Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

Race-based crime stats appears to me to be likely aviation fuel for the racist bonfire, and best avoided by the state. And that's just the "tactical" problem, the "strategic" problem is that it means the state accepting race as a filter through which society should be viewed.

That particular fight has been an ongoing struggle for years in academic circles between many French antiracists scholars, and American antiracists scholars, with the first claiming that making race an operational concept keeps it well and alive, and the second arguing that making it disappear from official discourse doesn't make it disappear in reality, and only makes it more difficult to fight.

I agree with the first perspective, but it does make it hard to identify systemic problems, say, in police force, or discrimination in hiring, or renting, etc. 

While wishing to achieve the first, I don't see how you could disagree with the second perspective. It doesn't disappear if you refuse to officially consider it.

Also, people self-identify with races (after not surprisingly, centuries of being categorised into races). How does the first perspective deal with self-labelling?

[Sheilbh]

As I understood it the police does identify race though?
For sure when looking for suspects they use IC codes based on their impression of how a person looks, when registering people for lockup they then use self defined ethnicity code.

I guess the problem is with these not then being passed up the chain?

I think that's the difference between "recorded" (i.e. observed by the police officer) and "known" (confirmed by the person.

However as I say a consistent stream of criticism in numerous reports into policing in this country has been that the police are not collecting data that they should be, in particular on race and ethnicity. My view is that as organisations that I think are institutionally prone to lying and covering shit up, it is helpful to not collect the data/evidence.

That particular fight has been an ongoing struggle for years in academic circles between many French antiracists scholars, and American antiracists scholars, with the first claiming that making race an operational concept keeps it well and alive, and the second arguing that making it disappear from official discourse doesn't make it disappear in reality, and only makes it more difficult to fight.

I agree with the first perspective, but it does make it hard to identify systemic problems, say, in police force, or discrimination in hiring, or renting, etc. 

Yeah. I'm not sure how it works in France and I mentioned this in the Off Topic Thread but in much of Europe they are recording something about this but it is normally "foreign heritage" or "foreign descent" or something similar.

I think that is more problematic. The big reason is that I think it is permanently alienating. I could be wrong but my suspicion is that within a generation or two of EU nationals moving to, say, Belgium their descendants will simply be registered as "Belgian" while if they are visibly in a racial minority they will still be getting recorded as "foreign". I think that acknowledging race within your society is also acknowledging racial difference within it. While the "foreign heritage"/"foreign descent" approach sets more of a permanent division even if it is, in theory, colour-blind.

I also think it misses the particularity which is why in official circles in the UK they have moved away from BAME - because there are big gaps among racial minorities too. So if there are specific bigotries - and in a European context (including Britain) I think those are likely to be anti-black racism and Islamophobia - they can be ellided into a more generalised category.

That's the key problem.

Yeah but I suppose this goes to Oex's point because my view is that is a problem. But the other side is that race is a filter through which people experience their lives in our society (I'd say particularly through their interactions with the state). It is, to nick a phrase, the lived experience of many people and their reality and the state should deal with (and respond to) that reality not just on a set of principles of how it would like the world to be.

I think there is a philosophical divide on this which I think both sides are valid. But I lean on the Anglo side that while I like Europe's idea I think the practical reality is it will allow structurally racist outcomes to embed and become normalised because you do not have the evidence to combat them.

[PJL]

Race is a very ill defined concept and should not really be used in any statistics, instead ethnicity should be used (though even this is not perfect).

[HVC]

Problem with ethnicity is once you get to south america and the carribean it loses meaning. Not that race as a signifier is perfect either.

[Sheilbh]

Race is a very ill defined concept and should not really be used in any statistics, instead ethnicity should be used (though even this is not perfect).

Yeah so the IC codes used by the police are perceived ethnicity and are pretty high level. There is also the "self-described ethnicity" which are the more detailed census categories and the categories you'll find on any diversity monitoring form.

So to an extent neither is recording "race". One is perceived ethnicity, the other is ethnicity as described/identified by the individual. Police are legally required to ask for "self-described ethnicity" to move from their perception to the individual's identification.

"Race" in this thread is a bit of a shorthand of those two concepts.

[HVC]

Race is a very ill defined concept and should not really be used in any statistics, instead ethnicity should be used (though even this is not perfect).

Yeah so the IC codes used by the police are perceived ethnicity and are pretty high level. There is also the "self-described ethnicity" which are the more detailed census categories and the categories you'll find on any diversity monitoring form.

So to an extent neither is recording "race". One is perceived ethnicity, the other is ethnicity as described/identified by the individual. Police are legally required to ask for "self-described ethnicity" to move from their perception to the individual's identification.

"Race" in this thread is a bit of a shorthand of those two concepts.

How does that work for ethnicities that flow through the gamut of colours? A blonde blue eyed Brazilian has a different life experience than a dark skinned one.

[garbon]

Race is a very ill defined concept and should not really be used in any statistics, instead ethnicity should be used (though even this is not perfect).

There is also the "self-described ethnicity" which are the more detailed census categories and the categories you'll find on any diversity monitoring form.

This isn't really great though as it misses a lot of identities. I had lovely awkward interactions with it when forced to self-define in the UK.

[Josquius]

I think that's the difference between "recorded" (i.e. observed by the police officer) and "known" (confirmed by the person.

However as I say a consistent stream of criticism in numerous reports into policing in this country has been that the police are not collecting data that they should be, in particular on race and ethnicity. My view is that as organisations that I think are institutionally prone to lying and covering shit up, it is helpful to not collect the data/evidence.

You mean they're failing to get self defined ethnicity?

How does that work for ethnicities that flow through the gamut of colours? A blonde blue eyed Brazilian has a different life experience than a dark skinned one.

I guess Brazilians in the UK are few enough in number and not really breaking the law in large numbers so it's not something we really have to deal with here.
I'd guess too being a Brazilian in the UK is enough of a unifying factor that the experience of being black vs blonde doesn't alter too much.

[HVC]

But that goes for all of south america and half the carribean. Now granted maybe you don't have many Latinos or Latinas.

[Sheilbh]

This isn't really great though as it misses a lot of identities. I had lovely awkward interactions with it when forced to self-define in the UK.

Yeah although those categories are updated by the ONS with fairly big public consultations on what changes are needed. And under each of the larger headings there is "any other ethnic group".

You mean they're failing to get self defined ethnicity?

No they're not recording the data. They're not putting it into their systems so whether it was Baroness Casey looking at grooming gangs or reports looking into structural racism in policing and criminal justice there are huge gaps because the police are not collecting it.

How does that work for ethnicities that flow through the gamut of colours? A blonde blue eyed Brazilian has a different life experience than a dark skinned one.

Well that's the point between the perceived ethnicity v self-described, no? They might be perceived as x (and on the police radio they'll use that code). How does it work in Canada (don't think I've ever seen a Canadian procedural) when the police are radioing about a suspect?

Once stopped they ask the individual for their self-described ethnicity - so it'd be up to that person. There is an "other" category under the broad headings - and individuals can refuse to answer.

I guess Brazilians in the UK are few enough in number and not really breaking the law in large numbers so it's not something we really have to deal with here.
I'd guess too being a Brazilian in the UK is enough of a unifying factor that the experience of being black vs blonde doesn't alter too much.

I live right in one of the big Latin American areas of London - so there is a community here and I understand it's one that's growing pretty rapidly. I think it's one of the fastest growing migrant communities in the UK. But we don't know and my impression is they're an under-served community because they're not really on the state's radar much.

[HVC]

Maybe I'm understanding ethnicity differently than you? Ethnicity as I understand it is cultural, so ethnically Vietnamese, Nigerian, Norwegian, and racially Asian, black, and white. So I'm not getting how different coloured people of the same culture would self identically ethnically to differentiate themselves.


As for the official cop terms here, I'm not sure.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe I'm understanding ethnicity differently than you? Ethnicity as I understand it is cultural, so ethnically Vietnamese, Nigerian, Norwegian, and racially Asian, black, and white. So I'm not getting how different coloured people of the same culture would self identically ethnically to differentiate themselves.


As for the official cop terms here, I'm not sure.

Okay. So possibly this is just a language thing in that generally the police don't record race they record ethnicity. I think that's for the issue of not wanting to be recording "race".

The high level perceived categories are basically like White, Black, Asian etc. The self-described ethnicities are more like "White British" or within the Asian category Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi - in all cases with an "other" option.

[garbon]

Sheilbh, I think you can imagine how off putting it might be to have to check "any other". State sanctioned bothering, one might call it.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting - I hadn't thought of it in that way to be honest. I thought it was a useful space for people to self-identify. But I take your point.

For some reason I find the US census equivalent is "some other race" a weirdly funny way of phrasing it.

[garbon]

Sorry state sanctioned othering not bothering per the auto correct.

I think it would be useful as self identification if you could write something in but as is, it is more like you are an oddity that doesn't fit into one of our many categories.