How the British are perceived overseas

[sheldrake]

True.

As such I am rather more interested in learning more about how the British are perceived overseas than I am in reading arguments about why the overseas people (most of whom are not reading this thread) are wrong.

Are you interested in what people overseas actually think though?

So far I've posted a large survey, and everybody else has posted anecdotes or personal opinions based on things they read in British left wing newspapers or anonymous blogs. Reflect on that.

[nekomatic]

Fair dos, credit to you for linking to some data. Although technically that was about Britain, not the British.

[plodder]

Fair dos, credit to you for linking to some data. Although technically that was about Britain, not the British.

If we think migration correlates strongly with “positive oversees perception of a nation’s values” then we’ll need a little luck with Saudi Arabia, 3rd in the global rankings.

https://www.migrationdataportal.org/the ... -migration

[plodder]

There are tonnes of think pieces and opinion polls out there, there’s an enormous amount of puff, and people tend to get what they pay for. I’m not sure we’ll find data that shows any more than trends in a minority of people.

[Bird on a Fire]

Nah, there's loads of fairly rigorous indices about perceptions of different countries. e.g., the UK is perceived as having a very low level of public sector corruption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt ... ions_Index

And similarly there are surveys done of particular groups, such as asylum seekers, asking why they chose the UK (from memory, the leading factors were (a) not actually choosing, they just go where they can get trafficked easily, (b) language and (c) premiership football).

The case in the OP is clearly abhorrent, and the military has form for covering up misdeeds perpetrated by its employees be they against other employees or foreigners - they're even worse than the police in that regard.

But it's not clear to me to what extent it tells us about perceptions of the British generally, relative or absolute. There are loads of countries where people are in fear of their own police and military for doing stuff like this all the time.

The piece's more general points about lack of acknowledgement, consequences or reparations for the UK's ugly colonial legacy obviously stand, and it's thoroughly depressing that that kind of callousness continues today.

[Woodchopper]

Fair dos, credit to you for linking to some data. Although technically that was about Britain, not the British.

If we think migration correlates strongly with “positive oversees perception of a nation’s values” then we’ll need a little luck with Saudi Arabia, 3rd in the global rankings.

https://www.migrationdataportal.org/the ... -migration

Saudi Arabia is thought of positively enormous numbers of people, possibly over a billion. The country has enormous influence in North Africa and much of Asia.

[IvanV]

Nah, there's loads of fairly rigorous indices about perceptions of different countries. e.g., the UK is perceived as having a very low level of public sector corruption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt ... ions_Index

77/100 is 11 points behind Denmark on 88/100. In equal 11 to 14th place. Not sure we can quite justify the "very".

[IvanV]

Saudi Arabia is thought of positively enormous numbers of people, possibly over a billion. The country has enormous influence in North Africa and much of Asia.

Migration to Saudi is not migration as we normally understand it. It's like saying the crew of a ship or oilrig have "migrated" there. It is mostly temporary labour that doesn't bring their family. There is typically no possibility of permanent settlement. All contracts are temporary. Employers are generally required to house their migrant employees, and the migrant labour is generally required to stay in the accommodation provided, so They Know Where You Are. It is mostly hostel accommodation not intended for families. Yes, professionals get better conditions, but they are the minority in comparison to the great majority of construction labourers, domestic servants, mechanics, shop assistants, cleaners, hospitality staff, etc.

The main reason Saudi succeeds in employing so much migrant labour is that they pay enough to get people to put up with these conditions. And the places people come from are often mostly low wage and with relatively low freedom.

[discovolante]

Mod post: we've received reports about the migration discussion being off topic. We've had a look at the posts and had a discussion, and have decided that even though the posts about migration aren't directly connected to the OP, they are connected to the overall discussion, so we don't think a split is needed.

Cheers

[sheldrake]

There are tonnes of think pieces and opinion polls out there, there’s an enormous amount of puff, and people tend to get what they pay for. I’m not sure we’ll find data that shows any more than trends in a minority of people.

I still think it's worth looking, rather than having a data-free discussion based on opinion pieces in blogs and the left-wing press. Being negative about ones' own country is seen as a bit of a left-wing passtime from the outside and it's one of the major election-turnoffs for uncommitted 'ordinary' people.

edited
I do agree that economics can trump values in immigration, but people are still expressing a preference as to where they want to live, which is meaningful. And as somebody has pointed out, there are millions of people who actually like Saudi values despite the fact that might seem warped and mediaeval to us.

[Woodchopper]

Saudi Arabia is thought of positively enormous numbers of people, possibly over a billion. The country has enormous influence in North Africa and much of Asia.

Migration to Saudi is not migration as we normally understand it. It's like saying the crew of a ship or oilrig have "migrated" there. It is mostly temporary labour that doesn't bring their family. There is typically no possibility of permanent settlement. All contracts are temporary. Employers are generally required to house their migrant employees, and the migrant labour is generally required to stay in the accommodation provided, so They Know Where You Are. It is mostly hostel accommodation not intended for families. Yes, professionals get better conditions, but they are the minority in comparison to the great majority of construction labourers, domestic servants, mechanics, shop assistants, cleaners, hospitality staff, etc.

The main reason Saudi succeeds in employing so much migrant labour is that they pay enough to get people to put up with these conditions. And the places people come from are often mostly low wage and with relatively low freedom.

Migrant workers live and work in very poor conditions, yes.

But Saudi Arabia also has significant cultural influence among the circa two billion Muslims in the world. For example, for very many of them a visit to Mecca is one of the most important events in their lives, and Saudi government and private institutions, and prominent Saudis, are active aid donors in many communities.

[plodder]

Saudi Arabia is thought of positively enormous numbers of people, possibly over a billion. The country has enormous influence in North Africa and much of Asia.

Migration to Saudi is not migration as we normally understand it. It's like saying the crew of a ship or oilrig have "migrated" there. It is mostly temporary labour that doesn't bring their family. There is typically no possibility of permanent settlement. All contracts are temporary. Employers are generally required to house their migrant employees, and the migrant labour is generally required to stay in the accommodation provided, so They Know Where You Are. It is mostly hostel accommodation not intended for families. Yes, professionals get better conditions, but they are the minority in comparison to the great majority of construction labourers, domestic servants, mechanics, shop assistants, cleaners, hospitality staff, etc.

The main reason Saudi succeeds in employing so much migrant labour is that they pay enough to get people to put up with these conditions. And the places people come from are often mostly low wage and with relatively low freedom.

Migrant workers live and work in very poor conditions, yes.

But Saudi Arabia also has significant cultural influence among the circa two billion Muslims in the world. For example, for very many of them a visit to Mecca is one of the most important events in their lives, and Saudi government and private institutions, and prominent Saudis, are active aid donors in many communities.

Right - the spread of strict Wahabi Islam is heavily sponsored by Saudi, for example. We need to be careful to distinguish between "well liked" and "populism" - or do we?

[Woodchopper]

Migration to Saudi is not migration as we normally understand it. It's like saying the crew of a ship or oilrig have "migrated" there. It is mostly temporary labour that doesn't bring their family. There is typically no possibility of permanent settlement. All contracts are temporary. Employers are generally required to house their migrant employees, and the migrant labour is generally required to stay in the accommodation provided, so They Know Where You Are. It is mostly hostel accommodation not intended for families. Yes, professionals get better conditions, but they are the minority in comparison to the great majority of construction labourers, domestic servants, mechanics, shop assistants, cleaners, hospitality staff, etc.

The main reason Saudi succeeds in employing so much migrant labour is that they pay enough to get people to put up with these conditions. And the places people come from are often mostly low wage and with relatively low freedom.

Migrant workers live and work in very poor conditions, yes.

But Saudi Arabia also has significant cultural influence among the circa two billion Muslims in the world. For example, for very many of them a visit to Mecca is one of the most important events in their lives, and Saudi government and private institutions, and prominent Saudis, are active aid donors in many communities.

Right - the spread of strict Wahabi Islam is heavily sponsored by Saudi, for example. We need to be careful to distinguish between "well liked" and "populism" - or do we?

Like I wrote above, people can have many different and often conflicting views about a foreign nation. Someone might simultaneously admire Saudis' stance on religious matters and also resent their wealth and arrogance.

[sheldrake]

Right - the spread of strict Wahabi Islam is heavily sponsored by Saudi, for example. We need to be careful to distinguish between "well liked" and "populism" - or do we?

I think it risks being close to a 'false consciousness' argument where we refuse to believe people really like things just because we disapprove of them.

I think the reality is lots of people around the globe do not share western liberal values. I think it's our belief system that's in the minority here, and that's one of the reasons I'm protective of it. Countries like the UK attract people looking to escape into our way of life, the reasons are partly material but also partly cultural.

eta:
Have you ever spoken to a dalit-caste indian who has immigrated to a western country and found new opportunity open up, for example?

[plodder]

Fair comment except it's straying from the point. No-one is talking about judging anyone's perceptions. This isn't a conversation about whether all those Germans in the 1930's or Corbynistas in the last decade were wrong.

The point of the Robbie Burns* poem I linked to above is that no-one is ever properly aware of how they come across, and in the case of nation states this can often result in confusion, hilarity, misplaced affection (or Bad Things).

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!

I think in the case of the British (as for other countries) we have many foolish notions, airs in dress and gait and odd devotions, and the only way we can spot these is to look at ourselves through other people's eyes.



*who would have almost certainly been a Corbyn sympathiser, but probably not a Corbynista http://robertburns.org/encyclopedia/Pol ... .720.shtml

[Lew Dolby]

I'm fascinated by this idea that the British press, or part of it, is left-wing. I must be missing something when I scan the shelves in the newsagent's.

[sheldrake]

Fair comment except it's straying from the point. No-one is talking about judging anyone's perceptions. This isn't a conversation about whether all those Germans in the 1930's or Corbynistas in the last decade were wrong.

The point of the Robbie Burns* poem I linked to above is that no-one is ever properly aware of how they come across, and in the case of nation states this can often result in confusion, hilarity, misplaced affection (or Bad Things).

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!

I think in the case of the British (as for other countries) we have many foolish notions, airs in dress and gait and odd devotions, and the only way we can spot these is to look at ourselves through other people's eyes.


*who would have almost certainly been a Corbyn sympathiser, but probably not a Corbynista http://robertburns.org/encyclopedia/Pol ... .720.shtml

I think all this is true, it's just that I think understanding how other people see us isn't necessarily best understood by focussing on anti-colonialist articles. It's important for a country to understand its strengths too, less a sense of hopelessness set in.

Now there is definitely a case for focussing on the negative things when the goal is self-improvement, but I still think it's important to look at more sources than the voices of the post-colonial left. How do conservative Americans feel about Britain and the British? How do Icelanders see us? How do conservative-voting nigerian immigrants see us? etc.. what do those groups of people, who rarely get Guardian column inches, think of as our flaws?

[plodder]

No one is suggesting we only look at people with grievances.

[sheldrake]

No one is suggesting we only look at people with grievances.

Swell. It's just that so far I think I was the only person in the thread trying to do that and I had to trudge through a page or so of hyper-absurd arguments from Dyqik and others along the lines of 'people choosing to live in a country doesn't tell you anything about whether they like that country'->'it's noisy because of language barriers(??)'->'okay it tells you something but only about their economic interests, they might still loath the other people that live there' -> 'your big survey is b.llsh.t because some of the other countries in it also speak english (??)' etc..

[lpm]

Changes in net migration might be more indicative. For the UK, it has fallen substantially between 2016 and 2019. This suggests perception is changing and negatively.

You seem to be studiously ignoring temptar's point.

The absolute number might be influenced by a number of factors. But the change is not. Speaking English etc hasn't changed.

If you argue that migration is a reasonable proxy metric, then you also need to accept the change in migration is a metric.

[plodder]

Changes in net migration might be more indicative. For the UK, it has fallen substantially between 2016 and 2019. This suggests perception is changing and negatively.

You seem to be studiously ignoring temptar's point.

The absolute number might be influenced by a number of factors. But the change is not. Speaking English etc hasn't changed.

If you argue that migration is a reasonable proxy metric, then you also need to accept the change in migration is a metric.

It's indicative - but of what? Other than people's desire to move to another country?

[lpm]

It's consistent with perception overseas of the British getting worse. And with the economy of Britain getting worse. And tangible barriers to migrating to Britain getting worse. And intangible barriers to migrating to Britain (such as xenophobic hostility) getting worse.

It's a useful stat to go along with anecdotal evidence of people in eastern Europe describing Britain as a country full of tw.ts, but it doesn't show much.

[Sciolus]

That's an unlikely narrative. Non-EU (ETA: net) migration rates have been broadly flat for the last 15 years. EU rates rose appreciably between 2005 and 2015, then fell sharply, doubtless due to 2004 accession and the 2016 referendum result. (Caveats apply.)
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/r ... om-the-uk/

[sheldrake]

Changes in net migration might be more indicative. For the UK, it has fallen substantially between 2016 and 2019. This suggests perception is changing and negatively.

You seem to be studiously ignoring temptar's point.

The absolute number might be influenced by a number of factors. But the change is not. Speaking English etc hasn't changed.

If you argue that migration is a reasonable proxy metric, then you also need to accept the change in migration is a metric.

It's indicative - but of what? Other than people's desire to move to another country?

Do you think people’s desire to move to a country might be closely related to whether they have a positive perception of that country, as a whole?

[sheldrake]

It's consistent with perception overseas of the British getting worse. And with the economy of Britain getting worse. And tangible barriers to migrating to Britain getting worse. And intangible barriers to migrating to Britain (such as xenophobic hostility) getting worse.

It's a useful stat to go along with anecdotal evidence of people in eastern Europe describing Britain as a country full of tw.ts, but it doesn't show much.

Total Immigration to the UK increased since 2016. Its still a net desirable destination. We’ve deliberately restricted the inflow of low-skilled labour. Thats a good thing for the low skilled workers that already live here as its pushing wages up.