Re: Is Queen Elizabeth II Still Alive?
Posted: Sun September 11, 2022 2:28 pm
Wallis Simpson was the OG fetishist
Anders wrote:No one should be blamed for what happened before they were born. Not saying you can’t blame EII for something, but until she became queen, it should only be on what she did personally. After she became queen, it’s different, but she still had limited effect on a political scale, for better or worse.
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.
McParadigm wrote: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?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.
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.”
What is monarchy? From whence does it derive its sanction? What has been its gift to humanity? Monarchy is a survival of the tyranny imposed by the hand of greed and treachery upon the human race in the darkest and most ignorant days of our history. It derives its only sanction from the sword of the marauder, and the helplessness of the producer, and its gifts to humanity are unknown, save as they can be measured in the pernicious examples of triumphant and shameless iniquities.
Every class in society save royalty, and especially British royalty, has through some of its members contributed something to the elevation of the race. But neither in science, nor in art, nor in literature, nor in exploration, nor in mechanical invention, nor in humanising of laws, nor in any sphere of human activity has a representative of British royalty helped forward the moral, intellectual or material improvement of mankind. But that royal family has opposed every forward move, fought every reform, persecuted every patriot, and intrigued against every good cause. Slandering every friend of the people, it has befriended every oppressor. Eulogised today by misguided clerics, it has been notorious in history for the revolting nature of its crimes. Murder, treachery, adultery, incest, theft, perjury – every crime known to man has been committed by some one or other of the race of monarchs from whom King George is proud to trace his descent.
“His blood
Has crept through scoundrels since the flood.”
We will not blame him for the crimes of his ancestors if he relinquishes the royal rights of his ancestors; but as long as he claims their rights, by virtue of descent, then, by virtue of descent, he must shoulder the responsibility for their crimes.
look at all that produce.dimejinky99 wrote:Some of yis seem a bit clueless about British colonial history.
Handy thread for you.
That is at least an argument about something she was personally involved in.dimejinky99 wrote:Anders wrote:No one should be blamed for what happened before they were born. Not saying you can’t blame EII for something, but until she became queen, it should only be on what she did personally. After she became queen, it’s different, but she still had limited effect on a political scale, for better or worse.
She knighted two of the generals that were in charge of the Bloody Sunday massacre and the ballymurphy massacre. Where innocent civilians in Northern Ireland were shot and killed in cold blood by British troops.
That’s just one.
She’s knighted many many others from massacres around the world in her ‘commonwealth’ for doing the exact same thing
Anders wrote:The Hong Kong argument is a perfect example. Using that to celebrate the death of a woman, who was not born when it happened.
BurtReynolds wrote:People like to confuse unique success with unique evil, though at least the hatred of one's enemies is hatred directed in a better direction than directing it inward. Still, it's pretty silly to think of the brits as especially evil just because they had the most strength and cunning for a long time.
Ireland is a special case that might break that rule though, in that they've basically lost every struggle since history slithered out of pre-history, yet continue to exist somehow. If harmlessness was godliness, the Irish are angelic.
are we tho?VinylGuy wrote:we can hate whatever we want, we are free men
Actually, you know what, reverse this. my mistake.BurtReynolds wrote:Don't hate the playa, hate the game, is what I'm saying.