the peculiarity, a common one in recent nationalist debates, is their ability to use the terminology of liberal/left rhetoric to their own use. So, the person proclaimed the value of defending 'indigenous' cultures from oppression, repression, suppression or dilution.
A funny turn of affairs, but perhaps not surprising. The nationalist movement is always looking for ways to become more palatable to the majority. And after all, if you feel "swamped" by alien cultures and people, then it would be easy to dwell on those words of liberal discourse which suit your prejudice. And, to be fair, the left (myself included) loudly bemoan the imperialist subjugation of "indigenous peoples" and native cultures such as the Maori, Native Americans, Africans and Asians of various sorts. We are right to do so, but perhaps we shouldn't have been so keen to use those words "native" and "indigenous" as if value is somehow tied to place or race, even in an act of separation. The racist right can find a lot of use in them. After all, the phrases do seem to fetishize the native, the indigenous as of essential value in itself.
I think most people on the left are sensible enough to realise that 'indigenous' is an arbitrary, relative and valueless term in itself.
(We assume people have a right to their homeland; though even this is debatable. People have been migrating for millennia, there is no reason that one place should be theirs particularly. And the Jewish diaspora begs the question of where exactly is their place? originally it was Israel alone, but like most people they have migrated. Why should emigrant Jews feel Israel is theirs any more than the descendents of the Mayflower folk feel England their home. It is a long sidetrack i don't mean to go into too much, because of time)
However, the side effect of the over-stressing of the term 'indigenous' seems to be an implication that anyone who isn't should somehow not be in the country because of it (with often a secondary, understated implication that they are lesser). So, the BNP (or the EDL) claim immigrants are not indigenous, not somehow "of us" They are equal, but different and separate all the same. It is a clever bit of idiocy. The BNP conflate ethnicity, race, nationality with values, ideas, and culture.
There is however no connection between the two spheres. It is the usual essentialist fallacy of assuming a link between biological inheritance/qualities and cultural or moral values. It is the same fallacy that sexists fall prey to. biology equals destiny etc.Of course, it does not, and there is little serious scientific evidence to suggest so.
Anyway, if you ignore the flaws, and fetishize the indigenous into a value, then racism is no longer racist. Black Africans, Asians, the Sioux, whoever, are just essentially different. Like the old US segregation ruling, they are "separate but equal". It's neat really, it manages to encompass both rightwing racial separatism and liberal sensitivities about protecting minority racial cultures and rights.It says "We aren't racist, we are just protecting our way of life, our values. we respect your differing values, they are separate from ours." It attempts to turn racial separatism into a positive. The underlying emphasis is race or nationality, it is just construed in terms of cultural difference.
It is the sort of insidious idea that persuades a lot of people who are, shall we say, afraid and not quite thinking right.
Frankly the real scrutiny in our world should be on values. And values are not race or nationality exclusive. A Britain full of people from all over the world would be fine with me. A Britain with less white people wouldn't bother me, nor would it please me. What would please me is a Britain full of people with a shared language (communication makes society; but anyone can learn that), and shared values.
The BNP and other nationalist groups will give the example of other "positive" nationalist movements. But the latter shouldn't really be considered nationalist as such. They are emancipatory movements; it is about democracy and self-determination, not nationalism. South Africa was wrong to deny the political rights of the black majority because of democratic principle and equality, not nationalist ideas of it being their country. The white South African has a right to their role in that country too. The same with Englis- descended Protestants in Ireland. It is not their indigenousness (?) that counts, but their support for the basic values of the country. And that is why nearly all immigrants come here. Being a Muslim, Hindu, Catholic or any religion is no barrier to being British unless you fail to subscribe to the values of the country. Should Scotland gain independence, it should be because it wants self-determination at a level closer to home. Because, in effect, they no longer feel that the British government acts in accord with their core values.; it becomes a minority dictating against majority Scots opinion and beliefs.The same should apply to the people of Cornwall, Essex or Leamington Spa, should they wish it. Race or nationality has little to do with it, it is the subjection of people of any hue or origin that concerns us. They may have been oppressed because of race, but they do not gain rights (gain value) because of race; they gain rights because they are people. The tragedy of imperialism wasn't that it murdered, exploited and oppressed the indigenous people, but that it murdered, exploited, and oppressed people.Racial or ethnic separatism is no answer; States should be founded on values. If the BNP have issues with the culture an value of immigrants, they need to accept that these values have nothing to do race or ethnicity; the freeborn white Englishman can be as offensive and against our culture and values as anyone. I mean, one need only look at the BNP and the EDL to see this.
