God Save The King

[OttoVonBismarck]

Well, we are talking about what people are saying today - and I have to tell you all my indigenous clients use the words like "colonial" and "decolonization" all the time.  I have never heard them refer to the Queen as the "Great White Mother". 

And he was incredibly clear in his very first post about it that he was referring to how the British monarch was referred to in the past, specifically the 19th and 18th centuries. And he was absolutely, unambiguously, spot on correct historically. The Native American tribes in the United States likewise used the term "Great Father" to refer to the President of the United States, and they very commonly made appeals to him when they felt they were being mistreated by local functionaries. This is because many if not most American tribes traditionally related to other tribes and clans with terms of family, and they recognized the leader of the white people as a "Great Father" of that tribe.

It is not at all inappropriate to discuss that history, nor is it even really our place to judge the word usage of long dead native peoples--I don't think it was a term they would have thought reflected negatively on them, nor did it mean immediate obedience or obsequiousness to the American government or President, it simply reflected their views of the President as a powerful ruler of men.

[crazy canuck]

Well, we are talking about what people are saying today - and I have to tell you all my indigenous clients use the words like "colonial" and "decolonization" all the time.  I have never heard them refer to the Queen as the "Great White Mother". 

I agree that "Great White Mother" is a thoroughly historical term.  But it speaks to that history.

And I suspect that between the indigenous people I deal with on a regular basis, and your indigenous clients, my experiences are more representative of indigenous people as a whole.  And before you go there - no not the Accused people.  I never speak with them after all.  I mean all the witnesses, victims and family members.

I point out that witnesses you are speaking to are talking about the details of the incident you are prosecuting.  I will readily concede that in those circumstances there would be little reason or room for the issue of colonization to pop into the conversation.

[crazy canuck]

Well, we are talking about what people are saying today - and I have to tell you all my indigenous clients use the words like "colonial" and "decolonization" all the time.  I have never heard them refer to the Queen as the "Great White Mother". 

And he was incredibly clear in his very first post about it that he was referring to how the British monarch was referred to in the past, specifically the 19th and 18th centuries. And he was absolutely, unambiguously, spot on correct historically. The Native American tribes in the United States likewise used the term "Great Father" to refer to the President of the United States, and they very commonly made appeals to him when they felt they were being mistreated by local functionaries. This is because many if not most American tribes traditionally related to other tribes and clans with terms of family, and they recognized the leader of the white people as a "Great Father" of that tribe.

It is not at all inappropriate to discuss that history, nor is it even really our place to judge the word usage of long dead native peoples--I don't think it was a term they would have thought reflected negatively on them, nor did it mean immediate obedience or obsequiousness to the American government or President, it simply reflected their views of the President as a powerful ruler of men.

And I will say to you what I said to him, we are talking about what people are saying today - rather than repeating a phrase heavily weighed down by a colonial view of the world.

[HVC]

Why would it be worthile? Because monarchies have people literally inheriting jobs and above the law status. A monarchy says that birth does determine who you are. A monarchy says the citizens of the state are not equal, some came out of superior wombs.

Not to mention that they are all remnants of warlords taking subjugating people.

The wealth makes them different from us (read advantaged)  the titles just give them some stupid rules. The deposed nobles of other European states are doing just fine flying under the weather... qell those that kept their heads

[Sheilbh]

Yeah because the monarch has been excellent in keeping PMs like Johnson in check. 

That's not their job - this is like those made wishes that the Queen would somehow stop Brexit or that her and Lady Hale of the Supreme Court were sending secret messages through their fahion choices. It was striking that as Brexit came closer to happening the way out Remainers were clinging to became progressively further removed from democratic choice and the people - first to the courts then, somehow, the monarch. Unhinged.

Anyway we have a political constitution and I think removing a leader within 2 years of them winning a landslide is a sign of a relatively healthy political system.

[Valmy]

Why would it be worthile? Because monarchies have people literally inheriting jobs and above the law status. A monarchy says that birth does determine who you are. A monarchy says the citizens of the state are not equal, some came out of superior wombs.

Not to mention that they are all remnants of warlords taking subjugating people.

The wealth makes them different from us (read advantaged)  the titles just give them some stupid rules. The deposed nobles of other European states are doing just fine flying under the weather... qell those that kept their heads

They all always have cushy jobs in finance. It's infuriating. They should all be serving in the military like their ancestors. Even the freaking Bonapartes do this when their whole supposed reason for existing is the military glory of France. Sponges even as ex-Royals.

[Barrister]

I point out that witnesses you are speaking to are talking about the details of the incident you are prosecuting.  I will readily concede that in those circumstances there would be little reason or room for the issue of colonization to pop into the conversation.

While many/most of these kinds of conversations are quite civil and pleasant, at times people feel free to tell me their frustrations with the system.  They may call it a white system or speak of unfair treatment of native people.

But "colonization" or "colonial" or the like has never ever come up.

[OttoVonBismarck]

As an outsider, my perspective is the value of the Commonwealth was primarily in being "something" to put in place of the outright Imperial form, a way for countries to have true independence but still feel a shared sense of belonging to something bigger. I think that was probably important through the 1950s and 1960s, especially, not every country in the Commonwealth is Canada / Australia / New Zealand, i.e. stable, rich, Western countries with firm institutions long before the Commonwealth was created. It probably felt as an important binder during WWII for sure.

I think in that sense it's probably best understood as a "transitional" vehicle, and in most respects has exhausted its core purpose. Which is fine. I am not convinced any of its members or the country whose monarch is its head, gets any vast benefit from it. The UK likely gets much bigger benefit from its more powerful intelligence and military alliance structures with former colonies (like the Five Eyes) than it does the Commonwealth.

I think in terms of the monarchy, it would be a good move for countries like Australia / Canada / New Zealand to move away from it. I know less about all the other countries involved, but it seems like the Caribbeans are mostly keen to move away from it which is reason enough to do it. The anglo countries seem to get along fine with Governor Generals already, I think the last one to have any controversy related to their role was in Australia some 40 or 50 years ago, right? Otherwise that system seems to work fine for having a mostly inoffensive apolitical person holding some constitutional reserve powers.

I think Britain going to a Republic would be more difficult which means I am a little less warm to that despite my natural antipathy towards monarchy. I worry that almost anyone who could be picked as an apolitical Head of State would potentially lead to more division between the constituent countries of the UK, and the monarchy as it is constituted right now has an almost unique role with deep ties to all the constituent countries. I think the British legal and constitutional system is also a little more cumbersomely tied into many of the organs of monarchy, which obviously is fixable, but with perhaps more trouble than you'd see in Australia or Canada.

[Barrister]

Yeah because the monarch has been excellent in keeping PMs like Johnson in check. 

That's not their job - this is like those made wishes that the Queen would somehow stop Brexit or that her and Lady Hale of the Supreme Court were sending secret messages through their fahion choices. It was striking that as Brexit came closer to happening the way out Remainers were clinging to became progressively further removed from democratic choice and the people - first to the courts then, somehow, the monarch. Unhinged.

Didn't seem so secret to me.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Ish. But then to what extent is that a product of the era in which the empire existed vs the empire itself?

To say the British empire was in most cases better than the likely alternatives is a point of view I have a lot of time for. For instance it was much better than just leaving capitalism to run rampant.

As sure. As nice as the idea is that India could just me a lovely modern Republic from the 18th century that just wasn't happening.

But its going a bit far on top of this to say the colonisation itself actively made things better on all occasions.

Overall my view on such things is fuck nationalists of all stripes. Though there are fragments of truth from all sides.

I think depending on how we define colonialism, it usually did. North America, contact with white Europeans essentially erased almost all of the native inhabitants of the continent, and while we should never minimize the numbers who were killed through the active and deliberate actions of the colonizers, the vast, vast majority of damage done was through infectious diseases which even had decimated plains native populations before most of them had ever seen a white man (smallpox travels a lot faster than people do in pre-modern times.) If you view that spread of disease as a part of colonialism, it is undeniable it made things worse--few things are worse than an almost total destruction of your people.

In Africa and Asia, I think British colonialism (which is mostly what I was talking about), actually introduced things like literacy, modern medicine, infrastructure, and most importantly a sort of free market business and legal climate and certain conceptions of rights and liberties that have been helpful throughout the last 150 odd years. It was not without flaws.

Even in things like the partition of India into Hindu and Muslim countries, I am not convinced that we wouldn't have seen that process play out as more of a massive and very destructive total war at some point in the 20th century if the British hadn't been over the process.

[HVC]

India was weird anyway. They ere colonize by 18th century Walmart. If the crown hadn't stepped in when they collapsed it could have been worse. Then again the UK ended doing some shit anyway so who knows.

[Tamas]

Yeah because the monarch has been excellent in keeping PMs like Johnson in check. 

That's not their job - this is like those made wishes that the Queen would somehow stop Brexit or that her and Lady Hale of the Supreme Court were sending secret messages through their fahion choices. It was striking that as Brexit came closer to happening the way out Remainers were clinging to became progressively further removed from democratic choice and the people - first to the courts then, somehow, the monarch. Unhinged.

Anyway we have a political constitution and I think removing a leader within 2 years of them winning a landslide is a sign of a relatively healthy political system.

Ok, but then what is wrong with a Presidential system (even though it wouldn't be my preference)? The way I see it the only thing stopping a PM from acting like a US president is reluctance to do so.

[The Minsky Moment]

In Africa and Asia, I think British colonialism (which is mostly what I was talking about), actually introduced things like literacy, modern medicine, infrastructure, and most importantly a sort of free market business and legal climate and certain conceptions of rights and liberties that have been helpful throughout the last 150 odd years. It was not without flaws.

It was not without flaws is a understatement.

Britain wasn't interested in mass education and providing mass access to modern medicine. The colonies were run on the cheap and in terms of human capital investment, the focus was on military training of loyal local units and educating small cadres of locals to fill subordinate positions.  Infrastructure investment followed the same principle - the focus was on projects that served the imperial interests or the interests of British investors in country. 

[HVC]

Weren't those the same criteria for education and infrastructure spending back home too? .

[The Minsky Moment]

On the subject at hand, it makes no more sense to blame QE2 for British colonialism than to give her credit for de-colonization.

Even before she assumed the throne, the British monarchy had long since having a true political function; rather, they are part of the entertainment sector. They are actors, leading personae in the first, most successful and longest lasting reality show. QE2 understood that, played the role well, earned the appreciation of the audience, and avoided cancellation.