Looking at the experience of black Britons through an American lens

In fact, my wife’s family is among the “colonized colonizer”. My wife’s family moved to Botswana in the 1970s. They were originally from Tanzania, and had originally come from India, fleeing their own particular discrimination. They left Tanzania in the 1980s, because, in short, the country was trying to find a path in which Black Tanzanians could find a way to realize a full self determination. Their family did not want be a continued part of the problem.

Before my father in law was the thought that it was better to “un-settle” a place rather than be a continued part of its settler legacy. For many reasons, he was welcomed by the Batswana. I think it was a persistent asking of permission to enter, to join the table humbly and with respect for the people, a respect that they have the resourcefulness and brilliance to know what course is best for them. Humility.

The point being that even as another of the wave of “colonized colonizers” —- people who derive privilege by proximity to a ideal of what is presumed to be “better”, more western —- there was no mention of the rich history and the erasure of the indigenous people in the education she received.

I have been to the Three Dikgosi monument a few times, and felt it strange that for all this ancient, immeasurable history, the millenia of stories of the San an Khoi is condensed to a small mention.

The archaeological site a few hours from Gaborone, the site of a religious ceremony whose significance is lost to time. I just pieced together, but I know it predates the 1700s by tens of thousands of years.

So yes, there are layers of colonization and each prevents an accounting, a true embodiment of truth and reconciliation. There is a need to “un-settle”, to question the orthodox histories.

It's you that spewed your salad when tried to read it as "people of colour deserve it for their behaviour"

Maybe you are the racist too...

True

> There is a need to “un-settle”, to question the orthodox histories.

That is where things go wrong. As you stated yourself, colonisers are often colonised themselves by later colonisers. The success of mankind as the dominant species on the planet literally depends on groups being displaced by other groups, otherwise everyone would have stayed in Eden - being the fertile parts of Africa where Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved. Some groups got displaced, moved into neighbouring territory and displaced or enslaved whatever group of people happened to live there. Fast-forward a few decades or centuries and the process was repeated, the former colonisers now get 'colonised' themselves. At this moment in time it gets hard to decide who is the 'oppressed' and who is the 'oppressor' since both groups will have done their share of 'oppressing' and both will have undergone 'oppression'. If you only look at one specific groups as being the 'oppressors' the way people like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin diAngelo do you end up with a distorted view of history where you assign 'victim' status to oppressors and ignore potential 'victimisation' of the designated oppressor, a good example here being the many African tribes who partook in the capture, transport and sales of slaves to Arab and western slave traders being assigned 'oppressed' status versus the Irish who were enslaved themselves being assigned 'oppressor' status. Since the 'oppressed' status has been turned into a form of social currency lending speaking rights and preferential treatment to those who carry it while those who carry 'oppressor' status have to stand back in line and provide for those with 'oppressed' status this system often leads to more injustice and with that an increase in social tension and a decrease in social cohesion. In other words, it breaks up society.

We do not want to break up society. Those who do want this should state their goal honestly and go to the elections with this stated purpose, if enough people vote for them they can get their way. Those who want to break up society by means of force have to accept that the majority of the population opposes their intentions and that the force of law can and should be used against them, just like it should be used against any other group which commits violence.

And that, in a nutshell, is why the need to "un-settle", to question the orthodox histories - in other words why deconstruction according to Critical Theory - does not work. The cake is too thick, too much mixed up to say which layer is the most tasty. Better have the cake as it is and make a note to tweak the recipe so it comes out better next time.

Jordan shanks is one of the small handful of legitimate journalists we have in this country.