During the first big wave of South Asian immigration to the UK in the 1950s and 60s, many of the fresh-faced newcomers were not exactly greeted with open arms by the local population of the country to which they’d been invited.

It was not uncommon to find ‘No blacks, no Irish, no dogs’ signs on guesthouses. While some migrants may not have encountered outright hostility, many did not experience a great deal of warmth either.

The reasons behind this frosty reception can partly be found in history. The theory that ‘coloured people’ (i.e. non-whites) were inferior to the European races was well-entrenched in the European psyche. This had been reinforced by colonialism, where most of these ‘coloured’ races had been conquered and put under European rule. Accepting them now on equal terms was not easy for many.

Another reason was plain fear of the unknown. These newcomers were visibly different, spoke in strange languages, or with funny accents. They ate exotic food and practised foreign religions. They were surely too different to be part of Britain?

Of course, not everyone had bad experiences on first arrival, but those who did struggled on, learnt from them, and persisted in making this island their home.

Things have changed a great deal in the UK, but some South Asians still face discrimination and remain disadvantaged in areas such as access to jobs or services. Discrimination can be faced not only by new migrants, but also by the children or grandchildren of the first generation of settlers.

The reasons behind it have developed in the last 50 years, but are essentially the same as before, with a few new aspects.

There are still those who hold the belief that white people are superior to other races and therefore do not believe in treating others equally. Some may not explicitly subscribe to this, but have fixed stereotypes of Asians, believing that they are incapable of certain activities, such as jobs they feel may be too physically or mentally demanding. Others may knowingly or unknowingly simply not be comfortable working or dealing with people who are ‘different’.

Others will deny being prejudiced in any way, but believe their country is ‘full’ and there are not enough jobs or houses to go round. They may also feel that the British way of life is under threat from new migrant cultures, which they consider to be at odds with British traditions.

Although this last attitude has been prevalent from the beginning of mass migration, it has been exacerbated in recent years by the rise of terrorism, perpetrated by people in the name of Islam. Muslims in Britain have often experienced increased hostility and mistrust, regarded by some as ‘the enemy within’. As most Muslims in the UK originate from South Asia, it has occasionally led to other South Asians being targeted.

Although the above relates to the situation in the UK, much of it can be applied to other countries where South Asians have settled. In countries where a non-white ethnic group is the majority, the issues are slightly different. In Kenya and Uganda, for example, it was partly the financial success of many Asians that resulted in the backlash that led to their expulsion in the 1970s.

The UK has taken in migrants from all over the world throughout the centuries. Those from Europe have blended in over the generations, betrayed sometimes only by slightly unusual surnames. Great strides have been made in race relations in the past 50 years, but as a visible minority, it will not be as easy for South Asians.

Institutional racism

This phrase was coined by Lord MacPherson in his 1999 report on the Metropolitan Police’s handling of the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation. Stephen was a young black man who was stabbed, apparently in a racist killing.

The report described institutional racism as: ‘The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin which can be seen or detected in processes; attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people.’

The words ‘unwitting’ and ‘thoughtlessness’ are key in this definition, suggesting that it is possible for an institution to be racist even if it does not intend to be so.

For example, a doctors’ surgery may insist on patients seeing the first available doctor without giving any choice in the matter. This may be seen as a practical measure to ensure patients are attended to promptly, but such a practice may automatically disadvantage many Asian women who would only be comfortable seeing a female doctor. Whether the surgery does this deliberately as a way of screening out Asian families, or ‘unwittingly’ through ignorance, it could be considered institutionally racist either way.

Similarly, an organisation that prides itself on being multi-ethnic, yet fails to promote minority ethnic workers to high-ranking positions because of an ‘unwitting’ reluctance to rock the boat or upset shareholders, would be considered institutionally racist in the same way as one that had no minority workers at all, because of the employer’s dislike of non-white people.

Institutional racism may explain why appointments of minority ethnic workers as chief executives of major corporations are still treated with surprise and why some young Muslims in Britain are swapping Islamic sounding names for less ‘threatening’ English ones when enquiring about jobs.

Institutional racism, unlike overt racial abuse can be very difficult to prove.

Also see…

> Masala BridgeBuilders explores the area of racism further