Anonymous wrote:Few (if any) historical empires cared about the human rights of the countries / regions they invaded and conquered throughout history. Power and violence are themes throughout. I am not sure there were really any completely peaceful people.

Even in Indegenous groups - they attacked each other's tribes and took each other as slaves, plundered the camps, and did horrible things to people - before colonialism even arrived.

Some of the countries under the Commonwealth were British protectorates. Where Britain stepped in - not to colonize but to aid smaller countries in their defense against other attacking forces.

Roman, Ottoman, Persian, Mongol, Russian, Spanish, Han Empires etc - the British Empire is only one of many that has trampled on the rights of others. However that seems to be how history unfolded globally.

I wonder what countries have never lost to an invasion or attack or been colonized and are still Indigenous in population? Anyone know of any?

This. The entire world is built on the back of another civilization that was conquered. So all the performative outrage these days is kind of annoying after a awhile.

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.

Now please tell us what those Indians did to the original inhabitants their lands.

Genocide I hear you say?

Yes, history is cruel. Which has little to do with the passing of QE.

You mean the Queen, whose literal crown has the KohiNoor diamond in it?

I'm the PP you are quoting. I happen to be Dravidian. Look it up. We *are* the original Indians. Our land was one constantly taken over by invaders - Mongols, Persians, Moghuls, British. Just because it happened with great frequency doesn't mean it's right.

The King should acknowledge the wrongs wrought by his family. The British government should acknowledge the exploitation of the colonized. Do American kids learn these days about how this country was built on the backs of slaves + the genocide of First Nations' people's? Do they learn that Jefferson was a hypocritical slave owning man in addition to being the author of the Declaration of Independence? Why yes they do, at least in Moco.

The queen had the power of speech, which she never used to acknowledge anything.

I will answer those questions about what American kids think. Only just in the last decade or even some are teaching about it. But, my DS just finished college, and his history textbooks taught none of that, except in small sections where it stated that slavery was used to build the South, usually Underground Railway, the Civil War, and such are used to show how "they," in the end, fought for the "right" things.
This is what I study, the conscious and unconscious bias and how generation upon generation was shown that Africans were inferior, not by saying it. However, many textbooks said it, but by including one or two photos of slaves in rags and letting that speak for itself. You don't have to call them "savage" kids will form their own opinions if all they see are people in rags. Orientalism at its best, no? Do you know that Haunted Mansions tours in the South still blame the 13-year-old slave girl for being an evil seductress of her master? Who then cut off her ear and mutilated her as a punishment when Mistress learned of her evilness?
The myth of the British bringing the "civilization" to those unable to do it themselves? I mean, utter indoctrination. There I sat, in graduate history class, and students, most in their 30s, told me, well, we have to keep them from "killing" each other!!! Them? Killing each other?

Even so, how do you prevent, let's say, Syrians from being so uncivilized and killing each other? By showing them what true killing looks like! By bombing to Damascus, killing squads executed Indians who dared want their independence and rebel against the invader.
By calling yourself civilized and the Balkan people the most savage people Europe has ever seen since 1900 who are capable of the atrocities in the 1990s, Europe has not seen since 1912! I kid you not, Americans and British reports on why Yugoslavia was in the war, including those exact words, since 1912! As if the First and the Second World Wars never happened! As if the U.S. did not kill 1000 Vietnamese every week for two decades.

This is what I do, academic research. This is common in the outstanding graduate schools across the United States; some of the best academics are here in the U.S.but; sadly, it is limited to graduate studies; it is not taught even in undergrad courses.

Anonymous wrote:England was built on stolen money; that is not a joke. Drake's gold, right? Sir Francis Drake stole the Spanish gold which made the British fleet; he was told to do so by...Elizabeth I! From then on, they went on stealing and taking in whatever they could. Trillions of dollars in today's terms from India were stolen, and India's textile industry was destroyed so England could have a monopoly of the textile industry for a very long time. Denying after the Frist World War independence to the Middle East that governed itself under the Ottomans and had a fully functional governing apparatus with many Western-educated politicians and military leaders.
As for Elizabeth II, she traveled the world, reinforcing the Commonwealth and strengthening it. Faulkland islands happened while she was the Queen. Sure, you could argue that she had no say in it. She and her family get millions from Canada and probably from more countries. Do you live in a castle and have huge wealth BCS your ancestors pillaged the world? But, not you, you did not pilage the world, just your daddy did.
Do you know why Germans kids learn about the Holocaust? Not because they are to blame for it, but BCS she will be guilty if it happens again.

what is BCS?

Anonymous wrote:Few (if any) historical empires cared about the human rights of the countries / regions they invaded and conquered throughout history. Power and violence are themes throughout. I am not sure there were really any completely peaceful people.

Even in Indegenous groups - they attacked each other's tribes and took each other as slaves, plundered the camps, and did horrible things to people - before colonialism even arrived.

Some of the countries under the Commonwealth were British protectorates. Where Britain stepped in - not to colonize but to aid smaller countries in their defense against other attacking forces.

Roman, Ottoman, Persian, Mongol, Russian, Spanish, Han Empires etc - the British Empire is only one of many that has trampled on the rights of others. However that seems to be how history unfolded globally.

I wonder what countries have never lost to an invasion or attack or been colonized and are still Indigenous in population? Anyone know of any?

Ethiopia?

England was built on stolen money; that is not a joke. Drake's gold, right? Sir Francis Drake stole the Spanish gold which made the British fleet; he was told to do so by...Elizabeth I! From then on, they went on stealing and taking in whatever they could. Trillions of dollars in today's terms from India were stolen, and India's textile industry was destroyed so England could have a monopoly of the textile industry for a very long time. Denying after the Frist World War independence to the Middle East that governed itself under the Ottomans and had a fully functional governing apparatus with many Western-educated politicians and military leaders.
As for Elizabeth II, she traveled the world, reinforcing the Commonwealth and strengthening it. Faulkland islands happened while she was the Queen. Sure, you could argue that she had no say in it. She and her family get millions from Canada and probably from more countries. Do you live in a castle and have huge wealth BCS your ancestors pillaged the world? But, not you, you did not pilage the world, just your daddy did.
Do you know why Germans kids learn about the Holocaust? Not because they are to blame for it, but BCS she will be guilty if it happens again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be very interested to know her personal thoughts on what this thread is arguing about.

The world has changed a lot since she became queen in 1953. She was also only 25ish at the time and had not received much of an advanced education--she was educated at home, never attended university. Due to the war, she didn't really get to have "care free" teen years. I would love to sit down with her and just listen to her own thoughts about colonialism and how or if these thoughts changed over the years and if she believed in reparations, etc.

I think the conversation in this thread has a lot of black and white thinkers. The British (and other powers) were only able to accomplish colonialism by taking advantage of divisions that already existed within those society's power structures. There were domestic winners in the new colonial power structures, not just losers. What is their responsibility in being complicit with a foreign power?

You must also believe Putin is simply taking advantage of divisions too. He and his future generations should be honored.

Hitler, he also took advantage of divisions that already existed in society.

Same with Stalin, Mao..

Wow, you sure have me pegged! . Stalin and Mao were not "colonizers". If you are going to insult me, at least come up with some better examples.

Few (if any) historical empires cared about the human rights of the countries / regions they invaded and conquered throughout history. Power and violence are themes throughout. I am not sure there were really any completely peaceful people.

Even in Indegenous groups - they attacked each other's tribes and took each other as slaves, plundered the camps, and did horrible things to people - before colonialism even arrived.

Some of the countries under the Commonwealth were British protectorates. Where Britain stepped in - not to colonize but to aid smaller countries in their defense against other attacking forces.

Roman, Ottoman, Persian, Mongol, Russian, Spanish, Han Empires etc - the British Empire is only one of many that has trampled on the rights of others. However that seems to be how history unfolded globally.

I wonder what countries have never lost to an invasion or attack or been colonized and are still Indigenous in population? Anyone know of any?

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.

Anonymous wrote:I would be very interested to know her personal thoughts on what this thread is arguing about.

The world has changed a lot since she became queen in 1953. She was also only 25ish at the time and had not received much of an advanced education--she was educated at home, never attended university. Due to the war, she didn't really get to have "care free" teen years. I would love to sit down with her and just listen to her own thoughts about colonialism and how or if these thoughts changed over the years and if she believed in reparations, etc.

I think the conversation in this thread has a lot of black and white thinkers. The British (and other powers) were only able to accomplish colonialism by taking advantage of divisions that already existed within those society's power structures. There were domestic winners in the new colonial power structures, not just losers. What is their responsibility in being complicit with a foreign power?

You must also believe Putin is simply taking advantage of divisions too. He and his future generations should be honored.

Hitler, he also took advantage of divisions that already existed in society.

Same with Stalin, Mao..

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.

I would be very interested to know her personal thoughts on what this thread is arguing about.

The world has changed a lot since she became queen in 1953. She was also only 25ish at the time and had not received much of an advanced education--she was educated at home, never attended university. Due to the war, she didn't really get to have "care free" teen years. I would love to sit down with her and just listen to her own thoughts about colonialism and how or if these thoughts changed over the years and if she believed in reparations, etc.

I think the conversation in this thread has a lot of black and white thinkers. The British (and other powers) were only able to accomplish colonialism by taking advantage of divisions that already existed within those society's power structures. There were domestic winners in the new colonial power structures, not just losers. What is their responsibility in being complicit with a foreign power?

The British Empire was much worse than you realize.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/04/the-british-empire-was-much-worse-than-you-realize-caroline-elkinss-legacy-of-violence

n the twentieth century’s hierarchy of state-sponsored violence, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, and Hirohito’s Japan typically take top spots. The actions of a few European empires have invited harsh scrutiny, too—Belgium’s conduct in Congo, France’s in Algeria, and Portugal’s in Angola and Mozambique. Britain is rarely seen as among the worst offenders, given a reputation for decency that the Harvard historian Caroline Elkins has spent more than two decades trying to undermine. “Legacy of Violence” (Knopf), her astringent new history of the British Empire, brings detailed context to individual stories like Tudor’s. Visiting archives in a dozen countries over four continents, examining hundreds of oral histories, and drawing on the work of social historians and political theorists, Elkins traces the Empire’s arc across centuries and theatres of crisis. As the sole imperial power that remained a liberal democracy throughout the twentieth century, Britain claimed to be distinct from Europe’s colonial powers in its commitment to bringing rule of law, enlightened principles, and social progress to its colonies. Elkins contends that Britain’s use of systematic violence was no better than that of its rivals. The British were simply more skilled at hiding it.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She benefited from it. Period.

And president Biden benefited from our history of slavery.

???? I never actually hear people defend statements like these. He does seem to be a racist, but please tell us EXACTLY how he benefited from slavery, without lame "systemic" arguments. Give us specifics about how "systemic racism" benefited him.

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?

I don’t know much but l do know this: l feel it’s my personal duty to alleviate the suffering of the people who had their life destroyed when we left Afghanistan. Some of the young refugees have not known a life without Americans. Highly educated professional like many people here had to leave everything behind and come with only their clothes on their back— any savings is locked in Afghanistan and very little luggage allowed when evacuating on the few flights still happening. Imagine re-starting your life from absolutely 0 and 3-4 kids to feed. Resettlement agencies don’t do much. They don’t get much assistance at all.

I don’t even think we should have stayed there- it’s a complicated matter.
I only know that the families now living approximately 15-20 minutes from DC need a lot of help, they’re still arriving and many have stopped caring.
If you feel the same call to duty, consider volunteering with https://www.irocenter.org/ or https://www.reactdc.org/.
In short, do what with you wanted QEll: do your part to repair the wrong even if it’s inconvenient to your own life.

I do find it upsetting that it was Afghanistan all the time on TV, then Ukraine and now this royal stuff. The first two crisis are still happening and people have already forgotten 😕