Why do the New York Times and much of the American left have such a beef with Britain, and what does this say about the culture wars within the US, where Britain and its legacy tie into the narrative of colonialism and racism which has gripped American politics? The death of HM Elizabeth II has dominated headlines worldwide, nowhere more so than in the United States. There, the Queen’s death has been covered more like a presidential one. Following longstanding interest in the British monarchy – whose international recognition exceeds that of other monarchies – the UK’s star often shines brightest when it comes to old institutions like the monarchy and Oxbridge.

Perhaps it is in this context that we should see the rather tasteless coverage of the Queen’s death in sections of the American leftist media. At the same time as the President ordered all US flags worldwide to fly at half-mast/half-staff, the country’s alleged newspaper of record, the New York Times, ran an essay by Prof. Maya Jasanoff, which argued “the queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged.” Meanwhile, “the Commonwealth had its origins in a racist and paternalistic conception of British rule as a form of tutelage, educating colonies in the mature responsibilities of self-government.” 

After running through Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, and Yemen, we got to Ireland, whose relationship with the UK is wholly different from its former overseas colonies anyway. For starters, what is now the Republic of Ireland was actually part of the UK, while Northern Ireland remains part of it. The IRA hit on the Queen’s relative – Lord Mountbatten – is referred to as “a karmic turn”. This all seems to gloss over the fact that relations between the UK and Ireland have been repaired considerably – not least by the Queen – while around one-fifth of the entire UK population has Irish Catholic blood.

The essay moves on to the fact “xenophobia and racism have been rising, fueled by the toxic politics of Brexit. Picking up on a longstanding investment in the Commonwealth among Euroskeptics (both left and right) as a British-led alternative to European integration, Mr. Johnson’s government (with Liz Truss, now the prime minister, as its foreign secretary) leaned into a vision of “Global Britain” steeped in half-truths and imperial nostalgia.” While being an island nation, global outreach and the Commonwealth were factors in the Brexit vote, more important was democracy and alienation from Brussels. Indeed, Euroscepticism is hardly unique to the UK within Europe either.

Unfortunately, this kind of coverage is not a one-off. As Madeline Grant argued in the Telegraph, another “guest essay describes Liz Truss, with characteristic NYTian hyperbole, as being “in thrall to Empire””. According to Grant, perhaps the New York Times “simply decided that Brexit and Trump are one and the same and now perceive everything through that lens, despite evidence to the contrary.” CNN was also quick off the mark, with Christiane Amanpour talking up Britain’s ‘colonial legacy’ and perhaps the need for reparations, just days after the Queen’s death. Back in 2019 the Washington Post had also claimed Britain clings to imperial nostalgia. And, so it goes on.

The New York Times essay was inappropriately timed but speaks to a wider hostility towards the UK among much of the American leftist media. Given that colonialism and racism are so much part of the narrative now – and given that Britain was the former colonial power in the region – this seems to be motivating the arguments, as well as the linking of Brexit with the rise of Donald Trump. But this ignores a few facts. For starters – like the US and other Western countries – post-war Britain has become an increasingly diverse place. Like France, most immigrants to the UK come from the country’s former colonies. One assumes the British cannot have been all bad. After the Holocaust, Jews weren’t exactly rushing to move to Stuttgart, and yet Indians and Pakistanis were pretty keen – and still are – to go to the UK.

Meanwhile, the left seems to care far less about the Iberian colonial powers which used to rule right on their doorstep which, if truth be told, were far harsher towards colonised peoples. Unlike the end of the French, Portuguese and Spanish empires, the end of the British Empire – much like the end of the Soviet one, notwithstanding what is happening in Ukraine – was relatively bloodless. Incidentally, many white liberals in Australia, Canada and the US seem to ignore the fact their countries are the direct beneficiaries of British colonialism, from language to law to property rights. Moreover, these same white liberals seem to ignore the fact the logical conclusion of their argument about unwinding a history of colonialism would be for them to move to Europe, and leave the Americas and Australasia to their indigenous peoples. 

Of course, they wouldn’t do that! Meanwhile, the only Anglophone superpower capable of imperial reach today is the US. For years, the US has had mixed attitudes towards the UK. This was often an Anglo Protestant/Irish Catholic divide. Yet, given that many Irish Americans and Catholics now lean Republican – and given that time has healed so many wounds between the UK and Ireland – are Irish Americans today really as hostile to Britain? That seems doubtful as other political considerations now dominate. Instead, it seems the UK has become a dividing line in the US culture wars, and the Queen’s death an opportunity for some to stick the boot in. Unlikely to impact the deep-rooted bonds between the American and British people, the attacks by the US leftist media may just be dismissed as clickbait, but might also speak to something toxic going on in the bowels of American society today.

The post Why do CNN and the New York Times dislike the UK? appeared first on Catholic Herald.