This post originally said that Professor Coleman’s membership of the Galton Institute, formerly known as the Eugenics Society, was of some relevance to his announcement and that the papers should have mentioned this. However, Oli pointed out in the comments that the term “eugenics” was once a far broader term than it now is and that it does not necessarily mean that the Galton Institute’s activities are nefarious. The post has been amended to reflect this.
Today, most of the newspapers are reporting that white Britons will be a minority in this country by 2066.
The story originated from the Press Association:
Before moving on to The Sun:
And the Telegraph:
And the Independent:
And the London Evening Standard:
And the Daily Mail:
And a number of other news websites too. You can rest assured that the Express will be running with this story tomorrow.
The news has already become the talk of the town over at the white nationalist forum, Stormfront. And you can guarantee that, before long, the BNP will be jumping all over it too.
What all of these newspapers have singularly failed to point out is that the man behind this announcement, Professor David Coleman, just so happens to be co-founder of the anti-immigration pressure group, MigrationWatchUK.
I think this deserves at least a passing mention, given the nature of Professor Coleman’s findings and their inevitable impact on the debate on immigration.
The papers, clearly, do not.
The Daily Mail's greatest enemy are themselves.
In July 2010 they published this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1296638/Migrants-responsible-birth-baby-number-foreign-born-mothers-doubled.html
'The breakdown of figures was published by the ONS yesterday in its final tally of births and birthrates in 2009. Overall, the number of babies born in England and Wales fell slightly from 708,711 in 2008 to 706,248 last year.
The numbers of babies whose mothers were born abroad went up by around 3,500, from 170,834 to 174,400.'
i.e. 174,400 out of 706,248 = 'foreign'
i.e. 24.7% of the class of 2009 are smelly immigrants.
As the number of babies born to foreigners rose, and those born here went down, we can assume that this is the 'worst' year yet i.e. lower percentages in previous years.
Thus those babies who grow up, will be seeing at most, a 25% non white British ethnic make up – not 41%, and certainly not a minority, as 75% of those born last year – and more the previous years, were white British.
While I agree with your assessment of the tone of these stories (which I don't like at all), I think you're being a bit unfair here.
The term 'eugenics' hasn't always meant what it does now, it was far broader in meaning before various unsavoury characters including the Nazis gave it a bad name.
Lots of things which are uncontroversial to greater or lesser degrees (but not called 'eugenics' today) also came under the term, including birth control, family planning, abortion, etc. Using the modern meaning of the term 'eugenics' to tar the Galton Institute/Eugenics Society (founded 1908) is ahistorical to the point of being meaningless. The closest modern analogue to the term as it was used when the Eugenics Society was founded is probably 'genetics'.
If membership of the Eugenics Society puts Prof Coleman beyond the pale, then it does the same for Karl Pearson, Neville Chamberlain, John Maynard Keynes, William Beveridge, Julian Huxley, RA Fisher, Marie Stopes, Steve Jones…
If you want to talk about Coleman's motives, I think linking him to MigrationWatch UK is probably a lot more relevant.
This is interesting about Prof Coleman
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/16/watchingdavidcoleman1
Thanks for the comment, Oli. I appreciate what you're saying about the broadness of the term "eugenics" and I accept that it doesn't necessarily or automatically mean that someone has motives we should be suspicious of.
But I still think Professor Coleman's membership of the Galton Institute was worth a mention in the articles, given that he has a habit of constantly referring to race in his comments about immigration (a subject on which he clearly has an agenda).
Apart from the fact that, you know, those early birth control advocates were motivated by exactly the sort of concerns aired by Galton in those quotes above. Most bourgeois liberals at the turn of the last century had ghastly views on the correct shape of society and the way to get there; this was the age of 'national efficiency' and the concept of 'the residuum'. Whitewashing this because those liberals did other things we might approve of, or because birth control is a major issue for modern bourgeois liberals (though for very different reasons) is dishonest.
besy28 – by that argument, pretty much everyone who was alive at the turn of the last century was ghastly. The people being traduced here were broadly on the right side of history.
I'll say it again – 'eugenics' is a much broader term before ~1933 than it is after ~1945.
Minority Thought – no, actually, I'm not sure it's relevant. Check out the Galton Institute's aims on their website – they strike me as thoroughly inoffensive. Steve Jones, who's widely seen on the liberal left as being pretty much right-on, is a former president.
I'm far, far more worried that none of the stories you link to mention Coleman's association with MigrationWatch UK.
I have to say, I'm beginning to see your point, Oli. It's certainly possible that I came across the Galton Institute, saw the word "eugenics" and assumed the worst.
I'm perfectly willing to concede that Professor Coleman's membership of the Galton Institute was not nefarious, as I had originally implied.
And just for the record, the Guardian article I linked to mentions very prominently that Professor Galton is the co-founder of MigrationWatch UK.
I will make a few amendments to the post.
You mentioned Maynard Keynes in your earlier comment; I think it's appropriate to reproduce one of my favourite quotes of his here:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Thanks again for your comments, Oli.
Thanks – appreciated! :)