Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Spot the Difference - Wales and Tibet

I was reading a blog post about North Korea from the Mail on Sunday's Peter Hitchens.  All very interesting but what struck me was this snippet:

"That dead end, at present, leads only to Chinese domination, a fate which might well suit the rest of the world, but which North Koreans themselves greatly dread. As the Tibetans and the Uighurs know (in Tibet and Chinese Turkestan), Chinese domination means the end of national culture, probably the population of the national territory with Han Chinese until the Koreans become a minority in their own country. This is the form which modern Chinese imperialism takes, and I am always amazed that people who get hoity-toity about the wicked past of British imperialism are so uninterested in this development."

Now that comment is factually correct but isn't it also applicable to Wales?  Out of 27 Radnorshire communities, 16 have a majority which, according to the 2011 census, does not identify itself as Welsh.  This isn't because the locals don't see themselves as Welsh, far from it,  it is obvious that the vast majority chose a Welsh-only identity,  Like Tibet it is because of a government supported in-migration.  In Powys as a whole 49.8% of the population refused to acknowledge any Welsh identity, even though they live in Wales. The position isn't much better further west with 47% of the population of Ceredigion and 35% in Gwynedd also rejecting any Welsh identity, even though the census allowed multiple identity choices.

It seems to me that there are only three reactions to these figures.  Firstly you can deny that the Welsh have a separate identity; secondly you can say that it's progress and that the disappearance of small nations like the Welsh or the Tibetans is a jolly good thing; or lastly you can demand that Wales should control its own borders, which in reality means independence from both London and Brussels.

Of course there is a fourth choice, which no doubt most of us will take ¯\(°_°)/¯


Jac o' the North, said...

There is little difference between Wales and Tibet, but if that was pointed out to Hitchens he would rant about 'narrow nationalists'.

Where it differs from what the Chinese are doing is that the process of colonising Wales doesn't cost anything in financial incentives. In fact, it's a policy achieved by actually saving money, which could make it unique.

A government - whether in London or Cardiff - simply has to neglect rural parts of Wales confident in the knowledge that there will not be the tell-tale signs found elsewhere - empty houses, falling population, etc., because the vacated properties will be snapped up by English good-lifers, retirees and others.

And of course this wealthy influx then guarantees the complicity and support of a sizeable, and influential, percentage of the remaining Welsh: estate agents, builders, solicitors, landowners, shopkeepers and so many others.

I tell you, the colonisation of Wales is something wondrous to behold. It is achieving by stealth what elsewhere has only been done through invasion, ethnic cleansing, violence, coercion or economic oppression. Being so subtle and ubiquitous is its greatest strength . . . and leads to our weakness.

Anonymous said...

What about freedom from Llandod as well

Anonymous said...

With Powys County Council sacking Gary Price from the Cabinet you're well on the way to having a Llandod free zone.

Leave it all to the officials although God knows where they all come from.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
radnorian said...

The previous comment was deleted .... no cursing.

Anonymous said...

mmm interesting