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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole monarchy thing is so embarrassing. I met a child recently who has the same first name as one of them including the title. (For example: Queen Elizabeth) At first it felt really weird to address this child this way, and then I thought to myself, “Well it’s no weirder than calling the actual person that”. I mean, Queen of what, exactly?

Why is it embarrassing? Without it the uk will not even exist. It is what holds the country together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole monarchy thing is so embarrassing. I met a child recently who has the same first name as one of them including the title. (For example: Queen Elizabeth) At first it felt really weird to address this child this way, and then I thought to myself, “Well it’s no weirder than calling the actual person that”. I mean, Queen of what, exactly?

Why is it embarrassing? Without it the uk will not even exist. It is what holds the country together.

If having a figurative statehead ‘without any power’ is what holds the country together, then they have bigger problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole monarchy thing is so embarrassing. I met a child recently who has the same first name as one of them including the title. (For example: Queen Elizabeth) At first it felt really weird to address this child this way, and then I thought to myself, “Well it’s no weirder than calling the actual person that”. I mean, Queen of what, exactly?

Why is it embarrassing? Without it the uk will not even exist. It is what holds the country together.

If having a figurative statehead ‘without any power’ is what holds the country together, then they have bigger problems.

But this is the case. Their constitution is not written. What unites them is this tradition. You can say they are in trouble but this has been the case for hundreds of years and they seem to do fine with it.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Accolades for this beautiful Queen are well deserved. What a classy and tireless worker. We could all learn a lesson from her example.

+1

+2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When most of the world across several continents is saying she and all she represented was bad and yes she shares in the blame.
Maybe take your fingers out of your ears and listen.

Huge exaggeration. I have seen one or two minor stories amid the hundreds of stories revering her and her life.

You’re clearly not tapped into the world of Africans, Indians, Caribbeans, and Irish.

Western Europe, the US, and Australia are not the majority of this world.

Irish are fine with queen. Those issues are long gone. Irish Americans may feel different.

This. Irish Americans have long forgotten their Irish roots, so some need to do stupid memes for self-validation.

Oh pleaze.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Actually, artifacts have been returned and compensation paid in some African countries. The countries that want to be free and independent are free to do so. They can become a republic; the royals are not demanding they stay in the Commonwealth.

Most of this was done before Queen Elizabeth's reign and she made changes throughout her reign. She cannot change the past. She forged the monarchy into a new era one without oppression or slavery.

[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.

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.

[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.

Assuming we are still talking about how much the queen is to blame, what her ancestors did is not relevant.
Are you sure that she herself could have returned the jewels? She had that authority? And did she have the authority to make reparations happen?

People really seem to be mixing together what the country as a whole is responsible for, what the government is responsible for, what the historic monarchy was responsible for......and what this single woman did and did not do.

[Anonymous]

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 🙏

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

I don’t really care about royalty or defending the queen.

But if you’re able to criticize her online - you benefit from exploitative labor. Your phone and laptop? Exploitative. The leisure time you have to read and comment? Because someone else is doing the labor you need to survive, like growing your food and making your clothes. Exploitative. Just download the app Sweat & Toil and see how much of the food you eat every day is grown by child slaves. It’s a lot.

That’s why I don’t believe in calling out individuals. We all have our feet in the water, we’re all wet. Call out the systems and recognize you also benefit from that system. How many of us would gladly give up our electronics if it meant a more just world? We all know how the metals are mined, yet we keep buying phones anyway.