When too much progressiveness becomes counter-productive | thearticle

It all sounded terribly nice, and thoroughly “progressive”. Who could have argued with Richard Leafe, the chief executive of the Lake District Park Authority, one of 13 designated national

parks. Talking of visitors, he said recently, “We are deficient in terms of young people, we are deficient in terms of black and minority ethnic (BAME) communities…” Leave aside young

people. They’ll do their own thing without help from Leafe or us. But, under heavy pressure from Defra, Leafe said he is determined to take action “to encourage people from broader

backgrounds” (a glorious euphemism, if ever there was one) to enjoy his peaceful and so far relatively unspoilt domain. To make it “more welcoming”. He warned that public funding may be

withheld by the government if diversity is not increased. And this is where alarm bells began to ring. Defra last year commissioned a report into the running of our national parks. It

concluded that they were not sufficiently welcoming. More visitors and, yes, more diversity are needed. Yet, in the case of the Lake District, that appears to be nonsense. Over the past

eight years the number of visitors has jumped from under 15 milllion per annum to approaching 20 million. So quite a lot of welcoming must already be going on. Indeed the park has long felt

the pressure of mass tourism. Even so, the authority refuses to ban massive four-wheel drive cars from a number of fell trails used by walkers. And it is planning to create a tarmac trail

through woodlands near Keswick against the wishes of the town council. The Lake District Park Authority is most assuredly open and hustling for business. Next, remember that the great

majority of members of the sought-after “black and ethnic minority communities” are not immigrants. They are British born and raised; the confident children, grandchildren and now even

great-grandchildren of immigrants. They know their way around and they don’t want to being patronised. It’s one of the many contradictions inherent in the notion of “inclusivity” — the

surest way to make people bristle is for those who still, if they are not careful, think of themselves as part of the “host community”, decide that “we” have a duty to teach “them” about the

glories their country has to offer. I don’t put words into the mouth of my late wife, the Birmingham-born daughter of an immigrant, Indian doctor. But I think I can hear her father saying

to me “I can jolly well make up my own mind whether I want to go to the Lake District or not, thank you very much.” But the danger lies not just in patronising minorities. It is also about

stereotyping them. I have no problems with ads in BAME community publications extolling the beauties of our national parks, though I doubt their effectiveness. But beyond that? What is it

that people of Indian or West Indian ancestry are supposed to want from the Lake District, beyond the things that appeal to the rest of the population? Are they all so collectively and

stereotypically different from the white population that they can only be sucked in by, say, steel band concerts on the shores of those unspoiled glaciated finger lakes? Or carnival parades

across the rolling green fields? Must those of Indian origin be seduced by Melas; huge and wonderfully chaotic, Indian folk festivals, which I love, and which are already common in the

summer in Midlands parks? The planned campaign is no doubt well meant, but it is surely insulting, as well as patronising and stereotyping, even to think about making changes in a misplaced

effort to catch the attention of minorities. It’s counterproductive too. The truth is that some British people, black, brown or white, who enjoy the tranquil beauty of the Lakes as they are

today, will visit them. Others who are looking for different, more lively, things will stay away. And who wishes to blame, or preach to, either group? So how have things ended up like this?

The answer is that the “woke” among us are determined to turn commendable objectives — tolerance, non-discrimination and equality of opportunity — into a soulless statistical equality of

outcome. In reality they want quotas, though thank goodness, quotas are illegal in this country. So they anxiously count the number of black and brown faces at the opera, at the ballet, on

the golf courses and at local cricket clubs. All came under scrutiny last year. Unless the percentages are spot on, something has to change. I went to Oxford and Cornell. I am white and

privileged. (Ok. I come from an impoverished East London family, but that is another story.) To my shame, no doubt, I am bored stiff by high culture and by sport. But I enjoy carnival and

melas. And county fairs. And the Lake District. And medieval church music. My point is that I am — like my fellow Brits, black, brown and white — an incoherent mix of interests, abilities

and attitudes. I am not a number. And neither are they. With all due respect, Mr Leafe, leave us alone. Too much progressiveness can be counterproductive.