Last week, Nation.Cymru published an
opinion piece
discussing the need for the Welsh Independence Movement to understand and
reflect the realities of historical racism in its words and actions. There is
much in the article with which I agree, particularly the implicit idea that it
is difficult for those of us who have not experienced – either personally or in
our own family histories – direct discrimination and oppression based on the
colour of our skin. And although the people and resources of Wales have
historically been exploited for the benefit of others, and the native language
has been subjected to a sustained attempt at cultural genocide, we have not
been enslaved or traded; the Welsh experience of colonialism has not been the
same as that of non-Europeans. It’s far too easy for us when discussing Welsh
history to concentrate on what was done to us, and ignore the role that some
Welsh people played in the imperial project – and, yes, in the slave trade as
well. I think that I can understand how people from different perspectives and
histories can look at the same events and attitudes and interpret them
differently, and, of course, I accept that drawing an equivalence between the
oppression of a language and the enslavement of people is a very poor one; the
two things are of a different nature and on a different scale.
And yet… after reading the article, I was unconvinced
about some of the assumptions and conclusions.
The idea that the ‘independence movement’
is somehow a single entity which needs as a whole to accept the criticism and
change before being acceptable struck me as a strange one. The reality is more
complex than that. Whilst I might wish that every independentista agreed
with my view on everything, I know it isn’t going to happen any time soon.
There are people who are part of the broad ‘movement’ who are members of
different organisations and parties with some very divergent views – is the
whole really invalidated by the very existence of some of the parts? I think
not. There is – and should be – a debate between different perspectives, and
that debate (which I hope will bring people around to a healthier consensus
over time) is an inherent and essential part of the process of seeking
independence and building a different kind of nation. It cannot and should not be a precondition for moving the process
forward.
To refer to a specific example discussed
in the article, whilst I can understand how the fact that a member of the royal
family has married a woman of mixed race can be interpreted as an acceptance,
at the highest levels of British society, of people of different races (and therefore
something to celebrate), is it really somehow racist for a republican independentista
to oppose yet another royal wedding, and all the associated union jackery? It
felt like a demand to rank two different principles which are in no meaningful
sense opposed to each other at all. And that, in a way, brings me to my most fundamental
concern about the piece. There are different forms and degrees of oppression
and discrimination, but placing them into contention and trying to establish some
sort of pecking order is unnecessarily divisive. Ultimately that plays into the
hands of those who seek neither racial equality nor Welsh independence. Those
of us independentistas who come from a particular racial background have
much to learn and understand from those of other backgrounds. However great
they may feel, our own injustices aren’t the only ones in the world, or even
here in Wales. Incorporating that understanding into our own view of the world
will take longer for some than for others, but doing so will strengthen us and
help to build a better Wales in the end. No-one should expect that process to
stall because not everyone is yet in the same position.
6 comments:
Somewhere in the middle of this piece you say - " The idea that the ‘independence movement’ is somehow a single entity which needs as a whole to accept the criticism and change before being acceptable struck me as a strange one. The reality is more complex than that. Whilst I might wish that every independentista agreed with my view on everything, I know it isn’t going to happen any time soon."
That shows a maturity and tolerance that is clearly at odds with many of the groupthinkers now inhabiting the noisy end of the nationalist spectrum.
Later you say _ " I can understand how the fact that a member of the royal family has married a woman of mixed race can be interpreted as an acceptance, at the highest levels of British society, of people of different races (and therefore something to celebrate), is it really somehow racist for a republican independentista to oppose yet another royal wedding, and all the associated union jackery?"
I also read that article and came to a similar conclusion to yours, although mine was probably couched in less polite terms. There again you have spent time on the stump persuading people to cast a vote in your favour whereas my debating has been confined to less "formal" environments !I concluded that the writer of that article needs to tune into the big bad world a bit more and spend less time in the echo chambers of groups whose willingness to tolerate alternative views is pretty close to zero. In my youth it used to be called "growing up" !
Totally agree. Good luck with the Leannistas who now control Plaid. The expression of a single sentiment that strays, ever so slightly, from the one true dogma leads to villification and accusations of facism.
"should not be a precondition for moving the process forward." Unfortunately for many in Plaid it is. I am sick if hearing "I don't want to live in an independent Wales that does not adhere exactly to my political views".
Anon and anon,
The 'movement' is bigger than any single party of course, even if the electoral system with which we are saddled disincentivises the offering of multiple choices about a future Wales which other nations would consider normal. In a healthy movement (which depends on there being a healthy democratic system), there would be room for different views to be expressed without having to cram them all into a single organisation. That's a significant restraint.
"I don't want to live in an independent Wales that does not adhere exactly to my political views" I agree that's a common complaint. In truth, I'd sooner live in an independent Wales which did adhere exactly to my own political views, but unless I get to be dictator (benign of course!) that ain't going to happen. The problem with that sentiment is that it implies that those expressing it would sooner live in a UK that didn't share their views than a Wales which didn't share their views. Like you, I find that a strange thing for any independentista to say.
Again, I agree, but how do you deal with this? This is increasingly the position held by those that really control Plaid. Yes Cymru appears to more of aa broad church, but already I can see the dogmatists taking over.
It is becoming arguable that the independence movement and particularly Plaid has been subverted by an assortment of groups whose aims and ambitions are focused on something other than the creation of a new modern state. Is this subversion driven by the UK State machine, or is it just a curious phenomenon/characteristic of modern politics in this country ? Is it a way for leaders like Adam ( and the rest of the leadership team) to avoid the burden of heavy lifting that goes with striding towards freedom while enjoying the perks of leadership of a Party ?
Post a Comment