Queen's death intensifies criticism of British empire's violent atrocities

[Celerity]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/10/queen-death-colonies-atrocities-british-empire

The death of Queen Elizabeth II revived longstanding criticism in the US over the monarchy’s enrichment from the British empire’s violent colonization of African, Asian and Caribbean nations and their diasporas. Since her death on Thursday, American commentators, academics, and a former US diplomat, among others, took to social media and elsewhere to call for fully wrestling with the British monarchy’s lasting influence in light of the monarch’s death.

Link to tweet

Though millions across the world mourned, many also saw the Queen’s passing as a bitter reminder of the British empire’s violent exploitation of countries throughout history – resulting in decades of suffering, death, and economic and social devastation – and a time to renew calls for reparations.

Link to tweet

Harvard University history professor Maya Jasanoff wrote in the New York Times that the Queen’s stoic presence in life as a “fixture of stability” underlied a “stolid traditionalist front over decades of violent upheaval”. She pointed out that months after Elizabeth II learned of her father’s death from treetops in Kenya and became queen, British colonial authorities in Kenya suppressed a rebellion against the colonial regime known as Mau Mau, which, according to the New York Times, “led to the establishment of a vast system of detention camps and the torture, rape, castration and killing of tens of thousands of people”.

The British government eventually paid £20m in a lawsuit by Kenyan survivors. Cornell University professor Mukoma Wa Ngugi decried the “theater” surrounding the Queen’s death.

Link to tweet

snip

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Floyd R. Turbo]

1. Good!

[Hortensis]

2. Speaking of, for perspective on violence, those who study the past now know

Last edited Sat Sep 10, 2022, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

how incredibly more violent almost all societies were before the development of central, people-controlled states, and then only while they were successful. When they failed, death and suffering from violence once again became normal.

Rates, degrees, and types of violence are measured by examining the condition of uncovered remains, analyzing by wounds, final causes of death, age, sex, etc. Reliably documented rates were found to be stunningly higher than researchers born into wonderfully safe modern nations once theorized, and women of course had it especially bad. Forget romantic notions of peaceful hunter-gatherers; most were almost constantly warring and marauding, and generally keeping together for safety like the herds they hunted.

If all DUers could be gifted the amazing experience of going back just 300 years ago to live a week, each in in one of various places,... We couldn't do it, and I'm guessing possibly none, once they learned more, would dare -- just far too dangerous for anyone who didn't belong to a group organized to protect its members, albeit often at high cost. For sure some would not survive a week, and some who did would have had dreadful experiences and come back broken. Just 200 years would be a lot more than enough in many places, or today in others.

The British Empire is considered from about the late 1600s into the 20th century, so this was the condition of much of the world it was part of. By definition, it moved into areas that lacked the protections of a government strong enough to maintain control and protect its people (should it be inclined).

[malaise]

3. Great OP

Melissa's folks are Jamaican