Welcome. This blog is both a review of (another) Report, and also picks up on its original and provocative proposals for ‘Net Zero’ racism by Windrush 100 in 2048. I have thrown in my ideas; please contribute yours.
Review of ‘Why the Windrush Matters Today’ , produced by Windrush 75 Network.
This is a downloadable 60-page document from the British Future think-tank, stimulated by this Thursdays’ 75th anniversary of the arrival at Tilbury of SS Windrush. It is an assemblage of facts, stories, events, and responding articles from leaders in business, education, football and museums.
The meat of the Report comes in two articles by Sunder Katwala, director of British Future. The first is on ‘State of the Nation: Where are we now on race in Britain’ (pp 20-27), drawing particularly on research done by Focaldata last March and April. The research he presents has an interesting pattern of starting with convergence between white British and ethnic minority people in Britain, before significant areas of divergence start to appear.
His opening sentence also summarises the theme of the whole Report: ‘Britain has come a long way on race in the 75 years since the Windrush arrived, but with much further to go to complete that journey to inclusion’. He expands this by saying that their research indicates that most people think that both these things are both true at the same time. Over the past 25 years fairly similar proportions ethnic minority people (68%) and the white majority (71%) are positive about the progress made – though 17% of black respondents and 10% from the white majority disagree. Divergence then begins to appear and as regards the next 25 years there is a larger gap – 80% of ethnic minorities and 64% of the white majority think ‘the UK needs to make much more progress on racial equality”. Along similar lines, 60% of ethnic minorities and 48% of the white majority agree that it is easier to get on in Britain if you are white.
In a section headed ‘Time for a better conversation about race?’ there is again convergence with a ‘broad public appetite for . . . one that is less heated, less polarised and more practical’ (p 22), along with the belief ‘that the political and media debate has become more divisive and polarised’. But there is less unanimity ‘as to whether we are talking enough, or too much, about race in Britain today’. The white British too much (42%) and too little (27%) is fairly closely reversed by ethnic minority perceptions – 23% too much, 40% too little, whilst black respondents had a stronger perception – 52% too little, 17% too much.
As regards the impact of Black Lives Matter protests on the conversation, divergence is indicated in that two-thirds of ethnic minority respondents approved, and half of Black British respondents strongly approved, as against 43% of white British people favouring the protests, a decline since 2020-21.
An original feature of the Report is raising the possible aim of ‘net zero’ on race and discrimination by ‘Windrush 100’ in 2048 – noting that in the polarised response to the Sewell Report future policy was largely squeezed out. White support for such a public aim was 65%, ethnic minority 71%, again with even stronger support from black respondents. But divergence appears with 45% of ethnic minority people thinking that if the goal was set it could be reached, but only 28% of the general public
A possible explanation of the divergence is that ethnic minorities were more focussed on practical, substantive goals as priority - 51% prioritised ‘a fair chance for people from ethnic minorities to get a job’. In comparison, for the general public the more ‘presentational’ issue of ‘Tougher rules on online hatred’ was at the fore as a priority. On the controversial issue of ‘Introducing an inclusive curriculum that tells the full story of Britain and Empire’ both the General Public and Asian respondents gave 38% support, the Black respondents 48%.
Perhaps the employment issue underlines the fact that ‘The Focaldata research shows the potential for a more productive and action-focused public conversation about race’, with a call for the political parties to be aware of this as a General Election draws close
The chapter’s conclusion that ‘every institution in Britain needs to become more confident in talking about race’ (having already noted that ‘there is big gulf between Black Britain, especially those who lean left, and Conservatives (especially older white Conservatives) on whether we need to talk more or less about race in Britain’, p 23) clearly raises for us the question of how churches might be enabled to promote a ‘better conversation’ as an issue that we should attend to , and where we need to seek out helpful resources.
Katwala’s second article takes up the proposal of ‘A vision for Windrush 100, targeting ‘net zero’ on racial discrimination in the next 25 years’ (pp 32-35). He astutely and appropriately divides the previous 75 years into three sections: ‘the contested story of arrival’ (1948-73); the ‘breakthrough for recognition’ (1973-98); and ‘challenge and contestation’ (1998-2023). The last section covering from the McPherson Report to the BLM protests of 2020 calls ‘for institutions to recognise the scale of the change needed to deliver on the promise of fairness and equal treatment in practice’. The Windrush centenary year of 2048 should therefore become ‘a lodestar year for race equality in Britain, to set the vision and ambition and provide a framework of how to get there’, to be supported by the institution of ‘regular, high-profile audits and an annual race equality summit’. One clear ambition is to remove the ‘structural unfairness’ of ‘ethnic-sounding’ names having been shown to reduce employment opportunities.
In this report British Future have given us a useful picture of the main contours of people’s thinking about race in Britain, and also an imaginatively framed challenge to think about what constructive approaches and policies are needed over the next quarter-century. If they have one eye on the ever-nearer next General Election, the challenge goes more widely across all institutions in our society, including the churches.
So, what might ‘net zero’ racism and discrimination mean for the church?’
Katwala concludes his challenge by asking ‘what needs to change in this next generationfor every sphere of our society to play their part in unlocking the full potential of a modern Britain, across every colour and creed, social class and generation’?
What do you think? Join in the conversation, and respond in the bubble at the end of the blog.
Here are some of my suggestions (with thanks to Rev Christopher Ramsay for help):
* Close working relationships with minority ethnic and diasporic churches, especially in areas of ministerial training; a mission strategy for England – both to the indigenous population and to share the gospel with every ethnic minority; and serious theological and ecumenical discussion.
* A resource centre for multi-ethnic ministry akin to the Rank Centre for Rural Mission, especially for training pre and post ordination; to be a focus for ‘institutional memory; and to be a centre for theological thinking about race and ethnicity.
* A focussed response to our major pastoral and evangelistic flaw – African-Caribbean men (and white working-class men?).
* ‘That he might create in himself one new humanity’ (Eph 2:15) is so worked into the lived experience of the church that different ethnicities flourish and contribute without any need for quotas or institutional policies.
* Jesus’ words in John 13:35 are publicly evident: ‘By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another’.
*****************
Add Ons.
‘Living Mission Interculturally’ by Anthony J Gittens is both a book, and the topic of a You Tube interview that is well worth watching. It is featured in the very worthwhile blog from Harvey Kwiyani ‘Mission. Decolonised.’ (harveykwiyani@substack.com)