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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much is Queen E to blame for mental health problems in the US?

Do you mean the mental health of the posters who have lost the plot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right because if all these places were never colonized they would have all joined hands across Asia or Africa and lived in harmony. The world happens. Wrongs cannot be made right. Blood money doesn't wash away the blood. There is no going back, only forward.

You have some nerve, I have to say,😡. Goes back to the assumption that people living there were savages who would have killed each other. British went to places that they could loot and benefit from. Simple

And, of course, all the colonizers of Africa were also drivers of the slave trade and then used the trade to justify colonization (because of course any non-European group that participated in the trade must be incapable of self-rule).

The colonizers of Africa, aided and abetted by Africans, were also drivers of the slave trade…
FTFY

Africans SOLD slaves.

Arabs bought them and sold them to the British.

The British bought them to resell them in the Colonies.

Quite a feat to ignore everyone in this chain but the British

[Anonymous]

How is this so hard for people to understand? Some of us are from former colonized nations. The Queen may not have personally undertook that colonization, but she didn't try to make any amends during her reign. A lot of people suffered immensely under the British. The Queen may have personally done good, engaged in charitable works, etc., but the reason she has so much money to do that charity in the first place is because of the type of dealings her family engaged in.

The same issue is here in the States. The reason why are a superpower at all is because we were able build the country on stolen land and free labor. We aggrandize some major slave owning racists, and it's only now in recent history that there's been some level of reckoning at least in public discourse.

I think this just points to peoples' discomfort with their own controversial histories. Is it enough to just own up to it? Or should something else be done to make amends? The UK has to decide itself what ought to be done, but in the US, we aren't even close to making any amends to indigenous people or to the descendants of slaves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is this so hard for people to understand? Some of us are from former colonized nations. The Queen may not have personally undertook that colonization, but she didn't try to make any amends during her reign. A lot of people suffered immensely under the British. The Queen may have personally done good, engaged in charitable works, etc., but the reason she has so much money to do that charity in the first place is because of the type of dealings her family engaged in.

The same issue is here in the States. The reason why are a superpower at all is because we were able build the country on stolen land and free labor. We aggrandize some major slave owning racists, and it's only now in recent history that there's been some level of reckoning at least in public discourse.

I think this just points to peoples' discomfort with their own controversial histories. Is it enough to just own up to it? Or should something else be done to make amends? The UK has to decide itself what ought to be done, but in the US, we aren't even close to making any amends to indigenous people or to the descendants of slaves.

+1 exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is this so hard for people to understand? Some of us are from former colonized nations. The Queen may not have personally undertook that colonization, but she didn't try to make any amends during her reign. A lot of people suffered immensely under the British. The Queen may have personally done good, engaged in charitable works, etc., but the reason she has so much money to do that charity in the first place is because of the type of dealings her family engaged in.

The same issue is here in the States. The reason why are a superpower at all is because we were able build the country on stolen land and free labor. We aggrandize some major slave owning racists, and it's only now in recent history that there's been some level of reckoning at least in public discourse.

I think this just points to peoples' discomfort with their own controversial histories. Is it enough to just own up to it? Or should something else be done to make amends? The UK has to decide itself what ought to be done, but in the US, we aren't even close to making any amends to indigenous people or to the descendants of slaves.

I think you are a fool. Don't care if you are from a colonized nation. I am Irish-American and I know a thing or two about the british. Nonetheless it is wrong to lay any of this at the royal family. Attack the UK all you want but understand that during almost the entire period of colonization the royal family had no power. So go after the UK. But on the death of the queen you are wrong in yourt attack. Wait a couple of month but it should be directed at the british people as a whole. Even then the british people are not the same as they were then. That is why it is best left as a matter of history. Making amends is worthless. Will help no one. You live and move on. If you could go back in time and get the bastards that did things, great. But you can't. You live life from where you are today. Is the UK creating colonies today? No. In fact they spend a lot to help former colonies. Anyone that wants out can get it. You are lost in the past so your future is uncertain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is this so hard for people to understand? Some of us are from former colonized nations. The Queen may not have personally undertook that colonization, but she didn't try to make any amends during her reign. A lot of people suffered immensely under the British. The Queen may have personally done good, engaged in charitable works, etc., but the reason she has so much money to do that charity in the first place is because of the type of dealings her family engaged in.

The same issue is here in the States. The reason why are a superpower at all is because we were able build the country on stolen land and free labor. We aggrandize some major slave owning racists, and it's only now in recent history that there's been some level of reckoning at least in public discourse.

I think this just points to peoples' discomfort with their own controversial histories. Is it enough to just own up to it? Or should something else be done to make amends? The UK has to decide itself what ought to be done, but in the US, we aren't even close to making any amends to indigenous people or to the descendants of slaves.

+1 exactly

Can you name a single dealing of her family? Even in the past?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is this so hard for people to understand? Some of us are from former colonized nations. The Queen may not have personally undertook that colonization, but she didn't try to make any amends during her reign. A lot of people suffered immensely under the British. The Queen may have personally done good, engaged in charitable works, etc., but the reason she has so much money to do that charity in the first place is because of the type of dealings her family engaged in.

The same issue is here in the States. The reason why are a superpower at all is because we were able build the country on stolen land and free labor. We aggrandize some major slave owning racists, and it's only now in recent history that there's been some level of reckoning at least in public discourse.

I think this just points to peoples' discomfort with their own controversial histories. Is it enough to just own up to it? Or should something else be done to make amends? The UK has to decide itself what ought to be done, but in the US, we aren't even close to making any amends to indigenous people or to the descendants of slaves.

No amends should be made in the US. No one alive today has any connection at all to those events. That we live because of those events is not relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a prime example of what is wrong with the world. The royals may not have direct political power, but they do have authority indirectly through their relationships with those in power. They also have the hearts of the people who elect the politicians in office. I don't think anyone would force the Queen do anything she wasn't in favor of. For example, discriminating against staff for clerical roles by the Palace https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal.

Charles, the current King, sure as hell wasn't shy to use his influence when it came to lobbying for his interests:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/prince-charles-black-spider-memos-published-after-10-year-legal-battle

You do not understand the UK. Do you understand that every statement she makes on any subject has to be approved byt he government before she made it? She has no public voice except what the givernment wants her to say. Same will be for Charles. What is it that you would like corrected?

[Anonymous]

I get that she arrived on the scene long after most of the damage had been inflicted, however,
How did she use her power and position to enact restorative justice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get that she arrived on the scene long after most of the damage had been inflicted, however,
How did she use her power and position to enact restorative justice?

1 As PP pointed out she has no power and no voice.

2 What would you have her do? For whom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that she arrived on the scene long after most of the damage had been inflicted, however,
How did she use her power and position to enact restorative justice?

1 As PP pointed out she has no power and no voice.

2 What would you have her do? For whom?

The international community gives literally BILLIONS of dollars to Africa and India every single year. God knows where it all ends up. What exactly else should be done? Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that she arrived on the scene long after most of the damage had been inflicted, however,
How did she use her power and position to enact restorative justice?

1 As PP pointed out she has no power and no voice.

2 What would you have her do? For whom?

Write an article - find a way to smuggle it past her gatekeepers - about what should be returned to other nations, for example. Antiquities come to mind.
Express sorrow and regret for all the people they murdered in the past maybe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“What you would never know from the pictures — which is partly their point — is the violence that lies behind them. In 1948 the colonial governor of Malaya declared a state of emergency to fight communist guerrillas, and British troops used counterinsurgency tactics the Americans would emulate in Vietnam. In 1952 the governor of Kenya imposed a state of emergency to suppress an anticolonial movement known as Mau Mau, under which the British rounded up tens of thousands of Kenyans into detention camps and subjected them to brutal, systematized torture. In Cyprus in 1955 and Aden, Yemen, in 1963, British governors again declared states of emergency to contend with anticolonial attacks; again they tortured civilians. Meanwhile, in Ireland, the Troubles brought the dynamics of emergency to the United Kingdom. In a karmic turn, the Irish Republican Army assassinated the queen’s relative Lord Louis Mountbatten, the last viceroy of India (and the architect of Elizabeth’s marriage to his nephew, Prince Philip), in 1979.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/opinion/queen-empire-decolonization.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Also remember the British manipulated the US to continue the empire and its system of exploitation with the fear of communism. We crush democracy in Iran so BP could continue to get rich on Iranian oil. Iran wanted the money from the oil to develop their country. That would mean BP would not get the money. Same type of thing happened in Nigeria, South Africa, Vietnam, etc

You are both furthering utter nonsense.

The countries on the continent of Africa, for example, are not poor as a result of colonialism:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that she arrived on the scene long after most of the damage had been inflicted, however,
How did she use her power and position to enact restorative justice?

1 As PP pointed out she has no power and no voice.

2 What would you have her do? For whom?

Write an article - find a way to smuggle it past her gatekeepers - about what should be returned to other nations, for example. Antiquities come to mind.
Express sorrow and regret for all the people they murdered in the past maybe?

Then they would remove her. Your anger which is wrong is in any event misdirected. Why should anything be returned? It was obtained legally at the time. When you see antiquities being returned today it is because they were obtained illegally.

UK and US fought two wars. Yet they put that past behind them and moved on to be closest allies. Does the UK want back property that colonists kept or took? Does US want an apology for the killings of its people? World does not work that way. You put it behind you and move on or you not the other side are burdened by the past. Ireland has largely done the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much is Queen E to blame for mental health problems in the US?

Do you mean the mental health of the posters who have lost the plot?

Yes