There won't be any email on Sunday, I'm afraid. In fact I'm going to make it a fortnightly thing anyway, so I have more time to have interesting links and some readers comments.
"London is now 36.8 per cent ‘white British’, following a rapid transformation over the past five decades which is still ongoing. In contrast to such a dramatic and drastic change, what happens in Scotland hardly seems of importance"
This is how I feel about most political issues these days, to be fair. Nothing else really matters. Economic policies can be beneficial or disastrous, but they can also be reversed. Even something as destructive as trans ideology, despite the awful human suffering it causes, may eventually be pushed back against. But population change on this scale is effectively permanent. It changes the country far more than, say, membership of the EU or devolution. And it's being carried out at breakneck pace with no solid political mandate or genuine discussion. It's extraordinary.
Yes, the ironies of Asian leadership in these islands is acute - is it brown privilege, ? But perhaps more than irony is it rather a complete failure of our political class? Granted some good intentions to deal with racist attitudes, was it necessary to allow and some cases encourage immigration and the move to a multi-ethnic society, when a cogent case against was there in front of our eyes? 1. It undermines the national community - things in common - so essential to democracy. Prof Eric Kaufman in White Shift tells us there will be no White British by the end of the next century. 2. Diversity is bad news in the rest of the world, often a cause for civil war, so why import it - the Balkans, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, India, Nigeria etc ? Are we so superior that we can manage? The multi-racial USA is not doing brilliantly.3. Our trash liberal culture is in a mess, we can't even define a woman and then import Islam and Hinduism with their reactionary records to make things worse. 4. Immigration drives inequality by importing cheap labour and is unfair on the working class as it's their jobs, schools, communities etc which are most affected, not the wretched well heeled in the nice neighbourhoods - those who insist on immigration. 5 On immigration, there was no referendum and no political party ever had more immigration in its manifesto, so there was no democratic consent and people wonder why there is so much distrust of the rulers 6. Criticism of immigration was always smeared by the charge of racism even when people were trying to defend their national identity and national community which is actually responsible citizenship. Yes, sometimes the defence was racist and we can apologise but it was a useful excuse to marginalise voices that should have been heard.
So are we witnessing a scam of global capitalism just to turn England into an economic platform for the benefit of the elites and fail to make a fairer and better society for the indigenous inhabitants? Is the theft of a English national identity and its national community even a kind reverse racism? It's hard not to be ticked off. Oh by the way. Japan remains Japanese and nobody says its racist.
I don't think that most white English have yet recognised that the multiculturalism they have been told to celebrate is, as Eric Kaufmann writes, asymmetrical. When they do, the results may not be pretty.
It is necessary for the British people to put the past behind them and start thinking about the future. Our grandchildren will live as a despised and beleaguered minority in their own homeland. If you are resigned to that, then there really is no point in any further discussions about constitutional arrangements.
Hmm, 'White British'. I think I might start talking about 'Brown Indians' in India, 'Black Jamaicans' in Jamaica and 'Yellow Japanese' in Japan. After all, all those countries contain white minorities.
I always thought there was an inherent tension within Scottish nationalism. One wing was firmly based on the historic Scottish identity (aka Alex Salmon), the other wing was more focused on creating a brave new progressive state that happened to be in Scotland, another version of Trudeau's "post national" Canada (the current new leader). Given the laws of progressivism re open borders and diversity, the two could not peacefully coexist. A revived Labour with a stronger progressive focus (as is likely to be the case) south of the border will surely deal a blow to the strength of the SNP north of the border. On the other hand, there is perhaps now greater sympathy for the "tartan tory" part of the SNP given the changes wrought south of the border.
"Yet this sort of diversity has been a feature of crumbling empires down the ages"
When it's strong, the empire conquers and displaces other people groups. As they weaken, the other people groups start to displace the empire. A near perfect mirror of ancient Rome.
To an American, I've always thought "British" and "English" meant the same thing, so this was an interesting article. The idea that identification of one or the other might mean something significant never occurred to me. Thanks.
I'm not choosy about whether I'm called British or English and call myself both. Maybe I'm happy with 'British' because it shows I side more with the less multicultural, less progressive nations of Scotland, Wales and (historically) Ireland. On the other hand I'm happy with 'English' because it suggests I'm conscious of, and in favour of, nationalism.
If there is anything left to save, and a people capable of saving it, then the first order of action must be to throw off the yoke of American imperialism.
I’ve always thought the relation between the English and British identities is peculiarly similar to how the Russian and Soviet ones used to relate to each other.
Same with the crisis of self-confidence after losing a superpower status, although the UK handled its way better than we did ours.
Nice piece. One of my hobby horses is that the Union was always weaker than it looked. There is an Ireland that might have existed which wasn't wet and poor for most of the 20th century . The moment Dublin recovered from the act of Union. Dublin was the 4th largest city in Europe at one point- then Scotland would get restless. I think we lived and our parents lived 1850-1970 a time of o unionist strength
Interesting detail from the article on the Treaty negotiations you cited:
'When Dev handed the prime minister a document headed “Saorstát Éireann”, Lloyd George asked him to explain it. Lloyd George already knew that it meant literally “Irish Free State” and not “Irish Republic”. He used this fact to score a point, saying: “Must we admit that the Celts never were republicans and have no native word for such an idea?”
This and other jockeying by Lloyd George irritated Dev.'
There won't be any email on Sunday, I'm afraid. In fact I'm going to make it a fortnightly thing anyway, so I have more time to have interesting links and some readers comments.
"London is now 36.8 per cent ‘white British’, following a rapid transformation over the past five decades which is still ongoing. In contrast to such a dramatic and drastic change, what happens in Scotland hardly seems of importance"
This is how I feel about most political issues these days, to be fair. Nothing else really matters. Economic policies can be beneficial or disastrous, but they can also be reversed. Even something as destructive as trans ideology, despite the awful human suffering it causes, may eventually be pushed back against. But population change on this scale is effectively permanent. It changes the country far more than, say, membership of the EU or devolution. And it's being carried out at breakneck pace with no solid political mandate or genuine discussion. It's extraordinary.
Yes, the ironies of Asian leadership in these islands is acute - is it brown privilege, ? But perhaps more than irony is it rather a complete failure of our political class? Granted some good intentions to deal with racist attitudes, was it necessary to allow and some cases encourage immigration and the move to a multi-ethnic society, when a cogent case against was there in front of our eyes? 1. It undermines the national community - things in common - so essential to democracy. Prof Eric Kaufman in White Shift tells us there will be no White British by the end of the next century. 2. Diversity is bad news in the rest of the world, often a cause for civil war, so why import it - the Balkans, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, India, Nigeria etc ? Are we so superior that we can manage? The multi-racial USA is not doing brilliantly.3. Our trash liberal culture is in a mess, we can't even define a woman and then import Islam and Hinduism with their reactionary records to make things worse. 4. Immigration drives inequality by importing cheap labour and is unfair on the working class as it's their jobs, schools, communities etc which are most affected, not the wretched well heeled in the nice neighbourhoods - those who insist on immigration. 5 On immigration, there was no referendum and no political party ever had more immigration in its manifesto, so there was no democratic consent and people wonder why there is so much distrust of the rulers 6. Criticism of immigration was always smeared by the charge of racism even when people were trying to defend their national identity and national community which is actually responsible citizenship. Yes, sometimes the defence was racist and we can apologise but it was a useful excuse to marginalise voices that should have been heard.
So are we witnessing a scam of global capitalism just to turn England into an economic platform for the benefit of the elites and fail to make a fairer and better society for the indigenous inhabitants? Is the theft of a English national identity and its national community even a kind reverse racism? It's hard not to be ticked off. Oh by the way. Japan remains Japanese and nobody says its racist.
I don't think that most white English have yet recognised that the multiculturalism they have been told to celebrate is, as Eric Kaufmann writes, asymmetrical. When they do, the results may not be pretty.
It is necessary for the British people to put the past behind them and start thinking about the future. Our grandchildren will live as a despised and beleaguered minority in their own homeland. If you are resigned to that, then there really is no point in any further discussions about constitutional arrangements.
Hmm, 'White British'. I think I might start talking about 'Brown Indians' in India, 'Black Jamaicans' in Jamaica and 'Yellow Japanese' in Japan. After all, all those countries contain white minorities.
I always thought there was an inherent tension within Scottish nationalism. One wing was firmly based on the historic Scottish identity (aka Alex Salmon), the other wing was more focused on creating a brave new progressive state that happened to be in Scotland, another version of Trudeau's "post national" Canada (the current new leader). Given the laws of progressivism re open borders and diversity, the two could not peacefully coexist. A revived Labour with a stronger progressive focus (as is likely to be the case) south of the border will surely deal a blow to the strength of the SNP north of the border. On the other hand, there is perhaps now greater sympathy for the "tartan tory" part of the SNP given the changes wrought south of the border.
"Yet this sort of diversity has been a feature of crumbling empires down the ages"
When it's strong, the empire conquers and displaces other people groups. As they weaken, the other people groups start to displace the empire. A near perfect mirror of ancient Rome.
To an American, I've always thought "British" and "English" meant the same thing, so this was an interesting article. The idea that identification of one or the other might mean something significant never occurred to me. Thanks.
I'm not choosy about whether I'm called British or English and call myself both. Maybe I'm happy with 'British' because it shows I side more with the less multicultural, less progressive nations of Scotland, Wales and (historically) Ireland. On the other hand I'm happy with 'English' because it suggests I'm conscious of, and in favour of, nationalism.
If there is anything left to save, and a people capable of saving it, then the first order of action must be to throw off the yoke of American imperialism.
I’ve always thought the relation between the English and British identities is peculiarly similar to how the Russian and Soviet ones used to relate to each other.
Same with the crisis of self-confidence after losing a superpower status, although the UK handled its way better than we did ours.
If you can't call each other names then the cultural gap is already too big and likely going to get bigger quickly
Nice piece. One of my hobby horses is that the Union was always weaker than it looked. There is an Ireland that might have existed which wasn't wet and poor for most of the 20th century . The moment Dublin recovered from the act of Union. Dublin was the 4th largest city in Europe at one point- then Scotland would get restless. I think we lived and our parents lived 1850-1970 a time of o unionist strength
Interesting detail from the article on the Treaty negotiations you cited:
'When Dev handed the prime minister a document headed “Saorstát Éireann”, Lloyd George asked him to explain it. Lloyd George already knew that it meant literally “Irish Free State” and not “Irish Republic”. He used this fact to score a point, saying: “Must we admit that the Celts never were republicans and have no native word for such an idea?”
This and other jockeying by Lloyd George irritated Dev.'
Ed, honestly, these posts about multiculturam empires are among the most interesting ones I've read on Substack. Can you please guest Ivar Arpi at;
https://www.enrakhoger.se/
I would love to see you introduced to a Swedish audience!