Royal Protest

A bit more serious today.

It is deeply ironic that right-wing opponents of immigration would criticise an Aboriginal woman. Lidia Thorpe, for protesting King Charles III's visit, especially when her protest is rooted in opposition to colonialism rather than immigration itself. The very people who claim to defend national sovereignty and cultural heritage seem blind to the fact that her ancestors’ lands were taken by force, and her people subjugated under the very system of colonisation that the monarchy represents. 

While they may argue that their patriotism is directed toward the modern monarchy, they fail to acknowledge the monarchy’s historic role in the oppression of indigenous peoples. This glaring hypocrisy reveals that their stance isn’t truly about defending heritage, but about preserving a version of national identity that conveniently ignores the colonial violence that shaped it.

The mental gymnastics involved in criticising Thorpe's protest are nothing short of astounding. These critics, who often rally against immigration under the guise of protecting "native" culture, fail to grasp the clear contradiction in their stance. On one hand, they argue for preserving "native" identity against perceived threats like immigration, but on the other, they dismiss the legitimate protest of an actual native—the descendant of people who were brutally displaced by colonial settlers. Their criticisms expose a selective understanding of history, where "native" identity is only defended when it aligns with their narrow, self-serving narrative. They overlook that colonialism, the very system that benefitted their own ancestors, is the root cause of this protest.

This assumed position of moral and intellectual superiority, which they so proudly flaunt, is completely undermined by their muddled thinking. They may argue that colonialism is a historical issue, no longer relevant to today's monarchy or society, but they ignore the ongoing legacies of that history—the dispossession and marginalisation that indigenous peoples continue to face. The protest isn't simply about the past; it’s about the enduring impact of colonial structures that are still symbolised by the monarchy today. 

The critics’ dismissal of this argument reveals not only a lack of empathy but also an ignorance of the deeply ingrained colonial legacies that shape their own national identity. Their sense of superiority crumbles under scrutiny, revealing a deeply flawed and contradictory worldview that cannot withstand reason or fairness.

What’s even more striking is that many of those criticising the Aboriginal protester in Australia are themselves descendants of white immigrants from Britain - families who benefitted directly from the colonisation that displaced indigenous peoples. While they claim to uphold national pride and tradition, they ignore their own immigrant origins and the privileges their families gained from the very colonial system the protester is opposing. 

This irony exposes their critiques as not just hypocritical but historically ignorant, as they overlook the deep connections between colonialism, the monarchy, and their own inherited social advantages.