“Only 41 per cent of young people today were proud to be British” (In 2004, 80% of the same age group said they were proud to be British)
“48 per cent) of those aged 18 to 27 thought that Britain was a racist country, far more than the proportion who thought it was not”
“Only 11 per cent would fight for Britain — and 41 per cent said there were no circumstances at all in which they would take up arms for their country”
76% agree that immigration is good for the economy and society
“Only 7 per cent would trust the police a lot if they were accused of a crime” (in 2004, it was 44%)
Cuba is most certainly not a settler country, it like Haiti was a slave society ruled by settlers, not a settler society with slavery, then it became a colony of the US; settler colonialism is a demographic land acquisition project, where population proportions become the metric of political development, its success relies on the proportions between demographics that make up it’s caste system, which is why settler colonialism failed in Southern Africa while it endured in Australia and North America and that is the crucial difference between the settler colonialism of the Anglosphere and Latin America, the Caribbean, and other European colonies (where religious confessionalism and late imperialist extraction was more important than Pan-European identification and land theft)
Also Australia is a special case precisely because the demographic proportions were so out of whack, the aboriginal people had nearly been wiped out, and their numbers were too small to trigger the class-collaborationist defense mechanism among settlers living in southern Australia (far from the reservations), so during the post-war period tensions between working class settlers and elites settlers began to boil over as there was no racial release valve to vent the pressure of class struggle, since the 70s however with the arrival of POC immigrants, that settler mechanism has kicked in and class-collaborationism among settlers defines the modern political system
That is a ludicrous strawman and is not an opinion anyone has ever held, the theory is pretty simple, settler colonialism generates a class collaborationist solidarity between capitalist and working class settlers centered on racialized identity politics (that is an historical fact) revolution in settler nations is possible, 1776 and Rhodesia 1965 proves that, but it’s the fact they generate counter-revolutions more often than marxist revolutions that is the theory’s crux, and again (that is an historical fact)
Marxism cannot function without working class solidarity and settler colonialism is specifically designed to negate solidarity thru racialized solidarity among settlers, and it works, which is why settler nations are the most viciously anti-marxist bulwarks on earth
Doesn’t mean Marxism is impossible in settler countries, simply means Marxists have to negate the negation, and to start doing that they have to first acknowledge the negation exists in the first place, basic materialism