Link/Archive
When someone speaks of a genocide against indigenous peoples, you could be forgiven for thinking they’re referring to historical events. Maybe Europeans’ devastating, disease-spreading conquests of the Americas during the 16th century. Or Japan’s campaigns of assimilation and dispossession directed at indigenous Ainu in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
But not anymore. Today, a ‘genocide of indigenous people’ is just as likely to be used to describe the supposed ‘ethnic cleansing’ of white Europeans as it is an event from centuries ago. Take a recent viral GB News clip, featuring someone called Thomas Corbett-Dillon. Introduced as a ‘former Boris Johnson adviser’ (a seemingly tenuous claim), Corbett-Dillon declared that ‘there is a genocide happening on this island because it is being taken over by different people who are not indigenous to this land’.
That pundits are prepared to make such a claim on live TV is a sign of just how normalised elements of the so-called Great Replacement Theory have become among parts of the right. Popularised by French writer Renaud Camus, the theory holds that Western elites are conspiring to replace white populations with immigrants from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Camus was banned from entering the UK last year – a decision that only amplified his arguments and allowed him to pose as a truth-teller silenced by the elites.
The likes of Corbett-Dillon are far from the only ones to invoke the spectre of ‘genocide’ to advance their cause. Over the past decade, the concept of genocide has been stretched far beyond its historical meaning, which was rooted in the singular horror of the Holocaust. Trans activists have spoken of a ‘trans genocide’. Anti-abortion activists have described abortion as a ‘silent holocaust’ or an ‘American genocide’. And Israel has relentlessly been accused of committing ‘genocide’ in Gaza while waging war against Hamas, the terrorists responsible for the 7 October massacre, the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. In fact, the accusations began in the immediate aftermath of that tragedy, before Israel had even responded militarily.
The likening of abortion rates or high levels of net migration to the most horrendous event in human history may be grim, but it serves a propagandistic purpose: to dress up, in this case, demographic change as a form of genocide that demands extreme action – hence, extremist right-wingers’ fantasies of ‘total remigration’ (the removal of all non-whites from Western countries).
What’s especially striking about the right’s growing willingness to frame anti-immigration arguments in terms of genocide is the extent to which they’ve adopted the morally charged language of the left. After all, the discourse of indigeneity and victimhood was long associated with ‘progressive’ politics. Many conservatives usually recoil from the language of indigenous rights in the context of Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the US. But they now appear all too comfortable invoking it in the context of Britain. In one YouTube video, commentator Carl Benjamin, also known as Sargon of Akkad, even asked why the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should not apply to the English.
Instead of advocating equality before the law and a shared national identity that transcends ethnicity, too many on the right are now pursuing their own identity politics, complete with their own claim to victimhood.
In the absence of a serious vision for the betterment of society, it seems parts of the right have embraced rhetorical hysteria instead. It is less a political analysis than it is an emotional release. Talking up a fictitious ‘genocide’ allows parts of the right to avoid confronting the significant challenges we face, including those brought about by migration and multiculturalism, from failures of integration to a lack of social cohesion.
None of this means that questions of culture, ethnicity and demographics don’t matter. Concerns about segregation, the entrenchment of ethnic and religious identity politics, and the social consequences of poorly managed immigration are urgent topics for public debate. Too often, anyone airing these concerns has been dismissed as racist or reactionary.
But describing demographic change as ‘genocide’, because migrants settle in Britain and have children, is not only inaccurate, it is morally grotesque, too. It is using the worst crimes in history to score political points. Plus, it poisons the debate and sets people against one another. By pushing the discussion to its most hysterical extremes, some on the right are making the serious conversation we need about immigration and demographic change harder rather than easier.
Those warning of a ‘genocide’ may think they’re speaking for ordinary Brits. But just like the woke left before them, they’ve mistaken their social-media echo chamber for the nation at large.
Inaya Folarin Iman is a spiked columnist and founder of the Equiano Project.
When someone speaks of a genocide against indigenous peoples, you could be forgiven for thinking they’re referring to historical events. Maybe Europeans’ devastating, disease-spreading conquests of the Americas during the 16th century. Or Japan’s campaigns of assimilation and dispossession directed at indigenous Ainu in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
But not anymore. Today, a ‘genocide of indigenous people’ is just as likely to be used to describe the supposed ‘ethnic cleansing’ of white Europeans as it is an event from centuries ago. Take a recent viral GB News clip, featuring someone called Thomas Corbett-Dillon. Introduced as a ‘former Boris Johnson adviser’ (a seemingly tenuous claim), Corbett-Dillon declared that ‘there is a genocide happening on this island because it is being taken over by different people who are not indigenous to this land’.
That pundits are prepared to make such a claim on live TV is a sign of just how normalised elements of the so-called Great Replacement Theory have become among parts of the right. Popularised by French writer Renaud Camus, the theory holds that Western elites are conspiring to replace white populations with immigrants from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Camus was banned from entering the UK last year – a decision that only amplified his arguments and allowed him to pose as a truth-teller silenced by the elites.
The likes of Corbett-Dillon are far from the only ones to invoke the spectre of ‘genocide’ to advance their cause. Over the past decade, the concept of genocide has been stretched far beyond its historical meaning, which was rooted in the singular horror of the Holocaust. Trans activists have spoken of a ‘trans genocide’. Anti-abortion activists have described abortion as a ‘silent holocaust’ or an ‘American genocide’. And Israel has relentlessly been accused of committing ‘genocide’ in Gaza while waging war against Hamas, the terrorists responsible for the 7 October massacre, the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. In fact, the accusations began in the immediate aftermath of that tragedy, before Israel had even responded militarily.
The likening of abortion rates or high levels of net migration to the most horrendous event in human history may be grim, but it serves a propagandistic purpose: to dress up, in this case, demographic change as a form of genocide that demands extreme action – hence, extremist right-wingers’ fantasies of ‘total remigration’ (the removal of all non-whites from Western countries).
What’s especially striking about the right’s growing willingness to frame anti-immigration arguments in terms of genocide is the extent to which they’ve adopted the morally charged language of the left. After all, the discourse of indigeneity and victimhood was long associated with ‘progressive’ politics. Many conservatives usually recoil from the language of indigenous rights in the context of Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the US. But they now appear all too comfortable invoking it in the context of Britain. In one YouTube video, commentator Carl Benjamin, also known as Sargon of Akkad, even asked why the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should not apply to the English.
Instead of advocating equality before the law and a shared national identity that transcends ethnicity, too many on the right are now pursuing their own identity politics, complete with their own claim to victimhood.
In the absence of a serious vision for the betterment of society, it seems parts of the right have embraced rhetorical hysteria instead. It is less a political analysis than it is an emotional release. Talking up a fictitious ‘genocide’ allows parts of the right to avoid confronting the significant challenges we face, including those brought about by migration and multiculturalism, from failures of integration to a lack of social cohesion.
None of this means that questions of culture, ethnicity and demographics don’t matter. Concerns about segregation, the entrenchment of ethnic and religious identity politics, and the social consequences of poorly managed immigration are urgent topics for public debate. Too often, anyone airing these concerns has been dismissed as racist or reactionary.
But describing demographic change as ‘genocide’, because migrants settle in Britain and have children, is not only inaccurate, it is morally grotesque, too. It is using the worst crimes in history to score political points. Plus, it poisons the debate and sets people against one another. By pushing the discussion to its most hysterical extremes, some on the right are making the serious conversation we need about immigration and demographic change harder rather than easier.
Those warning of a ‘genocide’ may think they’re speaking for ordinary Brits. But just like the woke left before them, they’ve mistaken their social-media echo chamber for the nation at large.
Inaya Folarin Iman is a spiked columnist and founder of the Equiano Project.
Última edición por un moderador:
