Red Mosquito

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

duly noted

Malloy wrote:

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.

Of course there is a difference. What I find difficult about that type of critique is the underlying assertion that the subject failed morally, that the critic themselves would have done things differently, in a way that produced a subjectively better outcome if put into that situation. I don’t know much about Elizabeth, don’t care to, but the personification of what today we judge as historical sins by a nation and the idea that these sins are inherited and must be atoned for by those who come after seems backwards to me.

Bi_3 wrote:What I find difficult about that type of critique is the underlying assertion that the subject failed morally, that the critic themselves would have done things differently, in a way that produced a subjectively better outcome if put into that situation. I don’t know much about Elizabeth, don’t care to, but the personification of what today we judge as historical sins by a nation and the idea that these sins are inherited and must be atoned for by those who come after seems backwards to me.

The Mau Mau concentration camps were during Elizabeth’s reign. That is not an inherited sin. Which of the following statements do you most agree with?

1. “If I were king or queen of England while such a thing was happening, I would definitely not have used that position to advocate for an end to practices that revoked land rights among colonized peoples in order to redistribute that land to English settlers, and ultimately put hundreds of thousands in camps where disease and torture were common.”

2. “The British crown is a crucial cultural touchstone that simultaneously cannot be criticized for its silence during national moral failures and also deserves respect for existing during times of great achievement.”

3. “It doesn’t matter what the queen does or doesn’t do, because British royalty is basically just a tourism industry and point of pride at this point. Continuing to pretend it actually matters beyond that is simply necessary, in order to maintain the tourism and cultural pride benefits.”

Kinda pulling for Charlotte here. She has a face that says "Enough chatter. I will reestablish the empire."

Norway is also a monarchy. If Norway politically has done something wrong (let's say the bombing of Libya with NATO can be considered so), it is certainly not the King's fault. However, it would not be right to say that he is king because of the tourism it brings. He is in fact far more popular than any of our politicians, and if anyone doesn't like him, it is usually the fairly small number of far right people, because he often talks highly of a multicultural society. However, there are some republicans, usually liberals or the far left, yet they have nothing but positive things to say about the king as a person.

Like with Prince William, our crown prince is quite popular as well, and then there are one or two other family members that are less popular.

BurtReynolds wrote:Kinda pulling for Charlotte here. She has a face that says "Enough chatter. I will reestablish the empire."

Didnt Prince Harry abdicate his title?

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Kinda pulling for Charlotte here. She has a face that says "Enough chatter. I will reestablish the empire."

Didnt Prince Harry abdicate his title?

No.

I think he put it on hold or something.

McParadigm wrote: The Mau Mau concentration camps were during Elizabeth’s reign.

I had to look it up, she was 26 when the rebellion in Kenya started and had been Queen less than a year. I'll grant that you are technically correct.

Oh only technically though

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote: The Mau Mau concentration camps were during Elizabeth’s reign.

I had to look it up, she was 26 when the rebellion in Kenya started and had been Queen less than a year. I'll grant that you are technically correct.

Ignoring the part about “well she was only 27 to 28 years old when 25,000 children were starving to death in camps,“ the point is that a British royal family so politically neutered as to be incapable of speaking against the tide of internment camps (as well as one simply unwilling to do so) is not an entity of consequence at all…except to the British.

I actually agree that the royal family is really that powerless. I agree that she wasn’t in a position to do anything about it. I am sympathetic to people who argue otherwise, but I just don’t think the royal family can hold or share such a divisive opinion. But that’s the point. If the Mau Mau camps don’t demonstrate her culpability, then they demonstrate her insignificance. It is a demonstration that, in many ways, that family are the subjects now….more beholden to public opinion than almost anyone else on the island.

So I am saying that I agree with you, but that the end point of that argument is also that American fixation with the British royal family is purely about cultural and celebrity fetishism. An argument that they don’t have enough influence to deserve criticism is also an argument that they don’t deserve special deference, either…not from the international community.

Lyndon Johnson didn’t visit the queen, and the sky didn’t fall in. Relations did not die. This is me advocating for more of that, and less jackoffy, adoring American coverage provided to one foreign royal family in complete exclusivity. I’m saying the end result of this argument isn’t more quiet respect for the royal family, but less caring about them at all. I actually feel like this is a point where you, I, and Burt would all agree.

BurtReynolds wrote:Kinda pulling for Charlotte here. She has a face that says "Enough chatter. I will reestablish the empire."

I'm on team Lilibet the Unlikely.

Is that a real photo of Lilibet?

Skitch would be all over that one

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote: The Mau Mau concentration camps were during Elizabeth’s reign.

I had to look it up, she was 26 when the rebellion in Kenya started and had been Queen less than a year. I'll grant that you are technically correct.

Ignoring the part about “well she was only 27 to 28 years old when 25,000 children were starving to death in camps,“ the point is that a British royal family so politically neutered as to be incapable of speaking against the tide of internment camps (as well as one simply unwilling to do so) is not an entity of consequence at all…except to the British.

I actually agree that the royal family is really that powerless. I agree that she wasn’t in a position to do anything about it. I am sympathetic to people who argue otherwise, but I just don’t think the royal family can hold or share such a divisive opinion. But that’s the point. If the Mau Mau camps don’t demonstrate her culpability, then they demonstrate her insignificance. It is a demonstration that, in many ways, that family are the subjects now….more beholden to public opinion than almost anyone else on the island.

So I am saying that I agree with you, but that the end point of that argument is also that American fixation with the British royal family is purely about cultural and celebrity fetishism. An argument that they don’t have enough influence to deserve criticism is also an argument that they don’t deserve special deference, either…not from the international community.

Lyndon Johnson didn’t visit the queen, and the sky didn’t fall in. Relations did not die. This is me advocating for more of that, and less jackoffy, adoring American coverage provided to one foreign royal family in complete exclusivity. I’m saying the end result of this argument isn’t more quiet respect for the royal family, but less caring about them at all. I actually feel like this is a point where you, I, and Burt would all agree.

Yeah dude, I'm on board with this. Particularly the bit about cultural fetishism. I think part of it is that we don't have history in US. I forget where I saw it... reddit probably... but the US is only three adult lives old (an important point when talking about the lasting effects of slavery). The British monarchy is our connection back to the past.


edit: close enough:

Has there always been an American fascination with the royal family, or has this been something recent? If the latter, how did that happen? I can't imagine we cared too much in the 1800s.

BurtReynolds wrote:Has there always been an American fascination with the royal family, or has this been something recent? If the latter, how did that happen? I can't imagine we cared too much in the 1800s.

We just obsess on what could have been if only Washington had strong teeth.

BurtReynolds wrote:Has there always been an American fascination with the royal family, or has this been something recent? If the latter, how did that happen? I can't imagine we cared too much in the 1800s.

I don't know for a fact, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was an offshoot of WW2 narratives about the British and the Blitz and stiff upper lip and all that.

I'm pretty sure it spawned from the propaganda efforts of WWII and in the decades following. Not some organic groundswell of public sentiment.