The "cancel culture"

is at it again - this time in the world of cricket. They have decided "in consultation with indigenous leaders" the January 26th should no longer be acknowledged by them as our national holiday. I wonder what Americans would do if their football or baseball organisations said the same of the 4th of July?

There can be few actions designed to be more divisive than this sort of thing.  It does exactly the reverse of what it purports to do. There is nothing "healing" about it. Such actions encourage people to feel that there is still good cause to feel bitter and angry about past events over which we had no control.

We need a serious debate in this country about the word "indigenous" - it actually means that something occurs naturally in a particular place. Should it then apply to everyone according to where they are born? It doesn't of course. I was born here but I am not considered to be "indigenous". My ancestors came from Scotland. Conveniently for the authorities I am not considered to be Scottish either. Apparently I am not anything at all. 

Curiously though someone with a single "indigenous" great-great grandparent is considered to be "indigenous". Such a person could have fifteen great-great grandparents born outside the country and yet still be considered "indigenous". People will search for any evidence they might be "indigenous".

My friend M.... is quite definitely considered to be "indigenous". He would immediately be marked out as such by his appearance. Unlike those "activists" wanting to mark "Invasion Day" though he is celebrating our national day by visiting his sister and her family. "We'll be throwing a few snags on the new barbecue," he told me when he asked me to "write something for the blog Cat". Like me he sees the "cancel culture" activism as being divisive and harmful.

In recent years there have been moves at meetings and other gatherings to "acknowledge" that "we are meeting on....(name the tribe) land". It will be done even when there are no "indigenous" people present. Their leaders "past and present" are also "acknowledged" in this way.

There are differing views about this. Those who support the making of such statements are often passionate about it. They find it puzzling that anyone should feel uncomfortable about it. Others find it very uncomfortable indeed.  And some of those who find it uncomfortable are the very people others believe they are acknowledging. 

I was at a meeting recently where an acknowledgment took place at the beginning of the meeting. As the meeting was called to order two people left the room. When the acknowledgment had been spoken they returned. It was done quietly and I suspect most people in the room did not know why they had left the room. Both of them had told me of their intentions. They are obviously "indigenous" and they find such acknowledgments embarrassing and demeaning.

"It makes us feel different. It's as if they are saying we don't belong. It isn't what we want but what they want," one of them told me. 

The other told me, "It's more of that politically correct nonsense Cat and I don't want any part of it."

I have no idea what the answer is to these issues. Such an acknowledgment is always made at meetings of one group I belong to. It was begun without discussion of whether it should take place. Had a discussion taken place it would have been rejected, not because of any "racist" views but because of the location in which the meeting is held. If you must do it then at least acknowledge the correct tribe. Saying something has made no difference. An "executive" decision was made and that has been it.

It is the inability to do this sort of thing in correct and sensitive way at the appropriate time which has done more harm than good. It has become formulaic, something which just has to be gabbled through each time. Resentment is replacing reason. Any meaning has been lost.