in the innumerate mass media)
2) the commenter might have been asserting that if 1/5 of the doctors are south asian and only 1/20, that suggests an underrepresentation in relation to their educational qualifications
3) i doubt #2 is correct. different groups funnel into different areas. law tends to require a lot more cultural fluency than medicine. asians are way more overrepresented in medicine in the USA than law
4) we don’t know if the 20% number if correct. i think william dalyrymple stated it somewhere, but i don’t know if it is backed up by the facts (someone should look it up, i don’t have the time right now). i’m skeptical of it simply because the only large south asian group which resembles american south asians in terms of their educational and SES orientation are those who were transplanted from east africa. hindu and sikh indians tend to be above, at, or slightly below the white level depending on the group you look at (hindus here who are not east african), and the muslim groups are far inferior
I have Siruis so I get BBC radio. A few hours ago they broadcast an interview with the father of one of the doctors being held. I don’t know if it was what he said or just his tone but he came off as a full time a-hole. He spouted a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that implied his son was arrested because Britain discriminates against people with beards. Bonus point, he is contacting the King of Jordan to spring his son. If it turns out he is guilty it made me hate him and his family even more.
Something tells me that Muslims won’t be in the streets protesting the extremists behind the lastest bombing attempts.
The NYT claim of disenfranchisement is an example of either illiteracy or dishonesty.
Of course all this talk about South Asians appears to be of little direct relevance to this case as most of the arrested doctors appear to be Middle Eastern.
‘they certainly have the vote (which in Britain depends on residence, not citizenship)‘
That isn’t entirely correct, non citizens can generally vote in local or European elections, unless they are from Ireland or the Commonwealth in which case they can vote in Westminster elections too.
they’re like animals, not capable of having any agency. their violence has to be due to what white people have done to them.
Personally, I use my mighty Caucasianist Powers to influence the weather. And horse races.
This looks to have been the first Doctor’s Plot since Uncle Joe’s time.
Two confusions about doctors:-
(i) between proportions of doctors overall and proportions of medical students/junior doctors. Here is some useful information about the latter, which does indeed suggest that the proportion of juniors is 20% (sorry, I haven’t absorbed it all properly, though; this is half an analysis, but my brain is not currently up to completing it and I thought someone might be interested in the raw data).
(ii) there are a large number of doctors (particularly, but not exclusively, South Asian doctors) working in the UK at the moment who were not born in the UK and/or are not British citizens. (This is for reasons to do with the European Working Time Directive into which I will not drag you).
Given that nationality, age (MPs and particularly Prime Ministers are not usually very young) and indeed inclination are all relevant to whether someone becomes an MP, possibly indeed more so than educational level, Jaspa’s assertion makes no sense. (Especially the bit about the PM!)
I’m not sure whether we “know” yet, but it looks relatively likely that the doctor-bombers in fact fall into (ii) above; in which case they’re “disenfranchised” because they were never enfranchised in the first place, not being British citizens.
Sorry, that last bit should read “not being British or Commonwealth country citizens”. Were they in fact South Asian, they would be able to vote in British Parliamentary elections, as long as they had got themselves onto the Electoral Register (not difficult), since India, Bangaldesh and Pakistan are all Commonwealth countries.
Ross: thanks for the correction.
People from the main South Asian countries (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) are eligible to vote as Commonwealth citizens. (Pakistan has been in and out of the Commonwealth but I don’t think voting rights have ever been suspended.) Of course, many ‘Asians’ in Britain are British citizens anyway.
As stated by Ross, EU citizens (other than Irish) can vote in local and European but not Parliamentary elections. This is part of a European deal to avoid double-voting which might influence European decisions.
Citizens of other countries (non-Europe, non-Commonwealth) do not have the right to vote in British elections, though checks on registration are very lax.
On the relative numbers from different groups, at the last Census there were just over 1 million ‘Indians’ in Britain as against 700,000 Pakistani and 300,000 Bangladeshi. I tend to assume that most Indians are Hindus, but in Britain apparently only just over half are (Census table S101). So it may well be correct that Pakistani Muslims are the largest single group.
>>Jaspa’s assertion makes no sense..(Especially the bit about the PM!)
I guess there would be more South Asian MPs if South Asians were white ?
Califonia has an Austrian for a Governor,India has a Italian female head of the Congress Party(if not the head of the Indian Government),even France has a almost Hungarian President .So why does not Britain with its long association with South Asia and the presence of 2nd and 3rd generation British Asians have any South Asian Cabinet Ministers ?
The Scots and Jews don’t leave any room for them, jaspa.
At what point does Britain begin to rethink it’s immigration policies, particularly with respect to Muslims?
Is this still impossible to talk about it the UK?
Jaspa, your original assertion was that because 20% of doctors in the UK are South Asian, Britain should have an Asian Prime Minister by now. I was pointing out some reasons why this does not flow logically (the doctors are skewed to the young end, many of them are only on temporary visas and, what I did not state in so many words, the population of Prime Ministers is tiny, so the claim about them is statistically dubious).
Your new question about cabinet ministers is slightly less statistically dubious. AFAIK the most number of non-white people in the cabinet at any one time has been 2 (out of about 21-23). Is that due to racism (what I assume you’re implying)? I doubt it, although it’s a possible factor. South Asians in Britain are, on the whole, quite concentrated in particular areas, so there is no obvious “racist” reasons why local constituency parties would not select SA candidates nor that they would not then be voted into office. And the party which has been in power for the last 10 years would be overjoyed to be able to show that it had the “right” number of ethnic minorities and females at all levels. FWIW, I don’t think the fact that there’s currently only 5 women out of 23 in the cabinet is due to sexism, either.
dougjnn – not impossible, no, it’s talked about frequently, although mostly in rather a Daily Mail sort of way. IMHO the serious issue is whether we have struck the right balance between free speech and letting in/allowing to stay/insufficiently curtailing the activities of various extremist Islamists who have been banned by other countries, often including their own, for Islamist political activity and preaching jihad – the “Londonistan” charge.
Christopher Hitchens has an interesting article in Slate.
dougjnn
If Europe questions it’s immigration policies the answers will have to come from the left. Cultural conservatives and the political right have been obliterated in most of Europe.
Best Euro blog around
http://www.brusselsjournal.com
dougjnn
Followup: Because immigration reform in Europe must come from the left no substantive immigration reform will ever come. Most leftists in Europe view immigration as a way to grow their power base.
Something tells me European Pols haven’t thought their cunning plan all the way through. When Muslims become dominant will they need leftists?
american muslims tend not to fit this pattern [disconnection from society] as much
On the other hand, compared to Europe, the United States has a much higher percentage of evangelical/fundamentalist Christians among the native (i.e. non-immigrant) population, at least some of whom consider Muslims to be Godless heathens irrespective of their socioeconomic statuses.
Do American evangelicals/fundamentalists consider Muslims to be “godless”? I’ve never heard that charge from them. It reminds me of a review I read of “Head On”/”Gegen die Wand” which claimed that the movie showed the discrimination Turks face in Germany from the scene where the busdriver kicks off the main characters and calls them “godless dogs”, and a reader had to inform him that the busdriver himself was a Turk! Speaking of that and Razib’s recent theme of perverted visitors via Google, some intrepid Turkish forum-goers have made available to the world the reason why Sibel Kekilli’s family disowned her here. I find it kind of odd that some people actually pay for this stuff, but I’m not the connoisseur of the genre that others are.
Chris Hitchens does surprisingly well for himself considering how prone he is to pissing everybody off. I wonder if he secretly hopes he will be assassinated with an icepick in homage to Trotsky, just as Darby Crash overdosed on heroin in tribute to the least important Sex Pistol.
Gordon Brown, who I had thought was somewhat to the left of Tony Blair, has proposed some quite sensible increases in vetting which fast track highly skilled foreign workers receive from sponsoring institutions before getting visas, and new agreements with foreign countries to make deportation of certain persons easier.
This is an encouraging start. Maybe Brown is more level headed and less head in the sand ?idealistic? than Blair was. Or maybe he?s responding to a ground swell of public pressure. You sure can?t hear that at the BBC site, but then that?s no surprise.
These changes Brown is advancing will be more impressive still if the increased vetting is narrowly focused on whether applicants have ties to Islamist individuals or organizations. I.e., all the resources should be focused on Muslim visa seekers or immigrants.
dougjnn
The Brittish government (like the American) is not going to reform the immigration system. A few scattered employer raids, border patrol, “tougher” laws, etc. etc. are a prop. In 20 years Europe and America will be overrun by a hundred million legal and illegal, low skilled immigrants from the 3rd world.
dougjnn
The Brittish government (like the American) is not going to reform the immigration system. A few scattered employer raids, border patrol, “tougher” laws, etc. etc. are a prop. In 20 years Europe and America will be overrun by a hundred million legal and illegal, low skilled immigrants from the 3rd world.
(not sure why my name came up anon in my previous post)
dougjnn
If you want analysis, rather than factual breaking news, you would do a lot better with the Economist than the Beeb. AFAIK their content goes public quite quickly. I had a little search around, and there’s lots of interesting stuff, but the last para of this article still strikes me as quite a good summary of British opinion on the subject.
I don’t think I’d want to head the team of investigators looking into every patient death connected to these doctors over the last year.
Then again I guess thats a better job than the guy who has to keep those findings out of the press to avoid widespread panic.
Last paragraph potentilla pointed to: The fact that immigration has less to do with race only makes it easier to dislike. Hostility used to connote racial prejudice, but no longer. That’s modern Britain: multicultural, racially liberal and anti-immigrant to the core.
But race is a major factor in anti-immigration views. That’s why there has been barely a peep about the enormous Polish population transfer, while the headlines are obsessed with non-european migration. A dislike for Asylum seekers is probably rational in a rights-based welfare state, being wide open to abuse by cheaters as is, but compounded in the majority eye by the fact of foreign-ness. But it is true that pretty much all racial groups in Britain are opposed to mass immigration.
Migration Watch UK have an interesting press release on their site at the moment highlighting the fact that they warned the government in 2005 about the laxness of visa checks from countries where terrorism is a problem. 98% of visas from Pakistan for example are issued without even an interview!
That’s why there has been barely a peep about the enormous Polish population transfer, while the headlines are obsessed with non-european migration
Where I live (Scotland) there’s plenty of peeping about migration from Poland and its effect on the jobs market. And I don’t read the daily press much (waste of time) but surely the Polish plumber is a widespread meme? Also see here for example.
Are you from the UK, cuchulkhan? This is just a question about whether perceptions are different in different parts of the UK, or whether your perception is gained entirely from the media.
I find poles the most popular of the migrant groups, in ireland and the uk. The fear of east europeans is basically economic, while the fear of non-europeans is ethnic and cultural. What if had been 1/2-1 million Pakistani’s in the space of 2 years? And I don’t think gypsies count.
Didn’t Great Britain have a Eurasian Prime Minister briefly in the 1890s? Half-Thai IIRC.
Triticale, Britain has never had a prime minister who was half thai. Lord Liverpool who was PM from 1812 to 1827, was a quarter or an eighth Indian.
My mistake. That would be who I was thinking of. I do know that the mixture was enough to draw racist hostility at the time.
Razib, “disenfranchised” is a MSM code word for “black and brown”.
Since the 1992 elections (remember the Florida recount?) it has become a common euphemism.
Just replace “disenfranchised” with “black and brown” and the text should scan fine.
I had also read that Brits weren’t so happy about Polish immigrants (though I’ve also read that Turkish immigration causes Germans to be more favorable to Polish immigration than they would otherwise be). Another country I’ve heard BNP people complaining about is Albania. I was under the impression that Albanians are basically Slavs that converted to Islam when the Ottomans took over. In that case they would be little or no more “racially” different than Poles would be. On the other hand, they are rather culturally distinct.
TGGP: whether or not Brits are happy about Polish immigrants depends a bit on their own economic status. For the affluent middle classes, Poles = cheap reliable labour. For the working classes Poles = unfair competition. But it’s fair to say that Poles are the least unpopular of all immigrants to Britain.
Albanians are a very different matter. They have a reputation as beggars, pimps and gangsters. Most of the London vice trade is now run by Albanians, and there have been some very nasty cases of ‘human traffic’.