Pearl of Tyburn: Tonight
I’ll be speaking with John Carney, resident of Manchester. Mr. Carney, could
you tell us a bit about your background?
John Carney: Certainly. I'm an Englishman of Anglo-Irish
heritage born and raised in Manchester by two wonderful parents, a proud,
patriotic Brit, a good Catholic boy (I hope!), a fervent Tory and Unionist, an
underemployed accounting graduate of the University of Liverpool, and a
part-time customer service assistant and occasional furniture fitter.
P.T.: What’s your reflection on this past year and
the many political and cultural ebbs and flows of it?
J.C.: I suspect there will be few other years in
our nation's history more momentous, powerful or poignant in which to consider
the nature of British identity than 2014; the year not only of the centenary of
the start of the Great War which deprived an entire generation of the prime of
its youth, men whose tremendous courage and sacrifice in the name of King and
country is a debt our contemptibly useless politicians have consistently failed
to repay, but also of the dreaded Scottish independence referendum, a
plebiscite which has the power either to destroy the greatest bi-national
partnership the world has ever seen or to silence those calling for its
dissolution for decades, perhaps even centuries, to come. In June we recalled
our past and mourned our fallen, now in September we are contemplating our
future and deciding what sort of country we want to be or, perhaps more
precisely, whether to continue being a country at all.
P.T.: What do you think about the way the Better
Together campaign has been conducted to preserve the union?
J.C.: Unfortunately, British culture and history,
the very things which should be the foundation of the Better Together campaign,
have hardly featured at all thus far in the debate but, sadly, this is far from
surprising. Most of our politicians, commentators and academics suffer from a
tremendous liberal guilt complex over the legacy of British colonialism and
historic English aggression towards her immediate neighbours; therefore, out of
sheer moral weakness, they have largely conceded the argument to the Scottish,
Welsh and Irish nationalists. They dare not even mention such things as common
purpose, shared destiny and historic ties of friendship and co-operation for
fear they will be laughed to scorn and branded an imperial apologist.
P.T.: Why do you think so many people have
dismissed these aspects of Britishness?
J.C.: Many have chosen to take the easy way out and
claim that Britishness is a meaningless concept only to be given meaning by the
individual or ignored completely according to personal preference. In the
bleakly parochial view of such people, one can only be authentically English,
Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish (as though they were comparatively simple to
define!) but I find this utterly absurd; our identities, national and otherwise,
are composed of multiple complex, interconnected cultural strata and are made
infinitely richer for being so - should a man choose between being a Basque and
a Spaniard, or a woman between being, say, a Marylander and an American?
P.T.: You telling me about an application form you
signed recently. What are your feelings about the way identity options were
presented to you in it?
J.C.: Upon reaching the end of the application form,
I was asked, after the usual, highly impertinent questions about my gender,
potential disabilities and sexual orientation, to select what I considered to
be my ethnic origin from a variety of alternatives (quite what bearing any of
this has on a person's suitability for a job is something which has always
baffled me - I always opt for "prefer not to say" on principle) when
I noticed something to which I had previously never given much thought.
Non-white British applicants were confined to options under the headings of
"Black British" and "Asian British" whereas white applicants
were offered the full complement of British national identities to choose from
- "British", "English", "Irish", "Northern
Irish", "Welsh", "Scottish", etc. Such identities as
"Black English" or "Asian Welsh" are rarely expressed and
so do not feature as demographic terms but why should this be the case? Just
why do our ethnic minority countrymen feel more comfortable describing
themselves as British rather than anything else regardless of whether they live
in Birmingham, Belfast, Blantyre or Bangor?
P.T.: What do you think is the reason behind this
phenomenon?
J.C.: Unlike our cowardly politicians, they, like
their forebears in India, Jamaica, Kenya, Afghanistan and ex-British colonies
all around the world, know what to be British means and why they are proud to
call themselves so. For them, for me and for lovers and admirers of my beloved
nation wherever they may live, Britishness is more than a culture - it is an
ideal, an aspiration, even a dream. Differences of region, race and culture may
divide us as a people but Britain unites us as a nation; truly, our story is
that of the oldest and greatest melting pot in the world. Of course, the
Romans, Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Vikings and Normans all changed Britain
permanently and immeasurably for the better, but what is more significant to me
is what they failed to change and, even more importantly, how profoundly they
were changed by her!
Our early past has been
traditionally presented as one group of foreign invaders after another
remorselessly suppressing the native culture and supplanting it with an alien
one but recent historical and archaeological research has proven this simply is
not the case. Instead, a more careful reading of our island story shows a very
clear, consistent set of beliefs and practices that existed prior to Roman
occupation, which indeed not only survived but positively thrived during all of
the subsequent conquests and which eventually evolved into those values,
customs and institutions we now regard as quintessentially British.
P.T.: What would you consider foremost among these
customs/institutions?
J.C.: Love of personal liberty, freedom of
expression, trial by jury, a hatred of cruelty and injustice, local government,
the underdog spirit, a sense of fair play, the importance of history and
tradition, tolerance, constitutional monarchy, strong communities, the stiff
upper lip, resistance to dictatorship, parliamentary democracy, respect for
private property, etc. It would of course be arrogant to the point of megalomania
for me to claim that Britain holds an absolute monopoly on these things but, my
own obvious partiality aside, I am struggling to think of a nation which has
done better justice to them on such a grand scale, over so long and proud a
history.
P.T.: What is your opinion on the British Empire and
the way that hit has cast something of a shadow of shame over those who have
British identities?
J.C.: Ah, yes, that unspeakably awful embarrassment
to well-meaning, half-educated liberals everywhere: the British Empire. Perhaps
that is the one thing on the venerable list of British virtues and institutions
which is conspicuous by its absence. At the widely critically acclaimed opening
ceremony of the London Olympics in 2012 (which I thought rather gaudy and
vulgar but never mind), tremendous emphasis was laid on our literature, film,
music, NHS, industrial revolution etc. But there was no acknowledgement
whatsoever of Britain's almost single-handed contribution towards spreading good
administration, honest politics and the rule of law all around the world.
Indeed, a stranger observing such edifying spectacles as James Bond and the
Queen pretending to leap out of a plane and Rowan Atkinson playing a one-note
synthesizer with the London Symphony Orchestra would be forgiven for thinking
that we'd never so much as strayed beyond our shores let alone established the
largest empire in human history which, at its apogee, covered almost a quarter
of the planet.
Unfortunately, this very deliberate
campaign to whitewash over the Empire and its achievements is nothing new and
certainly doesn't lack for volunteers, not least in Britain itself; many are
terribly sincere but ignorant liberals or New Labour zealots who seem to detest
our history (a prejudice which invariably leads them to squander
once-in-a-lifetime opportunities for genuinely patriotic celebrations in favour
of insipid, anaemic affairs like the ludicrous Millennium Dome) whereas others
are simply dishonest, deliberately distorting our history by highlighting its
faults whilst carefully avoiding its virtues.
P.T.: What do you
think about the way Hollywood portrays Britain/the British Empire on screen?
J.C.: Such things occur frequently and even on the
most mundane level, e.g. entertaining but unhistorical cinematic drivel such as
Braveheart, The Patriot and Pocahontas - all of which ridiculously romanticised their subjects
and vilified the English to the point of disconnection from reality. Yes, I
know its trashy Hollywood fiction and shouldn't make any difference and,
indeed, wouldn't were our current education system much better instead! The
scariest thing about die Große Lüge (the big
lie) is that it actually works unless it's refuted.
P.T.: So what’s your personal view on the benefits
of the Empire?
J.C.: I am writing, as you've no doubt gathered, as
a convinced imperialist - by which I mean that I believe the case for the British
Empire as one of the greatest things ever visited upon an undeserving world has
been proved, open and shut. Of course, like all great human endeavours, it had
its faults (some, like slavery, were terribly grievous) and they remain
undeniable, indelible blots on our historical record but what nation since time
began has been totally blameless? If history is, as the cynics say, just one
long catalogue of theft, conquest and slaughter then surely there can be no
dispute that Britain was second to none in these things? We were, and remain I
think at heart, a nation of buccaneering merchant adventurers and we should be
proud of the fact, not only because it has made us who we are but, more
importantly still, because it has made so much of the world what it is today.
You may well have heard it said that Britain conquered half the world in a fit
of absence of mind; a clever little phrase but I feel there is far more
sophistry there than sophistication - presence
of mind, by all means, but certainly not absence of it. For myself, I believe
the Empire was founded on and sustained by many things, most of them
paradoxical: avarice and Protestantism, idealism and cynicism, compassion and
cruelty, policy and lunacy, commerce and thievery, strategy and accident, duty,
arrogance, ignorance, curiosity, expediency and, last but by no means least, a
fanatical determination to beat the French to it! And the most sublime irony of
all is that, for all of the lust for power and plunder which motivated our
ancestors (just as that which inspired our Saxon forebears to cross the North
Sea centuries before), they left their colonies far, far better places than
they found them.
P.T.: What would be your answer to the charge the
British Imperial project was particularly brutal?
J.C.: If, as I passionately believe, that Britain
was unsurpassed in her ruthlessness, rapacity and commercial aggression then
she was also unmatched in her commitment to establishing freedom, democracy,
prosperity, sound government and the rule of law wherever the Union Jack was
flown. As a force to enlighten and civilise the world, the British Empire was
unique and, if proof were required, one need only compare the condition of our
former territories with their present state. At best, as in India, Malaysia,
Singapore, Ghana, Botswana and numerous other smaller countries where the
British legacy remains strongest, the people are, to say the least, certainly
no more wisely nor humanely governed than they were under the Empire; at worst,
independence (often, laughably, referred to as freedom) has been an absolute
disaster, as in Zimbabwe, Iraq, Somalia, Burma, Yemen and various other
previously stable, thriving, law-abiding nations now transformed beyond all
recognition into bankrupt, bloody dictatorships riven by extremism, corruption,
terrorism and violence.
P.T.: What do you think about the way the Empire
came to an end?
J.C.: There can be no question that the Empire had
to end eventually; however, it was the reckless haste in which it was done that
was largely responsible for the ensuing chaos and tragedy in many territories
which immediately followed British withdrawal, e.g. in 1947, the Labour
government under Clement Attlee were so terribly keen to partition India and
get out that their callous stupidity caused the displacement of over fourteen
million Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims and the consequent mass migration (the
largest in recorded history) lead to such carnage, riot and disorder that
nearly one million people died as a result. Furthermore, those who were so
active in accelerating the Empire's dissolution also bear their share of the
blame; including, sadly, the United States who rather myopically took such
pleasure in twisting the imperial lion's tail and now wonders why places like
the Middle East are in perpetual turmoil - it'd be almost funny if it weren't
so tragic.
Anyway, perhaps all of this explains why, for many people, Britishness remains
an awkward subject; although, ironically, from my experience, the overwhelming
majority of people who feel (or at least claim to feel) angry or ashamed by the
legacy of British colonialism are generally the descendents of the colonisers
whereas the descendents of the colonised are actually only too proud to call
themselves British precisely because of, rather than in spite of, what the
Empire did for their forebears in Pakistan, Kenya, Jamaica and elsewhere, as I
suggested earlier. Ah, well, who knows? Still, we did what we did - it was
definitely worth doing and nobody could've done it better, or even half as
well.
P.T.: Why do you think that so many Scots have come
forward with such antipathy towards their British identity during the course of
this referendum?
J.C.: Sadly, I do think there is a huge wellspring
of latent anti-English sentiment (which has steadily grown as the UK's overall
standing in the world has declined) for the SNP to draw upon and, for many, the
independence vote represents nothing more than a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity
to get back at Westminster. Indeed, the very notion of Scottish nationalism is
founded largely upon a narrow-minded, bitter, deeply parochial hatred for and
rivalry with their English neighbours (just listen to the unofficial national
anthem, that dismal dirge "Flower of Scotland") and it's certainly no
coincidence that the SNP pushed so hard, and sadly successfully, for 16- and
17-year-olds to be allowed a vote in the referendum, as they are by far the most
susceptible to this sort of nonsense.
P.T.: What do you think is responsible for the
SNP’s rise to power as of late?
J.C.: The truth is that what really lies behind the
growing strength of the SNP's cause is that, for many years, the Scots have felt
so increasingly isolated from the prosperity, advancement and job-creation in
the South East of England and London in particular (a complaint with which we
in Northern England, Wales and Northern Ireland are all too familiar!) that
they now no longer truly feel a part of the UK anymore and so they can see no
other way forward but secession from the union. The Scots have enjoyed, and
understandably so, the steady trickle of powers devolved to Holyrood since 1997
and a considerably higher level of per capita public spending (including free
prescriptions, free tuition fees, etc. which I very much doubt they’d be able
to maintain on the existing tax rates without Westminster subsidy) than the
rest of the UK.
P.T.: But do you think of the lure of independence,
in and of itself, might be a persuasive hook for seperation?
J.C.: Actually, the vision Alex Salmond is offering
the Scots in the name of “independence” is something of a fraud anyway; keeping
the Queen as your head of state, retaining the pound sterling as your currency
(with interest rates set "abroad" by the Bank of England) and ceding
your hard-won national sovereignty to the EU as soon as the votes have been
counted as he hopes to do isn't really my idea of independence! Much as the SNP
might hate it, the reality is that the economic future of an independent
Scotland would rest almost entirely upon factors over which they would have
either limited or no control whatsoever: their share of the sadly not
inconsiderable UK national debt (at least £150 billion although, after
negotiation, it could be double that) and the terms under which it must be
repaid would give them and successive administrations a good deal of financial
trouble for many decades to come.
The Scots don’t even know whether they'll be allowed to keep
the pound sterling at all (the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already stated
categorically that they won't, the EU is, quite understandably, extremely
reluctant to allow them to join the crisis-stricken euro instead and
establishing your own currency is a mightily expensive business indeed). Independence
is a massive financial gamble and I think it's only when they actually go to
vote that the sheer enormity of the risk the Scottish people are considering
will dawn on them and the majority of them will decide to play safe and vote to
remain within the UK.
P.T.: Aside from the referendum, what are your
personal political beliefs?
J.C.: I've always been a Tory ever since I became
interested in politics several years ago; however, I've largely abandoned my
faith in capitalism (at least insofar as we've hitherto practiced it),
secularism, classical liberalism and the market as the ultimate impartial,
efficient economic mechanism, and now the position closest to my views is that
of a High (or traditionalist) Tory. High Toryism is much more of an attitude
than a hard-and-fast ideology like Socialism and which emphasis tradition, the
Church, strong local community, the rights and responsibilities of the
aristocracy, integrity and duty in public office, etc. It is, in short, the
complete antithesis of everything the modern mainstream parties (including,
sadly, the modern Tory party) offer us in the UK.
My economic awakening came a couple of years ago thanks entirely to one author
to whom I already owed so much and cannot recommend highly enough to you if you
haven't read any of his work; at the dawn of the twentieth century, the
superlatively wonderful G.K. Chesterton (in collaboration with the great
Hilaire Belloc) formulated the only economic philosophy based entirely upon
Catholic social teaching and it goes by the rather unfortunate, ironically
Communist-esque name of Distributism.
P.T.: Can you explain what you mean by Distribution
exactly?
J.C.: To borrow a quote from Chesterton: "The
modern world is not evil; in some ways it is far too good. It is full of wild
and wasted virtues." Both Conservatism and Liberalism have great
advantages as well as terrible faults and it is the beauty of Distributism that
it enables us to enjoy the fruits of these philosophies whilst restraining their
destructive excesses. Very briefly, Distributism advocates a via media between
the evils of unfettered capitalism on the one hand and the perils of state
Socialism on the other through spreading the ownership of property and the
means of production as broadly as possible to individuals in the form of small
businesses, not-for-profit organisations and local co-operative enterprises
throughout the land (instead of concentrating it in the hands of large,
faceless corporations or the state as we do currently) and replacing rapacious
competition with Christian co-operation as the core driver of economic growth
and wealth creation.
P.T.: As someone from an Anglo-Irish
background, what’s your opinion on the divided and divisive state of affairs in
Ireland?
J.C.: As a patriotic Englishman, I deplore the
craven manner in which successive governments have appeased the former IRA
members and collaborators now walking the corridors of power in Belfast yet, as
a Catholic of Irish heritage, I am all too aware of England's extensive history
of persecution, oppression and violence against the Irish people and cannot
help but wonder just how long we were expecting them to let us get away with
it.
P.T.: What do you think the historical beginning of
this antipathy between England and Ireland was?
J.C.: The genesis of the historically negative
English attitude towards the Irish is very simple. The Gaelic Christian kings
and noble families were among the oldest in Europe but, rather than this being something
worthy of admiration, the problem was that they were so old as to be
effectively pagan, not in their beliefs, but in their origins, rituals and
ceremonies. Unlike such relative arrivistes as Clovis the Frank who looked to
the Pope to provide legitimacy to their kingship, the Irish aristocracy needed
only to look back to their own history to find their authority as rulers; thus,
to the deep disapproval of Rome and other European noble houses, they were able
to unite and celebrate fully both their ancient pre-Christian royal heritage
and their orthodox Christian faith.
The Irish Church too began to show disturbing tendencies towards independence
from Roman authority (mixed sex monasteries, married clergy, etc.) so that it
finally became necessary for our only English Pope, Adrian IV, to issue his
laudabilitur empowering Henry II to invade Ireland and bring her Church and
government under English, and effectively Roman, authority. Thus began the
Norman conquest of Ireland in 1167 and the beginning of nearly 850 years of
bloodshed and misery.
P.T.: Do you have any thoughts on how the Irish
Question might possibly be solved in the future?
J.C.: The supreme tragedy of the Irish Question is
that what makes it most difficult to solve is the very policy that we, the
English, have pursued for centuries (stuffing Ulster with pro-Union Protestants
who have no wish to live under the rule of their Catholic nationalist
neighbours) and which was a wonderful idea when we had the political will and
resources to be an imperialist power but today means that allowing the Republic
to claim the rest of the six remaining northern counties would necessitate
turning our backs on hundreds of thousands of people who consider themselves
just as British as anyone living in any other part of the UK. Riot and disorder
(perhaps even a civil war?) on a scale the like of which has not been seen in
that troubled land for centuries would doubtless follow any such decision by
the British government to cede Ulster to the Republic but, regrettably, I'm
struggling to see a future in which that isn't a likely, if rather distant,
occurrence.
The solution of an independent Kingdom of Ireland being a full, voluntary part
of the Commonwealth realms is certainly a novel one (and all the more ironic
when you consider how desperately we're currently trying to hold onto the UK we
already have!) and one I should love to see happen but, with the present state
of public opinion, I really can't see it. But it's definitely something we
should devote every effort to achieving.
P.T.: Could you tell us about some of your personal
interests, hobbies, and plans for the future?
J.C.: I am a lover of literature, poetry, history,
philosophy and science, an aspiring learner of foreign languages, a devourer of
good food and drink, and a keen amateur runner and weightlifter. It would be an
exceptional understatement to say that life has turned out the way I'd expected
even as little as five years ago, but I'm certainly not complaining - I know
that matters rest in the hands of One infinitely wiser and more powerful than
myself and I'm content just to enjoy the journey as it unfolds.
P.T.: Thank you so much, Mr. Carney, for
everything.
J.C.: Aw, you’re very, very welcome.