In the aftermath of the death of Queen Elizabeth II, there has been an outpouring of grief and respect for the UK’s longest-serving monarch. But some dissenters have a different reaction to her passing.
One is Associate Professor Uju Anya of Carnegie Melon University. As the Queen lay dying she tweeted,
“I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating.”
Twitter deleted the tweet. They should not have. She expressed an opinion, as harsh as it was. She did not promote violence. She did not call for the deaths of any of the other Royals. She did not advocate for potentially fatal spurious science on vaccines or call for the administration of useless drugs.
In short, as hateful as her language was, she was entitled to use it. And I have no idea how society was advantaged by shutting down this expression of Anya’s feelings.
Twitter did let stand a follow-up tweet,
“If anyone expects me to express anything but disdain for the monarch who supervised a government that sponsored the genocide that massacred and displaced half my family and the consequences of which those alive today are still trying to overcome, you can keep wishing upon a star.”
Again she expresses her feelings — in this case, disdain — to which she is, of course, entitled. But her tweets raise a question. Was her anger directed at the right target?
Anya was born in Nigeria to a Nigerian father from the Igbo people and a Trinidadian mother. Her family’s experiences in the post-colonial Nigerian civil war inform her feelings about the ex-Queen.
At this point let me make one thing clear, colonialism and imperialism are sins as unforgivable as slavery. There is no justification for them. They should never have happened. And the countries that perpetrated these crimes deserve their histories to be treated with opprobrium.
One of the worst consequences of European colonialism is that it imposed the European concept of national boundaries on non-European regions. In doing so, the colonizers ignored natural divisions between different cultural, religious, and linguistic groups. This has had a legacy effect most notable in Africa and the Middle East.
When Nigeria achieved its independence in 1960, the country was divided between the Igbo, the Yoruba, and the Hausa Fulani. I do not write this diary to provide a history lesson. I am not qualified enough to speak authoritatively on the subject. However, I use it to illustrate the complexities of post-colonial rule.
During the Nigerian Civil War between Nigeria and the Republic of Biafra (1967-1970), these different ethnic and religious groups fought — as do combatants in every civil war — to protect and expand their influence or to defend their territory. Within Europe and the rest of Africa, various countries threw their support behind the different factions.
For example, the UK, with the USSR and the US — oddly on the same side for once during the Cold War — along with the African countries of Ethiopia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and others, supported Nigeria against the Igbo-majority Biafra. Biafra, in turn, was supported by the still white-controlled African countries of Rhodesia and South Africa, along with Gabon, the Ivory Coast, France, China, et al.
Biafra became a cause célèbre after devastating starvation produced by a Nigerian blockade of the region led to 2,000,000 deaths and raised awareness of the plight of the Igbos. This is the event Anya refers to when she tweeted,
“the genocide that massacred and displaced half my family and the consequences of which those alive today are still trying to overcome.”
This raises the question of Elizabeth II’s culpability, which in Anya’s estimation is absolute.
European colonial history is indeed a story of theft, rape, and genocide. Any attempt to whitewash that fact is dishonest spin. As is the attempt to revise American history to downplay the horrors of slavery and excuse the racism of the Jim Crow era. But was Elizabeth the sine qua non of the Nigerian Civil War?
The answer is no. There is plenty of guilt by association, of course. But the British Monarch, especially by the second half of the 20th century, had no authority or power to make any decisions regarding British foreign or domestic policy — either positive or negative. And Elizabeth remained non-partisan.
At the beginning of her reign in 1952, Britain had already ceded or lost — depending on your point of view — its Empire. And from her ascension to her death, 48 former colonies achieved their independence. The British did pursue a policy of "divide and conquer" and often supported loyalist elements against other factions seeking independence. Notably in Kenya during the Mau Mau uprising (1952-1960) and during the Malayan Emergency (1948-1960). And there is plenty of blame to go around as the British government fought to preserve its economic interests.
However, in August 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill met to discuss the post-WWII world. They agreed to the Atlantic Charter, which stated they would
“respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live, and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.”
Some people — especially those who claim Churchill is a mass murderer responsible for the deaths of 3 million Bengalis in 1943 — will see in this declaration Roosevelt’s influence over the British Prime Minister. Churchill was desperate for the Americans to supply arms and food to an isolated country at war — and was in no position to deny Roosevelt his vision. This may well be true. But however it came about, the UK was committed to the process of decolonization.
Therefore, in 1952 Elizabeth became Queen of a country whose official policy was to allow the independence of its colonies. There is no evidence that she had any interest in compromising that policy. Or that she directed anyone to pursue strategies to hang onto the former British possessions.
I can imagine a circumstance in which a Prime Minister may have told her that the British supported one local faction over another and painted it as “justifiable”. But by law and custom, she had no power to do anything about it — even if she thought it was wrong. When the government decided on a strategy that was the country’s official position — regardless of the Queen’s opinion.
She is not alone among heads of state in having only a ceremonial role. Presidents in Israel, India, and Italy, among many others, on every continent, are figureheads of countries with the executive authority invested in a Head of Government. If the legacy of Britain's colonial power is hung on anything, it would be on the British Parliament and the series of post-war Prime Ministers who made the rules.
I understand how someone can see the British Monarchy as symbolic of Britain’s bloody and cruel history. But to wish a 96-year-old woman, who had no power to do anything about it, an excruciating death, seems pointlessly cruel. And I do not see how it advances Professor Anya’s cause.
Anya should also consider that 55 former British colonies, including Nigeria, are voluntary members of the Commonwealth of Nations — whose head was Elizabeth II. This does not forgive Britain’s past. But these nations are looking to the future. And they see that being part of an association of countries with a shared history, no matter how unforgivable that history, is a boon to their citizens.
Nelson Mandela also provides an example of a man who overcame brutality at the hands of white authorities to free his nation from white oppression. He is revered because, despite serving 27 years in prison for the crime of wanting to live in a free country, he realized that "truth and reconciliation" best served the newly-empowered Black South Africans.
He also enjoyed a warm personal relationship with the Queen, whom he called simply “Elizabeth”. He also bestowed her with a nickname,
“As a token of our affectionate Her Majesty, we conferred on her the name ‘Motlalepula’, because her visit coincided with torrential rains as we had not experienced in a long time.” (The name means “you come with the rain”.)
I do not pretend to know the full depth of Anya’s feelings about her circumstances. But I imagine that were I in her place, I would also be angry. But wishing an old woman an excruciating death seems petty. I hope that Elizabeth’s death brings the Professor some peace. But I suspect that it is, at best, a temporary balm.
And Twitter should allow her to speak.