White (British) Emigration from London

A BBC article from a month ago has been sitting on my tab for almost a month now, time to discuss! First, let me caveat by saying that the perspective I’m taking here, white British departing London is dictated by the article, not the data. Were I to do a more thorough look I would also like to know who is moving into these areas. So keep in mind this is only half the story. Overall I like this article and slick use of graphics, but I find its message a bit propagandistic – its not a story of “white flight”, “its a story of aspiration. A story of success.” Give me a break. I agree that we might not be dealing with “white flight” in the textbook definitional sense. According to dictionary.com, white flight (coined sometime between 1965 and 1970) referred to the movement of whites, especially middle-class whites, from neighborhoods undergoing racial integration. A more general definition is the movement of whites from areas where non-whites are settling. The second definition has the added quality that we can use it outside the context of a civil rights movement, since “racial integration” is obvious allusion to that. However, the article itself doesn’t really discuss the concurrent settlement of non-whites in those boroughs of London from where whites are departing so I think its difficult to call this not white flight by only providing half the data.

At any rate, there are additional points the article mentions that are worth repeating. First, and this isn’t really discussed much in the article, is the finding that while the British white population group is mostly declining in the “poorer” suburbs surrounding the central city, the proportion of whites is increasing in Inner London (coded blue in the map). This should sound familiar to my American readers, commonly called “gentrification”, the increase in urban whites has been noted since the late 1990s I would suppose. In Washington D.C., “immigrants” (who arrived in the city decades ago) are the ones moving to the suburbs as economics and family life permits. Taking their place in the city are richer, younger, white families. I would imagine that a similar process is ongoing in British cities. The article hints at this with a qualitative study of one surburban London neighborhood (Barking and Dagenham) noting that whites have left and replaced by black African migrants.

Another point worth highlighting is the depth of understanding the Barking and Dagenham borough. The article provides a political, economic, and social history of the neighborhood, which provides a sense of where and when it came from. This is a great example of the Kantian view of geography and history being intricately linked. Of course, the article does take the analytic leap with this history. It points out that the borough had a natural economic engine and lifeline, a Ford Motor Company plant, that subsequently closed. Now that whites are leaving and the main economic engine gone… well, what do you think will happen? More people will have commutes and for larger immigrant families with children finding care will become difficult among single families homes, though many may have relatives also living at home. There’s also the little variable of the poor economic environment, as a city well-integrated into the global economy (if not the most integrated city) its population is most susceptible during the global recession. Of course, not all population groups are created equal and the poorest classes in London are the ones most at-risk of un- or under-employment. Sadly, the article doesn’t take any of this into consideration.

The article gives the impression that these white Britishers moving away are primarily older families. Most bought their “council estates” (in the United Kingdom and Ireland this is a form of “public housing”) as they were entitled to do at 30% of its market value. They’re now flipping (to borrow the American term) these three-bedroom houses (selling at market value, presumably) and using the proceeds to buy much larger estates in the countryside. Again, what is left unclear is if these council estates are still, in fact, public housing and thus being sold to the new “owners” who pay 30% of the market rate while the government picks up the rest of the tab. Or if they are now private houses (the article suggests the latter) being sold to immigrant families. If its the latter that’s a pretty bad break for the immigrants who now enjoy the “privilege” of paying substantially larger mortgages without government assistance, and earning the ire of lower class British whites for “taking jobs” and living off “government money.”

A final point isn’t unique for the European context but interesting for the U.S. This white flight in the United Kingdom isn’t really a “white flight” its a British white flight, while the example used was a borough witnessing black African migration, a large part of the overall story are “other white” immigrants, mostly from Eastern Europe. In a sense this is a repeat of the early/mid-1800s Irish and German migration to the United States. While these immigrants were “white”, and even acknowledged as such, they weren’t exactly welcomed. The picture below, a great candidate for a geopolitical cartoon post (but alas!), drives this point home perfectly for the American context. It compares the experiences of blacks enslaved in the American South (labels above the scale) with Irish immigrants in the American North. Of course, I can’t read the caption on the bottom so I don’t know what the cartoon is really saying is equivalent. Irish immigrants could own property, were free to move about, seek different employment, and earn wages. They even fought in the Civil War. American Blacks, not so much.

Social equivalence? American Blacks and Irish immigrants, ca. 1850s (via darienps.org)

So I wonder about this BBC article, the message is too rosy for reality. Sometimes its worth remembering what’s not said in an article and disregarding what’s said. Yes, this is partially a story of economic advancement and the attainment of the Anglo-American dream, but the article did not convince me that wasn’t also white British flight.


3 thoughts on “White (British) Emigration from London

  1. Many American blacks DID fight in the Civil War (on the Union side, of course!), and although Irish immigrants also fought, (and probably in greater numbers) they were not too happy about it, as a rule – remember the 1863 Draft Riots (race riots) in New York City, where numerous black people were lynched and otherwise set upon because of White (mainly Irish) resistance to the Union Draft, the war being fought, from their point of view, to help free the black slaves. The Irish believed that freed blacks were not going to help their own employment opportunities. There was a lot of bad blood between the Irish and the free blacks in the north at that time. They took it out on the Black people because it was their “fault” that there even WAS a Civil War. Wealthier Whites could buy their way out of fighting in the war. Sometimes by paying a poverty-stricken Irish immigrant to fight in their place. The Irish-Black clashes of the time were just another instance of the oppressed oppressing the even more oppressed.

    And although the cartoon makes the point that the Irish and the Blacks were somehow equivalent, the Irish did have many more freedoms, as you noted. However, the recent Irish immigrants were seriously looked down upon by longer-established Whites, and often did have a hard time finding work (“No Irish Need Apply”) and lodgings (“No Niggers, Irish, or Dogs” being a common addendum to For Rent advertisements), and worked at the worst, dirtiest, and dangerous jobs, often right alongside the black workers. Indentured servitude was still practiced, Irish immigrants were often bondsmen and women, held in virtual slavery themselves, and since many Irish immigrants were illiterate as well as many being Gaelic-as-their-first-language speakers, they really were relegated to 2nd class status for quite a few generations. But there’s the difference. They eventually were able to get out of their lowly condition because they were white, after all, and could inter-marry with more accepted and affluent White populations and eventually blend in. They could get well-educated, whereas these options were not as available to Black people. Black people were (and are) still discriminated against based on skin color and find it more difficult to move on up.

    PS – re: Dagenham, check out the movie “Made in Dagenham” (maybe released about 2009 or 2010?) about a strike at the Ford factory there in the 1960s by the “unskilled” women workers. Great soundtrack, and a nice slice of life of the times in working class England.
    And yes, the council housing that has been offered for sale to the residents becomes private property when bought by them, but the council still owns the non-bought housing, making for all sorts of problems in these estates, as you can imagine, when some of the residents are owners and the others are still living in “public housing.” Many of the purchased units haven’t been kept up as well as the public units (which are maintained by the council) because the residents can’t afford to do so after having spent all their money on down payments and mortgages, costing lots more than the subsidized rents of the council flat residents. Not a smart move, that. Privatization policies rarely are.

  2. As a coda to the above comment, I stand corrected when I stated that probably more Irish Americans fought in the Civil War than Black Americans. Actually, the reverse seems to be true, at least on the Union side. After I wrote the above comment, I was curious myself about the relative numbers, so I did a little Internet investigation. About 180,000 Black Americans (both free and freedmen) fought in the Union Army (which made up about 10% of their total forces) and only about 150,000 Irish Americans fought for the Union. Many of these were likely relatively recent immigrants, or within one generation of the Irish Famine of the 1840’s, which propelled so many Irish to the US. These Irish immigrants (and many other immigrants, for that matter) tended to gravitate towards the larger northern cities rather than the more rural south, with a few notable exceptions like the large numbers of Irish (and others) who ended up in New Orleans. And although there were many people of Irish and Scots-Irish heritage who settled in the southern colonies during the 18th century and before, and surely many of them fought in the Civil War, they were probably not the recent immigrant Irish. Many of the Black American soldiers who fought in the Civil War became the famous Buffalo Soldiers of the later 19th century, fighting in the Indian Wars and and various other conflicts, including the Spanish American War of 1898, as well as being utilized as some of the first National Park Rangers.

    • Map Monkey, thanks for your insightful comments – I do appreciate them (all of them!). Point of clarification: I should have put the “not so much” comment after the owing property, wages, and freedom of movement. The way its written its as if I suggested that American Blacks didn’t fight in the Civil War – they most definitely did, thanks for the correction. And I think you’re quite right, overcoming racial and ethnic discrimination will be a long process for every state and society, while there’s isn’t many examples of overt discrimination, there are plenty of prejudiced folks and an enduring cycle of “underdevelopment” (to borrow that word) limiting opportunities for a variety of population groups. I find the evolution of U.S. anti-immigrant nativism fascinating, first it was the Germans, then it was the Irish, then the Italians, then Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Indians. And thanks again for reading!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s