Queen Elizabeth II

yupididit said:

I can't tell if y'all are just purposely ignoring everything that went on during her 70 year reign. Or, if y'all are just honestly that ignorant. Whether you are keeping your head in the sand or not, do better. Think beyond 'whataboutisms' and comparing her to her family before her. Just because she wasn't as-bad (how do you measure that?) doesn't make her good. Stop making excuses. Learn more about Brown People History. 

Your perspective on this is welcome and helpful to the discussion. But I will say that calling people who disagree with you "ignorant" or to say they are making excuses is not the best way to get them to see the light, so to speak. Like in most areas, people can look at a set of facts and come to different conclusions. It's worth pointing out that prominent POC like Lewis Hamilton and Barack Obama have put out gushing statements about her.

In reply to yupididit :

I absolutely agree that she was not a perfect woman and she should have probably done more address the treatment of countries that were under British rule at the start of her rule. She came from a privileged background and there has been an unfortunate amount of passive and sometimes overt racism (looking at Philip) from the Royal Family. I hope that the new generations of Royals can reverse this and do the right thing to at least start to fix past wrongs. I will say I think you are greatly over stating the power of the Royals though. And also the Queen tried to avoid steering policy decisions of the UK government, as ultimately the UK is a democracy and publicly addressing government policy would be seen as interfering in that. Still she did push Thatcher to sanction the apartheid government of South Africa and also was good friends with Nelson Mandela who was on a first name basis with the Queen.

Speaking as someone who has dual citizenship, I hope the Royals do make some changes as I worry if they don't there will be no more Royal family. I think at its best Royals can offer a lot for Great Britian. Despite the Queen's failings, she did help navigate the UK through many rocky periods during her 70 year rule as a calming and steady influence. I do think world is a poorer place for her not being in it particularly in this day and age but I can understand why others do not share the same feeling.

In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :

To be ignorant of something isn't offensive to me. We're all ignorant of something and that ignorance can cause us to have blinders on. But, if no one said anything then we'd remain ignorant. Thanks though.

Prominant POC's also tend to glaze over many things. Especially rich ones and politicians. 

I just wanted to say this:

I've gotten a lot of supportive PM's and text from GRM forum members who are watching this thread. I care for and respect this small community of ours as well as the people in it. I wouldn't waste the time and effort going on about this with people who I didn't care for or respect. I often hold back on here. But, because I love this community, I'm going to speak out here and there (see George Floyd thread). I appreciate it when my thoughts or viewpoints are challenged, especially since I'm ignorant of many things as well. I'm only extending the same gesture because I love it here. None of my post are driven from malice or ill intent to embarrass forum members or assassinate characters. We all have blinders, biases, and ignorance. It is up to us to help ourselves and the people were care about through those things. 

Believe me, I do not put this energy into people in other environments simply because the respect isn't there for so many reasons. It's extremely tiring emotionally and mentally.

In reply to yupididit :

If we all looked, acted and thought the same; the world would be a really dull place.  I appreciate your thoughts and respect your viewpoints. Also love your attitude. 

In reply to yupididit :

As succinctly as I can...  You make this place great/better!  

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

But I will say that calling people who disagree with you "ignorant" or to say they are making excuses is not the best way to get them to see the light, so to speak.

As a Devil's Advocate, studies have shown that people don't change their mind when presented with evidence that their position is incorrect.  Further studies have shown that the best way to get someone to change their position is to initially agree with it, and then ask questions that show the flaws in it.  

/Devil's Advocate.

As a red blooded American who really doesn't give a E36 M3 about any royalty (or hell, any truly wealthy person,) no one has time for that bullE36 M3.  Might as well speak your mind.

yupididit said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

I guess I could do the legwork for you or you could easily Google it. You might appreciate it more as a result of your own work.

Easy to hit with a rock: 

- Partition of India

- Kenya anticolonial movement

- South Africa and Apartheid

The simple fact that I can visit Kenya or Benin and find more natural treasures and artifacts for said countries in a Great Britain Museum. Should start the thought process of why.

And I can't see how it's so easy to separate her from Putin and any African, Asian, or South American tyrant. When there's billions of people or color expressing trauma because they were affected by things that happened over the last 70 years. Her lack of confrontation and avoidance of embarrassing 'The Queens Govt' was passive victimization along with the active. And to say she didn't have the power is ridiculous, the most powerful family in modern history and her benefiting from everything past and present is gross misuse of her position as a modern Queen.

Also, asking me to prove/list these things reminds me of when people tell me to prove or list modern racism in America. Such a weird way to put the burden on others. 

 

Here are a couple of movies that will help explain the brutality of colonialism;

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Here are a couple of movies that will help explain the brutality of colonialism;

I'll throw in the recent Indian film "RRR". It's a completely unrealistic action flick where people do impossible things over and over and the British are basically evil cartoons, but it does get the point across. Plus, it's berkeleying awesome, so you should watch it anyhow.

I'm in the "Bye, Felicia!" camp here.

In addition to some of the other stuff mentioned here, she opted out of anti-discrimination laws in the palace. 

The only way the world is going to change is by people in positions of power who hold dubious positions being replaced. In the case of the UK monarchy, that only happens through death. I don't think Charles is going to be all that much better, though.

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Here are a couple of movies that will help explain the brutality of colonialism;

I'll throw in the recent Indian film "RRR". It's a completely unrealistic action flick where people do impossible things over and over and the British are basically evil cartoons, but it does get the point across. Plus, it's berkeleying awesome, so you should watch it anyhow.

Downside of RRR: Subtle Hindu nationalism:

https://www.vox.com/23220275/rrr-netflix-tollywood-hindutva-caste-system

I've never been a fan of societies keeping dynasties of idle rich people around for any reason and long thought that the ethical thing for royals to do with their title would be something along the lines of the Harry & Meghan route.

(Edit: Harry & Meghan, not Will & Kate...I actively avoid royal gossip more than seek it out)

In reply to yupididit :

Omg thank you so much for being here and speaking your mind. I'm always so pleased to see you continue to be a valuable part of this community. 

If we look at the balance of her "career", it is easy to pretend that she had provided more benefit to the world than harm. It might be true. Unfortunately, she also had the opportunity to unravel a lot of the harmful institutions her forefathers had put in place, and she didn't. Whether or not she could have, whether or not she realized what it meant (and I doubt she really did, how can someone born into that life commiserate with the common person in their own country let alone in a country halfway around the world), it doesn't really matter. She didn't. 

It is interesting to watch this circus for sure. I admit, I'm watching far more than I should be. I find it fascinating, if only for the silly structure and rules to all of it... And they're German? I was always amazed that they had an issue with Meghan Markle; I didn't even realize she was black until the media told me (I assumed she was of Mediterranean descent). There have to be some Greek or Spanish cousins that have darker skin than her. 

I found the Queen to be a very interesting character, I thought it was cool that she had corgis and could wrench on a Series 1 Land Rover. But I can't say I'm mourning her at all. During all of it, I've been constantly reminded of John Oliver's description of the royal family in general: "They’re an emotionally stunted group of fundamentally flawed people doing a very silly pseudo-job."

And add interesting context. I sit not to far from some Royal Air Force and Royal Marine Commandos at work. We've had some interesting talks this morning.  Mostly they're indifferent about the royal family. The Aussies seem to be pretty outspoken against them though. 

Just to paint a picture, I work with partner (allies?) nations as well as our 3 letter agencies and a significant number of foreign equivalents all in the same floor in the same organization. 

In reply to mtn :

Interesting point about Meghan. I heard in her podcast something along the lines that she had not experienced racism in that way until she started dating Harry.  I opined to a co-worker that was probably because people didn't assume she was Black until it was pointed out.

King Charles III is addressing the UK, TLDR.. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.  William and Kate immediately named the Prince and Princess of Wales and Duke and Dutchess of Cambridge.

yupididit said:

In reply to aircooled :

....But, she should have and could have reversed so many things. She had so much influence and her actions and lack-of action resulted in generational trauma.....

As noted, and as defined by her position, she had zero actual political power. Yes, she certainly had tremendous potential influence, but that is very hard to say, because she pretty much never talked about or took a stance on anything outside her royal circle (at least officially) that I know of.  You can certainly rightly criticize her for that, but that is the approach she chose, and it's not an entirely unreasonable one. 

One of the reasons why so many admire her so much (I BTW am not really one of them, I just see as an interesting historical figure) is because she essentially never spoke out (e.g. I don't think she even every gave an interview), just leaks and rumors from what I know.  When you start taking "political" stands on things, you instantly make enemies of a certain percentage of the population. You can certainly call that the cowards way out, but the British royal family is effectively an empty bag of "image" so you should also be able to understand why she did what she did (or more to the point, didn't do).  Again, because I understand it, doesn't mean I agree with it, or it's the best overall choice for all involved.

.....I can't tell if y'all are just purposely ignoring everything that went on during her 70 year reign. Or, if y'all are just honestly that ignorant. Whether you are keeping your head in the sand or not, do better.... 

Maybe the image of a sweet old white lady charms you into not considering how berkeleyed up she was. Maybe she reminds you of your granny which softens your stance and allows you to give her a pass. Today, an oppressor died....

As stated above, my primary lack of outrage comes from the perspective on her lack of actual power.  I would think for me to imply your perspective as "ignorant" of my points / perspective or that you have your "head in the sand" to be inappropriate and non-productive BTW.

I can also say I very much don't appreciate the implied racism there.  And again, I am not sure who she is "oppressing", she had almost no real power.  It's just all symbolism now (which I understand many find highly distasteful).  Also of note, the British did not only oppress people of non-pale skin, there are plenty of pale skins who hate them for similar reason (e.g. Irish Catholics).

I may view historical figure (which as noted, I generally see her as) in a rather cold, emotionless manner, but that is pretty necessary when dealing with human history.  There are a lot of very very very horrible things that people have done to each other throughout history (and sadly, some are still doing) and to take them in at an emotional level would eat most people up.

That said.  I DO, VERY MUCH appreciate your perspective, I just think you have gotten a weee bit emotional with it and have slipped into a bit of defensive / offensive mode, rather than discussion.

Summary:  I can see why people have such admiration for her (which is honestly a bit nieve, since they generally actually know very little about here other then her outward image), AND I can see why people find her offensive because of what she represents (but that also likely ignores some realities of who she really was)

06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to mtn :

Interesting point about Meghan. I heard in her podcast something along the lines that she had not experienced racism in that way until she started dating Harry.  I opined to a co-worker that was probably because people didn't assume she was Black until it was pointed out.

Meghan needs a vintage Ford Bronco with a 4 speed and a 302. And Corgis. Lots of Corgis.

I have a friend who just got to Scotland to start Distilling school. Their classes have been delayed for two weeks for mourning.

Bartender and I are having similar responses of, "The Scots are... mourning(?)... the queen?"

We suspect that the Scots more consider the death of the queen an event that deserves a drink...

In reply to aircooled :

Interesting that speaking out and taking humanitarian stances in the pursuit of doing right by billions of people is considered political. I think saying and doing nothing is also a form of a political stance. She had nothing to gain and everything to lose so I guess why try? People with zero influence and reverence tried their best to bring light and make right, why couldn't she? Inaction while simultaneously benefiting from the oppression and colonization of so many people...

Of course I get emotional, my family has been significantly affected. I've been to Kenya and visited that side of my family and listened to the stories from family elders who are still alive today living in Africa and the Caribbean. Also, I lived next to a Pakistani family where the mother was separated from her siblings for decades until they reunited in America, thanks to partition. I've also been to Pakistan, India, South Africa and Hong Kong too and numerous other countries that were subjects to colonization. Maybe my world view and experiences causes me to be emotional. On the other-side, people who dismiss and downplay things can come off as cold and seemingly lack any empathy for oppressed people.    

And to reply to your edits: I wasn't implying racism, but certain privilege, like not being exposed to or negatively affected by a particular systematic form of oppression can result in an ignorant perspective. How could you know if your exposure levels were low or shielded? Not everyone has that perk. It is also human nature to take someone's image and relate it to your relatives such as your grandma which MIGHT result in your overlooking certain behaviors. But nothing was an absolute statement, just possibilities. I'm aware that the Irish are included, that seems to be well-known and expressed vs others. Thanks

I understand why some (many) will shed no tears over her passing, but I think people need to take a step back and look at the reality of human history.  I'm just as quick as the next person to make jokes like 'Why are the pyramids still in Egypt? A: Because they were too big to take back to the British museum' because the UK has, to be honest, a history of invasion, subjugation and exploitation.  But one of the reasons the UK has so much questionable and downright shameful history, is because it's a damned old country.  Human nature, often spurred on by, or under the guise of religion, has throughout human history basically one of ‘eat or be eaten’, or ‘survival of the fittest’.  First 1:1, then tribes, city states, countries, empires.  It's basically been invade or be invaded, so by definition the bad guys have often been the winners, so the ones around to be remembered and blamed.  Britain has one of the worst overall records, but that's because it's over 1,000 years old, and was up until recently the latest big kahuna.  Depending on where you are sitting in history the Mongols, Romans, Russians (what goes around comes around), Spanish etc. have all been the more recent expansionist bad guys of the preceding era. 

At some point you need to say the past is the past and move on.  Hence this country doesn’t need to ‘free’ Hawaii, or return California to Mexico etc.  we should never pay reparations for slavery etc.  It's before anyone’s life time that these acts happen, and no one alive had any influence on the past.  Should we apologize for the past?  Yes.  Should we take responsibility for the past?  for the events that happened no, for the circumstances that allowed them, yes in that we prevent it happening again.  Same with the royal family, no one alive today is responsible in any way for what happened prior to her taking the throne.  Could she have done more to help return things? Maybe, but we need to understand she is bound by things way beyond the public knowledge or my understanding.  Also, as we've progressed as a society and expanded our empathy towards other nations and cultures, we have changed our views on ownership and finding things.  If she were coming to the position today having grown up this century rather than in the 30's/40's she might have different (evolved?) views and would end up taking a different path on some of these matters.  We're forgetting to view people and events based on the then current level of understanding.  

Sadly speaking out about such things would be very hard to not make political.  The one thing I did look up about her (as noted, most all info on her actions comes from leaked documents) was her anger at Thatcher for not supporting trade restriction on South Africa because for apartheid.  This would be the sort of actions you are talking about, yet she made zero effort to make that public.  Thatcher stance was obviously very political (not wanting to anger trade groups) and the Queens position would be attached to that.

And please don't take my observations as "downplay" or "dismissal", they are attempts to put things in context of history (which many people are not aware of).  When a country invades another country in the 14th century, and they rape, torture, murder their enemies civilians, it is certainly horrific, but that is also kind of expected behavior back then.  When it happens in 2022, it's far more shocking / unusual.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) :

And the events that did happen under her reign? The simple symbolic gestures that could've been done, like return artifacts and precious stones owned by the Royal family back to their people? Not hinder the end of apartheid? Condone the massacres that took place during her reign and perpetrated by the British during anti-colonial uprises? 

You'll see I didn't latch onto her preventing things before her reign but instead help right those wrong while benefiting substantially from them and take positive action about the things that DID happen during her reign. A lot of bad E36 M3 happened in those 70 years that hurt people who are alive today. 

And Hawaii, well they're still mad about that because that still affects the families who live today. 

And

In reply to aircooled :

I wasnt referring to you, I said "people who downplay", only you would know if you fall into that category. 

OK, no problem.   Just wanted to make sure that was not the implication, or the impression that people (not just you) where getting.