I get that but personally I'm still confused on what people mean when they talk about lost history and traditions with respect to England in particular. I think one of the issues is we've been so successful at establishing, maintaining and exporting aspects of our culture and history that people simply take it for granted.
Language is an important part of history and culture, the reality is English has been exported around the planet and it's global importance means not only has it thrived in the UK but it's shaped the world in many ways. Similarly, our legal and political systems, our cultural exports and even our sports have influenced and continue to influence large parts of the world. England in modern history has never had to fight for it's cultural survival in a way other countries have so our traditions and culture are understated and have been taken as a given. Until recently at least. However, people seem to be misdiagnosing where the pressure comes from. We have obviously lost influence in the world since WWII and there is a diminution on the global stage that contrasts sharply with America's hegemony.
The irony is that English culture helped give rise to the modern capitalist world but now the globalised American led form of it has eroded and threatens to flatten various aspects of our way of life. That's not to be anti-American it's simply a comment about issues of scale and dominance, which we once benefited from but no longer do.
Think about the things we have lost and it's almost always either because we (a) have chosen to give them up or (b) they've been replaced by an American driven alternative either with or without our consent. Even where we've chosen to give things up like the Christian faith I'd argue rampant consumerism and materialism has replaced it rather than we've just set it aside. Consumer culture, media and entertainment, language and branding, technology, labour practices, cultural norms and political discourse are all heavily influenced and controlled by the USA.
We do have an issue protecting our culture but it's not the one people seem to think it is. I can easily avoid listening to Bhangra if I want to but it's a lot harder to avoid Taylor bloody Swift, who last time I looked was not from the Punjab.
So putting aside the history and culture elements, that leaves the ethnicity bit but what does that then really mean in practical terms? For example, ignoring any moral or ethical dimensions for a moment, a white english ethnostate (btw not suggesting you are proposing that) would be an economic catastrophe. You'd possibly get some short term relief in the housing market but everything else would go to rat shit pdq. Similarly net zero immigration wouldn't be quite as catastrophic but would create way more problems than it solved. So I'm left struggling to understand what would be the meaning and/or benefit of asserting some form of white ethnic primacy, when it doesn't solve anything it probably makes it worse?
taxjustice.net
