UK Politics Thread IX: Try turning the UK off and on again.

[Dakini]

What kind of weirdo 1. has a picture of the Queen displayed in their home 2. puts ribbons on their picture frames and 3. gives a shit about how some grad students at Oxford decide to decorate their common room?

If that is what she wants in her private home, that's her business (though that ribbon is ugly), as it is within the students' right to remove a portrait that the previous group of students had elected to put up in their own common room.

But expecting others to conform to her personal ideas of décor does start to have... overtones.

On the positive side, at least she also didn't have a garland-framed image of Boris Johnson -- then we would be up shit creek without a paddle.

Of course she can decorate her home how she wants. It's just weird.

Like, hanging posters of musicians or athletes in your home is one thing, but like a framed photo of a stranger that's not a poster just seems a bit weird and obsessive.

And for what it's worth, if Ms Jenkyns is a "weirdo" for having a portrait of the Queen on display in their home then I can't imagine what Dakini and co would make of me for having a portrait of King Ludwig II of Bavaria and an icon of the Romanov family on my shelf.

It depends a bit how they're displayed, but historical paintings or really old photographs on a shelf are a bit different from a large modern photograph of a reigning monarch on your wall (with a bow on top of the frame for extra tackiness).

[The Blaatschapen]

A group of university students removing a portrait of Her Majesty from one room doesn't really bother me at all, but the justification given for doing so- that a portrait of our head of state is in some way a "symbol of colonialism"- does. If a portrait of the Queen is regarded as offensive to some people in the context of a students' common room at a university, then surely it is equally offensive in any other public context; and if that's the case, then surely the same is true of any other symbol of the British state- whether that's the Union Flag, the national anthem, the coat of arms or whatever. That's why the "symbol of colonialism" argument can't go unchallenged. If it does then the anti-British left will push it as far as they can until public spaces have been purged of any distinctively British imagery at all. Unfortunately the left have a well-honed tactic of taking blatantly provocative actions and then feigning surprise when they receive pushback for it, painting those who react as the unreasonable ones. Naturally there will be some fake patriots who seek to win political points with bluster like "how dare they take down the Queen's portrait!", but that's not the real issue.

And for what it's worth, if Ms Jenkyns is a "weirdo" for having a portrait of the Queen on display in their home then I can't imagine what Dakini and co would make of me for having a portrait of King Ludwig II of Bavaria and an icon of the Romanov family on my shelf.

A monarchist nerd.

But we knew that already

[The Free Joy State]

A group of university students removing a portrait of Her Majesty from one room doesn't really bother me at all, but the justification given for doing so- that a portrait of our head of state is in some way a "symbol of colonialism"- does. If a portrait of the Queen is regarded as offensive to some people in the context of a students' common room at a university, then surely it is equally offensive in any other public context; and if that's the case, then surely the same is true of any other symbol of the British state- whether that's the Union Flag, the national anthem, the coat of arms or whatever. That's why the "symbol of colonialism" argument can't go unchallenged. If it does then the anti-British left will push it as far as they can until public spaces have been purged of any distinctively British imagery at all. Unfortunately the left have a well-honed tactic of taking blatantly provocative actions and then feigning surprise when they receive pushback for it, painting those who react as the unreasonable ones. Naturally there will be some fake patriots who seek to win political points with bluster like "how dare they take down the Queen's portrait!", but that's not the real issue.

And for what it's worth, if Ms Jenkyns is a "weirdo" for having a portrait of the Queen on display in their home then I can't imagine what Dakini and co would make of me for having a portrait of King Ludwig II of Bavaria and an icon of the Romanov family on my shelf.

FWIW, I'd assume you are a history buff.

[The Nihilistic view]

A group of university students removing a portrait of Her Majesty from one room doesn't really bother me at all, but the justification given for doing so- that a portrait of our head of state is in some way a "symbol of colonialism"- does. If a portrait of the Queen is regarded as offensive to some people in the context of a students' common room at a university, then surely it is equally offensive in any other public context; and if that's the case, then surely the same is true of any other symbol of the British state- whether that's the Union Flag, the national anthem, the coat of arms or whatever. That's why the "symbol of colonialism" argument can't go unchallenged. If it does then the anti-British left will push it as far as they can until public spaces have been purged of any distinctively British imagery at all. Unfortunately the left have a well-honed tactic of taking blatantly provocative actions and then feigning surprise when they receive pushback for it, painting those who react as the unreasonable ones. Naturally there will be some fake patriots who seek to win political points with bluster like "how dare they take down the Queen's portrait!", but that's not the real issue.

And for what it's worth, if Ms Jenkyns is a "weirdo" for having a portrait of the Queen on display in their home then I can't imagine what Dakini and co would make of me for having a portrait of King Ludwig II of Bavaria and an icon of the Romanov family on my shelf.

Oh yeah entirely, it's just a complete nonsense reason. She doesn't represent an empire anymore, history happened and whilst not everything is a case of shit happened move on this is certainly one of those times that rule applies.

[Vassenor]

It's not having the picture that makes her weird. Its needing everyone to know she has the picture and how superior that makes her that is weird.

Oh, and the attacking of people who freely decided they didnt want to have one and insinuating that they're the weird ones for doing so

[Ifreann]

A group of university students removing a portrait of Her Majesty from one room doesn't really bother me at all, but the justification given for doing so- that a portrait of our head of state is in some way a "symbol of colonialism"- does. If a portrait of the Queen is regarded as offensive to some people in the context of a students' common room at a university, then surely it is equally offensive in any other public context; and if that's the case, then surely the same is true of any other symbol of the British state- whether that's the Union Flag, the national anthem, the coat of arms or whatever. That's why the "symbol of colonialism" argument can't go unchallenged. If it does then the anti-British left will push it as far as they can until public spaces have been purged of any distinctively British imagery at all. Unfortunately the left have a well-honed tactic of taking blatantly provocative actions and then feigning surprise when they receive pushback for it, painting those who react as the unreasonable ones. Naturally there will be some fake patriots who seek to win political points with bluster like "how dare they take down the Queen's portrait!", but that's not the real issue.

And for what it's worth, if Ms Jenkyns is a "weirdo" for having a portrait of the Queen on display in their home then I can't imagine what Dakini and co would make of me for having a portrait of King Ludwig II of Bavaria and an icon of the Romanov family on my shelf.

Oh yeah entirely, it's just a complete nonsense reason. She doesn't represent an empire anymore, history happened and whilst not everything is a case of shit happened move on this is certainly one of those times that rule applies.

Where did the Queen get all those jewels on her crown? Can't imagine they were all found in England. Maybe she should return them if she wants to move on from the past.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Symbol politics is a big part of culture war. It looks very plastic and trivial, but it's shorthand for particular conceptions of identity. When you get a symbol installed and accepted, or you decry the removal of one of yours, it is a way of showing the level of support and political importance of your side. On one side, the Queen and flegs, on the other hand propagandizing football fans not to boo some players kneeling, which is simultaneously not political and an importance stance against 'systemic racism'.

It's very difficult to avoid getting at least a little drawn into these rival waves of thin-skinned outrage and selective one-sided mockery. Oftentimes the best you can do is be a bit self aware and go about it with a wink and a grin lest you start taking it and yourself much too seriously. All of us here are relatively politically engaged at least, and this means we can't really avoid it - for better or worse it's part and parcel of the modern political game.

[Philjia]

A group of university students removing a portrait of Her Majesty from one room doesn't really bother me at all, but the justification given for doing so- that a portrait of our head of state is in some way a "symbol of colonialism"- does. If a portrait of the Queen is regarded as offensive to some people in the context of a students' common room at a university, then surely it is equally offensive in any other public context; and if that's the case, then surely the same is true of any other symbol of the British state- whether that's the Union Flag, the national anthem, the coat of arms or whatever. That's why the "symbol of colonialism" argument can't go unchallenged. If it does then the anti-British left will push it as far as they can until public spaces have been purged of any distinctively British imagery at all. Unfortunately the left have a well-honed tactic of taking blatantly provocative actions and then feigning surprise when they receive pushback for it, painting those who react as the unreasonable ones. Naturally there will be some fake patriots who seek to win political points with bluster like "how dare they take down the Queen's portrait!", but that's not the real issue.

And for what it's worth, if Ms Jenkyns is a "weirdo" for having a portrait of the Queen on display in their home then I can't imagine what Dakini and co would make of me for having a portrait of King Ludwig II of Bavaria and an icon of the Romanov family on my shelf.

Oh yeah entirely, it's just a complete nonsense reason. She doesn't represent an empire anymore, history happened and whilst not everything is a case of shit happened move on this is certainly one of those times that rule applies.

What she represents best of all is the subservience and irrelevance of the monarchy and how they are merely a tool of parliament, and how we like our monarch quiet and servile.
The queen is our bitch.

[The Nihilistic view]

Oh yeah entirely, it's just a complete nonsense reason. She doesn't represent an empire anymore, history happened and whilst not everything is a case of shit happened move on this is certainly one of those times that rule applies.

Where did the Queen get all those jewels on her crown? Can't imagine they were all found in England. Maybe she should return them if she wants to move on from the past.

The George IV diadem? I'm sorry to disappoint you but that wasn't the product of a colonial ransack, it was bought from a jewelers.

[Ifreann]

Where did the Queen get all those jewels on her crown? Can't imagine they were all found in England. Maybe she should return them if she wants to move on from the past.

The George IV diadem? I'm sorry to disappoint you but that wasn't the product of a colonial ransack, it was bought from a jewelers.

Well then I'm sure there is nothing currently the property of the monarchy which might have been acquired in ethically dubious circumstances arising from Britain's colonial past.

[Old Tyrannia]

The George IV diadem? I'm sorry to disappoint you but that wasn't the product of a colonial ransack, it was bought from a jewelers.

Well then I'm sure there is nothing currently the property of the monarchy which might have been acquired in ethically dubious circumstances arising from Britain's colonial past.

There is nothing that the UK or the British monarchy could ever do that would satisfy people like you who hold an ancestral grudge against us, so why should we care about it?

[The Archregimancy]

Where did the Queen get all those jewels on her crown? Can't imagine they were all found in England. Maybe she should return them if she wants to move on from the past.

The George IV diadem? I'm sorry to disappoint you but that wasn't the product of a colonial ransack, it was bought from a jewelers.

It was commissioned from Rundell & Bridge in 1820-21; but it was set with gemstones that were only on loan (and never properly paid for). It was then completely re-set with jewels from the royal collection at some point after Victoria's accession in 1837.

So the two points - that the diamonds and pearls weren't found in England, and that the diadem was commissioned from a British jewellers - aren't remotely incompatible, and are likely both true.

See also the Imperial State Crown; the current version is substantially the crown made by Rundell & Bridge for Victoria's coronation in 1838. However, the stones have multiple points of origin; the Cullinan II diamond is one of the stones cut from the Cullinan Diamond, recovered in South Africa, and in its original form the largest rough diamond ever recovered. The St Edward Sapphire, on the other hand, is one of the oldest items in the Crown Jewels, and was likely used in the coronation regalia of Edward the Confessor. Therefore "the jewels weren't all found in England" and "it was bought from a jewellers" would again both be accurate statements.

[Ifreann]

Well then I'm sure there is nothing currently the property of the monarchy which might have been acquired in ethically dubious circumstances arising from Britain's colonial past.

There is nothing that the UK or the British monarchy could ever do that would satisfy people like you who hold an ancestral grudge against us, so why should we care about it?

Indeed, the crimes were very effectively gotten away with, so why care about ever righting them?

[Old Tyrannia]

There is nothing that the UK or the British monarchy could ever do that would satisfy people like you who hold an ancestral grudge against us, so why should we care about it?

Indeed, the crimes were very effectively gotten away with, so why care about ever righting them?

That is how most reasonable people deal with things that happened a long time ago and which no one alive remembers.

[Vassenor]

Indeed, the crimes were very effectively gotten away with, so why care about ever righting them?

That is how most reasonable people deal with things that happened a long time ago and which no one alive remembers.

And thus we should actively suppress knowledge of the wrongdoing and complain when anyone does talk about it.

[The Nihilistic view]

The George IV diadem? I'm sorry to disappoint you but that wasn't the product of a colonial ransack, it was bought from a jewelers.

It was commissioned from Rundell & Bridge in 1820-21; but it was set with gemstones that were only on loan (and never properly paid for). It was then completely re-set with jewels from the royal collection at some point after Victoria's accession in 1837.

So the two points - that the diamonds and pearls weren't found in England, and that the diadem was commissioned from a British jewellers - aren't remotely incompatible, and are likely both true.

See also the Imperial State Crown; the current version is substantially the crown made by Rundell & Bridge for Victoria's coronation in 1838. However, the stones have multiple points of origin; the Cullinan II diamond is one of the stones cut from the Cullinan Diamond, recovered in South Africa, and in its original form the largest rough diamond ever recovered. The St Edward Sapphire, on the other hand, is one of the oldest items in the Crown Jewels, and was likely used in the coronation regalia of Edward the Confessor. Therefore "the jewels weren't all found in England" and "it was bought from a jewellers" would again both be accurate statements.

You know as well as I do that wasn't what was meant by "found in England".

[The Nihilistic view]

The George IV diadem? I'm sorry to disappoint you but that wasn't the product of a colonial ransack, it was bought from a jewelers.

Well then I'm sure there is nothing currently the property of the monarchy which might have been acquired in ethically dubious circumstances arising from Britain's colonial past.

There might be but if the issue with said picture is stuff to do with colonialism, the trinket being worn in said picture wasn't robbed by some expedition and given as a gift to the reigning Monarch. So it isn't a picture you can ascribe any colonial undertones to.

[Ostroeuropa]

A group of university students removing a portrait of Her Majesty from one room doesn't really bother me at all, but the justification given for doing so- that a portrait of our head of state is in some way a "symbol of colonialism"- does. If a portrait of the Queen is regarded as offensive to some people in the context of a students' common room at a university, then surely it is equally offensive in any other public context; and if that's the case, then surely the same is true of any other symbol of the British state- whether that's the Union Flag, the national anthem, the coat of arms or whatever. That's why the "symbol of colonialism" argument can't go unchallenged. If it does then the anti-British left will push it as far as they can until public spaces have been purged of any distinctively British imagery at all. Unfortunately the left have a well-honed tactic of taking blatantly provocative actions and then feigning surprise when they receive pushback for it, painting those who react as the unreasonable ones. Naturally there will be some fake patriots who seek to win political points with bluster like "how dare they take down the Queen's portrait!", but that's not the real issue.

And for what it's worth, if Ms Jenkyns is a "weirdo" for having a portrait of the Queen on display in their home then I can't imagine what Dakini and co would make of me for having a portrait of King Ludwig II of Bavaria and an icon of the Romanov family on my shelf.

This. The bolded/underlined part is also an element of why it's acceptable to note that the progressive left is a psychologically violent movement predicated on abusing people. Gaslighting is a central tenet of their political activity as a movement.

That is how most reasonable people deal with things that happened a long time ago and which no one alive remembers.

And thus we should actively suppress knowledge of the wrongdoing and complain when anyone does talk about it.

No, we should recognize that the discussion being forced into mainstream politics and shaping a political narrative has crafted a hate movement. If you want to go read a book then by all means.

But having a dozen newspapers and a hundred academics constantly ranting about how the Angevin empire was wrongly taken from the English and having mainstream parties constantly peddling a revanchist view is not conducive to good outcomes.

Knowing about the Angevin empire is different to up and deciding to throw a temper tantrum when someone doesn't refer to it as "Occupied England" and instead calls it "France".

The solution is to recognize extremist revanchism and to marginalize the people who espouse it, as well as to potentially ban their organizations if they don't get the message.

[Ifreann]

Indeed, the crimes were very effectively gotten away with, so why care about ever righting them?

That is how most reasonable people deal with things that happened a long time ago and which no one alive remembers.

That is a common attitude towards many of the events of the past, yes. It was a long time ago. It was someone else. Maybe the effects are still being felt today, but there are other countries that give less in foreign aid. And nothing changes. The rich nations get richer, the poor nations stay poor. The monarchy's lovely trinkets are taken out to crown King Charles and King William and so on.

---

Well then I'm sure there is nothing currently the property of the monarchy which might have been acquired in ethically dubious circumstances arising from Britain's colonial past.

There might be but if the issue with said picture is stuff to do with colonialism, the trinket being worn in said picture wasn't robbed by some expedition and given as a gift to the reigning Monarch. So it isn't a picture you can ascribe any colonial undertones to.

Right, because the current reigning monarch doesn't symbolise anything. She's just and old lady that people happen to be fond of.

[Ostroeuropa]

That is a common attitude towards many of the events of the past, yes. It was a long time ago. It was someone else. Maybe the effects are still being felt today, but there are other countries that give less in foreign aid. And nothing changes. The rich nations get richer, the poor nations stay poor. The monarchy's lovely trinkets are taken out to crown King Charles and King William and so on.

What on earth are you talking about?
The gap between rich nations and poor nations has closed enormously and started closing long before this silly nonsense became spammed everywhere. That in fact may be one reason why we're facing this deluge of revanchist nonsense, because just like the Tories can blame the EU for their own fuck ups, powerful individuals in non-white countries can simply endlessly claim everything is down to imperialism and its legacy. As their countries gain more capital this view is then made louder and more backed fincancially. "Find me an academic willing to say the water issue is due to the British and not me and my mates embezzling all the money" and bam. "Wah wah, Evil white westerners ruined the water in their colonies" gets repeated by the Guardian.

Then racist white westerners who have drunk noble savage koolaid and can't conceive of "Why would a non-white political movement tell a lie?" just up and repeat it and from there the infection spreads to our institutions as well.

Just imagine if the rest of the world drunk the koolaid and started agreeing that the EU was an awful evil organization and wound themselves up into a frenzy and started demanding the EU pay Britain for the pain and suffering caused, all because they were far too credulous and it never occured to them why someone in power might blame the EU for their countries woes instead of take responsibility for them.

We see this *constantly*.

"It's YOUR fault these partition lines exist.".

I had no idea we still controlled your borders. It sounds like your leaders have ego problems and refuse to deal with these issues but can't take responsibility for them, and so blame us. Borders have changed multiple times since decolonization elsewhere, and yours haven't.

Egypt and Syria united once.
We didn't stop them.

They split shortly after when local elites threw a temper tantrum.

Sounds like maybe those local elites have a vested interest in getting you to hate the west and blame them for a lack of arab unity, rather than acknowledging the truth.

And so on, and so on.

It's like you have no skepticism at all when political movements in charge of countries abroad turn to people and say "The reason our citizens are poor is the British". That's fucking comical mate frankly.

[Neutraligon]

A group of university students removing a portrait of Her Majesty from one room doesn't really bother me at all, but the justification given for doing so- that a portrait of our head of state is in some way a "symbol of colonialism"- does. If a portrait of the Queen is regarded as offensive to some people in the context of a students' common room at a university, then surely it is equally offensive in any other public context; and if that's the case, then surely the same is true of any other symbol of the British state- whether that's the Union Flag, the national anthem, the coat of arms or whatever. That's why the "symbol of colonialism" argument can't go unchallenged. If it does then the anti-British left will push it as far as they can until public spaces have been purged of any distinctively British imagery at all. Unfortunately the left have a well-honed tactic of taking blatantly provocative actions and then feigning surprise when they receive pushback for it, painting those who react as the unreasonable ones. Naturally there will be some fake patriots who seek to win political points with bluster like "how dare they take down the Queen's portrait!", but that's not the real issue.

And for what it's worth, if Ms Jenkyns is a "weirdo" for having a portrait of the Queen on display in their home then I can't imagine what Dakini and co would make of me for having a portrait of King Ludwig II of Bavaria and an icon of the Romanov family on my shelf.

This. The bolded/underlined part is also an element of why it's acceptable to note that the progressive left is a psychologically violent movement predicated on abusing people.
Gaslighting is a central tenet of their political activity as a movement.

And thus we should actively suppress knowledge of the wrongdoing and complain when anyone does talk about it.

No, we should recognize that the discussion being forced into mainstream politics and shaping a political narrative has crafted a hate movement. If you want to go read a book then by all means.

But having a dozen newspapers and a hundred academics constantly ranting about how the Angevin empire was wrongly taken from the English and having mainstream parties constantly peddling a revanchist view is not conducive to good outcomes.

Knowing about the Angevin empire is different to up and deciding to throw a temper tantrum when someone doesn't refer to it as "Occupied England" and instead calls it "France".

The solution is to recognize extremist revanchism and to marginalize the people who espouse it, as well as to potentially ban their organizations if they don't get the message.

*** 1 day ban for trolling ***

[The Nihilistic view]

That is how most reasonable people deal with things that happened a long time ago and which no one alive remembers.

That is a common attitude towards many of the events of the past, yes. It was a long time ago. It was someone else. Maybe the effects are still being felt today, but there are other countries that give less in foreign aid. And nothing changes. The rich nations get richer, the poor nations stay poor. The monarchy's lovely trinkets are taken out to crown King Charles and King William and so on.

---

There might be but if the issue with said picture is stuff to do with colonialism, the trinket being worn in said picture wasn't robbed by some expedition and given as a gift to the reigning Monarch. So it isn't a picture you can ascribe any colonial undertones to.

Right, because the current reigning monarch doesn't symbolise anything. She's just and old lady that people happen to be fond of.

Whatever she currently symbolises she doesn't symbolise an Empire that no longer exists.

[Ifreann]

That is a common attitude towards many of the events of the past, yes. It was a long time ago. It was someone else. Maybe the effects are still being felt today, but there are other countries that give less in foreign aid. And nothing changes. The rich nations get richer, the poor nations stay poor. The monarchy's lovely trinkets are taken out to crown King Charles and King William and so on.

---

Right, because the current reigning monarch doesn't symbolise anything. She's just and old lady that people happen to be fond of.

Whatever she currently symbolises she doesn't symbolise an Empire that no longer exists.

Right, the British monarchy has nothing to do with the British Empire.

[The Huskar Social Union]

I heard Macron said NI was not part of the UK at the G7 meeting which pissed Boris off.

Im sure Sinn Fein is writing to him about running one of their social media accounts.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

That is a common attitude towards many of the events of the past, yes. It was a long time ago. It was someone else. Maybe the effects are still being felt today, but there are other countries that give less in foreign aid. And nothing changes. The rich nations get richer, the poor nations stay poor. The monarchy's lovely trinkets are taken out to crown King Charles and King William and so on.

---

Right, because the current reigning monarch doesn't symbolise anything. She's just and old lady that people happen to be fond of.

Whatever she currently symbolises she doesn't symbolise an Empire that no longer exists.

Why do we still give out awards in its name then? smh smh smh