Time to get rid of the Monarchy?

[Takhisis]

OK, but meanwhile, about the monarchy…

 

[Uncle Paul]

In what way did they try and work with the British government? The British government was insisting on majority rule before independence; a completely reasonable requirement given other Dominions such as Canada and Australia had majority rule. Further, as the colonial power the British government was within its right to determine under what circumstances the Rhodesian government would receive independence. Instead, the Rhodesian government entered into a state of rebellion recognized by no other government. Indeed, on many occasions Rhodesian soldiers opened fire on troops belonging to states that recognized Betty Windsor as Head of the Commonwealth.
Further, there is strong evidence to suggest the Rhodesian government conspired to try and destabilize and bring down the elected British government.

The Mau Mau rebels attacked British people with weapons and killed them. The Rhodesians declared UDI, but didn't attack Britain. Ian Smith met with British leaders multiple times, hoping to work for a solution.

So basically there's people whom it's right to kill and people whom it's wrong to kill.

Y'know, contemporarily in those very same '60s the British Army was massacring Catholics in Ireland.

Mau Mau rebels attacked British people. Rhodesian rebels did not.

You believe in God, but you don't believe in God? Right.

The Islamic conception of God is false.

They british couldn't do that in South Rhodesia even if they wanted it. They lacked the access, not just the military power. Lacking the power to continue to subdue the whole empire, they had already been foighting wars only to let go of Malasya, Kenya, then got humiliated in Egypt... all more important economically and strategically,all easier to gold on to.
It was an easy choice to just cut it off. It was kind of surprising that the UK, even bothered for so long with hampering the new government in Rhodesia.

South Africa was after WW2 very much under the control of controlled of the dutch descendants, who while remaining members of the Commonwealth effectively rebelled against the UK when it became clear thay the Empire was being dismantled (taken over) with active american involvement. Which the UK could not counter. The Al-Saud deal starting the replacement of british hegemony in the Middle East with the americans, the US refusal to transfer weapons to european militaries for attempts at reconquering the former asian colonies (the US rather dumped them at sea), the mutinies of both the indian "native" troops and the english conscripts putting an end to any dreams in London of continuing with the Raj... that the british did fought some colonial wars didn't stem the tide of change - the Empire was crumbling.

These dutch descendants were supremacists who always resented british control after the UK conquered and annexed their states, and as soon as the saw the British Empire in its death throes took over power and pushed away british influence in South Africa as far as they could. They had wanted to do an enthic cleansing to consolidate their power in South Africa and the british prevented that, which they never forgave. When they took back control of the former colony they couldn't (not in the wake of WW2 at least) go fully genocidal on the other people within it, but they could and did "reduce the english threat" in the area. South Rhodesia declaring its independence unilaterally was only possible because South Africa supported it against the rump British Empire. The portuguese were not any more sympathetic to the new british strategy of moving to neocolonial economic control. Tanzania was the only non-hostile access the british could retain, and it barely allowed them to guide things in North Rhodesia.

A big part of the reason I dislike the US is because it played a role in stripping Europeans of their empires.

For the record, I do know why the Brits treated Kenya and Rhodesia differently. I was trying to get him to figure out why.

Several reasons
1. Rhodesia didn't take up arms against Britain. Kenya/Mau Mau did.
2. Rhodesians and British were kin. Kenyans and British were not. Killing "kith and kin" in Rhodesia was very unpopular with the British public.

 

[Takhisis]

So… if the British were neither kith nor kin with the Kenyans, why were they in Kenya in the first place?

 

[Uncle Paul]

So… if the British were neither kith nor kin with the Kenyans, why were they in Kenya in the first place?

Building their empire.

 

[really]

Yeah, you posted earlier about moving to Ireland... I don't think you'd like it here... the gays have equal rights now and women can get abortions and immigrants from outside the EU are more or less equal.
I was at probably one of the whitest things you can do in rural Ireland earlier today - a camogie (hurling for girls) blitz for eight year olds- and god help us there were some black girls playing against my daughter.

This is hurling (for men, camogie is for women) for those who aren't familiar:

 

[Takhisis]

Building their empire.

…

 

[Gorbles]

The Islamic conception of God is false.

So's the Christian one. You're welcome!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Brahman is the one and only true god; all the rest are cheap imitations!

 

[Broken_Erika]

Brahman is the one and only true god; all the rest are cheap imitations!

 

[Uncle Paul]

Yeah, you posted earlier about moving to Ireland... I don't think you'd like it here... the gays have equal rights now and women can get abortions and immigrants from outside the EU are more or less equal.
I was at probably one of the whitest things you can do in rural Ireland earlier today - a camogie (hurling for girls) blitz for eight year olds- and god help us there were some black girls playing against my daughter.

If I moved to Europe, it would be Ireland or the UK, the Netherlands or Belgium would be unlikely, any other place would be completely impossible for me linguistically. I am completely fine with LGB equality.

This is hurling (for men, camogie is for women) for those who aren't familiar:

Will the Gastarbeiter stay in Ireland long term, though?

 

[amadeus]

On the Rhodesia question, there are differences that I think haven’t yet been pointed out but also I have no clue why I’m talking about it here other than their republican constitution in 1970.

Now, the British electorate would never approve of an invasion of Rhodesia and certainly not in support of African nationalists who detested their influence. Nor necessarily was there good reason for Britain at this time to throw stones—they still had a naval base at Simonstown in much more rigidly-governed South Africa and had a mutual defense treaty with them that would not be terminated until 1975.

 

[Takhisis]

If I moved to Europe, it would be Ireland or the UK, the Netherlands or Belgium would be unlikely, any other place would be completely impossible for me linguistically. I am completely fine with LGB equality.

You're missing the T again.
Also, for all the vaunted superiority of the Boer übermensch, you seem to prefer people who don't speak Dutch, and also you seem to be incapable of learning other peoples' languages.

But anyway, how does this have to do with whether the Monarchy™ makes everything superior? You mention Ireland, which is a country that has built its identity, over its last nine centuries, on the basis of rejecting said monarchy.

Will the Gastarbeiter stay in Ireland long term, though?

You appear to be saying that these dark-skinned people of African descent aren't really Irish.

How does the fact that a British royal has been breeding with dark-skinned people of African descent make you feel?

 

[Ajidica]

The Mau Mau rebels attacked British people with weapons and killed them.

I'm still not seeing why the appropriate response were concentration camps and atrocities even Enoch Powell condemned.
Moving to another colonial war, would the appropriate response in Northern Ireland to IRA attacks on British nationals to round up those who identified as Irish and put them in camps?

The Rhodesians declared UDI, but didn't attack Britain. Ian Smith met with British leaders multiple times, hoping to work for a solution.

Responding to the position of the British government that there must be majority rule before independence with "How about I don't" is not working for a solution. At least, no more so than Robert Mugabe was "hoping to work for a solution" on land reform.

 

[Kyriakos]

What if Britain went the spartan way and changed from monarchy to dual monarchy dyarchy? Andrew could reign at home, while Charles III can be the war-king.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What if Britain went the spartan way and changed from monarchy to dual monarchy? Andrew could reign at home, while Charles III can be the war-king.

Why should Andrew have anything to do with it? He's slid down the line of succession past his great-nephews and niece.

 

[Kyriakos]

I am not sure that Sparta ever had dual kings who were father and son, is all

 

[Uncle Paul]

On the Rhodesia question, there are differences that I think haven’t yet been pointed out but also I have no clue why I’m talking about it here other than their republican constitution in 1970.

Now, the British electorate would never approve of an invasion of Rhodesia and certainly not in support of African nationalists who detested their influence. Nor necessarily was there good reason for Britain at this time to throw stones—they still had a naval base at Simonstown in much more rigidly-governed South Africa and had a mutual defense treaty with them that would not be terminated until 1975.

And why should Britain have come to the aid of African nationalists (who were anti-British) at the expense of their own kinfolk in Rhodesia?

You're missing the T again.
Also, for all the vaunted superiority of the Boer übermensch, you seem to prefer people who don't speak Dutch, and also you seem to be incapable of learning other peoples' languages.

Afrikaans is not the same thing as Dutch. If it is, then Italian and Spanish are the same thing, too.

But anyway, how does this have to do with whether the Monarchy™ makes everything superior? You mention Ireland, which is a country that has built its identity, over its last nine centuries, on the basis of rejecting said monarchy.

They almost put a German prince on their throne when they became independent.

You appear to be saying that these dark-skinned people of African descent aren't really Irish.

Where on their family tree are their Irish ancestors?

How does the fact that a British royal has been breeding with dark-skinned people of African descent make you feel?

Once again, I don't care if other people wish to marry outside of their own ethnic group, I simply do not wish to do so myself.

I'm still not seeing why the appropriate response were concentration camps and atrocities even Enoch Powell condemned.
Moving to another colonial war, would the appropriate response in Northern Ireland to IRA attacks on British nationals to round up those who identified as Irish and put them in camps?

No, that's the kind of thing that happens in a far-off colony, not something that happens in an EU member state.

Responding to the position of the British government that there must be majority rule before independence with "How about I don't" is not working for a solution. At least, no more so than Robert Mugabe was "hoping to work for a solution" on land reform.

Ian Smith realized that majority rule meant one man, one vote, one time, and that Mugabe, once in power, would stay there as long as he could, not allow fair elections, etc...

It's worth noting that Ian Smith fought against the Nazis in WWII, losing an eye in the process. Meanwhile, Mugabe proudly called himself the African Hitler.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I am not sure that Sparta ever had dual kings who were father and son, is all

It would probably be a better way of doing it than the Spartan way. From what I remember conflict between the 2 kings was common.
Sometimes the best example the Greeks can give us is how not to do something.

 

[Kyriakos]

If only this was the general understanding in the past; you'd still be in the forests with druids and have no need of a king



Btw, I think the thread should continue, no need to turn a 1-issue thread into a serial.

 

[amadeus]

And why should Britain have come to the aid of African nationalists (who were anti-British) at the expense of their own kinfolk in Rhodesia?

Is that what I said?