BETRAYAL OF
BRICK LANE
by
Sir Andrew
Green
(Chairman of
Migrationwatch
UK)
THE
TITLE won't
appear on any
bestseller
lists, still
less be a
favoured
choice for
holiday
reading. But
last week saw
the
publication of
a book which
has the
potential to
shake our
political
Establishment.
Trevor
Phillips, Head
of the
Commission for
Racial
Equality, has
described it
as 'one of the
most important
books he has
read for a
long time'.
He is right.
The book, The
New East End,
takes the lid
off a society
deeply
troubled by
massive
immigration
over the past
30 years.
It has lessons
for us all as
we move on
from na've
multiculturalism
to confront
the real
problems of
our inner
cities,
especially the
disaffection
of some
second-generation
immigrants.
We hear
constantly
about the
supposed
benefits of
immigration,
but these
accrue mainly
to the middle
classes who
welcome the
influx of
cheap labour
that provides
them with
domestic help
and low-price
restaurants.
Now this book
brings home
the heavy
price for such
complacency
paid by the
white working
class, who are
in the front
line of the
conflicts that
develop and
are largely
ignored by the
political and
media classes.
Though it
focuses on
London's East
End community,
the profoundly
important
issues that it
raises could
equally apply
to any of our
major
post-industrial
cities, where
uncontrolled
immigration
has given rise
to tensions
between
communities.
Rather than
repeat the
usual
accusations of
racism, it
provides a
refreshingly
frank account
of the very
real
consequences
of a too-rapid
pace of
immigration.
The thrust of
the book seems
to have
emerged almost
by accident.
The authors,
from the Young
Foundation, a
think-tank on
social issues,
were following
up a study of
working class
life in the
East End
conducted That
study resulted
in a seminal
book, Family
And Kinship,
which threw
light on the
tight bonds
within and
between
families which
had held
cockney
society
together
through thick
and thin, and
became on the
of most
influential
non-fiction
books of its
time.
The aim of the
new study was
to see how
much that same
social
landscape had
changed over
50 years.
Would those
same bonds of
family and
kinship still
exist? The
answer, quite
simply, was
'no'.
The
researchers
were taken
aback by the
deep well of
bitterness
they uncovered
among the
white working
class
population, in
particular
towards the
immigrant
Bangladeshi
community
around them.
Instead of
sweeping these
feelings under
the carpet, as
so many
previous
studies have
done, this one
recognised
their
existence and
attempted to
understand
them.
MANY of those
who were
hostile to the
Bangladeshi
community as a
whole got on
quite well
with them on a
personal
level.
It was the
competition
between
communities
for scarce
resources that
generated the
friction.
Housing,
education and
benefits were
the major
areas of
conflict, as
they were, no
doubt, in
other British
cities.
The East
Enders of
Bethnal Green
used to be a
particularly
closely-knit
society. They
had always
been poor but
they were
proud. They
were
especially
proud of their
- often heroic
- in the 1950s
.
contribution
to the war
effort when
the docks were
the prime
target for
German
bombers.
They had
expected, as a
result, that
the post-war
era would
bring them the
reward they
felt they
deserved.
Things did not
turn out like
that. Most
housing in
Bethnal Green
was council
housing and
used to be
allocated
largely on the
basis of a
waiting list.
The result was
that
longer-term
residents were
given the
priority they
felt was their
due.
Young couples
might spend
the first few
years of
marriage
living with
their parents
but were then
able to move
out into
housing
nearby. As a
result, the
extended
family system
was preserved
within its own
locality.
National
housing policy
changed in the
early
Seventies so
that houses
were allocated
on need, not
on a waiting
list
principle. The
effect of this
was that the
Bangladeshi
families,
which were
then starting
to arrive in
large numbers,
could
demonstrate a
greater
housing need -
for reasons
that I shall
come to - and
were moved to
the top of the
queue.
This
infuriated the
locals. One
elderly man
told
researchers:
'The Asians
definitely get
a lot of
preference
here. We've
got people
who've lived
in this
borough all
their lives,
and they can't
get a place.
But when the
Asians come
here they get
something
quickly.' In
theory,
Bangladeshi
families were
not supposed
to be admitted
to Britain
unless their
relatives
could provide
accommodation
for them.
What happened
in practice
was that the
new arrivals
would stay
with their
family for the
first year
until they
were granted
residence.
They would
then declare
themselves
homeless and
the local
authority
would be
obliged to
house them.
YOUNG white
families were
forced to move
out of the
area, so the
system of
extended
families broke
down and
grandmothers,
previously the
hub of family
life, were
left behind,
often in
isolation.
The
Bangladeshis
also had their
complaints.
They felt,
with some
justification,
that they were
offered the
older and more
rundown
properties.
They also
found
themselves in
far more
crowded
conditions
than their
white
neighbours,
partly because
their
households
were very much
larger (the
average number
of dependent
children was
seven times
higher for
Bangladeshis
than for
whites).
Education was
another
serious-bone
of contention.
Traditionally,
the white
working class
had not been
much
interested in
education.
Most of their
jobs were
manual and
were found
through family
or personal
connections.
Qualifications
mattered
little.
By contrast,
Bangladeshi
families were
extremely keen
on education,
seeing it as a
way out of
poverty for
their
children. But
first they
needed to
learn English.
The local
authorities
provided
substantial
extra help for
this purpose,
but this was
seen by the
white
community as
favouritism.
Resentment
became all the
stronger when
Bangladeshi
children began
to outdo white
(and black)
children in
examinations.
The sheer pace
of Bangladeshi
arrivals had
an impact of
its own. In
the 1971
Census
Bangladeshi
children
hardly
figured, but
by 1981 a
third of
pupils at
primary
schools in
Tower Hamlets
were
Bangladeshis
and by 2004
that figure
had reached
two-thirds.
The
Bangladeshi
pupils,
especially the
girls, worked
hard and did
well despite
the
difficulties
stemming from
poor housing.
But the white
population did
not see things
in the same
way.
They did not
want their own
children to be
a minority at
school.
Some parents
manipulated
the system to
get their
children into
schools which
were largely
white, such as
the Roman
Catholic
schools.
Others sent
their children
out of the
borough and
still others
simply left
the area
altogether.
The result
sticks out
like a sore
thumb. In 2002
some schools
in the area
had 90 per
cent
Bangladeshi
pupils while
others had
fewer than 10
per cent.
Many children
can now pass
through the
education
systems
without
encountering
many pupils
from the other
main ethnic
group living
in the same
locality. This
obvious
failure of
multi-
culturalism
will surely
hold dangers
for the
future.
There must be
countless
people
throughout
Britain who
share at least
some of these
East Enders'
views and who
are tired of
being accused,
if only
implicitly, of
mindless
racism.
The authors of
this study
have found a
clear
correlation
between the
age of white
respondents
and their
hostility to
immigrants but
they came to
the view that
this reflected
the East
Enders'
commitment to
their local
origins.
Most of the
older white
people were
born and bred
in the area.
Many felt that
not only was
society in
general losing
its direction,
but that their
own little
corner of
Britain was
changing for
the worse.
That it was
being taken
away from
people like
themselves and
given to those
from other
countries.
By contrast,
the yuppies
who have moved
into the new
Docklands area
are much less
concerned
about the
influx of
immigrants.
But their
higher
qualifications
enable them to
escape
whenever they
wish, so they
can afford to
take a more
'principled'
view of the
problems of
the area.
Thus a central
government
housing
policy, which
looked
entirely
logical to
well-meaning
professionals
in Whitehall,
often left
older
working-class
East Enders
feeling
isolated from
their family
roots and
strangers in
their own
land.
This new
book's frank
appraisal is a
breath of
fresh air.
The problems
the authors
identified are
certainly not
confined to
Bethnal Green.
In many other
parts of
London a
similar
process in
under way as
the flow of
immigrants
accelerates
under the
present
government.
And the
disturbances
in the
northern
cities in 2001
speak of
similar
tensions
there.
For while the
authors are
honest about
the effects of
such
immigration on
the indigenous
population,
they are
equally frank
about the
problems
involved for
this new
immigrant
community
brought by the
sheer weight
of numbers
coming in from
abroad every
year.
AT SCHOOL
migrating
children were
heavily
outnumbered in
the early
years, and
were often
bullied.
Immigrants in
some housing
estates were
harassed until
they left for
estates that
had become
largely
Bangladeshi.
In one year,
90 per cent of
Asians offered
housing on
predominantly
'white'
estates
refused to go
there.
So the Asians
formed gangs
to take on the
white gangs
that were
harassing
them.
Meanwhile,
well-intentioned
antiracist
experiments
had little
chance.
One young male
Bangladeshi
told
researchers:
'I did a
course on
"tolerance and
diversity" at
the youth
club. It was
designed to
counteract
racism by
working
closely with
white youths.
'The course
did not last
long.
We got into
more fights
with these
white boys.'
Indeed, by
1998 more
whites in
Tower Hamlets
were reporting
themselves as
the victims of
racial
incidents than
were reported
as
perpetrators.
Immigration
has not, by
any means,
been the sole
factor in the
enormous
changes that
have taken
place in East
London. But
the new report
makes clear
that it has
been the
central social
issue for a
generation.
The East End
has always
been a gateway
for
immigrants,
but it is the
sheer pace of
change that
has created
much of the
difficulty.
The
Bangladeshi
population of
Tower Hamlets
increased from
fewer than
3,000 in 1971
to over 65,000
in 2001. And,
nationally,
foreign
immigration
has trebled
under the
present
government to
over one third
of a million
in 2004.
No society can
integrate
immigrants at
such a pace.
We are simply
building up
problems for
the future.
It is the
failure of
integration
that this
report
highlights and
it is this
failure which
holds serious
dangers for
our society.
Consider the
atmosphere of
fear and
suspicion,
described in
this book,
which is the
climate in
which young
British
Muslims are
often brought
up. Add to
that a
widespread
distaste in
the Muslim
community for
many aspects
of British
society -
drunkenness,
the breakdown
of family
values, and so
on.
Then add the
propaganda to
which many of
them are
subjected-about
the hostility
of the West to
Islam.
They hear
endlessly
about
Christians
invading
Muslim
countries,
unquestioning
American
support for
Israeli
oppression of
Palestinians,
and so on.
Perhaps it
should not
have come as
quite such a
shock that
volunteers
could be found
to conduct
suicide
attacks
against
civilian
targets in
Britain.
Still more
ominous are
polls that
show some 5
per cent of
British
Muslims
apparently
supporting the
principle of
such attacks.
Many people
are deeply
concerned and
are asking
what can be
done.
The first step
must be to
stop ducking
the issues and
face the
facts. This
book is a
valuable
start.
BBC please
note. The
Today
Programme, the
vanguard of
Radio 4,
carried an
item on this
research. But
the word '
immigration'
did not pass
the
presenters'
lips and was
mentioned only
once by the
participants.
The casual
listener would
have thought
they were
talking about
housing
policy.
It is time
that the BBC
management
took a serious
look at their
failure to
provide the
impartial
cover of this
subject which
is no less
than their
duty as public
service
broadcasters.
The second is
to go where
others fear to
tread. Namely,
to make the
link between
the scale of
immigration
and our
success or
otherwise in
achieving
integration.
HERE there is
an issue which
applies
particularly
to the Indian
subcontinent.
Large numbers
of second and
even third
generation
immigrants are
bringing wives
and husbands
from their
country of
origin, rather
than choosing
partners from
their own
immigrant
communities or
the wider
-population.
The effect of
allowing
immigration
for this
purpose is to
set back
integration by
a generation.
It is time to
move on in the
longer term
interests of
society as a
whole.
The picture is
by no means
all gloomy.
There are some
second and
third
generation
Bangladeshis
who are
succeeding,
some staying
with their
community and
others moving
out. But the
authors
express
concern that
those who are
unable to find
work will
slide into a
demoralised
underclass of
inner-city
poor.
In a recent
speech Gordon
Brown told us
that British
Muslims are
twice as
likely to be
jobless, twice
as likely to
be on low
incomes and
twice as
likely to live
in a deprived
area. He
called for
greater focus
on tackling
these
inequalities.
Indeed so. But
part of that
focus must be
to avoid an
already
struggling
community
being
continually
increased by
immigrants who
speak little
English, are
often poorly
educated and
ignorant of
British
culture.
The conflict
and resentment
this breeds is
now clearly
set out before
us.
|