LogFAQs > #968054740

Vampire_Chicken posted...

And just how much "cultural influence" did she actually exert upon Colonial Office or Foreign Office policy through informal back channels? What were the issues on which she directly intervened, what policy changes were made in accordance with her expressed wishes, which prime ministers did she successfully bend to her will?

And please, let's not have any of this airy-fairy "Oh, but her influence was so all-pervading that it was intangible, the evidence for it is nowhere because it was everywhere, so I'm sorry but I can't actually offer you any specifics" guff, either. I'll tell you what's "intellectually dishonest": feeling convinced that you don't need to persuade anyone with bothersome old facts because your opinions are too self-evidently correct to require corroboration.

No doubt she had her own opinions and wishes on a variety of issues -- who doesn't? Your job is to demonstrate when, where and how these were actually translated into concrete action and had an impact on policy. Not only that, but to offer more than one or two examples if you want prop up this notion that she supposedly spent her whole life on the throne plotting how to repress, culturally rape, loot and genocide native populations.

But if, on the other hand, all you can say is that she owed a blood debt for the crimes of Britain's colonial past simply because of the family she was born into, and because of the crown that got plonked on her head back in 1952 -- then be careful, because that's a dangerous argument with uncomfortable implications. Because it can be argued that in a democracy, the people, the electorate, are morally accountable for the foreign policies of the government they voted into power, just as much as any elite might be. That's certainly the way Al Qaeda saw things: that every adult American was a legitimate target who somehow deserved to pay the price of past governments' follies. Let's not buy into that "guilty by association" logic that reduces people to symbols and stereotypes to justify their death.

If whoever sits on the throne is guilty of the crimes of whoever's ass was on it back in 1903 because that kind of responsibility goes with the job title, then whoever sits in the Oval Office today is equally guilty of whatever's been done in Uncle Sam's name since 1782. Sound fair enough?

The Queen has the power to select the Prime Minister and has the power to get rid of them. Is that not literally influencing the political direction of the UK? On top of that, it's not like she can't call in favors and get the desired result. A happy example is when she spoke up and let Snoop Dogg stay welcomed in the UK after they tried to kick him out. Elizabeth's influence on the UK is a mixed bad and you gotta take the good with the bad, but I definitely don't need to come up with a bunch of examples just to support ONE argument lol. The examples I used are strong enough to support themselves by being factual. That's the only criteria that needs to be met lol.

The "opinion" of a monarch cannot be downplayed or equated to that of a commoner. She's literally the Queen and spoke up on more than a few occasions in her lifetime. She's not Chelsea Clinton. This is another example of that intellectual dishonesty I was talking about, and why I'm not going to be strung along while you pretend to think it's up to you to decide what the criteria should be.

One of my heroes suggested that we judge people not by appearance, but by the contents of their character. We're all a mixed bag, but again, we gotta take the good with the bad. Are one's actions/inaction not a direct indicator of their character? Are the ideologies and policies that one pushes not an indicator of character? If you take on your father's rhetoric and continue his traditions, you will be criticized and judged for the same reasons he was. Americans struggle with this concept too lol.

Elizabeth was complicit in the crimes of the UK during her lifetime and she reaped the benefits from nations under British rule. Stolen jewels are just one thing people talk about. She's "charitable" because it's good for public relations and public image, but I can't recall her speaking out against the UK or it's allies extorting African nations. Even the Island of Haiti is still being extorted by France, but both America and the UK don't seem to mind it's allies crimes against humanity. You learn a lot about one's character by what they're willing to speak out against versus what they remain silent about.

Anyway, sorry I kept you waiting. I don't post every day anyway, but I truly did intend on responding to you that day lol. I just got caught up in a busy week. But I said what I said, I made my point clearly and I'm not interested dragging out the discussion.