Douglas Murray on intolerant politics

I don’t know, Oink, so much has changed with social attitudes (and there is a kindness within wokeness) and we’re developing an understanding of how trauma drives social problems; perhaps a reset isn’t out of reach.

white Australians are the immigrants in that situation, living with indigenous people who still suffer inequalities and racism
It's more similar to the Central/South American thing I mentioned earlier except in Latin America most white people have some indigenous blood somewhere along the line.
I'm not Australian either so it'd be interesting to find out how they see it.

Surely it should be whatever is best for the people of Australia regardless of ethnic origins too?
Oh yes, I agree. What I mean is the situation is different in terms of white Australians are the immigrants in that situation, living with indigenous people who still suffer inequalities and racism, from the what I know (not Australian which is why I was interested to hear from someone who is).

I'm probably oversimplifying.

I just think we can't help people in the present without drawing a line under the past. What would be more genuinely useful to black people in America - reparations, or a genuinely level playing field with genuine opportunity? (Minus segregation, redlining, underinvestment in black education, using black men as cannon fodder or labour in the prison industrial complex, etc) Long term, a reset is better than cash.

I'm not daft, neither is particularly likely to happen, but it seems to me that actual fairness is more hard work to achieve than "official apologies" and a bit of cash here and there.

I don't think it's a case of what should or should not happen in terms of some sort of payback, but more about what is best for the people of Britain as it is now, whatever their ethnic origins.

Australia has a very different situation, with the cohabitation of indigenous people who understandably object to celebrations such as 'Australia Day' for the reasons that many are still struggling with the effects of colonisation now.

Why is this different, is it because the colonisation of Australia is more recent? Surely it should be whatever is best for the people of Australia regardless of ethnic origins too?

And I think we'd also struggle to find a people historically that is innocent of any exploitation or othering of out-groups.
Basically this. Britain did well by being excellent pirates, excellent traders and organised in running colonies. The default language for world business is English. It could well have been another country that was successful at the right time and which took advantage of colonial wealth to industrialise extensively.
The bloodiest colonisers were the Mughals from what I can tell, some sources say hundreds of thousands of Hindus were killed annually for several centuries.
The indigenous people of the Americas were not peaceful. Africa was not peaceful. It's naive to consider that other countries survived by being neutral and fluffy. All countries have teeth they can bare when provoked. Maybe Britain was the honey badger of its time?
What's interesting is seeing this post-colonial white guilt developing in South and Central America too. There it echoes US progressivism rather than UK/European.

Do Belgians self-analyse their country's role in Congo/DRC?
The US re. The Philippines?
Who self-flaggelates the most? I'm not sure it's us. Maybe Americans on our behalf?

I wonder if half the US-influenced view that "Brits are the baddest of the bad guys" comes from films and television.

I agree wholeheartedly with previous posters - I don't feel in any way responsible for the sins of my ancestors. I do feel responsible for acknowledging and being grateful for my opportunities, and I make a genuine effort to extend those opportunities to others, because I believe that is fair and right. Impotent guilt and hand-wringing doesn't help anyone else up the ladder.

Its- bloody autocorrect oppressing me with its problematic apostrophes.

There’s a lot I don’t know about colonialism. But what I did know was that Rudyard Kipling was a shocking old racist and should be cancelled. And some of his poetry is horrible. But I will commend to anyone who is interested the book Kim which is just a beautiful love song to India. The key character is a white boy but not a colonial master - he’s an impoverished street child. And there are a whole series of Indian characters - mostly properly fleshed out. There’s even a female Indian character (the only one iirc) who appears a bit of a caricature but who ends up with an important emblematic role. It’s much more nuanced than you would think. And he clearly loved the country and it’s people.

I got onto it after hearing about it on a Good Read where it was recommended by a Pakistani writer who was equally confounded by the fact that it’s Kipling but she loved it nonetheless.

My question is: should Britain be immune to being colonised [in a different way] by the machinations of global capitalism. After all, they did inflict it on other places with real people whose own lives, ancestral lands and traditions were turned upside down.

But it's understood by those arguing what you are suggesting that colonisation is an evil, why should it then be inflicted in an eye for an eye fashion back on us? It's the same kind of idea of reparations, paying for the sins of our ancestors (who may or may not have profited from Empire) that was dismissed upthread.
If we're talking about economic migrants coming to Britain, then for that phenomenon to be truly akin to colonisation, we would have to have our culture repressed (which you could argue is happening with the national shame aforementioned), be disenfranchised, forced to convert to another religion etc. If we were to see that happening to another culture, we would recoil in horror. Thankfully, society has mainly moved on from an Old Testament view of justice, so I don't see why we should be applying it to ourselves when it would be looked upon as savage if applied elsewhere (please note none of this means I think people shouldn't come to Britain). I don't think it's a case of what should or should not happen in terms of some sort of payback, but more about what is best for the people of Britain as it is now, whatever their ethnic origins. I think those from former colonies have been welcomed in the UK, if not in the past they are now. The problems we have experienced with immigration are to do with communities being overwhelmed in certain parts of the country due to a lack of any planning or restraints, causing a shortage of resources. This isn't good for anyone, and builds resentment. If your question is asking whether or not another culture has some right to impose itself on the British and ultimately come to rule, how can this be seen as acceptable? Surely no culture on Earth without its conflicts and injustices. Should Brits demand reparations from Denmark, Italy and France for their previous invasions? How far back do we go in time in order to act out this eye for an eye justice?

Having said all of that, Australia has a very different situation, with the cohabitation of indigenous people who understandably object to celebrations such as 'Australia Day' for the reasons that many are still struggling with the effects of colonisation now. I would be interested to hear how you think Australia should manage its national identity.

Interestingly enough, two of my greatgrandmothers married Asian men. One of whom was a lascar who died in colonial service.
Lang, do you look at the ethnicity question on forms like ? I resent the over-simplification every bloody time.

Sorry, *banished non-secularism

Two points while I'm on page 28:
*the first time I heard of identity politics was on campus before 2000 where student politicians were preaching and practising it. As an activist I found it ludicrous.
*it was explained to me by a French housemate years ago that France doesn't have a policy of multiculturalism because the French revolution banished secularism and they wanted to preserve the separation of religion and mainstream/official life. Whether that's true or not. He was quite vehement that French culture would have been compromised by multiculturalism.

On another note, this discussion is fascinating from the perspective of a colonial: the progressive perspective in Australia is that we have no right to distinct British heritage/traditions/community practices because the land wasn't ours to take in the first place.
My question is: should Britain be immune to being colonised [in a different way] by the machinations of global capitalism. After all, they did inflict it on other places with real people whose own lives, ancestral lands and traditions were turned upside down.

Sorry, my reply was to your post at Mon 23-Dec-19 19:01:11.

Goosefoot, I agree with a lot of that.

I only disagree with your last paragraph in that I don't feel uncomfortable being proud of (much of) my country's heritage and traditions. The bits that are worth celebrating, I celebrate and enjoy – I loved Cool Britannia as a really positive manifestation of a modern UK culture that for once didn't depend on some notion of how we'd dissed someone else.

I don't have any difficulty celebrating the good stuff. And meanwhile, the bad bits of my country's heritage I recognise, own, and don't hanker to have back.

But that's me talking about me, in the UK. I think you're in Canada, aren't you? So when you say "we are so uncomfortable with doing so ourselves", I don't have a full understanding of what's packed into your "we".

Completely obviously, faith is something that is very, very often used to divide people.hmm As are most of the other things on his "unite" list.

Dividing is a sort of corollary to uniting, I think.

Without any sort of institutions, perhaps the largest unified group we could come up with would be a tribe of related family lines, and tribalism tends to be a rather fractious political system. Marriage becomes about the only way to join those divided reliably and it's not all that reliable.

So the question becomes, how can you unite a bunch of tribes into something like a people or even a nation? I think Scrunton is right - it's got to be social institutions, like religion, some sort of system of laws, an emperor, cultural or nationalistic observances, even pass-times like sports or narrative stories. In fact - all of these things create a sort of illusion of an extended tribe, a common experience, a buy-in to a compatible set of expectations about how to live and mediate disputes.

But all of those things can also work to divide when there are differences within a culture or society. You may not need all of them, but you need some and the rest have to have some level of compatibility.

The mistake is the John Lennon one of imagining that if we got rid of all those institutions everyone would begin to rub along fine.

Isn't part of the problem though that every individual alive today is the descendent both of people who benefited at the expense of other people, individually and as a group, and also which was exploited for the benefit of other people, both individually and as a group?

And I think we'd also struggle to find a people historically that is innocent of any exploitation or othering of out-groups. I've never seen any evidence that there is a culture that is immune to this sort of self-seeking and exploitation.

And even those who arguably have come out, at this moment in time, at the tippy top, through the good luck or ruthlessness of their ancestors, had nothing to do with any of it. We all find ourselves here and in a particular position in society and just have to deal with it.

It's a bit odd that we expect people in other cultures to celebrate their family and ethnic cultural heritage, to hold on to their traditions, to be proud of their nation even, but we are so uncomfortable with doing so ourselves. I feel like there should be some Freudian complex that describes this state.

Lang, it has to be said that the Empire benefitted more of the working classes than is usually understood. My GF did bloody well out of it, as did his business partner, and they were not alone.

Fair enough, yes.

They both married Asian or mixed women, which perhaps supports the argument upthread that the working class often didn't care what colour you were.

Interestingly enough, two of my greatgrandmothers married Asian men. One of whom was a lascar who died in colonial service.

Or what Grumpy said much more succinctly (about an eg in the opposite direction; there's clearly a lot of this about ):

There is enough in the British Empire's Hall of Shame without making up more, and in any case our understanding of the past is not enhanced by dishonesty in its representation.

Blimey, my working class UK family did very well out of colonialism – across at least three continents. Sure, there was a Rockefeller up the road having it easier, but there was a Jewish Eastern European on the same boat refused entry, never mind getting a £10 passage and guaranteed work through the emigration agent who organised the lot. (This isn't hyperbole: I've seen the passenger manifests and immigration officers' remarks.)

Am I allowed to be proud of my grandparents? Standing together (not alone) with the Mother Country against facism? Or do we get written out of the story again as soon as we're no longer needed? Just like always?

I was actually writing a post to completely agree with Upfield that it's neither desirable nor even possible to "continually demonstrate a personal sense of shame," and no one should feel required to.

I came to post it – and found people trying to support this position by re-writing history.

Seriously, can we discuss without resorting to some romanticised, fictional idea of a sanctified Working Class, Gawd Bless 'Em? It's all kinds of wrong – and completely unnecessary, given there's more than enough true bad stuff, to be going on with.

And finally, can we nominate this thread for Classics? It's the most civilised, interesting and respectful debate that I can recall having on here.

Or is that not what Classics is about?

Lang, it has to be said that the Empire benefitted more of the working classes than is usually understood. My GF did bloody well out of it, as did his business partner, and they were not alone. They both married Asian or mixed women, which perhaps supports the argument upthread that the working class often didn't care what colour you were.

There is so much in this thread I'd love to comment on if I had more time and was less knackered.

The whole imperial guilt thing has taken over British universities. Yes, we as a nation need to acknowledge past misdeeds, but I have read some popular histories by academics which talk about my own area of expertise, and to find the primary documents misrepresented to the point where the author must have known he was bending the truth to breaking point (and beyond) is actually shocking. But the facts as given in the documents didn't match his agenda, so they were twisted or ignored. There is enough in the British Empire's Hall of Shame without making up more, and in any case our understanding of the past is not enhanced by dishonesty in its representation.

The whole experience of reading this bullshit when I had access to the primary sources really shook my faith in academia, and in fact in anyone claiming to be telling me the truth. And it looks to me as if many of the Woke swallow everything that they're told... Not sensible. Not at all.

Quite, Upfield.

Quite

It would seem there is a queue of opinion writers at the Guardian and indeed pundits here on MN who have no problems spewing out hatchet job pieces that seek to mock, shame or embarrass anyone who holds even the slightest regard for English culture, it's history or a sense of national identity. Nobody wants to see their culture ignored, insulted and dismissed, something many on the left simply don't get. The UK's counties and towns, it's tribal origins and histories, it's celebrations and traditions, accents and music and food and rivalries and every quirk of culture should be admired and celebrated, and if we were talking about any other nation the Guardian
and some folk here would be doing just that. But instead we get sneering and mockery. I'm not even English but it did not take long for me to see the contempt many on the left have for the 'lower orders' and your country as a whole yet curiously you expect them to vote for your party.

The whole concept that someone who is working class and British is supposed to personally feel ashamed for the actions of governments that would also have been slaughtering their ancestors at Peterloo doesn't make much sense.

This! Colonialism benefited the British upper class. The working class was having its arms lopped off in unsafe factories and dying of TB in the workhouse. Working class British people should be allowed to be proud of their grandparents, standing alone against fascism at the outset of WWII while dying abroad and being bombed at home.

Yes, I don't want to be divisive and it doesn't apply to all in the middle and upper classes of course, but there's a general sneering attitude towards the working classes.