I make four points in my reply to Ludi Simpson's e-mail of 18 June 00:08

1) Ludi Simpson writes:

"On the official statistics list mentioned earlier, there are 3 messages 
with
the word 'births' in their text. One each from Ray Thomas and John Barker,
and the third is a short gentle reminder not to confuse fertility with
living arrangements..."

Why is Simpson making this  'gentle reminder' comment?

On the Official-Statistics  the 'gentle reminder' came from Diana Kornbrot, 
and her message was:
"need to be careful not to confuse fertility with living arrangements
some of this may be due to granny living in same household as dependent 
children
diana"

(This response was to an e-mail of mine posted on the Official-Statistics 
list in which I reviewed the evidence for ethnic variation in demographic 
variables, that I had also given on the Radstats list and I also responded 
to Ray Thomas's views on ethnic statistics)

On the Official-Statistics  list I am now posting the following comment:

"I ask Diana Kornbrot - to what I  said in my e-mail or its attachment or 
anywhere else - to what I said about fertility are you referring?
Where please am I confusing fertility with living arrangements?
Do you dispute that there are large differences in fertility rate between 
ethnic group as shown in the ONS 'Experimental Statistics'?
Are you saying that the authors of these statistics have "confused fertility 
with living arrangements".
This statement by Kornbrot is vague - it gives no detail

In the Radstats e-mail list Ludi Simpson has chipped in:
"On the official statistics list mentioned earlier, there are 3 messages 
with
the word 'births' in their text. One each from Ray Thomas and John Barker,
and the third is a short gentle reminder not to confuse fertility with
living arrangements..."


"short gentle reminder not to confuse fertility with
living arrangements..."
It seems to me that both Simpson and  Kornbrot are by just dropping a brief 
hint,  trying to create doubt about the validity of ethnic differences in 
fertility.
Certainly, I think the Politicially Correct brigade would like us to ignore 
any such differences.

So come clean Diana Kornbrot.
Explain what you mean please!"

2) Ludi Simpson writes:
" I don't contribute much to this list any more because I don't enjoy the
thought that I might provoke a series of low-content opinionated responses
with few references and little information".

A typical PC approach - give a vague sniping hint!
Are you referring to me Simpson? If so please give chapter and verse, 
chapter and verse within the context of all my various recent contributions 
to this list.

3)  Ludi Simpson writes:

"My own view is that the anti-democratic dangers of recording cultural
markers in a life-long identity record outweigh the advantages of easier
calculation of birth rates for scientific study".
And he refers us to a document of his published in Catalyst (I see in that 
document
that Simpson does seem to recognise the usefulness of ethnic statistics for
some purposes, although he also writes he has no time at all for ethnic
monitoring).

In that document he writes:
"Here, the counter argument that recording ethnicity will weaken the common
civic identity of those living in the UK is strong. Birth registration is
particularly influential in self-identification: it is our proof of
existence, our fundamental acnowledgement by society. It is therefore
particularly important that such registration should not reinforce
unhelpfull and potentially divisive distinctions by ethnicity, without
sufficient cause or benefit for doing so".

This does seem to me to probably be a characteristic  of PC, namely to try
to ignore or cover up any cultural, ethnic or racial distinctions, whether 
or
not they actually exist. Facts do not matter if they conflict with the PC 
ideology. Well I assert cultural/ethnic differences do exist.
Most people in the different ethnic groups  think they are important, and do 
wish to identify themselves with their ethnic group and there are 
demographic trends that would be obscured if we did not recognise ethnicity.
But to the PC the opinions of the ordinary people who make up the vast 
majority of the population can be ignored! After all they are just 
uneducated and we will have to educate them (I would say indoctrinate them).

I note  that Simpson made his opinion known a long time ago , as I discuss 
in my long e-mail of 1/10/03 that was primarily about race..
And looking back at my e-mail  now I read in one bit of mine entitled 
"Arguing against asking an ethnic question", and referring to a paper by 
Simpson :

"Simpson has a section headed "The history of categories of race and ethnic 
group in Britain". He describes how there had been opposition to the asking 
of an ethnic origin question in census.'The British Society for Social 
Responsibility in Science (BSSRS), to which the Radical Statistics Group was 
affiliated, had published a broadsheet arguing very strongly against asking 
of the question. It said that in the atmosphere of fear on immigration, 
repatriation and racist policing, with little evidence of commitment to 
prosecute racists, there was little purpose for the question...'"

Link that with the last of my seven e-mails of the 11th June "Radstats and 
Political correctness"!

***********
Now to statistics and statistical  analysis. The purpose of statistics is to 
analyse populations to provide basic information about the populations and 
to test any hypotheses that workers
may have about any population. But it seems to me that for the politically 
correct, the purpose of statistics is quite different: Statistics should be 
obtained and statistical analysis carried out, to provide evidence for an 
ideology. Further, in obtaining the statistics and  designing statistical 
analyses, one should deliberately leave out anything that might possibly 
conflict with the ideology in question.

This is fundamentally dishonest, unscientific, unscholarly.
**********

Finally I note that Ray Thomas has forwarded the paragraph by Simpson 
beginning "On including ethnic group on vital registration records.." and 
which includes the statement:
"My own view is that the anti-democratic dangers of recording cultural
markers in a life-long identity record outweigh the advantages of easier
calculation of birth rates for scientific study",
to the Official-Statistics group with the comment:
"Given below is an extract from a messages posted on the Radstats list. 
The
extract includes a URL reference to an article by Ludi Simpson in the
Catalyst magazine.    This article puts forward a very well worked out
position and it must be one of the very studies that consider the
implications of the production of statistics on the subjects of the
statistics as well as the possible governmental and policy uses".

So we have further evidence of where Ray Thomas stands.


4)  Ludi Simpsom writes:
"Particularly odd is the dismissal of views that are disagreed with by 
labelling them correct, as in 'politically correct'. That seems to close 
down discussion rather than
encourage consideration of issues under debate".

Well I will only defend what I write, not what anyone else may write. And
first I point out that I can see  nothing in the particular e-mail that
Simpson is here responding to that is covered by what he says.
Indeed I don't think there is anything I  wrote about PC in any of the seven
emails of my 11th of June series of e-mails that in anyway closes down
discussion of any issues. Indeed if anything  what I wrote encourages, nay
provokes discussion, including on the concept of PC!

5) In the third of my e-mails of the 11th June (radstats.3 Ethnicity 
categories -Ludi
Simpson) I responded to his claim that the statement  'the foreign 
population rises to a massive 36.1 per cent by 2051" is ludicrous, by asking 
"Can he ( i.e. Simpson) now please give us his evidence why "the figure is 
certainly more than 36% and just depends on whether one goes back 3 
generations or more".

I note Simpson has not done so. And I note that Simpson now writes:
"I don't contribute much to this list any more because I don't enjoy the
thought that I might provoke a series of low-content opinionated responses
with few references and little information".

Pot calling the kettle black.


John Barker


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ludi Simpson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: radstats 3. Ethnicity categories - Ludi Simpson

On the official statistics list mentioned earlier, there are 3 messages with
the word 'births' in their text. One each from Ray Thomas and John Barker,
and the third is a short gentle reminder not to confuse fertility with
living arrangements...

I don't contribute much to this list any more because I don't enjoy the
thought that I might provoke a series of low-content opinionated responses
with few references and little information. Particularly odd is the
dismissal of views that are disagreed with by labelling them correct, as in
'politically correct'. That seems to close down discussion rather than
encourage consideration of issues under debate.

On including ethnic group on vital registration records including births,
this was part of many proposals to change the registration system in 2004.
The proposals were rejected by parliament as a package without discussion of
that particular proposal, so it may resurface at a later date. My own view
is that the anti-democratic dangers of recording cultural markers in a
life-long identity record outweigh the advantages of easier calculation of
birth rates for scientific study. Mine is probably a minority view among
demographers, who are naturaly attracted by having their own research made
easier. For those who are really interested, my side of the argument is
published in the Commission for Racial Equality's magazine Catalyst:
http://www.catalystmagazine.org/Default.aspx.LocID-0hgnew0s9.RefLocID-0hg01b00100o.Lang-EN.htm

Ludi

________________________________

From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of ray thomas
Sent: 16 June 2007 20:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: radstats 3. Ethnicity categories - Ludi Simpson


The matter of statistics for birth rates for  ethnic group didnot get any
comment on this list.  But the topic is  being pursued on the
'official-statistics' list sponsored by the RSS.

You can join the official-statistics list and view the messages by going to
the homepage at:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=OFFICIAL-STATISTICS&X=&Y

Ray Thomas, Co-owner, official-statistics, Jiscmail list.
********************************************



-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of John Barker
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: radstats 3. Ethnicity categories - Ludi Simpson


Ethnic categories - Ludi Simpson



Ludi Simpson 16/5/07 11:19 wrote:

"As regards population projections and ethnicity it is worth bearing in mind
that categories of ethnicity change regularly to meet the concerns of the
day. So a forecast to 2051 will not have relevant implications. The
suggestion that "the 'foreign' population rises to a massive 36.1 per cent"
by 2051 is ludicrous. If 'Foreign' is defined to include all Black, Asian
and White people with non-British ancestors, this figure is certainly more
than 36% and just depends on whether one goes back 3 generations or more. I
have two foreign-born parents. For whom does that make me a threat or a
concern?! (should I withhold my name and address?)"



1) The first two sentences. I think this exaggerates the situation. I
maintain there is a  basic underlying ethnic division of the population (I
also think there is a basic racial division), which is not affected by the
way groups may or may not be merged in any given survey or projection. Did
not attempts to study population changes based on the 1991 and 2001 censuses
that did not have identical ethnic classification and in which the ethnic
group question was posed differently, make this assumption (and also the
current 'experimental statistics')?



I am aware that self-assigned ethnic group may change over time, and the
paper by Simpson himself and others (Platt, Simpson and Akinwale 2005)
provides useful evidence on this matter. But my reading of the paper
suggests to me that this changing of ethnic group only affects a fairly
small percentage of the total persons involved.



Coleman in his paper to which I referred in my e-mail of 15/5/07 16:45
(Population and Development Review 2006 32, 3)  is fully aware of the
problem:

"Where the cultural characteristics of immigrants and their self-identity
endure over generations, an ethnic classification may give a more truthful
picture of demographic and other consequences of the migration process, as
long as identity and the official categories are stable and inter-ethnic
unions are not too common. Where ethnic identification is self-ascribed,
individuals are free to change their minds. The amount of such change does
not seem to be substantial between censuses (Platt, Simpson and Akinwale
2005) unless specific inducements are at work".



And:

"Ethnic status, defined by self-identification in the census (Bulmer 1996)
and the Labour Force Survey, is a potentially permanent attribution,
although in practice somewhat labile (Platt, Simpson and Akinwale 2005).



Further, Pete Large and Kanak Ghosh state in their methodology paper,
referring to the paper by  Platt, Simpson and Akinwale (Amended August
2006):

"Although the model has been set up to allow for the incorporation of such a
switching effect, it is assumed that change in ethnic affiliation is not a
significant effect in demographic changes in ethnic groups".



I think that Simpson, in his e-mail, is wrongly downplaying the endurance of
ethnic identification either  unconsciously or deliberately.



Statisticians might want to superimpose other classifications upon the
ethnic classification to meet current needs, e.g. poverty levels, but I
would have thought that the basic ethnic classification should be kept and I
hope it will be. And I note that the methodology paper for the 'experimental
statistics' begins its introduction: There is increasing and substantial
interest in up-to-date estimates of the sizes of ethnic groups within the
population of England".



And I think most people, whether the politically correct elite like it or
not, do identify themselves with a particular ethnic group and will want to
see how their ethnic group is faring in society with respect to various
matters like poverty and employment.

Of course all projections are conjectural, and beyond say twenty years of
little value for planning, but a 50 year projection does at least show one
very possible way that things will change. But this attenuation of value
over time does not seem to be what Simpson is referring to.



2) "The suggestion that "the 'foreign' population rises to a massive 36.1
per cent" by 2051 is ludicrous. If 'Foreign' is defined to include all
Black, Asian and White people with non-British ancestors, this figure is
certainly more than 36% and just depends on whether one goes back 3
generations or more".



First, let us suppose Simpson is right  (."this figure is certainly more
than 36%..." ), does this not make the refusal of OPT to recognise the
relevance of ethnicity to population growth even more disgraceful?



Second, Simpson provides no evidence for his  claim "ludicrous". Can he now
please give us his evidence why "the figure is certainly more than 36% and
just depends on whether one goes back 3 generations or more".



Coleman in his paper was aware of the problem of defining 'foreign':

"Nondemographic definition and categorization complicate the estimation of
the current size and structure of populations of foreign origin in European
countries, and of their projection into the future. Most European countries
routinely define foreign-origin populations on the criterion of citizenship
(nationality) and define births of foreign origin by the citizenship of the
mother. Those are the data provided by Eurostat, the OECD, and the Council
of Europe. In some countries, children of foreign citizens are not
automatically citizens of the country of their birth".



"In many countries, high annual levels of naturalization have made data
based upon

citizenship meaningless as indicators of foreign stock in all but a legal
sense. Annual

naturalizations have often exceeded the annual inflow of immigrants. That
phenomenon

has substantially diminished statistically, but not in reality, the numbers
of people of

foreign origin in Belgium, France, Netherlands, Sweden and elsewhere. In
those countries, citizenship data understate the stock of foreign-origin
population and its rate of increase  by one-half or more. For a more
representative picture, some European countries are adopting statistical
definitions of foreign-origin population that include both immigrants and
the second immigrant generation ("descendants", "foreign background") by
linkage with the birth-place or citizenship of parents through population
registers. For example, in the Netherlands any person with one or both
parents born abroad is defined as "foreign origin". All others, including
persons with third-generation foreign ancestry, are assumed to be Dutch
(Alders 2001a). This exclusion of most of the third and subsequent
generations leads to a progressive underestimate, and under-projection, of
the population of foreign born origin compared with more enduring ethnic or
racial criteria. On that basis, the foreign -origin population was estimated
to be 3.04 million out of the 16 million total population in the Netherlands
in 2003 (19 percent), compared with the 700,000 persons of foreign
citizenship (4 percent). This foreign-origin population has increased
rapidly, unlike the foreign citizen population, which has declined since
1995 (see Figure 3)".



3) "I have two foreign-born parents. For whom does that make me a threat or
a concern?! (should I withhold my name and address?)".



What an outburst! And what unneccesary sarcasm. I think most people will
think that Simpson has a chip on his shoulder.



Demographically, Simpson, one individual, is of no concern. But if his
ethnic group or if his cultural group if he prefers it that  way is a
significant contribution to overall UK population growth, pushing that
population even further above carrying capacity, then this is a matter of
concern

The only way that Simpson can be a threat is in what he writes or says and
his influence over other people.

Right back in 2003 (1/10/03 8:43 in the section headed "A paper by Ludi
Simpson" )  I wrote:

"I think that Simpson would like if at all possible, to minimise the
signifcance of ethnic group identity and race".

I drew this conclusion after a detailed examination of some published work
of Simpson.

I think this makes him a threat and a matter of concern because I think
ethnic groups do exist ( and races for that matter), do have different
demographical and cultural attributes that are relevant to economic, social
and environmental policy development, and relevant to the maintenance of
social cohesion and national identity.



John Barker



****************************************************** Please note that if
you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this
message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to
[log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the
views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range
of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out
more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current
and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site
www.radstats.org.uk. *******************************************************

****************************************************** Please note that if
you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this
message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to
[log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the
views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range
of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out
more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current
and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site
www.radstats.org.uk. *******************************************************

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and
cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical
Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of
our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************