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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s en vogue to just spew hatred against white people and white women in particular. Seems like there was great decolonization during her “reign” which we all know was not a reign at all. She was a show pony with very little power. These disingenuous criticisms take away from legitimate complaints.

Why is there always a cohort of white people who claim to be victims these days?

[Anonymous]

Uju Anya should be fired...no one so mentally immature should be allowed to teach others-except as a cautionary tale!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uju Anya should be fired...no one so mentally immature should be allowed to teach others-except as a cautionary tale!!

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s en vogue to just spew hatred against white people and white women in particular. Seems like there was great decolonization during her “reign” which we all know was not a reign at all. She was a show pony with very little power. These disingenuous criticisms take away from legitimate complaints.

Why is there always a cohort of white people who claim to be victims these days?

Just leveling the score, maybe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like she was just in a line of monarchs after the fact, with many situations changing in the last 70 years anyway. She had no actual power, colonized nothing, etc. They are a show family, they don't actually reign, just a lot of pageantry.

Why all the targeted hate towards her?

It is lack of education and understanding of her role. Plus, liberals are competing for performative wholeness. It’s idiotic

Her entire role for 70 years has been as an apolitical, neutral figurehead. To maintain the constitutional monarchy, she must be neutral or the system of government doesn’t work. She has played her role well for the sake of the government. If Argentines have issues with Thatcher, eg, I totally get that. But the powerless, functionless Queen? Makes no sense

And if the Caribbean or Commonwealth nations have a problem with the monarchy, they could literally vote themselves out at ANY time. Membership is 100% voluntary. Why they hang on is on them. And most nations have had independence nearing 100 years. Independent failing states need to grapple with their own corruption and mismanagement. It is easier to blame someone else instead of holding your own government to account

[Anonymous]

*performative wokeness

[Anonymous]

Wasn’t the Queen basically their national treasure along the lines of our Dolly Parton or Betty White?

[Anonymous]

Some of you are really twisting yourselves up over an ‘apolitical sow pony’. If you really think Elizabeth II and her family are apolitical, have no opinion, voice none in the weekly meeting with the British Prime Minister, I have a bridge to sell you that will let you race over traffic from Capitol Hill to Georgetown!

From the previously posted NY Times “ The queen served as head of state in more than a dozen Commonwealth realms, more of which may now follow the example of Barbados, which decided “to fully leave our colonial past behind” and become a republic in 2021. The queen’s death could also aid a fresh campaign for Scottish independence, which she was understood to oppose. Though Commonwealth leaders decided in 2018 to fulfill the queen’s “sincere wish” and recognize Prince Charles as the next head of the Commonwealth…”

[Anonymous]

The monarchy hold billions if not trillions of wealth and jewels, knowingly stolen and pillaged.

They flaunt it proudly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are really twisting yourselves up over an ‘apolitical sow pony’. If you really think Elizabeth II and her family are apolitical, have no opinion, voice none in the weekly meeting with the British Prime Minister, I have a bridge to sell you that will let you race over traffic from Capitol Hill to Georgetown!

From the previously posted NY Times “ The queen served as head of state in more than a dozen Commonwealth realms, more of which may now follow the example of Barbados, which decided “to fully leave our colonial past behind” and become a republic in 2021. The queen’s death could also aid a fresh campaign for Scottish independence, which she was understood to oppose. Though Commonwealth leaders decided in 2018 to fulfill the queen’s “sincere wish” and recognize Prince Charles as the next head of the Commonwealth…”

Oh please. Scotland could vote themselves out. But they didn’t. That’s on them at this point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like she was just in a line of monarchs after the fact, with many situations changing in the last 70 years anyway. She had no actual power, colonized nothing, etc. They are a show family, they don't actually reign, just a lot of pageantry.

Why all the targeted hate towards her?

Jealousy and envy as well as a heaping dose of ignorance and stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like she was just in a line of monarchs after the fact, with many situations changing in the last 70 years anyway. She had no actual power, colonized nothing, etc. They are a show family, they don't actually reign, just a lot of pageantry.

Why all the targeted hate towards her?

It is lack of education and understanding of her role. Plus, liberals are competing for performative wholeness. It’s idiotic

Her entire role for 70 years has been as an apolitical, neutral figurehead. To maintain the constitutional monarchy, she must be neutral or the system of government doesn’t work. She has played her role well for the sake of the government. If Argentines have issues with Thatcher, eg, I totally get that. But the powerless, functionless Queen? Makes no sense

And if the Caribbean or Commonwealth nations have a problem with the monarchy, they could literally vote themselves out at ANY time. Membership is 100% voluntary. Why they hang on is on them. And most nations have had independence nearing 100 years. Independent failing states need to grapple with their own corruption and mismanagement. It is easier to blame someone else instead of holding your own government to account

This is my assessment as well. And our country certainly isn't off the hook. But a modern day queen characterized as a serial killer? Look, I consider myself to be among the "woke liberal" set, and yet I find this posturing nonsensical. Yes, criticize the whole operation, the jewels, the whole monarch system, their wealth paid for by citizens, how dumb they appear, hypocritical, whatever- but serial killer? She did embrace a lot of change in her tenure, personally, and politically. But, she served, apparently, a needed role that obviously a lot of UK citizens care about.

Now let's look at our country and the mess we made, our accountability, our apologies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Queen was literally paid millions a year to represent the UK and quite literally wore jewels stolen from colonies in her crown. She did not apologize for any of these evils. Of course we should judge her legacy based on the British empire. There is no comparison to the average person.

Correct. Her country stole so many jewels and other resources from other countries and the royal family has many. Others sit in their museums. They should all be given back. This is not ancient history. India only got its independence in 1947.

I do not disagree with anything you wrote. But it still doesn't answer the question of how accountable we should hold the late queen.

Did she personally steal or authorizing the stealing of those things? Could she have prevented it?
Did she have the ability to return any of the things the royal family "owned"? (Sincere question on this one. If she personally could have decided to return jewels or other artifacts/treasures to the countries they came from, she should have done it. I'm just not sure she could)
They SHOULD all be given back. Who has the authority to do that? Did the queen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Queen was literally paid millions a year to represent the UK and quite literally wore jewels stolen from colonies in her crown. She did not apologize for any of these evils. Of course we should judge her legacy based on the British empire. There is no comparison to the average person.

Correct. Her country stole so many jewels and other resources from other countries and the royal family has many. Others sit in their museums. They should all be given back. This is not ancient history. India only got its independence in 1947.

Sure, give them back. But, really, at this point, it's just that. Let them all play king and queen, whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like she was just in a line of monarchs after the fact, with many situations changing in the last 70 years anyway. She had no actual power, colonized nothing, etc. They are a show family, they don't actually reign, just a lot of pageantry.

Why all the targeted hate towards her?

Jealousy and envy as well as a heaping dose of ignorance and stupidity.

100% correct.