|
|
|
REWM RAPID RESEARCH RESPONSE
How accurately have the press, local community spokespeople, and race relations experts represented local people’s views on Birmingham ethnic relations? There appeared to be a contradiction between the generally accepted view prior to the 22nd October disturbances in Lozells district of a multi-ethnic community that had learned to live together, and the picture of ‘vicious hostility between the Asian and African-Caribbean communities’ drawn by Mark Townsend in The Observer (30 October 2005).
In the two weeks after the 22nd October, Race Equality West Midlands fieldworkers undertook a poll of black, Asian, and white people on the Lozells Road. The responses of the three ethnic groups towards the alleged sexual assault, the demonstrations and disturbances, and towards one another, the police, and the council, were recorded, analysed and compared.
As might have been expected, the results of the REWM poll indicate that the people of all ethnic groups express more considered and complex views than those presented in starkly polarised form by the media. Nevertheless, their opinions do vary considerably along ethnic lines. But the situation is far from intractable. There is plenty of common ground and gradation between groups which may allow them to build bridges should they choose to do so.
The first most obvious lesson to emerge from this exercise is of how easy it is to attribute mistakenly the attitudes and behaviour of a minority of vociferous activists to an ethnic minority population as a whole.
If the respondents to this survey are typical of residents of the Lozells area of Birmingham (and there are grounds for thinking they are), then attention should immediately be drawn to the fact that a majority of black, Asian, and white people never accepted the truth of the rumour of a sexual assault by Asians on a black woman, were not involved in protest or violence, thought the police did a good job under the circumstances, and still continue to believe that blacks and Asians living in the area get on well together.
Of course, this is not to say that they think that the area has no problems, but the problems, though real enough and sometimes manifested along racial lines, are conceived, in the main, practically and immediately, as for example, in terms of the restricted economic opportunity in the area, or the criminal activity of drug gangs or of idle young people.
A second lesson to emerge is of the significant difference of viewpoint between individual citizens living in the area and the community leaders and organisations with interests there. Social and political spheres are distinctive, and the political dominates the public discourse relating to the disturbances. In one sense, it does not matter what individual local people think or do. Public opinion makers interpret the world with little reference to underlying realities, and public policy is based mainly on that interpretation. In regard to Lozells, community leaders dramatise and voice their perception of underlying differences and, in so doing, heighten the perception of a starkly polarised situation which needs addressing with new policy initiatives and, of course, with the allocation of more resources to their respective communities. For this reason, the lessons of this report are unlikely to be welcomed by some local community politicians.
This report has been written hastily in the belief that the findings reported here, if made known, might have a positive bearing on race relations in the area affected by the recent disturbances. While the data no doubt deserved more considered, cautious and qualified handling, REWM staff concluded that, in this unstable context, speed was of the essence. We hope that any mistakes or misinterpretations can be excused.
Information from the survey is presented directly with the minimum of comment or elaboration. The responses of each ethnic group, (1) black, (2) Asian, and (3) white, are presented in turn, followed by a section (4), combining the responses of all three groups, and one (5), drawing out ethnic differences.
A brief account (6) of the demography of Birmingham and Handsworth, and (7), a methodological appendix, are also included.
The full report is available on our website in the research section.
|
|
|
