Historical Argument That Was In the Wrong Forum

[Patine]

Didn't the Rwandan genocide begin with elements of the military assassinating the president and seizing power? Not exactly democratic....

Juvenal Habyarimana, the President assassinated in question, came into power in a bloody coup against his predecessor, Gregoire Kayabanda, butchered Kayabanda and his inner circle (Kayabanda's remains have not been found to this day), outlawed all political parties but his own National Revolutionary Movement for Development and ran unopposed in three sham elections for show and propaganda purposes, hatched the Zero Solution (to drive the Tutsi population of the country over a set period of time to zero), drove many Tutsis into exile by threat of violence and murder, and seized their land, and controlled all media (what little existed back then), and had a group of party thugs called the Interahamwe who were reminiscent of '20's to '40's Fascist <Insert Colour> shirts. He doesn't sound very democratic, at that earlier, point, either, does he?

 

[Henri Christophe]

@Kupe Navigator , let's continue our monarchy discussion here. In the thread is better because more persons can give their opnion.

I watched your video, and disagree about Spanish monarchy be the first to be disolved, it was a very recently re-instored and the king have much power to be just removed.
And, as I said, the king of Spain use his power. Meanwhile the Queen of England, even if she has power, she prefer to don't use it, but that don't mean she don't have some powers. For example is the Queen of England, Elizabeth II, who allows Boris Johnson to start in his office, he needs a royal permision to be the prime minister.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

it was a very recently re-instored and the king have much power to be just removed.

yeah and so was Borbon line in France After Napoleon... and look at what happened to it. GONE after 3 kings!
Right now Spainish Royal line is on a hot mass and the King has to gain populer support from the people in order for him and his line to survive. He cannot go against will of Spanish people because After all they already had removed Spanish King before recently. And after crap show his father gave... yeah. ask any Spanish people who there actual leader is and chances are they won't say Felipe VI

Tell me Emperor Naruhito is actual in charge of Japan just because he "ceremonially" appoints Prime Minster.

 

[Henri Christophe]

He cannot go against will of Spanish people

I think even in Middle ages the king can't go against the will of it's people. Thomas Hobbes write about this issue in his book The Leviatan in 1651. The king need to respect it subject and draw a figure of the king as made of humans, the people who it leads.

 

[Matsuda123]

I didn't read it all, but I really don't get why it's so hard for people to accept that Middle Easterners were what mostly comprised Egypt, not "White" or Black. Mideasterners are a race, in my view. Under the greater branch of Caucasoid, but still a different racial category under the umbrella. Just like how East Indian is also another separate racial category under the umbrella of Caucasoid.

That being said, I remember reading someone saying some crazy theory that the Chinese were once Black too. It's embarrassing.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I didn't read it all, but I really don't get why it's so hard for people to accept that Middle Easterners were what mostly comprised Egypt, not "White" or Black. Mideasterners are a race, in my view. Under the greater branch of Caucasoid, but still a different racial category under the umbrella. Just like how East Indian is also another separate racial category under the umbrella of Caucasoid.

I agree with that, what I argue in the beginning of this thread is about Egyptians, who was black in ancient times, was becoming "Caucasoides" after Assyrian invasions (and so many other invasions Egypt had in it's history). Nowadays Egypt is a caucasoide country, neither white or black. But when it was founded it was a black country.

That being said, I remember reading someone saying some crazy theory that the Chinese were once Black too. It's embarrassing.

I never heard that before, can you tell me more about?
But, if all humanity come from Africa. Everyone was once Black.

 

[Patine]

@Kupe Navigator , let's continue our monarchy discussion here. In the thread is better because more persons can give their opnion.

Meanwhile the Queen of England, even if she has power, she prefer to don't use it, but that don't mean she don't have some powers. For example is the Queen of England, Elizabeth II, who allows Boris Johnson to start in his office, he needs a royal permision to be the prime minister.

Only in official pretense. In fact, the British Monarch is a powerless, ceremonial, ritualistic symbol. They MUST appoint as PM the one who commands the confidence of Parliament - they have no choice - and the PM assumes ALL powers of national executive head, and is not just ALLOWED them, to possibly be usurped later at the Monarch's pleasure. The British Monarch, MUST sign all Acts of Parliament and Orders in Council without reservation, alteration, or undue delay. This is how it is, in fact.

@Kupe Navigator , let's continue our monarchy discussion here. In the thread is better because more persons can give their opnion.

I watched your video, and disagree about Spanish monarchy be the first to be disolved, it was a very recently re-instored and the king have much power to be just removed.

The Spanish Monarch does not, since the Restoration after Franco's death, hold much more real power or authority, of their right, than the British Monarch, at all.

I think even in Middle ages the king can't go against the will of it's people. Thomas Hobbes write about this issue in his book The Leviatan in 1651. The king need to respect it subject and draw a figure of the king as made of humans, the people who it leads.

They felt no such need, as they believed their authority came as an investiture from God, and not entrusted by their people ("Divine Right of Kings"). In fact, often their common people were among the last they cared to listen to on policy.

But when it was founded it was a black country.

No it wasn't. All indications show it has always had a mixed-race population with the Middle-Eastern genetic racial demographic being solidly dominant.

 

[Henri Christophe]

For example, the monarchist countries, the king can engage a war just to saying bad words, since everyone will note what he is saying.
I still remember when the king of Spain said to Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela, to Shut up. And make an uneasy situation diplomatic between Venezuela and Spain for a time. He didn't, but if he decided to invade some country, as Venezuela. The people don't will have time to take him out before being in the middle of a war.

No it wasn't. All indications show it has always had a mixed-race population with the Middle-Eastern genetic racial demographic being solidly dominant.

About Ancient Egypt, it has a very long history, and in it's very ancient time it's called it self as KHMT, what means coal. A clear reference of it's blackness as a coal.
But I'm saying a time before the piramids being build, when the Saara isn't a desert but a florest instead, at this time the people who lived in Egypt was black. And just start to become mix race with middle easterns after it's middle ages, when starts the Assyrian invasion.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

For example, the monarchist countries, the king can engage a war just to saying bad words, since everyone will note what he is saying.
I still remember when the king of Spain said to Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela, to Shut up. And make an uneasy situation diplomatic between Venezuela and Spain for a time. He didn't, but if he decided to invade some country, as Venezuela. The people don't will have time to take him out before being in the middle of a war.

When has Elizabeth II ever declared war on a nation? Heck even falkland war was done by then PM Margaret Thatcher. Don't tell me you believe Falkland War was done by Queen Elizabeth II...

 

[Patine]

For example, the monarchist countries, the king can engage a war just to saying bad words, since everyone will note what he is saying.
I still remember when the king of Spain said to Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela, to Shut up. And make an uneasy situation diplomatic between Venezuela and Spain for a time. He didn't, but if he decided to invade some country, as Venezuela. The people don't will have time to take him out before being in the middle of a war.

That was not a declaration, or even threat of, war, but a diplomatic gesture. Spain, like the UK, must have a declaration of war declared by their PM and Parliament, and the Monarch dutifully accepts and signs it, but has absolutely no such power in their own right.

About Ancient Egypt, it has a very long history, and in it's very ancient time it's called it self as KHMT, what means coal. A clear reference of it's blackness as a coal.
But I'm saying a time before the piramids being build, when the Saara isn't a desert but a florest instead, at this time the people who lived in Egypt was black. And just start to become mix race with middle easterns after it's middle ages, when starts the Assyrian invasion.

The word, "KHMT," or, "Khemet," means, "black land," and refers to the colour of the rich, fertile soil along the Nile, as opposed to, "Deshret," the "red land," or the scorching, inhospitable deserts to the east and west. It has nothing to do with anthropological race, whatsoever. And, again, Egypt having mixed racial demographics, but dominantly Middle-Eastern, from it's earliest records is well attested for about 5500 years.

 

[Henri Christophe]

When has Elizabeth II ever declared war on a nation? Heck even falkland war was done by then PM Margaret Thatcher. Don't tell me you believe Falkland War was done by Queen Elizabeth II...

Yeah, the Falkland was an Argentinian invasion. And was Margaret Thatcher who decide to go and fight back for the islands, not the Queen Elizabeth II.
But how about the Anglo-phonic invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure the Queen Elizabeth give her allowance for countries as United Kingdom, Canada and Australia to, together with USA, invade the middle east.

I think nowadays a war is very unlikely, was a world surprise the war between Ukranian and Russia. That is the why the kings don't lead more his nations to the war, but we never knows the day of tomorrow, the monarchs can change and there will be ever a risk of a war.

That was not a declaration, or even threat of, war, but a diplomatic gesture. Spain, like the UK, must have a declaration of war declared by their PM and Parliament, and the Monarch dutifully accepts and signs it, but has absolutely no such power in their own right.

I mean, the kings behavies wisely that is why there is no war. But some day can come to power some crazy dude and he will have the power to unstabilize the global diplomatic. Just as the king of Spain said to the Venezuela president to Shut up, just think if he start to insult him, this diplomatic constrangiment can develop in a war.

There is a moviment in Republic Dominican (or Porto Rico, I'm not sure) to transform the island in a Spanish colony again, if a mad king in the power he can force it by force. I think the Spain don't do that because the lack of human power for one war. But, as I said, we never know the day of tomorrow and will be always a risk of war in a monarchy. Acctually democracy also had it's risk of wars, since Russia is a democracy and make a war against Ukraine. But I think the risk of war in a democracy is way low than in one Monarchy.

 

[Patine]

But how about the Anglo-phonic invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure the Queen Elizabeth give her allowance for countries as United Kingdom, Canada and Australia to, together with USA, invade the middle east.

No, she didn't give her, "allowance." She made no decision at all on the matter, because the choice was not hers to make, at all.

It's very clear you don't understand the difference between a Constitutional Monarchy and an Absolute or Traditional Monarchy, but view the former as actually being the latter, just delegating day-to-day powers to Prime Ministers and Parliaments on their whims and pleasure to be maganamous and believing they could reclaim those powers at any time. You also seem to believe that Constitutional Monarchs declare wars. You are VERY incorrect, and cannot seem to accept this. In most Constitutional Monarchies today, the biggest change that would happen if they declared themselves a Republic is a HUGE amount of money would be WASTED (that is, with no appreciable benefit or gain) changing official names, coats-of-arms, letterheads, wordings of statutes, money, etc., and wrangling over new Constitutional institutions which, here in Canada, for instance, would open a can of worms that would be very disruptive and chaotic. Also, contrary to popular belief, in most modern Constitutional Monarchies, maintaining the Monarchy is either a tiny token cost to taxpayers, or, sometimes, even a net surplus. That is what would MEANINGFULLY change, and nothing truly for the better, pragmatically speaking.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Yeah, the Falkland was an Argentinian invasion. And was Margaret Thatcher who decide to go and fight back for the islands, not the Queen Elizabeth II.
But how about the Anglo-phonic invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure the Queen Elizabeth give her allowance for countries as United Kingdom, Canada and Australia to, together with USA, invade the middle east.

UK like many monarch in Europe is constitutional monarchy.
That is the difference between UK and kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

And you still haven't answered who is in charge of Japan.

 

[Henri Christophe]

And you still haven't answered who is in charge of Japan.

As I understand it, the Japanese constitution is a copy paste of British constitution. There is a king and a prime minister. I think the king is the facto ruler, but I guess you will say is the Prime Minister who is the facto ruler.

That is the difference between UK and kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

And even Saudi Arabia is ruled by an absolut king, that don't mean they are at war. Our age is very unlikely to do war, but that don't mean a crazy king, even in a constitutional monarchy, haven't the power to shake the diplomacy between countries.

UK like many monarch in Europe is constitutional monarchy.

The only absolut monarchy in Europe is the Vatican, but since it's a very small state anyone is worry about.

In most Constitutional Monarchies today, the biggest change that would happen if they declared themselves a Republic is a HUGE amount of money would be WASTED (that is, with no appreciable benefit or gain) changing official names, coats-of-arms, letterheads, wordings of statutes, money, etc., and wrangling over new Constitutional institutions which, here in Canada, for instance, would open a can of worms that would be very disruptive and chaotic. Also, contrary to popular belief, in most modern Constitutional Monarchies, maintaining the Monarchy is either a tiny token cost to taxpayers, or, sometimes, even a net surplus. That is what would MEANINGFULLY change, and nothing truly for the better, pragmatically speaking.

So you are confortable with the fact the Canada is a monarchy lead by Elizabeth II and don't want to change it?
I'm not sure how tiny token is to these countries to give a luxous life to the monarchy, I still think a Republic should give less expenses then a Monarchy, of course the President have it's salary. But I guess the "salary" of a king it is way more high.
And about change the seals, flags, coins and etc... That can be a mess once, for while, but after it should be even better.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

As I understand it, the Japanese constitution is a copy paste of British constitution. There is a king and a prime minister. I think the king is the facto ruler, but I guess you will say is the Prime Minister who is the facto ruler.

Lolz you silly little brat.
Emperor of Japan has VERY LITTLE power.

In fact they haven't been in power since ancient times. Most of time the power was held by Shogunate.
Like Tokugawa for example. And now PM holds all political power

 

[Plotinus]

The Queen does in fact have a fair bit of genuine power. She can and does influence the law-making process for her own benefit using the mechanism known as Queen's Consent (this is distinct from the Royal Assent by which she formally approves all legislation). For example, her personal estates (not those belonging to the Crown, but her own personal ones) are exempt from environmental protections that apply to all other private estates, because she used Queen's Consent to interfere with the law covering this matter. She's also personally exempt from having to abide by anti-discrimination laws with regard to her employees, and is exempt from many taxes. See here for more details. Effectively, the Queen is, legally speaking, two people - one public and one private - and she uses the powers of her public persona to obtain benefits for her private one.

This is why, although the UK is in theory a constitutional monarchy, in practice it isn't quite, because the Queen retains unique powers and privileges, though they are largely exercised behind the scenes and mostly for her personal benefit rather than with any wider significance.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Lolz you silly little brat.
Emperor of Japan has VERY LITTLE power.

In fact they haven't been in power since ancient times. Most of time the power was held by Shogunate.
Like Tokugawa for example. And now PM holds all political power

If I well remember, after the Meiji restoration the Japanese emperor had some power. In fact in the time of Shogunate he is just a figure head, but during the WWII he was the one who is leading everyone. And the WWII just over when the Japanese emperor at the time make a comunication via Radio to it's own people. Happens after the atomic bombs (and because the atomic bombs). But was a time when the emperor in Japan had too much power, and I saw in your videos the USA, in the end of WWII, forced Japan to change it's constitution to give less power to the Emperor, as it is today.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

If I well remember, after the Meiji restoration the Japanese emperor had some power. In fact in the time of Shogunate he is just a figure head, but during the WWII he was the one who is leading everyone.

LOLZ no he wasn't. Emperor Meiji wasn't interested in politics and yes things were done "in his name" BUT the Japanese government was just using his name to justify their action to Japanese people. and during WWII Japan was basically under military dictatorship.

 

[Henri Christophe]

LOLZ no he wasn't. Emperor Meiji wasn't interested in politics and yes things were done "in his name" BUT the Japanese government was just using his name to justify their action to Japanese people. and during WWII Japan was basically under military dictatorship.

Millitar Dictatorship? I didn't know that, of course I'm not an expert in Japanese history, but I still thinking during the WWII Japan was strongly lead by it's emperor. And they even find a chinese Emperor to rule Manchuria to they, if the Axis won the war, maybe we still have a chinese monarchy because of that.

 

[Evie]

Plotinus - with the caveat that Queen's Consent/Royal Consent is strictly a matter of parliamentary procedure, which is only permitted to exist at parliament's sufferance and could be ended by simple resolution, without actual legislative change.

Essentially, it's less a protected power and more a courtesy that parliament choses to grant the sovereign. Historically to avoid royal assent being denied, back when that was a serious threat, these days largely out of custom.