Barbados gains independence.

[Energize]

A few days ago Barbados ditched the monarch who has been stumbling her way from disaster to disaster all the way since the Suez canal to Aberfan, never will they have to watch another one of her vacuous speeches on poverty televised by a woman sitting in front of a gold piano. While tolerating paedophile princes giving TV interviews. Thoroughly despicable woman who thought nothing of others, not even to members of her family who she denied marriage because of religious fanatacism!

 

[Energize]

You could also argue that being a British colony gave them structure and put them on the right path and they wouldn't be where they are now without it.

The timeless classic variation of, "slaves benefitted from being taught English".

Are you being serious or... sarcastic?

I'll go with sarcastic and no one is as blinded as you came across there.

Not everyone on the forum is the typical right wing pro monarchist. She has been a odious blight on preserving awful institutions like the Church of England against the interests of the British people. And failing to do the most basic to safeguard the rights of minorities by giving royal assent to racist and homophobic laws, it's hard to think of a single individual who has caused to much harm to the liberty of the common person.

Not only that, she caused the slip at Aberfan as well, apparently.

Someone remind me to thread ban Energize when the Queen sadly passes.

Clearly ignorant of history like where she just didn't bother to turn up for over a week deciding instead that her lunch engagements were more important.

Can someone enlighten me on how the Suez Canal crisis was the queens fault

You mean other than being official head of the UK armed forces and failing to condemn the invasion, in effect all but giving it her blessing?

Megan, is that you?

Yeah, despite mocking her as an attention seeking **** on this very forum, that must be my where my sympathies lie.

Guess you've never heard the phrase "two things can be true".

Completely different scenarios.

Precisely, the country was already independent and has just decided to become a republic getting rid of their monarchy, basically more of a case of sticking two fingers up to the royals than deciding to impose a communist dictatorship...

haha triggered royalists.

Basically, the forum has always been very right wing and conservative on the whole, regular anti immigration threads, pro capital punishment, pro protectionism, pro monarchy, deeply racist founder etc.

 

[Energize]

@Energize you had to expect the wrath of OCUK to come crashing down on you calling out our outdated and obsolete institution that is a monarchy. I don't necessarily agree with all your points but on getting rid of the monarchy we are in complete agreement.

Oh yeah, I was expecting completely sycophantic defence of QE2 and OCUK didn't disappoint.

I was thinking more along the lines of the example they've had of running a successful colony / economy with the import of a well renowned democracy. The worldly prestige of being part of the British empire surely opened doors for them. Furthermore I think it's a credit to both parties that the hand over was a dignified affair where decent relations can still continue.

"Prestige of being part of the British Empire". Wasn't this a Prageru propaganda video narrated by a white supremacist a while back?

Oh yeah here it is.

His book btw.

https://ibb.co/ccGjQ2L

 

[Energize]

Does it not add a prestige which is still revered around the world though, help to hold our global influence, an established set of societal standards, global trade and ambassadorship?

Look, I can agree that there were some positives to be found in the British Empire, though I have to reach to find them.

But on balance it has to have been one of the most globally destructive empires to have blighted this Earth with it causing massive damage to most countries it touched, and a driving force behind this empire and it's worst excesses was always the monarchy in one variation or another.

When it comes to societal standards we actually saw some countries regress under the Empire where longstanding tolerance for cultural and social practices saw them give way to homophobia and massive discrimination.

 

[Energize]

At least we are clear that this thread was started with no concern whatsoever for Barbados.

Becoming a republic a few days ago while still staying in the commonwealth and inviting the monarchs son for the ceremony might be called independence by people being flexible with the facts. You just need to ignore that Barbados has been independent for 55 years already.

The thread title was changed completely from what I had originally put about getting rid of Queen Elizabeth, to some nonsense about independence, presumably by someone who clearly had no knowledge it had been independent since 1966...

Which mod is going to own up to it?

As a UK citizen you enjoy the richness that the nation has become for whatever reasons and part of those include stamping our say on the world and having that voice prevents others from walking over us.

Considering that most free countries like the USA became independent precisely by throwing off the British Empire, I'd say that the freedom is despite the British Empire that largely trod over the rights of the average British citizens.

 

[Energize]

Are you really going to bemoan the British and their slaves and praise the USA in the same breath. You are so deluded.

Who is praising the USA? Did you quote the wrong person?

There seems to be a lot of people with hurt feelings in this thread because the Queen had been criticised.

The mediocrity so apparent in posters complaining about my "attitude" is startling, can't criticise substance I guess we resort to ad hominem lol.

Let's not forget that Britain also ended the slave trade and enforced that ban on other countries, we didn't have to do that, we did it because we recognised how inhumane and wrong it was before the majority of the world did

The UK was late to the party when it came to slavery abolitionism sadly.

 

[Energize]

It's not just about personal freedoms though, the past prevented us from being some down trodden third world with a much poorer standard of living.

Without personal freedoms though, all else pales in significance, look at China.

Ha ha!

We were instrumental in stopping it, without the royal navy it would have gone on for years and years longer.

Go read a history book.

Someone's been watching PragerU...

Rewriting history now? Lol the UK was actually early to that particular party, but don't let the facts get in the way of a crazy rant.

A few hundred/thousand years late lol.

Which countries were early to the party? What did they achieve and enforce?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom

 

[Energize]

Some big names there ..like Denmark... Russia rebranded slaves, France banned and then re introduced it.

Yeah, India 2000 years ago, tiny subcontinent...

Guess Denmark abolishing it hundreds of years before we did, and Mexico and all the northern USA states abolishing it decades before we did doesn't count because we were bigger though?

Since when did anyone in the UK not have personal freedoms though or that were only comparable to China?

Gay people until recent times. Didn't see Queen Elizabeth II doing much to really help with that either, like you know, not giving royal assent to homophobic legislation.

Surely you jest? I dont think any nation on earth done more than the British empire did to end slavery, just look at the numbers involved, the debt incurred was only paid off 10 years ago, let alone the human cost of the lost navy personnel, has there been any conflict since where more personal have been lost aside from WW2 and WW2?

Yet ALL blame is laid at the feet of the west, zero blame to the actual sellers of these people into slavery (other tribes they were at war with) or the first slave owner in the USA who was black himself.

Yeah, again, who is blaming the west for slavery given it's ancient roots? Just not seeing it.

I can't believe the "first slave owner in the USA was black" myth is still doing the rounds. Wtf?!

Fact of the matter is that whilst the UK was one prominent country to call for slavery abolition (after numerous others), it massively expanded the scope of slavery and the slave trade before doing so, which is all too quickly forgotten by the conservative, colonialist political narrative.

 

[Energize]

So a small section of society prior to 1967 had some inequality in terms of freedom to exercise their sexuality openly. I'll give you that one in the sense it was one aspect of personal freedoms. On the other hand those same people had the same personal freedoms in terms of other personal freedoms such as receiving a state education and to explore opportunities to better themselves career wise etc.

"Some inequality", is a euphemistic way to put horrific legal persecution including execution against those even accused of it. And no it did not stop in 1967, not even in name.

And I don't think half the population being unable to even vote really supports the democracy narrative either.

 

[Energize]

Ah some northern states, but not the US... remind me how that worked out.

Failing to see the relevance.

You jest at India and it's caste system plus there are over 1 million in slavery still in India the largest slave population in the world...but yeah

You mean like how the UK created all this nice sounding anti-slavery legislation while still allowing slavery elsewhere in the empire like India?

1792 Denmark , 1832 UK...hundreds of years? ?????

Do you have fingers? Because you need to learn how to count them first.

1st grade maths isn't your strong suite here, as that was the country you cited to my claim of hundreds of years, maybe you meant Sweden in 1335 or perhaps Norway in 1275?

But speaking generally most of the nation weren't homosexual so the nation as it was then mostly enjoyed personal freedoms far in excess from that akin to slavery or the Chinese.

Oh well that's fine then...

Unless you have everyone born equal with the same freedoms it's just a mockery imo.

 

[Energize]

You just couldn't make it up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59590576

Epstein and Maxwell pictured at Queen's residence at Balmoral

A picture of paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell relaxing at what appears to be the Queen's Balmoral residence has been shown to a US court.

Eh? But you quoted Denmark as being hundreds of years ahead of us... What have Sweden or Norway got to do with anything?

I linked to a swathe of countries that made abolition efforts before us and he started talking about Denmark, in response to me saying hundreds of years...

Ok, now what?

This could be an economic disaster for them. Do they get funding, defence and aid from the UK which will now vanish?

They have been independent since 1966, some genius mod changed the thread title.

 

[Energize]

Is the implication that the Queen knew what Epstein was and let him come over anyway, or maybe she invited him personally and not Prince Andrew?

No, just ridiculous that Andrew was knowingly allowing paedos to visit the residence and the Queen failed to do due diligence.

Overall I think the Queen has derelicted her duty in failing to protect people's civil liberties allowing despicable legislation to pass under her reign.

And I'm not denying that Britain played a significant role in ending slavery as some seem to think, just saying that they were well behind a number of other countries. and it doesn't really make up for the massive role Britain played in expanding slavery and the numerous massacres carried out by the British military.

You had and have the freedoms that the democracy decided was right at the time. That's the problem with democracies, they don't represent minorities but still better than being a commie.

Democracies absolutely do not have to be tyranny of the majority, a constitution can protect the rights of all while still allowing for democratic rule.

 

[Energize]

You what now.

The agreement is the hereditary monarch gets symbolic say and only acts on the advice of the government, elected by the people.

She does actually have the power to withhold assent, she failed to do so on countless occasions.

 

[Energize]

...

This nonsense is not worth a full response as you've misconstrued what I've said, and it's quite embarrassing that you're resorting to cries of racism when I've heavily criticised the Arab slavery on this forum.

"Blame whitey", you're basically a discount version of Tommy Robinson at this point, good lord.

 

[Energize]

I guess ignoring my response and throwing mud at me in the hope something will stick is the best option you had. You certainly had no chance of rebutting anything I wrote. Including when I quoted your own post stating something you claimed you hadn't stated.

I'd already addressed most of what you wrote previously, no point in going in circles.

The problem is when someone starts crying racism I switch off, especially when it has a white nationalist tinge to it. Ethnic nationalists associate nation with race so strongly that they perceive criticism of their nation to be an attack on their racial identity, the problem with this line of thinking is:

1. The British Empire was ethnically diverse.
2. White people lived outside the British Empire.
3. The actions of a nation (i.e. the interests of the elite) don't represent the average citizen.
4. The British Empire does not represent modern Britain. (which is why your suggestion that I am trying to denigrate the UK is absurd)

Which therefore makes the idea that criticising the British Empire (which for all intents and purposes hasn't existed for a long time) is someone racist or an attack on whiteness utterly ridiculous.

Your position is wildly inconsistent. On the one hand, you detest the queen and blame her for everything bad that has happened in the last 70 years. On the other hand, you want her to rule the UK by decree with parliament turned into at best a council of advisors.

Incidentally, that would be far more power than any monarch of the UK has ever had in practice because back in the days when the monarch had more use of their power government was required to be far more local due to the level of technology and the fact that the upper nobility had more money and more soldiers under their personal command than the monarch did. The direct rule of the monarch only extended 12 miles in diameter (as long as the upper nobility were willing to accept it).

If there is to be a monarch, then their duty should be primarily to protect the liberty of the citizens, giving their stamp of approval to oppressive legislation doesn't fit in with that. I don't think there should be a monarch, but the fact is there is one and they haven't done their utmost to safeguard citizens from the excesses of government. That's not an inconsistent position.

Saying I've blamed Elizabeth for everything bad that's happened is just royalist hyperbole.

 

[Energize]

Wanting someone who you blame for everything bad to be the absolute dictator of the country is an inconsistent position unless you believe that any elected government must be even worse.

Right, because criticising her for a couple of events amounts to blaming her for "everything" bad, and denying royal assent (aka. tacit approval) to oppressive legislation is dictatorship.

Safeguards != dictatorship unless you are a fanatical monarchist.

 

[Energize]

If you're going to contradict yourself you could at least bother to edit your posts to remove the evidence of you contradicting yourself. Not doing so and assuming it doesn't matter because you say so is arrogant.



You're not "criticising her for a couple of events". You're blaming her for everything bad (because you think she's "thoroughly despicable"). Not a couple of events. Over and over again, everything you could think of. Including other people's divorces and, of course, any and all laws you disagree with.



Having a single person dictate the law of a country is pretty much what a dictatorship is. Even monarchs of the middle ages didn't actually have that much power in practice. You want the monarch to be an absolute dictator and you're calling me a fanatical monarchist. Doesn't that seem at least a bit odd to you?

What you want, of course, is a dictator who would dictate the law to be what you want it to be. Very progressive of you.

Nah, I named specific events she failed in. That's not "everything".

Having checks and balances is just common sense, the US executive also has the power to veto legislation from the legislative branch, that doesn't make the president a dictator.

 

[Energize]

What you want is a dictator by proxy who will make law according to your demands. That's a very different thing to the USA president's not-really-a-real-veto.

What I want is no monarchy. And no, not "my demands", a constitution. Being able to veto/override laws like the unelected supreme court can doesn't make someone a dictator by any definition of the word. A dictator is someone with autocratic control and absolute power.

At the moment we have a monarch who is, according to you, already a dictator because they pass all legislation into law and can give or withhold assent as they please whilst enjoying completely immunity from prosecution for any crime they commit and is head of the justice system.

If the choice is between a malevolent dictator and a benevolent one I'll always take the latter, and I consider passing terrible laws to be malevolent.

EDIT - Also apparantly the BBC have something on iPlayer regarding the situation if anyone is interested.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00122mr/our-world-barbados-road-to-a-republic

As Barbados removes the Queen as its head of state and becomes the world's newest republic, British-Barbadian Daniel Henry returns to his ancestral home to find out what islanders make of the move. From the man in charge of rebuilding parliament to England's first black cricketer, Roland Butcher, Daniel asks - why now? And does what it mean for the island's future?