A gentle reminder that those who benefitted from the transatlantic slave trade in Britain once described abolitionism as an endeavour "to oppress the country." (1793) https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1360722119978549248

The Observer (20/1/1793)

Duke of Clarence: “They call upon you to disenfranchise the West India Merchants and Planters—to depopulate Liverpool—and to deprive some thousands of industrious and respectable men of their birth-right as British subjects.” (1799)

#PT from this thread. The slave trade was defended as a symbol of British virtue, humanity and industriousness. And its critics were branded traitors who were trying to damage the empire and the common good. Plus ça change. https://twitter.com/limerick1914/status/1270137820112437249

Some years ago I watched a video of ex-UKIP fascists picketing the International Slavery Museum in Liverpool ( @SlaveryMuseum) accusing it of being an “indoctrination camp” that pushed “anti-English racism.” Now similar hyper-nationalist rhetoric is coming from their government. https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1360722119978549248

For nationalism, history is an important binding agent, a simple linear story that comforts and reaffirms a collective identity. Or to paraphrase an old adage: history as a set of lies agreed upon. Thus when the tale is challenged you invariably get this defensiveness.

And now that the jingoism has reached such a pitch in Brexit Britain the reactionaries in power are trying to actively suppress critical thought, analysis and pluralism in its cultural institutions.

By doing so they are admitting that the Black Lives Matter movement is a fundamental challenge to their identity. That which was made invisible in their narrative now visible. But rather than engage or accept this, they are retreating deeper into the dead-end of the flag.