‘White privilege’ may dominate the debate over underachieving poor white pupils, but it misses the real culprit
By Dr Lisa McKenzie | RT | June 22, 2021
A new report by MPs highlights the neglect of Britain’s ‘forgotten ethnic majority’ – white working-class children – and recommends actions to help them. But it stops short of addressing the root cause.
Six years ago, I was asked to be an expert witness in the House of Commons for the Women and Equalities Select Committee. It was a fact-finding panel in order for the committee to think through class inequality in Britain, and I was more than happy to contribute.
I was one of four witnesses and the only working-class one – the only one in the room who had experienced class prejudice and class inequality and could speak to that – and answer questions such as what does it feel like to be working class in Britain today, and what are the consequences of that? The committee was interested in whether people’s social class should be added to the list of protected characteristics; meaning that being treated differently or being discriminated against because of your class would be against the law.
The list of protected characteristics includes age, disability, race (including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin), religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
Yet social class is still not included. It means, in effect, that the working class in Britain can be treated differently and unfairly, and deeply-held class prejudices can be acted upon. This consequent discrimination against working-class people can go unchallenged, be ignored, and remains mostly unseen as if it were normal – which it is, all day and everyday.
Another report out today also addresses social class in Britain, this time commissioned by the House of Commons Education Committee, this time about a particular group they call the ‘forgotten’ and ‘the left behind’ – poor, white, working-class pupils.
Entitled ‘The Forgotten: How white working class pupils have been let down and how to change it,’ the report argues such children are underachieving within the education system, even behind other working- class groups from ethnic minorities. This group – termed the ‘ethnic majority’ – comprises around one million pupils.
The report uses free school meals as the marker of how to define class in the UK. In England, children living in households on income-related benefits (such as universal credit) are eligible for free school meals (FSM), as long as their annual household income does not exceed £7,400 after tax, not including welfare payments.
The British establishment has always made a dog’s dinner of food, no wonder it’s made such a hash over free school meals. It is a very basic and rudimentary measurement, but often used by researchers and academics in order to show a definition of class in Britain. The report notes that poverty cannot fully account for the educational underachievement by the white working-class pupils, arguing that all working-class people of whatever ethnicity are economically disadvantaged and, despite this, it is the white pupils who consistently do worse.
The end game for the report is to look at the numbers going on to university or further education: only 16% of the white FSM cohort do so, compared to 21% of mixed-race FSM pupils and 31.8% of Black/African/Caribbean ones – although the report also notes that these last two groups are more likely to be excluded from school and to drop out of university. And all working-class students are more likely to be found in lower-ranked universities and least likely to be found in elite Russell Group universities.
The report is more than 80 pages long and comprehensive, with over 40 conclusions and recommendations – that address geographic differences, the quality and inequality of primary and secondary education, the lack of decent employment in specific areas, and the failure of blanket investment in students across the country rather than a more targeted approach on specific communities.
Probably the issue that will be most seized-on is the one page that addresses the term ‘white privilege’, a concept which the report argues has been unhelpful to white working-class children and has led to them being neglected. It suspects that, in some cases, it has allowed a lack of empathy and care when looking at this group’s particular disadvantages.
Although most of the report lends itself to looking at geographical inequalities, in particular the London and the South East effect, where all children’s educational attainment has been raised. This area has a culture of investment and success, as opposed to parts of the country that have suffered de-investment for decades – poor, de-industrialised communities, where large warehousing industries have set up as the only work in the area. The sorts of places and people I have written about many times on these pages.
And, of course, there is the obligatory acknowledgement that no one’s identity means that they have certain characteristics that lend themselves to under-attainment – yet the ‘aspiration’ word and the lean-in on working-class culture make an appearance. The familiar turns of phrase that are loaded with class stigma, class prejudice and victim-blaming.
The ‘left behind’ narrative that runs throughout the report has a common theme: that white working-class people are somehow to blame for their predicament because of their backward culture, their Brexity nostalgia for a past where their lives were better without ethnic minorities, and for refusing or being unable to keep up with the rest of the country’s progress. This narrative suggests it is at least some of their own fault. Yet there is nothing in this report which implicates the power relationships between classes and the calamitous effects of that. At the risk of repeating myself over and over again, the British class system is one that unfairly advantages the middle class and, equally and unfairly, disadvantages the working class.
Despite only one page on ‘white privilege,’ the report is undoubtedly going to attract headlines – it is a phrase that causes outrage on both sides of the argument. Lots of political capital will be flexed as the ‘culture warriors’ go out to bat for their own side.
One group will insist that white people are losing out to a politically correct wokeness that values social justice over the ‘facts’ shown in this report and will take it as evidence that ‘white privilege’ does not actually exist – while the other side will rubbish the report, looking for holes and inaccuracies, and will insist that ‘white privilege’ is real and should be recognised and apologised-for by all white people.
These arguments will be played out on social media, almost exclusively by people who have not ever negatively experienced the deep inequalities of the British class system and who are safe in the knowledge that their own children will never be written about and spoken about in this way.
Most of today’s political outrage will come from people who have experienced the British class system, but will not recognise it because of their own middle-class privilege and their own easy access to those unfair advantages that can always be passed off as a result of ‘talent’ and hard work – rather than the in-built advantages they have been given from birth.
I welcome today’s report because it raises the issue of class in Britain, but I hope soon for a different one. One perhaps entitled, ‘The invisible advantages of the middle class,’ with 40 recommendations aimed at stopping and preventing middle-class families gaming the education system, scoping the geographical areas for the ‘right place’ for their children to go to university, to get internships and decent, well-paid jobs, and to play a system that they and their forebears created for themselves.
At the very least this current report should have swayed just a little from the usual platitudinous recommendations of ‘levelling up,’ ‘left behind,’ ‘more aspiration’ and ‘better parenting,’ and added one more key recommendation: that social class should be put on the protected characteristics list, allowing all working-class people to be given the chance to call out and challenge class discrimination on their own terms.
Dr Lisa McKenzie is a working-class academic. She grew up in a coal-mining town in Nottinghamshire and became politicized through the 1984 miners’ strike with her family. At 31, she went to the University of Nottingham and did an undergraduate degree in sociology. Dr McKenzie lectures in sociology at the University of Durham and is the author of ‘Getting By: Estates, Class and Culture in Austerity Britain.’ She’s a political activist, writer and thinker.

DUTCH JEWS AND THE WHITE SLAVE TRADE
In the British West Indies much of the early capital to finance White slavery came from Sephardic Jews from Holland. They provided credit, machinery and shipping facilities. In the 1630s Dutch Jews had been deeply involved in the enslavement of the Irish, financing their transport to slave plantations in the tropics. By the 1660s, this combination of Jewish finance and White slave labor made the British island colony of Barbados the richest in the empire. The island’s value, in terms of trade and capital exceeded that of all other British colonies combined. (John Oldmixon, The British Empire in America, vol. 2, p. 186.)
Of the fact that the wealth of Barbados was founded on the backs of White slave labor there can be no doubt. White slave laborers from Britain and Ireland were the mainstay of the sugar colony. Until the mid-1640s there were few Blacks in Barbados. George Downing wrote to John Winthrop, the colonial governor of Massachusetts in 1645, that planters who wanted to make a fortune in the British West Indies must procure White slave labor “out of England” if they wanted to succeed. (Elizabeth Donnan, Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America, pp. 125-126. In Hoffman, They Were White and They Were Slaves p. 12.)
From their experience with rebellious Irish slaves, Dutch Jews would eventually be instrumental in the switch from White to Black slavery in the British West Indies. Blacks were more docile – and more profitable for the Jews.
The English traffic in slaves in the first half of the seventeenth century was solely in White slaves. The English had no slave base in West Africa, as did the Dutch Jews. Moreover, Dutch Jews were not only bankers and shipping magnates but slave masters and plantation owners themselves. Jews were forbidden by English law to own White Protestant slaves, although in practice this was not uniformly enforced. Irish slaves were allowed to the Jewish slaves but were regarded by them as intractable. Hence the Jews became prime movers behind the African slave trade and the importation of Negro slaves into the New World. (Dalby Thomas, An Historical Account of the Rise and Growth of the British West Indies, pp. 36-37, and G. Merrill, ‘The Role of the Sephardic Jews in the British Caribbean Area in the Seventeenth Century,’ Caribbean Studies, vol. 4, no. 3, 1964-65, pp. 32-49.)
Hundreds of thousands of White slaves were kidnapped off the streets and roads of Great Britain in the course of more than one hundred and fifty years and sold to captains of slave ships in London known as “White Guineamen.” Ten thousand Whites were kidnapped from England in the year 1670 alone.’
Excerpts from
They Were White and They Were Slaves
The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America
Michael A. Hoffman
* * *
“White indentured servants were employed and treated, incidentally, exactly like slaves.” (Morley Ayearst, The British West Indies, p. 19.)
“The many gradations of unfreedom among Whites made it difficult to draw fast lines between any idealized free White worker and a pitied or scorned servile Black worker… in labor-short seventeenth and eighteenth-century America the work of slaves and that of White servants were virtually interchangeable in most areas.” (David R. Roediger, The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class, p. 25.)
A Holocaust Against the White Poor
In 1723 the Waltham Act was passed which classified more than 200 minor offenses such as stealing a rabbit from an aristocrat or breaking up his fishpond, a crime punishable by hanging. Starving youths, fourteen years old, were strung-up on Tyburn gallows for stealing as little as one sheep. When their bodies were cut down their parents had to fight over them with agents of the Royal College of Physicians who had been empowered by the courts to use their remains for laboratory dissection.
The English historian William Cobbett stated in 1836,
“The starving agricultural laborers of southern England are worse off than American negroes.”
When in 1834 English farm workers in Dorset tried to form a union in order to “preserve ourselves, our wives and our children from starvation” they were shipped into slavery in Australia for this “crime.” The situation of White factory workers was no better. Robert Owen declared in 1840, “The working classes of Great Britain are in a worse condition than any slaves in any country, in any period of the world’s history.”
In 19th century England tens of thousands of White children were employed as slave laborers in British coal mines. Little White boys, seven years old, were harnessed like donkeys to coal carts and ordered to drag them through mine shafts. In 1843, White children aged four were working in the coal pits. In old English cemeteries can be seen epitaphs on grave stones like one which reads,
“William Smith, aged eight years, Miner, died Jan. 3, 1841.”
The root of the holocaust against the White yeomanry of Britain lies in the history of the land swindles perpetrated against them in the late 12th and early 13th centuries.
The Factory System
[Rev. Richard] Oastler was publicly thanked by a delegation of English laborers at a meeting in York “for his manly letters to expose the conduct of those pretended philanthropists and canting hypocrites who travel to the West Indies in search of slavery, forgetting there is a more abominable and degrading system of slavery at home.” (Cecil Driver, Tory Radical: The Life of Richard Oastler, pp. 36-55; lnglis, p. 260.)
* * *
White children worked up to sixteen hours a day and “During that period the doors were locked; children – and most of the mill workers were still children – were allowed out only ‘to go to the necessary’… In some factories it was forbidden to open my of the windows; cotton fluff was everywhere, including on the children’s food, but often, as they had to stand all day, they were too fatigued to have any appetite… The (child) apprentices who were on night shift might stay on it for as long as four or five years… although they were provided with dinner at midnight, the machinery did not stop.”
(lnglis, pp. 80, 163, 164, 262).
* * *
“In Bleak House Dickens was to satirize evangelical ‘telescopic philanthropy’ in the person of Mrs. Jellyby, a do-gooder so absorbed in the welfare of the African natives of Borrioboola-Gha that she fails to notice her own family sinking into ruin. This was precisely Carlyle’s point: with Irish… dying in ditches… it was the worst sort of rose-pink sentimentalism to worry oneself about West Indian Negroes.” (Eugene R. August, introduction to Thomas Carlyle’s The Nigger Question, Crofts Classics edition, p. xvii.)
In the late 1830s William Dodd began his exhaustive research into the condition of the English poor. He estimated that in the year 1846 alone, 10,000 English workers, many of them children, had been mangled and mutilated by machinery or otherwise disabled for life. They were abandoned and received no compensation of any kind. Many died of their injuries.
“Young children are allowed to clean the machinery, actually while it is in motion; and consequently the fingers, hands and arms are frequently destroyed in a moment. I have seen the whole of the arm, from the tip of the fingers to above the elbow, chopped into mince-meat, the cog-wheels cutting through the skin, muscles and in some places, through the bone… in one instance every limb but one was broken.” (William Dodd, The Factory System Illustrated, pp. 21-22.)
“Accidents were often due to… children being set to clean machinery while it was still in motion. The loss of two or three fingers was not exceptional. There were more serious accidents… such as that reported by a Stockport doctor in 1840 of a girl caught by the hair and scalped from the nose to the back of the head. The manufacturer gave her five shillings. She died in the workhouse.” (Cruickshank, p. 51.)
Nineteenth century factory worker William Dodd stated,
“Petition after petition has been sent to the two houses of Parliament, to the prime minister, and to the Queen, concerning this unfortunate class of British subjects, but without effect. Had they only been black instead of white, their case would have been taken into consideration long ago.”
LikeLike