Monday 27 October 2008

Introspective musings

As a white Caucasian male with a Christian upbringing, I wonder whether my opinions matter in our diverse society today and if I dare make subjective comments about race, religion or sex without mortally offending someone.
I am prone to generalisations when trying to preserve a friendship with those who might feel left out. Inadvertently, I am often inclined to offend those I would have liked to.

As a child I had little difficulty in defining myself as being English: I spoke the language, was brought up to revere England’s historic and glorious past, went to Sunday School (under duress), could sing the national anthem, played conkers, cricket and rugby, knew how to bend my head respectfully to my betters and was indisputably white.
The world has changed and although no doubt my son would make a slightly different definition, my grandchildren would probably struggle to reach a clear conclusion as to their national identity.
It is easy to be confused about national identity today and the feeling of belonging must now be much more tenuous than it was fifty years ago.
This has been tacitly acknowledged by successive governments eschewing English in favour of British, gratuitously annoying the kilted gentry up north and the diehard sheepherders in the west both of whom like to nurture nationalistic ambitions. Some circumstantial evidence about the objection to being branded as British is the rise in car number plates with the respective ‘national’ flags on them in place of the Union Jack.
Unfortunately, the traditional terminology of English, Welsh, Scottish, even Cornish and Liverpudlian has become increasingly meaningless with successive waves of immigrants.
What are the criteria for being British? To possess the right to hold a passport, have a National Insurance number and a tax identifier.
You do not need to speak the language, live in the country, pay tax or have forebears who might have done so.
Admittedly, disassociation is partly a question of colour. England, Great Britain, is situated on an island which has been involuntarily and voluntarily subject to waves of immigration and these, historically, have been very beneficial. Certainly it would be impossible to think of our history without the Danes, Saxons, French, Huguenots and Jews who have contributed so much to our culture and wealth.
Until the Second World War, immigrants were virtually all white and Caucasian so they were able to assimilate relatively easily, despite having different religious associations.
Immigration after 1945 has been of a different scale and composition to anything experienced before. Although the reasoning behind the various influxes may have been politically justifiable, they were made on the assumption of integration without any real planning to achieve this or obviate any potential problems. Successive governments avoided facing the issue and allowed immigration to continue, using the ‘multi-cultural society’ as an excuse for not tackling the issue.
Yes, many immigrants from the West Indies, Uganda, Hong Kong and elsewhere have become valued members of British society and have gone a long way to being integrated and, not least, have greatly added to our culinary enjoyment. Nevertheless, it is now painfully obvious that Britain has several sub-cultures which it never had before in its history. The children growing up under this ‘foreign’ influence have little or no feeling of belonging to British culture.
This is nowhere more apparent than with the Muslim community which has, at best, a schizophrenic relationship with the Christian host nation. Not only are Muslims more religious in their daily lives and guided by many tenets considered by Christians to be unacceptable, but they have created a sub-culture within the British culture which is neither open nor amenable to adaptation. As long as this Muslim element in our society remains minor, it will not be able to enforce changes on society at large, but birth rates are sufficient grounds for fearing that within fifty years they will be in a position to democratically demand radical alterations in how we live, certainly at local government level. In one hundred years they may even be the majority.
While all of this is speculation, subjective thinking and perhaps racial intolerance, I wonder how a young Muslim views his or her responsibility to upholding the values of tolerance and compassion, which provided a safe haven for their parents or grandparents, enshrined in the British way of life. How many would, if required, fight, physically or theoretically, for the maintenance of the nation they live in? Their motivation in life is governed by a theocracy which still lives in the Middle Ages and has absolutely no connection with modern Britain.
We are living in an unreal world when we imagine it is possible to accommodate both Islamic and Christian cultures, particularly when most British Christians have ceased to be devout. Today many people outside of the Moslem community can be considered religious fellow travellers with a trend to atheism. People do not want more dogma, but less. This attitude favours passivity and inaction while harbouring frustration and resentment at being unable to influence political events dominated by activists. These days we have laws protecting all sorts of minorities without adequate safeguards to protect and encourage the interests of the majority of citizens.
Life should be based on reciprocal respect for the life, property and culture of other human beings. That should not mean it is necessary to adopt, make allowances for or condone things which are innately foreign to the British way of life. Countries and people who wish to pursue their own culture should be welcome to do so, in their own jurisdiction. Those living in Britain should fully adopt our culture or look elsewhere for a home.
Previously our enemies were separated from us by the English Channel, but nowadays may be being nurtured from within.