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 🙏
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?