"The British and Americans are two peoples divided by a common language." -- John F. Kennedy (at least he's the one I've seen credited with that witticism). Or perhaps it was "England and America ..." since not all Brits speak English as a first language (Cornwall comes to mind).

The point about "British" not being a race, even if somewhat disengenuous when coming from a politician's mouth, is nonetheless a valid point. Similarly, "American" doesn't mean WASP, or even US citizen/resident, since both Mexico and Canada are part of the North American continent, and citizens of both are bona fide "Americans," no matter their culture, nationality, color (or "colour," for those of the Brit persuasion), or religion. Even if the original intent of the Conservative Party spokesman was to decry the tendency toward Europeanization of the British economy, Mr. Cook's response of "'British' is not a racial designation" is accurate, if not actually a response to the original point. Yes, Cook's playing the "race card," but part of the underlying understanding of some of the opposition is that preserving "Britishness" means turning away immigrants of other colors, so the "race card" was already in play, if not actually on the table.

Does any of this make sense? I mean, my explanation, not the political situation; it, by definition, does not make sense -- dollars, but not sense. Whatever, this is the way I see it.

As far as races go, I remember a rhetorical question from a class I took in Black Studies (and a very interesting class it was). The question was "Is any culture which has 'races' inherently racist?" Now THERE's food for thought.

Bob C.