The worst news from England in quite a while

[fpb]

While 20% of white people between 16 and 24 years of age are unemployed - which is bad enough - 48% of blacks are. Whatever the reason, and whether or not anything can be done to correct it, that means bad trouble to come. And more to the point, there is something essentially wrong with it. A fair society should not put up with a whole section of it being unable to access employment.

Comments

[sanscouronne.livejournal.com]

I found this from the first article linked:
"In terms of individual groups, 48% of black people, 31% of Asians and 20% of whites reported that they were out of work."

Correct me if wrong, but I believe that Pakistanis are classified as Asians.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Makes sense. Of course, by smooshing together Chinese, Indians and Muslims into one group, they lose most of the meaningful information, since the three groups have very different work ethics.

[sanscouronne.livejournal.com]

Obviously done for purposes of political correctness, and I agree. What makes Chinese and Pakistanis more alike than say, Pakistanis and Moroccans (I wonder how they are classified)? Originally sharing the large continent of Asia?

[panobjecticon.livejournal.com]

morocco is north africa! most of the answer are linked from here http://www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/measuring-equality/ethnic-group-statistics/index.html

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You misunderstood sanscouronne, who has a postgraduate degree in international relations. What she said is: Is it "originally sharing the large continent of Asia" that "makes Chinese and Pakistanis more alike than, say, Pakistanis and Moroccans?" In other words, Pakistanis and Moroccans, though from two different continents, are probably more like each other than Chinese and Pakistanis, though the latter share the continent of Asia (and, indeed, a short stretch of mountain border).

[sanscouronne.livejournal.com]

Indeed, that is what I meant. Thank you for clarifying it for me. :)

[panobjecticon.livejournal.com]

i don't suppose it was more than a passing fancy?

[panobjecticon.livejournal.com]

actually, i didn't misunderstand. other than a brief comment to hint that i thought it pretty irrelevant, i chose to ignore it. ethnicity is one of the very few aspects one's identity that is beyond change. your coments above and that some ethnic groups really are overrepresented (for whatever reason) in areas of social control (mental health, criminal justice) and suffer unemployement and poverty, suggests that the classification system *should* inform and have policy, potentially legal and service delivery implications on a quarterly basis, rather than be considered political correctness.

hence i posted a link to enable all, of those whose ancesters walked also from the rift valley some 70 to 120-odd thousand years ago, to understand that, here, chinese aren't asian - they're chinese, japanese, moroccans (berbers), americans and afghanis are other, asians are indians, pakistanis and bangladeshis (who really do suffer, incidentally), and none of them are muslims for the purposes of the labour force survey. one probably shouldn't forget the irish, the poles, the italians or eastern europeans either... *sigh*

[panobjecticon.livejournal.com]

see the link below