headlines today
~ Trump's Attempts to Overturn the Election Are Unparalleled in U.S. History
New York Times
~ Trump Targets Michigan in His Ploy to Subvert the Election
New York Times
~ Why Charges Against Protesters Are Being Dismissed by the Thousands
New York Times
~ Trump Tax Write-Offs Are Ensnared in 2 New York Fraud Investigations
NYT
~ Pfizer Applies for Emergency F.D.A. Approval for Covid-19 Vaccine
NYT
~ What We Know About Trump's Election Meeting with Michigan Officials
NYT
~ Alarm over Trump's 'coup' in slow motion
The Times Of India
~ Trump's Clown Coup Crisis
The New Yorker
~ Can Trump actually stage a coup and stay in office for a second term?
The Guardian
~ Stop Donald Trump's coup. Impeach him again
Los Angeles Times
________________________________
___________________________
After watching parts of The Crown, I saw a 2016 article about this (then new) Netflix series in The Guardian, and made note of the following Reader Comments.
------------ I watched it, it was great, but I kept thinking "How do we still have this anachronistic institution in the year 2016?"
-------------------- You are out of your time. just look at what is happening to "republics" around us, it's all misery, corruption, bad governance
---------- Well? We've got that in spades and an anachronism left over from the Middle Ages.
Anybody got a couple of highly paid taxpayer funded sinecures for two princesses of the 'royal blood'?
You know the sort of thing, couple of mill' a year plus unlimited holidays and expenses.
------------------ I am a republican but can see some value in the monarchy (at least for now). Just as politics is falling apart with unspeakable hatreds all over the world one cannot help but respect the very real affection that the British people have for their dutiful Queen. That is much needed at present.
--------- A republic with a non executive president will do nicely, thank you.
-------------------- Can't we just discuss the series as a piece of drama rather than get into a debate about the monarchy. Some of you really are an awful, joyless lot. You must get up in the morning and wait for something to complain about.
---------------- It's about the monarchy. You're also complaining that people complain too much.
------------ Fine, but when this Queen goes can we call it a day? Please.
------------ King Chuckles not appeal to you then?
---------------- royalty and religion--man's love affair with voluntary self enslavement
------------- It interests me that so many 'progressives' dislike the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth is an organisation of 53 countries that are not in it to make war or money, it is not a defence group or a trade bloc. It is just a group of friends who get together every few years and talk about a shared history and future and how they can help each other, mainly through charity work, mutual support and exchanges of public servants.
It is an organisation in which the majority are not white or Christian, and, in which little countries are equal to big ones.
It is not run by or for the rich countries in it.
It is basically the epitome of what progressives should like and want.
And yet you look at it and say it is not useful.
Being friendly as equals with lots of diverse countries is not useful?
------------------------------------------ The Commonwealth is about the only major body where African and other smaller countries have the opportunity to sit with major western powers.
I would argue that it would have greater relevance if the Americans and French were included as they could be due to history.
But even without them, its importance is there and will increase as the world's economic power shifts away from the western bloc.
---------------- Anti-royalists who continually point out the injustices and poverty in our society and the privileged life of the royals as if they are directly related need a reality check. There is no correlation.
Places such as Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, etc. are the most egalitarian, equal and progressive countries on earth - and are monarchies.
USA, Brazil, Russia and whole host of others could be said to have big problems with social inequality and maybe not considered so progressive (at times) but don't have a monarchy. Equally however, you can easily find reverse examples if you look.
My point being there is no correlation, Things don't necessarily get easier for the most disadvantaged if you dump the royals.
------------ The greatest graveyard of European monarchy was the First World War, and your three examples were all lucky/clever enough to be neutral. The correlation might be that enduring monarchies are a result rather than a cause of political stability and social cohesion.
------------------------- You might but you could also point out that right wing or communist revolutions, or religious coups, always start with getting rid of the monarchy. Why? Because it is a bastion against extremes.
People also talk about monarchies as if they are old fashioned and most of the world chose to move on from them.
But hardly anyone chose to get rid of their monarchy.
For most of the world the European empires came along and got rid of their local monarchs without asking.
Then the European empires when they left created new countries that did not normally match the boundaries of the old traditional kingdoms in the area, e.g. Uganda has four monarchies in it, South Africa more than that.
The ones that remained were normally ended by the turmoil surrounding WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. They almost always were overwhelmed as their entire society fell to a communist, right wing, military, or religious coup.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment