Black Lives Matter

[Otter]

I have purposely not commented on this thread.

'LIFE MATTERS' would be my train of thought.

Haha, JR, I was waiting for this. Yes, life matters, but apparently many people seem to think Black lives matter less that white lives, so that's what we're talking about right now.

You said what would have taken me about a paragraph to say!

And the situation is aggravated when those who believe black lives matter less, are authorities and law enforcement.

[graham]

You said what would have taken me about a paragraph to say!

And the situation is aggravated when those who believe black lives matter less, are authorities and law enforcement.

Thanks Otter, but I can't take the credit - i paraphrased a sign that a woman wrote for a demonstration a year or so ago and that did the rounds on social media. Nonetheless, it's a very nice and easy way of summarizing why "all lives matter" is not the right response.

And absolutely agree with your second sentence!

[loringa]

For me, it's never been a case of systemic racism holding people back, more one of class/culture etc. Yes, there probably are glass ceilings for all sorts of people, but i'm a believer that glass ceilings can be pushed back, it just requires weight of numbers. I can remember years ago reading a City based newspaper's interview with a Black guy who was asked whether he considered there was a glass ceiling in the City for minorities. His answer was unequivocal and stuck with me. His answer was "In my experience, it's not what someone looks like which is important, it's what someone sounds like". Comments by the UK politician David Lammy quite a few years ago echoed that.

I am not sure this changes anything about the need for the Black Lives Matters movement to assist in countering the discrimination black people suffer, particularly in the United States, but also here and elsewhere, solely on the grounds of the colour of their skin. I also believe that there is a significant degree of systemic racism, quite often unintentional, in our society. It can be seen in the comments of a number of contributors to this thread where people are seen as 'others' because of their skin colour and no other reason, however well-intentioned the contributors might be.

Nonetheless, class and culture are hugely important. There have been numerous comments on various threads about class which I won't repeat here. Suffice it to say that I fully accept that class is live and well in the United Kingdom and I am not sure that social mobility is on the increase in the way it was, say, in the post-war years. In part I blame previous Labour administrations for this; the decision to scrap Grammar Schools rather than raise the standard of Secondary Moderns significantly reduced the opportunities available to children of poorer households, however talented they may be. Having said that, most teaching is okay even in schools in the most deprived areas, but the challenges of trying to educate pupils from homes where the parents are second or third generation unemployed and who either do not understand, or simply do not care, that education is the only way out or up for their children, cannot be over-estimated. You can lead a horse to water, as they say, but you cannot make her drink!

Which brings us on to 'culture'. The idea 'Culture eats Strategy for Breakfast may or may not have been coined by Peter Drucker but it is undoubtedly true. If we cannot change the culture of those on the margins of society, the so-called underclass, they are never going to take advantage of the opportunities that are available to them, primarily through education, to improve their lot. Mr Corbyn and, before him, Messers Brown and Blair, thought the solution was to throw money at the problem but, whilst this certainly resulted in lots of shiny, new school buildings, it did little to address the root causes. On a couple of occasions in the past, I have hijacked PHSE lessons or tutor groups to try and get a feel for what the pupils actually felt about education. Sadly, relatively few, especially in schools in more deprived areas, appeared to see the advantages of coming out aged 16 with a decent clutch of GCSEs and a route to a rewarding career. All too often, they seemed to accept the status quo ante and were quite happy to follow in their parents' footsteps which normally meant a couple of kids before they were 20, and a lifetime on benefits. They only knew what they knew, and the idea of going to university or starting a career was simply outside their purview.

[Pe.A]

OK. But people from minority backgrounds have also benefitted from those same systems and opportunities in the US and in the UK. It's one thing to rail against how those systems came into being etc, but it's another thing to be blinded to the fact that those opportunities are open to all (?) I'm curious about the 'anomalies' which buck the trend. You seem to be viewing Black people as some sort of homogenous group. My favourite go-to group, Nigerians, in the US perform very well. Nigerian households earn more than the national average; 37% hold Bachelor degrees and 17% hold Master degrees, compared to 19% and 8% respectively for white people in the US. Then you have other minorities which perform well. What are the reasons for this? As more recent immigrants, can they see the wood for the trees when it comes to taking advantage of the opportunities open to them; do they have less/different cultural baggage etc? You're the academic, you tell me (it's a question I previously asked, btw).

I think I also previously answered this question. Some recent immigrants might well perform better than the population average but the population that BLM is focusing on is very specifically African American (I speak of the US, where the movement originated, but one could also speak of Black British, I think).

And why is that? A convenient omission...?

I would make two other points here. First, I'd suggest you're mixing up arguments about equality and equity. I don't dispute that opportunities are open to all. I'm arguing that the systemic issues that very heavily impact Black populations over white populations mean that they are, on the whole, less accessible to Black folks. To use an analogy, it's like have two people run 100 meters - the same distance - on that old gravelly running track at CH but giving one person running shoes and making the other run barefoot. It's the same distance but one has a clear advantage over the other. Second,
one of the reasons that immigrant Black populations might perform better than African American populations is precisely because they have not had the multigenerational experience with systemic racism. But this line of questioning veers into dangerous territory. Once we start asking about cultural differences as if these are innate to populations, rather than a result of their experiences in society, we start making arguments that some people are just more driven that others etc. These arguments really do start becoming racist in the more traditional sense of the term.

I understand the conceptual differences between equality and equity. But i'm curious where exactly you want to bring this. There are educational equity programs both in the UK and US, in the form of school vouchers, tuition grants etc, for example (?). How do other minority groups (non-Black/non-White) fit into your narrative? Some also suffered from racist policies and actions in the past. Is it a sliding scale dependent on skin-shade? If you're correct about the "multigenerational experience with systemic racism" of 'home-grown' (couldn't think of a different description) Black people, why are there so many socioeconomic differences within that group? Culture, by definition, is never innate to populations.

Why is defunding the police complete b*llocks? You don't think it's at all possible that reducing funding for police departments that goes towards military grade equipment and investing that money in community organizations that provide job training, afterschool programs etc might actually help? Defunding the police is not about taking away their funding completely - it's about recognizing that a militarized police force with billion dollar budgets is not solving a problem but enhancing one.

Why would the extra funding for "community organizations that provide job training, afterschool programs etc" necessarily have to come from defunding the police? It's not as if the US (or the UK) are strapped for cash. In a country like the US, i would have thought their budget would have to be high overall, considering there are so many people with guns etc, and the murder rate is so high. In your opinion, what would be gained from defunding the police, in terms of general law enforcement?

For me, it's never been a case of systemic racism holding people back, more one of class/culture etc. Yes, there probably are glass ceilings for all sorts of people, but i'm a believer that glass ceilings can be pushed back, it just requires weight of numbers.

Plenty of research disagrees with the perspective that classism rather than racism is a driver. For example, in this research article http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios ... cepted.pdf, the authors created resumes for fake Black and Asian candidates and then created "white washed" versions in which racial information was removed and names whitened. They found that white-washed resumes resulted in more than double the number of calls for interview than the minoritized resumes (nice summary here: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-w ... interviews).

I do not know what you mean by culture holding people back. I think it is a slippery slope to make such claims though.

It could be - but then again, not necessarily. Why is it that in the UK, the lowest academic achievers tend to be from 'working class' backgrounds...? Then again why is it that ('Indian') Asians are overrepresented in the medical profession with regards to their respective numbers?

It's not that I think there isn't a problem with racism (whatever that word now means), but I think a lot of it is a symptom of the problems rather than the cause of them. What is clear to me is that the numbers of minorities in the UK, for example, are quite low with respects to the wider populations and that leaves the door open for stereotypes/ preconceptions to creep in as to how different minorities are seen to act/behave etc. The key is have people better informed about what opportunities are available etc. This is something that the current UK race commissioner, Tony Sewell is an advocate for. He doubts the existence, or at least the extent, of racism being systemic just because there are disparities, and wants to push more young people from Black, and other minority backgrounds, into more technical careers in STEM areas etc. It's basically concentrating on investing at a more grassroots level, and creating a better economic base to work from. And that's precisely the thing, it's not necessarily racism holding people back, it's more of a culture/class and economic thing underpinning the problems which manifest themselves in predominantly Black areas having problems with lower employment, higher than average petty crime rate etc. which then feeds into the disproportionate focus by law enforcement/profiling. All in all it's vicious circle but one which can be broken but needs better planning and leadership at national and community level.

I find this funny, because what you describe (highlighted in bold) is precisely what systemic racism is - a system that results in, either consciously or unconscionably, the lack of investment and advancement within particular communities with no course correction and resulting disproportionate attention from law enforcement. And the solutions to this issue are exactly what you describe - an increase in attention on trying to get Black kids into STEM careers, increased funding and improving the economic landscape. I don't think you and I disagree on the issue or the solution, for the most part. You just don't want to call it racist.
[/quote]

As i said, i don't deny that racial biases do occur, but to frame it within a claim of those biases being systemic just blinds people to the many other variables.

[Pe.A]

I have purposely not commented on this thread.

'LIFE MATTERS' would be my train of thought.

Haha, JR, I was waiting for this. Yes, life matters, but apparently many people seem to think Black lives matter less that white lives, so that's what we're talking about right now.

You said what would have taken me about a paragraph to say!

And the situation is aggravated when those who believe black lives matter less, are authorities and law enforcement.

If what you're asserting is correct, do other minority groups also suffer from this in some proportion...?

[sejintenej]

If what you're asserting is correct, do other minority groups also suffer from this in some proportion...?

Tinkers, Travellers and gypsies.

[loringa]

If what you're asserting is correct, do other minority groups also suffer from this in some proportion...?

Tinkers, Travellers and gypsies.

Irish travellers and Romany Gypsies are two very different and distinct groups. The former have somehow managed to persuade the authorities that they are a distinct ethnic group but, in reality, they are just normal Irish folk, ie wholly white and entirely European. It is their lifestyle not their race that marks them out as 'different'. The latter, however, have undoubtedly suffered discrimination on the grounds of their ethnicity as well as their culture. In recent times the two groups do seem to have become identified in the media and by the public as one but they really are not, despite shows like My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding in which, as far as I could see, all the protagonists were Irish.

When the travellers arrive I, like all my neighbours, lock our gates and shut up our fields to try and prevent them occupying the land. They always seem to leave a terrible mess and it is my Council Tax that pays to sort it out. My dislike of their being in my village, however, has absolutely nothing to do with their ethnicity or the colour of their skin (I am an Irish citizen myself) and everything to do with how they behave. Individually I have no problem with them but as a group on 'my' playing fields or village green I just want them to go away. Is this prejudice; am I discriminating against a distinct group? Answers on a postcard please.

[graham]

Irish travellers and Romany Gypsies are two very different and distinct groups. The former have somehow managed to persuade the authorities that they are a distinct ethnic group but, in reality, they are just normal Irish folk, ie wholly white and entirely European. It is their lifestyle not their race that marks them out as 'different'. The latter, however, have undoubtedly suffered discrimination on the grounds of their ethnicity as well as their culture. In recent times the two groups do seem to have become identified in the media and by the public as one but they really are not, despite shows like My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding in which, as far as I could see, all the protagonists were Irish.

When the travellers arrive I, like all my neighbours, lock our gates and shut up our fields to try and prevent them occupying the land. They always seem to leave a terrible mess and it is my Council Tax that pays to sort it out. My dislike of their being in my village, however, has absolutely nothing to do with their ethnicity or the colour of their skin (I am an Irish citizen myself) and everything to do with how they behave. Individually I have no problem with them but as a group on 'my' playing fields or village green I just want them to go away. Is this prejudice; am I discriminating against a distinct group? Answers on a postcard please.

Although travellers are undoubtedly white and Irish, there is some genetic evidence that they represent a distinct ethnic subgroup of the general Irish population. A recent study https://www.nature.com/articles/srep42187 estimated the the most recent common ancestor for a sample of 50 travellers dated to some time between the Cromwellian invasions and the great famine. There is some historical and linguistic basis for believing that modern travellers descend from an ethnic group of Irish who have existed since at least 1000 CE and who travelled the country doing metal work (the origin of the name tinker). Their presence in the UK and US likely has roots in British interference in Ireland over the past 500+ years.

I knew about the genetics studies and am familiar with the reputation of travellers, but don't know much about anything else. According to that bastion of knowledge, wikipidea, the governments in the UK and Ireland have traditionally maintained land that is accessible to traveller communities but there is a complaint that these have become less numerous in recent times, leading to the increased use of public and private lands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Tra ... d_disputes.

Do we discriminate against a distinct group by locking our gates or wanting them to go away? It's a tricky one to unpack, isn't it? I think one could make arguments on both sides. To me, it seems that the bigger issue is the lack of accessible land for travellers. If travellers had access to suitable land for staying on while in the area and used that, rather than public land, would we feel the same way? If so, perhaps then we would need to confront our prejudices about a group with a distinct way of life to our own.

[graham]

I think I also previously answered this question. Some recent immigrants might well perform better than the population average but the population that BLM is focusing on is very specifically African American (I speak of the US, where the movement originated, but one could also speak of Black British, I think).

And why is that? A convenient omission...?

Sometimes I get the sense that your responses are made purely to be intellectually argumentative and this would be a prime example. You wonder if it a convenient omission by a subset of the population who, on average, have lower incomes, higher unemployment, are more likely to be stopped by police, are more likely to die as a result of police violence, have lower life expectancies in general, have lower high school graduation rates, have lower college enrollement statistics, receive tougher prison sentences for similar crimes compared to white citizens etc etc etc, to focus on their own plight rather than that of folks who immigrated to the US? I think the answer is no. But, for what it's worth, while Black immigrants to the US are more likely to hold a batchelor's degree than African Americans, on average thet have lower paying jobs etc compared to the white population.

Your arguments frequently bring up the idea of variation - that some Black people might do well, as if this is evidence against a racist society. Variance is to be expected and does not negate effect. Would you only accept that structural racism exists if ALL Black people were poor, unemployed etc? That's not how effects work, as any practitioner of elementary statistics will attest.

[Pe.A]

I think I also previously answered this question. Some recent immigrants might well perform better than the population average but the population that BLM is focusing on is very specifically African American (I speak of the US, where the movement originated, but one could also speak of Black British, I think).

And why is that? A convenient omission...?

Sometimes I get the sense that your responses are made purely to be intellectually argumentative and this would be a prime example. You wonder if it a convenient omission by a subset of the population who, on average, have lower incomes, higher unemployment, are more likely to be stopped by police, are more likely to die as a result of police violence, have lower life expectancies in general, have lower high school graduation rates, have lower college enrollement statistics, receive tougher prison sentences for similar crimes compared to white citizens etc etc etc, to focus on their own plight rather than that of folks who immigrated to the US? I think the answer is no. But, for what it's worth, while Black immigrants to the US are more likely to hold a batchelor's degree than African Americans, on average thet have lower paying jobs etc compared to the white population.

Your arguments frequently bring up the idea of variation - that some Black people might do well, as if this is evidence against a racist society. Variance is to be expected and does not negate effect. Would you only accept that structural racism exists if ALL Black people were poor, unemployed etc? That's not how effects work, as any practitioner of elementary statistics will attest.

I was actually just asking questions in my previous post. Admittedly the "A convenient omission...?" one was veering towards the sarcastic but i would have hoped it wouldn't have invalidated the first question - or the other ones in the post.

I don't think i am being intellectually argumentative (not for the sake of it, anyway). Right from the start of this discussion i made it clear that i thought the problems facing Black people in the US and UK were very complex, with many overlapping strands, and to view disparities in some areas and simply attribute them to structural and systemic racism due to the different colour of the skin was misleading - although i must stress that racial biases do undoubtedly occur at different times. My pointing out the differences in prospects/outlook etc of similar coloured people (i.e. Nigerians etc) is valid - and goes to show to some extent that the systemic and structural problems are also ones rooted within communities. Before you even think of typing it, this is not me victim blaming. The same problems you list above could also be applied to poor White communities both in the US and the UK. Loringa was correct in using the term underclass. The question is obviously how to change things and empower people and in general give people the knowledge and means of bettering their lives.

To that end the BLM movement is flawed. I'm not doubting the sincerity of the people who generally support the sentiment. But the movement was founded on a clever statement and has been expertly marketed. The top brass are basically Marxist nutjobs - it's worth watching interviews on Youtube or their website just to see how mental they are. Wanting to do away with the Western-prescribed nuclear family, demanding that certain White people give their homes, defunding the police etc etc. It reminds me in a sense of George Orwell's Animal Farm

[sejintenej]

Irish travellers and Romany Gypsies are two very different and distinct groups. The former have somehow managed to persuade the authorities that they are a distinct ethnic group but, in reality, they are just normal Irish folk, ie wholly white and entirely European. It is their lifestyle not their race that marks them out as 'different'. The latter, however, have undoubtedly suffered discrimination on the grounds of their ethnicity as well as their culture. In recent times the two groups do seem to have become identified in the media and by the public as one but they really are not, despite shows like My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding in which, as far as I could see, all the protagonists were Irish.

When the travellers arrive I, like all my neighbours, lock our gates and shut up our fields to try and prevent them occupying the land. They always seem to leave a terrible mess and it is my Council Tax that pays to sort it out. My dislike of their being in my village, however, has absolutely nothing to do with their ethnicity or the colour of their skin (I am an Irish citizen myself) and everything to do with how they behave. Individually I have no problem with them but as a group on 'my' playing fields or village green I just want them to go away. Is this prejudice; am I discriminating against a distinct group? Answers on a postcard please.

Although travellers are undoubtedly white and Irish, there is some genetic evidence that they represent a distinct ethnic subgroup of the general Irish population. A recent study https://www.nature.com/articles/srep42187 estimated the the most recent common ancestor for a sample of 50 travellers dated to some time between the Cromwellian invasions and the great famine. There is some historical and linguistic basis for believing that modern travellers descend from an ethnic group of Irish who have existed since at least 1000 CE and who travelled the country doing metal work (the origin of the name tinker). Their presence in the UK and US likely has roots in British interference in Ireland over the past 500+ years.

I knew about the genetics studies and am familiar with the reputation of travellers, but don't know much about anything else. According to that bastion of knowledge, wikipidea, the governments in the UK and Ireland have traditionally maintained land that is accessible to traveller communities but there is a complaint that these have become less numerous in recent times, leading to the increased use of public and private lands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Tra ... d_disputes.

Do we discriminate against a distinct group by locking our gates or wanting them to go away? It's a tricky one to unpack, isn't it? I think one could make arguments on both sides. To me, it seems that the bigger issue is the lack of accessible land for travellers. If travellers had access to suitable land for staying on while in the area and used that, rather than public land, would we feel the same way? If so, perhaps then we would need to confront our prejudices about a group with a distinct way of life to our own.

Firstly, gypsies claim to have originated in Egypt and come via Romania. I haven't seen any evidence for an Egyptian connection. OK so Romania does have a substantial gypsy population who are dispersed to France, the UK and no doubt elsewhere.
As regards Ireland, I had occasion to study some of the Irish origins. There seem to be six or eight separate groups of Irish. There is the ex-England contingent, those who arrived after the Scottish clearances, those from Spain in the far distant (and pre-Armada) times and others including vikings (some via Normandy in my case)
As is pointed out here, travellers have earned themselves a bad name, not by colour or language but by behaviour. In this way, to a certain extent they differ from black people.
I would go back to the suggestion that family origin has a very major effect on black and other (including white) people. Blacks, whether African, West Indian or US stem from ignorant people, often slaves. Their families started off in ignorance, not being aware of what was possible and often thus did not think that they could achieve anything. Poor whites in the US were taught that, with the end of slavery, blacks would work for nothing and take every little bit that the white poor had; hence the fear of black people.
When Britain imported coloureds from the West Indies it was to do the most menial jobs. Having been previously estate workers, close to slaves, they had no educational background.
So, we have a mix of poor coloured / black people, often feared or despised by whites with minimal education of understanding. It was few of them who pushed their children into higher education and success; the remainder believe(d) that they were being deliberately held down so became the potential criminals and underworld denizens. The same applies to many children of very poor, often unemployed, whites. Both groups have learned a manner of behaviour and speech which differentiates them from better educated and predominantly white people.

[Pe.A]

Irish travellers and Romany Gypsies are two very different and distinct groups. The former have somehow managed to persuade the authorities that they are a distinct ethnic group but, in reality, they are just normal Irish folk, ie wholly white and entirely European. It is their lifestyle not their race that marks them out as 'different'. The latter, however, have undoubtedly suffered discrimination on the grounds of their ethnicity as well as their culture. In recent times the two groups do seem to have become identified in the media and by the public as one but they really are not, despite shows like My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding in which, as far as I could see, all the protagonists were Irish.

When the travellers arrive I, like all my neighbours, lock our gates and shut up our fields to try and prevent them occupying the land. They always seem to leave a terrible mess and it is my Council Tax that pays to sort it out. My dislike of their being in my village, however, has absolutely nothing to do with their ethnicity or the colour of their skin (I am an Irish citizen myself) and everything to do with how they behave. Individually I have no problem with them but as a group on 'my' playing fields or village green I just want them to go away. Is this prejudice; am I discriminating against a distinct group? Answers on a postcard please.

Although travellers are undoubtedly white and Irish, there is some genetic evidence that they represent a distinct ethnic subgroup of the general Irish population. A recent study https://www.nature.com/articles/srep42187 estimated the the most recent common ancestor for a sample of 50 travellers dated to some time between the Cromwellian invasions and the great famine. There is some historical and linguistic basis for believing that modern travellers descend from an ethnic group of Irish who have existed since at least 1000 CE and who travelled the country doing metal work (the origin of the name tinker). Their presence in the UK and US likely has roots in British interference in Ireland over the past 500+ years.

I knew about the genetics studies and am familiar with the reputation of travellers, but don't know much about anything else. According to that bastion of knowledge, wikipidea, the governments in the UK and Ireland have traditionally maintained land that is accessible to traveller communities but there is a complaint that these have become less numerous in recent times, leading to the increased use of public and private lands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Tra ... d_disputes.

Do we discriminate against a distinct group by locking our gates or wanting them to go away? It's a tricky one to unpack, isn't it? I think one could make arguments on both sides. To me, it seems that the bigger issue is the lack of accessible land for travellers. If travellers had access to suitable land for staying on while in the area and used that, rather than public land, would we feel the same way? If so, perhaps then we would need to confront our prejudices about a group with a distinct way of life to our own.

Firstly, gypsies claim to have originated in Egypt and come via Romania. I haven't seen any evidence for an Egyptian connection. OK so Romania does have a substantial gypsy population who are dispersed to France, the UK and no doubt elsewhere.
As regards Ireland, I had occasion to study some of the Irish origins. There seem to be six or eight separate groups of Irish. There is the ex-England contingent, those who arrived after the Scottish clearances, those from Spain in the far distant (and pre-Armada) times and others including vikings (some via Normandy in my case)
As is pointed out here, travellers have earned themselves a bad name, not by colour or language but by behaviour. In this way, to a certain extent they differ from black people.
I would go back to the suggestion that family origin has a very major effect on black and other (including white) people. Blacks, whether African, West Indian or US stem from ignorant people, often slaves. Their families started off in ignorance, not being aware of what was possible and often thus did not think that they could achieve anything. Poor whites in the US were taught that, with the end of slavery, blacks would work for nothing and take every little bit that the white poor had; hence the fear of black people.
When Britain imported coloureds from the West Indies it was to do the most menial jobs. Having been previously estate workers, close to slaves, they had no educational background.
So, we have a mix of poor coloured / black people, often feared or despised by whites with minimal education of understanding. It was few of them who pushed their children into higher education and success; the remainder believe(d) that they were being deliberately held down so became the potential criminals and underworld denizens. The same applies to many children of very poor, often unemployed, whites. Both groups have learned a manner of behaviour and speech which differentiates them from better educated and predominantly white people.

European Gypsies originally came from India (Gujarat region) in around the 10th century - that's why they tend to look darker than general populations in Europe.

[graham]

My pointing out the differences in prospects/outlook etc of similar coloured people (i.e. Nigerians etc) is valid - and goes to show to some extent that the systemic and structural problems are also ones rooted within communities.

I was going to say it's not valid but, on reflection, I will say it is valid but makes my point.

What I have arguing is that systemic racism has prevented Black British people from achieving comparable representation in positions of power and wealth in the UK. I claim that systemic racism is complex and often unintentional. It manifests as underinvestment in schools and the local economy in predominantly Black areas, through gentrification and exclusion of Black communities, and through implicit bias in hiring, among many other things. It also manifests as increased likelihood of being stopped by police, of being subjected to police violence etc. What you seem to be trying to argue - please correct me if i am misinterpreting your perspective - is that Nigerian immigrants to the UK tend to perform well by general socio-economic criteria and, combined with the fact that there are poor white people, this invalidates the argument that systemic structural racism exists.

Now, you may be operating under a different definition of structural racism but, to be sure, the majority perspective is that this is not overt anti-black (or any other group) behavior but a combination of effects that serve to exclude specific groups from achieving comparable representation.

The problem with your Nigerian argument is that it doesn't hold up to any kind of detailed scrutiny for several reasons.

First, we're talking about immigrants. The briefest of searches reveals* that Black African immigrants to the UK are a diverse group of people but that geography tells us a lot about who they are likely to be. Nigerians represent one of, if not the, the largest group of immigrants into the UK from Africa. So under a completely random sampling, you're more likely to encounter successful Nigerian immigrants that, say, Angolan immigrants.

Second, West Africans are the group most likely to enter the UK holding a degree or other higher level qualification. The importance of this point is that these are folks coming to the UK with qualifications in hand. They have not been exposed to all of the structural issues that Black British people face.

Third, to make a fair comparison, look at immigrants from East Africa, where educational levels tend to be lower. These folks tend to not do as well as reflected by higher unemployment rates.

(*source for above information: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... jLPC0WwHp3)

In statistical parlance, what we have here an ascertainment bias problem. In plain talk, the immigrant sample is biased towards highly educated people to begin with, many of whom move to the UK for work in the first place.

The fact that well-qualified, Black overseas workers are actively recruited and are successful in the UK does not negate that structural racism exists for Black Brits. If your definition of structural racism is basically to assume that there is a plot to keep Black people out of jobs, then yes that might fly. But, as I have repeatedly tried to stress, with research to back it up where possible, the impacts of structural racism are felt by those who have to navigate the system from bottom to top. It is death by a thousand cuts, rather than a single swift blow. All those little impacts that you accept might be real accumulate to make it so much harder to do well and encourage folks to accept their lot in life before they can even get started. Some of those barriers exist for poor white people too, but not all of them. And that's why it's so much harder to make it when you're Black than it is when you're white.

To that end the BLM movement is flawed. I'm not doubting the sincerity of the people who generally support the sentiment. But the movement was founded on a clever statement and has been expertly marketed. The top brass are basically Marxist nutjobs - it's worth watching interviews on Youtube or their website just to see how mental they are. Wanting to do away with the Western-prescribed nuclear family, demanding that certain White people give their homes, defunding the police etc etc. It reminds me in a sense of George Orwell's Animal Farm

Here, your attempts to fashion reasoned arguments give way to conspiracy theories and ad-hominem attacks that do you a disservice. I don't really want to respond to it, except to say that the slogan has caught on precisely because it strikes a chord with many people and reflects an increasing sense of frustration with the barriers that people of color face both here and in the UK on a daily basis. The growing recognition of how ingrained systemic racism is and the desire among many to address it may have lead to a more widespread use of this slogan, but its bigger than the three women who coined the term now.

[Mid A 15]

No reasonable person of any colour or creed is going to dispute the ideology.

The conduct of the organisation taking that ideology as its name is open to debate.

[Spoonbill]

You men you will never have been shouted at in the street to "Show us your t*ts love"....

Er....actually....