[The ‘island race’ has an identity problem. In the days of empire, the English never had to consciously define themselves. With England as the dominant partner of the United Kingdom, the British identity was their own. They did not need Europe, their imperial presence was there for all to see. They believed they were different and wished to stay that way - a special breed. But conditions have changed and the English find themselves hemmed in by forces beyond their control. With power devolving to the Celtics and no global role, how are the English to position themselves?
Identity
is not something out there ready and waiting to be uncovered. It has to be
constructed, buttressed, recreated eclectically and it is usually the ruling
classes or elites who assume this task. They are the ones who define the
patriotic events and issues, select heroes to commemorate and cook up national
symbols and ceremonials. The working classes and minority groups have never
been part of the project. Their assigned role is to labour for the same
elites and to serve on the frontline in time of war.
Are
there any shared English values today? How does one discover and re-construct
one’s identity? With English morale low, the Far Right and extremist groups
have seized occasions like international football matches to promote their own
brand of English nationalism: aggressive, jackbooted, racist and xenophobic. A
more sober route to self-discovery may be to return to the past and search for
the distinctive features and institutions that made the English what they were.
The next step may be to extract those features that are relevant in today’s
multicultural Britain and to work on new ones.
In
Part 1, we skimmed through English history up till the 15th
century. We continue with our historical tour up to the present day.]
______________
Introduction
What does it mean
to be English today? The answers will depend on one’s class, ideology and
historical experience. What we constantly read or view in the mainstream media
and books are the opinions of the establishment types mostly spouting patriotic
rhetoric. The working classes (and more so the pop and football sated masses)
have more down-to-earth views, given both their limited vocabulary and
experience.
Consider for
example the answers given by a group of white teenagers loitering about in an
inner city area. The question asked: did they feel English or British?
“English, of
course. I’m proud to be English!” replied one youth, his ears and nostrils
pierced with lots of ironmongery. “I’m not British, I’m English!” Why? “Dunno, really. Just the way I am.” One of
his mates butted in. “English, British,
what’s the difference? It’s the same thing, innit?” (Times, 30 May 1998)
Not very
enlightening. The West Indian broadcaster, Darcus Howe, toured a number of
representative sites in 1999 to get to know the mind of the English and
presented his findings in a fascinating TV series under the name White Tribe on
British Channel 4 in January 2000. In the South East, near Brixton, he asked
one of the white youths gathered outside their club:
“You describe
yourself as English. What does that mean?”
The answer: “I was born in England and also my parents were born there...”
In Southall, near
west London, noted for its large Punjabi population, a white working class
young man offered his views:
“ I am proud to
be English, not because I am white but because I was born in England and lived
here all my life. You should be proud of where you come from. It is difficult
to say there is a white English culture.”
Watching a large
Sikh crowd celebrating Vaisakhi, the same man lamented: “It makes me
ashamed that all these people can celebrate their festivals while those who
have been here all their lives don’t do it the same way... The only big event
we celebrate is Christmas. Our national day, St George’s Day, has come and
gone.”
Now ask any
rightwing columnist (like Simon Heffer or Paul Johnson of the influential
tabloid Daily Mail to characterise the English and they will trot out
that hoary chestnut about “our reputation for fair play, tolerance and
decency”. But is this borne out by the experience of the working class,
subjects of former colonies or Third World immigrants and asylum seekers
subjected to systematic race-based legislation and media attacks? Ethnic
minority experience may well yield its own set of English traits: lacking
emotion, inclined to act superior, hypocritical. Indeed, the popular
broadcaster and writer, Jeremy Paxman wondered: ”Where did they (the
English) get their extraordinary capacity for hypocrisy?” [Ref 1]
The truth is there is no scientific basis for regarding social traits as inherited, whether aggression, fair play, reserved nature. So called national characteristics are really interpretations of historians and pundits serving the ruling classes or constructions of politicians to whip up support for a pet issue. English nationalism has long been used by the ruling classes to buy the support and loyalty of the rest by persuading them that they all have some sort of shared identity.
Protestantism takes
Root
The rule of Henry VIII (1509-1547) was a watershed in
English history. Henry’s contemporary was German Protestant reformer, Martin
Luther (1483-1546) who denounced papal excesses and clerical corruption in the
Catholic Church. Henry spoke against Luther for which the Pope honoured him
with the title Defender of the FaithI, a title still held by reigning monarchs.
Ironically, when the Pope refused to annul Henry’s marriage with Catherine, he
broke away from the church and in 1534 assumed the title of Supreme Head of the
Church of England. He had all the monasteries closed down and their assets
seized. Catholic Churches were ransacked, their treasures stolen and icons
desecrated. Henry re-married five times, executing two of the wives.
Henry’s son, Edward VI, introduced more Protestant reforms.
His successor, Mary Tudor, tried to return the country back to Catholicism and
executed hundreds of Protestants, alienating thousands in the process. Under
Elizabeth I (1558-1603), Protestantism was well established. She was succeeded
by James I (1603-1625) of the royal house of Stuarts. It was during his rule in
1611 that the Authorized Version of the Bible appeared.
James alienated the Puritans, a strict Protestant sect and
his successor, Charles I, provoked a Puritan rebellion. He was beheaded and the
monarchy was not restored until 1660 under Charles II. The Book of Common Prayer
was published in 1662. His successor, James II, was partial to Catholics. He
was overthrown in 1688 by what’s known as the Glorious Revolution which ushered
in William of Orange (from the Dutch Royal House) as William III of England.
The new king made sure that the Anglican Church was firmly established.
An Island Nation
To the English, the most memorable battle of the Hundred
Years’ War was fought at Agincourt in 1415
under Henry V when an English force of just 9000 men routed a French
army three times larger. (Actually the French cavalry had got stuck in thick
mud and became easy targets for the English archers.)
Henry V went on to occupy much of northern France. He forced
the French king to make him his heir and
married his daughter, Katherine. However, he died a couple of years
later and by the end of the War in 1453, the French had recovered all their
territory except Calais. However, Henry V’s victory evoked the first stirrings
of English nationalism.
Ever since Henry VIII’s break with Rome, England was under
threat of invasion from the Catholic countries of Europe. In 1588, Spain sent a
massive fleet (Armada) of 138 ships for this purpose but was defeated by
English seamanship as well as stormy seas. Only 67 of the ships were able to
return home. The Spanish rout established English naval superiority. It also
brought about a sense of nationhood and of being a special people, an island
race destined to rule.
According to literary critic Germaine Greer (2005), It is Shakespeare (1564-1616) whose "historical plays created a coherent view of England as an autonomous region, distinct from continental Europe and its island neighbours". He exalted England as an island kingdom. King Henry V, the victor of Agincourt, is transformed into a great hero, who utters the rallying cry “England and St George” before going into battle. In the play, Richard II, we have a stirring paean to England:
“This
royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle,...
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself,
...
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
...
This blessed plot,..., this realm, this
England...”
However, Greer dismisses these utterances as a lot of high-sounding nonsense. Life was hard for the poor in Shakespeare's time. Peasants who depended on small farms for subsistence were evicted by big landlords from the 'enclosure' of common land to graze sheep to produce wool. At the same time, Elisabeth I decreed in 1572:
"Unlicensed beggars above 14 years of age are to be severely flogged and branded on the left ear, unless someone takes them into service for two years. In case the offence is repeated and the beggar is over 18, they are to be executed unless someone takes them into service. But for the third offence, they are to be executed without mercy." [T Hayter, Ref 3]
Greer thinks of the elite when she says, "Englishness is distinct from Britishness - the quintessential Englishman, typified by the actors of the 1930s (John Mills, Robert Donat, later David Niven), is not a Geordie, Scouser or Londoner. He dwells unostentatiously deep in the home counties and his mentor is none other than Shakespeare."
National confidence also grew with the achievements of Sir
Christopher Wren (1632-1723), architect and scientist, and Sir Isaac Newton
(1642-1726), mathematician and scientist. The image of ‘island nation’ was
reinforced by later British victories in the Napoleonic Wars (18th/19th
centuries) and in World Wars I and II. English discomfort with Europe is still in
evidence today. British governments feel closer to their US cousins, insisting
that they share a special relationship.
Rallying under St George
Today the English remain uncertain about their identity. They have no national songs or costumes of their own like the Scots, Welsh or Irish. Their folk dancing is undeveloped; the Morris dance is hardly inspiring. there is constant retreat into the past - nostalgia for empire, pageantry, Beefeaters, Gilbert & Sullivan, Last Night at the Proms. Royalty has its fans. the English have a dubious patron saint, St George, but his day (23 April) tends to pass unnoticed. On the other hand, St Patrick's day celebrations are well established in London, with backing from the Mayor. English patriots have been clamouring for a proper observance of the day, and rightwingers and racists like the National Front threaten to appropriate the day. (On 23 April 2001they marched through Leicester city where there is a large ethnic population.)
Then in March 2005, the former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, called on the people in England to express their solidarity on St George's day in April [Daily Telegraph, 15 Mar 05]. Speaking at the Institute of Public Policy Research, a London based think-tank, he said: "We don't need to be afraid of offending the Scots, Irish or Welsh because devolution has strengthened their sense of identity; so we can now assert Englishness without damaging Britain in any way."
The English should be proud of their history, culture and civic traditions without being considered chauvinist. "A sense of identity, patriotism or whatever you call it, can in fact be a progressive and generous force. We are more likely to share things with each other where we feel a sense of shared identity." Blunkett spelt out what he loved in English culture and traditions:
English Poetry - W Shakespeare, John Milton, John Keats, Geoffrey Chaucer, Phillip Larkin,...
English Music - R Vaughan Williams, Henry Purcell, Edward Elgar, Benjamin Britten, F Delius
English Humour - Tony Hancock, Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, Dead Ringers, ...
But does the working class care for Shakespeare or Purcell? And where do bangers & mash, football and bingo stand in the cultural firmament? Identity is clearly a contested idea and class based but it's the voices of the poshies that we keep hearing.
And what of Britishness? Blunkett said Englishness could exist "within an overarching British identity". Curiously on the same day, the Chancellor Gordon Brown said Britons should celebrate their past and values, rather than feeling guilty about the legacy of empire. "I think the days of Britain having to apologise for our history are over. We should talk, rightly, about British values."
So no apologies and reparations for the Atlantic slave trade, the wealth from sugar, the killings in Africa (some 50,000 died in Kenya during Mau Mau), the racist rule in Rhodesia and grab of the most fertile land, the siphoning of gold and diamonds from S Africa, the condoning of apartheid, the looted artefacts still held by the British Museum and by royalty?
Tristram Hunt:
Who made us what we are?, Observer 02 June 2002
I will not celebrate a history of Britain and Britishness based upon royalty.
The recent death of the Queen Mother combined with preparations for the Queen's
jubilee produced an unexpected wave of affection for the traditional structures
of British society. Conservative papers manipulated this sympathy to push a
deeply reactionary version of Britain's history. The Daily Telegraph
declared: 'Our history is in large measure a story of kings and queens. The
pageantry of the past week is an exaltation of the British state, culture and
nation... in celebrating the Queen Mother's life, we are celebrating our own
identity.'
The British Tourist Authority has dropped any idea of Britain a a modern, multicultural urban meritocracy. Instead it has branded Britain with images of Buckingham Palace, a British bulldog an a man with a bowler hat in a field. The fault lies with New Labour which has failed to embed any popular progressive version of British identity. The government has consistently argued that the British character is found in timeless values (such as enterprise, tolerance and fair play) rather than institutions. Powerless bu holding a vital place in the public imagination, the royal family has been invested with far more significance than its deserves.
We should be wary about cheering a royal history of Britain.
References
1. Jeremy Paxman, The English, (Penguin 1999)
2. Germaine Greer, The man who made England, Spectator 23 April 2005
3. Teresa Hayter, The Creation of World Poverty, Pluto Press, 2nd edition 1990