Alex Story is Head of Business Development at a City broker working with Hedge Funds and other financial institutions. He stood for parliament in 2005, 2010 and 2015.
“We are the most tolerant, lovely country in Europe” said Lawrence Fox, an actor, on BBC’s Question Time back in January 2020, in response to Rachel Boyle, a lecturer at Edge Hill University, who accused Britain of being racist.
The lecturer then attacked him for being a “white privileged man”. His riposte: she was being racist for judging him by his colour. The audience cheered.
Who is right?
Over the last decade, two large scale surveys were conducted to find out which countries in the world were the most and the least racially tolerant.
In 2013, the Washington Post published a survey to shed light on racial attitudes across the world. The data was then used to produce a world map to give a sense of the issue. The question asked was whether locals would like having people of other races as neighbours. Answers saying “no” were assumed to have some form of racial basis.
The research showed the following: Britain, the U.S., Canada and Australia were more tolerant than anywhere else. India and Jordan were the least. The survey showed that racial tolerance in China was low.
A few years later, in 2015, Insider Monkey, an economic and trading organisation, combined data from the World Values Survey covering the years 2010-2014 with the findings published by the Washington Post. The aim was to rank the top 25 most racist countries in the world. It asked whether respondents had seen or experienced racism. Overall, 85,000 people in 61 countries took part in the survey. The data was gathered over a two year period.
Again the top slot went to India, this time followed by the Lebanon and Bahrain. Nigeria came in 12th, Pakistan 17th. Japan just squeezed in at 25th. Only two European countries made it onto the list: Russia (21st) and Cyprus (23rd). With the usual caveats when it comes to surveys, the findings backed the claims of Fox. “Britain is one of the most racially tolerant countries on the planet”, the survey noted.
Whilst these rankings provide some data to gauge attitudes on race on the world stage, we need to delve a little into mind-sets within the UK. And for this, luckily, there is no need to wait for a new “cross-governmental commission on race and ethnic disparities” as announced recently by Boris and team. Data on race disparities in the UK exist aplenty.
For instance, only four short years ago, the Equality and Human Rights Commission published its “Healing a Divided Britain” findings in which it showed that of all the ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, poor white working class boys “suffer higher rates of exclusion from school and achieve the lowest academic results, making them less likely to enter higher education and therefore more likely to end up in lower-paid, insecure jobs.”
On the same metrics, young white working class girls came second to last. And in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Manchester and currently Wakefield, poor white girls do doubly badly as they are seen, as Jack Straw once said, as “easy meat” by grooming gangs – to use a fashionable euphemism.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission couldn’t explain the reason behind these numbers. The authors speculated that it may have something to do with culture and location, not, however, family breakdown, the usual port of call when researching social breakdown.
Be that as is may, around 85 per cent of the population in the United Kingdom is white and nearly half of the population is working class. With a population of around 65 million, and around 29 per cent under 24, over five million poor white boys and girls are either on the road to failure or have already failed. In short, there are thirty three times, or 3300 percent, more poor, young white failures than black ones.
Their plight is an open secret. Few seem to care. No statues were vandalised in their name. Their flag, however, has been burned and oftentimes desecrated. The only thing they still have is the vote, whatever that might mean.
Two things stand out: Firstly, the United Kingdom is, as Fox said, on the face of it, one of the most tolerant countries in the world; Secondly, the country has a young army of failed poor white boys and girls, who are left metaphorically to drown in a sea of official indifference.
Giving the facts, for neutral observers, the stunning thing over the last fortnight was the alacrity with which our leaders accepted the narrative and violence, both cultural and physical, of the Black Lives Matter movement.
But wait. Could it be that both Fox and Boyle, the lecturer from Edge Hill University, are right, but mean completely different things?
When Fox said that “we are the most tolerant, lovely country”, he was, and is, of course right. According to the data published by the Washington Post, over 95 per cent of the people in the UK tend to judge, in the manner of Martin Luther King, a person by the content of their character rather than by the colour of their skin. They are, in other words, colour blind. To them racism is alien, which is why they are so sensitive to being tarred with the indelible “racist” brush.
However, Boyle is also right when she calls the country racist. In her case, though, she, perhaps unwittingly, means the British State. Every official document demands racial data from anyone who wishes to fill them in; policies are increasingly focused on quotas based on a person’s “identity”; finally, as Boyle intimated, in the UK today, it is preferred if one opines on behalf of another only if one shares that person’s racial make-up and/or other proclivities.
The fact is that over the last two decades, the British State has beavered away at creating what looks and smells like a caste system.
It has done so surreptitiously. At the bottom of the social scale, the untouchables as it were, are the millions of poor, white working class boys and girls with little hope of escape; at the top, the Brahmin caste is represented by the likes of Steve Bell from the Guardian, who produced what the newspaper considered to be a “cartoon”, depicting Priti Patel, the Home Secretary as a fat Indian cow. That higher caste can seemingly vent their racist views without fear of retribution because they are, by their own opaque standards, “morally” right (and politically Left).
The bottom line is that the British State is weaving a complex, apartheid-style mosaic of identities based on skin colour, sex and religion, with each caste vying for space at the top of this multifaceted and narrowing peak, moving a step closer one day and slipping one or two the next, depending on events, whims and fashion.
The conclusion must be, as Fox implied, that those who fixate on race are themselves racist. Very much, it would seem, like official Britain.