Since people seem to be dumbfounded as to why I would say that the Queen is viewed by some as being as bad as Hitler, I decided to start a thread about what we mean, why we say what we do and why we refuse to back down. Black, brown, yellow and red people have all been equally oppressed as a consequence of the actions of the Crown. As a result, when the Queen passed, those who had suffered under the rule of the English monarchy in the general sense or the Queen herself in the specific felt catharsis that the head colonizer had passed away. With almost every country on earth having either been colonized or attempted colonization this is a LARGE amount of people. The holiday that occurs most often worldwide is independence from Britain. This means a significant number of peoples have memories of colonization. One of the issues there is that even when countries achieve their independence, the laws do not immediately change generally, so the issues of colonization do not end then. And that's just for the ones that achieve freedom. There are still many countries under the heel of Britain. Those countries are not homogenously for or against their continued occupation. The indigenous populations often wish for the right of self-determination to be returned to them. But this queen didn't conquer! She also didn't lift a finger to help stop colonialism, and expended effort to keep them. This includes multiple wars to keep them. She could have said that she only wanted to rule Britain. Instead she kept many of them tightly clasped in her fist, and now there is (in their view) a reckoning due. My experience is with my northern cousins in Canada (cousins in both the pan-Native sense and in the blood familial sense.) They have many areas of contention. The main area is that the Crown is technically responsible for all of their laws. As the Queen was the sovereign of Canada as well, every law was read to her and she had to agree. This seems like a poor argument until you read the laws made concerning the Native population. Many of them are quite frankly appalling, especially if you are versed in the thought patterns and traditions of the tribes that were affected. Things like the Inuit numbering system https://www.grunge.com/492989/the-messed-up-truth-of-inuit-identification-numbers/ which took away their last names and reduced them to numbers. Numbers on a copper tag that they had to produce whenever asked, that carried legal consequences if they did not have them. Much like another world leader. Or the forced relocation of Inuit families so the government could access their resources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Arctic_relocation These were wrong, but only tangentially involved the queen. More specifically, the residential school systems that received help and support from the queen, which separated families, attempted to stomp out indigenous languages, and ultimately killed what is most likely millions of children. This includes the children who disappeared after visits by the queen, according to survivors. These were most definitely sanctioned by the queen and did not end until 1996. But this is just one group of people. We also have the Irish, and The Troubles, which the queen was directly involved in. The Irish certainly aren't mourning. They are celebrating the death of what can only be described as a tyrant. The ones who probably have the most claim are the Indians and the Africans. While India finally gained their independence, most of Africa still is under Britain's thumb. https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/10/africa/colonialism-africa-queen-elizabeth-intl/index.html https://www.france24.com/en/uk/2022...-sensitive-debate-over-africa-s-colonial-past https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/09/12/queen-elizabeth-ii-british-empire-colonialism-legacy/ India has made multiple requests for the Koh-i-noor diamond but has been rebuffed, as well as being rebuffed by Elizabeth and her solid refusal to do anything to help any of her colonies. https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-...redressed-britains-colonial-legacy-she-didnt/ She stolidly refused to do anything political, and her refusal to do so was heard round the world, at least the non-white world. she let everyone fight for freedom instead of granting it, which was fully within her power. The thing that bothers so many of us is that every time the non-white world wants a reckoning, it's "not the right time." Well, those of us on this side have decided that white people cannot dcide for non-white people when we feel like a topic needs addressed. We are tired of being told "wait, you'll get equality or freedom sometime later." The only people truly mourning her are white people, and that's something you guys will have to sort out for yourselves. I'll leave you guys with some pictures to help explain what our position is. The idea a person can be born who it's their right to rule is honestly an an abhorrent thought and an assault on the idea that all men are equal. After this I'm dropping the topic. There's no more to be gained here and much to be lost. 0an8sv6etqw41 by IrianPendreic, on Flickr image000000 by IrianPendreic, on Flickr image000004 by IrianPendreic, on Flickr image000001 by IrianPendreic, on Flickr image000009 by IrianPendreic, on Flickr It's possible to know these things and still want to celebrate the good she did. It's possible for a person to hold more than one point of view. It's possible to be conflicted. It's possible to be stuck between family and friends, as I find myself. But I'm not gonna stop talking just because it offends someone who's never endured colonization. I am, however, open to discuss things. I did the research, it's in it's own thread. You can leave it or comment. But I'm not gonna drag it anywhere else in the forum. Edit: trying to figure out the images. Maybe I know the answer.
I'll keep this brief and to the point. Colonialism = globalism North America was a land grab at the time, land theft followed by genocide of the native population with its survivors put onto reservations. Whites shouldn't be here, black people shouldn't be here, brown people shouldn't be here, yellow people shouldn't be here either. But we're all here. The country was a globalist project, now Europe is being transformed into very much the same. Spoiler Our owners have throughout history used parts of the Caucasian race (primarily the English, the French and the Spaniards) as proxy and useful idiots to impose it with. Just as they had previously used the English to subjugate the Scots the Welsh and the Irish. Easy, they just played on peoples tribalism (just as they do when they ferment wars, two massive ones in Europe) before they could expand they needed resources, such as access to Welsh mines. Whatever England and the English nation did, or their owners rather, using them as proxy 150-400 years ago has no relevance today and is frankly vindictive and unforgiving to hold it against the English nation of today. Added. I am fully aware that other people of color see us white people of color as evil racist supremacist oppressors and a scourge on humanity itself in general, and with very little value if any at all. After all, that's the programming that runs 24/7 which over time will start to shape peoples minds. So much so that we now have white people that suffers from severe self-loathing as a direct result of this, some to the extent of no longer seeing any existential legitimacy of their own race, ethnicity within it and culture even. Think about that for a moment.
I think you have some messed up understanding of our government and the power she had here in the UK Kayinblack. Firstly, the Queen held mostly a ceremonial role in our constitutional monarchy. So our government and opposition debate and vote for or against bills in the Houses of Commons and Lords. Once passed (gained a majority vote) in both Houses, these bills are then given Royal assent. This is when the Queen agreed to make the bills into Acts of Parliament. She did have the right to give Royal Assent, to delay the bill’s assent through the use of reserve powers, basically a veto or to refuse Royal assent based on advice given to her by her ministers. There is somewhat of a precedent in the fact that the last time a bill was refused Royal assent by a Monarch was in 1708. There is some debate too over the matter of whether Assent can actually be refused by the Monarch or not. Some argue that because the bills have already passed both Houses and been voted in favour of, none of the Queens ministers would have advised to not to give assent. She could only act on the advice given to her by her ministers. It’s much too simplistic to say the Queen had powers to stop any of the bills you or anyone else take umbrage to. The history of the Royals and our government is a long one with many changes to what a Monarch can and can’t do. In terms of one of your images, you listed the armed conflicts we’ve been engaged in. Some of those conflicts were as a result of us being part of a coalition, as a peacekeeping force under the UN banner or acting against aggression. The Falkland Islands is one such conflict. When it comes to Northern Ireland, our troops were sent in as a peacekeeping force, due to the fact that the Catholics and Protestants were engaged in all out warfare with each other, I know because my dad served two tours there as a British soldier. I know the British history has a chequered one, but you are placing all the blame of the last 400 years on one person and coming across very anti British in the process too. Also, maybe the above may help you realise why some British people do take umbrage to you comparing the Queen to Hitler. To do so in a post about her failing health and then within hours of her passing, that was worse too. I do hope you can understand why you got the reaction you did.
The British empire was a product of exploitation by an overwhelmingly more powerful force than the countries "invaded". Many atrocities were committed within the empire but unfortunately this is not really taught explicitly in UK education so there is still a whiff of "Isn't Britain great because we used to rule the world" that sneaks into societies way of thinking. I do however find it extremely hard to lay much of the blame at the feet of Queen Elizabeth II who inherited the legacy of this empire. Arguably, she did a lot to further the plight of the affected nations through her work with the common wealth (the clue is in the name) where nations could benefit by working together. On the other side of the coin, you could argue that she didn't do enough to make amends for previous harms but as stuartpb stated, the queen is a figurehead with no real power. Now I don't for a second think she was powerless as her influence over government thinking was not insignificant (having a weekly chit chat with the PM can do that!). However, it is not a true monarchy where she could just boss people around to correct all the wrong doing. At worst she was complicit to harm done under her reign (aware off and didn't object) but I suspect it is more a case of constrained by the system to which she belonged and ignorance of many of the things that go on. She was one person and the chances every single law going through royal ascent was reviewed by her is about 0 (as much as that sounds crap) I did like the comparison of stealing her coffin and putting it on display in Egypt - it does somewhat put into perspective the issues with Egyptian mummies being displayed in numerous UK museums. We really should just accept that ownership of antiquities should remain with the source country and be returned. This doesn't mean they wont go on tour so people around the world can see them.
You seem to have missed out the research that would have informed you that the British monarch does little to nothing in terms of "rule" Born into influence, sure - but akin to any other wealthy/powerful family in that respect.
I'm no royalist and, as far as I'm concerned, you can melt the lot of them down to make glue; but you've done little to bolster your argument, IMO. Research isn't regurgitating facebook "facts" and posting memes.
They've literally just mentioned the Monarchy and Canada's dark past WRT its native population on BBC news. I did do a quick google to see if I could see anything on the website, but nothing turned up. For note - I didn't stay and watch it, i walking out of the room at the time.
@loftie Just caught that myself, it was Canada's Governor General who is an indiginous Canadian saying how much ERII was loved by Canadians and Indiginous Canadians and that, having dealt with Charles as Prince, she is hopeful of the future with King Charles III. She said the problem is with the history of the institution itself, understandably.
I did wonder if I had just completely misheard/going mad when I failed to find anything. At least if I'm going mad I'm not alone
Let me prefix this entire post by saying that I'm sure the Queen has unpleasant decisions in her past, especially in the 50s at the start of her reign. Let's not forget that it was a very different era and culture, and it's not always appropriate to judge the decisions of the time with a modern eye. But as a counterpoint she's arguably the British Monarch who's presided over some of the most significant dismantling of the Empire of old. Again perhaps some further research required - the laws that the monarchy "approve" are nothing more than a formality. They have no accepted power to reject them. The ruling government of each nation effectively passes them through for signing off and that's the extent of their involvement. It's dry, but a read of the royal prerogatives would perhaps be beneficial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom Just to pick up on this point, "millions" of deaths is an absolute fabrication, the upper estimate is around 30,000 deaths, but even that is around 5x the normally accepted estimates. It's also worth pointing out these were caused by infectious diseases which were rampant in the populations at the time, so could have been similarly devastating in deprived, under-educated Indian communities of the time (sadly, I might add). Not that I'm condoning what happened, like any forced conversion of indigenous cultures it's horrifyingly stupid. Should the queen have born some blame for this? Perhaps, although by the time she had even fractional influence, were there any real differences in the deaths and suffering in these schools? By the figures proposed there were tiny differences in the mortality rates among the general population in the age groups vs the residential schools. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system The Irish I know who I've spoken to are mostly in the same kind of state as I am - not mourning as such, but marking the passing and change which her death represents. They certainly aren't celebrating, or nominally concerned. The ones I know who speak of the troubles don't even factor in the Queen at all, in fact it's "The British". The Queen has used her official visits in the past to try and set a reconciliatory tone, those suffering losses from the conflict on both sides were mentioned. I'm sure there are elements who are celebrating, but I'd proffer they're in a vast minority. Again not something she could grant - since 1660 the monarchy have had very little power, being little more than figureheads, and rarely commenting on any political issues.
I think focusing blame on the british monarchy seems strange when there were people who actually were responsible for these actions. There are cases where there is a more direct link such as the case for The Congo where as I understand it was directly controlled by the Belgian king as opposed to the Belgian state. The list of conflicts is a rather bizarre piece of "Internet Research". In there you have mixed up colonial conflicts, three "Cod wars" that resulted in one death in all, I think, and even humanitarian interventions such as Kosovo or Sierra Leone. Not sure what it is meant to mean.
