ποΈπ
ποΈ retweeted
I have always been fascinated by a particular breed of African politicians in Europe who seem to have made it their lifeβs ambition to be more British than the British, more French than the French, and more hostile to Africans and immigrants than the most rabid nationalists in their adopted political circles.
You find them in Britain, France, Belgium and across Europe, particularly in countries that once colonized Africa. Many are the children of African immigrants, sometimes the first generation born in Europe, whose parents arrived in those countries as foreigners. Yet their children have somehow developed an almost religious devotion to the most reactionary interpretations of European nationalism. They speak about immigration as though their own parents descended from the heavens with citizenship certificates in their hands.
And I am not talking about Africans who happen to be conservative. I am talking about those who appear determined to prove their loyalty to their political constituencies by expressing a degree of contempt for immigrants, Africans and their own ancestral history that would embarrass even some European conservatives. The irony would be hilarious if its consequences were not so serious.
Because these politicians occupy a particularly convenient position in the racial politics of Europe. Their African ancestry gives certain political movements an opportunity to present deeply contested positions on immigration, race and colonial history through someone whose very presence is then offered as proof that racism could not possibly be involved.
It is the political equivalent of the racist who insists that he cannot be racist because he once dated a Black woman. Except that this time, instead of producing a Black girlfriend, they produce a Black politician with an African surname and a spectacular appetite for defending their ideological prejudices.
What particularly disgusts me is the historical revisionism that sometimes accompanies this performance. Imagine being so desperate to demonstrate your European patriotism that you begin defending an imperial history whose victims included people who looked like your grandparents.
And for what? To prove that you are sufficiently British? Sufficiently French? That your African ancestry has been politically disinfected to the satisfaction of your audience? I find this obsession with proving oneself more authentically European than Europeans themselves intellectually fascinating and morally disturbing.
This is the context in which I examine Kemi Badenochβs politics. Badenoch is entitled to her conservative convictions, just as anyone else is entitled to challenge them. But her Nigerian heritage does not make her interpretation of British colonial history more credible, nor does it make her positions on race and immigration immune from criticism.
If I had started my dating diaries in Guadeloupe yeah? LMAOOOO everyone would have been in for a treattttt
Apparently burdening the British taxpayer with debt for almost 200 years to compensate slave owners was acceptable but reparations are not. Alrighty then. β at Trinidad and Tobago
Slavery was an evil in which people from every continent and region participated. We should be honest about the whole history, not select the parts that are politically convenient today, especially given Britain's leading role in ending the transatlantic slave trade.
If Caribbean countries are asking Britain for a formal apology for Britainβs role in the transatlantic slave trade, will they also be asking the same of the descendants of African kingdoms, rulers and merchants who captured, sold and profited from the trade?
On demands for reparations, whether through cash or debt relief, we have been down this track before. Twenty-five years ago, Jubilee 2000, Drop the Debt and Make Poverty History argued that cancelling the debts of poorer countries would give them a fresh start. More than $100 billion of debt was eventually written off, but many of those countries have since built up even bigger debts. Labour are already spending too much on Britain's welfare state, now is not the time for Andy Burnham to be providing global welfare.
There is no reason British taxpayers today should be held financially responsible for things that happened generations before any of us were born. And I have even less patience for political elites in commonwealth countries who donβt know how to make their own citizens prosperous now looking for another opportunity to blame Britain.
As Prime Minister, Andy Burnham should be Britainβs greatest defender. Instead, he is writing articles saying we need to confront our history (as if we haven't done enough of that) and considering another formal historical apology. Tony Blair already expressed Britainβs deep sorrow and regret for our role in the slave trade nearly twenty years ago. There is no need to do so again.
This is all another navel-gazing distraction. The Commonwealth should be looking forward, not endlessly backwards. That means economic partnerships to make us all richer and deeper military and security cooperation against common threats. If every Commonwealth summit becomes an exercise in presenting Britain with demands for cash then we need to start asking if it is worth the effort.
not a drop of alcohol touched my lips yday and I still woke up with a headache. Moral of the story is drink anyway man.
ποΈπ
ποΈ retweeted
Iβm in love with this sentence:
βThe degree to which a person can grow is directly proportional to the amount of truth they can accept about themselves without running away.β
My dentist has to square up on my next check in bc I can barely sleep without a lisps of mispronunciations (I know itβs part of the process but still)
ποΈπ
ποΈ retweeted
years of building cycle lanes to accommodate these lunatics just for them to think they own the road. sadiq please.
βWhat wrong with you?β Terrified pedestrian asks dangerous Lime bike rider skidding past her on pavement opposite St Thomasβs Hospital, London. Other pedestrians subjected to people riding bikes at speed & close passing them when they have green man to cross road. @ShabanaMahmood
No one in the Tory government challenged the compensation of slave owners that went on until 2015. Compensation that tax payers FOOTED. You are all just racist and weaponised language for political points.
Slavery was abhorrent. Fact.
But to issue a formal apology today is dangerous virtue-signalling that could expose Britain to reparations costing us millions or even billions of pounds. This is very much how the Chagos disaster started under the Tories.
There is no good reason why people living in 21st Britain should pay for the wrongdoings of centuries ago.
And letβs also not forget the role that Britain played in ending slavery- often overlooked in our schools, museums and by the BBC.
And then there are the clear benefits of the British Empire. Investment, infrastructure, legal systems, education, healthcare- there was also much that was good. I write a lot about this in my best-selling book, βPatriot: Empire, betrayal and hopeβ.
Letβs teach history in a balanced and truthful way; not through the lens of political ideology.
And Burnham should stand up for 21st century Brits, not pay for the wrongs of 18th century slave-traders.
The false equivalences in the chattel slavery conversation is an intentional attempt to rewrite history. Anyone who says βAfricans sold their ownβ has never studied pre-colonial African history nor the transatlantic slave trade.
These internet talking points are ahistorical.
Slavery was an evil in which people from every continent and region participated. We should be honest about the whole history, not select the parts that are politically convenient today, especially given Britain's leading role in ending the transatlantic slave trade.
If Caribbean countries are asking Britain for a formal apology for Britainβs role in the transatlantic slave trade, will they also be asking the same of the descendants of African kingdoms, rulers and merchants who captured, sold and profited from the trade?
On demands for reparations, whether through cash or debt relief, we have been down this track before. Twenty-five years ago, Jubilee 2000, Drop the Debt and Make Poverty History argued that cancelling the debts of poorer countries would give them a fresh start. More than $100 billion of debt was eventually written off, but many of those countries have since built up even bigger debts. Labour are already spending too much on Britain's welfare state, now is not the time for Andy Burnham to be providing global welfare.
There is no reason British taxpayers today should be held financially responsible for things that happened generations before any of us were born. And I have even less patience for political elites in commonwealth countries who donβt know how to make their own citizens prosperous now looking for another opportunity to blame Britain.
As Prime Minister, Andy Burnham should be Britainβs greatest defender. Instead, he is writing articles saying we need to confront our history (as if we haven't done enough of that) and considering another formal historical apology. Tony Blair already expressed Britainβs deep sorrow and regret for our role in the slave trade nearly twenty years ago. There is no need to do so again.
This is all another navel-gazing distraction. The Commonwealth should be looking forward, not endlessly backwards. That means economic partnerships to make us all richer and deeper military and security cooperation against common threats. If every Commonwealth summit becomes an exercise in presenting Britain with demands for cash then we need to start asking if it is worth the effort.
βYou can celebrate Halloween, but donβt force it on others,β said the group of people who are, of course, famous for never forcing their views on anyone.




















