I spent 15' at work rewriting some parts, correcting stuff.
And I was able to read the stuff through. It's still far from complete, there are several topics that I could have dug deeper... And the oral version was quite different. Still, if you haven't read version 1.0, enjoy 1.1, for it is far much more readable, a bit more academic in tone, and much better organized.
Basically, I should have added a quick explanation about the Commission for Racial Equality, created in 1976 and being the only organization entitled to enforce the law about Racial Equality.
And some point about the use of the word race, and blah blah blah. But if anyone wants to complete this analysis, they're -again- completely welcome.
And if you don't read it, I'll tell St George !
"Cry God for Harry, England and St George. It's a shame none of us south of the Border can cry it too loudly or we'll probably find ourselves up before the Commission for Racial Equality. The English have become a race in denial"
- The Daily Mail, April 23 rd , 1996.
First, what is this cry, and why should anybody want to yell it out in England? For the "Border" is referring to the border between Thistle-Land and Rose-land, the southerne part of it being England.
The cry is a quotation from Shakespeare’s play King Henry V (act III, sc. 1) and is calling upon the Patron Saint of England, St George. This Patron Saint's day happens to be April 23rd, which is why the Daily Mail published this article that very day: it was quite a topical text.
Are The English a race in denial indeed? What does the author mean by that?
Actually, the author expresses the point of view that the English are not allowed to be openly proud of their origins for it would cause them to be sued for racial discrimination.
To what extent is this sentence, a war cry indeed, acceptable in 21st century Britain? And where does the thin line between Nationalism and racism stand? We will focus at first on the “race” and its denial, the identity expressed through claiming to be part of a people, and also why could a Scot be proud to be Scot if an Englishman isn’t allowed to be proud to be English. That shall lead us to take a look at the extreme expressions of Nationalism, that is to say racism and xenophobia, and the way they are impacting on immigrated populations.
First, what might be wrong in expressing one's identity inside his or her own country?
Crying out loud one's Englishness in England doesn’t seem very useful, but doesn't seem harmful either. For saying "I'm a real English" doesn't make you say "...and you're not", but something closer to "...and join me in a celebration of it". After all, what is St George's day supposed to be if not an occasion to make Englishmen join other Englishmen into celebration and thus creating social links? So what would be wrong into calling upon said St George to protect England?
For England has united Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in United Kingdom, still each nation keeps its patron Saint (respectively Andrew, David and Patrick) and its identity. The problem here is that Scots have the right to be proud of their Scottishness, Welshes of their Whelshness, and Irish of their Irishness. In the name of Equality, English should also be allowed to be proud of their Englishness.
Or should they? For the formulation of the sentence definitely evokes a peril, a threat to be protected from. There were always tensions between the nations in United Kingdom, specially since Nationalist parties have risen to power in Scotland, Wales and Ireland (in the latter case, leading to a conflict that is still unresolved). And there are the others, from other parts of the World, immigrating in Britain and making some people feel nervous about the survival of their identity.
But Britain is not much of a melting pot: according to 1991 census, 5.5% of its population are considering themselves as being from another ethnicity.
Still, these 5.5% are looking threatening to some people. And those people tend to be quite demonstrative of their hostility, often leading to racist insults and discourses.
For St George's Cross (red on white) is heavily used by the British National Party as a symbol (just take a look to their website's homepage), and St George and Englishness are typical rally points for these nationalists who refuse immigration and openly flirt with racism.
For nationalism is to be proud of one's own Nation. Indeed, but to be proud of something, doesn't it have to be better than the other choices? The step from "I'm proud to be English" to "because English are superior to you all!" is easily crossed...
This confusion is thus very easy to do for a third-party observer. For one can't say at first eyesight (or hearing) if one's just proud to be what one is or if one's actually putting some racist thesis in innuendo.
In the end, if being openly proud of one’s own Englishness is not a crime, it can turn to one quite easily depending on the words chosen to express this feeling of identity. What nationalists just don’t see is that England has evolved through centuries. By creating United Kingdom, England has made itself part of a bigger thing. With the waves of Immigration fro various regions of the world since the 17th century, England (and more generally Britain) has taken a more various ethnic profile. So maybe it is just time to find a new rallying cry for people proud to be English, cry that would include other ethnicities in its meaning
