-
Waving, Not Drowning
August 6, 2012 | 117 comments
-
P Is for Poison
June 25, 2012 | 34 comments
-
Made in Heaven
May 11, 2012 | 23 comments
-
Monumental Egos
April 10, 2012 | 19 comments
-
Facing Up to Darwin
February 29, 2012 | 187 comments
The Pursuit of Knowledge
I ATTENDED AN ordinary English state school in the late 1950s. In our history lessons we were taught that England is the heart of Great Britain, that Great Britain is the heart of an Empire, and that, thanks to this Empire, ideas of law, freedom, and democratic government had spread around the globe. We were therefore proud of the Empire, which we described as British, not English, and thought of it as proof of our national virtues and a contribution to the advancement of mankind. Our flag was the Union Jack, a striking synthesis of the emblems of our constituent peoples, and we believed that this flag represented a peaceful union, rather than the triumph of one nation over others. We sang “Rule Britannia,” the rousing chorus of which declares that “Britons never never never shall be slaves!”
We had no difficulty in reconciling our attachment to the English Crown, the English law, the Church of England, and the English language with the view that we were British, and no more British than the Welsh or the Scots. In those days there seemed to be no contradiction in our composite national identity, and we could identify ourselves for some purposes as English, for others as British, without divided loyalties. The turning point of the war, when London was saved by the Royal Air Force, was called the “Battle of Britain,” and postwar spirits were raised by a “Festival of Britain,” located in the English capital. And when England played football against France, we waved the Union Jack in support of our countrymen.
Our identity, in other words, was defined in terms of what it included, not what it excluded. It was not belligerently xenophobic, nor was it founded on myths of racial purity or tribal kinship. But it was a genuinely national identity all the same, and we thought of ourselves (Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish included) as a single “island nation,” containing other nations as parts.
Jeremy Rabkin persuasively argues that the nation-state is a natural home of political freedom. But we must also recognize that European nationalism has often been the enemy of freedom and that national identity and nationalism are two quite different things. The “nation” that was to rescue the revolutionary French from their feudal masters became a new form of feudal master, though one which could never be held to account for its misdeeds. It wielded power over its subjects beyond anything imagined by Louis XIV when he declared that “l’état, c’est moi.” The worship of the nation, introduced by the Revolutionaries and given its liturgical trappings by Robespierre and his faction, culminated in Napoleon’s campaigns, which devastated Europe and ruined France. In reaction to Napoleon’s destruction of their country, the Germans too became nationalists. And the rival nationalisms of Germany and France dominated the European scene until the final defeat of Germany in 1945. In light of this history it is hardly surprising if the European Union, which grew from the debris of the 20th-century conflicts, should announce itself as an alternative to the nation-state.
BUT THE EU’s understandable hostility to the criminal use of the national idea, which ought to be directed primarily at France and Germany, has been almost exclusively directed at England—the one European nation to be entirely untainted by nationalism. The most striking feature of the EU’s attitude to my country has been the concerted attempt to remove it from the map. The official map of the Union, which was projected long before the United Kingdom was admitted as a member, mentions Scotland and Wales as autonomous regions, and allows France, Germany, Italy, and the rest to retain their traditional names, even if divided into Länder or départements. But the name “England” does not appear on this map. All that the English are granted is four “regions,” defined geographically. It seems that this corresponds to a long-term policy— one so deeply buried in the aims and projects of the European Union that it has never, to my knowledge, been openly debated. This is the policy of dividing England in something like the way that the colonial powers divided Africa, and then creating “regional assemblies” to administer the arbitrary fragments.
This policy appeals to the Labour Party, which has already granted national assemblies to Scotland and Wales. For the last thing the Labour Party wants is an English Parliament, in which it could never hope to form a government. The Labour Party can rule over the English only with the help of its Welsh and Scottish MPs. Under its jurisdiction our nation has ceased to be the single nation that we were taught to believe in, and has become three—maybe four— nations instead. There are Scotland and Wales, with their own legislatures; and there is England, ruled over by a legislature dominated by MPs from Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland, meanwhile, hovers uncertainly on the perimeter. As for the EU’s “regional assemblies,” the Labour Party is proceeding to impose them upon us, even though the scheme has been decisively rejected in referendums and opinion polls.
In short, we are seeing the first moves toward the abolition of England. The core nation in our syncretic national identity, the one from which the idea of “Britishness” derives, the one celebrated in our patriotic literature down the centuries and identified with our common language and culture, has been forbidden.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has therefore made a point of extolling a new kind of national loyalty, one which is compatible with the disappearance of England. He reminds us of the “core values” of Britishness, which include freedom, toleration, compassion, social responsibility, and other qualities that can be read in ways favorable to the socialist state. But he has little time for the core values of Englishness: the stiff upper lip, the well-spoken accent, the ethic of fair play, and the code of the gentleman. These he is happy to denigrate as imperial hangovers and symbols of a privileged caste.
In its 11 years in office, the Labour Party has granted legislatures to the Welsh and the Scots; begun, through the regional assemblies, to deprive the English of a Parliament; removed the hard-won protections of the English countryside; and abolished the old House of Lords. It has attacked and penalized the Public Schools and the old Universities, banned hunting with hounds (that quintessential symbol of old England), and encouraged the mass immigration of potentially disloyal minorities into the English cities. All this fits easily into the EU’s broader agenda and prepares the way for that final abolition of England, which will be achieved because almost nobody has noticed it.
ONE INTERESTING RESULT of this is that people are losing the sense of British identity. The Scots and Welsh have their patriotic songs, their heroes and legends, all of which are celebrated in their history lessons. But they are rapidly forgetting that they are part of a larger national entity, with an imperial legacy and a shared culture across permeable borders. At football matches nobody now waves the Union Jack: the separate national flags are all that can be seen, and if any Englishman raises a flag outside his house it is the cross of St. George, the flag of England. Apart from this symbol, however, the English are allowed precious few reminders of their identity. Our heroes have been effectively excised from the curriculum or recycled as villains, like Clive of India, Wellington, Captain Cook—even Churchill, now painted as the leader responsible for the Second World War. Our legends and patriotic stories are given no airtime on the BBC, and the Arts Council, which distributes taxpayer money to cultural enterprises, and warmly encourages applications from ethnic minorities, refuses to fund an “English Music Festival,” on the grounds that such a jingoist enterprise would offend the multicultural orthodoxies of New Britain.
Americans should not view the forbidding of England with complacency. Although many Americans have Irish and Scottish ancestors, who came to this country as refugees from the English, the fact is that America was made in England. Its constitution was inspired by the reflections of Locke, Montesquieu, and Harrison on the constitution of England; it was made possible by the inheritance of English common law, and by the extraordinary way in which that law has granted freedom to the subject and protected this freedom from oppressive power. The underlying law of the United States is not Roman law, Scots law, or Napoleonic law: it is English law, which has been the guarantee of freedom in every place where it has taken root.
The common law of England is not imposed from above by sovereign powers that hope to control us, but is built from below by judges striving to resolve our conflicts. It is a bottom-up form of legal order, a legal order designed to protect the subject from his oppressors. It is this law that is responsible for the freedom of England, and which was brought to America by the early colonists, there to take root in the fertile soil of a pioneering community. But we should not believe that the common law is a permanent possession. Indeed, it has been the most important casualty of the EU’s relentless dictatorship, which has been concerned at every step to create centralized legislation and courts empowered to enforce it.
At every point, now, our judges find themselves hampered by regulations, by vast tomes of dictatorial edicts, and by a European court of “justice,” staffed by judges raised on the Code Napoléon, whose duty is to enforce the top-down decisions of the Eurocrats, rather than the rights of the individual subject. Once England has been abolished, the hostility of the EU elites will target America as the most important surviving example of a legal order devoted to individual freedom rather than state control. The anti-Americanism that we witness today among the European elites will be nothing beside the anti-Americanism that we are sure to witness then. The pity is that England will no longer be around to sympathize.
Roger Scruton, the writer and philosopher, is most recently the author of Culture Counts: Faith and Feeling in a World Besieged (Encounter Books).
About the Author
Roger Scruton is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His latest book, How to Think Seriously About the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism, has just been published by Oxford University Press.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Roger Scruton
More Articles From The Pursuit of Knowledge
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/01/the-forbidding-of-england
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- What’s in a Name?
- The Great Train Robbery
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Jeff| 11.20.08 @ 3:14PM
My wife and I emigrated from England in 1961 -
At that time people were English, Welsh, Scottish, or Irish (though some Ulstermen prerffered being "British") At no time did anyone refer to Brits! I don't know when it started, but ssome European elites think it is wrong to call people from Japan- JAPS- If Brits is ok for the UK, then Japs should be OK for Japan!
m Pav| 11.20.08 @ 5:18PM
As an American with roots in England, Scotland and Ireland I hate to see Englishness fading. It's rather like seeing American schools celebrate Cinco de Mayo while ignoring holidays based on U.S. History, all in the name of multiculturalism. I feel as if my culture is dying while the others are being glorified. If I want to celebrate Cinco de Mayo I'll move to Mexico.
Alan Sked| 11.21.08 @ 1:15PM
Most of Roger Scruton's argument is undeniable but there are parts of the story which he misses out. As a Scot who has now spent most of his life in England, and who always felt as much British as Scottish, perhaps I am qualified to fill these in, especially since my opposition to the EU is well-known.
First, the English never ever acepted the Scots and Welsh as truly equal inside Britain, even when the majority of English con sidered themselves British first. They would always use English and British interchangeably in a way that Scots and Welsh did not. The latter, moreover, would often be dismissed simply as "the Celtic fringe". So lingering resentmemnts were built up. Again, in English schools, 'British history' never included Scottish or Welsh history, whereas in Scotland and Wales, English history could not be avoided.
Secondly, it was not the Labour Party but the Tory Party, which Roger Scruton supports, which took Britain into the EEC (EU) . For decades the country-loving, fox-hunting Tory squirearchy was happy to inform us through the Daily Telegraph and other channels that Britain needed to be part of Europe in order to bring about economic discipline. The Tories also signed us up for the European Single Act and the Maastricht Treaty and leading pro-EU Tories today still advise David Cameron. The Tories as a result are still committed to EU membership. So it is not simply a story of England being betrayed by Labour. Nationalism flourishes best, however, when under attack, so one day there may still be a British reaction, although like Scruton, I would not bet on it.
Terry| 12.17.08 @ 10:52AM
An excellent article. Well done!
Watta Tadger| 12.17.08 @ 1:58PM
Roger,
I think you will find that the "regional assembly" you refer to is actually the Scottish Government in Edinburgh..
Chris Abbott| 12.17.08 @ 8:07PM
Roger does miss out the actually quite frightening anti-English elements of Scottish and Welshness and also the exclusive "Celtic" purity myth which still abounds in those nations.
England was submerged under the UK project as far as the English were concerned, but the country remained as the focus of hatred for some Scots and Welsh folk - and was regarded as the sole perpetrator of the "sins" of the British Empire.
Scotland and Wales climbed smugly into their pulpits and denounced England for "crimes" they were also guilty of.
The Empire? Scots were disproportionately involved. The partitioning of Ireland? Took place under David Lloyd George, a Welsh Prime Minister.
I could go on and on.
England needs to break away from Scotland and Wales - two countries which are currently far more guilty of the behaviour they claim to hate than England ever was.
Stephen Gash| 12.18.08 @ 8:01AM
The Union held England back and did not advance her cause in any way. Yes, we English had to subsume our national identity to appease our "fellow Brits".
We are told we cannot have an English Parliament because "no federation has such an asymmetric distribution in which one part has 85% of the population". As a consequence, England is expected to disappear, to be replaced by EU-regions, for the sake of the United Kingdom. Well the UK is a unique project where nations formed a union of sorts. It cannot be compared to Germany, a single country with its regional system. England is a country and a nation in its own right.
I'm fed up with foreigners (British or otherwise) making comments like "London is not England". London is England's capital and I will fight to keep it so. I'll keep England over the UK if the choice is forced upon me. In fact the UK can end now for all I care.
Patrick Harris| 12.19.08 @ 11:43AM
I too was a product of the early 40's and so went to a state secondary modern school learning all the facts listed in the article by R.S.
Through the 60's, 70's and 80's I served in the Royal Navy and along with Paddies Taffs and Jocks had as great a time, as could be had, under the threat of nuclear, biological and chemical warfare. (It was NATO that kept the peace in Europe not the egotists of the Brussels EU commission).We all served the Queen under the Union Flag and did our bit for Britain, there was rivalry between the different country folk and some fisticuffs from time to time but it all ended in comradely association. Devolution and ever closer ties to Europe has seen the fragmentation of a once great country which is now full of bitter rivalry, jealousy and downright unfairness, all this since the election of the New Labour government in 1997, who in one decade has done more to split asunder the best country on earth, all for the sake of misplaced and, in the long run, unobtainable ideological goals.
From now on I am English through and through with a full stop. Brown and his bunch of, to use an appropriate Amricanism, suck-ups will be around for a few more years, England will be around for evermore.
Adrian Thurston | 12.21.08 @ 9:32AM
Briefly, England is the greatest country that the world has ever seem. We are greater than the furthest expanse of the 1st Chinese Empire, more powerful than the Egyptians, more influential than the Greeks, and more organised than the Romans. We have proved this by first silencing our troublesome neighbours; Scotland, Wales & Ireland (to some extent) all of whom were and probably still are, jealous of our freedoms, our independence, our genius and our power. We adpapt very quickly and this makes us almost unbeatable in war - unless we are fighting ourselves - of course! Since we have this indispensible capacity, we have been fortunate enough to use it wisely not only to ensure our survival, but the survival of our way of thinking, our generous attitude, our benevolence, our warmth and fairness, all of which are far far more important. This is our real culture and this what we will die for. For we know how to accept that which we cannot change and subdue that which attempts to change us. Because since our establishment here in Britain ovr 1500 years ago, we English have turned the basic British way of life into an enigmatic novelty and we have imposed our language, our culture and our glorious traditions on these war-like elemetals who have been forced to accept us, mostly against their wills to begin with, and gradually, to accept us by tollerating the benefits they have received from us over the years. Under the British flag, we the English, have led the peoples of this island to economic conquests and dominance all over the world, and we have forced all peoples to learn our ways of living and our ways of prospering over and above their own, and for their own good, which most, now accept with few provisos. The gun has been a big part of this, and without it, our culture would not be as dominant all over the world, as it is today, in every country and in every culture and in every continent: in fact, almost everywhere on planet Earth! We are the people who have subdued and civilised and educated this whole planet into our way of thinking - but the work is not done. There is still some work to do - because our children, the USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and others have been blinded by anti English propaganda which demonises us for creating riches where there were none, organisation where there was chaos, a sense of jutice where there was only force and brutality, an aim of healing where there was only suffering, and healthy living where there was predominantly sickness and pain. This is what it means to be English and this is the weight that every English person carries with them on their shoulders, not as a yoke (as our enemies would have it), but as a burden of responsibility which must not be released into the hands of others, or the world that WE have created will fall into a dark age, far darker than any dictatorship, far darker than any cowardly gutless obedience, far far darker than any state imposed unfair laws, and more obscure than any futile war of greed. Criticisms of our desired way of life and our peaceful tolerant society, come from the enemies of our civilising influence and from those who would rather not have what we have given, but instead the nihilism and barbarism of the ignorant which must be anathema to ourselves and to our English people. Without an England, the world must implode upon itself and be subdued by the land of darkness which hangs over us like shadow of the re-introduction of the wolf into our peaceful forests, the dismantling of our Hadrians wall which has kept us safe for centuries. It currently lies almost abandoned and can’t keep wolves out for too much longer. Lets start to re-man that wall - and keep an eye our for those blood-thirsty wolves! They are there, and they are coming; and they will take what is yours unless you stand up and do something. Now.
M Anderson| 12.22.08 @ 10:45PM
"...the name “England” does not appear on this map. All that the English are granted is four “regions,” defined geographically. It seems that this corresponds to a long-term policy— one so deeply buried in the aims and projects of the European Union that it has never, to my knowledge, been openly debated. "
Firstly, they hate us because we are predominanantly protestant. We have held up their catholic dominated world plan. They can't stand that because they think they have the right to lord it over all of us.
Secondly, they hate us because we have beat them in battles and wars time and time again. That is why they had to invent a state, the EU, and con the dumb jocks and paddies into joining in on their evil plan. How else could they beat us? Spanish armada? No! The Normans? No! The nazis? No!
I have one thing left to say F*CK THE GOD DAMNED EU!!
Pingback| 2.27.09 @ 6:45AM
The Forbidding of England « Roger Scruton links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.24.09 @ 6:45AM
The Forbidding of England!! « Centurean2’s Weblog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Simon| 6.10.09 @ 3:07AM
I have just discovered your name during readings for a theology assignment. 'An intelligent person's guide to culture'. Really great read. I am thankful for the internet to see what other good things you've penned.
Jason Simmons| 11.4.09 @ 2:57PM
I think that a major issue today is that of drug addiction, and what Inpatient Drug Rehab is doing against it. Thank you for sharing this.
Joseph| 6.20.12 @ 2:54PM
Talk about nerve.
A Tory Brit blaming the French for the wars of the European monarchies, led above all by the British crown, to crush the French revolution that forced the French into the arms of Napoleon.
And taking credit for the spread of freedom and democracy when his silly little island did all it could to strangle both in France at birth.
What a fraud.
And a perfect fit with the ignorant American anglophile's conservative myth that that monarchist, reactionary boot-licker and suckup for aristocracy and theocracy, Burke, was some sort of hero of liberty.
Pfui.