Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Why is bart being weird about this

Dime took it one step too far.* Celebrating what is likely the end of the British monarchy makes sense for folks of Irish decent, no need to piggyback other grievances in here.


*We've all done it at some point.

To clarify, you’re saying he took it too far by drawing a parallel between the monarchy’s brand of colonialism and Israel’s brand of the same?

Also, the Brits had a pretty big hand in the creation of Israel.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Why is bart being weird about this

Dime took it one step too far.* Celebrating what is likely the end of the British monarchy makes sense for folks of Irish decent, no need to piggyback other grievances in here.


*We've all done it at some point.

To clarify, you’re saying he took it too far by drawing a parallel between the monarchy’s brand of colonialism and Israel’s brand of the same?

No, I'm saying there is a distinction between celebrating the end of Monarchy and wanting to "fuck Israel into the sea". The phrasing "into the sea" has a particular meaning with regard to Jewish and Israeli people and is generally regarded as hate-speech.

I am going to type this slowly. British imperialism of the sort that brought us the modern Irish conflict and the colonization of India is primarily the result of parliamentary and private forces backed by the British military. By the time British imperialism started to hit its stride in the 18th century, the royals had decisively taken the backseat to parliament as far as governing the country and waging war were concerned. The rise of modern imperialism in the UK coincides with the rise of parliamentary democracy. When you attribute all the evils of colonialism to the person of the Queen, you are being stupid.

And Pete you are not Irish, accept it.

bart wrote:I am going to type this slowly. British imperialism of the sort that brought us the modern Irish conflict and the colonization of India is primarily the result of parliamentary and private forces backed by the British military. By the time British imperialism started to hit its stride in the 18th century, the royals had decisively taken the backseat to parliament as far as governing the country and waging war were concerned. The rise of modern imperialism in the UK coincides with the rise of parliamentary democracy. When you attribute all the evils of colonialism to the person of the Queen, you are being stupid.

can't imagine anyone quibbling with that analysis, except that it seems to leverage a distinction at the level of governance to mystify the continuity of material interests of monarchs, the empire over which they previously governed (and later on which they are merely barnacles with pearls) and an administrative state that assumes the role of governance.

and I'd add that we can debate the significance of the royal's imprimatur on these projects, but there's no debate that they did support them, and that they didn't meaningfully disavow them until forced to do so

im super comfortable with leveling a broader class critique that includes the state. but i don't think adults, particularly kings and queens, that publicly act as cheerleaders and material benefit from brutal exploitation and oppression, get a pass in the court of public opinion

bart, i know you're smart. am i crazy? am i missing something?

Malloy wrote:im super comfortable at leveling a broader class critique that includes the state. but i don't think adults, particularly kings and queens, that publicly act as cheerleaders and material benefit from brutal exploitation and oppression, get a pass in the court of public opinion

Which adults living in modern industrialized democracies do not have significant material benefits derived from brutal exploitation and oppression?

Bi_3 wrote:

Malloy wrote:im super comfortable at leveling a broader class critique that includes the state. but i don't think adults, particularly kings and queens, that publicly act as cheerleaders and material benefit from brutal exploitation and oppression, get a pass in the court of public opinion

Which adults living in modern industrialized democracies do not have significant material benefits derived from brutal exploitation and oppression?

none. but that doesn't negate the difference between you and me, on one hand, and the queen of england on the other, and our relations to that world system of domination & exploitation.

the lengths some of you go to mystify dynamics of power is frustrating

It is stupid and lacking in self awareness to on one hand chuckle at the proles who emotionally identify with the Queen in a positive way while simultaneously emotionally indentfifying with the Queen in a negative way. The person who says “I hope she rots in hell for what the brits did to the ______” is the mirror image of the person who says “oh whatever shall we do without her???”

Friends! We can all agree that both monarchy and democracy are usually terrible! Why quibble with the particulars?

who said anything about "proles"? proletarians don't have a monopoly on sentimental attachment to a patina of empire.

also, you're conflating emotional identification with a critique. my critique or others certainly can have emotion attached to them. but their legitimacy is not predicted on it.

the stupidity of that conflation is something i see often. redescrbiing difference and argument as feeling and relation, as a way of leveling all arguments to an equal status. another mystification. there are better and worse ways of understanding the world, and it isn't all just feelings

Malloy wrote:who said anything about "proles"? proletarians don't have a monopoly on sentimental attachment to a patina of empire.

also, you're conflating emotional identification with a critique. my critique or others certainly can have emotion attached to them. but their legitimacy is not predicted on it.

the stupidity of that conflation is something i see often. redescrbiing difference and argument as feeling and relation, as a way of leveling all arguments to an equal status. another mystification. there are better and worse ways of understanding the world, and it isn't all just feelings

Elected and economic leaders have at least an equal record with monarchs in terms of imperialist offenses. Until I see equal vitriol when, say, Gordon Brown dies as I see now, I’m comfortable saying the reaction is not the result of a carefully thought-out world view.

Also the days of me typing longass political posts are long gone so that is the most you’re gonna get from me beyond more occasional snipes.

we are in firm agreement that elected and economic leaders have at least an equal record in administering empire. they became absolutely necessary to project. w/r/t your second point, lets see how things go when tony blair and george w bush eat shit.

last, im with you on long political posts. im outta here too. not my bag

Absolutely not hitching my wagon to Blair, I said Gordon Brown for a reason