Free speech

Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.

Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source

Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.

Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.

Report when things come up.

Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.

Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
RIZZY1
Countess
Countess
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:35 am

Unread post

Lemons wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:47 pm
RIZZY1 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:59 am
Lemons wrote: Mon Sep 12, 2022 9:48 pm

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.
The tweet was about Elizabeth II and being glad that she, specifically, was dead. Every country on this list was colonized before she came into power and by that time, she was a figurehead with limited legal power. Yes, there was a Prime Minister at that time, Winston Churchill. Under her rule, she granted independence to about a dozen countries in Africa, after conflicts, of course. This is akin to a president signing a bill into law, not akin to Congress and the House who drafts and debates the law- except that a President has power of Veto. I don't know what the Queen has/had in that respect but I do know it was mutually beneficial to grant the independence.

Could she have done more? Likely. But what would you have expected them to do? No country becomes an empire without stepping on necks, just like no billionaire gets there without profiting off the backs of the poor, I thought that went without saying. I understand why the tweeter feels the way they do, but I won't act like it isn't shocking to tweet what they tweeted. I think that they had every right to tweet it, I just don't think there is any point in saddling that all on a figurehead's shoulders when anyone who knows anything about the government at that time understands that she couldn't just give everything back herself.
RIZZY1
Countess
Countess
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:35 am

Unread post

Traci_Momof2 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:36 am
Lemons wrote: Mon Sep 12, 2022 9:48 pm
RIZZY1 wrote: Mon Sep 12, 2022 7:27 pm

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".
This is really surprising to me. I taught 6th grade World Cultures (history) and this was one of the main themes of the entire class. I know it's different everywhere though. GB was/is one of the largest empires in the world. They did not start the slave trade but they were definitely the biggest player.
Lemons
Donated
Donated
Princess
Princess
Posts: 11250
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 11:22 pm

Unread post

Valentina327 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:04 pm
Lemons wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:47 pm
RIZZY1 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:59 am

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.
That’s what really bothers the victims. The government has apologized but the monarchy who had a large hand in the destruction and personally profited from it refuses, still claiming they were showered with gifts when they left.
Lemons
Donated
Donated
Princess
Princess
Posts: 11250
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 11:22 pm

Unread post

RIZZY1 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:48 pm
Lemons wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:47 pm
RIZZY1 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:59 am

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.
The tweet was about Elizabeth II and being glad that she, specifically, was dead. Every country on this list was colonized before she came into power and by that time, she was a figurehead with limited legal power. Yes, there was a Prime Minister at that time, Winston Churchill. Under her rule, she granted independence to about a dozen countries in Africa, after conflicts, of course. This is akin to a president signing a bill into law, not akin to Congress and the House who drafts and debates the law- except that a President has power of Veto. I don't know what the Queen has/had in that respect but I do know it was mutually beneficial to grant the independence.

Could she have done more? Likely. But what would you have expected them to do? No country becomes an empire without stepping on necks, just like no billionaire gets there without profiting off the backs of the poor, I thought that went without saying. I understand why the tweeter feels the way they do, but I won't act like it isn't shocking to tweet what they tweeted. I think that they had every right to tweet it, I just don't think there is any point in saddling that all on a figurehead's shoulders when anyone who knows anything about the government at that time understands that she couldn't just give everything back herself.
Under her rule she granted independence to countries but then you say she was just a figurehead? Which is it.

She had decades to apologize on behalf of her family for the damage they did and to show she was genuine she could have given back the stolen valuables. She didn’t. What kind of person is that?
RIZZY1
Countess
Countess
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:35 am

Unread post

Lemons wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:56 pm
RIZZY1 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:48 pm
Lemons wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:47 pm

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.
The tweet was about Elizabeth II and being glad that she, specifically, was dead. Every country on this list was colonized before she came into power and by that time, she was a figurehead with limited legal power. Yes, there was a Prime Minister at that time, Winston Churchill. Under her rule, she granted independence to about a dozen countries in Africa, after conflicts, of course. This is akin to a president signing a bill into law, not akin to Congress and the House who drafts and debates the law- except that a President has power of Veto. I don't know what the Queen has/had in that respect but I do know it was mutually beneficial to grant the independence.

Could she have done more? Likely. But what would you have expected them to do? No country becomes an empire without stepping on necks, just like no billionaire gets there without profiting off the backs of the poor, I thought that went without saying. I understand why the tweeter feels the way they do, but I won't act like it isn't shocking to tweet what they tweeted. I think that they had every right to tweet it, I just don't think there is any point in saddling that all on a figurehead's shoulders when anyone who knows anything about the government at that time understands that she couldn't just give everything back herself.
Under her rule she granted independence to countries but then you say she was just a figurehead? Which is it.

She had decades to apologize on behalf of her family for the damage they did and to show she was genuine she could have given back the stolen valuables. She didn’t. What kind of person is that?
I explained that, Lemons. Do you think I am just making this up and giving my opinion about what her powers were? Google it.
Screen Shot 2022-09-13 at 1.01.02 PM.png

So, you would have liked to see an apology. Okay, you are right, she never apologized for the actions of her ancestors. Somehow, I doubt that would have made anyone feel better.
Traci_Momof2
Princess
Princess
Posts: 11091
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 12:32 am
Location: Southwest USA

Unread post

RIZZY1 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:50 pm
Traci_Momof2 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:36 am
Lemons wrote: Mon Sep 12, 2022 9:48 pm

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".
This is really surprising to me. I taught 6th grade World Cultures (history) and this was one of the main themes of the entire class. I know it's different everywhere though. GB was/is one of the largest empires in the world. They did not start the slave trade but they were definitely the biggest player.
Well I don't remember much of what they taught us at that point in history classes, but I do remember history was one of the ones I struggled with more. I just remember it being taught as dates and events and I wasn't good with memorizing the dates/events. So it may not have been taught, or it may have been taught but they didn't dive deep enough for anything to stick.
RIZZY1
Countess
Countess
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:35 am

Unread post

Traci_Momof2 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 2:17 pm
RIZZY1 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:50 pm
Traci_Momof2 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:36 am

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".
This is really surprising to me. I taught 6th grade World Cultures (history) and this was one of the main themes of the entire class. I know it's different everywhere though. GB was/is one of the largest empires in the world. They did not start the slave trade but they were definitely the biggest player.
Well I don't remember much of what they taught us at that point in history classes, but I do remember history was one of the ones I struggled with more. I just remember it being taught as dates and events and I wasn't good with memorizing the dates/events. So it may not have been taught, or it may have been taught but they didn't dive deep enough for anything to stick.
Yeah, you're right. I forgot about that. That is how I was taught history, too. Not a good way to teach history. The only classes I remember from 6th grade are math, because it was torture, and choir because it was heaven.
User avatar
SouthernIslander
Queen Mother
Queen Mother
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:48 pm
Location: Texassippi

Unread post

Valentina327 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:09 am 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.
I think you’re right. I have been traveling so I haven’t been on social media but I heard Irish and Black Twitter have both been dragging her.

I had no idea there was bad blood there either.
User avatar
SouthernIslander
Queen Mother
Queen Mother
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:48 pm
Location: Texassippi

Unread post

mcginnisc wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:37 am
Lemons wrote: Mon Sep 12, 2022 5:51 pm
Traci_Momof2 wrote: Mon Sep 12, 2022 4:48 pm

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.
Yes, we are already here but that does not make it right.. Cancel culture has gone way too far and needs to move back to a more reasonable middle ground.
Della
Princess
Princess
Posts: 21975
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:46 pm

Unread post

Prince William just inherited a 685-year old estate worth $1 billion

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/13/business ... index.html
306/232

But I'm still the winner! They lied! They cheated! They stole the election!
Locked Previous topicNext topic