Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

[Declaration of War] Dispute goes international

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Forum Administrators

Until now I've not mentioned this because it was just an internal matter amongst people many of you non-Brits would likely never have heard of.

Even when Oprah got involved there was at least some pretence of journalistic neutrality. But the following, IMHO shows a real fault line in popular culture.

Ev7kWP3XEAIZtY8?format=jpg&name=large

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Meghan is such a drama. Everyone seems to be victimizing her, from her father to royal family to the tabloids and public in general. I wonder how long before Harry has a mental breakdown. 

Kate didn't have it easy either in the beginning ('Waity Katie',Marilyn Monroe moments to name a couple) but she proved more smarter and resilient in handling this than the 'strong and independent' Meghan. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

When I hear anything about the royal family, I just wonder 'Why is there still a royal family' ? 

A family that is 'entitled' to millions and millions of the taxes that regular British people work hard to pay. And in exchange, what service do they provide ? The Queen driving around in a Rolls Royce waving to people, and then these Royal scandals which, seems to me, are only a mechanism for the British media to increase their ratings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2021 at 10:46 AM, starlight said:

 

Meghan is such a drama. Everyone seems to be victimizing her, from her father to royal family to the tabloids and public in general. I wonder how long before Harry has a mental breakdown. 

Kate didn't h

 

I’m not one to usually agree with you, but on this, I 100% agree with you. 
 

Meghan Markle has always been a social climber. I knew she was fake the moment she said in an interview, after being introduced to Prince Harry, “Is he nice?” followed by a fake laugh. She has no problem dumping longtime friends, family, and even boyfriends when a shiny new toy and opportunity comes along. Her friends and family have described her as being obsessed with the Royals and has showed that she lies and is often inconsistent with her story. First, she claimed that she didn’t even know who Harry was, when she was pictured at Buckingham Palace with a friend as a teen. She had books on Princess Diana according to friends. She abandoned her own father after she got a low-grade acting gig on “Suits”. It’s pretty telling when her own father goes on TV to say that she’s a total diva and that Harry shouldn’t marry her, and when he did, that Megan was throwing royalty away, every girl’s dream, to be an actress again.

There were a lot of inconsistencies in her story as well. She claimed that she wasn’t taught how to be a Royal, when her high staff turn-over would suggest otherwise. There were coaches who had been working in the family for years who quit because Meghan was always a diva. The embellishments are ridiculous. 
 

This D-List actress only wanted fame, money, and attention. And the nerve of her comparing herself to Princess Diana! Diana was a 19 year old virgin thrown to the wolves and it was well known that she was treated poorly by the Royals. Meghan is a twice divorced, 40 year old woman. She’s an actress, she’s not some naive girl. She’s an embarrassment. She thought she could marry into the family, bark orders, and think she could get her way. When she realized things wouldn’t go her way, she started a smear campaign using all the buzzwords like “racism” and “kate is evil”, to garner attention. She refused to adapt to Royal standards, and has always been causing a fuss about something. Unlike Kate, who despite the tabloids, tried to win over the British press and public by towing the line and is now well-loved. Meghan knew exactly what she was getting into.

The people defending Meghan are either really dull, only tuning in for the drama without any prior knowledge on royal protocol, or just as bad as her. 

Edited by Caroling
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
On 3/8/2021 at 7:46 PM, Abu Hadi said:

A family that is 'entitled' to millions and millions of the taxes that regular British people work hard to pay.

I think the need to have someone lord it over you is ingrained in the human DNA. Societies can (and should) get rid of royalty, but it's possible for something else to take over. I think the celebrity of culture is one such example. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So only two people on my social media actively defended her. They are drama queens and always playing victim in real life—nothing is EVER their fault, and like Meghan, never would admit to contributing a mess in their own lives. :hahaha: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
On 3/8/2021 at 6:46 PM, starlight said:

Everyone seems to be victimizing her, from her father

 

Well there seem to be some grounds for that particular belief:

 

Quote

In January 2020, it was revealed that The Mail on Sunday could possibly use evidence provided by Markle against his own daughter in an ongoing legal battle between the paper and the Duchess. The Daily Mail also named him as a potential witness who could testify against Meghan in court.[38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Markle

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
On 3/9/2021 at 1:59 AM, AbdusSibtayn said:

Such a clickbait title...

Yes, but true nonetheless.

On its own the interview has knocked several percentage points off Royalty's popularity amongst the British public and likely more internationally. They are an important element in the UKs socio-political fabric and in the country's international relations - especially with Middle Eastern despots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Haji 2003 said:

Yes, but true nonetheless.

On its own the interview has knocked several percentage points off Royalty's popularity amongst the British public and likely more internationally. They are an important element in the UKs socio-political fabric and in the country's international relations - especially with Middle Eastern despots.

Wallahu'l Azeem, I couldn't be more pleased!

Old colonialist conservatism with its notions of racial chauvinism, and liberal identity politics locking horns- both being the two wings of the same taghuti imperialism of kufr! What could be more entertaining!?

Coke and Popcorn time!:discussion:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
9 hours ago, Reza said:

Hasn’t Meghan disowned her own family and friends from the past? 

We know what Islamic narrations say about that. 

 

True. But:

 

1 hour ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Old colonialist conservatism with its notions of racial chauvinism, and liberal identity politics locking horns-

 

This was the conflict I had in mind - it's a new faultline and the more recent ones were Trump related.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
6 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Old colonialist conservatism with its notions of racial chauvinism,

l remembered this last night and use this as a counter-argument about historical-racist-attitudes in the US and UK.

1] in the 1960's, there was George Rockwell and the American Nazi Party, which was on TV news a lot, especially after he was murdered in a parking lot. When the files on the ANP were declassified in the 90's, it was from the beginning an FBl operation that never had any members but the 6-or-8 originals: Rockwell under contract, two FBl agents, two contract informants and a contracted, certified moron who liked to stand around in/wear uniforms. The reason he -the uniform guy- was there is because FBl recruiting efforts to do this operation were blatantly refused by all other approaches and the uniform guy was promised FBl protection from attacks on his person or property.

2] According to Wikipedia, this 'new' Nazi garbage was started by one of of these original ANPs. :shifty:"l wonder who is running this behind the scenes now."

3] Years ago, Prince Harry went to a costume event -maybe it was Hallow'een- dressed as a Nazi. The public backlash and the anger he provoked within his family was legendary. As l remember, Harry had to answer to his father and brother William -in private.

So any blanket accusations as are bandied about are misleading hype, lMH0. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, hasanhh said:

l remembered this last night and use this as a counter-argument about historical-racist-attitudes in the US and UK.

1] in the 1960's, there was George Rockwell and the American Nazi Party, which was on TV news a lot, especially after he was murdered in a parking lot. When the files on the ANP were declassified in the 90's, it was from the beginning an FBl operation that never had any members but the 6-or-8 originals: Rockwell under contract, two FBl agents, two contract informants and a contracted, certified moron who liked to stand around in/wear uniforms. The reason he -the uniform guy- was there is because FBl recruiting efforts to do this operation were blatantly refused by all other approaches and the uniform guy was promised FBl protection from attacks on his person or property.

2] According to Wikipedia, this 'new' Nazi garbage was started by one of of these original ANPs. :shifty:"l wonder who is running this behind the scenes now."

3] Years ago, Prince Harry went to a costume event -maybe it was Hallow'een- dressed as a Nazi. The public backlash and the anger he provoked within his family was legendary. As l remember, Harry had to answer to his father and brother William -in private.

So any blanket accusations as are bandied about are misleading hype, lMH0. 

Nazism is not the only manifestation of white racial supremacy. The idea dates back to the Renaissance, and more definitively,to the Enlightenment philosophes such as Hume themselves. Colonial powers - the intelligentsia and the aristocracy- were deploying this rationale long before Nazism- which instead of being an elite movement was a patently blue-collar movement of the lumpenized German plebeians- was even heard of.

In fact, it hardly needs retelling how much of European scientific thought from the 18th century onwards was fixated with the issue of race, and fields like phrenology and eugenics were regarded as legitimate sciences.

So the issue is of generic proportions to an extent. This is not to say that the British citizens as a whole were racist bigots, but this was (and in a subtly tweaked way, still is) the rationale given by the Western Orientalist intelligentsia to legitimize their imperium (ruling classes propagate their ideas- the Umayyads and Abbasids being examples from closer home), and it had passed into popular culture.

Edited by AbdusSibtayn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
On 3/10/2021 at 1:57 AM, Haji 2003 said:

I think the need to have someone lord it over you is ingrained in the human DNA. Societies can (and should) get rid of royalty, but it's possible for something else to take over. I think the celebrity of culture is one such example. 

Royalty is a relic from the days when just moving from town to town was difficult and took a long time and there was no mass communication or media, as we know it today, and most people were illiterate. The only way for people to know 'Who was in charge' was to look at someone's lineage, because there was no way to really get to know how someone is, apart from how they presented themselves in person, and how qualified they were for leadership. 

Although the royal family are not 'technically' leaders of anything, anymore (Britain has a parliamentary system, not a monarchy as a form of government), people still look to them for leadership. They are still influential in the fact that they are imitated by the people. As you pointed out, celebrities fulfill this role in other societies. 

What should take over at some point is aql. Being born, or being born into a certain family, in and of itself, is not an achievement. We didn't choose our parents, or which country we were born in. Everyone is born in some place to some parents. That is why the Imam of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)), although they were born into a certain lineage, if you study their lives and their achievements, knowledge, behavior, etc, they stand on their own as individuals worthy of Leadership, admiration, and respect, apart from their lineage, which is also noble. Also, they lived very simple lives, so they consumed very few resources and in exchange gave back an incalculable amount to the society from their guidance and knowledge. 

If you contrast this with the Royal Family in Britain, they consume huge amounts of resources in terms of taxpayer dollars. What do they give back to the society ? A few waves of the hand in ceremonies and once in a while a family drama that hits the tabloids ? I don't consider that to be worthy of the resources they are given by individuals in Britain who work hard for these resources.  

What do you call something that takes and takes, and doesn't give back ? It's called a parasite. That is what the Royal Family is, IMHO. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 3/10/2021 at 1:22 AM, Caroling said:

Diana was a 19 year old virgin thrown to the wolves

Not so. l remember the talk that D was a conniver. She maneuvered into dating C and then did this "cry baby"/"l'm hurt" routine in front of one of the Queen's personal friends. Then according to the social columns, the Queen arm-twisted C into marrying her. A marr-ing in the making, lMH0. Remember when at the announcement when asked if he was "in love" C answered (something like) "Whatever that is." ?  So when everybody in the family got up at 4am in the early morning to watch the wedding on TV, at the end of it l said "She is going to be trouble."  Of course everybody said l was crazy -and 'yelling' it too. Sure enough, on their honeymoon, she was throwing these fits in public about his hunting and birding --at Balmorough l believe they went. And that was only the start of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Nazism is not the only manifestation of white racial ethnic/religious supremacy.

The idea dates back to the Renaissance, and more definitively,to the Enlightenment philosophes such as Hume themselves. ???

Colonial powers - the intelligentsia and the aristocracy- were deploying this rationale long before Nazism- which instead of being an elite movement was a patently blue-collar movement of the lumpenized German plebeians- was even heard of. Colonizing Greeks were the same in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions.

In fact, it hardly needs retelling how much of European scientific thought from the 18th late  19th century onwards was fixated with the issue of race, and fields like phrenology and eugenics were regarded as legitimate sciences. (For an intro start point, read on craniology and how this developed into race questions about why English and Germans were so technologically superior. You will 'soon' see the same in China.)

So the issue is of generic proportions to an extent. This is not to say that the British citizens as a whole were racist bigots( correct, but this was an outgrowth of their class and 'in your place' social structure ),

...but this was (and in a subtly tweaked way, still is) the rationale given by the Western Orientalist intelligentsia to legitimize explain their imperium (ruling classes propagate their ideas...

- the Umayyads and Abbasids being examples from closer home), and it had passed into popular culture. ???

Comments and corrections in bold face or italics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasanhh said:

"She is going to be trouble."  Of course everybody said l was crazy -and 'yelling' it too. Sure enough, on their honeymoon, she was throwing these fits in public about his hunting and birding --at Balmorough l believe they went. And that was only the start of it.

Wasn’t Diana’s fits of rage because Charles was wearing a bracelet that Camilla gave him? That he was cheating on her? Most of their arguments were because he was cheating on Diana with Camilla and always compared her to his mistress. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

[Edit]The English Army attacked Karbala under the command of the Queen [edit] in  2001. 

@AbalFadhl please don't post such personalised attacks in the future. You may get suspended, have your posts put on preview or permanently banned. @Haji 2003

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Caroling said:

Wasn’t Diana’s fits of rage because Charles was wearing a bracelet that Camilla gave him? That he was cheating on her? Most of their arguments were because he was cheating on Diana with Camilla and always compared her to his mistress. 

That came later, but C did call Cam on his wedding night.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, AbalFadhl said:

[Edit]The English Army attacked Karbala under the command of the Queen [Edit] in  2001. 

The PM makes those choices in the UK.

Edited by Hameedeh
[Edits] in the quote.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Nazism is not the only manifestation of white racial ethnic/religious supremacy.

Factually incorrect. There's a very clear cut difference between the two which is being obfuscated here. How closely the notions of race were intertwined with the colonial project is a truism in academia now,spanning different fields of study. 

 

13 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Colonizing Greeks were the same in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions.

Doesn't take away from my point. Plus, the Greek justification for their imperium was "cultural" more than racial- Ionians, Macedonians and later Egyptians who acculturated into the Hellenistic world were accepted as equals and even admitted to the ruling class. Equality of a colonial subject with the master race in modern colonialism was unthinkable. Also, equating Greek imperialism with Nazism is grossly ahistorical.

13 hours ago, hasanhh said:

late  19th

13 hours ago, hasanhh said:

???

Read his works if you get the chance. Just for disambiguation, I'm referring to Hume the empiricist philosopher here.

 

13 hours ago, hasanhh said:

( correct, but this was an outgrowth of their class and 'in your place' social structure ),

And what end did that serve? Push it a little bit more and we'll be there.

13 hours ago, hasanhh said:

explain

explantion=means, legitimacy= end.

13 hours ago, hasanhh said:

late  19th century

You'd be surprised to learn how early the origins of the notion of racial superiority and phrenological sciences were in early modern Europe. Literally tons of studies by postcolonial theorists substantiating this exist, but suffice it to refer to the textbook "Early Modern Europe" by Merry E. Weisner-Hanks here.

13 hours ago, hasanhh said:

the Umayyads and Abbasids being examples from closer home), and it had passed into popular culture. ???

They had their own 'ulama' who did their bidding (Jurists like ash-Shurayh and al-Zuhri under the Umayyads, Mu'tazilis under al-Ma'mun, and Hanbalis under al-Mutawakkil.) "Closer home" =>examples more familiar and more readily intelligible to a Muslim audience.

Comments have been responded to. The "corrections" have identified as misimpressions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
14 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

The "corrections" have identified as misimpressions.

The politically correct history taught now is not the same as fifty years ago.

l also never had much use for philosophy with its platitudes and pontifications. And l never liked Hume when l did have to read him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, hasanhh said:

The politically correct history taught now is not the same as fifty years ago.

l also never had much use for philosophy with its platitudes and pontifications. And l never liked Hume when l did have to read him.

I don't see anything particularly politically correct in admitting that racism was an indispensable ideological component in the making of modern colonialism, and that the same ideas that went into the making of imperialist ideology of the early-modern European powers had also a crucial role to play in the transition of the British monarchy's image from  "The King/Queen of Great Britain" in the 17th century to the "Queen Empress/King Emperor of the British Empire" in the mid-18th century. For some, that "politically correct" historiography is an acknowledgement of historic wrongs.

Nor is it just motivated by political correctness. It is based on hard evidence. There's a lot more evidence that has come to light than there was 50 years ago. You are not to blame for this.

Of course, Hume is unlikeable on many accounts. I only cited him as a typical example of an Enlightenment philosophe in this specific context. By no means sympathetic to him either, be it him as a person or with regards to my own worldview/epistemology.

Edited by AbdusSibtayn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

I don't see anything particularly politically correct in admitting that racism was an indispensable ideological component in the making of modern colonialism,

Ain't never heard how this started with the Spice Trade or The Northwest Passage (to East Asia) or GOLD or the Fountain of Youth?

56 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

"Queen Empress/King Emperor of the British Empire"

It's 'The Empress of India', which is a title created out of thin air by Parliament for Queen Victoria.

56 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

For some, that "politically correct" historiography is an acknowledgement of historic wrongs.

0kay, then Vote YES here -->___ , and l can be Emperor of the Moon (hadith not withstanding).

56 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Hume is unlikeable on many accounts. I only cited him as a typical example

Hume influenced Kant, but as a Skeptic he has had only a footnote's worth of actual influence. Especially, when compared to Descartes, Francis Bacon, Johanne von Goethe, and others.

Edited by hasanhh
spelin'
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 3/11/2021 at 10:44 PM, Abu Hadi said:

What should take over at some point is aql. Being born, or being born into a certain family, in and of itself, is not an achievement. We didn't choose our parents, or which country we were born in. Everyone is born in some place to some parents. That is why the Imam of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)), although they were born into a certain lineage, if you study their lives and their achievements, knowledge, behavior, etc, they stand on their own as individuals worthy of Leadership, admiration, and respect, apart from their lineage, which is also noble. Also, they lived very simple lives, so they consumed very few resources and in exchange gave back an incalculable amount to the society from their guidance and knowledge.

This.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Ain't never heard how this started with the Spice Trade or The Northwest Passage (to East Asia) or GOLD or the Fountain of Youth?

Kindly read my reply once again. I am talking specifically about the ideological contents of the colonial enterprise, and racism as a component of it, not the material motives that worked behind it. Racism is an effect, and not a cause, of colonialism.

 

28 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

It's 'The Empress of India', which is a title created out of thin air by Parliament for Queen Victoria.

The title itself was officialized with the Delhi Durbar in 1858, but the idea of a British Empire spanning both the New and Old Worlds, where as per the official dictum "the sun never set" and the British Monarch as Emperor precedes it by almost a century. Even if one looks at the Charters (and the later Regulating Acts passed by the British Parliament, including even those before Pitts India Act) of the British East India Company, the Company is said to have held it's Indian possessions "in trust of His Majesty".

And I am not able to understand what exactly is being implied by "thin air" here- do you mean to say there was no material basis for the claim in the form of actual territorial possessions?

28 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

0kay, then Vote YES here -->___ , and l can be Emperor of the Moon (hadith not withstanding).

???

28 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Hume influenced Kant, but as a Skeptic he has had only a footnote's worth of actual influence. Especially, when compared to Descartes, Francis Bacon, Johanne von Goethe, and others.

Hume was not the only one. 

And what if I tell you that most (if not all) the Enlightenment philosophes subscribed to racial supremacist ideas, and Europe's "civilizing mission" in the colonies? Of course, I am not blaming then for it, nor am I dismissing the Enlightenment itself- to them these ideas were perfectly natural and scientific, but we digress here.

Here's a couple of studies-

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3300119?seq=1

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-7544-6_4

Edited by AbdusSibtayn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

I am talking specifically about the ideological contents of the colonial enterprise

lf anything similar to this existed, it was nationalism which -as we think of that- began in the Napoleonic Era. 

 

4 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Racism is an effect, and not a cause, of colonialism.

No, as we had in school ... as l now remember, expressed and explained in Bronowski's Ascent of Man...and as l noted above, racism as we think of this began in the second half of the 19th Century.

7 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

And I am not able to understand what exactly is being implied by "thin air" here-

As l remember offhand, the book The lnvention of Tradition, the title was contrived by the British Parliament.

9 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

???

There is hadith that says you cannot have the titles "shah" or "shahnshah" (king or king of kings/emperor).

11 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

the Enlightenment philosophes subscribed to racial supremacist ideas,

l read a list of prominent Enlightenment philosophers to get up-to-speed to answer the question above. l am not aware of any "racial" comments by any of them. They were mostly interested in the rights of Man, gov't, a few for education. Not 'who' is a better person because of birth(which is aristocratic in nature).

11 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

and Europe's "civilizing mission" in the colonies?

The "White Man's Burden" started l believe in the 1890s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...