Historian David Olusoga joins academic criticism of No 10's race report | Race | The Guardian
Broadcaster says report seems to want to brush history under the carpet, as others attack ‘distorted’ use of research<br>
Commission on Race & Ethnic disparities (Sewell) report
- Thread starter MrSki
- Start date
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Historian David Olusoga joins academic criticism of No 10's race report | Race | The Guardian
Broadcaster says report seems to want to brush history under the carpet, as others attack ‘distorted’ use of research<br>amp.theguardian.com
Clearly someone else who hasn’t read the report yet.
Yossarian
⏭️
From the last couple of hundred years of American history - and the governments they elect in the present day - would you say white Southerners consider class more important than race? America would probably have an NHS by now if it wasn't for this massive bloc of voters who believe social welfare programs will disproportionately benefit Black people they consider undeserving.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
I’d say read “They Say in Harlan County” by Alessandro Portelli and you’ll have your answer...
Yossarian
⏭️
Are the stories of white coal mining communities in the Appalachians applicable to the entire South? I'm not sure if Kentucky even fully qualifies as a Southern state, it was on the Union side in the Civil War.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
It’s not a story of white coal communities. It’s a story of a black and white community, and over a massive span of time black and white men and women talk about their lived experience - including slavery, racism, union struggles, community and culture - and what emerges is a rich and complex story of class and race.
It definitely answers your question, in the best way I’ve read because it emerges directly from the words and lives of people. The testimony of black miners and their families will particularly interest you.
Yossarian
⏭️
I'll put it on my reading list - the labour movement in that part of the US, especially Pennsylvania, is an under-appreciated part of history.
But the solidarity that happened there seems like an outlier, there is a long and ugly history of Republicans using racial resentment to make people believe that raising taxes to fund social programs means taking money from white people to give to Black people instead of taking from the rich to help everybody else.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
I’d highly recommend it. I’ll see if I can find anything that represents a useable overview in the meantime.
As for your second paragraph, it’s worth remembering that it was the Democrats in the south (the bourbon Democrats) that established political hegemony based on white solidarity and as a tool to prevent black and white worker unity. If anyone wants to understand how race as a consciously developed system of ranking, division and power was constructed then the history of the southern Democrats is a superb case study.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Haven't read to much yet of the criticism of the report. I have been looking at intro to it and some sections of it.
Yes it does come across as using the argument that family structures play large part in holding ethnic minorities back from progressing up the social ladder.
The idea of helping people to "get on" is assumed and not looked in the report.
There were aspects of report that I thought useful.
The report says term BAME should be dropped. It lumps together a disparate group of people. Ethnic minority is better term.
The report says geographical differences should be included. This is about "left behind" behind communities in coastal towns and the Northern old industrial regions.
I come from one of these ( Plymouth). Report points out that there is white minority in this country whose levels of deprivation are the same as some ethnic minorities. This in my experience is correct. Looking at stats at my home town and the Council ward deprivation is same as the my Council ward in Brixton. Which has large ethnic minority community.
The report does not go as far as saying this is class issue. Rather says that section of white population should be treated as ethnic minority.
Report also points out in most deprived areas if they have ethnic minorities they are proportionality more deprived than white residents.
Report is saying that deprivation is not straightforward. Partly why BAME no longer works as term. There are class differences within BAME group.
Deprivation affects some sections of white population and some ethnic minorities.
Report does not go as far as to say that some white communities ( my home town Plymouth) might have more in common with residents with large ethnic minority (my longstanding home Brixton) in class terms then is realised But at least acknowledges this as an issue.
Which goes on to the term White privilege which the report rejects as not helpful and divisive. Which I agree with.
Yes it does come across as using the argument that family structures play large part in holding ethnic minorities back from progressing up the social ladder.
The idea of helping people to "get on" is assumed and not looked in the report.
There were aspects of report that I thought useful.
The report says term BAME should be dropped. It lumps together a disparate group of people. Ethnic minority is better term.
The report says geographical differences should be included. This is about "left behind" behind communities in coastal towns and the Northern old industrial regions.
I come from one of these ( Plymouth). Report points out that there is white minority in this country whose levels of deprivation are the same as some ethnic minorities. This in my experience is correct. Looking at stats at my home town and the Council ward deprivation is same as the my Council ward in Brixton. Which has large ethnic minority community.
The report does not go as far as saying this is class issue. Rather says that section of white population should be treated as ethnic minority.
Report also points out in most deprived areas if they have ethnic minorities they are proportionality more deprived than white residents.
Report is saying that deprivation is not straightforward. Partly why BAME no longer works as term. There are class differences within BAME group.
Deprivation affects some sections of white population and some ethnic minorities.
Report does not go as far as to say that some white communities ( my home town Plymouth) might have more in common with residents with large ethnic minority (my longstanding home Brixton) in class terms then is realised But at least acknowledges this as an issue.
Which goes on to the term White privilege which the report rejects as not helpful and divisive. Which I agree with.
Last edited:
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Hang on? You are actually reading the report? The done thing at the moment is to at best skim the beginning and fire off an attack!
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Even though report lays a lot of emphasis on family structures it does say funding for education and early years should be found.
This was something that the New Labour governments got right. Surestart and other funding for early years. It is correct to say that money spent on early years education and activities will yield results.
The report puts forwards idea of lengthening school day. Not sure how well that would work.
Be interesting to see if this Tory government comes up with the cash. They cut a lot of New Labour good work in this area rather than building on it.
This was something that the New Labour governments got right. Surestart and other funding for early years. It is correct to say that money spent on early years education and activities will yield results.
The report puts forwards idea of lengthening school day. Not sure how well that would work.
Be interesting to see if this Tory government comes up with the cash. They cut a lot of New Labour good work in this area rather than building on it.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Unless the people you're friends with are like the CEO or something, then they're not the ones running the company. It costs nothing for the likes of Google and Apple to issue nice-sounding but strangely non-specific platitudes about how jolly nice it would be if people stopped being racist. But the moment you ask them something like say, "can I join a union?", that's when the knives come out.
Big Tech is no friend of the working class.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Page 88 to 92 of report goes into teaching of history. Entitled the Making of Modern Britain.
Some of it is uncontroversial. That the contribution of Commonwealth citizens to the world wars, post war rebuilding Britain and NHS should be taught to all. Mentions the Bus boycott in Bristol as something that should be on history curriculam. On culture the contribution of Commonwealth and Irish writers-culture is two way thing.
More concerning is what the report does not fully explain:
The report does not from what I've read explain what it means by narrow political agendas. Or how political neutrality would work. Im rather afraid it means what David Olusoga is criticising in his Guardian article.
www.theguardian.com
David Olusoga is taking remarks made by the Chair Andy Sewell to task. From Sewell introduction to the report. Rightly so. Sewell is supplementing/clarifying from his personal viewpoint what the section on education is really about. That is it is in opposition to "decolonising the curriculum". The actual report does not say this.
Its another example of how a report is going to be implemented is the issue.
My understanding of history is that its political. The teaching of it has to show the different ways that history is interpreted. Give pupils the tools to decide for themselves.
So history cannot be taught in neutral way.
Decolonising the curriculum covers several issues. One being that resistance to slavery and Imperialism by Black people has been under recognised and not taught.
The report needs to be read in conjunction to Andy Sewells political take on it. There are different ways to interpret the report.
Thing is its the intro that most will read.
Some of it is uncontroversial. That the contribution of Commonwealth citizens to the world wars, post war rebuilding Britain and NHS should be taught to all. Mentions the Bus boycott in Bristol as something that should be on history curriculam. On culture the contribution of Commonwealth and Irish writers-culture is two way thing.
More concerning is what the report does not fully explain:
The report does not from what I've read explain what it means by narrow political agendas. Or how political neutrality would work. Im rather afraid it means what David Olusoga is criticising in his Guardian article.
The poisonously patronising Sewell report is historically illiterate | David Olusoga
It condemns young people for doing exactly what it claims to support – exploring their ancestors’ contributions to British history, says historian David Olusoga
David Olusoga is taking remarks made by the Chair Andy Sewell to task. From Sewell introduction to the report. Rightly so. Sewell is supplementing/clarifying from his personal viewpoint what the section on education is really about. That is it is in opposition to "decolonising the curriculum". The actual report does not say this.
Its another example of how a report is going to be implemented is the issue.
My understanding of history is that its political. The teaching of it has to show the different ways that history is interpreted. Give pupils the tools to decide for themselves.
So history cannot be taught in neutral way.
Decolonising the curriculum covers several issues. One being that resistance to slavery and Imperialism by Black people has been under recognised and not taught.
The report needs to be read in conjunction to Andy Sewells political take on it. There are different ways to interpret the report.
Thing is its the intro that most will read.
PaulOK
Robin DiAngelo is my co-pilot
That as may be but it will dominate human existence in the decades ahead so I would find a way to make friends with it or at least find ways to use it effectively going forward.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Interesting edit you did there Paul. Perhaps people aren't stuck in the 20th century but rather in the same exploitative relationship with capital that is much older. If this is the case then the idea of 'making friends' with Big Tech is at best ill conceived and at worst straightforwardly dangerous.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
An issue with the reports view of teaching history is that it is based around Britain. I've been reading Paul Gilroy and one of the things he points out as mixed race person from Caribbean background is that this kind of history does not work for him.
For many Black people there history goes across nation States. A recent example of this was BLM in this country. It took off in US but young Black people here could see the connection between US and here spontaneously.
Its why Gilroy called one of his books The Black Atlantic.
So I'd say the report wanting an updated curriculum called the Making of Modern Britain is to narrow.
For many Black people there history goes across nation States. A recent example of this was BLM in this country. It took off in US but young Black people here could see the connection between US and here spontaneously.
Its why Gilroy called one of his books The Black Atlantic.
So I'd say the report wanting an updated curriculum called the Making of Modern Britain is to narrow.
PaulOK
Robin DiAngelo is my co-pilot
So what's your strategy for circumventing Big Tech, considering everybody, especially the young, are voraciously using it and if doing that was even desirable? Is the far left's resistance to it going to be anymore more successful than the steam rollering it has experienced at the hands of Globalisation in the past 40 years? Listening to Eric Schmidt at the WEF we are just at the start of a technological sea change in human history. We haven't seen anything yet.
Considering there will be no return to the factory whistle, mass Union membership and strike votes by raised hands in the Car Park (Strike days lost and union coverage are at historic lows) where is this resistance going to come from? The whole Corbyn project in the UK was essentially a yearning for the Past and look how that turned out. Compare that sorry mess with the success of the Democrats in America who built a far more successful class and ethnic coalition and will almost certainly be in power for the next 8 years (one term Presidents are a rarity). Also the BLM protests, aligned with the Democrat electoral strategy, was a winning formula. BLM had a massive impact on White college educated Suburban women who turned out for Biden in massive numbers.
In truth, Big Tech is a neutral platform or, on balance, a good thing for the broader Left. The most dynamic elements of the US Left are using it effectively and it played a major role our success last November. We should embrace it.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
I'm not going to engage with your various straw men - e.g. show of hands strike ballots, factory whistles, the 'Corbyn project'... - because I made no mention of them.
I can't offer you a solution to the ongoing depredations of capitalism; I'm one person posting a few lines in a virtual space. Moving beyond capitalism will necessarily be a collective endeavour, carried out in the physical (as well as the digital) world.
However, I am genuinely surprised by a couple of your assertions; assertions that push away from the merely ill conceived towards the straightforwardly dangerous.
Firstly, do you really see Biden's electoral victory as a win for the US working class? In what ways has it strengthened the ability of the US working class to recognise itself as such. identify its interests, organise and act in pursuit of those self-identified interests?
Secondly, do you really believe that Big Tech is a neutral platform? Where was the benign space and who were the benign actors who brought this extraordinary thing into being, magically unformed by any class relations?
It all seems a bit 'if wishes were fishes' sort of politics to me; understandable in the face of so many set backs, and even briefly alluring in a misty eyed kind of way, but not really up to the job in hand.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
I can't offer you a solution to the ongoing depredations of capitalism; I'm one person posting a few lines in a virtual space. Moving beyond capitalism will necessarily be a collective endeavour, carried out in the physical (as well as the digital) world.
However, I am genuinely surprised by a couple of your assertions; assertions that push away from the merely ill conceived towards the straightforwardly dangerous.
Firstly, do you really see Biden's electoral victory as a win for the US working class? In what ways has it strengthened the ability of the US working class to recognise itself as such. identify its interests, organise and act in pursuit of those self-identified interests?
Secondly, do you really believe that Big Tech is a neutral platform? Where was the benign space and who were the benign actors who brought this extraordinary thing into being, magically unformed by any class relations?
It all seems a bit 'if wishes were fishes' sort of politics to me; understandable in the face of so many set backs, and even briefly alluring in a misty eyed kind of way, but not really up to the job in hand.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
With all due respect it looks like she said this without having time to look at report.
Looking at composition of those who wrote this report they all are from BAME/ ethnic minority groups.
Last edited:
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Some of my best committee stooges are black...
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Some useful thoughts on the report from Kenan Malik. His key point - that like their critics, the report authors understand the key issues in cultural and identity terms rather than in class and political ones - is bang on:
kenanmalik.com
SO, WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE SEWELL REPORT?
Wassily Kandinsky, “Sketch for Several Circles” . This essay, on the report of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, was my Observer column this week. It was published on 4 Apr…
kenanmalik.com
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
I like how he problematises the use of ‘race’ as well - pointing out the problem in seeing ‘race’ as synonymous with ethnicity and skin colour as a social category
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
This analysis from comrade Knox will have you clenching your iron fist in agreement:
criticallegalthinking.com
Anti-racism, Materialism and the Sewell Report
One might be forgiven for thinking that the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities’ Report was released a day early. The Report’s
criticallegalthinking.com
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Eh
“Firstly, ‘racism’ appears here to be understood as a resulting from direct animus towards ‘ethnic minorities’. Here, the Commission essentially accepts the objective existence of separate races, ethnicities etc. and sees racism as concerned with discrimination against people who fall into these groups.”
“Firstly, ‘racism’ appears here to be understood as a resulting from direct animus towards ‘ethnic minorities’. Here, the Commission essentially accepts the objective existence of separate races, ethnicities etc. and sees racism as concerned with discrimination against people who fall into these groups.”
GarveyLives
Well-Known Member
Almost inevitably:
Tony Sewell to become a Lord
(Source: as stated in image)
"The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities' 246-page report claimed the UK “should be regarded as a model for other white-majority countries” because of the success of ethnic minorities in education."
Tony Sewell to become a Lord
(Source: as stated in image)
"The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities' 246-page report claimed the UK “should be regarded as a model for other white-majority countries” because of the success of ethnic minorities in education."
Similar threads
