|
Steve Palmer A regular visitor to the dimsum site, I find the articles interesting and thought provoking. Almost invariably they are informative. I have certainly been enlightened reading articles on police racism for example. What makes such articles work their magic on an Englishman like myself is that they are apparently well researched. Likewise articles like that on The Chinese and Racism by Jackson Tan have been honest and balanced.
Occasionally, perhaps in ones passion to have ones say, writers will write less well balanced pieces. Jack Tan certainly did that in his piece "Immigration On The Back Of A Lorry" where, discussing the deaths of 54 Fujian Chinese, he "put the blame squarely on the shoulders of English xenophobia." Indeed so unbalanced is the article that may say more about Jacks own xenophobia than in does about why those people died.
First we hear the story of Jacks grandmother going to Singapore at the turn of the century and facing no barriers to entry. This story seems to serve no purpose except to support his contention that immigration into Britain (and/or the British Empire) has only recently become the subject of controls. Of course it is not a recent phenomenon at all, the prerogative to prevent entry, or indeed to expel, people born here was always held by Monarchs. And not only English kings and queens, but Chinese Emperors too. These rights have been frequently exercised all over the world for centuries.
Jack also insists that the development of immigration policy has always, and only, been the product of xenophobia. Perhaps I should not expect Jack to be knowledgeable about British political history, but it would be reasonable to expect him to have researched something about how immigration policy in the Empire had developed, particularly as it relates to the Chinese. If he had he would be familiar with the "Chinese Slavery" issue that played a large part in bringing down a British Government at the beginning of the last century. Unfortunately space prohibits a full commentary on that issue, although I would recommend "The Last Years of Liberal England" by K W W Aikin (ISBN 0 00 327215 X) as a starting point.
The "Chinese Slavery" issue demonstrates quite clearly that at least two of Jacks contentions have no basis in fact. Firstly that immigration into the empire was uncontrolled. Secondly that immigration policy was made on the basis of xenophobia. For that reason I will outline the facts at least. This comes directly from the aforementioned book. The words in brackets are mine).
Milner, the British Commissioner in South Africa, had been anxious for speedy reconstruction after the Boer war. To meet a shortage of labour in the Rand mines, the mineowners, wishing to make greater profits, pressed Milner for permission to import Chinese coolies as cheap labour. Alfred Lyttleton, the Colonial Secretary, did not have the political standing to resist, and Balfours (The then Prime Minister) approval was obtained. Twenty thousand Chinese labourers had been imported by 1904, and 47,000 by the following year. The issue of "Chinese Slavery" aroused a great outcry. It was a perfect example of Balfour's failure to appeal to the middle ground in British politics and of his insensitivity towards the working class. His government seemed to be reasserting a commodity view of labour. If colonial capitalists were to be allowed the right to meet an industrial shortage of labour by importing "foreigners" then the precedent might be applied in Britain (this at a time when the working classes lived in abject poverty, with few if any rights, and were just beginning to organise politically). Furthermore, the coolies were not imported as "Freemen", but as indentured labour, which ensured they would work long enough to cover the cost of recruitment and transport (essentially the were enslaved for a period). They had to live in segregated compounds, which they were forbidden to leave for more than 48 hours at a time. They could neither settle, nor buy land, and were subject to a particularly harsh penal code. By the end of 1904 only two out of 27,000 labourers had their wives with them...
(The humanitarian conscience of many members of the middle class was outraged. Similar feelings amongst leaders of the newly formed labour movement and much of the working class, coupled with disgust at the re-emergence of the commodity view of labour caused a massive loss of support for the government. The unionist government went on to lose the 1906 election and the incoming Liberal Government passed laws to end "Chinese Slavery" in South Africa. The Chinese were allowed to bring their wives, buy land and settle).
As for immigration into Britain itself lets look at some historical facts. I was born in, and live in, East London. Back in the 1980's the British National Party gained two seats on a local council. Jack would no doubt take that as irrefutable evidence that racism was rife in this area. What he would choose to ignore are other facts:
Changes in political conditions abroad have been reflected with the successive waves of immigrants arriving off boats in London's docks beginning with the Jews in 1653 and the French Protestant Huguenot silk weavers in 1685. Between 1870 and 1914 thousands of Jewish settlers from Poland, Romania and Russia who fled to England to escape appalling economic conditions as well as virulent anti-Semitism and Tsarist pogroms. During the same period large numbers of Chinese settled in Limehouse, the original "Chinatown". By the 1930s the Jews had established themselves in Stepney, Whitechapel and Hackney. Whilst the Chinese had moved to Soho, the Jews moved out to the lusher suburbs of North London. The kosher butchers are now halal butchers. The synagogues have had minarets added to them and have become mosques. Ugandan Asians, Bangladeshis, Somalis and Vietnamese have taken their place, adding their culture to the area.
East London has always been, and continues to be, one of the poorest parts of the UK. Amongst the greatest of its long-standing social problems is a severe shortage of decent housing and it is hardly suprising that immigration is a sensitive political issue, but Jack should at least acknowledge that it is a complex one. But the history of this area, and much of the UK, is inseparable from the history of social change. That history, and particularly the Labour movement's contribution to fighting racism, is amply demonstrated by the story of the Battle of Cable Street.
As now, prior to the Second World War the East End was an area of great economic hardship and social deprivation. Housing remained a major problem the whole area was overcrowded with families living in slum conditions and unemployment was rife. Sir Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts stirred tensions resulting in the Battle of Cable Street which took place there on Sunday 4 October 1936. The East End area was a melting pot of races and cultures. London's Jewish population was around 183,000 of which 60% lived in the East End with 52% of those living in the Borough of Stepney. anti-Semitism increased in line with the deteriorating social conditions in East London and Fascism was rearing its head across Europe.
The British Union of Fascists (BUF) organised against the Jewish community, seeing them as the cause of all the problems, and of being part of a worldwide conspiracy of world domination as purported by the notorious forgery "The protocols of the Elders of Zion ".
In the spring of 1936 Oswald Mosely targeted the East End as a focal point for BUF activity. The intended fascist parade through Cable Street parade was intended as being a show of strength.
The Labour, Communist and Trades Union movement responded with a campaign to "fight against fascism". The battle of Cable Street showed that Mosely and his blackshirts that their brand of hate were not wanted. The battle is one of the most symbolic in English working class history.
Jack, like Mr Balfour, has been insensitive. He seems to believe that controlling immigration is in itself xenophobic. He does not do anything to acknowledge any of the genuine humanitarian reasons why controls developed, or why developed and developing nations have restrictions on immigration.
Jack may well be correct in thinking that early of British immigration laws were partly the product of xenophobia. He would certainly be correct if he were simply stating that racism exists, indeed is widespread in the UK. But that is not what he is saying, he is attributing the deaths of 54 people directly to what he appears to see as racist UK legislation, and for that I can find no justification.
A recent special report in Time magazine (3rd July) looked at illegal immigration into Europe. I use Time (An American publication with an international readership) as my source so to avoid any suggestion that by quoting European sources I show bias.
I quote some figures from the Time article:
- 1.3 Million immigrants in the EU got legal status in 1997.
- 17 Million legal immigrants were living in the EU in 1999.
- 3-5 Million undocumented aliens are currently living in Western Europe
- 300,00-500,000 undocumented aliens arrive in the EU every year.
Even the deaths on this truck are not unusual, they merely got an unusual amount of publicity. Four days before these deaths a Dutch organisation (United for Intercultural Action) announced that 2,000 refugees have died trying to get into Europe.
The Time article discusses how emigration culture is deeply embedded in Fujian province. Not because the people of that province are poor, indeed they are amongst the wealthiest in China, but because they can become wealthier in the west. The article also attributes rising numbers of illegal immigrants from China making their way to the UK to increasingly tough US immigration enforcement.
Moving on from the clearly inaccurate idea that people don't want to come here one might ask if British law is responsible for their deaths how might they have been treated if they had attempted to go elsewhere. Would they have been welcomed in say Singapore or Taiwan? Of course not, but I don't see Jack commenting on the Xenophobia of nations controlled by Chinese.
For a nation that is purportedly xenophobic the numbers of non white people in the UK is also suprising. At the last census the number of white people in the UK was 53,079,000 and non white was 3,663,000 (incidentally of those 166,000 were Chinese.
I am a fairly ordinary working class Englishman. During my time in the Army I saw action in the Falkland Islands. Of the 28,000 strong task force that sailed south in May of 1982, 253 did not return 9 of these were Asian, mostly Gurkhas from Nepal and Chinese Merchant.seaman, although one was a British born Indian. How many Chinese acknowledge or honour the sacrifice made by those men? Well I can honestly say that whenever I have attended any memorial service I have only seen Black and White people. We have not forgotten them, even though the Asian community appears to have.
I recently married my Chinese Malaysian wife and amongst our 22 guests were 1 Chinese Malaysian, 2 Indian Malaysians, 1 American, 1 Finn, 1 Swede, 1 Dutch, 1 Scot, 2 Welsh. My half Nigerian brother was working overseas, so couldn't make it. My belief is that immigration control is essential for the welfare of black, white, brown and yellow residents of the UK, as well the welfare of anyone migrating to this country. If Jack's theory is correct that makes me a Xenophobe. Perhaps I should not feel offended but, having spent a good deal of time and effort fighting racism, Jack has offended me. Britain is imperfect place, and certainly racism remains widespread, but far from being responsible for the deaths Jack discusses, millions of English people of many different races, can be justly proud of our heritage. Britain has a centuries old tradition of opening its doors to people from other nations and has done much to combat racism both here and in other parts of the world. Where I live the whites are the minority and I, like many Eastenders, am proud of our history of cultural and racial diversity, and of our well proven willingness to stand up for racial minorities even when their own nations will not.
Steve Palmer |
Viewpoints 
