Who really built this country?
Even our King indulged in some of this in May when he opened the latest session of the Canadian parliament. Before getting down to the meat of his speech, Charles said: 'I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.' You would have thought that by dint of his being King and addressing a parliament the land had been very much ceded.
In any case this is the modern routine. Every-body pays tribute to an extinct or almost extinct tribe, giving the sense that anyone other than the members of the said tribe is an interloper and that indigenous peoples are everywhere and always to be revered. Their ways are forever understood to be the ways of peace. Their customs, habits, crafts and learnings are to be discussed as having a connection to some ancient wisdom, long lost to our own wretched materialistic societies.
One interesting thing is that concern for indigenous rights has exceptionally firm borders. The delineation of those borders are clear. All indigenous peoples must be allowed to have rights, just so long as the people in question are not white and do not originate from our own continent.
The brouhaha over last weekend's Glastonbury festival nicely clarified some of this. Pascal Robinson-Foster, singer of the rap group Bob Vylan, has been much commented upon because of his 'death to the IDF' chant. But another of his charming ditties got far less attention. This one consisted of him jumping around screaming: 'Heard you want your country back. Ha. Shut the fuck up.' As he repeated this, things like 'This country was built on the backs of immigrants' flashed up on a screen at the back of the stage. I'm not sure that anyone could come up with a more irksome and divisive message if they tried. The taunt is clear: 'If you are English and think this is your country then I have news for you. Nope. It's ours now.'
Others have been ratcheting up a similar message. At last year's general election, a man called Shakeel Afsar ran as an Independent in Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, and was only a few thousand votes away from becoming the area's MP. He is the sort of person who is usually described by local media as a 'firebrand'. I'm not sure that does him justice. His public life has mainly consisted of insisting that Birmingham will not allow the inventor of Islam – Mohammed – to be in any way criticised or ridiculed. Afsar is also not a fan of Prime Minister Modi of India, for obvious sectarian reasons. In a recent interview, he was asked about the line that a few brave souls have had the temerity to utter in recent years: that if you want to bring your Third World beliefs to our country and replay the same failed playbook here, then perhaps there are other countries – including your family's country of origin – in which it might be better for you to live.
This was how Afsar responded: 'Our forefathers were instrumental in rebuilding this country after the second world war. It was our grandfathers who worked in the factories 20 hours. It was our grandfathers who came here and ran the infrastructure. It was our grandfathers who brought you the lovely curry which is your national dish. So how can you tell us to go? We're not going nowhere. We're here to stay. We're not here to take part. We're here to take over.'
That would seem to me to be almost the definition of a threatening statement, and one almost perfectly designed to stir up the worst sentiments of the human heart. Personally I feel these sentiments throbbing through me when I hear statements like this, or those Mr Robinson-Foster decided to project from the stage at Glastonbury.
Keir Starmer, Danny Boyle (who directed the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony) and others have long insisted that this country was effectively built by the Windrush generation. If they had pitched this ball a little shorter they might have been on to something. If they had said that our country had a rich and distinct history and that we owe 'something' to those who came after the last war then they might have brought more people along with them. But the suggestion that the British were an essentially uninteresting and bad people until the noble migrants came to rescue us is a story that is not only false but insulting.
So back to the retort that this new type of anti-British demagogue inevitably wishes to provoke. They want a backlash along the lines of: 'Actually this is not your country. It's mine. Your grandfathers may have done something, but mine did far more for a lot longer and to much greater effect. The benefits of the recipe for curry we might litigate another time. But I prefer everything that was already ours.'
And so the language of indigenous rights that has been pushed on our friends in Australia and North America finally comes back around to the people it was never meant to assist. Yes – many feel they would like their country back. Many do not wish their country to be taken over. We were here first, they'll think. That's how it works, right?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
SNP MPs should not have sat on their hands during vote on proscription
Not for one moment do I believe their excuse that other groups listed as terrorist organisations needed to be proscribed, so they couldn't vote against the attacks on free speech and Palestine Action. Anyone with an ounce of sense could have argued against the vote but highlighted that it was Labour who tried to link Palestine Action with actual terrorist organisations. Why not even an amendment to remove Palestine Action from this list of suspected terrorists? READ MORE: The 26 MPs who voted against proscribing Palestine Action – see the list To be honest I fear the dead hand of John Swinney is behind this. It is his type of managerial politics that only annoys more people than actually standing up for a principle. No wonder the support for independence is breaking away from the stalling and falling support for the SNP. We are seeing 2003 happen all over again. One of the first things Swinney did was to repeat his failings last time as leader and spend more time and money promoting Labour politicians than the SNP's actual candidates or policies. For more than 10 years the SNP haven't had a policy on independence, and they still claim we're closer than ever – absolute nonsense. The party is going nowhere with Swinney – the SNP needs a leader who actually wants independence and has a plan to achieve it. The unintended outcome of this disastrous SNP position is that I will no longer contribute to any SNP election fund but will instead donate whatever the party would have received to help Palestine Action make a legal challenge to this attack on free speech. Alex Beckett Paisley THE majority of MP's have no moral compass. They should have demanded, like Corbyn, a separate vote on each group. Now this fascist government can include any group it dislikes in with another clearly terrorist group, and force their supine MPs to vote in favour. Meanwhile, the IDF – which is clearly a terrorist organ of Israel, having murdered tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians, even killing those starving as they queue for food – isn't sanctioned for its terrorism, but a group that sprays paint is considered as bad as the Wagner Group. Graham Hewitt via THE Haaretz newspaper published an article titled ''It's a Killing Field': IDF Soldiers Ordered to Shoot Deliberately at Unarmed Gazans Waiting for Humanitarian Aid'. Officers and soldiers were 'ordered to fire at unarmed crowds near food distribution sites in Gaza, even when no threat was present. Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed, prompting the military prosecution to call for a review into possible war crimes.' One soldier said that civilians are 'treated like a hostile force – no crowd-control measures, no tear gas, just live fire with everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars.' READ MORE: Former government lawyer to defy Palestine Action ban in Parliament Square protest Since October 2023, IDF soldiers have shamelessly posted and bragged about their slaughter of Palestinians, even babies, on social media. Then we have the immoral Keir Starmer calling for the criminal prosecution and de-platforming of musicians who have the moral courage to condemn this genocide. He still can't bring himself to utter the 'G''word. Following the Glastonbury performances over the weekend by Kneecap and Bob Vylan, where the latter led the crowds in chants: 'Free, free Palestine' and 'Death, death to the IDF', Avon and Somerset police said they were assessing video evidence 'to determine whether any offences may have been committed that would require a criminal investigation.' Seriously? This is where we are. Someone insisted to me recently that what's happening in Gaza isn't a genocide but ethnic cleansing. I challenged him to explain the difference to me – he couldn't. The UK is run by morally vacuous imbeciles. They are so beholden to the Zionist entity that they agree with the genocider-in-chief Netanyahu that an Israeli newspaper quoting IDF soldiers describing their own atrocities is antisemitic, 'designed to defame the IDF, the most moral military in the world'. The criminals aren't the musicians who are condemning the Zionist entity's crimes but the Western 'leaders' giving it money, weapons and political cover. They belong in Dante's seventh circle of hell, a river of boiling blood and fire, reserved for those guilty of violence against humanity. Leah Gunn Barrett Edinburgh I AM writing this on a day when we are looking down the double barrel of supposed democracies in the USA and UK pushing hundreds of thousands of their voters into poverty and making access to healthcare and care support evermore difficult. At a time when the Chief Rabbi of England (Zionist) is claiming chanting 'Kill the IDF' is antisemitic while the IDF killing semites in the Middle East who are waiting for food hand-outs, is not. READ MORE: BBC drops high risk live performances after Bob Vylan Glastonbury set We have a Chancellor who has bought the austerity, capitalist rubbish about 'trickle-down' hook, line and sinker, especially where it relates to her personal funders' wishes and directions to protect their investments and profit margins. In the meantime we, in Scotland, are left with a party for independence that have seen the polls constantly positive to Scottish independence for more than a year, who think 'a safe pair of hands' is the way to go rather than seeking political advantage at a time when Labour and the Tories are in disarray and the UK is falling to bits as a unitary state. Its enough to make me tear my hair out, but as I have less and less of it these days maybe it's not the time, yet. Peter Thomson Kirkcudbright
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
The BBC was right to broadcast Bob Vylan
I yield to few in my disdain for the modern BBC. Its partial and sometimes just embarrassingly bad news reporting (yes BBC Verify, we mean you), its starry-eyed inability to manage its own 'talent', and above all its discomfort in disseminating Western history or cultural tradition (see the year-on-year deterioration of the Proms), all show it has moved a long way from its founding Reithian values. So while it's always enjoyable to see the BBC embarrassed, and tempting to join the calls for its director general, Tim Davie, to step down for not pulling the plug on its Glastonbury coverage, I nevertheless don't do so. Serious business must come before transitory pleasure, and urging the BBC to censor its coverage still further seems to me to risk even bigger problems down the line. Why? Well, it's precisely because I don't have confidence in the BBC that I don't trust them to exercise any further discretion over what we can see and hear. Speech that is illegal – and that is unfortunately a very uncertain boundary nowadays, a problem in itself – is one thing. Speech that is just unpleasant is another. The supporters of the original Online Safety Bill had one go, thankfully unsuccessful, at least formally, at banning such 'legal but harmful' language. I don't want to see the BBC given a second chance to police this grey area entirely on its own authority. Now I have had the counter-argument made to me that if a band on the Glastonbury stage had embarked on a rant against criminal immigrants or Islamic dress codes the BBC would have pulled it pronto. Only anti-Semitic hatred (let's call it what it is, we know what 'death to the IDF' means) gets a pass. That's extremely likely. But it's not an argument for banning even more speech, however crude and unpleasant. It's an argument for being more robust, more able to hear unpleasant concepts, and then to judge those retailing them accordingly. Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting the BBC should actively platform racists and anti-Semites in its programming. But when people on the BBC express such opinions, the BBC shouldn't cut the feed but should let us hear them and judge them. We need to be less like children living in the Harry Potter world where certain words must not be said, and more like adults. Urging broadcasters to exercise more discretion takes us precisely in the wrong direction. The more encouragement you give the BBC to police speech, the more they will use it. They will always err on the side of caution and will always favour their own values. It is already impossible to express doubts about climate change or net zero on the BBC. There is already too much guiding of opinion, reporters telling us someone is making 'fake' or 'unfounded' claims. No. Just tell me what they said and I'll make my own mind up. And that is the second reason for my hesitation in joining the bandwagon. It's the facts that are the problem, not the reporting of the facts. If large numbers of people, otherwise respectable and presumably somewhat affluent, are prepared to chant something pretty close to 'Death to the Jews', don't we need to know that? Isn't it telling us something we ought to be aware of about our society? If 'Bob Vylan' are telling us, apparently to the audience's approval, that they've 'got the gammons on retreat' and 'we're coming for you' to take back 'land that ain't theirs', doesn't that tell us something about how well multiculturalism and integration is going? Let's face it, if the BBC had not let their feed run, none of this would be a news story. We know that because there has been almost no comment about the band Kneecap's words in support of Palestine Action, because the BBC didn't cover it . The BBC rightly reports on the anti-Semitic hate marches across our cities, and covers their disgusting posters and slogans, because we need to know about them. So, when something similar happens in front of their eyes, the right reaction is not to censor it, but to make sure we know about it. The problem is that too many people don't want to know. They prefer to say that multiculturalism is generally working well. 'Yes maybe there are a few problems but basically everyone can get along as long as we don't push it.' That is the attitude that makes it difficult to discuss the cultural consequences of mass immigration. It is the attitude that made it 'inappropriate' to dwell on the rape gangs scandal until about two minutes ago and that helped the gangs get away with it. The problem we have in this country is not too much free speech but too little. We can't face obvious problems and we hide that from ourselves by not discussing them. The BBC is comfortable with that. I'm not. I'd rather have proper, honest, news and debate, and risk people hearing 'inappropriate' comments, than everyone being frightened to open their mouths in case they upset someone. We're not far off that point now. Time to turn back.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Israel's actions offend us more than Bob Vylan
I do appreciate Marina Hyde's irony and dry humour, I really do (Glastonbury chanters or the Southport hate-tweeter – throw the book at one, you must throw it at them all, 1 July). However, whether the Glastonbury incident constituted a criminal offence or not, her lumping together of Bob Vylan and Lucy Connolly is a case of intellectual apples and pears. During last year's riots, people were actually attacking and attempting to burn alive asylum seekers in hotels. No one is in a position to attack the Israel Defense Forces, who are the ones allegedly committing war crimes – eg burning and blasting people to death in cafes populated by students on the shores of the Mediterranean – and a military force that our own government is still giving arms and intelligence assistance to. But I do take her point about how the criminalisation of these incidents sets 50% of the population against the other 50% – and I've probably just proved her HewittMarlborough, Wiltshire Marina Hyde is right. If this is still supposed to be a liberal democracy we must be very reluctant to lock people up for what they say, however hateful and offensive we find it. It is tragic that progressives have conceded the cause of free speech to their reactionary rivals, whose insincerity is breathtaking. Jonathan Allum Amersham, Buckinghamshire Ephraim Mirvis, the UK's chief rabbi, said Bob Vylan's appearance at Glastonbury was a 'national shame' (Allies of BBC chief Tim Davie fear latest controversy may damage his leadership, 1 July). I think that the Israeli government's treatment of the people of Gaza is a national shame for Israel. To echo Owen Jones (1 July), all the people getting aerated over Bob Vylan and not over the senseless, barbaric killing of civilians in Gaza have become detached from reality. Let's call it what it is – genocide. My mother, a Holocaust survivor, would be turning in her GripaiosHovingham, North Yorkshire There is much ado about 'appalling hate speech', as Keir Starmer put it. What troubles me more is the appalling hate SimpsonDurham Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
