THE PAREKH REPORT [8]

‘1.6 Notions of Britishness originated in the 18th century, were developed in the 19th century, and were cemented through much of the 20th century. Nevertheless, in the words of the editors of Political Quarterly, in the journal’s first issue of the new millennium:

“The British have long been distinguished by having no clear idea about who they are, where they are, or what they are. Most of them have routinely described England as Britain. Only business people talk about a place called the United Kingdom ... It is all a terrible muddle.”

1.7 If arguing with the past is one simple duty of citizenship, then arguing with the present, it follows, is another. “Suddenly, in the space of a moment,” writes Bill Bryson in his bestselling Notes from a Small Island, “I realised what it was that I loved about Britain.” In a way this travel book about England, Scotland and Wales introduced the inhabitants of these places to themselves. It depicted Britain as an endearingly eccentric place some of the time, and as essentially welcoming, friendly and calm most of the time. The author offered up a handful of criticisms - urban planners insufficiently respectful of tradition, a bossy landlady who interfered with his freedom, a waitress who did not understand him, an inflexible official, someone with a passionate interest he did not himself share - but basically he found Britain as a whole lovable. No wonder the book was a bestseller. This is how he summed it up:

“Suddenly, in the space of a moment, I realised what it was that I loved about Britain - which is to say, all of it. Every last bit of it, good and bad - Marmite, village fetes, country lanes, people saying ‘musn’t grumble’ and ‘I’m terribly sorry but’, people apologising to me when I conk them with a careless elbow, milk in bottles, beans on toast, haymaking in June, stinging nettles, seaside piers, Ordnance Survey maps, crumpets, hot-water bottles as a necessity, drizzly Sundays - every bit of it ... What other nation in the world could have given us William Shakespeare, pork pies, Christopher Wren, Windsor Great Park, the Open University, Gardners’ Question Time, and the chocolate digestive biscuit? None, of course.”

1.8 It is beguiling but also remarkably limited and excluding list. Consider who and what it leaves out. For a start, it omits Scotland and Wales - the author claims to be writing about Britain (the “small island” of his title), but much of this list, as indeed most of the book itself, is limited to England. Further, the list is limited in effect to the rural southern counties. It leaves out the English regions, with their distinctive identities and needs, and the urban and institutional life that is the daily experience of the vast majority of British people. It also leaves out the third of the population who are, by the government’s own figures, classified as living in poverty. Most are unlikely to think of Gardners’ Question Time and Ordnance Survey maps as epitomising their country. Equally, it leaves out all or most people in Britain who have close family or community links with Africa, Bangladesh, the Caribbean, China, Cyprus, India, Ireland, or Pakistan. There is barely anything in the list that resonates with their experience and perception of the land where they live. The references to Windsor Great Park and Christopher Wren evoke a national story that excludes them, or relegates them to subservient and marginal walk-on roles. Other than mentioning stinging nettles and careless elbows, the list leaves out all conflicts, difficulties and tensions, both in the present and in the past - it is both apolitical and ahistorical.

1.9 Significantly, the list gives no sense of the changes that have taken place in the very world it celebrates - the world of village fetes, country lanes and haymaking. Here, as elsewhere, there are conflicting loyalties and complex identities; profound disagreements about gender equality, sexuality, the upbringing of children, the nature and role of families; concerns about social class, status, life-chances and employment; disputes about the truth or otherwise of religion and the basis of morality; and unsettling anxieties about the cultural and economic dislocations brought on by modernisation and globalisation.’

The rather silly quote from the Political Quarterly does not merit much attention. Most people in this country know ‘who they are, where they are, or what they are’. It is not such a ‘terrible muddle’ as all that.

What is more important is the attack on a travel book. Bill Bryson, an American who was born in Iowa, is a travel writer. His book, Notes from a Small Island, was a best seller and he wrote it as a farewell to Britain just before he returned to the USA. One review of the book describes it thus:

‘After nearly two decades in Britain, Bill Bryson took the decision to move back to the USA. Before leaving his much-loved home in North Yorkshire, he took one last trip around the UK, and in this book, he turns an affectionate but laconic eye on his adopted country.’

Yet this travel book is criticised for being ‘both apolitical and ahistorical’. Bill Bryson himself is sneered at because, ‘basically he found Britain wholly lovable’ and consequently, ‘no wonder the book was a bestseller’.

The sheer political incorrectness of it! A travel book that was apolitical and ahistorical, that actually loved Britain! By God! It was even a bestseller!

AND JUST WHY SHOULD NOT HE FIND BRITAIN ‘WHOLLY LOVABLE’?

Bill Bryson, as are the rest of us, is entitled to his opinion, and entitled to feel nostalgic about Britain. That is not a crime.

It is not obligatory for immigrants to hate Britain.

WE CAN DO VERY NICELY WITHOUT ANTI-RACIST TRAVEL BOOKS.

The Parekh commissioners actually sincerely believe that travel books should be political and subject to their approval - even those written by Americans. This attitude and the comments quoted above betray more about the politically correct than the object of their derision. They reveal their true neo-communist intolerance of free speech, and their contempt for Britain in general and England in particular. They betray the fact that political correctness is not, nor ever has been, about promoting tolerance. It is about enforcing intolerance and encouraging hatred.

The report’s criticisms of the book being limited to the southern English counties is factually wrong and plain silly. Bill Bryson lived in Yorkshire, which is in northern England. The references to beans on toast, stinging nettles, seaside piers, drizzly Sundays etc are not confined to ‘the rural southern counties’. There are drizzly Sundays in Scotland and one presumes that the Welsh have encountered Marmite.

Yet the report tries to create division between southern England and the ‘English regions’. The report is in favour of regionalisation as are its commissioners to this day. The report further tries to create class division by alleging that the poor are excluded. As if beans on toast is an aristocratic delicacy and as if village fetes are attended only by the well-to-do.

The report further tries to create racial division, by claiming that ethnic minorities are left out. Since the book was written about Britain, then it is not surprising that it does not describe parts of the Indian subcontinent or Africa. The allegation that the book’s references to Windsor Great Park and Christopher Wren ‘evoke a national story that excludes [ethnic minorities], or relegates them to subservient and marginal walk-on roles’ is pure race war politics.

Mass immigration into the UK is a recent phenomenon and so references to events and buildings built before the Second World War will not include references to ethnic minorities, who are, by definition, minorities anyway. What the report is really attacking is the concept of Britishness/Englishness.

As if that is not enough, the report then launches into a sneer about the book’s references to village fetes, country lanes and haymaking. The report alleges that these references do not include ‘profound disagreements about gender equality, sexuality, the upbringing of children, the nature and role of families’ etc. The report cannot abide any view that is inconsistent with the political correctness of its commissioners.

ONE CAN REFER ABOUT HAYMAKING WITHOUT HAVE TO INCLUDE ISSUES OF SEXUALITY AND GENDER EQUALITY ETC.

The problem is the extent of the political correctness and outright communism of the Parekh Commission itself, and not the contents of a travel book or the views of those who buy it.

There is one aspect touched on in the quote from the book which does require further comment. And that is the “musn’t grumble” and the “I’m terribly sorry but” attitude, which the report assigns to the English.

Given what is happening to our country, it is about time that we did grumble, and certainly about time that we stopped apologising. It might only be an expression of politeness, but the reality is that the English have nothing to apologise for. We have been too polite for too long. We have spent too long making the best of a bad job. We have been too tolerant of those who are openly contemptuous towards us.

The time has come to assert our own interests in our own country.