Rest Day Ruminations: Fiction Becomes Reality
England is destroyed
Here’s a Rest Day Ruminations post. As the About page explains, expect eclectic musings on topics I’m interested in. Books, films, music or games; posts about life, philosophy, my writing career, or my cat. They probably won’t be every week. Ignore any posts you don’t want to read!
Thank you to my lovely paying subscribers who make some of the posts open to all, as with this one.
Instead of talking about my favourite films as I had planned for today (since they’re on my mind even more now that I am also a cinema projectionist), I decided to write something else that had been whirling around in my noggin. Apologies in advance if this upsets or annoys anyone. I love all people. I accept religions and belief systems that differ from my own. How, where, and when we are born has no moral significance. It’s only what we do that matters, and what we do should always be this: to try and be the best humans we can. To get along with all the other life forms on this planet, and with nature. To see what connects us, not what divides.
Fiction Becomes Reality
It is the year 2054.
Scotland left the UK in 2029. It rejoined Europe in 2031 (the Scottish had never voted to leave it in the first place - they voted to stay - but English Brexit dragged them to divisive disaster). New direct ferry routes to Europe were opened up, and Scotland prospered. Irn Bru became the new champagne.
Wales also left the UK. Their departure was in 2037, and only following bitter protests and various attempts by the English government to prevent it.
In 2041 a new alliance was formed between Scotland, Ireland and Wales. The nickname was the Celtic Dragon. All were part of Europe, which was their closest trading partner.
Meanwhile, England had declined economically, and in terms of power. But many in the country were fine with that, happy to say goodbye to a past of colonialism and imperialism. They wanted to set an example of how things were changing in the hope that they could rejoin their European friends, and take part in the mutually beneficial prosperity.
There had been some conflict with France, though. An uneasiness as the two countries faced each other over the water. Some disputes over fishing rights erupted into violence and the intervention of armed forces. Then rhetoric, and more conflicts.
Perhaps France saw its chance. The government had been an authoritarian cabal for many years. They raked up past conflicts between England and France. Distrust on both sides grew, and to the French leaders, it was a wonderful opportunity.
In 2044 Fremch politicians blamed some terrorist attacks on the English. Said it couldn’t be safe under these intolerable circumstances. France invaded England.
The English were taken by surprise. They’d just been trying to get by, and understand their place in the new world. Before they knew it, the French had captured the English military bases and taken them over, removing any chance for the English to fight back. It was said to be in the interests of everyone’s safety.
The French didn’t call it an occupation. It was just an extension of their security perimeter.
The English fought back as best they could. Many were killed, and labelled as terrorists.
In the years 2044-2053 France occupied more and more English land. They set up checkpoint systems to limit the ability of English people to travel. The French controlled chunks of English infrastructure and systems, along with what was allowed in or out of the country. They forced the English out of some towns and cities, and took them over as French. Manchester became Nouveau Homme. Reading became Livre D’Or. The French also selected plots of pristine land and created new military bases and protected French-citizen settlements. The Lake District was a particularly popular destination.
The international community told France off, but continued to trade with the country. Particularly to sell the French weapons and “security” tech, including “urban pacification” systems. It was a booming industry.
The UN passed resolutions saying France had to pull out of England, but France ignored them. Whenever there was a vote, enough countries were allied with France to prevent any action being taken.
99% of the time English people resisted non-violently. But it was a weekly occurrence for English to be shot, to have their businesses taken, their homes bulldozed, to be imprisoned for anti-French agitation. Every year the French expanded over more territory. Where possible, English people emigrated, but many were trapped there by poverty, or refused to leave their historic homes.
Some English fought back with whatever weaponry they could make or were secretly donated by sympathising nations. Jury-rigged explosives killed almost as many English as French, but each time an attack was successful - attacks the UN pointed out were perfectly legal as they were resisting an occupying force - the response was punitive. Even more English would be killed, including women and children. Infrastructure would be cut off as further punishment. No refuse collection, to try and force the English to live in squalor and disease so the French could call them dirty and sub-human pigs. Water and electricity were cut off. The English put water tanks on their roofs, but then it was made illegal to go onto a roof because the French were worried about snipers. Shops were closed and boarded up as security risks.
When the English did nothing, more land was taken, more were killed.
When they fought back the same happened, but at an accelerated pace.
“What can we do?” asked the English. “This is unjust! This is criminal!”
They couldn’t ignore it, but neither could they fight back. They couldn’t get help from other countries, even though it was clearly an illegal occupation by the French.
The French had lots of allies. The international media almost always sided with them, and reported any English resistance as terrorism. They focussed on the few fighting back and said they represented the whole group. That all the English were potential terrorists. They rarely reported the full extent of the land taken, or the duration and escalation of the occupation. English innocents killed did not make good news. They never used terminology like “apartheid” or “criminal occupation”. Instead they called it a “conflict” implying it was equal.
Anyone in the world who cared about justice knew the answer to the conflict. It could end with ease. All that was needed was for the French to pull out of England. To end their illegal occupation. To apologise. To make reparations. To work with the English to repair relationships, to cooperate, to work together as allies for the future.
But the French don’t do that. They continue in the occupation and apartheid.
Because they hope that, in the long run, they'll win. They have allies and wealth. Friends spin the news to support them, to always paint them as victims retaliating. As a war, as if equal. They will win!
Of course, not all the French support the invasion. Protests against the invasion in France are quickly shut down, the French protestors labelled as traitors to their country. As with any nation, the government represents only a small proportion of people, while claiming to represent everyone.
And the secret truth is that they represent themselves. The rich and powerful. Their friends. That is what they care about. Not the people. Not the English or the French, except to the degree that they’re useful.
And so the authoritarian, aggressive French government push and push, increasing the pressure on the English until it is unbearable. The French leaders secretly hope to get retaliation, because that equates to political justification. To them, the people aren't important, their own or the oppressed. They just want excuses for rhetoric and to speed the process up.
Their long game is to wipe out the country, to shrug off the ineffective “tut tuts!” of the international community. Then, when the last English person has been killed or died out or left, they will hold the country for long enough for it to become de facto theirs. Just as Russia has done in the past. And China. And Europe. And England. There is a whole cultural history of taking other countries, killing or enslaving the inhabitants, until it eventually becomes officially yours. That was how America and Australia came about. The French know they have the support. They use all the methods available: political, financial, cultural, allies, their powerful secret service.
And, when pushed beyond breaking after years, some English fight back. Is it justified? Some people say yes. Some say no. Some say it was, but they went too far. It almost doesn’t matter. If there is a crime, and someone can unravel it, then let the guilty be punished.
But the French ignore the fact that only a tiny proportion of the remaining English were involved. “They are ALL scum!”, the leaders shout. “They will pay in blood!” And the French use hi-tech weapons that incinerate people, that shred them, that collapse their buildings, and they keep going until all the English are dead. There are attempts to hide the footage of women and children maimed by burning phosphorous, people blown apart by explosives, heads blasted into red mist by high-velocity weapons. The might of advanced technology versus an unarmed population of civilians. The outcome is inevitable.
The End.
Firstly, sorry to the French. I love France and French people.
My great grandmother was French: Marthe Suzanne Herbet, born 1901 in Saint Pierre de Franquenelle, Rouen. Her mother and father were Jules Joseph Herbet and Anastasie Leontine Permentier. She died in 1990 in Urmston, where I lived and worked. I just wanted to frame the country where I was born (England) as the victim, and … well, you’re the closest country to us! You are my friends. (Don’t let that story give you any ideas. I’ll swap you some Scottish whisky for some Eau de Vie.)
But back to the story.
How angry would the English be? Furious. Depressed. Screaming in rage for justice.
Of course there would be irony in this case, that we'd acted this way to others, but whatever. Don’t ruin the story.
Which is why I cannot comprehend how, when this scenario is happening for real to others, the English government does nothing but turn a blind eye. Perhaps because our government doesn’t care about poor people in Palestine, who follow a religion that the English have fought wars to suppress. And, after all, we wouldn’t want to upset our arms customers and business partners. If we say the oppressors are justified, then the British will be better off financially in the long run. (Well, the rich in this country will be, including politicians and their friends.)
That's the sheer hypocrisy of our government, and other governments. As ever, this isn't about religion, it is about power, land, resources, alliances. It's about precedents set in the past, and the refusal to change to a new vision that promises a hopeful, united future. Because there’s apparently less money in that.
The UK and US and others condemn terrorists (unless we are funding them, in which case they are freedom fighters). The UK/US coalition say it is cowardice to kill civilians. I always struggle with hypocrisy. Who firebombed civilians in WW2? We did. Who dropped nuclear weapons on civilians? We did. Who killed Vietnamese civilians and wiped out a fifth of a country’s rainforest using toxic chemicals? We did. Insert various other atrocities around the world. There's a long list to pick from. But we frame it as heroic actions, or hide it.
And when a country is under illegal attack for decades, and strikes back against their oppressors? Outrage.
“How dare they? Surely they must be evil, we'll sit back and watch them get punished, because - hey, the oppressors are our friends! And anyone who criticises them must be racists! That's a good way to spin it to stifle dissent. People were too successful with their protests against apartheid in South Africa, they managed to get rid of the rulers and restore things to the natives, we can't ever allow that again! So we'll make sure we start to turn things so that resistance to oppression is redefined as racism. 1984 taught us a lot about how to use Newspeak.”
This is all a case study in hypocrisy. How can anyone be upset about the Russian government's awful invasion of Ukraine but turn a blind eye to Israel's invasion of Palestine? One is quick, one is slow, but it is self-serving in both cases.
Also in both cases - and this is key - the states in question do not represent all the people. Not all Russians support what Russia is doing, any more than all Israelis support what Israel is doing. The evil isn't Russians or Israelis, Jews, Christians or Muslims. Those in power just want us to divide along those lines. The evil is authoritarian states looking to expand, as they have always done. As we did. We've all done it for centuries with no consequences, no need to ever make full reparation. A net gain for our political elites, for those in power.
This is about governments committing evil and saying it is in our name.
It is not in our name.
This is about inequality. About wealth. All reframed as justified revenge. All part of a system that makes us fight each other when we are all the victims.
Don't let them get away with it.
Don't let them claim it is justified to slaughter civilians, because there might be someone who is a real target within that group.
The cycle of evil won't be broken by letting it continue.
If we want justice, we have to act in a just fashion.
It is possible to love all people and still condemn Israel’s government. It is possible to accept all religions. And definitions of hate which reach too far become part of the problem, a means to divide us when we all want justice. We all want a world where nations work together to fight the four big problems that plague human culture: inequality (wealth and power); overpopulation; environmental devastation; and prejudice/discrimination. Each of those might seem impossible to fix, but if we all worked together, there would be hope.
It is possible to feel compassion for everyone who suffers. To cry for them. Often, those who die are not the villains, they are just pieces in a game played by governments. We have to change this. Only in a just world can there be peace. And if we just stand by and watch, then justice will not come, because those in power don’t benefit from such a lofty word. Justice can’t be invested for profit. Banks don’t know what to do with it when you try and open an account with a wad of justice.
Please fight for the world you would like to live in. And that requires starting from a point of recognition that we are all potential victims. We are not each other’s enemies. And it is never too late to say sorry for a wrong you have done, and to make reparations. It is hard. It may seem impossibly hard. But if there’s to be a world worth living in, we have to do it.
Addendum
After writing that I received an email with a good idea for if ever I rework this, using a different metaphor.
“Thanks very much for sharing this powerful and well written post.
Wow, it's a very effective idea (and well carried through) to place the Israel/Palestine situation in another context, so that we can see it more clearly for what it is. I think you've covered all the crucial points.
Many years ago, I heard a similar proposition - Jeff Halper of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions asked the question how Britain would feel if the Danes decided they would "return" and claim the country. It challenged people to question the accepted narrative and to have more empathy. I guess my only comment might be to change it from France to the Vikings. A Viking comparison could have the implication of an ancient claim to Britain, as the Zionists assert about Palestine. But that's not a criticism, I think it's great as it is.
We attended the PSC rally yesterday. It was both impassioned and peaceful. (Trust the Daily Telegraph to find two people, amongst thousands in London, who were celebrating the Hamas attacks and to ignore the message of peace and justice of the majority).
Thanks very much again. It's very consoling to hear voices of love and sanity.”