tombfowler @tombfowler - Tumblr Blog

Jul 8, 2012

Built by migrants, not druids

This was originally published on WalesHome.org in 2010, which is now offline, so I thought I'd throw it up here.

Edited to add: there is also an unedited version of the same article on the No borders South Wales blog.

Built by migrants, not druids

Wed 17 Mar 2010 By Tom Fowler Politics

MIGRATION is one of the most contentious issues of modern times. Add the “im-” prefix and it’s practically a swear word in some circles. If public debate around the issue is ever given any lip service, it generally has a whiff of racism, or more increasingly the stench of fascism about it.

The right-wing gutter press have managed to file ‘bogus asylum seekers’ and ‘illegal immigrants’ into the same category as child killers and sex offenders. There is so much that can be said to counter tabloid lies on immigration that it would be easy to fill a whole article with facts refuting them. But that may not be necessary when a simple sketch of a rarely-articulated history of Wales serves so much better to undercut the dominant right-wing discourse on migration.

Opponents of immigration often fix upon the notion of an indigenous culture that requires defending from outside influence, a ‘way of life’ that is under attack from foreigners. The ’shared identity’ of the nation-state is appealed to, promoting the idea that the interests of all indigenous people are separate to those of ‘foreigners’.

This imagined community of a country is a construct. Even in a small nation like Wales most people never know, meet, or even hear of most of their fellow countrymen. Any concept of national identity is not innate and unchanging, but fragile, contested, and constructed over time. The hegemonic concept of national identity serves as a means of social control to dissuade the working people of one country from making natural alliances with the global multitude.

The industrial revolution affected the culture of Wales to such a point that we can almost consider anything before it as mere preamble. For the vast majority of its history the population of Wales never rose above half a million. It was only with the onset of industrialisation and the mass migration of workers to fuel the new industries that our population rose.

The size and scale of this population explosion cannot be underestimated. The figures tell their own story: by the time of the economic crisis of 1921 the population had grown by over two million. This movement into Wales was out of step with the rest of Europe. Between 1846 and 1914, 43 million people left for the United States, every European nation was seeing an outward flow of workers to the new world. Every nation except Wales. In the decade before the First World War, the rate of immigration into Wales was second only to that of the USA.

Although much of this inward migration was from other parts of Britain and from Ireland, many came from much further afield. It was not until 1905, under the weight of xenophobic agitation against Eastern-European Jews, that the UK passed the first “Aliens Act”, which enshrined the ability of the state to reject the pleas of people fleeing persecution or seeking a better life. The entire current migration-management system, with its web of detention centres, checkpoints and army of agents, can be traced back to this one piece of anti-Semitic legislation.

Without the mass migration that resulted from industrialisation, and fuelled by the wealth of imperialism, Wales as we currently understand and experience it simply would not exist. Any recognisably separate identity to that of England would have disappeared into the footnotes of history. Over a period of four generations, from the late 18th to the early 20th Century, these immigrants were thoroughly absorbed, creating a melting pot that gave birth to a unique culture. A culture which defines “Welshness” far more keenly than any bardic ceremony.

The movement of people generally follows the movement of wealth. It is no surprise that while the British ruling class conquered and exploited much of the world, people living in these impoverished and plundered areas followed the wealth to the UK. In the same way that the straight lines that divide so much of the world were drawn by Western statesmen as arbitrary divisions of colonial “possessions”, the infrastructure of border control acts as a clumsy attempt to avoid the payback of imperialist conquest.

The failure to give any realistic form of reparation to former colonies has created vast numbers of dispossessed people. Modern travel now means that these people are able to move to the former imperial states and work to send money home. This migrant work has become the bedrock of many economies where the “brightest and best” are encouraged to work overseas to simulate the domestic situation. People dispossessed by imperialist domination during the age of empire, and more recent neo-colonialism, fully deserve the opportunity to enjoy a share of the wealth that was taken from them.

We in the Welsh working class need to recognise migrant workers for what they are: fellow exploited people, shaped and buffeted by the same forces that created our own unequal economic position. Migrants are not a separate social group, they are labour on the move. As such they are fellow-competitors for the crumbs from the rich man’s table, and also potential allies in the struggle for an equal society.

Tagged as: immigration, industrial history, journalism, racism

92 Comments

patrick mcguinness

March 17, 2010 • 8:36 am

This is a very good article, and I concur with its views, namely that migrants, asylum-seekers, immigrants et al get a rotten deal from political parties, who try to out-do each other on asylum-bashing. Labour has been as bad as the tories, and the consequences of that are worse, because they were the ones we relied on to bring sanity back to the immigration so-called ‘debate’.

However I don’t see the issue as linked to national identity. National identity may be a boring thing to discuss, but it’s not necessarily a retrograde one, and finding some form of national identity in a bardic ceremony or an Eisteddfod doesn’t make you a worse person, an anachronistic one or indeed a more racist one, than someone who pays homage to industrial history. Is that what you’re suggesting? As for the people who go to bardic ceremonies, I doubt they’re the ones voting BNP or reading the Mail and the Sun for the latest communiqué from the foothills of fascism. They also weren’t the ones trashing Jewish businesses in Cardiff in the anti-Jewish riots in 19-whatever (1910?).

I also think one has to be very careful assuming that the various picturesque forms of of cultural identity are automatically retrograde, and industrialising melting-pots are automatically progressive. In Latin America, whole native tribes and communities have had their cultures eradicated, devalued and mocked for primitivism while their land is exploited and used for logging and mining. It’s corporate imperialism on a massive scale, comparable only to what happened in the 19th century, and it depends quite specifically on the devaluation of local, national, regional, cultural forms of identity, and on a spurious argument that what is rooted is always bad and what is mobile is always good. That’s why right-wing governments have an interest in deregulating working practices while cutting back on working rights – because it makes people and their labour mobile.

When Enoch Powell made his rivers of blood speech, many of his supporters came from the organised working class, like my grandfather’s fellow union members in Newcastle and Hull, who were themselves the product of migrant labour (Irish) in the shipyards, and who were themselves conscious of their precarious foothold in ‘British’ national identity.

I have to say that I think a lot of the racism you refer to is to do with economics or perceived economics, rather than national identity-based racism. It’s still racism, of course, but it comes dolled up in the language of economic pragmatism and priority.

I think if the equivalent of ‘bardic ceremonies’ (whatever they are) in Africa, South America and so on had been given more status and more value and status, rather than less, the irreparable damage that has been done might have been avoided.

But your basic point is totally correct – we treat migrants of any sort in ways that be should be ashamed of.

Tom Fowler

March 17, 2010 • 11:49 am

@ patrick mcguinness “National identity may be a boring thing to discuss, but it’s not necessarily a retrograde one, and finding some form of national identity in a bardic ceremony or an Eisteddfod doesn’t make you a worse person, an anachronistic one or indeed a more racist one, than someone who pays homage to industrial history. Is that what you’re suggesting?”

Not at all. The only point I was making in that section was simply that the much celebrated Gorsedd of Bards is based on a myth while much of our actual history is often ignored.

I’m not convinced that the protection of cultural activities (recently invented or not) would have any real impact on the damage of imperialism. As you rightly point out, the important issue is (as ever) the economics of the situation.

Illtyd Luke

March 17, 2010 • 12:15 pm

This is a brilliant treatment of the issues around asylum and immigration.

I am not sure about the author’s points about national identity. I am a Welsh nationalist personally, and utterly opposed to the extension of the British national identity, but I heard (I wasn’t around at the time) that adapting the British national identity was incredibly important for a number of migrant communities in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Obviously the political tendencies that now express the strongest support for the British national identity are far-right ones, but is the same thing true for the Welsh national identity? Not if Plaid Cymru’s record (which is exceptional on defending refugees and arguing against deportations) is anything to go by.

Perhaps the national identity point came to the fore in this article because we are writing on a Welsh site? I don’t know.

If you had used the term ethnic identity then that would be right. And i’ll just clarify, I think the article is brilliant.

Michael

March 17, 2010 • 1:14 pm

Illtyd, I think you are missing the point. This is not about what individual Plaid politicians say, about immigration. What we are talking about here is the way National identity is used, undeniably so, as a reason to keep communities a certain ethnic way.

I have heard these claims made before that British Nationalism is a problem because of the BNP but Welsh nationalism because of Plaid is cuddly and benign. This misunderstands the danger of politicians appealing to national myths; while they themselves may be perfectly reasonable people they could and will inspire a them and us attitude amongst some. A desire to protect the “national culture” whatever that is at all cost. This wills inevitable lead from certain quarters to hostility towards immigrants.

Illtyd Luke

March 17, 2010 • 2:02 pm

If you are possibly arguing that there is not a completely paradoxical distinction between the BNP’s British nationalism and Plaid’s Welsh nationalism then any discussion we have here is likely to be a waste of time, so if you did want to clear that up, i’d welcome it.

Michael

March 17, 2010 • 2:13 pm

No that is not at all what I am trying to argue. Try to be a bit less sensitive.

The point I am making is once you open the Pandora’s Box of National identity whatever position and however benign you are, it will inspire among people a them and us mentality.

This is a legitimate question for Nationalist to have answer and I feel one well made in the article.

Iestyn

March 17, 2010 • 5:16 pm

Michael, i agree that national identity, when presented as a clear cut issue, is divisive, as it defines one set of ‘attributes’ as nationally acceptable and all (or most) others as less acceptable. We see this often in discussions of the Welsh national question.

But Tom Fowler just defines a different “us and them”. This time, its the Welsh Working Class (whoever they may be – are you working class if you work in the Civil Service for instance?) vs the “rich men” who’s crumbs we (don’t know if I count for inclusion, mind) are trying to garner.

I guess I’m mostly agreeing with Tom – after all, even Black and White isn’t… umm… black and white. You can’t say that black people (or asians, or poles or whichever other grouping you want to identify) have “a different attitude” to “us”. On the other hand, average out the attitudes / beliefs / lifestyles of any group of immigrants, and compare it to the same average of native (for want of a better word), and you will find a difference – that is what “national identity” is about, and that is where people start to get frightened that something that they hold dear is going to be lost to them. It is that fear that can turn to racism, and is a fertile ground for fascism and xenophobia.

I disagree that national identity is constructed for use in some way to manipulate the masses – I think it’s much more democratic than that. The basis of identity is in how people see themselves, but problems arise when we are told that we should be a certain way to be a part of the “national identity” group. But you could say that just as much for the class system. Creating some badge of “working class” honour, whereby “we” should join with our “comrades” because we are all the same is just as manipulative.

michael

March 17, 2010 • 6:15 pm

I think maybe, and I do not want to put words into his mouth, you present a rather cartoonish version of what Tom is saying. “This time, its the Welsh Working Class (whoever they may be – are you working class if you work in the Civil Service for instance?) vs the “rich men”. He is in fact talking about the united interest of people who work. The question of what job they do is mostly irrelevant. That shared interest is one of constant improving of living standards and hopefully handing a better life to their children, than they have themselves. We could all argue all day about whether that is possible for everyone, everywhere, under the current global system. The point is that far from being divisive Tom’s theory is unifying. I would be interested to hear more from Tom on why he feels that we have seen an increase in nationalism, and the many myths that come with it in recent years?

michael

March 17, 2010 • 8:33 pm

At the risk of over commenting. “I disagree that national identity is constructed for use in some way to manipulate the masses – I think it’s much more democratic than that. The basis of identity is in how people see themselves,” I am afraid anyone who pushed the myth that there is a coherent Welsh national identity would be peddling a construct.

gwyn

March 17, 2010 • 10:25 pm

Tom’s article is thought-provoking but fundamentally flawed.

First contention: “This imagined community of a country is a construct.” In the long run, perhaps; but not in the short run. Tom is from Newport, a city which industrialised & grew quickly; this appears to inform his proto-Marxist analysis of Welsh society. I am from the hinterland and my grandfathers worked in quarries & coal mines & fought in WW1, thereby gaining the financial means to study further and become ministers of opium for the people, one of the few career options available at the time. No doubt they would have ticked the boxes for membership of his working class “global multitude”, before becoming corrupted by false consciousness. I never met either: but I am aware of a vague body of common experience which is transmitted to me across the generations, through language and values and a sense of cultural identity. To tell me this is a “hegemonic concept of national identity” is as preposterous as it is offensive.

Second contention: “industrial infrastructure was built on the profits of imperial conquest and slavery.” Well, yes – but empire is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for industrialisation, as the histories of Portugal & Spain, Germany & Korea attest. Capital will flow where the returns are, and since the conditions were right and the returns were available in the UK in the 19th Century, it would have flowed regardless.

Third contention: without mass migration due to industrialisation, Welsh identity would have “disappeared into the footnotes of history.” On the contrary, it would probably be more distinctive than it is today – yes the population would be smaller, but society would have followed the transition from an agrarian one to an industrial one, just as Ireland and Poland and India did later. In rural Wales, international capital did not always push the cause of industrialisation – for example, poor, tenant farmers chipped in to fund the building of a railway in Ceredigion, and the establishing of tertiary education establishments, in the name of progress and the community ideals which Tom denigrates. And perhaps Lloyd George would not have been rebuffed at his Newport meeting and the cause of Home Rule All Round would have been advanced.

This comment is not to be construed as opposing immigration, or denying a moral responsibility to welcome people from former British colonies, or promoting intolerant forms of exclusive nationalism. Rather, it is an appeal to raise the sophistication of the debate: there is such a thing as a Welsh cultural identity, one which perhaps you need to be a Welsh speaker to appreciate – and to be conscious of the pressure it is under. Tom, this talk of “crumbs from the rich man’s table” and “struggle for an equal society” betrays a formulaic and simplistic analysis that does your obvious intelligence a disservice.

David Phillips

March 17, 2010 • 10:43 pm

A very interesting article, especially when hinting at the clever use of invented traditions by certain political groups with the underlying aim of advancing a background narrative which almost imperceptibly facilitates a medium to long term shift in the political landscape.

The most effective way of ensuring a modern, healthy, and crucially outward-looking, polity is to allow a pluralistic interpretation of identity to flourish, rather than there being a singular, monochrome, received wisdom which crowds out others.

The point about the huge influx of population into Wales in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century is well made and there will undoubtedly be some commenting on these pages whose families were fortunate to reach the safety of these shores from Eastern Europe.

Adam Higgitt

March 17, 2010 • 11:10 pm

I want to thank Tom for submitting a really excellent article, and the sort of thought-provoking piece that we strive for on WalesHome.org. It’s also been a good debate so far.

I find myself very much in agreement with the sentiments Tom expresses. National identity and indigenous culture, while clearly important to many people, should not be elevated to the point of something innate or beyond challenge. Wales is only Wales (and Britain is only Britain) because enough people agree it to be so and believe it to be useful in delineating themselves, their relationships and their preferred way of life. There is nothing etched into the soil, much less into people’s genes that makes it so. An association is merely the product of collective consent, often implied but nonetheless given. And the collective “right” to exist that nationalists often assert on behalf of their nations should never be allowed to trump real, fundamental individual human rights.

Tom is of course correct in attacking those who scaremonger about immigration, just as he in tracing the modern movement of peoples back to the actions of many Welshmen and women. I’m not sure I agree with those who have attempted to draw out a conventional marxist analysis in what Tom has to say; instead I read a refreshing and honest attempt to place our – often elite – constructs of nation and identity in the same continuum of chauvinism and illiberality that depicts immigrants as spongers and aliens.

Simon Brooks

March 18, 2010 • 12:20 am

I agree with Gwyn and Patrick’s comments above, namely that the sentiments here defending migrant workers are good, but that the piece then collapses into an attack on a minority language community and the symbols of its identity (i.e. the Eisteddfod). Given that the man who set up Gorsedd y Beirdd, Iolo Morganwg, refused to buy slave-produced sugar on principle, this is a bit rich.

The piece also shows why the “Open Borders” argument can be so flawed. Put simply, if we believe in “open borders” under all circumstances, then what is wrong with imperialism and colonisation? What is wrong with colonists deciding where they want to live in North America/Australia/New Zealand/ Palestine? Is it not their “liberal” right to live where they choose?

In the case of Wales, of course, the country underwent a complicated process in the 19th century in which it was both colonising others and yet was also colonised itself at the same time.

It is untrue, for example, to say that immigrants to Wales in the 19th century were “thoroughly absorbed”. In fact large-scale immigration effected massive cultural change in the south Wales coalfield to such an extent that the Welsh language community which had been up until the 1870s/80s one of the most bouyant industrialised minority language communities in Europe completely collapsed.

Duncan Higgitt

March 18, 2010 • 6:27 am

Simon, I don’t see any attack. This is the kind of emotive language that the debate here has so far managed to avoid.

There is a job to do in saving the language, and that often relies on Welsh cultural history, and that is fine. But Tom is right – Wales played a full role in British imperialism, to the point where six of the 10 most common African-American surnames in use today are Welsh in origin. That suggests a disproportionately high proportion of plantation (and therefore slave) owners came from this country.

A proper nation doesn’t rely on myth-building. A proper nation is honest with itself about its past, including the dark passages.

Adam Higgitt

March 18, 2010 • 6:35 am

Some flaws of your own, Simon – not least a manipulative attempt to suggest criticism of the Welsh language. It is not an attack on a “minority language community” to say that the cultural influences of modern Wales owe rather more to the migrants of the 19th century than to the 19th century reinvention and re-imagination of Celtic culture. We can do better than to address a serious subject by screaming “anti-Welsh” at anyone who challenges orthodoxy.

But the other flaw is in the suggestion that advocating no borders means a tacit acceptance of imperialism. Obviously, there is a huge difference between suggesting that there should be a free movement of peoples and arguing that might is right, and that those people can not only move but also conquer wherever they like. Equal citizenship would prevent the kind of ethnic minority rule you cite.

Yes, the Welsh-language was turned from a majority to a minority language in a short space of time because of mass-migration (and government policy). This does not mean that the 19th century migrants weren’t thoroughly absorbed. It just means they helped to drive one cultural change that is still with us today. You only reject the absorption analysis if you believe there was a authentic indigenous culture to be defended from incomers. The whole point of Tom’s piece is to challenge that nostrum.

Illtyd Luke

March 18, 2010 • 10:15 am

Just going to pick at Iestyn’s points as I find them very disagreeable!

“Michael, I agree that national identity, when presented as a clear cut issue, is divisive, as it defines one set of ‘attributes’ as nationally acceptable and all (or most) others as less acceptable. We see this often in discussions of the Welsh national question.”

No we do not. I do not see many discussions of the Welsh question at all that result in racism. There isn’t even an ethnic party in Welsh nationalism. In British nationalism there is of course an ethnic party that has won both council and European seats.

“But Tom Fowler just defines a different “us and them”. This time, its the Welsh Working Class (whoever they may be – are you working class if you work in the Civil Service for instance?) vs the “rich men” who’s crumbs we (don’t know if I count for inclusion, mind) are trying to garner.”

??! The civil service in Wales contains over ten thousand people on the minimum wage! So yes I think they’d be considered working class by any socio-economic standard. Talk about out of touch…

“I guess I’m mostly agreeing with Tom – after all, even Black and White isn’t… umm… black and white. You can’t say that black people (or asians, or poles or whichever other grouping you want to identify) have “a different attitude” to “us”. On the other hand, average out the attitudes / beliefs / lifestyles of any group of immigrants, and compare it to the same average of native (for want of a better word), and you will find a difference – that is what “national identity” is about, and that is where people start to get frightened that something that they hold dear is going to be lost to them. It is that fear that can turn to racism, and is a fertile ground for fascism and xenophobia.”

No, it’s what ethnic and cultural identity is about. The British national identity already includes Pakistanis, Naseem Hamed’s boxing, etc. The BNP’s appeal is to the white working classes- a class and ethnic appeal, not really a national identity one.

In any discussion about national identity I’d have to give way to Gwyn Alf Williams who wrote (more or less) that the Welsh identity is entirely imagined and had to be reconstructed (or re-imagined) by each generation, depending on their circumstances. That’s how Welshness is surviving, by adapting to the conditions that we experience. This is an analysis compatible with both Marxism and Welsh nationalism but more importantly, seems to be borne out by history, if you believe Gwyn Alf that is.

Illtyd Luke

March 18, 2010 • 10:28 am

Just one more comment from me for now.

David Phillips wrote- “A very interesting article, especially when hinting at the clever use of invented traditions by certain political groups with the underlying aim of advancing a background narrative which almost imperceptibly facilitates a medium to long term shift in the political landscape.

I find this hard to stomach because I believe from other pieces on this site that David Phillips is either a supporter or member of Labour (much as he’d conclude i’m a supporter of Plaid)- and when David talks about ‘certain political groups’ trying to shift the ‘political landscape’ it might be fair of me to think that he is hinting that Plaid Cymru is promoting a narrative to encourage the shift to devolution. If David is making that point, then it is probably true, but as Tom Fowler is someone who has stood outside the UK Border Agency on Newport Road alongside Plaid Cymru AMs (with not a Labour politician in sight) trying to defend Azerbaijanis and Iranians, then I do not believe Tom is in any way linking the Welsh nationalist tradition to the anti-immigration lies and myths that are regularly peddled.

I should add though, that I agree with David’s final paragraph about a pluralistic approach to identity. The modern Wales does seem to fit that, you’ve got traditional, “Bardic” interpretations of culture and the Gorsedd, you’ve got Welsh-speakers, working-class men from the Valleys and the south-east of Wales who’ve got St. David’s flags tattooed on their arms and support Cardiff City, and then the local Bangladeshi restaurant near me which has a Ddraig Goch hanging up. All of those expressions of identity are valid and are just as much a part of Welsh culture as the Eisteddfod.

CapM

March 18, 2010 • 11:17 am

I think choosing to address the issue and find solutions based on class is no more effective than basing it on national/nationalistic grounds.

The Welsh working class (not alone of course) also exploits migrant workers. Siphoning health care professionals from developing countries in Africa and Asia because they (we) demand treatment sooner rather than later. Content to have Eastern european workers do jobs (such as work in abbatoirs) for a low wage so that they (we) can have cheap goods and services.

In my opinion, solutions that mean us paying the full cost for services/goods here and for those we get elsewhere makes for a more equitable world independent of where you live rather than an open borders approach which perhaps makes for a more equitable world dependent on where you can get to.

Michael

March 18, 2010 • 12:18 pm

Why do discussions on this site always end this way? Overly defensive Nationalists throwing round the word anti Welsh, or moaning about people or occasionally the site being pro Labour.

You are going to have to accept that not everyone sees the world in the same way you do. It is not a personal criticism so don’t get so hot under the collar.

I would also like to dispute the below statement.

“The Welsh working class (not alone of course) also exploits migrant workers. Siphoning health care professionals from developing countries in Africa and Asia because they (we) demand treatment sooner rather than later.”

It is not Welsh working class people that exploit anyone. This situation is the result of global inequalities and would not be solved by Welsh people agreeing to wait a bit longer for treatment.

Illtyd Luke

March 18, 2010 • 12:37 pm

The term anti-Welsh hasn’t been used on this discussion thread until you did Michael. I don’t think anyone’s moaned about people being pro-Labour either? I was the only commenter who mentioned another guy being pro-Labour, but in the same sentence I conceded that my view might be equally partisan, and I even agreed with one of his points.

This debate is nothing compared to some of the pieces on here that have been like trench warfare!

One thing i’m not sure of is Duncan’s point about the Welsh being disproportionately high slave owners due to African-Americans having a high rate of Welsh surnames. Because Welsh settlement in America overwhelmingly took place in areas where slavery was not practiced, it has been posited that black Americans commonly have Welsh surnames for a number of other reasons. Religious missionaries certainly included a high proportion of Welsh people, and of course the Welsh quakers etc generally played an anti-slavery role at the time. Who knows though, Duncan might well be right with that. It is definitely true that there were Welsh slave owners of course, I wouldn’t dream of disputing that.

http://www.data-wales.co.uk/plantations.htm

Illtyd Luke

March 18, 2010 • 12:40 pm

It should also be added that the S4C’s series on slavery openly denied the Welsh slave-owner angle- of course if they got it wrong then questions should be asked about their research! All very relevant to this thread.

http://www.s4c.co.uk/americagaeth/e_caethfeistri-cc.php

D Hughes

March 18, 2010 • 1:03 pm

“The industrial revolution affected the culture of Wales to such a point that we can almost consider anything before it as mere preamble. It’s such a shame Tom Fowler has such contempt to the history of Cymru /Wales, and traditions of indigenous language and culture.

Ben Llwyd

March 18, 2010 • 1:35 pm

Michael March 17, 2010 • 2:13 pm No that is not at all what I am trying to argue. Try to be a bit less sensitive.

The point I am making is once you open the Pandora’s Box of National identity whatever position and however benign you are, it will inspire among people a them and us mentality.

This is a legitimate question for Nationalist to have answer and I feel one well made in the article.

Michael, Surely the key issue about national identity is what kind of national identity one is trying to construct. This thread has so far (as usual) focussed on the construction of Welsh identity by (supposedly) Welsh Nationalists. But both Labour and Conservative politicians have tried hard to create or cultivate or develop a sense of British identity that suits their political beliefs; Labour has gone further than previous governments in the curriculum and with citizenship test for immigrants. Indeed it is very hard to think of many major democratic political movements that are not promoting one idea of national identity or another (think Republicans and Democrats). The question is surely how inclusive their narrative of identity is and I think it’s fairly true that on that question Plaid Cymru, Labour and (now) the Conservatives stand on the same side of the debate in offering an open and inclusive version of national identity compared to the BNP’s narrow racist approach; this is much more significant than their differences in the geographical level of what constitutes the nation.

Michael

March 18, 2010 • 1:41 pm

“It’s such a shame Tom Fowler has such contempt to the history of Cymru /Wales, and traditions of indigenous language and culture.”

Another example of what I was saying. I mean: is this comment really a reasonable summation of what Tom said?

Adam Higgitt

March 18, 2010 • 1:52 pm

“The question is surely how inclusive their narrative of identity is”

Ben – I think you are partly right. This has hitherto been the question, with the subtext being that there are good, civic forms of nationalism, or national identity-fostering, if you prefer.

Where I think Tom’s piece has succeeded so well is in arguing that there isn’t a bad, ethnic-based/racist form of nationalism that exists perfectly separately from a good, civic-based/pluralistic form of nationalism, but rather than there is a continuum or spectrum of the same phenomenon. If I’ve read him right, what this article calls for is for us to strive to get past all of those forms and embrace something more universalist. Just because every state does it, does not mean that it is right.

D Hughes

March 18, 2010 • 1:59 pm

Tom’s misguided opinion can be summed up like this – Wales was empty, totally usesless, nothing of value happening, ignoring over 2,000 years of history, heritage and culture, not mention the Mabinogion, one oldest pieces of literature in Europe and the laws of Hywel Dda, so before its time its priniciples are still in use today. Nothnig here before the glorious British empire paved our (and many African and Asian nations) streets with gold in our new utopion colony! Yeah right…please say hello to Dorothy and Toto for me.

Iestyn

March 18, 2010 • 2:13 pm

Illtyd Luke. I’m sorry that you find my points disagreeable. Maybe other people will bear with me while I respond to your points.

The national identity debate in Wales is rife with assertions that the Welsh are (or should be) this and that, or that Welsh speakers are ( or should be) this and that, that certain viewpoints are anti-Welsh… Maybe it is just a cheap way of disparaging someone’s viewpoint, but some people truly believe that, for instance, to oppose devolution is anti-Welsh. I was accusing no-one of racism, merely of inventing what they considered to be “Welsh” and “non-Welsh” practice, and judging others by their own criteria.

My question about the working class and (for instance) the civil service was just a question, though it’s interesting that you appear to define the working class as low paid. Michael, meanwhile, defines the Working Class as anyone who works. An appeal to the working class appears to be central to Tom Fowler’s article, yet we don’t know what the “Working Class” is. The Queen, her Prime Minsister and all MPs work, for instance. And I know manual labourers who take home way way more than the national average wage. So neither definition seems anything other than subjective. Where then is the difference between a constructed (or redefined) nation, and a constructed (or redefined) class?

I stand corrected on the point of ethnicity of course – that is what I was describing rather than “National Identity”. But my point about the genuine fear of losing something dear still stands. Sudden change in ethnic mix due to a large influx of immigrants is a matter of concern to many, and I don’t see how removal of all restrictions is any more of a valid answer than the other extreme of banning all immigration.

CapM

March 18, 2010 • 3:08 pm

Michael at 19 “It is not Welsh working class people that exploit anyone. This situation is the result of global inequalities and would not be solved by Welsh people agreeing to wait a bit longer for treatment.” As I said I am not singling out the Welsh working class as the exploiters and I did not say that the situation would be solved by Welsh people acting alone. To suggest that the lifestyles of Welsh working class people do not contribute to the phenomenon of global inequality denies that there are choices that can be made. Buy a 200g bar of chocolate and put the blame on “global inequalities” or spend the same amount of money on a 100g bar of Fair Trade chocolate. This of course is an example of a choice that anyone can make including members of the working class rather than an example of an act that in itself will even out “global inequalities”

Tom Fowler

March 18, 2010 • 3:49 pm

I agree with Illtyd Luke that the national identity point came to the fore because of the nature of this site, perhaps the “not druids” line being added to the title increased that too. It was not my intention to ‘attack’ Welsh speakers and I certainly do not have any ‘contempt’ for the history of Wales. I’m quite shocked by some of the childish comments made about my view of pre-industrial Wales. Many of the more outrageous comments have been fully dealt with by others so I see no need to revisit them

My intention in this article was to raise the debate about the nature of immigration into Wales and the way in which ‘ordinary’ Welsh people should respond to that. I feel that one of the most pertinent issues relating to this is how the mass migration made the society we experience today. We can learn a lot about the situation for the majority of Welsh people when we frame ourselves in the era after one of society-changing mass inward migration.

If ‘national identity’ is to be shaped by the everyday experience of the largest number of people within a geographic area then any Welsh national identity should be class conscience and transnationalist. There is an “us” and “them” in this world, the haves and the have nots. The best interests for the majority of people in Wales and the majority of people in the world is for the redistribution of wealth from those who sit on huge amounts of unearned riches.

Though I do not consider myself Marxist (proto, conventional or otherwise) a great deal of the works of Karl Marx should be considered essential reading for anyone seeking an understanding of economic development. Furthermore the writings of the British Marxist Historians have contributed a great deal to the understanding of our social history, and in the case of our own two western peninsulas, the ghost of the great Gwyn Alf is rightly invoked.

CapM

March 18, 2010 • 4:13 pm

Duncan Higgitt at 14 “Wales played a full role in British imperialism, to the point where six of the 10 most common African-American surnames in use today are Welsh in origin. That suggests a disproportionately high proportion of plantation (and therefore slave) owners came from this country.”

I tend to think that we played a less full role than England and Scotland did.

Also (though not to excuse those that did play a role in the slave trade) the suggested correlation between African Americans with Welsh surnames and the relative activity of Welsh or people of Welsh decendant in the slave trade is most likely erroneous. Five of the ten most common surnames in the UK are currently Welsh, this is less a reflection of the proportion of people with Welsh paternal forefathers in the UK but of the small number of Welsh surnames there are, That is if you want to say that the Welsh had a disproportionally high involvement in the slave trade you would have to show that the total number of African American with welsh surnames was disproportionally high compared with the total number with Scottish and English surnames.

Hendre

March 18, 2010 • 4:20 pm

One aspect that was less of a concern back in the 19th century/early 20th century was welfare protectionism since there was very little state welfare to be protective of. Many of the Daily Mail-type stories on immigration revolve around the receipt of state benefits and whether, and at what point, the newly arrived ‘deserve’ such benefits.

While Daily Mail readers harrumph about state benefits to everyone, not just to immigrants, Welsh workers may be more worried about the effect of immigration on their own working conditions. Migrant workers are certainly exploited and while it’s true they may be ‘potential allies in the struggle for an equal society’ they are also being used as blackleg labour (the traditional role of the Irish) and to push down wages. Tom Fowler’s piece does rather echo some of those articles which declare that the ‘English are a mongrel nation’ so immigration is nothing worry about. In our case he seems to be saying ‘the Welsh are a migrant worker nation’ so migrant labour is nothing to worry about. I think some in the Welsh working class might beg to differ.

Illtyd Luke

March 18, 2010 • 4:22 pm

“I stand corrected on the point of ethnicity of course – that is what I was describing rather than “National Identity””

Okay, your point now makes perfect sense to me Iestyn and thanks for being reasonable in your reply. For what it’s worth I suspect both Michael and I’s definition of working class would be very similar and grounded in socio-economics rather than a specific pay grade or employment status. I also agree with all the other points Michael makes about economics and the Welsh working class, leading me to suspect our disagreement is to do with Welsh nationalism and partisanship.

Tom- it is a shame that this thread has avoided an actual debate about immigration and how migrants are perceived in Wales. It reminds me that there was once a famous debate at Westminster about ‘racism in Wales’ with the former Plaid MP Simon Thomas presenting a number of concerns about the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees in Wales. MPs from opposing parties subsequently lined up to attack him on his party’s perceived (and largely imaginary) racial opposition to English people, and the actual debate about asylum seekers was ignored because of the party political spat. I remember it being quite an infamous debate at the time.

Tom, you make this point- “If ‘national identity’ is to be shaped by the everyday experience of the largest number of people within a geographic area then any Welsh national identity should be class conscience and transnationalist. There is an “us” and “them” in this world, the haves and the have nots. The best interests for the majority of people in Wales and the majority of people in the world is for the redistribution of wealth from those who sit on huge amounts of unearned riches.”

Unsurprisingly, I completely agree. National identity is completely constructed as Gwyn Alf argued, and the Welsh national identity must, in my own opinion, contain a commitment to social justice as one of its defining characteristics, otherwise it is worthless and unreflective of what Wales is. So while the bards and the Gorsedd are important and worth defending, anyone involved in shaping what it means to be Welsh should have economic justice and wealth redistribution at the forefront of their minds- perhaps best expressed as the concept of ‘Chwarae teg’.

Ben Llwyd

March 18, 2010 • 4:43 pm

Adam

I take your point although I was really responding to Michael’s comments rather than Tom’s original piece. My argument was that almost all political movements have a narrative of national identity whatever they may assert, even if in the UK the geographical level at which we describe “the nation” is quite varied. In debates on WH the term “Nationalist” only applies to one political movement whereas I’d argue that others are also threading a strong idea of national through their thinking which impacts hugely on migrants’ experiences yet is somehow denied as being nationalistic

Tom Fowler

March 18, 2010 • 5:51 pm

It’s clear that the Welsh surnames of ex-slaves in the United States were chosen for a multitude of reasons. However there is little to suggest that Wales played any less of a role than England and Scotland in the British Empire, other than that due to our relative lack of size. There are many examples of Welsh slave owners whose activities are a matter of Historical record. As one example, the man behind the financing of Port Penrhyn, Richard Pennant. He claimed that the middle passage from Africa to the West Indies was “one of the happiest periods of a Negro’s life”.

Concerns of the role of migrant workers in driving down pay fails to recognise the root of the problem which working people face. Wages are low not because of migrants but because of the inherent exploitative nature of the wage system. Bosses pay as little as they are able to, wages only increase when workers come together and organise for a better deal.

Duncan Higgitt

March 18, 2010 • 6:06 pm

“That is if you want to say that the Welsh had a disproportionally high involvement in the slave trade you would have to show that the total number of African American with welsh surnames was disproportionally high compared with the total number with Scottish and English surnames.”

Six out of 10 is disproportionately high, particularly given the Welsh proportion of total UK population size.

“I tend to think that we played a less full role than England and Scotland did.”

No, it does not. In fact, it suggests Welsh played a proportionally greater role. And comparing common surnames between British people and African-American is a bit misleading, because it does not take into account how those people came by their names.

Illtyd Luke – prepared to hear different evidence, by all means, and concede if I’m wrong. But we can go round in circles, comparing various estimates. However, that misses my point – a mature nation faces up to its mistakes of the past.

D Hughes wide-of-the-mark conclusions are risible and borderline hysterical. They infer that he is insecure about Wales as a nation. And you only need a handful of people to compile the Mabinogion, which rather reinforces Tom’s point about population size.

D Hughes

March 18, 2010 • 7:24 pm

Duncan, Tom – all I can say is quote my old grandad: “The squirrels can take the nuts, but the tree is still there!”

Adam Higgitt

March 18, 2010 • 7:38 pm

Ben

You’re quite right that the phenomenon we are discussing is by no means limited to Wales. I acknowledged as much in my first comment on this thread. And you’re also right to suggest that all forms impact on the way we treat migrants. Wherever there is a feeling that we are a “we” it almost inevitably follows that the “they” must be ascribed less significance or value.

CapM

March 18, 2010 • 7:39 pm

Reply to Duncan Higgitt in 35

You are making a mathematical mistake. Whether the Welsh effect is proportional or not does not depend on the makeup of the top ten names but the makeup of all the hundreds of names African Americans have adopted. The preponderance of Welsh names in the top ten doesn’t justify the assumption that the Welsh effect is disproportionate as we know that after the common Welsh names are accounted for there aren’t many Welsh names left to go on the list while there are hundreds and hundreds of Scottish and English ones.

Wasn’t it you that pointed out in 14 and 35 the Welsh name African American name issue to support your premise that Wales played a full role in British Imperialism.

My point is that before any other aspect of how names were adopted is considered on mathematical grounds alone your assumption is not valid.

Simon Brooks

March 18, 2010 • 8:02 pm

First things first. We have to accept that Wales was part of the imperial project. Wales in the 19th century was shot through with imperialist and British ideology, and the Welsh had a role in the slave trade. Goronwy Owen, the famous 18th century Welsh-language poet, owned slaves in Virginia, for example.

However there is also a Welsh tradition of opposing imperialism in all its forms and Iolo Morganwg’s Gorsedd y Beirdd – which in many ways was an offshoot of the French Revolution, the “rights of man” etc – is central to this tradition. The author’s choice of example here is poor, and we are entitled to ask: what does the UK’s discriminatory immigration policy have to do with Welsh-speaking Enlightenment druids? The author may just as well argue that the UK’s immigration policy has an innate relationship with the promotion of Newport County Football Club to the Conference last Tuesday.

On a more serious point, immigration to a hegemonic culture in a strong State is not the same as immigration to minoritised cultures without a State of their own. This is not to say that immigration to Wales is wrong, rather that the moral questions are different in countries like Wales. “Open Borders” should consider issues like this. What, for example, would be the result of mass immigration to Catalonia given that many immigrants would wish to be “socialised” in Spanish (economically useful) rather than Catalan? It would be the collapse of Catalan-language culture. What would be the result of mass immigration to Madrid? None linguistically, the nature of society would be changed of course, but Madrid would remain Spanish speaking.

I have no problem at all with immigration which changes minority cultures from within, i.e. making them more multicultural – i.e. more North African Catalan speakers, more Bengali Welsh speakers. I would support this agenda 100%.

But unfortunately, as we know from recent experience in rural Wales, mass immigration often merely displaces minority cultures rather than change them from within. Wales should not have an “Open Borders” immigration policy. It should have strong borders, and a proper immigration policy, but one which is just and fair and accepts the Welsh responsibility to take its fair share of, in particular, refugees.

Adam Higgitt

March 18, 2010 • 8:43 pm

Simon

As Tom has pointed out, what we understand to be Wales – in so many meaningful senses of that word – is derived from the effects of fairly recent mass migration. Of course minority cultures should be afforded some measure of protection, especially when, like the Welsh language, they abut much larger, dominant cultures. But it would be wrong to attempt to extract and define one particular cultural tradition as the authentic one, with some sort of special right to exist above and beyond all others. And – to return to the point of the piece – it would be wrong to use the preservation of that culture to define and exclude outsiders. Merely committing to taking a fair share of refugees is to miss the point entirely.

Jim Dunckley

March 18, 2010 • 9:24 pm

The Left in Wales really do seem to have a problem with Welsh identity. If they’re not continually trying to find ways of qualifying and justifying it, they’re working to downplay it in some way shape or form. It’s not so much a case of celebrating work class solidarity (have we all forgotten the number of welsh men who fought in the Spanish civil war?) as middle class agonizing and guilt over injustices committed against oppressed peoples in the dim and distant past.

Interesting as the article is, I think the thrust is fundamentally negative, given the positive contribution that the distinctive welsh culture of south wales has made to the rest of the world.

I think what irks people is the cavalier way that Tom can dismiss about 90% of welsh history as though some kind of new culture suddenly sprung, as Gwyn Alf would have put it “from Croesus’ head”. It ignores the continuity. All cultures adapt and change according to new circumstances, but Tom takes things a step further and completely throws welsh identity out with the bathwater.

The idea that some kind of “Welsh slave owning class” paved the way for the development of the Industrial Revolution in Wales is simplistic and ignores the history of the previous 600 or so years. Much of the industrial revolution was kicked off in Wales by the landed gentry, which in turn originated from the Norman-English colonial system imposed on Wales by Edward II. You need LAND and CAPITAL to start an enterprise. The vast and overwhelming majority of the population of Wales had neither.

To equate the quarrymen of Bethesda – who despite their absolute and grinding poverty still partook of a distinctive culture extending back over 1500 years – with Baron penrhyn is just ludicrous. The Truck system is testament to the fact that the welsh working class were completely alienated and disenfranchised from the system that ruled them with them with an iron rod. Why else was the Chartist movement so popular in Wales?

And in making his argument Tom is forced to reduce the population of south wales to passive subjects of forces beyond their control. It’s not that simple. There is a clear interplay between what happens to people with a distinct identity and the forces that act on them.

Take a simple example. The Scotch cattle. The scotch cattle emerged from the system of “community justice” that operated in rural welsh-speaking communities – the “ceffyl pren” – and was brought into the newly industrialising communities of the south wales valleys. It was distinctively welsh, but it had a class component, as it was designed to punish “blacklegs” and enforce the wider interest of the community. In an age when Unions were illegal, it was a form of working class solidarity. And it was distinctively Welsh.

You cannot ignore continuity. To make simplistic statements like “A culture which defines “Welshness” far more keenly than any bardic ceremony”. ignores the fact that eisteddfodau for example were a feature of welsh life in working class communities in south wales as much as they were in the quarrying communities of penrhyn. They partook of a tradition which extends back over 800 years to the Court of the Arglwydd Rhys, but the point is it was reinvented by a new generation, and gave that generation a sense of continuity and tradition in the face of the destabilising forces of capitalism. Nuff said.

CapM

March 18, 2010 • 10:13 pm

Tom Fowler at 34 “Concerns of the role of migrant workers in driving down pay fails to recognise the root of the problem which working people face. Wages are low not because of migrants but because of the inherent exploitative nature of the wage system. Bosses pay as little as they are able to, wages only increase when workers come together and organise for a better deal.”

I totally agree that the distribution of wealth is uneven within the UK and globally and I think the capitalist system produces and perpetuates much of the inequalities. However it’s not only the “Bosses” that are involved in maintaining low wages. We are all culpable including the working class as we’ve all bought into the capitalist system because it offers us what we want at a price we are willing to pay.

Thousands of workers in the UK on minimum wages and working hard because we want and expect ready meals that cost £1.49 and regular Buy one get one frees.

We in Wales and that includes most of the working class however you define the term are in a global sense in the “them” and “the haves” categories (based on a global average of about £6500 GDP PPP) If workers in Wales came together and organized for a better global deal they’d effectively be campaigning to make themselves less well off in monetary terms.

Duncan Higgitt

March 18, 2010 • 10:33 pm

Cap M,

Here’s how I see it. If there are 50 million African Americans, and six out of 10 of the most common names have Welsh roots, what lies behind this phenomenon? I can think of two reasons. Firstly, all those Morgans, Jones and Davises had gone on to have exceptionally large families when compared with the Smiths, the Mackintoshes and the Murphys. Or that they were held on plantations in larger numbers, and by owners who shared the same (Welsh) surname.

I’ve entered into the proportionality argument to satisfy arguments against other posters here, but the real crux of my argument is – do we accept that Welsh people also owned plantations? Can we assume that they fully participated in Empire? I think to deny their participation – which I think is as much to do with denying the notion that our forefathers happily connived with the English as it is in engaging in slavery and other low practices – is to further wrongly inform a thoroughly modern foundation myth, which is what Tom has teased at.

Nowhere has he dismissed Iolo Morgannwg, the Mabinogion or any of the other previous, can’t-be-argued-over aspects of Wales’ distant past. It isn’t you, but sweeping assumptions are being made as to what lies behind his argument. His argument is simple – Wales was built on migration. Yes it was, yes it was. The vast majority of people in this country – two thirds – live in former industrial areas that weren’t there some 200 years ago (if we exclude Merthyr, Blaenafon and a couple of others).

The Rhondda was a green and pleasant valley. Its inhabitants didn’t spring from Glyndwr’s loins. They came from Ireland, Italy and, overwhelmingly, England – except, ironically, my great grandfather, a Gwynedd miner who came south when work dried up!

So once again, I go back to my original point. For the sake of becoming a confident nation, and not one that is ultra sensitive about which Welsh noble we have to thank for our identity, do we accept that Wales played its full part in Empire, including slavery?

Michael

March 18, 2010 • 10:37 pm

Tom did not dismiss Welsh history he just observed that Wales is much more the daughter of relatively recent events, than those events that took place in the proceeding period.

The point you made about the slave trade is also a misrepresentation of what has been said. But that one has already done so many circles I am unwilling to get involved

“The Truck system is testament to the fact that the welsh working class were completely alienated and disenfranchised from the system that ruled them with them with an iron rod.”

This could be said about the treatment of the working class anywhere, which is the point Tom was making. Much more unites them than separates them.

“You cannot ignore continuity. To make simplistic statements like “A culture which defines “Welshness” far more keenly than any bardic ceremony”. ignores the fact that eisteddfodau for example were a feature of welsh life in working class communities in south wales as much as they were in the quarrying communities of penrhyn. They partook of a tradition which extends back over 800 years to the Court of the Arglwydd Rhys”

I know very little about the “eisteddfodau” and they may have played an important role in Welsh life. The fact that I know so little, I am Welsh from a working class background, suggests they no longer have the same influence. Which is again the point.

Duncan Higgitt

March 18, 2010 • 11:13 pm

Some excellent argument on here today, gents. A lot of you feel, quite passionately, that there is a contrary view to Tom’s.

In which case, I’d like to invite any of you to pitch an idea for a piece on WalesHome.org that argues to the contrary. I’m not looking for an attack, and we’d like a sophisticated rebuttal, if rebut you must. Only one other rule – you must write under your own name. If you wish to do so but keep your identity here, in the comments, confidential, we will respect such a wish.

Interested? Drop me a line: [email protected].

Cheers.

CapM

March 19, 2010 • 12:35 am

Reply to Duncan Higgitt

I have not denied that Wales and Welsh people participated in the Empire neither have I denied that Welsh people and their descendants were involved in the slave trades. Has any contributor said any different?

Did Wales and the welsh play a full role in the above. Well maybe if you consider that we made the most of the opportunities available. However compared with the opportunities taken by others in Britain I’d say that we were catching a ride on England’s and Scotland’s coat tails.

Tom Fowler

March 19, 2010 • 8:13 am

I have been condemned for failing to mention the Mabinogion, the laws of Hywel Dda, Welsh involvement in the International Brigades, the scotch cattle and several other matters. The idea that I consider these important historical events as “totally useless” is so ridiculous and I find it difficult to take seriously anything else said by these commentors. Strawman arguments about me equating the quarrymen of Bethesda with Baron Penrhyn would be laughable if it weren’t so offensive.

The characterisation of the article as “middle class agonizing and guilt over injustices committed against oppressed peoples in the dim and distant past” is as pathetic as it is childish. What so many people are unwilling to face up to the way in which the legacy of Empire has an effect on the lives of people today.

Henry Bruce (1st Baron Aberdare) was the first governor of the Royal Niger Company which institutionalised the systematic plundering of wealth from the region that was to become Nigeria. Many of the current problems faced by people in Nigeria are a direct result of domination by Britain. Despite having abundant natural resources and being a major oil producer, poverty is a fact of life for the majority of people in the most populous country in Africa.

There are many Nigerians today living in Wales, they are here, because ‘we’ were there. Many of them face the possibility of their front door being kicked down by a gang of uniforms to be carted off to a detention prison before being deported on a charter flight. They are demonised in the press, hated by some and in the coming election most parties will present policies to show how ‘tough’ they can be against them.

CapM

March 19, 2010 • 9:52 am

Attributing the culture of “Wales as we currently understand and experience” predominantly to the fairly recent mass migration of people into Wales leads to a conclusion that it’s the descendants of these fairly recent migrants that are predominantly responsible for the Welsh view on current migrants.

Conversely the almost “preamble” pre industrial revolution culture of Wales coped with accepted and assimilated with a migrant influx that caused a populationexplosion that “cannot be underestimated”.

A bit of a mischievous idea maybe but none the less…..

Ilyan

March 19, 2010 • 10:56 am

What I know is that there were three Welsh speakers who volunteered to be the armed protectors to a black refugee who came to stay in Crymych about 1936-7. The ones I heard talking did not have English. They put their lives on the line to protect someone from another nation against assassination by fascists.

Commentators have evoked a magical myth of a working class. Who was the arch-capitalist who pointed out: “I can always hire workers to shoot down other workers”? Workers are by definition people who have sold out to work for capitalist money. Their predecessors over bred so the land they occupied could no longer support their families, God’s diseases failed to maintain a stable population, and many hiked off to work to create the capitalist pollution that will destroy God’s creation of life on this planet.

Enjoy Life while it lasts on this planet. It could all terminate quite soon.

March 19, 2010 • 11:42 am

Andrew O’Hagan, writing in The Guardian, said:

“The working class of England today have no vision of society beyond the acquisitive – no version of themselves or their habits as anything other than transitional, on their way up or on their way out. The working class, at best, is a waiting room for people who aim to become middle class if possible. As a class in and of itself, it appears to be dead. The aims of society are not part of its ethos any more, the idea is as knackered as the Working Men’s Institutes. If a foreigner asked, what is the moral universe of the English today, to where would you point – the Daily Mail? Jeremy Clarkson? Simon Cowell and the instigators of the bouts of TV gladiatorial combat on a Saturday night, where more young people vote than would ever vote in a general election?”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jan/10/andrew-ohagan-george-orwell-memoriallecture

All globalisation, removal of borders, free movment and free market does is result in the homogenisation of peoples. Fit in with the new “global culture” (as Brown was talking about today) or we’ll exclude and sanction you. Language, traditions, tribe and beliefs are replaced by soap-operas, blue jeans, McDonald’s and billboards featuring airbrushed models.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-534291/How-England-losing-things-make-worth-living-in.html

If that’s your idea of a working-class utoptia, you can stick it. I’m all for STRONGER borders. Rebuild Offas Dyke, put passport booths on the Severn Bridges.

Page two of comments

Adam Higgitt

March 19, 2010 • 12:38 pm

“If that’s your idea of a working-class utopia, you can stick it. I’m all for STRONGER borders. Rebuild Offas Dyke, put passport booths on the Severn Bridges.”

Al – you really should write a piece for us

Mark

March 19, 2010 • 1:21 pm

There is a sneering contempt towards those of us who don’t speak ‘the mother tongue’ in these comments. You can taste the snobbishness in the air when Newport is mentioned.

We in south east Wales are as Welsh as any Cardigan farmer. DEAL WITH IT.

Illtyd Luke

March 19, 2010 • 1:32 pm

“We in south east Wales are as Welsh as any Cardigan farmer. DEAL WITH IT.”

A point more often than not made by Welsh nationalists who support bilingualism and want independence.

michael

March 19, 2010 • 4:17 pm

Is it not notable how conservative many Nationalists are. Take Al for instance: he is all for culture, and celebrates the changes in Welsh culture over the years. He now wants it to stop immediately no change ever again. He can cope with that Jethro Tull and his new fangled seed drill, but anything beyond that has to stop immediately.

March 19, 2010 • 5:12 pm

heheh.. on the contrary, I am involved in social media and networking, and am pushing for high-speed broadband roll out faster. And better rail links. And a place in Europe. And a seat at the UN. But these have to be things we consciously work towards, rather than things that just happen when we’re not looking, that we sleepwalk into, then turn around and say “wow… when did they build that Starbucks? That was the National Museum last time I drove past”.

There is change that enhances our lives, our culture, our country. Then there is change that happens to the detriment of the above, and happens just for the sake of happening.

Suz Heale

March 19, 2010 • 9:32 pm

“Wales played a full role in British imperialism, to the point where six of the 10 most common African-American surnames in use today are Welsh in origin. That suggests a disproportionately high proportion of plantation (and therefore slave) owners came from this country.”

No it does not. Not all slaves took the names of their former slave owners. The former slaves took the names of famous people etc. generals, politicians and preachers, they also took place names.It was also common in the African American community to change the surname if it was one the newer generation did not like. This pracitice came to an end when social security was brought in around the time of the first world war.I do accept that there were slave owners who came from Wales, equally there was also Welsh involvement in the abolition movement.

Yes we participated in empire building but mainly as soldiers,citing barons lords and englishman, Richard Pennant, as examples of how the Welsh fully participated in Empire somewhat weakens the argument I feel.

However, enough nit picking!

The abandonment of communities once the wealth had been extracted, and the cavalier attitude to what happens to the people in these communities is global.The working class everywhere have been shafted and I include Wales. The working class in Britain who want better opportuntities and a better quality of life emigrate to various countries, and no one seems to question their right to do so. I absolutely support peoples right to come here without any qualification.History has shown that immigration into south Wales has on the whole been positive.

Jim Dunckley

March 19, 2010 • 10:07 pm

Oh dear. Obviously Tom has taken my comment about “middle class” angst a little too personally. I didn’t mean to belittle his “right on” working class credentials.

In any case Tom goes on to cite yet another Toff – Baron Aberdare – as somehow representative of Wales’ “participation” in the British Empire. Which just backs up my point. Wales’ involvement in the growth of the empire was largely driven by a particular class of people – call them the Crachach if you like.

They are the descendants of the colonial class imposed on this country by Norman-English rule. They owned most of the land. The Capital, on the other hand, at least for the early stages of the Industrial revolution, was provided by English entrepreneurs on the lookout for a quick buck. The Crawshays, Guests, Hills – all English.

I think maybe what Tom and some other posters are referring to in their critique is Cultural Nationalism.Is this type of nationalism representative of Wales? Not necessarily. Immigration certainly helped to create a distinctive culture in South Wales towards the end of the 19th/start of the 20th century.

I think it likely for example that Spanish and Italian immigration brought syndicalist ideas current in Europe into parts of the valleys – these ideas formed elements of the radical philosophy of documents like “The Miners Next Step”. It was still a product of the distinctly welsh culture of south wales, but it’s likely that immigration helped to bring in new strands of thinking that fed into the radical ferment of a working class culture that was struggling to redefine itself in the face of rapid change.

Adam Higgitt

March 19, 2010 • 10:19 pm

“They are the descendants of the colonial class imposed on this country by Norman-English rule.”

So, in summary: the only Welsh imperialists were in fact English. I think we could perhaps invent a new nationality test here. If you’re bad, you’re English, but if you’re good you can be Welsh.

That would make the whole thing a good deal easier.

Duncan Higgitt

March 20, 2010 • 12:29 am

Suz – good contribution.

Dave

March 20, 2010 • 11:47 am

I feel the majority of the comments miss the point of this article. Shame that so many would rather discuss history over immigration.

Michael

March 20, 2010 • 6:51 pm

Oddly enough I thought this article was a history lesson. My response, so what? What happened 100 years ago is not my responsibility.

michael

March 20, 2010 • 7:37 pm

The article surely was a discussion in how concepts of National identity can cause us to oppose immigration. In my view opposing immigration is bad for Wales.

Michael (obviously another one who would have thought it) The problem is we have not learned the lessons of history so what happened 100 years ago is crucial. It is easy to dismiss events if you were not the victims.

Adam Higgitt

March 20, 2010 • 7:40 pm

Would one of you two Michael’s mind differentiating yourself from the other please? Thanks.

Matthew Amery

March 20, 2010 • 7:56 pm

While the arguments this article has provoked are interesting, I believe the main theme has been mostly bypassed. I thought it was generally conceded that Wales (particularly the South) as we now know it was built upon the Industrial revolution, which of course brought around mass migration in the search for work. Fundamentally Tom’s argument on the public perception of “immigrants” is agreeable. Through the mass media, the colonisers who in times past have done everything possible to destroy cultures and national identities different to their own, now show people the contempt of using them as a tool to evoke some ill perceived mentality of British national pride.

Where does this type of Nationalism end?, undoubtedly at the least with some diluted version of Fascism. It is a tragic state of current affairs that the Welsh Defence League had enough support to stage two demonstrations in Wales last year – which would have been three, were it not for the people of Newport and various support groups efforts to send a message to the W.D.L. that they embrace living in their multi racial communities, and were willing to fight to defend them. The fact the W.D.L. managed to attract people to their cause (I use the term lightly), is mainly down to the influence of television and the press, hand in hand with grim economic futures and genuine fear.

While cultural identity is important and sacred it is also history. We cannot change the past or right the wrongs of the imperialists. What we can hope to do however, is shape the future. In today’s world, communities are ever changing and evolving, this is natural. People have been segregated and alienated from each other by the use of divide and rule and fear for far too long. Why do some people have the right to go anywhere in the world and others not?. Talk of reparations is farcical as people can’t even get apologies let alone dues. Why shouldn’t people want better lives for themselves?, especially when they are coming from countries used as battlegrounds by the elite, who show no regard for human life.

The Immigration system is fundamentally flawed and institutionally racist (as the recent expose from the U.K.B.A. in Cardiff reaffirms). What the world needs is humanitarianism not patriotism. I also agree that the workers of the world are our natural allies rather than the corrupt governments that pretend to have our interests at heart (while repeatedly reducing public funding to increase military prowess).

Michael T

March 20, 2010 • 8:39 pm

Happy to Adam I will mow use Michael T. I made all the Michael comments except comment 11. ” Oddly enough I thought this article was a history lesson. My response, so what? What happened 100 years ago is not my responsibility.”

Adam Higgitt

March 20, 2010 • 9:05 pm

tks

Welsh Ramblings

March 21, 2010 • 10:22 am

The WDL was outnumbered in both Swansea and Wrecsam by anti-fascist demonstrators, with many Welsh flags being present amongst the Swansea anti-racists.

Its worth properly analysing the WDL and looking at how they failed to rally any new support to their cause.

In Swansea, a group of far-right football hooligans (locals) were joined by racsists bussed in from England. According to anti-fascists the local racists were less in number than the bussed in ones. A genuinely community-based demonstration stood their ground and opposed the WDL/EDL, defeating them. People in Swansea did not rush out to support the Nazis, they came out with Welsh flags and stood alongside Muslims in opposing them. Swansea was united by that.

In Wrecasm the EDL came down with Bolton FC flags, St George’s flags and Rule Britannia chants. It isn’t even clear that any local racists came out to support them. They got blanked and abused by local people and had to leave for their own well-being.

The story of the EDL trying to enter Wales is one of modern Welsh communities completely rejecting the anti-Muslim message and driving the racists off the streets. In the whole of Wales less than 50 people from Wales actually felt strongly enough to support the anti-Muslim groups.

Far more important is the fact that it was ordinary Welsh people that stood their ground and defended their communities against these vile ideas.

Michael the immigrant

March 21, 2010 • 3:23 pm

Yes and will use my name and status to differentiate myself from my namesake. No, I do care about immigrants and how they are treated.

However, anyone who has done some history in school, or watched Gandhi or read “Heart of Darkness” know about the evils of colonialism.

It’s not me you need to convince that what is printed in the gutter press is not true. Its the millions of those who would not in their worse imaginations would see themselves as BNP supporters, however they say “if they dont like it here, why dont they just go back?”

The fact that certain individuals of Welsh extraction (such as a certain Mr Stanley of Congo fame) were nasty characters should not be identified with Welsh nationalism or even Wales itself.

I agree with Tom’s article on the evils of racism, but I think we have to deal with the now.

Xenophobia is universal and knows no borders.

John Tyler

March 21, 2010 • 6:34 pm

When “Michael the immigrant” writes …

The fact that certain individuals of Welsh extraction (such as a certain Mr Stanley of Congo fame) were nasty characters should not be identified with Welsh nationalism or even Wales itself.

… does he urge the writers of history to create lies for the future, our past is just that, our past, and as such we owe it to the future to be honest?

Matthew A

March 23, 2010 • 10:32 am

Welsh ramblings I was present at the Swansea demo. While the anti fascists clearly outnumbered the W.D.L./ E.D.L. they used the same tactics as the W.D.L. (obviously to better affect). Are you trying to suggest that everyone there was from Swansea?, The U.A.F. bussed in people from all over the country also. The local people I came into contact with all commented that if Swansea F.C. had not been away that day, the racists numbers would have been dramatically higher. As for the Wrexham protest I can not really comment as I was not present. It is perhaps worth noting that the W.D.L. posted on their website, that they were unwilling to come to Newport because the anti racist feeling there was too strong and they did not want the confrontation. The fact that they showed up in Swansea and Wrexham suggests they did not feel those places were as opposed to their teachings of hate as they did Newport.

To dismiss racism in Wales is totally ubsurd. I used the W.D.L. as an example of how racist sentiments are growing (they were not getting any publicity in mainstream media two years ago), Obviously I can only speak from personal experience but people I come into contact with all have the same misconceptions of immigrants (which is a point Tom was trying to raise I believe), that they come over here abuse our benefits system, take our jobs so on and so forth. Unfortunately I think it’s fair to say this is not a massive generalisation. Whether the W.D.L./ E.D.L. had 5000, 500 or 50 is missing the point. In this day and age, in a country where the people are as tolerable as any other in the world I believe, this should not even be an issue let alone an event. But it was and thats down to the mainstream media filling peoples head with pure lies. It is in Governments interest to promote this and break solidarity betweeen people who may join together to make this world a place where people are put before profits.

julie p

March 23, 2010 • 7:39 pm

I assume that Wrexham was chosen because it is full of migrants – isn’t that what you call people who have come from other countries? Do people from merseyside count? And Cheshire, Shropshire, and so on – because Wrexham has a huge population of residents with their roots in English counties. And many of these complain about migrant workers. Oh the irony!!

Welsh Ramblings

March 24, 2010 • 10:39 am

Matthew A, we are singing from the same hymn sheet. I am a Welsh blogger and blogged about the WDL/EDL protests quite alot, and about the BNP. I would be the last person to play down the problem of fascism and racism- and also the fact that Wales is potentially among the most fertile places in western Europe for fascism to get a foot hold. But when fascism is defeated, we surely also have a duty to report that and celebrate it. A narrative of paranoia and fear will do us no good.

“It is in Governments interest to promote this and break solidarity betweeen people who may join together to make this world a place where people are put before profits.”

I agree, one needs only to look at the statements made by Labour UK Govt Ministers in ‘getting tough on immigration’. I made the point on my blog before that this doesn’t neutralise the BNP it legitimises them and allows them to claim that they’ve forced concessions on the government.

However, I believe the Welsh Government’s approach is completely different, and several of its members including Ministers were attending the same demos we have been discussing and confronting the fascists. Nor has the Welsh Government ever made any statement about migrants or asylum seekers other than positive ones, as anyone involved in Tom Fowler’s No Borders South Wales group could attest. You only have to look at Edwina Hart (Labour Health Minister)’s anger over the removal of Ama Sumani by UK border forces (beyond her control or influence) from Welsh hospitals, or Leanne Wood (Plaid Cymru)’s campaign for the Azerbaijani poet whose campaign i’m sure you were also involved in.

In terms of government attitudes towards refugees and migrants, we have a completely progressive and socialist government on our hands when it comes to Wales.

Roger

April 3, 2010 • 9:03 am

Everyone should recognise the difference between 1) and 2)

1) “Although much of this inward migration was from other parts of Britain and from Ireland, many came from much further afield.” ie mostly internal migration

2) “Because of the Pakistani population’s desire to create “ethnic colonies”, he said, the best Bradford could hope for in the long term was accommodation rather than integration.”

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Fascism-and-Islamism-thrive-in.3810805.jp

Roger

April 3, 2010 • 9:36 am

I used to live in Birmingham.

Obviously the city grew very fast during the 19th century – lots of inward migration for instance from Wales and Ireland, and from all over England. Industrialisation enabled a higher population level to be sustained. Generally speaking what cultural difference that existed was fairly compatible – the Irish would get pissed in Sparkbrook and fight, but so what?

There was great pride in the metal bashing, the 1000 trades, the local clubs and societies and pubs, the Villa, the Blues and so on.

Beyond that there would be a lot of friendly banter with Cockneys and “Yam Yams” – but we had/have loads in common. We are part of the same nation, we have a common heritage.

Now inner Birmingham is effectively an Islamic colony. The signs of colonisation are readily apparent to all but the blind

Half our stuff is apparently “haram” – there are Islamic centres, hordes of kids going to madrassas, halal establishments, burkhas, radio masts pointed at Saudi.

There is no synthesis – the Brummies now living in Alum Rock are too old, too poor, too wrecked to leave. It is as simple as that.

The British people owe nothing to anybody; this is because the material condition of most of them was so low historically that it is apparent to all but a swivel-eyed ideologue that they didn’t enjoy the benefit of their own labour, let alone anyone else’s.

April 3, 2010 • 3:10 pm

And therein lies the problem: business and war (or the business of war) is driving immigration. Social necessities are an afterthought.

Devils Advocate for a minute: Boat-load of Saxons? Ah, give them a farm in Kent. It’s not like their culture, language and laws are going to spread out throughout the whole of Brittania or anything, is it? But then their land gets bigger. Their language and customs spread. Soon there are laws protecting them. And they spread. Soon the Saxon takes precedent over the Briton in law. And so it spreads. Later laws are cast AGAINST the Britons and their language.. and it spreads. Soon English becomes the official culture of this island. And it spreads. And grows.

Vast tracts of land with freely migrating populations are Empire, and as such is a construct by the few, it isn’t natural. Tribalism is the natural state of human or animal affairs. Assuming we wish to move away from the herd/pack mentality, to “evolve”, how do we do it? A free-for-all?

Even if you go back as far as Rome, and their mass multicultural experiment, it wasn’t a free-for-all, there were a common monetary framework, a lingua franca, a common religious framework, a set of common laws even in the Civitas. During the Byzantine Empire, The Ottoman Empire, the Frankish Empire, the Napoleonic Empire, the British Empire, there was still that common framework that is necessary for people to work together. (Even if you fast-forward to a futuristic utopian “Star-Trek” type Federation, they still all talk the same, dress the same, follow the same laws. Commonality. Integration.)

However, this modern Empire (that only exists in the mind, and in EU border law) has none of those common frameworks. Well, it has the monetary framework, but that’s it. Which is why you get the enclaves Roger talks about. And unless there is a need or compulsion to integrate, then why should they? I wouldn’t.

Assuming that we all agree that empire is a bad thing (mostly for the peoples under occupation) and we remove empire, then what do we do? Build up nation states again? Have one “global empire”? or just let chaos and the free markets run their course?

This is my issue with No-Borders. For there to effectively be “no borders”, when there needs to be empiric control, it won’t work without it. Infact, without the empiric control of the Valleys, for example, without that mixing under one flag and one language, there would probably be Welsh towns and English towns to this day, not the mix that we have. (or worse, the Welsh would have driven the English settlers out long ago).

Dai Lane

April 5, 2010 • 3:00 pm

@Al and @Roger

Do you believe that:

Because the beauty of the Welsh native language must not perish from the earth; we must secure the existence of our people and a future for Welsh children?

April 5, 2010 • 8:04 pm

@Dai – absolutely, it’s the most important thing there is. Everything else is just frippery, transient

Dai Lane

April 6, 2010 • 12:45 pm

@Al

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

not much of a jump really.

Adam Higgitt

April 6, 2010 • 1:04 pm

Dai

I’ve approved this comment, despite some anxiety about the direction you appear to want to take this discussion. Please note our Comment Policy: There’s a difference between robust debate and accusing someone of racism. Please make sure you stay the right side of this divide.

Thanks

Adam

April 6, 2010 • 1:23 pm

@Dai: very clever, but it’s a huge jump actually. You’re missing one part of the puzzle: Wales/Welsh isn’t a bloodline, a race, it is a fellowship, with a common language for all peoples who live within its borders. A beautiful, ancient language and culture. Anyone can be Welsh… whether they live in Wales or not – all it takes is wanting to be it! Wanting to speak it! Then you’re in.

So it’s not the same thing as that page you linked to (I feel dirty for even clicking on it), and I take offence at the accusation.

Dai Lane

April 6, 2010 • 3:16 pm

@Al

Does this mean you would be in favour of abolishing all immigration controls provided it were coupled with compulsory education in the Welsh language for all non-native speakers?

Simon Foster

April 7, 2010 • 7:43 pm

Looking at the issue outside the confines of Wales for a moment, when we sober up from indulging in the lofty ideals ‘free movement of peoples’, we are confronted by the realization that on an increasingly over populated planet, unrestricted movement will result not just in the death of cultures and nations, but the demise of our planet as a whole.

Paul Nicholls-Jones

August 11, 2010 • 1:19 pm

I love my country, regardless of who built it, where we are from. Even if it was the rift valley. I refute the United Kingdom, and the rule of Westminster.

Richard Keane

August 13, 2010 • 7:26 pm

For all those interested in an analysis of fascism and the left, including the State, the EDL, tactics and strategy I have found this ‘talk’ useful:

A large part of the first video is historical which is interesting, more relevant from 25mins onwards:

http://vimeo.com/13131154 http://vimeo.com/13128522

Tom Fowler

August 13, 2010 • 10:23 pm

Thanks for the links Richard, some interesting titbits of left wing history but I did find the speaker and jargonistic terminology difficult going. I disagree with a fair bit of it, especially the idea that ‘no platform’ has failed to hold back the far right at all. That’s not to say it doesn’t have it’s failings of course.

The speaker is wrong about the nature of the EDL front group in Wales, the Welsh Defence League (WDL) don’t promote a any form of welsh nationalism. The political ideology of the group is very confused, but is definitely loyalist in nature. Interestingly, though they claim not to be linked to any political party, prominent members expressed support for UKIP at the last election (though the same people have previously been members of the BNP).

The WDL a very small organisation that are difficult to take seriously (no matter how many threats they issue). Here’s an article I recently wrote about them: http://www.radicalwales.org/2010/07/do-you-believe-in-welsh-defence-league.html

Trackbacks

The formation of Nations « Nationalism Studies

Wales – Built By Migrants « No Borders South Wales

Built by Migrants, Not by Druids « chtodelat news

Wales- Built By Migrants « Ten Percent

Built by migrants not druids « WARN

England, a sense of Englishness part I « Englisc Dragon

#Politics #Wales #history #migration

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

tombfowler