The recently-published report of the UK’s government-appointed commission on racial disparities in Britain provoked precisely that kind of response from those with a vested interest in race relations being as bad as possible. For if despite everything, immigrants or people of immigrant descent, especially those of different races, are prospering and integrating well into society, there is no need of a providential class of academics, journalists, bureaucrats, and others to rescue them from the slough of despond supposedly brought about by prejudice and discrimination. Many a career opportunity would be lost if there were no systemic injustices of this sort to untangle. The commission (eight of whose members were of racial minorities) found that, in certain respects, the group that was most disadvantaged socially, educationally, and economically in Britain was the white working class—the children or grandchildren of those who once worked as labour, unskilled or semi-skilled, in industries that had become obsolete and had not been replaced by anything else. In fact, most ethnic groups were doing better than they, in some cases far better. Furthermore, the commission found no serious institutional obstacles to social or economic advancement for persons of ethnic minorities in Britain. It provided a large number of statistics to prove it. It was obvious from its reaction that only one finding would have satisfied the providential class, namely that ethnic minorities in Britain are now so mired in an oppressive neo-apartheid state that only a virtually totalitarian control over society by the providential class, from the imposition of quotas in employment to censorship of what is said even in private, could put things right: right, in this case, being an absolutely equal proportionate representation of all races in social, economic and health outcomes, both desirable and undesirable. Needless to say, such an outcome would require a large and powerful government apparatus to bring it about. That, on the contrary, the news was good was, for the providential class, very bad news. That prejudice and discrimination exist, the commission did not deny. Indeed, how could it? The chairman, Tony Sewell, aged 62, the son of Jamaican immigrants, remembers the days when racist insult, and worse, was commonplace. I had a patient, a cook in a hospital canteen, who arrived in England in the 1950s thinking it was the motherland, who found that many people would not eat the food she had prepared because she was black. Of course, many other stories could be told, some of them much more recent. But prejudice and discrimination can decline as well as increase; and, however undesirable they may be, they are not, within quite wide limits, inimical to social and economic advance. Notwithstanding the considerable prejudice against Indian refugees from Idi Amin’s Uganda (they held British passports, and so, reluctantly and with an ill grace, the country accepted its responsibility to them), they rapidly became the most prosperous demographic group in the country, even when they had arrived penniless. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞, 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐛𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬: 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬. 𝐓𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐚𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬. 𝐓𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐢𝐱𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.
Theodore Dalrymple