Let's discuss the British Monarchy

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Dude we tried.

What you tried? You were too busy tickling Bravehearts balls

 

[HAL9000]

What you tried? You were too busy tickling Bravehearts balls

*shrugs* He liked it...

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

*shrugs* He liked it...

Yeah cut off a mans head after erection typical british

 

[Craig234]

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.

That's not fair, and is apologism for genocide.

Hitler: "Hey, some other world leader would do the same."

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.

You're wrong - to misrepresent my post as denying they did, and to misrepresent that book as denying they did.

They DID 'spread civilization in a lot of ways'.

History isn't always that simple, that it's not enough 'they committed genocide against tens or hundreds of millions', that you have to wrongly deny any benefits as well.

As incredibly offensive as it is to make the point, you could say 'on the good side, Hitler's genocide helped get modern Israel created', also.

It's a dilemma the US deals with about Native Americans.

'What we did was totally wrong, taking the land of a people slaughtering many millions of men, women and children - and it was totally right because it allowed the US growth.'

People largely believe both of those things, though they are inconsistent.

And the spread of Western civilization was both incredibly evil, murderous, exploitive, creating inequality still in place - and led to civilization people strongly support today.

If you asked Americans to choose - give up the native genocide but lose the growth of the US, or keep the growth of the US but say you are for genocide - they largely can't.

They just want it both ways: genocide is bad, but the US advancing was the right thing.

History isn't just made of black and white.

 

[davmat787]

dp

 

[davmat787]

That's not fair, and is apologism for genocide.

You want another example of colonial genocide apologism, look know further than Whiskey'16s post in this thread (below). Did you see that post? Of course he says Belize was better off since colonialism saved it from the US, so I would be interested if you have the same response or not.

Ahh, so unlike it to be that a republic could ever "suck" a state in Central America dry....?

Dude, be thankful during the time of your or your parents that Belize didn't nearly face the extremes of genocide in Guatemala, and onto smaller scale massacres down through Honduras, el Salvador, Nicaragua, etc.... Then to go back to the first half of the 20th century with US military invasions and brutal occupations of neighbouring regional states -- other than Belize.

Belize gained self-governance in 1964, and full Independence in 1981. Guatemala, rather than Britain, was Belize's greatest threat as it retained the perception of Belize not to be independent, but a territory of Guatemala. If you put it all into perspective, Belize under the British crown, kept the USA out, and was a relative beacon of stability in this region.

Just being pragmatically honest here.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the deposing of the British monarchy would also result in a massive decline in genocidal apologists in the UK. I think that a lot of people look upon the British Empire as the good old days, glory for King/Queen and country, etc. If the institution of the monarchy was eliminated, it would probably lessen the amount of genocidal apologist incidents that we see from British people.

Just another positive aspect of ending the monarchy, IMO.

 

[HAL9000]

Nef nef nef nef peasant nef nef discrimination nef nef nef racism nef nef nef barbarism nef nef sexism nef nef nef genocide nef nef nef british nef nef nef

 

[Whiskey16]

You want another example of colonial genocide apologism, look know further than Whiskey'16s post in this thread (below).

If you can reference a British instigated gencide upon Belize in the previous century, I am all ears. Your direct neighbour and primary military threat, Guatemala certainly suffered far worse, straight through into the 1980s.

Unfortunately you missed the relativism of my post -- Monarchies versus Republicanism. It was accurate and pragmatic relativism to deride the hyperbolic claims of the extreme immorality and practices brought by monarchial colonialism that could be cured with a republic holding the reigns. Hardly.

The case I brough forth was the relative stability and security within Belize, as a colony, under the British crown when compared to neighbouring republican states, and notably the direct and horrid violence brought upon those states by a colonial republic -- the USA.

 

[davmat787]

If you can reference a British instigated gencide upon Belize in the previous century, I am all ears. Your direct neighbour and primary military threat, Guatemala certainly suffered far worse, straight through into the 1980s.

Unfortunately you missed the relativism of my post -- Monarchies versus Republicanism. It was accurate and pragmatic relativism to deride the hyperbolic claims of the extreme immorality and practices brought by monarchial colonialism that could be cured with a republic holding the reigns. Hardly.

The case I brough forth was the relative stability and security within Belize, as a colony, under the British crown when compared to neighbouring republican states, and notably the direct and horrid violence brought upon those states by a colonial republic -- the USA.

I got all that, I was just pointing to the fact that you use the very relativism you speak of to defend colonial atrocities. A lesser of two evils if you will. If you need to use other atrocities to defend yours, what does that say? I am, and have been, speaking of the colonial atrocities in general too, not specifically about any one country. Afterall, the subject of this thread is the British Monarchy.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

If you can reference a British instigated gencide upon Belize in the previous century, I am all ears. Your direct neighbour and primary military threat, Guatemala certainly suffered far worse, straight through into the 1980s.

Unfortunately you missed the relativism of my post -- Monarchies versus Republicanism. It was accurate and pragmatic relativism to deride the hyperbolic claims of the extreme immorality and practices brought by monarchial colonialism that could be cured with a republic holding the reigns. Hardly.

The case I brough forth was the relative stability and security within Belize, as a colony, under the British crown when compared to neighbouring republican states, and notably the direct and horrid violence brought upon those states by a colonial republic -- the USA.

Whatever he said. He said it pretty damn good

 

[Veliko]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the deposing of the British monarchy would also result in a massive decline in genocidal apologists in the UK. I think that a lot of people look upon the British Empire as the good old days, glory for King/Queen and country, etc. If the institution of the monarchy was eliminated, it would probably lessen the amount of genocidal apologist incidents that we see from British people.

Just another positive aspect of ending the monarchy, IMO.

You don't appear to understand the British people's attitude towards the British Royal Family at all.

 

[Siddhartha]

The morality, legitimacy of the history of the monarch, should it be there? Is it ethical / moral? Why does America not have one? Is it better or worse without it.

Use this thread to discuss that.

Today in England, do not the royalty and royal related constitue a privileged class? Do the members of this class go to the best schools, get the best jobs, and control all aspects of public and private sectors of England's society?

I vote against that.

 

[WelshBloke]

Today in England, do not the royalty and royal related constitue a privileged class? Do the members of this class go to the best schools, get the best jobs, and control all aspects of public and private sectors of England's society?

I vote against that.

No (apart from the schools).

 

[RabidMongoose]

One of them does get the job as head of state and no peasant can get that job and considering that they basically did nothing to earn it, they get to be worshipped as a God-Human, and get paid millions, I'd say that's one of the best jobs in the UK. What other job gets you worshipped by millions of peasants?

 

[RabidMongoose]

You don't appear to understand the British people's attitude towards the British Royal Family at all.

How so?

 

[CanOWorms]

One of them does get the job as head of state and no peasant can get that job and considering that they basically did nothing to earn it, they get to be worshipped as a God-Human, and get paid millions, I'd say that's one of the best jobs in the UK. What other job gets you worshipped by millions of peasants?

Many of the other members of the inbred royal family also receive jobs. Some receive highly influential positions, too.

They exert their influence across many aspects of the British government and social life.

 

[IGBT]

big ears and no chin.