Suella Braverman’s romanticisation of English identity serves to brush over, if not outrightly erase, the racism immigrants have experienced by those who wish to assert this identity, writes Afroze Zaidi. [GETTY]
Living in the UK and having to be subjected to the British press means that every so often, you’ll come across a take nobody asked for. In an article for the Telegraph, as though inhabiting an alternate reality, Tory MP Suella Braverman recently wrote: “For decades, political leaders have been afraid to celebrate Englishness for fear of being labelled nationalistic or xenophobic”.
Where was Braverman when Keir Starmer wrote that ‘Labour is the true party of English patriotism’? Or when Boris Johnson decked out 10 Downing Street in England flags? In a cave without access to the internet, presumably.
In reality, these are but two examples of British politicians in the recent past declaring their patriotism, very loudly and openly, as part of an easily observable strategy to win the populist vote.
But the article goes from bad to worse. Not only does Braverman argue in favour of an ‘English’ identity that is – in essence – ethnically white, she also alludes to a need to “defend Judeo-Christian civilization, British values, and the distinctiveness of English culture”.
It’s hard to over-emphasise how prominent, in both far-right and white supremacist ideology, the notion is of all of the above being at risk. In truth, what Braverman is really arguing in favour of is a sense of Englishness that is exclusively white – and justified in being so.
And arguing this serves to further entrench the sense of entitlement that people on the far-right have to this country – one which, mind you, has had violent consequences in the not-too-distant past.
To say that it’s ok for recent immigrants to be excluded from Englishness is to suggest, by extension, that they are forever and inherently excluded from belonging to England.
Moreover, Braverman’s romanticisation of English identity serves to brush over, if not outrightly erase, the racism immigrants have experienced by those who wish to assert this identity. She makes no acknowledgement of the real and pervasive fear evoked in the hearts of immigrants by the sight of a St George’s flag in the latter half of the 20th century, when the National Front was most active.
Braverman also claims that: “This reduction of identity to mere geography explains why we see clashes on our streets between Hindus and Muslims over conflicts thousands of miles away.” Of course, the irony of using the word ‘reduction’ in such a reductive sentence is entirely lost on Braverman.
She gives no consideration to the fact that clashes in Leicester in 2022 were deliberately stoked by anti-Muslim fascists. Or that people are affected by conflicts thousands of miles away because they happen to oppose genocide, colonial occupation and exploitation, and the violation of people’s basic human rights, and not because of some spurious claim to identity based on geography.
Significantly, what’s also baffling about Braverman’s article is the question of why, of all the political issues plaguing this country, she chose this particular topic to write about. Who asked? What makes this question of English identity important enough to take up virtual column inches at this particular moment in time?
The answer is simply that Braverman is not writing to address a significant issue. She is not writing in response to a social or political need. Rather, her article forms part of a wider pattern of ‘pick-me’ behaviour which I have written about in the past:
“In their subservience to the colonial masters, some people may liken politicians like Braverman to Uncle Tom, the protagonist in the novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin …[but] Braverman, Patel, Javid et al are motivated entirely by the desire to further their own interests. A better analogy than Uncle Tom are the anti-feminist women described as ‘pick-mes’, who will happily argue against the interests of women in order to gain favour with men. Although with political pick-mes, the stakes are a lot higher.”
As a prominent brown Conservative politician, Braverman is forever faced with a need to justify her existence. This involves establishing herself as an ally to the white supremacist ideology that forms the backbone of the Conservative party and keeps their voter base loyal.
It involves making herself, a woman of Indian heritage, as non-threatening as possible to the Conservative status quo. Arguably, this strategy has so far worked in her favour.
Towards the end of her article, Braverman claims that her views are sure to send ‘progressive elites into a tailspin’. I can’t tell whether this claim is ignorant or simply disingenuous, because it doesn’t take a genius to see that the harm caused by emboldening far-right views is not some abstract topic of discussion for ‘progressive elites’. It directly affects the most marginalised groups in this country.
It affects immigrants, LGBTQ people, visibly Muslim women, grassroots infrastructure such as libraries, mosques, and Muslim-owned businesses. This is not an issue to be used for political point-scoring – it has a direct impact on the lives of poor, working class, marginalised and disenfranchised people who possess nowhere near as much power, political capital, or even wealth, as Suella Braverman.
Having said all of that, my question to Braverman is the same as it would be to any other pick-me: aren’t you embarrassed? By your own admission, you will never be one of them. Throwing people who have no power under the bus might help you get so far, but you’re not going to have any dignity or self-respect left at the end of it.
Afroze Fatima Zaidi is a writer, editor and journalist. She has a background in academia and writing for online platforms.
Follow her on X: @afrozefz
Join the conversation: @The_NewArab
Have questions or comments? Email us at: [email protected]
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.
