"Woke" Britannia...Britannia Needs More "Woke"

 

"Woke" is an appropriated term that, like most appropriated things, has been completely altered from what it originally meant. Originally used by African-Americans to communicate the warning that "unexplained" deaths of African-Americans were almost certainly the result of white violence and racial intolerance, the invocation to "stay woke" was a gesture of concern and compassion, a reminder that the world was not a safe place for people whose faces didn't fit. It still isn't a safe place for anyone who is visibly "different" - no matter how subtle that visibility is: from the size and shape of a nose to an accent, from the spelling of a name to the texture of a curl. From someone's height to the pitch of their voice, from the way they hold themselves, move, or speak, to the amount of support from others they need to manage day to day life. Now, however, "woke" has been appropriated by the Left to mean "having an academic focus on matters of social justice, and being willing to take an active stance in standing up for marginalised people and positions", often with additions of "being politically communist, socially feminist, and very anti-men", and then appropriated again by the Right to mean "threatening my position of privilege, and existing in a way I personally object to." I'm not "woke" - I'm not African-American, for a start. I believe women can be as toxic and violent as men, including to other women, and that most men actually aren't rapists and misogynists, pathologically resistant to any kind of domestic labour, personal grooming, or involvement with childrearing - they're ordinary people, a bit baffled by the rapid changes that have taken place over the last 10-20yrs, trying to figure out who they are, what their purpose is, and what the point of them actually is. I feel that many people with disabilities and mental health conditions are capable of more than they're prepared to consider, and need to engage with the idea of developing emotional resilience. I've actually known people who had to flee communist regimes, and, having listened to their experiences, could never support that kind of regime. I support equity, not feminism - women are as capable and competent as men, if they're doing an equivalent job to a man, they should be paid the same, there should be more recognition of physical and kinship care demands everyone has outside of work, and particularly that even in a genuinely equal partnership, women will often feel they have to take up the majority of the burden of domestic labour. However, I believe there are strengths which tie to masculinity and femininity - which are most commonly represented by men and women, respectively - and that those strengths are merely "different", not "lesser" or "more valuable", and that men and women - which I interpret as "those with a masculine or feminine mindset, respectively" - should be able to have exclusive spaces, and the ability to communicate in ways which are natural to them, about things which matter to them. I believe trans people are valid, but that being trans, in the sense of having access to the rights and privileges granted to women or men, depending on the direction of their transition, relies on genuinely experiencing dysphoria - that dysphoria is the definition of being trans in a way which demands the sacrifices and responsibilities of a full commitment to transition, which is what grants the rights of tolerance, access, and inclusion. Yes: I'm problematic, contradictory, and complex. But so is life. Woke should be refocused as a compassionate warning, an expression of quiet solidarity, and a promise of community. That's working-class community. It's disabled community. It's LGBTQ+ community, both as a whole, and as separate and distinct communities within that wider community. It's the community of those who are unpaid carers. Faith communities are already fairly well established, and generally very active. Age, gender, and skin colour often don't naturally bring the level of community people assume they will - skin colour doesn't convey ethnicity, or cultural affiliation, and people can be the same age, but with a very different experience of life; they often have nothing in common beyond their age or skin colour, because they are all facing different challenges. You're not supporting anyone by using flags to create a sense of intimidation and threats - even in active battle, flags were used to show people where they could gather for resources and reinforcements, not to intimidate the enemy. You're not supporting anyone by painting roundabouts. You're not supporting anyone by shouting outside hotels. You're not supporting anyone by shouting abuse at people who don't look like you, or whose way of being human you object to. You're not supporting anyone by believing that your interpretation of who is "British" or "what a woman is" should be codified in law, with attendant punishment for "transgression." What you're sensing in the "despair and desperation" you're feeling in "today's Britain" is the absence of community, and of the support and resources community offers. What you're observing in rising crime rates is the absence of community, the neglect of responsibilities to provide resources and reinforcements for people who are facing significant challenges. What frightens you about "all these immigrants" is the strength of their communities in the absence of your own. What you resent about the economy, the cost of living, and everything related to those things, is the absence of compassion for the very real challenges they bring to you, and the lack of support and resources to deal with them. Compassionate concern. Solidarity. Resources. Community. Support. These are all intrinsic to "woke" - and its the lack of them that's causing you to feel all the feelings that drive you to lash out, to threaten, intimidate, and attack others, to remove the sense of safety from anyone who doesn't look, live, love, or think like you, or who doesn't share your views on peoples' differences, and what they mean. We need more woke - more community. More awareness of the challenges people are facing. More support. More resources. Do I "object" to the Union Jack, or the St. George's cross? Intrinsically, no. In the way they are currently being used, yes. Flags exist to unite people in a space of support or celebration for a reason of genuine focus or genuine pride. Pride is about actual, meaningful achievements that involve effort, endeavour, creativity, and teamwork. I recently attended the naming ceremony and launch of a new local lifeboat; flags were being flown, and were on display all around the small coastal town - that wasn't intimidating. It didn't look tacky or untidy. It centred a community coming together, at the culmination of physically and financially supporting a common cause. Sporting events, memorial ceremonies, culminations of meaningful achievements - these are times and spaces where flags embody everything that "national pride and community engagement" should mean. I have an intense dislike for the St. George's cross, on a purely personal level, and a slight wariness around the Union Jack - but I do not believe my feelings should prevent other people connecting with either of those flags in a positive way. I do not believe it should be illegal for those flags to be displayed. My cultural heritage is Irish, and I have previously displayed the Tricolour. That heritage - which was my father's actual ethnicity, going back multiple generations - is the reason the St. George's cross and the Union Jack are not "my" flags, and the reason I feel significant negativity around them. But, just as I have the right to fly the Irish flag, I believe in the rights of other people to fly the flags they connect with. What do I consider "British values"?

. Creativity . Open-mindedness . Community . Trustworthiness . Commitment None of these are specific to skin tones, genders, or ethnic heritages. If you subscribe to and embody these values, then, to me, you're British if you want to be British. "Britishness" has been forged and formed by centuries of immigrants turning up, and either finding a place with the existing folk, or forcibly creating that place. The Romans were "immigrants who took over our culture and made it into what they wanted." Then came the Saxons - who took over the culture Rome had created, and made it what they wanted. Then the Vikings took over the culture the Saxons had created, and made it what they wanted. Then they were driven out, in violent, murderous outrage - and the Saxons endured for a bit. Then the Normans, the "new Vikings", took over the culture, and made it what they wanted. From the Bronze Age (pre-Roman) onward, archaeology has proven that the Britons were extensively involved in trade, exploration, and cultural exchange with countries a considerably distance away - interestingly, the areas of the UK which are now considered the most "insular and backward" were at the forefront of innovation and curiosity about other people, both in terms of trade and cultural exchange. Most of the people currently waving flags, painting roundabouts, and screaming abuse about immigrants are extensively descended from immigrants themselves. And the sooner we engage with the reality of processing what that means about who we are, and how we should be behaving, the better.