Image: The Coronation of Queen Victoria in Westminster Abbey, 28 June 1838 (George Hayter, 1838-39)

A mirror of crisis, there is an ongoing debate in the news media and various podcasts about what it actually means to be “British” (i.e. beyond the possession of a passport). A particularly sensitive topic in that connection is the right of a nation to demarcate itself from the rest of the world. (In the United States, the political conflict is symbolized by a border wall.)

In a trivial sense, we are all equally human, belonging to the same humanity. However, it goes against the ordinary meaning of the word to claim that we all equally belong to the same “nation”. Arising from Judeo-Christian faith, Greco-Roman philosophy-oratory, and Enlightenment ideals, neither British nor broader Western values ​​are universal.

It has been passionately debated whether we should maintain national borders or abolish them altogether, pretending that everybody in the world has something like a “natural right” to settle here (and claim the full range of welfare benefits). Along the same lines, we debate the right of illegal aliens to consider themselves “citizens” of our country simply by virtue of having taken up residence here and refusing to leave.

A common contention is that, if born and raised anywhere in our isles, everybody is as British as anybody, whatever their ethnic background and purpose of residence (cf. the argumentation by Fraser Nelson concerning Rishi Sunak and “Englishness” on Triggernometry). Others, adult immigrants with independent motives, having arrived as illegal aliens or after application as an “unskilled worker” or “student”, prefer to believe that they are genuinely British as soon as they have set foot on the ground and collected their first allowance.

It would seem that the fear of being denounced as a “bigot” or worse on social media has so far spoiled the chances of an open-minded, enlightened, and dignified debate on the subject. On the other hand, the survival of Britain as a liberal democracy based on shared values ​​is in the balance.

Western standards of rationality, morality, and liberty have come under pressure. Overall, the fear of being labeled “prejudiced” or “reactionary”, not to mention “racist” or “Islamophobic”, has apparently demoralized political leaders, social pundits, and members of the entertainment industry, inducing them to speak out against their better judgment and cover up for illegal aliens and radicalized immigrant communities. Unwillingness to challenge hypocrisy and get into trouble with the “progressive elite” or the “ethnic vote” is palpable.

For a start, it seems peculiarly ill-conceived to assert that “personal identity” as indicated by “specific nationality” should depend on where somebody happens to be born. Ordinarily, we would assume that parents, who are the first to take care of their children and teach them a language, are equally responsible for instilling values. This parental preparation for life is neither random nor universal, but varies from place to place, depending on the culture. The geographical roulette of mass migration is largely irrelevant to our acquisition of personal identity and maturation as cultural, historical beings. What matters, to be sure, is the emotional impact of those close to us during our upbringing, wherever we are in the world — in transit or on a permanent basis.

In the heyday of imperialism, beloved British authors (e.g. Rudyard Kipling, George Orwell) spent their childhood in remote corners of the world. Intrigued by mystery, yet respectful, they would express lifelong gratitude and nostalgia in their literary work. Notably, trained for dignity, they rarely flirted with the idea of “changing identity” and adopting local customs and values. They were British at heart.

Some migrant rights activists, though confining themselves to ethnic enclaves around our cities and dressing in medieval style as a statement of religious segregation, intolerant of Western individualism and liberties, defiantly insist that they are British because their family networks are unfolding and thriving here. Thus, being born and raised in Britain as 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants is supposed, by necessity, to be synonymous with being British. Does this idea truly agree with a common-sense distinction between being (a) a Briton at heart and (2) a resident alien in Great Britain, respectively?

Let us set up an experiment for the sake of argument. If my friend, a law school graduate, had been a diplomat posted for a number of years in Japan and was about to receive his first child at the Aiiku Hospital, Tokyo, would the circumstances of his temporary stay abroad make his newborn a Japanese? And if he sent his toddler boy to a kindergarten, would that make him Japanese? Or would it only happen with his admission to a primary school? If so, when exactly would the “metamorphosis” occur?

Of course, my friend, whose British manners are unmistakable, is unlikely to turn Japanese by settling in Tokyo. He may adapt to his environment on the surface, including learning the language, because solving his work tasks requires insight into local customs and cultured socialization. Deep down, however, he remains the person that he has been ever since he was raised. As does his faith.

Anticipating the outcome of further reflections, I know for sure that the son born to my friends would be as British in thought and feeling as if delivered in the Maternity Unit, York Hospital. From the very moment he opened his eyes and sought the eyes of his parents, he would be the object of constant observation and interaction, motivated by unlimited love and sacrifice on their part. He would not, of course, become “Japanese” in any meaningful sense by being born in a Japanese hospital or attending a Japanese school. Rather, he would remain the child of his parents and carry on the rich tradition that they represent.

Something similar must apply to the millions of foreigners who, encouraged by alternately “opportunistic Labor” and “defeatist Tory” cabinets, have settled in the isles that previously belonged to the British and claim to be British themselves — with the accompanying right to stay here indefinitely, lay the foundations of family growth, and enjoy the benefits of welfare.

True, it is undeniable that if the foreigners are numerous enough, they may eventually define Britishness as they please. For now, however, the choice should not be arbitrary.

The British led the industrialization of the West. They were incomparable sailors and merchants far from home. With a remarkably small number of troops and civil servants, they managed to hold together a worldwide empire for a long time. They were also the first to end the slave trade in the part of the world that they controlled. Wherever they temporarily shared their traditions and institutions with foreign nations, though ultimately despised as “colonial masters”, a lasting imprint was left on protocols of governance and institutional practice.

In retrospect, the British have been far too gentle and polite. For a long time, it remained a comforting assumption that this restraint of theirs had its origins in the deeply rooted strength of civilization. However, developments have shown that there is nothing but yielding weakness where there should be strength to resist barbarism — and stand firm. National characteristics such as “cultural awareness” and “stoic endurance” are not what they used to be in the British Isles.

Over time, our immigrant communities have become so large and self-sufficient, confidently exposing their latent supremacism (ethno-narcissism), that adult members do not need to speak English to get by. From being the British “mother tongue”, it has been reduced to the “official language” spoken in schools, municipal administrations, and courts, where immigrants are in direct contact with the natives. It is but reasonable to assume that British values ​​occupy as little space in immigrant homes as the English language.

The sheer number of immigrants coming to this country decides the matter. So, beyond any reasonable hope of integration and assimilation, we are foolish to keep alive the fantasy of “strength in diversity” rather than face reality: “collapse of civilization”.

Unless prepared to embrace British culture, sharing its values and respecting its institutions, anybody is fraudulently identifying as “British”, wherever born. This applies all the more so if they entertain ideas about the destruction of Britain.

Source link