Sunny Hostin : The monarchy "was built on the backs of Black and Brown people"

[867-5309.]

“Because if you really think about what the monarchy was built on, it was built on the backs of Black and Brown people. She wore a crown with pillaged stones from India and Africa. And now what you’re seeing, at least in the Black communities that I’m a part of, they want reparations”

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2022-09-09/sunny-hostin-the-view-queen-elizabeth-ii-colonizer-reparations

[emulatorloo]

1. India was decolonized before Elizabeth took the throne. Parliament and Prime Ministers have politic

political power

The modern monarchy had and has ZERO political power.

Queen Elizabeth etc “ruled” over no one. They are essentially celebrities nothing more.

Political power rests solely in the hands of Parliament and Prime Ministers.

I don’t know why this is so difficult to understand.

BTW, here’s a pretty good article about Britain decolonization right after WWII:


Britain and Decolonisation: Decolonisation in South East and South Asia, 1945-1948
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/britain-and-decolonisation-in-south-east-and-south-asia-1945-1948

[Heather MC]

3. She certainly benefits from all the horrible things her family did

And she made no apologies for it, or return the stones from her Crown I think you're missing the point when you say well Elizabeth didn't do anything.

She didn't end the monarchy either, she certainly enjoyed all the work her family put in to get her there didn't she.

That certainly makes her complicit in Her family's treachery

And last I checked they've already made sure that king Charles's grandchildren are in succession to also take the throne eventually.

They may not have any power now but they're still sucking the people of England dry

[emulatorloo]

6. She didn't have any political power. Neither does King Charles. Look to parliament.

The royals are more or less a tourist attraction.

I just find the article and similar ones misses the point. It seems to let the actual seat of power off the hook.

But I suppose articles about the British Parliament wouldn’t get the same amount of clicks?

Of course YMMV.

[leftyladyfrommo]

2. So was the US. Our history isn't so great. Either. nt

[Ex Lurker]

4. So was every country, tribe and ethnic group on earth

humans are humans and they'll take away the other guy's land, property or freedom if they can.

[leftyladyfrommo]

7. It was all over the world. Lots of countries had

slaves. Some still do.

[IbogaProject]

5. Uh she never paid taxes and received government money

Her inherited wealth was stolen with a multi century advantage of being both tax free and subsidzed with taxes taken by force from commoners.

[questionseverything]

8. Actually if google is correct, she has volunteered to pay

Both income taxes and capital gains taxes since 1992

So does charles

[IbogaProject]

10. Why is she still exempt?

And have they offered to pay inheritance tax or any previous ones? Nope their fortune was built by force, theft and tax avoidance.

[questionseverything]

16. Parliament makes the laws, she paid more than the law demanded

I honestly don’t know anyone else in the world that volunteers to pay more taxes than the law says they owe

I don’t think anyone is responsible for what their ancestors did….

[IbogaProject]

18. Uh she had stolen jewels on her crown

https://theconversation.com/five-ways-the-monarchy-has-benefited-from-colonialism-and-slavery-179911

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/british-royal-family-slavery-reparations.html

https://mises.org/library/what-caused-irish-potato-famine

She is heir to a fortune built on Murder, theft, war, slavery and colonialism. Those ill gotton gains have compounded by being tax free. The Crown corporation takes nearly 20% of the Canadian natural resource industry. They don't pay those voluntary payments on that money just their English income.

[Abolishinist]

19. Very interesting.

"The Crown corporation takes nearly 20% of the Canadian natural resource industry."

I tried to find some backup for this but alas, unsuccessful. Please provide some links..

Thanks in advance!

[Abolishinist]

15. But what if the benefits of the tourism money brought into the UK by the royals,

one estimate puts this at 500 million pounds annually, exceeds the amount of taxes they would have paid?

[DBoon]

9. Ireland was the first colony

It is not generally made up of Black and Brown people but was opressed and impoverished nevertheless.

[JI7]

11. They haven't had power for decades. People of Indian subcontinent hold more

powerful positions with actual influence than the monarchy does.

Just recently a British Indian came close to being PM. And he held the top position in charge of the country's finances. And another British Indian held 2nd top position under Boris Johnson. And a British Pakistani is mayor of London.

Meanwhile in the United states majority of Americans voted for Hillary Clinton. She got millions more votes but a gross piece of shit was forced on us.

India and Pakistan celebrated 75 years of independence this year.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

12. Yep. Not sure why this makes so many people so mad, but it certainly does.

[prodigitalson]

13. It goes back to the 9th C.

It's history includes everything good or bad England/Britain has done since then.

While early modern/modern colonialism is a huge part of that "built on" is a bit of an editorial stretch.

[JI7]

14. Is she talking about black communities in the US ?

Yes, they should get reparations but not becsuse of the british crown but becsuse of continued discrmination of our own country.

[DavidDvorkin]

17. The monarchy existed long before the Empire did

And it started ceding power to Parliament when the Empire was just a handful of settlements.

[canetoad]

20. The monarchy was built

On the backs of Anglo-saxon peasants by the invading armies of William of Normandy.

Seriously, why does anyone pay attention to these underinformed arseholes.

[Straw Man]

21. And ...

The monarchy was built

On the backs of Anglo-saxon peasants by the invading armies of William of Normandy.

... the Anglo-Saxons had seized that land from the Celtic Britons, invading and dispossessing them once the Romans were no longer there to protect their imperial possession.

Human history: It's a mess.

[canetoad]

23. Well, no

Technically seized from peaceful and a comparatively contented Romano-Brit population. Not all conquests were driven by cruelty and overbearance.

Yes, there were uprisings when the Romans landed, but as a whole the Brit population were 'Romanised' with very little violence. They saw and appreciated the civic benefits, not to mention the gains in engineering, architecture and industry .

On the departure of the Romans began the influx of Anglo-saxons. This was not a 'dark age' but one of great artistry, however very little stone evidence remains because of their preference of building materials.

You may call it a mess; to me it's just people being people. Chaos theory rules.

[Straw Man]

25. No to what?

Last edited Mon Sep 12, 2022, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)

It's undeniable that Britain was a Roman imperial possession. I didn't say the conquest was a cruel one.

As for the Anglo-Saxon period it may well have not been a Dark Age, but the Britons didn't really participate, having been relegated to the fringes, if I remember my British history accurately. If not, could you elucidate?

[RobinA]

24. Reality

often doesn't fit the current narrative, and it tends to get ignored in those cases. Assuming anybody knows anything about history, which can be a rather broad assumption.

[Coventina]

22. No, the EMPIRE was built on the backs of Black and Brown people.

The monarchy was built on the backs of white people of every economic class.

(If we're talking about England, which I believe we are)

[Model35mech]

27. Yes, I think there is a conflation here between the monarchy with the empire

No doubt the monarchy established itself through wealth and the power that accessed.

But, that took place a time when rather than 'lording it over' people of color, the issue was concentrating wealth and power from wherever it could be had to become an institution.

Over time there have been multiple conflicts in England over who and whose family should control the wealth and power.

As the age of "Discovery" progressed, the English powers 'discovered' that there were profitable relationships to establish and control in the far off lands. For England, many of those relationships took advantage of the asymmetries of steel and gunpowder to subjugate people who lacked that power and the capacity to resist being subjugated. Clearly, colonization/subjugation fell heavily on people who lacked the capacity to resist. Many of them were not European/Caucasian.

But I'm not sure the intent was to try to locate only people of color to subjugate. Rather I suspect the intent was to subjugate whomever was weak enough to be subjugated.

My heritage is Slavic. Some academics believe the name Slavic refers to a class of people who could be subjugated and sold to middle eastern (aka Islamic) buyers as slaves. My family and my heritage isn't that of a people of color. It is a heritage of a people who spoke and wrote 'funny' eastern European languages and who occupied land that others wanted to control. And my ancestors lacked the capacity to repel the aggression of the people willing to sell them into slavery.

[UTUSN]

26. K&R