Do you guys think it's okay for people to blame Queen for the British Empire's past?

[jonnysensible]

Edgy online opinions are easy. But dare you say it in the real world?

https://twitter.com/chrismarshll/sta...23294716829700

Well dare you? Plenty of opportunity over the next few days, I'd say now is not quite the right time. But up to you...

oop nonce defender logged in, going to austria anytime soon?

[Kronik85]

Did she benefit from the history of her family?

If so, did she apologize and at least starting to give back to the people her family stole from?

They still have their status and power from centuries of plundering the planet - as long as they're fine with it, i'm fine with calling them names.

Not a big fan of public piety, if she is the figure head of an inhumane system, why should i feign a false sense of piety?

You should only speak good about the dead. The queen is dead. Good. One person who's whole prerogative is that they're better than the rest? Good riddance.

I'm going to assume you live in a first world country and therefore have benefited from the plundering of other nations or the exploitation of ethnic groups. And since your willing to put people on blast for that I'll assume you've worked out the exact percentile of your wealth and future earnings that you need to redistribute those your ancestors have wronged by merely existing.

"Land Back" and Sins of the Father arguments are mostly fucking stupid or simply retaliatory rather than an actual fix to anything.

[Draco-Onis]

I'm going to assume you live in a first world country and therefore have benefited from the plundering of other nations or the exploitation of ethnic groups. And since your willing to put people on blast for that I'll assume you've worked out the exact percentile of your wealth and future earnings that you need to redistribute those your ancestors have wronged by merely existing.

"Land Back" and Sins of the Father arguments are mostly fucking stupid or simply retaliatory rather than an actual fix to anything.

That's why we pay taxes the same government that took from those countries can pay them reparation. If it makes you feel better we can pretend it's a war in a middle east that we need to flush trillions down the toilet for.

[Rozz]

That's why we pay taxes the same government that took from those countries can pay them reparation. If it makes you feel better we can pretend it's a war in a middle east that we need to flush trillions down the toilet for.

I would just start by pointing out that comparing a state figure representing the colonial and authoritarian history of a nation, to a civilian who has little to no control over the actions of their government is a leap the size of a canyon.

Plus it's such a backhanded remark. No one benefited from their plunder, but them. A very "you're welcome for colonizing you" type of argument, which is why their neighbors were launching fireworks when the Queen died.

A sins of your father argument doesn't apply when it's talking about your father--not you. Getting defensive as if it condemns the common Englishman is weird.

[ldev]

Yes. Isn't she, like, the queen?

[shimerra]

Edgy online opinions are easy. But dare you say it in the real world?

https://twitter.com/chrismarshll/sta...23294716829700

Well dare you? Plenty of opportunity over the next few days, I'd say now is not quite the right time. But up to you...

People can. Have. And will continue to do so. Not sure why you're defending a man who is known to have had questionable relationships with sex traffickers and minors and used his family's money and power to protect himself. Not sure why you support the police roughing people up for speaking the truth.


What's next are you going to dare me or others to eat regularly so we don't starve and walk by placing one foot in front of the other? Hell if you'll pay for my arrangements I'll burn the PTO as soon as I can. I even work for an airline so I can fly to London for less than most people can fly a 2 hour domestic flight.

Lmk your details and we'll set this up!

[Kronik85]

That's why we pay taxes the same government that took from those countries can pay them reparation. If it makes you feel better we can pretend it's a war in a middle east that we need to flush trillions down the toilet for.

Are you proposing that first world nations should tax their populace to directly donate to the global south as a redress? Do we implement it as a flat tax or is it on a sliding scale based on ethnicity or on income?

- - - Updated - - -

I would just start by pointing out that comparing a state figure representing the colonial and authoritarian history of a nation, to a civilian who has little to no control over the actions of their government is a leap the size of a canyon.

"The Queen" is a private entity...or was. That's the big issue with the English Monarchy. The estates of King Charles do not belong to The State, they belong to the Windsors who in turn lease their properties back to The State and all the profits generated by them back to The State in exchange for the Royal Bursary. The Windsors in the framing of this discussion are private citizens like you and me.

Plus it's such a backhanded remark. No one benefited from their plunder, but them. A very "you're welcome for colonizing you" type of argument, which is why their neighbors were launching fireworks when the Queen died.

Anyone who lives in a first world nation has benefitted from colonialism no matter their ethnic background. You can certainly apply a sliding scale to how much we have all benefitted but even the most disadvantaged members of a first world nation have drawn benefit from the exploitation of the Global South.

A sins of your father argument doesn't apply when it's talking about your father--not you. Getting defensive as if it condemns the common Englishman is weird.

I personally would be quite happy to see the end of the monarchy and the repatriation of all its lands back to the British people. Don't get me wrong, I think the Queen was a genuine asset, I'm actually ok with King Charles providing he's an environmentalist when I have to live with the Brexit Libertarian Wing of the Conservative Party being in power and have hope he might be able to influence them away from their worst excesses but I have no attachment to the monarchy beyond being pragmatic.

[Rozz]

Are you proposing that first world nations should tax their populace to directly donate to the global south as a redress? Do we implement it as a flat tax or is it on a sliding scale based on ethnicity or on income?

- - - Updated - - -



"The Queen" is a private entity...or was. That's the big issue with the English Monarchy. The estates of King Charles do not belong to The State, they belong to the Windsors who in turn lease their properties back to The State and all the profits generated by them back to The State in exchange for the Royal Bursary. The Windsors in the framing of this discussion are private citizens like you and me.



Anyone who lives in a first world nation has benefitted from colonialism no matter their ethnic background. You can certainly apply a sliding scale to how much we have all benefitted but even the most disadvantaged members of a first world nation have drawn benefit from the exploitation of the Global South.



I personally would be quite happy to see the end of the monarchy and the repatriation of all its lands back to the British people. Don't get me wrong, I think the Queen was a genuine asset, I'm actually ok with King Charles providing he's an environmentalist when I have to live with the Brexit Libertarian Wing of the Conservative Party being in power and have hope he might be able to influence them away from their worst excesses but I have no attachment to the monarchy beyond being pragmatic.

The Windsors are still the remnants of a monarchy, regardless of the current power dynamics. It's a symbolic position that holds weight historically like any other national symbol. To that effect, it's open for criticism as a symbol of that nation and to this extent criticism of the English crown as it has interacted with others throughout history. Everything they represent and did doesn't suddenly disappear because of how the English government wants to dance with a relic of their past. And to that effect, it's pointless to compare them to the average person. Your desire to frame them as private citizens in this conversation doesn't reflect how they are perceived in their own country and internationally. As someone said in this thread: You can't distinguish the Queen from the sins of the crown when the crown she wore is laden with pillaged jewels. As long as Monarchs are Monarchs and hold onto their legacy, they have to deal with the facets of said legacy. I don't think anyone rationally blames the Queen for the problems of 100+ years ago. They blame what she represented and some are glad to see more chips at any/all forms of it.

As for the bit about people benefitting from colonialism -- I strongly disagree. I'm not accusing you of this, but I'm just saying I'm not personally open to this line of discussion because in the past it's always been rooted in weird racist nationalistic nonsense. I don't want to derail the thread with this tangent or invite arguments about the merits/faults of "manifest destiny" and "white man's burden". It's exhausting and not helpful to anyone.

[Pannonian]

I'm going to assume you live in a first world country and therefore have benefited from the plundering of other nations or the exploitation of ethnic groups. And since your willing to put people on blast for that I'll assume you've worked out the exact percentile of your wealth and future earnings that you need to redistribute those your ancestors have wronged by merely existing.

"Land Back" and Sins of the Father arguments are mostly fucking stupid or simply retaliatory rather than an actual fix to anything.

Oh my, lets start:

1. My ancestry: Well, i don't know that much about my familiy - not further than the parents of my great great parents. Now they were all peasants from various parts of the habsburg empire - no one had any possessions i do benefit from now - so that doesn't work.

2. As i mentioned - the Habsburg Empire - not a big colonial power - if they ever did steal something from Franz Josefs Land give me a call.

3. And even if - i'm a citizen of Austria, not the habsburg empire- Austria is merely 100 years old - not a lot of colonialism in that period.

4. And even if - I'm not the fucking head of state benefiting personally from plundering half the globe and still living high without so much of a peep on past transgressions.

4,5. For both it is important to understand that there is no break anywhere - the british commonwealth is the direct descendant of the british empire, and as long as they use this heritage for their own legitimacy, it's fair game - If you see yourself as the continuation of your father, its fair to apply the sins of the father to you, especially if the sins of the father didnt stop. If a burglar dies are their children entitled to the ill gotten gains without repercussions? Weird argument

5. We live in the 21. century. Normally, a person claiming that their all powerful invisible friend that no one can talk to or verify has told them they're born to rule the rest of the peasantry ( the english crown still claims divine right) should get professional help, not a crown.

So, no need to further virtue signal your piety in my direction, i'm fine.

[Nymrohd]

As for the bit about people benefitting from colonialism -- I strongly disagree. I'm not accusing you of this, but I'm just saying I'm not personally open to this line of discussion because in the past it's always been rooted in weird racist nationalistic nonsense. I don't want to derail the thread with this tangent or invite arguments about the merits/faults of "manifest destiny" and "white man's burden". It's exhausting and not helpful to anyone.

I'd say the citizens at large are exempt but specific persons other than heads of state can often trace fortunes back to wealth stolen by and granted to them by the state or a direct predecessor of it.
There is a general question to be raised about what should happen to theft of assets by force of arms by modern states or their direct predecessors that has happened within living memory when those affected or their direct descendants are still around and desire to enforce claims and why states would be legitimate owners when private persons who had acquired assets in a similar manner may not be.

[LilSaihah]

Don't see why it would be. Can't really blame her if she's not there unless you're blaming her for something like the Falklands lol.

[PACOX]

People are not blaming just one person, they are criticizing an entire centuries old system that she continued to foster.

I'm not about to be like "oh I'm glad so-so died" but I will openly say I don't give a damn about the monarchy and the reverence you're "supposed" to have for it. The monarchy? It's not good. It has historically and still (albeit to a reduced capacity) been a detriment to many. Pledged loyalty to to royalty because they are royalty is some 13th century peasant bootlicking shit.


And you can't say" well the monarchy no longer really holds power anymore" when it still benefits from the wealth and status of its centuries of exploits. Dissolve it, pay reperations from the liquidation of its assets, the we can talk about admiration of the descendants once they actually end the monarchy - that's real nobility.

I feel like in the discourses people who idolize the monarchy aren't even trying to hear the critics, which is why critics quadruple down on their rhetoric. It's less about 'celebrating' the death of one person but the rejection all all pro-crown attitudes and institutions due to being told to just gleefully accept something they find inexcusable.

[Nymrohd]

Don't see why it would be. Can't really blame her if she's not there unless you're blaming her for something like the Falklands lol.

Oh can the Irish blame her then?

[dribbles]

All sounds so simple, just give the ill gotten treasures gained by the British Monarchy over time back in reparations for the sins of their fathers, but it is not. Who would you give it back to? Take the Koh-i-Noor diamond in the crown jewels as an example, the British position is it is ours acquired legally. India, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran all claim it as theirs. Given possession is 9/10ths of the law why shouldn't the current British monarchy just keep it? What do people propose as a solution, stick it on Ebay?

I can see a case for something like the Elgin Marbles being returned, but in many instances what to do with substantial historic gains perhaps obtained under dubious circumstances, now enjoyed by current generations is unclear.

To the victors go the spoils of war since the beginning of time, not Britons fault today our Monarchal ancestors were rather good at it. Perhaps best to accept now the past is the past and stop blaming the current Monarch for things they played no part in.

[LilSaihah]

Oh can the Irish blame her then?

Only if you blame Thatcher more.

[Draco-Onis]

Are you proposing that first world nations should tax their populace to directly donate to the global south as a redress? Do we implement it as a flat tax or is it on a sliding scale based on ethnicity or on income?

The same new tax you paid for the 8 trillion dollar+ wars in the middle east, 2 trillion dollars welfare check to the rich under Trump, 4.6 trillion dollar bailout to wall street, 4.5-6 trillion dollars in QE. I man I can go on and on and on but I hope you get the point of how dumb this question is however if you really wanted to "pay for it" as conservative suddenly remember when it's not something they like you can stop corporations and the rich from having zero or negative tax rates. Heck it wouldn't be that hard just get rid of the carried interest loophole feel free to defend carried interest.

Each first world nation has similar standards especially the right in the UK who want to give tax cuts to the rich but refuse to tax multi billion dollar oil corporations to help poor people with their energy bills.

- - - Updated - - -

All sounds so simple, just give the ill gotten treasures gained by the British Monarchy over time back in reparations for the sins of their fathers, but it is not. Who would you give it back to? Take the Koh-i-Noor diamond in the crown jewels as an example, the British position is it is ours acquired legally. India, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran all claim it as theirs. Given possession is 9/10ths of the law why shouldn't the current British monarchy just keep it? What do people propose as a solution, stick it on Ebay?

There are NGO and neutral parties that hold on to such assets until ownership is determined, it is also possible to have sharing agreement between multiple countries that has been done before. Any more dumb excuses you want to pull out of your ass for hogging on to stolen loot? because the UK government hasn't even responded to any proposal they are holding on to their stolen goods like the greedy goblins they are.

To the victors go the spoils of war since the beginning of time, not Britons fault today our Monarchal ancestors were rather good at it. Perhaps best to accept now the past is the past and stop blaming the current Monarch for things they played no part in.

Yes they are just holding on to known stolen goods and parading it around proudly as their own. You probably think the Nazis were wrong to give back anything to the Jews.

[enigma77]

People don't look at history objectively. They just want to make people look bad. Colonialism was exploitation but it also made these backwater places into (mostly) modern nations. Africa wouldn't have electricity, medicine or running water if not for colonialism.

As much as colonialism hurt people, it also paved the way for future progress. The colonized countries were destitute hell holes, where people were still living in the stone ages, before the Europeans arrived and taught these people all the things they now take for granted.

So when some of these places point the finger at the British Empire and others, I hope they also recognize that their entire, modern industry and lifestyle is not one of their own making.

[Pannonian]

People don't look at history objectively. They just want to make people look bad. Colonialism was exploitation but it also made these backwater places into (mostly) modern nations. Africa wouldn't have electricity, medicine or running water if not for colonialism.

As much as colonialism hurt people, it also paved the way for future progress. The colonized countries were destitute hell holes, where people were still living in the stone ages, before the Europeans arrived and taught these people all the things they now take for granted.

That's the most distorted and subjective take on colonial history i've heard since the 1950?

[enigma77]

That's the most distorted and subjective take on colonial history i've heard since the 1950?

Well it's the simple truth. The West is the cradle of modern civilization, not any other region in the world. The rest of the world should be grateful that they get to enjoy the modern comfort and technologies provided by us.

And when they want to remind us of colonialism, we'll remind them of that fact they conveniently gloss over.

We can't allow history to be distorted and forged into a sword to be used against us. Every nation has done bad things in the past, but the West's history is one of unrelenting progress and that's what matters.

[Pannonian]

Well it's the simple truth. The West is the cradle of modern civilization, not any other region in the world. The rest of the world should be grateful that they get to enjoy the modern comfort and technologies provided by us.

And when they want to remind us of colonialism, we'll remind them of that fact they conveniently gloss over.

We can't allow history to be distorted and forged into a sword to be used against us. Every nation has done bad things in the past, but the West's history is one of unrelenting progress and that's what matters.

I'm honestly not sure if i should take you seriously... that's such a grotesque take on history ... that... i cannot...

If we really have to word it in one sentence without any nuances i'd go for: At the beginning of the age of exploration europe was the cultural backwater of the world, and the success hinged mostly on a focus of gunpowder and the rich history and resources of and for seafaring.

Yeah... beacon of progress... right... ever heard of China?