Queen Elizabeth

[ex-khobar Andy]

I think the difference between the Queen and Modi is that she progressed in her views during her lifetime - or at least her publicly expressed views - while Modi has not and has dragged multicultural India down with him. I have both Hindu and Moslem Indian friends who have expressed something like the same opinion. And 20 years ago I had plenty of Christian Indian friends (many Keralese, south west India, are Christian) who long before the rise of Modi, were uneasy about the rise of Hindu nationalism.

[Big RR]

I don't know, it's pretty much the same government and royal lineage that benefited from the exploitation of the country; not that it's entirely fair, but when you have a monarch who is, at best, a symbol of the nation, it would be surprising if the monarchy didn't bring that exploitation to mind.

And yes, India has made a lot of mistakes in its self-governance (what country hasn't) but, paraphrasing Ghndi, people will always prefer a bad government of their own making than even a great one thrust upon them from the outside--and the British occupiers from great governors.

[MajGenl.Meade]

But there are 1.38 billion people in India, many who are quite decent people . . .

Oh, I'd guess at least a million. Maybe 2 million? (Don't get mad - only jesting)

(a) yes but to whom should it be "returned"? Wiki she say (quite accurately): "The governments of India, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan have all claimed ownership of the Koh-i-Noor and demanded its return ever since India gained independence from the UK in 1947. The British government insists the gem was obtained legally under the terms of the Last Treaty of Lahore and has rejected the claims"

(2) Despite popular incomprehension (and contemporary pretensions), the monarch of 1849 was not responsible for imperial rule in India - in fact, the British government was barely (and reluctantly) involved. It was the British East India Company that annexed the Punjab. But perhaps that's only to say it was an example of plausible deniability.

Really, one cannot both have one's cake and eat it. Either the monarchy is a useless, outdated, powerless and empty irrelevance or it is a responsible political entity with meaningful authority. An "apology" from the first is so much wind. Anyway, a monarch does not apologize, though she or he may express regret.

I'm thoroughly in favor of Joe Biden apologizing for Hawaii - a long wait is expected

[BoSoxGal]

I'm thoroughly in favor of Joe Biden apologizing for Hawaii - a long wait is expected

President Clinton and the 103rd Congress provided that apology in 1993. Do keep up.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm thoroughly in favor of Joe Biden apologizing for Hawaii - a long wait is expected

President Clinton and the 103rd Congress provided that apology in 1993. Do keep up.

I missed the Ken Burns documentary. Hasty thought on my part there. Thank you.

How about the Philippines? Cuba? Chile? Probably there's one or two pending. I think Pres. Biden should send out former Pres. Obama on another apology tour. High time, indeed!

[Big RR]

So if I am getting your point correctly, regardless of what has been done in the past, there should never be any apologies, just let bygones be bygones and go forward? I don't see why; apologies are often the only attempt at remediation any of us ever get.

[MajGenl.Meade]

So if I am getting your point correctly, regardless of what has been done in the past, there should never be any apologies, just let bygones be bygones and go forward? I don't see why; apologies are often the only attempt at remediation any of us ever get.

No, you are not. Apologies, like charity, should begin at home and end abroad. We USians, given the non-existent outpouring of Presidential apologies for the Philippines, Cuba, Chile and so on, should perhaps not be throwing stones elsewhere.

[Bicycle Bill]

So if I am getting your point correctly, regardless of what has been done in the past, there should never be any apologies, just let bygones be bygones and go forward? I don't see why; apologies are often the only attempt at remediation any of us ever get.

No, you are not. Apologies, like charity, should begin at home and end abroad. We USians, given the non-existent outpouring of Presidential apologies for the Philippines, Cuba, Chile and so on, should perhaps not be throwing stones elsewhere.

Not to mention that we, as USians (?), would get pretty damn pissed off if the UK were to try to dictate policy to our government, such as apologize for the Indian Wars of the 1800s (or even just a single event, such as the Trail of Tears or the Massacre at Wounded Knee), or the treatment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.   So where do we get off telling someone else what to do, like apologize for British colonialism or return (the official term is 'repatriate') some of the allegedly looted Egyptian artifacts, Roman reliefs, or Greek sculptures that are now found in the British Museum?

And BTW, I saw elsewhere that, with the death of Elizabeth and on the heels of India's demand to return the Koh-i-Noor, South Africa now wants the UK to give the Cullinan diamond (a/k/a The Star of Africa) back to them as well.

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

Not to mention that we, as USians (?), would get pretty damn pissed off if the UK were to try to dictate policy to our government, such as apologize for the Indian Wars of the 1800s (or even just a single event, such as the Trail of Tears or the Massacre at Wounded Knee), or the treatment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. So where do we get off telling someone else what to do, like apologize for British colonialism or return (the official term is 'repatriate') some of the allegedly looted Egyptian artifacts, Roman reliefs, or Greek sculptures that are now found in the British Museum?

It wouldn't bug me whether I agree with them or not--they can voice their opinion as much as I can voice mine; I guess free speech sucks sometimes. Why would it bug you?

[Bicycle Bill]

Not to mention that we, as USians (?), would get pretty damn pissed off if the UK were to try to dictate policy to our government, such as apologize for the Indian Wars of the 1800s (or even just a single event, such as the Trail of Tears or the Massacre at Wounded Knee), or the treatment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. So where do we get off telling someone else what to do, like apologize for British colonialism or return (the official term is 'repatriate') some of the allegedly looted Egyptian artifacts, Roman reliefs, or Greek sculptures that are now found in the British Museum?

It wouldn't bug me whether I agree with them or not--they can voice their opinion as much as I can voice mine; I guess free speech sucks sometimes. Why would it bug you?

I'm not say it would bug me personally; but we both know there's a certain group of belligerent patriots out there who would scream "How DARE you try to tell us what to do?  We're 'MURICANS, goddammit!!"

And one can probably recognize 'em by their red hats with the white lettering on them.

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

Hypocrisy is almost always annoying, Big RR. Let's clear up our own outstanding apologies before spouting instructions to others.

I support returning items such as the Elgin Marbles to their country of origin as long as there is responsible curation to protect and preserve them. South Africa would not be a responsible curator of any of the 9 major stones cut from the Cullinan.

The noise about the Cullinan is not official (so far) and is restricted to a small group of self-selected social media twerps.

[BB - we can't identify exclusively as 'Americans' because North, Central and South American folks are also "Americans". I find it unwieldy to say or write "citizens of the United States . . ." hence USians.

There are only 3 "United" anything countries. "Emiratis" is the general term for UAE citizens. Lack of a short exclusive name doesn't bother UK citizens who are likely to self-refer as British, Welsh, Irish, Scottish or English. So the USA stands alone as not having a real collective exclusive name for its people]. And no, do not suggest that one.

[BoSoxGal]

This is America, everyone knows it’s America - yes it is only one of the Americas, but it’s beyond common knowledge nobody in Brazil or Guatemala or Canada calls themselves Americans but citizens of the USA do call themselves Americans.

Honestly how do you make room for intelligent things when you’re so stuck up on silliness like that?

[Crackpot]

Because to the rest of the people in question see it (in varying degrees) as yet another example of our (in the US) overarching arrogance.

Is it a minor squabble? Yes, but, it’s a hit we will probably have to take if we want to shed the arrogant stigma.

[Big RR]

Hypocrisy is almost always annoying, Big RR. Let's clear up our own outstanding apologies before spouting instructions to others.

Who's spouting instructions? People are presenting their own views--they have no authority to instruct anyone. And FWIW, hypocrisy is not always a bar to comments, not should it be. The overweight or smoking doctor should still tell his/her patients to lose weight or not to smoke, e.g.

[MajGenl.Meade]

This is America, everyone knows it’s America - yes it is only one of the Americas, but it’s beyond common knowledge nobody in Brazil or Guatemala or Canada calls themselves Americans but citizens of the USA do call themselves Americans.

Honestly how do you make room for intelligent things when you’re so stuck up on silliness like that?

I wonder sometimes if people realize how much I laugh at myself? Not from self-aggrandizement either.

I'm aware that citizens of the USA, including me, call themselves Americans.

Don't you find it even mildly amusing (or interesting) that we (and the UK) may be the only peoples in the world who don't have a genuine collective and exclusive name for ourselves? "American" is convenient, habitual even, but not exclusive.

I've long believed we should rename the country - something shorter to reduce the size of UN name tags and save paper.
Norman Ward had an idea. “Where but in Usania would a state delegation appear at a national convention pledged to support a man known to be ineligible for election?” What nationality are you? Why, I'm a Usanian. Has a ring to it.

[Big RR. I was sort of recommending that the overweight smoking doctor address his or her own patients before offering advice to people many thousands of miles away]

[Big RR]

Meade--when the USSR was a thing, it may have been in that group as well. Yes, the leadership used Soviets, but I thunk most of the people addressed themselves by their regional names--Ukrainian, etc. And what about the Netherlands--they call themselves Dutch,but it as nothing to do with the country name and is more a regional designation (like America) that includes Germany (OK they changed the spelling and pronunciation a bit).

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ahem - in their own language of Nederlans (only English speakers call it Dutch), they call themselves 'Nederlanders'

[ex-khobar Andy]

Dutch people refer to themselves as Nederlanders. (I see I posted simultaneously withMeade.)

[Big RR]

I've never heard that, even when in Amsterdam (but then the locals I was was with spoke English); you learn something every day.