Saturday, 13 February 2010

Britain's state-imposed multi-ethnic national identity

According to his Guardian profile, "
Cole Moreton is an author, journalist and broadcaster", who in his article, England's daft and pleasant land, advances the notion of a multi-ethnic English identity, and that "England is changing colour", by insisting that anyone who has a problem with it is a "racist".

Well, I'm NOT a racist, but I still have a problem with it, because my own sense of English identity has a strong historical, even prehistorical, and ethnic component. If individuals of manifestly non-European origin want to call themselves English, they are free to do so, but it won't mean much to me (unless, perhaps, I get to know them personally), and I shall assert my own distinctive identity by calling myself "native English" (as in native American).

Cole Moreton is doing is asserting (very unpleasantly, through intimidation) the state's assumed right to impose its own, proprietary and mercenary, definition of national identity on all its, especially indigenous, citizens.

Does the state really have the right to do this? I don't believe it does. What it does have, however, is the POWER, which Mr. Moreton, for reasons of his own perceived self-interest, obviously identifies with.

A prerequisite of working for Britain's liberal media, e.g. the Guardian and BBC, is embracing state ideology of "colourblindness" and of a multi-ethnic British (including English) identity.

Thus, Cole Moreton's article is an expression of his own perceived self-interest in keeping in with state and establishment ideology, and in maintaining the kind of (multi-ethnic) sociopolitical environment in which he personally thrives.

Anyone who opposes him and the state ideology he has embraced he dismisses as a "racist".

The real issue here is not racism, but statism - or, as Jonah Goldberg would call it, "liberal fascism".


  1. Er, no.

    Strong, abusive and personally offensive stuff here, Roger, much of which I take exception to, but I will restrict myself to one very clear correction. I do not, anywhere in the article, "insist that anyone who has a problem with my idea is a racist". I don't use the word racist at all, in fact. Go back and check. Not once.

    I expect lots of people might have a problem with what I'm proposing, and most of them won't be racists.

    I wrote what I believe, on the site and in the book. You have the right to say what you believe, even when - as here - it is a gross misrepresentation of my argument and intentions. I think you will find some things to agree with in the book, as well as much to annoy and frustrate you, no doubt. I hope that's a risk you're willing to take.

    Best wishes, which are evidently more than you offer me,
    Cole Moreton

  2. I'm very sorry, but have only just discovered your comment, because, being relatively new to blogging, I've been neglecting to subscribe to my own posts.

    I haven't time to respond properly now, but will do in due course. This is just to say sorry for sounding offensive towards you, whom I wasn't expecting to read it. If I'd been addressing you personally, I'd have expressed myself very differently.