The title of this article may immediately invite accusations of racism. Since nothing could be further from the truth, in my case, than such an accusation, let me begin with a crucial distinction, which I shall then explain: that between racial realism and what I will call ethnic memory. This distinction can help clarify a number of political disputes. Leftists will argue, for instance, that the United States and even European countries have always been multicultural. There is some truth to this in the American case, but ‘multicultural’ meant something different in the late 18th century than it does today. In those times, ‘multicultural’—the physical reality, not the later term—might mean Englishmen and Frenchmen, rather than Englishmen and Pakistanis, living side by side and creating a new nation. So one must be precise in one’s use of terms.

    This then leads to the question of what it means to be an American, Englishman, Australian, and so on. And here we find that there must be, in these cases, a dominant Anglo culture for such identities to have any meaning. But that is not all: one must also understand the role that ethnicity plays in the formation and maintenance of national identity. People may acknowledge the importance of culture but wonder what the color of one’s skin could possibly have to do with it. In and of itself, it ought to have nothing to do with it, but de facto it does, and for quite cogent, defendable reasons. An example of the confusion caused by unclear use of terms took place recently during a discussion in the UK between journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer and Restore Britain spokesman Charlie Downes, which made the rounds on social media. Hartley-Brewer, while sharing Downes’ concern about the Islamization of Britain, seemed to reject the notion that whiteness was a part of British identity, while Downes felt that preserving the white nature of Britain was important. When Hartley-Brewer wondered why whiteness would be a determining factor in who should be a part of the British fabric, Downes seemed incapable of offering a clear answer. Had Downes been able to explain the philosophical basis underlying (one may hope) his position, Hartley-Brewer might have been more receptive. Instead, the exchange devolved into the usual insults. The subject has become increasingly topical, especially as waves of immigration have transformed Western societies, particularly in Europe.