Why English nationalism is so bad

English nationalism is stupid. It is unthinking and trite and, worse than that, it is boring. It is more tedious even than the bunting-draped, plastic-flagged patriotism usually only visible on royal occasions. English nationalism is derided, and rightly so. It is often remarked by English nationalists that Scottish and Welsh people are ‘allowed to feel pride in their country’, but such permission is not granted to the English. Here, briefly, is the argument that this ought to be the case.

Pride in one’s ‘identity’ (in this case national, but also ethnic, religious, gender, sexual etc.) always arises in the face of a threat or oppression. See #BlackLivesMatter, the Pride movement, feminism and many others. Asserting oneself as valuable is only useful when that value is being questioned or degraded. What, then, are the threats to Englishness? The most commonly cited by English nationalists is immigration. It is clear, very quickly, that it is a racist position.

Scottish and Welsh nationalism (I’ve used these examples because they are commonly brought up, so I shall continue to use them) face no such problem: it is quite clear that they reside in an Anglocentric British state — pride in their regions is the natural response.

The form they take, too, is far less damaging. Telling English people to ‘fuck off’ at sporting events is far less damaging than joining fascist protest groups and marching against showing compassion to victims of war. The SNP, for all their flaws, are better than the National Front.

And what is there to be proud of in the first place? Colonialism, war, even genocide abroad — an oppressive class structure, racism and a government obsessed with dismantling the national institutions at home. Of course there has been fantastic art and writing, but which of the English nationalists revere Shakespeare, or Britten, or any of the Brontë sisters? And of course there have been progressive movements to fight these oppressions (who can read about the Peasants Revolt, or the suffragist movement, or the Abolitionist movement, which played a small role in ending the transatlantic slave trade, without feeling proud?) but these are so rarely brought up in nationalist discourse.

Instead Winston Churchill, a racist genocidal maniac responsible for the deaths of thousands in the Bengali famine, is held in high esteem. The man who, when told of the scarcity of food in India remarked: “If food is so scarce, why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?” and who said: “starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks” who were also suffering at the time. And who can forget his magnum opus: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

Scottish nationalists revere Robert Burns, a brilliant poet and a committed egalitarian. Welsh nationalism (to my knowledge — apologies if I am mistaken) holds no heroes to so great an extent, but instead celebrates a rich folklore of tales and mythology. The difference between these and Churchill is plain to see.

If there was a proper English nationalism, that celebrated progressive movements and the many great artists, writers, scientists, inventors and thinkers who were born here, and also faced up to the horrors committed not just in the past but the present too, and recognised that we still benefit from these atrocities and should seek to make reparations, and brought the nation together in solidarity against the ruling elite who hold us in contempt, it would be worthy.

Instead we have a severely reactionary racist position claiming equal legitimacy with the storied, often radical, traditions of Scotland and Wales. What a shame it is that this energy is not better harnessed.

Happy St George’s Day.