GEORDIE Kerevan’s Monday column “Here is a primary reason we need independence – and need it now” thankfully concludes “Whatever you want to call that process – colonialist or no – it has to be reversed”. Call it what you will. The argument is not new and is all matter of definition and purely academic. Because someone decides it is so, does not make it so. Colonialism takes many forms, internal, external or otherwise.
I remember British/English Marxists on “Internal colonialism” by Linda Del Colliein, which tries to claim the Anglicisation of (Romanised) Celtic Britain, South of Hadrian’s Wall, was really a process of integration and assimilation, not annihilation.
READ MORE: George Kerevan: Here is a primary reason we need independence – and need it now
I did not agree, as the Britons were forced into what is now Wales and Cornwall from the Saxon Shore. The subject had a big impact on Unionist “Marxists” in the 70s.
German auxiliaries in the Roman legions of occupation saw how weak the Romanised Celts were after the Romans departed and seized the opportunity to invade after the Romans left. Later Angles from Jutland, or Denmark, came as Vikings. The Danegelt mainly conquered the Angles who had become Christianised. It was Charlemagne’s cruelty in sacking pagan Gothenburg that incensed the Pagans to attack Christians in turn, finding the hated, isolated monasteries a rich and isolated target. They were of the same Anglo Saxon stock. I guess the argument at the time tried to make us all good little Marxist “Pax Britannia” Brits.
Then, they argued the Sweaty Socks were not oppressed, or not oppressed enough. It was still sore. Then, they argued that were all noo English speakers and cannae have independence, ignoring the historical oppression of the Gaelic and Welsh Celtic languages.
In 1969 the International Marxist Group had a conference in Edinburgh to debate the matter. I do not know if George was around at that time, or even present, to debate whether we were a colony or not. Anyway, we managed to win the debate for a Scottish Workers Republic. Tariq Ali was most supportive. I was a young shop steward, who had left skule at 15 and had yet to get to yoonie like the rest of these middle-class Marxists.
Don’t get me started on Pat Kane’s argument aboot class. I don’t know what Marxist group he belanged tae. I may have become a teechur the last 15 years of my working life, but am definitely working-class by habit and repute. Tariq came from a landed Pakistani family, who were opposed to the division of India and understood colonialism, or imperialism very well. Lenin defined finance capital as the highest form of imperialism. There can be no doubt about that as fact, not opinion. The City of London and Westminster was a high centre of all that.
READ MORE: Pat Kane: The struggles of class are internal as well as external
The Anglo Yankee colonists spoke English, but it did not stop them having their own Tae Party and expanding their colonies west and south, taking their black slaves with them. So much for internal colonialism, they fought a civil war for a WASP “Union” and expanded further westward, committing more genocide on the indigenous peoples, leading to today’s confused Trumpian legacy.
We left a real Union in Europe, where all partners are equal, for an enforced Brexitised “Union” of a disunited Queendome, descended from a Norman Conquest of English peasants, who tried to enforce the manorial or feudal system upon us tribal Celts, who were to wee, too poor and too stupit to resist.
So Pat and Geordie are right, who cares how anyone defines how many Trot Bengal Lancers are oan the heid o’ peen? Colonialism or not, we are all class and national victims of Anglo capitalism, nuclear terrorism and imperialism.
Donald Anderson
Glasgow
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel