Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I didn't say you downplayed the atrocities of the British.
I also pointed out you responded to a video explaining one of those atrocities with a whataboutism about quoting a tweet from someone with a hammer and sickle and how bad that is.
|
Whataboutism is used to excuse bad behaviour. Suggesting to people who express interest in human rights that they may want to rethink endorsing those who openly use symbols of genocidal regimes, does not invalidate the initial argument. It's not one or the other, two (or ten!) things can be considered at the same time.
While a classic psychnet drive-by did provide the opportunity, it's important for you to know that I would have brought this up whether it was made in the Queen thread or a Flames game thread. Communism used as a flippant fashion/cultural accessory is a pet peeve of me because it is a source of a lot of pain and struggle within my family and culture (I personally was a refugee, and our family had its fair share of death and pain because of it). To me, a hammer and sickle is no different than a swastika, or a pink triangle, or white hood would be.
Quote:
|
If even the act of quoting a post with a hammer and sickle in the profile photo is bad, how morally repugnant do you think referring to someone who actually oversaw African concentration camps as "about as solid and stable of a monarch as one can hope for" is?
|
That's quite the stretch there to take a comment about her overall stability, and extrapolating it out to concentration camps. I'm well aware of the failings of the monarchy and British colonialism... that does not mean that Elizabeth the individual had no redeeming qualities or was a terrible queen in the context of history. She came into an ugly world, and some of those ugly issues remain, but in general I do think she set a decent example of royal behaviour, and looked to right many wrongs through her reign by actively pushing the monarchy towards a more humanitarian path (best demonstrated by her patronage to over 600 charities in her life). I'm not a big royalist myself, but I can commend her for that.
Now does she hold some responsibility for atrocities made during her reign? As head of state during the time, she absolutely should, it comes with job. But to anyone who can understand context, there's a gap the size of fifty Grand Canyons between her and Stalin/Hitler who actively orchestrated their atrocities.
I have no issue standing by my statements. Elizabeth wasn't perfect, and didn't reign under a perfect monarchy...but she was about as good of a monarch as one could expect in the context of history and reality. Just imagine the alternate reality if you had an outright Nazi-sympathizer as a king for a few more decades instead.
What are your thoughts on Elizabeth?