The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain - Schema

Race, Gender, and Culture: A Complex Intersection

Chinese and Pakistani individuals form a distinct group within society. Among them, Indian and Chinese individuals tend to have higher qualifications compared to the overall population. However, Pakistani and Bangladeshi individuals often face poverty.

Within the "black community," African-Caribbean males face disadvantages in employment and education, while African-Caribbean women are on par with white individuals. Social life and culture, on the other hand, are largely similar for all individuals.

Race and gender are two different factors that affect everyone, but racial discrimination is inherently gendered. Men and women will experience their ethnicity in different ways. Gender is also used to further discriminate against certain social classes. Islam, for example, has gained a negative reputation due to the perception that men mistreat women in Western culture.

There is a reciprocal influence between migrant and host cultures, leading to changes in both. Black individuals who attend schools with white children often reimagine their culture and form stronger attachments to their friends than to their parents. This phenomenon is particularly prevalent among young people.

being “skilled cross-cultural navigators” can successfully navigate in different areas of social life. Inevitably, this means that there the “original” culture will become contaminated and hybrid. It is important to note that there is not a “migrant community”, but a wide spectrum in which tradition and change are combined. [3.5]

III.I – African-caribbean communities

Caribbean culture is unique among the BAME communities. Its history signifies that they are aware of their subordinate, racialised place in global power systems. They are socialised through family in a migrant version of their culture, in a mix.

Colonisation familiarised African-Caribbeans with aspects of British life, such as religious beliefs. Although they are mostly vulnerable when it comes to education and jobs, they occupy an important part of popular culture: many wannabe white imitators think that being black is a synonym for street credibility. [3.6; 3.7]

III.II – Asian

Asians are not a single group, and it is misleading to refer to them as a single group: there are Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Punjabis, Chinese; Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs. They are different not only for their nationality and religion, but also for language and class. Maintaining tradition is important for their sense of identity, but not all cultures value tradition equally, so much so that the stereotype about Asians being conservative is unfounded.

Muslims have recently become the target of racist antagonisms (Islamophobia), because of the West's politicisation of Islam. However, being Muslim does not necessarily mean "an anti-western religiosity". Islam means that new ways of living, and the process of becoming integrated in Britain, must be fitting with a Muslim faith.

Older migrants are now engaged in every kind of commercial activity, with next to no issues. [3.8; 3.9] III.III - Irish communities

Anti-Irish racism developed in tandem with other racisms. In Britain,

The Irish are the largest migrant community, but their discrimination is often unjustly neglected because they are white. The Irish migrated to Scotland and England during the 1900s, and the vast majority was Catholic. As in all migrant communities, there are differences between people born in their country of origin and second or third generation immigrants. Irishness is often combined with other strong loyalties: being Irish is synonym with being Catholic.

There is a low achievement rate for young Irish males. For generations, Irish experience has been neglected because of the homogeneity of white Britain. In reality, their experience is just as important as black experience, just less noticeable. [3.10; 3.11; 3.12]

III.IV - Jewish communities

Jews in Britain are defined as a community of communities, despite being characterised by the media and politicians as a single community. In reality, Jewry has always consisted of communities distinguished religiously, geographically, and ideologically,

Among others. Most importantly, the current diversity is a response to changes that have taken place since WW2. Jews can express their identity in different ways, and many forms have an ethnic character. Despite Jews being reluctant to define themselves as an ethnicity, the JPR (Jews Policy Research) strongly suggests they use the term "ethnic group". There are frequent tensions: some Jews embrace pluralism, others see it as undermining their religious identity. [3.13;3.14]

Since WW2, two ways of expressing Jewish identity have emerged: attachment to Israel; and remembrance of the Holocaust. Israel has been cohesive in the Jewish community; for many, awareness of the Holocaust is a reason to remain Jewish, lest "they hand Hitler a posthumous victory". The Holocaust is also important for its value as a moral reference point. Recently, however, great emphasis has been placed on other ways of expressing Jewish identity: the Holocaust paints Jews as mere powerless victims;

Israel needs funding. Many Jews argue that the focus of communal attention must be on values, positive images of Jewish culture. Their desire for cultural recognition in a pluralist society overlaps with the goals of black and Asian people. [3.15; 3.16]

III.V – Gypsy and traveller communities

As with Irish people and Jews, Gypsies are neglected in their struggle, or included as an afterthought. Their status as an inferior race spans back to the 1500s, with a legislation in 1967 ceasing to call them a “separate race”.

Just like other communities, Gypsies are not monolithic and, rather, a community of communities.

Nomadism is a state of mind, and Gypsies have their reasons to do so: it may be economic or social. Gypsies are the target of social exclusion and stereotyping: any person who fits the stereotype “gold jewellery, campfire, painted wagon” tends to be feared and despised. [3.17; 3.18; 3.19]

III.VI – The future of Britishness

Britain continues to be plagued

The law that regards citizens as bearer of rights can not ignore cultural difference. At the same time, no culture can require that its continuity be guaranteed by the state forever. [3.26; 3.27]

Does Britishness have a future? Some believe that devolution and globalisation have undermined it. For many people in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, being described as "British" is not an acceptable self-description. The correlation between "English" and "British" has always made the latter a problematic word. It is being used less and less. The Good Friday agreement of 1999 states that there should be a different and appropriate term for "these islands", but today, no term is in sight. It is clear, however, that the word "British" will not be enough.

But what about Asians, Caribbeans and Africans? For them, Britishness is a reminder of colonisation and empire, but the first migrants were proud of having a British passport, signifying

Their belonging to an imperial force. For many, "British" is not a term, as it is often confused for "English", and their original meaning included the prerogative "to be white". Today, "British" is acceptable if declined: Black British, British Muslim, and so on. However, there is a, so far, insuperable barrier. Britishness, as much as Englishness has racial connotations (there ain't no black in the Union Jack). Unless these antagonisms to cultural differences can be defeated and written out of the national story, the idea of a multicultural nation remains an empty promise. [3.28; 3.29; 3.30]

IV - Cohesion, equality and difference

The present government has declared that it is committed to creating a nation in which racism is counteracted and unacceptable. This is only an opening statement: what does the government assume as an empirical fact? What do they advocate as a political programme? How can they recognise and set diversity and,

At the same time, set limits? Who and how is to determine these limits? How is a balance to be struck between the need to treat people equally, differently? [4.1; 4.2]

There are five peaceful models in which society can reconcile cohesion: Procedural, Nationalist, Liberal, Plural, Separatist.

• Proceduralist: the government acts like a referee, setting rules and boundaries but indifferent as to who wins. The government requires people to know and abide to rules.
• Nationalist: the government, and society, sets common national cultures, and the government plays a role in having these symbols respected. Anyone who does not assimilate this culture cannot complain if they get treated like a second-class citizen.
• Liberal: a halfway position between PR and N. There must be unity in the public sphere of political debate, but there will be tolerance towards substantial diversity in people's private lives.
• Pluralist: similar to L but rejects the distinction between private and public spheres.

It states that the public sphere must be continually revised to accommodate cultural diversity. It has been called the "community of communities model".

Separatist: unlike the previous models, the Separatist model does not regard the government as a guarantor of moral status, and it mainly has to nurture and preserve the communities that naturally form in society. It does not see society as a community of communities, but as a loose federation.

These five views are not mutually exclusive. For the first three, unity is more important than diversity. For the fifth one, diversity is more important than unity. For the fourth one, unity and diversity must be in balance.

All five models can be seen in modern Britain, although PR is logically incoherent because a modern State cannot be morally or culturally neutral. The fifth is also flawed, because it fragments society into isolated groups and has a static view of human nature (thus, it enforces prejudice). Only the middle three are advisable.

• 4.4
• 4.5
• 4.6