for, the colonizers once carried out the same pattern everywhere. they would arrive on the shores of a distant land - be it the fringes of scandinavia or the south of africa - and begin the process of enslavement through forced conversion. the forced conversion works at the level of cultural assimilation; to become a christian was to become a roman, regardless of what one was before. and, so the expanse of northern europe became roman, as the expanse of africa became arab.
there was struggle, but in the end it was futile. the futility of the struggle against religion was less a statement of defeat and more a level of resignation. if far enough away from the centres of power, one need not actively practice the religion of the colonizers - one need only not revert to the indigenous belief systems.
but, after many years this was forgotten. we had all became romans; we had all become arabs. we quarrelled amongst ourselves as they did, arguing over specific natures of our brainwashing.
"the lord has but one nature!", cried the first slave.
"nay! it has three!", cried the second as he lunged at the first with his sword.
and, so the romans experienced blowback as a consequence of their use of religion. what was meant to control had become a means of revolt. "we demand freedom to worship as we choose!".
a sad irony that continues.
but, sadder still is that we musn't push too hard to discard the shackles. this old debate. it's because it is at the very centre of capitalist oppression that this mirror is so difficult to raise up, and results in such dramatic backlashes.
we have learned that religious persecution merely strengthens it's resolve. it's difficult to accept that. i'll be happy when the day comes that a speech like this is wildly mocked.