5 ms·

I think it’s interesting that you’d blame this family for the horrors of colonialism. They haven’t had a say in British policy for around 2 centuries. Although

I think it’s interesting that you’d blame this family for the horrors of colonialism. They haven’t had a say in British policy for around 2 centuries. Although the monarch meets the Prime Minister every week, they cannot tell the PM what to do, unless it affects the royal family personally. The PM listens to what they have to say but charts their own course. If you’re looking for someone to blame, Churchill deserves some. Many Prime Ministers before him as well. But I don’t think Philip deserves any. You call them a symbol, that’s all they are. They’re someone to point at and say “yeah that’s our country”, so no single politician can claim that mantle. As an Indian you must be aware how easy it is for a politician to claim they’re the personification of the nation (“India is Indira and Indira is India”). That cannot happen in the UK because the PM is merely a temporary caretaker appointed by the monarch. The symbolism matters. Source: The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot (1867)

Thorentis 6y ago
Unfortunately people are very quick to assign "generational guilt" these days. It's as if we've gone backwards, and are no longer capable of being individuals. "Oh, you're white/black/related to x/decended from y, did you know your ancestors did *that*?"
- kmlx 6y ago
  because it’s much simpler for people to find external causes to their misery than looking at their own actions. nothing new, see “religion”.
  - andrepd 6y ago
    Yes, history is a figment of our imagination, every person's misery is due to their own actions. /s
- bojan 6y ago
  They are quick to assign generational guilt because they still have to live with the consequences of what happened those generations ago.
- shankr 6y ago
  Because people take generation credit all the time. We "french/english/<insert any nationality>" did this and that. So if we are not trying to being hypocritical, it makes sense you share the associated guilt also. We haven't gone backwards, it's just we have become bit more consistent in our logic
- andrepd 6y ago
  Excuse me? Generational inheritance is the basis of the entire monarchy. It's how they justify their position and privileges. Invoke generational privileges when it suits them and cry about generational guilt when it does not??
  - Accacin 6y ago
    But he's not just talking about the Royal Family. How far do I go back before I don't feel guilty anymore? Should the Italians feel guilty for the Roman Empire slaughtering native Britons? For me there's little point making people feel shame for what country they happened to be born in - we do not get to choose. However it's important that we do not forget what caused these awful atrocities and make sure that we never let them happen again. Personally I feel that we do not learn enough about these atrocities at school in the UK, and would be happy if we focused on them more but I wouldn't want people to feel too guilty about things that could not control.
    - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
      If you continue to directly benefit from the atrocities, then you should feel guilty.
    - andrepd 6y ago
      The GP comment was about the royal family.
- lordvegazo 6y ago
  It was Queen Victoria who gave patents to explore. They came and plundered our lands and created unrest first in the name of east india company and then the British Empire. We just dont know how the subcontinent would have evolved without their interference - because of their divide and conquer policy we have an extreme distrust between the muslims and the hindus that had resulted in one of the worst (and ridiculus) land partitions in 1947 and created a conflict that will go on for generations. They interfered where they had no business to be in and made a mess of everything. People argue that his hands are clean because all the bad stuff was done by his mother-in-law and the PMs. But he directly benifitted from the gains (as will his decendents) of the genoide and plunderings and won't even acknowledge. The monarch should pay the subcontinent back for the damages they have caused[0, 1]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjTSgP6Lm0A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjTSgP6Lm0A
- dragonelite 6y ago
  As long as people from the global south suffer from Anglo European imperialism. Anglo Europeans should carry that generational guilt just as the global south has suffered for generations and still suffers to this day. Here's a interesting tweet about how the global north is sucking dry the global south: https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1377180178690940934 https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1377180178690940934
wozniacki 6y ago
From 'bidirectional' above : It should be noted that the 'staying out of politics' is a public phenomenon. In her weekly meeting with the Prime Minister, The Queen makes her political stance well known (that is the entire point of the meeting).[1] While you say: They haven’t had a say in British policy for around 2 centuries. Although the monarch meets the Prime Minister every week, they cannot tell the PM what to do, unless it affects the royal family personally. The PM listens to what they have to say but charts their own course. Well, it cannot be both - for all intents and purposes. Either the Queen has a sizeable influence on the general political direction of the country or she does not. One would think her influence particularly would have gone unquestioned to a larger degree, by the PM or politicians & their constituencies in general, in that era - when the royal family enjoyed far greater popularity than it does now. So the OP isn't too far off the mark to assume they deserve ample blame. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26749513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26749513
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Oh, did he say something about the atrocities then? In a very public role as the moral backbone of the nation? Did he apologize? I missed that.
- nindalf 6y ago
  By no means am I defending colonialism, least of all the British Empire in India. I’m an Indian, FWIW. I see two main obstacles to this apology. 1. Teaching kids history. Currently British kids learn all about Henry VIII’s wives ... and then it’s straight to the World Wars. It’s hard to tell a nation of 70 million people to reckon with their past when they know nothing about it. 2. Philip himself was quite old. He grew up at a time when the Empire was a great thing, something that helped resist the tides of Nazism. Britain could not have managed it without the colonies. And later, he became old. I’m willing to give older people the benefit of the doubt - they can’t change their minds easily. But if his grandson can’t come to grips with it either when he becomes monarch, I won’t be making any excuses for him.
  - brainwipe 6y ago
    We did Celts (Bronze and Iron age), some on ancient Greece, Romans, Vikings, Tudors (briefly, we didn't do Henry VIIIs wives, more about Shakespear), Spanish Armada, colonialism, slave trade, and then loads on WW1 and WW2. I do agree that more should be taught about the details of colonialism but the idea that British history started with Henry VIII and skipped to WW1 is nonsense.
    - Agr0tera 6y ago
      It might be worth noting that your experience can differ from theirs without it being untrue. I can say that I did Ancient Greece, Romans, Tudors, touched a little on the Spanish Armada before skipping straight to WW2. Neither of the two schools I attended touched on Colonialism in any recognisable degree, and Slavery was more "We stopped slavery, good job england", when in reality it wasn't done from a place of morality, and instead was driven by mass slave revolts, a decline in plantations culminated by an era of overproduction by slavery, which was leading to economic decline.
sn41 6y ago
“India is Indira and Indira is India” is just a sign of the tendency towards personality cults that the polity suffer from. In fact, it was not Indira who coined the slogan, but rather a particularly oily sycophant, D. K. Barooah [1]. In fact, in some sense, there is an attempt to try to deify/lionize the PM as a royal. I don't think that it is a symptom of the failure of parliamentary democracy, rather it is a tendency among people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._K._Barooah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._K._Barooah
- nindalf 6y ago
  Nothing you’ve said contradicts my comment. It’s definitely a problem with people that is solved by having a separate non political head of state.
s_dev 6y ago
>I think it’s interesting that you’d blame this family for the horrors of colonialism. Heres the opening for Patrick Freyne in the Irish Times on the British Monarchy: "Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown." >You call them a symbol, that’s all they are. Yet swastikas are illegal in Germany. Symbols have meaning and the British monarchy does represent imperialism and colonialism even if it makes British people feel uncomfortable. https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/harry-and-meghan-the-union-of-two-great-houses-the-windsors-and-the-celebrities-is-complete-1.4504502 https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/harry-and-me...
- yakubin 6y ago
  The royal family, including current members, also has a history of some sympathy towards Nazism. [1]: <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/royal-family-nazi-photographs-images-duke-windsor-giving-heil-hitler-salute-during-visit-germany-sale-10407006.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/royal-family-nazi-...> [2]: <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/19/queens-nazi-salute-video-pressure-mounts-on-royals-to-open-up-archives https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/19/queens-nazi-...> [3]: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4170083.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4170083.stm>
  - kkoncevicius 6y ago
    California, USA, has had a bigger sympathy towards Nazism, and even some direct influence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Influence_on_Nazi_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#...
    - yakubin 6y ago
      I find such whataboutism reprehensible. It's common in my home country, where a lot of people in response to pointing out our history of repressions against Jews start pointing fingers at other countries with a vague "they were worse", or worse "we were provoked"; instead of admitting to the past and learning something from it. Pointing out someone's shortcomings shouldn't trigger a review of the shortcomings of others.
elliekelly 6y ago
You might find the book Midnights Furies interesting. It’s about The Partition of India[1] and the royal family was indeed very closely involved. They saw India as a critical component of the British Empire and feared not for the welfare of the people but for the monarchy’s future. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

Thorentis 6y ago

Unfortunately people are very quick to assign "generational guilt" these days. It's as if we've gone backwards, and are no longer capable of being individuals. "Oh, you're white/black/related to x/decended from y, did you know your ancestors did *that*?"

kmlx 6y ago
because it’s much simpler for people to find external causes to their misery than looking at their own actions. nothing new, see “religion”.
- andrepd 6y ago
  Yes, history is a figment of our imagination, every person's misery is due to their own actions. /s
bojan 6y ago
They are quick to assign generational guilt because they still have to live with the consequences of what happened those generations ago.
shankr 6y ago
Because people take generation credit all the time. We "french/english/<insert any nationality>" did this and that. So if we are not trying to being hypocritical, it makes sense you share the associated guilt also. We haven't gone backwards, it's just we have become bit more consistent in our logic
andrepd 6y ago
Excuse me? Generational inheritance is the basis of the entire monarchy. It's how they justify their position and privileges. Invoke generational privileges when it suits them and cry about generational guilt when it does not??
- Accacin 6y ago
  But he's not just talking about the Royal Family. How far do I go back before I don't feel guilty anymore? Should the Italians feel guilty for the Roman Empire slaughtering native Britons? For me there's little point making people feel shame for what country they happened to be born in - we do not get to choose. However it's important that we do not forget what caused these awful atrocities and make sure that we never let them happen again. Personally I feel that we do not learn enough about these atrocities at school in the UK, and would be happy if we focused on them more but I wouldn't want people to feel too guilty about things that could not control.
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    If you continue to directly benefit from the atrocities, then you should feel guilty.
  - andrepd 6y ago
    The GP comment was about the royal family.
lordvegazo 6y ago
It was Queen Victoria who gave patents to explore. They came and plundered our lands and created unrest first in the name of east india company and then the British Empire. We just dont know how the subcontinent would have evolved without their interference - because of their divide and conquer policy we have an extreme distrust between the muslims and the hindus that had resulted in one of the worst (and ridiculus) land partitions in 1947 and created a conflict that will go on for generations. They interfered where they had no business to be in and made a mess of everything. People argue that his hands are clean because all the bad stuff was done by his mother-in-law and the PMs. But he directly benifitted from the gains (as will his decendents) of the genoide and plunderings and won't even acknowledge. The monarch should pay the subcontinent back for the damages they have caused[0, 1]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjTSgP6Lm0A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjTSgP6Lm0A
dragonelite 6y ago
As long as people from the global south suffer from Anglo European imperialism. Anglo Europeans should carry that generational guilt just as the global south has suffered for generations and still suffers to this day. Here's a interesting tweet about how the global north is sucking dry the global south: https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1377180178690940934 https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1377180178690940934

wozniacki 6y ago

From 'bidirectional' above : It should be noted that the 'staying out of politics' is a public phenomenon. In her weekly meeting with the Prime Minister, The Queen makes her political stance well known (that is the entire point of the meeting).[1] While you say: They haven’t had a say in British policy for around 2 centuries. Although the monarch meets the Prime Minister every week, they cannot tell the PM what to do, unless it affects the royal family personally. The PM listens to what they have to say but charts their own course. Well, it cannot be both - for all intents and purposes. Either the Queen has a sizeable influence on the general political direction of the country or she does not. One would think her influence particularly would have gone unquestioned to a larger degree, by the PM or politicians & their constituencies in general, in that era - when the royal family enjoyed far greater popularity than it does now. So the OP isn't too far off the mark to assume they deserve ample blame. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26749513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26749513

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Oh, did he say something about the atrocities then? In a very public role as the moral backbone of the nation? Did he apologize? I missed that.

nindalf 6y ago
By no means am I defending colonialism, least of all the British Empire in India. I’m an Indian, FWIW. I see two main obstacles to this apology. 1. Teaching kids history. Currently British kids learn all about Henry VIII’s wives ... and then it’s straight to the World Wars. It’s hard to tell a nation of 70 million people to reckon with their past when they know nothing about it. 2. Philip himself was quite old. He grew up at a time when the Empire was a great thing, something that helped resist the tides of Nazism. Britain could not have managed it without the colonies. And later, he became old. I’m willing to give older people the benefit of the doubt - they can’t change their minds easily. But if his grandson can’t come to grips with it either when he becomes monarch, I won’t be making any excuses for him.
- brainwipe 6y ago
  We did Celts (Bronze and Iron age), some on ancient Greece, Romans, Vikings, Tudors (briefly, we didn't do Henry VIIIs wives, more about Shakespear), Spanish Armada, colonialism, slave trade, and then loads on WW1 and WW2. I do agree that more should be taught about the details of colonialism but the idea that British history started with Henry VIII and skipped to WW1 is nonsense.
  - Agr0tera 6y ago
    It might be worth noting that your experience can differ from theirs without it being untrue. I can say that I did Ancient Greece, Romans, Tudors, touched a little on the Spanish Armada before skipping straight to WW2. Neither of the two schools I attended touched on Colonialism in any recognisable degree, and Slavery was more "We stopped slavery, good job england", when in reality it wasn't done from a place of morality, and instead was driven by mass slave revolts, a decline in plantations culminated by an era of overproduction by slavery, which was leading to economic decline.

sn41 6y ago

“India is Indira and Indira is India” is just a sign of the tendency towards personality cults that the polity suffer from. In fact, it was not Indira who coined the slogan, but rather a particularly oily sycophant, D. K. Barooah [1]. In fact, in some sense, there is an attempt to try to deify/lionize the PM as a royal. I don't think that it is a symptom of the failure of parliamentary democracy, rather it is a tendency among people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._K._Barooah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._K._Barooah

nindalf 6y ago
Nothing you’ve said contradicts my comment. It’s definitely a problem with people that is solved by having a separate non political head of state.

s_dev 6y ago

>I think it’s interesting that you’d blame this family for the horrors of colonialism. Heres the opening for Patrick Freyne in the Irish Times on the British Monarchy: "Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown." >You call them a symbol, that’s all they are. Yet swastikas are illegal in Germany. Symbols have meaning and the British monarchy does represent imperialism and colonialism even if it makes British people feel uncomfortable. https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/harry-and-meghan-the-union-of-two-great-houses-the-windsors-and-the-celebrities-is-complete-1.4504502 https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/harry-and-me...

yakubin 6y ago
The royal family, including current members, also has a history of some sympathy towards Nazism. [1]: <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/royal-family-nazi-photographs-images-duke-windsor-giving-heil-hitler-salute-during-visit-germany-sale-10407006.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/royal-family-nazi-...> [2]: <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/19/queens-nazi-salute-video-pressure-mounts-on-royals-to-open-up-archives https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/19/queens-nazi-...> [3]: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4170083.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4170083.stm>
- kkoncevicius 6y ago
  California, USA, has had a bigger sympathy towards Nazism, and even some direct influence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Influence_on_Nazi_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#...
  - yakubin 6y ago
    I find such whataboutism reprehensible. It's common in my home country, where a lot of people in response to pointing out our history of repressions against Jews start pointing fingers at other countries with a vague "they were worse", or worse "we were provoked"; instead of admitting to the past and learning something from it. Pointing out someone's shortcomings shouldn't trigger a review of the shortcomings of others.

elliekelly 6y ago

You might find the book Midnights Furies interesting. It’s about The Partition of India[1] and the royal family was indeed very closely involved. They saw India as a critical component of the British Empire and feared not for the welfare of the people but for the monarchy’s future. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India