Free speech

[mcginnisc]

They did comment and that was fine. If it starts to be a common policy that people are fired for publicly stating an unpopular opinion wouldn’t that be the beginning of the end of free speech?

No. Being fired is not a punishment put on you by your government. Free speech protects you from being punished by your government for stating your opinion. It has nothing to do with private employers.

Now if your employer IS the government, that could create a grey area and I'm not sure how that works. But outside of that, being fired for stating an opinion has nothing to do with free speech.

I didn’t say it was illegal to fire her. But is that the kind of country we want to live in? The threat of losing your job because you have an unpopular opinion? A trend like that could create some real oppressiveness and fear to say what you think.

You do realize we are already there, right? People get fired for the crap they spew on FB, twitter, TikTok all the time. Just because there is FOS, does not mean there will be no consequences for what is said. This is not a new thing.
For instance..there is an animal sanctuary that is having issues between the founders and the BOD. The BOD hired someone that is not doing their job and the animals are now suffering. There was a recent out break of avian flu due to vultures that came onto the property with it. The BOD decided that EVERY single healthy bird had to be euthanized. They euthanized hundreds of emus/ ostriches, chickens, peacocks that were fine. The husband of the woman in question on the BOD just basically threatened one of the founders and her family on video. Dude is a principal at a neighboring county. It has gone viral and calls have been made to that BOE and his boss to get him fired. He is not free of the consequences of his words on that video. So, again.. we are there and have been for years.

[Deleted User 1990]

I admit I know nothing about Kenya’s civil war which was why I asked. I will have to read thoroughly to get an understanding of it. I won’t say the professor isn’t wrong for being angry, just that i can’t blame her employer for putting out her views aren’t theirs. After all she just wished unending pain on the queen or words to that affect.

I'm not as well versed on African history as I am in other continents. The Queen is a figurehead, moreso than a President. She never had full power to do anything. She had an influence, a strong one, but she wasn't the one giving orders. That was Parliament and House of Commons. While every country had to fight for independence from Great Britain, the monarchy then made it official by "granting" it, which wasn't really necessary, probably to save face. This is, of course, a simplified version of events. I know what happened was brutal; every country which had a great empire at one time has been brutal so I don't want to downplay that. I guess I would expect more of the hate to be geared towards the Prime Ministers of the time. I think the person's words were justified, I agree that we just aren't used to people in other countries to let loose so soon after someone's death. I thought that was more of an American thing.

I thought it was common knowledge how deeply the monarchy was involved with slave trading. There wasn’t a Prime Minister during this period. There was some form of government back then but the Monarchy ruled back then.

this is recent from the Guardian that gives a brief explanation of how the slave trade benefited the monarchy exclusively

“what exactly are the monarchy’s historical links to slavery?

The royal family’s links date back to the 16th century. In 1562, John Hawkins was the first known English person to include enslaved Africans in his cargo, a journey that was approved by Elizabeth I. The enslaved Africans were traded for goods including ginger and sugar. In 1564, Hawkins arranged another voyage, for which Elizabeth I funded a vessel.

In 1660, the Royal African Company was established by the Duke of York, who later became James II, with involvement from his brother, Charles II. The Royal African Company was prolific within the slave trade; according to the Slave Voyages website, between 1672 and 1731 the Royal African Company transported more than 187,000 slaves from Africa to English colonies in North, Central and South America. Many of the enslaved Africans transported by the Royal African Company were branded “DY”, standing for Duke of York.”

This money went into the monarch’s accounts and has accumulated in the billions.






https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... to-slavery

I have a question…


Who is worse?

group (a) that terrorizes others they have differences with, traps them, chains them up, abused them horribly, drags them to the slave traders and sells them off like cattle… for hundreds, but likely closer to thousands of years…

Or group (b) that bought those slaves, drags them off to a different country, abused them horribly and keeps it up for hundreds of years?



Are they both equally evil, is one more evil than the other? Should they both be held accountable for what they did? Should the descendents of either or one group be seen as more guilty than the other since the crimes of their ancestors pass down to them?

[RIZZY1]

I'm not as well versed on African history as I am in other continents. The Queen is a figurehead, moreso than a President. She never had full power to do anything. She had an influence, a strong one, but she wasn't the one giving orders. That was Parliament and House of Commons. While every country had to fight for independence from Great Britain, the monarchy then made it official by "granting" it, which wasn't really necessary, probably to save face. This is, of course, a simplified version of events. I know what happened was brutal; every country which had a great empire at one time has been brutal so I don't want to downplay that. I guess I would expect more of the hate to be geared towards the Prime Ministers of the time. I think the person's words were justified, I agree that we just aren't used to people in other countries to let loose so soon after someone's death. I thought that was more of an American thing.

I thought it was common knowledge how deeply the monarchy was involved with slave trading. There wasn’t a Prime Minister during this period. There was some form of government back then but the Monarchy ruled back then.

this is recent from the Guardian that gives a brief explanation of how the slave trade benefited the monarchy exclusively

“what exactly are the monarchy’s historical links to slavery?

The royal family’s links date back to the 16th century. In 1562, John Hawkins was the first known English person to include enslaved Africans in his cargo, a journey that was approved by Elizabeth I. The enslaved Africans were traded for goods including ginger and sugar. In 1564, Hawkins arranged another voyage, for which Elizabeth I funded a vessel.

In 1660, the Royal African Company was established by the Duke of York, who later became James II, with involvement from his brother, Charles II. The Royal African Company was prolific within the slave trade; according to the Slave Voyages website, between 1672 and 1731 the Royal African Company transported more than 187,000 slaves from Africa to English colonies in North, Central and South America. Many of the enslaved Africans transported by the Royal African Company were branded “DY”, standing for Duke of York.”

This money went into the monarch’s accounts and has accumulated in the billions.






https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... to-slavery

I have a question…


Who is worse?

group (a) that terrorizes others they have differences with, traps them, chains them up, abused them horribly, drags them to the slave traders and sells them off like cattle… for hundreds, but likely closer to thousands of years…

Or group (b) that bought those slaves, drags them off to a different country, abused them horribly and keeps it up for hundreds of years?



Are they both equally evil, is one more evil than the other? Should they both be held accountable for what they did? Should the descendents of either or one group be seen as more guilty than the other since the crimes of their ancestors pass down to them?

It is common knowledge and I acknowledged that. The first "unofficial" Prime minister was a whig and was in power before Elizabeth II was even a twinkle in her mother's eye.

[RIZZY1]

I admit I know nothing about Kenya’s civil war which was why I asked. I will have to read thoroughly to get an understanding of it. I won’t say the professor isn’t wrong for being angry, just that i can’t blame her employer for putting out her views aren’t theirs. After all she just wished unending pain on the queen or words to that affect.

I'm not as well versed on African history as I am in other continents. The Queen is a figurehead, moreso than a President. She never had full power to do anything. She had an influence, a strong one, but she wasn't the one giving orders. That was Parliament and House of Commons. While every country had to fight for independence from Great Britain, the monarchy then made it official by "granting" it, which wasn't really necessary, probably to save face. This is, of course, a simplified version of events. I know what happened was brutal; every country which had a great empire at one time has been brutal so I don't want to downplay that. I guess I would expect more of the hate to be geared towards the Prime Ministers of the time. I think the person's words were justified, I agree that we just aren't used to people in other countries to let loose so soon after someone's death. I thought that was more of an American thing.

I thought it was common knowledge how deeply the monarchy was involved with slave trading. There wasn’t a Prime Minister during this period. There was some form of government back then but the Monarchy ruled back then.

this is recent from the Guardian that gives a brief explanation of how the slave trade benefited the monarchy exclusively

“what exactly are the monarchy’s historical links to slavery?

The royal family’s links date back to the 16th century. In 1562, John Hawkins was the first known English person to include enslaved Africans in his cargo, a journey that was approved by Elizabeth I. The enslaved Africans were traded for goods including ginger and sugar. In 1564, Hawkins arranged another voyage, for which Elizabeth I funded a vessel.

In 1660, the Royal African Company was established by the Duke of York, who later became James II, with involvement from his brother, Charles II. The Royal African Company was prolific within the slave trade; according to the Slave Voyages website, between 1672 and 1731 the Royal African Company transported more than 187,000 slaves from Africa to English colonies in North, Central and South America. Many of the enslaved Africans transported by the Royal African Company were branded “DY”, standing for Duke of York.”

This money went into the monarch’s accounts and has accumulated in the billions.






https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... to-slavery

Oops. I accidentally quoted the wrong person but I'm sure you'll see my reply. We ARE talking about Elizabeth II, right? Not the 1700s. Of course the monarchy benefitted from it, but specifically Elizabeth II had influence but did not make those decisions.

[SouthernIslander]

I know she wasn’t fired, I was worried for her that she might be. All it takes is some social media complaints from enough people for corporations to think someone’s not worth the problems and they fire them. Possibly destroying someone’s life over a misinterpreted social post or a poor judgment call. And the “woke” people could be anyone, depends on the subject.

It doesn’t refer to just anybody. Before mainstream appropriated the term, “woke” use to mean socially conscious, so in this situation that would be the professor. Now it’s basically referring to far left/social justice warriors.

Cancel culture might be a better term but the people pushing back on the professor wouldn’t be considered “woke”.

Cancel culture is probably a better term. I know social justice warriors can go too far. I don’t know, it just seems like if someone has an unpopular opinion they put themselves in a line of fire.

Yeah, I think that’s what you meant and I agree. There are valid reasons to cancel someone but it’s turned into cancelling people over an opinion and I am sick of it.

I strongly disagree with celebrating or wishing death on anyone but that professor is far from the only person who feels that way about The Queen’s past.

[Valentina327]

She's entitled to her thoughts, and considering the background no one could blame her for feeling that way. I know some Irish folks who'd probably have a similar sentiment toward the monarchy. I'd probably be fairly embittered toward her as well under the circumstances. She didn't threaten violence against anyone.

[WellPreserved]

It doesn’t refer to just anybody. Before mainstream appropriated the term, “woke” use to mean socially conscious, so in this situation that would be the professor. Now it’s basically referring to far left/social justice warriors.

Cancel culture might be a better term but the people pushing back on the professor wouldn’t be considered “woke”.

Cancel culture is probably a better term. I know social justice warriors can go too far. I don’t know, it just seems like if someone has an unpopular opinion they put themselves in a line of fire.

Yeah, I think that’s what you meant and I agree. There are valid reasons to cancel someone but it’s turned into cancelling people over an opinion and I am sick of it.

I strongly disagree with celebrating or wishing death on anyone but that professor is far from the only person who feels that way about The Queen’s past.

I agree. Really, the professor's "mistake" was posting on Twitter, not #blacktwitter or #irishtwitter.

[Traci_Momof2]

I admit I know nothing about Kenya’s civil war which was why I asked. I will have to read thoroughly to get an understanding of it. I won’t say the professor isn’t wrong for being angry, just that i can’t blame her employer for putting out her views aren’t theirs. After all she just wished unending pain on the queen or words to that affect.

I'm not as well versed on African history as I am in other continents. The Queen is a figurehead, moreso than a President. She never had full power to do anything. She had an influence, a strong one, but she wasn't the one giving orders. That was Parliament and House of Commons. While every country had to fight for independence from Great Britain, the monarchy then made it official by "granting" it, which wasn't really necessary, probably to save face. This is, of course, a simplified version of events. I know what happened was brutal; every country which had a great empire at one time has been brutal so I don't want to downplay that. I guess I would expect more of the hate to be geared towards the Prime Ministers of the time. I think the person's words were justified, I agree that we just aren't used to people in other countries to let loose so soon after someone's death. I thought that was more of an American thing.

I thought it was common knowledge how deeply the monarchy was involved with slave trading. There wasn’t a Prime Minister during this period. There was some form of government back then but the Monarchy ruled back then.

this is recent from the Guardian that gives a brief explanation of how the slave trade benefited the monarchy exclusively

“what exactly are the monarchy’s historical links to slavery?

The royal family’s links date back to the 16th century. In 1562, John Hawkins was the first known English person to include enslaved Africans in his cargo, a journey that was approved by Elizabeth I. The enslaved Africans were traded for goods including ginger and sugar. In 1564, Hawkins arranged another voyage, for which Elizabeth I funded a vessel.

In 1660, the Royal African Company was established by the Duke of York, who later became James II, with involvement from his brother, Charles II. The Royal African Company was prolific within the slave trade; according to the Slave Voyages website, between 1672 and 1731 the Royal African Company transported more than 187,000 slaves from Africa to English colonies in North, Central and South America. Many of the enslaved Africans transported by the Royal African Company were branded “DY”, standing for Duke of York.”

This money went into the monarch’s accounts and has accumulated in the billions.






https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... to-slavery

I want to comment just on the bold. For myself, a week ago I didn't know any of it. It's curious the timing of this thread because just over the weekend I caught and episode of "Explained" on Netflix about "Royalty". It talks about Royalty all over the world and the history of it, but it does seem to talk more about British royalty than any other country. And it talked about the history of the Monarchy's involvement in slave trade. Honestly I was kind of shocked because I really didn't know any of it. They don't exactly advertise it these days and I don't even think it was taught in History class when I was in school.

If you have access to Netflix check out the episode, because what's presented there is exactly the extent of my knowledge on the topic now. And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone, so I highly question your assessment of "common knowledge".

[Lemons]

I'm not as well versed on African history as I am in other continents. The Queen is a figurehead, moreso than a President. She never had full power to do anything. She had an influence, a strong one, but she wasn't the one giving orders. That was Parliament and House of Commons. While every country had to fight for independence from Great Britain, the monarchy then made it official by "granting" it, which wasn't really necessary, probably to save face. This is, of course, a simplified version of events. I know what happened was brutal; every country which had a great empire at one time has been brutal so I don't want to downplay that. I guess I would expect more of the hate to be geared towards the Prime Ministers of the time. I think the person's words were justified, I agree that we just aren't used to people in other countries to let loose so soon after someone's death. I thought that was more of an American thing.

I thought it was common knowledge how deeply the monarchy was involved with slave trading. There wasn’t a Prime Minister during this period. There was some form of government back then but the Monarchy ruled back then.

this is recent from the Guardian that gives a brief explanation of how the slave trade benefited the monarchy exclusively

“what exactly are the monarchy’s historical links to slavery?

The royal family’s links date back to the 16th century. In 1562, John Hawkins was the first known English person to include enslaved Africans in his cargo, a journey that was approved by Elizabeth I. The enslaved Africans were traded for goods including ginger and sugar. In 1564, Hawkins arranged another voyage, for which Elizabeth I funded a vessel.

In 1660, the Royal African Company was established by the Duke of York, who later became James II, with involvement from his brother, Charles II. The Royal African Company was prolific within the slave trade; according to the Slave Voyages website, between 1672 and 1731 the Royal African Company transported more than 187,000 slaves from Africa to English colonies in North, Central and South America. Many of the enslaved Africans transported by the Royal African Company were branded “DY”, standing for Duke of York.”

This money went into the monarch’s accounts and has accumulated in the billions.






https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... to-slavery

Oops. I accidentally quoted the wrong person but I'm sure you'll see my reply. We ARE talking about Elizabeth II, right? Not the 1700s. Of course the monarchy benefitted from it, but specifically Elizabeth II had influence but did not make those decisions.

Both. The start of the slave trade by the monarch and the conflict in Kenya, a colonized country at that time.

Just this year Germany agreed to return stolen jewels and art from Namibia, Tanzania and Cameroon, countries they had formerly colonized. British museums and others are returning stolen art to their rightful countries.

The monarchy refuses to acknowledge that their valuable jewelry were not gifts from the native people of India or African countries but were stolen by them and other White European colonizers. It’s time they stop benefiting from well documented crimes.

[Valentina327]

I thought it was common knowledge how deeply the monarchy was involved with slave trading. There wasn’t a Prime Minister during this period. There was some form of government back then but the Monarchy ruled back then.

this is recent from the Guardian that gives a brief explanation of how the slave trade benefited the monarchy exclusively

“what exactly are the monarchy’s historical links to slavery?

The royal family’s links date back to the 16th century. In 1562, John Hawkins was the first known English person to include enslaved Africans in his cargo, a journey that was approved by Elizabeth I. The enslaved Africans were traded for goods including ginger and sugar. In 1564, Hawkins arranged another voyage, for which Elizabeth I funded a vessel.

In 1660, the Royal African Company was established by the Duke of York, who later became James II, with involvement from his brother, Charles II. The Royal African Company was prolific within the slave trade; according to the Slave Voyages website, between 1672 and 1731 the Royal African Company transported more than 187,000 slaves from Africa to English colonies in North, Central and South America. Many of the enslaved Africans transported by the Royal African Company were branded “DY”, standing for Duke of York.”

This money went into the monarch’s accounts and has accumulated in the billions.






https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... to-slavery

Oops. I accidentally quoted the wrong person but I'm sure you'll see my reply. We ARE talking about Elizabeth II, right? Not the 1700s. Of course the monarchy benefitted from it, but specifically Elizabeth II had influence but did not make those decisions.

Both. The start of the slave trade by the monarch and the conflict in Kenya, a colonized country at that time.

Just this year Germany agreed to return stolen jewels and art from Namibia, Tanzania and Cameroon, countries they had formerly colonized. British museums and others are returning stolen art to their rightful countries.

The monarchy refuses to acknowledge that their valuable jewelry were not gifts from the native people of India or African countries but were stolen by them and other White European colonizers. It’s time they stop benefiting from well documented crimes.

Yes. She's been in power for 70 years. Not a peep made to try to make anything right. It just goes from century to century.