Daphne Caruana Galizia is always a good read, though sometimes over-the-top – as in her views on breastfeeding that were deservedly demolished by others. However, her commentary entitled The veil of oppression (TMID, 19 October) was spot-on, though I take issue with her quoted historian Felipe Fernandez-Armesto.

This historian has written that the Maltese migrated singly to, and live dispersed in, Britain and, unlike other immigrants, they did not, to use Ms Caruana Galizia’s words, “herd together”. He opines that they successfully blended in with British society “often in conscious flight from an identity besmirched” by (my words) some sleazy compatriots who inhabited Soho in the 1950s.

It really is preposterous to think that 30,000 Maltese individually and

coincidentally decided not to cluster in Britain because of those low-lifes. Daphne contrasted our UK integration with the togetherness of Maltese immigrants in Australia, Canada, and the USA. I should think that this was due to single men and families emigrating in waves, and sticking together was understandable as they found themselves in totally unfamiliar territory and society.

I am of that last generation whose formative years were totally influenced by British culture. In the 1950s, the education curriculum replicated the UK’s (plus the Maltese language and history). Then Malta’s windows on the world were the BBC World Service (cabled locally), British film newsreels, the Anglophile Times of Malta, London papers afforded by a very few, and… that was it. We were British subjects, and, excepting those with Italianate leanings, happy enough with that identity.

To boot, in 1955 the Labour Party, led by Mr Mintoff, won a clear majority for his Integration with Britain manifesto. Therefore, the Maltese living in Britain did not have to endure an alien experience in totally unfamiliar territory or society. In addition, as most did for starters, once one had been to the local Catholic Church, one could easily join a British micro-community albeit usually including a measure of good Irish presence.

The Maltese in Britain did not find it necessary to live in any “little Malta” because they had grown up “British” and were able to fit in. Now, after two post-Independence generations, of course they have evolved their own unique Maltese national character brand (!), which is patently not British.

By the way, I got “Liverpudlian” but “Manchurian” had me flummoxed (Manchuria?) until I figured that Daphne was referring to Mancunians. It is mortifying when a mistake like that happens.

Alex P. Galea

Woking, Surrey

England