Last Saturday, there was an elaborate ceremony to mark
the fact that a 74-year-old man finally got a job that he had been preparing
for. The occasion, like all British events involving the Royal Family was as
wonderful celebration of pomp and pageantry. Heads of State and Government from
around the world were invited and the glamorous of British Society made it a
point for the rest of us to see them at their best.
Given that we live in an age of extremities, the
coronation of King Charles III stirred a few emotions. On one hand you had
people basking in the “pride” of the nation. At the other extreme, you had
people complaining that the royals were “free-loaders” spending tax-payer money
at a point when most tax payers have to choose between staying warm and having
enough to eat.
Out here in the former colonies, the editorial focus was
on the rather ugly past of colonialism. It was pointed out that the fabulous
Crown-Jewels of the British Royal Family was stolen loot from the colonies – so
much so that the newly crowned Queen Camilla avoided wearing the crown with the
Kohinoor Diamond, which was looted from India. Much was also made of the fact
that the fortune of the British Royal Family was built on slavery.
I studied British
History (part of the History A-Level course) and I am well aware of the fact
that the “Colonials” were not nice people. As the only Oriental growing up in
the UK in the 1990s, I made it clear that my heroes were inevitably people who
got rid of the colonials like Gandhi and Nehru in India or Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam.
My “action” hero was inevitably Bruce Lee, who showed little Oriental Boys that
we could hold our own against the larger white boys.
So, I get that
brown and black people around the world feel a little miffed by any hint that
they should celebrate an institution that represented a time when they had to
call someone else “master.” However, whilst I do get why people outside the UK
may have issues with the monarchy and its links to the colonial past, I think
their anger is focused on the wrong target.
The monarchy is
by its very design “archaic.” It has worked in the UK because it is a symbol of
a “glorious” past and the idea of “modernity” and “monarchy” can seem like
contradictions. It doesn’t help that the current head of this monarchy is 74.
One might argue that Old People simply don’t get it.
However, if you
look at what’s happened in the last decade of “Tory” Party rule in the UK, it
actually turns out that the king is not the issue. The King, who does not have
normal freedoms (though the money is beyond the wildest dreams of most) is actually
looking like he’s trying to make the world a better or at least a nicer place,
whilst the people’s representatives in Westminster and No 10 Downing Street
seem to be in a daily competition to get nastier.
When he was
Prince of Wales, the King gave an interview where he talked about being “Defender
of Faith,” rather than “Defender of The Faith,” (a title which ironically bestowed
on Henry VIII by the Pope just before he decided to ransack Catholic Monasteries).
It caused an outcry at the time and there were issues with the Church.
However, if you
look the demographics of 2023 and compare them with his mother’s coronation in
1953, you’ll notice that the United Kingdom (UK) has become a far more multi-ethnic
and multi-religious place. Given that the monarch is technically Head of the
Church of England, the King has made it clear that he a dedicated Anglican but
respects the right of all faiths:
King Charles, has
to his credit made it a point of visiting Mosque and Gurdwaras, showing that it
is possible to religious co-existence.
One of the best
symbols of the coronation was getting the first ever Hindu Prime Minister of
the UK to read a biblical passage. What could symbolise religious harmony
better than that?
Apparently, some
people or at least someone claiming to represent people had issues with that
and denounced a “heathen Prime Minister,” reading from the Bible. Rishi Sunak
has undoubtedly done my things that should be criticised but showing respect to
another religion should not be one of them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAGyCyMi-tA
As an ethnic Chinese,
I understand the frustrations that colonised folks have with “non-apologies.”
The Japanese have been getting away with non-apologies for years when it comes
to everyone else in East Asia.
However, let’s
give credit where credit is due. The King, who is merely a symbol, is trying to
acknowledge that the past was not bright and rosy. It is ironically, the Prime Minister,
who is the son of colonial subjects, and the man who actually makes the
decisions who has rejected calls for an apology or to pay reparations to the
victims of the slave trade:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65401579
The Old White Man
who isn’t allowed to say much sounds like an easy target. However, he’s the one
making the appearance of doing the right thing. The real problem is a Prime
Minister like Rishi Sunak and Home Secretaries like Priti Patel and Suella Braverman
who have made going to war against poor and helpless brown and black people a
part of their policy. Let’s look at the fact that its Suella Braverman, a decedent
of colonial subjects who dreams of sending South Asians seeking asylum in the UK
to Rwanda. It was Prince (when he was still one) Charles, the then scion of a
family that represents colonialism who spoke out against this policy. Instead
of reconsidering, the government felt he was out of line getting involved in
politics.
I get that colonialism
was not a happy time for us in the colonies. However, lets not take issue when
the person making an effort to look like he’s trying to right the wrongs of the
past and focus instead on the people making the actual decisions enforce the
worst bits of the past in a modern context.
No comments
Post a Comment