The last of the usual arguments for the
continuation of the union considered in this series of articles is to do with
the culture of these islands. It is true that, in the widest sense of culture
and human knowledge the world has gained much from the efforts of the peoples
of these islands, particularly in the field of science and understanding. The
problem, though, is that the nationalist proponents of this argument usually
fall back on two major things (it's a bit of an oversimplification, but not that much of one) – Shakespeare and the English language. The
importance of Shakespeare and his contribution to English culture should not be
underestimated, but he was writing at a time before the UK existed. He was a
product of England (into which Wales had already been incorporated) rather than
of Britain, and the continued emphasis on him as some sort of ‘British’ icon is
both historically inaccurate and dismissive of the work of Welsh, Scottish, and
Irish writers. Indeed, more generally the emphasis on English language culture
as ‘the’ culture of the British Isles ignores the parallel cultures of those
speaking the other native languages of Britain. What they present as ‘British’
culture looks, all too often, as simply rebadged English culture. And they
don’t even realise that.
It’s true that the English language (or as
many increasingly call it, American) has come to dominate the world for many
purposes, not least trade. But that didn’t come about because ‘we’ generously
‘gave’ it to the world; it came about because it was imposed on conquered
peoples in colonised territories by force. And the same goes for those parts of
the UK where other languages were universally spoken before English was imposed.
Whilst being a native speaker of what has become the most widely spoken commercial
language certainly bestows many advantages, that doesn’t make the language in
some way ‘superior’ to others. Assuming that we should take pride in the
outcome whilst ignoring the process is an unrealistic ask of those within these
islands who still use other native, and historically persecuted, languages, to identify
just one group.
It would be possible to develop a view of
‘British’ culture which was more inclusive and less jingoistic, and which
recognised that ‘British’ culture is neither homogeneous nor the same thing as English
culture. But that would mean, in effect, that the Anglo-British defenders of
the union would have to change their view of what the UK is rather than simply
demand that we all accept and buy into their view. It’s an impossible ask. If I
were looking for a strong argument for the union, I wouldn’t try and base it on
the imposition of English culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment