Initially, the Britons were referred to as the white people by most states. This was due to the colonial power they possessed. The Second World War that took place between 1939 and 1945 saw Britain’s population of natives deteriorate. The war records high deaths of military soldiers who were protecting their country. Due to this war the superior commonwealth tyrant, Britain decided to fill the void by bringing in migrants since there were developments goals to be met. This paper will in-depth focus on the racial relationship that Britain had and still possess and outline the migration history of the country in detail. In the end, it will be clear if being purely white is equivalent to being Britton and give solutions to the racism state in Britain (Atkiston 2001).
In 1948 late June, Britain received 417 Jamaican immigrants. This was the first large-scale migration of colored immigrants as compared to the minimal migrations that Britain had gotten used to. The Second World War brought about a lot of destruction and need for rebuilding. As mentioned earlier, Britain was experiencing high rates of labor shortage. This problem could only be solved by importing human labor, hence the immigrants. The labor sought was that of poor or no skills at all. Britain had a well-established empire and labor was easy to get. The immigrants came from Far East, as far as India, Pakistan, even Africa, and the Caribbean. This is what has lead to the current multi-cultural and ethnic society in Britain today (Atkiston 2001).
There was too much immigration hence there were acts passed to ensure the races in Britain co-exist for better development. Identity crisis in Britain according to Atkiston (2001) can be attributed to the multi-ethnicity established by the immigration. There was much concentration on the development of skilled labor by the natives hence the unskilled labor was looked down upon creating mass shortages. The commonwealth countries received special status to allow migration into Britain. The type of labor they provided was considered a readily available source of staffing for the informal sector. The immigrants were given a chance to settle, work and gain entry into Britain with even their families. This was a good move since the immigrants would concentrate more on their work without worrying about their families being away and they would work extra hard to cater to the families’ basic needs.
Up until the 1960s there were no sanctions on the cross movements of immigrants into and out of Britain. From1960 and onwards, the first controls to bind the immigrants to the state were introduced. To ensure this an act was passed by commonwealth in 1962. As a requirement, any immigrant required a document known as a voucher. The voucher is somewhat an equivalent to the current visa pass. The vouchers were the entry pass into the queen’s land. The vouchers were grouped into three categories. The first was given to those that had obtained jobs already in Britain. These were immigrants who had already even identified where they were going to stay, their net income and industries they were to be. They had an easier time since they were already organized and bringing their families with them was no bother. The second voucher was awarded to those that had in their possession skills that would help Britain develop but had not identified or gotten jobs. The second category of immigrants was merely gamblers. They went into Britain hoping that their skills would be enough to secure them a lifestyle in Britain as soon as they got there. The third category was issued on a first come first serve basis. This housed immigrants whose importance to Britain in terms of labor was clearly not defined (Mason 2000). The third category of vouchers was done away with within 1965 by the labor sector once it came into power in the country.
The act then got even stricter regarding those who enter the British borders. There was developed a distinction between those that had a right to get into Britain and even reside and those that had no such rights. The acts stated that a UK passport holder had to have been both born and raised in the UK or have a lineage line like parents or grandparents who had UK as their native land. This law was passed by the commonwealth in 1968 as stated by Mason (2000). This act was the source of a principle known as patriality. The act’s aim was to ensure the old commonwealth states had a kind of right to enter the British lands at the same time depriving the new citizens of the same right. The states in consideration include Canada and Australia. This was the first form of racial discrimination in the British history. The Canadians and Australians were white people while the other immigrant states were made up of colored (Mason 2000a).
As the years went by the restriction got even tougher. According to Mason (2000b) in 1971, the act of Immigration made even more restrictions for those entering the British boundaries. The earlier immigrants that had gain British access in the early 1960s were now required to obtain a permit. This permit was known as a work permit that was issued after every 12 months to allow an immigrant to stay in the country. This was to totally get rid of the colored immigrants, it almost did get rid of all of them, and those that were planning to migrate into Britain.
There was an act in Britain known as the Nationality Act. The same act in 1981 declared that there were certain qualifications to obtain the British citizenship. This declaration was based on previous year’s acts that had drawn citizenship traits and expectations for a British child to acquire citizenship they had to have been born by natives or have satisfied the patriality expectation. The government of Britain in the 1960s had to restrain the immigration situation to ensure stability. A major reason for the restriction was the social strain that had started to exist. This social strain was due to an excess of immigrants in the previously native-dominated cities. The strains included education, housing and health care. “Labor government, during 1964-1970, called for stricter migration controls as well as introducing financial assistance to help with; education, housing and health services and various committees to provide support for Commonwealth immigrants” (kbristow01 2010).This was to ensure some form of justice and humane treatment for the immigrants. The labor government that was in power was overthrown by the conservatives who continued to ensure the immigrant as well.
There was a major shortage of quality housing since the demand for cheap housing was already too high (Atkinson 2003). There were more reasons now for even more contempt feelings from the natives since the immigrants were now getting at par with them. They viewed the natives as resource thieves. The natives were now being accustomed to the British lifestyle and they had begun working in the skilled industry. This created shortage of quality jobs for the natives who thought that quality employment was more of their rights. The demand for unskilled labor had taken a new turn and declined.
The reason behind the racial perspective was the way the Britons viewed themselves. According to Skellington(1992) , there were two Journalists namely Mike and Trevor who analyzed a letter to Clement Attlee by the labor government explain that the Britons viewed themselves as being more superior to the immigrants since they were the countries natives. Britain by then was a top state among its commonwealth states, creating a sense of ego in the Britons. The colored race of the immigrant was hance viewed as of lower value. This letter was a pointer to the racial state of Britain at the time, which was slightly after the Second World War. According to Anderson (2008), there are many ways racism can be deduced. The major one is a body type view. The racist in this case the racist will be quick to judge an immigrant based on the differences of the body parts. These differences often include the immigrant’s skin color, at times the texture of the hair, the masculinity and the differentiated sexual expression of the immigrant. These differences often vary due to geographical origin territories and cultural origins.
Marwick (1990) elaborates that: “The British were a xenophobic people…hoping for integration, let alone assimilation, was perhaps to hope for too much” (p. 43). The Britons had developed an isolative mentality whereby they held themselves in high esteem over the rest. There was racial chauvinism at the time, which lead to misunderstanding among the British inhabitants. “In the context of Britain’s race history, the last decade will be remembered for many historical events including the acknowledgment, by those in power, of both the existence and the impact of institutional racism on our society” (Jaichand 2003, par. 12). This means that there has been an interest in the British government to reduce racial prejudice among its inhabitants either natives or immigrants. The existence of committees that are always improving the policies is another indicator of the fight against racism and stereotyped treatment.
A pure white race is hard to trace since there has been a lot of intermigration which often leads to mixed racial backgrounds. The Queen’s land has now a wide range of different races. This became a major source of prejudice as stated by Canadian writer Pierre Berton racism is the enemy of freedom and deserves to be met head-on and stamped out. Currently there are still migrations into Britain taking place. People reside in Britain for education and working purposes. The government gives out visas for people to migrate into Europe.
In summary, there was a great immigration rate in Britain due to the “arrival of the Windrush with its carriage of 492 Jamaicans” (Mead, 2010). The immigrants were supposed to fill the shortage of labor in Britain. Having in mind that this was shortly after the Second World War, Britain had to start rebuilding its cities and industries. The commonwealth states and other countries ruled by the great British Empire were an ideal source of the labor that Britain required. The immigrants were allowed to move into Britain with their families as an incentive to work even harder for better living standards in the new Country. The immigration was too much to bear after a while to the point that Britain decided to set in restrictions. These restrictions came in form of vouchers. The vouchers were into three types for the employed, skilled but unemployed and those that wanted to try their luck in Britain. The immigrations brought about mixed ethnic inhabitants of Britain. The government in power was the labor government. It came up with acts to make entry into the country a little harder since the shortage was already sorted. The acts were also to help care for the immigrants in terms of healthcare housing and education. The natives were already displaying some form of racial resentment toward the immigrants since they felt that they were depriving them of their native resources. These resources were things like basic needs and quality jobs. The labor government was taken over by the conservative government that commenced with the implementation of fair policies to protect immigrants from prejudice and stereotyping by the natives. This was because the government had realized the need for the immigrants’ labor. After a while, the passports were made even more differentiated. With people who possess native connection with Britain getting an easier time than the immigrants do. There was also another mode of getting rid of the immigrants namely permits. The immigrant was supposed to renew their work permits annually. This caused a lot of re-migration to countries of origin by the immigrants. This was the beginning of a racial situation in Britain. According to Lester (1998) the government policies and acts were”…drafted too technically, and contains unnecessary exceptions and limitations.” There were many foreseen outcomes of the immigration and racism was not left out.
Having discussed the concept of the source of racism in Britain, I strongly recommend there be set more effective policies that will ensure racism is on the down-low in Britain. The natives should also learn how to value the immigrants since they also contributed to the making of Britain what it is today. Racial binders such as intermarriages should be practiced. This will cause the natives to either absorb or get absorbed into the many cultures that Britain houses. There should be no prejudice towards any citizen of immigrant. Equal opportunities in terms of jobs provisions and resource distribution should be presented. This will ensure that Britain takes advantage of all its resources. Adams (2000) a popular campaigner for the English region said that anyone who claims to be British only requires to be living in Britain and may also be working there. He also backed the idea to allow those that want to acquire British citizenship to be given leeway. This is more of a revolutionary perspective that Britain requires to make progress both socially and economically. The state has a great role in ensuring there is no sense of inequality. “The government has stated that it is committed ‘to creating One Nation’, a country where ‘every color is a good color … every member of every part of society is able to fulfill their potential… racism is unacceptable and counteracted … everyone is treated according to their needs and rights… everyone recognizes their responsibilities … racial diversity is celebrated’ (Bhikhu 2000). Through laws and incentives like funding families that adopt children of poor families most of the immigrant’s origin and educating the society on the importance of each diverse culture in Britain, the government will have made it easy for the races to coexist. Most of the poor people in Britain are of native origin as stated earlier and to ease racial prejudice the government and non-governmental organizations can also help by coming up with economic booming engagements to get rid of the poverty situation. According to Lester (1998), other sectors to improve on include healthcare and education that are a major challenge to the poor natives. It is therefore not correct to say that those that the pure white in Britain are the only ones who have the right to be Britons since the points against this phrase have been outlined well.
References
Adams, J., 2000.BBC News, “What is Britishness?” Web.
Anderson, E., 2008. Concepts of Race, Gender, and other Social Groups. Web.
Atkinson, J. 2003 British immigration policy, race relations, and national identity crisis. Web.
Bhikhu, P., 2000. The report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. Profile Books.
Mason, D. 2000.,Race and Ethnicity in Modern Britain. Oxford University Press.
Mason,D. 2000b. All chronology and details of the Immigration Acts. Oxford University Press.
Skellington, R., 1992. ‘Race’ in Britain Today’, Letter to Clement Attlee signed by eleven Labour MPs.London: Sage.
Why is immigration and asylum such a big issue in Britain? 2010. Web.
Lester A., 1998., Legislation to integration: Race Relations in Britain, London: Routledge.
Marwick A.1990.British Society since 1945, London: Penguin Books
Mead Matthew,. 2010. Empire Windrush Cultural Memory and Archival Disturbance. Web.
Jaichand, N., 2003. ‘The future of race relations in Britain’. Web.
Phillips, M. & Trevor, P., 1998. Windrush: The Irresistible Rise of Multi-Racial Britain, London: Harper Collins Publishers,.