Vitriol over Queen Elizabeth II shows many left-wingers just hate white people | Washington Examiner
By: cwtremo (Washington Examiner)
Well would you look at this..................
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
It's been an eventful month in race relations. First, there was the latest hate crime hoax at Brigham Young University, which all evidence suggests was concocted by a player desirous of attention. Then, there were the utterly despicable comments by two American professors about Queen Elizabeth II's death.
The professors, both black, took to social media to disparage Queen Elizabeth II. Uju Anya, an associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University, displayed her bigotry by wishing the queen suffered an excruciatingly painful death in a tweet on Sept. 8. This was followed by a tweet from Zoe Samudzi, a Zimbabwean American who teaches photography at the Rhode Island School of Design. Samudzi tweeted that she would "dance on the graves of every member of the royal family."
Neither professor suffered any consequences — a privilege that most likely would not have been afforded if the professors were white and the deceased monarch black.
Their sentiments on the queen were shared by many on the Left. Others commented that the queen was an example of white supremacy, white privilege, or whatever concocted ism, phobia, or other social justice, victimization suffix you'd like to pick out of the dictionary. Such people have such a warped sense of reality that they will readily demonize anyone of European heritage who was connected to colonialism or imperialism yet always ignore the hundreds, if not thousands, of years of identical acts committed by people of African, Middle Eastern, Native American, and Asian heritage in building empires, oppressing other races, and colonizing faraway places.
Their flimsy worldview depends on the idea that history began in 1492 and that the first group of people ever to come along and develop a conscience about such activities — namely, Europeans — are the only ones who should ever be held accountable for it.
No one has to like Queen Elizabeth II. Those professors have every right to their low opinion of her. But it is disingenuous to bemoan Queen Elizabeth's role in Nigeria's history, as Anya did, but remain deafeningly silent on the brutal empires of Nigeria's past — or any of the vast number of empires that pillaged, raped, murdered, and enslaved other Africans in that continent's history.
Given the indoctrination resulting from this revisionist history, it's time to acknowledge such people suffer from the same bigotry they claim to be against. Many of them just hate white people, and they do so for no other reason than historical events that today's white people had nothing to do with. Once the masses realize this, it will hopefully discredit much of the Left's agendas and platforms.
Tags
Who is online
85 visitors
Amazing double standard of tolerance. Discuss..............
Trump and his supports are WAAAAY off topic.
The demoted Don Lemon got his ass handed to him yesterday on this very subject:
He looked like he got hit by a train at the end of that.
Lemon is an idiot.
I am surprised that he is still employed by CNN
LOL...I loved that look!
He is moving to mornings....which is a demotion!
By presenting historical facts, she literally took his breath away and left him speechless! Priceless!
I watched the whole three and a half minute video.
It is ridiculous
1. There is nothing in the video that indicates that the woman "owned" Don Lemon.
2. She basically made two points. One was that Africans sold their own people into slavery and the second was that some British sailors tried to end slavery at some point.
The issue with reparations is not who began slavery or who tried to end it, and eventually succeeded , but what was taken from the slaves (and the colonized populations that Britain exploited). The British took material wealth from the indigenous populations of many if not all of the places they colonized. And of course they kept material wealth from actual slaves. That is the issue with reparations, not what the woman in the video was babbling about.
3. The two Newsmax anchors were idiots. No wonder that is a fringe, laughable , news source.
You have a wild imagination.
LOL. Keep jumping the shark Sean.
It is indeed ridiculous what some folks consider 'owned'
I wonder what Don would have to say to Bill Maher about Bill's recent "New Rule"?
Is Bill about to lose his woke audience or is he trying to educate people on people?
Honestly, I never liked Bill Maher. Don't really give a shit what his thoughts are on his 'trying to educate people on people'
Funny how folks throw 'woke' around like it's a bad thing.
"The professors, both black, took to social media to disparage Queen Elizabeth II. Uju Anya, an associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University, displayed her bigotry by wishing the queen suffered an excruciatingly painful death in a tweet on Sept. 8. This was followed by a tweet from Zoe Samudzi, a Zimbabwean American who teaches photography at the Rhode Island School of Design. Samudzi tweeted that she would "dance on the graves of every member of the royal family."
Neither professor suffered any consequences — a privilege that most likely would not have been afforded if the professors were white and the deceased monarch black.
Their sentiments on the queen were shared by many on the Left. Others commented that the queen was an example of white supremacy, white privilege, or whatever concocted ism, phobia, or other social justice, victimization suffix you'd like to pick out of the dictionary. Such people have such a warped sense of reality that they will readily demonize anyone of European heritage who was connected to colonialism or imperialism yet always ignore the hundreds, if not thousands, of years of identical acts committed by people of African, Middle Eastern, Native American, and Asian heritage in building empires, oppressing other races, and colonizing faraway places."
What 'consequences' should they suffer?
What does it matter that these professors are black?
Name those 'many on the left'
Just another article about the alleged intolerant left.
Ho hum
Exactly, there a dime a dozen, common knowledge, nothing new here. Ho hum.
The truth is the left doesn’t expect more from African Americans because of their racism of low expectations.
[deleted]
Uh, George, this article is not about what is expected of black people.
What do you mean 'double standard of tolerance'?
Don't these black professors have freedom of speech also?
I guess you missed this in your copy and paste haste.................
"a privilege that most likely would not have been afforded if the professors were white and the deceased monarch black."
I don't mind if you comment just don't type stupid shit that is already answered if you read.
Thank you.....very much
I see all you have is insults.
Many Left-Wingers Just Hate White People
“Many”? Like how many? Enough to justify an incredibly stupid article like this? Don’t think so.
Lets apply liberal logic. Some hate whites so... ALL. All hate white people.
Maybe the professors could have soft soaped their comments about the queen. Maybe that would have been "nicer" during a state funeral. But they didnt. So what?
The lack of any breadth of understanding of the past by right wingers is distressing and maybe annoying, but they are captives of the moment.
This "article" sounds like it was written by one of our right wingers as a NT comment on one of the seeds.
-
Uh, thats because she was, and the new king is now.
The major "argument" of the author appears to be that only white Europeans get blamed for colonialism and racism.
Thats because , in our society, white Europeans were overwhelmingly the perpetrators of colonialism and racism.
There seems to be this desperate need to blame "Africa" for racism and colonialism, and even slavery , as if establishing that something bad happened in Nigeria takes the terrible onus off of hundreds of years of white supremacy around the globe.
Britain had a ride up, over many years, when their military and culture was sent to "civilize" large swaths of others territories. This was famously described by Rudyard Kipling as the "white man's burden".
Britain went up, and then it comes down. Claiming that the royal crown of Great Britain has not represented white supremacy historically is just wrong.
Exactly, isn't it amazing that a little island country, smaller than Kansas was capable of colonizing so much of the world.
Uju explained herself in a follow-on tweet:
Do you know what decisions or commands issued by the Queen caused millions to have suffered?
Ive seen you say that three or four times. Still dont know what your point is.
That such a small country was capable of colonizing so much of the world for so long. The world has seen other empires, China’s Han dynasty, Arab Kingdom, Mongol, Ottoman, Russian Empire, but they sprang from much larger populations covered contiguous land mass and with the exception of the Han dynasty, didn't last as long.
In 1939, at the height of the British empire, the population of Great Britain was 41 million. At that same time, the British Empire had 531 million people, making it the largest empire in history.
Do really not find that as amazing?
So you are bragging on them then ?
No, it's not a sports team, it's history. Try it sometime.
For the last two weeks, I have enjoyed watching British people trying to explain their Monarchy and system of government to US journalists and US citizens.
What seems desperate to you? Do you discount the African history of the African deep involvement in the slave trade. Did Africans chieftains raid other tribes for slaves and weren't they middlemen with European and Arab purchasers?
I dont live in Africa and dont blame Africans for things that Americans and Europeans did.
So you are more than willing to overlook the African's participation in the slave trade? Oh, wait. That would destroy your bullshit narrative that it was about race. Then again you willingly overlook the fact that there were more than blacks held as slaves the world over to push a false narrative.
You dont know what the fuck you are talking about, as usual.
No one has to guess as to whether slavery in America was about race, it was the fucking law.
Lets see, I responded to YOU. I guess that means I'm talking to and about YOU. Did I break it down simple enough for you?
Like I said [deleted,] we can know that slavery in America was about race. It is in writing.
If you cherry pick it. Now go back and learn the WHOLE lesson.
That's a pathetic excuse. One doesn't need to live in a region to know its history. I learned about the evil African chieftains selling their own people in the 8th grade and then again (in more detail) in high school World History and US History 1 over 50 years ago.
No. I’m sorry, but that’s dumb. The British monarch is not white because the British people think whites are superior. He/She is white because historically (i.e for millennia) , the people of that island have been exclusively white, and the monarchy is hereditary. Racial diversity in Britain is of much more recent vintage than the monarchy. The skin color of the king has nothing to do with white supremacy.
Im surprised youd say that. Why she was white is of no consequence. However, of course Brits in certain periods of history have thought whites are superior. Have you ever seen the movie Gunga Din?
The 1939 version? An excellent movie for its time if you can get past the obvious British racism of Cary Grant.
Conquerors of any race always think they are superior to the people they conquer. Britain did not invent that. It’s human nature. For that matter, conquered people think they are superior to the people who conquer them.
You do realize - our maybe you don’t? - that the English also thought they were superior to the Scots, the Irish, and the French. Skin color had nothing to do with it.
Yes. Recently, in fact. I kept waiting for this “classic comedy” to be funny. Instead, it was one of the cringier things I’ve seen. It’s also like 85 years old, so I get that people at the time thought it was funny. It definitely hasn’t aged well. Do you really imagine that other cultures don’t make movies or tell stories that mock “the other?”
Interesting that you picked Gunga Din. Do you know what country has the most slaves in 2022? India!
And of course, there is still substantial slavery in parts of Africa. Weirdly, though, none in America or Britain.
The word on the street is that the Han Dynasty thought that they were the center of the Universe. And of course, those that know world history understand that the Japanese had strong feelings of superiority in the first half of the twentieth century. Makes you wonder what the Mongols thought as they did their conquering.
Perhaps JR lives tormented with a guilty, white conscious. Sad, an understanding of world history would help him understand that European whites aren’t unique in this regard.
Interesting that you think that is relevant.
Gunga Din is an adventure film.
It’s extremely relevant if our discussion is about how racist and slave-loving America allegedly is as compared to other nations of the world.
Or don’t you want to talk about that anymore? Eh, I don’t blame ya.
A movie can be two things. It can also be classic and racist at the same time. I have seen it described as a comedy and I can certainly see where they were going for that, both in the fight scenes and Grant’s performance, in particular. Did you notice that the first word in your “Critics Consensus” is “funny?”
The United States of America has the exact same government it has had since the constitution was adopted. There has been no break, no change other than the passage of time. The government and people we have today are the same government and people we had in 1850.
The point is, what other countries have or have not done in relation to slavery is irrelevant to the culpability of the American government, or its people. Had the US government changed in the past 160 or 200 years there might be a small argument to be made that America was not solely responsible for slavery in America, but that is not the case. What happened in India, France, Timbuktu or Finland, or for that matter Africa, is irrelevant to the historic responsibility we have to acknowledge the AMERICAN participation in racially based slavery.
Of course anyone that knows American history knows that is untrue. The federal government is much stronger now compared to state and local government than it was in 1850. The Executive Branch of the Federal Government is now much stronger as compared to the Legislative Branch. There have been 15 Amendments to the Constitution approved since 1850 and numerous SCOTUS cause that have continued to shape our government.
Only if you foolishly believe that context is irrelevant to our understanding of history.
BTW, have you found any source references that defend your accusations made yesterday?
Really? Please state the year when the US government was dissolved and then a new one constituted.
Dissolved? You continue to embarrass yourself on either you lack of historical understanding or your unwillingness to acknowledge the truth. Our government has continuously evolved with major changes in Federal Executive power during the Civil War, the Great Depression, WW II and the Presidents following FDR.
I asked you a simple question - state the year when the US government was dissolved and a new one constituted. If you cant do that, then you must admit that we have the same government we have always had. If that wasnt the case the original one would have been ended and a new one put in place. That never happened, did it?
Yes, and I thought that I simplified my answer enough hat you could understand that our government and the separation of powers has evolved rather than dissolved.
No, but unlike you, I'm willing to cite sources for my thinking. I recommend that you start of with Arthur Schlesinger Jr. book, The Imperial Presidency published in 1973. The book details the history of the Presidency and the term describes the excesses of executive powers. He isn't a right wing radical, his work has focused on 20th century liberalism and Truman, FDR, JRK and RFK. He was a speech writer for Adlai Stevenson during his two presidential campaigns, was a special assistant to JFK and supported RFK in1968.
If you read and can understand this level of analysis, I make some additional recommendations to fill the holes in your historical understanding.
I have used the phrase "change of government" for a very specific reason that is apparently beyond you.
The fact is the government has not changed, your attempts to claim an "imperial presidency" is the equivalent of a change in the government notwithstanding.
As far as providing sources for it, why would I have to provide sources for something that is that obvious.
The US government is an unbroken chain of presidents, senators, US representatives, judges, and courts that have existed in toto since the country began.
If the US government that originated with the application of the constitution has ended , tell us what year that happened. You cant, because the original US government has continued for 230 years and has never ended.
You got that right, without providing metrics on the amount of change in your mind, your reason is beyond me.
Until you define the scope that equals "change", no facts have been established.
Yesterday you wrote, "The idea, which we often see proposed by conservatives, that slavery in America wasnt that bad because other nations did it first is ludicrous.
I asked you to cite some of these proposed ideas that you often see?
You also wrote, "Of course we should learn the history of the rest of the world. We just shouldnt use it as a way to excuse what our forefathers did. The idea that race based slavery in America, or European white colonialism wasnt that bad because of something done by Nigeria is ludicrous.
Again I asked you, "Who has done that? Who has said that?" And as usual crickets after your assertions are challenged.
Again, you are either very ignorant on American history or determined not to let it get in the way of your agenda.
No, it doesn’t. The Constitution defines what the government is - its composition, power, authority, and limitations. The Constitution has been amended 27 times - the first ten amendments facilitated initial ratification and an additional 17 have dramatically changed how people interact with each other and how government (both federal and state) works for the people.
Several crucial amendments have expanded who has authority to vote for government officers based on race, sex, and age. And through both amendment and congressional legislation, those rights enjoy extensive protections.
So, the government has changed radically since our founding because it is a government of the people and the people allowed to participate in the government has changed radically.
Andddd . . . A SHITLOAD of laws outlawing things like slavery and racial discrimination. If you really think this is the same country as in 1850, then you don’t know shit about this country.
Arguably, a new government is created every two years when a new Congress is sworn in.
Please let us know when the constitution, which defines the roles and parameters of the government, stopped being in effect.
We have had one government in the United States with successive generational representatives of that government.
I just explained that to you @5.3.17. Maybe go back to high school and take a class in government. Your central claim that neither the people nor the government of the United States have changed is the most absurd serving of utter bullshit I think I have ever seen on this site.
Nonsense. When did the constitution stop being in effect? The government is described by the body of the constitution, not the amendments. The functions , members, and purposes of the government were laid out in the constitution and have never fundamentally changed.
If you have a school that was founded in 1850 and has never stopped teaching student after student in successive generations , and claims to date back to 1850, has that been one school over time? or multiple schools that changed with new administrations and new construction to some of the facilities?
The first time it was amended. Once an amendment takes effect, you essentially have a new constitution. It’s just that most of it looks like the old one.
Wow. You really don’t know how this works, do you. Amendments are the Constitution. Here’s a simple example: Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution reads:
This clause is no longer in effect because of the 17th Amendment, which reads:
And so the Constitution is different than it was. It’s not the same.
Furthermore, you try to distinguish between the Constitution and the Amendments, but the 17th Amendment does not somehow have lower standing in the law than the original clause requiring legislatures to select senators. It replaces the original. Additionally, the very nature of the Senate has changed because its members are selected by popular vote.
To further make you aware of the Constitutional nature of the Amendments, review any Supreme Court decision revolving around an Amendment. Whether it’s the 1st Amendment, the 14th, or the 27th, if a law conflicts with an Amendment, that law is determined to be “unconstitutional.” Not “unamendmental,” but “unconstitutional.”
Just because the name of the country is the same, that does not mean that government or the people are the same. Are you the same person you were when you were 5 years old? Or have you changed?
How anyone can examine the history of the country (you clearly haven’t) and think the USA of 2022 is the same as the USA of 1850 absolutely boggles the mind.
Just because the name of the country is the same, that does not mean that government or the people are the same. Are you the same person you were when you were 5 years old? Or have you changed?
Yes, you are the same person. Duh. The very fact that you can now say that you are, let's say , 40 years old, is proof you are the same person you were when you were one year old. If you were not the same person you wouldn't be 40 !
This is fun.
This is the wikipedia page for the United States government. Please point out the language in this page that tells when the old US government ended and a new one was begun.
It's not a binary situation where one ended and a different one began. The government has evolved over the years shifting power from the states to the federal government and shifting power within the federal government from the legislative branch to the executive branch.
We created a US Bank after the founding, fought a civil war which forbid states leaving the union, the Constitution has been amended and reinterpreted, the branches of government don't look today like they did in 1776. Industrialization gave rise to federal regulatory power and oversight. Voting rights have evolved, how Senators are elected has changed. The federal court system has had periodic reforms and reorganizations as well as the process for appointing judges.
The roles, responsibilities and practices of our government haven't remained static but have evolved significantly over time. I'm surprised that this is news to you.
So . . . You still wet the bed. You still won’t eat vegetables. You still think the opposite sex is gross. You still cry when you can’t find your teddy. That’s all the same? Might be time to grow up.
No. What it is, is trolling. 100% trolling.
No, I think it’s time for you to justify that bullshit you said. Prove to us that the United States government and people are “the same” in 2022 as they were in 1850.
None of that indicates that we havent had one continuing government through the nation's history. Sorry.
You are way off track, presumably to try and win an argument.
I am the one being trolled. I made a simple statement up the thread that people can agree with or not (that we have had one continuous government since the adoption of the Constitution) and then the other guy and now you lost your minds over it.
I'll just say we disagree , and we're done here.
Actually, you made two statements in 5.3.9, and it wasn't that we've had a continuous government, you wrote "The United States of America has the exact same government it has had since the constitution was adopted. There has been no break, no change other than the passage of time. The government and people we have today are the same government and people we had in 1850.
You've been trying o defend that ever since. No one has lost their mind over it, we've simply pointed out that today's government isn't exactly the same and that there has been change and we cited examples of that change. You're letting pride make you look foolish.
And every time since then.
So the last time it stopped being in effect was what? 1992?
First of all, the Constitution was not adopted in 1850. The Constitution became the official governing document of the United States on June 21, 1788. It was not ratified by all states until May 29, 1790. By 1850, it had already been amended 12 times. But just to cover all bases, I'll look at 1850, too.
An important thing to understand about the American system of federalism, is that it's the states that make up the Union. So changing the number of states is really important. It changes the country and it changes government.
The US government in 1790:
The US government in 1850:
The US government in 2022:
The US people in 1790:
The US people in 1850:
The US people in 2022:
The country has also seen dramatic changes in religion, education, labor, economy, family structure, technology, and well, we could probably come up with a very long list of ways in which the American people of 2022 are NOT the same as the American people of 1790.
Most wrong take imaginable.
No. That is inaccurate. You said that both the people and the government were "the same" since the Constitution was adopted. You also said they were the same since 1850. You also said these things had not changed in 160 or 200 years. All of these claims are WRONG!
You didn't make a "simple statement" that people can agree with or not. You said some total bullshit to justify your hatred of America - and also, apparently, its people.
I haven't lost my mind over it. I'm standing up for the truth. You obviously thought you could come here and crap all over America and her people with zero justification, and everyone would just go along with it. I am happy to disabuse you of that notion.
I hope these people don't vote.
I can't imagine why JR doesn't get it.
Tacos and I. in the interest accuracy and more than a simplistic understanding of American history, have provided you with numerous examples of the evolution and incremental change to our government and people over the years.
Yes your inability to admit to error is a sorry display, it's Trumpion.
This is fucking ridiculous.
The Constitution establishes the government . We have not changed our government since the adoption of the constitution in 1789. You pretending I dont know when the Constitution was ratified is idiotic.
When I said we have had one continuing government since 1790 I didnt anticipate that you [[delete]] would want to make a debate of thousands of words over it.
If you want to disagree with me, fine, but the level of outrage you and drinker are demonstrating over this borders on deranged.
I am well aware of all of US history. I constantly read US history and have or have had dozens of US history books in my personal library. Fuck off.
Oh, so you were just trolling with those previous comments, well sure you hooked Tacos and I.
Why are you spouting such idiotic sentences?
I dont hate America, and saying we have had one continuing government does not display hate of America.
If we have had more than one government since 1790 , why do we revere the founding fathers for the government they created. Did we discard their government? Or did we continue it and adapt to changing times with it?
I know why you [[delete]] want to say we changed governments, its because if we have had a continuous government the past then bears more responsibility for the present, which is in my opinion very much the case.
But it is not hatred of America it is acknowledging historical reality.
Go troll someone who plays along with your nonsense.
That's what they have been telling you. Glad you finally caught on. With every "adapt", the overall scope changes and the previous version still lives but is accompanied by the new "version" due to the addition.
You're becoming very repetitive, if you have nothing new to add, you should just drop it
BTW, the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution changed the process for electing the president and vice president. The Fourteenth affected citizenship, civil rights, due process, Congressional apportionment. The Sixteenth expanded federal ability to tax. The Seventeenth changed Senate selection process. The Twentieth changed the Presidential terms and the process for replacement should a President or President elect dies. The Twenty-second limited the Presidency to two terms. The Twenty-third allowed for Presidential electors from DC.
Just a few more examples of governmental change.
None of these amendments represent a change in the form of the government. Show me something, anything, that you can find that says the US has had a new government since 1790. When did the old government end and a new one begin? You cant , because we have had an unbroken continuity.
I'm not coming back to this thread again.
I never said that "we changed governments", I have said that we and our government has evolved and incrementally changed. On could argue that with every different administration and following every Congressional election, the government changed. That's why you heard some commentators say that 15 governments formed under Queen Elizabeth.
I have no idea why you are so certain of our motivations, you are full of hubris. I absolutely think that our government, people and culture are responsible for our present. Don't let your biases run away with you.
You are using a very narrow definition of change. Mine is broader, if for instance, we restructured the Senate to eliminate the disproportionate power of less-populous states, I would call that a change and you would call that an unchanged government.
Thank you.
John doesn't support representational democracy, he's made that well known for many many years, he prefers the more autocratic "Social Democracy" where the nanny state is in charge and the federal government is all powerful... This is why he says those amendments are not a change in government... He wants to change the system entirely into a political autocracy where the people have no say at all....
John isn't the subject or topic of this seed. That's a ToS violation. Since he's not wasting his time anymore on this 'article' is that why you're attacking him now?
Most likely conclusion.
You know all about violations here through the medium of experience.
I wrote nothing about blame, apparently you not only don't live in Africa but know nothing about African history during the slave trade.
I dont know much about it because I dont live in Africa and dont care if Nigerians colonized other countries. It is irrelevant to the behavior of white Europeans over hundreds of years.
You don't live in Europe. Why do you care what Europeans did?
Who originally populated and formed this country? Nigerians or Arabs? lol.
The idea, which we often see proposed by conservatives, that slavery in America wasnt that bad because other nations did it first is ludicrous. As Americans we are responsible for America, not Africa.
Britain is brought into it because this country was founded on British principles.
Okay. So Americans should only learn English history and not worry about the history of any other part of the world.
Very 19th century of you.
And I've got to say, claiming Africans played no role in the populating and formation of this country is going to make you target number 1 of the 1619 crowd.
Of course we should learn the history of the rest of the world. We just shouldnt use it as a way to excuse what our forefathers did.
The idea that race based slavery in America, or European white colonialism wasnt that bad because of something done by Nigeria is ludicrous.
Then why are you so against teaching it?
Shouldn't we teach the truth? That African Kings like Ghezo fought other tribes for slaves and victims for human sacrifice and then sold the surplus to European ships on the coast?
If you want history to solely consist of talking about slavery, at least talk about it accurately.
My interest in history isn't as nationalistic as yours. I especially take the broad view were other countries history intersects with ours.
WRT the slave trade, it's very relevant as the Europeans didn't venture very far into Africa and wouldn't have obtained the slaves without African assistance.
Who has done that?
Who has said that?
Can you cite some of these proposed ideas that you often see?
I really don’t know anyone (short of an out and out proud racist) who is making that argument. Do you? What has been happening in recent years is that some people have been trying to promote the idea that slavery - particularly of Africans - is a uniquely white supremacist idea.
Pointing out how incorrect that is is not the same as “excusing” colonialism or slavery. Neither is it “excusing” it to point out that those institutions were typical for the period and that it’s absurd to judge them based on a modern standard.
When talking about slavery in America, there is only one reason that someone brings up that Africans also owned slaves, and that is to minimize the guilt of America for the slave trade and 200 years of slavery.
OK, but we’re not talking about slavery in America, are we? We’re talking about England.
And the things I have said about the mischaracterization of slavery as a uniquely white, uniquely American institution stands. It’s not about minimizing anything. It is about correcting the record. If anything, it is those mischaracterizations which seek to minimize the responsibility of other countries and other people (including people of color) for the institution of slavery.
What nonsense, you totally discount the best reason, to more fully understand history Here is an interesting essay from a Nigerian slave trader descendant:
You dont get it, but its all right, I dont have any hope for it.
NO ONE is responsible for 200 years of slavery in America but Americans. Africans are not responsible in any way shape or form.
If I burn down my neighbors house is the person who sold me the cigarette lighter responsible ? Africans are responsible for happened in Africa. They are not responsible for what happened in America.
I’m sorry that you feel hopeless. Perhaps it’s related to your ignorance of world history.
LOL
I’ll bet illiteracy has you in stitches.
Yeah, that is just 100% wrong.
That is a terrible analogy. Instead of “cigarette lighter,” substitute “burn your neighbor’s house down kit” and you’ll have it right.
They are responsible for the fact that slaves were available.
Just look at the Uncle Tom, Henry Louis Gates Jr. trying to minimize and deflect the horror of American slavery:
Thats an even worse argument than all your other weak arguments. Try to deal with what happened in the United States. On the eve of the civil war there were 4 million African slaves in the south. Which means appx 1 out of every 3 human beings living in the slaveholding states was an enslaved African. In that context, who cares that there were more slaves in central and South America?
That's not my argument, don't tie me to that Uncle Tom, Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s comment.
No, the majority of enslaved Africans brought to British North America arrived between 1720 and 1780. By 1860, very few of the 4 million slaves in the US were born in Africa. Not only do you have a very limited understanding of world history, but your understanding US history of this time seems weak as well.
Anyone that wants a comprehensive understanding of the Atlantic Slave Trade.
If you ever come to Wash DC, I highly recommend an all day visit to the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture. If you let me know in advance, I have a friend that is a museum docent and his daughter, Candra Flanagan is on their cultural staff, they can hook you up with an educational tour.
If the educational experience of the only national museum devoted exclusively to the documentation of African American life, history, and culture isn't enough of an enticement, there is the Sweet Home Cafe. The food here is actually well made, delicious and better than you'd expect from any other museum restaurant. I love their rainbow trout, southern fried chicken and beans n' rice. For desert, their pecan pie is tops. Catfish po’ boys, Brunswick stew and bread Pudding are also very good.
Seriously, come on and learn something and get your belly full, ya hear?
You are silly. They weren't Americans, now, were they?
Of course they were Afro-Americans. You really need to come to DC and visit the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture. They called them Afro/Americans, why don’t you?
That was written on Jan 29 1861.
Yea, by Confederate Georgia, good source.
I suppose retrospectively you could call them African American , but at the time they werent. They werent Americans at all, in the U.S. they were property.
What source do you want? I doubt you will find a single source from 1860 , especially in the south , that described the slaves as anything other than African. They sure werent calling them African Americans.
How pathetic that before making those disgusting comments, neither college "professor" knew that during Queen Elizabeth's seventy year reign, over 50 British colonies/countries created their own governments or were taken over by other countries. These "professors" obviously don't know how to use the Internet before spewing stupidity, racism, and hatred. Queen Elizabeth was far from a colonist, because during her reign, the British Empire gave up a lot of geography and power.
The most pathetic things about bigots and racists are that they never look in their own mirrors and are unable to understand that real bigotry and racism are staring right back at them.
time.com /6212772/queen-elizabeth-ii-colonialism-legacy/
Queen Elizabeth II's Colonial Legacy and the Future
By Anisha Kohli 9-11 minutes
S ince Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in 1952 , dozens of nations colonized by the British Empire have gained independence and continue to rebuild their societies. Some critics of the royal family see last week’s death of Britain’s longest-reigning monarch as an opportunity to re-envision the monarchy’s role and to finally acknowledge the struggles of all those who were affected by British imperialism around the world and in Britain itself.
The legacy of colonization has been well documented and often included slavery and the forced movement of people, brutal suppression, and the extraction of resources at the expense of local economies. “For many of us from the ‘colonies,’ the death of Elizabeth II signifies in very particular ways that she was the symbol of an empire built on genocide, slavery, violence, extraction, and brutality, the legacies of which continue in our present day,” says Anna Arabindan-Kesson, a professor of Black diasporic art at Princeton University. “She was not only a symbol, she was complicit in this empire.”
Scenes From Around the World in the Aftermath of Queen Elizabeth II’s Death
Posted 11 Days Ago
Scenes From Around the World in the Aftermath of Queen Elizabeth II’s Death
0 seconds of 3 minutes, 11 seconds Volume 0%
This part of the monarchy’s history is often “conveniently hidden or ignored in Britain,” says Arabindan-Kesson. This history needs to be addressed in the wake of Queen Elizabeth II’s death, she adds. “The current rhetoric, pageantry, and colonial nostalgia around her death reinforces this refusal to acknowledge and deal with this imperial history–a history that defines so much of our current moment, that defines what Britain is.”
The Queen’s complex legacy
Presidents and Prime Ministers of former British colonies have paid their respects to the Queen, including leaders from India, Ghana, South Africa, Barbados, and Jamaica. But these diplomatic gestures don’t necessarily reflect the sentiment of all of their inhabitants or diaspora, some of whom have been very vocal about how destructive they feel British colonialism was.
“We do not mourn the death of Elizabeth, because to us her death is a reminder of a very tragic period in this country and Africa’s history,” the Economic Freedom Fighters , a South African political party, said in a statement.
Until her death, Queen Elizabeth II was the monarch of 15 countries in the Commonwealth that are home to around 150 million people. The U.K. also currently holds an additional 14 overseas territories that are home to another 300,000 people.
The length of the Queen’s reign and her personal popularity may have prevented a full discussion about the impact of colonization. “I think Elizabeth II’s rule prevented a reckoning and allowed for a sense of continuity and continued denial about the extent of change in the last 70 years,” says Priya Satia, a history professor at Stanford University who specializes in the British empire. “Decolonization was supposed to force the acknowledgment of wrong. That never came because it was always masked by the continuity of the Queen.”
The vast history of the British Empire
A colloquial saying, “ the sun never sets on the British Empire ,” rang true for arguably more than two centuries, a span over which Britain colonized or established rule over dozens of nations across the Americas, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Australasia. Scholars also note the importance of remembering the British oppression and colonization closer to home, in both Scotland and Ireland.
The exact years of the British Empire and the number of colonies it held are debatable, but the empire’s effects are still widely-felt. “It depends on how you’re defining empire—like right now, there’s a movement for Scottish independence,” Satia says. “Or the ongoing issue between the two Irelands. And there are other colonial holdings that Britain still has. So it’s not only recent, it’s current history.”
In many countries, British occupation lasted for generations, during which the ruling British authorities imposed various systems that many former colonies maintained after their independence. These are reflected in British-origin practices such as tea drinking, parliamentary governments, and playing cricket.
But not all practices that were passed on were as innocuous as tea drinking or sport. “Entire societies were changed,” Satia says.
“Ideas about property and possession were shaped by colonialism, such as the fact that the land was empty, and was able to be possessed by colonists,” Arabindan-Kesson says. “This is something that of course First Nations communities in Australia or New Zealand and Canada, even in the US, continue to highlight.”
While colonization did not take place under Queen Elizabeth II’s reign, Britain still had a large empire at the time of her coronation in 1952. In the following decades, many colonies sought independence and at times violent uprisings took place.
Although the Queen was the head of state and not government, meaning she had limited decision-making power, as a political figure she had the opportunity to be vocal. But she opted for silence, says Satia.
“The crown jewels, they’re mostly made up of stones that have been stolen from various places in the British Empire. The Queen always wore them, never suggesting in any way that they be returned,” Satia says. “There hasn’t been a moment in which the monarchy turned its back against empire and said, ‘No more,’ or, ‘We regret having been part of this.’”
Today, researchers consider ethnic conflict, LBTQ oppression, and environmental injustice as a few of the issues enabled by British imperialism in former colonies.
Colonialism in the U.K.
An often underlooked aspect of Britain’s colonial legacy is its effects at home. Arabindan-Kesson points out that colonialism disadvantaged the country’s minority communities through systemic racism and oppression.
“Health, their access to facilities, their involvement and participation in politics, their access to economic mobility, all of this is so much lower,” says Arabindan-Kesson, referring to minority communities in the U.K.
British school curricula have been criticized for years over their failure to include minority voices and to discuss the negative consequences of empire. This has had an impact, Arabindan-Kesson says, on minorities within the U.K.
“Not just to the Queen’s death, but how people have responded to particular events, for example, the Windrush scandal and current immigration policies, really show this lack of historical awareness of just how central empire was to what is now contemporary Britain,” she says. (The Windrush scandal refers to the wrongful deportation or threatened deportation of hundreds of Black Britons to the Caribbean.)
“The monarchy, in general, is an incredibly spectacular symbol of the huge social and economic inequalities of modern Britain,” Arabindan-Kesson says. She adds that is particularly true amid a cost of living crisis where people are “struggling to heat their houses, pay bills, and feed their families. The fact that so much attention and so many resources are spent on this institution seems completely anachronistic and really, a complete waste of resources.”
Looking forward
But Arabindan-Kesson and Satia are hopeful that more conversations about the monarchy’s legacy will continue to be discussed.
“I think education is really important,” Arabindan-Kesson says. “[Also] listening particularly to the Black and Brown scholars, activists, writers, and artists who have always been making these critiques and highlighting these issues, and then really working on policy and structural change and the process of repair, which I think does involve reparations in various forms.”
For her part, Satia hopes the monarchy can be more open about it’s history. “Imagine a very different kind of monarchy, where in the name of decency rather than politics, a monarch could say things like, ‘We acknowledge and regret the role of Britain, the British government and the British monarchy in slavery and colonialism.’ That kind of moral leadership could have such a different impact in the world,” she says.
They need their own equivalent of the 1619 project.
So two professors make nasty comments about QE2 and that equals Many Left-Wingers Just Hate White People
Too funny.
Exactly, a rare anomaly on our campuses.
Typical MO on these 'articles'
How would you know?