I'm not sure what the argument is with what Cook's said. Let's consider if he'd said the opposite - "yes, the British are a race" or something like that.

Possible interpretations of this:-

(1) The British are a distinct race, classified by recent ancestors being white and coming from areas in Britain. This then means that there can be NO SUCH GROUP as "British blacks", for instance! These ppl would simply be "blacks living in Britain" and denied any place in British society, with the implication that they don't belong and can be shipped back to their country of origin at the whim of the government - some countries actually do have this approach with their immigrant populations.

(2) The British are a distinct race, classified by recent ancestors coming from areas in Britain (whether white or other). This then means that there can be NO SUCH GROUP as "British blacks", for instance! These ppl would be simply "British" and could by definition have no separate culture.

I honestly can't find any way in which he could have answered the question without effectively saying either that ppl of immigrant origin don't belong in Britain, or that ppl of immigrant origin can't preserve their cultures. If anyone else can, please let me know - I've seen lots of heat on the notes above, but very little light! This seems more an issue of "look what the newspapers can drum up when there's not much news" than anything else, with ppl spouting predigested opinions provided by the papers.

Graham.

PS. Kudos to McGrath for the hippos and carrots line! nearly fell off my chair! :)