what about the tamils and sri lankans?

i am rather surprised by the indian vs. pakistani/bangladeshi stats. also, i wonder how they count those who did come over before partition - if for instance, they were already in the UK, while their families back home found themselves living in the new nations of bangladesh and pakistan - are they considered indians in GB? nevertheless, though i have no support for this, i suspect it might have a lot to do with the amount of time these nationals have spent in the UK - indians have been there the longest, so presumably they have had a few generations to build businesses etc., whereas those who have been in the UK for a generation or so, or less, might have to start from the bottom and remain unemployed for some time upon their arrival. not to mention the employability advantage that comes with having almost a centurty of UK-educated indians. perhaps, then, this statistic will even out within a few generations.

This past school year I was a 'reading partner'/ lunch hour volunteer deal,once a week,in Tower Hamlets. From the News Article Vinod linked "the Problem is concentrated in cities including inner London where one in four households are workless".Tower Hamlets is one of the most underdeveloped areas, it's just a stones throw form Canary Wharf where many of the worlds Multinational IB's are headquartered, we had a couple of field trips to financialinstitutions etc to expose the kids to career possibilities.

My reading partner was a perfect little gentleman [Bangladeshi], but that was the exception,many of my co-volunteers weren't so lucky. The school &borough is predominately Asian, but there were also English and Afro-Caribbean kids as well. The term 'acting white' as an indictment against school performance is not used here (not used in the US 'ghetto' either if the truth were known). [Its called anti-education culture" when it occurs in majority population]

I've done a similar volunteer /tutor mentor thing in an American(read black)project in the US. Does anyone, Camille(?) know of "legitimate" (nothing from VDARE etc thanks please) theories /studies on "outsider perception and performance" as it relates to size of minority population? or perception in majority population to "predecessors" of minority population, & impact of current group members to live up to/enforce that norm?--- yeah I know that's and ugly sentence but I hope its understandable.

It's not a difference in immigration patterns. I think it's got social, cultural, and also (the elephant in the room) religious factors behind it.

People tend to lump the whole subcontinent as one when its obviously not. In Vancouver, BC..most of the Indian are sikh jatts and are not your model minority. I was reading White racist Stormfront forums one day, and one of the posters was describing how the Indians there are tall, huge with muscles. Rest of the posters were laughing at him...and were telling him that indians are short and look like Apu. However, the fact is that that Indians in vancouver tend to be bigger than the average. Similarly, in cities in North America where you had influx of H1 workers, the indians tended to look like telugu speaking gultis....and their children tended to be the smarter kids in high school.

The islamic subcontinent people do not assimilate well in western society and tend not to do well. Whether its the rigidity of Islam...or whatever, that's another huge flame laced debate that doesn't have any meaning ful outcome.

Until Razib shows up, here is one difference to think about. No idea as to how reliable the link is and if the difference relates to unemployment stats in any ways.

The application of a recently developed likelihood approach identified significant levels of population substructure within the Pakistani community as a whole, as well as within finer divisions of caste and biradheri. In addition, high levels of cryptic or unacknonwledged consanguinity were detected within subgroups of this community, including biradheri. The Indian sample showed no significant evidence of either consanguinity or substructure. [link]

Hey dilettante, there have been a few studies about "cultural differences" in perceptions and achievement.

But to take it back, there are substantial differences in time and location of regional settlement. As ak mentioned, it's hard to distinguish who was an "Indian national" vs. "Pakistani national" in the first post-Partition cohort. That said, the peak years of immigration (from the subcontinent) were the 60s and 70s, when the UK Parliament passed a series of restrictive immigration policies to limit subcontinental entry. Migration was predominantly Indian (in pure #'s, and as a share of total immigration), which makes sense given the vast difference in country populations. Pakistan overtook India in the 70s, ostensibly in part because of the Bangladeshi War of Independence. Bangladeshi migration (non-refugee based) started to increase in the mid- to late-80s.

I think there's a huge difference in regionality. If you control for earlier cohorts, there were still unemployment differences of up to 18 percentage points between Indians and Pakistanis. While many like to point to "religion and culture" as the source for this, I personally think there are two other overarching and historic barriers:

1. Pakistanis are one of the only migrant groups to settle evenly throughout the UK. During the economic slump of the 70s, unemployment was evenly disproportionate among immigrant communities (i.e. non-whites). Among youth, Pakistani and Caribbean youth had some of the highest levels of unemployment, as high as 90% in Birmingham in the 80s. When the UK's economic recovery began, it was centered largely around London. Something like 50% of the British Indian population lived in London, contrasted with something like 18% of the Pakistani community. There are huge Pakistani communities in the manufacturing towns in the north which, since Thatcher, have not seen a level of recovery at all comparable to the rest of the company. Think of this as being similar to the difference in economic recovery in San Francisco versus upstate New York. Regardless of your qualifications, there is a disparate geographic effect, and this, compounded with historic levels of racism, etc., compound economic vulnerability for the Pakistani community.

I would be curious to see if there is a large gender skew as well. That is, are there more women opting out of the labor force in Pakistani homes than in Indian homes. Is this historic, or is it contemporary? How may that play a feature? Also, is there a difference in family reunification? It could be that some of these individuals are not unemployed, but rather extended family/elders who have been brought to the UK by their children.

2. The Bangladeshi community is overwhelmingly concentrated in London (I think it's like 90%), but they're also more recent immigrants overall. The stories you here coming out of Newham and Camden are awful, and the "Bangladeshi slums" are apparent. It's strange, because there is an ethno-political as well as religious divide. Overall brown Muslims are not doing well in the UK, and the reaction of the government over the past 10 years has not really smoothed these things over. But also, we've seen rapidly escalating unemployment and a lack of educational opportunities, particularly for young men. So then what drives what? Is it the community at risk, or is it the irrelevant/unhelpful policies of the state? Is it that many Bangladeshis in the UK are living in slum-like ghettoes, or is it that they have no other option, or is there an internal organization around this? Is it that Bangladeshi communities missed out on the economic recovery/resurgence?

I think it's really dangerous to assume that the difference is that Indians have some intrinsically better capacity. It's easy to look at statistics and ask what's wrong with Bangla/Pakistani communities instead of taking into account all the other factors. I do think there are social issues at play, particularly when it comes to religion and education. That said, there may be other, more practical, explanations for this divide.

My guess is that lot of original immigrants from Pakistan & B'desh were during 70s and as mill workers (employees) but the immigrants from India were mostly entrepreneurs (Gujarati etc?). When the steel & clothing industry collapsed in 80s, the mill workers didn't have jobs and that continued where as entrepreneurs thrived?

This link is quite indepth on Pakistanis situation in UK
http://humanists.net/alisina/pakistnis_in_uk.htm

They have the highest unemployment rate, five times more than the British average; and crime rate is higher among them than in any other community. Fully 2 percent of the prisoners rotting in British jails are Pakistanis, the highest for any one community.

Unemployment is the cause of alienation and crime among them. Aggressive organizations like Hizb al-Tahrir and al-Muhajirun have come up by exploiting the unrest among the British Pakistani unemployed. There is discrimination in the UK against them and, as always, it is based on how 'different' the Pakistanis are from other citizens. The speaker gave no comparative figures but it was obvious that Muslims were less easily employed because of their namaz timings, fasting timings and conflicting Eid days, requiring the employers to make special arrangements. In the case of Muslim women, hijab came in the way of employment. After repeated experience, the employers simply refuse when they are faced by a Muslim or a Pakistani applicant without confirming whether he would insist on namaz exemptions or not. Pakistani Christians are however more readily accepted in the market. [This is also true of the private sector in Pakistan where Muslim employees usually lean on namaz for general absenteeism.]

No good future prospects:
Another figure which is comparable to Pakistan is the remarkable superiority of educational performance among girls. In the 5-plus category of grades, there were 41 percent girls compared to 21 percent boys. [In 1994, this figure was 22 percent girls and 20 percent boys, which means that the crisis of integration is of recent origin.] Girls didn't mind getting married to Pakistani boys in Britain but increasingly resisted being married off to boys in the family back in Pakistan. British Pakistani boys (5 percent) did not marry British whites to the same extent as the blacks, and girls (1.4 percent) hardly married whites, thus pointing to the limits of integration of the Pakistani community. Another factor standing in the way of integration is the community's involvement (around 75 percent) in Pakistan's politics back home. Since Pakistani politics has become more and more religious, it is difficult for a British Pakistani to try consciously to participate in Britain's secular politics. In terms of proportion, the community should have 8 members in the House of Commons instead of the one there now. Staying out of the competition for rights, the Pakistani community has also been hit hard by the death of Britain's textile industry. Fully 20 percent of the community had been involved in this sector.

Prof Muhammad Anwar predicted that in the next ten years the Pakistani
community in the UK will suffer further decline in integration and
prosperity. He said that the community's Islamic and Pakistani identity will become stronger, which clearly means that there would be less integration. This will lead to more discrimination against them by a society coming under the influence of what he called Islamophobia.

You can read more at the link
http://humanists.net/alisina/pakistnis_in_uk.htm

My guess is that lot of original immigrants from Pakistan & B'desh were during 70s and as mill workers (employees) but the immigrants from India were mostly entrepreneurs (Gujarati etc?). When the steel & clothing industry collapsed in 80s, the mill workers didn't have jobs and that continued where as entrepreneurs thrived?

As venkat mentioned, these high levels of unemployment are also seen as catalysts for criminal activity and radicalism. They were, paired with police violence, the catalyst for a number of race "riots" from the 1970s through mid-1990s. I try not to be an economic determinist, but if you exclude people from the work force, they're going to turn their frustrations somewhere.

Given that the Pakistani's are mosltly Mirpuri Kashmiri's, should a true Indian patriot claim that "Indians from Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir" and Bangladeshis are doing poorly?

I think we've gone over the differences beween Mirpuri Britons, Sylheti Britons (most British B-deshis are from Sylhet) and Indo-Britons, and the differences between all of them and Indo-Canadians. Look up the old comment threads.

See here for a list of papers on mirpur by British ethnographer Roger ballard. In particular an ethnography of British Mirpuris and British Jullundharis. If anyone has seen anything on the Sylhetis, I'd love to read it.

Also, here's a piece by Stanley Kurtz in the NRO reviewing Ballard's work. I don't endorse Kurtz' conclusions, but he did his doctoral work on colonial india, and is usually worth reading on this topic.

Kurtz says
whereas Punjabi Sikhs and Hindus must marry outside of the patri-clan, Punjabi Muslims prefer to marry fellow clan members — especially first cousins. One effect of this difference is that the wives of Jullunduri Sikh immigrants have long been more eager than the wives of Mirpuri Muslim immigrants to join their husbands in Britain. Here’s why.

Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs marry outside the clan, but they must also marry inside the caste. In Punjab, members of a patrilineal clan tend to live together in the same village. This means that eligible marriage partners of the same caste, but a different clan, can only be found in another village. So the rule of clan exogamy forces Punjabi Hindu and Sikh brides to leave their home villages to move in with husbands who live elsewhere. Hindu and Sikh brides therefore enter their husband’s joint family as strangers. The early years of married life for a Hindu or Sikh bride are thus famously stressful, since she is not only living with and learning the ways of strangers, but also works under the difficult and unfamiliar authority of her new mother-in-law. Over time, Hindu and Sikh brides often press their husbands to leave the joint family and strike out on their own.

What do mutineers with insight to to ther "punjabi mind" think?

(Kurtz overreaches when he assumes that Punjabi marriage practices are universal among all Muslims in the world. Even in South Asia I don't think Muslim Bengalis or Muslim Keralans have the same practices as Punjabis.)

I think it's got social, cultural, and also (the elephant in the room) religious factors behind it.

How does the religion play a part?

The sad thing is that Britain has done better integrating immigrants than rest of Europe. Nevertheless, it's no coincidence that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, for the most part, are Muslims, and Muslims, in general, are having a hard time overall both in Britain and in Europe.

The problems are manifold, I suppose. Discrimination is a factor, but I also believe that there significant number of Muslims, esepcially recent immigrants, who do not want to integrate or assimilate and this, of course, will cause economic and social problems.

There may be some valid reason for discrepency amongst the achievement level between religious population in Britain (however, I tend to thing that the 'Blue Collar' percentage amongst the hindu and moslem is the same). That said, the immigration demographics between the hindus and moslems in to the US is the same, yet hindus perform much better than muslims (There were detailed statistics on this on Arthur Hu's website). I would go on to say that if one were to dissect the statistics further, South indian Hindus would do much better than North Indian hindus. We can bury our head in the sand all we want about this, but different groups have different capabilities. Some are better at one thing...others do well at being gangsters.

We can bury our head in the sand all we want about this, but different groups have different capabilities. Some are better at one thing...others do well at being gangsters.

What an astute observation. Thanks for the laugh.

I don't mean to be posting ad-nauseum, but this was so jarring:

We can bury our head in the sand all we want about this, but different groups have different capabilities. Some are better at one thing...others do well at being gangsters.

Ikram, on marriage:
I have no idea what the differences are between Mirpuri and Sylheti Muslims, etc., etc., or even for Punjabi Muslims. I can't speak for all Punjabis, but among most of those I know (so this is Amritsar/Lahore/Jalandhar) the characterization is correct -- there is a strong push to marry out of one's clan. This may vary by socioeconomics/caste, and I can't speak to that at all. But, there is definitely the belief that marrying into your own family is not a good idea.

We can bury our head in the sand all we want about this, but different groups have different capabilities. Some are better at one thing...others do well at being gangsters.

What an astute observation. Thanks for the laugh.

one of the joys of the net; we are often confronted with pearls of wisdom such as this...more coming up for sure

We can bury our head in the sand all we want about this, but different groups have different capabilities. Some are better at one thing...others do well at being gangsters.

While we are at it, might as well state that us desi's are inherently smellier than the goreys.

While we are at it, might as well state that us desi's are inherently smellier than the goreys.

Not so sure about that actually. Read this article a while back and thus don't remember if it was scientific or speculatory but it 'claimed' that body odor depends a lot on food habits and that a meat based diet results in what are perceived as fouler body odors.

Given that the Pakistani's are mosltly Mirpuri Kashmiri's, should a true Indian patriot claim that "Indians from Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir" and Bangladeshis are doing poorly?

lol. A 'true Indian Kashmiri' would tell you that Mirpuris are not Koshur, but rather ethnically Punjabi tribes just like the vast majority of the population of the Azad Kashmir area in Pakistan.

Venkat wrote:

Girls didn't mind getting married to Pakistani boys in Britain but increasingly resisted being married off to boys in the family back in Pakistan. British Pakistani boys (5 percent) did not marry British whites to the same extent as the blacks, and girls (1.4 percent) hardly married whites, thus pointing to the limits of integration of the Pakistani community.

the UK census is a great site, i recommend it for those digging for data:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/

here is an interesting point:
Even after allowances for education and residential area, Pakistani Muslims are three times more likely to be jobless than Hindus are. Indian Muslims are twice as likely to be unemployed than Indian Hindus are.

Yet the study warns against concluding that religion necessarily causes economic disadvantage, but notes that "the odds of being unemployed do vary significantly with religion". Hindus, for example, are significantly more successful in the jobs market than Sikhs.

"Far more is in play than just religious effects," the report says. Among South Asians, Indian Muslims do better than Muslims from Pakistani or Bangladeshi backgrounds - and better than Sikhs.

the point in cutting & pasting is that the issues here are complicated. as previous posters have noted, the categorizations of "indian," "pakistani" and "bangladeshi" hide as much as they reveal. the last two groups are regionally extremely focused. i have relatives in the UK, but they are way outside the bangladeshi mainstream because they are not from sylhet. within the indian group you have sikhs, hindus and muslims, and the difference between refugees from east africa and those who came directly from indian. the east africans often bring a lot of social and monetary capital with them (many of the successful indian muslims are ismailis from east africa). i think there is definitely something to the hypothesis that islam is playing a role in social segregation, but i think there is some path dependence here, as the effect is weak to non-existent in the USA. why? i've outlined the reasons before, the american muslim community is diverse (so there's less synergy between religion & race), educationally well off & economically middle class.

This trend of workless ness is catching up in Canada too. BTW, why anyone wants to work when Government reward one being Lazy with cash on each child. These benefits are usually for destitute and disables but some M@$#@ F^&&%* misuse the system and find an excuse to be lazy.

here is an analysis of educational performance of various groups in the UK:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003749.html

employment data by group (UK Census)
Those most likely to be employed in managerial or professional occupations were from the Chinese, Indian, White Irish, and other non-British White groups (between 32 and 38 per cent). White British people had lower rates of people working in managerial or professional occupations (27 per cent) than those groups. The groups with the lowest proportions of managers or professionals were the Black Caribbeans, Black Africans and Bangladeshis (between 19 per cent and 22 per cent).

Looking at particular jobs, one in seven Pakistani men in employment was a taxi driver, cab driver or chauffeur, compared with 1 in 100 White British men. Over a quarter of Bangladeshi men were chefs, cooks or waiters compared with 1 in 100 White British men. The proportion of Indian men working as medical practitioners, at 4 per cent, was around 10 times higher than the rate for White British men.

education (UK Census)
In 2004 people from the Bangladeshi, Black Caribbean and Pakistani groups were less likely than White British people to have a degree (or equivalent). Among men, Bangladeshis and Black Caribbeans were the least likely to have a degree (11 per cent for each group). Among women, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis were the least likely to have a degree, 5 and 10 per cent respectively.

The groups most likely to have degrees were Chinese (31 per cent), Indian (25 per cent) and White Irish (24 per cent). These compared with 17 per cent of White British people. However, a relatively high proportion of Chinese people had no qualifications – 20 per cent, compared with 15 per cent of White British people.

Bangladeshis and Pakistanis were the most likely to be unqualified. Five in ten (49 per cent) Bangladeshi women and four in ten (40 per cent) Bangladeshi men had no qualifications. Among Pakistanis, 35 per cent of women and 29 per cent of men had no qualifications.

what about the tamils and sri lankans?

Tamils are an ethnic/linguistic group, "Sri Lankan" is a nationality. You meant to say Sinhalese. Sri Lankan Sinalese & Tamils are a small part of the UK "Asian" community. My observation is that the Sinhalese are largely professional and well integrated. Ditto for Sri Lankan Tamils who came before the 1980s and used to be the dominant professional class in Sri Lanka. The refugee Tamils who started coming in the 1980s are dealing with a number of issues, e.g. dislocation, lower education levels, violent extortionist Tamil gangs, and are not doing well.

Anyway, back to the thread. I would be interested in knowing the rates of self employment between Pakistanis & Indians. Could it be that Indians with urban origins who faced job discrimination were better able to become small scale entrepreneurs than rural Pakistanis ? I don't completely understand the proximity to London argument, when the economy returned and London started to thrive again you had to be a professional to take part in a meaningful way

pakistanis likely to be self-employed (UK census)
In 2004 people in employment from Pakistani, Chinese and White Irish groups were more likely to be self-employed than those in other ethnic groups in Great Britain. One in five Pakistanis in employment were self-employed (21 per cent), as were just under one in six Chinese (16 per cent) and White Irish (15 per cent) people. This compared with around one in ten (12 per cent) White British people and fewer than one in ten people from a Mixed or Black ethnic group.

I used to work at a car dealership in LA for a brief period and made some ethnographic deductions based on credit records and FICO scores of different communities. Amazingly after a while of working in that environment it was easy for a good salesman to understand where his bread and butter came from. You knew from a glance where a top dollar (multi pounder) sale was coming from. For example if an Persian prospect walked in you ran away because he had unreal prospects, bad or no credit ,no cosigner and usually wanted to buy a car for a price that no dealer would sell him a car. His or hers bargaining strategy was usually offer an unrealistic amount based on "my cousin bought it at that price."
An educated Indian specially a South Indian or Urban Indian city dweller (religion not a factor) with a convent education was usually a sale at a mini($50 to the salesperson)because he had done his research, gotten his financing from a net bank and usually had a FICO of 750 and above. Usually not the same with Punjabis in the San Fernando Valley who followed the Persian Principle but could be sold with a good commission to the salesman with the comment "You probably cannot afford it-let me show you something cheaper" (also called the takeaway). An ABCD was a prospect usually appearing that he/she wants to be white and afraid of showing his ethnic roots by bargaining-"oh mama stop bargaining this is America not Hyderabad", usually had great credit and if they needed a car it was a sale. A Pakistani from the San Fernando Valley in LA usually had a score of 550 with champagne taste and "I'm waiting for my money to be wired in-how long can you hold my check" attitude.

Hindus are the least likely of all the religious groups to have been born in the UK, followed by Muslims and Buddhists. (UK census)
Less than four in ten Hindus (37 per cent) who were living in Great Britain in 2001 had been born in the UK. A similar proportion had been born in Asia (39 per cent), predominantly India (30 per cent), and 6 per cent had been born in Sri Lanka. A further 21 per cent of Hindus had been born in Africa, reflecting the 1970s migration to the UK of East African Asians, in particular from Kenya (10 per cent) and Uganda (4 per cent).

In 2001, Indians were the most likely of any of the different ethnic groups to own their own homes (76 per cent) in Great Britain. White British and Pakistani households were next most likely to do so (70 per cent and 67 per cent respectively)...Black African, Other Black and Bangladeshi households were the least likely to own their own homes. (UK census)

This trend of workless ness is catching up in Canada too. BTW, why anyone wants to work when Government reward one being Lazy with cash on each child. These benefits are usually for destitute and disables but some M@$#@ F^&&%* misuse the system and find an excuse to be lazy.

Ouch. Any discussion on welfare/govt assistance/employment/education always brings out the worst in people who take it as an open invitation to vent.

Canadian unemployment (especially among new immigrants) and Canadian govt assistance are complex issues--cannot be boiled down to pat "laziness." A little bit more nuance would be appreciated, please.

Child Tax Credit is different from Disability Assistance and so on. Please don't lump everything together. Just so you can sleep better tonight, here is some information. The sky is not falling.

LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYMENT RATE SLIPS TO RECORD LOW IN 2004
National –Further improvement as jobs rise again
Provincial - Improvement in eight provinces in 2004
Major cities – Edmonton, Calgary, Regina and Kitchener CMAs have the lowest rates

Above from:

http://www.peoplepatternsconsulting.com/canadajobtrends2005.htm

one last thing: i think it is important to emphasize that there might not be one overwhelming predictor for between group differences in SES outcomes. e.g., "the difference in religion explains it." or, "racism predicts it." the relative inoculation of indian muslims, many of whom are east african ismailis (though not the majority from what i gather), so thats islam itself alone can't predict this (the relative affluence of american muslims also tends to argue against this). similarly, the average sikh or pakistani are of the same general ethnic group, at least in terms of outside perception, so i don't think that different levels of racism can explain the difference. i think a good analogy might be a series of nested ecosystems, and what are you seeing in the pakistani community in particular (the bangladeshis are more recent and more foreign born) are multiplier effects due to a host of various dynamics dependent on endogenous and exogenous factors.

Vic, why don't you go bury your racist assumptions elsewhere? One of the most ridiculous forms of statistical analysis is to take a difference in means and then try to attribute causation accordingly. I'm not Pakistani, nor am I Muslim, but way to be totally offensive and worse, completely prejudiced in your illogic.

You need to chill. Its obvious that my 'gangster' reference was tongue in cheek (considering I belong to a group that is itself cosidered "gangsta"...i.e the jatts). Being prejudiced means..that you are judging before the evidence is in...I have seen the evidence, and I am postjudiced...if there is such a thing. You threw accusations of 'racist' word around. Last time I checked...desis were considered all the same race. Its cultural, and regional upbringing that makes us different. You can call me 'culturist' or 'regionalist'...but racist? Come on now?

don't get the wrong side of kommissar camille, you here?

are multiplier effects due to a host of various dynamics dependent on endogenous and exogenous factors.

Razib, I hope you will continue to contribute as time permits. The issue merits deeper exploration. I would normally expect a sentence such as this when an academic is throwing up his hands and saying 'I don't know!'.

One relatively minor, but still relevant point - being 'workless' and 'unemployed' are different things in terms of how statistics are collected. To be officially 'unemployed' you have to be part of the labor market and 'work-ready', and be continuously looking for a job in the last 'N' weeks. 'Workless' can include people who long ago stopped looking, are disabled, otherwise 'unemployable', etc. The 'workless' category is always larger, since nobody has the patience to keep on looking week after week if it's not getting you anywhere. So people shouldn't be mentally comparing the 23% UK figure with a 5% US figure and drawing conclusions from there. The 'unemployment rate' is an index of economic slack - of how many more people would be employed if only the economy were 'stronger'. The UK 'workless' figure points to the extent of a deeper systemic, social or individual problem, and should be compared to similar indices elsewhere.

Vic, racism is a term that varies with context. If you prefer to be known as a bigot or a regionalist, by all means, go ahead with that. And, for clarification, it was not obvious that your "gangsta" reference was tongue in cheek -- it came across rude, inflammatory, and bigoted, and I am not alone in reading it that way.

louciecypher, the London economy did benefit professionals quite a bit, but the general increase in economic life in the area also helped facilitate increased commerce. If things are going well, consumption in the region increases, and if you're a taxi driver, this can help (or be a blight, depending on how the system is set up). Meanwhile, if you are living in B'ham, you haven't got much going for you. I brought it up to highlight the urban/rural divide that we see across communities. I think the most analogous example of this in the U.S. are all the old New England mill towns/cities that are depressed and economically inert/lagging.

I mean, ultimately I'm with razib on this -- there are a lot of different things going on. I was trying to shed a little light on the historical context behind some of this divergence. With respect to Sikhs and Pakistanis, I don't think the issue is so much race as it is visible difference. I have a feeling that if you look at Sikhs who are "visibly Sikh," they're not doing as well as their "non-visible" counterparts (I see this all the time within my own fam in the UK).

The UK census site is fabulous, as are some of the graphs available on the British Library site.

don't get the wrong side of kommissar camille, you here?

chachaji, I think your distinction is important, and I think it's important to ask what the demographics of the "workless" category are. As I mentioned above, are statisticians including elderly parents? Stay at home mothers? Is this actually dire, or does it speak to larger family networks?

Camille...I'm really interested in your knowledge about all things South Asian with regards to Britain. Pray tell what your background is?

Sorry, Shalu, I don't mean to pass myself off as an expert. The plethora of immigration/economics data is mostly from stuff I compiled from the UK Home Office, et al., for my senior honors thesis when I was an undergrad. My thesis was on race, class, and political identity in the context of the anti-racist movement, but my "focus communities" were British Asians and British Afro-Caribbeans.

I'm just your standard social science researcher -- my academic training is in political economy (so interdisciplinary), my minor was in African American Studies/Creative Writing, and my areas of professional experience are in youth (criminal) justice, civil rights, economic development (regional focus: Africa), minority communities in "first world" countries, and political/economic philosophy.

theories /studies on "outsider perception and performance"

similarly, the average sikh or pakistani are of the same general ethnic group, at least in terms of outside perception, so i don't think that different levels of racism can explain the difference

I agree that there must be many factors, but the "outside perception" is not consistent,granted I'm moving one level of the onion outward (racially). I both love and loath this publication, The Economist. Closing Time at the Corner Shop- Poverty and ethnicity:

The struggle to escape poverty begins with a big decision: whether to seek paid employment or work for oneself. Historically there has been a strong ethnic divide. South Asian and Chinese immigrants have been quick to set up businesses, whereas black Africans and Caribbeans have worked for others.....Educational achievement makes an especially big difference in Britain, where graduates snootily consider self-employment a last resort for dimwits—unlike in America, where plenty of big brains make big bucks starting their own firms. ....If this is true, it is not surprising that Indians and Chinese are beginning to turn away from self-employment. Whizzes at exams, young and increasingly likely to have been born in Britain, the latest generation is more apt to become doctors and lawyers than restaurateurs. Black Africans and Caribbeans, meanwhile, still lag behind at school and as a group are slightly older, which may explain their swerve into business.

I may, of course, be " overly sensitive", but I took on board that an outsider, I will assume 'the economist' is neither black, nor asian, comes up with two different reasons for different groups to do the SAME thing,[both in the UK context]: go into businesses for themselves. 1) Asians did it in the past to get out of poverty... excelling in education now allows them to move into professions 2) Afro Briton's are going into business NOW: NOT to get out of poverty, not due to entrepreneurial spirit , no influence from 'American' ideals -which are prevelent/projected all over the world, the idea of being the boss, its because they do badly at school?

Vic, racism is a term that varies with context. If you prefer to be known as a bigot or a regionalist, by all means, go ahead with that. And, for clarification, it was not obvious that your "gangsta" reference was tongue in cheek -- it came across rude, inflammatory, and bigoted, and I am not alone in reading it that way

If you do not thing that culture or regional upbringing affects in how we adapt in foreign culture, then you are rather naive or/and have blinders on. You seem to throw the term 'Racist' or 'Bigoted' around rather freely on those who seem to differ in their opinion. Its sort of a reverse McCarthysism and mentally lazy. Throw the word 'racism' and all argumemnts are won. I will throw a word of my own around...Hypocrite...as i doubt I will see you walking around in Downtown Detroit at midnight. By your argument if you avoid downtown Detroit, you are prejudging the people of Detroit. There is something known as ideal world and reality. Throwing terms like racist and bigoted freely only illuminates the wide chasm between your thinking and reality.

Back to the arguments instead of name calling. As for giving reason for high unemployment in certain section of population because they live in high unemployment areas....those people can move. I have personally done this. Its hard to relocate, but I believe being unemployed might be harder. The stigma of being unemployed differs in many community.....and in mine it about as bad as it can get.

(considering I belong to a group that is itself cosidered "gangsta"...i.e the jatts).

I will throw a word of my own around...Hypocrite...as I doubt I will see you walking around in Downtown Detroit at midnight.

Are their lots of jatts in Downtown Detroit? Something I love about the UK is no one can take anything for granted here- so you can say someone is from a “ housing estate” eg the projects, with out a perceived idea of who (color), lives there. People do not wonder around tower hamlests at night either.

Vic wrote:

As for giving reason for high unemployment in certain section of population because they live in high unemployment areas....those people can move. I have personally done this. Its hard to relocate, but I believe being unemployed might be harder. The stigma of being unemployed differs in many community.....and in mine it about as bad as it can get.

Camille wrote:

Sorry, Shalu, I don't mean to pass myself off as an expert. The plethora of immigration/economics data is mostly from stuff I compiled from the UK Home Office, et al., for my senior honors thesis when I was an undergrad. My thesis was on race, class, and political identity in the context of the anti-racist movement, but my "focus communities" were British Asians and British Afro-Caribbeans.

I'm just your standard social science researcher -- my academic training is in political economy (so interdisciplinary), my minor was in African American Studies/Creative Writing, and my areas of professional experience are in youth (criminal) justice, civil rights, economic development (regional focus: Africa), minority communities in "first world" countries, and political/economic philosophy.Nothing to apologize for, you're obviously quite well-versed and educated on the topic at hand. =) Cool stuff!

Oh, and dilettante, there are a few sociologists who posit that desis went into self-owned businesses largely because they COULD NOT get employment elsewhere. I'll see if I can dig up my bibliography. I take issue with some of the methodology/arguments, but overall I think there's an interesting dialogue happening around this. If the general assumption is that the difference was start up capital, then I wonder what drove those differences.

Vic, I rarely call people racist or bigoted -- you have a distinct "honor" in that respect --, but I do call out statements for what they are. It's convenient to say I didn't address the issue you brought up; the only way to get to that conclusion would be to ignore the four other posts I've written on this thread already discussing different facets of economic and social integration among different British Asian subcommunities, and two of the factors I addressed included variant treatment (by identity/region) or possible differences in family/community structure (by cultural group or identity group). I took issue with your offensive and mentally lazy argument that "some groups are naturally inclined to be successful while other groups are naturally inclined to be gangstas" (paraphrased).

Furthermore, you have no idea who I am or what my life history is. You don't know if I grew up in the ghetto or in the suburbs, so please withhold your judgments for another day. I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you, but I hope you take a moment to go back, reflect on what you wrote, and then think about how someone without malicious intent could "misread" your statement (if it was indeed tongue-in-cheek) in order to avoid something like this in the future.

Camille thanks for your feedback. I've had heard that explanation;Desi's, (as well as some Caribbeans), qualifications etc were not recognized in the UK so they had to turn to entrepreneurship, I get that. My dig was at what I perceived as The Economist spin a) blacks 'traditionally worked for others b) I'm making the bold assertion that today's racism is than yesteryears, so working for someone else is still an option. So why is the conclusion that academic lack the reason blacks are now going into business for themselves? It just seemed to be a leap is all. Anyway enough sideways thread jacking from me. Back to brown:, from the same article.

The puzzle is Pakistanis. Though they share some characteristics with Indians and Chinese—including improved education levels and a youthful profile—they are moving the other way. “Relative to their qualifications, they seem to get lower returns on paid employment than other groups,” says Mr Drinkwater. That they persist in self-employment may be due to a lack of more rewarding alternatives.
Why don't they find well-paid jobs as easily as others? “Discrimination is the thing we assume is left,” says Mr Clark. But there are other factors: the concentration of Pakistanis in depressed textile towns makes it harder to find employment, and unwillingness to move away compounds this. Lack of English is often a bigger problem than it is for Indians, many of whom have been longer in Britain and came from more sophisticated backgrounds in the first place. Religion may also play its part. Interestingly, white Muslims seem to experience the same labour-market disadvantages as black and Asian ones.

should read:I'm making the bold assertion that today's racism is LESS THAN yesteryears

The basic reason is the quality of indians migrating to the UK.
Being a londoner (working in the city) you can see many indians working in professional jobs, largely due to the good educational system in India compared to our south asian neighbours.
More likely migrants were for white collar than blue collar jobs.
When blue collar jobs migrated out of britain other south asians were left jobless, but the generous pension scheme helps them live.

You can see loads of idling bangladeshi youth hanging around in Bricklane, Whitechapel and other areas.

Furthermore, you have no idea who I am or what my life history is. You don't know if I grew up in the ghetto or in the suburbs, so please withhold your judgments for another day. .

Follow your own rules before throwing words around. Have a nice life.

Razib, I hope you will continue to contribute as time permits. The issue merits deeper exploration. I would normally expect a sentence such as this when an academic is throwing up his hands and saying 'I don't know!'.

i don't have time right now to elaborate, but i'll clarify what i mean. in evolutionary biology you can have two populations in two different ecosystems where the characteristics of the populations are slightly different and the ecosystems are slightly different; but over time selective forces "snowball" so that they go off on their alternative tracks in a path dependent manner. in terms of "endogenous," i'm talking social capital. the east africans asians are often self-emloyed, but whether they are hindu or muslim they often are in business because that is their customary "profession," and, they have international social networks that they can leverage to facilitate their entrepenurial bent. similarly, a basal level of education in an economy is something you start with that might give you a leg up and push you into a positive spiral; you have choices, and some of the capital is probably heritable. in terms of "exogenous," for muslims i think the nature of the international ummah is not to be ignored. as noted in other places many second-gen pakistani muslims are assimilated toward an 'international arabicized' islamic identity that supersedes the localized south asian islam of their parents. like it or not due to various circumstances there is the perception that the ummah is at 'war' with the west, and these individuals have a somewhat antagonistic relationship with britain because of these loyalties (the lack of patriotism of some british muslims is assumed to be due to british involvement in iraq, etc.). i also think that the fact that most british muslims are of only a few ethnicities results in a 'syngerisic' identity where being muslim is more than just a religion, it is a total package identity. in contrast, in the USA muslims are racially diverse, and economically more varied. this prevents the religion from becoming such a politicized rallying point. anyway, got to go....

For Sikh's one explanation could be that in India, Sikh's are the most wealthy on average and thus less likely to leave India, so the one's that are not so educated or wealthy are moving on to England and thus uneducated = no money, for the most part.

Or Sikh's just might be dumber then the rest of the lot. Decide for yourself.

p.s. i left this implicit, but the important selective pressure in the model above is peer pressure and the need for esteem & status. initially small differences can become large due to selective pressures. in the USA brown culture there tends to be a gauche "why aren't you a doctor or engneer or lawyer" dynamic, but the good outcome of this is that it is pushing marginals toward a positive social outcome. in contrast, the same individuals in a culture with different incentives might develop on a totally different track.

Down under we have a term for such fellows - "dole bludgers". When someone says that they cant get a job I can only assume that the price they are demanding for their services is beyond what the market will bear. In Oz the common dole bludger is an Anglo Aussie whose ancestry stretches back a few generations (aka white trash). Am not including the aboriginals. Very rarely does one see or hear of an immigrant being a DB. Even reffos (refugees) try to find a decent job. Quite possible that the first gen immigrant has not figured out how to work the system. Even the immigrant bashing TV programs have not found too many immigrant dole bludgers. Lebs are favourite whipping boys but hardly anyone accuses them of dole bludging - they are accused of much worse :)

Vic, dude, do you want to know why you come across as a racist to those who don't know you ? Please note that I'm not calling you a racist; I just want to deconstruct why many on this board may validly suspect who you are:

Exhibit A from #14:

. . . I tend to thing that the 'Blue Collar' percentage amongst the hindu and moslem is the same). That said, the immigration demographics between the hindus and moslems in to the US is the same, yet hindus perform much better than muslims...

(Emphases mine) It is highly probable that your shuttling back and forth between two alternative spellings of the the word "Muslim" was just a case of lazy commenting. But, for those of us who have an interest in tracking race/religion-based defamation, what you just did is one of the top 10 signatures of armchair Islamophobes who comment on the Internet.

More tellingly, Exhibit B, again from #14:

There were detailed statistics on this on Arthur Hu's website.

Most of the professionals who deal with the same set of statistics as Arthur Hu does either a) Don't know who he is; or b) View him as a dabbler who draws only the most superficial conclusions from his data; or c) Consider him a racist who who disguises his racism with boiler-plate of the form: "Group A hates group B, group X hates group Y, but I challenge you to find the hate in my writings."

Referenceing Arthur Hu really affects your own credibility. I am not surprised that a pro like Camille would suspect you of being a racist/religionist/bigot. Before you accuse people of hypocrisy, it would be a good thing to review whether there may have been something in your own words that made them point fingers at you. In other words: don't be so goddamned cocksure about your own erudition and/or the rigour of your blog-commenting style.

Oh, and yes, Vic dude, it might help to be a little more original than this:

Follow your own rules before throwing words around. Have a nice life.

As an aside to all mutineers, could we declare a moratorium on , "Have a nice life," please ? It is getting a bit old. If we have to engage in name-calling, there are much more interesting ways of doing so. . .

Lebs are favourite whipping boys but hardly anyone accuses them of dole bludging - they are accused of much worse :)

They have bashed up and mugged a lot of Indians in Sydney just because they are smaller (than lebs) and easier to beat. I have never seen lebs cause problems when they are on their own, but get 2 or 3 of them in one place and they just get violent towards everybody and anybody. I had 2 friends who got bashed badly by lebs, one had his hand fractured the other his skull. Sydney has a bigger lebo problem than Melbourne.

For Sikh's one explanation could be that in India, Sikh's are the most wealthy on average and thus less likely to leave India, so the one's that are not so educated or wealthy are moving on to England and thus uneducated = no money, for the most part.

Sikhs are doing fine in the UK. Some of the most recent stats I saw showed that Sikhs have the highest rate of home ownership and one of the highest proportions of female workers in the country. In fact on the whole they are doing better than the average white people. It's called the immigrant trajectory from blue collar to white collar work over generations. Something most American Indians born with a silver spoon in their mouth, part of one of the most wealthy and priveliged groups of immigrants in history, don't understand. They think Apu from the Simpsons is a form of racist oppression of them, because he's working class, and don't really understand struggle.

What are "lebs"?

It's called the immigrant trajectory from blue collar to white collar work over generations.

That's way, way too simplistic considering the UK has transitioned into a complete service sector economy and that most of the manufacturing jobs that absorbed the 1960's immigrants no longer exist, for Sikhs, Muslims, Anglos or any other ethnic group.

What are "lebs"?

Lebanese, an umbrella term that includes Arabs, Armenians, Palestians, Syrians, French, Greeks, Turks, Druze, etc. Reflects the diversity found in Lebanon. Often used as a slur.

this is to GB

Calling me a racist based upon two alternate spelling of muslims???? I have seen some silliness on part of people, but this one ranks right up there. Hindus, muslims, and sikhs from India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan are considered of the same race (e.g. My ancestors are from Pakistan, but I am not a muslim..however I am the same race as Pakistanis). If you read my post I pointed out that there are regional differences among communities and how their members succeed in various occupations. In my own family, no one has been remotely succesful as a businessman, and most choose to go into farming, armed forces, or perhaps government jobs. I am sure there are desi communities that are not involved too much in farming (Parsees for example...I shudder to use Parsis...cuz now I will be considered a racist). I referenced statistics available at Arthur's Hu. Referencing statistics makes you a racist now. I have come across some kooks...but you need help dude.

They think Apu from the Simpsons is a form of racist oppression of them, because he's working class, and don't really understand struggle.

At any rate, ST, Sikhs were one of the largest (initial) migrant groups to the UK, in part because of their military service, and in part because of Partition. Up until the mid- to late-1970s, most desis who immigrated had to hold at least a college degree if not a professional degree, unless they were someone's wife. Where you see the big gap in those immigration cohorts is between initial emigres and then those who immigrated through family reunification. I have no idea if this has changed in the 1980s/90s cohort, but I suspect it has a bit.

"You can see loads of idling bangladeshi youth hanging around in Bricklane, Whitechapel and other areas. "

How do you know if they were working all night or not? they may have worked in restaurants or driven cabs.
This snobbery and elitism of the 'professionals' from canary wharf to their neighbours in Whitechapel is just offensive.

There are many successful Bangladeshi's doing pretty well in the uk and i know some personally.

Some of these 'Indian' professional you mention may just be Bengali/Bangladeshi if you took the time to find out.

Lebanese, an umbrella term that includes Arabs, Armenians, Palestians, Syrians, French, Greeks, Turks, Druze, etc. Reflects the diversity found in Lebanon. Often used as a slur.

Actually the umbrella term you are referring to is 'Wogs', it includes all the above mentioned plus Portuguese, Maltese, Sicilians. It excludes the French though who are considered "Skips" along with people of Anglo-Celtic, Nordic and Germanic origin.

There was an Australian movie called "Wog-boy" - bloody hilarious. Essentially anyone with mediterranean features is a "wog" except for 'Lebs' who are anyone with middle eastern features (includes the Scythians)

Samir - I agree with you that Lebs in Sydney often tend to create trouble. Maybe coz the lebs in melbourne are mostly Christian whilst the ones in Sydney are mostly Muslim (or maybe Moslem). "Angry young men" - wonder what they are so angry about anyways?

But, for those of us who have an interest in tracking race/religion-based defamation, what you just did is one of the top 10 signatures of armchair Islamophobes who comment on the Internet.

GB:

Why is that?

GB:

Why is that?

Using the word 'moslem' is almost like saying 'hindoo'. Just outdated spellings which seem somehow pejorative. It's a subtle thing. Or maybe in the case of 'moslem' it's because it's a European distortion of an Arabic word - 'muslim'. Vic may have been unaware of the connotations, but when some people use 'moslem' I suppose it's intended to convey an extra little bit of contempt.

Moslem is an archaic spelling. Same with Hindoo. Its stems from the English way of using double-o instead of u. Instances Poona now Pune, Coorla which is now Kurla (in mumbai) and many other instances where they use double -o

Vic @ #61; man you need to improve your reading-comprehension skills!!!! You said:

Calling me a racist based upon two alternate spelling of muslims???? I have seen some silliness on part of people, but this one ranks right up there.

While I said:

Please note that I'm not calling you a racist; I just want to deconstruct why many on this board may validly suspect who you are:

Furthermore, you said:

I referenced statistics available at Arthur's Hu. Referencing statistics makes you a racist now.

While I merely said:

Referenceing Arthur Hu really affects your own credibility.

By which I meant that, whether you were referencing Arthur Hu's statistics or his inferences, a) The mere fact Arthur Hu is very selective about what statistics he puts on his website; and b) The mere fact that you claim to hang out at Arthur Hu's site; raises the valid suspicion about what your biases are. I was just pointing out how not to compromise your own point. So, I personally don't care whether you are a racist/regionalist/whatever. My main gripe in #55 is with your rhetorical and forensic style, which is awful. The reason I used words like "cocksure" was to stress that to call a professional a hypocrite and to base such accusations on slapdash reading-comprehension skills is not very grown-up.

Oh, and yes, it is you who may need a little help (and not I). I shall be quite specific: help's needed in the area of reading comprehension.

To Manju @ #66

GB:

Why is that?

I am not sure of the reason. I was stating a correlation; whether there is causation, and what its reasons might be, I can only guess. My guess is similar to Amitabh's explanation (# 67). The usage "Moslem" is a distortion of an Arabic word and, in the Europe of the early-modern era, became a term of art to refer to all Islamic adversaries from the Middle-East. The word (like the erstwhile pejorative "Turk") wilfully disregarded national origins, and had a mild clash-of-civilizations flavour to it. This might be the reason why so many Islamophobes prefer to use the spelling "Moslem".

"Angry young men" - wonder what they are so angry about anyways?

there always were and always will be angry young men. what's more, there is nothing wrong with young men being passionate.

blame instead the external cultural cues which channel this into destructive modes.
Part of the problem is the over-whelming sanctity which well-meaning people accord to culture and religion. The space of criticism as a result is occupied by bigots and hate-mongerers. This leads to vicious cycles and perpetuates miseries.

To GB:

No you didn't call me a racist, but explained why others may think so...and then wrote on my using two alternate spelling of muslims.

But, for those of us who have an interest in tracking race/religion-based defamation, what you just did is one of the top 10 signatures of armchair Islamophobes who comment on the Internet.

Which is exactly what Camille wanted to call me but used the word racist/bigoted instead. Then you criticized me because I referenced statistics on linked on Arthur's Hu site. All his site does is reference other links, and he is a good source for links on asian based statistics. Its again a sign of mental laziness in dismissing any argument based on where the link for statistics is located. This is just a different type of intolerance ...shout racism/Islamophobe at top of your lungs at anyone that might not agree with you. A bigot is defined as someone with a narrow point of view, who is intolerant of others. It seems you fit the bill. You throw around the word "racism/islamophobe" so much that it actually cheapens the word. You do tremendous disservice to the actual victims of racism.

Continued...

To summarize the whole argument here:

Original article - Study shows gap in achievement levels different group from the subcontinent in GB. Hindus do above average and Islamic people below average.

Vic: - It seems that similar achievement gap in the US based on statistics which are linked on Arthur Hu website

GB/Camille: You are a racist/Islamicphobe/bigot because you used two different spellings for muslim...plus since you are on Arthur Hu site, you are discredited.

I am not sure of the reason. I was stating a correlation; whether there is causation, and what its reasons might be, I can only guess. My guess is similar to Amitabh's explanation (# 67). The usage "Moslem" is a distortion of an Arabic word and, in the Europe of the early-modern era, became a term of art to refer to all Islamic adversaries from the Middle-East. The word (like the erstwhile pejorative "Turk") wilfully disregarded national origins, and had a mild clash-of-civilizations flavour to it. This might be the reason why so many Islamophobes prefer to use the spelling "Moslem".

interestingly, many turkish people themselves use the word. this could be because of a general european-isation of turkey, the secular-religious tension that exists in turkey regarding islam, or simply socio-economics. it could also be that this is a general turkish modification of an arabic word.

ok... enough with the "he's racist / she's racist"... closing down this thread....