Did the “Windrush generation lay the foundations of modern Britain? Was Queen Charlotte, wife of George III, a “white-passing black woman”? Do you agree with the idea that “English medieval cities had diverse populations”? Do you believe that Hadrian’s Wall was “the most culturally diverse part of the Roman Empire”? But forget such recent events as all that — surely you accept that “very first Britons were Black”?
Whilst your common sense may tell you otherwise, these are all ideas that you can find propounded, variously, by British museums, ITV, the BBC, highly respected academics, and in the case of the notion that the Windrush generation created modern Britain, our beloved Prime Minister. All of these claims merge truth and fiction, and are designed to perpetuate a single myth: that Britain has always been diverse, and London itself a melting pot as ancient as the Pair Dadeni.
The cynicism of the narrative is simple. Its proponents for the most part know full well that the presence of minority groups in Britain has historically been tiny, and their direct contributions to our national history proportionately small, especially in the premodern past. They consciously present a fun-house mirror version of British history in order to reflect not historical truth, but the modern demographics of an increasingly multi-racial society.
For some, this is a utopian mission, motivated by a genuine belief that diversity really is our strength, and that a more inclusive, multicultural Britain will be more economically dynamic, creatively rich, and morally idealistic. Though this is pretty delusional, in a world where Pakistanti grooming gangs have been allowed to engage in racialised rape and sex trafficking, it is at least well-intended.
But nobody can really think that Keir Starmer, a man who in recent months insisted that we were becoming a “nation of strangers”, and has promised to toughen the borders and end illegal migration, is of this sentimental school. So why was he insisting on something that he cannot possibly believe?
The single trembling thread that connects all these interventions, up to and including his harsh crackdown on the Southport riots, is fear. Starmer, like much of the British establishment, is waking up to the fact that mass migration has created ethnic divides yawning open beneath our society. The greatly exaggerated claims for the contributions of the small numbers who migrated to Britain in the post-war era reflects not his beliefs, but his desire to at once inspire a sense of belonging in migrants, and gratitude amongst the native population.
This is not original to our Prime Minister, who is simply carrying out the same logic of overlaying tensions with sentiment and establishment myth-making as previous generations of British leaders.
The difference is that nobody is now buying it. Starmer, as representative of the British state, is regarded as a guilty man without credibility. For those enraged over Rotherham and Rochdale, it appears as a calculated deflection, and a story superimposed over the increasingly fraught and ugly reality of migration. But it is scarcely more satisfying to those being praised for “rebuilding Britain”, a Windrush generation scarred by the insecurity and confusion of their migration status, itself an artefact of a prior generation of political hypocrisy.
Mass migration has created multiple ethnically defined “constituencies”, none of whom much like or trust the government. It is a tragic situation, especially when there are so many real life and present day stories of social contributions, friendships, marriages and successful integration. But a refusal to point the finger at individuals and groups who have not only failed to integrate into, but actively predated upon British society, now haunts the British state.
In the long run it will drive the opposite of what it intends
The attempt to build a mythology of eternal diversity is sinister not only because it is untrue and manipulative, but because in the long run it will drive the opposite of what it intends. Minority groups will be motivated to disidentify with any element of British history that does not reflect their own ethnicity, religion or culture, and to feel that they have no reason to integrate into a culture in which they are told they have always existed. White British people, on the other hand, will come to believe that their own history and culture will gradually be erased and forgotten as the country becomes more diverse.
We are at a crossroads. Britain has undergone a vast demographic change. If it is to be a success, and if our tolerant, humane and incredibly successful national culture is to survive intact we will need to go about integration with an honesty and seriousness that no British government has yet attempted. But if, instead, we continue to lie, mythologise, and paper over the cracks of cultural division, we will only be sowing the seeds of conflict and mistrust.
