Talk:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Demographic Transition and Beyond

I've had to make ammendments to this - it seems to have been a bit hijacked by someone who has bought too much into simple 'constant variables' models of demographics. Predictions of White Minority are unlikely to come true this century, and our population being "replaced" is even more silly. The ethnic minority population will continue to rise as a proportion - by perhaps 2 - 3% per decade for the coming decades, although this is unlikely to continue beyond mid century due to declining birth rates amongst minority groups and a slow down in immigration. So from just over 8% minorities in 2001, maybe about 10.5% by 2011 and perhaps 20 - 25% by mid century. In any case the concept of "White British" is pretty dubious - many people defined as such have ancestry overseas, for instance Irish, Italian, German, Jewish etc.


[edit] My response

Perhaps you didn't read the references. I can recommend this one: Immigration and ethnic change in low fertility countries - towards a new demographic transition. 2005 (PDF)

“I've had to make ammendments to this - it seems to have been a bit hijacked by someone who has bought too much into simple 'constant variables' models of demographics.”

I did not “hijack” the section as you so emotively claim. If you read the above reference you will see that the model that I am using for these predictions (Version 2 for the UK) does not assume constant variables, but rather probablistic (the most likely) variables.

“Predictions of White Minority are unlikely to come true this century, and our population being "replaced" is even more silly.”

Allow me to quote the abstract verbatim: “Any population with sub-replacement fertility whose numbers are being maintained, or increased, by net immigration, is bound eventually to be replaced by a population of immigrant origin” This is a matter of common sense surely?

“The ethnic minority population will continue to rise as a proportion - by perhaps 2 - 3% per decade for the coming decades, although this is unlikely to continue beyond mid century due to declining birth rates amongst minority groups and a slow down in immigration. So from just over 8% minorities in 2001, maybe about 10.5% by 2011 and perhaps 20 - 25% by mid century.” Do you have any sources for these assertions? If so I would be grateful if you could direct me to them. One model used by Coleman and Scherbov suggests that ethnic minorities will make up 35% of the population by mid-century, a percentage in line with predictions for most other Western European countries.

From your additions to the article:

"Firstly, since these predictions were made, (they were made in 2005) the white British birthrate has risen leading to higher natural population growth.” The model used takes into account the increase in the white birthrate (with the TFR increasing from 1.66 to 1.85) “Secondly, ethnic minority population growth is likely to slow due to a decline in immigration from the peak years of the early 21st century,” the model takes this into account (relying on GAD predictions) “and through declining fertility amongst established immigrant groups” The model takes this into account.

“Assuming a constant white birth rate” No, it assumes an increase in white birthrate, which is why I wrote it.

There is a reason why the Demographic Transition section is the most referenced of the whole article. It is because I expected it to be controversial. I nonetheless feel it is factual. I feel that your amendments to it have decreased its accuracy.

I accept that the predictions may not come to fruition (if immigration is heavily constrained or ceases). They are nonetheless the most likely course of events. As you have provided no demographic data/references to back up your amendments, I have reverted them. Romper 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Second Thoughts

Whilst I still maintain that the section represents the most likely outcome, I accept that there could be a need to temper it by pointing out that very radical changes to the variables would provide different outcomes. Perhaps something like this may suffice:

Two majors driving factors in this demographic transition are higher birthrates and different population age structures amongst minority groups when compared to the indigenous population. The most important factor however is immigration. The prediction envisaging a median date for whites being a minority of 2085 assumed a net immigration rate of 157,000 for 2005 (It actually turned out to be 185,000). It assumes that net migration will fall to 147,000 per annum by 2050 and remain constant at that rate until in end of the Century. This is similar to predictions by the UK Government’s Actuary Department.

Obviously these outcomes are not set in stone. Should immigration (the only variable even nominally affected by government policy) be heavily constrained or even cease, then the third demographic transition would slow down or perhaps even eventually cease. This outcome, however, is considered ‘a very unlikely one’.

Romper 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


I am sorry, but the section 'demographic transition' is in direct violation of Wikipedia's neutrality principle. Therefore, it had to be removed. HSDR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.202.171 (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further issues regarding Demographic Transition.

On 30.1.2007 the sentence:

The process seems likely to continue, leading to the eventual replacement of the indigenous population with the newer groups.

Was amended to read:

The process seems likely to continue for the immediate future which leads many right wing alarmists such as the BNP to claim that the newer groups are going to utterly replace the natives.

This amendment is inappropriate for the following reason:

1) It is inappropriate to describe the BNP as right wing alarmist see Wikipedia: Words to avoid

2) This section of the article is not the appropriate place to discuss the BNP, their ideology or their tactics as it is a demographic analysis of the past and likely future trends in ethnicity in the United Kingdom.

3) It is clearly false to attribute the claim of ethnic replacement solely (if at all) to the BNP. Indeed is an unavoidable occurrence should current trends (of sub-replacement fertility and net foreign immigration) continue:

Any population with sub-replacement fertility attempting to maintain a given population size through immigration would accordingly, acquire a population of predominantly, eventually entirely immigrant origin. - Feichtinger/Steinmann 1993

Any population with sub-replacement fertility, whose numbers are being maintained, or increased by net immigration is bound eventually to be replaced by a population of immigrant origin. - Coleman and Scherbov 2005

4) The amendment, by adding the words for the immediate future, indicates the current situation (of sub-replacement fertility and net foreign immigration) is merely an aberration. This may indeed be the case but it seems unlikely. Sub replacement fertility looks set to continue:

Official projections are unanimous in expecting that average family size in the future will not exceed 1.85 or 1.9 (UN 2004; Eurostat 2005). Most demographers (although not this author) therefore believe that sub-replacement fertility is here to stay (e.g., Lesthaeghe and Willems 1999). - Coleman 2006 (in regard to EU countries)

Migration levels are harder to predict. Nonetheless net foreign immigration looks set to continue (Coleman 2006, Coleman and Scherbov 2005) and the indeed the UK Government’s Actuary Department assumes a net level of immigration of 145,000 per annum in perpetuity:

(The) long-term assumption for net migration to the United Kingdom is +145,000 each year - GAD 2005.

Thus I feel that:

The process seems likely to continue, leading to the eventual replacement of the indigenous population with the newer groups.

Is a better statement than:

The process seems likely to continue for the immediate future which leads many right wing alarmists such as the BNP to claim that the newer groups are going to utterly replace the natives.

As it better describes likely future events. I have thus changed it back again.

In future, I feel it would be desirable for any amendment to the Demographic Transition Section to be backed up by citations of relevant demographic data. This is because the current text is well referenced and unverified amendments tend to detract from its authority.

Romper 21:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this section should be in the article. I accept the demographics data that you are linking to, but bear in mind that this is theoretical research work, much of it undertaken at a time when there was large numbers of mainly ethnic asylum seekers entering and being allowed to stay in the UK (more are now removed a year than make applications to stay). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, crystal ball gazing theoretical guesswork decades into the future is not factual content.

You are also using the data to portray immigration as non-white and the indigenous population as white and slowly being bred out, this is not accurate. This ignores the fact that large amounts of non-Eu immigration is from places such as the Americas, Australia and South Africa http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm69/6904/6904.pdf (the majority of which is white South Africans leaving the country) and as I am sure you are aware the very largest recent influxes of immigration to the UK is from Poland. In addition you are ignoring racial mixing. Were you even aware for example that Ryan Giggs and Jade Goody are both of mixed race? (Lager7 15:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

I appreciate what you’re saying but I disagree. That there has been a change in the ethnic composition of the UK over the past 60 years is indisputable. And that this change continues apace is also inarguable. I therefore think it is appropriate that the article (as it is about ethnicity in the UK) should contain a section about this. Especially as the subject has received academic and press note (see the references in the article).
As for the future predictions, I accept that they are theoretical in nature. The fact that such predictions exist, however, is undeniable and as they pertain to the future ethnic makeup of the UK, I think that this section should refer to them. Bear in mind that the Office for National Statistics themselves have commissioned projections of the future ethnic makeup of the UK (Haskey 2002). The article makes clear that they are predictions based on certain assumptions and that they merely envisage certain outcomes.
I don’t think that the article portrays immigration as non-white at all. I was aware that Ryan Giggs and Jade Goddy are mixed race. Coleman and Scherbov (2005) takes into account racial mixing, although perhaps not sufficiently.

Romper 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Irish Whites

During the 2001 Census, the census forms for Northern Ireland had different ethnicity tick boxes to the other parts of the United Kingdom. They only had one tick box category to relate to all whites (obviously being the “White” category). This presents difficulties in breaking down the White group on a UK wide basis. Official ONS publications therefore do not do so, thus presenting an inaccurate picture of the ethnic make up of the UK. I had initially assigned all of the Whites of Northern Ireland to the “White British” category so that the UK wide data looked like this:

White British: 52,039,195 - 88.5% White Other: 1,423,471 - 2.42% White Irish: - 691,232 - 1.2%

In retrospect this may have been a mistake as technically Northern Ireland is not a part of the island of Britain and therefore it could be argued that none of it’s population could be considered “White British”. Moreover it could be politically contentious to categorise all of Northern Ireland’s Whites as British. It could be equally politically contentious, however, to categorise them all as “White Irish”. Thus I have gone with the only other option and assigned them the status of “Other White”. The UK wide data now looks like this:

White British: 50,368,207- 85.67% White Other: 3,094,459- 5.26% White Irish: - 691,232 - 1.2%

Romper 01:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cornish People

User 81.78.144.112 correctly points out that in the 2001 Census 37,000 people ticked the “Other White” category and wrote in Cornish. The ONS, however, would merely have re-categorised these people as “White British” in the published Census figures. Thus in order for the figures given in this Wikipedia article to be correct, either the “White British” group needs to have its number reduced by 37,000, or the figure given for the Cornish group needs to be removed. As Cornish was not an official Census category for ethnicity in 2001, I propose the latter course of action.

Romper 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now enacted the latter course of action. Romper 22:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

'The Cornish were recognised by the government's ONS as an ethnic group on the 2001 Census - see Census 2001 Ethnic Codes, code 06 - but they have been invisibilised in previous censuses. They are an indigenous national minority of the United Kingdom and possessors of a recognised minority language of these islands under the Council of Europe's European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. If the UK government has made legal undertakings with the Council of Europe to take "resolute" action in support of this language, how on earth is it going to measure its compliance with international legal obligations with respect both to this language and to the people associated with it, if it does not include relevant tick boxes in forthcoming censuses ? - please see - Cornish demand 2011 Census tick box. 217.134.68.72 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
In answer to the above, I believe that the 37,000 who identified as Cornish, first had to deny being British by crossing out the British option, then write in Cornish in the "others" box. You are correct that the ONS would have merely re-categorised these people as "White British" in the published Census figures. Cornish ethnicity data from the 2001 Census 217.134.64.161 22:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Individuals who wished to list their ethnicity as Cornish in the 2001 census would have had to tick the Any other white background and write in Cornish. This would have meant that they could not tick have ticked the box British under the section White. This could be construed requiring them to deny their British identitiy. Persons who did so would be classified as White British in published census data. The above matter arose from someone adding the ethnic group Cornish (with an accompanying figure of 37,500) to the bottom of the figures given for the 2001 census. This made the figures incorrect as the 37,500 people were effectively being listed twice, once as White British and once as Cornish. As Cornish was not a published census category for ethnicity in 2001, the entry ‘Cornish’ was removed.Romper 12:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV & accuracy

The first sentence describes Britain as a multi-ethnic society with lots of ethnic groups, then goes on to describe ethnic minorities.

If it's an article about ethnic groups, why isn't the largest ethnic group - the english - mentioned either first or at all in the same way as the various minorities?

If it's an article about ethnic minorities, then why is it describing Britain as a multi-ethnic society made of groups? This implies that Britain is a multi-ethnic state along the lines of Malaysia, which is a misrepresentation of the facts. Britain is in fact a state with majority ethnic groupings in each constituent nation, and a range of mostly recently arrived minority groups.

This article is in danger of sounding like it's promoting a self-fulfilling prophecy of those who believe immigration is a good thing - by (mis)describing the country as a multi-ethnic state like Belgium, Bosnia, or Malaysia, it becomes it, because policies are made to serve needs that have been politically an socially engineered on the basis of false premisses informed by this kind of insidious misinformation.

87.113.75.231 18:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Promsan

Fair point, although the indigenous population is mentioned first, listing the various constituent groups (including the English) with the ability to click on their links to find out more about them. Admittedly the article spends most of it’s time discussing minority groups. I think this is for two reasons 1). The English, Irish, Scots, Welsh, Cornish and Ulster Scots each have their own separate articles which are reachable via the first section and 2). The emphasis on ethnic minorities reflects the current discourse on ethnicity in the United Kingdom. Perhaps you could suggest a different structure for the article that would better reflect ethnicity in the UK. If you would like more emphasis on the indigenous population (which I suspect you would) then it might be better to transfer some information from their various pages. Romper 00:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Systemic bias

Well the very begining is a bit sus The United Kingdom is a multi-ethnic society, having a number of ethnic groups. The United Kingdom is a state, it is a political entity that has little relation to the ethnic groups that compose it. There is no such thing as a UK ethnic group. One might argue that there is such a thing as a British ethnic group, but this is not a political entity, and many non UK citizens may well claim membership. Alun 15:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The article starts by stating that For most of the last millennium the lands now constituting the United Kingdom were largely ethnically homogeneous. This is clearly nonsense as anyone who has ever travelled in the UK would know. The UK has several distinct ethnic groups who certainly do not think of themselves as a "homogeneous UK ethnic group". Alun 15:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Then The pre-Celtic, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended on Great Britain what rubbish, there is much that the peoples of the British and Irish Isles have in common, but it is incorrect to claim that these peoples have some sort of "homogeneous blended" culture. Up untill the start of the 20th century, a mere 100 years ago, the majority of people living in Wales spoke Welsh as a first language, for example. There is no influence on Welsh culture form the Danelaw, English people have not adopted the habit of wearing kilts. British people have much in common, but it is clearly nonsense to try to claim that we are a homogeneous society. Alun 15:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think somebody pretty much lifted from here [1] some while back. Romper 21:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Why is this: This settled population was complimented by French Huguenots who fled to Britain during the 16th century to escape religious persecution and who later became assimilated with and absorbed by the rest of the population. in the section about indigenous people? Are people who settled in the 17th century "indigenous"? I wouldn't say they were, but if the article is going to say that people who settled in the 17th century are indigenous, then it should also apply to Jewish people as well shouldn't it? Alun 15:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because the majority of Jews arrived 1885-1905. And perhaps because their distinct religion prevented their assimilation. Whilst I too would not regard the Huguenots as an indigenous group it is pretty clear that they no longer constitute a separate ethnic group in the UK. I don’t think they should they be listed as an extant ethnic group in the article. Romper 21:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
But the Huguenots were non-indigenous. They were absorbed through gradual intermarriage. British ethnic history is largley a story of large influxes of migrants from overseas that became assimilated. The same is probably happening with the Black communities in the UK, given the very high levels of intermarriage there. The assumptions drawn from the article has become skewed because it has only looked at imnmigration, rather that what happens to the descendants of those immigrants. Those descendant rarely remain in existance as monolithic groups, but disperse over a period of generations, intermarry, and blur into the local population. This process often takes centuries. The indiginous population is continually changed in nature (although often subtley) by that process, and never actually reamins fixed. That's been happening since the Ice Age, and will continue to happen in the future, as waves of immigration continue (as they always have). The word 'indigenous population' is misleading, as the population has continually changed over time. Indigenous as of what point of time? 83.67.215.251 15:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Also I think a large Germanic contribution to the indigenous population is certainly a possibility [2] so I think we should stick with describing Britons as those present prior to the 12th Century. Romper 21:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Alun 05:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your article is too racially based, its more complex. Prior to the 12th century, what does that mean, many worldwide can find some ancestor resident in the uk prior to the 12th century, also race mixing absolute nonsense.

[edit] Indigineous People

The use of the term "indigenous people" will strike many readers of this article as misleading or simply bizarre, since the term is typically reserved for peoples living in traditional ways that are highly tied to their land and climate. Also, as has been discussed above, the British population (I mean, the canonical groups of Scots, Welsh, Irish, and English) are the descedents of multiple waves of immigration, that were not indigenous at the time they arrived! I am stumped on a better term that is not a clunker like "Groups descended from inhabitants of Britain before the 15th century" or racially-charged/racist like "British of North European stock/heritage." Any ideas welcome. Zavtrakat 14:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"The use of the term "indigenous people" will strike many readers of this article as misleading or simply bizarre" - why should it be? The Basques are more "indigenous" to their area, than the Maori are... simply by virtue of the length of time they've been there. --MacRusgail 19:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I can never understand what leftists' opinions on this are... They claim that the romantic invasions/volk movements never happened, and therefore we are all descendended from the original stone age settlers whos' ethnic character or linguistic heritage is conveniently a complete unknown, having no links to modern Germanic or Celtic peoples. But then you hear them claiming that "we are all immigrants" and that we are descended from invading barbarians who replaced previous inhabitants! Which is it?? --86.135.126.195 (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

For the following reasons -

  • "British" is not an ethnicity.
  • A number of Irish reside in the United Kingdom, because it has held onto 2/3 of the province of Ulster.
  • The so called indigenous groups do not get much of a look-in in this article.
  • No mention of Channel Islanders or Manx who migrate to England frequently.
  • A distinction must be drawn between ethnic groups which have been here for a substantial amount of time, e.g. Jews, Romany and those who have arrived mostly in the 20th century.
  • Are Jews an ethnic group or a religion? Certainly, the varied backgrounds of different Jews in the UK mean that they are ethnically different. An Italian Sephardi doesn't have much in common with a Lithuanian Ashkenazi. --MacRusgail 16:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Nationalities Act 1948

The most important and significant cause of this was the passage of the British Nationalities Act 1948. By this act citizens of the Empire were allowed to migrate to the United Kingdom. Many people from parts of the then Empire arrived in Britain.

Complete Untrue. Citizens of the Empire ALWAYS had the right to settle in the UK, there was no barrier. The 1948 Act does no such thing. As a result I'm deleting it. Indisciplined (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Thai People

Why is there no mention of Thai people living in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.89.149 (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image relevance?

Image:Brixton Tube 2006-04-22.jpg and Image:Tesco metro manchester.jpg Sorry, I don't see any direct relevance of the images to the article? TerriersFan (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, especially about the first one. So I removed it. SamEV (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think both should probably go. I don't see how the Tesco one is any better than the first. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)