For years I have been hearing that people like me should acknowledge that we are living on somebody else's land. The radical Left has spent decades telling Australians of British ancestry that we are settlers, colonisers and beneficiaries of an historical invasion. At university ceremonies we acknowledge that sovereignty was supposedly never ceded, activists tell us that we are living on stolen land, and sooner or later somebody arrives at the logical conclusion: perhaps we should go back where we came from. All right then. I have decided to take them seriously.
Britain, prepare yourself. One Australian colonist is coming home. There is admittedly a slight historical complication. I was born in Australia. My parents were Australians. Generations have passed since the British populated this continent, and I have never regarded myself as anything other than Australian. But apparently ancestry is destiny when discussing colonial guilt, so I have decided to embrace the logic completely. If I am still a settler after generations in Australia, Britain must still be home.
I am therefore contemplating the great reverse migration. There is something beautifully symmetrical about it. Britain once loaded people onto ships and sent them to Australia. More than two centuries later, I propose to complete the circle by getting on another vessel and heading back. Reverse colonisation!
I could fly, obviously, but that seems ideologically inappropriate. The British Empire reached Australia by sea, so historical justice surely requires that I return by sea. Perhaps I should find a small boat somewhere on the English Channel and approach the ancestral homeland from France. Nothing says decolonisation like an Australian appearing on the beach at Dover announcing that he has finally obeyed the activists.
The conversation with the authorities could be magnificent. They ask my nationality and I answer Australian. They ask the purpose of my visit and I explain, "Decolonisation." They ask how long I intend to remain and I tell them indefinitely because I have gone back to where I came from. If some pedantic immigration officer points out that I actually came from Australia, I can explain that he should stop imposing his colonial conception of geography upon me.
I would patiently explain that progressive academics have spent years assuring me that Australia is not really mine because my ancestors came from Britain. I am merely respecting their analysis. If the British authorities object, they can take the matter up with the humanities departments responsible for my repatriation.
The timing also seems excellent because Britain has developed an impressive support network for people arriving without much in the way of local resources. A recent controversy concerns Vodafone's charities programme supplying SIM cards through organisations including Care4Calais, discussed in another post. The charity says it assists asylum seekers and distributes clothing and other essentials, while critics argue that such assistance forms part of a wider system making irregular migration easier to sustain. Vodafone's position is that its scheme provides connectivity through registered charities and that the charities determine who receives the cards.
This presents me with a dilemma because I have apparently spent my life doing everything backwards. I worked, paid taxes, bought my own clothes, paid telephone bills, arranged accommodation, purchased food, filled in forms, stood in queues and produced identification when requested. Apparently I have lacked imagination.
Perhaps my reverse colonisation should therefore be conducted according to the most theatrical possible interpretation of contemporary migration politics. I arrive with nothing except a small waterproof bag containing a toothbrush, an Australian flag and several academic articles explaining why Britain is responsible for my presence. I will naturally require a slogan, and "DECOLONISATION MEANS TAKING YOUR COLONISTS BACK" should fit nicely on a T-shirt.
I could even establish Australians for Voluntary Reverse Colonisation. Membership would be restricted to Australians who have finally accepted the progressive argument that they are illegitimate occupants of their own country and have resolved to return themselves to Britain. Our first annual conference could be held at Dover, assuming the British authorities can find somewhere to accommodate us.
Naturally, this raises another difficulty. Britain itself has spent years being told that national borders, inherited identity and historical continuity are morally suspect concepts. I might therefore discover that the country to which I have been instructed to return is simultaneously being told that it has no particular right to remain culturally British. This creates an exquisite philosophical problem: I must leave Australia because ancestry matters enormously, but when I arrive in Britain ancestry must not matter at all. Somebody needs to explain the metaphysics.
Perhaps there should be a special immigration category for people trapped by this contradiction. We could call it the Postcolonial Return Visa. Applicants would merely have to demonstrate that they have been told at least fifty times that they live on stolen land. Australian university graduates should qualify automatically.
There is also the question of reparations. If my ancestors were wicked colonisers who deprived Indigenous Australians of their rightful inheritance, surely removing one of their descendants constitutes a measurable contribution towards decolonisation. I would therefore expect activists to sponsor my journey. Indeed, I am surprised no wealthy progressive foundation has established a programme already, because there are grants for almost everything else. Why not a Reverse Colonist Repatriation Fund?
Imagine the publicity photographs: a group of elderly Anglo-Australians standing on the dock with suitcases while activists wave goodbye beneath a banner proclaiming that today the healing begins. The ship disappears over the horizon amid tears, speeches and acknowledgements of country. Three months later Britain sends it back.
This is where satire exposes the underlying contradiction better than another angry argument can. "Go back where you came from" sounds profound only while nobody attempts to apply it consistently. Human history consists largely of populations moving, conquering, intermarrying, assimilating, migrating and moving again. If ancestral presence determines permanent political legitimacy, almost every population on Earth eventually encounters awkward historical questions.
Australians of British descent are Australians, just as people who migrate to another country and genuinely become part of it can acquire a new national identity. A functioning country can recognise historical wrongs without requiring its citizens to regard themselves as temporary occupants awaiting ancestral repatriation. Borders can matter without hatred of foreigners, while historical knowledge does not require inherited guilt extending indefinitely through generations.
Those propositions were once sufficiently ordinary that nobody needed to write essays defending them. But if the ideological demand really is that Australians descended from British settlers should "go back where they came from," I am prepared to consider the offer. I merely want the conditions clarified first.
Will Britain accept responsibility for the returned colonial merchandise? Is shipping included? Will there be accommodation? Can I get one of those SIM cards? And, most importantly, after more than two centuries in Australia, precisely how long must I live in Britain before somebody informs me that I don't belong there either?
Until these matters are resolved, I may have to remain in Australia. Reluctantly, of course, but Britain should remain on notice because the reverse colonisation has been postponed, not cancelled!