Can you be English and non-white? It’s a question that keeps stubbornly(顽固地、执拗地) resurfacing in our political discourse(政治话语、政治论述).
非白人能不能算英格兰人？这个问题在我们的政治话语中总是顽固地一再浮现。
Last weekend, the former prime minister Rishi Sunak gave his view in a column(专栏（文章）) in the Times, arguing that national identity should not be turned into a DNA test. After leaving office, Sunak, the UK’s first prime minister of colour, was subject to claims by a prominent(知名的、显赫的) podcaster that he was not English because he was a “brown-skinned Hindu”. Reflecting on this, Sunak described it as a “reverse Tebbit test”: the sociological concept measuring the loyalty of immigrants – and their children – in the UK depending on which cricket team they supported in international matches. “Once we say that this or that person isn’t really English or British because they are not white,” he wrote, “then we are on a very slippery slope(危险的滑坡、一发不可收拾的开端). Some people will argue that English is an ethnic identity and British a civic identity. Though if you think those nuance(细微差别、微妙之处)s are heard by most people, I fear you are being rather – perhaps even wilfully(故意地、执意地) – naive.”
上周末，前首相里希·苏纳克在《泰晤士报》的专栏中表达了自己的看法，主张国籍身份不该被变成一场 DNA 检测。卸任之后，作为英国首位有色人种首相，苏纳克曾遭到一位知名播客主播的言论攻击，称他因为是个“棕色皮肤的印度教徒”而不算英格兰人。对此，苏纳克称之为一种“反向特比特测试”——这一社会学概念原本用来衡量英国移民及其子女的忠诚度，标准是他们在国际比赛中支持哪支板球队。他写道：“一旦我们说某某人因为不是白人就不算真正的英格兰人或英国人，那我们就踏上了一条非常危险的滑坡。有人会辩称，英格兰是族裔身份，英国是公民身份。但如果你以为大多数人能听出其中的微妙差别，恐怕你就太天真了——甚至可能是故意装天真。”
Sunak is right that this conversation isn’t really about nuanced distinctions between ethnic and civic(公民的、市民的) identities. The questioning of one’s Englishness is deeply insidious(阴险的、暗中为害的), as it is not solely articulate(表达、明确说出)d through supposed “legitimate concerns(合理的关切)” about the pace of immigration, crimes committed by migrants or ethnic minorities, or anxieties around jobs and access to public services. Instead, it is presented as a question of first principles(一个根本性原则问题): whether you are a “good” or “bad” minority, a citizen or non-citizen, your ancestry(祖先、血统) or skin colour means you will never truly belong. Your claim to belong in this country, and that of your descendants, will always be implicitly(含蓄地、不言明地) lesser than those who could, at least theoretically, trace their ancestry back to Oswald of Northumbria. That idea is deeply uncomfortable for many, rejected both by those who hold progressive views on immigration and community integration, and those who otherwise hold conservative views of national belonging and hardened borders(强硬的边境政策).
苏纳克说得对，这场讨论其实并不关乎族裔身份与公民身份之间的微妙区分。对一个人“英格兰性”的质疑极其阴险，因为它并不只是通过所谓对移民速度、移民或少数族裔犯罪的“合理关切”，或对就业与公共服务的焦虑来表达。相反，它被摆成一个原则问题：无论你是“好”少数族裔还是“坏”少数族裔，是公民还是非公民，你的血统或肤色都意味着你永远不会真正属于这里。你和你后代对这个国家的归属主张，永远会隐晦地低于那些——至少在理论上——能把祖先追溯到诺森布里亚的奥斯瓦尔德的人。这种观念让许多人深感不适，无论是主张进步移民与社区融合立场的人，还是原本持保守国家归属观与强硬边境政策的人，都予以否定。