Meghan Markle just called the Royal Family racists on Oprah

29,758 Views | 358 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by ABATTBQ11
Tanya 93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
C@LAg said:

Tanya 93 said:






I don't think Markle made any complaint.

He has been on an ugly, offensive attack for years.

They chatted privately thru social media and after she met him in person, she stopped talking to him.


He never got over that and used his Twitter and his morning TV slot to constantly insult and attack
Her people filed a formal complaint early in the day yesterday before the talks and quitting.

This was confirmed by The Guardian or The Times.



Okay

Thank you
HollywoodBQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ABATTBQ11 said:

HollywoodBQ said:

CanyonAg77 said:

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

A bunch of conservatives choosing to support royalists over an American. ****ing loyalist need to leave.
Good lord, no. Don't support any of these nitwits, and I can't fathom why Brits put up with the Royal Family and all the dukes, earls, vicounts, discounts, etc. etc.
no 2A


No, it's culture. It is simply a different way of thinking and doing that goes back centuries. It's a holdover from a time when countries weren't and couldn't be run by bureaucracies, but by individuals who had to balance a lot of interests and functions. They had a governmental structure that gave a lot of autonomy to those they could trust with governing because they couldn't manage it all.

Understand that the English system of sovereignty goes back to times when humanity in the European sphere was essentially coming out of tribalism. Sovereigns were leaders capable of inspiring or forcing followership and uniting people to common goals and causes. They conquered or subjugated those around them to build larger domains and consolidate power. Governing by committee or consent could bring paralysis in a time when your neighbor could and would raid you, kill you, and take from you, so there were distinct tactical and strategic advantages to autocracies. Large areas like Britain, France, Germany, etc were too much for any one person to manage, so the feudal system was born out of necessity. Powerful leaders who became sovereigns rewarded close allies or warriors with land and/or responsibility as a means of keeping their favor but also delegating management. This brought a lot of order to the essential anarchy of early civilization.

They eventually did this through titles. Titled individuals were land holders and expected to manage that land and the individuals on it, but also defend and protect it. The difference in title meant a difference in the importance or the amount of land that person was entrusted with. Dukes were generally royals or had very important holdings, like border territory. Marquesses, Earls, and Viscounts generally had larger holdings and were in charge counties or provinces. Barons were basic landholders.

For the lower classes, there wasn't always an ability or, more so, desire to move away from the system. Their lords were also charged with defending them. Overthrow that guy and someone else, like a neighboring adversary, will simply step in and pick up the pieces to take the land, possibly killing everyone already there. It was advantageous to be a vassal to a powerful lord who could marshal troops in the event of invasion by foreign adversaries (which happened a lot) or provide a means of refuge until allies could arrive to help.

There was also the driving force of early capitalism. Fighting costs money. Money for time, food, weapons, training, etc. The key here was weapons like swords, horses, armor, etc. Peasants and lower class individuals didn't have the accumulation of money to outfit an army. Lords did through their land ownership and rents/taxes. They were the few individuals with the necessary accumulated capital to raise a defense when it was essentially private (with the added benefit from a tactical standpoint that they could make executive decisions and didn't have to govern by committee).

Over time, the system has simply adapted and changed with the times. If there necessarily a need for the nobility? Not really, though they are still generally very wealthy and politically connected. Anyone in government benefits from their support. The commoners, by and large, sill short the system as a matter of tradition. They're used to it and don't care. It's just how things are.

As far as overthrowing the nobility, as is suggested above, they're the ones with the wealth and land because they, or their forebears, took it fair and square. It's no different than the US government fighting for and taking land from native Americans. They fought for it, or fought for someone else who did, and ended up with it. Then they built wealth from it and passed it down. Saying they should be overthrown or shouldn't have titles is not much different than, "Give us what you have or we'll take it because you have something we don't." It's no better than the little socialists and anarchists *****ing about rich people. Cry all you want about tyranny, but at this point, their continued residence in the UK is consent to be governed. Nothing is stopping them from moving because they don't like having a sovereign or nobility. If that's the government they want to consent to, who is anyone else to tell them that they're wrong just because you like something different?
Great breakdown.
After spending 12 years in Australia, it is clear to me that subjects of the Queen cannot even comprehend our Bill of Rights. And what's more, they don't even care. They're happy with their system.
Onceaggie2.0
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why did Harry settle for a ragged ***** is beyond me .
HollywoodBQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
thirdcoast said:

How dark will the child's skin be?

Probably not near as dark as the average blonde hair blue eyed 100% white surfer. Meghan isn't even the type of biracial you assume as black. She has pale skin, narrow nose, and straight hair looking more latin or mideastern. Probably why she is flexing so hard with the woke stuff....finally a chance to really be seen as black.
Yep, I got into an argument with a lady at my prior employer.
Her complaint was that she didn't get listened to like I did because she was Black and I was White (and a Male of course).

Honestly, I would never have known she was Black if she hadn't told me. I thought she might be Portuguese or something from the Iberian Peninsula.
Trucker 96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Queen's response was 100% class. More class in her little finger than those two have put together
outofstateaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HollywoodBQ said:

thirdcoast said:

How dark will the child's skin be?

Probably not near as dark as the average blonde hair blue eyed 100% white surfer. Meghan isn't even the type of biracial you assume as black. She has pale skin, narrow nose, and straight hair looking more latin or mideastern. Probably why she is flexing so hard with the woke stuff....finally a chance to really be seen as black.
Yep, I got into an argument with a lady at my prior employer.
Her complaint was that she didn't get listened to like I did because she was Black and I was White (and a Male of course).

Honestly, I would never have known she was Black if she hadn't told me. I thought she might be Portuguese or something from the Iberian Peninsula.


There was a post on this board over the summer that articulated this need to be "seen as black." You have an entire generation of African Americans that have grown up in a world free of segregation and discrimination and now feel they have not lived an "authentically" black life. They have the need to wear the scar of racism and discrimination like the previous generation and have manufactured the current situation to do so. The reality is the previous generation fought hard and sacrificed to ensure they DID NOT have to wear that scar, but this is lost on them. The appeal of being a victim and allowing that to define their identity blinds them to it.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
outofstateaggie said:

HollywoodBQ said:

thirdcoast said:

How dark will the child's skin be?

Probably not near as dark as the average blonde hair blue eyed 100% white surfer. Meghan isn't even the type of biracial you assume as black. She has pale skin, narrow nose, and straight hair looking more latin or mideastern. Probably why she is flexing so hard with the woke stuff....finally a chance to really be seen as black.
Yep, I got into an argument with a lady at my prior employer.
Her complaint was that she didn't get listened to like I did because she was Black and I was White (and a Male of course).

Honestly, I would never have known she was Black if she hadn't told me. I thought she might be Portuguese or something from the Iberian Peninsula.


There was a post on this board over the summer that articulated this need to be "seen as black." You have an entire generation of African Americans that have grown up in a world free of segregation and discrimination and now feel they have not lived an "authentically" black life. They have the need to wear the scar of racism and discrimination like the previous generation and have manufactured the current situation to do so. The reality is the previous generation fought hard and sacrificed to ensure they DID NOT have to wear that scar, but this is lost on them. The appeal of being a victim and allowing that to define their identity blinds them to it.

Perfect summation.

You are now even seeing many in the community throw out MLK's vision as if it's not valid - ie character over color.

It's really disheartening the regression we are currently living in real time. All of that progress being flushed in a fit of revenge porn.
Rossticus
How long do you want to ignore this user?

HollywoodBQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hey, if they want to brand themselves with their fraternity letters, I can understand that. Much respect.

But, if they want to wear the scars of micro-aggressions, I'm going to need to a government grant to help issue wypipo microscopes so we can see these scars.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HollywoodBQ said:

ABATTBQ11 said:

HollywoodBQ said:

CanyonAg77 said:

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

A bunch of conservatives choosing to support royalists over an American. ****ing loyalist need to leave.
Good lord, no. Don't support any of these nitwits, and I can't fathom why Brits put up with the Royal Family and all the dukes, earls, vicounts, discounts, etc. etc.
no 2A


No, it's culture. It is simply a different way of thinking and doing that goes back centuries. It's a holdover from a time when countries weren't and couldn't be run by bureaucracies, but by individuals who had to balance a lot of interests and functions. They had a governmental structure that gave a lot of autonomy to those they could trust with governing because they couldn't manage it all.

Understand that the English system of sovereignty goes back to times when humanity in the European sphere was essentially coming out of tribalism. Sovereigns were leaders capable of inspiring or forcing followership and uniting people to common goals and causes. They conquered or subjugated those around them to build larger domains and consolidate power. Governing by committee or consent could bring paralysis in a time when your neighbor could and would raid you, kill you, and take from you, so there were distinct tactical and strategic advantages to autocracies. Large areas like Britain, France, Germany, etc were too much for any one person to manage, so the feudal system was born out of necessity. Powerful leaders who became sovereigns rewarded close allies or warriors with land and/or responsibility as a means of keeping their favor but also delegating management. This brought a lot of order to the essential anarchy of early civilization.

They eventually did this through titles. Titled individuals were land holders and expected to manage that land and the individuals on it, but also defend and protect it. The difference in title meant a difference in the importance or the amount of land that person was entrusted with. Dukes were generally royals or had very important holdings, like border territory. Marquesses, Earls, and Viscounts generally had larger holdings and were in charge counties or provinces. Barons were basic landholders.

For the lower classes, there wasn't always an ability or, more so, desire to move away from the system. Their lords were also charged with defending them. Overthrow that guy and someone else, like a neighboring adversary, will simply step in and pick up the pieces to take the land, possibly killing everyone already there. It was advantageous to be a vassal to a powerful lord who could marshal troops in the event of invasion by foreign adversaries (which happened a lot) or provide a means of refuge until allies could arrive to help.

There was also the driving force of early capitalism. Fighting costs money. Money for time, food, weapons, training, etc. The key here was weapons like swords, horses, armor, etc. Peasants and lower class individuals didn't have the accumulation of money to outfit an army. Lords did through their land ownership and rents/taxes. They were the few individuals with the necessary accumulated capital to raise a defense when it was essentially private (with the added benefit from a tactical standpoint that they could make executive decisions and didn't have to govern by committee).

Over time, the system has simply adapted and changed with the times. If there necessarily a need for the nobility? Not really, though they are still generally very wealthy and politically connected. Anyone in government benefits from their support. The commoners, by and large, sill short the system as a matter of tradition. They're used to it and don't care. It's just how things are.

As far as overthrowing the nobility, as is suggested above, they're the ones with the wealth and land because they, or their forebears, took it fair and square. It's no different than the US government fighting for and taking land from native Americans. They fought for it, or fought for someone else who did, and ended up with it. Then they built wealth from it and passed it down. Saying they should be overthrown or shouldn't have titles is not much different than, "Give us what you have or we'll take it because you have something we don't." It's no better than the little socialists and anarchists *****ing about rich people. Cry all you want about tyranny, but at this point, their continued residence in the UK is consent to be governed. Nothing is stopping them from moving because they don't like having a sovereign or nobility. If that's the government they want to consent to, who is anyone else to tell them that they're wrong just because you like something different?
Great breakdown.
After spending 12 years in Australia, it is clear to me that subjects of the Queen cannot even comprehend our Bill of Rights. And what's more, they don't even care. They're happy with their system.


There are certain advantages.

Socialism, to me, is neo-feudalism. You work to live, but those running the show are charged providing for a lot of basic needs. It leaves little room for advancement and wealth accumulation or frivolities, but there's a lot of security in there. If that's your thing and you value security and shun responsibility and agency, then socialism beats capitalism and autocracy beats democracy every day.

It's almost like utilizing a SaaS model. It's really expensive, there's no room for innovation or change, it's limited to someone else's idea of the best way to do things, and it's hard to move away from, but everything is taken care of for you.


Also, there's a reason autocracy was the first form of government and is still practiced and prevalent in the world: It works. Not everyone can be at the top, and many (most?) people have no desire to be. Autocracy also provides clear, consistent, and decisive direction, with little regard to the political whims of the populace. A dictator doesn't care about "wokeness" or the cause du jour because he doesn't worry about pleasing an electorate. However, that means the only counterbalance to an autocrat is all out revolution or forceful deposition. They have to keep people happy, but only to an extreme point. A dictator starts to care about "wokeness" real quick if the natives get restless and start banging their swords and shields. If there are restrictions on their control of the military or police and if the populace is armed, things can get dicey quickly if they do not listen to VERY popular movements or get out of line. If they're like Chavez, they give 0 ****s what anyone thinks. So it can work out really well for the common man, but it can also work out really bad. Either way, as a form of government that perpetuates, it works.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.