19 March 2008
Tibet & Iraq: two peoples, one struggle
The people of Tibet are rioting in opposition to the occupation of their country by China. This has led to cries of "whataboutery" as the wankblogs start screaming that opponents of the war against Iraq are somehow failing to give the Tibetans the support that they deserve.
To be fair, the world of wankbloggery does have a point: some writers are claiming that the Tibetan riots are a put up job by the west to try and discredit China. By the same token, quite a few wankblogs like to claim that if it wasn't for al-Qaida, everything in Iraq would be sweetness and light. Both are writing bollocks in other words.
Neither the Tibetans nor the Iraqis need the permission of anybody to fight for their homeland. The point was made by Sir Winston Churchill in the first volume of his History of the English Speaking Peoples, when he commented on the Boudicca uprising against the Romans in 60AD. Churchill wrote that this was a revolt against a "higher civilisation," but went on to say:
It is the primary right of men to fight and die for the land of their birth, and to punish with the utmost severity those of their own race who would warm their hands at the invaders' hearth.
I am quoting from memory, but Sir Winston was correct to my way of thinking. It does not matter how bovine, backward or barbarian the natives were or are. Nor does it count for a bucket of stale piss what they do with the turf - their turf - when the invader has been kicked out.
What matters is that they, the Iraqis and the Tibetans, have the primary right to fight and die for the land of their birth. They also have the right to unpack the Black & Decker drills and have a Night of the Long Drill Bits if it pleases them to deal with collaborators in that way.
So let us support the Tibetans and the Iraqis. They are two different people, but they are fighting one liberation struggle.