Let's discuss the British Monarchy

[mammador]

If there were, well as I said colonialism was the order of the day, as most of the major European powers had colonies overseas.

 

[zinfamous]

One requires an irrational belief in delusion.

The other requires a rational understanding that the royal family are ceremonial figureheads that bring tourism to the country and bring in huge amounts of money to the country with no downsides.

This response was not for RabidMongoose or CanOfWorms.

Side note: I fucking hate baked beans, it's one of only two things I won't eat.

Oh.....

:hmm:

 

[Craig234]

Yes sir, there was like, bajillions killed. And here we though Stallin, Pol Pot, and Hitler were bad dudes, they have nothing on the crown.

Seriously, I don't want to minimize any atrocities committed under the days of UK Colonialism, but posting numbers that are so off base don't help your position RapidMongoose/CanOWorms. As you can see from my other posts, I am obviously not a fan of want went down during the colonial times either.

Do you have a more accurate number? I am honestly curious.

I don't have one handy, but the numbers are huge. Trying to recall a few off the top of my head:

Start with Columbus; I forget how many millions of people lived in the area he landed - but they were monstrously enslaved and killed, 30 years later effectively all were killed.

A priest who lived there documented the history - see Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" for the story.

IIRC there might have been 15 to 20 million natives in North America, nearly all wiped out.

How many were in South America - was it 10 million? Mostly killed.

Africa? Not good numbers. Millions of slaves were taken before we get to the colonies.

India? IIRC tens of millions were killed. The Middle East - don't have numbers.

Autralia? Not sure. Haven't gotten to Asia, like Vietnam.

There's a reason the European powers have been called 'a cancer' who killed massively - while their PR might defend 'spreading civilization'.

 

[micrometers]

What a disaster, they lose 0.25% of GDP to watch an inbred get married.

direct costs were in the tens of millions.

This is saying that "loss of a working day" cost GDP, but so what? Any holiday does that.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

The people lost all their respect and believe in the monarchy when they started to do everything for personal gain

 

[RabidMongoose]

If there were, well as I said colonialism was the order of the day, as most of the major European powers had colonies overseas.

Yeah, what a wonderful excuse for worldwide genocide.

 

[RabidMongoose]

There is no British Monarchy. The UK is a Democratic republic just like all the other first world countries. The Queen is there for show, as a mere symbol, while the prime minister runs the country as the equivalent of the president of France, for example.

There is a monarchy and the monarchy enjoys privileges beyond that of any ordinary citizen.

 

[CanOWorms]

Billions? Colonialism was the order of the day.

Please don't deny a holocaust. It was not the order of the day. They were particularly ruthless.

 

[RabidMongoose]

heh, can I ask what you know of UK society or culture, other than perhaps what US pop culture or the media tell you?

If we're to have a debate on the value of the UK monarchy, or how "evil" the UK was centuries ago, we need to see if you on a solid grounding. Already, one of you didn't even know the term constitutional monarchy, and presumed the UK sovereign and other sovereigns in developed countries were absolute monarchs.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, but I already knew about the term constitutional monarchy. Moreover, that doesn't mean that British people killed for the glory of their God-Human King/Queen.

Moreover, the UK was evil much more recently than "centuries ago." Stop being a genocide apologist. The UK is probably the country with the most blood on its hands and that blood is even during modern times.

 

[mammador]

Please don't deny a holocaust. It was not the order of the day. They were particularly ruthless.

How so?

The UK never had a King Leopold's Congo, nor massacred native Americans as the colonial Spanish did. Of the major colonial powers following the Age of Discovery, all committed some reprehensible acts.

 

[CanOWorms]

I have no idea what you're talking about here, but I already knew about the term constitutional monarchy. Moreover, that doesn't mean that British people killed for the glory of their God-Human King/Queen.

Moreover, the UK was evil much more recently than "centuries ago." Stop being a genocide apologist. The UK is probably the country with the most blood on its hands and that blood is even during modern times.

That post represents what always happens in monarchy discussions on these forums. The level of discourse between the pro-monarchists and anti-monarchists is too great. The pro-monarchists always revert back to this absolute-vs-constitutionalist monarchist argument which none of the anti-monarchists even bring up. Everyone knows the difference between the two, but most of the pro-monarchists think that is the only argument, and that they're special because they know the distinction.

I suspect that they need to feel that they're special because having a monarchist world view dehumanizes the self.

 

[CanOWorms]

How so?

Just because you do not know about it does not mean it did not happen. There is much genocide denial about British activities.

The UK never had a King Leopold's Congo

Of course they didn't, that belongs to Belgium. But, King Leopold's Congo is tame compared to what the British did.

nor massacred native Americans as the colonial Spanish did.

Yes, they did. How can you even deny such a thing? That's insane. Are you joking? I can't tell.

Of the major colonial powers following the Age of Discovery, all committed some reprehensible acts.

Perhaps, but none were at the level of the British. We're talking about an Empire that invented concentration camps. We're talking about an Empire that killed 100 million Indians just through man-made famines alone (including Churchill's genocide in India during WW2 that resulted in 4-5 million deaths). We're talking about an Empire that was one of the world's largest drug dealers.

History is not kind to the British Empire. Humanity was set back centuries through its actions.

Also, why restrict it to only to major colonial powers following the Age of Discovery? There were so many nations and societies around at that time. They should be judged with the whole, not only among the most ruthless.

 

[Nebor]

Sweet jesus, why couldn't CanoWorms\RabidMongoose's ancestors have been the victim of a genocide?!

 

[Lemon law]

As this thread stumbles its way to a full 14 pages, outraged at only the British Monarchy, am I the only one that is amazed that this thread gives the Saudi Arabian Monarchy and the house of Faud, not even a word of mention?

Yet we are swift to condemn the Taliban and Sharia law, when we can go to Saudi Arabia and drink Sharia law in its unchanged original and purest form.

I leave with another question given the fact the figurehead British monarchy draws in all those millions of paying foreign tourists eager to go ga ga and pay big bucks to watch up close all the trapping of British Royalty, do the Saudis drag in a even larger number of foreign paying tourists eager and willing to engage in the pilgrimage called the Haj that all good Muslims should under go at least once in their life time?

 

[RabidMongoose]

As this thread stumbles its way to a full 14 pages, outraged at only the British Monarchy, am I the only one that is amazed that this thread gives the Saudi Arabian Monarchy and the house of Faud, not even a word of mention?

Yet we are swift to condemn the Taliban and Sharia law, when we can go to Saudi Arabia and drink Sharia law in its unchanged original and purest form.

Is there anyone here who even supports the Saudi Arabian monarchy? I doubt it. However, there are lots of people here who support the British caste system and even make excuses for genocides performed for the glory of the God-human.

I leave with another question given the fact the figurehead British monarchy draws in all those millions of paying foreign tourists eager to go ga ga and pay big bucks to watch up close all the trapping of British Royalty, do the Saudis drag in a even larger number of foreign paying tourists eager and willing to engage in the pilgrimage called the Haj that all good Muslims should under go at least once in their life time?

There is zero evidence that the UK royal family brings in tourism dollars. In fact, you can't just pay big bucks to watch the up close all the trapping of British Royalty or whatever because a lot of the grounds are closed to tourism. Of the largest tourism revenue generators in the UK, very few have anything to do with the royal family. On the contrary, if the Royal family was deposed and the Crown Estate fully opened to tourism, revenue would explode. Look at France.

 

[Nebor]

I leave with another question given the fact the figurehead British monarchy draws in all those millions of paying foreign tourists eager to go ga ga and pay big bucks to watch up close all the trapping of British Royalty, do the Saudis drag in a even larger number of foreign paying tourists eager and willing to engage in the pilgrimage called the Haj that all good Muslims should under go at least once in their life time?

I've been saying for years that we need to put a tomahawk cruise missile right into the Kaaba.

 

[CanOWorms]

As this thread stumbles its way to a full 14 pages, outraged at only the British Monarchy, am I the only one that is amazed that this thread gives the Saudi Arabian Monarchy and the house of Faud, not even a word of mention?

Probably. The thread title is "Let's discuss the British Monarchy."

Yet we are swift to condemn the Taliban and Sharia law, when we can go to Saudi Arabia and drink Sharia law in its unchanged original and purest form.

I leave with another question given the fact the figurehead British monarchy draws in all those millions of paying foreign tourists eager to go ga ga and pay big bucks to watch up close all the trapping of British Royalty, do the Saudis drag in a even larger number of foreign paying tourists eager and willing to engage in the pilgrimage called the Haj that all good Muslims should under go at least once in their life time?

Cool, where do I buy a ticket to watch the Queen try on some tiaras?

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

As this thread stumbles its way to a full 14 pages, outraged at only the British Monarchy, am I the only one that is amazed that this thread gives the Saudi Arabian Monarchy and the house of Faud, not even a word of mention?

Yet we are swift to condemn the Taliban and Sharia law, when we can go to Saudi Arabia and drink Sharia law in its unchanged original and purest form.

I leave with another question given the fact the figurehead British monarchy draws in all those millions of paying foreign tourists eager to go ga ga and pay big bucks to watch up close all the trapping of British Royalty, do the Saudis drag in a even larger number of foreign paying tourists eager and willing to engage in the pilgrimage called the Haj that all good Muslims should under go at least once in their life time?

That is actually a very good point you made there.

The Saudi royal family is larger, richer and domestically more dominant than any other royal family in the world, now and at any other time in history. Estimates of the numbers of the family vary but there are said to be over 5,000 princes. Total “royals” including princesses and those who have married into non-royal families, could be over 25,000. It might even be double this. There are no figures. But of this uncertain total there are probably only 100 or so key players domestically. Internationally, the number is much less.

Senior members of the Saudi royal family are increasingly old and some are in ill-health. There are also various reportedly rivalries. If not actually breaking down, the Saudi system of ruling is certainly under strain. This problem is occurring at a particularly bad moment, a situation that has been developing at least since Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 as the Saudi royal family faces twin internal challenges.

Conservative Muslim clergy have worried about loss of influence and arrival of, at least in Saudi terms, modernism. Liberals have chaffed at restrictions while watching changes in other parts of the world, including in the kingdom’s Arab Gulf neighbours. Who is winning?

As always in trying to follow events in the kingdom, the information is often fragmentary and occasionally contradictory. But what has been going on in the kingdom has contributed to instability in the country. And, because of Saudi Arabia’s leadership role in both the Islamic world and the international oil market, events in Saudi Arabia will, for better or worse, have an impact across the world.

 

[Joepublic2]

I greatly dislike the concept of royalty in the first place. Leaders should not be held above their followers in any way unless it's required for a political entities continued cohesion (you don't sent your greatest talents to the front lines for example).

 

[Joepublic2]

There's a reason the European powers have been called 'a cancer' who killed massively - while their PR might defend 'spreading civilization'.

It's not as if any other group of people in the world would have done things any differently had they been the ones to discover industrialization first, rather than northern Europeans.

And they did spread civilization in a lot of ways, although if you read "The people's history of the US" I could see why you would believe they didn't.

 

[davmat787]

It's not as if any other group of people in the world would have done things any differently had they been the ones to discover industrialization first, rather than northern Europeans.

And they did spread civilization in a lot of ways, although if you read "The people's history of the US" I could see why you would believe they didn't.

Maybe the idea of "spreading civilization" was merely a ruse for the exploitation of the colonies resources and peoples? And to spread civilization, don't you first have to make a judgement that your way is better than that of the target population? I'm sure this notion was the very excuse for a shitload of atrocities.

The notion of spreading civilization is literally the subject of a poem by Kiplingm titled: White Man's Burden

 

[Joepublic2]

Maybe the idea of "spreading civilization" was merely a ruse for the exploitation of the colonies resources and peoples? And to spread civilization, don't you first have to make a judgement that your way is better than that of the target population? I'm sure this notion was the very excuse for a shitload of atrocities.

The notion of spreading civilization is literally the subject of a poem by Kiplingm titled: White Man's Burden

It spread both ways; it's just while a lot of the most successful nations like the Aztecs etc. had more advanced agricultural tech for example the Europeans had better weapons tech and bigger numbers and that's what matters when two different cultures clash. Plus add in the whole disease issue and you can see why one side won out so completely over the other.

And Europeans should have treated their colonies much better than they did, without a doubt, but I do objectively believe we do it better now than the natives did. I take antidepressants created with modern chemistry that greatly improve the quality of my life. And you're communicating with me with some high tech electronic device and not living in a commune (done this btw) out in he woods somewhere so you probably enjoy your high tech creature comforts, too.

And I'm "white" but the majority of my ancestors were Irish and had a pretty rough in time in Europe and then in the Americas.

 

[CanOWorms]

It's not as if any other group of people in the world would have done things any differently had they been the ones to discover industrialization first, rather than northern Europeans.

I think that other groups of people would have done things differently. Some societies value human life over greed and wouldn't travel around the world pillaging and raping everyone.

And they did spread civilization in a lot of ways, although if you read "The people's history of the US" I could see why you would believe they didn't.

Perhaps they spread some things, but they also wiped out many civilizations and destroyed culture, knowledge, etc. Human advancement was likely set back centuries.

 

[Joepublic2]

I think that other groups of people would have done things differently. Some societies value human life over greed and wouldn't travel around the world pillaging and raping everyone.

Some would have, some wouldn't but I don't think it would have broken down along racial lines or anything. Like say Buddhists got their hands on industrialization first I think we'd probably have warp drive spaceships exploring the milky way by now, haha.

Perhaps they spread some things, but they also wiped out many civilizations and destroyed culture, knowledge, etc. Human advancement was likely set back centuries.

Definitely a terrible thing and I agree that it probably did set society back in some ways and a bunch of hard fought knowledge was lost to time. I'm definitely not a spergy engineering type who only places value on certain types of knowledge or insight.

 

[HAL9000]

Sweet jesus, why couldn't CanoWorms\RabidMongoose's ancestors have been the victim of a genocide?!

Dude we tried.