Why are he and his wife so disliked?
I'm in the U.S. and don't put any stock in tabloid 'news', could someone educate me on why there is so much hatred for these two?
shareThe English can't have their bluebloods marrying an American, a commoner, a divorcée, an actress, and especially a "coloured girl". That just won't do.
shareThis in a nutshell. The whole idea of "royalty" seems a little twisted to me.
shareThat's one reason the US had a revolution and the Enlightenment pretty much defeated royalty.
The English also literally invented racism, so there's that too.
With respect, Adlerian, I think that's a bit of a stretch.
shareThe English LITERALLY invented racism.
That means turning it into a formal scientific movement.
Read about it.
Damn! And I thought you were one of the more sensible people in this place, Adlerian. Pity.
shareRead up on it. It's called history.
shareBuckyBoy, to find out who "invented" racism, (poor choice of words), I'd have to read up on PRE-history.
The tendency of one group to think itself better than another group has been in us since Cro-magnons ran into Neanderthals on the African plains.
And just to help your education along, (and Alder's, too), the word "invent" means to create something that hasn't existed before.
Oh lord!
You are taking about bigotry.
Racism is something that actually comes from science. Scientists studied intelligence, body type, skull shape, and many other things. That was a formal study that came from England.
You are extremely obnoxious talking like you know, when you don't actually know anything. It is very shameful.
With the plethora of "racism" accusations that are levelled at people for merely making the most innocent observations about a person, it's impossible to keep up with what's racism and what's not.
But now you're saying that racism is just a scientific discipline, undertaken to advance knowledge of different races. Umm, kind of like Anthropology?
It's the conclusions drawn from anthropological research that may sometimes be called racism. Not the research itself.
Just look up what I've said.
shareNo, I won't be doing that, Adler. But I've saved you the trouble of looking up "Anthropology", since you're getting it confused with your favourite social issue;
"Anthropology is the scientific study of humans, human behavior and societies in the past and present. Social anthropology studies patterns of behaviour, and cultural anthropology studies cultural meaning, including norms and values."
And this:
"Attempts to study and classify human beings as living organisms date back to ancient Greece. The Greek philosopher Plato (c. 428–c. 347 BC) placed humans on the scala naturae, which included all things, from inanimate objects at the bottom to deities at the top.[3] This became the main system through which scholars thought about nature for the next roughly 2,000 years.[3] Plato's student Aristotle (c. 384–322 BC) observed in his History of Animals that human beings are the only animals to walk upright, etc etc etc"
But it's only the British who are evil, right?
"Racism is something that actually comes from science. Scientists studied intelligence, body type, skull shape, and many other things. That was a formal study that came from England."
Typical Marxist bullshit. Marx invented "racism" along with "capitalism" as part of his hack philosophy. Before that racism and the patriarchy was simply a fact of life.
Race science is legitimate. Comparing race and bone structure is exactly the same as determining evolution of species from fossil bone structure. Modern genetics and DNA sequence firmly establishes the four main races. Leftists are the science deniers!
Yes, it's a bit ironic, that, isn't it.
shareBasically, race is real.
If you find a skeleton in the woods, a person who understands skull types could tell you if it's a black, white, or Asian person. Racial skulls are totally different than each other. If I recall correctly, Korean people have square eye sockets and white people have round.
A legit evolutionary scientist would want to know why.
The English invented the the study of race to promote superiority and legitimize royalty, which is nonsense. They even targeted their own population and attempted to say "cockneys" were genetically inferior. What they were was poor and unable to get money due to that commodity being controlled by rich people. Rich people hording capital creates poverty. But, the royalty couldn't admit that so, they started saying their poor were subhuman.
Black slavery was justified by the same logic. Making other Europeans slaves, as had been done, was considered evil. However, there were these new small skulled talking monkeymen and so it was okay to make them slaves since they aren't human.
It was also used to discourage interracial mating. I recall reading an article about "mulattoes" that claimed they were sterile. The word comes from "mules" which are sterile. The article claimed the races were too different and shouldn't mate. It also said that when the interracial person was born they ran the risk of being internally messed up as all the races had slightly different organ placement, etc.
Of course none of that's true it was fake science to scare people.
All of that has nothing to do with studying the body and drawing conclusions. Racism has to do with using science to claim one type of being is superior to another.
Also, you should invest time in reading what Marx had to say. I'll bet after you read it, you will agree with a lot.
What was the justification of blacks enslaving blacks in Africa before a single white man set foot there?
(Why am I engaging a Marxist?)
I think you can take the observational differences of race and one being superior to another much further back to the time of Aristotle which pre-dates the UK by quite some time.
shareNo it doesn't because it didn't become a science.
There was a TON of racial science related to pre-Darwinian ideas that was based on Creationism. All of it was from England. After Darwin, it was still from England.
Science began well before the UK ever existed. The fact that Greeks and Romans didn't call it science doesn't negate the fact that it existed. Science is nothing more than the systematic study of something in an attempt to understand it. That was done with regard to races, if only based on easily identifiable physical differences it was done by Romans hundreds of years before Christ was even born. Which is well before the UK ever existed. If you want to play semantics and only pretend scientific study happen when it was called science then you are still wrong as the first modern attempt at applying scientific process to the study of races was not by a Brit it was by an Irishman.
shareThat's an absolutely meaningless reply.
shareYou are the one dead set on pretending that the scientific study of different races started in the UK... So put up or shut up. Who is this father of racial studies and when did he do his studies? Give a name and date or piss off, you've alluded to someone over and over but never bothered to give any actual facts.
shareYou are dead set on talking out of your ass about a topic you know nothing about.
I can't imagine what it would be like to be so stupid that you think you know something and yet never ever looked into it.
I've been on the net since the early 90s and there's an endless supply of you.
So you still refuse to provide the name of your father of racism in the world... I think everyone now knows you are full of shit and you know it. All you had to do was provide the name of this supposed father of racism science but you won't do it. Dumbass.
shareYou can literally use this thing called "google" to "google" (means search for) the term "Scientific Racism" and read a "wiki" (too long to explain) all about it.
You should contact you "ISP" (Internet service provider) to complain that you are only receiving "moviechat.org" over the "internet" (also too long to explain) and then ask for "all the channels" on the "internet" because you are paying for them.
Then tell Austin Powers you're coming to get him.
Still no name.... My god you won't give up you stupid sack of shit. And if I want inaccurate information I'll use wikipedia, apparently that's what you use only you can't even manage to find a name or date. Fucking moron.
shareOk boomer.
Your argument is from like 1999.
You still can't just admit you made up all that shit you've been talking can you. All you need to do is provide the name of the scientist from the UK that started the scientific research of racism.. I mean it is what you've been claiming for days now... But you can't even give a name. What fucking dumb shit you are. Why not just slink off and be quiet instead of continuing to show your ignorance by ignoring the simple way you could win this argument and prove your right? Oh, that's right you realize that you aren't right and just refuse to admit it. Fucking dumbass.
shareOkay boomer...
Have your grandson teach you about the internet.
Actually, Popcorny, you're right. Codifying or studying something to try to justify it isn't the same thing as "inventing" it. You just have the poor luck to know what words mean.
shareSo the science of Anthropolgy was developed solely to find an excuse for bigotry against non-British races? Is that what you're saying? smh
That's the most blatant example of anti-British bigotry I've read lately!
I guess you haven't heard of Herbert Spencer or "Social Darwinism." He didn't invent bigotry, but he tried to make it scientific and respectable.
Whathactualheck do they teach in school these days? That's a rhetorical question. And it's not my fault that Spencer came from England.
You're still right that the English didn't "invent" bigotry. (You seemed to miss that point I was trying to make in my last post.) And you're welcome to think I'm anti-British, but I'm not. I love your country. And if I could have "Foyle's War" injected directly into my veins, I would.
I think perhaps I did miss your point, Destinata. Or at least, missed the point of the point...
Anyway, I take back my remark about your anti-British bigotry.
But I dispute your idea that the science of Anthropology arose from white peoples' desire to find an excuse for bigotry. That's just too much of a reach. And I don't think it was appropriated after the event, either.
Granted, some bigots will quote anthropological data to support their preconceptions about humans. But those instances surely would be confined to people with very esoteric outlooks and pursuits.
To declare that "The English LITERALLY invented racism", as some fool here said, is such a broad accusation, it reeks of prejudice and racism itself!
No, I wasn't saying that anthropology arose from white people's desire to find an excuse for bigotry. Anthropology simply describes what is. But from there, bigots say, "Oh, look! That's different! I hate what's different!" And then we're off to the races, no pun intended.
Spencer is said to have coined the phrase "survival of the fittest," applying it to human beings. If the British wound up ruling an empire on which the sun never set, that was simply survival of the fittest in his eyes.
"Social Darwinism" is politics, it does not invalidate the science behind race. That started with ancient philosophers, then Darwin, anthropology, evolutionary biology and DNA sequencing. Any attempt to link those with racism is science denial!
shareAll true.
share
I think they would be fine with her being a "colored" girl if she wasn't a common American divorcee actress with an inflated sense of self worth who would prefer to destroy hundreds of years of tradition because she's not "happy" being married to a royal.
Look, as an American, I don't get the whole Royalty thing one bit. I don't. But you know what I do know? The Brits LOVE the whole pomp and circumstance of Royalty and the Royal family, and for that I say God bless them. It's their tradition, it's charming, and it's not up to me or any American to have any say in what goes on in another country's tradition (as long as it doesn't violate human rights, but that is unrelated for the purposes of this discussion).
If Markle isn't happy as a Royal, she should divorce Harry and quit screwing around with tradition. Now, if it's Harry who would prefer to extricate himself from the Royal family, that's different.
[deleted]
So you think it's all her doing, and Harry is not in agreement with her decision? She is doing all this singlehandedly and he is just going along with it?
Here in the UK the typical attitude toward them is similar...he is apparently a saint, a lovely guy who can do no wrong and she is the devil in disguise.
I have no time for any of the nonsense talked about them. I would happily be glad to see the back of the royal family, if not for the fact that they are good for the tourism industry.
It's the "Yoko Syndrome".
shareThe royal family would be better for tourism if they were history. People would pay a lot to
* stay in the former Queen's bedroom if Buckingham palace were a B&B.
*Charter the former royals family's yacht and planes
* Rent their cars
* Visit their stables and ride their horses
* and so forth and so in
Maybe without the public paying their expenses their HRHs might meet with the little people to sell their autographs like actors at Comic Con
Roguemail, I think the word to describe Harry is, pardon the expression, "C*nt-struck".
He's not the sharpest tack in the Royal tin to begin with. And being led by the dick makes him even less intelligent.
I often hear that tourism argument as a reason to keep them but I seriously doubt it would change much if they were eliminated. Hell you could probably still the tourists coming to look at where they lived , probably give more tours of the places and charge money for it... Instead the poor dolts in the UK end up paying these scrotum squirts million every year for doing nothing. To me the whole things seems like a total crock of shit. At the very least if you want to have a royal family where the reality is they are only royal because some long forgotten ancestor killed off everyone else that wanted to be royal until he was the last man standing... well why not open up the whole thing to any other UK folks that want to take a swing at it... maybe not allow it every year, but every time a king or queen dies let any one else that wants to take over show up and fight to the death until you get a last man or woman (unlikely) standing. Hell I might even visit London just to watch the carnage of that.
shareHow do you know that she has an inflated sense of self worth? That’s what the tabloids say sure, but tabs are meant to stir sheet up.
shareTotally agree, Strntz. :)
Funny how some Americans, while raving about freedom of choice for everyone, will very quickly betray that principle if it's about someone they're prejudiced against.
I see that sort of thing a lot here, always from the usual suspects.
strntz, you agree with a lot of the English commentators I've read on the subject of the Duchess, but some people want to make everything about race.
shareAs a black male growing up in 1960s/1970s America, I am as far removed from the Royal Family as anyone could be, and I've also seen race used as a tool and a weapon for bad as much or more often than good.
But I've seen the coverage of the Royals when a marriage happens, or a prince/princess is born, or a death occurs etc.
Royalty is big stuff for the Brits, and even though I personally "don't get it", I *do* get that the Brits do. This means a lot to their culture and I could never see myself injecting myself into the Royal Family (do we capitalize that?) and causing such a drastic shift in the family structure.
There may well be a day when the Brits evolve away from the monarchy, but it hasn't happened yet and it shouldn't be an American that is the catalyst for change in my opinion.
I really don't think it's about race in this case. I may be wrong, but I can see the Queen screaming, "Not another American divorcee!" before I can see her screaming about the "purity" of the bloodline.
Meghan just seems so very American and seems to want to have things all her way -- the stereotypical "ugly American." That's not going to go over well no matter who's doing it.
I don't think anyone in the royal family is stupid enough to say anything about the purity of the blood line, god know from the history of the royal families it is likely to be anything close pure. Hell I doubt Harry and William were both sired by Charles... Hell maybe neither one of them was.
shareAgree with strntz 100%
share'Colored Girl' screams of bigotry, a little sensitivity, please.
I think 'High Yella' is the acceptable term nowadays.
I used the English spelling "coloured" and quotation marks, so I'm good. But MM is high yella works. I dated several high-yellas in my
youth, but never had a red bone.
I used the English spelling "coloured" and quotation marks, so I'm good. But MM is high yella works. I dated several high-yellas in my
youth, but never had a red bone.
"coloured girl" controversy was created by Lefties. Sure there are minority of racist Brits, but they have no voice. It's a diversion by the MSM.
Markle has an annoying American personality along with Hollywood SJW politics. She's never had a lead movie role, will always be a B actor. So marrying into British royalty was her way to fame. She emotionally castrated Harry. The British saw what she was doing, simple as that.
"minority of racist Brits"? Yeah, right. That's almost as humuorous as saying Americans in the North aren't racist.
shareYeah I remember leaving the south to live in Boston years back... I got all sorts of shit about how racist the south was... Of course I then pointed out that there was a Irish part of Boston, an Italian part of Boston, a Chinese part of Boston, a black part and then asked why it wasn't save for people from the various ethnic groups to go into those other areas... The north is racist as fuck, the just pretend that they aren't. Boston was more fucking racist than Atlanta.
shareAs late as the 1980's, buses were being turned over in protest of school integration. That was over in the south in the late 60's.
Here's what MLK said about Chicago:
"This is a terrible thing. I’ve been in many demonstrations all across the south, but I can say that I have never seen – even in Mississippi and Alabama – mobs as hostile and as hate-filled as I’ve seen here in Chicago. "
It's been a reality all across the Yankee states and remains that way today. Frankly I prefer the south where they will call you a nigger to your face instead of smiling when they see you and then stabbing you in the back like they do in the north. At least in the south you know where you stand and how people feel which is much easier to deal with than the backstabbing bullshitters in the north.
shareOne of my history teachers once said: "In the north they love the color and hate the people. In the south they love the people and hate the color." I believe that statement has a lot of truth, tho it is a simplification.
shareHe wasn't next in line (or even close), so the rules were a little more lax for him. I think what turned the British off was the attitude and actions. Some little things (i.e. just seizing some guy's twitter handle without even asking) to more serious offenses (e.g. standing up the queen/not meeting royal obligations). Not much was asked of Markle and she couldn't live up to the very low expectations set for her. As for Harry, who knows what is going on with that guy. At any rate, they will be out of the spotlight soon, and perhaps that will benefit their state of mind.