So what's the difference today between celebrating UK monarchy and flying the Confederate flag?

[JackRiddler]

They're both traditions of the culture.

Whatever the history, they're both "vestiges," right? (Partisans of both claim these institutions are today powerless and no longer represent the nasty things they once did.)

They both involve fancy dresses and hats, pageantry, vicarious pleasure in celebrity, ritual, uniforms, etc.

Both have their icons, through which the followers experience a vicarious identification.

Most of the people in the UK and in the South seem to want to keep their respective institutions.

People who reject either are outsiders and must hate fun, or be jealous. They're just politically correct elitist know-it-alls!

Apparently the actual history of either one doesn't matter and should be forgotten. But somehow the "tradition" is a great thing that creates an identity for people and makes them happy!

[Drale]

1. People who fly the Confederate flag

may say they are "rebels" and thats what it stands for but they are lying. The confederate flag stands for racism and slavery. The British empire did a lot of bad things, but they did good things as well. For instance, the Indian people where for the most part better off after the British left then before they came because they gained instructor for a modern society, which they did not have before. China not so much, most Chinese people where worst off after the colonialist left. The British Monarchy has evolved into basically figure heads with no real power, they don't hurt anyone and they do help some people with charities and such. Every day we live with the legacy of the Confederacy with the stupid racism against African Americans and people who don't believe the Civil War really ever ended.

Thats my explanation, it may not be entirely correct but that what I think the difference is.

[JackRiddler]

8. Twenty million Indians who starved to death while their colonial masters exported their grain...

may differ. That was the case in the 1870s and 1890s -- tens of millions starved while the grain was still shipped from the ports, and the colonial administration actively discouraged aid to the poor. I can't believe you're seriously believing myths about the British dominion over Canada. The poverty of Indian regions today directly correlates with the amount of time they spent under British rule.

The British crown stands for the doctrine that God chose its bearers by virtue of birth to be superior to all others, who are merely common dirt, and to rule the earth by divine right. This doctrine has never been renounced by the crown. It has merely adapted to the changed circumstances, finding itself a new niche. Otherwise, the crown has always been and remains the symbol of conquest, empire, militarism and war -- thus appropriately the military flyover at the moment of the wedding kiss.

Most of the Confederacy partisans of today claim they no longer have any connection to the bad history. It's just a "tradition" for purpose of "identity."

[Drale]

13. I said they did bad things but they also did good things

This is not the people who did those things, they are long dead and gone. They may hold the same titles but you really can't blame the current queen for what her ancestors did. Thats like arresting someone because their father or grandfather was a Nazi.

What people claim and their actions are very different things. The Tea Party claims its not raciest but we know thats to be bullshit

[JackRiddler]

15. I must have missed the part where they renounced their own history and gave back the plunder.

[Drale]

18. You know as well as I do that no government is ever going to do that

They can make amends but giving back what they took? That is a sad fact that we all just have to live with. If you hate the crown for that, you must also hate the US government for the treatment of the Native Americans or the people of the Philippines, or anyone else we have ever hurt. Governments do bad things, you can not superimpose your moral code of people 150 years ago it just does not work.

[Obamanaut]

20. What you said here is interesting: "This is not the people who did

those things, they are long dead and gone."

The people in the US, both north and south, who held slaves are likewise dead and gone.

[Drale]

39. You are correct but their are plenty of people

who want to go back to slavery and rebelion. This is what the Bars and Stars represents. I'm not 100% sure on this but I'm sure their are not many if any people who want to go back to the King having political power in England.

[JackRiddler]

59. Plenty of people want to go back to empire, or support its current form.

Which the crown has also always symbolized.

[Odin2005]

71. The British monarchy has been purely ceremonial for 300 years. It had nothing to do...

...with the atrocities in British India.

[JackRiddler]

83. First of all, this is untrue...

Parliament was superior after 1688 but you can hardly call the crown mainly ceremonial until the 19th century. And its function of legitimation and being titular head of empire continued, in fact to this day.

[RandomThoughts]

2. They invited the Saudi common family.

And 'club' members from groups that still believe in rule by blood line.

They have not denounced those groups, nor stood against them.

They may be guilty only by inaction, or allowing people to further concepts that create strife, but still they don't deserve a pass for 'going along' with dictatorships in economics, or many dictatorships.


At best they were offered something and they took it.

There is no honor in that. Although it could be lack of thought or education, why wouldn't they renounce the concept instead of supporting it.



Your comment on envying them is not understanding reality. They owe beer and travel money, they are not due. I would not want to be in there position.

[JackRiddler]

85. As I've learned, they also announced a certain Constantine Glücksburg as the "king" of Greece

Thus confirming the monarchic spirit of hostility to democracy. In this case that of Greece, which this "king" once helped to destroy, and that he and his relatives (among them "prince" Philip) would like to see again usurped.

Because Greeks managed after more than a century of being screwed by kings to actually make this bastard the last "king," but he is still running around (London, mostly) scheming to find a way back to throne. No chance of that any more, but so what? A declared enemy to Greek democracy nevertheless. So as a Greek it turns out I have a personal beef against the Saxe-Gotha-Windsors after all.

[cali]

3. the comparison is bogus

under the crown, slavery, for example, was outlawed. The U.S. has done and still does terrible things; in your configuration of things anyone celebrating July 4th is celebrating the terrible acts perpetrated by the U.S.

the history of England under the crown is mixed- as is the history of all nations.

pathetic attempt. one of your very worst.

:rofl:

[Logical]

24. Why the laughing icon? Just curious.

[JackRiddler]

33. It makes her even more amazingly way right than she already was.

[cali]

55. uh, no. it just reflects the absurdity of your op.

[JackRiddler]

60. Pretty easy "reflection"

Incredulity and e-symbols for ROFL don't substitute for your persistent absence of content.

[cali]

65. look. I explained why your op is shit. why don't you respond to that post

oh deep one?

[JackRiddler]

66. I have a justified policy of not taking seriously posts that use ROFL icons.

The points there in were trifling, and better made by others on the same thread, to whom I did respond. So have fun reading, or don't. Go in peace.

[cali]

53. because the op is so absurd.

it's such a ridiculous stretch that it's funny.

[CTyankee]

4. the Confederate flag was the flag of traitors to the United States.

The UK, along with its monarchy, is a valuable ally of the United States.

I do hope you can go on with your life now that you know.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Ask the British. It is their business.

But I'd be careful about how you frame such a question, as the Confederacy was a defeated set of rebellious slave states, and the monarch is the head of the British State, your question could easily sound xenophobic.

[JackRiddler]

9. Okay, if it's now "xenophobia" to question the insanity of having a bunch of demented

inbred nobility as your parasite symbolic heads of state at public expense, I guess you just endorsed the Saudi Arabian monarchy as well (also seems to be popular with most of its people). Otherwise, you must be xenophobic!

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Aside from the irony of having Shakespeare, royal propagandist

on your posts, you need to read what I wrote again. No one has the right to disrespect an exchange, not even a 'commoner' like yourself, Jack. I told you it was a question for the British, pointed out that you are speaking of their nation comparing it to a nation we defeated, which no longer exists, and told you the British might take issue with that framing. That would be up to them, not me, to do. It is their country, not mine. So ask them your 'questions'.
I have no idea what birthright you think you hold that gives you sway to put words in the mouths of others, but I do not endorse that sort of personal and verbal imperialism. We are equals here, none of us should take it on themselves to speak for others, Jack. I do not give you permission to rewrite my words then argue with them, Jack.
And of course Will, he wrote the histories that cemented the throne. And he did it for money! And he's your 'avatar'. A royalist, a man who wrote entertainments for the 'demented inbred nobility'. Just odd, Jack, just odd.

[JackRiddler]

17. Shakespeare appreciated irony.

His works are great and insightful, whatever function he may have served at the time (and it's not as clear-cut as you suggest, the degree to which these were subversive or affirmative). It's not the royalist propaganda of 400 years ago that should bother us. It's when Americans today lap up the royalist propaganda of today.

[EFerrari]

22. That's a vast overstatement about Shakespeare.

He did not write for the court. He wrote for the public. He was not a propagandist. None of the figures he represents are unambiguous. Histories being written did support the throne, try getting your play past the Stationer's censor without that.

Similarly, there were only two licensed acting companies allowed to play in London. Both had a noble patron. It was the law.

[JackRiddler]

34. Thanks for pointing that out!

I think of the company as akin to a modern studio. They put together a series of first-time productions as they went along, in each case paying attention to what the public wanted. Some of these played propaganda functions, or could be instrumentalized that way, others snuck in some criticism that should be evident to us today. What's remarkable about all of the surviving plays is that the characters are almost never cardboard in the fashion of propaganda constructs. They're always ambiguous and complicated.

[EFerrari]

52. Unlike Shakespeare, Jonson did go into the propaganda business.

He wrote masques for the court that celebrated the royal family. Shakespeare never went there that we know of.

[NutmegYankee]

40. Inbred doesn't apply to the British Monarchy.

There's been a lot of new blood in the last three generations.

[JackRiddler]

57. Okay, I'm willing to concede that...

I'm sure your knowledge of the family tree is superior to mine.

[Spider Jerusalem]

49. Well no, there's quite a considerable difference.

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy; the king's word is law, and any republican tendency would be quickly crushed by the military. Britain is a constitutional monarchy; the Queen has no real power. Power is held by the elected Parliament and the government (which consists of the leaders of the party which can command a majority in the Commons). Should the people of the United Kingdom decide at some point to abolish the monarchy then the Windsors would no longer have even any nominal power. (And make no mistake, if there were a majority of public sentiment in favour of abolishing the monarchy it would be put to a referendum.)

I find it curious that you choose here to focus on the British monarchy...why not Japan? Or Belgium? Surely the deeds committed in the name of Emperor Hirohito during WWII, or in the name of King Leopold in the Belgian Congo, are far worse than anything done in the name of any British monarch over the course of four centuries. For that matter, what of the powers of the American president? Trail of Tears, Japanese internment, Guantanamo Bay...clearly a corrupt and morally bankrupt institution, no?

[JackRiddler]

58. Soon as there are 30 threads on DU doing oooh-ah about the Japanese or Belgian royals, I'm sure...

I will not be the only one raising objections.

Your post is factually unobjectionable, but seems to be predicated on the idea that one wrong is made right by a greater wrong elsewhere.

There's little need to decide which of the modern imperialisms racked up the worst crimes against humanity. They all should go.

As for the American presidents, there has been and will continue to be an abundance of criticism here. So far, anyway.

[coalition_unwilling]

77. Well, as bad as the Belgians or Japanese indisputably were, neither

can claim the dubious honor of having invented the concentration camp. That honor falls upon the British who used concentration camps first during the Boer Wars in South Africa.

In your catalogue of the powers of the Americna president, you skipped over the estimated 2-3 million southeast Asians who died from violence ca. 1954-74. Actually, come to think of it, that 2-3 million I believe dwarfs any body count of Belgians, Japanese or British :(

[Violet_Crumble]

31. I think the monarchy is also the business of those who live in Commonwealth countries...

Places like Australia, Canada, New Zealand are all constitutional monarchies where the Queen is the head of state and she's represented in those countries by a Governor General. Here in Australia we had a referendum quite a few years back over whether to ditch the monarchy and become a republic, and the no vote won out....

[coalition_unwilling]

79. Seriously? After the shit the Brits pulled on you at Gallipoli? JK but just

curious why the affection still for the British crown

[Violet_Crumble]

80. Well, referendums rarely are successful...

I think only a small number have ever gotten over the line during our history. Also the referendum question was posed in a way that some who may have voted to ditch the monarchy voted the other way because there was uncertainty over what would replace it. I mean, would you want the possibility of a Paul Hogan celebrity type person as the President? For me, I'm comfortable with the way things are, and have an 'if it ain't broken, don't fix it' attitude. There's many other more important things that need dealing with in this country, imo, and seeing the head of state is a purely ceremonial position with little real power, it's not really an issue as far as I'm concerned...

[coalition_unwilling]

82. Queen Elizabeth II vs. Paul Hogan - talk about your proverbial

Hobson's Choice (or, more properly, Morton's Fork).

Totally understand about the purely symbolic quality of the dilemma. And I know the flooding in Australia this season has been Katrina-esque in scope.

More a historical curiosity to me. You folks were transported down under by the Brits as punishment and, in return, maintain fealty to the Crown. Go figure :)

[mn9driver]

6. Seriously?

Around 85-90 percent of Britons consider their 1000 year old monarchy to be an important part of the British identity and they expect it to continue. In contrast, the CSA was a brief, traitorous uprising that was put down by force. I've always found it curious that so many southerners see nothing wrong with flying and celebrating a defeated traitor's flag.

[JackRiddler]

11. You don't need to exaggerate the numbers.

Even supporters know it's more like 1 in 4 Britons who would happily abolish the special privileges of the Saxe-Gotha clan.

[mn9driver]

81. You don't need to accuse me of exaggerating the numbers

http://trondni.blogspot.com/2011/04/opinion-poll-on-british-monarchy.html

[Divernan]

7. We colonials had the right of habeas corpus under King George, not under Bush/Obama

[JackRiddler]

14. Ironic, isn't it?

You're touching on an important point: this thread isn't about the British having some dumb frenzy over the monarchy. It's about the American willingness to celebrate a divine-right bloodline. Very appropriate, since, as you say, we've managed to roll back the Magna Fucking Carta.

[blondeatlast]

10. Happy to see you've had your fun!

Yippee! :bounce:

[JackRiddler]

12. Yes, I'm thoroughly enjoying the wedding.

Is it over yet? Which one married, the one in the Nazi outfit or the Falklands war hero? I get'em mixed up.

[blondeatlast]

25. Dunno, didn't watch. But it seems importatnt to you, so you tell us. nt

[JackRiddler]

32. If it's so unimportant to you, why are you here posting about it?

I love this Internet board game where people pretend they don't care at all about whatever issue it is and whoever does must be a concern troll, but never see the irony in their posting on that thread anyway.

[blondeatlast]

63. You did it first.

:evilgrin:

[JackRiddler]

68. You know, that actually made me laugh.

[blondeatlast]

78. Try the veal and don't forget to tip your servers well!

:hi:

[CreekDog]

19. the Confederate Flag stood for slavery and fought to it's death to preserve slavery

that's the legacy.

almost any other flag has stood for bad things as well, but almost none stood for only bad things and gone down fighting for them.

[Obamanaut]

21. You mean, the British just simply said to the new colonies "OK, be independent.

We won't fight over it."

[CreekDog]

23. it wasn't the last thing the British ever did

nor was it the only thing they stood for.

the Confederacy? it pretty much was.

[Uncle Joe]

27. The Confederacy only lasted four years so it's hardly a logical comparison. n/t

[CreekDog]

38. so what's the point of flying a flag that only stood for 4 years

and for the represented the fight to have slavery?

your point makes it even more clear that the flag serves no purpose other than to dignify the fight for slavery and nothing else.

[Uncle Joe]

42. Because over 300,000+ Confederates died defending their families, friends, neighbors, communities

and states from invasion, this out of a total population of approximately 5 million whites and that's why the flag they primarily fly is the Confederate Battle Flag; this is the one the troops were using in the battlefield, so they honor courage and sacrifice against overwhelming odds.

If they wanted to honor the idea, concept and history of slavery, the Confederate National Flag representing the Confederate government would be everywhere instead.

After the war, most Southerners despised the politicians that led them into that catastrophe but at the same time appreciated the soldiers that defended them.

That's also why the KKK largely adopted, the Confederate Battle Flag instead of the Confederate National Flag, they knew it would be more popular.

Lastly while the Confederacy only lasted four years, it did represent a more localized autonomous concept of government that was older than the relatively young United States.

As I've stated elsewhere slavery is an absolute evil with no redeeming qualities but as for the people, their fates and heritages aren't always so black and white.

[CreekDog]

43. Yes, finding out the flag is the symbol of the KKK made it a murkier issue

:rofl:

:sarcasm:

[Uncle Joe]

44. But that was after the fact and the vast majority of white Southerners aren't members of the KKK.

The KKK adopted the flag, the flag didn't adopt them.

Edit to add, At times the KKK has adopted and flown the U.S. Flag but that doesn't mean they honor it.

[CreekDog]

45. i have to ask if Germans want to fly the flag their ancestors fought under Hitler

is that the same type of issue?

are there some things that you just have to let go because they are so thoroughly tainted?

[Uncle Joe]

47. I don't believe it is but that's up to the individual and whether the First Amendment is honored..

Having said that, to me the analogy or comparison is false for several reasons, Hitler tried to conquer the world and commit the ultimate evil by using genocide.

But even taking your analogy at face value as I alluded to in my first post it's a question of which flag you're talking about, the Confederate Battle Flag wouldn't be equivalent to the Swastika National Flag of Hitler's government, that would be the Confederate National Flag representing Confederate government polices.

[CreekDog]

48. I'm amazed you can write that slavery is better than genocide

yikes.

you're rationalizing horribly but heavily.

[Uncle Joe]

50. Maybe you missed this sentence in my first post to you so I will repost it

for your reading convenience.

As I've stated elsewhere slavery is an absolute evil with no redeeming qualities but as for the people, their fates and heritages aren't always so black and white.

Now logic or common sense should tell you that slavery is better than genocide, in the case of the former slaves and their descendants; hopefully freed can and will survive, in the case of genocide, you and your descendants are wiped from the the face of the Earth.

[CreekDog]

51. but you did say it:

"...to me the analogy or comparison is false for several reasons, Hitler tried to conquer the world and commit the ultimate evil by using genocide"

Slavery is better than conquering the world and committing genocide?

and you called what Hitler did, the "ultimate evil". Slavery isn't an ultimate evil too?

If you say I can't compare them because one is worse --you are saying ONE IS BETTER.

Following your screwy moral hierarchy, not mine. :eyes:

[Uncle Joe]

54. Then let me simplify it for you.

In the first scenario the Confederacy succeeds either wining the war or it gets independence. Would that government be capable of evolving to the point of eventually eliminating slavery. I believe with due time it could just as so many nations throughout Earth's history and states; including some up north eventually outlawed that abhorrent practice.

Now in the second scenario Nazi Germany believing that Aryans are the master race succeeds in conquering the world and waging genocide against every one else, all of Africa, Asia, Latinos, Hispanics, Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies and anyone not blond and blue eyed are exterminated.

My question is why do you have such a difficult time not be able to differentiate one from the other?

[Obamanaut]

37. Self delete. It isn't worth it. nt

[SidDithers]

41. self delete

Sid

[quinnox]

26. They are both bankrupt symbols

of human stupidity. And yet in both cases, there are still people defending it. A bunch of sheep.

[Bonhomme Richard]

28. The Brits celebrate Thanksgiving on the 4th of July. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

29. Now that was brilliant.

:rofl:

[JackRiddler]

35. Endorsed.

Aragorn? Kings are all right in fantastic epics, for sure.

[UTUSN]

30. K&R #1 (but still at ZERO) for, good O.P. question!1 n/t

[Iggo]

36. I like to watch pretty girls in fancy dresses.

Royal Wedding.

Academy Awards.

Same diff.

[Ripley]

46. WTF is wrong with You????

The fucking south, yeah including Alabama has been demolished by a natural disaster and you're bringing up this shit?

You fucking SUCK. Do You not even care that most of those killed and missing (up to 540 in Tuscaloosa city alone) are BLACK AND POOR???

What a joke this site is where disaster strikes on American soil and it's fucking ignored because it's the SOUTH.

Way to stir up shit, Jr. Paid well?

[anneboleyn]

56. good point, Ripley. The South is suffering big-time right now.

[JackRiddler]

61. My honest condolences for the disaster.

[JoePhilly]

62. I like the Confederate Flag ... helps me spot racists before I have to talk to them.

The Brits on the other hand, now accept America as a an equal and an Allie. They don't intend or desire to raise their flag above the US flag.

Those who raise the Confederate Flag today are not celebrating anything. They are indicating that they would have preferred if the South had won, and left the Union over slavery.

[JackRiddler]

69. True enough. It shows the limits of my comparison. Point for you...

But those who raise the Confederate flag justify it with all the same lame arguments I've been hearing to justify this week's celebration of monarchy.

It is true that Britons who support the crown do not all support what it has historically stood for (bloodline rule, supremacy of one clan over another by birth and "divine right," conquest and empire, etc.). Nevertheless, these ARE what it has historically stood for, and today we can add that it's a major ritual of what the Situationists called the Spectacle, the screaming emptiness of celebrity substituting for society.

Whereas a much higher proportion of Confederate flag wavers probably really do believe in what it stands for, and only pretend when challenged that it's something innocent and "traditional" and vestigial.

[Rex]

64. It is like comparing Big Ben to Ripleys Water Park.

Nothing alike. The UK developed a constitutional monarchy, that the British people approve of. America had a civil war over slavery that tore us into two sides.

You might also want to give a little respect to Britians monarchy; for without it the people in the UK would probably be speaking German or French right now.

[JackRiddler]

67. German or French? So what?

Am I supposed to understand that you are buying the line of bullshit from this year's Oscar(tm) winner for "best film," in which a radio speech by the king wins World War II? Ohhowtouching.

Need I point out that a few years earlier, King Edward hoped to ally Britain with the Nazis, very much in keeping with the true racial-supremacist spirit of the British crown?

[Rex]

72. LOL. Hardly, I didn't see the film.

I'm speaking from a historical point of view...your choice of items to compare are wrong or inaccurate for comparison.

So what?

I see you really don't care for opinions, just your own on this topic. :eyes:

[Odin2005]

70. Dumbest comparison EVER.

[Rex]

73. I wouldn't say ever...but yeah pretty stupid comparison.

From a historical point of view, there is no merit in comparing the two.

[Keith Bee]

74. The UK is not the US

:eyes:

[Rex]

76. And further, the comparison is ridiculous beyond belief.

Comparing a nation's pride to a war from another nation history make one wonder how the mind truly works. I think what really bothers the OP is that people of the UK are alright with their monarchy. Whereas idiots that love the Confederate flag 'for what it stands for' are just that.

[JackRiddler]

84. Oh. I see the light.

[Marr]

75. Interesting question. I'd say the difference is that

the British monarchy representats more than the Confederate flag. The Confederacy was about maintaining and spreading slavery by way of a traitorous insurrection. The British monarchy is an integral part of British history in general, in many positive and negative ways.

I'm no fan of monarchy, and I've never understood why so many Brits are content with maintaining an aristocracy, but still-- that's the difference as I see it.

[JackRiddler]

86. A portrait of Brenda, the Queen.