Hi Ulysses. The last point is basically the entire premise of the argument and the piece contains reference to a Government report and makes references to the stats that are contained within.

I'm not entirely sure about your argument. A lot of highly disadvantaged people are where they are because of policies enacted by Thatcher in the mid-eighties. There is no industry there to recover and the children of those people and perhaps now the children of those children are locked into a cycle of not-working. If they have any white privilege to leverage, it isn't working.... that's what the stats show. People aren't inclined to help them for the reason you've outlined 'They're where they are becuase they blame everyone else for being there' - that's an argument that's been used to misreprensent impoverished people the world over. Let me give you an example....

'Chinese people do well in education and become doctors and pharmicists, black people don't have high aspirations. They're where they are because they blame themselves for being there'

Can I compare two branches of BIPOC and draw an incorrect inference? I don't think so. I think in order to do that I would have to overlook huge cultural differences and mountains of social history. I have to take a more nuanced view of how privilege works. I have to understand that there are some apsects of chinese culture that are advantageous. The same is true when comparing poor white children and poor black children. There are some advantages to being a black child in the UK in education that aren't being shared by poor white children - that's what the stats show. I think that's likely to do with where those children are (but it's difficult to prove). Blaming poor white children for their poverty is counter-productive to the aim of making everyone's lives better and reducing racism. It's a bad strategy that will result in more members for the BNP.