Immigration: increasing diversity

By Richard North - December 1, 2022

In 2021, according to the latest census figures, 81.7 percent (48.7 million) of usual residents in England and Wales identified their ethnic group within the high-level “White” category, a decrease from 86.0 percent (48.2 million) in the 2011 Census.

As part of the “White” ethnic group, 74.4 percent (44.4 million) of the total population in England and Wales identified their ethnic group as “English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British”. This is a continued decrease from 80.5 percent (45.1 million) in 2011, and from 87.5 percent (45.5 million) who identified this way in 2001.

The next most common high-level ethnic group was “Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh” accounting for 9.3 percent (5.5 million) of the overall population. This ethnic group also saw the largest percentage point increase from 2011, up from 7.5 percent (4.2 million people).

Across the 19 ethnic groups, the largest percentage point increase was seen in the number of people identifying through the “White: Other White” category (6.2 percent, 3.7 million in 2021, up from 4.4 percent, 2.5 million in 2011).

Large changes were also seen in the numbers of people identifying their ethnic group as “Other ethnic group: Any other ethnic group” (1.6 percent, 924,000 in 2021, up from 0.6 percent, 333,000 in 2011), and “Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African: African” (2.5 percent, 1.5 million in 2021, up from 1.8 percent, 990,000).

In England and Wales, 10.1 percent (2.5 million) of households consisted of members identifying with two or more different ethnic groups, an increase from 8.7% (2.0 million) in 2011.

In response to these figures, one Telegraph wag in the comments section wrote: “I’m surprised to see that there were only 2.5 percent identifying as “black” reported in the census”. From watching TV ads, he added, “I got the impression it was 100 percent”.

Nevertheless, Jon Wroth-Smith, census deputy director, nails it. Cited in that article on which our wag commented he says that the data “highlights the increasingly multicultural society we live in. The percentage of people identifying their ethnic group as “‘White: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British’, continues to decrease”.

Allowing that “white” remains the most common response to the ethnic group question, Wroth-Smith adds: “the number of people identifying with another ethnic group continues to increase”.

However, there is no gainsaying the fact that in 2001, 87.5 percent (45.5 million) identified their ethnic group as “English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British” and, last year, that percentage was down to 74.4 percent (44.4 million).

In absolute terms, this represents a drop of 1.1 million, but the percentage drop of 13.1 reflects, amongst other things, the earlier census release. This reported that one in six “usual residents” of England and Wales were born outside the UK, an increase of 2.5 million since 2011, from 7.5 million (13.4 percent) to 10 million (16.8 percent).

Any which way you put it, in absolute and proportional terms, the indigenous population of England and Wales is decreasing, leading to a more diverse population. And there are strong regional disparities. According to the Telegraph, London is lost, with the white British population dropping to 37 percent.

For some, this is to be celebrated, with the Guardian publishing a piece headed: “‘Diversity is a beautiful thing’: the view from Leicester and Birmingham”, cities where the non-white populations are now the majority, making up 59 and 51 percent of the respective totals.

Unsurprisingly, the “diversity is a beautiful thing” quote comes from Sukh Johal, owner of a vegan cafe in Leicester which employs staff from South Korea, Turkey, South Africa and Thailand.

This is the city, incidentally, which was recently dominated by street violence between Hindus and Moslems over several days, in which 48 people were arrested.

This might lead some people to observe that this “diversity” isn’t such a beautiful thing after all but, whatever the view, no one can deny that the character of the city, and many towns and cities in England and Wales have been changed beyond recognition. Many would argue that this is not for the better.

It is a feature of the changes in the structure of our society, however, that adverse – or even critical – comment on the increased diversity is frowned upon, at least in public and in many institutions as well as the media. Commonly, it is branded as “racist” and even a “hate crime”.

The increased diversity, therefore, has brought with it an Orwellian situation where the indigenous white, and declining population is either censored or forced into self-censorship.

Unless prepared to accept strident condemnation from a variety of sources, it is not allowed to remark openly on years of immigration policy which has led to a situation which was never asked for or endorsed by those who were there when the borders were opened, seemingly to all comers.

Nor is one allowed to remark freely on the adverse consequences of this structural change in society: the crime and disorder and street violence; the increase in the drugs trade; the stress on infrastructures and the costs and difficulties of dealing with “needy” communities which have failed to integrate and represent a continual drain on public resources.

Most of all, there is a feeling that one is not allowed to say, or even feel, that this onrush of diversity is not a good thing, that the white British population is being forced to accept too much change, too quickly, and that their concerns are being suppressed. No mention of a downside to diversity is permitted – it must be actively applauded as an unalloyed good.

For an executive in a public position to comment adversely on diversity is immediately condemned as “inappropriate and unacceptable”, with potentially career-ending consequences.

To cause “trauma” with hurty words to a person of ethnic persuasion is a sin without redemption, no matter how high you may be, while there is no greater crime for an organisation than for it to be branded as “institutionally racist” – unless, of course, this is spiced with sexism and “homophobia”.

These days, though, one is not even allowed to mind one’s own business, and retreat into a private world which is not dominated by the pervasive examples of diversity. The Telegraph commenter might have been flippant in remarking about TV ads, but it is definitely a feature of contemporary adverts that they display a disproportionately high number of ethnic actors, mostly blacks.

Even away from the television, there is no escape from this multicultural gaslighting. Most of us are aware of the botched attempt by Amazon to diversify Tolkien’s work, with its Rings of Power but even the energy crisis is not immune.

I have now assembled a collection of well over a hundred letters from my energy supplier, EDF. Only one of those letters has a picture on it – a prominent photograph of a man looking at a laptop – a black man.

The letter is headed: “Here to help with rising energy prices”, which is a lie anyway. But what is the message that the company is trying to send me with its picture? That only black people, 2.5 percent of the population of England and Wales, get help? What about the Asians, at 9.3 percent?

The thing is, they’re all at it. Go to the National Grid website for October’s Winter Outlook Report and you will see it dominated by large picture of a black lady, apparently engaging in a Zoom conference.

One might ask what possible relevance that picture has to the state of the electricity industry this winter, but don’t bother. Such images seem to be part of an attempt to acclimatise us to an increasingly diverse society, normalising a situation that doesn’t yet exist, but which is getting closer to reality by the day.

In 1964, before multiculturalism in England had reared its head – despite the BBC’s attempt to inject diversity into our historical timeline that simply didn’t exist – there was a book published under the name of Winston Churchill, entitled “The Island Race”. It is a celebration of his history of the British, white British, whom Churchill quite openly regarded as a race, and a race apart.

To celebrate our unique distinctiveness as a white race is clearly no longer permitted. It is regarded as the very embodiment of racism. But to celebrate the dilution of our heritage by the onslaught of other races, it seems, is not only encouraged, but almost compulsory.

If we continue the trajectory identified by the 2021 census, to which figures must be added another million immigrants this year, it will not be long before there is no distinctive island race. And to mourn its passing will be a hate crime.