Our new President: - The Founder

8 EDITORIAL & OPINION Tuesday 13 February 2007 thefounder
POLITICS SAM KISS
‘Britishness’
A faux notion of identity,
and the decline of the Sceptred Isle
In recent conversation, I stumbled across an individual who believed that the
British were “innately superior, and perhaps the greatest race in the world”.
I was not sure as to whether this statement was cause for pity, rage, revulsion
or concern…or indeed all four. Perhaps civilisation has deceived me.
Perhaps there are still people who believe that the British Empire was a wholly
positive thing, that the slave trade put “those Africans in their place” and that
we should all be throwing stones at Mosques. Indeed, this individual appeared
to believe that the WASP had a right, nay, duty to straddle the globe and spread
glorious ‘British’ values. Spewing Christianity, capitalism, free trade and English
mores out of the metaphorical spunk-flutes of imperialism and globalisation.
Well, I respond in kind to this delusional semi-moron: The British are not special.
Britain’s virtues are a product of geographical, ecological and political circumstances;
we are the children of luck. Democracy, free speech, equality, the rule of
law; these values are not intrinsically ‘British’ in character. Unfortunately, these
musings render Sir Keith Ajegbo’s report rather obsolete.
“Britain is committed to the values of free speech, the rule of law, mutual tolerance
and respect for equal rights. They are things that are fundamental to our society.”
Yes. Perhaps this is what makes Britain oh so different from say, the United
States or France. These transcendental values are definitely unique; one can barely
dare to gaze across the channel. Towards those dark despotic lands where prejudice,
inequality, anarchy and sin reign supreme. I respect the general ignorance
and intractability of any individual who seriously believes that the UK is ‘free’ or
‘fair’, that the average Briton is tolerant, that capitalism is just…or indeed effective…that
simple plurality is a paragon of democratic practise. To my mind, the
Ajegbo’s report serves as a fitting indictment of the concept of nationalism. This
‘kingdom of mongrels’ best exemplifies the ills of patriotism. ‘Britishness’ must
be taught, because it is no more innate than ‘Frenchness’ or ‘Americaness’. All of
these notions are entirely artificial, and have been cultivated over the centuries.
They are also necessarily exclusive, prejudicial and irrational; that is the function
of patriotism. That it has become necessary to teach ‘Britishness’ demonstrates
that the theory of nationalism in itself is rapidly becoming redundant. Anglo-
African, Anglo-Asian, Anglo-Irish, Anglo-whatever; all of us have contributed to
the positive development of the British state. That we cannot define ‘Britishness’,
that it is such a dilute and irrelevant concept, is surely an argument in favour of
the dissemination of multiculturalism and liberal ideology? ‘Britishness’ may be
decomposing, but are we not still a nation? Is this not still a country? Of course.
We should be bound together by the ideals of secularism, democracy, justice and
reason.
There’s nothing quite so anachronistic and backward as a nationalist conception
of statehood and citizenship; one need only draw upon Israel as a fitting
modern example. What does it mean to be British? Perhaps supporting various
teams involved in a wealth of pointless grey games, or watching Celebrity Big
Brother. When pressed, I am not sure as to whether I can define modern ‘Britishness’.
We can afford to be proud, but not as extensively as we might wish. The
NHS, once a beacon to socialists across the Western world, is on the brink of collapse.
Modern Britain is as much a product of globalisation and political mediocrity
as it is of history. Illiberty reigns supreme, as absurdist ‘Religious Intolerance’
Bills are muddled through Parliament and authoritarian ruffians savage habeas
corpus. As if religious belief was not simply an opinion, as any other. As if it
were special: deserving of any more merit than the concepts of socialism, capitalism
or liberalism. Protection for Tories and Communists, perhaps? A pox on the
thoughtful, then. Rule Britannia indeed! A salute to McDonalds, ASBOs, Coca
Cola, anti-intellectualism, Starbucks, Islamists, popular music, football hooliganism,
capitalism, house arrests, child molestation and cultural vapidity.
The subject matter may appear somewhat dated, but I think it important that
the question of ‘Britishness’ resonate for some time to come. Until the concept
is dead. Nationalism is nothing more than an agent of division. Polemics aside,
I apologise for the sensationalism. It is true that we are rather lucky; Britain is
still secular and relatively democratic. Many are non-religious, non-racist, openminded,
internationalist, socialist and comparatively well educated. We should be
thankful that an otherwise unreliable government snubbed the often homophobic,
ignorant and atavistic views of the Catholic Church. Flexing the muscles of
exclusion, coughing up hatred and small-minded medieval little semi-thoughts.
These are positive things. Yet we must remember that this is also a land of neoconservatives,
racists, fundamentalists, Tories and Eurosceptics. Irrationalism and
cognition are locked in a struggle that is tantamount to that between Dawkins
and the Church, or capitalism and justice. What I mean to say is that we should
be grateful, but the lionisation of ‘Britishness’ is a dangerous thing. Suggesting
that it should be taught is alone indicative of nationalist sentiment, of a willingness
on the part of our government to sponsor a resurgence of patriotism. This is
absurdist, deadly, naïve and retrogressive.
MILLER & BENSON © BOB GROVES