Queen Elizabeth II (1926-2022)

[Linguoboy]

Well what would you have them do, continue it because they are too set in their ways to reform? If you repent of something then by definition you had to have engaged in it before.

Oh, hello, fallacy of the excluded middle! This has really been a banner thread for informal fallacies today.

I ask out of genuine confusion: What is fallacious here? Slavery has been a problem for millennia and was institutionalized, but the British eventually did get rid of it. I’d say doing away with chattel slavery as an institution is something to laud. When you said “Only after profiting from it for three hundred years” it reads to me as a dismissal of the good that occurred, basically demonstrating Jonlang’s complaint. The British were overall a disaster wherever they steamrolled on in, but to reject the idea that the British Empire (or, if not the polity, then at least movements within it) is/was incapable of doing at least some good in some situations seems a little ridiculous.

I feel like I already answered this question in the paragraph after that line you quoted. They nominally ended an evil that they themselves heavily engaged in and profited from and, when they did, they didn't give back any of the profits (as Travis points out they gave more wealth to those who had profited off stolen labour, not those who had had their labour stolen from them) and found ways to continue exploiting colonised peoples that fell just short of chattel slavery (very short indeed in the case of blackbirding).

Let's go back to my personal analogy and ask: How much praise do you think a person would deserve in these circumstances? If someone captured you, held you against your will, and forced you to work your whole life for them, then gave you nominal liberty under duress (and received compensation for the loss of "property") only to trap you in a contract of indentured servitude, how thankful would you be to them? How much credit would you give them for being a moral actor? Why should that be more or less if we're talking about a polity rather than a person?

The US put a stop to chattel slavery within its territories and it's something I would never in a million years consider bragging about because it immediately prompts the question, "Well, why did you have chattel slavery in your country in the first place?"

Because people are shitfucks everywhere. Chattel slavery and institutional slavery aren't uniquely American problems; it is or has been common enough in societies the world over. I’m not surprised a chattel slavery system emerged from the indentured-servitude model; people always find something to push others around about.

It's actually not that common historically or geographically. Not all systems of indentured servitude gave rise to it and what's particularly striking in the case of the USA is that indentured servants were initially overwhelmingly white but that white people weren't the ones who ended up being made chattel slaves. It's worth asking how and why that happened on US soil and why it took so long to put a stop to it.

For all my father’s loony politics, I do agree with him on the ending of slavery being a high point: The country tore itself to pieces in order to get rid of it. (Then along came Hayes and the end of Reconstruction, which was, as everyone knows, atrocious.)

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save thise Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

[Raphael]

I'm really not following your logic here at all. "This is an informal logical fallacy which would be used against me in similar circumstances, therefore I support its use here." A fallacy is a fallacy, and even if we can't stamp it out in the wider world, we can at least avoid indulging in it on the ZBB.

OK, fair point.

Following up on what Zompist said, it's time we put to rest the quaint notion that the richest family in the UK are powerless figureheads who never influence policy. Last year, the Guardian ran a whole series of articles on the practice of "crown consent" and found that more than 1,000 laws were vetted by the monarchy before being ratified. It's hard to know how many may have been modified based on royal input since such lobbying is mostly off the record, but they suspect that the Crown was responsible for, among other changes, modifications to transparency legislation in order to conceal their personal wealth and to civil rights legislation in order to exempt the royal household from the established grievance process for race and sex discrimination. (It was the official Crown policy at least through the 60s to ban "coloured immigrants of foreigners" from front-facing positions and it's not clear when this was ended, since records only started being kept in 90s.)

Important and quite telling information.

I'm really not getting the whole "republics do harm too so we shouldn't fault the monarchy for the harm it does" argument. A lot of Britain's problems--historical and contemporary--stem from its class system.

So far, I agree. That said...

The British monarch is the literal embodiment of that system. But getting rid of them wouldn't weaken that system or solve any problems related to it?

"Removing a symbol of a bad thing will weaken or destroy the bad thing itself and solve problems caused by it" strikes me as purely magical thinking (while we're talking logical fallacies).

[Ares Land]

I'm really not getting the whole "republics do harm too so we shouldn't fault the monarchy for the harm it does" argument. A lot of Britain's problems--historical and contemporary--stem from its class system. The British monarch is the literal embodiment of that system. But getting rid of them wouldn't weaken that system or solve any problems related to it?

When republics do exactly the same harm and suffer from exactly the same problem a monarchy does, it just doesn't look like the monarch is a big defining factor and it's very likely the root cause is elsewhere.
If the Queen was responsible for racism in Britain, who's responsible for the (noticeably more present) racism in France or in the US? We should be better than the Brits, not worse!

You have a problem and a plausible factor: if you remove that factor and still end up with the same issue... the cause of the problem is elsewhere.

As for the class system... Let's check some hard data: Britain's Gini coefficient is 33.2%; France's is 32.7%, both slightly higher than the EU average of 30%. The US's is 42.5%, China is 42.2%. Interestingly a number of countries with a lower GINI coefficient happen to be constitutional monarchies.
All in all having a republic or a constitutional monarchy doesn't make much of a difference when it comes to inequality.

[Raphael]

As for the class system... Let's check some hard data: Britain's Gini coefficient is 33.2%; France's is 32.7%, both slightly higher than the EU average of 30%. The US's is 42.5%, China is 42.2%.

Sure, but the Brits are arguably more obsessed with class than any other nation in the world.

[Travis B.]

I'm really not getting the whole "republics do harm too so we shouldn't fault the monarchy for the harm it does" argument. A lot of Britain's problems--historical and contemporary--stem from its class system. The British monarch is the literal embodiment of that system. But getting rid of them wouldn't weaken that system or solve any problems related to it?

When republics do exactly the same harm and suffer from exactly the same problem a monarchy does, it just doesn't look like the monarch is a big defining factor and it's very likely the root cause is elsewhere.
If the Queen was responsible for racism in Britain, who's responsible for the (noticeably more present) racism in France or in the US? We should be better than the Brits, not worse!

You have a problem and a plausible factor: if you remove that factor and still end up with the same issue... the cause of the problem is elsewhere.

As for the class system... Let's check some hard data: Britain's Gini coefficient is 33.2%; France's is 32.7%, both slightly higher than the EU average of 30%. The US's is 42.5%, China is 42.2%. Interestingly a number of countries with a lower GINI coefficient happen to be constitutional monarchies.
All in all having a republic or a constitutional monarchy doesn't make much of a difference when it comes to inequality.

Exactly. Changing the UK from a constitutional monarchy to a republic in and of itself will not improve matters. If anything, it will just allow you to be self-congratulatory about how egalitarian you are now, despite not really having made any significant changes.

[Jonlang]

People like to keep shitting on the British Empire like it was the very image of Evil; as if it did no good - nothing like, say, end slavery.

Only after profiting off it for three hundred years. This is literally like getting credit for stopping beating your spouse after being in an abusive marriage with them for decades.

It's really not, and you know it. Over a span of 300 years the Empire (or any organisation for that matter) is obviously not the same group of people. The Empire that ended the slave trade (and actively policed it on the seas) isn't the same as the one which profited from it.

[Raphael]

Err, if that logic is valid, then today's UK isn't the one that abolished slavery, either. And you forgot the points about various forms of post-abolition quasi-slavery.

[Travis B.]

People like to keep shitting on the British Empire like it was the very image of Evil; as if it did no good - nothing like, say, end slavery.

Only after profiting off it for three hundred years. This is literally like getting credit for stopping beating your spouse after being in an abusive marriage with them for decades.

It's really not, and you know it. Over a span of 300 years the Empire (or any organisation for that matter) is obviously not the same group of people. The Empire that ended the slave trade (and actively policed it on the seas) isn't the same as the one which profited from it.

But that same Empire engaged in the aformentioned blackbirding, forced opium production, and so on despite nominally ending slavery.

[Linguoboy]

It's really not, and you know it. Over a span of 300 years the Empire (or any organisation for that matter) is obviously not the same group of people. The Empire that ended the slave trade (and actively policed it on the seas) isn't the same as the one which profited from it.

Oh yeah? Y'all a did a complete population exchange in 1807 with some entirely different country which never participated in the Atlantic slave trade? Which one was that, pray tell?

[Travis B.]

It's really not, and you know it. Over a span of 300 years the Empire (or any organisation for that matter) is obviously not the same group of people. The Empire that ended the slave trade (and actively policed it on the seas) isn't the same as the one which profited from it.

Oh yeah? Y'all a did a complete population exchange in 1807 with some entirely different country which never participated in the Atlantic slave trade? Which one was that, pray tell?

It should also be noted that British businesses profited from the products of American slavery well after the official banning of slavery within the British Empire.

[zompist]

I'm really not getting the whole "republics do harm too so we shouldn't fault the monarchy for the harm it does" argument. A lot of Britain's problems--historical and contemporary--stem from its class system. The British monarch is the literal embodiment of that system. But getting rid of them wouldn't weaken that system or solve any problems related to it?

When republics do exactly the same harm and suffer from exactly the same problem a monarchy does, it just doesn't look like the monarch is a big defining factor and it's very likely the root cause is elsewhere.
If the Queen was responsible for racism in Britain, who's responsible for the (noticeably more present) racism in France or in the US? We should be better than the Brits, not worse!

You're caricaturing the argument here-- I explicitly said that the monarchy is not the root cause of British conservatism, and I haven't seen linguoboy saying that it is either. It's part of a constellation of attitudes, and not the most important part. If you think it's an entirely neutral symbolism, think about this: if the UK ever abolished its monarchy, would that be more likely under a left- or right-wing government? (Hints here.)

I think you're also exaggerating the sameness of Britain and France. You live in France so you're super aware of its problems. Yet France has historically reinvented itself quite a lot-- you're on your fifth republic while Britain hasn't had a revolution since 1688. Britain recently kneecapped itself by leaving the EU. Admittedly Marine Le Pen wanted a Frexit, but the threat of right-wing rule is not quite the same thing as actual right-wing rule.

As for who's responsible for US racism, I'd venture that the British importing millions of slaves into British North America is a big part of it.

I'm not sure why you think Brits are less racist than the French.

[Travis B.]

I'm not sure why you think Brits are less racist than the French.

From my viewpoint as an American, while there is definite racism against Afro-Caribbeans and Pakistanis, for instance, in the UK, there is also definite racism against Muslims and Africans in general in France. As for here in the US, there is very great structural racism against Blacks and Latines overall, and also racism against other groups such as East Asians on a more lesser level. Which is more racist is a good question that I do not feel qualified to answer; if you just asked me to name one of the three I would say "the US", but that might very well be an artifact of my being an American, and a French individual, for instance, might give you a different answer.

[Ares Land]

You're caricaturing the argument here-- I explicitly said that the monarchy is not the root cause of British conservatism, and I haven't seen linguoboy saying that it is either. It's part of a constellation of attitudes, and not the most important part. If you think it's an entirely neutral symbolism, think about this: if the UK ever abolished its monarchy, would that be more likely under a left- or right-wing government? (Hints here.)

Sorry about that: I didn't mean to build a strawman!

The UK has met the challenges of the modern world, and solved some situations that was entirely evil, in that excruciating three-step-forwards-two-steps-backwards that seems typical of Western countries. I think it will continue to do so; I'm not convinced the monarchy really hinders the process or that switching to a republic will accelerate it.

(I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree on that one. Given that psychohistory still lies very far in the future, I think both sides of the debate will have trouble coming up with definitive arguments )

You live in France so you're super aware of its problems. Yet France has historically reinvented itself quite a lot-- you're on your fifth republic while Britain hasn't had a revolution since 1688.

There is something to be said for Britain's ability to reform itself with a minimum of fuss. The various revolutions and regime changes in France were of course necessary, but they went with their share of bloodshed.
The last republic was a product of decolonisation, which led to protracted, bloody colonial war, a deep constitutional crisis and several attempts at coups. The end of the British Empire involved a lot of suffering of course, but Britain still handled it better than we did.

Britain recently kneecapped itself by leaving the EU. Admittedly Marine Le Pen wanted a Frexit, but the threat of right-wing rule is not quite the same thing as actual right-wing rule.

UKIP kind of faded away after Brexit, and Britain is still governed by the Conservatives. The Tories are generally unpleasant, but not nearly as bad as our far-right. Ideologically, the differences with Macron are not great besides.
Brexit was a disaster, no question about that; but the constant threat of far-right rule is in itself very damaging.

I'm not sure why you think Brits are less racist than the French.

Good question. Let's see what I can do.
I'll begin by stating that the chief theorician of racism these days, the man who came up with the idea of the 'Great Replacement' is French. Our main opposition party is the RN, an openly racist party with deep white supremacist roots.

The hijab is a constant source of drama here, it's actually forbidden in quite a few circumstances. Notably civil servants are forbidden to wear it at all, but issues have been raised about moms accompanying field trips. The RN advocates banning it altogether, a measure a majority of French people support.
By contrast, the UK has almost the opposite stance on it, as discrimination based on the hijab is forbidden there.

And then... Liz Truss' cabinets has several non-white members, in prominent positions too. Prominent Tories include Rishi Sunak, Sajid Javid and Priti Patel.
Our current government includes Rima Abdul Malak and Pap Ndiaye. That is all. Neither are big political players or in fact really political at all -- they were brought on for their expertise. I should add that Pap Ndiaye's nomination caused some outrage, as he is widely suspected to be Black 'woke.' The leadership of all major parties is entirely white. Rachida Dati, the daughter of Moroccan immigrants had a promising career about ten years ago, but she's kind of on her way out now. I should add that she never considered, or was never considered for a presidential bid, despite being a great deal smarter than most in her party.

So all in all, yes, attitudes about race are definitely different, and the comparison is not really to France's advantage.

[Raphael]

Content warning: sexualized violence and violence against women in general.

I'm not sure why you think Brits are less racist than the French.

Good question. Let's see what I can do.
I'll begin by stating that the chief theorician of racism these days, the man who came up with the idea of the 'Great Replacement' is French. Our main opposition party is the RN, an openly racist party with deep white supremacist roots.

The hijab is a constant source of drama here, it's actually forbidden in quite a few circumstances. Notably civil servants are forbidden to wear it at all, but issues have been raised about moms accompanying field trips. The RN advocates banning it altogether, a measure a majority of French people support.
By contrast, the UK has almost the opposite stance on it, as discrimination based on the hijab is forbidden there.

And then... Liz Truss' cabinets has several non-white members, in prominent positions too. Prominent Tories include Rishi Sunak, Sajid Javid and Priti Patel.
Our current government includes Rima Abdul Malak and Pap Ndiaye. That is all. Neither are big political players or in fact really political at all -- they were brought on for their expertise. I should add that Pap Ndiaye's nomination caused some outrage, as he is widely suspected to be Black 'woke.' The leadership of all major parties is entirely white. Rachida Dati, the daughter of Moroccan immigrants had a promising career about ten years ago, but she's kind of on her way out now. I should add that she never considered, or was never considered for a presidential bid, despite being a great deal smarter than most in her party.

So all in all, yes, attitudes about race are definitely different, and the comparison is not really to France's advantage.

It's not really the main topic of this thread, but this neat summary of racism in France got me thinking about sexism in France as well. Frankly, there seems to be an extremely ugly tradition of openly supporting male violence against women and girls in France, up to and including rape and murder. There's the Althusser case. There's the lifelong asylum for Polanski. There's that rock musician a while ago whose name I don't remember who got a slip on the wrist for shooting his girlfriend dead. There's the fact that one of the country's most prominent public intellectuals seems to be mainly known for writing eloquent essays in defense of rapists. There are also various throwaway remarks about rape I've seen French men make in various places on the internet, treating it as no big deal. Looks like a pretty big damn issue to me.


*****************************************************


Back to the main topic of the thread:

I simply want to re-state something I stated earlier. For me, to a large extent it comes down to the issue of symbolism. Now, either symbolism matters, or it doesn't. If it doesn't matter, then there's not much of an argument against monarchy, but not really any good argument for it, either - what's the point of a symbolic head of state if symbolism is unimportant? And if symbolism does matter, then the case against most monarchies is overwhelming - they should be abolished because of all the historical horrors they're symbolically linked to.

[Travis B.]

I simply want to re-state something I stated earlier. For me, to a large extent it comes down to the issue of symbolism. Now, either symbolism matters, or it doesn't. If it doesn't matter, then there's not much of an argument against monarchy, but not really any good argument for it, either - what's the point of a symbolic head of state if symbolism is unimportant? And if symbolism does matter, then the case against most monarchies is overwhelming - they should be abolished because of all the historical horrors they're symbolically linked to.

The matter is that symbolism is just symbolism, and if symbolism matters it should also apply just as much to the heads of state of America and France. In particular, if the strong President of the United States is not symbolic of American imperialism I do not know who else is.

[zompist]

The end of the British Empire involved a lot of suffering of course, but Britain still handled it better than we did.

Neither colonial empire is any kind of model. But the Brits had Partition, a protracted war in Kenya, and collusion with the white supremacist states in southern Africa. That probably more than balances Algeria and Vietnam.

I'll begin by stating that the chief theorician of racism these days, the man who came up with the idea of the 'Great Replacement' is French. Our main opposition party is the RN, an openly racist party with deep white supremacist roots.

I'd rather not get into a list of British sins, but to keep vaguely to the thread topic, the British royals and the press hounded a princess out of the country because she's part Black, and when she returned for the queen's funeral they started it up again.

Then there's the government's policy of sending migrants seeking asylum to Rwanda— a one-way ticket, with no chance to seek asylum in Britain at all.

(So far as I know it's the English who are most complicit in all this. The Scots are much more welcoming, but they're not allowed to have their own immigration policy.)

[Travis B.]

I'd rather not get into a list of British sins, but to keep vaguely to the thread topic, the British royals and the press hounded a princess out of the country because she's part Black, and when she returned for the queen's funeral they started it up again.

This part, along with the part about Buckingham Palace not hiring Black people up until the 70's, is something we can actually blame the British royals for, unlike much of British policy (even when one takes into account the British royals' influence on British legislation that affects them in some form or fashion).

[Travis B.]

The end of the British Empire involved a lot of suffering of course, but Britain still handled it better than we did.

Neither colonial empire is any kind of model. But the Brits had Partition, a protracted war in Kenya, and collusion with the white supremacist states in southern Africa. That probably more than balances Algeria and Vietnam.

Don't forget the Malayan "Emergency", a name they came up with so that insurance companies which put in their contracts a rule about not paying out in case of war-related losses would still have to pay British landowners in Malaya.

That said, I think that France was more heavily affected by the Algerian War than Britain was by the wars in Kenya and Malaya - after all, they did have one real or at least very near-coup (depending on how you look at it) (the one that resulted in de Gaulle returning to power), an attempted coup when de Gaulle wouldn't follow the intentions of the people who brought him to power in the first place, and a quite bloody, for how short-lived it was, far right-wing insurgency (that of the OAS) in an attempt to prevent France from leaving Algeria.

[Ares Land]

It's not really the main topic of this thread, but this neat summary of racism in France got me thinking about sexism in France as well.

France is indeed frankly backwards on that respect. (Though not without some good points. It's a lot easier to be a working mother here than in many other countries.)

Neither colonial empire is any kind of model. But the Brits had Partition, a protracted war in Kenya, and collusion with the white supremacist states in southern Africa. That probably more than balances Algeria and Vietnam.

That's a good point.

That said, I think that France was more heavily affected by the Algerian War than Britain was by the wars in Kenya and Malaya

Also true.

Back to the main topic of the thread:

I simply want to re-state something I stated earlier. For me, to a large extent it comes down to the issue of symbolism. Now, either symbolism matters, or it doesn't. If it doesn't matter, then there's not much of an argument against monarchy, but not really any good argument for it, either - what's the point of a symbolic head of state if symbolism is unimportant? And if symbolism does matter, then the case against most monarchies is overwhelming - they should be abolished because of all the historical horrors they're symbolically linked to.

My own view is that symbolism matters. I don't think the symbolism of the British monarchy is wholly negative. I think we could also mention liberal democracy, WWII, a relatively non partisan representation of the nation (in addition to the horrors of the Empire of course.)
It's Britain as a whole that is responsible for all this, of course, not just the Crown. The same applies to colonialism. As I mentioned before, you can get rid of the monarchy but Britain will still be fully responsible for colonial horrors.
Of course, but we're all aware of that, republics are rife with symbolism too (As an example, look at the whole Founding Fathers mythology...) and as often as not, it comes with a lot of embarassing or horrific baggage.

Speaking of symbolism, I personally think Charles III should publicly apologize for colonialism. It would IMO a more powerful symbol than abolishing the monarchy. The nature of the British constitution is such that he can't do so unless asked to by the government and that he would if the government wanted him to. As for why this hasn't happened, well, that's democracy for you. (As far as I know, no other colonial powers has apologized either.)