Zompist Bboard Again

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 7:51 pmSounds about white.

Racism is against the board rules.

vlad wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 9:56 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 7:51 pmSounds about white.

Racism is against the board rules.

lol get real

Having grown up in the UK, I don't think I ever particularly associated the monarchy with imperialism until I started spending too much time on Twitter. Of course there were a few things (e.g. Victoria's title Empress of India, the Order of the British Empire), but colonialism was far from the first thing that would come to mind if you mentioned the Queen.

On the other hand it's unsurprising that people in other countries might associate royalty and imperialism more strongly. Partly because that was what the men running the empire wanted. And partly because people in general are probably more likely to see other countries in terms of their foreign policies. I expect rather more people in the UK would immediately associate "Germany" with "Hitler" or "the Nazis" than people in Germany itself would.

In the US specifically, you've got this whole founding myth of the brave colonies setting themselves free from Evil King George, so naturally for you your perceptions of the monarchy's relationship to colonialism is skewed by this. But sometimes it rankles to have Americans telling us what to think about all this. Getting angry at the Queen for inheriting some dubiously acquired diamonds looks a bit rich when your entire country was at least as dubiously acquired from its former inhabitants, and you seem entirely uninterested in even thinking about it.

It is all rather ahistorical anyway. By the nineteenth century the monarch's personal involvement in colonial policy was rather limited. Elizabeth II had next to no practical role in subjugating an empire that almost entirely fell apart in the first decades of her reign. The British Empire was for a long time a project of democratically elected governments. I think some people are just a bit too quick to believe their propaganda that the monarch really was in charge; meanwhile many of the people actually responsible are virtually unknown to the general public.

I struggle to see much of the royal iconography as particularly imperialist anyway. Much of it is medieval and predates what we usually think of as "the Empire" (and is very similar to that found historically across Europe, with parallels in many other parts of the world too). I suppose some of the particular materials may have been taken from the colonies, but that's not essential to the form of the symbols and isn't something most people in the UK really think about (though maybe they should). The choice of blokes on the columns in Trafalgar Square is disturbingly imperialistic, but that's rather tangential to monarchy. The classical architecture of buildings like Buckingham Palace has imperialistic overtones too - you build like that to make yourselves look more like the great imperialists, the Romans. But this is a recurring feature of European capitals regardless of whether they still have kings in them or not. The government parts of Washington DC are far more overtly neoclassical than anything in London, and that of course is connected to the very explicit rejection of monarchy.

I have to agree with Curlyjimsam myself here, all in all.

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:06 pmI think Linguoboy's point is that the symbolic link between the British Crown and the Empire was or is very strong, and, well, the whole point of modern monarchies is what they symbolize.

Thanks, Raphael. I really don't understand all these posts of "Well it doesn't have that symbolism to me." Maybe just listen for a minute to what some of those most directly impacted by British imperialism are saying right now?

For instance, Patrick Freyne has brilliant takedown of the British monarchy in an article from last year talking about the Harry/Firm spat that's been making the rounds again since Christopher Eccleston shared it on social media.. This is the first paragraph:

Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown.

I'm especially shaking my damn head at members of some of the few nations represented here that the British Crown did not subjugate saying that they don't personally associate the monarchy with imperialism and colonialism. (Following that up with a laundry list of reasons why one would make those associations just ups the irony, of course.) Coming from British citizens, these 'splanations remind me of nothing so much as White Southerners trying to 'splain why they don't associate the antebellum South with racism and slavery. A USAmerican friend of mine actually drew this parallel very explicitly after watching Elizabeth's coronation ceremony. (She loves pageantry and was morbidly curious.) Here's her review:

It's a 3-hour celebration of Christian hegemony, union of church and state, and British colonialism, complete with "representatives" of colonized peoples paying tribute to their benevolent white-lady ruler. It's about "tradition" in the same way the United Daughters of the Confederacy is about "tradition" -- white supremacy wearing its best dress for the celebration. I fear that part of what draws many Americans to British royalty is that they provide a safe space for white supremacist fantasies.

Or, to quote Freyne again:

The contemporary royals have no real power. They serve entirely to enshrine classism in the British nonconstitution. They live in high luxury and low autonomy, cosplaying as their ancestors, and are the subject of constant psychosocial projection from people mourning the loss of empire. They’re basically a Rorschach test that the tabloids hold up in order to gauge what level of hysterical batshittery their readers are capable of at any moment in time.

So y'all can go on all you like about how imperialist the French Republic was or how modern republicans in general have coopted imperial imagery to aggrandise themselves. It's really not going to change what the British monarchy embodies to many many people around the world. Supporting that monarchy--however weakly--prompts me to ask what is it about it that's so appealing to you that it trumps the pain and harm it causes millions of people. (And, yes, the modern monarchy does actively cause harm. All oligarchs do, and these particular wealth-hoarders punch much above their weight.)

So in essence, you are basing your position in imagery, and ignoring the fact that A) the actual imperialist policies of Britain were largely driven by elected politicians, who are largely and conveniently forgotten by the modern-day public (people seem to forget that Winston Churchill was one imperialist SOB to say the very least), and B) replacing the monarch with an elected politician probably wouldn't objectively improve anything a whit.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 10:48 am So in essence, you are basing your position in imagery, and ignoring the fact that A) the actual imperialist policies of Britain were largely driven by elected politicians, who are largely and conveniently forgotten by the modern-day public (people seem to forget that Winston Churchill was one imperialist SOB to say the very least), and B) replacing the monarch with an elected politician probably wouldn't objectively improve anything a whit.

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.

Jonlang wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 11:45 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 10:48 am So in essence, you are basing your position in imagery, and ignoring the fact that A) the actual imperialist policies of Britain were largely driven by elected politicians, who are largely and conveniently forgotten by the modern-day public (people seem to forget that Winston Churchill was one imperialist SOB to say the very least), and B) replacing the monarch with an elected politician probably wouldn't objectively improve anything a whit.

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.

And considering that there were numerous famines which killed millions of people in India over the span of British rule there... which coincidentally came to an end with the end of the British Raj... And of course the British colonization of Australia was for all practical intents and purposes genocidal (especially in Tasmania, where it was certainly genocidal, considering that the British exterminated the entire native population)...

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 11:52 am And of course the British colonization of Australia was for all practical intents and purposes genocidal (especially in Tasmania, where it was certainly genocidal, considering that the British exterminated the entire native population)...

You left the word 'purebred' out there.

Richard W wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 2:09 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 11:52 am And of course the British colonization of Australia was for all practical intents and purposes genocidal (especially in Tasmania, where it was certainly genocidal, considering that the British exterminated the entire native population)...

You left the word 'purebred' out there.

Does that make it better somehow?

In general, to me the idea that Britain should dispense with the monarchy because it symbolizes British imperialism and all its crimes is like saying that America should dispense with the presidency because it symbolizes American imperialism and all it crimes. Yet no one is suggesting that the US get rid of its president (even though I would personally favor the US switching to a parliamentary system with a weak president and a prime minister) even though it is analogous with the British monarchy with the exception that the American presidency has had a far more direct role in American imperialism than the British monarch has had in British imperialism.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 11:52 am

Jonlang wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 11:45 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 10:48 am So in essence, you are basing your position in imagery, and ignoring the fact that A) the actual imperialist policies of Britain were largely driven by elected politicians, who are largely and conveniently forgotten by the modern-day public (people seem to forget that Winston Churchill was one imperialist SOB to say the very least), and B) replacing the monarch with an elected politician probably wouldn't objectively improve anything a whit.

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.

And considering that there were numerous famines which killed millions of people in India over the span of British rule there... which coincidentally came to an end with the end of the British Raj... And of course the British colonization of Australia was for all practical intents and purposes genocidal (especially in Tasmania, where it was certainly genocidal, considering that the British exterminated the entire native population)...

When all's said and done, a woman has died; a mother has died, a grandmother, a great-grandmother, an aunt, a friend. Regardless of one's view of the British Monarchy she and her family deserve respect during their time of mourning - as would anyone else. Moreover, I don't think a nation which elects celebrities as its Head of State is in any position to comment on the past indiscretions of a nation which gave rise to their nation in the first place.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether the Monarchy continues or not; it has its merits and its flaws, like every political system in the West. I certainly don't see a federal system working any better than the one we currently have. And, though "ceremonial" and "traditional" as it is, the Prime Minister having to meet with the Queen King every week in order to justify his/her Government's actions is a good thing.

When there are real injustices happening in the world, actual war, real evil, people SJWs are taking to their keyboards to complain about the UK's colonial past as if it still matters. It doesn't.

Jonlang wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 4:04 pm When all's said and done, a woman has died; a mother has died, a grandmother, a great-grandmother, an aunt, a friend. Regardless of one's view of the British Monarchy she and her family deserve respect during their time of mourning - as would anyone else. Moreover, I don't think a nation which elects celebrities as its Head of State is in any position to comment on the past indiscretions of a nation which gave rise to their nation in the first place.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether the Monarchy continues or not; it has its merits and its flaws, like every political system in the West. I certainly don't see a federal system working any better than the one we currently have. And, though "ceremonial" and "traditional" as it is, the Prime Minister having to meet with the Queen King every week in order to justify his/her Government's actions is a good thing.

When there are real injustices happening in the world, actual war, real evil, people SJWs are taking to their keyboards to complain about the UK's colonial past as if it still matters. It doesn't.

I personally don't get the whole British-monarchy-is-imperialist-and-therefore-evil thing myself. Sure, the British monarch also being the monarch of a wide range of countries scattered around the world, and that is a legacy of British imperialism, yes. But for much of the British Empire's existence the British monarch has not been the driving force behind British imperialism, as I have stated, and I do not get the idea that the British monarch should be blamed for it any more than the president of the French republic for French imperialism or the president of the United States for American imperialism (if anything, I think that the British monarch should be blamed less than them). And British imperialism is largely a thing of the past today, with the main exceptions being British participation in American-led wars in the recent past. Any supposed symbolism the British monarchy has of British imperialism is of little consequence today. Of course, there is reason to dispense with the monarchy today, but that is largely a matter of that King Charles III simply is not the Queen and likely would be better replaced by an elected ceremonial president, rather than any symbolism ascribed to the British monarchy itself.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 10:38 am For instance, Patrick Freyne has brilliant takedown of the British monarchy in an article from last year talking about the Harry/Firm spat that's been making the rounds again since Christopher Eccleston shared it on social media.

I like the clown joke. What is even funnier is that Freyne then goes on to watch a three-hour clown show, review it, and give points for artistic performance!

Supporting that monarchy--however weakly--prompts me to ask what is it about it that's so appealing to you that it trumps the pain and harm it causes millions of people. (And, yes, the modern monarchy does actively cause harm. All oligarchs do, and these particular wealth-hoarders punch much above their weight.)

I'm simply very skeptical about claims that republics are more modern, more efficient or more ethical than constitutional monarchies. Republics are entirely as adept at pain and harm.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 4:21 pm there is reason to dispense with the monarchy today, but that is largely a matter of that King Charles III simply is not the Queen

But that's simply because almost everyone alive today has only ever known one monarch - Elizabeth II. There are some who remember her father, George VI. My girlfriend's grandmother has seen five monarchs in her lifetime; born during the reign of George V she has also seen Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II, and Charles III. Charles's reign is really just a return to the norm where the next handful of generations of people will see multiple monarchs during their lifetime. Charles III probably won't last more than 15-20 years, by which time William will be almost 60, so he could be king for three decades-ish which will see a 60ish year old George ascend the throne - who will be the last monarch in my lifetime (if I live that long) and the first monarch to be younger than me. After that we'll probably have a King Kenzo or Queen Krystaal

Jonlang wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 11:45 amPeople 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.

Jonlang wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 4:04 pmWhen all's said and done, a woman has died; a mother has died, a grandmother, a great-grandmother, an aunt, a friend. Regardless of one's view of the British Monarchy she and her family deserve respect during their time of mourning - as would anyone else.

What does that actually mean, though? It can't mean immunity from criticism. Moreover, they're conducting their obsequies in complete ignorance of anything you or I are saying about them on social media. I'm not leaping in front of a motorcade to protest classism so you can hardly say I'm not "respecting their privacy" or whatever.

Jonlang wrote:Moreover, I don't think a nation which elects celebrities as its Head of State is in any position to comment on the past indiscretions of a nation which gave rise to their nation in the first place.

"And you are lynching Negroes!"

I'm absolutely in a position to comment on the "past indiscretions" ('cause genocide, it's really on a par with diddling the babysitter, right?) and so is everyone else in the world. There's no card you can play which shields the UK (or the USA, for that matter) from valid criticism.

Jonlang wrote:When there are real injustices happening in the world, actual war, real evil, people SJWs are taking to their keyboards to complain about the UK's colonial past as if it still matters. It doesn't.

It absolutely still matters. To quote Faulkner: "The past isn't dead. It isn't even the past." Millions of people live in poverty today in no small part because their countries were pillaged and exploited for centuries by the UK, Spain, the USA, and other colonial powers. Injustices don't get any more real than that.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 3:01 am I'm simply very skeptical about claims that republics are more modern, more efficient or more ethical than constitutional monarchies. Republics are entirely as adept at pain and harm.

cf. American imperialism, republican French imperialism, as mentioned...

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:14 pm

Jonlang wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 11:45 amPeople 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.

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.

Meanwhile, slavery still exists elsewhere. Excoriate the Europeans for their misdeeds but also give credit where credit is due. I have not had enough caffeine today. What I should have asked instead was, will you reserve this same level of disdain for the complicit non-Europeans involved in the historical slave trades?

Man in Space wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:36 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:14 pm

Jonlang wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 11:45 amPeople 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.

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.

One little note is that the British gov't just had to "compensate" the former slaveowners for the loss of their slaves; paying them off took about one-quarter of the entire British gov'ts budget for that year, which is frankly a huge amount of money. They could have just freed the slaves and not paid the former slaveowners a whit.

The world will now watch on with envy over the next few days as Britain does the only two things it does well: portentous pomp and pageantry, and standing submissively in queues.