“Comic book fans will be familiar with the term ‘retcon’, which in layman’s terms means that the writer waves his hand and tells you ‘Remember when we said this? We screwed up, forget about that.'” – ‘Spoony’ quoted on the TV Tropes website.
The paths of Black History and Welsh history are indivisible.
There is no history of Wales without the history of black experiences in Wales. pic.twitter.com/BXsxMAjwtB
— Welsh Labour (@WelshLabour) October 31, 2023
“There is no history of Wales without the history of black experiences in Wales”, tweets @WelshLabour. Why do so many people say stuff like this nowadays? What do they think it achieves? Sure, it would be fair to say that any history of Wales that goes up to modern times but leaves out the chapter on Black Welsh people was incomplete. But, given that they make up only around 0.6% of the Welsh population now, and that prior to modern times their numbers were far lower than that, to say that the history of Wales does not exist unless it includes black history to say that entire history of Wales from Neolithic times until the mid twentieth century does not exist. It also implies that white experiences do not count as history unless there were some black people around at the same time to experience history properly. TV Tropes has a name for that idea, too, the “Magical Negro”.
This desperate retconning of the odd Phoenician, Libyan or Egyptian who turned up in British history as “black”, and the whole trend to exaggerate the number of black people in British history, has two effects, both of which increase racism. White people from the majority population resent seeing the history of their ancestors falsified and even erased, as the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, did when he said that “This city was built by migrants.” For black people, and indeed anyone of any colour whose ancestors did not come from these islands, it cements the idea that a person cannot truly be Welsh or British unless they can point to examples of people with enough genes in common with them having lived in those places centuries ago.
As I wrote a few years back,
For those that know their history, to read the line “Britain has always been a nation of immigrants” promotes scorn. When those who at first did not know the facts finally find them out, their reaction is cynicism. Worse yet, this slogan suggests that love of country for a black or ethnic minority Briton should depend on irrelevancies such as whether the borders were continually porous through many centuries, or on whether people ethnically similar them happen to have been here since time immemorial. (The latter idea is another “very odd corner” for progressives to have painted themselves into.) If either of these claims turns out to be false, what then?
Better to learn from the example of the Huguenots and Jews. Whether any “people like them” had come before might be an interesting question for historians (and a complex one in the case of the Jews), but whatever the answer, they became British anyway.
It is not necessary to have ancestors in a country to love it and to take inspiration from its history. This was well expressed in the maiden speech of Kemi Badenoch MP:
There are few countries in the world where you can go in one generation from immigrant to parliamentarian. Michael Howard spoke of the British dream—people choosing this country because of its tolerance and its opportunity. It is a land where a girl from Nigeria can move, aged 16, be accepted as British and have the great honour of representing Saffron Walden.
There are some in this country, and this Chamber, who seek to denigrate the traditions of this Parliament, portraying this House as a bastion of privilege and class, that “reeks of the establishment”, as someone said. It is no coincidence that those who seek to undermine the institutions of this island—Parliament, monarchy, Church and family—also propagate a world view that sees Britain, and the values we hold dear, as a force for bad in the world. Growing up in Nigeria, the view was rather different. The UK was a beacon, a shining light, a promise of a better life.
Which is why we’ve got em risking life-and-limb crossing the English Channel in rubber dinghy’s, hoping for a life of ease and luxury at the expense of the embattled UK taxpayer.
One of the many reasons I oppose the Welfare State is that it attracts migrants who have no desire to integrate.
In my opinion people in Britain are generally tolerant. Not always without complaint, but generally willing to go along to get along. We don’t naturally do ‘respect’ though – that has to be earned. Activists typically demand ‘respect’ because of oppression, diversity etc. when they might achieve far more by arguing for tolerance. It wouldn’t be so thrilling for the activists though.
Or so remunerative.
I have come to dislike the word “tolerance.” It tends to suggest an attitude of neutrality, or even mild good will, which is not always called for. The older word, “toleration,” more clearly referred to a policy: One that might disapprove of a belief but would not forcibly suppress it as long as its adherents kept the peace. Toleration is something that may legitimately be asked of us, but if “tolerance” goes beyond that, it is an excuse for thought control.
A decade or so ago, Noah Feldman pontificated (in a NY Times op-ed iirc) about European intolerance of immigrants. He explicitly wrote that we must tolerate intolerance.
Feldman is a professor at Harvard, and a Jew.
He is reaping what he sowed. I have no sympathy for him, actually i have Schadenfreude.
It’s pandering, pure and simple.
And tolerance is tied to tolerating something. Not embracing it, not advancing it, not celebrating it, just tolerating it.
For those that know their history, to read the line “Britain has always been a nation of immigrants” promotes scorn.
I think this, like a lot of things, is just an American import. The American crazy left have been so successful the past few years it seems that crazy lefties everywhere want to emulate this. America is a nation of immigrants (more and more so lately), but Britain is not. Same with the whole black history thing. If you see some bunch of hucksters getting powerful and wealthy with a line of dishonest crap like we have with race in America, it makes sense to give it a try elsewhere. To think that race relations in Britain are anything like those in America is just plain historical nonsense. Nonetheless, it is undoubtedly profitable, and it makes you feel good when you are yelling for “justice” with all your friends at some University rally.
I think the nadir of this came when, after the Michael Brown shooting, all over Britain you had kids doing the “hands up, don’t shoot” in a country where the cops almost never carry guns. It would be comically absurd were it not so damaging.
Bottom line — we forget kids are stupid and politicians are venal.
“Black history is Welsh history.”
Quite so.
If you’re talking about coal mining.
You read something like that, and your reaction is incredulous laughter. At first; then you realize the moron who wrote that is actually dead serious.
This sort of thing is one reason I’m sort of ambivalent about the value of compulsory education. I think that what we’re seeing here is someone who was educated far past their actual intellectual capacity, and who is merely aping the things that they heard or read in passing. Things they did not understand, obviously, nor did they pick up the context.
“Black History in Wales”? WTF? The Welsh have been the whipping-boys for the English since forever; they ought to be honorary victims like the Irish, if we’re to be honest. In all my reading over the years, the number of influential Welshmen who were influential outside of Wales only becomes really noticeable about the 18th Century. Before that? Uhmmm… Yeah.
As much victims of fate and circumstance as anyone else who had the misfortune to be stuck on an island alone with the English. And, for many of the same reasons my Scots ancestors were screwed… Completely unable to self-organize and get their acts together. And, considering the usual incredible capacity for self-sabotage and infighting the English themselves had… Dear God, how gobtastically FUBAR must the rest of the fringe around the English have been? I mean, seriously… We Scots just couldn’t get it together until we subcontracted leadership to the English, I’m afraid. From the history, we make rather better minions than we do actual empire-builders…
The whole idea of Wales having any sort of “Black History” is ludicrously humorous. I mean, other than the rather massive numbers of Welsh-derived missionary types that wound up in Africa…
Kirk – the Welsh successfully invaded England in 1485 and (with the help of Stanley family – who switched sides during the battle – much to the irritation of a colleague of mine on North Northants Unitary Authority, whose ancestors were on the other side) and made Henry Tudor King (Henry VII) – he was the ancestor of King Charles III. Tudor is very much a Welsh name, even if the man had lived in France for some years.
As for the history of black people in Wales – well there was the singer Shirley Bassey and a few sailors (and mixed race people) in Tiger Bay (near Cardiff) – but that is about it.
I just checked – 0.8% of the Welsh population are black (according to the 2021 Census – 3% of the population are various sorts of Asian).
So the Labour Party of Wales is saying that Welsh history is about 0.8% of the population (many of whom are quite recent). Less than 1 in a 100 people.
Why not say “Welsh history is Chinese history” or “Welsh history is Indian history”, it would make just as much sense as saying “Welsh history is black history”.
What they are really claiming is that there is no Welsh history – that the Welsh people do not really exist, which is a weird thing to claim.
Paul, you’re making my point for me with this:
Stanley is a perfect example of why you ought to treat the English as being “…extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching…”
Also, yet another good example of why you’re better off with them working for you than not. The Scots got wise, eventually, and more-or-less hired them to run Scotland for them. Bunch of us got thrown out during the Enclosures, but wound up far better off here in North America than we were at home, under the various self-serving, short-sighted lairds that sold us out… Best thing that happened to a lot of us. The rest of mob took to the role of “imperialist lackey” like fish to water, and that’s all it took. A lot of us Scots make rather better feudal retainers than we do “guy actually running things…”
Does no one remember this bit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e9WDfg2idk