An interesting piece but it overcomplicates and also omits a key concept. "English" refers to three different concepts. 1) People who are ethnically English. 2) People who are culturally English. 3) The in-group.
Often these concepts are conflated - sometimes accidentally, sometimes purposefully for political ends. But nonetheless, these are the three concepts. And it is the third one that makes the debate politically contentious. That's because unlike the first two, which are descriptive concepts referring to objective reality, the third concept is entirely socially negotiated. An ethnically English person is ethnically English (and Rishi Sunak is not) regardless of what anyone believes. If race communists brainwashed everyone in the country, some people would still be ethnically English while others were not. Similarly a culturally English non white person - e.g. a black man adopted into a white family in the 1950s - would still be culturally English regardless of what Steve Laws or anyone else believed.
But the third concept does not refer to objective reality. In other words it is entirely determined by what people believe. It's a function of who the majority of English people believe constitute the in-group. If tomorrow the majority of English people believed that it referred only to the ethnic English then that is what the "we" would become. But by the same token, if the majority believed that it applies to everyone with a passport, including culturally unassimilated immigrants, then that is what the "we" would become. The tribe decides who is part of the tribe. And that is why this debate is so emotionally fraught and politically salient. Because it's ultimately a normative debate over the boundaries of group identity, loyalty and belonging.
IMO in a multi-racial country with a multi-racial elite, the only viable way forwards that doesn't result in bloodshed or hostility, is for the in-group to be those who are culturally assimilated (understood loosely). Anything more restrictive will just create more balkanisation, lower social trust, and eventually a race communist backlash. Anything more lax, and we further dull the incentives to assimilate and pave the way for baser tribal loyalties to eventually supersede it.
Isn't this just cultural nationalism? Like France or Japan. The ideology that simultaneously imposes more restrictions on the existing citizens while enabling others who are willing to assimilate to join in.
The citizenship test is more signalling than anything else (like most education). If you're willing to put in the effort to remember these retarded facts means that you're willing to put in the effort to assimilate.
The Japanese citizenship criteria works better. Mostly because of you're willing to learn Japanese, a language you'll probably never need outside of Japan, you're willing to put in the effort. This is doesn't work as well for Anglophone nations. Even Islamists have pretty good English these days.
Perhaps you get everyone read some Tolkien bullshit. Although Tolkien is the worst thing that ever happened to English civilisation, so probably not.
Very disappointing. I was recommended the Pimlico Journal and expected honest intellectual reasoning, not this cowardly, labyrinthine pandering to the liberal or civic ideology (that has already lost the fight by the way). This is a disingenuous donation to the on-going discussion of such matters that only serves to muddy and confuse. This kind of subversive intellectualism belongs in the dying Tory party or shall we say even in Reform.
The wars have already been fought. The mothers have already had to lose their sons in painful fighting; the fathers have already had to suffer the defiling of their daughters. The blood that had to be shed to settle this matter once and for all has already been shed. We want peace now, and it is our birth-right to have it.
Please repeat after me: The matter of who is British is a settled matter.
There is no more room in Britain, and there is no more room in Britishness.
If we want to establish any truly right wing government in the future, or replace/transform the existing institutions, these questions need to be answered because they will be inevitably asked. Though calls to outrage at the current situation are both virtuous and justified, they don't win the long-term intellectual battle. As for "pandering to the liberal or civic ideology" is concerned, I personally don't think the author's argument that the vast majority of migrants in this country cannot be considered British in any way is either civic or liberal. Britain is certainly full, but British is a property, and we need to find who this property applies to, or could apply to.
An interesting article but...I am puzzled. Why does it exclude any reference to religion? Until recently many would have argued that being a Christian is a key feature of English and British identity. It certainly was so historically. Even Jews, after being readmitted to England by Cromwell were for years not considered English enough to sit in Parliament - Disraeli had to be baptised to become PM...
For better or for worse, Christianity is no longer *the* religion of the British people. Just under half identify as non-religious, and many more are Christians in name only.
Yep but historically it was. And you could argue that it still slumbers in the national subconscious. Similarly, soon perhaps the majority of Brits will no longer be 'white'. (I am thinking of the growing numbers of mixed race offspring. A British Brazil looms.) It would be hard, I think, to conclude that being white is not part of a historical British identity. But I am happy to be contradicted...😉
You say there are no necessary conditions to be British, but I think it’s reasonable to suggest that having some ‘native British ancestry’ is absolutely necessary, where ‘native British’ consists of the English, Scottish, and Welsh.
Otto is only asking this question to bring the questioner to Otto's own elevated plane. Otto himself is so over all that, man. He's beyond.
Otto thinks if everyone is wearing the Star Trek uniform and behaving the same way, that their history, food and sex preferences are just cute habits that we must all "respect", but also, magpie-like, can use ourselves. Bridgerton, takeaways, under-age sex.
Otto is similar to those people who say we have evolved beyond two sexes into a spectrum, and get offended when asked "What is a woman?". Questions a toddler could answer are tremendously difficult for Otto. Being British is one of those questions. It doesn't apply to him or his "citizen of the world" friends, so he asks like an anthropologist meeting a backward tribe. It doesn't affect him personally, but he puts on an interested face.
All Otto deserves are flat responses like "You know perfectly well, stop pretending you don't".
An interesting piece but it overcomplicates and also omits a key concept. "English" refers to three different concepts. 1) People who are ethnically English. 2) People who are culturally English. 3) The in-group.
Often these concepts are conflated - sometimes accidentally, sometimes purposefully for political ends. But nonetheless, these are the three concepts. And it is the third one that makes the debate politically contentious. That's because unlike the first two, which are descriptive concepts referring to objective reality, the third concept is entirely socially negotiated. An ethnically English person is ethnically English (and Rishi Sunak is not) regardless of what anyone believes. If race communists brainwashed everyone in the country, some people would still be ethnically English while others were not. Similarly a culturally English non white person - e.g. a black man adopted into a white family in the 1950s - would still be culturally English regardless of what Steve Laws or anyone else believed.
But the third concept does not refer to objective reality. In other words it is entirely determined by what people believe. It's a function of who the majority of English people believe constitute the in-group. If tomorrow the majority of English people believed that it referred only to the ethnic English then that is what the "we" would become. But by the same token, if the majority believed that it applies to everyone with a passport, including culturally unassimilated immigrants, then that is what the "we" would become. The tribe decides who is part of the tribe. And that is why this debate is so emotionally fraught and politically salient. Because it's ultimately a normative debate over the boundaries of group identity, loyalty and belonging.
IMO in a multi-racial country with a multi-racial elite, the only viable way forwards that doesn't result in bloodshed or hostility, is for the in-group to be those who are culturally assimilated (understood loosely). Anything more restrictive will just create more balkanisation, lower social trust, and eventually a race communist backlash. Anything more lax, and we further dull the incentives to assimilate and pave the way for baser tribal loyalties to eventually supersede it.
Isn't this just cultural nationalism? Like France or Japan. The ideology that simultaneously imposes more restrictions on the existing citizens while enabling others who are willing to assimilate to join in.
The citizenship test is more signalling than anything else (like most education). If you're willing to put in the effort to remember these retarded facts means that you're willing to put in the effort to assimilate.
The Japanese citizenship criteria works better. Mostly because of you're willing to learn Japanese, a language you'll probably never need outside of Japan, you're willing to put in the effort. This is doesn't work as well for Anglophone nations. Even Islamists have pretty good English these days.
Perhaps you get everyone read some Tolkien bullshit. Although Tolkien is the worst thing that ever happened to English civilisation, so probably not.
Very disappointing. I was recommended the Pimlico Journal and expected honest intellectual reasoning, not this cowardly, labyrinthine pandering to the liberal or civic ideology (that has already lost the fight by the way). This is a disingenuous donation to the on-going discussion of such matters that only serves to muddy and confuse. This kind of subversive intellectualism belongs in the dying Tory party or shall we say even in Reform.
The wars have already been fought. The mothers have already had to lose their sons in painful fighting; the fathers have already had to suffer the defiling of their daughters. The blood that had to be shed to settle this matter once and for all has already been shed. We want peace now, and it is our birth-right to have it.
Please repeat after me: The matter of who is British is a settled matter.
There is no more room in Britain, and there is no more room in Britishness.
If we want to establish any truly right wing government in the future, or replace/transform the existing institutions, these questions need to be answered because they will be inevitably asked. Though calls to outrage at the current situation are both virtuous and justified, they don't win the long-term intellectual battle. As for "pandering to the liberal or civic ideology" is concerned, I personally don't think the author's argument that the vast majority of migrants in this country cannot be considered British in any way is either civic or liberal. Britain is certainly full, but British is a property, and we need to find who this property applies to, or could apply to.
An interesting article but...I am puzzled. Why does it exclude any reference to religion? Until recently many would have argued that being a Christian is a key feature of English and British identity. It certainly was so historically. Even Jews, after being readmitted to England by Cromwell were for years not considered English enough to sit in Parliament - Disraeli had to be baptised to become PM...
For better or for worse, Christianity is no longer *the* religion of the British people. Just under half identify as non-religious, and many more are Christians in name only.
Yep but historically it was. And you could argue that it still slumbers in the national subconscious. Similarly, soon perhaps the majority of Brits will no longer be 'white'. (I am thinking of the growing numbers of mixed race offspring. A British Brazil looms.) It would be hard, I think, to conclude that being white is not part of a historical British identity. But I am happy to be contradicted...😉
I think we’ve all had enough of fancy word play at this point. Multiculturalism is a failure.
Raise the English flag and see who lines up behind it , that’s all that matters.
You say there are no necessary conditions to be British, but I think it’s reasonable to suggest that having some ‘native British ancestry’ is absolutely necessary, where ‘native British’ consists of the English, Scottish, and Welsh.
Otto is only asking this question to bring the questioner to Otto's own elevated plane. Otto himself is so over all that, man. He's beyond.
Otto thinks if everyone is wearing the Star Trek uniform and behaving the same way, that their history, food and sex preferences are just cute habits that we must all "respect", but also, magpie-like, can use ourselves. Bridgerton, takeaways, under-age sex.
Otto is similar to those people who say we have evolved beyond two sexes into a spectrum, and get offended when asked "What is a woman?". Questions a toddler could answer are tremendously difficult for Otto. Being British is one of those questions. It doesn't apply to him or his "citizen of the world" friends, so he asks like an anthropologist meeting a backward tribe. It doesn't affect him personally, but he puts on an interested face.
All Otto deserves are flat responses like "You know perfectly well, stop pretending you don't".
Having to even discuss this is just yet postmodernist wind-pissing on the shores of the Entropical Antiparadise.