Douglas Murray on intolerant politics

[BovaryX]

There is an interesting article by Douglas Murray in the DM about the authoritarian, identity politics which have alienated Labour voters and triggered a paradigm shift in the political landscape. It covers some of the themes which Lang GC Pencils and others have been discussing in light of election result.

It is a divide between people who have real-world concerns and those focused on niche and barely significant ones...How, you might ask, have we reached such a state? There is a clue in the Labour Party’s dysfunctional reaction to its catastrophic defeat on Thursday

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.

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.

Its- bloody autocorrect oppressing me with its problematic apostrophes.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

hipsterfun
I wish I shared your optimism. I think as groups being more fractured and identity becomes so fraught, as I mentioned before the fortunates will disengage rather than risk a faux-pas and the subsequent outrage. So those with the cash and the knowledge and the time to effect real change will just decide "it's not worth the hassle helping X group that hate me already".
Global capital doesn't care what colour its victims are, so long as there is an endless supply of troops. Corporations and the global financial industry are only ever tamed by governments, and governments are only ever tamed by large organised pressure groups (like lobbyists, or like unions, or like voting blocs). The more we splinter, the less power we have and the easier we can be picked off by vultures.
In a society where the majority have no capital, no voice and no protection, there's no chance to hit "reset" and give everyone opportunities because we're all turned against each other, scratching each other's eyes out for scraps. That environment breeds more racism not less.

But does any cultural group in the globalised world today say they have a right to live without external interference into their cultural practices?
Why would Britons in Britain claim they have that right more than others? Because they have brought some benevolent concepts to the world, like free speech?

Also I think I have a broader concept of colonisation than others. It can happen by stealth or by agreement from the state, like I suppose the spice trading cities near Singapore in the 1600s. It doesn't have to be bloody.

Just teasing out issues from a colonial perspective. I have sympathy for Britons on their ancestral lands because they are my ancestral lands too I suppose - it's the origins of my culture.
But I think about the Romans, the Vikings, the Normans and the German ones. Britain is not "untouched"; it is the product of countless invasions and cultural alterations. Should further change be resisted or accepted? I don't know.

Going back to Friday (I have finally caught up, the last few days have been slightly frantic) I'd just like to say that I used 'kith and kin' entirely innocently with no idea that it was a thing during the whole Rhodesia/Zimbabwe business (despite the fact that I am definitely old enough to remember that, and do).

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?

The significant difference for Australia is that the direct consequences of colonisation remain within living memory. If you are from an aboriginal background, and are over 55 years old, you would have been born at a time when you didn’t even have an automatic right to Australian citizenship, and quite possibly would have been part of the stolen generation. This creates a set of dynamics relating to race and identity, which are fairly unique to Australia.

(As a side note, celebrations such as Australia Day set up massive tensions between the indigenous population and recent immigrants. On the whole, recent immigrants are fond of Australia Day, as it’s the notional day that they receive their citizenship, and is seen as a celebration of shared identity and inclusiveness. Aboriginal people tend to see Australia Day as a celebration of their oppression and occasional genocide. It’s a situation that is difficult to resolve to the satisfaction of everyone.)

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?

That’s certainly true, and problems arise when people (such as Guardian columnists) decide that skin colour is the sole determinant of advantage or disadvantage, and whether your ancestors were oppressors or oppressed.

My best friend is Japanese and gets a funny look when people start talking about privilege in simplistic terms, because she grew up with rather left wing parents who made Japan's history as a colonizing force in Asia very clear to her, and since she grew up there she finds the idea that Japanese people are a discriminated against minority in a blanket sense very odd because obviously that's not true in Japan. Her daughter otoh was brought up in a majority white country and has a very different perspective on a lot of the privilege stuff.

I know this was said earlier but I think it's always worth bearing in mind that since the US has sort of exported its view of social relations, especially via universities, some of the weirdly not a good fit stuff we're seeing in terms of attempts at social analysis is just assumptions built on an American model not fitting other countries very well.

I often wonder what the experience of Japanese people is in the UK, it’s not something you hear much about in the media.

I did a DNA test and found out completely unexpectedly that I have a small percentage of African DNA. This is more common than many may realise, particularly for whites in the Southern states (I have some American roots)
www.vox.com/2014/12/22/7431391/guess-where-white-americans-have-the-most-african-ancestry
Whilst the way in which this racial mixing came about is unknown - and yes, these tests aren't concrete so it could just be a glitch - according to the test it would have occurred 5-6 generations ago, which would put it in the era of slavery. So let's consider that I am the descendent of a black slave, as a white British woman, how I am supposed to deal with that emotionally, in terms of my identity, and if we are to play the game of identity politics, where does this put me on the scale of oppression? Should I claim reparations, as many in the States wish to? Or is the claim for reparations seen as warranted only based upon the colour of someone's skin? If so, then it's really not about ancestry at all, but about the racism black people experience today. Wouldn't it just be better, as someone upthread mentioned, to invest more heavily in areas of deprivation and offer scholarship schemes, tackle police brutality etc with a focus on the position of black people in America now, using measurable data and schemes to improve their chances in life, rather than trying to right the wrongs of the past in this convoluted way? FWIW I certainly don't think I should get reparations if I could prove I am the descendent of a slave, but I also don't feel I should bear the burden of carrying the guilt of slavemasters either. Why should I be punished for the white heritage and not given condolences for what my black ancestor suffered, if the blood of both runs in my veins? For many black people who are slave descendants, they will also have slave owner ancestors, exactly the same as me, but no-one in their right mind would expect them to feel guilt about that.

Which DNA test did you use? I'm tempted to try it just because my ethnicity is misidentified so frequently, and I do have one relatively recent ancestor whose background nobody in his life really knew, that I kind of wonder if there's something to it. It would be interesting to know, just for my own curiosity, but if it turned out that I do have ancestry linked to one of the ethnicities that people sometimes assume I am would that require some sort of massive reassessment of identity? I don't think so - I think who you are is a result of your life experiences to date and that your position in society is determined by the people around you, not by your internal sense of self. If nobody really knows that you have a relative who was X a few generations back then what practical difference does it make to your life?

Which just makes me think that my opposition to a lot of the TRA dogma is rooted in being materialist to the bone and thus viewing most postmodernism, not just the gender bits, as pointless intellectually self indulgent waffle.

I think it would be interesting to understand the legal difference between wives and slaves. Wives literally belonged to someone else as did their property and their children. There must have been some legal distinctions but what were they? The key legal concepts must have been very similar.

I used myheritage.com, I don't know if it's a particularly good one or not, it was an impulse buy!
I think who you are is a result of your life experiences to date and that your position in society is determined by the people around you, not by your internal sense of self. If nobody really knows that you have a relative who was X a few generations back then what practical difference does it make to your life?
I found it interesting that it threw up something unexpected and then raised some of the questions above. It didn't radically alter my sense of my own identity, more just confirmed how much of a false construct race is. I'm sure it would be a white intersectionalist's ultimate wank fantasy to find out they were an African slave descendant, which is pretty sick when you think about it. The idea of payback for colonisation doesn't consider how peoples' lives were so intertwined, the whole problem with identity politics is that the categories it puts people into are so simplistic.

I’ve done one of those DNA tests also. I’m white and English as far back as anyone can remember yet there were also these bits of Spanish and African and Asian. I took from it not that I am descended from slaves and let me now re-examine my identity but that I am human and this is the ancestry of the human race.

I imagine we are all descended from slaves of some description if we go back far enough. We are also all descended from women and they were certainly enslaved. It’s all a bloody history.

Binterested I watched one of these genealogy shows, (I wish I could remember which, perhaps 'Finding Your Roots'), and a woman found out she had slave and white man as ancestors. She was braced for the worst, but found out that they were actually in love, the woman was bought her freedom, they got married, had children who were educated and lived as a normal family. There were also free black people in the South, although I don't claim to be an expert and so would leave others to step in, but there was some mixing without the confines of slavery. I'm not suggesting this was the norm, I don't know enough, but there are many stories that we never hear because of the simplified version we get fed.

The significant difference for Australia is that the direct consequences of colonisation remain within living memory

Yes I know all that. My point is to consider whether the metropole should be unencumbered by the consequences of their legacy.

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".

I suppose what I meant is that according to those who distrust anything that looks like patriotism, or love of country, we are supposed to feel uncomfortable.

From a Canadian perspective it's a bit odd, because we share the exact same push around the sense of a colonial heritage defining our past. To be proud of your English heritage is rather suspect and, that constitutes a significant number of people and a large chunk of our history.
In as much as other white Canadians can separate themselves from that, pride in heritage is ok - so Acadians outside of Quebec, Ukrainians, Scots, Irish. (The Quebecois are rather different, more like France.)

We are allowed to talk about "Canadian Values" and celebrate those, but they've increasingly been defined in terms of a rather narrow liberal perspective, while those who would argue with them in some way are considered unCanadian by their promoters, the Canadian attitude to questioning gender ideology would be an example of that. M. Trudeau, unintentionally with some real accuracy, tells us that what Canadians values is increasing diversity which is a form of entropy.