Queen Elizabeth II

yupididit said:

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?

Maybe I missing something but how did she hinder the end of apartheid? From what I have read she pressured Thatcher to take action against the South African government and became good friends with Nelson Mandela.

Not saying that excusing other things and maybe there is something I am unaware of regarding apartheid and Queen Elizabeth.

In reply to yupididit :

I don't want to argue, you have your view, I have mine.  Both are equally valid, but open to disagreement.

I did say she was a product of her time and may have different views if she'd been born 70-80 years later.  Also as has been mentioned, while you keep talking about South Africa, there is evidence that she strongly disagreed with the administration on the UK's relationship with S.A. but because she respected her position as a figurehead and NOT a political leader, her views didn't become known until decades later.  Additionally Nelson Mandela viewed her as a friend and they respected each other.  We don't know what she may have said about returning artifacts behind the scenes.  

No human is perfect, and no human who represents a large organization (business, country, religion, ethnicity) will ever be able to be known properly by the general public who follow their lives wether in admiration, resentment or condemnation.

I think Senna and Schumacher were a horrible dangerous unsporting race drivers who should have been banned from the track.  I mourned Senna's passing, and am terribly sorry for Schumachers' current physical state.  I recognize them as human beings and recognize their off track achievements and the good they both did in this world.

I think Reagan was a disaster for this country and we are suffering today due to a lot of E36 M3 he said and did, but I mourned the passing of a beloved leader when he died.

I think Michael Jackson was a low life pedo creep, but I mourned the passing of a great artist.

I can look at a person, and in most cases, even if it's at the end of their life, I can look past their failings and appreciate what they gave to this world.  There are exceptions, Hital, Pol Pot, Stalin, Amin, people who were fundamentally evil to their core, but by no standards does Queen Elizabeth II deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as them. 

I understand you will chose to celebrate the passing of someone you see as a tyrant.  I will chose to remember the person beloved by hundreds of millions of people who spent her life working for her country within the constraints of her position and as the product of her time.

yupididit said:

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

We should probably start a separate thread about Hawaii, cause native Hawaiians are still mad.  And they way our "acquisition" of what was a previously sovereign kingdom went down they have a right to be IMO.   But, don't mind me.. Carry on.

Yeah I'm not going to go on tangents. 

And Adrian, I respect your perspective, thanks for respecting mine.

I do think I've maximized my effort overall in this thread. I had a lot of time at work but now the weekend is here and I have cars to retrieve. German cars, ironically lol

93EXCivic said:

yupididit said:

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?

Maybe I missing something but how did she hinder the end of apartheid? From what I have read she pressured Thatcher to take action against the South African government and became good friends with Nelson Mandela.

Not saying that excusing other things and maybe there is something I am unaware of regarding apartheid and Queen Elizabeth.

In the '80s she did pressure Thatcher to put sanctions on South Africa. There are some indications that she was quietly anti-apartheid for much of her life. But at least until the Thatcher era...all indications are that she quietly went along with the status quo. So she did use what power she had to hasten the end of apartheid, but only after decades of benefiting from not doing that, and only after it started to look problematic for the UK:

https://theconversation.com/queen-elizabeth-monarch-who-had-to-adjust-to-the-shift-from-empire-to-commonwealth-190364
 

Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to yupididit :

I can look at a person, and in most cases, even if it's at the end of their life, I can look past their failings and appreciate what they gave to this world.  There are exceptions, Hital, Pol Pot, Stalin, Amin, people who were fundamentally evil to their core, but by no standards does Queen Elizabeth II deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as them. 

Well said, and history has many more examples. The US founding fathers being a rather large glaring one.

Maybe the answer is that we should stop canonizing people, naming things after them, building statues, etc. There's no such thing as a perfect person. Study them, learn from their lives, use the perspective of time to think about what they could have done differently. But stop putting them on pedestals, sometimes literally. Because if you start looking, pretty much everyone, especially the famous, has some kind of skeletons.

This woman has a similar perspective and she is being shouted down for it. She probably knew people who lived in Nigeria when it was a British Colony. It does make you think. This perspective is not taught in history class.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/professor-uju-anya-queen-jeff-bezos-excruciating-death_n_631b16c8e4b000d988502a20

At least they are being somewhat consistent.  While not being sad about someones death (which some have expressed here) is understandable when you dislike them or their position, wishing them a painful death kind steps over the line though and is potentially perpetuating the cycle of anger / violence. 

I also doubt she is really being "shouted down" for it.  Yes, Bezos replied in negative, but I suspect most of her replies where very positive of her comment (anti-colonial sentiment is pretty big in the inter-webs these days).

She accused the queen of overseeing a government “that massacred and displaced half my family.”

I think we can be fairly confident that the queen did not "oversee" the British government that had a part in the massacres, it's more her not speaking out against it where the reasonable argument lies.  Again, I understand the anger, I think it's a bit misplaced in this case at least.  

In reply to aircooled :

The position of her having no power undermines her influence and importance. It also gives her a rather convenient out as far as her part in things as well as her benefiting from those terrible things from the day she was born till the day she died, almost 100 years. Even if she didn't have hands on administrative power, she had the ears and hearts of millions of people. If she said "stop this X" an entire nation and her multiple commonwealths would be behind it. Their govt would not ignore that or undermine her influence. It seems the only thing that moved her was the optics of things looking bad for the country. What year did Apartheid begin in South Africa? And what years did she serve as the Queen wearing dazzling precious stones that came from South Africa too?

In reply to aircooled :

Most of the Colonies had declared their independence by the time she took the throne. It is more accurate to say that she had influence over the British Government than she was overseeing the government. Yet she is also a figurehead who represents the government and that makes her a target. Maybe she could have done things differently, but she did not have the power of a Prime Minister.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

... This perspective is not taught in history class. ...

I don't think perspective is a thing these days other than looking at the past with whatever view the current pop culture dictates. Lots of judginess from people who weren't there-don't care. Most history is defined by wars. Powerful people and nations have always beaten down the weak. Rape, plunder, slaughter and slavery have been the norm for most of recorded history - worldwide - and if you don't see it today, you aren't looking.

As Queens and women of power go, I expect the long view of history will see her as a 'good queen'. Rest in peace.

Interesting piece I just stumbled across regarding the Queen learning vehicle maintenance in WW2:

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/queen-elizabeth-ii-during-world-war-ii

It seems like she was a good woman who could have used her station in life to more forcefully argue for helping those in need. It's a pretty common critique of pretty much every old person (people will say the same thing after i'm room tempreture), but she stands out because of the power she wielded.

As a red blooded American I have a problem with celebrating monarchies. The idea that a group of people are better than me because of the family into which they were born is hateful.

We fought wars over this. Hell, most of the world fought wars of this.

One of my more favorite traditions involving death (weird sentence.)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11199259/Royal-beekeeper-informed-Queens-bees-HM-died-King-Charles-new-boss.html

I wonder if the bees heard "the Queen is dead" and panicked for a second "no, not that one, the other one"

John Welsh said:

Slippery said:

pinchvalve (Forum Supporter) said:

So are they skipping Charles? 

Operation London Bridge

This level of pre-planning is strangely intriguing.  

Sample:

The media would be informed by announcement to PA Media and the BBC through the Radio Alert Transmission System (RATS) and to commercial radio on the Independent Radio News through a network of blue "obit lights" which will alert presenters to play "inoffensive music" and prepare for a news flash, while BBC Two would suspend scheduled programming and switch to BBC One's broadcast of the announcement.[11] BBC News will air a pre-recorded sequence of portraits, during which the presenters on duty at the time will prepare for the formal announcement by putting on dark clothing prepared for this purpose. The Guardian has reported that The Times has 11 days of prepared coverage ready and that ITN and Sky News have long rehearsed her death, but substituting the name "Mrs Robinson".[1]

 

Yeah this is a family that understands the common people.

In reply to Stampie :

I don't think it's fair to judge the whole family based on how Chuck behaves.

In reply to ShawnG :

The family, no, but the monarchy?

Yep.

As a history buff I will just leave these here. Make of these what you will...

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/18/uncovering-truth-british-empire-caroline-elkins-mau-mau

https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/tanzania/news/international/kenya-s-lengthy-dalliance-with-queen-elizabeth-ii-3943810

Yupididit,

Thank you for persistently banging the drum. I can barely begin to imagine the underlying anguish that goes with realizing you have to. Human nature really has not changed much in recorded history, but human knowledge, and the understanding that comes with that knowledge, grow and grow and grow.

Yes, QE2 was a product of the era(s) she was in. Just the same, she had 70 years to contemplate her growing knowledge, her sense of right and wrong, and the significance of her own actions. She had very little political authority, as compared to monarchies of old, but if she said, "This is a constitutional monarchy, the laws reside with you, but I have these two hands and this is what I am going to do with them..." a lot of people would have followed. Instead she chose to not rock the boat.

All of us are products of the era we live in, and our place within it.

We all have:

• things in our lives that we are acclimated to, that we would see as outright wrong if we stopped to look at them. Some of those things we can see good but misguided intentions behind; others are worse.
• things we would be outraged about, if we knew about them.
• things we would be insanely proud of, if we know about them.

Our growing knowledge continues to open our eyes on many fronts.  If occasions don't make us stop and reevaluate our surroundings, we give up a lot of opportunities to improve our era, or even just appreciate it.

Could she have done worse? Yep. Could she have done better? Yep. More importantly, if it was us, and it was now, what would we do the same and what would we do differently? Because we may not be kings and queens, but it is us, and it is now.

Matthew

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

As a history buff I will just leave these here. Make of these what you will...

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/18/uncovering-truth-british-empire-caroline-elkins-mau-mau

 

https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/tanzania/news/international/kenya-s-lengthy-dalliance-with-queen-elizabeth-ii-3943810

Thank you.  I read those today and learned a bunch of new.

In reply to yupididit :

I'm a fan of history though no serious student of it and didn't yet know this perspective you've shared. Thanks for opening my eyes to it. 
 

Thinking out loud here, I'm considering what significance there is to her having "actual" power and whether she should have said something/returned items of cultural significance. This example from my own life educates my opinion: in a family forum my brother became verbally abusive to extended family who disagreed with his mask politics. He became disgusting toward cousins, just hateful. My cousins asked my parents to speak up for them but my parents didn't say anything because "it wouldn't have changed his behavior". And I totally related to their decision --- Until I became the target of his clawing and biting, and then suddenly I realized that to be a silent witness to someone else being abused is to condone the abuse. Even supposing you don't have the power to make practical changes, if you will just stand with the oppressed, the victim, and say to them "I see your pain, it's not right, I'm here with you, I'm on your side" - that makes the person feel so much less alone. 

So yeah, barring some revelation of behind-the-scenes self-sacrificing machinations for relief of oppressed people, I'd agree that she should have done a lot more. If she did not do more because she wanted to protect some kind of monarch dignity, then that's self-seeking at best, and not particularly admirable, other than for her effectiveness at it.  

At the same time, I think that people are a product of their age and I am not into tearing down statues. BUT YET, because of who she is, I would hold her to a higher standard than others her age just as I would expect prez Biden to have a more firm grasp on the political implications of, say, Guatemala's opposition party (such a thing?) than I would expect from my similarly-aged great aunt in nowhereville, Oklahoma. 

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

As a history buff I will just leave these here. Make of these what you will...

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/18/uncovering-truth-british-empire-caroline-elkins-mau-mau

 

https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/tanzania/news/international/kenya-s-lengthy-dalliance-with-queen-elizabeth-ii-3943810

That first article really tells the story. She was either willfully ignorant of a genocide committed by her government, or she was complicit. 
 

On a lighter note I'm very curious if Canada won't use this opportunity to distance themselves from the monarchy. I imagine there will be an big call for it over the next coming weeks and months.

I think it's kind of interesting that they're using a Mercedes-Benz hearse.  I would have thought they would have used a Rolls-Royce, or maybe even that custom Land Rover that Prince Phillip used.

Maybe it's less ostentatious?

Rolls Royce is German owned so it's a wash. A Land Rover wouldn't be appropriate for a funeral.