Are you British enough?

‘British values’ are often bandied about, but a closer look shows them not to be quite as robust as we might think

by Nikesh Shukla @nikeshshukla

In 1997, Conservative politician Norman Tebbit declared that “multiculturalism is a divisive force […] Youngsters of all races born here should be taught that British history is their history”. There is a heavy irony in that his comments themselves are divisive; but I think he was, in some respects, right (and agreeing with Norman Tebbit is not something I thought I would ever do). British history is the history of all those born in this country, no matter their race; the trouble is that we are not taught an honest version of this history. The blood of colonialism runs through all of our streets. Multiculturalism is a divisive term; but that is mostly because it is pitted against the idea of those much-touted ‘British values’. And British values are the issue.

For decades, the very idea of Britishness and multiculturalism have seemingly been at war with each other, supposed opposites with fixed ideologies and irreconcilable differences. When we weaponise British values to be about what sort of country we all wish to be in, we are talking nonsense. British values are generic at best.

Who, and what, is ‘British’?

I think a lot about what it means to be British these days. Born in this country, to parents with roots in India, via East Africa and the Middle East, I spent my teenage years feeling like I had to make a choice between where I’m from and where I’m at, as the old rap adage goes. There was never any deep understanding of this confusion. The choice became as binary as choosing a cricket team to decide where your allegiances lie.

And yet, whenever we spoke of Britishness and what it meant, there was nothing much more critical than queuing, railways, tea and stiff upper lips. British values, according to OFSTED, and as taught to Year Sevens, are: democracy; the rule of law; individual liberty; and mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith. Let’s think about this for second. These are the five key values of Britain, what we are told make the British British. But even looking with just the slightest of a critical eye shows these to be the basic tenets of most countries that are not dictatorships. These are soft values; there is nothing specific to Britain in there. How they were decided and how it was justified that these values set Britain apart from other countries (who probably hold similar values) is beyond me.

When we think about how British values ‘other’ those from immigrant communities, often it is about learning English. But where in the OFSTED guidelines does it say that learning English is a British value? British values have become about the conflation of integration and assimilation. If you wish to live here, you have to learn about British values and integrate.

In reality, integration is about assimilation. It is about taking off the hat of your heritage and wearing an English top hat or flat cap. It is about hiding your heritage and adopting the outer markers of Britishness. But integration should not be about an opposing force demanding another capitulate.

I grew up so anxious about fitting in. Split. I was othered on either side of the binary scale. Because in the 1990s, multiculturalism was touted as sarees, steel bands and samosas; a surface-level attempt to understand cultural nuance in a way that integrated with a British way of life. The extent of our leaning into multiculturalism was pop culture. At school, we were never taught the histories or socioeconomic factors that led to what the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry in 1999 described as “institutional racism”. More recently, where is the learning that links the government’s approach to people from immigrant backgrounds, the creation of the hostile environment and the scandal around the Windrush generation?

Towards a more accurate idea of Britishness

We are not taught accurate British history, which has resulted in the confusion around what British values actually are. Modern Britain was created on the blood of its Empire. Dead bodies in Jallianwala Bagh. Dead bodies in the Bengal famine. Partition. Transatlantic slave routes.

But instead, we were taught about Great Britain. The land of hope and glory and the railways that transported chattel and goods and resources, and ‘civilisation’. And oh how we became civilised. From the pre-Empire fixed position of savage to the post-Empire fixed position of civil. If you wish to know about the lies Britain tells itself, just look to a 2016 YouGov poll in which 43% of respondents said that the British Empire was a good thing, and 44% said Britain’s history of colonialism was something to be proud of. This is a fallacy built on railways and civilisation that masks the asset-stripping, resource-mining and citizen-enslaving.

Integration is about us standing together, in our individuality, observing what we have in common and how that makes us stronger, and what makes us different and how that makes life more delicious. Integration is not a zero-sum boot camp for zombies; it is more like the A-Team, where people with different skills come together for the greater good. As Britain tells itself to keep calm and carry on during the Covid-19 pandemic, we are seeing what we can achieve as an integrated group more than ever. Yet in spite of this unity, certain sections of society are being affected to a greater degree than others. Now more than ever might be the time to take stock of how immigrant communities contribute so much to the wellbeing of Britain, often at the expense of their own.

Nikesh Shukla is a writer and editor. His next book, Brown Baby: A Memoir of Race, Family and Home, is out in September