Elizabeth II and her successful beneficiation of colonialism project

By: Clyde N.S Ramalaine 

On September 8, the British monarchy bid farewell to its longest-serving queen, Elizabeth II, a moment that coincides with the welcoming of its oldest new monarch Charles III, who, at 73, ascended the throne. I am no monarchist and do not subscribe to hagiolatry. I have hitherto insisted that those who claim and subscribe to the dogma of monarchies please be specific and not generic when they refer to their ‘kings’ and ‘queens’ in frames of a form of universalism.

Tell us it is the British king Charles III that was installed so that those who are not British could be emancipated from any enforced monarchy. Hence I refer to her as Elizabeth the same way I refer to Msizulu the Zulu king.

Elizabeth, at 96, did not abdicate as her uncle did, but like her father, she died on the throne. Amidst an outpouring of a combination of grief and insults expressed by a cross-section of man-created barriers. Barriers of race, religion, gender, and class loom. How and why Elizabeth prevails with such undeniable intensity of consciousness on those who both adore and detest her? I sought to make sense of why Elizabeth II not just thrust herself on our collective conscience but maintained such with unparalleled equality. I identified a few things that may explain her undeniable presence in consciousness, even consciousness that protests and detests her existence.

Firstly, ascending to the throne immediately after WWII presents a unique moment. World WarII was the second installment of a set of testosterone-led world wars that visited upon the then world. The war was in many respects a continuation, after an uneasy 20-year hiatus, of the disputes left unsettled by World War I. These two events define a watershed moment in geopolitical history.

So she came to the throne notwithstanding the historical context of how her father emerged as king. Her installation at the time was almost what that part of the then world needed as an antidote for the testosterone-led foolishness of war, exemplified in Germany’s intentions. Hence her emergence, in a sense, painted a new aesthetic on the canvas of a world perhaps then that longed for a sense of softness, a defocus from military hostility and presence defined by artillery. But as an antithesis to patriarchy, a type of penicillin to a world with a severe headache brought about by very little other than male egoism.

If her rise to power is understood against the backdrop of the then prevailing broken world immanent in effects of war, it would suggest the opposite of what became the norm. Elizabeth could have ascended and died 20 years later and may arguably not have had such influence. She thus rose as a phoenix from the debris of a war-torn world. Thus, her staying in power translates to the potential second factor for her perhaps looming eternity of presence.

Her longevity becomes the determining factor for this consciousness that even her most prominent detractors can hardly deny, regardless of the attempt.

That longevity again must be appreciated for the various dimensions and waves that define epochs of transition and transformation. Again this delineates a slew of factors, among others technological advancement, changes in the world political economy, the entrenchment of capitalism as that which defines economies, and the demand for democracy as the means of government. Also, a recalibration of identity as a patriotism tool, the pursuit of human advancement, and the emergence and reality of institutional structures such as the UN, perhaps an acceptance of our collective inescapability of interconnectedness in which we all depend one on the other.

Elizabeth sojourned these seven decades that essentially saw a world redesigned in virtually every facet and description to a globe. She was present all along, and while other monarchs existed, none had more of a towering presence than the throne she held.

Perhaps the most significant factor that makes Elizabeth so unique is her less spoken but authentic means to understand something about what I will term the beneficiating of colonialism. Beneficiation is a term used in the mining industry or extractive metallurgy. Beneficiation is any process that improves (benefits) the economic value of the ore by removing the gangue minerals, which results in a higher grade product (ore concentrate) and a waste stream (tailings).

There are many different types of beneficiation, with each step furthering the concentration of the original ore. With beneficiating, I shall postulate the meticulously crafted agenda in management of history to advance Britain and its monarchy.

Colonialism, the nightmare, and demon led by Britain’s nation-state and exerted on innocent societies on the diaphragm of the bloodthirsty capitalism, would rape nations, land masses, and communities from not just their material assets and original lives but also their consciousness to keep the executors of this heinous crime accountable. African presidents such as Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta, Rwanda’s Kagame, and Malawi’s Chkwera declare mourning periods between four to ten days in which flags are flying at lower mast levels, suggesting a fulcrum moment in the recrafting of history. Here, we must appreciate this notion of the successful beneficiation of colonialism on the part of the British longest-serving monarch. Somehow Elizabeth could beneficiate colonialism for her own advantage and throne and British interest.

It is a given that serial criminals always hold on to ‘trophy’ items of their victims.

Yet if her woman beauty, motherly figure status, and throne assuaged the colonised, it never could miss the arrogance of her crown that to death sported the infamous stolen gigantic diamond ‘The Star of Africa’ mined in South Africa and illegally in her possession. Many of Africa’s presidents lined up to spend time with Elizabeth, yet none in between her tea and scones sessions asked her why she never saw it fit to return the stolen goods. Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, Jacob Zuma, and Cyril Ramaphosa all met her and smiled for the cameras but never broached the subject of the return of the ‘Star of Africa’ that is nestled in her crown duly beneficiated. Instead of these Africans asking and demanding the return of the stolen goods, they went and kissed her ring, sealing the successful beneficiation process paid for by the blood of Africans.

Then again the ANC since it’s inception was never against colonialism per se it sent delegations to meet the Crown to ask for their share of the spoils.

Ian Khama, former Botswana President and son of Sir Seretse Khama, also a former president of Botswana, was virtually in tears when asked to reflect on Elizabeth. Do not forget that Uganda’s Idi Amin was so smitten with her that he proposed marriage.

With this, Elizabeth continued the successful erasure of colonialism as the enemy. She meticulously and astutely recrafted history in a twisted sense where the victims of colonisation today mourn her passing as if it was their mother. Biko warned us long ago that the most potent weapon in the oppressor’s control is the mind of the oppressed. I hypothesize that Elizabeth II, in the machiavellian sense, extracted from colonialism a better quality of the product that successfully transitions the grave inhumanities of the British past into mere historical conjecture, almost fables since many Africans see today her innocence and humanity instead of their undeniable scars. For this, they are sad at the news of her death.

History does not have blank spaces.

Elizabeth meticulously positioned herself to be embraced by African heads of state who all lined up to meet with her. These African leaders would uncritically prognosticate the false idea of a ‘commonwealth’ of nations when the better questions remain. What is so ‘common,’ and ‘wealth’ for whom?

Thanks to colonialism, Africa defined by its 51 states, share in a common poverty sisterhood. Perhaps the troublesome undeniable reality is that her presence as hero transitions and eclipses her role in the upkeep of colonised minds.

Alas, one must ask, how does the perpetrator end up being admired? How does the benefactor of colonialism earn such tear-jerking admiration? How does she attract such a glow from the victims of the dastard act? How does she go from being the signpost of Africa’s twisted past to becoming the saintly old lady who, on her death, brings tears even to the victims of colonialism?

It’s this observation that makes me struggle. Yes, I lost my parents, so I can identify that Charles, Andrew, Anne, and Edward and their children lost a mother and granny. I, therefore, on that score, do not spit at that. But that’s where it ends. Please do not ask me to go in sackcloth, don’t ask of me to mourn, or do not expect me to shed a tear of a personal or world loss. It would be ahistorical and demeaning to ask me to sing her praises. I cannot do that honestly since my prism remains the impact and reality of colonialism, be it in first or second instalments, often described as colonialism of a special type.

Notwithstanding the celebration of a multi-tribe and nationality making up Britain in 2022. Even though London the city has a first citizen in the mayoral office of Indian descent, Sadiq Khan, and its current Prime Minister Liz Truss recently pipped an Indian Rishi Sunak to her 10 Downing Street venerable position, I cannot smile since decolonising Africa, and African minds remains an assignment that we plausibly may never overcome. I must still justifiably frown on the impact of how  Elizabeth prevails over the victims of colonisation, subduing them into her subjects.

And as she moves on, I dare not decide where her final destination may conclude; I am left to ask why Elizabeth could not give back SA’s diamonds and gold. Why did she need to be the figurehead of 14 nations to her death? Given the winds of change that defined her seventy years of sojourn, why did Elizabeth not denounce colonialism and righteously pay back its spoils? Why did Elizabeth not insist that her British government honour Zimbabwe’s Lancaster agreement? Why did Elizabeth not actualize the death of colonialism?

She could not because it was the actual currency of her monarchial existence from the day she was coronated. And no one else but Elizabeth distilled from it [colonialism] a more refined and better quality product [beneficiation]  that played with the minds of the colonised until they forgot and now feel lost without her. So if a generation before her directly benefitted from the act of colonialism, she became the extraordinaire beneficiation of colonialism. We know that since no African leader today is willing to keep her accountable for the historical fact of colonialism. Is this not why colonialism can repeat itself? Imagine the Jews had to turn out to celebrate the Fuehrer.

Unthinkable, well, not so – we are living this nightmare in 2022, where colonised minds mourn their oppressor king.

Yes, there is a marked difference in why the oppressor and the oppressed mourn. What we shall concede both the colonised and the coloniser weep, but they do not weep over the same things. So as colonialists grieve and mourn their Lillibet, we understand their mourning because they were never colonised.

When we in Africa and elsewhere who suffered the brutality of sadistic colonialism consciously refuse to mourn for Elizabeth, kindly respect our honesty.

We in South Africa suffered this colonialisation in both installments, the latter the 1948 colonialism of a special type [apartheid]. For over seventy years, we had to deal with the arrogance of a British Queen and her throne. Despite being a devout Christian until her death, she never owned up to the sinfulness and savagery of colonialism as led by her nation. How do we grieve over the oppressor’s demise when we are still mourning the exacted robbery, the barbarity, colossal theft, disenfranchisement, and the dehumanising episode of colonisation and its impact on our being?

We grieve because we see so many indelible marks of colonisation with elite black minds still colonised as Uncle Tom’s house negroes enslaved while having to preside over the transformation of our quest for justice.

So long, Lilibet, you leave us all still in a quandary that we in African leadership could aid your beneficiation of colonialism. Your death and internment will see tears of sorrow and convulsions of displeasure bellowed from authentic souls.