I'm not going to go back and quote word for word, but .. When they were on vacation in Kenya or Tanzania prior to her father's death, she gave a speech and came out and said something along the lines "When we (British) first came here, this was a such "savage" place, now with our railroads and electricity, we've made it a nicer. You're welcome"
Is that just an example of the British being British?
Jesus would support Universal Health Care
Is that just an example of the British being British?
Indeed. Pretty much all of the colonial powers in Africa (Britain, France, Portugal etc) were of the opinion that, without the civilising influence of their colonialism, the Africans would have all eaten each other (and their wildlife) long ago.
Some of us still do!
shareWhen they were on vacation
Is that just an example of the British being British?
[deleted]
Speak for yourself. I guess you've never heard of empires in other parts of the world. Japan never invaded, occupied, and slaughtered hundreds of thousands or anything. No European countries in the east ever suffered the loss of millions because Russians thought they were racially superior to other Slavic people and tried to wipe them out.
But keep on throwing that tired old "white people" insult around Americans today love so very, very much.
Japan invaded the philippines. Lots of comfort women here weren't given justice.
shareJapan invaded China. Look up the "Rape of Nanking" (modern Nanjing) or the " Nanking Massacre" if you have the guts, and a strong stomach.
Their first concern was to eliminate any threat from the 90,000 Chinese soldiers who surrendered. To the Japanese, surrender was an unthinkable act of cowardice and the ultimate violation of the rigid code of military honor drilled into them from childhood onward. Thus they looked upon Chinese POWs with utter contempt, viewing them as less than human, unworthy of life.
The elimination of the Chinese POWs began after they were transported by trucks to remote locations on the outskirts of Nanking. As soon as they were assembled, the savagery began, with young Japanese soldiers encouraged by their superiors to inflict maximum pain and suffering upon individual POWs as a way of toughening themselves up for future battles, and also to eradicate any civilized notions of mercy. Filmed footage and still photographs taken by the Japanese themselves document the brutality. Smiling soldiers can be seen conducting bayonet practice on live prisoners, decapitating them and displaying severed heads as souvenirs, and proudly standing among mutilated corpses. Some of the Chinese POWs were simply mowed down by machine-gun fire while others were tied-up, soaked with gasoline and burned alive.
After the destruction of the POWs, the soldiers turned their attention to the women of Nanking and an outright animalistic hunt ensued. Old women over the age of 70 as well as little girls under the age of 8 were dragged off to be sexually abused. More than 20,000 females (with some estimates as high as 80,000) were gang-raped by Japanese soldiers, then stabbed to death with bayonets or shot so they could never bear witness.
No worse than modern day Trump. At least they had the excuse of being sixty years ago.
shareAnother racist shitbag.
shareThe worst part of it is that this scene was shot in South Africa and not even Kenya where it actually happened. Her speech to the local leaders was deplorable! Very demeaning
share[deleted]
No I meant the fact that history shows she came to Kenya a Princess and left a Queen. That's why the producers gave so much airtime to her vacation at Treetops Lodge in Kenya. Look it up ?
share[deleted]
Her sister Margaret gave a similar speech of white supremacy while in Rhodesia
shareIndeed. Both Elizabeth's and Margaret's speeches, in Kenya and Rhodesia respectively, were unbelievably patronizing. Particularly shameful, seeing as some of their reviled "savages" were politely looking on.
I think it's great that the producers are preserving some of the authenticity, even when it's never very flattering to see the whole complete picture of a bygone era. I bet the grandparents of most of the participants on this thread have said and believed horrid, horrible things. They weren't royalty and nobody was looking - doesn't make it better. It just makes it...the 50s.
This was 60 years ago. People weren't offended by everything back then.
share[deleted]
Sixty years ago a married couple couldn't share a bed on TV.
There were limits on how often someone could kiss.
You couldn't hold office if you had ever had any affiliation with anything vaguely communist.
That got offended WAY MORE often than we do.
Most people thought I was a hero for killing Lydia's parrot.
The critics knocked Kate and Will for kissing 2X on the balcony of the palace after their wedding. I know the world is tired of them picking on the Sussexes. Years ago, it was Di, Fergie, Charles, and Camilla. I am getting sick of the Prince Andrew sex scandal as well. Now that Eugenie is pregnant, she will be the next target. It never ends.
Regarding the UK, yes colonial, ignorant attitudes die hard. You wonder if the Queen has regrets now, regardless of the fact Meghan is in the family, or that Beatrice's stepson is part Asian. A big part of Brexit's ideology is intolerance. England is also facing criticism of mistreatment of the Windrush generation. Many Europeans don't want to face the fact their country is multicultural now. Many of the Royal s also supported the Nazis.
Multiculturalism is the scourge of the modern world. It never leads to anything good. It may sound good on paper, but studies have shown that culturally homogenous societies are more peaceful and operate more smoothly than those full of different factions with varying cultural ideas and beliefs, religions, etc.
Really, this is common sense. A person doesn't even need a study to know it's true.
If you read Rudyard Kipling, he wrote about the "white man's burden" The Brits had an Empire across the whole world and they thought they were better than everyone, certainly everyone of different colors. It was their burden to colonize, for the good of the people that they came in and dominated.
They also deeply believed that the aristocracy was superior to "commoners". Thinks about that term to describe fellow Brits. The word class means they thought people with proper breeding, were better than everyone else.
America has broken down class barriers. There was never an aristocracy here. But I believe in Europe there was a strong belief that well bred people were superior to everyone else.
America has broken down class barriers. There was never an aristocracy here. But I believe in Europe there was a strong belief that well bred people were superior to everyone else.
I'm sorry, you think there is no aristocracy in America? Or do you mean that formally? Certainly there is no formal aristocracy, but from the days of the Revolution with Adams, Jefferson, Washington through the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt days to the Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes there has always been an unofficial American aristocracy. I won't include Trump in that, because one, his wealth is far to new, and second, because the actual aristocracy thinks he's a joke. He'll be impeached in two years and his brand in tatters. But licensing your name to vodka and tie makers isn't really the same as what those other families represent.
shareLOL British gonna British.
I thought they did contrast it well with her being more respectful of their culture (like the crown not a hat) than Phillip and how generally friendly they both were with everyone there.
Most people thought I was a hero for killing Lydia's parrot.
All the lisping *beep* can bleat about so-called "colonial oppression"
Congratulations: you just made (yet another) argument in favour of stopping immigration and commencing deportation.
We left their countries; time for them to leave ours.
Sorry, you get to oppress their people for hundreds of years but because "you left" they can't immigrate?
share"I" wasn't around hundreds of years ago, or indeed fifty years ago when the last colonialism ended. Funny how you think it's ok to generalise about and lump together all white Europeans, but if anyone should do the same about African black and Arab Muslims, you have a pearl-clutching, pant-wetting meltdown. Well here's the thing: people aren't falling for it any more, as seen by President Trump's immigration restrictions, as well as election results throughout Europe.
shareTrump's has lost every court case this week for his "policies". And it doesn't matter if "you" were there or not, your comment was based on societies, i.e. The imperialist Western Powers and now Islamic refugees. And it made you look stupid, which you've compounded with your reply.
shareBecause they are low ranking judges and the lower levels of the US judicial system is full of hacks. Believe me, as the case winds its way up the system, Trump will be vindicated. His opponents literally have no case. US Law explicitly grants the President the power to exclude from America any class of alien.
shareClearly you have no training in law. Should this make it to SCOTUS he will lose at least 6-2
shareI am probably the sharpest legal mind in the history of IMDB posting. But honestly, you don't need to be as knowledgeable as me to figure this one out. The pertinent statute:
8 USC §1182:
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
This is an open and shut case. In order for a judge to order a stay, plaintiffs need to have a significant chance of prevailing on the merits. The Boston judge denied the stay precisely because the case itself is so weak that it failed to meet this standard. No serious legal analyst believes Trump will lose this. The law is crystal clear. It isn't even the first time this as been done. Jimmy Carter took the same action based on the same statute way back in 1979.
Your first sentence proves you are a clown. Citing statutes is foolish, if you were an attorney you'd know that. The judges have interpreted the statutes and they've uniformly, republican and democrat alike, ruled against Trump. If it makes it to SCOTUS he'll lose 6-2
shareI am probably the sharpest legal mind in the history of IMDB posting. But honestly, you don't need to be as knowledgeable as me to figure this one out. The pertinent statute:
8 USC §1182:
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
This is an open and shut case. In order for a judge to order a stay, plaintiffs need to have a significant chance of prevailing on the merits. The Boston judge denied the stay precisely because the case itself is so weak that it failed to meet this standard. No serious legal analyst believes Trump will lose this. The law is crystal clear. It isn't even the first time this as been done. Jimmy Carter took the same action based on the same statute way back in 1979.
[deleted]
You must not be aware of the nationwide injunction that was issued. You're no attorney. You used the word "stay". A stay is issued to prevent legal orders from taking effect, what plaintiffs were seeking here were temporary restraining orders and injunctions. If your legal mind was as "sharp" as you claim, you'd be known that.
shareYou used the words "we" and "they" not me dummy.
share