How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Indian Subcontinent was leading the world in it’s GDP prior to British Colonization. More than 25% of the world’s GDP.

When the Brits were through looting, pillaging, enslaving, and genocide-ing it was 2%. They stole, in today’s value, upwards of 45 TRILLION. Money that the subcontinent is only now starting to climb back too.

Please use your Anglophile reasoning to exploit these numbers. I’m sure it makes you feel justified. Warm fuzzies for the Queen all around.

+
Queen had nothing to do with this. Nothing. Nor did an royal. By the time this happened royals held no power. And your numbers just don’t make any sense. No India never had that much economic power.

Perhaps you should crack open a real history book not just the one the Queen sent out to all households under the taxpayers dime.

+100. The queen's ancestors caused the death of 4-10 million Indians. Some would call it a genocide but of course, history is written by the victors so we don't call it that.
She could have changed things by 1) giving all the stolen jewels back, 2) apologizing for all the atrocities 3) reparations.

Do you understand that the British forced Indians to grow crops/produce resources for British mainland use, to further their industrial revolution, while India was dealing with intense famines? Indians were barred from growing food for their own use, in their own country.

She was an old lady with no power and lots of money, and her death makes no difference in my life now at all. I'd appreciate it if the media outlets would stop covering this so much. But I would have appreciated her memory more if she had behaved as a compassionate human being, and at least freaking APOLOGIZED for her forefathers' actions.

Exactly, members of the royal family were in Indian running various parts of that plundering murderous operation. The information is available to you to read if you just look. Or you can continue to read the history sanitized by that family.

It's not ancestors as in ancient history. Mountbatten was her uncle and Philip's relative as well. He was the colonial governor of India until 1947 and responsible for Partition where millions died.

Partition where Indians killed those of different religions. Ummm... I guess the British were keeping that from happening before they left?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Indian Subcontinent was leading the world in it’s GDP prior to British Colonization. More than 25% of the world’s GDP.

When the Brits were through looting, pillaging, enslaving, and genocide-ing it was 2%. They stole, in today’s value, upwards of 45 TRILLION. Money that the subcontinent is only now starting to climb back too.

Please use your Anglophile reasoning to exploit these numbers. I’m sure it makes you feel justified. Warm fuzzies for the Queen all around.

+
Queen had nothing to do with this. Nothing. Nor did an royal. By the time this happened royals held no power. And your numbers just don’t make any sense. No India never had that much economic power.

Perhaps you should crack open a real history book not just the one the Queen sent out to all households under the taxpayers dime.

+100. The queen's ancestors caused the death of 4-10 million Indians. Some would call it a genocide but of course, history is written by the victors so we don't call it that.
She could have changed things by 1) giving all the stolen jewels back, 2) apologizing for all the atrocities 3) reparations.

Do you understand that the British forced Indians to grow crops/produce resources for British mainland use, to further their industrial revolution, while India was dealing with intense famines? Indians were barred from growing food for their own use, in their own country.

She was an old lady with no power and lots of money, and her death makes no difference in my life now at all. I'd appreciate it if the media outlets would stop covering this so much. But I would have appreciated her memory more if she had behaved as a compassionate human being, and at least freaking APOLOGIZED for her forefathers' actions.

Exactly, members of the royal family were in Indian running various parts of that plundering murderous operation. The information is available to you to read if you just look. Or you can continue to read the history sanitized by that family.

It's not ancestors as in ancient history. Mountbatten was her uncle and Philip's relative as well. He was the colonial governor of India until 1947 and responsible for Partition where millions died.

Partition where Indians killed those of different religions. Ummm... I guess the British were keeping that from happening before they left?

That was pre-meditated and stoked by their indiscriminate slicing of entire villages and ancestral lands to create two separate countries, one based on religion, that they knew would be perfect to keep the region unstable.

There’s a reason nearly all middle eastern countries are of one religion. Neighbors that aren’t the same, tend not to survive or remain in constant states of war.

There’s a lot of nuance that led to the atrocities of Partition and people from both countries acknowledge that it was bloody and awful. This was recent history. My uncle was burned alive in a train trying to get from one side to the next.

Between the atrocities at the northern border and the Hindu Genocide in Bangladesh from East Pakistan, the South Asians are the ones that suffered this. And she was witness to the rape and murder. The explosion of emotions after being colonized for so long. The throne on which she sat and watched is tainted with blood from her family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do some research on what went on in several African nations like Kenya during the Queen’s rule.

I’m so glad she is dead and hope the monarchy will fall!

Queen never not for 1 day ruled Kenya.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Indian Subcontinent was leading the world in it’s GDP prior to British Colonization. More than 25% of the world’s GDP.

When the Brits were through looting, pillaging, enslaving, and genocide-ing it was 2%. They stole, in today’s value, upwards of 45 TRILLION. Money that the subcontinent is only now starting to climb back too.

Please use your Anglophile reasoning to exploit these numbers. I’m sure it makes you feel justified. Warm fuzzies for the Queen all around.

Queen had nothing to do with this. Nothing. Nor did an royal. By the time this happened royals held no power. And your numbers just don’t make any sense. No India never had that much economic power.

Perhaps you should crack open a real history book not just the one the Queen sent out to all households under the taxpayers dime.

You gave no clue? George II was the last king that had real power. Even his was less than George I. What power have the royals had for the last 250 years.

No power for 250 years? Do you enjoy having your head stuck in sand?
You are completely ignorant.

Go back to learning your history from Tucker Carlson and eating sand.

Ok -- one last time -- Your issue is with the government -- Parliment -- not a king or queen. They do not rule and have not for hundreds of years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Americans are engaging in over the top shows of mourning and sadness about England’s queen, not those otber countries.

I hesitate to waste energy posting because Jeff deleted many posts about this topic because of some 48 hour rule which prohibits any negative comments after a death (not clear if this rule applies to the death of terrorists and criminals?).

This. It’s funny how people get offended when you mention the horrible things that family has done over the years.
Or demand that you show proof. As if they can’t read / research. They just choose to stay uninformed. Those of us who have suffered at their hands know - but of course it will be denied and dismissed.

Either the Bengal Famine or Easter Sunday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anybody answer some of the legit questions on this thread.

I'm interested in what the queen actually had the authority to do differently, substantively.

Could she have ordered the jewels and other artifacts to go back to the country where they came from?
What could she have done to end the colonization?

Other than the platform that she had to speak out against certain things (which is legit), how could she have directly affected change?

The jewels do not belong to her. Neither do most of what they have. Queen had no real power. George I was the last to lead troops in battle. George III being a bit nuts lost a lot of the power. Victoria lost the rest as she was too young and then closed herself off to the world after her husband died. After that no real power. By tradition and what they consider their constitution which is not written, she could take no political position without the ok of the government. She could not give a speech and say should we give this stuff back without the ok of the government. She had no platform. Let’s say she wanted to go to India and say sorry. She could not without the ok of the government.

Colonization? There has been none new since wwI. The country with her as queen granted independence to all that wanted it. What are you talking about when you say colonization?

What was she? A symbol. We have a written constitution displayed. Our military and gov workers swear to defend. They don’t have that. They have the king. The king or queen is the glue that holds their system together.

None new? Is that your word salad way of spinning it to seem like it’s been all good since WWI?

I’m 43 years old and the first in my family, after many generations, to be born as not a colonized subject. Sins of the father are not magically erased when your still promoting the legacy as something worthy and living off the spoils.

Is that why you moved to the States?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Indian Subcontinent was leading the world in it’s GDP prior to British Colonization. More than 25% of the world’s GDP.

When the Brits were through looting, pillaging, enslaving, and genocide-ing it was 2%. They stole, in today’s value, upwards of 45 TRILLION. Money that the subcontinent is only now starting to climb back too.

Please use your Anglophile reasoning to exploit these numbers. I’m sure it makes you feel justified. Warm fuzzies for the Queen all around.

+
Queen had nothing to do with this. Nothing. Nor did an royal. By the time this happened royals held no power. And your numbers just don’t make any sense. No India never had that much economic power.

Perhaps you should crack open a real history book not just the one the Queen sent out to all households under the taxpayers dime.

+100. The queen's ancestors caused the death of 4-10 million Indians. Some would call it a genocide but of course, history is written by the victors so we don't call it that.
She could have changed things by 1) giving all the stolen jewels back, 2) apologizing for all the atrocities 3) reparations.

Do you understand that the British forced Indians to grow crops/produce resources for British mainland use, to further their industrial revolution, while India was dealing with intense famines? Indians were barred from growing food for their own use, in their own country.

She was an old lady with no power and lots of money, and her death makes no difference in my life now at all. I'd appreciate it if the media outlets would stop covering this so much. But I would have appreciated her memory more if she had behaved as a compassionate human being, and at least freaking APOLOGIZED for her forefathers' actions.

Have you apologized to the Indians your family subjugated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Indian Subcontinent was leading the world in it’s GDP prior to British Colonization. More than 25% of the world’s GDP.

When the Brits were through looting, pillaging, enslaving, and genocide-ing it was 2%. They stole, in today’s value, upwards of 45 TRILLION. Money that the subcontinent is only now starting to climb back too.

Please use your Anglophile reasoning to exploit these numbers. I’m sure it makes you feel justified. Warm fuzzies for the Queen all around.

+
Queen had nothing to do with this. Nothing. Nor did an royal. By the time this happened royals held no power. And your numbers just don’t make any sense. No India never had that much economic power.

Perhaps you should crack open a real history book not just the one the Queen sent out to all households under the taxpayers dime.

+100. The queen's ancestors caused the death of 4-10 million Indians. Some would call it a genocide but of course, history is written by the victors so we don't call it that.
She could have changed things by 1) giving all the stolen jewels back, 2) apologizing for all the atrocities 3) reparations.

Do you understand that the British forced Indians to grow crops/produce resources for British mainland use, to further their industrial revolution, while India was dealing with intense famines? Indians were barred from growing food for their own use, in their own country.

She was an old lady with no power and lots of money, and her death makes no difference in my life now at all. I'd appreciate it if the media outlets would stop covering this so much. But I would have appreciated her memory more if she had behaved as a compassionate human being, and at least freaking APOLOGIZED for her forefathers' actions.

Exactly, members of the royal family were in Indian running various parts of that plundering murderous operation. The information is available to you to read if you just look. Or you can continue to read the history sanitized by that family.

It's not ancestors as in ancient history. Mountbatten was her uncle and Philip's relative as well. He was the colonial governor of India until 1947 and responsible for Partition where millions died.

Partition where Indians killed those of different religions. Ummm... I guess the British were keeping that from happening before they left?

You can certainly argue this, the British as peacemakers (and train builders!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because she and the royal family continue to benefit immensely from colonization. Not only is England still filled with the spoils and treasures of those they colonized, there has been no acknowledgment of the damage done to those colonized. There's been no reckoning.

I think they are supported by the British public, who pays them. Does the British owe the apologies for decisions in the past?

And what country does not have dirty baggage somewhere in it's past?

For someone who spent most of today setting up an Afghan family of five in a one bedroom apartment, I can say a lot about the dirty baggage of the Americans.

Thank you for doing this! I also volunteer this way through a local organization 🙏

The dirty baggage of the Americans is less than a year old and they want us to focus on what happened centuries ago...wonder why?

The dirty baggage of the US on Afghanistan dates from post World War I.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Indian Subcontinent was leading the world in it’s GDP prior to British Colonization. More than 25% of the world’s GDP.

When the Brits were through looting, pillaging, enslaving, and genocide-ing it was 2%. They stole, in today’s value, upwards of 45 TRILLION. Money that the subcontinent is only now starting to climb back too.

Please use your Anglophile reasoning to exploit these numbers. I’m sure it makes you feel justified. Warm fuzzies for the Queen all around.

+
Queen had nothing to do with this. Nothing. Nor did an royal. By the time this happened royals held no power. And your numbers just don’t make any sense. No India never had that much economic power.

Perhaps you should crack open a real history book not just the one the Queen sent out to all households under the taxpayers dime.

+100. The queen's ancestors caused the death of 4-10 million Indians. Some would call it a genocide but of course, history is written by the victors so we don't call it that.
She could have changed things by 1) giving all the stolen jewels back, 2) apologizing for all the atrocities 3) reparations.

Do you understand that the British forced Indians to grow crops/produce resources for British mainland use, to further their industrial revolution, while India was dealing with intense famines? Indians were barred from growing food for their own use, in their own country.

She was an old lady with no power and lots of money, and her death makes no difference in my life now at all. I'd appreciate it if the media outlets would stop covering this so much. But I would have appreciated her memory more if she had behaved as a compassionate human being, and at least freaking APOLOGIZED for her forefathers' actions.

Exactly, members of the royal family were in Indian running various parts of that plundering murderous operation. The information is available to you to read if you just look. Or you can continue to read the history sanitized by that family.

It's not ancestors as in ancient history. Mountbatten was her uncle and Philip's relative as well. He was the colonial governor of India until 1947 and responsible for Partition where millions died.

Partition where Indians killed those of different religions. Ummm... I guess the British were keeping that from happening before they left?

That was pre-meditated and stoked by their indiscriminate slicing of entire villages and ancestral lands to create two separate countries, one based on religion, that they knew would be perfect to keep the region unstable.

There’s a reason nearly all middle eastern countries are of one religion. Neighbors that aren’t the same, tend not to survive or remain in constant states of war.

There’s a lot of nuance that led to the atrocities of Partition and people from both countries acknowledge that it was bloody and awful. This was recent history. My uncle was burned alive in a train trying to get from one side to the next.

Between the atrocities at the northern border and the Hindu Genocide in Bangladesh from East Pakistan, the South Asians are the ones that suffered this. And she was witness to the rape and murder. The explosion of emotions after being colonized for so long. The throne on which she sat and watched is tainted with blood from her family.

+1. Well said. The British used divide and conquer to their advantage but racists today rewrite history and call them peacemakers

[Anonymous]

It's misplaced anger. Instead of seeing the Queen as a person, they see her as all of UK past and embodiment of govt. She was not. She was a figurehead. She had no ability to single handed it turn history around. And let's be real, to critique her role is to also balance that by critiquing every single would leader. No one person can represent everything a nation has ever done. Have we apologized to all native Americans? On the Middle East wars? On Slavery? I mean people who are mad at her are just fools who cannot think logically. Fools. She was one person - like her or not - she was the head of a government defined by reigning over as many countries as possible ie monarchy but honestly even a democratic society like US would take over another country willingly if it served our best interests ie Kuwait. She was the Queen - of course she's not going to banish the monarchy!!

[Anonymous]

The anger is at the position largely - not necessarily the person. It is legitimate to object to the glorification of the british crown which is what alot of the media coverage and social media posts are doing.

Elizabeth the private person is largely unknown. People are not picking on her "personally" they are objecting to the undiluted praise of a role that is very problematic historically

People have the right to be uncomfortable with that for many reasons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Indian Subcontinent was leading the world in it’s GDP prior to British Colonization. More than 25% of the world’s GDP.

When the Brits were through looting, pillaging, enslaving, and genocide-ing it was 2%. They stole, in today’s value, upwards of 45 TRILLION. Money that the subcontinent is only now starting to climb back too.

Please use your Anglophile reasoning to exploit these numbers. I’m sure it makes you feel justified. Warm fuzzies for the Queen all around.

+
Queen had nothing to do with this. Nothing. Nor did an royal. By the time this happened royals held no power. And your numbers just don’t make any sense. No India never had that much economic power.

Perhaps you should crack open a real history book not just the one the Queen sent out to all households under the taxpayers dime.

+100. The queen's ancestors caused the death of 4-10 million Indians. Some would call it a genocide but of course, history is written by the victors so we don't call it that.
She could have changed things by 1) giving all the stolen jewels back, 2) apologizing for all the atrocities 3) reparations.

Do you understand that the British forced Indians to grow crops/produce resources for British mainland use, to further their industrial revolution, while India was dealing with intense famines? Indians were barred from growing food for their own use, in their own country.

She was an old lady with no power and lots of money, and her death makes no difference in my life now at all. I'd appreciate it if the media outlets would stop covering this so much. But I would have appreciated her memory more if she had behaved as a compassionate human being, and at least freaking APOLOGIZED for her forefathers' actions.

Exactly, members of the royal family were in Indian running various parts of that plundering murderous operation. The information is available to you to read if you just look. Or you can continue to read the history sanitized by that family.

It's not ancestors as in ancient history. Mountbatten was her uncle and Philip's relative as well. He was the colonial governor of India until 1947 and responsible for Partition where millions died.

Partition where Indians killed those of different religions. Ummm... I guess the British were keeping that from happening before they left?

That was pre-meditated and stoked by their indiscriminate slicing of entire villages and ancestral lands to create two separate countries, one based on religion, that they knew would be perfect to keep the region unstable.

There’s a reason nearly all middle eastern countries are of one religion. Neighbors that aren’t the same, tend not to survive or remain in constant states of war.

There’s a lot of nuance that led to the atrocities of Partition and people from both countries acknowledge that it was bloody and awful. This was recent history. My uncle was burned alive in a train trying to get from one side to the next.

Between the atrocities at the northern border and the Hindu Genocide in Bangladesh from East Pakistan, the South Asians are the ones that suffered this. And she was witness to the rape and murder. The explosion of emotions after being colonized for so long. The throne on which she sat and watched is tainted with blood from her family.

Sure... the British wanted the Indians to kill each other.

First you argue that they shouldn't have sliced up the country because it caused murders. Then you argue that they Middle East is almost all one religion because otherwise there are constant states of war. So, what SHOULD the British have done at independence? Sliced it up or left it together? And if slicing it up by religion, there was no avoiding people having to move because the populations were mixed.

Do Hindu nationalists and Muslim nationalists have no responsibility for the rapes and murders that they committed? I am sorry for your uncle, but it was his fellow citizens who murdered him, not the British.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Indian Subcontinent was leading the world in it’s GDP prior to British Colonization. More than 25% of the world’s GDP.

When the Brits were through looting, pillaging, enslaving, and genocide-ing it was 2%. They stole, in today’s value, upwards of 45 TRILLION. Money that the subcontinent is only now starting to climb back too.

Please use your Anglophile reasoning to exploit these numbers. I’m sure it makes you feel justified. Warm fuzzies for the Queen all around.

+
Queen had nothing to do with this. Nothing. Nor did an royal. By the time this happened royals held no power. And your numbers just don’t make any sense. No India never had that much economic power.

Perhaps you should crack open a real history book not just the one the Queen sent out to all households under the taxpayers dime.

+100. The queen's ancestors caused the death of 4-10 million Indians. Some would call it a genocide but of course, history is written by the victors so we don't call it that.
She could have changed things by 1) giving all the stolen jewels back, 2) apologizing for all the atrocities 3) reparations.

Do you understand that the British forced Indians to grow crops/produce resources for British mainland use, to further their industrial revolution, while India was dealing with intense famines? Indians were barred from growing food for their own use, in their own country.

She was an old lady with no power and lots of money, and her death makes no difference in my life now at all. I'd appreciate it if the media outlets would stop covering this so much. But I would have appreciated her memory more if she had behaved as a compassionate human being, and at least freaking APOLOGIZED for her forefathers' actions.

Exactly, members of the royal family were in Indian running various parts of that plundering murderous operation. The information is available to you to read if you just look. Or you can continue to read the history sanitized by that family.

It's not ancestors as in ancient history. Mountbatten was her uncle and Philip's relative as well. He was the colonial governor of India until 1947 and responsible for Partition where millions died.

Partition where Indians killed those of different religions. Ummm... I guess the British were keeping that from happening before they left?

That was pre-meditated and stoked by their indiscriminate slicing of entire villages and ancestral lands to create two separate countries, one based on religion, that they knew would be perfect to keep the region unstable.

There’s a reason nearly all middle eastern countries are of one religion. Neighbors that aren’t the same, tend not to survive or remain in constant states of war.

There’s a lot of nuance that led to the atrocities of Partition and people from both countries acknowledge that it was bloody and awful. This was recent history. My uncle was burned alive in a train trying to get from one side to the next.

Between the atrocities at the northern border and the Hindu Genocide in Bangladesh from East Pakistan, the South Asians are the ones that suffered this. And she was witness to the rape and murder. The explosion of emotions after being colonized for so long. The throne on which she sat and watched is tainted with blood from her family.

Sure... the British wanted the Indians to kill each other.

First you argue that they shouldn't have sliced up the country because it caused murders. Then you argue that they Middle East is almost all one religion because otherwise there are constant states of war. So, what SHOULD the British have done at independence? Sliced it up or left it together? And if slicing it up by religion, there was no avoiding people having to move because the populations were mixed.

Do Hindu nationalists and Muslim nationalists have no responsibility for the rapes and murders that they committed? I am sorry for your uncle, but it was his fellow citizens who murdered him, not the British.

NP. Wow. You really have no idea how a colonizing power works to destabilize a region in order to maintain control, do you? Have you never heard, 'divide and conquer'? It's a tried and true approach to obtaining and maintaining power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The anger is at the position largely - not necessarily the person. It is legitimate to object to the glorification of the british crown which is what alot of the media coverage and social media posts are doing.

Elizabeth the private person is largely unknown. People are not picking on her "personally" they are objecting to the undiluted praise of a role that is very problematic historically

People have the right to be uncomfortable with that for many reasons

The role of the US Presidency is equally problematic and — recently — has been far worse than the UK. You better start cancelling every US President since George Washington whose land came from Lord Fairfax, a Brit