London Bridge is Down

[Monahorns]

Deez, there you go quoting libertarians again.


I just don't care about this Queen stuff at all. Do I really have to care? I do on a human level. Any person dying is a tragedy but she had a good run. I have no hate for the woman. I also don't hold any affection for her personally. I find the fawning distasteful. Let her family and friends morn her, and let the rest of us pursue our own lives.

 

[Mr. Deez]

How long can Charles contain his radical positions?

Being the actual monarch makes a difference. They usually keep their political positions to themselves unless the country is totally unified on something. For example, when the Luftwaffe was firebombing London, obviously King George could "get political" and tell the people they were going to go kick Germany's ***. However, if it's a matter of any meaningful controversy, the monarch stays quiet. They technically still have a roll in governance, but they try to keep it ceremonial and politically neutral.

Think about Elizabeth. She presided over several Tory and Labour governments. Which did she prefer? Who knows? She never stated any preference and pretty much treated them all the same.

Like his ex-wife, Charles has taken some stupid political positions, but it's hard to imagine him using the throne to push them now, especially when he needs the country unified behind him.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez, there you go quoting libertarians again.


I just don't care about this Queen stuff at all. Do I really have to care? I do on a human level. Any person dying is a tragedy but she had a good run. I have no hate for the woman. I also don't hold any affection for her personally. I find the fawning distasteful. Let her family and friends morn her, and let the rest of us pursue our own lives.

I definitely feel that way about the institution. However, being here makes it hard to just blow it off and hard not to have some kind feelings for her. And the propaganda is everywhere and very well-made.

It's not like being in Germany. There was virtually no patriotism there at all. The Allies and the leftists beat all that out if them and turned them into self-flagellating (and also virtue signaling) weirdos, and nobody gave a crap about their royal family (which still exists and still has a royal residence). The one exception was soccer. During soccer matches, you may as well be in a Leni Riefenstahl film in Nürnberg in 1935, but once that's over, the patriotism is over.

Brits are more like Americans. They're mostly proud of their country and proud of their queen. She's their big symbol of national pride. When she spoke to them, they listened and cared, and she was a real comfort to them in hard times. Whether she should have been is obviously debatable, but she was.

It also helps that Brits (unlike Germans) are generally outwardly kind including to Americans, and when that's all around you, it's hard not sympathize and empathize with them. It's hard not to respect someone they admire and revere so much, even if I'm not loyal to her as they were. I'd feel like an ******* if I didn't. Lol.

 

[Mr. Deez]

A stupid white liberal in my area, and we're talking about the monarch who dismantled the Empire.

 

[huisache]

The Brits were arrogant colonists but they were also the most civilizing force in history. Unless you think the slave trade, cannibalism and burning women recently widowed were good customs. Also note what happened when they left the locals to their own devices

 

[Mr. Deez]

Obviously, there's a huge movement on the left academia, the media, etc.) to deem anything Western (white people, Christianity, reason, objectivity) to be evil and anything non-Western to be good. That means that the West represents slavery, violence, oppression, racism, sexism, etc, and the non-West represents innocence, freedom, etc. And of course, the reality is the opposite. The West represents the end of slavery, universal rights, economic development, and self-determination. The non-West basically never gave a ****. Slavery? No problem. Human sacrifice and eating people? Whatever. Female genital mutilation? Racism? Sexism? Are you seriously mad about that stuff???

 

[Chop]

Obviously, there's a huge movement on the left academia, the media, etc.) to deem anything Western (white people, Christianity, reason, objectivity) to be evil and anything non-Western to be good. That means that the West represents slavery, violence, oppression, racism, sexism, etc, and the non-West represents innocence, freedom, etc. And of course, the reality is the opposite. The West represents the end of slavery, universal rights, economic development, and self-determination. The non-West basically never gave a ****. Slavery? No problem. Human sacrifice and eating people? Whatever. Female genital mutilation? Racism? Sexism? Are you seriously mad about that stuff???

Well, the dipsh!ts who actually believe that have to explain who they want to win the Russia (non-West/anti-West) vs Ukraine (supported by West) war. Most of the explanations of who is in the wrong I've heard from the Center and even the Left are based on reasoning that the values of Western Civilization are superior to the alternatives--and they all support Ukraine. Values like the Treaty of Westphalia, democracy over autocracy, freedoms of speech, press, right to assemble and petition the gov't, etc., and opposition to a military/police state.

Those nations that have adopted Western Civ have experienced vastly superior outcomes to those that have rejected the values of Western Civ.

And today's Japan and S. Korea basically operate as Western Civilizations with strong overlays of Confucianism and E. Asian traditionalism. Take a look at S. Korea vs N. Korea.

Some of these liberal arts academics are such morons. No new Coke machine for their faculty lounge!

 

[Chop]

England really abused India, but they put the nation together.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It's gonna happen some day.

 

[Monahorns]

Love Sal.

 

[Horn6721]

Mr D
I was going to say too soon
BUT I am not a Brit and That was damn funny.

 

[mchammer]

Obviously, there's a huge movement on the left academia, the media, etc.) to deem anything Western (white people, Christianity, reason, objectivity) to be evil and anything non-Western to be good. That means that the West represents slavery, violence, oppression, racism, sexism, etc, and the non-West represents innocence, freedom, etc. And of course, the reality is the opposite. The West represents the end of slavery, universal rights, economic development, and self-determination. The non-West basically never gave a ****. Slavery? No problem. Human sacrifice and eating people? Whatever. Female genital mutilation? Racism? Sexism? Are you seriously mad about that stuff???

This is from my son’s AP US history textbook. Note the false equivalence between human sacrifices in the Americas and witch hunting in Europe, which mostly ended by 1650 (which Spain didn’t participate in - it was mostly a Northern Europe thing). Was there any chance human sacrifices were going to end in America, if not for the Spanish? Also, note the false equivalence between sacrificing innocent children and executing the village murderer. Disgusting.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

There's no country that wasn't in better shape when the British ended their colonization compared to when they started. In the real hell holes like Nigeria, a lot of the roads and bridges are still from the British era. They also put a damper on the tribal, ethnic, and religious wars and genocides that these places had for hundreds of years.

Yet to hear it, all the places the British set up their empire on Planet Avatar, where the locals all lived in peace and harmony with nature and rode on flying rhinos.

The actual truth is best shown was to what happened when the Brits left India - the Muslims and Hindus promptly ethically cleansed each other and killed 100's of thousands. Which was the Brits fault, for unknown reasons.

 

[Horn6721]

mc
How did you handle that with your son?
Kudos to you for wanting to know what is being taught

 

[mchammer]

mc
How did you handle that with your son?
Kudos to you for wanting to know what is being taught

Just started reading it.

The other weird thing is that for every culture involved (native Americans, Spanish, French, Dutch, English, pilgrims), there is a summary of women’s rights for each culture/nation as if that was a critical part of early American history. Interesting yes, but why fill in blank space with this stuff when the story is about conquest.

 

[mchammer]

The other interesting part is that the book reports facts accurately (see the section below about population- e.g., only 2 million Indians in the US at time of Columbus). It’s the commentary part where they throw in false equivalence and non-related info about women in society.

 

[Monahorns]

The actual truth is best shown was to what happened when the Brits left India - the Muslims and Hindus promptly ethically cleansed each other and killed 100's of thousands. Which was the Brits fault, for unknown reasons.

The murder was the fault of those who committed the sin. But England did set up the situation with The Partition. That policy gave license to evil doers. I talked to a Hindu who lived in West Bengal before the partition. His family was murdered. He didn't hate the British. He hated Muslims. But any honest analysis will show that what England did set the stage. Not guilty of murder but ...

 

[Monahorns]

The book is basically right on the effect of Europeans on native poplulations, except that the sole culprit was disease. It wasn't war or anything else. The flu and smallpox killed about 90% of Indians due to no fault of Europeans. They didn't understand what they were doing. It was a cruel fact of history.

Fun fact - the concept of the Columbian Exchange was described by a UT professor.

 

[Facing Addiction]

CNN’s Amanpour demands King Charles III address ‘reparations,’ ‘justice’ in the ‘wake of Black Lives Matter’ (msn.com)

 

[Mr. Deez]

CNN’s Amanpour demands King Charles III address ‘reparations,’ ‘justice’ in the ‘wake of Black Lives Matter’ (msn.com)

This kind of **** is exactly what he shouldn't do. If he wants the British people to turn away from the monarchy, he should lecture them on how evil they are and owe money to people because their great-great-great grandparents helped colonize parts of Africa.

And I have to chuckle at the call for reparations for black British because of colonization. Dude, you're not a Nigerian. You grew up in friggin Notting Hill with more money and wealth than virtually anybody from your ethnic origin.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The other interesting part is that the book reports facts accurately (see the section below about population- e.g., only 2 million Indians in the US at time of Columbus). It’s the commentary part where they throw in false equivalence and non-related info about women in society.

While they're talking about women in society, do they mention that in many of these countries, they're literally severing little girls' clitorises - not centuries ago but now?

 

[guy4321]

My knowledge of British history is concentrated on the USA and Word Wars. What did Queen Elizabeth II do that was so bad regarding colonization? From what I can find, 1952 to present was a massive decolonization. Shouldn't minorities be praising her?

I was looking for a list of colonization/decolonization done since 1952. This seems like it will do though it's not worldwide.

British Decolonization of Africa:

 

[mchammer]

My knowledge of British history is concentrated on the USA and Word Wars. What did Queen Elizabeth II do that was so bad regarding colonization? From what I can find, 1952 to present was a massive decolonization. Shouldn't minorities be praising her?

I was looking for a list of colonization/decolonization done since 1952. This seems like it will do though it's not worldwide.

British Decolonization of Africa:

It’s not about being factually accurate

 

[Mr. Deez]

My knowledge of British history is concentrated on the USA and Word Wars. What did Queen Elizabeth II do that was so bad regarding colonization? From what I can find, 1952 to present was a massive decolonization. Shouldn't minorities be praising her?

I was looking for a list of colonization/decolonization done since 1952. This seems like it will do though it's not worldwide.

British Decolonization of Africa:

Like Hammer said, it's not about being right. It's just a convenient excuse to bash Westerners and capitalists. Elizabeth's big sin? She was an old white lady. She could have mitigated that to a point by being a big self-loather who bashed her ancestors, but she didn't do that. She just turned the Empire into a commonwealth and decolonized, which of course left most of those places worse off, but the idiots got their way.

 

[Chop]

The House of Lords, and the peerage in general, seem rather accommodating of their prior colonial subjects.

https://members.parliament.uk/member/3798/contact
(probably only a matter of time before a lot more Baron Patels (of Bradford (Yorkshire)) get knighted and serve in the House of Lords) He also is a director of a West Yorkshire cricket club, perhaps England's foremost mental health expert, and was named Yorkshire's Shire Man of the Year. India is also proud of this man, and has given him numerous awards and honors.

https://members.parliament.uk/member/4167/career
(Black Woman in the House of Lords who is a Baroness, a peer of England--a "Lord", and the Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire)

https://members.parliament.uk/member/147/career
And this British "Lord" is half-Scottish and half-Ghanian

 

[Mr. Deez]

The House of Lords, and the peerage in general, seem rather accommodating of their prior colonial subjects.

https://members.parliament.uk/member/3798/contact
(probably only a matter of time before a lot more Baron Patels (of Bradford (Yorkshire)) get knighted and serve in the House of Lords) He also is a director of a West Yorkshire cricket club, perhaps England's foremost mental health expert, and was named Yorkshire's Shire Man of the Year. India is also proud of this man, and has given him numerous awards and honors.

https://members.parliament.uk/member/4167/career
(Black Woman in the House of Lords who is a Baroness, a peer of England--a "Lord", and the Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire)

https://members.parliament.uk/member/147/career
And this British "Lord" is half-Scottish and half-Ghanian

They're very accommodating to even let them live in the UK. Ultimately, the entire "evil white man"/anti-Western/anti-colonialism narrative is ********. It isn't that white Europeans never did anything wrong. They did. The reason why it's ******** is that you have to completely ignore context and virtually all of human history to reach that narrative.

Keep in mind that colonies, while no picnic, were actually very humane compared to what came before. Prior to colonization, countries and people engaged in full-blown conquest. You found land you wanted, and you just beat the living hell out of the people who lived there until they were totally subdued. Then you murdered everyone who was useless (children, the elderly, etc.) and enslaved everybody else (the men for free labor and the women for sexual use and abuse). Furthermore, all rights and property were owned by the conqueror, and nobody had any respect for the well-being of the conquered. If Africa and Asia were treated as nations treated people before colonization (and as non-Westerners still treat people), there'd be virtually no Africans or Asians to complain today.

As I heard one commentator say, the Left views every evil the West has committed as unique to them and every good the West has committed as universal, when the opposite is true. Everything bad the West did (colonization, slavery, etc.) was done far worse by most cultures, and most of the good the West has done (ending slavery, universal rights, the rule of law) was done little or not at all by most cultures. And when other cultures have done those things, it has almost always been under the influence or the direction of the West (like in Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, etc.).

Does that make colonization OK? No, but it means the narrative is a bunch of crap. Basically, nobody has the credibility to make the assertion.

 

[guy4321]

The House of Lords, and the peerage in general, seem rather accommodating of their prior colonial subjects.

https://members.parliament.uk/member/3798/contact
(probably only a matter of time before a lot more Baron Patels (of Bradford (Yorkshire)) get knighted and serve in the House of Lords) He also is a director of a West Yorkshire cricket club, perhaps England's foremost mental health expert, and was named Yorkshire's Shire Man of the Year. India is also proud of this man, and has given him numerous awards and honors.

https://members.parliament.uk/member/4167/career
(Black Woman in the House of Lords who is a Baroness, a peer of England--a "Lord", and the Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire)

https://members.parliament.uk/member/147/career
And this British "Lord" is half-Scottish and half-Ghanian

Whenever somebody can point out data like this, I always wonder how many African-Japanese are in the Japanese government or how many American-Africans (white guy/gal moved to Africa) are in the Egyptian government, etc. Zero I'm guessing.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So I'm at Westminster right now. It's a zoo. And lots of po-po.

 

[Horn6721]

Mr D
Any protests?

 

[mchammer]

Is Big Ben renovation finally finished?