Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear.

This thread is pure BS.

Let's return the US to the indigenous inhabitants, and everyone else move whereever.

Did people in this thread say that? There's a space between abandoning the US entirely and zero restorative justice.

People keep saying what that would look like and beyond apologizing and returning some stones no one seems to have any other reasonable suggestions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear.

This thread is pure BS.

Let's return the US to the indigenous inhabitants, and everyone else move whereever.

Did people in this thread say that? There's a space between abandoning the US entirely and zero restorative justice.

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear.

This thread is pure BS.

Let's return the US to the indigenous inhabitants, and everyone else move whereever.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

An apology was given to the Indigenous people in Australia years ago. Hasn't made a difference. The issues continue. It's always one more issue. One thing gets changed and then there is something else to be upset about. They have been paid, given housing, free education, land rights to government property, an apology. They now want the flag changed and the name Australia changed. At some point the healing needs to start. I get what happened to them was horrific. We understand. Yet it keeps going. When there is that much hate nothing matters, nothing will change until they are ready.

I get they would have liked their lifestyle to remain however if it wasn't the British to come in 1788 you can't tell me other countries wouldn't have come and conquered. This notion is simply naive.

Anonymous wrote:Let's be clear.

This thread is pure BS.

Let's return the US to the indigenous inhabitants, and everyone else move whereever.

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t read all 16 pages of this thread so maybe it was addressed, but I think it’s the height of hypocrisy to pretend you’re sorry about colonialism while holding a scepter and wearing royal jewels with diamonds that were “gifted” to the British monarch by India and South Africa under highly questionable circumstances. Give back those jewels to their country of origin King Charles!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Britain stole 45 trillion from India. If you’re still harping about how colonization “saved” India, watch this.

https://youtu.be/x_jGPf764d0

There are massacres and genicides going on today between the Hindu and Muslims in India.
The black south Africans are now killing the white farmers to take their land.

The oppressed become the oppressors.
The oppressed become what they hated. They end up exactly like history. They become who they hated.

This is why people say forgive and move on. History will be repeated. People understand the injustice. However they also want to learn and not repeat past mistakes. Unfortunately human nature predicts this violence will continue.

Anonymous wrote:Britain stole 45 trillion from India. If you’re still harping about how colonization “saved” India, watch this.

https://youtu.be/x_jGPf764d0

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To what extent are France and Portugal also being held responsible for colonizing India, in the public opinion? Their monarchies were obviously long gone by the 1950s and 60s when their Indian colonies finally gained independence. Britain and France traded Pondicherry back and forth between them for centuries. I've yet to hear an outcry about the French and Portuguese governments, or any demand for reparations from them, which makes the sudden backlash against British constitutional monarchy sound contrived. Clearly European colonialism flourished despite the absence of monarchies.

Absolutely Indians from that region (Goa) feel the Portuguese were brutal. Doesn't make British colonization "okay" (like, everyone's doing it so who cares?)

You missed the point. The point is that colonialism was also perpetuated by governments without monarchies (such as Portugal in the 20th c), so there's clearly some selective moral grandstanding going on. Portugal enriched itself by keeping Goa into the 60s. The Goan fight for independence was almost 200 years after our own, and people lost their lives for it. Yet you're still going to Portugal for your summer vacays like you DGAF that colonial human rights abuses were perpetuated by the Portuguese government a few decades ago, and probably you really don't care and didn't know. Blaming the monarchy is so convenient because it keeps the focus off our own Neocolonialism. It's not about monarchy per se, it's about power.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Liberals like to ignore Africans and Arabs involved in the slave trade. The prefer to patronize Africans and Arabs as people who couldn't possibly be smart enough to be involved in any type of trade.

This is dumb. Slavery existed for ages. Western slavery based on race is different. Slavery, historically, was based on conquering nations and having ownership of the captured and profitting if it was one's desire. The Romans sold slave, as did the people you mentioned; however, the concept of slavery was very different than the brutalization that occured in the Americas.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Liberals like to ignore Africans and Arabs involved in the slave trade. The prefer to patronize Africans and Arabs as people who couldn't possibly be smart enough to be involved in any type of trade.

This is dumb. Slavery existed for ages. Western slavery based on race is different. Slavery, historically, was based on conquering nations and having ownership of the captured and profitting if it was one's desire. The Romans sold slave, as did the people you mentioned; however, the concept of slavery was very different than the brutalization that occured in the Americas.