
What a dumb question to ask!![]()
This question and similar ones are usually thrown into the political and media circles to re-visit the exhausted subject of integration. Ever since 9/11 and more particularly after 7/7, the debate about being British and its ramifications have started to become more imposing and trying to shape a dominant  public opinion on the matter. However, for the government, there is a risk of  being so stringent with a definition about Britishness. The very fact that these question are being discussed in light of a community who live according to a different value system, they risk alienating them further and reducing the likelihood of ever integrating them successfully into a liberal democratic society.
British or Britishness is an invented political identity, its roots originating from the Union of the Crowns in 1603 when James VI, King of Scots, ascended to the thrown of England, thus uniting Scotland and England under one monarch. Ever since then in British History it has been used to assert an identity on other communities. An example would be in 1607 large tracts of land in Northern Ireland fell to the crown. A new settlement was started, made up of Protestant settlers from Scotland and England. Over the years the settlers, surrounded by the hostile Catholic Irish, gradually cast off their separate English and Scottish roots, becoming British in the process, as a means of emphasising their ‘otherness’ from their Gaelic neighbours.
Many commentators have stated what they feel it means to be Brtish in Modern Britain. Starting with Scottish Prime Minister Gordon Brown,
he has mentioned several measures to promote Britishness, one of them being recapturing the Union Jack from the Far Right. “All the United Kingdom should honour it, not ignore it. We should assert that the Union flag by definition is a flag for tolerance and inclusion.” A report commisioned by Gordon Brown on British Citizenship suggested that all school leavers should take an oath of allegiance to the Queen in order to develop a “sense of  belonging.”                                                                                                Â
 Jeremey Paxman, a well known journalist and authour comments that “I am more comfortable with my English identity. There are important residual values there, such as respect for the rule of law and for democracy and, I suppose, religious overtones too.” Sharmi Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty feels it’s about underlying values that are capable of embracing not just British people but the best aspirations of democrats around the world. Another audacious view is from Michael Boyd, Artistic Director of the RSC, “The thing I like most about Britishness is its messiness and incompleteness. I am a good example of it myself: I was born in Belfast, brought up in London and educated in Edinburgh. I like the unfinishedness of the idea of Britishness and I think that’s what is shaping about it. It is part of our problem, but it is also defining.”
Having briefly highlighted the current context of discussion and its historical roots, is it a commendable way to engage with the Muslim Community in discussing or imposing such a controversial term? People who go on and on about it are usually the people trying to force the Muslim Community to behave a certain way based on their perception of best values for humanity. The government, ministers and certain think tanks that provide fodder to government legislation are usually the source to stoke up what intended to be a harmless issue of having a cohesive society to a divisive topic where the people of influence try to impose their agenda on the Muslim Community in Britain. Â
I think the first step in any conflict resolution is to talk to one another. It is given the problem today is that the British Society is unable to be fully inclusive of all the migrant or indeed some indigenous people. The majority being those who share a faith in Islam. So, ultimately to become fully inclusive what does the British Society need or to be brazen, deficient in, in order to resolve some of the problems faced in society? Quoting a 14yrs old boy at high school in response to school leavers taking an oath to the queen, ” It’s kind of dumb. Most people have proper faith in their own country, trying to get them to have allegiance to this one gets in the way. It’s more important to create better housing for people with youngsters. Getting rid of tower blocks would stop things like gang culture.”Â
A recurrent theme in this subject is the issue of values. The notion of shared values is one of the conerstones of being British. I think there lies the answers to the questions asked earlier. A proper debate should ensue on what exactly are British Values and its validity. Starting from here will allow a level playing field where people on opposing sides will be able to air their views without being labelled as extremists or Anti – British.
 Right, enough on advertising Britishness, as Boris Johnson says “it’s quite unBritish to keep bashing on about Britishness.”


April 17th, 2009 at 11:29 PM
lol – nice post… it made me laugh at least
)
Poor Britain – it’s easy for everyone else to identify themselves. They all have at least one aspect of their history/culture to be proud of. America has her struggle for independence and wonderful melting pot. France can (still) lay claim to Secularism. Egypt has her ancient civilisation and the pyramids. India has her vibrant culture and delicious food. The list goes on…
What does Britain have that she can be proud of as well as be able to transfer over to any up-and-coming citizens? Colonialism? Football? Curry?
C’mon guys, I’m struggling here. If people are going to adopt this, it needs to be something that sounds good.
So why not try asking my (British-Bangladeshi) community to sum up Britain in one word… the responses I received: sly… shrewd… world famous foreign policy… undercover colonialists… crafty… underhanded… cunning… political masterminds… not as dumb as America thinks…
I’m starting to realise why Britishness is going to be so hard to define. The best thing about Britain happens to be something most people will find distasteful. None of it sounds good in public… but perhaps that’s only because the public just don’t understand the importance of an ideological foreign policy, which in this case happens to be the seeking of national benefit for the motherland at the cost of every other moral and value.
Poor Britain.
April 30th, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Well the Bengalis and the Brits have one thing in common… the love of fish. I think the Bengalis should promote community relations on this mutal love of the ocean’s bounties.
What’s more, I think this is perfectly in line with the way the British establishment is currently discussing the topic of identity. It does not wish to discuss its values of sexual/personal freedoms which lead to so many cases of promiscuity, adultery and teenage pregnancies to name a few. It does not want to discuss its colonial foreign policy where the country will go to war based on a lie and then say don’t worry about the reason, lets just try to make the best of the situation we find ourselves in.
Trust me my friends, fish is the answer. Just don’t bring up the difference in preferring rice or chips.
August 31st, 2010 at 4:30 AM
Interesting discussion!
Blurry lines of the debate help greater inclusiveness, and the continuous circling around the question usually ends up exposing or enlarging divisions in society.