No class...

[Gob]

It's different in the UK...

Trevor Phillips today urged Britons to stop importing America's culture war over race, calling it a 'desperate mistake' and arguing that class is more important than racial background in causing inequalities in society.

The former head of the Commission for Racial Equality accepted that 'race matters' in Britain, but added: 'In truth it is what we call ''class'' that presents the biggest barrier to ambition and talent.'

He called for UK activists to stop adopting the language of America's tortured racial politics, writing: 'We have deep enough divisions in our own country without shoehorning someone else's conflicts into our daily lives.'

In a comment piece in The Times, Mr Phillips, 67, who parents live in America, said he was pleased yesterday's England game saw applause drowning out boos when footballers took the knee, adding that he 'admired' the players' actions.

But he asked if the gesture, which began in America to protest police homicides - rare in the UK - might have been 'more moving' if it had been directed at showing sympathy for Sasha Johnson, the BLM activist currently in a critical state in hospital after being shot in the head after wandering 'unwittingly into a gunfight between young black men'.

And Mr Phillips said that the 'more significant' question was why men such as Marcus Rashford and Phil Foden, who are 'articulate and thoughtful' but from working class families, still found that their most likely route to success was through playing sport.

He pointed to recent comments by the chairman of the Social Mobility Foundation, Alan Milburn, who last week found that coming from a less affluent background dramatically reduced your chances of becoming a senior lawyer or doctor.

He urged the government to begin ask more questions about people's background, rather than just race, to gain a more detailed picture of the barriers faced by working class children.

Mr Phillips continued: 'In the US they worry about income and race. In Britain, where wealth stored in a family home guarantees security and allows risk taking, we should frame a different question.

'I would ask how long the family had owned its home, and its value. Either way, no government has yet put this into effect.'

Mr Phillips' comments are supported by the findings of the government's Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, which found that 'geography, family influence, socio-economic background, culture and religion have more significant impact on life chances than the existence of racism'.

The report - criticised as an 'insult', 'whitewash' and 'disgraceful sham' by Labour MPs - said in terms of overall numbers white boys from low income families were the most disadvantaged.

It also hit out at the 'casual' use of the term 'institutional racism', saying there was little evidence to support the claims.

As well as condemning barbs about 'White Privilege', the report said the term 'racism' was often 'misapplied' to 'account for every observed disparity' - suggesting that firms should 'move away from' unconscious bias training.

Chair Tony Sewell thanked the 'mainly young people' behind the BLM movement for putting the focus on race, but cautioned that progress cannot be achieved by 'cleaving to a fatalistic account that insists nothing has changed'.

The document said 'historic experience of racism still haunts the present' and identified a 'reluctance to acknowledge that the UK had become open and fairer'.

At England's game against Croatia yesterday, the vast majority of the 22,500 Three Lions inside Wembley applauded the players' gesture of defiance against racism with cheers quickly drowning out the smattering of boos that came from the upper tier behind the goal on the west side of the stadium.

The FA had been concerned that fans booing their own players - as happened before warm-up matches against Austria and Romania - would dominate and create an unpleasant atmosphere at the start of England's tournament.

The fans' backing for the players vindicates the diplomatic work that has gone on behind the scenes this week with the FA lobbying the Government to condemn fans who booed. This backing eventually materialised on Friday and England manager Gareth Southgate implored supporters to get behind the team.

The FA had been sufficiently worried about the prospect of loud booing that they prepared a statement condemning it and reaffirming their commitment to campaigning for greater racial equality, but it was never released.

[ex-khobar Andy]

The basic difference between Trevor Phillips and many UK 'progressives' (for want of a better term) is on the issue of multiculturalism - the notion that people of different backgrounds should be free to practice their own ancestral cultures. Obviously there should be limits such as a ban on practices such as female genital mutilation (although I'm not clear on why circumcision is not equally seen as a barbaric practice) and polygamy but otherwise 'as you like.' Mr Phillips chooses to emphasize the melting pot model - well, those of us who live in the US have seen how well that works. Nevertheless, it's a valid approach to the problem of seeking racial harmony or at least a lessening of racial tension.

To me it's like the great argument among evolutionary biologists about whether evolution proceeds in fits and starts ('punctuated equilibrium' - championed notably by such as Stephen Jay Gould) or more smoothly ('phyletic gradualism' - among others Richard Dawkins). Opponents of evolution seize on this rather arcane debate as proof that scientist are at loggerheads and therefore God must have done it. In 'The Devil's Chaplain' Dawkins recounts his differences with Gould which were immense and in most other trades might have culminated in blows: but tells how he and Gould, despite their differences, had agreed to put out a joint statement that the science of evolution was sound and that any suggestion of otherwise was just gibberish. (I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the book to hand.) Sadly, Gould died (2002) before they could put this together.

There are racists (and just to be clear, Gob, I am not accusing you of that) who use Mr Phillips' views as evidence that they were right all along.

[Gob]

Nice thoughts mate. I think Phillips can say some of the more "controversial" things he does as he is black himself. If a white person were to say; “different ethnic groups commit different sorts of crimes” or "we are sleepwalking our way to segregation", they would be pilloried for it.

[Sue U]

There should be nothing surprising in viewing British social issues of race and class through a different lens and on different terms than American social issues of race and class. And Phillips is right that UK pundits and politicians should stop "importing America's culture war over race." Britain does not have the legacy of slavery, segregation and social and economic oppression that America has, nor is it currently grappling with a major political party that has gone full-on authoritarian and is actively working to marginalize and disenfranchise minority populations in a nihilistic bid for power. Its issues arise from different sources and are manifested in different ways. "Race" and "class" may be descriptors common to both countries, but they are only superficial in relating American and British social issues.

[Big RR]

Britain does not have the legacy of slavery, segregation and social and economic oppression that America has,

I'm not so sure; a good portion of the US slave history was while they were part of the British empire, and many other British colonies, such as Jamaica and Babados, used slaves from Africa, not to mention that British shipping and colonies were key in the slave trade. True, slavery ended in Britain more than 30 years than it did here, but then the slaveholders were compensated by law for the taking of their "property". I cannot speak to the social history of GB after the 1830s, but then the Boer wars had a pretty large racial component to them (as did much of the imperialist policies in the 19th and 20th centuries). This histories of chattel slavery are similar, and racism does appear to be confined slowly to the US.

That being said, you are correct, there are differences as well.

[Sue U]

Britain does not have the legacy of slavery, segregation and social and economic oppression that America has,

I'm not so sure; a good portion of the US slave history was while they were part of the British empire, and many other British colonies, such as Jamaica and Babados, used slaves from Africa, not to mention that British shipping and colonies were key in the slave trade. True, slavery ended in Britain more than 30 years than it did here, but then the slaveholders were compensated by law for the taking of their "property". I cannot speak to the social history of GB after the 1830s, but then the Boer wars had a pretty large racial component to them (as did much of the imperialist policies in the 19th and 20th centuries). This histories of chattel slavery are similar, and racism does appear to be confined slowly to the US.

That being said, you are correct, there are differences as well.

Fundamentally, Britain did not fight a civil war over slavery (followed by more than 100 years of Jim Crow de jure segregation and economic policies promoting de facto segregation) and had no significant population of slaves/freedmen in the UK itself. The legacy of British colonialism is substantially different than the American legacy of chattel slavery, and its effects on socio-political issues is different. As I said "race" and "class" are common descriptors, but only superficially so. Although we speak of economic classes, unlike the UK the US has no ingrained "class system"-- even though upward social mobility is worse in the US than the UK, not to mention virtually all of the industrially developed world. And although we speak of race, British racism seems directed mostly toward those considered foreigners (even if from former colonial territories) rather than, as in the US, populations who have hundreds of years of American ancestry -- substantially longer than most of the American "white" population.

I think these are just some of the differences that make racism and class conflict very different things between the US and UK.

[Big RR]

True, but then neither did we really. We fought a war to keep the two regions united as a single country, and eventual abolition of slavery was a consequence of that. But it was not the primary reason we fought the war.

[BoSoxGal]

True, but then neither did we really. We fought a war to keep the two regions united as a single country, and eventual abolition of slavery was a consequence of that. But it was not the primary reason we fought the war.

Sorry but that’s a nonsensical statement.

The secession was rooted in the south’s desire to maintain chattel slavery. The American civil war was about slavery and nothing more or less.

[Big RR]

Even if it was about continuing slavery for the South (and I think that is not entirely correct, but that's a different thread), it was not about ending slavery for the north, Read Lincoln's early writings ("If I could save the union war without freeing a single slave, I would") or some of the editorials of Northern papers discussing that we shouldn't go to war over the "Negroes", but still favor fighting to keep the union together. Read what happened among some of the union troops after the emancipation proclamation was signed. Look how black troops were handled in the north--segregated, paid less than the white ones (many refused to take the lower pay and fought for free). Sure, there were abolitionists in the north , but most people did not give a damn about slavery enough to fight a war about it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

True, but then neither did we really. We fought a war to keep the two regions united as a single country, and eventual abolition of slavery was a consequence of that. But it was not the primary reason we fought the war.

Sorry but that’s a nonsensical statement.

The secession was rooted in the south’s desire to maintain chattel slavery. The American civil war was about slavery and nothing more or less.

Well you are right and wrong. I have the feeling that when Big RR says "we fought the war" he is also right and wrong.

The National Government most certainly did not go to war to make any change in slavery. It declared a condition of insurrection by the seceded states against the legal national government and the illegal seizure of government property. An army was to be raised to enter those states, reestablish the national authority and take back arsenals etc. They could keep the slaves. One of Lincoln's more honest statements was that he would free all, some or none of the slaves if it meant the nationals won the conflict.

The rebellious states fought to maintain their sole authority within their borders over all matters not delegated (as they saw it) by the Constitution to the National government. The flashpoint for them was indeed slavery - in fact, the refusal by northern states to enforce the Constitutionally sound requirements for obedience to the Fugitive Slave act. It was obvious that if the central government continued to turn a blind eye, slavery itself was under threat. If the radical north could not get an Amendment to eradicate slavery immediately, then it would happen anyway by sheer osmosis as the slaves leaked their way north and the states sent more abolitionists to Congress. The writing was on the wall.

The first five states certainly pointed to slavery in their declarations of "independence" (ordinances of secession) and its continuation as of primary importance. But (as usual) it was power at issue. Subsequent secession documents such as Virginia's gave their primary reason to leave as the National governments "illegal" use of force by invading sovereign states - including the inevitability of the national army entering Virginia without permission to go get South Carolina. All (of course) adopted the Confederate Constitution which spent much ink on perpetuating slavery with no nonsense about being able to amend it away.

To say that slavery was the "cause" of the conflict is correct if we say that the cause of World War 1 was an assassination in Sarajevo and the cause of WW2 was the German army wandering into Poland. All those are proximate causes but not at all the central matter.

Dragging myself back on to the topic, racism in the UK had a different breeding ground than it did here. As previously stated with perception, racism here is primarily directed against American citizens by right of birth and there's a whole lot more of 'em than historically in the UK. That's changed in the past half century in the UK but gradually so. I grew up with no conscious racist bias partly because I never met a coloured person until I was up in London at work. Then I met the wonderful Pakistani and Indian shopkeepers who (unlike the stupid English) kept their shops open until 10, 11 at night - heroes every one! And the West Indian lads at Tottenham games were "our" people - we hated all the other team's supporters equally, no matter what colour.

Now it wasn't all cosy and fine. The skinheads went on paki-bashing jaunts and the housing conditions and relationships between police and people in places like Brixton were atrocious. But those things were based on manufactured resentment etc. not on an entire history of being taught (at all levels) that blacks were not only inferior but also to be kept in their place by both legal and illegal means.

Enough. All IMO naturally

[MGMcAnick]

The secession was rooted in the south’s desire to maintain chattel slavery. The American civil war was about slavery and nothing more or less.

A nice young lady from Georgia, whom I dated well before Mrs Mc, explained to me that the civil war was fought over "state's rights". I replied that one of those state's rights was for their white residents to OWN black residents. We didn't date much after that...