Up my street

Endless debates about Britishness and Englishness are unhelpful. We'd do better to celebrate local history and identity
y o o o y

reddit this Comments (83)

y y o o o

Madeleine Bunting guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 September 2008 12.02 BST Article history

Britishness is one of those conference perennials. The appetite to discuss the issue shows no sign of flagging, and now the new boy on the block, Andy Burnham, the culture secretary, has joined the party. Just remember that there are no conclusions to reach: this debate will never end. This is an issue which Brown has personally done much to push up the political agenda. He has his own political reasons for doing so: as one astute observer pointed out last night, he never lectures the Scots on being British this is medicine he doles out to the English. Too often politicians have used the question of British identity as a way to appear to be tackling some of the most problematic issues in politics: Scottish independence; preventing Islamist extremism; globalisation and the attenuation of national identity, and a more diffuse anxiety about social atomisation. What's immediately obvious is that harnessing these issues to Britishness seriously overloads the concept. It can do little to ease any of them, and is ultimately self-defeating. British identity is no longer something which can be managed and manipulated by an elite. The other problem about the current political preoccupation with Britishness is that an emphasis on the national is a distraction from the identities that really matter to people the city, region or town where they live. This local sense of place is actually where people have the strongest commitment and investment. Interestingly, much of what Burnham had to say on identity was local and related to the north-west where he has his constituency. Obviously, he loyally defended the political debate on Britishness, but what he ended up talking about was how local identities focus on heritage the

old cotton mills or the wealth of huge Victorian churches in the north-west that no longer have congregations to sustain them. In the battles over these buildings, questions of local identity are being redefined and contested: an old church is to become a Muslim community centre, for example, in Bolton. Britishness also distracts from another identity question, and this was what the audience at the fringe most wanted to discuss: Englishness. What did it mean now? Was this the identity "which dare not speak its name", suggested one questioner. Has Englishness got so lost, so attenuated that it no longer means anything? And what happens to England, as Scotland and Wales become more assertive? There is much anxiety that Englishness will be hijacked by the far right, but that ignores a much more significant and far-reaching hijack that is now deeply embedded. When John Major quoted George Orwell on old maids cycling to church in the early morning mist, beer and cricket on the village green, he was employing one of the most powerful and resonant of English cultural traditions. He may have been ridiculed for his backward-looking imagery, but the truth is that people asked to define what is English often talk of picturesque rural villages and gentle rolling countryside. This image comes from the Victorian attempt by the middle and upper classes to define Englishness in their own elitist cultural terms. It was a nostalgic reaction against urbanisation and industrialisation, and it has run out of steam. Thanks to high house prices, this concept of Englishness has become accessible to a tiny elite and one which, ironically, is often not English. Wealthy Russian oligarchs and American pop stars buy up the ultimate status symbol, the English country estate. So my suggestion to Andy Burnham is that he picks up where David Blunkett left off when he gave a thoughtful speech on Englishness a few years ago. Steer clear of huge investments into a Museum of British History, which runs the risk of Millennium Dome hubris and endless squabbles with existing museums which own the iconic objects which tell the story of Britain. Instead invest in the small museums, which tell the local stories that enable people to feel a sense of connection to where they live and the communities to which they belong.

How valid is it to say that Englishness is contained within Britishness? When in 1997 a majority of the Scottish public voted in favour of forming a Scottish Parliament endowed with its own (limited) legislative competence, it became increasingly clear that Britain would undergo a process of national transformation in the years to come that would change the country irrevocably. The shadow of devolution had fallen over what has always been the political and economic pivot of the Union: Looming in a distance could be discerned the first harrowing signs of a disintegration that would gradually weaken national cohesion within Britain and sever the bonds that had held the nation together for more than three centuries. In 1707 the Kingdom of Scotland had been married to the Kingdom of England by parliamentary acts that came to be known as the Acts of Union; historically, however, both countries had been ruled by a single monarch ever since the Union of the Crowns, dating back to 1603.1Nowadays, the debate about national sovereignty is being rehashed; to many people, especially those living in the English regions, and among them a considerable number of politicians, the drastic developments are more than just a nuisance. While Scotland and Wales slowly dissociate from a community that had served its purpose in times of crisis (among them World War I and II, and, more recently, the Falkland War of 1982) as well as in the global context of the British Empire, England is left with a dilemma: Before the backdrop of a potential division of Britain, how can the English reinvent themselves and find their own specific identity? This paper will be concerned with English identity and shed some light on the question of whether or not we can speak of Britishness as incorporating a specific notion of Englishness. Before elaborating on the most prominent aspects of a potential English colouring of Britishness I deem it indispensable to briefly draft the cultural concept of national identity itself, in order to provide a safe starting point for a debate that is still raging in the British media today. In his otherwise well-informed work on the English people, entitled The English, Jeremy Paxman, a BBC journalist, attempts to identify the idea of nationality by contrasting German and English views on aspects that might constitute nationality. Paxman points out that even today German officialdom [] clings to the belief that it acts on behalf of a 2 Volk, whose nationality is a question of blood and would therefore tend to blindly confer citizenship on the grounds of racial considerations. In Paxmans words: Your family may have been living in Kazakhstan for generations, but if 3 you have the name Schmidt or Mller, you can acquire a German passport at once. Apart from the fact that such a practice of naturalization does not factually exist in Germany today, this allegation illustrates one component on which a sense of belonging can be established: Race. However, in our time most European nations, including Britain, are made up of people from many different cultural backgrounds. For this reason it seems inadequate to moor national identity to a criterion like race: In our time only extremist right-wing parties like the British National Party (BNP) would 4 claim that nationality is inevitably associated with a persons genes. It is more illuminating to think of a nation as a Schicksalsgemeinschaft, a community that shares a common destiny and history. By this definition, however, not only the Scots, Welsh or Irish could be seen as national communities that have grown over time, but the British community also. Only if three centuries of British government were discarded as a time of sheer interregnum could the integrative element of Britishness be disavowed. Nowadays, however, under the impression of faded glory and in times of devolution, comprehensive polls speak a different language: According to a Ipsos Mori survey delivered in 1999, only 19% of Scots and 27% of the Welsh identify with Britain, whereas 43% of the English say they feel British.5 This blatant disparity demonstrates that Britishness and British national identity are still cherished in England, while persons living in other regions of Great Britain are more reticent to accept Britishness as their (sole) national identity. If we put these findings into perspective, it seems rather obvious that for Welsh or Scottish people Britishness carries quite another meaning than it does for the English population. [...]

A Comparative Analysis Of Nationalism, National Identity And Britishness/Englishness

"Nationalism has long been regarded as one of the most Cenap Cakmak controversial phenomena among scholars. In addition, it has attracted many from various disciplines, including, but not printable version limited to, political science, history, sociology, theology, and send your friend so forth. The questions such as "what is nationalism? , "when did it first emerge? , "what impacts has it had up until now? can be somehow answered, even though there would be no consensus on the answers. However, when it comes to the questions such as "why do people feel that they belong to a certain nation? , "how does a nation emerge and evolve? , "what does constitute a nation? , and "what are the precise differences between a nation and a gathering of people? , it is hard, -and even one may claim impossible- to give satisfactory answers. As a matter of fact, there have been a few attempts to deal with the latter ones, whereas a large number of studies have been introduced with regard to first set of questions. Those who have chosen to perform the hard task have come up with different solutions and paradigms. One of the reasons behind the differentiation among the outcomes of studies concerned is, of course, differences among the approaches and methods of scholars and of their views. But another reason that deserves to be included is that almost every pattern of nation building has had its own unique aspects. Some were largely based on religion, some on common cultural heritage, and some on ethnic identity. The British case is perhaps more sophisticated than the rest. Almost every factor has had a greater impact than the others, while the British identity was being created. Religion has had an impact on the process, and so has ethnic identity. What all these imply is that the British case is worth being examined thoroughly and carefully. The main focus of this paper is English and British nationalism; and therefore, an attempt will be made to explore the underlying dynamics of English/British nation-building process. In doing so, first, Benedict Andersons highly regarded analysis, "imagined communities , concerning the emergence of a nation will be introduced; then, whether the British case could be explained by this formulation will be investigated. However, it should be noted that the British case harbors many challenges in some respects. For some, there was a core nation, which is the English, in the process, and the others have integrated to the center. On the other hand, some argue each unit has made an equal contribution, and therefore, the British nation is a combination of all, without the dominance of a certain "sub-nation . As an extreme suggestion, some may even claim that there has never been a British nation.

The British (or English) case is quite significant in one more respect: if there is a British nation, is it quite possible to imagine that an English nation exists within the British nation as

well? And if it exists, then, is it possible to claim the existence of a British nation?

Through the paper, Andersons study, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, will be serving as a basis for analytical purposes. Two major studies, one on British nation building, and one on English cultural nationalism, will be examined with regard to the consistency of arguments defended with those of Anderson: Linda Colleys Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837, and Gerald Newmans The Rise of English Nationalism: A Cultural History 1740-1830.

Anderson attempts to explain how and why a nation is built, whereas Colley and Newman are much more inclined to explore the basic characteristics of how British/English nation is evolved. In addition to three books mentioned above, Collin Kidds article, "Integration: Patriotism and Nationalism , is of great interest, since he offers some supplemental arguments. Anderson, in the book under review, tries to explain how nationalism as an ideology, and national identity embedded in that ideology, have arisen and evolved all around the world and kept their importance in global politics for centuries. His analysis is mainly socio-cultural. In his view, explaining "the sense of nationality, the personal and cultural feeling of belonging to a nation is more important than examining nationalism as a political movement. In this respect, he does not very much rely on explanations based on ethnicity, historical commonalities and, to some extent, religion. He suggests that a nation is "an imagined political community -and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign . It is imagined in the sense that individuals, who regard themselves as members of a certain nation, somehow know that other members belonging to the community exist; however, they do not, and perhaps, will never know who they are and what they look like. Therefore, "the nation exists in the minds of its members as an "image . But, it should be noted that existing as an image does not necessarily mean that it is an illusion. Anderson believes that "the nation is a genuine entity rather than a gathering. It is limited because its existence is confined to certain boundaries. From Andersons perspective, nations have neither existed potentially, nor been created by industrial societies. To the contrary, he presents nationalism as a project designated by groups, which have been differentiated by different experiences. Those differentiations have been generated by socio-economic conditions. Because of this, the features of each nation have

been different from those of the rest. This implies that it is very difficult to identify every nation in the same way, although some certain commonalities among nation building processes can be mentioned. As stated earlier, in Andersons analysis, socio-cultural aspects have a central place to explain the origins of nationalism and nation-ness. He traces the "cultural roots of nationalism back to the emergence of capitalism. But, the role of capitalism is not ideological. In other words, capitalism, being an ideology, did not influence the outbreak of nationalism. Its role is related to the spread of print. According to Anderson, the rise of capitalism affected the emergence of nationalism as follows: with the rapid spread of print capitalism, the literacy rate among ordinary people has increased. The number of printed books proliferated dramatically, and those printed materials became increasingly affordable to the public, who, at earlier times, had depended on the church for getting information. This new era also brought the spread of newspapers. As a consequence, people have become aware of the fact that the other members of the community they believe they belong to, really exists. This has helped them imagine the nation and the feeling of being a nation. Anderson contends that nationalism emerged at a time when religion as a cultural conception was declining in importance. The process was heavily correlated to the Reformation. It has heavily injured the image of church as the supreme authority in every aspects of life. While the religious perceptions were all the same and unified before the Reformation, in the new era, the homogenous structure was fragmented into several major parts. Therefore, the Christian world has fragmented and Protestantism has increasingly become popular. In Andersons analysis, the fragmentation in religious identities led to the emergence of national identities. Furthermore, the rise of languages other than Latin, which had long been the monopoly of the Church as a sacred language, diminished the importance of religion in general, and the church in particular. The void was filled up by national identity. Linda Colley, in her influential book, Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837, investigates how British national identity has developed. Her analysis covers the period from 1707, when Act of Union between the Scotts and the English was signed, to 1837, when Victorian era started. The period under review is of significance because the process of the British identity formation has been completed during that period, she contends. Therefore, those two points, namely 1707 and 1837, were deliberately chosen by Colley. Colleys approach to the issue of national identity is quite interesting and impressive as well. She argues that three distinguished nations, namely, the English, the Scots and the Welsh, developed a British identity, which is, in many respects, different from its constituents. Those mentioned "subidentities formed the new identity; however, it does not very much reflect their impacts. It should be indicated that Colley does not offer a satisfactory explanation about what happened to the former identities, after the sense of being British was explored. She does not necessarily claim that the new identity abolished the old ones; nor does she clearly acknowledge their existence. What she does not explain include how it is possible to imagine that the individuals,

who feel they belong to a particular group, can also hold another national identity. Moreover, she seems to have neglected the primacy and dominance of Englishness within the British-ness. As the English population is much more than even the sum of the rest, -Scots and the Welsh, it does not seem reasonable to suggest that the new identity does not contain the dominant character of the English. "Otherness takes a central place in Colleys attempt to find out the motives behind the formation of a comprehensive British identity. According to her, those who constituted the British nation focused on what they were not, rather than what they were. Even though they had differences among them, "the Others played a determinative role in the accomplishment of a united British nation. In this respect, Colley says, "the sense of a common identity here did not come into being then, because of an integration and homogenization of disparate cultures. Instead, Britishness was superimposed over an array of internal differences in response to contact with the Other, and above all in response to conflict with the Other . Religious differentiations as a source of otherness are the main factor for the English, Scots and the Welsh to create a common identity. Although different in many respects, the majority of the English and Scots were Protestant. In the meantime, it is worth noting that Colley does not very much talk about how the Welsh were integrated into the nation, as if assuming that the Welsh were already an indispensable part of the British nation. Her main concern is Scots integration with the English. Being Protestant was so significant that the English and Scots used it as basis to create a new national identity, despite the huge differences between those two communities. As Protestants, they stood against the Catholic other, the French nation, the long-standing prominent threat to the British Isles during 18th and 19th centuries. Being proximate geographically and isolated from Continental Europe also helped the English and Scots deepen the integration process. In addition, the pragmatic approach of Scots was another motive in the evolution of British identity. In order to benefit from the trade opportunities, which were made available by the effects of capitalism, Scots became aware that they needed to remain integrated with the English. Gerald Newmans book, The Rise of English Nationalism, deals with a much narrower subject. Even though the existence of English nationalism, -more or less-, has been sensed and acknowledged among scholars, it has never precisely been verified. He tries to prove that English nationalism has existed. In so doing, he uses cultural elements, such as pictorial art, literature and history, a lot. In that respect, it can be said he uses a cultural approach to explain the nationalism he is concerned with. He argues that this nationalism began to develop in 1740s. But it has not been clearly defined in a political sense until 1780 and 1790s. Before that, nationalism was seen as an almost politically radical tendency. After the revolution in France, even the elite opposed Franceand identified themselves with nationalism, and discarded the cosmopolitan culture. His thesis mainly consists of the following: Nationalism in England was based on an

attack against feudalism on the one hand, against the former social order, in which the cosmopolitan culture of the Francophile aristocracy was encouraged and appreciated. Those who were eager to adhere to French culture aimed to exclude the lower classes, and this caused a resistance against that cosmopolitan culture among the masses. Patriotism was the apparatus through which the lower classes showed their attachment to the local culture they created as an alternative to cosmopolitan culture. But, the resistance would never have been successful, if artists, intellectuals and writers, who encouraged and applauded the worth of English culture, had not made contributions. Their role was of great significance, because they informed and enlightened the citizens about national values. In so doing, they mobilized the nation against cultural invasion of the outsiders. Newman draws a sketch of the English elite, which is a sharp contrast of the mass public during the course of early 18th century, then, transformed itself into a nationalistic group, and thus, converged to the lower classes. The transformation was led by the French revolution, which caused the rise of nationalist ideology first in France, and then in the other parts of Europe. The English aristocracy, which used to be Francophile prior to the revolution, then sought to identify itself; as French identity would have certainly been inapplicable to its members. As a consequence, they determined that they in fact belonged to the English nation. In Newmans view, the intellectuals, the artists and the like played a paramount role in the process, in which a comprehensive cultural identity of the English was developed. Their role was twofold: first, they criticized and sometimes protested the attitudes of aristocrats, for adhering eagerly and roughly to cosmopolitan culture. This contributed to the attitudinal transformation among the elite. Alienated after French Revolution, the elite became much more unattached. Secondly, the middle-class writers, who had borne concerns about the loss of English character tended to find out readers, whom they believed they could educate. Their ordinary readers then learned from that they, namely "non-quality and lower class individuals were genuinely representing the English character. Colin Kidds article "Integration: Patriotism and Nationalism argues that little attention has been paid to how the British nation was formed, and adds that "Britainwas a given of political life . In his opinion, Colleys work is an attempt to unveil the Britons. Even very soon after the Act of Union 1707, there were many attempts from both sides to end the unification. Kidd claims that the Union survived because Scots realized that staying within the Union would be beneficial for them in terms of trade opportunities. He also acknowledges the role of warfare in the process of British nation building. "News of British actions was carried through newspapers and magazines, and this also helped the process. The comparison among the approaches discussed in this paper will lead us to several conclusions. It is quite obvious that the issue of nationalism is very hard to examine. It is so

complex that no comprehensive analysis has the capacity to cover all aspects of it. Andersons study tries to explain the issue, by creating a template and a generalization that would be valid for every pattern of nationalism. However, Colleys study harbors precise contradictions, when compared to Andersons suggestion. While, according to Anderson, the rise of nationalism could be attributed to religions relative decline in importance, Colley argues that religious identity and attachment is the very base of British nationalism. However, Andersons explanation on fragmentation of religions into different sects is helpful to understand Colleys eagerness to consider the religious identity as a basis for nation building process of the British. As Andersonargues, the Reformation in Europe created new understandings in Christianity. This caused a clear division in the Church, which used to be unified and the sole authority. However, the newly emerged movement, namely, Protestantism, challenged that authority. Eventually, clashes between those segments were initiated. Being predominantly Protestant, Scots and the English unified against their enemy, which was Catholic France. Therefore, Andersons approach and Colleys historical survey have one thing in common: both use the division in religious loyalties as a tool to explain how the national identity is formed. However, the ways they use that tool is different. Andersons explanation is much more based on the decline of religion in daily life. He suggests that the fragmentation in religious identity should be interpreted as the way that religion is not important anymore. Colleys argument relies on religious fragmentation. She claims that it was the division that led Protestant English and Scottish to regard the Catholic French as "the Other and to develop British identity. Likewise, the role of capitalism in nation-building was interpreted in different fashions by Colley and Anderson. While Colley views the role of capitalism as significant because of the opportunities it created, and consequently, the eagerness of Scots to unite with England, in order to be able to benefit from those opportunities, Anderson stresses the spread of print, one of the by-products of capitalism. Kidd supports Colleys argument, stating that Scots became aware of the future benefits and remained united withEngland, even though initially they were not entirely willing to sustain this unification. As far as the comparison between Andersons approach to the nation-building process and Newmans analysis is concerned, interestingly enough, Newmans cultural approach is quite appropriate to the formulation Andersonproposes. Anderson places the salience of cultural elements into the center of discussion concerning nationalism. Language is of particular significance. In his opinion, language was spread by printing materials. Therefore, such publications as newspapers, magazines and books very much helped the people develop a national identity. Likewise, Newman emphasizes the role of intellectuals, writers and artists in the formation of English nation. However, what is different in Newmans approach is that he does not mention a correlation between the rise of capitalism and the role sensitive intellectuals and the like played. For him, their efforts were a resistance against the attitudes of a cosmopolitan elite.

Through My Eyes
Englishness versus Britishness

Am I English, British, or a combination of the two? And what do these labels mean, anyway? Attempting a definition of either is like trying to define gravity: it is comparatively easy to describe the effects of gravity at ground level, but not at a certain height above the ground, where objects float in the atmosphere rather than falling to earth. Likewise, an authoritative answer to the question "Who are the English and who are the British?" cannot be provided by stating that the English are the people who live in England and the British are the people who live in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is partly because many English and British people do not live in the isles, but in other parts of the world. We may discover, in fact, that being English or British is as much about state of mind as it is about geographical location. When I hear Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March No. 1, I feel a stiff upper lip coming on, my spine becomes ramrod-straight and tingles with pride, and I am unequivocally British. By contrast, when I hear Vaughan Williams's Fantasia on Greensleeves, I see green rolling countryside, I smell the freshness of spring in the air, and I gently and peacefully feel English. Why are these two feelings not the same? Is it simply the music which alters my mood, or is being English not the same as being British? Various factors make it difficult to distinguish between Englishness and Britishness. Take the notion of England's island status, for example: while mainland Britain is completely surrounded by water, England itself is actually joined to both Wales and Scotland. Assuming that the south-west peninsula is a part of England (which some Cornish might dispute), England faces water on three sides and land --or borderson two sides, so, technically, while it is on an island, it is not itself an island. Even the name "Albion" is ambiguous. To many people, it is synonymous with "England"; indeed, artists and writers down the centuries have used the term in precisely this way. However, there is another school of usage which takes Albion to mean "Britain." The

reasoning behind this is interesting. It is generally accepted that for some time before and during the last Ice Age, the British Isles were part of the Continent of Europe. When the ice thawed and the vast ice sheets receded, the English Channel appeared, cutting off the isles from the rest of the continent. It is said that when those on the Continent looked across the English Channel, they saw the White Cliffs of Dover, so they described the British mainland as "Albion" or a word similar to it (the Latin root word "albus" means "white"). If this theory is correct, the whole of England, Wales and Scotland was named after the chalk cliffs. (However, there is also a possible Celtic or Gaelic origin for the name "Albion": an exact cognate in Welsh derives from a root which denotes both "white" and "mountain.") In the same way, history, and the composition of various institutions, have sometimes made it hard for individuals to sort out their loyalties. For example, the British Empire was a product of the efforts of many people, from all over the isles. Then there is the British Army, the Royal Navy, and the Royal Air Force. All three armed services contain regiments drawn from specific regions of the individual nations, and even now these regiments are fiercely proud of their local roots, often defining themselves by county rather than country. The fact that the English language -originally the possession of the English alone was spread around the world by the British has produced the strange appellation "British English" (as opposed to, say, American or South African English), although there is not, and never was, a British accent, only regional English, Welsh, Scots or Irish accents. Furthermore, regional forms of English in the United Kingdom have always varied wildly, producing vibrant and colourful dialects rather than a homogenous tongue. An examination of the respective English and British symbols might be helpful. Representing Britain there is Britannia, a female figure with a trident and shield; the trident, a nautical symbol, underlines the fact that she surveys the oceans. England is represented by St. George, a male figure with lance and shield, who, in contrast to Britannia, surveys the land: he is often depicted on horseback, thrusting the lance through the dragon's head and into the earth. As for the ancient personification of Albion (whose nationality, as noted above, is unclear), he is usually depicted as a male giant, sometimes armed with various weapons, bestriding the land. While the rose is associated with England, heather and the thistle with Scotland, the daffodil and leek with Wales, and the shamrock with Ireland, it is difficult to find a floral emblem for Britain -some might suggest the oak leaf or acorn, though the oak is also a symbol of England. The lion is the national animal of England, and, confusingly, also of Scotland, while Wales is represented by the red dragon (Ireland does not appear to have a national animal). Britain as a whole is represented by the bulldog, and also by the lion. It is clear, therefore, that there are some overlaps of national symbols between the nations. Whatever a nation's official characterisations and symbols, national identity remains a highly personal and individual matter. I was born in Paddington, London, in the late 1950s. When I was still a baby, my family moved to Brixton in south London, where we lived until I was eleven. Then we moved again, to a part of Bayswater, next to Paddington. At the age of twenty-seven I moved to Merton Abbey in south London, almost at Wimbledon, and then

finally moved again at thirty-one to Loughton in Essex, on the edges of both Epping Forest and east London, where I currently reside. I still work in London, and regard myself as a Londoner (primarily a south Londoner, because of my first ten years in Brixton). My mother also saw herself as a Londoner, but further back, my family background is more complex. My maternal grandmother had come to London from Wales, and always felt Welsh. My maternal grandfather, her second husband, was an Irishman who had come to England in search of work. After a long day spent working as a navvy on the London building sites, he would go to the local pub and drink Guinness. He and my grandmother were married in the local Catholic church, despite the fact that she was a staunch Welsh Methodist. My father came from Somerset in England, but his family had moved there from the Black Country (the Midlands around Wolverhampton) when he was a boy. My father did not regard himself as "Real Somerset," because although he spoke with a West Country accent at will, he could not forget the Wolverhampton way of speaking. My understanding of my national identity became even more complicated when I learned that, some generations back, I had also had an ancestor from Edinburgh. In terms of nationality, who or what was I? This question has exercised and fascinated me ever since childhood. And in 2006, now that I am in my forties, am I any closer to knowing whether I am British or English - or both? What relationship did my London forebears see between their city and the rest of the country? When my Irish grandfather left Ireland for London, did he think that he was going to England, or Britain, or did he perhaps think that London was a kind of self-contained city-state, geographically located within England and Britain, but in a way separate from them? My education did not dispel any of this confusion for me. When I was at secondary school in the seventies, the history teacher, although a very enlightened, forward-thinking man, explained that we should assume that the authors of our text-books used the terms 'Britain' and 'England' interchangeably, which puzzled me. Then, in the late seventies and early eighties, I studied law at the London School of Economics. Constitutional law was on the syllabus, and inevitably we covered the (then) semi-dormant topic of devolution. In a nutshell, it was recognised at the time that there were nascent nationalist movements in Britain, but discussion of these centred upon the activities of the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and the IRA. No-one in my study group imagined that England might want to separate from the other countries: again, England was seen as effectively synonymous with Britain, at least by the English law students. In the eighties, I was unaware of moves towards devolution on the part of any of Britain's nations. Save for the continuing problems in Northern Ireland, there seemed to be considerable national cohesion, particularly at the time of the Falklands War in 1982 and after it. In the nineties, the focal point became the handingback of Hong Kong to China, which appeared to fuel the discussion of devolution in Britain. However, the debate still largely concerned allowing more regional control to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; it was assumed that England would remain firmly at the heart of Britain. What, in terms of feelings of belonging, will be the result of devolution, which has been partly propelled by strengthened Celtic national identities? The present constitutional situation inevitably encourages people to think about and choose

their national allegiances for themselves. When I was at a party in London fairly recently, I heard a recognisably Scottish accent - though I could not make out to what region of Scotland it belonged- and I asked the speaker, a man in his late sixties, if he came from Scotland. He replied: "Glasgow." I said: "That's right, from Scotland." His riposte was sharp: "No, from Glasgow." Although he has lived and worked in England for many years, and is now retired here, he still sees himself as Glaswegian. I asked his son, just turned forty, how he felt about his own national identity, and he replied that he is British first, then Scottish, but definitely not English, although he acknowledged the English contribution to Britain. I asked the same question of the older man's daughter, in her thirties, and she replied that she is Scottish first, then British, but definitely not English. Are you English? After giving the question much thought, I have developed a simple, non-exhaustive test to determine Englishness. 1. Do you speak English with a sufficient command of the rudiments of the language to: (a) buy a return train-ticket to Saffron Walden; (b) explain to the doctor that you have a cough; (c) say that you do not believe in Father Christmas (unless you do); or (d) protest that the figures on the cheque which has just been handed to you are 3,452.51 out? 2. Do you possess a real sense of fair play? 3. Do you have a well-developed, if quirky, sense of humour? 4. Do you believe that you should only complain if there are genuine grounds for complaint, and when you decide to do so, do you complain with firmness and persistence until there is a result? 5. Would you fight an enemy to the death if he tries to take over your country, but only make war on him when every other reasonable avenue has been exhausted? 6. Do you believe that you should do a good job for the sake of it? 7. Do you relish your freedoms, as they broaden down slowly from precedent to precedent? 8. Do you enjoy sex, but try not to let on to our Continental neighbours that you do? 9. Do you have manners: do you ask politely for the salt to be passed to you at the dinner table, and thank the person who passes it to you? 10. Do you mistrust all politicians? 11. Do you have blind faith that it will all come right in the end, and are you willing to move heaven and earth to ensure that it does?

12. Do you love a good story? 13. Do you like machines? 14. Do you love the countryside, including the coast? 15. Do you adore the sea? 16. Do you tolerate everyone and their views, save on the odd occasion when you are confronted by an axe-wielding madman? If you were able to answer "Yes" truthfully to all or almost all of the above, then if you were a stick of seaside rock, the words "Made by England" would run right through you. If you were born in England and answered "Yes," your legend would be "Made in England." You will have noticed a complete absence of any questions in my test concerning the colour of your skin, hair, or eyes, the accent with which you speak English, or your family background. Nor does it ask about your religion. Being English is as much a state of mind as it is a way of life: if I think and behave like an English person, then I am one. Everyone should love their country and feel passionate about their nationality, whether it is their nationality of origin or of choice. But loving your country does not involve hating everyone else's countries. Being patriotic does involve showing your best behaviour to everyone else. Unless, that is, they mean to harm you. It seems to me that many of the questions above could also be used in a test to determine Britishness, which shows that from my perspective, English and British qualities overlap. I am English and British, not English or British. For me it is an inclusive, not an exclusive, arrangement. Since I am English, I am also British, but being British does not mean that I must also be English, for I could just as easily be Scots, Welsh, or Northern Irish. Definitive answers to my questions about English identity therefore prove elusive. How do we distinguish between the traits that are common to all of us in Britain, and those that are exclusive to England? I can only assess an individual's Englishness as opposed to their Britishness instinctively, through interacting with him or her, and would be hard-pressed to define it in words. Others might yet come up with such a definition, however; so if all this has left you none the wiser, you can do no better than to lie back and think of England. Alexander J. Betts Copyright Alexander J. Betts, 2007. We are very pleased to welcome Alex Betts to the Albion team. Alex comes from London and has a background in law. He is presently starting up a shop to sell delicacies from all over the British Isles.--The Editor

Britishness and Englishness

In Miseducation and Racism, in the first on-line issue of Ethnicity and Race in a Changing World, Marika Sherwood complains about the lack of government engagement with issues of race and ethnicity, such as in the curriculum, and wonders what the current emphasis on 'Britishness' is all about. Count me in, I too am perplexed. The political angst, I suppose, is what constitutes Britishness now parliaments are to some extent devolved. What have the English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish in common, yet which is different from other countries or regions. There is an organisational response - they have a British passport and thereby British citizenship. But the sense of angst requires more than that, a loyalty, a common heritage, a desire to contribute to the common good. Yet these citizenship ambitions need not be tied to a geographical area. When Britain went into Europe, many people were clear that they did not wish to be corporate Europeans but knew instinctively that they were British. True that was tribal, us against 'them'. Other states in Europe have a semblance of unity; only Britain contains four separate countries. Also, it is a cultural and political hegemony that 'decides' what our common heritage is. Is it how Britain saved and civilized the world? or how Britain exploited and ruined the world? Who are the heroes, who the forgotten? We recognise our heroes by the Order of the British Empire, so to accept you join the imperial club. In Germany between 1930 and 1945, the only heroic action was to be disloyal to the then government. Loyalty does not exclude moral choices. Even more perplexing is the angst for Englishness. A Welshman or Scot might be born in England without becoming English in the soul. My mother's came from Nottingham, my grandfather a miner from the age of 12. My father's family came from Dublin, and before that from Scotland via Canada, since they were 'cleared' off the land by British 'nobility'. What is the common heritage I should treasure? I have friends whose ancestors in India, Pakistan, the Caribbean, Africa and America were exploited and harried in other ways, who now find themselves in England as part of the melting pot that is named 'English'. In America, to be American in spite of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, meant something ideologically. To be America was to create and benefit from 'opportunity' (the reality was more restricting). Americans are even now re-evaluating what it means to be American, since the past fifty years have been found wanting. I therefore contend that seeking out an English, or British, cultural heritage is a red herring, and is potentially divisive and damaging. What we should be doing is following Barack Omama's lead in the USA and take Englishness, and Britishness by the scruff of its neck, shake it up, re-evaluate it, and decide together as a nation of mixed origins and experiences what Britishness ought to be, what ideals we should be promoting, and what prejudices we should be attacking. Then, and only then, will we have something worthy of our loyalty