SD on 9/9/2022 at 17:43
I mentally check out when people start talking about ancestral responsibility. People are responsible for their own crimes, and theirs alone. And as the symbol and figurehead not just of Britain, but its Commonwealth of Nations, most of them former colonial possessions, she did as much as anyone to forge new relationships with those territories to whom we brought democracy and civilisation subjugation and terror.
Aja on 9/9/2022 at 18:06
Here in Canada Indigenous people are jailed at like seven times the rate of the general population and double are living in poverty; hell, some of the reserves don't even have potable water right now. And while I'm not personally responsible, no, I'm the benefactor of all the past laws and treaties that have resulted in Indigenous peoples' current lower standard of living. As for subjugation and terror, I'm sure you've heard of the multiple mass graves that've been uncovered at various residential schools across the country, and by all accounts there's more where they came from.
Azaran on 9/9/2022 at 18:10
Quote Posted by SD
I mentally check out when people start talking about ancestral responsibility. People are responsible for their own crimes
It's an easy way to deflect from confronting the countless people & powers who are currently doing actual harm to society and the planet. The same people who style themselves moral/social crusaders, and scream like banshees over what (Current Scapegoat) posted online, have nothing to say when asked to stand up for real problems, or go after real monsters. They're ready to go to war when some western politician who can't do anything to them makes an offhand comment.
But, e.g., the Taliban stoning women to death?
Inline Image:
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/030/710/dd0.png
Starker on 9/9/2022 at 18:49
It's funny how people want to pretend all the bad things happened in the distant past when there are still people alive who have experienced the bad things, not to speak of their children and grandchildren. Hell, Obama's grandfather was tortured by the Brits: (
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/22/11487098/obama-british-grandfather-kenya)
Nicker on 9/9/2022 at 20:23
It's the difference between blame and responsibility. People alive today may not be to blame for the root causes and events but they are responsible for the persistent effects, especially if they continue to benefit from the inhumanity of their ancestors.
I despise the notion of hereditary monarchy, especially since the founding member of every aristocratic family, since eternity, was almost invariably a murderous thug. But when it comes to QE2, I have a certain affection and compassion for her as a person. (Harvester expressed that well enough I don't need to revisit it.) And while she could have made a personal choice to reject the throne, someone would have sat in it. Elizabeth was a better choice than many.
Her and the new King do indeed serve as a "constant reminder of why the US exists as it does today", setting an example of how people with responsibility (and privilege) should behave and the personal qualities they should reflect; erudition, awareness, good humour, humility, humanity and a sincere desire to provide public service.
QE2 was not perfect and I suppose she could have been more strident in advocating for righting the wrongs of the Empire. But she was severely limited in what she could do about it so let's spread the blame and the responsibility around a bit.
Harvester on 9/9/2022 at 20:58
Quote Posted by Starker
I don't know, I would call having, for example, 20 chefs at your beck and call quite a bit of an indicator that you have privilege.
Seriously, who cares about stuff like that when you’re being straitjacketed in your actions like they are? If you say you would like to trade places with Charles or William because of their wealth I don’t think you’ve thought it through properly what that would entail. I think you’re also overestimating their power to do anything about the injustices you mentioned. Charles has advocated for nature preservation and that was borderline allowed, but as SD said had they become that outspoken about politically charged topics it would’ve become a constitutional crisis.
Starker on 9/9/2022 at 21:22
I suppose I should clarify a bit -- when I say I'm against royalty as a concept, that doesn't mean I have something against her, personally, in particular. But also I have an understanding towards her former subjects whose families and lives were devastated by the empire and who see her and her institution as a symbol for it. And her impartiality is kind of a political stance in and of itself. While she publicly acknowledged the Amritsar massacre, she never apologised for it and basically told the Indians to get over it, as her husband questioned the death toll. As someone who has never received even a shred of an apology for the brutal actions of an occupying power that devastated and tore apart my family, I can somewhat understand how this can seem like a slap in the face to the former colonial subjects.
Also, let's stop for a moment and consider how insane it is that the sole qualification for becoming a king or a queen is that your father or mother was one or that you have the correct bloodline... even if the monarchs today are nothing more than the representative face of their country. Alone the fact that a person like Prince Andrew is eighth in line for the throne and could become king, as unlikely as it is, should give anyone pause.
Starker on 9/9/2022 at 21:39
Quote Posted by Harvester
Seriously, who cares about stuff like that when you're being straitjacketed in your actions like they are? If you say you would like to trade places with Charles or William because of their wealth I don't think you've thought it through properly what that would entail. I think you're also overestimating their power to do anything about the injustices you mentioned. Charles has advocated for nature preservation and that was borderline allowed, but as SD said had they become that outspoken about politically charged topics it would've become a constitutional crisis.
Yes, "the Firm" as it calls itself has tried to carefully cultivate its image and suppress any scandals, but Prince Philip seemed to be able to express himself quite freely: (
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/09/uk/prince-philip-outbursts-legacy-intl-gbr-cmd/index.html)
And while her second son did get in a bit of a trouble for his behaviour eventually, he also got away with it for quite a long time it seems. So maybe not as much of a golden cage as you might think.
SD on 9/9/2022 at 22:14
Quote Posted by Harvester
Charles has advocated for nature preservation and that was borderline allowed, but as SD said had they become that outspoken about politically charged topics it would've become a constitutional crisis.
He was an environmentalist before it was trendy, but in his first speech as king today he's as good as said that he's now going to have to shut up about stuff like that.
I think a lot of people don't understand just how shackled they are. Even the Queen's Speech (which will now be the King's Speech) that opens Parliament is written by the government, and she just reads it.
I don't think there should be a monarchy (although given our recent record as a country, I'm a little petrified of what could replace it) but they can't be blamed for the things Britain does or has done. They're not even allowed to vote.
Cipheron on 9/9/2022 at 22:21
Quote Posted by Harvester
as SD said had they become that outspoken about politically charged topics it would've become a constitutional crisis.
One thing I'm seeing elsewhere is people Queen-bashing and the one they came up with is that she didn't "stop" the Falklands War. I mentioned the constitutional crisis thing and they got angry, and said the Queen didn't need to overthrow the government, just encourage Britons to "rise up" against the government.
This is how nuts people are. People thought "yes that's a sensible thing that should have happened".
So the whole premise is :
1 the Falklands War was excessively bloody,
2 It was Britain's fault
3 that everything would have been better if Britain just let the Argentinians have the islands
Thus, being charitable to the premise, the queen could have spoken out against the war, leading to a better, diplomatic outcome.
1. it wasn't very bloody. There was no fighting or bombing of Argentinian cities or civilians. Almost all deaths were military, and only 3 (English) civilians died in the fighting. I think < 1000 total casualties, almost all of which were military
2. Argentina attacked British territory. Britain had a choice: do you defend places where British citizens live, or not do that? That's not much of a choice, you defend the citizens.
3. Argentina was lead by an extremely bloody dictator who tortured and murdered somewhere between 15000-30000 people in 6 years of rules. A lot of truly horrific stuff going on. Losing the war lead to the collapse of the dictatorship (the dictator resigned 4 days after the war ended). Thus, the war saved MANY more Argentinian lives than the lives lost in the fighting.
It's one of the very few wars where if you weigh up lives lost vs the outcomes, it's quite clear that the FACT that the war happened was overall a good thing. Causing the collapse of the Argentinian Junta (with zero civilians killed) was thus one of the few good things Margaret Thatcher actually accomplished.
Damn people, read some history before deciding anyone should have done this-or-that.