4 ms·
It's 2019 and people still like to mock cultures and traditions blindly. The article does a pretty good job of explaining a lot of the situation in a grounded,
by sdrothrock 7y ago
It's 2019 and people still like to mock cultures and traditions blindly. The article does a pretty good job of explaining a lot of the situation in a grounded, rational way -- especially concerns over the uses and potential abuses of taxpayer money.
The US essentially deifies the Founding Fathers even though we're living in a world with influences and technologies they could never have anticipated. Why is it ok care so much about that history but not for other countries to care about their history?
The system of government also doesn't seem like a firm basis of argument to me. Yes, many governments have moved on from monarchies, but that doesn't mean that there may not be a monarchy in a country in the future, nor does it mean that a monarchy is an objectively terrible country to live in.
- TomMckenny 7y agoI'd say the grand parent view comes from an uneasiness at anything hereditary, although there's much less objection to hereditary wealth for some reason. So I'd say it comes from a dichotomy between hereditary wealth and hereditary power, although it's well known that monarchs in democracies are tightly constrained while hereditary wealth brings hereditary power. It might be the inevitable tie between monarchy and religion which creates a de facto most "correct" national religion. Along with the occasional claim that mythical origins are literally true. And while comforting, historical and even stabilizing at the moment, it's worth noting that a great many monarchs were quick to join the wrong side of history in WWII. So, for those without a monarch and the attendant enthusiasm, the institution looks like an extremely expensive and potentially dangerous embodiment of unfairness. Without commenting on the correctness of this view, one can see how it would make monarchies and monarchists incomprehensible to outsiders.
- option 7y agoYes, very well said.
- mango7283 7y agoOff the top of my head, most Western European monarchs headed governments in exile on the side of the allied powers, where are you getting that a great many sided with the wrong side of history?
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y agoItaly, Germany, Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_monarchies#Modern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_monarchies#Mode...
- gdhbcc 7y agoGermany was not a monarchy during ww2. The Italian king fought for both axis and allies (and joining the allies was a big reason why he was voted out after the war). Yugoslavia was invaded by the axis, as was Greece.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago> The Italian king fought for both axis and allies (and joining the allies was a big reason why he was voted out after the war). ...I'm not sure that a monarch who can be voted out is really an autocrat in the way most people think of when they hear the term.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> So I'd say it comes from a dichotomy between hereditary wealth and hereditary power Which is, of course, a false dichotomy, since wealth is power.
- option 7y agoSome cultures do need to be mocked. Obvious example - women should be treated equal to men, whatever your culture is. The developed world has some aspects which should be mocked too and monarchy is one of them.
- geofft 7y agoIt's 2019 and you still distinguish "women" and "men" as categories? How backwards and oppressive. Let me mock you instead of trying to understand what you are saying and trying to help you understand what I am saying.
- option 7y agoplease do, I’m not going to throw you in jail or chop of your head
- tomhoward 7y agoMockery is the antithesis to a dispassionate examination of how things evolved to be the way they are, and without an understanding of that, it's not really possible to bring about change in any orderly, lasting way.