UKIP go from strength to strength

[Traitorfish]

Exactly, more flags. Flags for everyone. Flags galore. But as long as the flag itself retains these connotations, the result is an apparent (if misleading) expression of support for the far-right. The far-right will read it as such, at any rate, and our misguided attempt to reappropriate their symbolism will just end up emboldening them. What you need is a broader realignment of identities, one grounded in a lived experience of multiethnic and multiracial community.

 

[caketastydelish]

The point I'm making is if the flag were flown by basically everyone rather than the "far right" it wouldn't have the "far right" connotation.

Why do you think the American flag is not seen as particularly racist but a nazi or confedorate flag is?

 

[Arakhor]

I just think this is smug left-wing hatred of the English. "Yes there is such a thing as an English identity but it is racist, so you can't use it".

"Smug left-wing hatred"? Can you try to write a whole post without some meaningless buzzwords?

How is an English identity distinct from a British identity, assuming that the Briton in question is English?

 

[Flying Pig]

For that to work, people also have to think that there's no contradiction in a first-generation immigrant from Pakistan saying 'I'm proud to be English'. TF's point, I think, is that people understand that he could be proud to be Scottish, because people see being Scottish as a matter of how you think and what you do, but people see being English as partly a function of where and to whom you were born. I think that's a self-reinforcing cycle and I'm not sure exactly how you'd go about changing it.

 

[Traitorfish]

The point I'm making is if the flag were flown by basically everyone rather than the "far right" it wouldn't have the "far right" connotation.

Why do you think the American flag is not seen as particularly racist but a nazi or confedorate flag is?

My contention is that the meaning of flags is about more than just the flag itself, but about the identities it represents. Even if you wrest the flag away from the far-right, it'll still be a racialised symbol. It will still be a flag for white, ethnically English people. It won't have the civic, all-inclusive symbolism of the Scottish or Welsh flags. It might allow the respectable right to feel more comfortable with its display, but the fundamental problem will remain.

 

[caketastydelish]

My point is I don't particularly see why the English flag has to be a 'racialized symbol' to begin with as opposed to the Scottish or Welsh flags.

particularly because "ethnically Welsh" and "ethnically Scottish" both happen to be real things just as much as "ethnically English". If only the English flag symbolizes a racial message, it can potentially be undone just as much as has already happened for the Scottish and Welsh flags.

 

[useless]

Quackers; is an England-born Person of Pakistani descent or a Family in London with Afro-Carribean roots anymore or less English? Not implying you don't believe they are, but im interested to see what "defines" being english is.

 

[Quackers]

I said that English identity is racialised, not that it's racialist, and certainly not that it's actually racist. There are indeed more open, porous interpretations of English identity: if you'll look back a page, you'll find me making just that claim in response to your lamenting London's dearth of pureblood Saxons. And as you say, the identification as "English" is often functionally equivalent to the identification as "British", so if Britishness can be civic and porous, there's no particular reason that Englishness can't be. What I'm saying is that, right now, the explicit claim to Englishness as opposed to and distinct from Britishness is shot through with racial associations, and even you accept that when you complain that declarations of English patriotism are regarded as suggestive of racist attitudes.

As Flying Pig said, I'm sympathetic and even vaguely supportive of attempts to constrcuct a non-racialised English identity. I don't see this whole "Britain" thing holding out for more than another decade or two, so you're going to have to cross this bridge sooner or later.


.

You still haven't actually addressed the "English identity = racialised" point. All your evidence is some self identification on the census (which i'm taking at your word), i've pointed out where i think that's not a solid place to start in my last post. Indeed, Scottish and Welsh identities may be even stronger in those countries as a reaction to having a huge English presence next door. BMEs may pick up on that and thus identify more strongly with a Scottish or Welsh identity. England doesn't need to do that.

So lets go back a move, prove that "English identity is racialised". I'm still unconvinced.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that (at least in the near past) 'British' was used as an overall term to allow for the sense that people have their special background, but are tied to being British, even if living in England for all their life (but not actually 'English').

A bit of a lighter/more modern version of people outside Attica being supposedly citizens of the Delian League.

I think it backfired in the case of England, cause it caused 'English' to become a notion not openly expressed, and thus easier to be picked up by more particular groups/minorities within the English.

It could be worked out, but not in the current fall in the spiral of possibly another huge war.

 

[Traitorfish]

My point is I don't particularly see why the English flag has to be a 'racialized symbol' to begin with as opposed to the Scottish or Welsh flags.

particularly because "ethnically Welsh" and "ethnically Scottish" both happen to be real things just as much as "ethnically English". If only the English flag symbolizes a racial message, it can potentially be undone just as much as has already happened for the Scottish and Welsh flags.

The English flag is a racialised symbol because English national identity is itself racialised, in a way which Scottish and Welsh national identities are not. It's not about "a racial message", in the sense of an explicitly racial political ideology, it's about the fact that "English" is in practice taken to mean "white", so the display of the English flag carries an implicit assertion of racial identity.

The exception, as Borachio noted, is football, and I think that owes a lot to the fact that football represents the sort of multi-racial environment I'm talking about. That can be overstated, football still being a disproportionately white interest- West Indians and Asians have traditionally been more involved with cricket- but at this point it's a matter of numbers rather than identities. Most environments which entail some sort of national association are imagined to be "British" rather than "English", obliging people to accept a multi-racial conception of Britishness; if more environments were "English" in this way, we'd probably see a similar shift in attitudes. I don't know what they might be, though; the only explicitly "English" institution I can think of that isn't sports-based is the Church of England, and nobody really cares what they're up to anymore.

You still haven't actually addressed the "English identity = racialised" point. All your evidence is some self identification on the census (which i'm taking at your word), i've pointed out where i think that's not a solid place to start in my last post. Indeed, Scottish and Welsh identities may be even stronger in those countries as a reaction to having a huge English presence next door. BMEs may pick up on that and thus identify more strongly with a Scottish or Welsh identity. England doesn't need to do that.

So lets go back a move, prove that "English identity is racialised". I'm still unconvinced.

I'm going to be honest, I don't really care enough to convince you. It's hard enough following your Wonderland logic at the best of times ("Englishness is multi-racial- but, hey, what's with all these non-white people in MY ENGLISH LONDON!?!") without participating in it. It seems to be a matter of fact that non-white people in England readily identify as "British" but not as "English", while non-white people in Scotland and Wales readily identify as "Scottish" and "Welsh", and further, that when non-white people identify as "English" they do so in a geographic rather than national sense, while non-white people in Scotland and Wales readily adopt the trappings and mythologies of their national identity. That reads as a straightforward example of racialised vs. non-racialised identities, and if it's not good enough for you, well, that is unfortuanate.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think that (at least in the near past) 'British' was used as an overall term to allow for the sense that people have their special background, but are tied to being British, even if living in England for all their life (but not actually 'English').

A bit of a lighter/more modern version of people outside Attica being supposedly citizens of the Delian League.

I think it backfired in the case of England, cause it caused 'English' to become a notion not openly expressed, and thus easier to be picked up by more particular groups/minorities within the English.

It could be worked out, but not in the current fall in the spiral of possibly another huge war.

The idea that the UK isn't England is quite young; even a decade or so after the last war, it was still perfectly acceptable to use 'England' as a substitute for 'the UK'. I think it's actually worked the other way; British is an identity for people who do not have or explicitly reject Welsh, Scottish or Irish identities, perhaps coming from a feeling of need to reimagine what was seen previously as England's dominance over the other nations.

 

[Domen]

I don't get the point made by Traitorfish. It's like saying that a flag with a star and a crescent means "brown".

 

[Kyriakos]

The idea that the UK isn't England is quite young; even a decade or so after the last war, it was still perfectly acceptable to use 'England' as a substitute for 'the UK'. I think it's actually worked the other way; British is an identity for people who do not have or explicitly reject Welsh, Scottish or Irish identities, perhaps coming from a feeling of need to reimagine what was seen previously as England's dominance over the other nations.

I recall some British documentary in the end of the 90s about people in Scotland who were sometimes arguing they are 'British first, then Scottish'.

 

[Quackers]

I'm going to be honest, I don't really care enough to convince you. It's hard enough following your Wonderland logic at the best of times ("Englishness is multi-racial- but, hey, what's with all these non-white people in MY ENGLISH LONDON!?!") without participating in it. It seems to be a matter of fact that non-white people in England readily identify as "British" but not as "English", while non-white people in Scotland and Wales readily identify as "Scottish" and "Welsh", and further, that when non-white people identify as "English" they do so in a geographic rather than national sense, while non-white people in Scotland and Wales readily adopt the trappings and mythologies of their national identity. That reads as a straightforward example of racialised vs. non-racialised identities, and if it's not good enough for you, well, that is unfortuanate.

And you've said all these things without a shred of evidence beyond a debatable use of census statistics. Look, I'll let you bury your head in the sand and pretend that Scottish people are superior to English people because they're less racist. That's the whole motivation consciously or subconsciously, you hold. I saw it in the Scottish independence debate time and time again. "We need to be independent because us Scots are more kind, generous, noble and more moral than the English".

Not going to take much condescension from someone whom went from multiracial Leeds and settled in a provincial hugely monoracial white city A perfect example of white flight.

 

[Traitorfish]

The idea that the UK isn't England is quite young; even a decade or so after the last war, it was still perfectly acceptable to use 'England' as a substitute for 'the UK'. I think it's actually worked the other way; British is an identity for people who do not have or explicitly reject Welsh, Scottish or Irish identities, perhaps coming from a feeling of need to reimagine what was seen previously as England's dominance over the other nations.

I don't think that's entirely true. Until the early 20th century, there was a strong sense of Britishness as an imperial identity, one open to Australians, Canadians and even Indians as much as to Irish or Scots. There's always a degree to which Britishness is identified with Englishness, especially among the English, but it always had space for something else, and as some groups have exited that space, others have moved in. As Kyriako says, it provided a logic by which people from an outgroup background could be admitted into the imperial in-group, and you see that as early as the 18th century, when Irish and Scots Hanoverians start discovering their "Britishness". This has certainly involved a reimagining of British identity- dropping the fixation on Protestantism, for a start- but it's been an ongoing process rather than a dramatic overhaul. The difference, if there is one, is that for a long time these negotiations of identity were something that happened far away from the English themselves, but now it's happening on their doorstep, and they're not always entirely able to keep up.

 

[Borachio]

That's the opposite of what TF is saying - he's urging non-racist people to use English identity (or find an acceptable form of English identity) so that it stops being associated with racists.

I'd identify as English, if asked. Because I don't obviously belong to any other group as far as I know.

But of what use is this to me? How can I use an "English identity"? If I was interested in sport, I could use it then to identify with an "English" team (if that was my bag). But other than that, what is there?

Maybe that's the defining characteristic of Englishness: that it involves not banging on about it, like all other nationalities seem to.

 

[Traitorfish]

And you've said all these things without a shred of evidence beyond a debatable use of census statistics. Look, I'll let you bury your head in the sand and pretend that Scottish people are superior to English people because they're less racist.

I said that English identity is racialised, not that it's racialist, and certainly not that it's actually racist. There are indeed more open, porous interpretations of English identity: if you'll look back a page, you'll find me making just that claim in response to your lamenting London's dearth of pureblood Saxons.

You complain about immigrants failing to integrate, and yet, you don't even seem to comprehend the language!

Not going to take much condescension from someone whom went from multiracial Leeds and settled in a provincial hugely monoracial white city A perfect example of white flight.

I've never lived in Leeds. You might be mistaking me for somebody else?

 

[Arakhor]

Are there any blacks or Asians in the EDL? Why aren't they the British Defence League? What is specific about that group of people that they feel that the English identity in particular needs to be defended with crusader mottos and anti-Islamic rhetoric?

 

[Quackers]

You complain about immigrants failing to integrate, and yet, you don't even seem to comprehend the language!


I've never lived in Leeds. You might be mistaking me for somebody else?

You're lying

Are there any blacks or Asians in the EDL? Why aren't they the British Defence League? What is specific about that group of people that they feel that the English identity in particular needs to be defended with crusader mottos and anti-Islamic rhetoric?

Nationalists and racists do use the national insignia of whatever country they're in. That's a given anywhere. What insight are you trying to get at?

 

[Arakhor]

I get why UKIP use the name of the UK, because they're pro-Union, amongst other things. There's also the English Democrats, who see themselves as the English SNP. I don't get why the EDL are specifically English though, as opposed to (say) the BNP, who claim to represent the whole country (provided that you're white).

Given that you're the one going on about a specific English identity, I thought you might have some insight into that.